109 réponses à ce sujet

[tsd16]

overseer909 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

ME1 uses a lot of the same structures so they don't take up as much space. ME2 has more dialogue, more and higher res textures and models, and more cutscenes. And your locked DLC claim is disgusting and killed any validity you had. I've seen you on these forums and you do nothing but bash ME2 while ME1 is the Holy Grail to you.

youve seen me on the forums? OH SNAP!! in all 3 of the threads ive posted in right...holy hell. and just to clear things up i didnt claim anything. what i said was i hope its not the case becuase that would be dissapointing...so i suggest you stop being a smart ass.

The only reason why i ask is becuase its odd they would tkae you to disc 2 and then bring you back to disc 1. Why not split it up half an half. So lets say when you recruit your first half of the cast you switch to disc 2 n stay there. I dont think ME1 is the holy grail but i would take the 80s sci-fi noise filter feel of ME1 over shiny and pretty buildings of ME2.  

Your argument is ME1 had more content when it really didnt.   Though the quests had different names, and claimed a different objective, they were THE SAME QUEST.  So are you telling me you would prefer to do the same quest 20-30 times over, with a different text based description to 5-10 completely unique quests?  Thats why I dont play MMO's because you spend your time doing the same damn thing 8 billion times over.

and dont try and tell me its not true, I just replayed all of me1 for a new m2 import, and the side quests were killing me boredome.

[SL22]

justinnstuff wrote...

UltimateRC wrote...

I don't necessarily mind the fact that its on two discs (even though it doesn't seem like it would need it).

What I DO mind is that I am forced at arbitrary points to swap my game discs around, even if I have both installed to the 360's HDD. Very poor design there.

That might be a limitation of the way the 360 was designed and how it handles games on its HDD, but I'm not 100% positive on that. It's just an educated guess.

It's a design feature that is used to make sure that you actually have the disks and didn't sell them.

[AngryTigerP]

overseer909 wrote...

tsd16 wrote...

overseer909 wrote...

Title says it all. The amount of content for ME2 realy didnt warrant 2 discs. It was honestly a really short game. ME1 had way way more content than ME2. Go back and count every mission in ME1 (main + side) there is just alot of stuff to do. In ME2...i dont think theres even half of what ME1 had. Alot of the time is taken up by scanning...I think if i didnt scan at all I could have easily taken away 5+ hours of the game.

Another odd thing. You switch to disc 2 for pretty much 2 main missions, then you switch back to disc 1. This gives me a hunch that there is locked DLC on disc 2. If this ends up being true.........shame on you bioware.....

Graphical stuff takes up the most space.   ME1 reused the same interiors for every side mission.  (i.e. how many side quests in ME1 were just the same mission repackaged in the same interior, save for the fetch quests, damn near every side mission was the same damn thing).   Me2 had WAY more "unique" environments, thus requiring more space.

Quality over quanity people do you get it.  You obviously werent here when everyone complained about the repetative boring ass side quests in ME1 that were all the same.  The people spoke and bio listened get over it.

I am a software dev and recently got done writing a 5k line C program.  it can fit on a floppy.   "Code" hardly takes up any space.  In ME1 they not only reused code, but they reused the same damn graphics, over and over and over and over again.   The only new thing was Admiral Hackett paging in to tell you the mission is somehow different despite fighting the same looking guys in the same looking building.

After reading some replies I get the sense there is just alot of graphic ****s out there. I will take the same lookin building but with a new story arch over 3 different looking buildings. I dont play Mass Effect because of its cool lookin structures of updated graphics, I play it to be engrossed in its story.

I unfortunetly wasnt here in the ME1 days. I just signed up not too long ago so theres nothing for me to "get over" i just asked a simple question with my opinion attached to it so dont be an ass hat about it. im sorry im not a software dev like you and know all the lingo.

Then, uh, you REALLY shouldn't be b****ing about having more content, even if you have to get off your lazy a** and change the disk.

Jesus.

People didn't care about disk swapping back when FF7 had 3.

[AngryTigerP]

tsd16 wrote...

overseer909 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

ME1 uses a lot of the same structures so they don't take up as much space. ME2 has more dialogue, more and higher res textures and models, and more cutscenes. And your locked DLC claim is disgusting and killed any validity you had. I've seen you on these forums and you do nothing but bash ME2 while ME1 is the Holy Grail to you.

youve seen me on the forums? OH SNAP!! in all 3 of the threads ive posted in right...holy hell. and just to clear things up i didnt claim anything. what i said was i hope its not the case becuase that would be dissapointing...so i suggest you stop being a smart ass.

