525 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Temper_Graniteskul wrote...
No, unfortunately my still very usable PC was only just barely able to run ME1, and there's no plans to upgrade in the future.

What kind of lame PC do you have, anyway? I've got a fairly old dual-core with an x1650 Pro vidcard, and it ran ME1 just fine?

[Sweeney Todd]

This thread would make so many Lit professors weep, because of the tragic misuse of the word "Story".



The story of ME2 is not how Shepherd fights the Collectors. That's the *outline* of the story. The story is what happens along the way and how that affects the characters.



This is literally true (as in, from the standpoint of literature and film). If ME2 was a movie it wouldn't actually be an action film -- it'd be a drama with lots of action mixed in.



If the conceit of "Shepherd needs the best team she can get, so ... how far is that going to go, and what happens?" doesn't interest you, fine, but that is from a lit-crit standpoint, what the story is.



I think the reason this throws a lot of people off is because by these criteria, there's a lot of games and other media out there that simply fail to have a story entirely, and rely on "Lots of stuff happened, hope people were entertained by that." (Like, you know how people hate Phantom Menace? Lots of reasons, but a big one is it has. no. story, just things happeneing.) Story is about how characters grow, change, suffer, that's just what it means.

[Blackveldt]

To OP:

-extremely simplified storyline, totally predictable and very, very simple (reffering to the main and only plot, the one that matters...);

I agree that it could have been better, but toward the end, they made it epic enough (the great music, the ominous voice of Harbinger/Collector General) that I was relatively satisfied. That, and I fully expect ME3 to be completely fleshed out where ME2 was not. If they do not, then...I will be most...upset...

- extremely simplified RPG component;

I greatly preferred ME2 over ME1 in terms of this. Besides, adding points for Charm or Intimidate in ME1 seemed stupid.

- extremely simplified market (buying items without the possibility to sell them?!?);

Actually, I had more of a problem with the inability to sell resources than anything I actually bought.

- extremely simplified and even badly modified inventory and squad equip screen (I can't dress up my team anymore?);

I did not like the fact that I couldn't manipulate a certain squad member's stats without taking him/her on a mission. Besides this, I really like how they changed the inventory system. ME1, to me, was clunky with me always having way too much crap to sort through.

- simplified romantic scenes (after what everybody saw in ME 1 it is clear they expected the same in the 2nd part, although this is not a critical dissapointment);

Didn't Bioware get reamed in the ass by the superbly stupid Fox News for the ME1 'romantic scene(s)'? They may have wanted to avoid such controversy in ME2. Besides that, however, I feel the romantic developments far outstripped those in ME1. But in all honesty, in both games, I thought the scene with Samara was one of the most touching out of any 'romantic' scene possible.

- the storyline...a problem of choice they could have easily inserted in the game (even at the beginning when Miranda asks you about your past) I didn't expected to continue the game with the council saved and the galaxy too but it would have been better to give us a choice in this, choosing the councillor without having to upload a savegame for the people that haven't played the first one, to choose who dies on Virmire and again to choose about Wrex being a casualty and not murder as it is seen in ME2 (not a critical dissapointment);

I think the continuity is what makes ME2 the most unique, greatest game available to date. And you have to admit, it's brilliant in terms of marketing. People going back to play the first game since it's half the experience. Besides this, believe there's a website of ME1 Saves that is relatively easy to find.

- what happened to omnigel? why can't I choose decoding using omnigel? you added planetary scanning...to make the game longer by boring players to death? couldn't an omnigel scan been easier? again I guess another great idea to take Omnigel out;

In order to utilize omnigel, one would have to find it. The lack of inventory system makes this a moot point and a planetary scan of it would seem contrived. But really, the worst part of ME2 for me was 1) scanning and 2) bypassing crap. Despite this, imho, it is better than those stupid MAKO-landing parties. Christ; I'm just glad those are over with, as fun as it was to climb insane terrain for...ever...

- you added fuel and probes to buy via fuel depots, great, but why can't we sell the minerals to the depots to make some credits? and the Normandy uses fuel only when it travels in the Nebula but not when it travels inside a Solar System or when it uses a Mass Relay?

Really agree with this. Seemed so silly that we couldn't. We can only guess at how the Mass Relays work though; apparently it does all the work for you. Maybe it folds time/space, etc.

In any case, I always try not to focus too much/look for things that bug me because then I'll find them and it'll...bug me. A lot. And I like enjoying my video games even if in ignorance.

