10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Myrmedus]

yoda23 wrote...

2. News? From the daily Cerberus news posts in the main screen to the pointless news terminals all over the place. Do these ever actually do anything?

3. Conversations? I find many of the conversations are thoroughly pointless, meaning they don't provide any information that is related to Shepherd or any of the quests. What is the point of including conversations that don't actually lead me somewhere?

I'm amazed you don't realise the purpose of these things, it's called immersion. The point is that in real-life there are news alerts over theplace and you hear - and can participate in - idle banter. Mimicing this helps create the feel of a virtual world.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 24 mai 2010 - 12:57 .

[UltraBoy360]

Ecael wrote...


This is exactly it. Mass Effect 2's story (and stories) were built upon the solid foundation laid out by Mass Effect 1. Legion and Mordin have tons of available dialogue about the geth, quarians and genophage, and all the races in general became much more personified - especially krogan.

http://social.biowar...5/index/1921334

As Onyx Jaguar mentioned before, many of the major plots - yes, plural - were expanded upon. People seem to be focusing just on the Reaper plot itself without realizing the other storylines set in motion by Mass Effect 1.

Those who think that the game's main story is just about the Reapers are being short-sighted. If Mass Effect 1/2 were 6 hour single player games like other shooters, then we could criticize for not focusing too much on the Collectors. However, because the story deals with the entire galaxy, to say that it's ONLY the Reapers and humans that matter in the plot is to stick to that same kind of thinking that people have when they play shooters - Good vs. Evil and nothing in-between.

Yeah, and I dug the multiple plots - a series of short stories that served to flesh out the ME universe.

Sure some of them... Jacob, Garrus, Zaeed for instance... were purely character driven (which is fine with me), then you had Samara and Thane - who through their dialogue and missions shed light onto there respective species/professions and finally Tali, Grunt, Legion and Mordin - whose stories, pending ME3 - were absolutely part of the greater narrative - In my game I felt like I'd allied with the Geth, impressed the Quarians and the Krogan and talked two species out of a debilitating war that would have had a massive impact of the defense against the Reapers in ME3 - all done through really fascinating, dialogue laden loyalty missions. Not really reminiscent of Gears of War to me. 

In fact - if either game had a more dumbed down story, or pretty basic one, it's ME1 (love it though I do) as far as I'm concerned. Cliched race against time to stop a super villain bringing about the end of the galaxy. Compared to a (cliched!) suicide mission that was supported by some of the best (IMO) video game writing in the recruitment/loyalty missions. 

I know people wanted more of the same with the Reaper plot - but seriously?
ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

Doesn't sound like the greatest trilogy breakdown to me. Bioware seemed to intend ME2 to be more like 'explore the galaxy and cultures in a deeper way while gathering allies for the Reaper's final onslaught' - that's what I got out of it at least. I feel super-bad for those people who feel so let down - that would suck. Fortunately I wasn't one of them. At all. 

[Mister Mida]

I think that many people's problem with the loyalty missions is is that it took away the focus of the main plot, no matter how awesome those loyalty missions were. My favourites were those of Mordin, Tali and Legion. And in some way I felt that those missions were more of continuation of the plot than the whole Collector plot because the themes these missions addressed were also addressed in Mass Effect 1. Just saying my opinion here.

[KitsuneRommel]

Arwyl wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...
At max level you should be significantly more powerful than at level 1.  This is how RPGs work.

Also your enemies should be significantly more powerful at that point. Which doesn't happen in ME.

Not the same enemies, those should stay the same through the game and thus get easier and easier to beat as you get better, because that's the whole point of leveling up and gaining skill points. But I agree that, as you get more powerful, you should regularly have to face new enemies that do pose a challenge.

Except it doesn't work like that in most modern RPGs (neither does it ME). Drops and enemies scale with your level. Without level scaling you are pretty much forced to play the game in certain order.

[Ecael]

Dudeman315 wrote...

finnithe wrote...

1) Could you guys remove that completely unfounded signature of yours? It's pretty obnoxious to just state that ME2 ignores story for action, especially in an area where no one can respond to you and you cannot provide any evidence.

1)I'll remove it when all of the following occur in ME2: Removal of thermal clips, change to a Cohesive plot vs the piece meal plot, no infinite respawn enemies, and we have non-combat alterative ways to solve missions.