The only reason why i ask is becuase its odd they would tkae you to disc 2 and then bring you back to disc 1. Why not split it up half an half. So lets say when you recruit your first half of the cast you switch to disc 2 n stay there. I dont think ME1 is the holy grail but i would take the 80s sci-fi noise filter feel of ME1 over shiny and pretty buildings of ME2.  

Your argument is ME1 had more content when it really didnt.   Though the quests had different names, and claimed a different objective, they were THE SAME QUEST.  So are you telling me you would prefer to do the same quest 20-30 times over, with a different text based description to 5-10 completely unique quests?  Thats why I dont play MMO's because you spend your time doing the same damn thing 8 billion times over.

and dont try and tell me its not true, I just replayed all of me1 for a new m2 import, and the side quests were killing me boredome.

This as well.

Go to featureless, monochromatic planet X.

Enter prefab structure, mine, or research facility (absolutely identical to all others on every planet).

Kill occupants.

Confront bad guy in back-most room.

Rinse and repeat several more times.

[marshalleck]

overseer909 wrote...

sergio71785 wrote...

Kerberus88 wrote...

12gigs of hdd space is required for the game. DL DVDs only hold 8gigs... Hence two discs.

This is exactly right. I'm sorry it bothers the non-PC people, but I'd rather they not have gotten rid of 4GB of content just to spare some disc swapping.

my point was never about physically having to swap the disc...i dont care about the labor it takes to get up n change it....its 1 disc after like 20 hours of play....who the fuk cares....i was just curious to as why they did it since there was alot more content in ME1. yes alot of **** was recycled. but dialog had to be put in for alot of side missions. that takes up space. Give me as much stuff to do as ME1 but with ME2 graphics and unique buildings and put in on 8 discs...i wouldnt care....

Budget.

Sure, it's easy to say "why don't you give me 300 hours of content!?!" of you're willing to ignore the fact that it costs money to produce all that content, and eventually you have to make decisions about what ideas to keep and what to discard so you can eventually ship a game instead of locking it up in development hell for a decade. They've said repeatedly that their goal is to keep the trilogy on the current generation of platforms, so they don't have an infinite amount of time here.

Modifié par marshalleck, 11 février 2010 - 11:13 .

[Lukertin]

UltimateRC wrote...
I don't necessarily mind the fact that its on two discs (even though it doesn't seem like it would need it).
What I DO mind is that I am forced at arbitrary points to swap my game discs around, even if I have both installed to the 360's HDD. Very poor design there.

Blame M$

[Skilled Seeker]

Don't feed the troll people.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 11 février 2010 - 11:13 .

[overseer909]

AngryTigerP wrote...

Sorry, you failed to factor in the 'prefab factor' -- you know, how every building in ME1 was identical?

Oh, and the fact that planets were basically bump maps. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that they were anything difficult to store.

or how every scan of every planet in ME2 was pretty much the same **** over n over. Dont tell me you didnt see recycled stuff in ME2 as well. O Ooo O or those "side missions" that took all of 3 min...ya those most of taken up tons of space.

[i love lamp x3]

i don't mind disc swapping.. here's hoping me3 will be on at least 3 discs.

[EchoTango]

Newbie and honest question here; why is it bad the OP claimed there was locked DLC?



Please no flaming, I'm not familiar with DLC "ethics" etc.

[AngryTigerP]

overseer909 wrote...

AngryTigerP wrote...

Sorry, you failed to factor in the 'prefab factor' -- you know, how every building in ME1 was identical?

Oh, and the fact that planets were basically bump maps. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that they were anything difficult to store.

or how every scan of every planet in ME2 was pretty much the same **** over n over. Dont tell me you didnt see recycled stuff in ME2 as well. O Ooo O or those "side missions" that took all of 3 min...ya those most of taken up tons of space.

Never mind that  you have 20 full, fleshed-out recruitment and loyalty quests, taking place on diverse environments and each being... wow, unique! What a novel concept.

That's cool, I'd rather go play deathmatch in an Arena with Grunt than find another Kowloon-class ship in a system somewhere.

[overseer909]

Lukertin wrote...

It took me the same amount of time, via time played, to beat both games (99% completion on ME1, 95% completion on ME2). So, the content was equal.

well its not neciserly how long it takes you. I was thinking of how much stuff there is to do really. Yes ME1 had recycled missions. but alot of stuff was unique and different. ME2 not so much. you get the loyalty stuff. then you get some "side missions". Wheres my citadel i can explore and talk to people and get missions from. stuff like that.

