10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Nivenus]

By stand-alone game they simply mean they intend it to be playable by those who haven't played ME1 and ME2.



Hell, in a sense, MGS4 is a stand-alone game. Sure, it makes a hell of a lot more sense if you've played the preceding three (or even the first two which most people forget existed), but I didn't before playing MGS4 and I still was able to (with a few web references) make sense of what was going on.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

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.

Well, I did it and enjoyed it so, agree to disagree I guess...

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.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. It was quite fun, it wasn't revolutionary but it got the job done. Barely.

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.

Not talking about the graphics, because, honestly, ME2 has pretty good graphics but they're not mind blowingly good or anything though. I'm talking more about the animations and how they make the characters get up and walk around etc. It's amazing how much more interesting it makes the conversations. I mean why is Ashley just standing there doing nothing all day...

uberdowzen wrote...

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...

Personal was possibly not the word I was looking for. I probably meant more emotional. ME2 gave me a feeling that I though only really good novels and movies could give you. I actually care about these companions, there feelings, their drive and (except for Jack who they can retcon for all I care) there weren't any irritating characters (*cough*Liara*cough*Ashley*cough*). I do agree that they probably should have stopped at 8 and maybe do something about the collectors for those final missions instead. I have a tendency to ignore the conversations for Thane and Samara as I kind of just want to get on with it at that point.

You don't sense the plots about the Quarian-Geth war and the Krogan Genophage wrapping up? I personal theory is that ME3 is going to be about gathering the races of the galaxy to fight the Reapers and how these conflicts are resolved is going to be an important factor.

My other theory is that ME3 is going to have some kind of Cerberus vs Alliance mechanic. I'm guessing the pro-cerberus and pro-alliance choices you made in ME2 are going to determine you allegiance in ME3.

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.

My point is that I think there's more wrong with that inventory than just a bad interface. It could be mostly fixed on PC just by adding stacking, the issue is that the game is console lead, so whatever works best for 360 is what will happen. There are far too many junk items. The ammo system was screwed. The upgrade system made little to no difference. And as Bioware pointed out, it didn't really make much sense in lore terms. Also remember that on console, Bioware has never done a good inventory. It was such a relief that the inventory in JE was so basic because (after the mess that was the KOTOR inventory) it was a relief just to be able to focus on the plot.

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.

They get the job done, not particurly well or in any kind of style, but they get it done. Honestly, ME1's character development system was pathetic compared DAO, NWN, JE, Oblivion...it just wasn't that great. ME2's was great either. They were both acceptable. They didn't hamper the experience, they improved it a bit. They were acceptable.

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.

Question: you design a really cool vehicle which (even more cooly) is governed by a real time physics engine. Great. One issue, it goes a bit nuts on mountains. Doesn't matter, let's force the player to drive over kilometres of jaggy, low polygon mountains to reach randomly placed bases.

Rule Number 1 of game design: If there are flaws in your engine, don't spend a third of your game shoving them in the player's face

And, yes, it is a break from corridor shooting, which is fine. The only issue is that it's incredibly boring. Driving across all that dull landscape...

Rule Number 2 of game design: If the player starts listening to podcasts while playing your game, something is very, very wrong.

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.

I actually quite enjoyed some of the N7 missions, much in the same way I enjoyed most of the UNC quests, once I reached them. The only fantastic thing about the UCWs was the shifty space cow. That was actually awesome (not sarcasm).

Modifié par uberdowzen, 31 mai 2010 - 09:04 .

[Ecael]

worm_burner wrote...

iakus wrote...

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. 

If I remember correctly its Mass Effect Ascension that is the first to really mention the collectors not ME1.

Then describe what the point of showing all these flashbacks were (before the location of the next mission is revealed):

Spoiler Alert

Modifié par Ecael, 31 mai 2010 - 09:27 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...


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

An adept shouldnt need companions for crowd control because that makes his role a complete waste.
I go back to my example with fantasy rpgs: A mage shouldnt rely on warriors to destroy the armor of enemies before he could use his spells.

The Adept is basicly the mage of Mass Effect.

Um, I never said that they were.

They are in the same league as a harbinger drone or a scion. Good gameplay has to make sense.That singularity stop harbinger drones and scions, but not geth primes, heavy mechs,varren and fenris mechs doesnt make any sense.

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...



