525 réponses à ce sujet

[Carmarkcaine]

You are absolutly correct. The problem is, and I've mentioned this before, that most player that are left in forums are consol players and they are SOOO easy to satisfie compared to pc players. I think most critics have left the forum, only fanboys are left, and for them the game is PERFECT, which really tells alot about them and there game style, but I guess that's why they bought a consol and not a real computer.

And as for the fact you dindt buy the game, thumbs up for that. I wsih I didnt have either.

[gr8mc]

just to point out mass effect also only had 1 main story which was only 6 or 7 missions long the rest of the game was optional where in mass effect 2 all the extra stuff actually has an effect on the main plot

[Carmarkcaine]

Sinophile wrote...

finnithe wrote...

It sounds like many of you are angry because your perceptions of the game are different from what the game turned out to be. ME2 obviously was not going to be more like KOTOR because from the beginning, it was meant to be a shooter, and shooter mechanics do not lend themselves well to a turn-based RPG. You're also forgetting the large number of game breakers in ME1. ME2 could have been better sure, but I don't think ME1 is a better game.

And the uncharted worlds's problem was that they were completely bland. Do you even remember any defining characteristic of one of the planets you were on? Other than valleys, plains and mountains, a different texture for the land, and maybe a unique sky. There were no plants, and only a few planets had wildlife.

Sadly, I agree. In general, it is a good game. The problem is Mass Effect 1 and Bioware raised our expectations too high.

Lol, so you are saying they should never have made ME1 because ME2 would only dissapoint us?? The game is not good (imo) its made for kids and consollers(one and same thing). Removing the "sex" scenes clearly shows this. They might as well have made it a movie instead, its just about just as linear.

[Carmarkcaine]

gr8mc wrote...

just to point out mass effect also only had 1 main story which was only 6 or 7 missions long the rest of the game was optional where in mass effect 2 all the extra stuff actually has an effect on the main plot

The problem is, getting all your allys and getting there aligiance feels like work, not as boring as searching for minerals, but close. When I was done getting them to truest me, I was looking forward to get back to the main quest, to the real story. That it only lasted for about 3-4 hours after that I had no idea of knowing.

[Gatt9]

finnithe wrote...

It sounds like many of you are angry because your perceptions of the game are different from what the game turned out to be. ME2 obviously was not going to be more like KOTOR because from the beginning, it was meant to be a shooter, and shooter mechanics do not lend themselves well to a turn-based RPG. You're also forgetting the large number of game breakers in ME1. ME2 could have been better sure, but I don't think ME1 is a better game.

And the uncharted worlds's problem was that they were completely bland. Do you even remember any defining characteristic of one of the planets you were on? Other than valleys, plains and mountains, a different texture for the land, and maybe a unique sky. There were no plants, and only a few planets had wildlife.

Well yeah,  I am.

The problem is though,  What I thought I was buying was the sequel to Mass Effect,  what was actually in the box was a decade-late sequel to Quake.  Complete with 1990's AI.

As far as the game breakers go?  Not even close.  At least ME was the RPG it was billed to be,  every single facet of ME2 is a game breaker:  No RPG elements,  nonsensical dialogue,  choices that don't mean anything,  horrible horrible 1990's shooter gameplay that's bad even by those standards,  no inventory,  no loot,  no point to having money,  planet scanning is the second worst gameplay idea I've ever seen,  the first being that red border to the screen when your health is low.  ME2's very foundations are game breakers.

[Edje Edgar]

Gatt9 wrote...

Well yeah,  I am.

The problem is though,  What I thought I was buying was the sequel to Mass Effect,  what was actually in the box was a decade-late sequel to Quake.  Complete with 1990's AI.

As far as the game breakers go?  Not even close.  At least ME was the RPG it was billed to be,  every single facet of ME2 is a game breaker:  No RPG elements,  nonsensical dialogue,  choices that don't mean anything,  horrible horrible 1990's shooter gameplay that's bad even by those standards,  no inventory,  no loot,  no point to having money,  planet scanning is the second worst gameplay idea I've ever seen,  the first being that red border to the screen when your health is low.  ME2's very foundations are game breakers.

Hyperbole much?

