244 réponses à ce sujet

[Kroniker81]

JrayM16 wrote...

A well thought out and unbiased post. However, I have some disagreements I would like to address, categorized by each of you points:

1. It needs to be established that the mako stuff in ME1 was awful. From the cookie cutter planets to the bad controls to the repetitive and boring mission objectives, the UNC worlds in ME1 were a bore. Something needed to be done. However, I do agree w/ you that they should have been improved rather than nixed. But, the side missions that are there are short, diverse, and simple, very well done, but too few. Also, I don't think we can fully judge this until the FREE Hammerhead dlc comes out and we see how they tackle bringing the exploration stuff back.

2. If you think about it, ME1 was a collectathon as well, just more subtle. You were collecting the pieces you needed to get to Ilos. Though I would agree ME2 somewhat lacks an overarching plot, I still think the real things that make or break a story(ie writing, characters, twists) are much better than in ME1. ME2 is one of the few games where I was actually shocked by several plot twists.

3. I didn't mind most of the things you said about relationships, but I would like to voice a different complaint. Even on paragon, my Shep was a dick in relationships. For instance, the PARAGON option during one conversation w;/ Miranda was "Love? I'm jsut trying to get you into bed." While this may have been sarcastic, it kind of disgusted me a bit. Other than that, I thought the romances were quite well done.

4. I would agree its more simple but where I differ is that I think the simplicity actually serves the game and makes it better. I wont go into too much minutia though. Also, the abilities actually do change tactics when you get them specialized. Super slo mo adrenaline burst and high resistance adrenaline burst both caused me to use different tactics. W/ the former, I would wait behind and activate when a group of enemies were out opf cover so I could mow them down in super slo mo, while w/ the latter I would either use to face a tougher enemy directly that I would not otherwise, or charge the enemy line, there are other examples but this post is long.

5. I disagree but I can't really offer much explanation, partly because i don't understand all you points, partly, because I don't see your complaints really present in the game at all.

1.) But the planet scanning is is so much better. AM I RITE?
Gosh the Mako was a pretty cool idea just badly executed. Instead of really improving it they gutted it. There is only one word which describes it pretty well: Cheap. Really cheap of Bioware.

2.) In that case you can say that almost every story is like that in most RPGs. So this is an incredibly weak argument.

3.) Instead of broadening the romance options to laughable degrees they should have added more depth and complexity to it. Why oh why is Shepard so universally sexy that most species want to have a ride on his rod of steel? /facepalm

4.) No no and no. Simplicty did nothing but dumb down the game. End of the story. ME 1 already was too simple and I am absolutely sure any 10 year old would have easily understood the system and played it efficiently.

5.) If you do not understand him why are you even trying to argue? If you want to argue with someone you have to understand him at least in the fundamentals of his opinion otherwise you are making a fool out of yourself.

Like alot of you Ive played games for 25 years streching
from Larry 1 to ME2. Ive played the RPGs (NWN, Ultima, Eye of the
Beholder, Baldurs Gate etc) and honestly I dont see the point of
arguing that those games were genious in comparison to ME2. I dont see
the character build-up in those games as I did in ME2. What I wonder is
how you couldnt feel any difference between level 3 and 23. Did you
play the game on normal (honest question)?

The spell system of BG 1 and even more so BG 2had more depth and complexity than anything than ME 1 and 2 can offer at the moment.
I spend hours just trying out dozen of different spell combinations for certain fights and purposes. With ToB even fighters got some more options other than auto attack.

Modifié par Kroniker81, 11 février 2010 - 08:45 .

[Pumpeho]

Kroniker81 wrote...

The spell system of BG 1 and even more so BG 2had more depth and complexity than anything than ME 1 and 2 can offer at the moment.
I spend hours just trying out dozen of different spell combinations for certain fights and purposes. With ToB even fighters got some more options other than auto attack.

The difference is that BG1 and 2 was based on using the pause-button frequently. Thats an alright design if you set the overall game pace to fit the pause button. If the game is to be played in real time you cant have a huge amount of combinations. Mostly because more variables means a slower pace in most cases.

You can use the pause button in ME aswell, but in my opinion that causes an abrupt break in the game pace and hinders the gaming experience. I wont deny it. I love shooters as much as RPGs and this is the closest thing Ive seen to get there.

