10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

bjdbwea wrote...

But as one of those RPG fans, they certainly miscalculated about me. Yeah, there are no alternatives, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take everything just because the good old name BioWare is on the box. I trusted them this time, based on ME 1 and the high opinion I had of BioWare. But the first result is that I'm not going to pre-order any BioWare game again. And if ME 3 doesn't improve, I'll just not buy it at all (or wait until the price drops significantly). Yeah, I'll rather play one of the good old games. Acceptable losses? Probably. But perhaps there are more people who think the same.
.

I'll just say you are not going to be alone in this. 

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

It isnt incredibly powerfull on shields and armor.A soldier could take reave and have basicly the same talent anyway.

That's why you have companions and a sub machine gun.

I dont care if it is usefull or note.There isnt something special for an adept or an engineer,that only these classes and/or hybrids could use.Why not give them a special omnitool or bioamp that improves at least the cooldown and/or duration of powers again? Something that really improves "the core" of those power classes.And yes,even a infiltrator could prefer that to a more powerfull sniper rifle for cqc.

Biotics already have very cool powers though. I will give you though that there probably should have been Biotic Amps and Omnitools. In fact if you check out the ME3 suggestion thread linked in my signature, you'll see in the list in the OP that I suggest this (not my idea though).

Then geth primes and heavy mechs arent bosses too.

Um, I never said that they were.

[uberdowzen]

chzr wrote...

agree with the cinematics part. Anyway, just don't rely on autosave, hitting f6 isn't that hard, i can't think about a place where you can screw your game by wrong quicksave (only quests get sometimes bugged when you finish one and then quickload as the npcs dissapear), and time to time make normal save, solved.


i'm not adressing this to you, but i sometimes wonder that ppl say how is game unbalanced, easy etc. and then complain it doesn't autosave/checkpoint enough :<

Wasn't really my point. My point was that you often couldn't quick save at all which I'm completely against. You should always be able to quicksave, the game shouldn't be dictating when you stop playing. I vaguely understand where the not being able to save in combat thing is coming from (it is possible to screw yourself) but if I'm not in combat I should always be able to quicksave, a problem that ME2 addresses for the most part. Anyway, I was originally pointing out how stupid it was that you could be instantly killed by a sniper shot or rocket. I do agree though, it's not very hard to press quicksave every now and again.

[P3G4SU5]

iakus wrote...

Shockwave81 wrote...

How quickly I forget how wonderful ME1 was. This sequence contains more awesome than anything I can remember from ME2:

The ME2 debris field cutscene has absolutely nothing on that.

QFT

ME 1 is full of scenes like that.   Stuff that made you believe you were the hero of an epic story.

ME 2...you're the main character in a really slick video game.  How far Shepard has fallen.

So true about the epic feeling. From the Spectre induction to the Battle of the Citadel at the end, ME1 gave the player much more of that epic feeling of being directly involved in the Universe than ME2 did.

[P3G4SU5]

iakus wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

But as one of those RPG fans, they certainly miscalculated about me. Yeah, there are no alternatives, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take everything just because the good old name BioWare is on the box. I trusted them this time, based on ME 1 and the high opinion I had of BioWare. But the first result is that I'm not going to pre-order any BioWare game again. And if ME 3 doesn't improve, I'll just not buy it at all (or wait until the price drops significantly). Yeah, I'll rather play one of the good old games. Acceptable losses? Probably. But perhaps there are more people who think the same.
.

I'll just say you are not going to be alone in this. 

Ditto.

[P3G4SU5]

I know this link has been posted already but thought it would be good to throw it up here again for those of you that may have missed it in these 135+ pages...

6 Part analysis of ME2 plot:


This guy raises some very good points about how flawed plot of ME2 is and also how it contributes next to nothing to the advancement of the orignal plot from the first game. Whilst he does make a few small mistakes, I believe his analysis was quite accurate for the most part.

Modifié par P3G4SU5, 31 mai 2010 - 12:45 .

[uberdowzen]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

I know this link has been posted already
but thought it would be good to throw it up here again for those of you
that may have missed it in these 135+ pages...

6 Part analysis
of ME2 plot:


This
guy raises some very good points about how flawed plot of ME2 is and
also how it contributes next to nothing to the advancement of the
orignal plot from the first game. Whilst he does make a few small
mistakes, I believe his analysis was quite accurate for the most
part.

Would watch except a) can't stand an hour of
someone probably whining, it's not written down for those of use with
bad broadband and c) it's going to be filled with bad jokes which are apparently hillarious.

