133 réponses à ce sujet

[SirVincealot]

MASS EFFECT2 goes from Act1 to Act2 really quickly, then from Act2 to the climax and denouement.



Re: it has no third act. At all.



This is compounded with the lack of a mid-point reversal.



There is a *reveal* 1/2 through but no point where the protagonist starts to turn the tables on his/her antagonist and, more disappointingly, no moment where the hero learns to rephrase the question being asked of him/her - which is what is asked of a hero, every time.



(An objection anticipated: there is more than one way to tell a story but this is not an avant-garde novel or indeed a novel at all. It's a fluff piece of pulpy sci-fi: one needs to be a far better storyteller to re-invent *that* wheel.)



Other than this structural problem in the story itself, as many mentioned: MASS EFFECT felt like a universe, with all its vast and boring bits. ME2 is pure game: everything happens for the player and the designers failed to hide this behind a veneer of other, non-player centric events - since, obviously, in a single-player game everything must by definition happen to and for the player avatar. The first title simply did a better job of hiding this.



SirV

[grevinilvic]

although this is a good game , to me its not a bioware rpg its more a shooter like gears of war with a rpg element. im a big rpg fan not so much a shooter fan. bioware wanted to get more people to buy this game so they catered to the shoooter fans. the rpg elements are simplistic compared to other great bioware rps titles . as i said before i love the game it just lacked that true rpg element i have enjoyed in other bioware games. i am a little angry that i feel they simplified this game and made it shorter for the shooter crew that does not have the desire to play a true rpg. mass effect one is truely a better game than this . too much run and gun and not enough rpg type fun.

[nicodeemus327]

BanditGR wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

ME1 was new. That's why you feel that way.

No ? Multiple reasons and explanation has been provided throughout the thread. If people still think this is nostalgia, then seriously, they are hopeless.

If you don't think ME1 being a new IP had some affect on you at the time then you're hopeless.

[catabuca]

kraze07 wrote...

Basically ME2 was made to cater to all the casual/shooter fans who thought ME1 was broken and full of problems. ME1 was more immersive and it felt like it really brought gamers into the ME universe.

Let's be clear, ME1 was full of problems. I try very hard not to wear rose-tinted glasses when talking about ME1.

* combat was relatively weak compared to the rest of the game, although I enjoyed it immensely I understand why some didn't

* uncharted world missions (including the layout for bases) were cut-and-paste affairs that, after the first couple of playthroughs (and for completionists such as myself), felt too much like a grind. After a while you didn't need to get the minerals for money, but you wanted the XP (unless you were lvl60) and the option of them carrying through to ME2

* the MAKO infuriated many (apart from jaggedy mountains, I didn't mind it at all, but again, I know many hated it)

* the inventory system felt cumbersome when you were getting so much loot from battles, and reducing each item individually to omni-gel was tiresome (unless you kept on top of it, which I learned early on to do)

* technical aspects, such as texture loading, needed to be addressed

That all being said, those are very specific game-play issues, and perhaps separate from the feeling of a game we're talking about here. Bioware got it damn near perfect, and I felt immersed and emotionally engaged from the get-go.

For sure, they addressed all the points above in ME2, some for better (combat; base layouts; textures), some for the worse (planet scanning; perhaps the lack of inventory and its mechanics has gone too far in the opposite direction; many don't like the thermaclips over the old system).

ME2's combat etc., mechanics certainly do appeal to a new layer of hardcore shooter gamers out there, and that's not a bad thing, and I don't think it's necessarily what makes ME2 feel different to those of us who prefer the feel of ME1 either. As I said in my previous post, I believe it's the massive overhaul in game play mechanics coupled with the different direction the story has taken (along with the change in writing team).

It is possible for ME2 to be superior in some areas, and to be a very good game, at the same time as having lost that immersive feel we got in ME1. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Daiyus]

I kind of agree. While technically ME2 has more immersive mechanics such as background conversations and more NPC's, and the dialogue is better, and the story is fine (for the most part, a bit disapointed with ending), it just doesn't 'feel' the same. To me ME2's universe doesn't feel as big to me. I know ME2's Unexplored Worlds were fairly boring, but they did make the galaxy seem much larger.