I can only see three possible ways going somewhere with this.
1, Lower the tempo and using the pause button more frequently. This could lead to more advanced spell combos being used and more spells. However, this does not fit shooters and breaks the hybrid touch the ME series want to have.

2, Kicking up the tempo a notch in order to make the choice of spell combos having harsher consequences. This is probably more suitable for ME. Its one of the things Id want to see in the ME series. Alot smarter enemies with adaptive battleplans (they change their tactic to your gameplay). Right now they are kinda stupid on all difficulties. Kinda ironoic that the hardest enemies for my infiltrator are husks since they actually try to flank you at times.

3, Keeping it as is. Would be kinda sad since progress is based on cumulative knowledge.

Id say that with a heightend pace and really improved AI they could keep the amount of combos that are possible now. Still, its the overall story thats the most important part of the game. Pool more resources into ME3, Bioware! DO EET!

[Kroniker81]

I did not want to suggest that ME 1 should get about 300 spells like the BG series did but sure as hell could use more skills than just the half a dozen most have on avarage and even less are used on a frequent basis thanks to the stupid GCD system.
Or make more combinations of skills of the same class working together.

Modifié par Kroniker81, 11 février 2010 - 10:44 .

[Mak89]

The only thing ME1 has for exploration on ME2 is the fact that there was dialouge and those handful of awesome sidequests. ME2 needed to find some middle ground, but left out all of the immersion of them. Now it's just go here do this, move on, making them less memorable, save for the environments. That's my only real issue with it. Everything else I liked. Normal and veteran on soldier class is quite easy as well.

[OfficialBlu]

Murmillos wrote...

Great post OP.

The problem is
not that ME2 is ME2, is that ME2 differs greatly from ME1. ME2 if you
never knew anything about ME1 stands on its own as a fantastic game.
There is just so much changed, gutted, chucked and removed for the sake
of doing so.

Most of ME1 complaints wanted something slightly fixed to the already existing set up.

Mako
driving was boring because the worlds where boring - you should have
made more fun to explore worlds with water and lava and tree and
cliffs. And improve on the structures found/explored. Not gut out free
roaming exploring for short hand held simplistic simple path missions.

People
had a problem with the inventory because there was too much glut. Too
many worthless manufactures and minuscule upgrades. Gutting the
inventory system wasn't the way to go, you should have streamlined and
focused the weapons/upgrades into something meaningful - and less
annoying.

This.

Modifié par OfficialBlu, 11 février 2010 - 10:55 .

[lumen11]

Kroniker81 wrote...

The spell system of BG 1 and even more so BG 2had more depth and complexity than anything than ME 1 and 2 can offer at the moment.
I spend hours just trying out dozen of different spell combinations for certain fights and purposes. With ToB even fighters got some more options other than auto attack.

But the ME games were intended as shooter rpgs, not strategy rpgs like the BG games. At the time I didn't fully appreciate it, but BG combat gameplay worked incredibly well. In fact I haven't seen anything as engaging since.

Dragon Age combat was pretty well designed - although not nearly as good as BG gameplay - but there was so little variation in the design of the combat sections. To me it became repetitive rather quickly.

ME2 is the first bioware game where the combat holds up to BG.

Now, I'm not saying ME3 couldn't use a few more abilities (if they find a good way of implementing them, by all means) but ME1 combat wasn't nearly as tactical or strategic or diverse or fun as ME2 combat. I'd say that makes it worth sacrificing a few abilities.

[Sibbwolf]

periaqueductal_gray wrote...
...
1. Exploration

. Say what you want about the Mako sequences of the original Mass Effect, but they gave the game a sense of scope that is missing in this one.  There was a certain elegance, a lonely grandeur to being the only living thing on a distant unknown planet.  I also think that we as gamers like the sense of freedom, of not always being railroaded to our destination. The key change should have been to add variety to these planets, not cut them altogether.

You're right. I wish they'd found a better solution than scanning (which even in it's current forms is poorly done. All planets are the same size, apparantly).

But I also think the Mako itself was very poor. Bad controls (wasn't too bad on xbox, but disaster on PC), and as has been mentioned many times, too many planets felt the same.

2. Story

The story of the original Mass Effect was an extremely well done, if predictable, affair.  But at least there was a story.  In Mass Effect 2, the endgame is clearly visible from the very beginning.  What followed in the subsequent hours can only be described as a giant intergalectic Pokemon quest,...

