82 réponses à ce sujet

[robotnist]

heres the deal, i think theres 3 types of posters involved in this discussion mainly...

if you are one of those people that love to enter these topics and drop one lame sarcastic line about "this again" or "can i has your stuff" or "dude wheres my protien shake"... dont bother. this is a discussion. please attempt thoughtful debate instead of attempting your quota for hammerhead one liners for the day...

1- person who loved ME1 and loves ME2.
2- person who loved ME1 and likes ME2 (but wishes it were more like ME1)
3- person who loved ME1 and now hates ME2.

they really didnt "FIX" anything so much as they GUTTED anything that was complained about in ME2... ok the shooting is better and has a really cool sense of physics witch the old did not have. but the rewards in ME1 for combat were phenominal!!! breaking into boxes and finding cool looking armor, or finding a cool gun mod, damn do i miss that ****....

im a number 2 and have been a vocal complainer. not as to how much i HATE the game, but how much im disappointed that they just straight up NIXED HUGE GOBS of gaming content and mechaincs for ME2. its very odd. why do i have control options for a vehicle in my PC options under keybinding? odly one of them says "jump" and "shoot" etc...

also, ever notice in the garage of normandy2 theres the kodiak on one side and an empty spot on the other? how far along were they and how much content was nixed??? gee, the mako looked fine when i saw it at the crash site... now because of complaints instead of driving a badass 6 wheeling tank we get to spin planets around trying to find enough mats to buy are 2nd weapon after 50 hours...

the story was much deeper in ME1 and the visual was VERY cinematic. theres virtually just a metric ton of sidequests THEN the end game in ME2.

remember how badass it was to go to peak 15 and deal with the aliens? i felt like i was in a new aliens movie, it was an awesome feeling...

or how about the sense that something huge was about to happen right after you watched sovereign depart eden prime for the first time...

i had an intense feeling during the whole of ME1 that DOES NOT exist in ME2...

is it fun? yes. is it all i hoped for or is it more similar to halo/gears of war than ME1 in gameplay...

[Ceeci01]

As Vehicle you will get the Hammerhead. just wait for the DLC.

[Scylene]

I guess I'm not on that list. I thought ME1 was just okay (maybe would give it an 8). Good idea and premise but lacked execution. Great start to a franchise in terms of foundation but it had some glaringly obvious flaws. I mostly made myself play through it because I knew Bioware would take all the criticism and make a better sequel. They did. I love ME2.

[lord magnious]

I'm person # one, and I'm pissed off at person # three.



And the RPG purist are piggybacking on the arguments of person # three.

[Cygnus Atratus]

I guess I belong to group number 1.

The fact that the majority of the missions were centred around your team mates was great, in my opinion. It gave me the chance to get to know them in a way I could not have by just talking. Seeing someone react to difficult situations reveals a lot more than asking, "where do you come from?"

I felt a deep personal involvement doing all the recruitment and loyalty missions for my team mates. Hearing Mordin talk about his views on technology, culture and evolution really struck home for me.

But then again, I've been wanting a game like this for a long time, a game that is a lot more personal. In Mass Effect 2 I get to save the universe and build a team of the most interesting NPCs I've met in a long time.

Disappointed with Liara though. Didn't like her much to begin with but her particular shade of blue gave my ol' (natural) Shepard galactic beer-goggles and before I knew it I had become locked in a relationship. *sigh* I should have continued drooling over Tali in ME1 but she told me off after getting tired of having to wipe her visor all the time.

And here's my final point, specifically aimed at the people who complain about ME2. You're welcome to discuss the things that you did not like so much about the game. But the more your pat each other on your pessimistic backs the less you will like the game. The less you like the game the less you will enjoy it. And you only have yourself to blame for that...

... it is, as always, better to focus on the positives rather than the negatives.

Modifié par Cygnus Atratus, 05 février 2010 - 10:44 .

[neoxus299]

Im person 2

[Tomka_Neiren]

Honestly, the rewards from crates in ME1 were CRAP !!!



I spent hours managing my inventory, selling 50 crap guns I had from the last 2 missions, changing from shredder rounds VI to VII for every squadmate and all this annoying stuff. and the cool new armors all looked the same, except colors. and I'm a dedicated roleplayer, NEVER played Halo, GoW or this stuff...



Each system has its pros and cons, but I fully understand what they wanted to achieve and like it better then ME1. Weapons are very fine done like they are now.



What is really bad in the sequel is the lack of squad outfits. I know it's extremely expensive to make 3dmodels of this kind, but the worst moments of ME2 were when they were in vacuum without proper gear. My #1 flaw of ME2 !!!

