10273 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Read my comment again, then edit your answer.

You can blame ME2 for many things but character development is not one of those.

Tell me one thing that doesn't compare to ME1 that makes ME2 bad game.

[bjdbwea]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

You can blame ME2 for many things but character development is not one of those.

Yes, it is. You can think the ME 2 companions are better developed than in ME 1, and I can disagree. Which I do, strongly. But is there any doubt that there's virtually no character development for Shepard? Except for a few occasions where Shepard suddenly and surprisingly cares, it's all all the time. Especially during the main story. That's made worse of course by the fact that there are often just not the necessary dialogue choices available to give your Shepard more character.

[Virde]

I can name several instances where Shepard cared during ME2. It's usually during the Paragon or Renegade sequences which req

[Virde]

I can name several instances where Shepard cared during ME2. It's usually during the Paragon or Renegade sequences which required you to pull one of the triggers. 

I recommend you play through ME2 and actually pick something other than the neutral options next time.

Modifié par Virde, 01 juin 2010 - 04:41 .

[CroGamer002]

bjdbwea wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

You can blame ME2 for many things but character development is not one of those.

Yes, it is. You can think the ME 2 companions are better developed than in ME 1, and I can disagree. Which I do, strongly. But is there any doubt that there's virtually no character development for Shepard? Except for a few occasions where Shepard suddenly and surprisingly cares, it's all all the time. Especially during the main story. That's made worse of course by the fact that there are often just not the necessary dialogue choices available to give your Shepard more character.

I serioulsy don't get you with that no personality in ME2.

[CroGamer002]

Shall anyone answer my question?
Anyone?

Modifié par Mesina2, 01 juin 2010 - 05:26 .

[Lumikki]

IoCaster wrote...

I think this is simply a matter of personal preference. I bought ME2 expecting a coherent continuation of the story begun in Mass Effect. I was disappointed in the story/plot, but enjoyed the game despite it. I'm curious to see how they tie it all together in ME3.

This is the real reason why people usually complain about ME2. I'm not saying that this poster does it, I just use it as example. People who play ME1 first then build they expectition while waiting sequel and get disapointment when ME2 isn't  what they expected. What leads complaining in forum about ME2. Is it really games fault that people expected game to be something else than it is?

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 05:12 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

This is the real reason why people usually complain about ME2. I'm not saying that this poster does it, I just use it as example. People who play ME1 first then build they expectition while waiting sequel and get disapointment when ME2 isn't  what they expected. What leads complaining in forum about ME2. Is it really games fault that people expected game to be something else than it is?

Well, yes. ME 1 had a fantastic story, that was also told very well. Of course people expected that from ME 2 too.

If you order a cheeseburger, and then notice that it doesn't contain cheese, what would your reaction be? What would you say if they told you "sorry, but we had to change the recipe. Our research indicates that we can sell more cheeseburgers this way, because we can reach people who don't like cheese too"?

[CroGamer002]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

This is the real reason why people usually complain about ME2. I'm not saying that this poster does it, I just use it as example. People who play ME1 first then build they expectition while waiting sequel and get disapointment when ME2 isn't  what they expected. What leads complaining in forum about ME2. Is it really games fault that people expected game to be something else than it is?

Well, yes. ME 1 had a fantastic story, that was also told very well. Of course people expected that from ME 2 too.

If you order a cheeseburger, and then notice that it doesn't contain cheese, what would your reaction be? What would you say if they told you "sorry, but we had to change the recipe. Our research indicates that we can sell more cheeseburgers this way, because we can reach people who don't like cheese too"?

That's marketing, even though you chose bad example.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

This is the real reason why people usually complain about ME2. I'm not saying that this poster does it, I just use it as example. People who play ME1 first then build they expectition while waiting sequel and get disapointment when ME2 isn't  what they expected. What leads complaining in forum about ME2. Is it really games fault that people expected game to be something else than it is?

Well, yes. ME 1 had a fantastic story, that was also told very well. Of course people expected that from ME 2 too.