We'll have to agree to disagree. Storywise, both games felt predictable and linear.

4.  Simplicity

I hesitate to include this because it was quite obviously the dev's mantra while making this game.  But they took an ideal and ran a little to far with it... But there is precious little role playing in this role playing game.

Probably true. But I'd have to point out that many of the system in ME1 were just as simple.

Well written post, that does address actual flaws of the game, rather than just nitpick at highly subjective dislikes. I congradulate you.

[haberman13]

Kroniker81 wrote...

I did not want to suggest that ME 1 should get about 300 spells like the BG series did but sure as hell could use more skills than just the half a dozen most have on avarage and even less are used on a frequent basis thanks to the stupid GCD system.
Or make more combinations of skills of the same class working together.

I agree, and I also find it funny that people are arguing for LESS in the game.

Seriously, think about that for a moment folks, do you really want LESS IN THE GAME?!?!?

[haberman13]

periaqueductal_gray wrote...
You're right. I wish they'd found a better solution than scanning (which even in it's current forms is poorly done. All planets are the same size, apparantly).

But I also think the Mako itself was very poor. Bad controls (wasn't too bad on xbox, but disaster on PC), and as has been mentioned many times, too many planets felt the same.

So.... you know that is exactly what he said right?  That we just need more variety to the planets.

This keeps happening:

1.  Person suggests FIXING what was wrong in ME1
2.  Response re-iterates what the OP suggests, and then defends the removal of X
3.  I LOL
4.  Bioware is confused because nobody other than the OP is speaking coherently

Modifié par haberman13, 12 février 2010 - 02:05 .

[Paperghost]

1. Exploration



A large part of the appeal of space is the utter massiveness of it. It speaks to something deep in our psyche, the sense that it is too grand and wonderful to truly grasp. Say what you want about the Mako sequences of the original Mass Effect, but they gave the game a sense of scope that is missing in this one. There was a certain elegance, a lonely grandeur to being the only living thing on a distant unknown planet. I also think that we as gamers like the sense of freedom, of not always being railroaded to our destination. The key change should have been to add variety to these planets, not cut them altogether.

Good lord, what IS it with this particular non-issue?



All mako missions gave you was 20 minutes of slowly trundling over the same cut and paste mountains, then finding you didn't have anyone with a high enough skill level to open a crate with something mostly useless inside. or horrible cut and paste bases.



one or two of these, reasonably interesting. lots of them? no thanks.



what baffles me is that people don't seem to see the 19 odd N7 missions as the replacement for the mako levels - you still get to explore, only this time you don't have to watch a moon buggy slowly crawl up a hill AND many of them have different objectives besides "kill a bunch of robots in a base".



the story in the final game is likely going to squeeze every ounce of disc space into resolving the final conflict - i wouldn't expect them to sacrifice any of that precious space for a bunch of random "exploration" missions. the time for exploring is over, which may or may not annoy a lot of people.



but that's not to say the option isn't still there in the sequel.

[Thermorium]

Kroniker81 wrote...

4.) No no and no. Simplicty did nothing but dumb down the game. End of the story. ME 1 already was too simple and I am absolutely sure any 10 year old would have easily understood the system and played it efficiently.

True as can be, my neighboor's son, who was about ten when ME1 came out and has dutch as his first language was able to understand the mechanics of the game without any help whatsoever.

Same goes for ME2, but this time he really didn't have to think about it

[synergys2k]

jienoma wrote...


ME2 lacks not the role playing part, but some of the RPG parts: no itemization, light skills personalization, plus a plethora of other things present in the first episode that needed some tweaking, like planet exploration, not a definitive cut.

Would you say that I have a plethora of pinatas? Sorry, I couldn't help myself...

[nicodeemus327]

haberman13 wrote...

Kroniker81 wrote...

I did not want to suggest that ME 1 should get about 300 spells like the BG series did but sure as hell could use more skills than just the half a dozen most have on avarage and even less are used on a frequent basis thanks to the stupid GCD system.
Or make more combinations of skills of the same class working together.

I agree, and I also find it funny that people are arguing for LESS in the game.

Seriously, think about that for a moment folks, do you really want LESS IN THE GAME?!?!?

Less bull**** is good.

