140 réponses à ce sujet

[Sirsmirkalot]

The combat in ME1 wasn't all that different. As for collector tech sucking, remember that part in ME1 where the scarriest battlship in know space gets gunned down by... a frigate? WTF?

If you would have paid attention, you'd know that it had 0 defences left when that happened.

Since when do character-driven storys not have plots? (That very
sentence is redundant) I think you guys need to go back to ENG 1101...

So you agree that this game is more of a story about recruiting 10 crewmen, rather than beating back the collectors?

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 09 février 2010 - 02:02 .

[maladosteo]

 Yep, there really isn't much to the game in terms of plot. It's mainly a character based game this time, and primarily filler for ME3. Really disappointing when you realize finally that you just beat the game...

[lukandroll]

You spend 75% of the game recruiting characters for a fight that last 5 minutes.... Charming

Modifié par lukandroll, 09 février 2010 - 02:07 .

[reepneep]

[quote]Sirsmirkalot wrote...

[quote]Indeed, your crew members dying in ME1 was a decision, one that you had to ponder about and live with the major consequences for the rest of the game (and one would have assumed the rest of the trilogy...).

Reading some people's playthroughs of ME2 it seems that even if you do everything right the game is a bit random in whether people live or die, and when they do die it's "Oh well, let's move on."[/quote]What I also dislike is that in ME1 I had to choose my LI well ahead of the love scene, while in ME 2 this is not the case. In ME2 I can still choose my LI litterally 2 seconds before the love scene, press quick load and try out another to see the differant sequences.
[/quote]
In ME1 it feels like your choises carry a lot more weight, unlike in ME2.
[/quote]
I think it's more a matter of ME1's decisions having more immediate and obvious effects.  ME2's are generally more subtle, or at least don't really come due till it's far too late to do anything about them.

[hanifj]

if i didn't wait 2 years for this, i wouldn't be upset, it would in itself be a competent game

but after leaving me1 with visions of an epic war with the reapers and the fate of organic life in the balance me2 is like going to a comedy club and having a few laughs before you get back to your day as usual

me1 i kept thinking about for 2 years - about the fate of our existence, civilizations that might have preceded human kind, etc. it made me crave every piece of information i could find on an earth-like planets, etc

for those of you saying me1 was standard space opera, no it wasn't - i've read TONS of space opera, nothing was as well fleshed out, i mean, to call it standard fair is an insult to how incredibly epic the story was, the indoctrination, genocide, the specific rivalries between the species

seriously WTF are you people smoking saying that ME1 was standard fair? you need to get a nice SWIFT KICK in the arse

me2? i'm doing my utmost to forget this even had the mass effect branding on it, clearly a lame and pathetic cash in

Modifié par hanifj, 09 février 2010 - 02:18 .

[hanifj]

reepneep wrote...

hanifj wrote...
in me2 i did NOTHING but stop, hide behind a wall, and kill with some silly overweight power like adrenaline or pull

insanity was a cakewalk

for ultra-advanced collectors their technology sure sucked

The combat in ME1 wasn't all that different.  As for collector tech sucking, remember that part in ME1 where the scarriest battlship in know space gets gunned down by... a frigate?  WTF?

i get that you liked the game, good for you man, but it pales in comparison to what i and many other diehard ME fans would expect from a game following up from ME1's mind blowing plot

give me one sequence in ME2 that was as cool as the ME1 sequence with the ______ VI at _____ when you take the mako there and get out and speak to understand the fate of the ________

instead we get one crappy line from EDI saying the Collector's are __________ blah blah blah, move on

based on what i can tell, it seems like the game was genuinely rushed, either that or EA wants to rape people for some DLC

Mindblowing?  Its a basic space opera with ideas carbon copied from any number of other sources (starcontrol 2 in particular) mixed with the writings of HP Lovecraft.  I still enjoyed the game, but there was plenty of eyerolling going on.   Cosmic horror kinda loses it's punch when the old god is just a giant robot.

The VI on Ilos was a gigantic cop out.  They string you along for the whole game wondering exactly what's going on and  BAM! INFODUMP!  You end up having every last detail explained by a talking encyclopaedia.  No intrigue, no inscrutable motivaitons, no mystery.  The way it was revealed to you in ME2, a bit at a time and never even being able to truely trust the info you were getting was far more interesting.  I like it when a story makes me use my head to figure out what's going on.  I must be a ****** shooter fan. <_<

It was unfortunate that you didn't get a chance to sit down for coffee with Harbinger, though.  Still, TIM had more than enough sinister to make up for it.

you aren't a ****** shooter fan, but you look silly calling the "ME1 plot" as being "standard space opera" - everything from genophage, the cycle of _____, etc was well placed and fresh

at least ME1 had an info dump, not a 1 liner about who the collectors really are, and then 10 random and totally without any major plot element-stories about characters i didn't much care for, for the most part

Modifié par hanifj, 09 février 2010 - 02:30 .