If you order a cheeseburger, and then notice that it doesn't contain cheese, what would your reaction be? What would you say if they told you "sorry, but we had to change the recipe. Our research indicates that we can sell more cheeseburgers this way, because we can reach people who don't like cheese too"?

Okey, I continue my point.

I my self buyed ME2 first and played it few times, I was so interested to this Mass Effect world and style of playing,  I deside to buy ME1 too. Why?

Because I wanted to know what happen before ME2 story. I did not build any hope for ME1 because it was few years older game. But anyway I did buy it.

When I started play ME1 I was so happy from first moment, because the game was so close to same what ME2 was. Same style and allmost same graphics and so on. So, I played it and had good time while doing it. Was everyting in ME1 fine, of course not but so what, nor was ME2 perfect.

My point is that when I look both games, I see two excelent cinematic story telling 3rd person shooter roleplaying games. I never did become disapointed, because I never had any expectitions, I did take both games as what they are. So, because that, I see alot of good in both games and some bad in both games. What means ME1 and ME2 are equal good, just little different ways.

You see difference here what happen?

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 06:13 .

[smudboy]

Lumikki wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

This is the real reason why people usually complain about ME2. I'm not saying that this poster does it, I just use it as example. People who play ME1 first then build they expectition while waiting sequel and get disapointment when ME2 isn't  what they expected. What leads complaining in forum about ME2. Is it really games fault that people expected game to be something else than it is?

Well, yes. ME 1 had a fantastic story, that was also told very well. Of course people expected that from ME 2 too.

If you order a cheeseburger, and then notice that it doesn't contain cheese, what would your reaction be? What would you say if they told you "sorry, but we had to change the recipe. Our research indicates that we can sell more cheeseburgers this way, because we can reach people who don't like cheese too"?

Okey, I continue my point.

I my self buyed ME2 first and played it few times, I was so interested to this Mass Effect world and style of playing,  I deside to buy ME1 too. Why?

Because I wanted to know what happen before ME2 story. I did not build any hope for ME1 because it was few years older game. But anyway I did buy it.

When I started play ME1 I was so happy from first moment, because the game was so close to same what ME2 was. Same style and allmost same graphics and so on. So, I played it and had good time while doing it. Was everyting in ME1 fine, of course not but so what, nor was ME2 perfect.

My point is that when I look both games, I see two excelent cinematic story telling 3rd person shooter roleplaying games. I never did become disapointed, because I never had any expectitions, I did take both games at what they are. So, because that, I see alot of good in both games and some bad in both games. What means ME1 and ME2 are equal good, just little different ways.

You see difference here what happen?

Although we could make an argument this has no expectations, and we can evaluate it as stand alone, it would still fall flat.

Considering it's a sequel, it demands certain things.  The best ME2 does is provide cameos.  At worst it neglects entire plots.  Somewhere in between it retcons.  All in favor of game play and a plot that is out in left field.

I'd say the cheeseburger sans cheese analogy is acceptable.

[Lumikki]

smudboy wrote...

Although we could make an argument this has no expectations, and we can evaluate it as stand alone, it would still fall flat.

Considering it's a sequel, it demands certain things.  The best ME2 does is provide cameos.  At worst it neglects entire plots.  Somewhere in between it retcons.  All in favor of game play and a plot that is out in left field.

I'd say the cheeseburger sans cheese analogy is acceptable.

Yes, but who made the demands what they game has to have and what to be?
Who did build the expectition and based on what, what you self wanted more?
Who says that you expectition was what Mass Effect serie games are all about?

I get feeling that I'm gonna not make any different here again, but at least I tryed. ;-)

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 06:24 .

[IoCaster]

I've got to clean up this messy series of posts...

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Let me just put some b*tching to rest here.

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
Why in the world would you believe that you've got the final word on anything related to this discussion?

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Because some of the arguments in here are stupid.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

You've got a strange way of handing out indictments for 'stupidity' when you didn't even bother to make a direct attribution or quote a single example.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Mass Effect 1 was way more epic!