Casual outfits could have been more, and then there's this Terminus helmet issue... So BW didn't really do a good job with outfits. Although I like how the squadmates look very much, don't get me wrong, there just needs to be a "heavy" alternative...



Concerning the locations, they were great in ME1 and great in ME2. Epic feel everywere. And sidequests improved a lot, way less generic now!

[kingthrall]

I didnt even play mass effect 1 but picked up on the story quite easily. I think that compared to the vast majority of other older games ive played, this seems to be well made but lacks those defining moments when you wish they just have done somthing else or gone a bit further.



That said, no statistics on guns + a lot of magic dirt (stuck on surfaces/walking over cliffs) is an extreme letdown and would lose at least 45% of marks from any vote i would do.

[Terror_K]

I'm personally somewhere between options 1) and 2). I love both games, but while I admit ME1 had a lot of problems ME2 also suffers from some, and I wish it were more like the original game in a lot of ways. There's a lot of little niggles that bother me with ME2... moreso than the first game. I'll fully admit some of the changes made for a better game in some ways, but there's a distinct lack of depth in some areas of ME2 that were present in the first. ME2 also has quite a few jarring things such as the "Mission Complete" screens and automatically sending you to the Normandy again (or somewhere else). Overall it seems a little "newb friendly" too in some areas, if one gets my drift... like BioWare are going out of their way to hold the player's hand. Yet in other cases there's little warning and things just kind of happen suddenly. I kind of understand it from a certain POV why some of this has been done (encouraging players to return to The Normandy in order to find new things and open new conversations, etc.), but it kind of ruins the flow of the game in some cases. In some ways ME2 feels a little clumsier than ME1.

[robotnist]

also, sorry to beat this to death, i just heard EDI say in the cargo bay "this area is for the shuttle and embarked ground vehicle..."



interesting... missed that the first time around cause i just assumed there would at least be a little bit of driving around on planets...

[Frotality]

i find it very disconcerting that people cant accept ME2 has some flaws....

im certainly #2, and i think #1 is lying to themselves in some way about what they really wanted in the game, and that #3 while often justified is way to extreme.

how so many can claim to love ME1 yet berate every RPG feature it had as better off gone is quite odd. most seem to just take Bioware's reasoning for it and make it their own, often inconsistent with their thoughts on the first game, a phenomena known as fanboyism. on the other end is fandumb, who take any change to the original formula as blasphemy.

i am very disappointed in the fanbase more than Bioware at this point, for being so incapable of either enjoying the game at all or acknowledging its lack of classic, tried and true, and beloved RPG features as not what they, the rpg fans, would have rather had improved and not removed.

story and characters do not make an rpg, they make nothing but a foundation for any and all media outlets. by the outlandish new definition floating around here, the godfather was roleplaying game of the year, and Of Mice and Men carries new york times bestselling rpg award. what makes an rpg is player immersion, and a very very very big part of that is character customization and choice in multiple facets. ME2 had dialouge (though all the important choices here still depend on your naughty/nice points instead of basic reasoning skills), very limited choice of armor, and to an unnecessarily restricted degree no more than 4 levels of no more than 6 skills. ME2 is a great action game with a limited, if well told story and some light rpg elements, that is less an opinion and more or less its definition as a genre.

bioware sought to redefine RPG when nobody wanted it redefined, especially if it is redefined as an action game, but alot of folks think Bioware and webster are one in the same and accept the definition because they said so. ME1 was the first action/rpg to be more rpg than action and that is what made it great; ME2 followed the same tired formula of action/rpg as every other one out there, but being bioware they made it good, if not severely less than what it couldve been by virtue of its new direction.

ME2 is great on its own, but as a sequel it barely resmebles the first and feels more like a spin-off.

[rumination888]

I hate and don't own a single FPS.
I hated ME1.
I loved ME2.
I like DA:O more than ME2.
Which category am I in?

[Cygnus Atratus]

You are not a number. You are a free man!

[Taiko Roshi]

I like Borderlands more than I like ME 2, but not as much as ME 1, so which category is that?

Modifié par Taiko Roshi, 05 février 2010 - 11:18 .

[Djehutynakht]

I loved ME1, recognized and dealt with its flaws. I played it and loved it for the story. For the first time, I found myself thinking of a computer game as a new form of literature. I came to know and like the characters. I followed their development through some difficult transitions. I was intrigued by the depth of the plot, and the themes of control, choice, and freedom. It wasn't perfect, and the writing wasn't always top-notch, but it was GOOD.



