10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Orkboy wrote...

But if you want a list of what I consider Bioware did wrong in making this a sequel...

Loot and Inventory system = Needed a tweak, it got removed.

This is not something what got worst, it actually got better. You problem is not that inventory got removed, the problem is that customation got redused. That's two different thing.

In game weapon stats = How do I know that one gun does better than another?

Not needed, this is just your own taste as liking. If You are some kind number player. I don't give a **** from some numbers. I learn by trying and using them.

Armour Types, ie, Light - Medium - Heavy = Why would someone that uses steath wear heavy clunky armour?
Armour for companions = High heels in combat and Bikini's in vacum, seriously?
Armour and Weapon Mods = Instead of choosing what to use in a given situation, I now have cumulative upgrades that remove any sense of choice.
Vehicle implementation = Mako just needed a forward boost, it got removed and replaced with the auto firing, no armoured wet tissue that is the Hammerhead.

I  agree with these. These stuff did not go right direction. Even if mako wasn't best to handle, it did provide alot of variety to gameplay, was just used too often on missions.

Free roaming exploration = Turned into linear corridor shoot fests.

This is below belt, both games are linear corridor fest. And both game has free roaming exploration too in galaxy (or did you mean mako?). You are way lost here with your opinion.

Level transitions, ie, Elevators - Airlocks = Removed along with all sense of flow and immersion, now it feels like a game of levels that we teleport between instead of an open free flowing universe.

This is more like taste thing, but I personaly agree, this was not right direction to go.

Helmet toggle = They add the ability to drink at bars - even basing a mission on it, and then they go and get rid of the ability to remove our helemt so it doesn't look retarded when we drink out of the glass.

Crouch = What harm did having crouch do?

Liara's personality = Not even going there.

Again basicly very small details, what isn't any big deal. I do hope they do improve it in ME3, but as issue, give me break. Crouch did offer loop holes in batttle. Toggle is more like impression breaking in visual. Liara, you can undestand it, if you know what happen to her.

Audio mission breifings = Gone are Admiral Hacketts ( and other peoples ) conversations over the com relay, and instead they get replaced by bloody emails.

Audio brieffing is nice, but how they did it in ME1 was also wrong. Remember that behind you in ME1 Normandy was communication room, how many communication was actually done there. Even if it worked fine, it's not really in all aspect well done.

Weapon overheating = Introducing a retarded ammo system just because some people found a way to have uber weapons in ME1. IT'S A SINGLE PLAYER GAME!! Why the hell would whatever a few people do effect anyone else?  Just remover the last few levels of each mod so the maximum is level 6 and there you go, problem solved.

This was actually badly design in ME1. You could get rid of overhead by weapon mods and make example pistol feel like submachine gun. Reload clip is fine, only problem there is picking clips from ground what isn't fine.

End of mission reports = Other than breaking immersion, what the hell purpose do thay serve? If they had to add them, then they should have been a tab on the email system that people could look at if they wanted.

It's not needed and can break little bit impression, but not a big issue.

Skill select screens = Ammo types as skills, WTF?  So even though they use the same clips and are loaded the same way in the same place on the same guns, I can't load ammo I don't have the skill for?  Fair enough, but why couldn't I just go - "Here, Jacob, stick me a clip of Thermal rounds in this will you."

This is issue for me, but this is also taste thing. How they did it is very handy, but I did like more the ME1 ammo selection.


Many stuff is so much players own taste as liking, even if we sometimes agree with something.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 mai 2010 - 12:58 .

[Cell1e]

I loved Mass Effect 1 more than Mass Effect 2 but am replaying Mass Effect 2 more because I can mess with character looks using Gibbeds and the facecodes. Otherwise I would be back with ME1.

(Ops double post sorry )

Modifié par Cell1e, 28 mai 2010 - 12:39 .

[bjdbwea]

Orkboy wrote...

Audio briefings - TIMs briefings are voiced, but everything else comes via the email system and to me that just seems like a cheap cop out. ME1's briefings wether it was Hackett of the shadow broker or whoever else, added to the immersion and feeling of a rich univeres. ME2 just feels like i'm reading a blog.