Stopping a group of shadowy warriors, who are hell-bent on killing billions to construct a god-machine that would allow them to overthrow the universe isn't epic enough?

[quote]
I saw no evidence in the game that they had a fleet of ships capable of abducting 'billions' from anywhere. If they ever got to the point where they were harvesting 'billions' it would indeed be epic. That wasn't exactly the case though. Not to mention that they would have had to start raiding in Alliance space itself to get those kind of numbers. The Collectors would have been obliterated if they tried to do that.

Shepard was able to drive them off Horizon with two sidekicks and some ground based cannon. How do you think they would have fared against an Alliance fleet? Somewhat less than epic, eh?

[quote]They said it when they were in the collector ship.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

There was no evidence presented in the game that they had a fleet of ships capable of attacking Earth and successfully carrying off 'billions' of humans. One throwaway line of dialogue by a sidekick that doesn't really make sense is hardly 'epic'.


[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Mass Effect 2 had too much action, Mass Effect 1 was never like that!

Then there was the time Shepard dodged a massive piece of space debris headed directly for him, and also during the two seconds he had to get out of the way, he managed to put his breather on.

[quote]Huh? That doesn't really make any sense. Maybe you can reword that to be more comprehensible and actually relevant to the discussion. Instead of making up your own version of complaints you can perhaps quote some actual posts and then respond to them.

[quote]There are so many posts in here detailing how Mass Effect 2 focused too much on action.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Well you could've picked out one, quoted it and then posted a specific reply. I'm not sure exactly how the following paragraph was relevant to the point.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Mass Effect 1 had a way better inventory!

Oh yeah, because spending 15 minutes melting down all my useless crap into magic gel makes me feel the tension!

[quote]I don't believe that complaints about a lack of inventory had anything to do with 'tension', perceived or otherwise. I personally don't care about the lack of inventory, so whatever.

[quote]But my point being that it kills mood.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Well, that wasn't really clear to me and I appreciate the explanation.


[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Mass Effect 1 had way more realistic weapon customization!

Because randomly finding powerups that would've allowed the enemy a clear edge over you rusting away in a toolbox is realistic.

[quote]Again, it would probably be a good idea to quote an actual complaint that claimed that the weapon customization in ME was 'realistic'. Otherwise what you're doing is constructing a straw man to spar with.

[quote]I was doing a general concensus, against arguments that might spring up. Although, I guess you're right there.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I understand but it's usually a good practice to provide a specific quote and then post your rebuttal. It cuts down on misunderstanding and accusations of argumentum ad hominem or straw man.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
The Collectors do stuff that makes no sense! Why do they collect the colonists on Horizon, when they were after Ashley/Kaidan?

1. They're a universally despised race, they aren't just floating down and taking the character without a fight.
2. They're Collectors, what do you expect them to do?

[quote]1. Most of the galactic citizenry don't seem to even be aware that they exist. I'm not sure why you would characterize that as a 'universally despised race'.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
They are aware, just not aware of exactly what they are. The mechanic on Horizon is aware of them, but does a "WTF, THAT'S THEM" moment, signaling that Kaidan/Ash didn't warn him about such dangers.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Two points here:
1- The relevant passage about the Collectors in the codex states "...as to be taken for a myth by most in galactic society."
2- Delan says something like "Those are Collectors? I thought they were propaganda."

It's a bit of a nitpick, but I was curious why you went with the 'universally despised race' description. No biggie.

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
2. Collect the person that they were ostensibly there to..er...collect? If you watch the cutscene leading into the mission itself it's obvious that they could have done it easily. The Harbinger controlled drone is standing ~4-5 feet from Lilith as she's being dragged off to a pod. He'd have to be blind not to see Ash/Kaiden frozen in place no more than ~50-60 feet away. We're told by TIM that they were lured to Horizon by the presence of Ash/Kaiden. Why didn't they collect Ash/Kaiden when they had an obvious opportunity to do so?