[P3G4SU5]

uberdowzen wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

I know this link has been posted already
but thought it would be good to throw it up here again for those of you
that may have missed it in these 135+ pages...

6 Part analysis
of ME2 plot:


This
guy raises some very good points about how flawed plot of ME2 is and
also how it contributes next to nothing to the advancement of the
orignal plot from the first game. Whilst he does make a few small
mistakes, I believe his analysis was quite accurate for the most
part.

Would watch except a) can't stand an hour of
someone probably whining, it's not written down for those of use with
bad broadband and c) it's going to be filled with bad jokes which are apparently hillarious.

That's fair enough, I posted it as its's a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the storyline and saves me retyping the same points on this forum when it's already available in the video.

Modifié par P3G4SU5, 31 mai 2010 - 01:22 .

[Darth Drago]

Pocketgb wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

Who came up wit that power anyway? It seems like the worst one to use in any combat situation...

It's decent to help get some bad guys out of cover, or to help you get a clearer shot. Rarely has there been a time where I've pulled and not easily killed someone.

-Thats what Lift was used for in ME1. So in typical Bioware ME2 developmental fashion they screw up something that was fine in the first game in order to “fix” the sequel.


On the “powers” note.

I cant even imagine how it would be like to fight with or against a full Asari Commando squad in ME2 or ME3 if they keep the massive powers list each companion has to choose from in the third game. With the 4 total you know you can have for them, 1 of them will be a so called Asari Commando exclusive power (something cheesy like most of the rest in ME2), 1 will be a weapon power like shredder ammo, leaving just 2 for actual biotic powers. Sounds rather lame to me and a huge let down considering how they are supposed to be one of the elite forces in the galaxy. But it all good in the name of streamlined gameplay mechanics right?

I do miss gong into a battle where I got hit by actual real threat attacks by biotic or tech using enemies. Attacks that disabled by weapon or completely knocked me to the floor.

bjdbwea wrote...

But as one of those RPG fans, they certainly miscalculated about me. Yeah, there are no alternatives, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take everything just because the good old name BioWare is on the box. I trusted them this time, based on ME 1 and the high opinion I had of BioWare. But the first result is that I'm not going to pre-order any BioWare game again. And if ME 3 doesn't improve, I'll just not buy it at all (or wait until the price drops significantly). Yeah, I'll rather play one of the good old games. Acceptable losses? Probably. But perhaps there are more people who think the same.

Unfortunately, RPGs are not where the quick money is. I have no doubt that you can make a profit with good RPGs still, but the days where a developer would care about making good games are apparently over. It's all about making the maximum of profits. Happens in most businesses of course, but the gaming industry was different once. Just like the movie industry, but both have changed. BioWare too, unfortunately, they were one of the last of a different kind of developers.

-I’m not even interested in ME3 anymore. I just don’t care what they do to make it or how the story even ends. ME2 kind of sucked the franchise out of me. The damage is already done.

Its comparable to a movie franchise where the first one was great and the second one completely was a let down to you. What do you think the odds are that you’d go see the third film based on the last one you saw? A perfect example is the Superman films (Christopher Reeve ones) the first 2 were good then the rest of them sucked the life out of the franchise to the point when the Superman Returns came out no one really cared.

I was interested in the Old Republic game but honestly I doubt I’ll even look at when it comes out now. The same thing goes for anything BioWare releases. DAO2 I’ll wait on to see if it got butchered to make it as streamlined as possible before considering getting it.

Mass Effect had promise to become something the industry needs, a sci-fi RPG (even as a so called hybrid). To bad that gut flushed down the crapper with ME2.

I’ve got a ton of quality games on my shelves that I can play to keep me busy for a very long time (Lunar1 & 2 comes quickly to mind) that I don’t need BioWare to get a game fix of any kind. There are other companies like Bethesda that in my opinion still know how to make quality games without selling out to the casual masses over their core audience.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

Of course it's EA calling the shots. And I believe Mr. Woo when he says that they - the hard working people making the games - are still the same. Doesn't change the result though, of course they do what they're told to. Comes with giving up your independence.

Do you actually have any solid evidence to prove EA largely influenced the design of ME2? or is this something you yet again pulled out of your ass due to your rabid fanboyism of the first game?

[Nivenus]

EA's left BioWare largely unchanged I'm given to understand. Sure, they have time constraints from on above now, but they've also got a lot more money to play with (as evidence in DA:O suddenly coming out of development hell and ME2's much increased production values).



I was a big EA skeptic back in 2007 when the buyout was announced. I figured it meant doom, doom, doom and wrote as much on the old forums and others. I've been proven wrong - at least IMHO.