Im not even going to bother refuting your posts "arguments" which actually only consists of statements.

If you ever realise you're not the centre of the world and that nobody really cares about what your personal definition of an rpg is, you should come back. If not, enjoy the tunnel.

[JigPig]

My face while reading OP

[MPaBkaTa123]

Carmarkcaine wrote...

You are absolutely right. The problem is, and I've mentioned this before, that most player that are left in the forums are console players and they are very easy to satisfy compared to pc players. I think most critics have left the forum, only fanboys are left, and for them the game is perfect, which really tells alot about them and their game style, but I guess that's why they bought a console and not a real computer.

And as for the fact you did'nt buy the game, thumbs up for that. I wish I didnt buy it either.

Grammar Adjustments made to above post(emphasis on random words removed, typos corrected)

Judging by this and the later posts i have concluded that you have graduated from the Hizoka003 School of Forum Posts. This has been said about a thousand times but using a console does not render you an idiot. Also there is a large difference between a critic (a person who points out both strengths and weaknesses in something and analyzes them) and a hater (a person who is too busy whining to notice anything he/she may like). About the console thing though, i use a PC myself but why does everyone else who uses one find console players to be beneath them. It's just a different way to play not a dumbed down version of  "the real thing".

[simonc4175]

I can see the Bioware fanbois have gathered on mass(pun intended).



ME2 is basically recruit missions and then go kill baddies. It lacks the depth of Dragon Age and there isn't much else to do apart from the main story.



Fun but way to short.

[MPaBkaTa123]

Judging by the replies it seems everyone believes that those who hate the game are soulless monsters and those who like it are moronic fanbois who can't write properly .

[TornadoADV]

Considering Mass Effect was created specifically for the 360 while under the publisher of Microsoft Studios, it would seem that being published by EA dictates the reduction in needed brain power to fully enjoy the game's mechanics.

[Jaysonie]

Carmarkcaine wrote...

You are absolutly correct. The problem is, and I've mentioned this before, that most player that are left in forums are consol players and they are SOOO easy to satisfie compared to pc players. I think most critics have left the forum, only fanboys are left, and for them the game is PERFECT, which really tells alot about them and there game style, but I guess that's why they bought a consol and not a real computer.

And as for the fact you dindt buy the game, thumbs up for that. I wsih I didnt have either.

The core audience was and always has been for console gamers. Get over yourself, pc gaming is no better than console gaming.

[SirVincealot]

I've expounded on this in earlier posts. However, as I finish a new playthrough of MASS EFFECT (talking to Vigil right now, amf) I realize that on top of delivering a whole new bunch of questions - for example: if the Reapers make copies of themselves based on the model of their "enemy" does this mean the Protheans were insectoids? - ME2 ignores a lot of questions from the first title.



If the galaxy is "purged" every 50 000 years, it means a mere 50 generations of Asari lead from the primordial Asari (who were not wiped out, just as humans 50K years ago on Earth were not wiped out re: no technological civilization) to the Destiny Ascension. Are we really to believe that?



What was Cerberus up to? They are the absolute bastards of the first game but their motives are still unexplained and at odds with the organization we know today - as well as at odds with their own pretended goals. Using the Thorian thralls advances their goals? How?



Vigil says the whole Citadel is a mass Relay to "Dark Space". This seems to be totally ignored by both Shepard and Cerberus.



What caused the Keepers to not respond to the signal and lead Sovereign to investigate on its own?



Humanity found a Prothean observation post - complete with space ships - on Mars, which lead us to the Relay beyond Pluto. What were the Protheans doing in our system?



Just one curious guy,

SirV

[Gaddmeister]

Carmarkcaine wrote...
Lol, so you are saying they should never have made ME1 because ME2 would only dissapoint us?? The game is not good (imo) its made for kids and consollers(one and same thing). Removing the "sex" scenes clearly shows this. They might as well have made it a movie instead, its just about just as linear.

ME1 wasn't particularly non-linear either. You started with mission A, then you proceeded to mission B (a compilation of minor quests). After that mission C, D and E opens up and you can choose how you want to finish them. After finishing two of them, mission F is added so that you can choose which one you want to do first of the one remaining C, D and E missions you haven't done yet and F. After that there is a minor mission G (another minor running around) and off you go to mission H and I which which you must complete in a linear fashion.

