10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

uberdowzen wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

How in any way does ME2 improve on the plot.  ME2's plot was almost non-existent.  The combat itself was better in the second, but I'd rather have slower combat than if that means having a better story.  ME2's plot was garbage compared to what ME1 set up.  Its almost as if they forgot they made ME1 when making ME2.

I didn't say the story, I said the story-telling. Story is what happens, story-telling is how it's told. ME2 made major strides in digital acting. And the plot wasn't garbage. It wasn't as good as ME1's and (I don't consider this a bad thing) there's a different pace to the story.

To people who didn't like ME2's story, ponder this: What actually happened in The Empire Strikes Back? You learnt that ***SPOILER***Darth Vader is Luke's Father***SPOILER***, Han got imprisoned and, um, I guess that was it. Not a lot, is it?

ME 1's plot was more disjointed while ME 2's was more disconnected is the way I look at it.  I'm more interested in its presentation than the actual plot, as when I start looking at the plot I go crazy picking at both games.

[AZ RUSH]

FieryDove wrote...

*snip big wall of text that I didn't bother to read because it would give me a headache so please don't get mad if I miss something*

I wonder if Bio even reads a huge thread like this to gather feedback...

When you look at the total number of ME players, the forum is a very small percent.  So I'm sure Bioware looks, but I don't know how much they change by what the forums say.  If you look (at least for Xbox) ME2 is a better rated game by the players than ME1.

[Onyx Jaguar]

This makes me very curious about the PC port of Mass Effect, by the end of the year I think I'll buy it just to compare it to the Xbox version. As going from ME 2 to ME 1 on Xbox 360 is a pretty jarring experience.



Also does anyone know if the Japanese version of Mass Effect has any adjustments aside from localiziation?

[Ecael]

FieryDove wrote...

I wonder if Bio even reads a huge thread like this to gather feedback...

Probably not.

I've always had the suspicion that they're consolidating all these posts into one thread so they don't have to look at it too often.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

Plus I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could compare the two games side by side and not see how different they are.  ME 2 is supposed to be a continuation of ME 1 but it clearly isn't.  I can't explain why, but even with the writing credits, I find it hard to believe it was the same team. 

Actually, ME2 is much better if played directly on from ME1. Awesome experience, can't wait to do the entire trilogy in a row...

Anyway, you've given me an idea, let's compare ME1 and ME2 side by side:

Combat
ME1: Clunky, slow paced, highly inaccurate weapons to begin with but far too accurate at the end, keep pressing R key to reload and end up throwing a grenade.
ME2: Smooth, fast paced, tactical, looks amazing, all squad members have clear roles in the battle.

Storytelling
ME1: Very good cinematics for the time, manages to almost remove the switch from conversations to cinematics found in JE and KOTOR, fantastic writing.
ME2: Most realistic cinematics in an RPG to date, further smoothes out the switch, writing is now bolstered my more interesting conversations which flesh out character's feelings rather than just their history.

Story
ME1: An epic struggle across the Traverse to hunt down a rogue Spectre, epic finale.
ME2: A more personal story with a change in focus, continues plot threads from ME1, starts building excitement about confrontation in ME3, not as good as ME1 story, tense finale.

Inventory
ME1: Clunky and horrific interface, an inventory system which shows potential but needs massive overhauls to work smoothly, no stacking, about 1 decent item to every 50 junk items, essentially KOTOR's inventory except that you can't ignore because you have to clear it out every 150 items.
ME2: Removed, fans complain that they've lost a feature.

Character development
ME1: An acceptable system which allows you to create variations on the base classes.
ME2: An acceptable system which allows you to create variations on the base classes.

Vehicle/UCWs/N7
ME1: Horrific and bland, lacking personality, feel tacked on, should be shot on site.
ME2: Still fairly bland but at least they're short.

