10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

mashavasilec wrote...

Of course, Councilor. Good day to both of you

*..slowly backs away..*

"No more talk! We leave!"

It's always the same when you try to talk to the Vorcha councilor.

[Jebel Krong]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

mashavasilec wrote...

Of course, Councilor. Good day to both of you

*..slowly backs away..*

"No more talk! We leave!"

It's always the same when you try to talk to the Vorcha councilor.

that's because he knows your tricks..... still there's always time for tea & tiffin, apparently.

[cachx]

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?

So you don't like the pacing. That's ok. 

But, that doesn't mean that ME2 is not "story driven"  or that ME1 had "moar" dialogue. That has been disproved several times.

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

What a bunch of BS. Sure there are probably people who only can handle playing shooters, just like there are people that can only play the latest Madden, or that only play WoW, or only Farmville, etc...

I'm pretty sure a lot of gamers out there enjoy a multitude of genres just fine. Some of them post here too, I'm one of them . (I usually avoid First Person Shooters, except the really good ones).

[CroGamer002]

cachx wrote...

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?

So you don't like the pacing. That's ok. 

But, that doesn't mean that ME2 is not "story driven"  or that ME1 had "moar" dialogue. That has been disproved several times.

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

What a bunch of BS. Sure there are probably people who only can handle playing shooters, just like there are people that can only play the latest Madden, or that only play WoW, or only Farmville, etc...

I'm pretty sure a lot of gamers out there enjoy a multitude of genres just fine. Some of them post here too, I'm one of them . (I usually avoid First Person Shooters, except the really good ones).

Then I gues you never played CoD MW2.

[SkullandBonesmember]

cachx wrote...

But, that doesn't mean that ME2 is not "story driven"  or that ME1 had "moar" dialogue. That has been disproved several times.

Ahhh yes. "ME2 is story driven". We have dismissed those claims.

cachx wrote...

What a bunch of BS. Sure there are probably people who only can handle playing shooters, just like there are people that can only play the latest Madden, or that only play WoW, or only Farmville, etc...

I'm pretty sure a lot of gamers out there enjoy a multitude of genres just fine. Some of them post here too, I'm one of them . (I usually avoid First Person Shooters, except the really good ones).

Yes, I enjoy a multitude of games. Like I said though, while some may like both Stephen King and JK Rowling, who REALLY wants to see Harry Potter take on Pennywise?

Gamers that think an RPG lives and dies by its characters and story above all else can not and do not mesh with gamers who think combat is just as, if not, more important over story and characters.

[Ariella]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Yes, I enjoy a multitude of games. Like I said though, while some may like both Stephen King and JK Rowling, who REALLY wants to see Harry Potter take on Pennywise?

Gamers that think an RPG lives and dies by its characters and story above all else can not and do not mesh with gamers who think combat is just as, if not, more important over story and characters.

Shooter is a mechanic used to simulate combat, which RPGs have ALWAYS had plenty of (go back to the old Bard's Tale or Gold box AD&D games if you don't believe me). Ultima IV was possibly the first crpg that focused on things other than combat but it still had plenty of combat. In fact, I can't think of one crpg that lacked a combat mechanic, unless you consider Myst an RPG. 

[SkullandBonesmember]

Ariella wrote...

Shooter is a mechanic used to simulate combat, which RPGs have ALWAYS had plenty of (go back to the old Bard's Tale or Gold box AD&D games if you don't believe me). Ultima IV was possibly the first crpg that focused on things other than combat but it still had plenty of combat. In fact, I can't think of one crpg that lacked a combat mechanic, unless you consider Myst an RPG.

I literally just did a facepalm without even realizing it. That's how much I'm in shock of your post. No longer though. After so much ignorance day in and day out on this board, mostly originating from the thread we all continue to participate in, there is absolutely NOTHING anybody can say that will surprise me, let alone make me facepalm again.

As I've said. And said. And said. There is a reason video games aren't limited to Pong anymore. Evolving technology. I am not against combat in any game. I am against games that are supposed to be very deep both in characters and overall story, focusing MORE on combat instead of plot, which ME2 did, but ME1 did not.