Now, ME2 feels horribly dumbed-down. OK, I can understand streamlining the inventory system. I always thought that purchasing weapons was a weird thing for a military officer to do. I'm disappointed to find only one type of armor, but again, Shepard's an officer in the military. Armies generally don't favor customization. They prefer things to be (pun intended) uniform.



The problem I have is with the plot and character development. IS there a plot? In ME1, I had to learn what the plot was, who the enemies were, what they were after. In ME2, I know these things from the beginning. I just follow a set path. Character development is nonexistent. I recruit someone, do a loyalty mission, and if I succeed they're loyal, no matter how ridiculous that might be. I've secured Zaeed's loyalty playing a Paragon Shepard, and I rather thought he should have either left or tried to kill me after the way that mission ended. I imagine it will be the same with Jack: a human monster will become suddenly loyal with no real reason behind it. In ME1, the loyalty of Garrus and Wrex was secured only with patience, by working to change their minds about some basic assumptions -- and they weren't even evil, just a tad more inclined to shoot things.



Other systems have been improved from ME1, or at least not made worse. Combat is more interesting, even though I loathe utterly the new ammo-clip system and the restriction preventing biotic powers from working on armored opponents. Inventory is less annoying -- I don't really mind not having to stop to open every container and deal with mountains of unwanted items. Planetary exploration is less frustrating than using the Mako, though no less boring and repetitive. The galaxy map "improvements" are not improvements, but on the whole it isn't worse than in ME1, just annoying in a different way. But in a story-driven game like Mass Effect, these are all ancillary systems. It's the plot that matters, and it's in matters of plot where -- at least to the point I've reached in the game -- Mass Effect 2 fails.



So count me in camp 2. I loved Mass Effect, and I like Mass Effect 2 but am rather disappointed by it.

[kotli]

Well I am a none of the above, really I think I am a number 4: in that I like both games but wish they where both more middle groundy (ME1 more like ME2 and ME2 more like ME1, here's hoping that ME3 hits that perfect middle ground).

[vutha_ixen]

Ok, I must admit that I fall into the second category. I don't hate ME2 but I think that it is missing some things that the first one did quite well. Here is a quick good bad about ME2 (personal opinion of course).

First off the skill system is to simple. Each character has 4 skill set s that have four ranks. On the flip side of this I do like having two options for the final rank.

Secondly, there is a disappointingly small amount of loot. In an MMO I can see loot as not being as important, but a single player game need something to collect to extend the lifespan of the game. Also being stuck with pretty much the same gear for half the game is kinda boring. Even FPSs have a variety of new guns that they hold out to give you until the game has progressed to a certain point in the plot. The flip side of this one is I like being able to customize the color scheme of the armor that I'm wearing. That was a nice touch,

Lastly, the ability to only use three abilities at a time (one per character in party) was very tactically limiting. Yes I know Bioware wanted to emphasize the FPS aspect by increasing our reliance on using bullets, but I miss my well planned strategies where I would have a string of four keys for my powers and throw in ally powers for special circumstances. On top of that some powers felt like they were made for a combo attack, but with only three at a time, and reliance on having standing team mates they were unreliable. If you really want to make the FPS more important then make us aim our powers instead of limiting the number of powers we can use. There is no real flip side to this! This was just a bad mistake.

I have complaints about loyalty, inventory (or lack there is of), and a too predictable story line on top of what I've alread said. However, there are a few posts above mine such as Djehutynakht's post that cover those for me. That was my two cents anyway, and I hope that the developers are reading these so they can polish the thrid game into a perfect fusion of the first and second ME.

Modifié par vutha_ixen, 05 février 2010 - 11:41 .

[robotnist]

very interesting points and i liked reading intelligent opinions from you all. i guess im finding more and more, in the war between #1 and #3 we number 2s are lost in the shuffle. we enjoy a game for what it is but we are smart enough to ask questions of the situation. i think thats the best way to look at games, with an eye for fun and a mouth to question.


it will be REALLY interesting to see what happens with ME3 now... lol


let me guess, SIM MASS EFFECT. shepard is a mayor of a space colony and he decides, (tough guy voice here) "where the skyscrapers go..."

Modifié par etherhonky, 06 février 2010 - 01:55 .

