927 réponses à ce sujet

[Mossa_missa]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Your doing it wrong... 

[Tasker]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...


lol did you mean "I can agree" haha After reading your post its pretty much whats being said.
The only thing they improved was graphics and gunplay. Everything else was either removed or downgraded.
ME2 is a newer game, it is different not better than ME1 just like you said.

Im sorry but where I come from sequels are supposed to be BETTER not different. 

I buy a completely new game if I want "different", I buy a sequel if I want "better".

This is what i've been trying to get across myself.

ME2 is a sequel, it's supposed to improve upon what has been set as a precedent by the first game.

If ME2 had been the start of a new franchise, then I would have no problems with it at all as ME2 as a game is very good, but as a sequel it's crap.

ME2 is far too different a game to be classed a sequel.

[Nolenthar]

Orkboy wrote...
ME2 is far too different a game to be classed a sequel.

no company and no concept can really survive to EA

[BiancoAngelo7]

Indeed



Its just really sad becasue ME2 feels like one of the titles that the Dev team said they would consider for the future, after the trilogy ended. Instead of making a sequel it feels like they went ahead and jumped the gun, making some sort of off-shoot game where all you do is shoot-recruit-shoot-recruit-wrinse-repeat...you get the idea...



They took out anything even remotely resemblin immersion, took out any and all exploration, side quests have been eliminated, 17 in ME2 versus dozens in ME1, and thats not considering all the citadel side quests...



Its just so sad they should have called this Mass Effect: Shepard's Revenge or something and released a TRUE ME2. Or preferably just made a true sequel like we were all hoping for. >:|

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

WOW! FIVE WHOLE MISSIONS WHEN THE MAKO HAD HUNDREDS!

I am very much unimpressed.

Didn't the original mako only have like 30?  Someone get an official count of landable planets up in here

[Dethateer]

TornadoADV wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

So your complaint is the very logical design of modular components to be able to quickly construct outposts and facilities for colonists or to facilitate high product flow on freighters.

Right, because having it changed into a corridor shooter with waist high boxes is SO much better.

Also, if you're driving up the side of a mountain in the Mako, you're reading the map wrong.[/b]

Or can't be bothered to waste an extra 15 minutes to the already maddening length of the side-mission driving around it.

So of course, the logical choice is to waste 30 minutes trying to crab crawl the Mako up an 80 degree incline then come onto the ME1 Forums and b**** about how much the Mako sucks.

Of course, I should of seen this sooner, me and my stupid common sense causing me to use the obviously marked and/or textured path to the objective on my map!

It's actually faster to go diagonally up a mountainside. The Mako seems to ignore slopes completely if you're not driving straight forward. And that takes you less than to go around.

[ZennExile]

Yeah it really doesn't make much sense how the success of ME1 was translated into the need for a complete rewrite of the entire concept and a deviation from the well established and deeply compelling Lore that already exists.



ME2 is a good game. But if it had improved even a small amount on ME1 as a whole, rather than just focusing on combat and gutting the rest of the experience, it could have taken its place next to the best RPGs ever made.



Instead it sits alone on a Cover Shooter Pseudo RPG shelf. Sure it's the best Cover Shooter Psuedo RPG ever, but that's because it's the only one. You can't even compare it to Mass Effect because too many of the mechanics don't translate.

[Sigma Tauri]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

WOW! FIVE WHOLE MISSIONS WHEN THE MAKO HAD HUNDREDS!

I am very much unimpressed.

Didn't the original mako only have like 30?  Someone get an official count of landable planets up in here

5 plot planets and 28 uncharted planets.

Most were uninteresting since it involved shooting missions in pre-fabricated structures, caves, and mines. ME2 should've kept the Mako sections in plot planets than discard it, and added branching paths or collapsing environments like subterranean tunnels. They also should've added bonuses and disadvantages for having a particular squad member in a vehicle. Like Tali decreases cool-down time for repair, Garrus increases missile accuracy, or Mordin provides greater biological scanning for enemies at a distance.

[Nolenthar]

monkeycamoran wrote...
 Like Tali decreases cool-down time for repair, Garrus increases missile accuracy, or Mordin provides greater biological scanning for enemies at a distance.

I love this idea ! 

[Kaiser Shepard]

Nolenthar wrote...