You should remove it because it's unoriginal and utterly pointless.

Removal of thermal clips:
ME1 - Non-stop shooting with frictionless materials - RPG! Gameplay!
ME2 - Shooting and reloading with heatsinks - SHOOTER! LAME PLAY!

Plot:
ME1 - Several different storylines started with an indoctrinated Saren working for Reapers - RPG! GENIUS!
ME2 - Several different storylines continued with an indoctrinated Collector working for Reapers - SHOOTER! PLOTLESS!

Hostiles:
ME1 - Having to kill every hostile outside the Mako to get full XP - RPG! FLAWLESS!
ME2 - Respawning enemies in a few missions to prevent turtling and not sacrifice XP - SHOOTER! BRAINLESS!

Plot or character driven missions with no gameplay combat required:
ME1 - WHERE?
ME2 - ???????

I'll make signatures of my own then...

For those who are tired of people bashing BioWare and think both games are equally great:

(Add brackets to the ends)

img]http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8614/caela1a.jpg[/img
img]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/2764/caela1b.jpg[/img

For those who either like all the romances or think they're all equally shallow:

(Add brackets to the ends)

img]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3899/caela2a.jpg[/img
img]http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/9921/caela2b.jpg[/img

I'll make one for 'splosions if you admit that both ME1 and ME2 have more 'splosions and shooting than lines of dialogue.

Modifié par Ecael, 24 mai 2010 - 02:44 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

That's right. Because anybody who doesn't like the emphasis on shooting at the EXPENSE of plot and character interactions is saying BAW BAW. What the hell other way is there to word it?

[KitsuneRommel]

Ecael wrote...

Hostiles:
ME1 - Having to kill every hostile outside the Mako to get full XP - RPG! FLAWLESS!

But it works! I'm 500xp short of level 42 and I haven't even started Feros, Noveria or Finding Liara T'Soni.

[Ariella]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

That's right. Because anybody who doesn't like the emphasis on shooting at the EXPENSE of plot and character interactions is saying BAW BAW. What the hell other way is there to word it?

I tend to remember there being around the same amout of shooting and violence in both. In fact, the latter half of Feros tend to feel like it was lifted from Army of Darkness (right down to the holy shotgun of Ash, which never needs to reload).

In fact, there's mention during ME1 (and the beginning of ME2) that things around Shepard tend to explode. Udina and the Turian Council member come to mind in ME1.

Also, I'm trying to remember if any of the major plotlines in ME1 could be solved peacefully, none come to mind.

So if you can provide specific examples...

[Ecael]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

That's right. Because anybody who doesn't like the emphasis on shooting at the EXPENSE of plot and character interactions is saying BAW BAW. What the hell other way is there to word it?

You're playing the wrong trilogy.

[bjdbwea]

UltraBoy360 wrote...

I know people wanted more of the same with the Reaper plot - but seriously?
ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

More like this:

ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'find out more about the Reapers, search for ways to stop them'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

Remember, Shepard said at the end of ME 1 "the Reapers are still out there, and I will find a way to stop them". That's what I expected ME 2 to be about, and that's what it should have been about. We may have found out a bit about the Reapers, especially how they are created (though that "explanation" is so dumb and ridiculous, it never should have made it into the game). But apart from that? All the time was wasted with a newly made up enemy, so that new players wouldn't be at a disadvantage. <_<

[Zulu_DFA]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

That's right. Because anybody who doesn't like the emphasis on shooting at the EXPENSE of plot and character interactions is saying BAW BAW. What the hell other way is there to word it?

[Lumikki]

People should understand one thing.



In ME1 and ME2, there is no RPG combat system at all. Both ME's have 3rd person shooter combat system. Real RPG combat system doesn't have this kind of targeting system. RPG combat system is based mostly selecting targets before action can be made. Only few actions in RPG combat system can be without choosing target first. Usually they are somekind of area attacks.



This means the RPG part on ME1 and ME2 has notthing to do with combat system. If anyone here actually pays attention, the RPG part is about story, interactions with npcs, character development and customation. That's where the RPG part is comming.

