109 réponses à ce sujet

[overseer909]

Myounage wrote...

overseer909 wrote...

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.

I presume the reason for cloning so much data across discs is that certain files have to be present on both discs.  UI, certain dialogue, combat dialogue, textures, models, etc.  Have to have the basics on both discs.  Not sure how this explians the PC version being 13GB.  Maybe we got an extra set of textures or 5.1 sound or something.

thanks youve actually provided me with a good and helpful answer that clears things up.

[overseer909]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

You are an idiot.

ME2 has twice the side quests as ME1
100% completion of ME1 is about 13.5 hours
100% completion of ME2 is about 30-40 hours.


I will say it again, you are an idiot.

well my save files from both say different and i completed both games 100%.

[.primus]

overseer909 wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

You are an idiot.

ME2 has twice the side quests as ME1
100% completion of ME1 is about 13.5 hours
100% completion of ME2 is about 30-40 hours.


I will say it again, you are an idiot.

well my save files from both say different and i completed both games 100%.

Haven't done ME2 100% but
ME1 with Pinnacle and Bring Down the Sky DLC + collected meaningless minerals and items (22 Hours; actually 21 hours and 52minutes as said on the game save import file)

I'm currently on my third playthrough but the quickest I did it with the least amount possible while keeping everyone alive is at 32 hours and 50 minutes acccording to my after the credits save (estimate due to credits) and this was without the N7 missions and full upgrades. 

[Sapienti]

overseer909 wrote...


ME1 had plenty of faults, I get it, i know it, I agree with it. That doesnt mean you take exploration out. you build onto it, you fix it, you make it better, you dont just simply take it out. Thats what ME2 felt like...oh we wont improve this well just take it out. So youre saying you spent more time exploring the citadel in ME2 than you did in ME1...you must delusional. Exlploration doesnt mean just going with the mako onto planets....you gota square for alot of the side missions in me2 also! go into this base kill these guys. done...it was almost the same as ME1 but with a different layout and diff baddies.

The citadel was definitely larger in ME1. But thats because it was all ME1 had in terms of a metropolis like area. In ME2 you have the Citadel Wards, Ilium and Omega as the big places with civilians and what not. I did spend more time exploring those three places than everywhere you can explore on ME1 combined. Can't compare things point to point with these two games because they didn't say "this translates into ME2 as this and this as this". They took aspects and changed them. They took the aspect of exploring uncharted planets for resource points and generic bases and replaced those with unique bases and planet scanning for resources. They took out the large all-eggs-in-one-basket Presidium and gave us  some very large very well made cities.

ME2 just feels so much more unique I can't see how you could enjoy the barren wastelands of ME1 more. We got to see apartment complexes, clubs, financial districts, forests, ruined cities, and space stations to name a few things. Got a chance to see the universe of Mass Effect on a realistic "where do they live what do they do" sort of level. on ME1 you got to explore a base, a wasteland, 2 colonies and a Virmire. Hardly got a chance to actually go into the universe and flesh out much of anything. And these are just things that I as an individual really enjoyed, I wont even bother to list every potential draw.

Anyway, if you really miss the Mako that much, get the Hammerhead DLC. But if you don't get a bunch of square barren worlds with 2 bases and a mine, will you still complain?

[kaotician]

The game needs to be on 2 discs not simply because there's somehow tonnes of extras in there (which there is, by the way, especially with dialogue and textures, but also because you still need the game's core engine on both discs, so that you can load up the levels etc. As far as I can tell, none of that stuff gets installed automatically, so still needs to be present on both discs.

[Skilled Seeker]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

You are an idiot.

ME2 has twice the side quests as ME1
100% completion of ME1 is about 13.5 hours
100% completion of ME2 is about 30-40 hours.


I will say it again, you are an idiot.

pwned! OP is a troll.

[TobiasRieper]

To OP: Are you dense or something?



Do you have some magical way to estimate all the data and polygon counts from just playing the game?



I mean, don't you think if they could've fit it on 1 disc (and thus saving a huge amount of production costs), they would've?



You Xbox 360 ppl knew the limitations of your platform when you bought it, stop crying about them now.

[kaotician]

Yes, I get the impression that the OP'er thinks that Bioware have put the game on two discs to fool all it's idiotic customers into believing there's more game when in fact there isn't. this suspicion simply displays a lack of real awareness as to why the game needs two discs - just look at the lighting effects, for starters.....

[Skilled Seeker]

He is just a stupid troll you can't change his mind. Best let this thread die.

[Ninja Ataris]

omg I have to perform a 1 minute task every 8 hours in order to get more content. Damn you, Bioware!

[NeonMeat]

Not sure if somone mentioned this already, but the main reason Mass Effect 2 takes up more space is because it has 5 times the amount of pre-rendered movies. The first game had about 500mb, ME2 has over 2.5GB.

So actually, taking out the movies, ME2 is almost the same size as ME1 - at least the PC version is.

ME1 : 10.02GB - 589MB  = 9431MB
ME2 : 12.20GB - 2.52GB = 9680MB

Modifié par NeonMeat, 12 février 2010 - 01:46 .

[Sapienti]

kaotician wrote...

Yes, I get the impression that the OP'er thinks that Bioware have put the game on two discs to fool all it's idiotic customers into believing there's more game when in fact there isn't. this suspicion simply displays a lack of real awareness as to why the game needs two discs - just look at the lighting effects, for starters.....