Modifié par Blackveldt, 25 février 2010 - 07:07 .

[lukandroll]

Soruyao wrote...

lukandroll wrote...
Basic Role playing for ya:
Its about role playing the CHARACTER, NOT yourself....
In Me1 you can choose how your character aiming and training will be according to his talents, in ME2
you ARE aiming with YOUR skills not the characters's...
Its a simply concept, but very important in role playing games

In ME1 you were aiming with your skills as a player, you just had to be even better at aiming to make up for the fact that your character couldn't hold his gun straight.

Yeah but the chance to hit a target was based on the character talents....
That's like saying: "Oh in DA:O you are aiming the spells with your mouse, its not about the character skill."
Clearly its not like that, a character has a chance to hit with a spell, like it has a chance to hit with a bow, or a melee weapon, and those depends on the character talents.
Again, basic role playin.

[EternalWolfe]

K0braTh0r wrote...

Mass Effect was near perfect, I expected that Mass Effect 2 would have been perfect but instead...I got...this...

BS.  Mass Effect was far from perfect, it had its own flaws, just like ME2.  There may have been more things in ME2 *you* didn't like, but your opinion of the matter doesn't make it a flaw in itself.  I liked both games - yes, despite their flaws.  But neither one was 'near perfect'.  Not even from my expectiation.  I expect the same out of ME3 - good game, flaws, not perfect.

lukandroll wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

lukandroll wrote...
Basic Role playing for ya:
Its about role playing the CHARACTER, NOT yourself....
In Me1 you can choose how your character aiming and training will be according to his talents, in ME2
you ARE aiming with YOUR skills not the characters's...
Its a simply concept, but very important in role playing games

In ME1 you were aiming with your skills as a player, you just had to be even better at aiming to make up for the fact that your character couldn't hold his gun straight.

Yeah but the chance to hit a target was based on the character talents....
That's like saying: "Oh in DA:O you are aiming the spells with your mouse, its not about the character skill."
Clearly its not like that, a character has a chance to hit with a spell, like it has a chance to hit with a bow, or a melee weapon, and those depends on the character talents.
Again, basic role playin.

Actually, in ME1, your ability to aim proparly was affected by your talents - you still aimed.  In DA:O, you didn't aim, you choose a target and your character aimed.

[addiction21]

lukandroll wrote...


Yeah but the chance to hit a target was based on the character talents....
That's like saying: "Oh in DA:O you are aiming the spells with your mouse, its not about the character skill."
Clearly its not like that, a character has a chance to hit with a spell, like it has a chance to hit with a bow, or a melee weapon, and those depends on the character talents.
Again, basic role playin.

The big difference being that in DAO it is more of a "Go attack him"  then your NPC wanders over to the baddie and begins to attack. All done automatically by the computer.
Mass Effect puts everything on the player to aim and pull the trigger. Sorry but it is flat out stupid to have a system like ME1's where you could line up the perfect shot but missed because of a bad roll of the dice. Mass Effrect 2 is using the players skill instead of using a bunch of rules and random rolls of the dice to emulate that skill

Hmmm using the own players actual abilities for your shep avatar instead of letting the computer do it for you... sounds a hell of a lot more roll playing like then 5+3 = 8 MISS try again, but you do not have to try again since the computer will do it for you.

[M 3 i m 0 n]

Sorry 4 my language!

K0bra, i TOTALLY agree whit u! But... do u remeber NWN? Bioware make an epansion that allow us to FULL customize ours characters (armours and weapons... that was fantastic!!! some1 remeber it?). So i say: why we have to wait for ME3 when i'm pretty sure that they can do the same they done whit NWN? And, really, the fuel? Ahah! U're great bro! Ok, i have appriciate the Bioware efforts... but... nosense in this way. But this is simple to correct. Ok. I'd like to interact much more whit the npc (like in fallout 3: ok i can't kill them, ok, but let me speak whit them plz!!! Npcs are dummyes? Naaaa). Why i can't destroy everything when i use the Cain? Why??? I'm speaking about the world's parts elements (in ME1 i remeber i can destroy much more than in ME2. In GOW2, whit the torque bow, u can do seriousely damage in the "world" behind u -GOW2 use the same engine-). I've sold my Dragon Age collector's edition copy... because is NOT "realistic" as i supposed it can be. I will NOT sell my copy of ME2. Just because i wanna see if Bioware will improve what i'm waiting 4. MUCH REALISM!
Ehm.. clips 4 ammo/weapons? Really? Where is the future???? In ME1!!!!