For me a lot of it is the removal of so many things. There were loads of issues with ME1, but rather than fixing them, BioWare just kinda removed them. I liked Modifying my Weapons to my personal preferences. Sure this new inventory is great, and it does fix the 'everyone uses Spectre gear' problem, but it's refined it too much. Having one weapon from each manufacturer in each weapon class would've been great (it's definitely possible to have differentiated weapons with varied ROF's, Reload Speeds, Magazine Size, Accuracy, etc), with a mods system (maybe use the Upgrade Station to Improve the Mods rather than the weapons?). Give me my options back!



Again, I preffered the more detailed skill trees with sub-bonuses (like Electronicsnot only granting Overload, but also improving your 'Unlock' skill). Sure it wasn't that easy to get your head around, and I like the new system in the sense it skips the little steps and jumps from bonus to bonus, but it's just been stripped down far too much. I want to have my full range of skills again!



Of course all this being said ME2 is still a fantastic game! Many improvements have been made, so well done BioWare. They may have gone a little far with the simplification, so let's hope they find a happy medium for ME3.

[Lonely_Fat_Guy]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

ME1 was new. That's why you feel that way.

BINGO!

and i dont think ME2 is a shooter, it still feels like an ME game and not Gears of War.
this game is too deep to be just a shooter, to much options, upgrades, levels and all to claim it that its just a shooter.

ME1 combat was crap they improved it.

the whole epic universe feeling less, thay made it (for me) more personal, the collectors actually looking for you and trying to get rid of you

[catabuca]

SirVincealot wrote...

MASS EFFECT2 goes from Act1 to Act2 really quickly, then from Act2 to the climax and denouement.

Re: it has no third act. At all.

This is compounded with the lack of a mid-point reversal.

There is a *reveal* 1/2 through but no point where the protagonist starts to turn the tables on his/her antagonist and, more disappointingly, no moment where the hero learns to rephrase the question being asked of him/her - which is what is asked of a hero, every time.

(An objection anticipated: there is more than one way to tell a story but this is not an avant-garde novel or indeed a novel at all. It's a fluff piece of pulpy sci-fi: one needs to be a far better storyteller to re-invent *that* wheel.)

Other than this structural problem in the story itself, as many mentioned: MASS EFFECT felt like a universe, with all its vast and boring bits. ME2 is pure game: everything happens for the player and the designers failed to hide this behind a veneer of other, non-player centric events - since, obviously, in a single-player game everything must by definition happen to and for the player avatar. The first title simply did a better job of hiding this.

SirV

Excellent post SirV.

[DataPunk]

The only thing I miss in ME2 is a big bad **** like Saren, yeah the collectors are a threat but meh I find it more interesting to do side missions then to actually evolve the story, while in ME1 I couldnt wait to see what would happen next.

[valiala]

ME1 was a bit more immersive, maybe because it had almost the same general feeling throughout the game

ME2 changes the atmosphere a bit, and some UI choices made it less immersive, like the mission complete and loading screens



although ME2 is better overall, the bigger main quest missions from the first game were more immersive, like Noveria and Feros

[kraze07]

catabuca wrote...

kraze07 wrote...

Basically ME2 was made to cater to all the casual/shooter fans who thought ME1 was broken and full of problems. ME1 was more immersive and it felt like it really brought gamers into the ME universe.

Let's be clear, ME1 was full of problems. I try very hard not to wear rose-tinted glasses when talking about ME1.

* combat was relatively weak compared to the rest of the game, although I enjoyed it immensely I understand why some didn't

* uncharted world missions (including the layout for bases) were cut-and-paste affairs that, after the first couple of playthroughs (and for completionists such as myself), felt too much like a grind. After a while you didn't need to get the minerals for money, but you wanted the XP (unless you were lvl60) and the option of them carrying through to ME2

* the MAKO infuriated many (apart from jaggedy mountains, I didn't mind it at all, but again, I know many hated it)

* the inventory system felt cumbersome when you were getting so much loot from battles, and reducing each item individually to omni-gel was tiresome (unless you kept on top of it, which I learned early on to do)

* technical aspects, such as texture loading, needed to be addressed

That all being said, those are very specific game-play issues, and perhaps separate from the feeling of a game we're talking about here. Bioware got it damn near perfect, and I felt immersed and emotionally engaged from the get-go.