Orkboy wrote...
ME2 is far too different a game to be classed a sequel.

no company and no concept can really survive to EA

Yeah, because BioWare's Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 are horrible games. And just look at what happened to DICE after EA bought them.

Oh, wait...

Please try again.

In any case, the Hammerhead looks pretty awesome, can't wait to be a big goddamn hero with it.

[BiancoAngelo7]

ZennExile wrote...

Yeah it really doesn't make much sense how the success of ME1 was translated into the need for a complete rewrite of the entire concept and a deviation from the well established and deeply compelling Lore that already exists.

ME2 is a good game. But if it had improved even a small amount on ME1 as a whole, rather than just focusing on combat and gutting the rest of the experience, it could have taken its place next to the best RPGs ever made.

Instead it sits alone on a Cover Shooter Pseudo RPG shelf. Sure it's the best Cover Shooter Psuedo RPG ever, but that's because it's the only one. You can't even compare it to Mass Effect because too many of the mechanics don't translate.

Agreement index = 100% 

[Maestro975]

Nolenthar wrote...

Orkboy wrote...
ME2 is far too different a game to be classed a sequel.

no company and no concept can really survive to EA

Yet another RPGeek who resents the Dev/Publisher for attempting a "something for everyone" type experience instead of pandering solely to them. There's a reason why so many of you get beat up in high school.

[Tasker]

Maestro975 wrote...

Nolenthar wrote...

Orkboy wrote...
ME2 is far too different a game to be classed a sequel.

no company and no concept can really survive to EA

Yet another RPGeek who resents the Dev/Publisher for attempting a "something for everyone" type experience instead of pandering solely to them. There's a reason why so many of you get beat up in high school.

I don't resent the attempt, it just shouldn't have been done to a sequel.

It's not a matter of something for everyone or pandering just to me,.

It's a case of completely changing the nature of the game when it's supposed to be a continuation. 
It's a case of ignoring those people who helped to make ME1 the sucess that it was.

People bought ME1 because it was the type of game that it was, all information before it was released indicated that the game was going to be exactly what we got.

How many people bought ME2 expecting it to be more of the same only with the few flaws that it had addressed? 

I know I did, and before release even though Bioware showed us a couple of changes, there was no indication to say that the ME1 system had been butchered to the extent it has been.

Other companies know not to totally bugger about with everything in sequels, so why did Bioware?

This type of game system should have been kept for either a spin off game or a new IP, but not a sequel.

Also, no I was never beaten up in high school, I actually did some of the beating up.  ( Mainly on the Rugby pitch )

Modifié par Orkboy, 09 mars 2010 - 06:57 .

[twenty italians]

Maybe I didn't see it, but how could I download both the Armor and the Shotgun, and NOT download the Hammerhead on XBL? Anyone, Anyone?

[Kangasniemi]

Orkboy wrote...

Maestro975 wrote...

Nolenthar wrote...

Orkboy wrote...
ME2 is far too different a game to be classed a sequel.

no company and no concept can really survive to EA

Yet another RPGeek who resents the Dev/Publisher for attempting a "something for everyone" type experience instead of pandering solely to them. There's a reason why so many of you get beat up in high school.

I don't resent the attempt, it just shouldn't have been done to a sequel.

It's not a matter of something for everyone or pandering just to me,.

It's a case of completely changing the nature of the game when it's supposed to be a continuation. 
It's a case of ignoring those people who helped to make ME1 the sucess that it was.

People bought ME1 because it was the type of game that it was, all information before it was released indicated that the game was going to be exactly what we got.

How many people bought ME2 expecting it to be more of the same only with the few flaws that it had addressed? 

I know I did, and before release even though Bioware showed us a couple of changes, there was no indication to say that the ME1 system had been butchered to the extent it has been.

Other companies know not to totally bugger about with everything in sequels, so why did Bioware?

This type of game system should have been kept for either a spin off game or a new IP, but not a sequel.

Also, no I was never beaten up in high school, I actually did some of the beating up.  ( Mainly on the Rugby pitch )

I can't believe you are complaining about innovation in a game.

If you REALLY want a game series that has ZERO innovation in the sequels, go play the COD series. God we don't need another zombie corporation just publishing same game over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Bioware has the right to do anything and i do mean ANYTHING with ME series. And showing REAL innovation by making CHANGES in the game in sequels is a ****ing HUGE plus.

