465 réponses à ce sujet

[BattleVisor]

Bring back Drew

[Mikeuicus]

From the beginning you're out to stop the Collectors who are believed to be agents of the reapers. To that end, you recruit a team, the best of the best, in a fashion reminiscent of The Dirty Dozen, 12 Samurai, etc. It's a different story structure than ME, and it took me awhile to get into, but by the end I was hooked. I doubt anyone can argue that Horizon, Reaper IFF and the suicide mission lost sight of ME1's story.

I really don't see where this argument comes from, this idea that somehow Bioware decided to simplify the story for casual players, considering the squadmates in ME2 get alot more fleshing out than those in ME1 via recruitment and loyalty missions that play a part in getting their mind clear to focus on the final battle.

The point of the whole game is to prepare to take the fight to the collectors and, by extension, strike a blow against the reapers.

[The Mythical Magician]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

With the amount of squad members you can get it should of been 6 main plot quests (after you get The Normandy SR2) that doesn't have to do with the squad members story but still effects the Collectors/Reaper story.

Lazarus Station
Freedom's Progress
Horizon
Collector Ship
Derelict Reaper
Suicide Mission

::gasp:: 6 main plot quests!

I count Four. please read my post thoroughly before you counter it.

So you wanted 8 missions?  ME1 only had 5 missions once you got ahold of the Normandy yourself.

ME1: 7 main missions

Eden Prime
Citadel
Therum
Feros
Noveria
Virmire
Ilos

ME2:  6 main missions

Lazarus Station
Freedom's Progress
Horizon
Collector Ship
Derelict Reaper
Suicide Mission

And this is assuming *none* of the Recruitment missions count, though technically, Mordin is as required, story-wise in ME2 as Liara was in ME1.  If you add his to the ME2 list, you have 7 and 7, with ME2 having another 6 recruitment and *11* loyalty missions on top of it.

Even if you don't do any loyalty missions, and consider them to be 'sidequests', you still have more missions with the main plot in ME2 than you did in ME1.  You forget that ME2 is about building your team for a suicide mission, every recruitment mission was about the main plot.

Reason why I think we need more plot quests is Imo obvious, ME2 didn't give a great deal much of info about things both important in the overall series and stopping the collectors. plus you would think that if you had double the number of squad  mates you had in ME1 in ME2 you would have double the amount of quests you had in ME1 in ME2

Modifié par The Mythical Magician, 25 février 2010 - 07:31 .

[BlightWalker]

The Mythical Magician wrote...

EDITED: I believe why ME2 failed for a good portion of us is because of Bioware's focus on the mainstream crowd though business wise it is prefect for making quick money but overall you guys lost the main plot on this switch of focus. I'm a fan of you guys and I love your work but ME2 disappointed me and most likely many others. I hope on your next project you guys focus on more on the story of a game than trying to please every crowd out there.

ME2 is a great game but its not as great as its predecessor for the fact that the focus was different which Imo sacrificed the main plot and the immersion.
<_<

Actually a plot driven story is way more appealing to the "mainstream" crowd than a character driven one.

[Tleining]

@ StreetlightEagle

only problem with that is that Luke went to search for Yoda on his own. The people from ME1 are still there, but they have missions important for ME3. Wrex helping the krogan (ally in ME3), Liara finding out more about the ShadowBroker (important Role in ME3/DLC), Kaiden/Ash represent a way back into the alliance. Someone who can vouch for Shepard.

And Tali/Garrus joining back up with Shepard (Luke joins up with Chewbacca, Leia,...Han ending up in the Hands of Boba Fett).

[The Mythical Magician]

BlightWalker wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

EDITED: I believe why ME2 failed for a good portion of us is because of Bioware's focus on the mainstream crowd though business wise it is prefect for making quick money but overall you guys lost the main plot on this switch of focus. I'm a fan of you guys and I love your work but ME2 disappointed me and most likely many others. I hope on your next project you guys focus on more on the story of a game than trying to please every crowd out there.

