10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

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.

I don't know if it's the combat or the weak story (I have not played a biotic in ME 2, and likely won't)  But I do get more of a feeling of a game in ME 2.  The rock-paper-scissors aspect of defenses may contribute to it as well, or as I think of it, "weapons-juggling"  ME 2 is a video game, and doesn't let you forget it..

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Then don't do it. I'd rather have things done properly rather than half heartedly.

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.

Sure, there were quite a few missions like this, something that would have been nice in ME2. You do seem to be forgetting the large number of missions which were solely done with text boxes, or the ones that didn't even have that. ME1 actually contains what I consider to be the most pointless mission ever, the one where you drive to the crashed probe or something and then Geth spawn around you and you kill them. Moral choices in UCWs were rare and you seem to be forgetting that some of the N7 missions had moral choices as well (there's 2 missiles, you can only stop one, which do you choose). I do think that some of the quests on the UCWs were quite good they were just ruined by the crappy landscapes, the large amount of driving, the rinse and repeat dungeons and the fact that the main story missions were so much better. The N7 missions weren't fantastic, but they hold my interest a lot longer than driving across that awful looking landscape. You know there's something wrong when you start listening to podcasts while you play...

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.

I agree, the N7 missions are far from perfect, I just think that gameplay wise you actually want to play them. I definetly have to disagree with them feeling slapped on though. They feel somewhat integrated (maybe a bit too seperate from the rest of the plot) but they're a lot better integrated than the UCWs. I literally felt like I was playing a different game during those parts because compared to the rest of the game they were lacking in quality.

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Moral choices in UCWs were rare and you seem to be forgetting that some of the N7 missions had moral choices as well (there's 2 missiles, you can only stop one, which do you choose).

That was pretty much the only one. And it was dialogue free. And had no interesting NPCs. And it was bugged to hell.

I agree, the N7 missions are far from perfect, I just think that gameplay wise you actually want to play them. I definetly have to disagree with them feeling slapped on though. They feel somewhat integrated (maybe a bit too seperate from the rest of the plot) but they're a lot better integrated than the UCWs. I literally felt like I was playing a different game during those parts because compared to the rest of the game they were lacking in quality.

See, I feel the complete opposite and the same: that's how I feel about ME2's N7 missions. They feel like poorly implemented DLC rather than actual vanilla game content. Fairly well designed gameplay wise, but just thrown into the game and set up with an email and that's it. They're not better integrated than the UNC missions by a long shot: I just demonstrated how the UNC missions are by and large more polished and better integrated, even if their gameplay was admittedly pretty rinse and repeat. The UNC stuff was at least woven into the narrative and universe, rather than feeling like a section of a game with no effort put into making it gel or smoothly tangle itself within the narrative. They just feel like a bunch of gimmicky missions in a game, at least the UNC stuff was decently set up with interesting situations, characters and some friggin' dialogue.

Modifié par Terror_K, 29 mai 2010 - 06:06 .

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

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.

I think I preferred ME 1's leveling system, though I agree it had problems.  ME 2's leveling system went beyond simplifying and into simplistic.  I haven't had any problems with points to upgrade, cause there's invariably at least one power I find totally useless and don't bother with.
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.

I've heard a line, I think it's from "The Caine Mutiny" that goes "Aboard my ship, excellent performance is standard, standard performance is sub-standard, subs-tandard performance is not allowed to exist".  Okay, this line came from the crazy-obsessive captain, but I think I know the feeling.  Bioware has always given excellent performance with their stories.  A standard one is, well, sub-standard for them.  It's like seeing Superman get a papercut.  WTF just happened there!?

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.

Kinda wish they followed that advice with the plotlines

[ForzaBlucerchiati]

It seems to me that Mass Effect was a half RPG, half shooter but in Mass Effect 2 its more a shooter with RPG elements. I liked the fact that you had more freedom in Mass Effect and while the weapons were not as good in Mass Effect, i liked the greater customisation of weapons. I also thought that the levelling up system was much better.