This. Of course people who only care about the "gameplay" (= the shooting) will again say it's not "necessary", but I also think that ME 2 lost a lot of atmosphere and immersion with this change alone. Of course DA also has its text boxes (and I don't like it there either), as do many other games. But wasn't it the intention for ME 1 to do things differently, and to make it feel less like a game, and more like a cinematic experience and all that? Well, it worked. Only to make such a step back now with the successor.

[Ecael]

bjdbwea wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Audio briefings - TIMs briefings are voiced, but everything else comes via the email system and to me that just seems like a cheap cop out. ME1's briefings wether it was Hackett of the shadow broker or whoever else, added to the immersion and feeling of a rich univeres. ME2 just feels like i'm reading a blog.

This. Of course people who only care about the "gameplay" (= the shooting) will again say it's not "necessary", but I also think that ME 2 lost a lot of atmosphere and immersion with this change alone. Of course DA also has its text boxes (and I don't like it there either), as do many other games. But wasn't it the intention for ME 1 to do things differently, and to make it feel less like a game, and more like a cinematic experience and all that? Well, it worked. Only to make such a step back now with the successor.

What change? Almost all of the side missions that came with the game don't come with mission briefings because you had to actively explore (!) to discover the planet with the anomaly.

The e-mail is about as immersion-breaking as the codex.

[mantis76]

"Don't make me run, I'm full of chocolates!"



Uder

[KitsuneRommel]

Yes. And fuel and probes are a waste of time and resources that really
add nothing and only serve to frustrate and get in the way.

An RPG element. It's like having to buy arrows/bolts in some games (which I hate too).



Anyway, what's this ME1 was non-linear crap? The only things that were non-linear were the side mission planets and even those were only non-linear until you drove to the bunker. Non-linear = Morrowind, Oblivion, etc.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 28 mai 2010 - 01:04 .

[Ecael]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Yes. And fuel and probes are a waste of time and resources that really
add nothing and only serve to frustrate and get in the way.

An RPG element. It's like having to buy arrows/bolts in some games (which I hate too).



Anyway, what's this ME1 was non-linear crap? The only things that were non-linear were the side mission planets and even those were only non-linear until you drove to the bunker. Non-linear = Morrowind, Oblivion, etc.

The side missions in ME1 were linear (just like everything else in Mass Effect 1/2) because the map already gave you what you needed to know.

[sirandar]

I have noticed that a number of posters are finding ME2 lacking compared to Fallout 3.  I only managed to play 1/2 way through Fallout before my distaste for the game caught up and I quit.  They are 2 different games and while one can wish for a best of both worlds game, it isn't going to happen for a long time IMO

The following refers to MODDED FO3

Worldspace
**************

ME2's worldspace is completely  on rails.  There is no sense of exploration and very very litle interaction with the environment.  ME2s world is very pretty and atmospheric though but very primitive.   Beyond looks, Fallout 3's gameworld is vastly more interesting and interactive than ME2's even though most clutter is just that ... useless junk.

Exploration could be one compelling reason to play FO3, but in practice it is not so great because there isn't much reason to explore, just endless waves of raiders, mercs and creatures who's sole purpose is to pointlessly kill you.  There is no reason to explore unless you like killing stuff over and over and over.  Actually I wish someone would take all the NPCs and creatures out of FO3 so I could just wander around and actually feel like a post apocalyptic explorer.  Exploring the detailed FO3 landscape was great though.


Combat
*********

After playing for a while I found FO3's combat horribly flawed.  This was partly because it was repetitve and just about everything wanted to kill you.  There was way too much of it with little else to balance it (more on plot later).

The biggest issues I had with FO3 combat was that cover was very poorly implemented and didn't work most of the time.  Even ME2s flawed cover system was vastly superior.  FO3s combat also had some annoying inconsistancies such a hitting a merc with a mini nuke often didn't kill them and 3 point blank shots to the head with a shotgun often didn't either.   Grenades and mines were a great addition to FO3, much needed in ME2.

However, combat was very free flowing and immersive in FO3 and there was all sorts of ways to do things.

Combat in ME2 is very scripted and limited you can tell just by the enviroment layout when it is going to happen.

Overall, combat was better in FO3, there was just too much of it, with no compelling reason to keep going unless you like killing over and over


Storyline and Character
***************************

Here is where FO3 (and Oblivion before it) lag way behind ME2.  IMO, FO3 quests are so primative and pointless there is nothing to balance the combat, and the game becomes death porn.   As I have written mods for Oblivion and I know it is a limitation of how the engine works ..... there is no way to write compelling quests and adventures using that engine.

