160 réponses à ce sujet

[kiyyto]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

kiyyto wrote...


If you think they game is excellent then why did you come to a thread with the title, "game sucks" ?

To read their ridiculous rational of why the game sucks?

So you read it.
Why post your blather?

[SithLordExarKun]

kiyyto wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

kiyyto wrote...


If you think they game is excellent then why did you come to a thread with the title, "game sucks" ?

To read their ridiculous rational of why the game sucks?

So you read it.
Why post your blather?

Because you asked and i answered?

[kiyyto]

lol, I meant your original blather.
Not your latest blather.

Besides that, Stanley Woo just wrote - "complaining about complaint threads is spam."

You are on the wring side of the law, you outlaw.

Modifié par kiyyto, 10 février 2010 - 02:01 .

[FlashedMyDrive]

'Cause ya know, we all loved the cookie cutter mako side missions.

The games customization is still pretty much at the same level, just implemented a different way.

The only real customization they took out was the ability to give armor to your team. Then again 95% of the armor in ME1 looked like crap, so I don't really mind.

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 10 février 2010 - 02:04 .

[otafest]

i kinda agree with this guy. i mean there are parts of the game i liked. then there are parts i did not like. it felt really really short, unlike ME1 , and the scanning of planets was really annoying. but then there were cool things like the final mission, and some of the missions that u do. they were very unique. over all it was good...but left me wishing there was more to it. so i figure they did it so they can add dlc, whether paying dlc or free. also most likely they will dlc till 3rd is out. bio is a good company and hasnt done wrong yet. no truly wrong yet.... but i have faith that they know what they are doing.

[Starbiter]

I completely disagree with OP in every possible way. That is all.

[kiyyto]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

'Cause ya know, we all loved the cookie cutter mako side missions.

The games customization is still pretty much at the same level, just implemented a different way.

The only real customization they took out was the ability to give armor to your team. Then again 95% of the armor in ME1 looked like crap, so I don't really mind.

I would take 10 mako missions versus one planet scan.
It would have been better to just fix the mako, not give us that crap.

[Mr.Skar]

kiyyto wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

'Cause ya know, we all loved the cookie cutter mako side missions.

The games customization is still pretty much at the same level, just implemented a different way.

The only real customization they took out was the ability to give armor to your team. Then again 95% of the armor in ME1 looked like crap, so I don't really mind.

I would take 10 mako missions versus one planet scan.
It would have been better to just fix the mako, not give us that crap.

Have to agree with you there kiyyto, the planet scanning deal is not my favorite change.

[kiyyto]

Mr.Skar wrote...

kiyyto wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

'Cause ya know, we all loved the cookie cutter mako side missions.

The games customization is still pretty much at the same level, just implemented a different way.

The only real customization they took out was the ability to give armor to your team. Then again 95% of the armor in ME1 looked like crap, so I don't really mind.

I would take 10 mako missions versus one planet scan.
It would have been better to just fix the mako, not give us that crap.

Have to agree with you there kiyyto, the planet scanning deal is not my favorite change.

yeah.
Also, the mako missions weren't cookie cutter at all. They actual missions were fine. It was only the driving the mako which was problematic. The vehicle turned left and right too easily.

[EternalWolfe]

kiyyto wrote...

yeah.
Also, the mako missions weren't cookie cutter at all. They actual missions were fine. It was only the driving the mako which was problematic. The vehicle turned left and right too easily.

Um . . . mako missions: same drab copy-pasted planet, same prefab building or underground base(the only two maps at all).  Run around and try and find everything(of course, everything but minerials was mapped out for you and you just had to climb mountians to get to the them).  Once at the actual assignment area, kill everything, loot, go home.

Cookie Cutter.  And the cookie wasn't all that satisfying, to tell you the truth.

Thresher Maws were fun the first few times, then they too fell into 'easy enough to feel like a chore' list.

[Flash_in_the_flesh]

EternalWolfe wrote...

kiyyto wrote...

yeah.
Also, the mako missions weren't cookie cutter at all. They actual missions were fine. It was only the driving the mako which was problematic. The vehicle turned left and right too easily.

Um . . . mako missions: same drab copy-pasted planet, same prefab building or underground base(the only two maps at all).  Run around and try and find everything(of course, everything but minerials was mapped out for you and you just had to climb mountians to get to the them).  Once at the actual assignment area, kill everything, loot, go home.