[Mangalores]

overall the big weakness in ME2 is imo narrative wise compounded by certain game features. The presentation, dialogue and indivdiual scenes are very well made, but the whole thing falls apart into a mess that isn't really a coherent story. Best hint of that is that all plotdriving missions are forced on you to establish a new plot station always using very brute force (aka giving you no choices) so your char does idiotic things and cannot do anything about it. These plot missions however drown in the whole find the 7 samurai sub quests which are all completely fragmented and have nothing to do with each other and are not integrated into your main plot barring Legion and if you count the tutorial mission Miranda and Jacob. In ME2 you are also railroaded not just in plot advancement (you were so, too, in ME1) but in timing (if you trigger a flag you get carried off to the next plot location). You are on Ilos, just fetched Thane, want to fetch Samarra but instead you have to make a galaxy wide round trip to trigger a trap where I'd have thought that justicar might have been mighty helpful. Thanks for nothing TIM! It is not just railroading but balantly obvious railroading. The former good because helping in storytelling, latter bad because you know you are being lead. This is worsened by mission debriefings from TIM's POV in static form, mineral mining for research (so my ship has a drydock to overhaul itself now?) which meant you had to run off to do it for upgrades because you couldn't buy, steal or find them and useless ship refueling and flying around.



Imo the fragmentation of the various character subplots turnt the main plot into swiss cheese. I mean the main mission was to fight the Collectors and find out all kinds of stuff about them. What you actually spend all your main missions on is recruiting people and TIM tells you when to go hunt Collectors. Shephard is not driving the story, TIM drives it for most plot missions and you don't do anything. You have basically three plot missions before the final like in ME1 but you have to do twice the number of char missions to actually fully assemble your team (+2-4 with the DLCs) all of which have no new intel on Collectors. TIM really loves to pull our leash doing all the heroic work while we are working in human resources.



It reminds me very much of Pirates of the Carribean 2 where in the making of the writers said something about "dynamic scene writing" driving the plot which in that movie turnt into a very confusing and crazy roller coaster of overall wellmade and paced individual scenes which hardly connected and were barely held together by the underlying story.



I hope they are returning to the more classical storytelling of ME1. ME2 is also a good game (which is kind a sad statement concerning the game industry and rich storytelling) but compared to ME1 it kinda went all off the rails storywise and in the end I wondered more about the sense of this compared to ME1. The suicide mission didn't actually feel very suicidal - the desperate charge up the Citadel to stop Saren felt more desparate and it actually didn't push the plot forward - in the end we still have no clue why the Reapers told the Collectors to do what they did and we haven't found out anything new about Reapers at all, the guys we wanted to stop.



Overall I'd say ME2 fell into the sequel trap, not making the buildup for a triology but a mess of it storywise by not actually building up on much of ME1 and not building up much towards ME3. It's still alot of fun, but it didn't have many "ok, what's happening next moments" but many "damn, I need another 3000 Element Zero to buy that suit upgrade... *sigh*"



The feel of accomplishment or story revelation was more "ok...so?" and not "Cool, how will this continue?"





I think most if not all game feature complaints would be vastly reduced because properly covered up by it if the storytelling and underlying story would have been up to the challenge.

[Ecael]

And people still have yet to answer these questions:

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

This is like arguing over which Kool-Aid flavor is the best. One may taste different to the other and have slightly more calories, but they're still both Kool-Aid.

[bjdbwea]

Mangalores wrote...

Overall I'd say ME2 fell into the sequel trap, not making the buildup for a triology but a mess of it storywise by not actually building up on much of ME1 and not building up much towards ME3. It's still alot of fun, but it didn't have many "ok, what's happening next moments" but many "damn, I need another 3000 Element Zero to buy that suit upgrade... *sigh*"

This, also the rest of your post. I find it encouraging that many seem to at least agree that the main story in ME 2 was quite weak (very weak in my opinion). Beyond my opinion that the game needs more RPG elements, the story is still the most important part. If after - hopefully - reading the criticism, the developers at least improve the story in ME 3 significantly, chances are I might buy the game even if the gameplay remains as dumbed down and mainstreamed as it is.

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

That was pretty much the only one. And it was dialogue free. And had no interesting NPCs. And it was bugged to hell.

Don't get me wrong, more choices would have been great. How was it bugged though?

See, I feel the complete opposite and the same: that's how I feel about ME2's N7 missions. They feel like poorly implemented DLC rather than actual vanilla game content. Fairly well designed gameplay wise, but just thrown into the game and set up with an email and that's it. They're not better integrated than the UNC missions by a long shot: I just demonstrated how the UNC missions are by and large more polished and better integrated, even if their gameplay was admittedly pretty rinse and repeat. The UNC stuff was at least woven into the narrative and universe, rather than feeling like a section of a game with no effort put into making it gel or smoothly tangle itself within the narrative. They just feel like a bunch of gimmicky missions in a game, at least the UNC stuff was decently set up with interesting situations, characters and some friggin' dialogue.