[bjdbwea]

You are wrong about that. There is no such thing as "the" RPG combat system. As soon as your PC's attributes have an influence on his success in combat, it's an RPG combat system. ME 1 does this, the points you invest into weapon skills determine your chances of hitting anything. And because player's skill also matter, it's a hybrid between RPG and action. ME 2 has shifted this much more into the action territory, unfortunately.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 mai 2010 - 05:01 .

[CroGamer002]

Ecael wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...

finnithe wrote...

1) Could you guys remove that completely unfounded signature of yours? It's pretty obnoxious to just state that ME2 ignores story for action, especially in an area where no one can respond to you and you cannot provide any evidence.

1)I'll remove it when all of the following occur in ME2: Removal of thermal clips, change to a Cohesive plot vs the piece meal plot, no infinite respawn enemies, and we have non-combat alterative ways to solve missions.

You should remove it because it's unoriginal and utterly pointless.

Removal of thermal clips:
ME1 - Non-stop shooting with frictionless materials - RPG! Gameplay!
ME2 - Shooting and reloading with heatsinks - SHOOTER! LAME PLAY!

Plot:
ME1 - Several different storylines started with an indoctrinated Saren working for Reapers - RPG! GENIUS!
ME2 - Several different storylines continued with an indoctrinated Collector working for Reapers - SHOOTER! PLOTLESS!

Hostiles:
ME1 - Having to kill every hostile outside the Mako to get full XP - RPG! FLAWLESS!
ME2 - Respawning enemies in a few missions to prevent turtling and not sacrifice XP - SHOOTER! BRAINLESS!

Plot or character driven missions with no gameplay combat required:
ME1 - WHERE?
ME2 - ???????

1st infinite ammo is better gameplay and no RPG uses ammo( Fallout)? Also ME2 is plotless?
2nd what kind of comperison is that?!
3rd heh?

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

You are wrong about that.

Nope, the difference is between who does the targeting, You as real life person or you character while you just select the targets. That's the real difference between them. Meaning it's differences between simulated character doing thing, while player just gives the strategy or in shooter, player is actually shooting as forced to follow with targeting system the targets.

[KitsuneRommel]

bjdbwea wrote...

You are wrong about that. There is no such thing as "the" RPG combat system. As soon as your PC's attributes have an influence on his success in combat, it's an RPG combat system. ME 1 does this, the points you invest into weapon skills determine your chances of hitting anything. And because player's skill also matter, it's a hybrid between RPG and action. ME 2 has shifted this much more into the action territory, unfortunately.

Because it absolutely made sense for Shepard to have no weapon skills at the start and it would've made even LESS sense for Shepard to suddenly forget that he had mastered weapons in ME1.

Seriously people. "Yeah I was a master sniper in the battle at Elysium but then I had to learn to shoot with sniper rifles again and after my reconstruction I had to learn it yet again."

[KitsuneRommel]

Mesina2 wrote...

1st infinite ammo is better gameplay and no RPG uses ammo( Fallout)? Also ME2 is plotless?

Plenty of RPGs make you buy arrows etc.

[CroGamer002]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

1st infinite ammo is better gameplay and no RPG uses ammo( Fallout)? Also ME2 is plotless?

Plenty of RPGs make you buy arrows etc.

I just rememberd that.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Nope, the difference is between who does the targeting, You as real life person or you character while you just select the targets. That's the real difference between them. Meaning it's differences between simulated character doing thing, while player just gives the strategy or in shooter, player is actually shooting as forced to follow with targeting system the targets.

Yeah, that's a difference. But it's not what determines if it's an "RPG combat system" or not. You could easily develop a game where you select the targets, but have no RPG elements. Wouldn't be an "RPG combat system" just because you click on the enemies.

As I said, ME 1 - and to some extent ME 2 - are hybrid systems. Like Fallout 3, but there it works even better.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 mai 2010 - 05:19 .

[Tasker]

Hmm... Thinking about it, I have to wonder... How much more awsome would Mass Effect have been if it had used a combat/inventory system like Fallout 3s?

[CroGamer002]

Orkboy wrote...

Hmm... Thinking about it, I have to wonder... How much more awsome would Mass Effect have been if it had used a combat/inventory system like Fallout 3s?