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Because it would be easier to just take the whole colony, and far more beneficial to their cause. Plus, you've seen the Collectors' style, they generally like to take the place by force, and then mop up.[/quote][/quote]

According to TIM they were lured to Horizon because Ash/Kaiden were there. Picking up Ash/Kaiden at the same time they snatched Lilith surely makes sense if they were in fact interested in him/her. I'm not inclined to try and explain it away by claiming that the Collectors were too busy or distracted to grab the supposed primary objective for choosing Horizon in the first place. It seems apparant that it was either an oversight by the devs or a lie (red herring) by TIM.


[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
For that matter, the Collector Ship is obviously a trap! How did Shep not know that!

It was supposed to be a chance to observe Collector Technology firsthand, which, if reverse-engineered, could help stop the giant ships that are going to destroy the galaxy. I think that takes priority over the chance that it would be a trap, when even the man who's information is always reliable tells you it's safe.

[quote]The safe and practical course of action is to make sure that the ship is actually disabled before boarding it. Use the Normandy to target the propulsion section with her guns and make sure that the ship can't suddenly maneuver while your team is aboard. Also, target the main weaponry and put it out of action as well. Now you really do have a disabled ship and you can proceed to strip it of all essential intelligence and equipment at your leisure.

I'm not even going to comment on the reliability of anything that TIM tells Shepard.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
So, the best way to make sure a beehive isn't active is by kicking it?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

It's a lot safer than just blindly sticking your hand into it. That analogy falls flat though. It's more akin to smoking the hive up before you pop the lid.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Why didn't the Alliance or the Council help you?! Why couldn't you offer them proof?

First off, they didn't assist you because they were actively denying the existance of the reapers, something that would've caused galactic panic. Also, are you saying that you want an escort mission where you drag some guy who can't defend himself through a collector ship so he can take pictures?

[quote]The Alliance and the Council acted the way they did because that's what the devs decided was appropriate for the plot that they concocted. If you're convinced that it makes sense then that's fine. I'm under no obligation to buy into that notion and I would have preferred a better explanation for their behavior. *shrug*

Are you seriously trying to make the case that Shepard would need to hire the services of a professional photographer to take pictures of the Collector ship or for that matter the derelict Reaper? Seriously?

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
So what? The council would probably rationalize it as some random ship, or some sort of trick. Plus, if you bring Legion along for your first meeting with the council, they directly refute his claims that the ship was a reaper.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Yes, that's precisely what the devs intended. I'm not interested in rationalizing why they want the Council to act like idiots. If you want to make up reasons why it makes sense to you that's really your business. I'm not buying it and I don't find it believable at all. In any case,...*shrug*


[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Why were the Collectors making a human reaper? It makes no sense! Sovereign didn't stop anything!

First, it was in it's very early stages of development, we can't say anthing about how useless it would be, since we know nothing about it. Second, that is a ridiculous statement to say, Sovereign practically destroyed the entire Citadel fleet with no effort, it was only Saren's defeat (Something that was a bit ridiculous in the first game) that ended him.

[quote]While it's true that we don't know why they were building the damn thing, we do know that it's been destroyed. What other purpose did it serve other than as a seemingly bizarre endgame boss?

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Because it's (apparently) how the Reapers reproduce.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

That's what EDI speculates and that's fine with me. It's still not clear to me what they were going to do with it. Regardless, I destroyed it and it's no longer a concern.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
The combat in Mass Effect 1 was more realistic and groundbreaking! Mass Effect 2's has too much action!

Haha, great joke. At least I can shoot straight with a sniper rifle in ME2.

[quote]Can you provide a direct quote for this? Let the poster that claims ME combat was more 'realistic and groundbreaking' make the case directly. If you're just tossing a straw man out there I don't know what to say.

[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
I've seen this complaint brought up elsewhere.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I'm not going to belabor this point, so yeah.


[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Mass Effect 1 had more exploration! Mass Effect 2 is too linear!