[overseer909]

SL22 wrote...

Considering one disk has 6.5 gigs of data and the other has 6, I'd say that warrants two disks.

see i dont have it on the PC, i play it on my box...so i cant tell

[tsd16]

overseer909 wrote...

tsd16 wrote...

overseer909 wrote...

Title says it all. The amount of content for ME2 realy didnt warrant 2 discs. It was honestly a really short game. ME1 had way way more content than ME2. Go back and count every mission in ME1 (main + side) there is just alot of stuff to do. In ME2...i dont think theres even half of what ME1 had. Alot of the time is taken up by scanning...I think if i didnt scan at all I could have easily taken away 5+ hours of the game.

Another odd thing. You switch to disc 2 for pretty much 2 main missions, then you switch back to disc 1. This gives me a hunch that there is locked DLC on disc 2. If this ends up being true.........shame on you bioware.....

Graphical stuff takes up the most space.   ME1 reused the same interiors for every side mission.  (i.e. how many side quests in ME1 were just the same mission repackaged in the same interior, save for the fetch quests, damn near every side mission was the same damn thing).   Me2 had WAY more "unique" environments, thus requiring more space.

Quality over quanity people do you get it.  You obviously werent here when everyone complained about the repetative boring ass side quests in ME1 that were all the same.  The people spoke and bio listened get over it.

I am a software dev and recently got done writing a 5k line C program.  it can fit on a floppy.   "Code" hardly takes up any space.  In ME1 they not only reused code, but they reused the same damn graphics, over and over and over and over again.   The only new thing was Admiral Hackett paging in to tell you the mission is somehow different despite fighting the same looking guys in the same looking building.

After reading some replies I get the sense there is just alot of graphic ****s out there. I will take the same lookin building but with a new story arch over 3 different looking buildings. I dont play Mass Effect because of its cool lookin structures of updated graphics, I play it to be engrossed in its story.

I unfortunetly wasnt here in the ME1 days. I just signed up not too long ago so theres nothing for me to "get over" i just asked a simple question with my opinion attached to it so dont be an ass hat about it. im sorry im not a software dev like you and know all the lingo.

Im not talking about "graphics" as in if they arent cutting edge I wont play a game.  what I am talking about is VARIETY.

Every building looks the same for the side quests in me1 with the same layout with the same room full of bad guys with the retrieve X from the back room, or confront main bad guy in the back of the room set up.   Every side quest is the same and takes place in one of the 3 same damn buildings, THAT is what I am arguing, not that "ZOMG the graphics arent good".

If I hid what the mission was, and let you play an ME1 planet side quest you would have no idea what friggin quest it was until you got to the "data retrieval" "confront main bad guy" part.  BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL THE SAME.

ME1 does not have more content it just rehashes the same quest 20 times over, that is not tons of content that is playing the same content over and over again.

[overseer909]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Don't feed the troll people.

seriously u need to get the fuk out. i posted my opinion and either people are posting theirs or trying to correct me....u on the other hand are just bashing on this thread...who the fuk is the troll now...

[AngryTigerP]

overseer909 wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

It took me the same amount of time, via time played, to beat both games (99% completion on ME1, 95% completion on ME2). So, the content was equal.

well its not neciserly how long it takes you. I was thinking of how much stuff there is to do really. Yes ME1 had recycled missions. but alot of stuff was unique and different. ME2 not so much. you get the loyalty stuff. then you get some "side missions". Wheres my citadel i can explore and talk to people and get missions from. stuff like that.

You're kidding me, right?

Every single loyalty mission was unique. It expanded the story, it felt different from the others, it was simply a new experience. Your recycled missions are just that, recycled; you could get their 'story' from flavor text, and it would probably be much less tedious besides.

I would gladly take a single one of those over every single research facility I had to crawl through in ME1.

If you're serious, you need to realize that time-burning stuff is just there to get you to play longer (and add to critics' "game length" bits so that the game looks bigger than it can be). When it's something as boring and menial as the ME1 'missions', that's when critics will point out the fact that it was perceiveable as a waste of time.

If a troll, please get a better flamebait put together.

[overseer909]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Don't feed the troll people.

you seriously need to get the fuk out. I posted my opinion on a subject and people are either posting theirs or correcting me. you on the other hand are just bashing on this thread. youre ending up the fool

[tsd16]

overseer909 wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

It took me the same amount of time, via time played, to beat both games (99% completion on ME1, 95% completion on ME2). So, the content was equal.

well its not neciserly how long it takes you. I was thinking of how much stuff there is to do really. Yes ME1 had recycled missions. but alot of stuff was unique and different. ME2 not so much. you get the loyalty stuff. then you get some "side missions". Wheres my citadel i can explore and talk to people and get missions from. stuff like that.