[bjdbwea]

Common sense and knowledge of how this industry works. You want to believe EA is a charity, feel free to do so.



Truth is, EA owns BioWare, you actually can't separate them. Whether the people who called the shots are technically employed by "BioWare" or "EA" doesn't matter anyway as far as the result is concerned. Most likely it was both.



I'm actually giving the good people from BioWare credit here, as I for one don't believe for a second that ME 2 was initially planned to be like this, when they outlined the trilogy once. These are still the same people who created so many milestones in gaming history after all. If they could do as they wanted, I am very sure ME 2 would have been very different.

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

Common sense and knowledge of how this industry works. You want to believe EA is a charity, feel free to do so.

Truth is, EA owns BioWare, you actually can't separate them. Whether the people who called the shots are technically employed by "BioWare" or "EA" doesn't matter anyway as far as the result is concerned. Most likely it was both.

I'm actually giving the good people from BioWare credit here, as I for one don't believe for a second that ME 2 was initially planned to be like this, when they outlined the trilogy once. These are still the same people who created so many milestones in gaming history after all. If they could do as they wanted, I am very sure ME 2 would have been very different.

Where did this assumption that Bioware didn't want to make this game come from? Going by what is happening with Infinity Ward, if BW employees really didn't want to make ME2 the game that it is, we'd be seeing a mass exodus right now.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 31 mai 2010 - 02:33 .

[Ecael]

bjdbwea wrote...

Common sense and knowledge of how this industry works. You want to believe EA is a charity, feel free to do so.

Truth is, EA owns BioWare, you actually can't separate them. Whether the people who called the shots are technically employed by "BioWare" or "EA" doesn't matter anyway as far as the result is concerned. Most likely it was both.

I'm actually giving the good people from BioWare credit here, as I for one don't believe for a second that ME 2 was initially planned to be like this, when they outlined the trilogy once. These are still the same people who created so many milestones in gaming history after all. If they could do as they wanted, I am very sure ME 2 would have been very different.

Very different how, considering the content is either the same or more, as I mentioned on the previous page:

bjdbwea wrote...

Ecael wrote...

And even if EA sets a firm release date, I would think that cutting corners to meet that deadline would be evident in the amount of content rather than the quality. Quality of the plot would be irrelevant here unless Drew Karpyshyn needed another year to come up with a story for Mass Effect 2 (and 3).

But it is evident in the amount! Which results in lower quality. Email briefings instead of spoken briefings - less content. No planet exploration - less content. Totally linear side quests (and main quest) without any interaction or choices - less content. No interaction between crew members - less content. Shorter romances, no friendship path - less content. Main story told through several meetings between Shepard and TIM, instead of fully animated cutscenes involving more people and the crew - less content. Enemies with just a few sentences instead of a full role - less content. And so on. The game may have more recorded dialogue, but that happens outside and parallel to the other work a developer has to do. In the usually time consuming parts for RPGs, there are cut corners everywhere, I can only assume to meet a fixed release date. And I actually suspect that the whole story was planned quite differently, but had to be altered due to time constraints.

The Illusive Man does the briefings and not Admiral Hackett - and it's split into several cutscenes which require fine-tuning, instead of just sound files played on Shepard's face.

It's actually more content.

If planets were actually populated with colonies and not a single generic mercenary facility, it would count as more content. Otherwise, being dropped a mile away in the Mako is just a way to add gameplay time - the same way planet-scanning unnecessarily adds time.

Same content.

All the missions combined have around 33,000 lines of spoken dialogue for ME2, compared to 20,000 for ME1. Mark Meer also mentioned that the recording itself took twice the amount of time.

More content.

Joker, EDI, Crewman Donnelly, Crewman Daniels, Kelly Chambers, Mess Sergeant Gardner and the rest have more dialogue combined than the SR-1 crew. If you would like me to go over the sound files from both games and count them up by lines, minutes or by topics mentioned, I can do so.

More content.

The ME1 crew of 6 huddled after every major mission - Feros, Noveria, Virmire and Therum (four times). The ME2 crew of 12 huddled three times with the Crash Landing, Vents Doors Open and Biotic Doors Open. There are more lines from that because of the complexity of the mission and who can die.

More content.

While there are more romances and squadmates, the amount of dialogue from each squadmate is either the same or slightly higher. Liara has around ~207 lines of 1-on-1 dialogue with Shepard on the Normandy when romanced. Thane has ~250 1-on-1 lines and covers more topics than Liara, including the state of the race's homeworld (Rakhana), Jack has around ~205 lines, Jacob has around ~260, and even Samara and Kelly have around ~150 when "fully" romanced, with Morinth's "date" adding another 150 to Samara's. Garrus, Tali and Miranda also range around ~150-160 lines of 1-on-1 dialogue.