Cookie Cutter.  And the cookie wasn't all that satisfying, to tell you the truth.

Thresher Maws were fun the first few times, then they too fell into 'easy enough to feel like a chore' list.

Agree.

Today I finished ME1 playthrough for perfect savegame to transfer. Mako missions were a big pain. "OK. 12 planets done, 20 to go". All of them were extremely repetitive kill-em-all and grab the minerals. I have printed maps of each planet so I only need to drive to the points of interest. I wanted to get back to the main quest ASAP.

32 planets, around 30 minutes each with map printed. Perfect playthrough took me 32h. I'm really glad ME2 got rid of the Mako. All of ME2 side-missions are quality work compared to driving uncharted worlds. I don't want the game to be long when half of it is filled with boring, repetitive content.

[IndivisiblePBNJ]

I pity you. Games are for fun. Great stories make those games better. This game had both.

[EternalWolfe]

Flash_in_the_flesh wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

kiyyto wrote...

yeah.
Also, the mako missions weren't cookie cutter at all. They actual missions were fine. It was only the driving the mako which was problematic. The vehicle turned left and right too easily.

Um . . . mako missions: same drab copy-pasted planet, same prefab building or underground base(the only two maps at all).  Run around and try and find everything(of course, everything but minerials was mapped out for you and you just had to climb mountians to get to the them).  Once at the actual assignment area, kill everything, loot, go home.

Cookie Cutter.  And the cookie wasn't all that satisfying, to tell you the truth.

Thresher Maws were fun the first few times, then they too fell into 'easy enough to feel like a chore' list.

Agree.

Today I finished ME1 playthrough for perfect savegame to transfer. Mako missions were a big pain. "OK. 12 planets done, 20 to go". All of them were extremely repetitive kill-em-all and grab the minerals. I have printed maps of each planet so I only need to drive to the points of interest. I wanted to get back to the main quest ASAP.

32 planets, around 30 minutes each with map printed. Perfect playthrough took me 32h. I'm really glad ME2 got rid of the Mako. All of ME2 side-missions are quality work compared to driving uncharted worlds. I don't want the game to be long when half of it is filled with boring, repetitive content.

Yeah I lost a bunch of my save files and I have to run through a couple times to remake my characters(i had one done when ME2 came out and the others won't bother with level 60, since you get far more bonuses for having a ME2 finish then a ME1 level 60).

And here, this may help:  http://www.gamefaqs....&topic=53322093

Its supposedly a list of all the things that carry over from someone who checked what the game read when importing.

[TheBestClass]

The only thing I miss about Mass Effect is the easily identifiable useless talents that every class had. Much easier to come up with a objectively great build.



Then again, that was another flaw in the game as well.

[Vb Dude]

Malecite00 wrote...

If your not using powers on insanity difficulty I would be interested in how you passed it. I found it easy, but was continually using either overload or impact shot over and over and over again. The soldier class seems ridiculously overpowered in relation to the others, especially with barrier and the revenant.

What I find hilarious is the fact that the TC is trolling his own thread!
Also don't bring out that "overpowered" bull**** because the soldier is not! The classes are very balanced and it just depends how you use them. Also the first class I would consider to be OP is the sentinel because of the tech armor(but its still very balanced and I love my sentinel).

So just don't make threads if you can't hadle the criticism and end up trolling our own thread. Gtfo!

Good Day

[Satanicfirewraith]

Flash_in_the_flesh wrote...

Satanicfirewraith wrote...

Yes ME 1 was flawed, and BW instead of fixing the flaws, and making another great ME game, trashed
most of the flaws and replaced it.... making a streamlined shooter.... instead of an amazing rpg.
To many things were dumbed down or removed, and now we are left with a subpar third
person shooter with some very lite story to it.

Really I'm trying hard to understand what you people are talking about. ME1 an amazing RPG [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie].

Well, I'd call ME1 an amazing game despite many flaws but amazing RPG? Not.

ME2 is the same RPG ME1 is, just the "subpar" shooter elements are better. If you call ME1 big number of skills which differ by meaningless +1-2% to something irrelevant or heaps of weapons which all act, feel and look the
same RPG, then you surely value quantity over quality.

Yea, I miss party banter but it's not what defines "amazing RPG". Bland dialogues and hollow characters is your exaggerated subjective opinion, which of course you have right to present. Nothing wrong with that. Just please put your opinion in "IMO"brackets. Your post is aggressive and angry enough without it.