[yuncas]

Frotality wrote...

i find it very disconcerting that people cant accept ME2 has some flaws....

im certainly #2, and i think #1 is lying to themselves in some way about what they really wanted in the game, and that #3 while often justified is way to extreme.

how so many can claim to love ME1 yet berate every RPG feature it had as better off gone is quite odd. most seem to just take Bioware's reasoning for it and make it their own, often inconsistent with their thoughts on the first game, a phenomena known as fanboyism. on the other end is fandumb, who take any change to the original formula as blasphemy.

i am very disappointed in the fanbase more than Bioware at this point, for being so incapable of either enjoying the game at all or acknowledging its lack of classic, tried and true, and beloved RPG features as not what they, the rpg fans, would have rather had improved and not removed.

story and characters do not make an rpg, they make nothing but a foundation for any and all media outlets. by the outlandish new definition floating around here, the godfather was roleplaying game of the year, and Of Mice and Men carries new york times bestselling rpg award. what makes an rpg is player immersion, and a very very very big part of that is character customization and choice in multiple facets. ME2 had dialouge (though all the important choices here still depend on your naughty/nice points instead of basic reasoning skills), very limited choice of armor, and to an unnecessarily restricted degree no more than 4 levels of no more than 6 skills. ME2 is a great action game with a limited, if well told story and some light rpg elements, that is less an opinion and more or less its definition as a genre.

bioware sought to redefine RPG when nobody wanted it redefined, especially if it is redefined as an action game, but alot of folks think Bioware and webster are one in the same and accept the definition because they said so. ME1 was the first action/rpg to be more rpg than action and that is what made it great; ME2 followed the same tired formula of action/rpg as every other one out there, but being bioware they made it good, if not severely less than what it couldve been by virtue of its new direction.

ME2 is great on its own, but as a sequel it barely resmebles the first and feels more like a spin-off.

well put.

[Mudzr]

ME1 had a fantastic story and atmosphere IMO while it lacked in gameplay.

ME2 has a great story aswell, altough it didn't move me quite so much, maybe I need to play through again, and the locations and atmosphere was great (expecially places like Illium and Omega) but I really missed the presidium. The gameplay is so much better this time around though.



ME2 is a MUCH better game IMO but it isn't fresh like ME1 was, hence alot of "YOU CHANGED IT NOW IT SUCKS" reactions. I'm glad the Mako is gone, and the planet scanning mini game is much better than finding rocks, and the mission complete screen brings nice closure.

Ultimatly, ME2 is a different game, once I got used to the changes I was able to really enjoy it.



But ME2 seriously needs me Garrus, he has like 3 conversations as a maleshep.

Oh and a batarian squadmate.

[smudgedhorizon]

I'm 2, borderline 3 - but that is more the disappointment talking.



MW2 is a decent game, but it's not anywhere close to being on my all-time favourite games list, it's not a game I see myself playing over and over, and if I could do it over I would have rented it rather than bought it.



I thought the story was weak and I never thought I would even think that about a Bioware game. I was in no way emotionally engaged about any part of it. I was more upset when my dog got shot in Fable 2.



Nothing in ME2 came close to ME1.



The horror of first seeing the Rachni queen talk to me through that Asari, the agonising over what to do about her.



The curiosity about what was happening on Feros and why everyone was acting so strange. The frustration at trying to prove myself to the council. The striving to live up to my idea of how the first human spectre should be.



The awe at first seeing Sovereign in the sky above Eden Prime. The shock at seeing the first husks come off the poles and come towards me. The hatred for Saren, that turned into pity.



The sorrow on Virmire when I felt so bad for Wrex but desperately tried to convince him to do what was horrible but right (I still cry a little every time) The intrigue about the keepers, down to the startling revelation about them.... Trying to figure out the strange visions from the beacon....



The list goes on and on and on - every second of ME1's story was an absolute joy. It's cheesy but it made me laugh, made me cry, made me think. ME2 was just, forgettable. I honestly can't think of anything else to say about it. i didn't really feel it was a sequel, more a spin off. It didn't feel like the next part of my Shepard's story. It's such a shame.



I could criticise the severely limiting customisation options, the lack of immersion (STUPID mission complete screen/press B to leave area flashing constantly...) the lask of inter-squadmate dialogue etc, but really the rubbish pacing/plot was what most upset me.

[Enoch VG]

What about people who thought ME1 was a reasonably fun but flawed game, and think that ME2 is a a good deal more fun, but still flawed (in different ways than the original)?

[Argent Csero]

I loved ME1, but realize some things were flawed and needed to be fixed. Some were in ME2, but other things were just axed when they could have been improved. ME2 is a good game, but it has issues as well. Most, for me at least, deal with plot and, writting. Though I think that's largely due to ME2 have a different lead writer than ME1.

[xSHAD0WENx]

i'm in #2 spot in this.

[noobzor99]

Group 2- I just can't accept that my squad goes into battle (in space!) wearing designer clothing instead of armor.