[AZ RUSH]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

This makes me very curious about the PC port of Mass Effect, by the end of the year I think I'll buy it just to compare it to the Xbox version. As going from ME 2 to ME 1 on Xbox 360 is a pretty jarring experience.

Also does anyone know if the Japanese version of Mass Effect has any adjustments aside from localiziation?

I play 360 as well, but it seems that the PC ME1 fixed the frame rate a little and some other glitches.  At least that's what I've gathered.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

Oh please, not the fanboy "argument". What are you then, constantly defending your favourite game? I actually didn't do that when people complained about ME 1, because I trusted BioWare. Don't you? Do you fear they will listen to those annoying RPG fans this time? Don't worry, that's unfortunately very unlikely.

Thats because theres nothing that you could have said to defend it considering how flawed yet great mass effect was. Very few people called it a horrible game but many people which includes you think ME2 is the worst game ever made when it is clearly not.


The thing is i don't "fear" bioware listening to "those annoying rpg fans"(considering i am one), in fact, i DO want them to listen to "those annoying RPG fans" seeing that i want a proper inventory(kotor DAO), more explorable worlds and better integration for N7 missions in the next game.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

How in any way does ME2 improve on the plot.  ME2's plot was almost non-existent.  The combat itself was better in the second, but I'd rather have slower combat than if that means having a better story.  ME2's plot was garbage compared to what ME1 set up.  Its almost as if they forgot they made ME1 when making ME2.

I didn't say the story, I said the story-telling. Story is what happens, story-telling is how it's told. ME2 made major strides in digital acting. And the plot wasn't garbage. It wasn't as good as ME1's and (I don't consider this a bad thing) there's a different pace to the story.

To people who didn't like ME2's story, ponder this: What actually happened in The Empire Strikes Back? You learnt that ***SPOILER***Darth Vader is Luke's Father***SPOILER***, Han got imprisoned and, um, I guess that was it. Not a lot, is it?

Big twist developed from what Luke learned in ANH ie:  is father being betrayed and murdered.

That bounty Han had put on him really came back to bite him, huh?

But most importantly:

Luke learned the ways of the Force: a continuation from the previous episode where he learned his father was a Jedi and he could become one as well.

Empire did not dump virtually the entire cast, heroes,sidekicks, and villains, for newer, souped-up versions.  Nor did it completely forget about the Empire for the majority of the movie.  ME 2, if they changed some names, could be a seperate game altogether.

[Iakus]

Ecael wrote...

iakus wrote...

I wasn't around for the old ME 1 boards, so I don't knwo what exactly was being complained about, but I think te problem was:  Bioware performed surgery with a chainsaw.  Problems with the Mako?  Don't bother to refine it, cut it out completely!  Too much inventory, with poor sorting mechanics?  Throw it all out!  Clearly people aren't interesed in considering how to improve thier guns, it's cutting into shooting time!

No that's not what I think happened, but it sure gives that impression. 

Plus I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could compare the two games side by side and not see how different they are.  ME 2 is supposed to be a continuation of ME 1 but it clearly isn't.  I can't explain why, but even with the writing credits, I find it hard to believe it was the same team. 

Man I wish there was a customer satisfaction survey I could fill out.

And now BioWare's using a chainsaw to cut through the feedback since people are complaining about their overreaction to feedback.

I've played both games 7-8 times through and I could compare every aspect and still see it as the same. And that doesn't include the playthroughs where I try to skip all the combat as much as possible to get to the dialogue.

Chainsaw to cut through the feedback?  You lost me there?

I just finished my third playthrough of ME 2 and it's now sitting next to my copy of Deus Ex 2.  I simply can't deal with the lame reboot of the ME universe.  The differences are so jarring to me.  Old friends no longer your friends, or only cooly polite.  the resets, retcons, the lack of focus of the story that is there, the lack of investigation into the Collectors.  Honestly, how often is the word "Reaper" even used?  This might as well have been titled Mass Effect 1a:  The Do-Over

[Onyx Jaguar]

The plot in ME 2 to me is too focused on the Reapers. It takes a back seat in the first game while pretty much the entire think in ME 2 is how the Collectors are agents of the Reapers doing shenanigans. TIM is pretty much Reaper this, Reaper that, Reaper hit me with a whiffle ball bat

[Iakus]

Ecael wrote...