Anyway, I was originally pointing out how stupid it was that you could be instantly killed by a sniper shot or rocket. I do

I call this fair. If i can oneshot enemies with a sniper rifle,  why enemies should not be able to do this? Its completly okay.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

An adept shouldnt need companions for crowd control because that makes his role a complete waste.
I go back to my example with fantasy rpgs: A mage shouldnt rely on warriors to destroy the armor of enemies before he could use his spells.

The Adept is basicly the mage of Mass Effect.

Doesn't mean they have to be exactly like mages. And so you're saying that Biotics should be OP?

They are in the same league as a harbinger drone or a scion. Good gameplay has to make sense.That singularity stop harbinger drones and scions, but not geth primes, heavy mechs,varren and fenris mechs doesnt make any sense.

Your thing with singularity seems to be your only example of gameplay not making sense. Anyway, this is either an error or there's some balancing reason for it.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

I call this fair. If i can oneshot enemies with a sniper rifle,  why enemies should not be able to do this? Its completly okay.

Because the enemies don't have to reload and play the encounter over again when they die. Getting killed for making a tiny mistake doesn't seem particurly fair either.

[Orchomene]

For those that are wondering if there remains RPGs on the market, I have found something that may be interesting :
Eschelon: book 1 and 2 from Basilisk Games.
From their site :
"Basilisk Games is an independent game developer located in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Our mission is to produce compelling old-school computer role-playing games for gamers who still remember what great computer RPGs used to be about…
Single player. Turn based. Stat heavy. Story driven.
Ever played the Ultima series? Might & Magic? Wizardry? Fallout? If so, you get the idea of the types of games we’re working on."

Modifié par Orchomene, 31 mai 2010 - 09:45 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Also the Geneforge games by Spiderweb are the closest things you can get to the infinity engine games.

[uberdowzen]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also the Geneforge games by Spiderweb are the closest things you can get to the infinity engine games.

And Avernum.

[1stormbringer77]

In the real world,snipers are lucky to get to snipe more than once(unless your in Afghanistan.I shot and missed and my target twice before I finally got him.He just stopped and looked around then kept on walking like nothing was wrong.)Be happy that we can play this at all since we can shoot more than once to get a kill.

[P3G4SU5]

Ecael wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

So first you say the complaining against ME 1 was okay, but then you tell me to make my own game if I don't like ME 2? Yeah, no double standards there.

Oh, and are you sure people who complained about the clumsy inventory wanted to have it removed completely? Or the Mako? You don't think maybe, just maybe, people just wanted better controls and more diverse worlds? Let's face it, most complaints were a convenient excuse to do the dumbing down and cutting corners that was planned anyway.

And as I said before, I couldn't care less if it was "EA" or "BioWare" who made the decisions. I have any reason to suspect it was mainly EA's influence, but it doesn't matter. The end result is a mediocre story and writing (which is my main complaint) and a dumbed down gameplay (which I could live with if the rest were on par with ME 1).

So... you say that BioWare listened too closely to the negative feedback from ME1, and now you're giving feedback to BioWare that they shouldn't listen to too much feedback while giving negative feedback about ME2?



EDIT: BioWare seems to be listening to the first part - they don't seem to show up here anymore to collect new feedback.

Don't be ridiculous, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that bjdbwea was saying that the devs failed to reach that perfect 'middle ground' to make everyone happy and instead were far too aggressive with the pruning of ME1 game elements. Just becuse something wasn't perfectly implemented in ME1 doesn't mean players want it scrapped from the game. It just means it needs to be tweaked or improved, not dumped as a failed feature.

Sometimes I get the impression that some of the contributers on this forum have it so set in their minds that ME1/2 is so good that they are blinded to other views/ideas, which if implemented would potentially make ME3 an even better game than the first or second.

I'm pretty sure the Bioware devs do check these forums, I just get the feeling that they are quietly observing and taking notes rather than becoming directly involved. That or they lost the will to continue living  after reading over 100 pages of our opinions... Hopefully they will become more involved in the forums and discuss improvements with us for the last installment of the trilogy.

Modifié par P3G4SU5, 31 mai 2010 - 11:04 .

[chzr]

uberdowzen wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

I call this fair. If i can oneshot enemies with a sniper rifle,  why enemies should not be able to do this? Its completly okay.