ME2 is a great game but its not as great as its predecessor for the fact that the focus was different which Imo sacrificed the main plot and the immersion.
<_<

Actually a plot driven story is way more appealing to the "mainstream" crowd than a character driven one.

Shooter aspect is what I am revering to by "focusing on the mainstream crowd"

I might have to re-edit my OP to make it have more sense..

Modifié par The Mythical Magician, 25 février 2010 - 07:44 .

[BlightWalker]

The Mythical Magician wrote...

BlightWalker wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

EDITED: I believe why ME2 failed for a good portion of us is because of Bioware's focus on the mainstream crowd though business wise it is prefect for making quick money but overall you guys lost the main plot on this switch of focus. I'm a fan of you guys and I love your work but ME2 disappointed me and most likely many others. I hope on your next project you guys focus on more on the story of a game than trying to please every crowd out there.

ME2 is a great game but its not as great as its predecessor for the fact that the focus was different which Imo sacrificed the main plot and the immersion.
<_<

Actually a plot driven story is way more appealing to the "mainstream" crowd than a character driven one.

Shooter aspect is what I am revering to by "focusing on the mainstream crowd"

Did you prefer ME1s system of everyone activating Immunity and just standing out in the open while holding down the left mouse button?

[CmdrFenix83]

The Mythical Magician wrote...

Reason why I think we need more plot quests is Imo obvious, ME2 didn't give a great deal much of info about things both important in the overall series and stopping the collectors. plus you would think that if you had double the number of squad  mates you had in ME1 in ME2 you would have double the amount of quests you had in ME1 in ME2

There were 6 main, 7 recruitment, and 11 loyalty.  Even if you don't count the loyalty, that's 13, more than double what we had in the first game.

Modifié par CmdrFenix83, 25 février 2010 - 07:55 .

[sedrikhcain]

ZennExile wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

Because it resulted in your collecting a bunch of stuff for which you had no use. Worse yet, the problem was progressive. i.e.: the longer you played the less likely you were to find something that was an upgrade or variance from what you already had -- in spades. By the time you were a third of the way through a playthrough, about 3/4 of what you found was worthless. Halfway through you found next to nothing you could use. Even for omnigel or cash.

There was a use for everything in ME1 because you could turn it all into Omni-Gel or sell it.  And once you beat the game did it matter any more?  No.  The only thing left was to try and get the best possible gear and finish off the set for everyone.  That's a completionist motivation that goes well beyond the intended scope of the game.  So how can you even say "by the 3rd playthrough" without first acknowledging that you are on your third play through and none of this stuff matters because of that.

Seems more like you found playing the game over and over again worthless.  The looting of worthless things is a symptom of too many repeated NG+ that carried over all the gear and credits that you no longer really need.  So in your effort to play beyond the intended scope of the game you created the problem yourself and just blamed it on the game mechanics. 

two things.

1) I said a third of the way through a playthrough. not "the 3rd playthrough". BIG difference.
2) Long before you finished a playthrough, you had more omnigel and credits than you'd ever need.

[The Mythical Magician]

BlightWalker wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

BlightWalker wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

EDITED: I believe why ME2 failed for a good portion of us is because of Bioware's focus on the mainstream crowd though business wise it is prefect for making quick money but overall you guys lost the main plot on this switch of focus. I'm a fan of you guys and I love your work but ME2 disappointed me and most likely many others. I hope on your next project you guys focus on more on the story of a game than trying to please every crowd out there.

ME2 is a great game but its not as great as its predecessor for the fact that the focus was different which Imo sacrificed the main plot and the immersion.
<_<

Actually a plot driven story is way more appealing to the "mainstream" crowd than a character driven one.

Shooter aspect is what I am revering to by "focusing on the mainstream crowd"

Did you prefer ME1s system of everyone activating Immunity and just standing out in the open while holding down the left mouse button?