[Ecael]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

focusing MORE on combat instead of plot, which ME2 did, but ME1 did not.

Until you've answered these questions in my post, there is no way you can even prove that.

http://social.biowar...797/128#2746132

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Gamers that think an RPG lives and dies by its characters and story above all else can not and do not mesh with gamers who think combat is just as, if not, more important over story and characters.

I think every aspect of the game is important.  Next is more like general comment.

If I look Mass Effect serie, I think most important part for me in it, is cinematic story telling. If I wanted pure RPG game I would not play this game. If I wanted pure shooter game, I would not play this game. What is really good in Mass Effect is the story and feeling that you are part of it. Combinating somekind of roleplaying to action game, with great story. The voice acting and graphics just pulls you in to it. Mass Effect series are excelent games.

I think everyone who is here should understand difference between giving constructive feedback to game developers to make next Mass Effect game version even better for EVERYONE who likes this kind of games. Not just complaing they own disapoinments or trying to change game to be something else, because player wanted something little different. There is difference between personal liking and general game problems as what can be improved.

We all like sertain style games better than some other styles, but we all are different people.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I am against games that are supposed to be very deep both in characters and overall story, focusing MORE on combat instead of plot, which ME2 did, but ME1 did not.

ME2 did not really focus more in combat than ME1. How ever, it feels that way, because they redused the RPG part so much in ME2. I'm talking the customation and character development side. What means they simplifyed the RPG part way too much, so that it feels that combat has bigger part.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 mai 2010 - 09:58 .

[Worrywort]

I'm disappointed that the classes are stripped down from what they were in ME1, and how it felt like I was the whole game was a bunch of side quests.

[Terror_K]

Combat is more of a focus in ME2... from a certain perspective. It focuses more on the pure gameplay of the combat and less on the statistical structure surrounding it. I mean, for one thing, pretty much all the class skills are combat-focused now. In ME1 one had to worry about other things as well, such as decryption, hacking, persuasion ability, first aid, etc. but that's all gone in favour of combat. There's no real support classes any more, because even the once weak Engineer can hold his own in combat. Its less about building your character for combat and more about just being in it.

[Ariella]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Shooter is a mechanic used to simulate combat, which RPGs have ALWAYS had plenty of (go back to the old Bard's Tale or Gold box AD&D games if you don't believe me). Ultima IV was possibly the first crpg that focused on things other than combat but it still had plenty of combat. In fact, I can't think of one crpg that lacked a combat mechanic, unless you consider Myst an RPG.

I literally just did a facepalm without even realizing it. That's how much I'm in shock of your post. No longer though. After so much ignorance day in and day out on this board, mostly originating from the thread we all continue to participate in, there is absolutely NOTHING anybody can say that will surprise me, let alone make me facepalm again.

As I've said. And said. And said. There is a reason video games aren't limited to Pong anymore. Evolving technology. I am not against combat in any game. I am against games that are supposed to be very deep both in characters and overall story, focusing MORE on combat instead of plot, which ME2 did, but ME1 did not.

Considering I still have the welt on my forehead from your "Harry Potter vs. Pennywise" example (which was one of the most inane things I've ever read), it's only fair.

Your objection seems to be that even the barest hint of combat destroys an RPG, or at least that's what you imply. I noticed NO difference between the amount of combat in ME 1's and ME 2's main storylines. And while I felt that ME 1 did a better job dealing with the transitional moments between action and non-action scenes giving it a more cinematic feel, I never saw any real difference in type and amount of combat.

It seems to me what most people are really objecting to isn't the lack of story, but that the context of ME2 story was different than the original's. Shepard isn't functioning in Council or Alliance space with the backing of those governments, but rather is cut off and working in a more frontier setting of the Terminus where the law is what one makes it.