So the order of missions in ME1:

A
B
C, D or E (F adds after two completed missions)
G
H
I

This isn't very non-linear imo.

Let's add the missions in ME2 as a comparison

A (prologue)
B
C, D, E or F
G
H, I or J
K
L
M

And this is not including loyalty missions (as they are optional). I'd say it's basically the same structure. And this structure is a classic Bioware structure. I for one like it and don't care that much that their games are not entirely non-linear, The storytelling is Bioware's strength and I think they succed in ME2, even though it's more of a short story game. But the story in ME1 wasn't all that long either to be completely honest. It was just that you didn't have any other stories tied to the main game. In ME2 it's like you have compulsory side quests. But IMO, the flow of ME2 is better, since when time is short you will have to go to certain missions. In ME1 you could just wander around the galaxy taking on irrelevant assignments even when you had an active mission named "race against time". That was kind of weird.

Disclaimer: I may have forgotten some mission or mixed up something or whatever, but the structure should be about correct anyway.

Modifié par Gaddmeister, 23 février 2010 - 02:28 .

[EternalWolfe]

SirVincealot wrote...

If the galaxy is "purged" every 50 000 years, it means a mere 50 generations of Asari lead from the primordial Asari (who were not wiped out, just as humans 50K years ago on Earth were not wiped out re: no technological civilization) to the Destiny Ascension. Are we really to believe that?

Each generation lives 1000 years, so each one likely goes through multiple social and technological changes, and they may have found Prothean Ruins(including the Citadel) that gave a huge boost to their tech.  Also, the Reapers may only target space-faring races - if the Asari weren't colonizing space yet, they may have been ignored, given time to 'ripen' for harvesting.

SirVincealot wrote...

What was Cerberus up to? They are the absolute bastards of the first game but their motives are still unexplained and at odds with the organization we know today - as well as at odds with their own pretended goals. Using the Thorian thralls advances their goals? How?

Explained - they were going to use them as shock troopers for high-risk battles - Thorians and Husks weren't sapient and they dropped the Rachni when they understood their intelligence.  They were to provide extra troops to save human lives in battles.  The goal is still the same - the methods a little shady.

SirVincealot wrote...

Vigil says the whole Citadel is a mass Relay to "Dark Space". This seems to be totally ignored by both Shepard and Cerberus.

If the Citadel can't be activated, then it doesn't matter.  Better question - as far as we can tell, you jump FROM a Mass Relay, not TO one, so why does the Citadel need to be active in the first place?

SirVincealot wrote...

What caused the Keepers to not respond to the signal and lead Sovereign to investigate on its own?

That is explained by Vigil, there is no question.  The last of the Protheans went to the Citadel and reprogrammed them to ignore the signal.

SirVincealot wrote...

Humanity found a Prothean observation post - complete with space ships - on Mars, which lead us to the Relay beyond Pluto. What were the Protheans doing in our system?

Its implied that they were studying early humans - theres an Prothean ruin in ME1 that is activated with a key that Shiara gives you.  Also, its implied they may have tampered with certain species evolution, such as the Hanar.

[Embrosil]

I have to agree with the OP. I have played ME1 again to bring a new char to ME2 and I have to admit, with all its flaws, ME1 is much much better. ME1 is an action RPG. ME2 is FPS. But the most imortant thing is that I can not put any armor to my team mates. They are walking in hazard areas/vacuum only in vests and breathing masks? Sorry, but that is too much for me. I finished ME2 twice and thats it. No reason to play again. In comparison I finished ME1 7times during those two years since release.

[addiction21]

not worth it

Modifié par addiction21, 23 février 2010 - 03:04 .

[Scottthesnow]

I never posted in any Bioware formum on their games before ME2, and its always been because of the changes from ME1 to ME2. The changes alarmed me, for the first time since playing bioware games a series was changed in ways I disliked. I played Shattered Steel, and I thought it was the best Mech game of the time. 1998's Baldur's gate almost single handedly rescued western RPGs. I cannot emphasize how important that game was.