Yea since ME1 to me wasn't about combat and more about its story. Reason why I bought Mass Effect 1 at the time is because Bioware were great story tellers and plus I'm a huge Space Sci-Fi nerd soooo...

[Daeion]

BlightWalker wrote...
Did you prefer ME1s system of everyone activating Immunity and just standing out in the open while holding down the left mouse button?

Because everyone played a soldier right?  What's your point about standing in the open?  Halo and Bioshock don't have cover systems and I don't hear people screaming that they need to be added. If I want to play a cover based game I'll go play Gears which does it much better then ME2.  How is it exciting to pop out, get off a few shots, and then need to sit and wait for your shields and health to regen?  At least in ME I could keep going, moving from battle to battle and Bioware could have dynamic battle grounds because they didn't have to provide static cover.

[CmdrFenix83]

Daeion wrote...

BlightWalker wrote...
Did you prefer ME1s system of everyone activating Immunity and just standing out in the open while holding down the left mouse button?

Because everyone played a soldier right?  What's your point about standing in the open?  Halo and Bioshock don't have cover systems and I don't hear people screaming that they need to be added. If I want to play a cover based game I'll go play Gears which does it much better then ME2.  How is it exciting to pop out, get off a few shots, and then need to sit and wait for your shields and health to regen?  At least in ME I could keep going, moving from battle to battle and Bioware could have dynamic battle grounds because they didn't have to provide static cover.

Didn't need to be a soldier.  Even an Adept or Engineer could fight with this tactic as long as they had picked up a Collosus armor already.  ME1 had cover everywhere, it had a cover system.  However, the system was broken by it being unnecessary.  If you want to be invincible, just play on PC and mod the game so nothing hurts you.  That situation wasn't intended in ME1, and is exactly why it isn't possible in ME2.

[Oawa]

It seems to me that the people most upset about ME 2's streamlined RPG elements are those that are big fans of the older D&D rulesets and variants. Correct me if I'm wrong.



(Directed at those unhappy with the changes)Is it strictly the ruleset that defines a game as an RPG? Or is it that plus a number of different factors that defines a game as an RPG?



Lets take BG 1 for example. Say I change the combat to be more real time. Remove some of the loot. Remove the attribute skill ups(str,agi) and just allow you to add points to skills directly. Nothing else gets changed. Would you still consider BG 1 an RPG after those changes?

[Daeion]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

BlightWalker wrote...
Did you prefer ME1s system of everyone activating Immunity and just standing out in the open while holding down the left mouse button?

Because everyone played a soldier right?  What's your point about standing in the open?  Halo and Bioshock don't have cover systems and I don't hear people screaming that they need to be added. If I want to play a cover based game I'll go play Gears which does it much better then ME2.  How is it exciting to pop out, get off a few shots, and then need to sit and wait for your shields and health to regen?  At least in ME I could keep going, moving from battle to battle and Bioware could have dynamic battle grounds because they didn't have to provide static cover.

Didn't need to be a soldier.  Even an Adept or Engineer could fight with this tactic as long as they had picked up a Collosus armor already.  ME1 had cover everywhere, it had a cover system.  However, the system was broken by it being unnecessary.  If you want to be invincible, just play on PC and mod the game so nothing hurts you.  That situation wasn't intended in ME1, and is exactly why it isn't possible in ME2.

I said soldier because they specifically mentioned immunity.  I know ME had cover, but it wasn't something that was required except for fighting the colossus when rescuing Liara, I still used it because there were places where it made sense to, like on Eden Prime before you get onto the tram/train/moving platform.  To me that makes for a much for a better paced game because I get to decide when to use cover and I'm not just sitting there waiting for health and shields to regen.  Honestly I have no problem with top end gear making the game a joke, you don't start with it, you need to work your way to it, it should make the game a lot easier.

[BlightWalker]

Daeion wrote...

BlightWalker wrote...
Did you prefer ME1s system of everyone activating Immunity and just standing out in the open while holding down the left mouse button?