I agree with you for the main cities, but exploring space in Mass Effect 2 was a lot better than just landing on some rock (Which was basically a pallate swap for each different planet), and shooting at some pirate sitting around.


[quote]I think this is simply a matter of personal preference. I didn't care either way. I bought ME2 expecting a coherent continuation of the story begun in Mass Effect. I was disappointed in the story/plot, but enjoyed the game despite it. I'm curious to see how they tie it all together in ME3.


[quote]KennyRogers wrote...
Agreed.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

We can agree on some points and disagree on others. A reasonable and amicable discussion between fans of the game can be an entertaining distraction sometimes.

[CroGamer002]

Lumikki wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Although we could make an argument this has no expectations, and we can evaluate it as stand alone, it would still fall flat.

Considering it's a sequel, it demands certain things.  The best ME2 does is provide cameos.  At worst it neglects entire plots.  Somewhere in between it retcons.  All in favor of game play and a plot that is out in left field.

I'd say the cheeseburger sans cheese analogy is acceptable.

Yes, but who made the demands what they game has to have and what to be?
Who did build the expetition and based on what, what you self wanted more?

Who says that you expection was what Mass Effect serie games are all about?

I get feeling that I'm gonna not make any different here again, but at least I tryed. ;-)

There is no living person in world that could make people stop bi.tch about it.

Modifié par Mesina2, 01 juin 2010 - 06:26 .

[Lumikki]

Mesina2 wrote...

There is no living person in world that could make people stop bi.tch about it.

I know, I was just hoping to wake up few people who can give good feedback because they disapoinment, would do it more constructive. Not like some bitter players who got disapointment, because they own expectitions. There is difference between feedback and whining.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 06:32 .

[bjdbwea]

smudboy wrote...

Considering it's a sequel, it demands certain things.

Exactly. As a stand-alone game, ME 2 is okay. Not exactly the kind of game I'd be interested in, but a good game. I figure most reviews compared it to the usual mindless shooters that sell so well. It goes without saying that the story in ME 2 totally beats all that stuff. In comparison to that, the stellar reviews are certainly justified. And in comparison to that, it is no wonder the shooter fans are totally amazed by ME 2. A story, interaction, romances - it's all a whole new thing if you usually just mow your ways through waves of enemies. That said however, in comparison to ME 1, its successor is not good. Too many steps back, too many cut corners, to many things missing that had to be there. And yes, of course expectations are built on the first part. Rightly so.

By the way, if you're the same smudboy, I like your analysis of the ME 2 plot (here on YouTube if anyone hasn't seen it yet). It's well done and quite funny at times too.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 01 juin 2010 - 06:34 .

[smudboy]

Lumikki wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Although we could make an argument this has no expectations, and we can evaluate it as stand alone, it would still fall flat.

Considering it's a sequel, it demands certain things.  The best ME2 does is provide cameos.  At worst it neglects entire plots.  Somewhere in between it retcons.  All in favor of game play and a plot that is out in left field.

I'd say the cheeseburger sans cheese analogy is acceptable.

Yes, but who made the demands what they game has to have and what to be?
Who did build the expectition and based on what, what you self wanted more?
Who says that you expectition was what Mass Effect serie games are all about?

I get feeling that I'm gonna not make any different here again, but at least I tryed. ;-)

No one person is making demands.  By virtue of Mass Effect existing are things demanded.  As such, an audience, expects some continuation of some kind of plot, by virtue of Mass Effect 2 being a sequel.  You can play ME2 without having played ME1 at all.  That means it's not a sequel.  Surely, there are cameos, but they have nothing to do with the plot.

If a writer, creator, or something, makes a piece of art, and then a sequel to it, the sequel has to come from what came before it.  It's that simple.

[smudboy]

bjdbwea wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Considering it's a sequel, it demands certain things.