ME2 when compared to ME is more refined, but there were changes that were made that I actually found unpleasant. I had never pounded my desk with my mouse during a Bioware game before. I have never seen things that were unexplainably stupid, like gas masks in vacuum enviroments. I understand why some people might find them unimportant, because even with its flaws its still one of the best games this year. In fact I would say its one of the best ever made.



I understand that ammo has some strong opinions on both sides, the planet scanning game may be more reviled than the mako, but a lot of people have a nagging feeling that something is missing that they cant easily describe. We still need to discuss that. It does feel that mass effect 2 grew more "pop" with additions like 'reloading', 'the contra 3 boss fight', and using the ME stripper model for bodies of Miranda and Samara.

[Andync86]

Carmarkcaine wrote...

You are absolutly correct. The problem is, and I've mentioned this before, that most player that are left in forums are consol players and they are SOOO easy to satisfie compared to pc players. I think most critics have left the forum, only fanboys are left, and for them the game is PERFECT, which really tells alot about them and there game style, but I guess that's why they bought a consol and not a real computer.

And as for the fact you dindt buy the game, thumbs up for that. I wsih I didnt have either.

Well I've been a pc gamer all my life, not only that but I’ve played a huge amount
of RPG's during my time too including pretty much everything bioware has
produced, and i really enjoyed the game.It's not perfect it is a little content light, the lack of toggleable
helmets is a silly oversight in a game with so many cut-scenes and dialogue,
and I would like a little more party interaction.
However the characters back stories and motivations are far more fleshed out in
ME2 than they ever were in ME1 and as a result I felt much closer to the team,
the removal of the inventory system is a blessing the old one was a complete
mess and contrary to some people’s opinions this does not make it less of an
RPG, it just makes it a bit more different from the stereotypical RPG. This is
not a traditionalist RPG and that if anything adds to my appreciation it’s
always nice to see a few new ideas tried otherwise the genre would stagnate.
All in all i think the sequal delivered and if bioware take on board some of the level headed critisicms of ME2 for ME3 we could be looking at something really special

Modifié par Andync86, 23 février 2010 - 05:46 .

[Apophis2412]

What Me2 did right (in random order):
-Romances: Although there weren’t any sex scenes, like in ME1 and DAO, some of the romance scenes (Jack, Tali, Garrus) were some of the best written scenes in a videogame to date.
- Companions: Almost half of the ME1 companions had the same personalities of companions from previous BW games. The companions in ME2 felt more unique.
- Interrupt system.
- Avaible weapons: Me1 only had four different type of weapons.  Although the stats of each model varied widely there was very little difference between the different types of Assault rifles for example. In ME2 the weapons felt far more unique.
- Ammo system: I really hated the Unlimited ammo in ME1. It made the game far to easy. Although including heatclips makes no sense lorewise, it really added a new tactial layer to the game.
-Team member and enemy AI.
-The new Normandy: It felt more like a real spaceship rather than an oversized shuttlecraft.
- The news broadcasts and advertisements. It made the world come more alive.
 
 
What Me2 did wrong:
-          Difficult choices: Did this game even have difficult choices except the Geth base? Where are Me2’s version of Virmire, the ME1 final battle or the fate of the Rachni?

-          Far to many ME1 references. Although I like the fact that we get to see what happened to the things we did in ME1, what are the chances of Conrad Verner, Liara T’soni, Shiala, Gianna Parasini and the envoy to the Rachni being on the same planet?

-          Plannet scanning. Luckily I have a special Mouse that can be set to 1600 dpi. It allows me to stripmine an entire planet in about three minutes. Without this Mouse mining would be a chore.

-          The Collectors: I don’t understand how they are a threat to humanity. They only seem to have a single ship, the size of a cruiser. How is it going to stand up to the Alliance fleet, or even the entire Citadel fleet?

[Scottthesnow]

Apophis2412 wrote...
- Ammo system: I really hated the Unlimited ammo in ME1. It made the game far to easy. Although including heatclips makes no sense lorewise, it really added a new tactial layer to the game.
-Team member and enemy AI.
?