Me1 and ME2s storyline and character interaction is vastly superior to anything from Bethesda.  FO3 is a sandbox but unfortunately most of the many quests are just not detailed enough to bother playing

Modifié par sirandar, 28 mai 2010 - 01:31 .

[MikeFL25]

Just found this thread, so I'm probably way behind everyone else in terms of critique. I'll just post my thoughts, sorry if these have already been discussed.



I would like to preface by saying that I LOVE Mass Effect 2 and the Mass Effect series as a whole. I thought the developers perfected the gameplay in ME2 and I felt the level-up system was more immediately rewarding than the minute improvements in ME1. Interrupts were good, graphics are great, and the game is still probably my GOTY. Now, on to my critiques. (in no particular order)



1. Thermal Clips - not a big deal, and not a big gripe for me, I just preferred the overheat system in ME1 better. In fact, I think it would be better if the two were combined: you have thermal clips which prevents your guns from overheating, but if you run out, you can still shoot but then the overheat meter will start to build up. Anyway, not a big deal.



2. Loot - I was really disappointed that ME2 had virtually no loot...its one of the most important things to include in an RPG. I really liked how in ME1 I could constantly buy/find better weapons, armor and upgrades in different types and colors. It added a lot of depth to the game and I purposely went out of my way to explore in the chance that I might find more stuff. Hopefully this is added back into ME3.



3. Story - I really liked the Collector plot and the "suicide mission" premise, but I felt that besides the beginning of the game (intro scene to Freedom's Progress) and the end of the game, the rest of the game basically left out everything about the main story. I agree that recruiting people was important and all, however, I feel ME1 had much better story and pacing. In ME1, I always knew what my mission was and how it related to the story of Saren and Sovereign. In ME2, I never really knew WHY I was doing these things and recruiting these people and there was virtually no story except at the beginning and end of the game. I also want to see more with Shepard and his unique knowledge of Protheans and stuff. That's what makes him special.



4. Returning Factions/Characters from ME1 handled badly IMO and Shepard "railroaded into working for Cerberus - This one is hard for me because it could have been handled soo much better with just a tad more thought in the writing. I understand completely why Shepard should work with Cerberus, because they are the only ones doing anything (even though TIM probably has his own agenda.) But aside from the "Ah, yes, Reapers" line, the Council and Alliance never really give a good reason why they cant/aren't helping Shepard. I'm just saying, if the dude/gal who saved everyone came back to life and asked for help, I would either help him/her immediately, or at least provide a better reason than "war with terminus systems and wtf cerberus". At least they could have given him some additional Marines/Spectres to join the Normandy crew. As for Ashley/Kaiden and Liara...Shepard is trying to save the galaxy AGAIN and you blow him'her off by telling them that the "galaxy just doesn't work that way?" That's really loyal, thanks.



Anywo, I could go on more but that would just turn into nitpicking. I'm not trying to be too harsh, I do LOVE this game, these are just some things that irritated me a bit.

[Jebel Krong]

Orkboy wrote...

Jebel Krong, i'm not going to quote your quotes as that would just get bogged down and fill the screen with pointless text. 

But I would like to clarify a few things...


Looting - In ME1, as a special forces operative looting should be a bit redundant I agree, but if I were to be pedantic about it, the same could be said about ME2s upgrading and research, TIM spends billions on resurecting Shepard and building the Normandy, but he can't be arsed giving me fuel money, decent equipment or ship upgrades. Instead I have to get them from mercs and vagabonds?
 
But the Mass Effect games are RPGs, Looting is a staple of the genre and most people that play RPGs like doing it.  Imagine an MMORPG where you didn't loot stuff, how well would that do?  Looting gives people a secondary goal in game.


Weaon Stats - The game is very confusing when it comes to explaining what weapons can do, A simple bar graph with Power, Ammo, Rate of Fire would be adequate. ( Similar to the system used in Red Dead Redemption. )


Armour types and companions armour - Again differing armour types and the ability to change companions stuff are a staple of the genre, just look at all the Black Isle games, at KotOR and Neverwinter.  Also, if someone stealthy could get away with wearing large clunky armour, why is Kasumi wearing a body suit? Why can't my Shepard wear a similar outfit? Differentation is fine, but practicality should also play a part.