ME1 set up several storylines in the galaxy, one of which - as I mentioned above - was the origins of the Collectors along with the origins of a Reaper. What happened to Saren and the mind-meld visions we saw hinted at this (even without the modification made in one of the N7 missions).

So if ME2's plot was garbage, then ME1's ability to set up a plot was garbage as well.

Actually, there wasn't a single clue concerning the Collector origins in ME 1, unless you consider the outright speculation on the part of Vigil about the origins of the Keepers, and combine it with the speculation on the part of EDI.  I'd call what happened to Saren the closest thing to a hint.  I really, REALLY wish they'd explored the ramifications more in ME 2

And to be more specific, it's the creation of  Reapers, not the origins that is set up (and is, IMO the lamest thing they could have possibly come up with, but I'll be generous and assume we don't know the whole story yet)

ME 2's plot isn't garbage, there's simply not enough of it to call garbage. 

[Busomjack]

The way I feel is that Mass Effect 1 has the better plot but Mass Effect 2 plays better.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Why is it important in regards to the Origins of the Collectors? I don't feel that the plot of ME 2 should solely rely on ME 1. In fact as much as it did was kind of a detriment as because of that, the main plot really didn't have anything to itself.

[Darth Drago]

worm_burner wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Actually, ME2 is much better if played directly on from ME1. Awesome experience, can't wait to do the entire trilogy in a row...

How so? There is almost no connection between them besides Shepard and a few squad members. Even in the interviews with the developers they state that ME2 is pretty much a standalone game. For a series shouldn't in a sense playing the first have a more dramatic impact on the second, especially with the characters. The characters from the first pretty much got axed or a very minor part from the second with no reason (Anderson, Hackett, The Council, just to name a few).

-Actually playing ME2 right after ME1 isn’t a good idea, That’s what I did and it stank. There were just to many drastic changes in the game to go from one into the other seamlessly like it should have been. I shouldn’t have to learn a whole new game to play a sequel and that’s exactly what happened.

Yea and don’t forget that they already mentioned that ME3 will also be a stand alone game.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

Actually, ME2 is much better if played directly on from ME1. Awesome experience, can't wait to do the entire trilogy in a row...

Actually,I suspected that at first.  On my 2nd playthrough.  I made a fresh ME 1 character, played it through, and immediately imported to ME 2.  It was still an incredibly jarring experience.  Sure the combat was a little different, the graphics updated, but the way the stroy played out..I doublechecked the box to make sure it was really a Bioware game.

uberdowzen wrote...

Anyway, you've given me an idea, let's compare ME1 and ME2 side by side:

Combat
ME1: Clunky, slow paced, highly inaccurate weapons to begin with but far too accurate at the end, keep pressing R key to reload and end up throwing a grenade.
ME2: Smooth, fast paced, tactical, looks amazing, all squad members have clear roles in the battle.

I don't mind the combat too much.  I think they oversimplified things in ME 2, but not enough to get too bent out of shape over.  i don't mind remapping keys because, being a lefty, i have to do that with every game I get anyway.

uberdowzen wrote...


Storytelling
ME1: Very good cinematics for the time, manages to almost remove the switch from conversations to cinematics found in JE and KOTOR, fantastic writing.
ME2: Most realistic cinematics in an RPG to date, further smoothes out the switch, writing is now bolstered my more interesting conversations which flesh out character's feelings rather than just their history.

Graphics are definitely better, no doubt.  ME 1's cinematic scenes are still incredible today though.  Tough I will also add that rpg players don't get games just for graphics.

uberdowzen wrote...
Story
ME1: An epic struggle across the Traverse to hunt down a rogue Spectre, epic finale.
ME2: A more personal story with a change in focus, continues plot threads from ME1, starts building excitement about confrontation in ME3, not as good as ME1 story, tense finale.