Sorry 4 my language!

Modifié par M 3 i m 0 n, 26 février 2010 - 06:34 .

[lukandroll]

addiction21 wrote...

lukandroll wrote...


Yeah but the chance to hit a target was based on the character talents....
That's like saying: "Oh in DA:O you are aiming the spells with your mouse, its not about the character skill."
Clearly its not like that, a character has a chance to hit with a spell, like it has a chance to hit with a bow, or a melee weapon, and those depends on the character talents.
Again, basic role playin.

The big difference being that in DAO it is more of a "Go attack him"  then your NPC wanders over to the baddie and begins to attack. All done automatically by the computer.
Mass Effect puts everything on the player to aim and pull the trigger. Sorry but it is flat out stupid to have a system like ME1's where you could line up the perfect shot but missed because of a bad roll of the dice. Mass Effrect 2 is using the players skill instead of using a bunch of rules and random rolls of the dice to emulate that skill

Hmmm using the own players actual abilities for your shep avatar instead of letting the computer do it for you... sounds a hell of a lot more roll playing like then 5+3 = 8 MISS try again, but you do not have to try again since the computer will do it for you.

I see where you're coming from but, that's exactly why I believe ME2 is more a shooter than Action RPG like its predecesor. The chance to hit a target is not represented on the character talents, but yours as a player, that's wrong from a role playing aspect; because you are "role playing" yourself, and not the character.
I dont have to go too far away for this, for instance, take FALLOUT 3, even when you aim and shoot with a energy weapon, if your character does not have the right amount of "Energy Weapons" talent, he will miss, that's basic gameplay in a action role playing game. Because THE CHARACTER is not skilled enought to use the weapon, in that case It really DOESN'T matter if you are good or not at aiming, that's why you are role playing the character.

Modifié par lukandroll, 26 février 2010 - 06:41 .

[Sputax]

Jaysonie wrote...

Sputax wrote...

Ive just started the game bt i think its worth my 2 pennies worth.

Great story, but very poor gameplay. Too simplistic character development (doubt there will be the long discussions about how to develop characters like i found in me2). 4 skill areas, 2 weapons with a few addons. Me1 was already simpler than other rpgs (like FO3, a truely epic game), just dont understand why?

Combat is boring now. Thinking back to the variety of powers, recharge times, large area over which combat took place, me1 was much better. The few times i ran out firing i got killed by biotics or heavy weapons. There was much more intelligent use of the environment including hiding behind object to heal and using powers effectively.

Now you sit behind cover, launch 1 or 2 powers every few seconds and fire away till the ammo runs out (which is every firefight). No management of health and shields. no variety or thought needed. They seem to have taken it out of gears of war which was so simple i stopped playing after half an our and cant even find the disks.

The mini games give a clear indication of the aims of mass effect 2. Simple to the point ive yet to fail one first time. even if i do i get 3 attempts. i frequently failed mini games in mass effect 1 which made them a challenge.

That for me makes it clear the game is designed for early teen console users. Just not what i had expected :-(

What difficulty are you playing on? I suggest you bump it up abit if you think its this mindless.

Veteran? the one below insanity. i suppose insanity has different mini games.

[TJSolo]

The minigames are all the same from casual to insanity.

Same attempts, same number of nodes on the circuit board, same time limits.

[Sputax]

Doubt ill replay to see what happens if im a paragon then :-(

[Poison_Berrie]

K0braTh0r wrote...

I know how to find and study different aspects of video-games so thouroghly that nobody would like me as a beta-tester, because they might have to bring a lot of changes to the game if not to totally remake it.

When I said I am a hardcore gamer, I didn't just ment that I played a LOT of games and that's that. A hardcore gamer has an eye for every flaw no matter how small or unimportant, knows how to criticise a game and recognises all the aspects good and bad.

All the pc-users that said they liked ME2 or considered themselves hardcore gamers, they aren't, just desperate fanboys that some didn't even admit they ignored most of it's flaws. As for magazine reviewers, I really don't know what are they paid for, because giving this game 9-9,5 is just dumb and unproffessional, but again they might not want to get their customers angry or have spoken to some EA Marketing officials.