Mako - The Mako was only crap because people couldn't get it up the hills, a forward booster would have more than covered that problem. - I loved the Mako though so i'm biased.

Audio breifings - TIMs briefings are voiced, but everything else comes via the email system and to me that just seems like a cheap cop out. ME1's briefings wether it was Hackett of the shadow broker or whoever else, added to the immersion and feeling of a rich univeres. ME2 just feels like i'm reading a blog.

Your other points i'm not going to go into detail on, I can understand your points of view, but I still stand by my own.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

fair enough

i can see your points, but i am against anything that is done purely for "genre conventions" rather than because it fits and adds something positive to the game - that includes loot/companion armour etc if it's not necessary - leave it out! one of my biggest arguments with Terror_k in fact seems to be exactly this - he'd rather those arcane conventions are observed, and i'd rather BW tried something new - even if it ultimately fails e.g. planet scanning, or the new mako. the fuel and ammo systems would be have been dumped straight away if i was making the game - they don't fit and are completely illogical - if it doesn't work, come up with other gameplay systems if you are worried there's not enough, or you don't want people doing certain things too early.

the audio thing might come down to disc space, btw - 2 dvds already now, remember....

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 28 mai 2010 - 02:00 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Before I make what is bound to be a long post, I'd forgot to mention Fallout for the potential hybrid I alluded to earlier. F3 combat, Persona emphasis on story, Heavy Rain graphics.

[quote]Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You have addressed this but everytime someone gets you to explain this point you latch on to someone else who's called you out on it in a different way. 

Between the two games, combat mechanics aside what is handled differently in Storyline presentation.[/quote]

Both games have shooting, yes, but just because both games have shooting doesn't mean they're bobbsey twins.

[quote]Orkboy wrote...

Audio breifings - TIMs briefings are voiced, but everything else comes via the email system and to me that just seems like a cheap cop out. ME1's briefings wether it was Hackett of the shadow broker or whoever else, added to the immersion and feeling of a rich univeres. ME2 just feels like i'm reading a blog.[/quote]

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

Heres what i think which you mentioned a while ago. ME1 has heavier RPG aspects and lesscombat mechanics while ME2 is the complete opposite.


Does this mean ME3 will be perfectly balanced?[/quote]

[quote]Shockwave81 wrote...

Now I'm not being nostalgic here, merely stating a few differences that I believe made ME1 more 'interactive' and 'customisable' as far as player choices go (I will elaborate and probably deviate from this, but thoughts will pop into my head as I progress...)

1: Shepard's interactions with the Council on the SR1. Players could choose whether or not to take a holo-call in almost every single instance. The game did not force players to speak to the powers-that-be, before railroading them into the next main story mission.
2: Players could choose the order in which they would visit each main world.
3: Many (if not most) side quests encouraged players to consider the consequences of their actions (irrespective of a potential carry-over to ME2) see: Toombes, Tali's data, Helena Blake, Major Kyle etc.

Now, some might argue that ME2 railroaded players into the main story missions because it would have adversely affected the pacing if players were allowed to fly around scanning planets and completing side quests while the events on Horizon were taking place, but I beg to differ.

Using Virmire as an example, the Council gives you a tip that a certain someone may be on the planet - however they also go as far as telling you that they don't want to become involved in the 'specifics' of Spectre activity, but only want you to be aware of all of your options (love those little interactions in case you didn't notice).

I didn't rush off to Virmire as a result of this information - I dithered about on numerous uncharted worlds, mucked around talking to my squad mates etc. When I finally DID visit Virmire (on every playthrough), I never felt as though I was 'late for tea' - a tribute to the game's design as far as I'm concerned.

As I briefly mentioned earlier, while there was a general itinerary to follow (Therum->Feros/Noveria->Virmire in my case), players could choose the order in which they would visit each world AND this was actually factored into the game as evidenced by the debriefings in the SR1 comms room.

The fact that this is not possible in ME2, by virtue of the fact that the Collectors can't be in two places at once for certain reasons, is indicative (again, my opinion only) of a weaker story (in terms of the main villains) and pacing. Assuming players gather every team mate, there is almost no connection between the order you build your team, and how the story pans out.

Your squad-mates are kept so entirely separate from one another (on and off the SR2), that it robbed ME2 of the potential for a sense of team spirit that could have made the game even better.

