218 réponses à ce sujet

[Conway044]

I enjoyed ME 2 over ME 1. After reading a bunch of these threads I think it is due to the fact that I disliked all the LI subplots in ME 1 and Hated the MAKO. Since the two characters they dropped from the team were the lame (IMO) LI characters and Garrus and Tali came back, I was happy.

[Daeion]

Nyaore wrote...

Chilly Breeze wrote...

Hehe, I meant to go back to it loads of times, but I just didn't get to it. (got too into Call of Duty I think )

That's my point with ME 2 though, it just seemed like not a lot happened, and we didn't go forward much at all. It kind of took me back to playing Neverwinter Nights. Like, imagine playing the first chapter, where you had to find the Waterdavian creatures, then just moving straight onto the final chapter from there. There could have been so much more to ME2, just like there was with NWN, but they just didn't really give us much.

That's unfortunately the problem with the middle portion of any trilogy - there just isn't much you can logically do with it. The middle portion is all about setting the scene for the final third of the story, and often focuses less on story and more on overall character growth to help make the final leg all that more impressive. Because of this it's no wonder that it doesn't seem quite as impressive as the first portion of the trilogy. I don't think I've ever come across a middle portion that WAS as good or better than the first installment.

I guess I don't feel that there was really a lot of character growth in ME2, sure you meet new people, but really, how has shep grown?

I think a lot of people consider Empire Strikes back to be the best Star Wars movie ever, though I prefer Return of the Jedi.

[Daeion]

Nightwriter wrote...

I was delighted on a smaller scale (better dialogue, better characters, more interesting situations and scenes) but disappointed on a larger scale (overall mission, plot arc, game progression).

My buddy at work today said he was about to jump through the relay and get to the last 4th of the game.  I said no, you're going to jump through the relay and get to the last 1/10th of the game.

[NihilisticN]

JediMB wrote...

Honestly, after playing Mass Effect 1 four times it feels like little more than a fetch quest, as good as the story and characters are. Run to one place for Liara, run to another for the Mass Relay coordinates, run to a third place for the cipher, and run to a fourth place for the missing puzzle pieces.

As much fun as it is to be part of it and explore the different options, it's really a very basic story, more akin to that of a movie than a story-driven RPG.

Mass Effect 2 had more of a character focus, yes. You got to explore the characters' stories, try to integrate them into your crew, and that was the main focus of the game. But it did also explore issues from the first game, such as the nature of indoctrination, Sovereign's reason for dealing with Saren, the fate of the protheans, the conflict between the quarians and the geth, and a number of other small things.

Well if you put it that way of course it sounds basic. Don't try to simplify everything, you're missing out alot of the finer details.

[Hatire]

When I first finished the game, I too felt disappointed. I felt that the devs catered a lot to the shooter portion of the game and kinda just went "meh" to the role playing element. ME2 definitely lacks the epic feel that you get with ME1. However, I also realized that ME2 is more about an intimate experience in getting your team and gaining their trust before going through the gates of hell where ME1 is about defending the galaxy.



What I am trying to say is that you've got to take the game for what it is and not what you expected/wanted it to be.

[Daeion]

Hatire wrote...

When I first finished the game, I too felt disappointed. I felt that the devs catered a lot to the shooter portion of the game and kinda just went "meh" to the role playing element. ME2 definitely lacks the epic feel that you get with ME1. However, I also realized that ME2 is more about an intimate experience in getting your team and gaining their trust before going through the gates of hell where ME1 is about defending the galaxy.

What I am trying to say is that you've got to take the game for what it is and not what you expected/wanted it to be.

Honestly I sort of feel like they got ME and ME2 mixed up.  What I mean by that is both feel like the starting of a trilogy but 1 has a little bit more of what you'd expect to find in a 2nd act and ME2 has more of what you'd expect to find in a first act.  To me I feel like the trilogy should have started with ME2 where you find out about humans being kidnapped, take out the Collectors, and then learn they were just puppets.  Then you insert ME where you are now actually facing a true agent of that larger threat, deal with betrayal, and at the end of it should be preparing for the onslaught that's about to come.

[Sentient Being]

I was a bit disappointed my first run through, but the more I play it the more I love it.

I also went back and played ME1 and the combat was so sluggish lol

I also realized this was the middle game of 3, and usually in trilogies the middle story is set up for the final story, which this very much is

@Daeion I can also see it from that Point of View as well, the story would seem more stream line that way

Modifié par Sentient Being, 13 février 2010 - 05:05 .

[Sapienti]

Daeion wrote...

Hatire wrote...