I didnt think that ammo was that big of a deal for game balance in Mass effect 2 as most people think.  I modded in infinite ammo, and I still had to watch the clip and reload.  What was different was that I didnt have to feel like I was scrounging for ammo in places where it shouldn't be.  I didnt worry about fishdogs dropping ammo clips, or ammo clips laying around in places where they really shouldnt have been.  Or that while I was out of clips for the assault rifle, I still had them for the sniper and shotgun...and they are universal right.  I perfered the modded clips strongly.  Combat remains the same, but less stress over an immersion breaking game dynamic.  To me it had the same amount of charm as other difficulty factors commonly used like limits on the amount of saves.  I understand why some people thought infinte ammo was odd, but this implemention of Ammo was the worst I have ever seen.  Kind of dissapointing for Bioware.

I took weapon ugrades in ME  with an unusual path.  I maxed out dps and could fire much less often than even in ME2.  I thought ME grew easier due to my ability to manage components not really infinite ammo.  Everyone has infinite ammo in ME2 but the player character.  IF you do replay ME I would suggest using rail VII in both weapon upgrades.  It plays very similar to ME2, but without the ammo pick up mini-game

Improved AI is definitely one of the best things ME2 brings.  I liked the way compainions were far more dynamic, I actually had to keep an eye on them so I could work together.  Often they took initiative and I followed and supported them!  That was great.  The companions in the first were practically just mobile gun turrets that followed you around.

I preordered Mass Effect 2, but I dont think I would have finished it without modding the ammo.  It simply drove me nuts.  You may have liked it, but I am really worried that ME3 will have a system that I cant play with and cant easily modify.  I speculate that one of the driving factors of these negative threads is that others have similar fears.  EA, is definately the elephant in the room and may drive ME3 further away from the series dynamics to reach more customers.

I enjoyed your post, its obvious you thought about it quite a bit.

[Embrosil]

Apophis2412 wrote...

What Me2 did right (in random order):
-Romances: Although there weren’t any sex scenes, like in ME1 and DAO, some of the romance scenes (Jack, Tali, Garrus) were some of the best written scenes in a videogame to date.
- Companions: Almost half of the ME1 companions had the same personalities of companions from previous BW games. The companions in ME2 felt more unique.
- Interrupt system.
- Avaible weapons: Me1 only had four different type of weapons.  Although the stats of each model varied widely there was very little difference between the different types of Assault rifles for example. In ME2 the weapons felt far more unique.
- Ammo system: I really hated the Unlimited ammo in ME1. It made the game far to easy. Although including heatclips makes no sense lorewise, it really added a new tactial layer to the game.
-Team member and enemy AI.
-The new Normandy: It felt more like a real spaceship rather than an oversized shuttlecraft.
- The news broadcasts and advertisements. It made the world come more alive.
 
 
What Me2 did wrong:
-          Difficult choices: Did this game even have difficult choices except the Geth base? Where are Me2’s version of Virmire, the ME1 final battle or the fate of the Rachni?

-          Far to many ME1 references. Although I like the fact that we get to see what happened to the things we did in ME1, what are the chances of Conrad Verner, Liara T’soni, Shiala, Gianna Parasini and the envoy to the Rachni being on the same planet?

-          Plannet scanning. Luckily I have a special Mouse that can be set to 1600 dpi. It allows me to stripmine an entire planet in about three minutes. Without this Mouse mining would be a chore.

-          The Collectors: I don’t understand how they are a threat to humanity. They only seem to have a single ship, the size of a cruiser. How is it going to stand up to the Alliance fleet, or even the entire Citadel fleet?

- Romances: You must be kidding? Romances based upon one mission and one dialog? In ME1 you had to TALK to persons many times, show interest. Here you make a mission and after one talk you have them in the bed. What an "improvement"...

- Comanions: Well instead of six comnanions we have ten. Two or three of them having nearly similar abilities. From these 10, 8 stay on Normandy doing nothing as you usually find you best suited combination to take to missions. Oh and I almost forgot 75% of the game are companion missions. You know, all those colonists may die, but I really need to find my son. Oh yeah, to the hell with colonists, lets go find him. Another great "improvement".