I feel the UCWs were trying to do to much with limited game mechanics. The stories in them either fell into the camp of pointless combat-centric encounters (if I didn't need the xp...) or they tried to tell a story which demanded much more polish. These stories were actually quite good, to me though they almost felt like plays. They had a limited number of sets to tell the stories in, they had a few props they could litter around to make it feel a little different and they didn't really have time to make the scenes much more than 2 guys standing there talking at each other.

I do get what you mean about the UCWs being better connected into the game (e.g. getting UCW quests on the citadel) and I agree it'd be nice if they did this in ME3.

When it comes down to it, neither the N7 missions or the UCWs were that great, but at least the N7 missions are short. The UCWs just feel like they were put in to make the game feel bigger than it actually was.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

I think I preferred ME 1's leveling system, though I agree it had problems.  ME 2's leveling system went beyond simplifying and into simplistic.  I haven't had any problems with points to upgrade, cause there's invariably at least one power I find totally useless and don't bother with.

Oh no, I thought they were both fairly terrible. They both had potential but neither of them reached it.

I've heard a line, I think it's from "The Caine Mutiny" that goes "Aboard my ship, excellent performance is standard, standard performance is sub-standard, subs-tandard performance is not allowed to exist".  Okay, this line came from the crazy-obsessive captain, but I think I know the feeling.  Bioware has always given excellent performance with their stories.  A standard one is, well, sub-standard for them.  It's like seeing Superman get a papercut.  WTF just happened there!?

It's not that it's a bad story, it's just that it feels unfocussed.

Kinda wish they followed that advice with the plotlines

I'll give you that they probably should have fleshed some of the stories out a bit and maybe removed some. Maybe they could have ditched Jack (in my current playthrough I've realised how bad a character she is, all the other companions I'm trying to unlock all the conversations for, Jack...who cares?) and put that time into the main story.

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

This, also the rest of your post. I find it encouraging that many seem to at least agree that the main story in ME 2 was quite weak (very weak in my opinion). Beyond my opinion that the game needs more RPG elements, the story is still the most important part. If after - hopefully - reading the criticism, the developers at least improve the story in ME 3 significantly, chances are I might buy the game even if the gameplay remains as dumbed down and mainstreamed as it is.

I think saying it's weak is unfair. It's definetly a very good plot, it's just that Bioware have done better. They have also done worse, Neverwinter Nights springs to mind. It's a similar situation to Jade Empire. It's Bioware's worst game yet it's still fantastic.

[bjdbwea]

I recently played JE again. Yeah, it's similar to ME 2 in that it suffered from dumbed down RPG elements and and annoying controls. But you're right, it's still fantastic. Unfortunately I can't say the same about ME 2. For me this is the biggest disappointment BioWare delivered yet (I'm not counting Awakening, as I'm not even interested in that, but I did purchase and play all their other games). Given that ME 1 is my most favourite game ever, it was always likely that the successor might not meet the expectations, but my disappointment adds up from many concrete complaints.

[Iakus]

Ecael wrote...

And people still have yet to answer these questions:

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

This is like arguing over which Kool-Aid flavor is the best. One may taste different to the other and have slightly more calories, but they're still both Kool-Aid.

mmmm, Kool-Aid.

Okay, since it seems so important:
*Spoilers*, I gotta learn how to do the greyout trick.








1) What is Thane:  Sins of the Father and Samara: The Ardat-Yakshi?

2) What is N7: MSV Estevanico (aka:  "Let's see how many times we can get Shepard stuck in midair") and N7: Endangered Research.

Interesting how you phrased the question so we cannot include UNC: Prothean Data Discs: UNC Turian Insignias, UNC Locate Signs of Battle, UNC Asari Writings, or UNC Valuable Minerals.  Also UNC: Major Kyle  which can be done with or without combat (I have always resolved it peacefully), as Well as UNC: The Negotiation(Though admitafly anyone who manages to unlock it is likely spoiling for a fight anyway.)

3) Not 100% certain on this, but I'm thinking it's Zaed:  The Price of Revenge

Of course, my problem isn't about shooting or 'sploshuns, or even dialogue too much.  The plot's just lame.

Modifié par iakus, 29 mai 2010 - 01:08 .

[Iakus]

bjdbwea wrote...

I recently played JE again. Yeah, it's similar to ME 2 in that it suffered from dumbed down RPG elements and and annoying controls. But you're right, it's still fantastic. Unfortunately I can't say the same about ME 2. For me this is the biggest disappointment BioWare delivered yet (I'm not counting Awakening, as I'm not even interested in that, but I did purchase and play all their other games). Given that ME 1 is my most favourite game ever, it was always likely that the successor might not meet the expectations, but my disappointment adds up from many concrete complaints.

