10273 réponses à ce sujet

[IoCaster]

Ecael wrote...

IoCaster wrote...
Being killed and resurrected in some ridiculously contrived and stupid plot so that I can be forced to bend over for TIM/Cerberus is a monumental crapfest. 

If you enjoyed that obnoxiously idiotic story progression then I'm truly happy for you. Although it begs the question, what the hell are you doing in a thread dedicated to discussing player disappointment with ME2?

Are you seriously so narcissistic and impressed with your own powers of persuasion that you believe that you can convince people to see things as you do? Is it actually possible that you believe we're all too stupid to recognize what a wonderful story and plot ME2 have and that you'll set us straight?

What's really narcissistic are the people complaining about the game as if they can somehow magically change the main plot of Mass Effect 2. Even Mass Effect 3's main storyline was most likely planned out well before Mass Effect 2 was ever released, so I don't see the usefulness in whining about it.

I don't see any merit in you coming into this thread whining about the so-called whiners, whining. This thread is a discussion for those of us that were disappointed in the game. What exactly are you trying to convince me of?

Ecael wrote...
The goal isn't to force people to like the game, but to show them just how similar the two are - as in, if you didn't like one game, you really don't have the right to like the other. People keep talking about Mass Effect 2 trying to target a larger audience, but the entire premise of the Mass Effect trilogy has been to do that.

• When BioWare decided to make Mass Effect 1 combat based on third-person shooting with lots of weapons and non-stop shooting, did you think they were targeting an RPG audience and not making it more 'immediate'?
• When BioWare decided to include ground vehicle combat (in the Mako) for lots of 'splosions, did you think they were targeting an RPG crowd?
• When BioWare decided to include sex scenes in Mass Effect 1 for FOX News to conveniently advertise report on the controversy, did you think they were really targeting an older audience or a younger one?
• When BioWare decided to leave planets in Mass Effect 1 barren and empty with a map giving you a linear path from the Mako to the single base/facility, did you think they really wanted people to explore?

Mass Effect 1 and 2 have always targeted the shooter crowd, trying to get them to play a hybrid RPG so that they will consider playing other BioWare games.

The only disappointment I have with Mass Effect in general are the people who don't realize just how similar they are in concept (they even have the same writers from Mass Effect 1), and the only thing that's been "dumbed down" are the repetitive arguments that all use the same talking points and phrases - even though the complaints can be said of both Mass Effect 1/2.

Neither are perfect, but people are making Mass Effect 1 to be some "perfect" game that doesn't actually exist in reality. If people compared both games to RPGs outside of BioWare, they'd see very quickly that neither are really "true RPGs" at all.

What exactly does any of this tripe you posted have to do with me? I wasn't talking about expanding the audience, hybrid rpg, dumbed down gameplay or any of that rubbish. As I very clearly stated in my post I think the story/plot of ME2 is a bunch of contrived nonsense. I also very clearly stated that if you disagree and liked the story/plot that I am truly happy for you.

I don't know what your angle is here, but if you're auditioning for some type of community manager job with BioWare take it somewhere else. Don't come in here and dump a bunch of horsecrap on me about things I didn't even reference.

[Ecael]

Icinix wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Ecael wrote...

The only disappointment I have with Mass Effect in general are the people who don't realize just how similar they are in concept (they even have the same writers from Mass Effect 1), and the only thing that's been "dumbed down" are the repetitive arguments that all use the same talking points and phrases - even though the complaints can be said of both Mass Effect 1/2.

Yeah, this is also what I have wonder, who people can be so blind that they can't see how similar those games really are. I mean there is differences, but base consept is very similar.

Not that I would say it or use it, but the same argument could be said of the reverse.

Why can't people see how different they are? The weapon upgrades, character skillset progression and so on.

Like I said, I'm not saying it, but I think 'perception' in this regard is not an argument that can be used.

To avoid any potential agression

MASS EFFECT 1 and 2 RULES FOREVER!!!!

Weapon upgrades are progression, despite the fact that they're used in both shooters and RPGs. Looting items with next to no 'unique' names (but with labels such as I to X) is also progression. Both are different ways to the same end - one is just easier to keep track of.

The skillsets in Mass Effect 2 were reduced from taking out the weapon based skills (since overheating wasn't an issue) and taking out Charm/Intimidate (so people wouldn't waste points on them since they're gained passively). Things like First Aid or Electronics were moved to the upgrades system.