Because the enemies don't have to reload and play the encounter over again when they die. Getting killed for making a tiny mistake doesn't seem particurly fair either.

so you call standing in front of  almost violent red laser and then dying a tiny mistake? jumping into easily avoidable rocket is tiny mistake too? lolwut, what's a "big mistake" then?

Modifié par chzr, 31 mai 2010 - 11:08 .

[tonnactus]

Christmas Ape wrote...

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?

Oh man...

The only thing that matters were the three stages: Basic,advanced and Master.

I guess most people would be pleased if bioware kept the weapon talents but reduced it to 3-4 ranks. Like level one carnage to level 4.

Modifié par tonnactus, 31 mai 2010 - 11:28 .

[CroGamer002]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Just wanted to chip in with a graphic I found, which granted me a chuckle.
It does somewhat cover my issues with the narrative of ME2 as well.

I can get tutorial( plothole with Wilson) but rest?

[Mister Mida]

Mesina2 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

Just wanted to chip in with a graphic I found, which granted me a chuckle.
It does somewhat cover my issues with the narrative of ME2 as well.

I can get tutorial( plothole with Wilson) but rest?

I was wondering the same thing. Personally I would go more like the other way around (red = green, green= red, with a few exceptions).

Modifié par Mister Mida, 31 mai 2010 - 11:32 .

[Ecael]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

So first you say the complaining against ME 1 was okay, but then you tell me to make my own game if I don't like ME 2? Yeah, no double standards there.

Oh, and are you sure people who complained about the clumsy inventory wanted to have it removed completely? Or the Mako? You don't think maybe, just maybe, people just wanted better controls and more diverse worlds? Let's face it, most complaints were a convenient excuse to do the dumbing down and cutting corners that was planned anyway.

And as I said before, I couldn't care less if it was "EA" or "BioWare" who made the decisions. I have any reason to suspect it was mainly EA's influence, but it doesn't matter. The end result is a mediocre story and writing (which is my main complaint) and a dumbed down gameplay (which I could live with if the rest were on par with ME 1).

So... you say that BioWare listened too closely to the negative feedback from ME1, and now you're giving feedback to BioWare that they shouldn't listen to too much feedback while giving negative feedback about ME2?



EDIT: BioWare seems to be listening to the first part - they don't seem to show up here anymore to collect new feedback.

Don't be ridiculous, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that bjdbwea was saying that the devs failed to reach that perfect 'middle ground' to make everyone happy and instead were far too aggressive with the pruning of ME1 game elements. Just becuse something wasn't perfectly implemented in ME1 doesn't mean players want it scrapped from the game. It just means it needs to be tweaked or improved, not dumped as a failed feature.

Just like planet-scanning? Even many of the people who like ME2 don't like planet-scanning at all, although there were a few who enjoyed it. BioWare listened to the latter by speeding up planet-scanning, with Casey Hudson saying that they're keeping planet-scanning for ME3. That doesn't sound like middle ground - either BioWare is listening to the ones who can praise their game, or just listening to themselves.

Also, there is no middle ground between certain aspects of each game. When I criticize a flaw in ME1 or ME2, I do so with both games - because it's present in both games, yet people refuse to see it in one of them.

Exploration, for example, is non-existent in both games. There is virtually nothing to explore on the empty planets you land on other than what's already handed to you on the map. There is also nothing to explore on the galaxy map in ME2 other than anomalies. I don't want a middle ground between ME1 or ME2 - I want actual exploration.

Sometimes I get the impression that some of the contributers on this forum have it so set in their minds that ME1/2 is so good that they are blinded to other views/ideas, which if implemented would potentially make ME3 an even better game than the first or second.

Emphasis on the second part - ideas. The majority of what people are saying here are their views, not ideas. Ideas do not consist of:

1. "Be ME1 again!"
2. "Continue being ME2 again!"
3. "Be DA:O!"

They're not new ideas if those options already exist in another BioWare game. These are ideas:

http://social.biowar...5/index/2656020

There are very few people that seem to come up with actual ideas from the discussion in this thread. Terror_K is an exception, however - having a good solution to a revamped inventory system in ME3, similar to my line of thinking.

I'm pretty sure the Bioware devs do check these forums, I just get the feeling that they are quietly observing and taking notes rather than becoming directly involved. That or they lost the will to continue living  after reading over 100 pages of our opinions... Hopefully they will become more involved in the forums and discuss improvements with us for the last installment of the trilogy.