This with the exception that Awakenings, story wise, isn't terrible, I just wish they'd patch the dang thing! 

Also, Good though ME 1 is, BG 2 still takes the prize.  Ironically, it is a sequel too

[Brayton]

I thought both games were both good in their own way.

I've never been phased by sequels like many have. Call me easy but as a writer who saves his chapters in seperate word documents, remembering every little detail from the last chapter to the next is tough. I've had to go through 3 different rough drafts of my story altogether because of how I write. I also find it annoying how sequels are rated just because of the previous installements. I call it the "10 year old" effect, originally based on Star Wars fans that loved the original Trilogy but hated the second trilogy. Its not really the fact that one is better than the other, its the fact that the one before hand set the stage so we expect the same from the next one even though the stage is already set, you're not gonna reset it. Case and point, I loved Resistance 2's storyline, however I'm one of few as a majority didn't like it. I also enjoyed Half Life:Blue Shift while many Half Life fans were dissappointed with it. I may just be a fish out of water, but its always good to get a different perspective.

The original Mass Effect was a light good triumphs over evil storyline(within restraints) but as Bioware stated during development off Mass Effect 2, the sequel was going to be much darker than the first.

And human characters are based off of human beings and in Jack's case...their are many people just like her...Her architype is one of the most heavily used. I'm not saying its good, in fact I hate Jack, but she reminds me of a friend of mine who is exactly like her...except she wants to use vampire puppies to take over the world.

Gameplay is more of an opinion sort of thing, however I prefer the second since the first one really was meant to have that similar cover mechanic, but they didn't impliment it very well.

There is my two cents.

Modifié par RockingKraut, 29 mai 2010 - 01:20 .

[Darth Drago]

iakus wrote...

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.

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.

-Totally agree. ME2 felt exactly like a collection of short stories. One story for each companion (except Morinth), their loyalty missions and a few filler stories about the Collectors. There was no real cohesion to the game story wise.

The worst part about it is that’s all you ever do in the game, recruiting and loyalty missions. No sooner do you finish Horizon do you get hit with the first batch of loyalty mission requests. It wouldn’t be so bad if there were at least a 2 to 1 ratio for side quests (N7) to do but sadly its closer at a 1 to 1 ratio with only 19 N7 Missions and some of those N7 missions are a total joke.

iakus wrote...

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.

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.

-I don’t think one group “burned the midnight oil” like you mentioned. It more likely that each group didn’t have the whole plan on what was being worked on. This is apparent through out the game.

Unfortunately I think they spent to much time working on the combat aspect of ME2 that other aspects of the game did suffer. Look at all the pop ups to end the mission you get, especially at the end of Tali’s loyalty mission or the redundant crap like “press RT to fire probe“ when that information is already present on the screen.

Does combat affect a story of a game? That depends on the game. I felt Halo had a great story that unraveled as you advanced in the game and of course it’s a FPS game. However in ME2 I would say it did affect the story. There were to many missions based around the combat system instead of the combat system enhancing those missions.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 29 mai 2010 - 02:55 .

[brfritos]

Worrywort wrote...



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.

uberdowzen wrote...



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.

What I miss from the classes is that in ME1 an Infiltrator was an Infiltrator, regardless if it was an enemy, you or Garrus.

This means they all have assassination mark skill and they all have overload.

The same was true for the other classes, like Vanguards, Sentinels, etc.



One example is when you attack the Cerberus bases, remember? The enemys have the same powers of you and they use them just like you did, a sentinel put down your shields with overload (and overheat your weapons too), then a vanguard or adept put you down with warp or pull.

If you allowed this kind of attack it was almost certain death.



In ME2 the enemies don't do this, they attack in a disorganized manner, usually charging "and hope for the best" and they don't combine their powers, so is very easy to focus only in one enemy.

Also, I feel a bit cheated in the way enemies use their powers: why I'm not allowed to attack someone with Incinerate because their protection is shields, but an enemy engineer can?



I don't feel the superiority of combat from ME2 over ME and vice-versa, like many people talk, for me they are the same.

In ME1 I'm feeled much more rogue than in ME2, I almost don't needed my squad as the game progressed, unless you I was a soldier.

The Sentinel with an AR in ME1 was a beast from a certain point in the game. He was fairly weak in the beginning, but after level 20 and some weapons and armor upgrades, almost nothing could stand in he's way.