[reepneep]

hanifj wrote...

if i didn't wait 2 years for this, i wouldn't be upset, it would in itself be a competent game

but after leaving me1 with visions of an epic war with the reapers and the fate of organic life in the balance me2 is like going to a comedy club and having a few laughs before you get back to your day as usual

me1 i kept thinking about for 2 years - about the fate of our existence, civilizations that might have preceded human kind, etc. it made me crave every piece of information i could find on an earth-like planets, etc

for those of you saying me1 was standard space opera, no it wasn't - i've read TONS of space opera, nothing was as well fleshed out, i mean, to call it standard fair is an insult to how incredibly epic the story was, the indoctrination, genocide, the specific rivalries between the galaxies

seriously WTF are you people smoking saying that ME1 was standard fair? you need to get a nice SWIFT KICK in the arse

me2? i'm doing my utmost to forget this even had the mass effect branding on it, clearly a lame and pathetic cash in

You must read some really bad stuff then. 

My ass is perfectly fine as is.

[Sirsmirkalot]

I think it's more a matter of ME1's decisions having more immediate and obvious effects. ME2's are generally more subtle, or at least don't really come due till it's far too late to do anything about them.

Could you please give me an example? From what I recall, the only choises I could make will probably have a (small) impact on ME3, but had none during ME2.

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 09 février 2010 - 02:19 .

[hanifj]

reepneep wrote...

hanifj wrote...

if i didn't wait 2 years for this, i wouldn't be upset, it would in itself be a competent game

but after leaving me1 with visions of an epic war with the reapers and the fate of organic life in the balance me2 is like going to a comedy club and having a few laughs before you get back to your day as usual

me1 i kept thinking about for 2 years - about the fate of our existence, civilizations that might have preceded human kind, etc. it made me crave every piece of information i could find on an earth-like planets, etc

for those of you saying me1 was standard space opera, no it wasn't - i've read TONS of space opera, nothing was as well fleshed out, i mean, to call it standard fair is an insult to how incredibly epic the story was, the indoctrination, genocide, the specific rivalries between the galaxies

seriously WTF are you people smoking saying that ME1 was standard fair? you need to get a nice SWIFT KICK in the arse

me2? i'm doing my utmost to forget this even had the mass effect branding on it, clearly a lame and pathetic cash in

You must read some really bad stuff then. 

My ass is perfectly fine as is.

i have read and seen hundreds of sci-fi books/movies - ME1 wasn't what i would call a "hard science" novel like a lot of the sci-fi novels i have read, but it had enough balance between science and drama that it made for a very entertaining experience, the best this generation has to offer, perhaps one of the best plots/experiences in the history of video games (only some of the JRPGs come close)

ME2 is weaksauce in comparison

Modifié par hanifj, 09 février 2010 - 02:24 .

[hanifj]

what i loved most about the ME1 plot was that it was the realtively near-future, not the distant future, there were plausible explanations for everything, even revelation space failed in trying to make the world seem plausible based on zero explanations for FTL, etc



everything about ME1 plot from the xenophobia, to cerberus, to the science research planets skirting laws, etc made it a living breathing world - way better than typical hard sci fi crap that is dime a dozen

[reepneep]

hanifj wrote...

yes, you are a ****** shooter fan. now stop making a moron of yourself by calling "ME1 plot" as being "standard space opera" - everything from genophage, the cycle of _____, etc was well placed and fresh

at least ME1 had an info dump, not a 1 liner about who the collectors really are, and then 10 random and totally without any major plot element-stories about characters i didn't much care for, for the most part

You really don't get it, do you?  I've seen nearly every idea in ME1's setting done before in various reading and videogame-playing.  One of the bad things about being born before 1995, apparently. <_<

If you'd really be interested in where many of these ideas came from, particularly the alien designs, I highly recommend checking this out:
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

Starcon3 wasn't anywhere near as good as Starcon2, but bioware lifted a bunch of stuff from that one as well, particularly the Reapers.