They do look at the forums, but I doubt they're going to listen to the ones that are telling them that they don't know how to do their jobs and are busy bowing down to corporate EA. Why? Because they aren't.

It is insulting to complete something that took years to develop - especially for the ones who truly love developing games - and then have someone say "Oh, they're just half-assing it for the money".

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...


Doesn't mean they have to be exactly like mages. And so you're saying that Biotics should be OP?

Like you wrote,high level enemies should have resistences that for example reduce the duration/power of biotics.Right,resistences,not basicly Immunies.
More diverse enemy groups where enemy biotics could do the same to the player or techs that damp their ablities.
Problem solved,nothing is overpowered.

When talking about some things are overpowered, what about Adrenaline Rush that double the weapon damage of the soldier and gives him a damage reduction at level 4???

Or i try just an other example to show you how dumb the "protection system" in this game is.Just imagine enemies like harbinger, geth primes and heavy mechs have some anti cloak devices or could prevent the use of adrenaline rush.. The rage on this forums would be enormous and it would be right so.



They are in the same league as a harbinger drone or a scion. Good gameplay has to make sense.That singularity stop harbinger drones and scions, but not geth primes, heavy mechs,varren and fenris mechs doesnt make any sense.

Your thing with singularity seems to be your only example of gameplay not making sense. Anyway, this is either an error or there's some balancing reason for it.

I give you another example. The sentinel as the "jack of all trades" getting better cooldown or power damage then the adept or engineer could get.
An allrounder is better then specialists???
I call this huge bull****. Nothing against this class.

Modifié par tonnactus, 31 mai 2010 - 11:32 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

I call this fair. If i can oneshot enemies with a sniper rifle,  why enemies should not be able to do this? Its completly okay.

Because the enemies don't have to reload and play the encounter over again when they die. Getting killed for making a tiny mistake doesn't seem particurly fair either.

Tiny mistake? Really? The red lasers give you enough warning and rockets were laughable slow. And yes,teammates with sabotage really help.

[P3G4SU5]

Mesina2 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

Just wanted to chip in with a graphic I found, which granted me a chuckle.
It does somewhat cover my issues with the narrative of ME2 as well.

I can get tutorial( plothole with Wilson) but rest?

Probably referring to the events on Horizon. You find out from TIM that the Collectors went there because they knew Willams/Alenko was there (courtesy of TIM). Yet despite this they don't pick up this person of great interest first, instead they collect a bunch of other colonists. Great prioritising don't you think by such a highly intelligent race...? And this isn't even mentioning the fact that you have a ship in orbit. Why doesn't it bomb the Collector ship? What the heck is it doing up there? Sure, EDI is busy calibrating the turrets, but I don't think Joker needs to have his hand held whilst piloting/shooting. But hang on - we're told the SR-2 has twice the mass of the SR-1 and it's too big to enter low orbit so that makes sense... Oh wait, it's not if you need a pickup at the end of each Firewalker mission...

Then there's blatant trap in the form of the 'disabled Collector ship' and the complete failure of Sheperd's team of blowing it away on sight. I can understand maybe wanting to gather intel on the poorly understood enemy but wouldn't it be  a good idea to be placing explosives as you travel through the ship using your specialists (since its obviously a trap and the objective of the entire game is to STOP THE COLLECTORS). Sheperd is meant to be trained at the highest level of the Alliance military, he's an N7 after all, yet he has no grasp of tactics or contingency whe it comes to venturing into an enemy ship. Right.

At the same time the player could be using your tech experts to record everything you see for the Alliance/Council. Wouldn't these occassions (along with Veetor's footage of Collectors collecting humans on Freedom's Progress) have been ideal oppotunites, gathering proof to get the Alliance mobilised, even if the Council are too blind to help? At least an Alliance evacuation order of the outer colonies could have been made since they are reluctant to commit militarily to the Terminus Systems.

As for the endgame, well it makes absolutely no sense for the Collector's to be making a new Reaper under Harbinger's orders. What can it even do once built? It can't survive a confrontation with the Citadel/Earth fleets so why bother even building it? To save time and have it ready for when the Reapers arrive? The Reapers are ageless, why would the draw attention and risk discovery by building a Reaper when they could just wait until they arrive in force and then take all the humans they want without having to worry about reprisals. Even if they do believe themselves to be safe from attacks beyond the O4 Relay, their ship is at risk every time it ventures out.