I understand why Bioware make this changes, since now you really are dependable of your squad, no class have the skills to beat any enemy in the game, including using weapons.

Even the Sentinel, wich have powers to strip and kill any type of defense isn't omniscent now, since the lack of combat skills, wich make his weapons the worse to use (in ME1 he could upgrade his weapons and make them very good, so this was minimized).

Also, every NPC is unique now, wich brings more variety to the combat.



But sometimes ME2 pass the impression that the enemies and some classes are still unbalanced.

[Ecael]

iakus wrote...

Okay, since it seems so important:
*Spoilers*, I gotta learn how to do the greyout trick.

Interesting how you phrased the question so we cannot include UNC: Prothean Data Discs: UNC Turian Insignias, UNC Locate Signs of Battle, UNC Asari Writings, or UNC Valuable Minerals.  Also UNC: Major Kyle  which can be done with or without combat (I have always resolved it peacefully), as Well as UNC: The Negotiation(Though admitafly anyone who manages to unlock it is likely spoiling for a fight anyway.)

Of course, my problem isn't about shooting or 'sploshuns, or even dialogue too much.  The plot's just lame.

I phrased the question that way for the N7/UNC question because gathering those items is less fun than planet-scanning. It's the only thing in Mass Effect 1 and 2 that I haven't completed.

For a pure Renegade, Major Kyle and the Negotiation will always have the shoot option. Also, the answer to the other one was N7: Abandoned Research Station and N7: Endangered Research Station. Those are the only two N7/UNC missions that avoid combat entirely with Shepard herself/himself.

Regardless what anyone thinks of quality of the plot in this case, there's no reason to call it ME2 more of a shooter with dialogue and some progression in-between when that's exactly how ME1 can be described.

[Oblarg]

Problems with ME2:

1.  Inventory and Character Building.
It was dumbed down.  There is no way around it.  Fewer abilities (only three per squad member with the exception of Shepard?  Honestly?), completely linear gear progression (if you can even call it gear progression), and general lameness (everything was bland, even with the ability evolutions).  Please bring back the inventory for ME3.  Also, weapon skills are not a bad idea, however ammo works better as an upgrade than as a skill.

2.  Power Usage
Global cooldown is terrible.  It makes it impossible to get any synergy at all using powers on one character, due to the long cooldown with relation to power duration.  This overbudgets some powers with short cooldowns but high utility/damage (lift and warp, obviously), and makes others (shockwave, push) pretty bad.  This is exacerbated by the insane nerfing of biotic abilities - when I used push in ME1 I felt like a badass, throwing a large number of geth in front of me into a wall, crushing them.  In ME2, it was feeble and worthless.  Chipping away at armor so that I can lift the enemy when he's already as good as dead is very, very unsatisfying.  Barrier powers were all but useless.

3.  Graphical Style
I know I'm in a minority here, but ME1, performance issues aside, looked better than ME2.  The softer colors and greater use of bright lighting and bloom just made the atmosphere more intriguing and fitting for a science fiction RPG.  The armor was sleeker and looked more futuristic and awesome.  Faces weren't quite as good, I will admit that, though ME2 faces look a bit *too* pristine to be believable.  ME2 was too dark - there was no bright lighting anywhere.  Everything seemed sterile and lifeless and overly-polished, nothing had the nice organic feel that it had in ME1.  You can have a dark atmosphere without eschewing all bright colors - create the atmosphere for the plot through storytelling, there's no need to ram it down our throats with the graphics.  In addition, the armor models looked clunky and awful.

4.  Ammo
The first system worked fine, changing it was unecessary and just detracted from the experience.  Running around after thermal clips is not fun.  It also created some rather glaring holes in the lore (oh yeah, these people who have been shipwrecked and cut off from society for ten years have access to technology that was developed two years ago!).

5.  Planet Scanning
This sucks.

6.  Character Sidequests
While the characters themselves were much improved in ME2, these were formulaic and, while they did occasionally offer some good dialogue and insight into the character, seemed more like timesinks.

7.  N7 Sidequests
Searching all over the galaxy for these isn't particularly fun, and they don't feel particularly rewarding, especially given the shocking absense of any interaction with people in any of them.  At least there were no Mako sections, but still, there need to be fewer of these, and they need to be more fleshed out and fun.  Throw in some NPCs.  Make them engaging.  Make the player actually care about the outcome (a small dialogue at the very end of the mission asking which target has to die isn't particularly compelling, especially as there were no NPCs to set up an emotional attachment with either target).  Quality over quantity, folks.