So yeah, the progression still looks the same.

[Ecael]

IoCaster wrote...

I don't see any merit in you coming into this thread whining about the so-called whiners, whining. This thread is a discussion for those of us that were disappointed in the game. What exactly are you trying to convince me of?

What are you trying to convince everyone else and BioWare of? It's even more difficult to convince BioWare to change their ways, isn't it?

What exactly does any of this tripe you posted have to do with me? I wasn't talking about expanding the audience, hybrid rpg, dumbed down gameplay or any of that rubbish. As I very clearly stated in my post I think the story/plot of ME2 is a bunch of contrived nonsense. I also very clearly stated that if you disagree and liked the story/plot that I am truly happy for you.

I don't know what your angle is here, but if you're auditioning for some type of community manager job with BioWare take it somewhere else. Don't come in here and dump a bunch of horsecrap on me about things I didn't even reference.

The end paragraphs were more directed to everyone who replied above and below you - I didn't mean to target you personally.

Also, the moderators/community managers don't even visit this thread unless it's absolutely necessary, so "auditioning" is out of the question.

[smudboy]

Lumikki wrote...
So, why was Shepard choosen to be Scepter. Did all those reason just disappear in ME2?

Ah, you're paying attention.

Cerberus also has bad reputation in galaxy, they needed someone who is not just great leader and can inspire others to follow, but would actually be accepted even when be with cerberus. Because Shepards past accomplishment, they know what Shapard can do. It's about charismatic and fame, short of front face for cause. Also it's about Shepard get the job done. It's about when Shepard stands next to you, it's attitude, voice and fearless leadership, what makes you trust him/her.  Natural leader, it's not easy to find that kind person.

Wait, weren't we talking about why the Council chose to reinstate Shepard's useless Spectre status?

Shepard is standing next to me?



Shepard could've been great with animals and done excellent at housework.  See all this stuff you said is fine, IFF it's proven in the plot.  Which it isn't.

You have so negative attitude that you can't even see what's front of you. Oh yes, the ME2 plot is full of holes, I even agree that and you think it's suck. That's fine, it isn't really that good writing, but give me break. You let that to affect everyting.

I guess I do need some forgiveness. I mean if someone of your English skills can appreciate ME2's plot holes and still like it, maybe I should learn to shrug off this crap and keep my mouth shut.

...

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Why TIM did bring Shepard back from dead, wasn't there any other option. Good question. How ever, that has nothign to do why Shepard was choosen. I ques TIM did not know any other who could get job done and Shepard did get the job done.

There was plenty of other options (an army...)  This is one of the many reasons of what makes Cerberus' reasoning laughable.

Shepard was chosen because 1) He's our best hope (for what and how?), 2) "They'll follow him.  He's a hero.  A bloody icon.  If we lose Shepard humanity might well follow" (why and why?), 3) "Then see to it that we don't lose him" (little did they know they'd have to cheat death to do it.)  So somehow 1) he's the best hope for something, somehow, 2) everyone will follow a human hero icon, which makes sense if you're human and not part of a human terrorist group, and that humanity might be lost without...why? 3) THEREFORE WHAT I SAY GOES MIRANDA.  **** DEATH BY VACUUM OF SPACE.  I WANT SHEPARD.

But wait, after the fact, there's more!
TIM: "You're unique.  Not just in ability or what you've experienced, but in what you represent.  You stood for humanity at a key moment.  Your'e more than a soldier -- you're a symbol.  And I don't know if the Reapers understand fear, but you killed one.  They have to respect that."

Now I know TIM has a galactic ego, but now he's deducing an immortal machine-god's mental state, and what they might think of a zombie-Shepard, ergo MUST HAVE SHEPARD?  If I was a producer, blowing away billions of dollars to cheat death, I'd have a few insane reasonings up my ass to spout into a novel, too.  At this point we have to wonder what TIM's smoking, and how we can get it: cause apparently the rules of the universe are negated whenever you 1) smoke, 2) want something.  It's like Magical Genie Cigarettes.  Maybe it's a combo of that liquid he's drinking, too.

[IoCaster]

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon, recruit, recruit, recruit, loyalty, loyalty, Collector Ship, loyalty loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, IFF, suicide mission, closing crdits.
 