[CroGamer002]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

Just wanted to chip in with a graphic I found, which granted me a chuckle.
It does somewhat cover my issues with the narrative of ME2 as well.

I can get tutorial( plothole with Wilson) but rest?

Probably referring to the events on Horizon. You find out from TIM that the Collectors went there because they knew Willams/Alenko was there (courtesy of TIM). Yet despite this they don't pick up this person of great interest first, instead they collect a bunch of other colonists. Great prioritising don't you think by such a highly intelligent race...? And this isn't even mentioning the fact that you have a ship in orbit. Why doesn't it bomb the Collector ship? What the heck is it doing up there? Sure, EDI is busy calibrating the turrets, but I don't think Joker needs to have his hand held whilst piloting/shooting. But hang on - we're told the SR-2 has twice the mass of the SR-1 and it's too big to enter low orbit so that makes sense... Oh wait, it's not if you need a pickup at the end of each Firewalker mission...

Then there's blatant trap in the form of the 'disabled Collector ship' and the complete failure of Sheperd's team of blowing it away on sight. I can understand maybe wanting to gather intel on the poorly understood enemy but wouldn't it be  a good idea to be placing explosives as you travel through the ship using your specialists (since its obviously a trap and the objective of the entire game is to STOP THE COLLECTORS). Sheperd is meant to be trained at the highest level of the Alliance military, he's an N7 after all, yet he has no grasp of tactics or contingency whe it comes to venturing into an enemy ship. Right.

At the same time the player could be using your tech experts to record everything you see for the Alliance/Council. Wouldn't these occassions (along with Veetor's footage of Collectors collecting humans on Freedom's Progress) have been ideal oppotunites, gathering proof to get the Alliance mobilised, even if the Council are too blind to help? At least an Alliance evacuation order of the outer colonies could have been made since they are reluctant to commit militarily to the Terminus Systems.

As for the endgame, well it makes absolutely no sense for the Collector's to be making a new Reaper under Harbinger's orders. What can it even do once built? It can't survive a confrontation with the Citadel/Earth fleets so why bother even building it? To save time and have it ready for when the Reapers arrive? The Reapers are ageless, why would the draw attention and risk discovery by building a Reaper when they could just wait until they arrive in force and then take all the humans they want without having to worry about reprisals. Even if they do believe themselves to be safe from attacks beyond the O4 Relay, their ship is at risk every time it ventures out.

1st OK
2nd what explosives?
3rd Alliance controls Council if you don't sav them so I don't think they would move a finger.
4th Maybe they planned to do that once they took control of Citadel but Sovereing failure wasn't in they plan?

[P3G4SU5]

Ecael wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Don't be ridiculous, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that bjdbwea was saying that the devs failed to reach that perfect 'middle ground' to make everyone happy and instead were far too aggressive with the pruning of ME1 game elements. Just becuse something wasn't perfectly implemented in ME1 doesn't mean players want it scrapped from the game. It just means it needs to be tweaked or improved, not dumped as a failed feature.

Just like planet-scanning? Even many of the people who like ME2 don't like planet-scanning at all, although there were a few who enjoyed it. BioWare listened to the latter by speeding up planet-scanning, with Casey Hudson saying that they're keeping planet-scanning for ME3. That doesn't sound like middle ground - either BioWare is listening to the ones who can praise their game, or just listening to themselves.

Also, there is no middle ground between certain aspects of each game. When I criticize a flaw in ME1 or ME2, I do so with both games - because it's present in both games, yet people refuse to see it in one of them.

Exploration, for example, is non-existent in both games. There is virtually nothing to explore on the empty planets you land on other than what's already handed to you on the map. There is also nothing to explore on the galaxy map in ME2 other than anomalies. I don't want a middle ground between ME1 or ME2 - I want actual exploration.

Sometimes I get the impression that some of the contributers on this forum have it so set in their minds that ME1/2 is so good that they are blinded to other views/ideas, which if implemented would potentially make ME3 an even better game than the first or second.

Emphasis on the second part - ideas. The majority of what people are saying here are their views, not ideas. Ideas do not consist of:

1. "Be ME1 again!"
2. "Continue being ME2 again!"
3. "Be DA:O!"

They're not new ideas if those options already exist in another BioWare game. These are ideas:

http://social.biowar...5/index/2656020

There are very few people that seem to come up with actual ideas from the discussion in this thread. Terror_K is an exception, however - having a good solution to a revamped inventory system in ME3, similar to my line of thinking.