When I first finished the game, I too felt disappointed. I felt that the devs catered a lot to the shooter portion of the game and kinda just went "meh" to the role playing element. ME2 definitely lacks the epic feel that you get with ME1. However, I also realized that ME2 is more about an intimate experience in getting your team and gaining their trust before going through the gates of hell where ME1 is about defending the galaxy.

What I am trying to say is that you've got to take the game for what it is and not what you expected/wanted it to be.

Honestly I sort of feel like they got ME and ME2 mixed up.  What I mean by that is both feel like the starting of a trilogy but 1 has a little bit more of what you'd expect to find in a 2nd act and ME2 has more of what you'd expect to find in a first act.  To me I feel like the trilogy should have started with ME2 where you find out about humans being kidnapped, take out the Collectors, and then learn they were just puppets.  Then you insert ME where you are now actually facing a true agent of that larger threat, deal with betrayal, and at the end of it should be preparing for the onslaught that's about to come.

Now that is actaully a valid assessment. I think it really comes from the low budget/time during the development of ME1. They didn't get a chance to build the characters like they really wanted, they had their story, it was building up to a finale but then they got more money and time and realized they could really flesh out their vision.

We get ME2. However, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and liked what they did with the development and everything. I can still see why some people are disappointed at the reduction of the over arching threat in order to facilitate the team building aspect of everything.

[Daeion]

Sapienti wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Hatire wrote...

When I first finished the game, I too felt disappointed. I felt that the devs catered a lot to the shooter portion of the game and kinda just went "meh" to the role playing element. ME2 definitely lacks the epic feel that you get with ME1. However, I also realized that ME2 is more about an intimate experience in getting your team and gaining their trust before going through the gates of hell where ME1 is about defending the galaxy.

What I am trying to say is that you've got to take the game for what it is and not what you expected/wanted it to be.

Honestly I sort of feel like they got ME and ME2 mixed up.  What I mean by that is both feel like the starting of a trilogy but 1 has a little bit more of what you'd expect to find in a 2nd act and ME2 has more of what you'd expect to find in a first act.  To me I feel like the trilogy should have started with ME2 where you find out about humans being kidnapped, take out the Collectors, and then learn they were just puppets.  Then you insert ME where you are now actually facing a true agent of that larger threat, deal with betrayal, and at the end of it should be preparing for the onslaught that's about to come.

Now that is actaully a valid assessment. I think it really comes from the low budget/time during the development of ME1. They didn't get a chance to build the characters like they really wanted, they had their story, it was building up to a finale but then they got more money and time and realized they could really flesh out their vision.

We get ME2. However, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and liked what they did with the development and everything. I can still see why some people are disappointed at the reduction of the over arching threat in order to facilitate the team building aspect of everything.

ME2 is still a great game, and it's nice to see them spend more time developing chars then in the first one, it just feels out of order to me. Along with the story elements, there's also casting, typically in a 2nd act you only  include a few new chars, not an entierly new and much larger cast.  If ME had come after ME2 we would have only had to deal with the addition of 3 chars, Wrex, Liara and then Ash/Kaiden filling the same role but changing depending on your gender to present a new possible LI.

[dubosedraken]

ME2 is the middle part of the trilogy, which in whole is one story. I'm treating them all as one story, so there really isn't any disappointment for me, as long as everything is done excellently in the finale.

[Not_Gabe]

Yes, I think ME2's story as a game by itself is dissapointing. If and only if ME3 is really good, ME2 will probobly be seen favorably. There were no real peaks and valleys in the pacing for me in ME2. The thing is, you were left in the dark. ME2 is about going in blind. The whole game is just a huge question mark.

Overall, the game felt like this:

a)wake up after 2 years WTH?
b)who is illusive man? should i trust him?
c)gather team
d)destroy or hand the base over

During that time, you are in a state of confusion over what to do and what the current state of affairs are. Uncertainty was a major theme in ME2. You should see ME2 as part of a whole. See it as a part of a trilogy, not as a game by itself to judge how great it is. And ME3 isn't out yet so I won't even judge. It did it's job by building up to ME3, for me anyways.

Modifié par Not_Gabe, 13 février 2010 - 06:26 .

[scrappydoo555]

I can understand that this game is more about character development but since any one of the characters can die I can't see how any one of them can be essential to ME3. This game seemed more about the build up to ME3 rather than a great game in it's own right and it left me with more questions than answers. I would have prefered better character development of the origional crew and maybe a few more new squad mates than focusing on a large crew of new characters any one of which is expendable and may have very little to do with ME3.

If I happen to Import a save to ME3 where most of them die It kinda makes ME2 pointless.

[Fhaileas]

Daeion wrote...