[Ashira Shepard]

Maybe I'm not nitpicky enough, but trying to play ME1 again after ME2 is...jarring to say the least. The combat system in 2 doesn't feel as clunky, the "RPG elements" that most seem so bugged about are still there. Do you not remember how ungodly the lists of junk items were in ME1? Sure, its gone through the equivalent of gutting a fish, but it seems to have been for the better.

Basic idea of an RPG in my head: you can choose how your character looks, who they are, their background etc. You can dictate how they react to things and what they say. You as the player choose how they fight (their class).

ME2 has all of these. Yes, its combat is closer to a shooter, but isn't that what we're doing? Shooting? I see no loss of RPG elements in the game, they're still there.

On a side note of contradicting lore; the ammo. In ME1, we had no ammo, understandably, they had a reason for that. Why give ammo in ME2? Realistically, with the way guns worked in 1, soldiers wouldn't be able to tell when their gun was close to overheating or not. Need for ammo gives some indication/warning for when the gun is about to malfunction in your hands. Probably a half-assed theory but its something at least.

But its just my opinion, not trying to provoke/pick-fights. Honestly? I'm thankful for all the changes they made.

Modifié par AshiraShepard, 09 mars 2010 - 07:56 .

[Tasker]

Kangasniemi wrote...

[

I can't believe you are complaining about innovation in a game.

If you REALLY want a game series that has ZERO innovation in the sequels, go play the COD series. God we don't need another zombie corporation just publishing same game over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Bioware has the right to do anything and i do mean ANYTHING with ME series. And showing REAL innovation by making CHANGES in the game in sequels is a ****ing HUGE plus.

Innovation and consistancy are not mutually exclusive, but ME2 has neither.

There's nothing about ME2 that hasn't been done in other games and done better.  I grant you that they may not have all been in the same game and that some of those games were made by Bioware, but the fact still stands that ME2 is derivative.

That doesn't mean it isn't a good game, i've already said that I enjoyed it, but it's nowhere even close to being the sequel that ME1 should have had.

You say - and I agree - that CoD has no innovation... But if that's the case, why are Bioware trying to emulate it - poorly - with ME2? 

Bioware isn't a "zombie" corporation, it never has been, but in the past they've known not to arse about with the formular of games in a series. 

Series like Baldurs gate 1 and 2, KotOR 1 and 2 and games like Jade Empire, all have different mechanics, but only when you compare IPs, games in the same IP share the same workings and that's what helps to link them together as a cohesive series.

ME1 and ME2 are so different however, that it's hard to belive they are part of the same story let alone part of the same series.

As i've said before, on the whole, there is nothing wrong with the system used for ME2, but it should not have been used for ME2.

Modifié par Orkboy, 09 mars 2010 - 08:11 .

[Kangasniemi]

Orkboy wrote...

Kangasniemi wrote...

[

I can't believe you are complaining about innovation in a game.

If you REALLY want a game series that has ZERO innovation in the sequels, go play the COD series. God we don't need another zombie corporation just publishing same game over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Bioware has the right to do anything and i do mean ANYTHING with ME series. And showing REAL innovation by making CHANGES in the game in sequels is a ****ing HUGE plus.

Innovation and consistancy are not mutually exclusive, but ME2 has neither.

There's nothing about ME2 that hasn't been done in other games and done better.  I grant you that they may not have all been in the same game and that some of those games were made by Bioware, but the fact still stands that ME2 is derivative.

That doesn't mean it isn't a good game, i've already said that I enjoyed it, but it's nowhere even close to being the sequel that ME1 should have had.

You say - and I agree - that CoD has no innovation... But if that's the case, why are Bioware trying to emulate it - poorly - with ME2? 

Bioware isn't a "zombie" corporation, it never has been, but in the past they've known not to arse about with the formular of games in a series. 

Series like Baldurs gate 1 and 2, KotOR 1 and 2 and games like Jade Empire, all have different mechanics, but only when you compare IPs, games in the same IP share the same workings and that's what helps to link them together as a cohesive series.

ME1 and ME2 are so different however, that it's hard to belive they are part of the same story let alone part of the same series.

As i've said before, on the whole, there is nothing wrong with the system used for ME2, but it should not have been used for ME2.