Because everyone played a soldier right?  What's your point about standing in the open?  Halo and Bioshock don't have cover systems and I don't hear people screaming that they need to be added. If I want to play a cover based game I'll go play Gears which does it much better then ME2.  How is it exciting to pop out, get off a few shots, and then need to sit and wait for your shields and health to regen?  At least in ME I could keep going, moving from battle to battle and Bioware could have dynamic battle grounds because they didn't have to provide static cover.

Look, I am not saying ME2's combat system is perfect but there is no debate that it is vastly superior to ME1s which was just grinding at each other while holding down the fire button. It's no UT for sure but it gets the job done since combat is not the main point of the game.

And Halo and co are all terrible games because they are slow paced console fps' relying on autoaim.

[NeoNight1986]

Frankly i agree with the the OP. and i understand and see how everyone is beating him over the head... i find that funny. ME1 great game. ME2 great game. both for different reasons however. ::shrugs:: they took out alot of what was not enjoyed in ME1 and replaced it with something different in ME2. i am interested to see how they manage to adapt the ME universe in #3. for better or worse.

[Daeion]

Oawa wrote...

It seems to me that the people most upset about ME 2's streamlined RPG elements are those that are big fans of the older D&D rulesets and variants. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(Directed at those unhappy with the changes)Is it strictly the ruleset that defines a game as an RPG? Or is it that plus a number of different factors that defines a game as an RPG?

Lets take BG 1 for example. Say I change the combat to be more real time. Remove some of the loot. Remove the attribute skill ups(str,agi) and just allow you to add points to skills directly. Nothing else gets changed. Would you still consider BG 1 an RPG after those changes?

You mean like the did with ME2? 

It's hard to define a RPG now days because they mean different things to different people and different genres are taking different things from the RPG genre.  To me a RPG is something where your character continues to grow from the begining of the game and you decide how to specialize them.  Now this may define a RPG for everyone, but each person is going to have different things that they consider to be a part of growth, development, and specialization.

To me the problem stems from the fact that I played ME because I was looking for a new RPG that offered something different then your typical BG, KOTOR, or DA:O, I was not looking for a shooter.  I like having stats, I like seeing my character grow both through the story and the gear they use; if I'm becoming more of a bad@ass, then my gear should reflect that as well.  I played ME multiple times including hardcore and insanity with a soldier because I enjoyed the class the most.  However I never used Immunity spam like apparently everyone else did and I never used double frictionless materials because I was using other mods and having fun exploring the different options.

I felt ME was the perfect RPG having struck the sweat spot between action, story telling, and character development.  Now that's not to say it didn't have any flaws, the MAKO was poorly implimented, there were too many items, and the inventory management was poorly implimented.  They fixed the MAKO by giving us the hammerhead, though we have yet to really see what it will be all about.  However they didn't fix the inventory, instead of simply getting rid of 50% of the manufacturers and drops while at the same time making same items stack, grouping like items, and adding better filters, they just removed it from the game.  So now I'm running through the game with the same shotgun strapped to my back for the entire thing.

[Pauravi]

I personally loved the character-focused plot of ME2. ME1 had a very broadly-scoped epic plot. I am fine with making things more personal in ME2 before going back to saving the entire galaxy in ME3. Also, I loved the gameplay much more. ME2 didn't fail in any way at all, as far as I am concerned.

[Daeion]

BlightWalker wrote...

Daeion wrote...

BlightWalker wrote...
Did you prefer ME1s system of everyone activating Immunity and just standing out in the open while holding down the left mouse button?

Because everyone played a soldier right?  What's your point about standing in the open?  Halo and Bioshock don't have cover systems and I don't hear people screaming that they need to be added. If I want to play a cover based game I'll go play Gears which does it much better then ME2.  How is it exciting to pop out, get off a few shots, and then need to sit and wait for your shields and health to regen?  At least in ME I could keep going, moving from battle to battle and Bioware could have dynamic battle grounds because they didn't have to provide static cover.