If the main story of ME2 had of been all about TIM's manipulations (and Shepard's reactions to these) as opposed to building an uber team to fight the Collectors, then I'd be inclined to think more highly of ME2, especially in terms of foreshadowing for ME3 anyway - which remains to be seen.

I won't bother talking about the side quests - that's been done to death.

Bla bla bla. I'm actually getting bored of visiting the forums now. Guess I'll just stay away until new DLC is announced or something. [/quote]

*Note. My first playthrough for ME2 I recruited Thane before Samara. After recruiting Thane, I was forced to go to Horizon. It was really stupid because it killed the Immersion. Now if Samara is RIGHT THERE, why the hell are you going to leave?

[quote]Kyzzo wrote...

ME2, in and of itself, is not really disappointing. It's one of the most entertaining games I've played. I don't find the lack of conventional RPG mechanics particularly disappointing either. However, the radical "paradigm shift", if you will, that Bioware seem to have deemed necessary for whatever reasons is indeed quite a bummer.

The first time I played ME1, I had the impression that Bioware had intended for the game to be more than "just a videogame", something beyond mere escapist entertainment. I recall one of the good doctors of BW (I'm almost certain that it was Dr. Muzyka) stating in an interview that they wanted to take their videogames to the level of serious art. ME1 was, I thought, a good, promising -albeit a bit awkward and indecisive- initial attempt in that direction. The game seemed to be striving to be larger than the sum of its parts, yet not confident enough that it could actually achieve that goal. But that made the game very charming at the same time, and despite its more than a few weaknesses, it still made it possible for the player to actively participate in creating a memorable "experience" far beyond that of just shooting and blowing sh** up. Fortunately, it sold reasonably well and garnered critical acclaim. After those wobbly first steps that ME1 had taken, I thought that the sky was the limit for BW.

Then came ME2. It's no doubt a far more polished game and quite addictive. I'm on my 10th playthrough and still having a blast. It is, however, "just a videogame", nothing more, nothing less, with hardly any trace of the lofty ideals and aspirations of the first game. I don't even mind the somewhat sloppy writing and the lazy design (E.g. in a game which is supposedly heavily character-based, there are no interactions, no dynamics among the characters that make up the "badass squad", the focus of the whole game). The shiny veneer that the much touted combat system is more than compensates for such shortcomings of the game. It is, after all, mere escapist entertainment. Needless to say that I'm looking forward to playing ME3, even if it too turns out to be just a videogame. But I hope that in time BW finds the courage to do what they claim to aspire to.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

There isn't really any "choice" in tactics when you get down to it. Yes, I'm well aware there are different classes, but these classes all amount to combat no matter which way you look at it. 

The only reason I put up with the combat is to experience the role play aspect. Certain aspects of the role playing experience is optional. Firing a gun for uber pwnage is not.

The following is what transpires when Bioware takes to marketing their games the way they do with ME2:

"Who cares about the story?

It's all about the gameplay and it looks sick."

Yeah. Who cares about the story.  

http://boards.ign.co...6/188331213/p2/

5th post down.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

How is the combat emphasised over plot? I'll give you combat emphasised over RPG elements but not over plot. And considering that there is just as much (if not more) character interaction in ME2 than in ME1, how has it suffered?[/quote]

Let me spell it out for you. To get from the beginning of a main world to the end took about 35-45 minutes on average with my ME1 Shepard. After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali, we could chat it up with Conrad again at the Citadel, we could check in with Anderson and Udina, and we could give the post mission report to the council. There was also the scenic view. When all is said and done, dialogue was even with the length of missions, sometime even more. In addition there was a lot of dialogue and character interaction DURING the missions. Now let's look at ME2. We could get maybe 10 minutes of dialogue on average with SOME characters if milked dry. After those 10 minutes, we're thrown in with an hour long plus mission stopping for the occasional renegade/paragon interrupt. We can talk to Garrus only TWICE. Your entire squad is almost always too busy to speak with you. We have more squad members, but not more dialogue to reflect that. And there's hardly any discussion with anybody post main mission. Instead we get text to read from emails. The only time Anderson talks again is after meeting Ashley.