I can see your point.

But for me a game series is mainly about story and characters, not about game mechanics. ME1 is a great game and so is ME2. They have different game mechanics and that is the reason that makes the ME series so great.

That same reason makes BW such a great developer, they are not afraid to mix things up.

[DarknessBear]

It's just disappointing that they'll not listen to any of us. We are not their main focus, the casual gamer is and the casual gamer likes the new changes. And I totally agree with a lot of you on this page (30) that they did not evolve Mass Effect 1, they ripped it apart and made a Mass Effect Spin Off game called Shepards Revenge. Taking out everything that made the first game unique (although sometimes bad) does not make it a better game, it makes it a cold heartless husk of its former self. If they really spent time enriching each variable that made Mass Effect 1 such a hit they could have really made a game that changes the industry.



The only problem with MASS 2 is that its initial impact is awesome, the cutscenes are absolutely fantastic and the ending is epic. So it leaves you with a sense of, "THIS GAME IS AWESOME AND 100X'S BETTER!" but once you step away and start to think about the mechanics individually you start to depreciate them. And you are left feeling unsatisfied (which I was not after ME1).



They lost all sense of scope and individuality. Yes you can be good or bad, but it's all canned and have lost their impact. Mainly I think it is the cut and dry formula that makes things not feel like it IS your story; recruitment mission, loyalty mission and then end mission. It's like you are just appeasing a series of codes and not living a story.

[Tasker]

Kangasniemi wrote...


I can see your point.

But for me a game series is mainly about story and characters, not about game mechanics. ME1 is a great game and so is ME2. They have different game mechanics and that is the reason that makes the ME series so great.

That same reason makes BW such a great developer, they are not afraid to mix things up.

It's true that Bioware are masters of story and characterisation, but I have to confess that going off of the previews for ME2 before it came out, I really had my doubts and hated everything about the characters in ME2.

luckily though it was just a case of Bioware being really naff at promoting their own stuff again, and I have to say that I really love the characters now - yes even Jack who I really detested with a passion before the game came out.

The story isn't as enthrawling as ME1s, but it's the middle of a trilogy and so that wasn't totally unexpected.

Having said that though, a game isn't made from characters and story alone, it does need an appropriate framework to fit into, I just think that they chose the wrong one for ME2.

Bioware are my favourite developer, i'm not even a member of any other gaming forums but this one. ME1 is one of my favourite games of all time, hell, it's probably my number 1 with most of the other top ten games being Bioware ones. And that's why it sometimes comes across like i'm ****ing a lot, but it's only because i'm so passionate about the game and love it so much.  The hatchet job that was made of ME2 compaired to ME1 almost seems like a kick in the face when I think about the game we could of had - no strike that - should of had as a sequel.

People go on about the systems of ME1 being clunky and broken, yes they were, but they could easily have been fixed and it's just frustrating for me that the systems used in ME1 weren't given a second chance as they had so much potential. If only they had been tweaked and repaired instead of ripped out.

Anyhoo, this has gone wayyyyyyyyyy off topic. 

[Ashira Shepard]

I agree that the story itself could have used a few more plot centric missions, most of the focus was on character developement. Granted, I enjoyed that, I loved all but a select few of the characters.

[DarknessBear]

If any of you listen to 4 Guys 1up (before it was 1upYours) there was a guest on last week talking about simulated worlds compared to hand made worlds and the different they bring on the player. And it made me think of the Mako compared to the Hammerhead.

Players generally prefer dynamically changing procedural creations compared to something a Human hand made. For example, even though character death animation is much more realistic if it is animated by a person we generally prefer nice looking ragdoll. Why? Because it is tailored to US it is completely unique compared to what we are doing and we know we are experiencing something new. So with the first ME the Mako unexplored worlds were all procedurally created, so when you as a player explore them you feel like you are discovering something not many have seen. You can feel that not even the developer knows what is in every nook and cranny. Which is what gave the game a sense of scope and individuality.

In Mass Effect 2, with it's raised budget Bioware hand crafted EVERY zone rock by rock to make it the best picture possible. But in that process you lose the individuality of exploring something that was not touched by man. Yes in contrast the ME2 enviroments are more appealing and the Mako levels were dull, but there is no reason why you cannot combine both in order to create an open area with hidden crafted environments within.