Sure, you are the king of subjective matters. 

Seriously, flaws are lots of bugs or unbalanced gameplay inconsistent and bad storytelling. Just because you didn't like certain aspects doesn't mean other who do are actually wrong, because you are such a "hardcore" gamer.
You have the right to complain and criticize but don't make an ass of yourself by playing the "hardcore gamer"-card. It really doesn't help sell your points.

[Andaius20]

I wouldn't say "Huge disappointment" I was disappointed at the combat turned into a corridor shooter all the ME 1 features that where Axed instead of simple improved upon. Stuff like no more squad, and inventory customization, toggleable helmets. The shoe horned in Ammo system along with the Rock-paper-scissors style combat system. Much more I could name if I thought about it more. However I still thought the character development, and Story,(althought short) was pretty good along with the dialogue and animation being top notch as expected in any Bioware game.

[addiction21]

lukandroll wrote...


I see where you're coming from but, that's exactly why I believe ME2 is more a shooter than Action RPG like its predecesor. The chance to hit a target is not represented on the character talents, but yours as a player, that's wrong from a role playing aspect; because you are "role playing" yourself, and not the character.
I dont have to go too far away for this, for instance, take FALLOUT 3, even when you aim and shoot with a energy weapon, if your character does not have the right amount of "Energy Weapons" talent, he will miss, that's basic gameplay in a action role playing game. Because THE CHARACTER is not skilled enought to use the weapon, in that case It really DOESN'T matter if you are good or not at aiming, that's why you are role playing the character.

And for FO3 that system works very well for FO3. You start out as an inexperianced stupid and you work your way up from there.
In Mass Effect tho my character is the elite of the elite a trained badass that knows which end of the gun the bullets will be coming out and knows how to make sure that bullet will hit what he pointed his gun at.
For me it fits better that in ME2 the character I play is allready a trained expert with his chosen weapons so how succesfull he is in battle is not up too some skill points or dice but how I play the character.
There is also the other part that FO3 in cluded vats another system of the system taking complete controll of your character to decide how successfull its attacks are. ME1 and 2 do not have anything like that and that is the biggest factor in my opinion if a game should include a RNG and the other aspects of the "points go in here and you get better at hitting stuff" systems.
I am rambling now.  I just do not feel that in a system where the computer has nothing else to do with combat that it does more to take away a feeling of immersion for the character you are playing. That after lining up a perfect shot right between a baddies eyes that the computer can get in the way and make you miss because you rolled a 4 when you needed a 5.
I'll just agree to disagree

[Beware I Live]

I dont think ME2 was disapponting at all. I actually liked all the changed and the plot wasnt bad either. Firstly, its a follow up to the start of the war and the focus is completely on the suicide mission. And it delivers very well.



Plus, there has been no other game with this huge a focus to building ur team so thats probably why people dont yet agree with it. Give it time

[Rob Sabbaggio]

I was not disappointed with Mass Effect 2 compared with Mass Effect 1, not in the slightest.



There was some evolution between the games, most changes I liked, some I didnt. But its still a very similar game, it hasnt changed that much - you have roleplaying conversations and exploration mixed with FPS shooting sections, you have skills, equipment, choices, romances. Sure some have been streamlined, but its not THAT different.



Those criticising the story, its quite straightforward, yes. There are no twists. But Bioware have had twists in quite a few games, so surely its nice to have a change? If every game has a twist, you expect it and it loses its potency.



I thought the change to focus on team building was great, the loyalty missions were interesting and fun. And it sets up things perfectly for Mass Effect 3 - you now have a ship, and a crew of hardened veterans. You have friends, past decisions, romances, you've made hard decisions. I expect all these to massively impact ME3.



I cant wait for Mass Effect 3.

[TJSolo]

Rob Sabbaggio wrote...

Those criticising the story, its quite straightforward, yes. There are
no twists. But Bioware have had twists in quite a few games, so surely
its nice to have a change? If every game has a twist, you expect it and
it loses its potency.

Pretty much every story I have read or played after kindergarten had a twist. It is not the expectation that causes twists to lose potency. It is the quality and quantity of twists.

[TornadoADV]

AlanC9 wrote...

JMorris85 wrote...
ME2 is not a bad game. by itself, its alright, not quite my thing, but ive had fun with it when i wasnt scanning. but its not a Mass Effect game. i mean, its a completly different game from ME1.