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

We get more emotional satisfaction from chatting with the crew as opposed to headshots.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

That's not combat over plot, that's action (action = combat + conversations on main missions) over companion conversations. The character's stories are told through their loyalty quests rather than their conversations.[/quote]

Their loyalty quests have very little dialogue when you compare it to the ratio of combat. Just give me a relaxed, personal environment to grow the relationship between my Shepard and the crew.[/quote]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]Jebel Krong wrote...

why does there need to be an inventory just because the game is also an rpg? stop defining games by certain features that have to be checked off and you'll enjoy them a lot more.[/quote]

Translation: stop liking the factors you enjoy in a game and you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Sorry, but as much as I enjoy a good shooter, when I play an RPG I expect it to at least have some depth to it and a decent amount of items. To me telling me to just enjoy an RPG without an inventory would be like telling me to enjoy a shooter without any weapons or a beat-em up with no special moves whatsoever.[/quote]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Because of course, as usual, everything is an extreme, isn't it? Because I say I enjoyed having an inventory, it therefore MUST be the best friggin' factor of the entire game! Oh, and that means all those other factors you listed aren't important at all. And, yes, that must also mean I want an extremely complex RPG that would confuse even Stephen Hawking filled with a billion interwoven stats, turn-based combat and dice rolls![/quote]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

They're only "outdated" because today's so-called "gamers" want everything to be overly simple and basic. Most of ME2's mechanics are more dated than ME1's ones (either that or they're simply done to death in modern games) but because they're the current trend and flavour of today's audience then they're considered okay. Yes, Mass Effect 2 is more "with the times" than ME1 was, but said "times" are pretty damn shallow and cliche and getting tired. Good mechanics that work no matter how old out "outdated" they are are still good mechanics that work.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]Palidine_0225 wrote...

Put simply I buy Bioware games for the story not some ground breaking gameplay. I buy Valve, id Software, and Epic if I want to see some new earth-shattering combat in a game.[/quote]


This

I can forgive a lot in a game when it has a gripping story to tell.  Unfortunately, when the story's weak, I start to notice the other imperfections, like how the crew of the Normandy's dressed like a soccer team, how all the missions are pretty much the same, how disconnected from ME1 this "sequel" is.  How you really only need half your recruits for the suicide mission.  Next thing you know you've reinstalled BG2 and having a blast.

Speaking hypothetically of course [/quote]

Agreed with everything you both said.

Two games that come to mind with various problems but the story makes up for it is Final Fantasy X and Shadow Of Destiny.

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I think the problem with your argument is that BW can't have lots of companions with lots of dialogue, you have to choose one or the other and gameplay wise more companions is on the whole more interesting than the dialogue (which I suspect the majority of people skipped anyway).[/quote]

What's the point in having more companions if you can't chat with them? Just for more ways to kill any enemy? As Shepard would say, fun fun.

And if you're not interested in milking dialogue for all they're worth, just play one of the plethora of shooters that don't focus on dialogue and leave what little games like Mass Effect story driven fans love alone.[/quote]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

At least Mass Effect was trying be be an RPG, rather than trying its hardest not to be one while still fitting the definition like ME2. ME1's problems weren't solved with ME2, they were eliminated by just scrapping the issues entirely and falling back on overly simple shooter mechanics or just complete elimination. And said mechanics are dull, shallow and done to death.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Firstly, a large majority of people thought ME1's combat was broke.[/quote]

To combat fans.

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Secondly, I completely agree with what was said on that youtube clip, but honestly ME2 has a lot of character interaction and as I stated earlier I actually thought most of ME2's characters were deeper than ME1's. Anyway, almost all good sci fi at some point gets around to everyone going off and shooting something.[/quote]

No it doesn't. Maybe out in the middle of a fight, but who the hell feels like having a chat for a few minutes just to be dropped RIGHT BACK into a fight? Not sure who it was but somebody FROM BIOWARE said, and I'm paraphrasing-
"There's just enough combat for you to look forward to relaxing after missions to get to know your squad and just enough socializing for you to look forward to get back into the action."

Which, was a complete lie.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]geordiep wrote...

Storyline.... erm ME2 has a storyline? Too much 'making buddies' with crewmates too little kicking a**.[/quote]

Wow. Just wow.

Most of the fans that bit**** that the combat sucked in ME1 orgasmed playing ME2.
And tell me. How does headshots further a story?[/quote]

Alright, I'll end with this. I made this point at the original boards but I'll repeat myself. Shooter fans and story driven fans cannot and do not mesh.