Um I aint knocking ME 1. If you read it properly, I said that Yes ME 1 (not ME 2) is flawed, but instead of BW fixing the flaws that ME 1 had, for ME 2 they trashed most of it and replaced it with shallow streamlined shooter instead of an EPICLY awesome rpg.

[Satanicfirewraith]

EternalWolfe wrote...

kiyyto wrote...

yeah.
Also, the mako missions weren't cookie cutter at all. They actual missions were fine. It was only the driving the mako which was problematic. The vehicle turned left and right too easily.

Um . . . mako missions: same drab copy-pasted planet, same prefab building or underground base(the only two maps at all).  Run around and try and find everything(of course, everything but minerials was mapped out for you and you just had to climb mountians to get to the them).  Once at the actual assignment area, kill everything, loot, go home.

Cookie Cutter.  And the cookie wasn't all that satisfying, to tell you the truth.

Thresher Maws were fun the first few times, then they too fell into 'easy enough to feel like a chore' list.

While the Mako sidemissions did suck ass, the planet scanning is totally retarded and is well past boring!
Its a horrible minigame.
They added these lame ass N7 side missions, which while some were very neat planets, were almost as bad... had they combined the mako with the new n7 planets, made them large and fun instead of dull and drab... and so damn small.

[ZeroXraven]

Malecite00 wrote...

And for the record I certainly did not skip ALL of the dialogue, most of the skipping occured during post mission chats with characters I never used or felt contributed to anything at all.

The only way to fully enjoy this game is to listen to all the characters back story and stuff. Your squadmates basically drive the story and plot of this game. Obviously you where looking for a shooter with very deep RPG elements and no story. Want that? Try Borderlands (Great Game) you'll love the non-stop action and little to no story at all. Otherwise, leave these forums, because fans come here to chat about a game they love not bash it at every turn. Yeah sure, some things are missing in ME2 but it is still the greatest gaming experience I have ever had, and what's to say future DLC won't add amazing features? (Like A MAKO vehicle called the Hammerhead Tank)...You came to the wrong place to complain, we have heard it ALL for the past two weeks this games been out and we really don't give a %&$@ what you say, because it won't make us dislike an amazing game...

[mxw10000]

Wow. Lots of good discussion here. I played the first ME a LOT. I have at least 10 valid game over saves when I choose "Import ME1" under new game. The part of the game that I liked the most about the game was just the setting and the scope and scale of the storyline that they had created. I am firmly in the camp that believes that they (Bioware) did the right thing by axing that stupid inventory system from the first game.

As to the finding and looting items in ME1, I only looked forward to it if I was starting a new game from scratch because I didn't yet have the money to buy the only real weapon set in the game: Spectre gear. Once I had that for the squad mates I was playing with, all other weaps were either sold for creds or converted to omni-gel. I am glad that they did away with the power addons for the weapons too. Making things like Incidiary ammo and cryo ammo powers makes more sense.
If you think about it, they simply replaced the whole armor addon system with the research projects that you have to collect(or buy a few if you can somehow come up with the creds). I also applaud that idea, as once you do it, you don't have to constantly look for that one upgrade to appear in loot, only to have to deal with a dozen of the same three or four addons that you already have and don't need.

I do agree that the powers for each squad mate was kinda dissapointing, but not that suprising considering how many you know have to choose from. Now you almost have to select different mates on different missions cause no one teammate falls neatly into one of the six major player classes. In ME1, there were only six teammates cause there were only six classes. I like having to mull over the squad choice screen, trying to decide who to bring based on what enemy I might have to deal with. Its not a perfect solution, but I like the trade offs enough that I am ok with it.

I would never pretend to compare this game to any other RPG, as there are few like this series. Games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion are open-ended(as long as you have Broken Steel for FO3 that is), and so is ME2. But they are both vastly different types of RPG experiences when compared to the distilled RPG flavor of ME1 or 2. DA:O is a deep experience, I am also enjoying, but for differnt reasons than the ME games. I read in a review somewhere(forgive me but I forget where I read it), that ME2 is like they took the RPG elements that they tried to shoe-horn into the first game and either replaced it with something else that worked(i.e. ammo powers, researchable upgrades) or axed it altogether(i.e. inventory system, weapon power trees).

This is all just my opinion of course. But this comes from someone who considers the first ME his favorite game of all time, but also loves what they did in the sequal to expand on the universe.