Honestly I sort of feel like they got ME and ME2 mixed up.  What I mean by that is both feel like the starting of a trilogy but 1 has a little bit more of what you'd expect to find in a 2nd act and ME2 has more of what you'd expect to find in a first act.  To me I feel like the trilogy should have started with ME2 where you find out about humans being kidnapped, take out the Collectors, and then learn they were just puppets.  Then you insert ME where you are now actually facing a true agent of that larger threat, deal with betrayal, and at the end of it should be preparing for the onslaught that's about to come.

I personally think that this was an obvious decision on EA/Bioware's part though, ME 2 was supposed to have some measure of association with the previous game but it was purposefully "designed" to stand alone as well lest people unfamiliar/disenchanted with the story and "complicated" mechanics of the first game delve into it without paying homage to its predecessor, not to mention attracting a more expansive "mainstream" crowd.

[packardbell]

I thoroughly enjoyed the story, as a game it's simply an arc for the third and final game of the trilogy but on its own it still holds up.

[Chained_Creator]

I was not disappointed.

[czombie]

I like a lot of the new things that were added with ME2. Better combat + more characters to choose to use in your squad + more potential romances + making good guy Geth = lots of improvements that I wanted to see. On the other hand, I felt like the story in ME1 was more moving. It took me a bit of time to even realize that Shepard was even despairing on Jacob's coffin in ME2, while in ME1 the impact of Kaidan's death kind of hit me a lot harder because it was more played out in the storyline cut scenes. Having to make a choice to save the Council or not also seemed to be a more life-changing choice for Shepard to make than whether to blow up a Collector base or not. Don't get me wrong, adding "multiple endings" was a really cool idea, but not if it sacrifices some aspect of the emotional impact of the story. It seems Bioware went a little too far with the "your choices have impact" and strayed a bit too much from the classic "one great storyline" RPG-style of the past. Nevertheless, with the additions to ME2, I have to say that I liked the sequel just as much as the first game. Now if Bioware can combine the two strong points of ME1 and ME2, ME3 will undoubtedly be the best video game ever.

[Autoclave]

What did you expect? Bioware is now a part of EA. Those guys never care about anything but the deadlines. The quality has never been a priority for this horrible company. God I hope some beautiful day EA will go bankrupt.

[bjdbwea]

Many people are clinging to the "second part of a trilogy" explanation, I'm not so optimistic. Others say the memory of ME 1 is blurred, but just playing ME 1 again, I strongly disagree. It really is that good, much better than ME 2.

[JediMB]

NihilisticN wrote...

Well if you put it that way of course it sounds basic. Don't try to simplify everything, you're missing out alot of the finer details.

Oh, that obviously wasn't what it felt like the first or second time around. Like I said, it's the feeling I get from the game after experiencing it several times already. It gives the feeling that once you become a Spectre the plot isn't really progressing again until it's time to go to Ilos. That's why I appreciate that the progression of the main story of ME2 is linear (Prologue -> Freedom's Progress -> Horizon -> Collector Ship -> Reaper IFF -> Omega-4), while the non-linear parts of the story focus on on other aspects of the Mass Effect universe.

And here's a funny thought...

Prologue = Prologue (Normandy, Eden Prime)
Freedom's Progress = Citadel
Horizon =  Noveria
Collector Ship = Virmire
Reaper IFF = Feros
Omega-4 = Ilos/Citadel

That really, to me, at least leaves the games with roughly the same amount of main story content, while the recruitment missions in ME2 give the game a lot more side-story content.

What I am missing in ME2, though, is a reason to go out and explore all those star clusters that aren't related to the story. In ME1 you had a number of resource-gathering assignments that brought in some extra cash you might need for better equipment, but the resource-gathering in ME2 doesn't really do anything for your economy. I had 100% exploration in the ME1 save I transferred over, but probably only have about 10% in ME2.

[Chained_Creator]

bjdbwea wrote...

Many people are clinging to the "second part of a trilogy" explanation, I'm not so optimistic. Others say the memory of ME 1 is blurred, but just playing ME 1 again, I strongly disagree. It really is that good, much better than ME 2.

...In your opinion. I think ME2 is several orders of magintude better than the original ME just for getting rid of that mind-blowingly un-immersive inventory system.

[Fhaileas]

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...

Many people are clinging to the "second part of a trilogy" explanation, I'm not so optimistic. Others say the memory of ME 1 is blurred, but just playing ME 1 again, I strongly disagree. It really is that good, much better than ME 2.[/quote]

[/quote]

My sentiments exactly! I just finished my fourth play-through of ME1 and it was more enjoyable than my first play-through of the incredibly bland and shoddy sequel.