Those are all my biggest points. Now, is there anything you need clarified or need to go in more detail from those quotes or something I didn't mention so you understand my stance better?

[Ecael]

Their loyalty quests have very little dialogue when you compare it to the ratio of combat. Just give me a relaxed, personal environment to grow the relationship between my Shepard and the crew.

Still haven't answered my question:



Or how about this one:



Or this one:



Then tell me how Mass Effect 1 and 2 aren't equally about shooting, 'splosions and dialogue.

Modifié par Ecael, 28 mai 2010 - 02:07 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

sirandar wrote...

After playing for a while I found FO3's combat horribly flawed.  This was partly because it was repetitve and just about everything wanted to kill you.  There was way too much of it with little else to balance it (more on plot later).

You just described Mass Effect 2.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Ok, much of that quoted Terror_K and was about the combat and not the plot direction.

Most of what you quoted again was complaining about the actual missions of ME 2, I still do not see how, as those same complaints can be leveled against ME 1. What your actual complaint seems to be is that ME 2 does not have as good of a story as ME 1, which is different from what you have been complaining about, as gameplay mechanics have very little to do with how a story is written, especially given how the presentation of the story is exactly the same as it was in the first Mass Effect game.

Also I strongly disagree with

Shooter fans and story driven fans cannot and do not mesh.

again that seems like you are kind of missing the point. The presentation is the same, the storyline may not be as good, but the presentation is the same. So called shooter fans would not be alienated by this presentation.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 28 mai 2010 - 02:11 .

[Ecael]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

sirandar wrote...

After playing for a while I found FO3's combat horribly flawed.  This was partly because it was repetitve and just about everything wanted to kill you.  There was way too much of it with little else to balance it (more on plot later).

You just described Mass Effect 2.

And Mass Effect 1.

[voteDC]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Between the two games, combat mechanics aside what is handled differently in Storyline presentation.

Well for me it is that in the first game everything seemed to flow rather naturally, with missions coming from within missions.

In Mass Effect 2 though, everything seems very disjointed. With the only missions having any real connection being the recruitment and loyalty missions.

Plus the second game really didn't have the same sense of urgency as the first. In Mass Effect 1 even when I was off doing side-missions there was always the impression that Saren might be around the next corner. Harbinger just wasn't a good antagonist and never presented himself as a real threat (well until that ending cinematic anyway.)

[KitsuneRommel]

voteDC wrote...

Plus the second game really didn't have the same sense of urgency as the first. In Mass Effect 1 even when I was off doing side-missions there was always the impression that Saren might be around the next corner. Harbinger just wasn't a good antagonist and never presented himself as a real threat (well until that ending cinematic anyway.

ME1 even has a mission "Race Against Time" which isn't really. You always managed to just miss Saren too which makes you feel like if you hadn't done those side missions maybe you could have been there before he got what he wanted and left.

[Ecael]

voteDC wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Between the two games, combat mechanics aside what is handled differently in Storyline presentation.

Well for me it is that in the first game everything seemed to flow rather naturally, with missions coming from within missions.

In Mass Effect 2 though, everything seems very disjointed. With the only missions having any real connection being the recruitment and loyalty missions.

To be fair, most of the missions were recruitment and loyalty missions. Some of the missions further dwelled upon either the storylines in ME1 (Prothean's fate, genophage, geth war) or expanded upon the characterization a specific race (my krogan example posted earlier, quarians). I think it did a pretty good job at that, but that's only because I treat the Reaper storyline with the same importance as the rest of the galaxy's problems.

If they were minor problems, then those problems wouldn't be preventing the same people from helping Shepard unite against the Reapers. Instead Shepard is only able to convince a few people to help her/him, many of whom have clout in convincing their own race.

Plus the second game really didn't have the same sense of urgency as the first. In Mass Effect 1 even when I was off doing side-missions there was always the impression that Saren might be around the next corner. Harbinger just wasn't a good antagonist and never presented himself as a real threat (well until that ending cinematic anyway.)

Neither game had any sense of urgency. You could do every single side mission in Mass Effect 1 right before Ilos and you'd still land right on top of Saren as he walked into the ruins. In Mass Effect 2 you can do the same thing with the Omega-4 relay and it wouldn't affect your squadmates or Shepard - only the crew.

Modifié par Ecael, 28 mai 2010 - 02:29 .