For sure, they addressed all the points above in ME2, some for better (combat; base layouts; textures), some for the worse (planet scanning; perhaps the lack of inventory and its mechanics has gone too far in the opposite direction; many don't like the thermaclips over the old system).

ME2's combat etc., mechanics certainly do appeal to a new layer of hardcore shooter gamers out there, and that's not a bad thing, and I don't think it's necessarily what makes ME2 feel different to those of us who prefer the feel of ME1 either. As I said in my previous post, I believe it's the massive overhaul in game play mechanics coupled with the different direction the story has taken (along with the change in writing team).

It is possible for ME2 to be superior in some areas, and to be a very good game, at the same time as having lost that immersive feel we got in ME1. The two are not mutually exclusive.

See that's just the thing. Not everyone felt the these were problems with the first one. Besides the technical issues all the other points you mentioned were either good or bad depending on the person playing the game. Even though I love ME2 it just didn't draw me in like the first one. Even though there's a lot more variety in ME2 in terms of worlds, squadmates, and NPCs in general it just felt like the game wasn't as deep as ME1.

[nicodeemus327]

I guess some people like getting kicked in the nuts.

[catabuca]

kraze07 wrote...


See that's just the thing. Not everyone felt the these were problems with the first one. Besides the technical issues all the other points you mentioned were either good or bad depending on the person playing the game. Even though I love ME2 it just didn't draw me in like the first one. Even though there's a lot more variety in ME2 in terms of worlds, squadmates, and NPCs in general it just felt like the game wasn't as deep as ME1.

Hey, I agree with you

I liked ME1 combat, I'm in two minds over the inventory system, miss planet-roving (to an extent), and so on. I recognise that for a lot of people there were ways in which these things could be improved.



Gestalt: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Bioware has put a lot of time and effort (and money) into improving the distinct parts for ME2. For some they are for the better, for some the worse. But that is by-the-by (since everyone always has preferences over gameplay mechanics, in the strictest possible sense). What is important is that the whole feels lacking. It's not simply because they changed the cover system, the inventory or the lighting on the normandy. It's not because they got rid of the MAKO or elevator banter. It's far more complex than that.

Precisely because Bioware did such a good job of making ME1 emotionally engaging is why many people feel disconnected in ME2. The way people are being asked to engage has fundementally altered (again, through a complex combination of mechanics and storytelling).

This 'trilogy' issue is an interesting one. The game was intended to both act as a continuation of the Mass Effect story, and work as a stand-alone game. Clearly ME2 works very well as a stand-alone game, and that's a worthwhile and financially important goal to have achieved. However, I believe the success of ME2 as the 'middle chapter' or 'second act' of a trilogy is being left to rely on what happens in ME3. This, ultimately, makes the gameplay experience of ME2, for those who are deeply, emotionally invested in the Mass Effect universe from ME1, a disappointment. The intention was to make a game that fulfilled both of these roles, and I think much of our disaffection comes from one of these things being done well, and the other not so well.

[Splinter Cell 108]

Both games are great. They're different, you can't have ME2 feeling like ME1. One thing I did like from ME1 was the Normandy's blue interior. I liked the SR-1 better than the SR-2 mainly just the SR-1's design and blue interior.

[medlish]

I personally miss the the exploration part which contributes greatly to immersion. While the MAKO is disliked by many, you can't deny it made the world feel more believable. Also, in bases you often had some non plot ways to explore.



In ME2 you click on the planet, click land, run along the level direction and then you're on board of the normandy again.

[SirVincealot]

catabuca wrote...