This is where I put the brakes on:

This is most definitely NOT a more personal story.  Not for Shepard anyway.  Shepard has been cut off from everything that could be called personal: rank in the Alliance military, friends, family, the Council, ship and crew.  Even the memry of Shepard's accomplishments is being swept away.  But do you get the chance to reconnect with any of that?  No, or at best to a very limited degree, mainly though coincidence.

Instead Shepard spends most of the game solving the personal problems of the squad.  Not a bad thing in principle, but it gets really really boring to do that a dozen times, then realize that this is, in fact, the entire game.

Plot threads being continued?  Well, sort of.  The geth and genophage get expanded on, and we see a little bit of quarian life.  But they were secondary plotlines before and remain so now.  The main thrust of the game, we were led to believe, was the Collectors.  I think I spent more time in the game fighting and investigating the geth.

I got more excitement about a confrontation in ME 3 from the ending of ME 1 than ME 2.  in essence, you're in exactly the same position at the end of each game.  Only in ME 1 you're fresh from a Reaper kill.  A real reaper too, not...that...

uberdowzen wrote...

Inventory
ME1: Clunky and horrific interface, an inventory system which shows potential but needs massive overhauls to work smoothly, no stacking, about 1 decent item to every 50 junk items, essentially KOTOR's inventory except that you can't ignore because you have to clear it out every 150 items.
ME2: Removed, fans complain that they've lost a feature.

ME 1's inventory was clunky.  You have to agressively weed it or get overwhelmed.  No doubt about it.  It needed work.  So Bioware busted out the old chainsaw and lopped it clean off.  Yeah I'm kinda disappointed that Bioware went Dark Side on this ("Faster, easier, but not stronger")  But I could get over it if ME 2's story had been able to draw me in as well as ME 1. ME 1 got me to forget about it's inventory flaws, after all.

uberdowzen wrote...

Character development
ME1: An acceptable system which allows you to create variations on the base classes.
ME2: An acceptable system which allows you to create variations on the base classes.

I was massively underwhelmed by the character customization.  There's very little room for cusomization, imo.  A soldier is "this"  and adept is "that" with little in the way of making it "your soldier" or "your adept"  Still "Acceptable" is a term I'd use.  Though perhaps not in the same way you would.

uberdowzen wrote...
Vehicle/UCWs/N7
ME1: Horrific and bland, lacking personality, feel tacked on, should be shot on site.
ME2: Still fairly bland but at least they're short.

ME 1:  a nice change of pace from corridor running.  Yeah some missions kind of bland, but not all.  And it was mostly optional stuff.  The Mako itself was actually pretty cool.  Mountains, however, were not.

ME2:  "Land on planet.  Kill everything in sight.  Take off. TIM pays you" pretty much sums it up.  Bland, boring, short enough to only require the attention span of a flashbulb to do..  Fortunately optional because they are simply not worth the effort to launch a probe.

Modifié par iakus, 31 mai 2010 - 06:06 .

[Christmas Ape]

iakus said...

I was massively underwhelmed by the character customization. There's very little room for cusomization, imo. A soldier is "this" and adept is "that" with little in the way of making it "your soldier" or "your adept" Still "Acceptable" is a term I'd use. Though perhaps not in the same way you would.

It's possible the distinction between "Sniper Rifles at 10, Electronics at 12" and "Electronics at 10, Sniper Rifles at 12" just wasn't that strong for some people.



Yes, I realize there are other options, etc, but deciding where to put a 5% increase in a game with no visible "final" numbers is something of a personal taste issue. Could you tell the difference in damage you took when Combat Armor was at the half-way mark vs. completely leveled, or was it mostly about how well Shield Boost worked?