Yea, in the old days people would hear "more than one disc? It must be really long!". In this day and age, multiple discs just mean more graphical content for the most part (whether it be in the form of detail, areas, or both). The OP sounds like he thought 2 discs meant 2 times any game with 1 disc.

[overseer909]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

He is just a stupid troll you can't change his mind. Best let this thread die.

Pretty much everyone on this thread has said something insightful. you on the other hand have just trash talked in every single one of your posts...why the fuk are you even here? youre trolling yourself.

[overseer909]

TobiasRieper wrote...

To OP: Are you dense or something?

Do you have some magical way to estimate all the data and polygon counts from just playing the game?

I mean, don't you think if they could've fit it on 1 disc (and thus saving a huge amount of production costs), they would've?

You Xbox 360 ppl knew the limitations of your platform when you bought it, stop crying about them now.

who said i was crying? my orginal post was a question with my opinion. theres not need to exagerate this.

[overseer909]

NeonMeat wrote...

Not sure if somone mentioned this already, but the main reason Mass Effect 2 takes up more space is because it has 5 times the amount of pre-rendered movies. The first game had about 500mb, ME2 has over 2.5GB.

So actually, taking out the movies, ME2 is almost the same size as ME1 - at least the PC version is.

ME1 : 10.02GB - 589MB  = 9431MB
ME2 : 12.20GB - 2.52GB = 9680MB

rare actualy answer. another good point. thanks!

[overseer909]

kaotician wrote...

Yes, I get the impression that the OP'er thinks that Bioware have put the game on two discs to fool all it's idiotic customers into believing there's more game when in fact there isn't. this suspicion simply displays a lack of real awareness as to why the game needs two discs - just look at the lighting effects, for starters.....

yep its what i THOUGHT. what i didnt do was go yelling GUYS GUYS GUYS THERES HIDDEN DLC ON THE DISC!! ZZOMGGGG!!! like you are tying to imply. There have been a handful of games that have had hidden dlc on their retail discs before. 

[overseer909]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

He is just a stupid troll you can't change his mind. Best let this thread die.

lol the funniest thing is you keep sayin to let this thread die, and yet you keep coming back writing more. LOL!!! youre making yourself look like an idiot.

[tsd16]

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.

the last mission from iilos to beating saren WAS NOT lengthy, you just havent played it in a while, I just finished up a playthrough of me1, that mission is easy to kill in 15-20 mins.   And the 2 part boss battle? the first part could be completed without a fight, the second doesnt take any skill, it just takes forever to drain his energy.  You add complexity where there is none.  Again, it takes all of 5 minutes to open the gate to get to the conduit then you waste time driving the stupid mako to the coduit itself FILLER.  The only reason an ME2 mission may feel shoirt in comparrison to ME1, is because the cut the FILLER.  the mako was not FUN.   Scanning in ME2 to get all you need for upgrades is 2 hours AT BEST.  I spent far more time driving around in the damn mako for the UNC gathering missions THAT WERE ALL THE SAME, than i did scanning EASILY 5+ hours or more in that stupid mako running around the same color swatched planet fighting the same bad guys checking out the same probe.

ME2, cut out the bull**** and gave you an engaging experience without the filler.


You are obviously about quantity over quality.   You are seriously viewing ME1 with rose tinted glasses.  After playing ME2 going back, most of the complexity and fun of the missions in ME2 blow ME1 out of the water.   While the dialogue remains just as good.  

I am in no means knocking the story, nor the main missions of ME1, but the all the side quests that really gave ME1 its length were literally just repetative filler, plain and simple.

Modifié par tsd16, 12 février 2010 - 02:43 .

[Looper128]

I feel I got allot more out of ME2 then I did with ME1.. I mean do all the side quest in M1 but just go straight to the goal instead of bumping around the planets after resources and you got a pretty short game.

[Empiro]

I think the answer here is pretty clear: because there's too much awesome to fit it all on one disc.

[Spam Eelam]

For the last time, gameplay length =/= disk space.

[tsd16]

Lopper128 wrote...

I feel I got allot more out of ME2 then I did with ME1.. I mean do all the side quest in M1 but just go straight to the goal instead of bumping around the planets after resources and you got a pretty short game.

Exactly my point ME2 gives you far more unique content than ME1 period.   While ME1 may have "more missions" they are repetative, like repeatable quests in MMO, just a time sink, not content.

I would compare the side missions in me1, to the "Info gathering" missions in assasins creed 1.  They were exactly the same thing, just repackaged.  At least AC2 didnt force you to do them, and included more unique main plot content.

Modifié par tsd16, 12 février 2010 - 02:51 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

2 Discs.........because it's a "Big Stupid Jellyfish"

B.S.J. The language filter, would catch it, and I'd be left with B.S.Junk!!

[Tychu9]

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.  

I never got asked to put Disc 1 back in after I put Disc 2 in for the main missions.  The only time I was asked to put Disc 1 back in was when I did some side quests that I got earlier in the game and then went back and did.  I even started just loading the game off disc 2 once I got there.

[tsd16]

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....

There was more dialogue in ME2 than 1 no matter how you want to slice it.   theres more background chatter in ME2, ads etc.   Add to that you have more than twice the squadmates all with deep long dialogue selections.  Add to that joker  has more dialogue, edi,  the non squad crew members.

Only a few of the side missions that were on the "assault the research facility" template (literally about 15-20) actually had dialogue and only a few lines.