The structure of ME1 was basically - EP, citidel, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Feros, Noveria, Virmine, Ilos, citidel.

Now in both ME1 and ME2 you don't have to do all those missions and can even do few of them different order.

Oh, for the love of...

What part of recruit-loyalty ad nauseum for a bunch of characters I couldn't care less about is difficult for you to understand. Lots and lots and even more lots of recruitment and loyalty missions. That's ~80% of the game.

[smudboy]

javierabegazo wrote...

@smudboy

Just watched all 6 parts of your Plot analysis, I really enjoyed it, just wanted to say Thank you

Was reminiscent of the hour long Review of the Phantom Menace videos that are on youtube. Props for your editing

Thanks man.  But don't tell me: tell your friends.

Ah, so you see what I was trying to do there...

[IoCaster]

Ecael wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

I don't see any merit in you coming into this thread whining about the so-called whiners, whining. This thread is a discussion for those of us that were disappointed in the game. What exactly are you trying to convince me of?

What are you trying to convince everyone else and BioWare of? It's even more difficult to convince BioWare to change their ways, isn't it?

What exactly does any of this tripe you posted have to do with me? I wasn't talking about expanding the audience, hybrid rpg, dumbed down gameplay or any of that rubbish. As I very clearly stated in my post I think the story/plot of ME2 is a bunch of contrived nonsense. I also very clearly stated that if you disagree and liked the story/plot that I am truly happy for you.

I don't know what your angle is here, but if you're auditioning for some type of community manager job with BioWare take it somewhere else. Don't come in here and dump a bunch of horsecrap on me about things I didn't even reference.

The end paragraphs were more directed to everyone who replied above and below you - I didn't mean to target you personally.

Also, the moderators/community managers don't even visit this thread unless it's absolutely necessary, so "auditioning" is out of the question.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, period. Let me repeat that for you and everyone else that thinks otherwise. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, period. I'm simply stating my opinion and having a mostly friendly and amicable discussion about those aspects of ME2 that I was disappointed in. My opinion isn't any more valid or legitimate than anyone else's and I'm fully aware of that. This is why I very clearly state that I'm pleased and happy for those people that are satisfied with the game. The end.

EDIT: Added some text.

I want to add that these accusations of 'superior' opinions and trying to convince everyone that ME2 is a bad game are specious and hollow. The thread is very clearly titled:
Disappointment With Mass Effect 2? An Open Discussion.

The people that come into this thread and try to convince the participants that we're wrong to be disappointed in ME2 are the culprits here. I'm not going around to the multitude of ME2 gush threads trolling or trying to convince anyone that the game sucks.

Modifié par IoCaster, 02 juin 2010 - 01:09 .

[Ecael]

IoCaster wrote...

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, period. Let me repeat that for you and everyone else that thinks otherwise. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, period. I'm simply stating my opinion and having a mostly friendly and amicable discussion about those aspects of ME2 that I was disappointed in. My opinion isn't any more valid or legitimate than anyone else's and I'm fully aware of that. This is why I very clearly state that I'm pleased and happy for those people that are satisfied with the game. The end.

Very well, then. I'll take your word for it since you helped me out a lot with my save file hacking thread a while back.

[Lumikki]

Icinix wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Ecael wrote...

The only disappointment I have with Mass Effect in general are the people who don't realize just how similar they are in concept (they even have the same writers from Mass Effect 1), and the only thing that's been "dumbed down" are the repetitive arguments that all use the same talking points and phrases - even though the complaints can be said of both Mass Effect 1/2.

Yeah, this is also what I have wonder, who people can be so blind that they can't see how similar those games really are. I mean there is differences, but base consept is very similar.

Not that I would say it or use it, but the same argument could be said of the reverse.

Why can't people see how different they are? The weapon upgrades, character skillset progression and so on.

Like I said, I'm not saying it, but I think 'perception' in this regard is not an argument that can be used.

I was not talking game details, but really the base consept, what is about 80% of the game.

You know when you start game, you get cinematic graphics with voice acting, telling story. You have 3rd person character to roleplay with dialog weels to make choises by talking with npcs and then go missions with 3rd person shooter part.

That is the real base consept, what is really what the game is all about.. If we go details how some stuff are design, there will be differences. How ever the base consept is very same kind and even the feels same, I mean this base consept, what is also most of the game anyway.