8.  Linearity
There plot is overwhelmingly linear.  I spent the entire game wanting to tell the Illusive Man to go eat ****, but couldn't until the very end.  I had Kaiden tell off Shepard for something which I, the player, also would have told off Shepard for, yet I had absolutely no choice in the matter because there simply was no option there.  Linearity itself isn't much of a problem, but the game sets up a moral spectrum and wants you to make choices based on it, yet the most fundamental choice isn't yours to make.  The entire "working for Cerberus" plot was hamfisted and unconvincing, and I hope more believable options will be available in ME3.  Even past the Cerberus mess, the only major plot branching was based on one decision at the very end, and whether or not you had completed all the character sidequests.  Lame.  Also, punishing players who walk the middle ground between Paragon and Renegade by making it impossible to resolve the crew conflicts by doing so is stupid design.


Things that were done well in ME2:

1.  Combat
Cover system is wonderful, and makes up for the rest of the combat shortcomings.  However, I loved being able to soak damage in ME1 - my vanguard in ME2 can't soak much of anything, and it really removes the image of being an unstoppable juggernaut when you're forced to spend most of the time sniping from cover with your pistol (or, in my case, assault rifle) because you can't use your shotgun without being ripped to shreds.

2.  Character Depth
The characters were more believable, and the dialogue was much improved.  Thane, for example, was great to chat with.  He had an extensive backstory and a believable personality, and the dialogue with him was great.  I hope in ME3 they take this further and have characters actually react a bit more to Shepard's actions based on their personalities.


In conclusion:

ME1 was a better RPG, ME2 was a better shooter.  The only RPG element of ME2 that was truly an improvement over ME1 was the depth of the characters, and I appreciate the improvement in that regard, but it is overshadowed by the removal of all meaningful character building.  I'd take ME1 over ME2 any day.

P.S.  Planet scanning sucks.

[uberdowzen]

Oblarg wrote...

Problems with ME2:

1.  Inventory and Character Building.
It was dumbed down.  There is no way around it.  Fewer abilities (only three per squad member with the exception of Shepard?  Honestly?), completely linear gear progression (if you can even call it gear progression), and general lameness (everything was bland, even with the ability evolutions).  Please bring back the inventory for ME3.  Also, weapon skills are not a bad idea, however ammo works better as an upgrade than as a skill.

Companions with fewer abilities encourage you to manually level them up (in ME1 I pretty much always used auto level for companions), ability evolutions let you create more unique characters and the inventory in ME1 was just a waste of time.

2.  Power Usage
Global cooldown is terrible.  It makes it impossible to get any synergy at all using powers on one character, due to the long cooldown with relation to power duration.  This overbudgets some powers with short cooldowns but high utility/damage (lift and warp, obviously), and makes others (shockwave, push) pretty bad.  This is exacerbated by the insane nerfing of biotic abilities - when I used push in ME1 I felt like a badass, throwing a large number of geth in front of me into a wall, crushing them.  In ME2, it was feeble and worthless.  Chipping away at armor so that I can lift the enemy when he's already as good as dead is very, very unsatisfying.  Barrier powers were all but useless.

Global cooldown makes you think more about what abilities you use and also stops people just spamming all their abilities on a single enemy. Now you actually think about what a power does before you use it.

The protection system simply adds another layer of challenge. You seem to be forgetting that most enemies don't have armor or shields, just tougher enemies who logically should be able to resist your attacks.

3.  Graphical Style
I know I'm in a minority here, but ME1, performance issues aside, looked better than ME2.  The softer colors and greater use of bright lighting and bloom just made the atmosphere more intriguing and fitting for a science fiction RPG.  The armor was sleeker and looked more futuristic and awesome.  Faces weren't quite as good, I will admit that, though ME2 faces look a bit *too* pristine to be believable.  ME2 was too dark - there was no bright lighting anywhere.  Everything seemed sterile and lifeless and overly-polished, nothing had the nice organic feel that it had in ME1.  You can have a dark atmosphere without eschewing all bright colors - create the atmosphere for the plot through storytelling, there's no need to ram it down our throats with the graphics.  In addition, the armor models looked clunky and awful.

Artistically they're slightly different. I personally do slightly prefer ME1's art style in places, although mostly I think ME2 just looks like ME1 with slightly warmer colours.

4.  Ammo
The first system worked fine, changing it was unecessary and just detracted from the experience.  Running around after thermal clips is not fun.  It also created some rather glaring holes in the lore (oh yeah, these people who have been shipwrecked and cut off from society for ten years have access to technology that was developed two years ago!).