[synergys2k]

TJSolo wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

I wasn't talking about a specific game, simply because you would try to rationalize and nitpick any example just to make the statement valid for ME2.
My statement was pointed directly at the scope of your "assuming the role" argument.
Using your "assuming the role" idea, it can be logically applied to other games that are not RPGs.
Assuming a role is the principle notion in most games; even sports games have career mores where you assume the role of a player and skill progression.

I completely agree with you. However, that doesn't place all of those games into the RPG genre.

For a game to be marketed as an RPG doesn't make it a RPG.
If you just want to say that BW/EA calls it an RPG and that makes it an RPG then I can't argue with the fact that is what the companies are calling it.
All players can discuss is what they think about it and why.

To me it is a TPS with light RPG elements, since no other category exists for it to fit.

Do you honestly believe that? You think this game is purely a TPS with light RPG elements? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon is a real TPS with light RPG elements. You play the role of Captain Scott Mitchell (Advanced Warfighter 1 and 2) who commands an elite group of special forces soldiers on a mission to terminate foreign extremists. You play a linear mission with no other choice than to do exactly as you are told. (Much stress on the word "exactly")...

In ME2, your choices / actions / decisions do make a finite difference. They can be measured and quantified. You can choose whether or not to complete loyalty missions. You can choose whether or not to complete side missions. You can choose to help people or you can choose to ruin or kill or taunt, etc., people. You can manipulate your stats and your teammates stats along with choosing weapons, armor sets / pieces, and specialty ammunitions, etc., etc...

Is it different from the traditional RPG? Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't an RPG. I'm failing to see how you can believe this game is more shooter than RPG. From your point of view, I would consider the classic Legends of Zelda: Ocarina of Time to be more TPS than RPG.... 

Modifié par synergys2k, 12 février 2010 - 02:56 .

[Shadesofsiknas]

I agree with The OP on this one well written.

[Sidney]

synergys2k wrote...

Do you honestly believe that? You think this game is purely a TPS with light RPG elements? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon is a real TPS with light RPG elements. You play the role of Captain Scott Mitchell (Advanced Warfighter 1 and 2) who commands an elite group of special forces soldiers on a mission to terminate foreign extremists. You play a linear mission with no other choice than to do exactly as you are told. (Much stress on the word "exactly")...

What is the old saying, the average person is a fool and half the people are worse than that? I doubt that many of these Roll Players have played a shooter to know what one actually looks like. Your exampe is apt, I use Bioshock which has a story, choices, inventory and character development. Despite that no one would call it an RPG. Now, you take Bioshock and compare the degree of story, choices, inventory and character development in ME2 and not only aren't they not in the same nieghborhood they aren't even on the same continent. Are they closer cousins than Doom and Baldurs Gate 2? Yes but they aren't the same and they are distinct. One is a shooter and one is an RPG.

Anything that doesn't pass the AD&D sniff test to these cats ain't an RPG and they're just so pathetically wrong.

[glacier1701]

Hits the core problems with ME2. With all the "hype' about the game the reality was a let down. This is not to say that ME2 is bad but considering who it comes from it is not A+ material but rather B- with the comment "could do better".

[nicodeemus327]

glacier1701 wrote...

with the comment "could do better".

I don't think there's a game in existance where I wouldn't say this. That doesn't mean ME2 isn't a truly excellent game.

[wolfwarp]

Agreed 100% with OP.



In fact, after 1 playthrough with ME 2, I am now back to ME 1. And the funny thing is, when I was playing ME 2, I missed ME 1 a lot. But when I am now playing ME 1, I don't quite miss ME 2.



That says it all.

[synergys2k]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

with the comment "could do better".

I don't think there's a game in existance where I wouldn't say this. That doesn't mean ME2 isn't a truly excellent game.

There is anything in existence where I wouldn't say that.

Airplanes > Cars > Trains > Horses > etc., etc., 

Anything and everything can be improved upon...
 

[The Siff Lord]

Murmillos wrote...

Great post OP.

The problem is not that ME2 is ME2, is that ME2 differs greatly from ME1. ME2 if you never knew anything about ME1 stands on its own as a fantastic game. There is just so much changed, gutted, chucked and removed for the sake of doing so.

Most of ME1 complaints wanted something slightly fixed to the already existing set up.