I still enjoy the game as a fun Bioware RPG, but it doesn't make the game particularly inventive.

[Schneidend]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
So you agree that this game is more of a story about recruiting 10 crewmen, rather than beating back the collectors?

Well, isn't it about both? I mean, you do kind of kill a ton of Collectors on three separate occasions.

[phatpat63]

ME1 had an epic, sweeping narrative that's utterly missing from ME2. It's not a matter of, well there were X number of plot related missions in ME1 and Y number in ME2. If you boiled both games down to just those missions ME1 would be pretty much the same while ME2 would just be a shell of what it is. My second ME2 playthrough took 17 hours (20 less than the first!) and I still managed to recruit everyone and do 2 loyalty missions in that time. The loyalty missions alone are half the game. Don't get me wrong loyalty missions often gave me goosebumps or brought me close to tears, but they have virtually nothing to do with the main plot. The main plot is only encountered intermittently, almost as an afterthought, I find it weak and hard to care about as a result. OP is 100% right.

[lukandroll]

I can tell you this, when all this stupid over hyped BS goes down, ME2 will be remembered as BioWare dumb chick.. all looks no ****ing brain

[hanifj]

reepneep wrote...
You really don't get it, do you?  I've seen nearly every idea in ME1's setting done before in various reading and videogame-playing.  One of the bad things about being born before 1995, apparently. <_<

If you'd really be interested in where many of these ideas came from, particularly the alien designs, I highly recommend checking this out:
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

Starcon3 wasn't anywhere near as good as Starcon2, but bioware lifted a bunch of stuff from that one as well, particularly the Reapers.

I still enjoy the game as a fun Bioware RPG, but it doesn't make the game particularly inventive.

lol i love your childish attack on what my age could be - i'm sorry that's the most you can come back with after i make a compelling argument - are you sure you were born before 1993?

i've been reading sci-fi and watching it for over 25 years

is mass effect ultra new? no of course not. it is based on science, not a land of unicorns and pixie dust.

genocide, battles between civilizations, planet destruction, even the reapers have some predecessor - but please tell me ONE book or GAME or MOVIE that beats ME1 purely on an overall package level?

i get stuff like revelation space is merited on one SPECIFIC aspect of sci-fi like hard science, but name me one game or movie or book that equates to the epic nature of mass effect's plot and universe? despite it all being repetitive, it all feels so fresh - it's like they took the best of various sources, combined it, and made it something very compelling and accessible

[Schneidend]

Sigh. This thread was going just fine until it was flooded with the "my opinions are infallible facts" crowd.

[Varthun]

So, let me make sure I understand the points being presented here:



Point #1:

ME1 had better plot than ME2.

Understandable, considering that the point of a story is to hook your
interest. Can't honestly say I'm surprised it did. Everything in ME1
was mostly new. It may have been influenced by one thing or another,
but the compilation was either unique or obscure enough so that the
vast majority of gamers that ended up playing it had not heard of it
before.

So... the game designed to hook your interest, had a better hook
mechanic than the game that is admitted to be part of a planned
trilogy, and as a result plays out like a prologue by gathering the
reasons together for why you should be doing what you're doing in ME3?
Understandable.


Point #2:

ME2 is more character driven than ME1.

Again, understandable. It's part of a planned trilogy, so they have the
luxury of setting up what is going to happen in the future, by planting
the seeds in the games of today. A perfectly logical, and natural
storytelling mechanic.

Point #3:

Characters in ME2 don't seem as easy to relate too, or don't seem to have any reason to be working with you.

Because the people you work with on a daily basis had a good reason to
chat with you ten, fifteen years ago? Or however long it was before you
took the job. Point being, they have to start somewhere. It doesn't
make sense for someone to just randomly pop up, and completely retcon
everything we know by claiming some previously denied link.

Sorry if I bypassed something someone considered a major point, but I think a
lot of people are completely missing the point. Mass Effect is a
planned trilogy. The whole story seems wierd, different, or perhaps
even bad at certain points because you cannot see the whole picture yet.

In the interest of sharing opinions, I would suggest anyone refrain from
saying anything about "bad" or "good" until you see the whole
masterpiece, rather than critically berating the series for a single
chapter.

*edit* Wow, the spacing looks weird in the window, after posting.

Modifié par Varthun, 09 février 2010 - 02:44 .