Overheating wasn't much fun at all. It either meant that you could fire almost constantly without pausing (my Vanguard character only overheated like 3 times for the entire game) or you had to be ultra careful. I never have to run around after thermal clips (they basically wave them right in front of your face) and, honestly, it's a lot more fun than overheating in the middle of combat.

5.  Planet Scanning
This sucks.

So did the Uncharted Worlds. And one takes quite a bit less time.

6.  Character Sidequests
While the characters themselves were much improved in ME2, these were formulaic and, while they did occasionally offer some good dialogue and insight into the character, seemed more like timesinks.

If you say so, I don't see how they were any different from the ME1 character quests. Except that most of them were cool.

7.  N7 Sidequests
Searching all over the galaxy for these isn't particularly fun, and they don't feel particularly rewarding, especially given the shocking absense of any interaction with people in any of them.  At least there were no Mako sections, but still, there need to be fewer of these, and they need to be more fleshed out and fun.  Throw in some NPCs.  Make them engaging.  Make the player actually care about the outcome (a small dialogue at the very end of the mission asking which target has to die isn't particularly compelling, especially as there were no NPCs to set up an emotional attachment with either target).  Quality over quantity, folks.

I agree, although they are definetly a step up from the majority of the UCWs.

8.  Linearity
There plot is overwhelmingly linear.  I spent the entire game wanting to tell the Illusive Man to go eat ****, but couldn't until the very end.  I had Kaiden tell off Shepard for something which I, the player, also would have told off Shepard for, yet I had absolutely no choice in the matter because there simply was no option there.  Linearity itself isn't much of a problem, but the game sets up a moral spectrum and wants you to make choices based on it, yet the most fundamental choice isn't yours to make.  The entire "working for Cerberus" plot was hamfisted and unconvincing, and I hope more believable options will be available in ME3.  Even past the Cerberus mess, the only major plot branching was based on one decision at the very end, and whether or not you had completed all the character sidequests.  Lame.  Also, punishing players who walk the middle ground between Paragon and Renegade by making it impossible to resolve the crew conflicts by doing so is stupid design.

I never really understood this, how is the plot more linear than ME1? I'll admit that at first working for Cerberus is somewhat jarring, on the other hand it creates interesting moral choices. Also what's the alternative? If you don't except Cerberus' offer, there's no game. You also seem to be forgetting that in ME1 there was no choice about you becoming a Spectre, or about being sent into the traverse after Saren. ME1's plot wasn't swayed that much based on your choices either.

Things that were done well in ME2:

1.  Combat
Cover system is wonderful, and makes up for the rest of the combat shortcomings.  However, I loved being able to soak damage in ME1 - my vanguard in ME2 can't soak much of anything, and it really removes the image of being an unstoppable juggernaut when you're forced to spend most of the time sniping from cover with your pistol (or, in my case, assault rifle) because you can't use your shotgun without being ripped to shreds.

Didn't really find that and I'm playing a vanguard right now.

2.  Character Depth
The characters were more believable, and the dialogue was much improved.  Thane, for example, was great to chat with.  He had an extensive backstory and a believable personality, and the dialogue with him was great.  I hope in ME3 they take this further and have characters actually react a bit more to Shepard's actions based on their personalities.

Agree.

[KitsuneRommel]

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.

Getting hacking and decryption also gave you combat skills so you pretty much had to get them anyway. First Aid is a good example even though you don't really need it because of armor mods. What do you consider to be the support classes in ME1? 

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.

I guess they overreacted since in ME1 you were a biotic god keeping enemies in neverending singularities. Anyway I've already linked the video few times where it shows you can play an adept without using your guns at all. On Insanity. Singularity + Warp/Warp ammo still works well.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 29 mai 2010 - 05:26 .

[Oblarg]

Global cooldown makes you think more about what abilities you use and also stops people just spamming all their abilities on a single enemy. Now you actually think about what a power does before you use it.

The protection system simply adds another layer of challenge. You seem to be forgetting that most enemies don't have armor or shields, just tougher enemies who logically should be able to resist your attacks.

It's not "another layer of challenge," for me, it's another layer of tedium.  So I have to press warp three times before I can lift the target, and the target is as good as dead by the time I can lift it.  It robs biotics of all satisfaction.

And as for thinking about power usage, power usage should be about timing more than it is about "what should I use, x or y?"  The global cooldown forbids any sort of synergy.  A superior system would be to have abilities either trigger an individual cooldown or a global coodlown, or possibly both, depending on the potency of the individual ability and how it would synergize with other abilities.