Gestalt: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Bioware has put a lot of time and effort (and money) into improving the distinct parts for ME2. For some they are for the better, for some the worse. But that is by-the-by (since everyone always has preferences over gameplay mechanics, in the strictest possible sense). What is important is that the whole feels lacking. It's not simply because they changed the cover system, the inventory or the lighting on the normandy. It's not because they got rid of the MAKO or elevator banter. It's far more complex than that.

Precisely because Bioware did such a good job of making ME1 emotionally engaging is why many people feel disconnected in ME2. The way people are being asked to engage has fundementally altered (again, through a complex combination of mechanics and storytelling).

This 'trilogy' issue is an interesting one. The game was intended to both act as a continuation of the Mass Effect story, and work as a stand-alone game. Clearly ME2 works very well as a stand-alone game, and that's a worthwhile and financially important goal to have achieved. However, I believe the success of ME2 as the 'middle chapter' or 'second act' of a trilogy is being left to rely on what happens in ME3. This, ultimately, makes the gameplay experience of ME2, for those who are deeply, emotionally invested in the Mass Effect universe from ME1, a disappointment. The intention was to make a game that fulfilled both of these roles, and I think much of our disaffection comes from one of these things being done well, and the other not so well.

First rate post.

+1

SirV

[Nick Fox]

catabuca wrote...

kraze07 wrote...


See that's just the thing. Not everyone felt the these were problems with the first one. Besides the technical issues all the other points you mentioned were either good or bad depending on the person playing the game. Even though I love ME2 it just didn't draw me in like the first one. Even though there's a lot more variety in ME2 in terms of worlds, squadmates, and NPCs in general it just felt like the game wasn't as deep as ME1.

Hey, I agree with you

I liked ME1 combat, I'm in two minds over the inventory system, miss planet-roving (to an extent), and so on. I recognise that for a lot of people there were ways in which these things could be improved.



Gestalt: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Bioware has put a lot of time and effort (and money) into improving the distinct parts for ME2. For some they are for the better, for some the worse. But that is by-the-by (since everyone always has preferences over gameplay mechanics, in the strictest possible sense). What is important is that the whole feels lacking. It's not simply because they changed the cover system, the inventory or the lighting on the normandy. It's not because they got rid of the MAKO or elevator banter. It's far more complex than that.

Precisely because Bioware did such a good job of making ME1 emotionally engaging is why many people feel disconnected in ME2. The way people are being asked to engage has fundementally altered (again, through a complex combination of mechanics and storytelling).

This 'trilogy' issue is an interesting one. The game was intended to both act as a continuation of the Mass Effect story, and work as a stand-alone game. Clearly ME2 works very well as a stand-alone game, and that's a worthwhile and financially important goal to have achieved. However, I believe the success of ME2 as the 'middle chapter' or 'second act' of a trilogy is being left to rely on what happens in ME3. This, ultimately, makes the gameplay experience of ME2, for those who are deeply, emotionally invested in the Mass Effect universe from ME1, a disappointment. The intention was to make a game that fulfilled both of these roles, and I think much of our disaffection comes from one of these things being done well, and the other not so well.

Well that may be the case, but when I look at ME 2 its more like any other sequal out there really. Its not a direct contuens of the first its like Resdient Evil 2 compared to RE 1 or whatever series you want to compare it too.
Its set in the same world/Galaxy and you recognise some people and there are references to the first, NOT continuing on that story really imo. This has all been done many many times before without changing the actual interface, costumization etc and still dont really continue the story. Its rather a new story with references with the same main character imo. Nothing new or inventive at all. Not exactly how I thought BW imagined it with all the talk about chices here and there. Hell shenmue 1 and 2 was a lot more bridging and inventive that way (still is the only actual serie I can think of top of my head that actually can be regard as a true continuing franchise).

[kraze07]

catabuca wrote...

kraze07 wrote...


See that's just the thing. Not everyone felt the these were problems with the first one. Besides the technical issues all the other points you mentioned were either good or bad depending on the person playing the game. Even though I love ME2 it just didn't draw me in like the first one. Even though there's a lot more variety in ME2 in terms of worlds, squadmates, and NPCs in general it just felt like the game wasn't as deep as ME1.