[Iakus]

Darth Drago wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Actually, ME2 is much better if played directly on from ME1. Awesome experience, can't wait to do the entire trilogy in a row...

How so? There is almost no connection between them besides Shepard and a few squad members. Even in the interviews with the developers they state that ME2 is pretty much a standalone game. For a series shouldn't in a sense playing the first have a more dramatic impact on the second, especially with the characters. The characters from the first pretty much got axed or a very minor part from the second with no reason (Anderson, Hackett, The Council, just to name a few).

-Actually playing ME2 right after ME1 isn’t a good idea, That’s what I did and it stank. There were just to many drastic changes in the game to go from one into the other seamlessly like it should have been. I shouldn’t have to learn a whole new game to play a sequel and that’s exactly what happened.

Yea and don’t forget that they already mentioned that ME3 will also be a stand alone game.

I'm sensing a great disturbance in the force...

[KitsuneRommel]

Darth Drago wrote...

-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.

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.

I used lift and singularity solely as a crowd control. It was "fine" when your adept wasn't fully upgraded but in later stages the powers were just too powerful.

After Noveria the next time I got hit by a "throw" was in citadel. Sabotage/dampening was even more rare.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I don't care what they do with ME 3,
it won't negate ME 2's existence.

rofl, mutlitasking, Playing
Mass Effect 1 while defending Mass Effect 2

I just finished my adept insanity playthrough last night. Managed to get to level 58 in a single playthrough.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 31 mai 2010 - 06:36 .

[Nivenus]

iakus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...
Story
ME1: An epic struggle across the Traverse to hunt down a rogue Spectre, epic finale.
ME2: A more personal story with a change in focus, continues plot threads from ME1, starts building excitement about confrontation in ME3, not as good as ME1 story, tense finale.

This is where I put the brakes on:

This is most definitely NOT a more personal story.  Not for Shepard anyway.  Shepard has been cut off from everything that could be called personal: rank in the Alliance military, friends, family, the Council, ship and crew.  Even the memry of Shepard's accomplishments is being swept away.  But do you get the chance to reconnect with any of that?  No, or at best to a very limited degree, mainly though coincidence.

Actually, disconnecting the main character from their old connections usually makes for a very personal story. Why? Because it causes them to go out and form new connections and to turn inwards (not that I'm saying ME2's particularly introspective - it's not). ME2's story is more personal because it focuses more on Shepard's relationships than ME1 did. In ME1, as in most BioWare games, the characters you recruited were, by and large, incidental to the storyline. They had an important role at the time that you recruited them and then, with the exceptions of Liara and Wrex, they dropped off the face of the story. None of them had a major role to play after that.

In ME2 that's simply not the case.

Instead Shepard spends most of the game solving the personal problems of the squad.  Not a bad thing in principle, but it gets really really boring to do that a dozen times, then realize that this is, in fact, the entire game.

I'll admit this is entirely subjective, but I found the loyalty missions to be, on the whole (not every single one of them, but most) more interesting than most of the missions in ME1. Honestly. I liked dealing with Thane's son, Tali's trial, and Jack's trauma more than I enjoyed unearthing the been there, done that corrupt corporatism of Feros (not that it wasn't fun), the bare skeleton of a mission that Therum was, or, heavens forbid, the drab side quests that plagued ME1.

Just my opinion, of course, and I will freely admit that I thought Virmire, Ilos, and the return to the Citadel were all awesome in every sense of the word and that Noveria had its moments to.

Plot threads being continued?  Well, sort of.  The geth and genophage get expanded on, and we see a little bit of quarian life.  But they were secondary plotlines before and remain so now.  The main thrust of the game, we were led to believe, was the Collectors.  I think I spent more time in the game fighting and investigating the geth.

I see your point and I was disappointed that most choices didn't amount to anything more than an email. But, to be honest, most of the choices that amounted only as emails were not part of the main quest. They were sidequests. Those that did tie into the main quest, like whether or not you killed Wrex, whether you saved the rachni queen or destroyed her, and whether you saved the Council were given a more dramatic nod which hinted at further consequencfes in ME3. Whether or not you believe BioWare will follow through I guess depends on how much faith you have in BioWare.