[Nozybidaj]

[quote]Fhaileas wrote...

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...

Many people are clinging to the "second part of a trilogy" explanation, I'm not so optimistic. Others say the memory of ME 1 is blurred, but just playing ME 1 again, I strongly disagree. It really is that good, much better than ME 2.[/quote]

[/quote]

My sentiments exactly! I just finished my fourth play-through of ME1 and it was more enjoyable than my first play-through of the incredibly bland and shoddy sequel.
[/quote]

Agreed, I'm actually going back and playing ME1 again just so I can forget my disappointment with ME2.

[Srau]

JediMB wrote...
And here's a funny thought...

Prologue = Prologue (Normandy, Eden Prime)
Freedom's Progress = Citadel
Horizon =  Noveria
Collector Ship = Virmire
Reaper IFF = Feros
Omega-4 = Ilos/Citadel

You can't just compare that because each ME1 main plot mission is giant, immersive and even epic while in ME2 they are short and even boring (like swarms of Husks in IFF mission, i mean c'mon the good ol' brainless zerg tactic .. baah).
No, what makes ME2 a good game is the depth of ... its side missions, Dossier and Loyalty, they are very very good but they should have been just that : side missions.

Chained_Creator wrote...

...In your opinion. I think ME2
is several orders of magintude better than the original ME just for
getting rid of that mind-blowingly un-immersive inventory system.

Lemme return you the favor :

The inventory (as well as the charcter sheet) was great, flexible and allowed many different playstyle and fit to all tastes.
Now, well now you simply, mindlessly shall i say, build up your research without any strategy involved.
ME1 was an action packed RPG while ME2 is just a shooter, a good one indeed but a shooter nonetheless.

Modifié par Srau, 13 février 2010 - 03:11 .

[Chained_Creator]

Srau wrote...

Chained_Creator wrote...
...In your opinion. I think ME2 is several orders of magintude better than the original ME just for getting rid of that mind-blowingly un-immersive inventory system.

Lemme return you the favor :

The inventory (as well as the charcter sheet) was great, flexible and allowed many different playstyle and fit to all tastes.Now, well now you simply, mindlessly shall i say, build up your research without any strategy involved.
ME1 was an action packed RPG while ME2 is just a shooter, a good one indeed but a shooter nonetheless.

Mindlessly build up money by selling items until you get Spectre Gear VII or X, etc.

We can both do this all day long about the minor negatives about two very good (I'd say amazing) games (Something like Zero Punctuation) or we can agree to disagree over whether or not one was better than the other. (Okay, honestly, I'm just chronoically short of sleep and am slightly irritated with people absolutely ragging on ME 2 as a shoddy new release compared to some god-like Achilles of a game called Mass Effect that I played but was apparently under the influence of ACID or something because the game was just not everything people here make it out to be to me.)

[Horsemanlawyer]

Meh. Finished the game last night and couldn't help but compare my reaction to what I felt after finished the first one. First one - at the end I had chills and was pumping my fist. I couldn't wait to replay the game, which I did, many times (ME1 is the only game I've ever replayed). Last night I thought about replaying ME2, but I can't really get up the juice to do it. Scanning's part of that but, moreso, I'm just not as emotionally drawn in by the second iteration.



It's interesting to me, but I haven't seen anyone else comment on the biggest problem I had with the game: In ME1, I really wanted to hunt down and eliminate everything and everyone connected to Cerberus. Its Machiavellian and barbarian methods evoked my deepest hatred of all things abusive and cruel about humanity. That's a great reaction to a video game - I cared.



I couldn't get off the dime with the premise for ME2 - you want me to go to work for an organization which experimented on people and aliens? The group which killed Kohoku? That tortured Toombs? The guys who turned colonists into husks in experiments? I didn't want my Shepard to wear their clothing, much less do their work. But, if I have to, I should have to make excruciating decisions and really be challenged deep down. I never felt that engaged.



When you couple that with throwing most deep RPG elements out the window, as well as much of the relationships Shepard had with the characters from the first game, I end up dissapointed.



Now, what I've written comes off sounding very disgruntled but, really, I'm just moderately dissapointed. Thing is, the standard for Bioware is really high, and it's a standard they set for themselves. This game is still far superior to the vast majority of what's on the market now. But, as Seth Schiessel write in the Times last week, this game is a sea change for Bioware (massive creativity gives way to mass commerical appeal - the best hamburger in your City morphs into a mass-produced but standard fare everyone is OK with but few love as the business grows and expands). I expect command performances from Bioware and, as Mr. Schiessel wrote, we're all, I think, waiting.