Hey, I agree with you

I liked ME1 combat, I'm in two minds over the inventory system, miss planet-roving (to an extent), and so on. I recognise that for a lot of people there were ways in which these things could be improved.



Gestalt: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Bioware has put a lot of time and effort (and money) into improving the distinct parts for ME2. For some they are for the better, for some the worse. But that is by-the-by (since everyone always has preferences over gameplay mechanics, in the strictest possible sense). What is important is that the whole feels lacking. It's not simply because they changed the cover system, the inventory or the lighting on the normandy. It's not because they got rid of the MAKO or elevator banter. It's far more complex than that.

Precisely because Bioware did such a good job of making ME1 emotionally engaging is why many people feel disconnected in ME2. The way people are being asked to engage has fundementally altered (again, through a complex combination of mechanics and storytelling).

This 'trilogy' issue is an interesting one. The game was intended to both act as a continuation of the Mass Effect story, and work as a stand-alone game. Clearly ME2 works very well as a stand-alone game, and that's a worthwhile and financially important goal to have achieved. However, I believe the success of ME2 as the 'middle chapter' or 'second act' of a trilogy is being left to rely on what happens in ME3. This, ultimately, makes the gameplay experience of ME2, for those who are deeply, emotionally invested in the Mass Effect universe from ME1, a disappointment. The intention was to make a game that fulfilled both of these roles, and I think much of our disaffection comes from one of these things being done well, and the other not so well.

That is a pretty good post.

"The game was intended to both act as a continuation of the Mass Effect story, and work as a stand-alone game." 

I never really thought of it like that, but it does seem to be a true statement. Even though Some aspects of ME2 disappoint me I wont deny the fact that it's an outstanding game. I have my hopes for how ME3 turns out to be, but I know that even if the game doesn't meet my expectations it will still be great game. I haven't lost me trust in Bioware to deliver. At least not yet,

[Braag]

Sequels never feel as fresh as the original game. having said that, Mass Effect 2 is still miles better than the first one when it comes to immersion or combat.

[yoomazir]

I agree with TC in every point.

but ME2 is still a good little game.

[Litos456]

I think what you mean is also the main thing I miss, basically you don't feel like you're part of the universe anymore. Quests are all instances, no more Mako, no more elevators with news announcements and occasionally squad banter, you don't actually go to your door to enter the normandy (or exit), less quests in hubs like the citadel, etc etc.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

The old Mass Effect feelings:



Stupid bouncy vehicle... Frustration.

Mind numbing mix/max +1% or two 0.5% bonus... Boredom.

Fantastic story and character.... Excitement.



ME2? Much less frustration, much less boredom, same excitment.



So ME2 wins.

[yoomazir]

"ME2? Much less frustration, much less boredom, same excitment."



you got it right : much less of EVERYTHING.

[nicodeemus327]

medlish wrote...

I personally miss the the exploration part which contributes greatly to immersion. While the MAKO is disliked by many, you can't deny it made the world feel more believable. Also, in bases you often had some non plot ways to explore.

In ME2 you click on the planet, click land, run along the level direction and then you're on board of the normandy again.

Copy and pasted environments being repated over and over again actually reduced my immersion.

[Ewart_K]

I do wish that the mission maps were part of the over-world map, instead of the separate "levels" they are in ME2. Would also be nice to have an inventory system... maybe not the SAME system, but something inventoryesque would be nice.



Other than that, the game is pretty stellar. Combat mechanics are a huge improvement and I rarely miss the Mako missions (though, a little more openness to the planet missions would be nice...)

[Sailears]

Litos456 wrote...

I think what you mean is also the main thing I miss, basically you don't feel like you're part of the universe anymore. Quests are all instances, no more Mako, no more elevators with news announcements and occasionally squad banter, you don't actually go to your door to enter the normandy (or exit), less quests in hubs like the citadel, etc etc.

My feeling too.

I must say, I like this thread. It is hitting the proverbial nail on the head with great accuracy.