- Weapons: So by your words it is all right to have TWO weapons of each type, some of them right from the beginning? Really enjoyable. Moreover there are no stats of the weapons. What is the difference between them? Wha damage does each one make? In ME1 I was excited when I finally found an assault rifle with accuracy higher than 1 or an sniper rifle capable of firing more shots between overheating.

- Ammo system: Yes it was strange in ME1, but the change is ILLOGICAL. Ask any military in the world, what they prefer. Unlimited ammo with overheating where you spend couple of seconds before firing again or "ammo" based one, where you do not have to wait for a cooldown but will run out of "ammo" pretty soon. Only an idiot would choose the second option. If they wanted ammo, they should have add it in ME1.

- The New Normandy: It felt the same as the old one. All static. All people are always on their positions. I wonder how can they stand 40 or 50 hours at one place. Do they not eat? Drink? Pee? Why do we have restrooms when NOBODY uses them? No difference from ME1 here.

- Broadcasts were in ME1 as well. In those hated lifts. The only lift I hated in ME1 was the one on Normandy. All others were a perfect fit. And now instead of being in the lift we have an animation, which tooks the same amount of time, but is without any conversation between companions. Another great "improvement".

[MPaBkaTa123]

- Romances: You must be kidding? Romances based upon one mission and one dialog? In ME1 you had to TALK to persons many times, show interest. Here you make a mission and after one talk you have them in the bed. What an "improvement"...

- Comanions: Well instead of six comnanions we have ten. Two or three of them having nearly similar abilities. From these 10, 8 stay on Normandy doing nothing as you usually find you best suited combination to take to missions. Oh and I almost forgot 75% of the game are companion missions. You know, all those colonists may die, but I really need to find my son. Oh yeah, to the hell with colonists, lets go find him. Another great "improvement".

- Weapons: So by your words it is all right to have TWO weapons of each type, some of them right from the beginning? Really enjoyable. Moreover there are no stats of the weapons. What is the difference between them? Wha damage does each one make? In ME1 I was excited when I finally found an assault rifle with accuracy higher than 1 or an sniper rifle capable of firing more shots between overheating.

- Ammo system: Yes it was strange in ME1, but the change is ILLOGICAL. Ask any military in the world, what they prefer. Unlimited ammo with overheating where you spend couple of seconds before firing again or "ammo" based one, where you do not have to wait for a cooldown but will run out of "ammo" pretty soon. Only an idiot would choose the second option. If they wanted ammo, they should have add it in ME1.

- The New Normandy: It felt the same as the old one. All static. All people are always on their positions. I wonder how can they stand 40 or 50 hours at one place. Do they not eat? Drink? Pee? Why do we have restrooms when NOBODY uses them? No difference from ME1 here.

- Broadcasts were in ME1 as well. In those hated lifts. The only lift I hated in ME1 was the one on Normandy. All others were a perfect fit. And now instead of being in the lift we have an animation, which tooks the same amount of time, but is without any conversation between companions. Another great "improvement".

[/quote
Romances: Are you serious? At least you can't start a romance without knowing it like in ME1. Seriously just being nice to Ashley made it hard to impossible to find the option that was not dickish but ended the romance.

Companions: The point of the game is to recruit the best team in the galaxy and earn their trust, that is the plot. The companion missions give a lot of depth to the character and all except zaeed and jacob are interesting.

Weapons: Mass effect 1 had 4 weapons how many times did people on these forums repeat this and no one even listens. In ME2 at least you will use the different ( as in have something different besides damage and overheat rate) guns instead of just using the spectre guns and throwing the oodles of trash  you got into the nearest bin. i agree on the damage bit and will add that the lack of mods is annoying.

Ammo: Personal preference here can't say anything.

New Normandy: In ME1 only pressly and adams had very limited dialogue. In ME2 kelly those guys down in engineering the cleaner the baker the candle stick maker all talk and discuss recent events.

Elevators: I miss em a bit not the 40 min ride but the party member talks. Agree with you there.

[TornadoADV]

How are Zaeed and Jacob not interesting? Hell, they are the most interesting of the bunch.

[Seraphael]

My opinion, the opinion of almost all critics, and the opinion of the large consumer base is that the opinion of the OP is absolutely rubbish.



PS. Seems to me many of the most vocal whiners are (likely) pirates that don't register their games.