Combat has a very important place in storytelling, from books to movies to the computer RPG, and the idea that deep story cannot take  place in the context of combat strikes me as a major fallacy.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Combat is more of a focus in ME2... from a certain perspective. It focuses more on the pure gameplay of the combat and less on the statistical structure surrounding it. I mean, for one thing, pretty much all the class skills are combat-focused now. In ME1 one had to worry about other things as well, such as decryption, hacking, persuasion ability, first aid, etc. but that's all gone in favour of combat. There's no real support classes any more, because even the once weak Engineer can hold his own in combat. Its less about building your character for combat and more about just being in it.

Yeah, I ques I do agree with you little bit here. Simplifying the character development caused certain aspect of game become weaker. Story & combat relation is allmost same what it was, but customation and character develoment isn't. Also some small impresion details where redused as making it faster. In simple way sayed, RPG side got way too simplified. What cause game feel little different as player can't anymore consume gameplay time in sertain stuff, because they are now so simple and fast.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 mai 2010 - 10:27 .

[Terror_K]

I think it just doesn't help that combat is so far removed from the RPG aspects of the game. When you're in combat it simply never feels like an RPG, it JUST feels like playing a TPS. Even with your powers there. At least with ME1 you knew the stats were effecting things. And it doesn't help that 90% of the biotic powers in ME2 do squat unless the enemies only have health, meaning you just end up using your guns most of the time because they're far more effective; even bowling down a row of enemies on full power with Shockwave has them standing back up again with barely any damage, so I may as well just shoot them.

[uberdowzen]

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.

Sooooo...remind me, how is this any different from the UCWs where whole stories were almost entirely conveyed in text boxes? Need I remind you of the vision Shepherd has on one world which is just 3 massive text boxes?

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

I think it just doesn't help that combat is so far removed from the RPG aspects of the game. When you're in combat it simply never feels like an RPG, it JUST feels like playing a TPS. Even with your powers there. At least with ME1 you knew the stats were effecting things. And it doesn't help that 90% of the biotic powers in ME2 do squat unless the enemies only have health, meaning you just end up using your guns most of the time because they're far more effective; even bowling down a row of enemies on full power with Shockwave has them standing back up again with barely any damage, so I may as well just shoot them.

1) In ME1 you did know your stats were affecting things more, the problem was that it didn't really matter because you just pointed and shot anyway. If there's going to be stats at least make them affect things in an interesting way, otherwise don't bother.

2) I'm pretty sure that if a biotic power doesn't work, it still reduces armor/barriers.

[uberdowzen]

I may have done this before, but I'm going to post a list I made on another forum, I'd really like to see some arguments to the points I make.

[uberdowzen]

Removing the inventory

I love RPGs and I love inventorys, but I can't count the number of times I've stopped playing ME1 because I can't face clearing out the inventory (not to mention the times I've had to omni-gel good items because I'd reached the 150 item limit).



Thermal Clips

Brilliant idea. No downtime when your weapon overheats and it forces you to be sensible about your shots rather than just randomly spraying your Assualt Rifle.



The Combat

Anyone saying that ME1 had better combat is just being argumentative. ME2's combat is perfect (20X better than Modern Warfare's). It's exciting, tactical and satisfying.



The Leveling System

I do have mixed feelings about this. ME's system had the issue that you levelled up far to often and your character improved very little. With ME2's system however, you level up at a better pace but you often don't have enough points to upgrade anything, making levelling very unsatisfying.



Story

ME1 did have a better story though. ME2's essentially consists of 5 missions and is surrounded by lots of unrelated recruitment quests. ME1's story felt more focussed on ***SPOILER***stopping Saren***SPOILER*** but ME2's plot feels a bit all over the place. Still better than most game stories though.



Complaining about ME2 having lost features is like saying the a hamburger with 10 different kinds of meat, 100 different sauces and 4 jars of pickles is better than a hamburger with 1 kind of meat, 1 kind of sauce and 1 pickle. More is not better.

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

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.

Sooooo...remind me, how is this any different from the UCWs where whole stories were almost entirely conveyed in text boxes? Need I remind you of the vision Shepherd has on one world which is just 3 massive text boxes?

Uh... okay. For one thing, as admittedly disappointing as that example you gave was, it wasn't a proper mission so much as an easter egg. Given what was described, it would have taken a fair amount of effort to actually show it too.