Overheating wasn't much fun at all. It either meant that you could fire almost constantly without pausing (my Vanguard character only overheated like 3 times for the entire game) or you had to be ultra careful. I never have to run around after thermal clips (they basically wave them right in front of your face) and, honestly, it's a lot more fun than overheating in the middle of combat.

This could be solved by number tweaking, and I didn't find it all that trivial.  Pacing shots was engaging, and wasn't as tedious as scrounging for clips (which I had to do quite a lot, using heavy pistol).  If you were smart, you wouldn't overheat in the middle of combat, and if this is really such a huge problem they could integrate a hybrid system which would work fine.

So did the Uncharted Worlds. And one takes quite a bit less time.

That doesn't excuse it as a game mechanic.  It sucks, and should be removed or reworked.

If you say so, I don't see how they were any different from the ME1 character quests. Except that most of them were cool.

The ME1 character quests didn't attempt to be deep or to take up a large amount of time.  I'd rather the production time used on the ME2 character quests be used for something more compelling.

I never really understood this, how is the plot more linear than ME1? I'll admit that at first working for Cerberus is somewhat jarring, on the other hand it creates interesting moral choices. Also what's the alternative? If you don't except Cerberus' offer, there's no game. You also seem to be forgetting that in ME1 there was no choice about you becoming a Spectre, or about being sent into the traverse after Saren. ME1's plot wasn't swayed that much based on your choices either.

It's not more linear than ME1, but it forces you to stick with a path that a lot of people will not like, and that directly conflicts with the moral spectrum set up by the game itself.  That's a stupid design choice.

Didn't really find that and I'm playing a vanguard right now.

Can you pump up your barriers and soak shots for 30 seconds in ME2?  Because I could in ME1, and it felt awesome.

[uberdowzen]

Oblarg wrote...

It's not "another layer of challenge," for me, it's another layer of tedium.  So I have to press warp three times before I can lift the target, and the target is as good as dead by the time I can lift it.  It robs biotics of all satisfaction.

And as for thinking about power usage, power usage should be about timing more than it is about "what should I use, x or y?"  The global cooldown forbids any sort of synergy.  A superior system would be to have abilities either trigger an individual cooldown or a global coodlown, or possibly both, depending on the potency of the individual ability and how it would synergize with other abilities.

The idea is that you focus more on using your biotics in conjunction with your teams. I still found biotics satisfying, but I guess it's a matter of opinion.

This could be solved by number tweaking, and I didn't find it all that trivial.  Pacing shots was engaging, and wasn't as tedious as scrounging for clips (which I had to do quite a lot, using heavy pistol).  If you were smart, you wouldn't overheat in the middle of combat, and if this is really such a huge problem they could integrate a hybrid system which would work fine.

My point was that some weapons overheated far too quickly and some didn't seem to overheat at all. Shotguns for this reason are massively OP. I think I could live with a hybrid system.

That doesn't excuse it as a game mechanic.  It sucks, and should be removed or reworked.

No, I agree, it doesn't. I was simply pointing out that it replaced something much worse. Also, it has been fixed on Xbox (so I've heard).

The ME1 character quests didn't attempt to be deep or to take up a large amount of time.  I'd rather the production time used on the ME2 character quests be used for something more compelling.

Matter of opinion I guess. Personally, because building the team is the main focus of the game, I'm OK with this.

It's not more linear than ME1, but it forces you to stick with a path that a lot of people will not like, and that directly conflicts with the moral spectrum set up by the game itself.  That's a stupid design choice.

I disagree, it's more about how happy your Shepherd is with having to work with Cerberus. And what if you're an evil character, doesn't working for the council and the alliance in the first game kind of cramp your style?

Can you pump up your barriers and soak shots for 30 seconds in ME2?  Because I could in ME1, and it felt awesome.

Yeah, it felt awesome. And unbalanced and unchalleging.

[Oblarg]

I disagree, it's more about how happy your Shepherd is with having to work with Cerberus. And what if you're an evil character, doesn't working for the council and the alliance in the first game kind of cramp your style?

No, because being "evil" and hating everything wasn't intended to be a choice.  Working for the council didn't conflict with the game's moral spectrum.  Working for cerberus does.

Yeah, it felt awesome. And unbalanced and unchalleging.

There are ways to keep it challenging while still allowing things to feel awesome.  ME2 failed spectacularly at finding a middle-ground.  All the classes, minus powers, play the same - you shoot things for a short while, then sit behind cover while shields regenerate.  I find it boring and unfun, and the classes lack flavor.