Look, I am not saying ME2's combat system is perfect but there is no debate that it is vastly superior to ME1s which was just grinding at each other while holding down the fire button. It's no UT for sure but it gets the job done since combat is not the main point of the game.

And Halo and co are all terrible games because they are slow paced console fps' relying on autoaim.

Don't ME and ME2 have autoaim?

[FataliTensei]

Daeion wrote...

Oawa wrote...

It seems to me that the people most upset about ME 2's streamlined RPG elements are those that are big fans of the older D&D rulesets and variants. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(Directed at those unhappy with the changes)Is it strictly the ruleset that defines a game as an RPG? Or is it that plus a number of different factors that defines a game as an RPG?

Lets take BG 1 for example. Say I change the combat to be more real time. Remove some of the loot. Remove the attribute skill ups(str,agi) and just allow you to add points to skills directly. Nothing else gets changed. Would you still consider BG 1 an RPG after those changes?

You mean like the did with ME2? 

It's hard to define a RPG now days because they mean different things to different people and different genres are taking different things from the RPG genre.  To me a RPG is something where your character continues to grow from the begining of the game and you decide how to specialize them.  Now this may define a RPG for everyone, but each person is going to have different things that they consider to be a part of growth, development, and specialization.

To me the problem stems from the fact that I played ME because I was looking for a new RPG that offered something different then your typical BG, KOTOR, or DA:O, I was not looking for a shooter.  I like having stats, I like seeing my character grow both through the story and the gear they use; if I'm becoming more of a bad@ass, then my gear should reflect that as well.  I played ME multiple times including hardcore and insanity with a soldier because I enjoyed the class the most.  However I never used Immunity spam like apparently everyone else did and I never used double frictionless materials because I was using other mods and having fun exploring the different options.

I felt ME was the perfect RPG having struck the sweat spot between action, story telling, and character development.  Now that's not to say it didn't have any flaws, the MAKO was poorly implimented, there were too many items, and the inventory management was poorly implimented.  They fixed the MAKO by giving us the hammerhead, though we have yet to really see what it will be all about.  However they didn't fix the inventory, instead of simply getting rid of 50% of the manufacturers and drops while at the same time making same items stack, grouping like items, and adding better filters, they just removed it from the game.  So now I'm running through the game with the same shotgun strapped to my back for the entire thing.

THIS

[Rob Sabbaggio]

I'm pretty new to these forums, but not to Bioware's games. I've played BG, NWN, Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Dragon Age and now Mass Effect 2. For the record, I absolutely loved Mass Effect 2.



For me, I love their role playing games because you normally get choices, options, freedom to explore and the ability to influence the world and other characters, Forget the combat mechanisms, loot, XP grinding, skill-based combat vs twitch fighting, for me thats what makes a RPG. Actually playing a role, putting myself into the action, making the decisions, getting the job done. And in this regard, I feel Mass Effect 1 and 2 are very similar.



I do enjoy JRPGs like Star Ocean and Lost Odyssey and I play them a lot, but for me they dont let you play a role, its more like an interactive movie.



I simply cant wait to play Mass Effect 3.

[Wolverfrog]

I wouldn't mind the missions to have more relation to the main objective. Going through the Omega 4 Relay felt surreal and out of touch with the rest of the game. Going to Illos felt completely and utterly fluid and epic.

[Oawa]

Daeion wrote...

Oawa wrote...

It seems to me that the people most upset about ME 2's streamlined RPG elements are those that are big fans of the older D&D rulesets and variants. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(Directed at those unhappy with the changes)Is it strictly the ruleset that defines a game as an RPG? Or is it that plus a number of different factors that defines a game as an RPG?

Lets take BG 1 for example. Say I change the combat to be more real time. Remove some of the loot. Remove the attribute skill ups(str,agi) and just allow you to add points to skills directly. Nothing else gets changed. Would you still consider BG 1 an RPG after those changes?

You mean like the did with ME2? 