In further comparison to Liara's ~207 possible lines when romanced (since people will say that it's not the number, but the topics), Legion and Mordin have 200 lines each and further the discussion of the geth and the genophage. The only character in ME1 who has actual discussion about a storyline that affects the galaxy is Wrex and the genophage (and Tali, but we didn't know how significant the Geth/Quarians/Admiralty Board would be until Tali's loyalty and Legion's recruitment).

More content.

In terms of friendship dialogue? Every squadmate in Mass Effect 2 has a loyalty quest with more dialogue that I didn't even include yet.

More content.

Main missions in both games contain a lot of generic dialogue among squadmates. The difference in Mass Effect 1 and 2 is that the dialogue sentences are structured differently to fit the squadmate's personality - except in the case of Wrex. Wrex's word structure, manner of speech and beliefs are unique compared to Liara, Ashley, Kaidan, Tali and Garrus in ME1 (who sometimes have the same exact lines). Mass Effect 2 has a lot of generic dialogue as well, but squadmates like Mordin, Zaeed, Grunt, Jack, Legion all have different speech mannerisms, and so the script had to be written differently for almost every squadmate.

More content.

In terms of Reaper villains, listen to what Sovereign has to say again and compare that to all of Harbinger's dialogue. Most of Sovereign's lines are just intimidation - like Harbinger, but with a dialogue wheel. Neither geth in ME1 nor Collectors in ME2 talk. Saren Arterius, Matriarch Benezia and The Thorian have less dialogue considering the number of villains you face in the recruitment and loyalty missions - many of them with dialogue wheels of their own. The characterization of certain races (like Krogan) was very much improved, as shown in this thread:

More content.

How do I know all this? I'm working on dialogue guides for Mass Effect 1/2 to sift through the 50,000 total lines of dialogue to find lines unique to specific ME1/ME2 squadmates (and how to access them) - and trust me, the amount of GENERIC dialogue in both games is staggering.

You're arguing with the wrong person if you're going to say that BioWare cut corners with the amount of content in this game.

Numbers don't lie, and considering I'm not partial to any aspect of either game, those numbers are justified.

Stop looking at Mass Effect 1 and 2 as separate parts and look at it as two great parts of a awesome book. If you continue to think otherwise, then e-mail Drew Karpyshyn yourself and ask him why he "ruined" Mass Effect as the Lead Writer.

Modifié par Ecael, 31 mai 2010 - 02:22 .

[bjdbwea]

uberdowzen wrote...

Where did this assumption that Bioware didn't want to make this game coming from? Going by what is happening with Infinity Ward, if BW employees really didn't want to make ME2 the game that it is, we'd be seeing a mass exodus right now.

I almost wish it would happen, but I know it won't. It isn't as easy in this industry to get the money to start a new company as it was. Plus, they'd need a lot of people to go at once if they wanted to create a new studio as capable as BioWare used to be. This is just not going to happen, especially not in an economic crisis. Most importantly: Financially, I guess the developers are happy enough with the decisions made for them. After all, if EA is happy, their income is safe. All I'm saying is that I refuse to believe that the people who worked so hard to create all those amazing games before would actually believe that ME 2 is an improvement. They're RPG professionals and gamers, they have to know better.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 31 mai 2010 - 02:29 .

[Jestina]

You forgot about gear, ME2 has next to nothing. You forgot about condensed character stats. You forgot that ME is way more open ended than ME2. To me, it seemed like there was way more to do in ME...I can get through ME2 in probably just a day compared to 3 for ME.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Please I can get through ME 1 in a single sitting and I consider that a plus.

[Gundar3]

worm_burner wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

I know this link has been posted already but thought it would be good to throw it up here again for those of you that may have missed it in these 135+ pages...

6 Part analysis of ME2 plot:


This guy raises some very good points about how flawed plot of ME2 is and also how it contributes next to nothing to the advancement of the orignal plot from the first game. Whilst he does make a few small mistakes, I believe his analysis was quite accurate for the most part.

Just got through watching this.  He brings up many very good pints.  For people who don't want to watch all of it just watch parts 1 & 2 at least.  His analysis brings up a lot of questions about ME2 and what was Bioware thinking at times while making this game?

Agreed, this is a pretty good commentary on ME2 as a whole.