I'm pretty sure the Bioware devs do check these forums, I just get the feeling that they are quietly observing and taking notes rather than becoming directly involved. That or they lost the will to continue living  after reading over 100 pages of our opinions... Hopefully they will become more involved in the forums and discuss improvements with us for the last installment of the trilogy.

They do look at the forums, but I doubt they're going to listen to the ones that are telling them that they don't know how to do their jobs and are busy bowing down to corporate EA. Why? Because they aren't.

It is insulting to complete something that took years to develop - especially for the ones who truly love developing games - and then have someone say "Oh, they're just half-assing it for the money".

I too would like to see real planet exploration without the monotony of large, dull open expanses of land and this is what Bioware has been attempting with the latest DLC, adding a "lush" area to explore. However whether this turns out to be true exploration or a large area with the illusion of exploration (which can be just as good if done correctly) remains to be seen. Seeing as the DLC takes 2-2.5 hrs I'm guessing it's not going to have a huge area to explore but we'll see. The loyalty mission for Zaeed had some pleasing scenery and a well made jungle environment so I'm optimistic.

As for the planet scanning - Casey Hudson said himself that he was somewhat surprised that people had done so much scanning, almost as though people had felt obliged to stripmine all planets they found in the galaxy. You actually don't have to do that much mining in order to afford the upgrades. However even this could be tweaked making the yields from mining greater so overall les mining is required, without needing to scrap the feature.

You have to remember that game devs may enjoy their jobs and love making games, but ultimately if their products will not sell, they will not make any money. Game devs, however devoted to a game will always influenced by what will bring them money. There is a distinction however, between "half-assing it for the money" and aggressively removing elements entirely, an example is the planet exploration you mentioned. There was planet exploration in ME1, it just wasn't implemented in an interesting way, re-using many of the same structures and buildings on different planets (with a few notable exceptions). Planets provided credits and some quests in ME1. In ME2 this was taken to the other extreme and the planet roaming was scrapped.

I quite like the ideas in that link. Let's hope Bioware sees and implements it, or something even better.

[P3G4SU5]

Mesina2 wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

Just wanted to chip in with a graphic I found, which granted me a chuckle.
It does somewhat cover my issues with the narrative of ME2 as well.

I can get tutorial( plothole with Wilson) but rest?

Probably referring to the events on Horizon. You find out from TIM that the Collectors went there because they knew Willams/Alenko was there (courtesy of TIM). Yet despite this they don't pick up this person of great interest first, instead they collect a bunch of other colonists. Great prioritising don't you think by such a highly intelligent race...? And this isn't even mentioning the fact that you have a ship in orbit. Why doesn't it bomb the Collector ship? What the heck is it doing up there? Sure, EDI is busy calibrating the turrets, but I don't think Joker needs to have his hand held whilst piloting/shooting. But hang on - we're told the SR-2 has twice the mass of the SR-1 and it's too big to enter low orbit so that makes sense... Oh wait, it's not if you need a pickup at the end of each Firewalker mission...

Then there's blatant trap in the form of the 'disabled Collector ship' and the complete failure of Sheperd's team of blowing it away on sight. I can understand maybe wanting to gather intel on the poorly understood enemy but wouldn't it be  a good idea to be placing explosives as you travel through the ship using your specialists (since its obviously a trap and the objective of the entire game is to STOP THE COLLECTORS). Sheperd is meant to be trained at the highest level of the Alliance military, he's an N7 after all, yet he has no grasp of tactics or contingency whe it comes to venturing into an enemy ship. Right.

At the same time the player could be using your tech experts to record everything you see for the Alliance/Council. Wouldn't these occassions (along with Veetor's footage of Collectors collecting humans on Freedom's Progress) have been ideal oppotunites, gathering proof to get the Alliance mobilised, even if the Council are too blind to help? At least an Alliance evacuation order of the outer colonies could have been made since they are reluctant to commit militarily to the Terminus Systems.

As for the endgame, well it makes absolutely no sense for the Collector's to be making a new Reaper under Harbinger's orders. What can it even do once built? It can't survive a confrontation with the Citadel/Earth fleets so why bother even building it? To save time and have it ready for when the Reapers arrive? The Reapers are ageless, why would the draw attention and risk discovery by building a Reaper when they could just wait until they arrive in force and then take all the humans they want without having to worry about reprisals. Even if they do believe themselves to be safe from attacks beyond the O4 Relay, their ship is at risk every time it ventures out.