Just inventory.
I really don't wish to see something like VATS in ME universe. You know when you freeze time and select where to shot your target.




ANDRENALIN RUSH DOESN'T COUNT!

[Iakus]

bjdbwea wrote...

UltraBoy360 wrote...

I know people wanted more of the same with the Reaper plot - but seriously?
ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

More like this:

ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'find out more about the Reapers, search for ways to stop them'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

Remember, Shepard said at the end of ME 1 "the Reapers are still out there, and I will find a way to stop them". That's what I expected ME 2 to be about, and that's what it should have been about. We may have found out a bit about the Reapers, especially how they are created (though that "explanation" is so dumb and ridiculous, it never should have made it into the game). But apart from that? All the time was wasted with a newly made up enemy, so that new players wouldn't be at a disadvantage. <_<

This, QFT, whatever other positive statement of support I can give.

[CroGamer002]

iakus wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

UltraBoy360 wrote...

I know people wanted more of the same with the Reaper plot - but seriously?
ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

More like this:

ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'find out more about the Reapers, search for ways to stop them'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

Remember, Shepard said at the end of ME 1 "the Reapers are still out there, and I will find a way to stop them". That's what I expected ME 2 to be about, and that's what it should have been about. We may have found out a bit about the Reapers, especially how they are created (though that "explanation" is so dumb and ridiculous, it never should have made it into the game). But apart from that? All the time was wasted with a newly made up enemy, so that new players wouldn't be at a disadvantage. <_<

This, QFT, whatever other positive statement of support I can give.

I didn't find Reaper creation ridicilous. Also I perfer this newly made up enemies then some comandos shouting.
"ENEMIES ARE EVERYWHERE!"
"KILL THEM ALL!"
.
.
.
While Geth Heretics wouldn't make much sense to be main enemy since they failed Reapers in ME1.
But they could make us to fight Collectors more then 3 times!

Modifié par Mesina2, 24 mai 2010 - 05:44 .

[Iakus]

Ecael wrote...

Those who think that the game's main story is just about the Reapers are being short-sighted. If Mass Effect 1/2 were 6 hour single player games like other shooters, then we could criticize for not focusing too much on the Collectors. However, because the story deals with the entire galaxy, to say that it's ONLY the Reapers and humans that matter in the plot is to stick to that same kind of thinking that people have when they play shooters - Good vs. Evil and nothing in-between.

I have nothing against learning more about the ME galaxy.  I've even said before that overall, the loyalty missions are one of the better additions to ME2.  However, I do believe that the Reapers should be part of the overall storyline.  In fact, I'd say that they should get the lion's share of the story, being the ultimate threat and all.  Unfortunately, all they got in ME 2 was a bowl of kibble.

[Ecael]

bjdbwea wrote...

UltraBoy360 wrote...

I know people wanted more of the same with the Reaper plot - but seriously?
ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

More like this:

ME1 - 'race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'find out more about the Reapers, search for ways to stop them'
ME3 - 'Reapers invade to be stopped by Shepard'

Remember, Shepard said at the end of ME 1 "the Reapers are still out there, and I will find a way to stop them". That's what I expected ME 2 to be about, and that's what it should have been about. We may have found out a bit about the Reapers, especially how they are created (though that "explanation" is so dumb and ridiculous, it never should have made it into the game). But apart from that? All the time was wasted with a newly made up enemy, so that new players wouldn't be at a disadvantage. <_<

ME1 - 'Race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'Race against time to stop Human-Reaper invasion'
ME3 - 'Race against time to stop Reaper invasion'



Unless the Human Reaper, Cerberus, and the Collector Homeworld are the key to defeating the Reapers, to which my Renegade Shepard says 'Ha'!

I have nothing against learning more about the ME galaxy. I've even said before that overall, the loyalty missions are one of the better additions to ME2. However, I do believe that the Reapers should be part of the overall storyline. In fact, I'd say that they should get the lion's share of the story, being the ultimate threat and all. Unfortunately, all they got in ME 2 was a bowl of kibble.

Yeah, but then instead of what I listed above, it would be kind of like this:

ME1 - 'Race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME2 - 'Race against time to stop Reaper invasion'
ME3 - 'Race against time to stop Reaper invasion'

There would be no sense of urgency without some kind of invasion, I guess.