Not sure if I explain this well?

[Lumikki]

IoCaster wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon, recruit, recruit, recruit, loyalty, loyalty, Collector Ship, loyalty loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, IFF, suicide mission, closing crdits.
 

The structure of ME1 was basically - EP, citidel, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Feros, Noveria, Virmine, Ilos, citidel.

Now in both ME1 and ME2 you don't have to do all those missions and can even do few of them different order.

Oh, for the love of...

What part of recruit-loyalty ad nauseum for a bunch of characters I couldn't care less about is difficult for you to understand. Lots and lots and even more lots of recruitment and loyalty missions. That's ~80% of the game.

Let see, what is really needed in ME2. You don't need to do them all.

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon,  recruit,  Collector Ship, loyalty,  loyalty, IFF, suicide mission.

I think that's all what's needed to do. I don't know what trikers Collector chip and IFF missions, but it isn't many missions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juin 2010 - 01:11 .

[CroGamer002]

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon, recruit, recruit, recruit, loyalty, loyalty, Collector Ship, loyalty loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, IFF, suicide mission, closing crdits.
 

The structure of ME1 was basically - EP, citidel, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Feros, Noveria, Virmine, Ilos, citidel.

Now in both ME1 and ME2 you don't have to do all those missions and can even do few of them different order.

Oh, for the love of...

What part of recruit-loyalty ad nauseum for a bunch of characters I couldn't care less about is difficult for you to understand. Lots and lots and even more lots of recruitment and loyalty missions. That's ~80% of the game.

Let see, what is really neded in ME2. You don't need to do them.

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon,  recuire,  Collector Ship, loyalty,  loyalty, IFF, suicide mission.

I think that's all what's needed to do. I don't know what trikers Collector chip and IFF missions, but it isn't many missions.

I think it's 2 more recruit mission that trigger Collector ship mission after Horizon.
IFF mission after Collector Ship mission but you can go when ever  you want.

[Icinix]

Lumikki wrote...

(SNIPPED)

I was not talking game details, but really the base consept, what is about 80% of the game.

You know when you start game, you get cinematic graphics with voice acting, telling story. You have 3rd person character to roleplay with dialog weels to make choises by talking with npcs and then go missions with 3rd person shooter part.

That is the real base consept, what is really what the game is all about.. If we go details how some stuff are design, there will be differences. How ever the base consept is very same kind and even the feels same, I mean this base consept, what is also most of the game anyway.

Not sure if I explain this well?

I understood, but it's a perception thing.  You see the whole game for the similarities, other people see the whole game for it's differences.

Doom, Half Life, Duke Nukem 3d, Quake. The base concept is the same, but the details are different.  Its those details that people focus on to create different games. (Very generic reference, but foruming between uni assignments )

The people who claim the Mass Effect games are different, are those people focusing on the details, not the base concept.

Everyone is right, nobody is wrong.  It's just two different perceptions.

Me, I love anything Mass Effect, yet to be REALLY dissapointed with anything.  Except maybe the CGI shepard and the upcoming figures.  They be ugly. 

[Lumikki]

Mesina2 wrote...

I think it's 2 more recruit mission that trigger Collector ship mission after Horizon.
IFF mission after Collector Ship mission but you can go when ever  you want.

Hard to know, but I do know that I only required Samara and got IFF even without Tali and Thane.
Also, if You want everyone survey from last mission, it could require more than 2 loyalty, I think. Maybe 4.

[IoCaster]

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon, recruit, recruit, recruit, loyalty, loyalty, Collector Ship, loyalty loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, IFF, suicide mission, closing crdits.
 

The structure of ME1 was basically - EP, citidel, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Feros, Noveria, Virmine, Ilos, citidel.

Now in both ME1 and ME2 you don't have to do all those missions and can even do few of them different order.

Oh, for the love of...

What part of recruit-loyalty ad nauseum for a bunch of characters I couldn't care less about is difficult for you to understand. Lots and lots and even more lots of recruitment and loyalty missions. That's ~80% of the game.

Let see, what is really needed in ME2. You don't need to do them all.

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon,  recruit,  Collector Ship, loyalty,  loyalty, IFF, suicide mission.