There are less fetch quests and more other types of quests thats what you are complaining about?  Theres no way around it , ME2 has far more unique quests and content than ME1 end of story.

[overseer909]

AngryTigerP wrote...

overseer909 wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

It took me the same amount of time, via time played, to beat both games (99% completion on ME1, 95% completion on ME2). So, the content was equal.

well its not neciserly how long it takes you. I was thinking of how much stuff there is to do really. Yes ME1 had recycled missions. but alot of stuff was unique and different. ME2 not so much. you get the loyalty stuff. then you get some "side missions". Wheres my citadel i can explore and talk to people and get missions from. stuff like that.

You're kidding me, right?

Every single loyalty mission was unique. It expanded the story, it felt different from the others, it was simply a new experience. Your recycled missions are just that, recycled; you could get their 'story' from flavor text, and it would probably be much less tedious besides.

I would gladly take a single one of those over every single research facility I had to crawl through in ME1.

If you're serious, you need to realize that time-burning stuff is just there to get you to play longer (and add to critics' "game length" bits so that the game looks bigger than it can be). When it's something as boring and menial as the ME1 'missions', that's when critics will point out the fact that it was perceiveable as a waste of time.

If a troll, please get a better flamebait put together.

time burning? so like planet scanning in me2 right? i know they used tricks to extend play in me1 by recylcing stuff. but they were clever in ME2 as well. 1 the scans. 2 ur dropped right into base on side missions. with some takin all of 3 min to do. dont tell me that mission wher u have to protect the crates wasnt the most generic thing ever. they took an erena type of layout dropped boxes into and a couple of mechs....looks like recycled stuff to me. the exploration with the mako...thats a big loss for me.

[Myounage]

I don't care how many discs this and Mass Effect 3 are on. I'm a PC gamer; frankly it is not my problem. Why should I care that some console gamers are complaining about having to switch discs, when I do not have to? More discs means more content; that is all there is to it. That or compress the textures and stream them in off the disc(or hard drive for PC), which will make areas appear blurry at first like Borderlands and Mass Effect. Streaming also annoys PC gamers, since 99.5% of PC games that do so by default do not have to on 80% of the graphics hardware they are run on.



The download time(Steam) is an overnighter or something to be done while at work/uni. Most people's connections can get them the game within a day if they run it while they are not using their system. IMO though, Bioware should get off Unreal Engine 3, and use a modern engine that supports anti-aliasing natively :\\.

tl;dr: "boohoo, I had to switch discs because Microsoft didn't use Blu-ray in the 360. I wish PC users had to switch discs, it isn't fair that I have to."

[AngryTigerP]

overseer909 wrote...

AngryTigerP wrote...

overseer909 wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

It took me the same amount of time, via time played, to beat both games (99% completion on ME1, 95% completion on ME2). So, the content was equal.

well its not neciserly how long it takes you. I was thinking of how much stuff there is to do really. Yes ME1 had recycled missions. but alot of stuff was unique and different. ME2 not so much. you get the loyalty stuff. then you get some "side missions". Wheres my citadel i can explore and talk to people and get missions from. stuff like that.

You're kidding me, right?

Every single loyalty mission was unique. It expanded the story, it felt different from the others, it was simply a new experience. Your recycled missions are just that, recycled; you could get their 'story' from flavor text, and it would probably be much less tedious besides.

I would gladly take a single one of those over every single research facility I had to crawl through in ME1.

If you're serious, you need to realize that time-burning stuff is just there to get you to play longer (and add to critics' "game length" bits so that the game looks bigger than it can be). When it's something as boring and menial as the ME1 'missions', that's when critics will point out the fact that it was perceiveable as a waste of time.

If a troll, please get a better flamebait put together.

time burning? so like planet scanning in me2 right? i know they used tricks to extend play in me1 by recylcing stuff. but they were clever in ME2 as well. 1 the scans. 2 ur dropped right into base on side missions. with some takin all of 3 min to do. dont tell me that mission wher u have to protect the crates wasnt the most generic thing ever. they took an erena type of layout dropped boxes into and a couple of mechs....looks like recycled stuff to me. the exploration with the mako...thats a big loss for me.

You keep bringing up the planet scanning. That's irrelevant. You wish to make this a debate about unique content, not time played (as you even acknowledge that people take different lengths of time to finish the game).