Peace out ya'll.

Modifié par mxw10000, 10 février 2010 - 04:00 .

[Panzer Gold]

I would also be interested in hearing from someone who found the games storyline to be "deep" and "deserving" of a 94 percent review. Especially considering the level of detail dragon age received in EARNING such a score. Given the two are both games by Bioware, and given they are both RPGs I find it hard to believe that ME2 even touches DAO's level of depth and story.

I found DAO to be pretty unengaging, to be honest. The graphics were not impressive at all, and while there was a lot of obvious effort put in to creating the background setting and characters, the game was just not that interesting. Combat was poorly balanced, and was either a cakewalk, or frustratingly hard.

I've been playing RPG's since PnP 2nd edition AD&D. I've been playing CRPG's almost as long. I loved ME1. Before I played ME2 I was fully prepared to hate the changes and "dumbing down" of the game. But you know what? It works, and it works well. The Mako exploration from ME1 was an amazingly tedious time sink. Sure it was fun the first couple times, but it got old real fast. A loot system where 90% of items are junk or duplicates of what you already have, and that allows your character to apparently carry around hundreds of weapons and dozens of suits of armor? Not to mention the tedious inventory interface. No thanks. Much prefer the new system.

The story was an amazing 'cinematic' experience, in my opinion. I loved it, especially the action-packed ending. They definitely captured the pulpy space-opera vibe with ME2. It was emotionally engaging as well. I actually found myself laughing out loud at some of the humor in the game, which is pretty unusual for a videogame, and found other parts massively sobering, like visiting the Normandy crash site.

One of the few things I found somewhat disappointing, were some of the Paragon/Renegade choices. A few of the Renegade choices felt too much like cardboard evil for the sake of being evil choices rather than the first game's choices which seemed to all reflect being a ruthless, do anything to get the mission done, type.

[Veex]

Not that I don't understand some people do it, or that it is wrong in anyway, but I don't know how you can only put twelve hours into a BioWare game. If you're not taking the time to talk with and be a part of the universe you're in of course it is going to feel hollow.

[SirVincealot]

"streamlined" is how it feels to me. I no longer take pleasure in simply exchanging loot for stuff, so researching upgrades is a big step forward over buying a slightly better armor every mission.



The combat mechanics and tactical fusion are a nice addition as well. There are far fewer "powers" but those left are actually useful and make each character different from the next - certainly on higher difficulty.



The only thing I miss is driving the Mako around - but I am in the minority and I accept it.



In short: I don't experience ME2 as requiring me to make "fewer" decisions (aka simplified) but "more informed" ones.



To each his own, I guess.



SirV

[Schneidend]

Door's right over there. ===>

[AK118]

i agree, mainly because side by side comparisons of ME2 and ME1 show that me2 lacks majorly in plot





i mean, what did we learn in ME1? now compare that to what we learned in ME2. yeah, just about nothing. the plot of ME2 cold have been a side mission in ME1.



other than that, ME2 is far superior.

[kaotician]

In between all the chaff postings, there's some serious and intelligent debating going on here, and I'd like to thank the previous posters for their contributions - it's made for a good hour's reading.

On to my own views of ME2 now.

Firstly, I'd like to preface my remarks by stating that Bioware for me is a company interesting, intelligent and honest enough in their endeavours that they are the only producers of games which are 'must buy' for me because of their marque, starting way back with Baldur's Gate on the PC and subsequently on through every title they've released (with the exception of the hack 'n slash version of Baldur's released for consoles.

Firstly, ME1 took me 72 hours to muster a perfect playthrough (ie every quest, conversation etc), whilst ME2 took me 52 hours. I note, however, that ME2 has dropped the 'Mako' missions (by the way, I appear to be the only person who enjoyed the all-terrain driving aspects of the original!), which I calculate accounted for around 20 - 25 hours of the original title, in favour of planetary scanning which for me took somewhere between 6 - 7 hours to obtain everything I needed to make everything available in the game.

Additionally, the conversion of excess weapons/upgrades either to cash or omni-gel, plus equipping the squad, took a lot longer in ME1, though I find it difficult to sum an approximation of how much time I actually spent doing these things. Nevertheless, a good case can be made for the idea that these elements are no more than excess fat to flesh out the overall running time, even if that was not precisely how they were intended to be - I personally doubt that the corporate gestalt over at Bioware is so cynical (my own view is that these elements were included to add an rpg-authenticity to the experience). It's my belief that Bioware excised the major part of these elements because feedback suggested that they simply weren't much fun.