It's hard to define a RPG now days because they mean different things to different people and different genres are taking different things from the RPG genre.  To me a RPG is something where your character continues to grow from the begining of the game and you decide how to specialize them.  Now this may define a RPG for everyone, but each person is going to have different things that they consider to be a part of growth, development, and specialization.

To me the problem stems from the fact that I played ME because I was looking for a new RPG that offered something different then your typical BG, KOTOR, or DA:O, I was not looking for a shooter.  I like having stats, I like seeing my character grow both through the story and the gear they use; if I'm becoming more of a bad@ass, then my gear should reflect that as well.  I played ME multiple times including hardcore and insanity with a soldier because I enjoyed the class the most.  However I never used Immunity spam like apparently everyone else did and I never used double frictionless materials because I was using other mods and having fun exploring the different options.

I felt ME was the perfect RPG having struck the sweat spot between action, story telling, and character development.  Now that's not to say it didn't have any flaws, the MAKO was poorly implimented, there were too many items, and the inventory management was poorly implimented.  They fixed the MAKO by giving us the hammerhead, though we have yet to really see what it will be all about.  However they didn't fix the inventory, instead of simply getting rid of 50% of the manufacturers and drops while at the same time making same items stack, grouping like items, and adding better filters, they just removed it from the game.  So now I'm running through the game with the same shotgun strapped to my back for the entire thing.

Here's where I'm getting confused a bit.  You mentioned how you were looking for an RPG that was different from what you called "typical".  I played the games you mentioned also, and other than the lack of dice roll oriented combat and lack of attribute leveling, ME 1 imo still falls into the category of what you considered a "typical" RPG. 

ME 2 improved the combat system in ME 1, streamlined the itemization and stats, and lets be real, streamlining means exactly that.  Saying it was dumbed down, really is an over-exageration unless you consider the tediousness of constantly having to sort through randomly looted items and deciding where to put your next skill point after you already gotten the vital skills as "smarter".  I'm sure we can agree, a lot of the "skills" in ME 1 were just to make things seem more complex then they actually were.

The story is still there, it's just not presented in a manner that some people liked.  Lets be honest about this too however, the majority of the threads started by people with gripes are generally filled with the same people agreeing with the op, or defending Bioware, with very few "newcomers" chiming in. 

Also, I'm sure there are others that feel this way too.  There is no question in my mind the way the story played out in ME 1 was nothing short of truly epic.  It was new and fresh to all of us, it's very difficult to match that scope when you revisit the universe, the flashy newness is gone.

And....this post turned out a lot longer than I planned initially..so I'm just gonna cut myself off.

[Daeion]

Pauravi wrote...

I personally loved the character-focused plot of ME2. ME1 had a very broadly-scoped epic plot. I am fine with making things more personal in ME2 before going back to saving the entire galaxy in ME3. Also, I loved the gameplay much more. ME2 didn't fail in any way at all, as far as I am concerned.

Personally it feels to me like they got their stories mixed up.  What I mean is ME2 would have been a much better intro, to the trilogy.  You have the alliance just coming onto the galactic scene and colonizing different worlds, suddenly they start disapearing and the council is unwilling to help since it's a human issue but they will show their support by making you a specter.  Enter getting together your squad, taking on the collectors, have your suicide mission here, and then at the end you find out that the Collectors are working for the reapers.

Then you introduce the plot from ME where the council is betrayed by one of it's own but they either don't' believe it or believe it, either way it's once again up to you to save the galaxy.  Bring back those who survived the first game and introduce 3-4 new squad mates.  Go through tracking down Saren and the Geth and then at the end face off with an actual reaper and realize that the reapers are on the doorstep. 

That to me would have been a much better build up to ME3 then going from an epic game with an epic ending to an epic game with a so so ending and little to no build up.

[Felene]

BobbyTheI wrote...

Fan of BioWare since BG1.  Loved ME2.

I wish the "true fans" would stop making these threads speaking for the rest of us.