Exactly. As a stand-alone game, ME 2 is okay. Not exactly the kind of game I'd be interested in, but a good game. I figure most reviews compared it to the usual mindless shooters that sell so well. It goes without saying that the story in ME 2 totally beats all that stuff. In comparison to that, the stellar reviews are certainly justified. And in comparison to that, it is no wonder the shooter fans are totally amazed by ME 2. A story, interaction, romances - it's all a whole new thing if you usually just mow your ways through waves of enemies. That said however, in comparison to ME 1, its successor is not good. Too many steps back, too many cut corners, to many things missing that had to be there. And yes, of course expectations are built on the first part. Rightly so.

By the way, if you're the same smudboy, I like your analysis of the ME 2 plot (here on YouTube if anyone hasn't seen it yet). It's well done and quite funny at times too.

The very same, thank you.

That is also an interesting understanding of the general gaming community, gorged on shooters, who look to ME2 and go "whoa, characters?"  It would explain many things, especially that 4 part media stint where they got journalists and actors to go on about ME2.  I remember the G4TV head reviewer guy saying something like "ME2 reminds me of books by Isaac Asimov."

Let's just say marketing needs some work.

[Lumikki]

smudboy wrote...

If a writer, creator, or something, makes a piece of art, and then a sequel to it, the sequel has to come from what came before it.  It's that simple.

Yes, but you make assumption that sequel is about story?
Two sequel games can have two totally different story while same character is adventuring in same kind of gameplay and world design.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 06:41 .

[smudboy]

Lumikki wrote...

smudboy wrote...

If a writer, creator, or something, makes a piece of art, and then a sequel to it, the sequel has to come from what came before it.  It's that simple.

Yes, but you make assumption that sequel is about story?
Two sequel games can have two totally different story while same character is adventuring in same kind of gameplay and world design.

Aside from abstract art, isn't everything?  What, are they going to continue the amazing use of a GUI?  Or provide a sequel to a color scheme?  Clearly it wasn't game play, as that's changed and retconned.

[IoCaster]

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

I think this is simply a matter of personal preference. I bought ME2 expecting a coherent continuation of the story begun in Mass Effect. I was disappointed in the story/plot, but enjoyed the game despite it. I'm curious to see how they tie it all together in ME3.

This is the real reason why people usually complain about ME2. I'm not saying that this poster does it, I just use it as example. People who play ME1 first then build they expectition while waiting sequel and get disapointment when ME2 isn't  what they expected. What leads complaining in forum about ME2. Is it really games fault that people expected game to be something else than it is?

I expected a sequel that was a coherent continuation of the ME story/plot. The Mass Effect trilogy was described by BioWare as the story of Shepard in three parts. Why would I expect them to kill him at the start of the second game, resurrect him and force him to work for Cerberus? That's a totally "wtf?" premise.

I haven't made any serious complaints about inventory, Mako, romances or whatever because that stuff just isn't as important as an actual story/plot that make sense to me. I'm hoping that they can make some sense of it all in ME3.

[Lumikki]

smudboy wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

smudboy wrote...

If a writer, creator, or something, makes a piece of art, and then a sequel to it, the sequel has to come from what came before it.  It's that simple.

Yes, but you make assumption that sequel is about story?
Two sequel games can have two totally different story while same character is adventuring in same kind of gameplay and world design.

Aside from abstract art, isn't everything?  What, are they going to continue the amazing use of a GUI?  Or provide a sequel to a color scheme?  Clearly it wasn't game play, as that's changed and retconned.

Actually it was the game design, world and character and part of story too because same world. How ever, it was two different story what aren't fully seperated, but still are different stories.

You just expected it to be same story continued, that's assumption based your own expectitions. It's you expectition what made you bitter (disapointed).

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 06:57 .

[bjdbwea]

smudboy wrote...

That is also an interesting understanding of the general gaming community, gorged on shooters, who look to ME2 and go "whoa, characters?"  It would explain many things, especially that 4 part media stint where they got journalists and actors to go on about ME2.  I remember the G4TV head reviewer guy saying something like "ME2 reminds me of books by Isaac Asimov."