[Jebel Krong]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Before I make what is bound to be a long post, I'd forgot to mention Fallout for the potential hybrid I alluded to earlier. F3 combat, Persona emphasis on story, Heavy Rain graphics.


*Note. My first playthrough for ME2 I recruited Thane before Samara. After recruiting Thane, I was forced to go to Horizon. It was really stupid because it killed the Immersion. Now if Samara is RIGHT THERE, why the hell are you going to leave?

*snip*
i dunno, oh maybe it's because horizon (& the collector ship) were time-sensitive. even being on the same planet you had to get to horizon as fast as possible as soon as you heard to catch the collectors. they explained that in-game, it's not hard.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Alright, I'll end with this. I
made this point at the original boards but I'll repeat myself. Shooter
fans and story driven fans cannot and do not mesh.

what? that is so retarded a statement i suddenly remember why i started ignoring your posts entirely....

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 28 mai 2010 - 02:36 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Ecael, my answer will be in my response to Onyx.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Ok, much of that quoted Terror_K and was about the combat and not the plot direction.

Most of what you quoted again was complaining about the actual missions of ME 2, I still do not see how, as those same complaints can be leveled against ME 1. What your actual complaint seems to be is that ME 2 does not have as good of a story as ME 1, which is different from what you have been complaining about, as gameplay mechanics have very little to do with how a story is written, especially given how the presentation of the story is exactly the same as it was in the first Mass Effect game.

Also I strongly disagree with

Shooter fans and story driven fans cannot and do not mesh.

again that seems like you are kind of missing the point. The presentation is the same, the storyline may not be as good, but the presentation is the same. So called shooter fans would not be alienated by this presentation.

I realize that both games have combat and I am not opposed to combat. Combat is NOT an issue for me and I ENJOYED ME1's combat. However ME2's MECHANICS were very different compared to ME1's.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

How is the combat emphasised over plot? I'll give you combat emphasised over RPG elements but not over plot. And considering that there is just as much (if not more) character interaction in ME2 than in ME1, how has it suffered?

Let me spell it out for you. To get from the beginning of a main world to the end took about 35-45 minutes on average with my ME1 Shepard. After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali, we could chat it up with Conrad again at the Citadel, we could check in with Anderson and Udina, and we could give the post mission report to the council. There was also the scenic view. When all is said and done, dialogue was even with the length of missions, sometime even more. In addition there was a lot of dialogue and character interaction DURING the missions. Now let's look at ME2. We could get maybe 10 minutes of dialogue on average with SOME characters if milked dry. After those 10 minutes, we're thrown in with an hour long plus mission stopping for the occasional renegade/paragon interrupt. We can talk to Garrus only TWICE. Your entire squad is almost always too busy to speak with you. We have more squad members, but not more dialogue to reflect that. And there's hardly any discussion with anybody post main mission. Instead we get text to read from emails. The only time Anderson talks again is after meeting Ashley.

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

We get more emotional satisfaction from chatting with the crew as opposed to headshots.

There was hardly any RELAXING after the missions in ME2 except for some planet scanning and that's anything but relaxing. By the shift in focus, the story therefore suffered because it's obvious more resources went to combat as opposed to plot. Can you really say that "mystery mission X" isn't laziness on Bioware's part?

[SkullandBonesmember]

Jebel Krong wrote...

i dunno, oh maybe it's because horizon (& the collector ship) were time-sensitive. even being on the same planet you had to get to horizon as fast as possible as soon as you heard to catch the collectors. they explained that in-game, it's not hard.

It could have been handled differently.

[CroGamer002]

mashavasilec wrote...

Am I hallucinating, or somebody here actually answers his own posts?

It's just utterly confusing

I wouldn't be suprised.

[SkullandBonesmember]

mashavasilec wrote...

Am I hallucinating, or somebody here actually answers his own posts?

It's just utterly confusing

What's utterly confusing about not wanting to continue to repeat oneself by typing out long winded posts when I can simply quote my previous comments to reinforce my points?

[Ecael]

mashavasilec wrote...

Am I hallucinating, or somebody here actually answers his own posts?

It's just utterly confusing

I argue with myself sometimes. It's fun.

"I say, is this a new brand of tea? It tastes rather bland!"

"Incorrect my good madam/sir, this tea is the same brew that you've always been drinking!"