That's the perfect mesh of ideas. Just like death animations perfect mesh is; Ragdoll + Animation (Euphoria engine). You want things to look good, while wanting them to be unique towards the player. ME1 had the ragdoll and ME2 has the Animation > time to combine them.

WHICH in effect is also what makes loot so interesting, because it does not feel hand crafted. Mass Effect 2 might as well came in a can. 

Modifié par DarknessBear, 09 mars 2010 - 09:59 .

[Tasker]

DarknessBear wrote...

If any of you listen to 4 Guys 1up (before it was 1upYours) there was a guest on last week talking about simulated worlds compared to hand made worlds and the different they bring on the player. And it made me think of the Mako compared to the Hammerhead.

Players generally prefer dynamically changing procedural creations compared to something a Human hand made. For example, even though character death animation is much more realistic if it is animated by a person we generally prefer nice looking ragdoll. Why? Because it is tailored to US it is completely unique compared to what we are doing and we know we are experiencing something new. So with the first ME the Mako unexplored worlds were all procedurally created, so when you as a player explore them you feel like you are discovering something not many have seen. You can feel that not even the developer knows what is in every nook and cranny. Which is what gave the game a sense of scope and individuality.

In Mass Effect 2, with it's raised budget Bioware hand crafted EVERY zone rock by rock to make it the best picture possible. But in that process you lose the individuality of exploring something that was not touched by man. Yes in contrast the ME2 enviroments are more appealing and the Mako levels were dull, but there is no reason why you cannot combine both in order to create an open area with hidden crafted environments within.

That's the perfect mesh of ideas. Just like death animations perfect mesh is; Ragdoll + Animation (Euphoria engine). You want things to look good, while wanting them to be unique towards the player. ME1 had the ragdoll and ME2 has the Animation > time to combine them.

A lot of people complained the UCWs of ME1 were empty, samey and bland and i'll agree, es they were... To a degree.

It was asked - Could Bioware create some that were different? 

Of course they could and they proved this with Bring down the Sky and also in a fashion with the N7 missions for ME2.

Except for the fact it still used the rocky mountain look, BDtS was a perfect UCW, Bioware just needed to make more like it. But they went too far with the N7 missions and made them tiny linear shoot-fests.

It still strikes me as odd that Bioware went the route they did, making a planet interesting and different shouldn't mean having to remove the exploration.


I had hoped that the Hammerhead would go some way to compensating for the lack of exploration in ME2, but going off the info provided so far, they've just created 5 more linear shoot-fests with Shepard wearing tank shaped armour.

I really hope i'm wrong though and it's just Bioware being rubbish at promoting their own stuff again.

[Dethateer]

twenty italians wrote...

Maybe I didn't see it, but how could I download both the Armor and the Shotgun, and NOT download the Hammerhead on XBL? Anyone, Anyone?

Simple: it isn't out yet. It's not part of that pack.

[Kangasniemi]

@ DarknessBear, replying to your two previous post, but i'm too lazy to use multiquote:



About developers not listening to forum whiners, thank god to that. In this day of age every single player thinks they are the perfect game disigner and come to forums and make the most ridiculous and half-assed ideas that they think are the gratest innovations since man invented fire. And about 99,99999999999% of those suggestions are utter ****. If you don't believe me, check out any modding scene for any game, 99,9999% of mods are utter crap. That's the problem we have. Every one thinks they are master game designers but in reality they are not. I'm forever grateful to BW, for not listening the whiners on these forums. (Granted, they might have listend to whiners after ME1).



And about those Mako maps, creating a million maps with a random map generator is ALWAYS worse than making 10 unique maps by hand. Yes ME1 has more missions in numbers but in numbers only. ME1 has like 5 semi-unique side mission, others are just copy pasted there. And ME1 missions may indeed last for 30 or even more, but of those 30 min we must spent 28 min driving with the Mako endlessly in a grey/red/green/brown mountain. At least ME2 sidemissions are all different.



And as for ME2 being aimed at casual gamers. Oh, please learn to use term correctly. Casual games are wii games, java/flash games, ****ing Tetris (awesome game btw). No single game that lasts more than 1 hour can be, by any means, called a casual game. Marketing for broader audience for ME2 means marketing for RPG and FPS/TPS shooter fans (neither of which are by no means "casual gamers").