1st OK
2nd what explosives?
3rd Alliance controls Council if you don't sav them so I don't think they would move a finger.
4th Maybe they planned to do that once they took control of Citadel but Sovereing failure wasn't in they plan?

2nd: Explosives such as the one used at the game end if you recall (they resemble the grenades from ME1). I'm assuming a ship outfitted for war against the Collectors has explosives somehwere in the armory.
3rd: I'll just copy paste a comment I made elsewhere to explain why the Alliance would be forced to act:
I seem to remeber that you befriend a reporter in ME1 and basically make her career (Emily Wong if memory serves). It would have been nice if the developers had allowed the player to use
one of the news reporters to expose the Collectors through recorded vids
(use your damn omni-tool Shepard) of them and what they are doing to
humans from the colonie (from Veetor's footage on Freedom's Progress, Horizon or even the
interior of the Collector ship/base). The shock and outcry of the
remaining human colonies and Earth would have pressured the Alliance to
act, if not with military presence then with evacuation efforts."
4th: The human Reaper began construction after Soverign's failure in the 2 year period after the intro of ME2. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Please explain

[Lumikki]

I have to agree with point 1.
Point 2, I don't get. Heavy weapon was the grenades in ME2.
How ever 3-4 is little how would I say, depense about situation and opinions.

The collector situation was out of territory for Council. Would Alliance even do anything else than already done, even if they would believe Shepard fully. It was Shepard job in first place to get job done.

As for collector building reaper, that was totally fine. Because in even ME1 they sayed that it makes sense to leave one reaper behind to keep eye of civilisation development in galaxy. Now that they lost it, it would make sende to build new one, if they aren't able to send new one from where they are.

I did wonder why to hell that reaper spaceship is build to look like huge human and how would it get out of inside the other ship. That has to be most idiotic designer ever. It's gonna walk and grap something in space?

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 mai 2010 - 01:24 .

[Ecael]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

I too would like to see real planet exploration without the monotony of large, dull open expanses of land and this is what Bioware has been attempting with the latest DLC, adding a "lush" area to explore. However whether this turns out to be true exploration or a large area with the illusion of exploration (which can be just as good if done correctly) remains to be seen. Seeing as the DLC takes 2-2.5 hrs I'm guessing it's not going to have a huge area to explore but we'll see. The loyalty mission for Zaeed had some pleasing scenery and a well made jungle environment so I'm optimistic.

As am I. Hopefully the Hammerhead's mobility will be put to good use with exploration.

As for the planet scanning - Casey Hudson said himself that he was somewhat surprised that people had done so much scanning, almost as though people had felt obliged to stripmine all planets they found in the galaxy. You actually don't have to do that much mining in order to afford the upgrades. However even this could be tweaked making the yields from mining greater so overall les mining is required, without needing to scrap the feature.

That still doesn't solve the problem of people trying to deplete every planet, though - they're just going to deplete the galaxy in less time.

You have to remember that game devs may enjoy their jobs and love making games, but ultimately if their products will not sell, they will not make any money. Game devs, however devoted to a game will always influenced by what will bring them money. There is a distinction however, between "half-assing it for the money" and aggressively removing elements entirely, an example is the planet exploration you mentioned. There was planet exploration in ME1, it just wasn't implemented in an interesting way, re-using many of the same structures and buildings on different planets (with a few notable exceptions). Planets provided credits and some quests in ME1. In ME2 this was taken to the other extreme and the planet roaming was scrapped.

Still, their salaries don't automatically go up when the game sells more copies. Even if they happen to have stock in EA, it hasn't done well in the last three years - not at the fault of BioWare, but because of the other companies that EA publishes for. They have very little control of how much money they actually make.

Even so, BioWare can't be worried about making unsuccessful products. If they did change ME2 as drastically as people say because they were anxious that it wouldn't sell otherwise, then that would suggest that the millions of copies of Mass Effect 1 sold - 2.22 million on the console alone! - wasn't successful enough.

Money can't be the primary influence on BioWare's game development unless the general consensus is that Mass Effect 1 was an unsuccessful and unprofitable game.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 would not exist if that were true.