Mako driving was boring because the worlds where boring - you should have made more fun to explore worlds with water and lava and tree and cliffs. And improve on the structures found/explored. Not gut out free roaming exploring for short hand held simplistic simple path missions.

People had a problem with the inventory because there was too much glut. Too many worthless manufactures and minuscule upgrades. Gutting the inventory system wasn't the way to go, you should have streamlined and focused the weapons/upgrades into something meaningful - and less annoying.

This sums up my feelings almost exactly.

And to the OP - great post, very well thought out and very well written.

[SolitonMan]

I believe that the OP made some good points and that this thread (pointless semantic arguments aside) is a good discussion.



I like ME2 a lot, but it definitely feels very different from ME1. I don't think I can quantify it into any specific thing, however - Mako vs. planet scanning, more vs. less loot, more vs. less skills, ammo vs. overheating - all of the changes had benefits and drawbacks, and in playing the game, none of them really lessened my enjoyment of the offering in the grand scheme.



But there was some vaguely indefinable something missing in ME2. I guess I'd call it "the moment", the one in which I was just blown away by what I was seeing. In ME1 on my first playthrough, that moment was my first encounter with a Thresher Maw. There I am, driving along in the Mako heading towards an innocent looking beacon, and just as I spot the bodies of some fallen marines, the ground starts shaking and I'm like "HOLY S***!!! WTF IS GOING ON? WHAT IS THAT THING? AHHHHHHHHH!" and then I was dead before I really understood what was happening.



It was awesome! And somewhere around my 3rd or 4th playthrough of ME1, I learned that Thresher Maws are only scary if you try to fight them with the Mako. But if you hop out and stay a pretty constant distance from them and keep moving (either back and forth, or around them in a circle) then you can easily take them down with a minimum of difficulty. Now, such an option might not work with the ammo system of ME2 since you might run out, but until I figured out on foot was easier than in the Mako, I'd be SCARED while driving my Mako over any large, open flat area in ME1.



I didn't get that sort of thrill at any particular point in ME2. I enjoyed the combat, I thought the cover was good (but could use improvement - how is it that when I move while invisible due to tactical cloak and take up a position completely out of line of sight of the enemy, they start shooting at my cover as soon as the cloak dissipates?) and that in general ammo was plentiful enough that I didn't completely run out more than a few times. And even then it was due to my failure to focus my fire.



In any case, I feel in the broader world of gaming that all of our discussions are about making a great series the best it can be, but even if Bioware decided that ME3 would be a new version of Pong, I'd still be supporting one of my favorite companies

[Darth Obvious]

synergys2k wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

To me it is a TPS with light RPG elements, since no other category exists for it to fit.

Do you honestly believe that? You think this game is purely a TPS with light RPG elements? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon is a real TPS with light RPG elements. You play the role of Captain Scott Mitchell (Advanced Warfighter 1 and 2) who commands an elite group of special forces soldiers on a mission to terminate foreign extremists. You play a linear mission with no other choice than to do exactly as you are told. (Much stress on the word "exactly")...

In ME2, your choices / actions / decisions do make a finite difference. They can be measured and quantified. You can choose whether or not to complete loyalty missions. You can choose whether or not to complete side missions. You can choose to help people or you can choose to ruin or kill or taunt, etc., people. You can manipulate your stats and your teammates stats along with choosing weapons, armor sets / pieces, and specialty ammunitions, etc., etc...

Is it different from the traditional RPG? Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't an RPG. I'm failing to see how you can believe this game is more shooter than RPG. From your point of view, I would consider the classic Legends of Zelda: Ocarina of Time to be more TPS than RPG.... 

Brilliant post.

[Impresario]

SolitonMan wrote...
But there was some vaguely indefinable something missing in ME2.

Yep, sort of like you wanted to see Blade Runner and thankfully you weren't given Armageddon but  the end result was The Fifth Element.. Not a bad flick though...

[lumen11]

glacier1701 wrote...

Hits the core problems with ME2. With all the "hype' about the game the reality was a let down. This is not to say that ME2 is bad but considering who it comes from it is not A+ material but rather B- with the comment "could do better".

Strongly disagree.
The core problem is that many people seem to expect hardcore RPG gameplay (based on their ME1 experience - which really makes no sense to me) and are disappointed when they don't get that. What you do get is a wonderfull atmospheric gameplay, fun combat etc. Those and other strengths definitely deserve A ratings and greater.