Since you've conceded that you 'aren't a software dev', I'll spare you the grim realities of how easily rendered (and rather lazy) the planetscapes were. This is not to mention that the Hammerhead is coming via DLC anyway, so we'll have what we already have IN ADDITION TO your precious vehicle missions.

But I'm getting a real lack of scale on your part. You can't seem to grasp that maybe... what, 70% of ME1 was 'side-missions'? And that of those missions, about 80% were going to one of many prefab buildings/structures and killing the bad guy or finding the research or whatever.

This is unique from ME2, where every recruitment and loyalty mission was on a different map, and most had different settings (even ones on the same planet, like Thane and Samara's quests, had different feels to the settings).

Just because you did MORE missions didn't mean you experienced more CONTENT.

[overseer909]

so the consensus is that its on 2 discs because theres more unique content and geometry is all different and update in graphics. OK i can see that but alot of the stuff was short. at least it felt that way to me. i breezed through the game. take the last mission of ME1. it was a lenghty experience with a pretty lenghty 2 part boss battle. the last mission in ME2 was over before i knew it.



Also, there is stuff recycled in ME2 as well. alot of the side missions although unique still had to you into a base (fine it was layed out diff with diff enemies) and yet you go in blast some fools away and retreive the "item" there was a handfull of those. and other ones took like 3 min to complete.

[AngryTigerP]

overseer909 wrote...

so the consensus is that its on 2 discs because theres more unique content and geometry is all different and update in graphics. OK i can see that but alot of the stuff was short. at least it felt that way to me. i breezed through the game. take the last mission of ME1. it was a lenghty experience with a pretty lenghty 2 part boss battle. the last mission in ME2 was over before i knew it.

Also, there is stuff recycled in ME2 as well. alot of the side missions although unique still had to you into a base (fine it was layed out diff with diff enemies) and yet you go in blast some fools away and retreive the "item" there was a handfull of those. and other ones took like 3 min to complete.

It took me more than an hour doing the final mission of ME2, and I was playing on Normal. Took me about 30 minutes, if I remember correctly, to do the final ME1 mission on one of the higher difficulties. So... that's that. And that's, of course, ignoring the rest of the narrative missions.

@ your second paragraph: Doesn't change the fact that it was still different from a dozen (probably literally) locations just like it.

Modifié par AngryTigerP, 11 février 2010 - 11:43 .

[overseer909]

Myounage wrote...

I don't care how many discs this and Mass Effect 3 are on. I'm a PC gamer; frankly it is not my problem. Why should I care that some console gamers are complaining about having to switch discs, when I do not have to? More discs means more content; that is all there is to it. That or compress the textures and stream them in off the disc(or hard drive for PC), which will make areas appear blurry at first like Borderlands and Mass Effect. Streaming also annoys PC gamers, since 99.5% of PC games that do so by default do not have to on 80% of the graphics hardware they are run on.

The download time(Steam) is an overnighter or something to be done while at work/uni. Most people's connections can get them the game within a day if they run it while they are not using their system. IMO though, Bioware should get off Unreal Engine 3, and use a modern engine that supports anti-aliasing natively :\\\\.
tl;dr: "boohoo, I had to switch discs because Microsoft didn't use Blu-ray in the 360. I wish PC users had to switch discs, it isn't fair that I have to."

i wish you read more of the thread. it was never about boo hoo i have to get up to switch the disk. it was about does the amount of content support 2 discs. especially when you switch back to disc 1 after 1 or 2 missions. it just seemed odd.

[overseer909]

AngryTigerP wrote...

overseer909 wrote...

so the consensus is that its on 2 discs because theres more unique content and geometry is all different and update in graphics. OK i can see that but alot of the stuff was short. at least it felt that way to me. i breezed through the game. take the last mission of ME1. it was a lenghty experience with a pretty lenghty 2 part boss battle. the last mission in ME2 was over before i knew it.

Also, there is stuff recycled in ME2 as well. alot of the side missions although unique still had to you into a base (fine it was layed out diff with diff enemies) and yet you go in blast some fools away and retreive the "item" there was a handfull of those. and other ones took like 3 min to complete.

It took me more than an hour doing the final mission of ME2, and I was playing on Normal. Took me about 30 minutes, if I remember correctly, to do the final ME1 mission on one of the higher difficulties. So... that's that. And that's, of course, ignoring the rest of the narrative missions.

@ your second paragraph: Doesn't change the fact that it was still different from a dozen (probably literally) locations just like it.

2 hours? wow. ur specialist must of died in the vents.