Secondly, those UCWs where text boxes conveyed everything were a minority in ME1, while were pretty much par for the course on every N7 Mission. The UNC missions generally had a decent set-up where you actually spoke with somebody about it (Admiral Hackett, Admiral Kahoku, Nassana Dantius, Helena Blake, etc.) which also meant said quests involved some dialogue and interesting NPCs: another factor N7 missions lacked entirely. Then you went and did the mission and you'd often have an antagonist or at leas some NPC to talk to, which would lead to more interesting characters, more dialogue and often even a moral choice to net Paragon or Renegade points. Sometimes your squadmates would even comment specifically on the issue, particularly Ashley if it were an Alliance manner, Kaidan or Liara if it were a biotic one, etc.

The point is, while the content of the missions may have been the same, most were at least given some polish and well integrated rather than the slapped-on feeling of the N7 missions, where your Shepard is simply given an email rather than spoken to, then silently goes from text box to text box with two equally silent companions (unless they make the odd vague quip repeatedly) chasing mercs who communicate urgent yet specific orders and banter  via datapad rather than... y'know... speaking, meeting nobody of interest with very few choices and with an overall feeling that beyond XP and completionism these things aren't going anywhere. After all, they're situations not even worth commenting on by anybody really.

[Lumikki]

This I have to correct.

The emails aren't just missions, they are mostly mail from people you have helped or need help or some few active mission stuff. Most of the real missions are voice acted. Example all main story missions are comming with briffing from TIM, so does all dossiers. All loayal mission comes from squad members and all of them are voice acted. There are some small mission what you get as email, but also many side missions in ME2 are come from talking with npcs and they are voice acted.

I know what you mean, but I think you people are over reacted. I mean many of these emails where from civilian people, who doens't have ability contact to Shepard, like some military Admiral has.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 mai 2010 - 11:12 .

[Jestina]

ME2 just feels too straight, lead you by the nose and shoot everything in your path. Rinse and repeat. Not much RPG element left...they completely wiped out the inventory, no planetary exploration, very small free roaming areas, characters stats are very condensed, etc. Almost no equipment in the game...you wear the same old suit of armor for the whole game and only have a very small selection of weapons.



It's like ME for dummies or something.

Seems like gamers are getting dumber or at least the developers think they are so they push out games requiring very little thought now.

[Iakus]

[quote]Ariella wrote...
Considering I still have the welt on my forehead from your "Harry Potter vs. Pennywise" example (which was one of the most inane things I've ever read), it's only fair.

[/quote]

I thought it was funny "Harry Potter and the Clown of Derry"


quote]Ariella wrote...

It seems to me what most people are really objecting to isn't the lack of story, but that the context of ME2 story was different than the original's. Shepard isn't functioning in Council or Alliance space with the backing of those governments, but rather is cut off and working in a more frontier setting of the Terminus where the law is what one makes it.
[/quote[

Sounds cool when described that way.

What I, at least object to is:

The problem is introduced, then shelved for most of the game.  Most of the game is then a dozen seperate plot points with virtually no connection to each other.  Just Shep and ::insert recruit here::  Seriously, guys, "There's no 'I' in team"

Colonies vanishing in the Terminus systems?  "I'm Commander Shepard and I save the galaxy for a living!"  Dealing with squadmates' personal issues over.  And over.  And over:.  "Can it wait a bit? I'm in the middle of some calibrations"

ME 1:  Novel with several chapters to it

ME 2  Collection of short stories passing itself off as a novel.


quote]Ariella wrote...
Combat has a very important place in storytelling, from books to movies to the computer RPG, and the idea that deep story cannot take  place in the context of combat strikes me as a major fallacy.

[/quote]

I actually somewhat agree with this.  I am of the camp that combat (even "'sploshuns") can in fact exist side-by-side with a story.  ME 1  actually did this well.   I do not believe (or I do not want to believe) that story was sacrificed for combat this time around.  Different teams worked on these aspects of the game.  However, I wonder if maybe one team "burned the midnight oil" and one team just coasted.  Thus one seems to have overwhelmed the other when they should be standing shoulder to shoulder.