After becoming highly skeptical of BioWare's shift in direction following its acquisition of EA I've been won back and am eagerly looking forward to ME3 and DA2 as well as, of all things, TOR (which I initially hated with an almost irrational passion).

I got more excitement about a confrontation in ME 3 from the ending of ME 1 than ME 2.  in essence, you're in exactly the same position at the end of each game.  Only in ME 1 you're fresh from a Reaper kill.  A real reaper too, not...that...

SPOILERS: The Reaper embryo is a real Reaper and pretending otherwise just makes you look indignant. In any case, I felt more pumped at the ending of ME2. That's not to say I wasn't pumped at the end of ME1, but I rightly believed that ME2 would involve building up and preparing for the arrival of the Reapers rather than the actual confrontation (no, seriously, I didn't expect the Reapers to show up at all until maybe the end of the second act).

ME1 hinted that you would have to prepare the galaxy. In ME2, you did that, striking the Reapers where it hurt and acquiring allies throughout the galaxy to help you (and I'm not just talking about your party, your actions may impact whether or not particular factions in ME3 help you or not, though not without ME3 actions to back them up I'm sure). At the end of ME2, you're now waiting for the Reapers to actually arrive because you are ready. You've done the impossible.

Plus, the final boss' death to me was more climactic. Sovereign's death in ME1 felt a little contrived to me. What, I killed Saren's huskified body and that meant that Joker dealt Sovereign the killing shot? Dramatically, it was cool, but it made no sense.

[Pocketgb]

Darth Drago wrote...

-Actually playing ME2 right after ME1 isn’t a good idea, That’s what I did and it stank. There were just to many drastic changes in the game to go from one into the other seamlessly like it should have been. I shouldn’t have to learn a whole new game to play a sequel and that’s exactly what happened.

Some bands like to expand on their original formula, some bands like to take their music on a different route.
I like to think of ME1 and ME2 as Weezer's Blue Album and Pinkerton.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

Big twist developed from what Luke learned in ANH ie:  is father being betrayed and murdered.

That bounty Han had put on him really came back to bite him, huh?

But most importantly:

Luke learned the ways of the Force: a continuation from the previous episode where he learned his father was a Jedi and he could become one as well.

Empire did not dump virtually the entire cast, heroes,sidekicks, and villains, for newer, souped-up versions.  Nor did it completely forget about the Empire for the majority of the movie.  ME 2, if they changed some names, could be a seperate game altogether.

And the twist about the collectors doesn't count at all...

Were you honestly expecting ME2 to have the same companions as ME1? And it's not like they were retconned or anything, they still appeared in the game. In Empire, Luke is split up from the others how is this any different from Shepherd losing his team?

ME2 is a continuation of Shepherd's struggle against the Reapers. The whole game is about fighting them.

And saying you could just change some names and ME2 could be an entirely seperate game is ridiculous, that basically applies to anything. If you just change the names of the characters in any Bond movie, it becomes a completely new film.

[uberdowzen]

worm_burner wrote...

How so?  There is almost no connection between them besides Shepard and a few squad members.  Even in the interviews with the developers they state that ME2 is pretty much a standalone game.  For a series shouldn't in a sense playing the first have a more dramatic impact on the second, especially with the characters.  The characters from the first pretty much got axed or a very minor part from the second with no reason (Anderson, Hackett, The Council, just to name a few).

I don't know why it works, it just does. And when did Bioware say that ME2 is pretty much a standalone game?

[Gundar3]

Darth Drago wrote...

Yea and don’t forget that they already mentioned that ME3 will also be a stand alone game.

Can anyone verify this?  I mean, its getting to the point that if each of the games are so completely stand alone that the plots have a hard time linking, why bother calling it a trilogy?