[hanifj]

btw one thing mass effect did really well was create a plausible explanation on how FTL works - most sci fi has not treaded into the alcubierre drive and warp of space time - even if bioware didn't add 10 dozen equations into it - at least they were thinking through it logically and didn't simply out and out violate einstein to allow FTL



i think it was in the second novel where they talked about how ships looked moving into FTL - some of the best and most compelling stuff i've ever read - most sci fi novels just take it for granted

[hanifj]

Varthun wrote...

So, let me make sure I understand the points being presented here:



Point #1:

ME1 had better plot than ME2.

Understandable, considering that the point of a story is to hook your
interest. Can't honestly say I'm surprised it did. Everything in ME1
was mostly new. It may have been influenced by one thing or another,
but the compilation was either unique or obscure enough so that the
vast majority of gamers that ended up playing it had not heard of it
before.

So... the game designed to hook your interest, had a better hook
mechanic than the game that is admitted to be part of a planned
trilogy, and as a result plays out like a prologue by gathering the
reasons together for why you should be doing what you're doing in ME3?
Understandable.


Point #2:

ME2 is more character driven than ME1.

Again, understandable. It's part of a planned trilogy, so they have the
luxury of setting up what is going to happen in the future, by planting
the seeds in the games of today. A perfectly logical, and natural
storytelling mechanic.

Point #3:

Characters in ME2 don't seem as easy to relate too, or don't seem to have any reason to be working with you.

Because the people you work with on a daily basis had a good reason to
chat with you ten, fifteen years ago? Or however long it was before you
took the job. Point being, they have to start somewhere. It doesn't
make sense for someone to just randomly pop up, and completely retcon
everything we know by claiming some previously denied link.

Sorry if I bypassed something someone considered a major point, but I think a
lot of people are completely missing the point. Mass Effect is a
planned trilogy. The whole story seems wierd, different, or perhaps
even bad at certain points because you cannot see the whole picture yet.

In the interest of sharing opinions, I would suggest anyone refrain from
saying anything about "bad" or "good" until you see the whole
masterpiece, rather than critically berating the series for a single
chapter.

*edit* Wow, the spacing looks weird in the window, after posting.

I get what you are saying - but did Episode 5 suck because Star Wars was a trilogy?

Did Lord of the Rings #2 suck because it was part of a trilogy?

The problem I have with ME2 isn't that it doesn't tell me everything, it's that it doesn't tell me anything, the pacing is weak, and the recruitment missions are cut and paste.

Again it is still a very competent game - no one is saying it is terrible - but weaksauce is more appropriate

if the game ended the way it began (and it began totally differently) with a slight twist: say the Collectors suicided themselves to destroy _________________ - i would say at least it was worth playing to get a reveal like that at the very end, and pump me up for ME3

Right now I'm at a bit of a loss, it's like I saw a great episode of Star Trek DS9, but instead of waiting one week, I had to wait 2 years

[lukandroll]

hanifj wrote...

Varthun wrote...

So, let me make sure I understand the points being presented here:



Point #1:

ME1 had better plot than ME2.

Understandable, considering that the point of a story is to hook your
interest. Can't honestly say I'm surprised it did. Everything in ME1
was mostly new. It may have been influenced by one thing or another,
but the compilation was either unique or obscure enough so that the
vast majority of gamers that ended up playing it had not heard of it
before.

So... the game designed to hook your interest, had a better hook
mechanic than the game that is admitted to be part of a planned
trilogy, and as a result plays out like a prologue by gathering the
reasons together for why you should be doing what you're doing in ME3?
Understandable.


Point #2:

ME2 is more character driven than ME1.

Again, understandable. It's part of a planned trilogy, so they have the
luxury of setting up what is going to happen in the future, by planting
the seeds in the games of today. A perfectly logical, and natural
storytelling mechanic.

Point #3:

Characters in ME2 don't seem as easy to relate too, or don't seem to have any reason to be working with you.

Because the people you work with on a daily basis had a good reason to
chat with you ten, fifteen years ago? Or however long it was before you
took the job. Point being, they have to start somewhere. It doesn't
make sense for someone to just randomly pop up, and completely retcon
everything we know by claiming some previously denied link.

Sorry if I bypassed something someone considered a major point, but I think a
lot of people are completely missing the point. Mass Effect is a
planned trilogy. The whole story seems wierd, different, or perhaps
even bad at certain points because you cannot see the whole picture yet.

In the interest of sharing opinions, I would suggest anyone refrain from
saying anything about "bad" or "good" until you see the whole
masterpiece, rather than critically berating the series for a single
chapter.

*edit* Wow, the spacing looks weird in the window, after posting.