Yeah, Mr. Woo himself pretty much confirmed it:

We do a lot to ensure the game is still enjoyable to folks who prefer a bit of a slower RPG, but we can only do so much when we're also trying to attract new players and those we want to introduce RPGs to. We've had lots of FPS and TPS fans tell us this was their first RPG, and how much they loved it!

Despite his reassurance, to me it almost feels as if they want them as a replacement for the old fans, because as I said, it's much easier to please them. Note: I'm not saying shooter fans are dumb, just that their expectations are lower and therefore easier to meet. That leads to less development costs, and potentially even higher sales. At least in theory, because the sales numbers that were floating around didn't seem to indicate all that many new players. I just hope they don't take this as a reason to shooterize and "streamline" ME 3 even more.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 01 juin 2010 - 07:20 .

[Iakus]

Mesina2 wrote...

Can somebody give me a quick round down and tell me why ME2 sucks and those sucky stuff has nothing to do in compering to ME1?

I can only tell you my opinions.  Not everyone here has the same reasons for being dissatisfied with ME 2.

My major reason is ME 2 is not in fact a continuation of ME 1.  It basically reset the storyline, including a cheesy reboot of Shepard due to death.

The plot feels very railroaded.  There's no option to not agree to everything TIM says, even knowing Cerberus' history.  And yet, knowing your history, few of your old allies even want to talk to you, let alone help.

Then we get onto the main story:  Stop the Collectors.  Only, the Collectors are barely in the game at all.  You spend the whole time, virtually right up til the suicide mission, recreuiting people and building loyalty.

Okay, so the game is about teambuilding.  Well, no, It's more about personalities.  You go on these missions to learn about your individual squadmates.  They never actually become a team.  At best, they're Shepard's henchmen with no interaction between each other (barring two personality conflicsts)

You don't want comparisons between the two games, but some comparison is necessary.  I bought the game expecting a continuation of the Shepard vs the Reapers storyline.  Some returning characters, some new characters.  More learning about the Reapers and their plans.  Instead we get an almost entirely new cast.  All past accomplishements swept under the rug, three quests featuring a new slave race of the Reapers (only one which we actually learn anything about them), and we learn almost nothing about the Reapers themselves.  It didnt feel like the second act of a trilogy.  It felt like a completely seperate game.

In the end, Shepard's right back where ME 1 ended, only with a (potentially) larger crew.  The plot didn't move forward s much as sideways.

Inventory, ammunition, exploration, graphics, vehicles, combat.  There are some things I'd rather have seen done rather than what went into the game.  All games are like that.  Nothing is perfect.  But what was done with the storyline is what really gets to me.

[smudboy]

Lumikki wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

smudboy wrote...

If a writer, creator, or something, makes a piece of art, and then a sequel to it, the sequel has to come from what came before it.  It's that simple.

Yes, but you make assumption that sequel is about story?
Two sequel games can have two totally different story while same character is adventuring in same kind of gameplay and world design.

Aside from abstract art, isn't everything?  What, are they going to continue the amazing use of a GUI?  Or provide a sequel to a color scheme?  Clearly it wasn't game play, as that's changed and retconned.

Actually it was the game design, world and character and part of story too because same world. How ever, it was two different story what aren't fully seperated, but still are different stories.

You just expected it to be same story continued, that's assumption based your own expectitions. It's you expectition what made you bitter (disapointed).

What game design should be a sequel? (GUI?  Controls?  Hacking?  Shooting things?)
What world should be a sequel? (The Citadel?  The Normandy SR1 aka Normandy SR2?  A solar system?)
What characters should be a sequel?  (The cameos?  The brand new cast of characters that did zip for the plot?)
Oh so story is only one part of your expectations?  But clearly your expectations are different from mine, even though you have none?

I expect a sequel to be a sequel.  What is so hard here?  It's as if you're defending something.

My disappointment has to do with the quality of the plot, 'case you haven't noticed.