I believe one can fairly argue that in ME2 there is more actual enjoyable gameplay in that sense, albeit at the expense of the length.

However, this excision has not come without a cost, correct overall though the decision may have been to remove them for ME2. For instance, it is now simply less realistic that each store would carry only a few items, unique to that store and simply unavailable anywhere in the galaxy, and also that the stores would never re-stock those items. I can understand the rationale: why does the player need to scroll through things that they don't need in a shop in order to find the things they do need? I understand this point of view, and understand the merits of the idea from a gameplay perspective, but would argue that the changes so wrought are at the expense of the immersion factor that a good game offers - it simply feels more 'gamey' than 'real' now, which is for me a de-merit.

Planetary scanning as a way of earning minerals remains problematic, though as I ahve argued above it's better economy of approach is certainly successful. However, it is quite simply boring. Why the Normandy needs to quest for it's own supplies is a mystery to me anyway, and always has been: why not have the mining done by miners, and buy the resources you need for for research purposes off them, perhaps by the medium of credits earned for completing side-quests etc, at mining stations or on other worlds as we currently do?

Others have stated that the game is much smaller than ME1 (in the sense that the scope feels smaller, not the game length which I have already commented on). My own view is that this feeling stems from a notion of ME2 as being a standalone game in its' own right, and in consequence fails to appreciate the notion of ME as a trilogy of games in the first place. The epic scope of the first is not there anymore in ME2: however, to me this is natural, since ME1 also had the job of establishing the 'world' in which the events of ME as a whole play out. To this end, it was important that the massive scope of the galaxy be seen and appreciated, the numerous races and their histories be understood, and the role played by the Relays and the Citadel be clearly articulated. None of these elements require reiteration in ME2, and it is to the designers' credit that they do not.

Instead, what we have here is a smaller scale, character-driven part 2 of the overall tale, which in my view is intended to make us care for the 'humanity' of the various races we are introduced to in Part 1. To that end, I take serious issue with those who describe the various characters and their stories as 'hollow'. I'm reasonably well-read, and feel that Bioware have admirably produced an economy of storytelling allied to good-quality emotional whallops along the way - Samara's moving story being just one example, Mordus' character being another. This is to distinguish the story from ME1: In that, emotional engagements (with some exceptions) are largely conducted on a race-to-race basis - in ME2, it's much more person-to-person, and whilst one can always argue what type of approach constitutes the better platform or style for storytelling purposes, for me it is undeniable that we are seeing a well-thought-out arc from Bioware to emphasise the personal scale from the epic scale as part of an overall schemata - in this case, a trilogy intended to function as a single, complete piece. As a character-driven second part of a trilogy therefore, it is much more like, say, The Empire Strikes Back or X-Men 2 than say The Matrix Reloaded, Back To The Future 2 or The Two Towers (THIS LINE REMOVED BY POSTER AS CONTAINED SPOILER).

If I have a criticism of ME2's overall nature, it is that it feels to me that the structure of the game came first, and the details of the story followed afterwards. This is the wrong approach to have taken. The story should always come first, the game design should always be structured around it, rather than vice-versa. This approach leaves you more freedom to tell your tale, and offers a less formulaic and dogmatic approach.

Secondly, I have to admit that because the thrust of the plot was the mystery of what lay beyond the Omega 4 relay, I was expecting rather more than just an hour or so's gameplay once I got there, good though it was.

Thirdly, I don't feel that the overall story moved forwards very much: the final shot could just as easily have come at the end of ME1, for all that we have advanced.

Fourthly, with ME2 taken up so much with the characters on the suicide mission, it will be a serious mistake if these are not at least some of the characters around which the events of ME3 must unfold: else, what was the point of their back-stories forming the bulk of ME2 in the way that they did?


In terms of what is actually delivered in the context of the story itself, it seems to me to be a mistake to have had the Omega 4 relay in a system where there is already a relay: there is no other system where two relays exist next to each other, and it would have made more sense if this relay were in an otherwise uninhabitable system somewhere else, and would have added a little to the mystery too. It draws a little too much attention to itself established in this way, and would have worked better as another of the 'closed' relays referred to in ME1.

Well, I've gone on at length here, so shall stop now before anyone reading this dies of boredom.

Modifié par kaotician, 10 février 2010 - 07:56 .