I get what you are saying - but did Episode 5 suck because Star Wars was a trilogy?

Did Lord of the Rings #2 suck because it was part of a trilogy?

The problem I have with ME2 isn't that it doesn't tell me everything, it's that it doesn't tell me anything, the pacing is weak, and the recruitment missions are cut and paste.

Again it is still a very competent game - no one is saying it is terrible - but weaksauce is more appropriate

if the game ended the way it began (and it began totally differently) with a slight twist: say the Collectors suicided themselves to destroy _________________ - i would say at least it was worth playing to get a reveal like that at the very end, and pump me up for ME3

Right now I'm at a bit of a loss, it's like I saw a great episode of Star Trek DS9, but instead of waiting one week, I had to wait 2 years

And the game gets AAA everywhere, I don't get it, IDK, what the hell is wrong with these people

[Schneidend]

lukandroll wrote...

And the game gets AAA everywhere, I don't get it, IDK, what the hell is wrong with these people

Ino, rite? People like stuff that you don't like? What's their damage?

[lukandroll]

Schneidend wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

And the game gets AAA everywhere, I don't get it, IDK, what the hell is wrong with these people

Ino, rite? People like stuff that you don't like? What's their damage?

Yeah, to each his own I guess

[hanifj]

Schneidend wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

And the game gets AAA everywhere, I don't get it, IDK, what the hell is wrong with these people

Ino, rite? People like stuff that you don't like? What's their damage?

i think what is more appropriate is why did a single reviewer not bring up these concerns? OXM started to talk about it but refused to get detailed. were they under NDAs that prevented them from discussing the story or the quality of it?

It almost seemed like reviewers were afraid to really think about the game. either that or they did not want to spoil the story or hurt peoples' expectations.

i think a more appropriate rating for the game would be 8.0/10.0 - the original mass effect would be 9.5/10.0

[Schneidend]

hanifj wrote...

i think what is more appropriate is why did a single reviewer not bring up these concerns? OXM started to talk about it but refused to get detailed. were they under NDAs that prevented them from discussing the story or the quality of it?

It almost seemed like reviewers were afraid to really think about the game. either that or they did not want to spoil the story or hurt peoples' expectations.

i think a more appropriate rating for the game would be 8.0/10.0 - the original mass effect would be 9.5/10.0

Or, and keep in mind I'm really thinking outside the box with this one, the reviewers you're referring to simply liked the story a lot, and didn't feel the need to mention "concerns" they didn't perceive as anything but positives?

It's as if you people never even entertained the possibility people might actually like the game. If you haven't seen me say as much before, then I'll reiterate my thoughts. I love Mass Effect 1, but I love ME2 about a hundred times more.

[Varthun]

hanifj wrote...



I get what you are saying - but did Episode 5 suck because Star Wars was a trilogy?

Did Lord of the Rings #2 suck because it was part of a trilogy?

The problem I have with ME2 isn't that it doesn't tell me everything, it's that it doesn't tell me anything, the pacing is weak, and the recruitment missions are cut and paste.

Again it is still a very competent game - no one is saying it is terrible - but weaksauce is more appropriate

if the game ended the way it began (and it began totally differently) with a slight twist: say the Collectors suicided themselves to destroy _________________ - i would say at least it was worth playing to get a reveal like that at the very end, and pump me up for ME3

Right now I'm at a bit of a loss, it's like I saw a great episode of Star Trek DS9, but instead of waiting one week, I had to wait 2 years

No, they didn't. But books require you to use your own imagination, and other than a general idea of what the story is, you can almost reinvent a series in your head. Movies can force a pace, simply by virtue of not having to worry about any input. It's all output.

A game, especially a game that works to be as deep as Mass Effect strives to be, you naturally have to have some build up. This build up can't be too forced though, as the whole point is to make the player a partner, not a spectator. In doing this, they have to balance things around not only exposition, but also around action. If it was all action all the time, and did nothing but force you through a pre-designed story at a breakneck pace, it would be no different than watching a movie where you occasionally pull a trigger. Should they leave it entirely up to the player, there might very well end up being no story at all, as the deeper points would be missed or dismissed by lack of pressure.

So, in an effort to provide the best story they can, they hook you with a truly epic story, and throw in a few people for the ride (ME1), begin the in depth exposition of who you have by your side, and where they come from, and why they operate the way they do (ME2), so they can finally tell you the real story (ME3).

Modifié par Varthun, 09 février 2010 - 03:09 .