Depends on what you think "a Mass Effect game" means. For me, ME2 takes the distinctive elements of ME1 and builds on them, while throwing out some dopey RPG conventions that shouldn't have been in ME1 in the first place. Like inventory -- I didn't dislike ME1 inventory because it was clunky, or boring; I disliked it because it was preposterous[/i]. Shepard's commanding the most advanced Alliance ship there is, and he's having to raise his own money to equip himself and his squad?

But reasonable people can differ about this; if we liked ME1 for different reasons, it follows that we'd have different opinions about a sequel too.

Because it's soooooo much better that Shepard picks up random guns during missions instead of Cerberus basically giving him unlimited credits and minerals to upgrade. I mean it's PREPOSTEROUS that TIM would spend over 4 Billion bringing Shepard back and god knows how many Billions on the Normandy SR-2 but couldn't give Shepard a multi-million credit line to use in his mission.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 26 février 2010 - 09:27 .

[Saetanigera]

TJSolo wrote...

Rob Sabbaggio wrote...

Those criticising the story, its quite straightforward, yes. There are
no twists. But Bioware have had twists in quite a few games, so surely
its nice to have a change? If every game has a twist, you expect it and
it loses its potency.

Pretty much every story I have read or played after kindergarten had a twist. It is not the expectation that causes twists to lose potency. It is the quality and quantity of twists.

Plot twists (spoiler free):
The last party member
the last boss
humanity might not be simply the umteenth space faring race
the identity of the main enemy
rerecruiting one of your previous party members
how you could betray one of your party members
WHO GAVE YOU A SHIP
how they got a hold of you (somewhat hidden dialog)
the reason for Tali's loyalty mission
Mordin's talents and backstory
why Jack really keeps people at a distance
Miranda's backstory
one of the recruits dies before you can recruit them
Jacob's loyalty mission
Reason why Samara became a justicar

The game lives by the mantra 'everything must have at least one secret or feature of interest to the player'. If most of the twists seemed so natural you didn't really notice them it means the writing was well done. The two twists I didn't like so much were why you took control of Joker for a minute and the final boss. It's been proven before. People do *NOT* like a surprise final boss. They want the satisfaction of hunting and killing Saren (for example) instead.

[lukandroll]

addiction21 wrote...

lukandroll wrote...


I see where you're coming from but, that's exactly why I believe ME2 is more a shooter than Action RPG like its predecesor. The chance to hit a target is not represented on the character talents, but yours as a player, that's wrong from a role playing aspect; because you are "role playing" yourself, and not the character.
I dont have to go too far away for this, for instance, take FALLOUT 3, even when you aim and shoot with a energy weapon, if your character does not have the right amount of "Energy Weapons" talent, he will miss, that's basic gameplay in a action role playing game. Because THE CHARACTER is not skilled enought to use the weapon, in that case It really DOESN'T matter if you are good or not at aiming, that's why you are role playing the character.

And for FO3 that system works very well for FO3. You start out as an inexperianced stupid and you work your way up from there.
In Mass Effect tho my character is the elite of the elite a trained badass that knows which end of the gun the bullets will be coming out and knows how to make sure that bullet will hit what he pointed his gun at.
For me it fits better that in ME2 the character I play is allready a trained expert with his chosen weapons so how succesfull he is in battle is not up too some skill points or dice but how I play the character.
There is also the other part that FO3 in cluded vats another system of the system taking complete controll of your character to decide how successfull its attacks are. ME1 and 2 do not have anything like that and that is the biggest factor in my opinion if a game should include a RNG and the other aspects of the "points go in here and you get better at hitting stuff" systems.
I am rambling now.  I just do not feel that in a system where the computer has nothing else to do with combat that it does more to take away a feeling of immersion for the character you are playing. That after lining up a perfect shot right between a baddies eyes that the computer can get in the way and make you miss because you rolled a 4 when you needed a 5.
I'll just agree to disagree

From that point of view it seems kind of logical, but that train of thought its seems to go along more with the shooters aspects rather than the role playing (speaking of gameplay elements only). I mean, most shooters work like that, most of the time you're some kind of "master chief" who is a total badass in all his talents/stats, so he (The character) basicaly becomes you're doppelganger, but its not his abilities what shines in combat, its yours, thats has writen shooter all over. Yeah I know ME2 is not a pure RPG, but surely ME2 tries to be more of a shooter than an RPG.