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

I almost wish it would happen, but I know it won't. It isn't as easy in this industry to get the money to start a new company as it was. Plus, they'd need a lot of people to go at once if they wanted to create a new studio as capable as BioWare used to be. This is just not going to happen, especially not in an economic crisis. Most importantly: Financially, I guess the developers are happy enough with the decisions made for them. After all, if EA is happy, their income is safe. All I'm saying is that I refuse to believe that the people who worked so hard to create all those amazing games before would actually believe that ME 2 is an improvement. They're RPG professionals and gamers, they have to know better.

If corporate descions create games as great as ME2, I think I'm OK with it. Also, did those awful corporate choices create the amazing, hardcore, PC-centric and PC lead game that is Dragon Age: Origins? In a time when most big companies are turning their backs on the PC, saying that there is no market there, EA allowed Bioware to make a PC focused game. And you can't attribute this to any great change in company policy as these game came out within 5 months of each other. I would be surprised to say the least if EA had anything to do with any major design descions on ME2.

[uberdowzen]

Jestina wrote...

You forgot about gear, ME2 has next to nothing. You forgot about condensed character stats. You forgot that ME is way more open ended than ME2. To me, it seemed like there was way more to do in ME...I can get through ME2 in probably just a day compared to 3 for ME.

How on earth can you get through either in one sitting? Both games take about 40 hours to do a completionist playthrough. And the reason there feels like there's less to do in ME2 is due to all the content in ME2 being so good, whereas ME1 had content that you really had to grit your teeth to get through.

Honestly, anyone who thinks that ME1 was some kind of deep and hardcore RPG are kidding themselves. Neither game is ruleset wise particurly deep, so  I see no issue with focusing on the entertaining parts in ME2.

[Onyx Jaguar]

uberdowzen wrote...

Jestina wrote...

You forgot about gear, ME2 has next to nothing. You forgot about condensed character stats. You forgot that ME is way more open ended than ME2. To me, it seemed like there was way more to do in ME...I can get through ME2 in probably just a day compared to 3 for ME.

How on earth can you get through either in one sitting? Both games take about 40 hours to do a completionist playthrough. And the reason there feels like there's less to do in ME2 is due to all the content in ME2 being so good, whereas ME1 had content that you really had to grit your teeth to get through.

After my first well, I guess 3 or 4 playthroughs I really did not want to do a completionist playthrough.  In all of my playhroughs I never recovered all of the minerals or artifacts.  

What I liked about the first Mass Effect is that I could speed run it just by playing it normally.  My average speedrun time was 6 hours, while my fastest was 5 hours on the character I was power leveling.  In ME 2 I cannot do that, and it tends to drag, in order to speedrun that you have to do cloaking or charge, gameplay exploits.  ME 2 requires much more time to do, so instead I have found myself playing the final mission multiple times while in ME 1 I would play the whole game multiple times and now I am going back to ME 1 because I miss the music.

[bjdbwea]

uberdowzen wrote...

If corporate descions create games as great as ME2, I think I'm OK with it. Also, did those awful corporate choices create the amazing, hardcore, PC-centric and PC lead game that is Dragon Age: Origins? In a time when most big companies are turning their backs on the PC, saying that there is no market there, EA allowed Bioware to make a PC focused game. And you can't attribute this to any great change in company policy as these game came out within 5 months of each other. I would be surprised to say the least if EA had anything to do with any major design descions on ME2.

For your information: DA has been in development for years before EA took over. A great game indeed. Still mostly developed by what I would call the "old" BioWare. But yes, even there it is obvious some changes were enforced later. And if you look at Awakening now, it has lost a lot of what made DA great. Similar to what happened with ME 2. Coincidence?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 31 mai 2010 - 03:41 .

[Jack_Shandy]

I gotta say, I think a lot of people have some misconceptions about ME1 being some kind of deep, complex, hardcore RPG. And then people seem to think that EA forced Bioware to dump ME2 down.



I don't know if it's nostalgia or what, but ME1 was no more complex than ME2. The only difference is that it SEEMED more complex/thoughtful, because of useless things like the millions of boring, identical side-quests, or the huge numbers of identical items that the game poured on you. A game that forces you to sort through a huge, item-clogged inventory isn't actually any smarter than a game with five guns. Large Inventory doesn't automatically equal Good Game.



It's fine to say that you'd prefer a Dragon Age style RPG to the kind of shooter that mass effect is, but don't say the first game was any better.

[Jestina]

I would think PC games would be their market. Consoles have gotten way too expensive. I'm a second gen console player and I haven't even got a seventh gen system yet. The main shift is with companies catering to casual gamers. ME at least had some elements of RPG's and more freedom, but traditional RPGs are becoming harder and harder to find.



We're sinking back into the days of button mashing.