I think that's all what's needed to do. I don't know what trikers Collector chip and IFF missions, but it isn't many missions.

Sure, I'll grant you that. I usually don't bother to recruit some of the characters and sometimes skip doing the loyalty mission for others. Unfortunately that's cutting off a part of the major portion of the actual game content. On another note, I don't really care about comparisons to ME so I'm not sure why it's constantly brought up in the comments directed to me.

[Ecael]

Icinix wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

(SNIPPED)

I was not talking game details, but really the base consept, what is about 80% of the game.

You know when you start game, you get cinematic graphics with voice acting, telling story. You have 3rd person character to roleplay with dialog weels to make choises by talking with npcs and then go missions with 3rd person shooter part.

That is the real base consept, what is really what the game is all about.. If we go details how some stuff are design, there will be differences. How ever the base consept is very same kind and even the feels same, I mean this base consept, what is also most of the game anyway.

Not sure if I explain this well?

I understood, but it's a perception thing.  You see the whole game for the similarities, other people see the whole game for it's differences.

Doom, Half Life, Duke Nukem 3d, Quake. The base concept is the same, but the details are different.  Its those details that people focus on to create different games. (Very generic reference, but foruming between uni assignments )

The people who claim the Mass Effect games are different, are those people focusing on the details, not the base concept.

Everyone is right, nobody is wrong.  It's just two different perceptions.

Me, I love anything Mass Effect, yet to be REALLY dissapointed with anything.  Except maybe the CGI shepard and the upcoming figures.  They be ugly. 

I think it's more a difference in taste that does that - comparing McIntosh apples to Cortland apples.

People can discuss the differences between the two all they want, but they're essentially the same thing. You can't like one of the two and then say you absolutely hate apples because you don't like the other, however.

[CroGamer002]

Lumikki wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

I think it's 2 more recruit mission that trigger Collector ship mission after Horizon.
IFF mission after Collector Ship mission but you can go when ever  you want.

Hard to know, but I do know that I only required Samara and got IFF even without Tali and Thane.
Also, if You want everyone survey from last mission, it could require more than 2 loyalty, I think. Maybe 4.

You can pass game without doing loyalty missions and not die long enough Miranda holds the line.
Never tested it but maybe I will since I have PC version and I can mod it.

Also in my speedrun playthrogh I didn't recruit Samara and Thane.

[Orchomene]

To me, and this is of course entirely subjective, ME2 is an action/adventure game and has nothing at all of a RPG. In an action/adventure game, there is a story (good or not, depending) and some evolution of the relations between characters. In an action/adventure game, there are fights that more or less play the same from beginning of the game to the end of the game. This defines perfectly ME2.

ME1 is an hybrid game since it adds some RPG elements, but there is not any more such elements in ME2.



Of course, the "concept" is the same in ME1 and ME2, but that doesn't change the fact that all the RPG element have been removed in ME2.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

*snip*

Where you been? 

[SkullandBonesmember]

kalle90 wrote...

These comments make the future quite grim IMO. It's good newcomers are welcomed but I always thought ME was build entirely on story and consequenses. Making stories (and gameplay choices with them) seperate isn't the best way to handle things.

So basically we can expect ME3 to change the gameplay heavily again and the story gets a fresh start again with new squadmates etc? So what exactly seperates this trilogy from the future spinoff games? Shepard? A person who has thousands of variations

Games like Halos, Splinter Cells and such might be light on their stories but playing them in a row atleast gives me a sense of progression.

Agreed a million times over.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 02 juin 2010 - 01:38 .

[IoCaster]

Ecael wrote...


Very well, then. I'll take your word for it since you helped me out a lot with my save file hacking thread a while back.

No sweat. If you linger on a forum long enough you'll eventually butt heads with just about every other forumite at some point or another.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Kalfear wrote...

LOL, your so full of it Sith

Only reason I post here still is because you shooter fans shovel so much crap about the game there needs to be a balance based in reality!

This is not a good game and I dont enjoy it, in fact my dislike (like the majority that simply post and leave) for it has grown to point ill probably not buy anouther ME product!

But hey, as usual you speak what you have no clue about, tell people what others thinking and doing when you have no clue.

Whats the common thread, YOU HAVE NO CLUE!

PS: I originally tried to talk calmly and constructively about the game (see my signature for example. thats more constructive talk then you ever done here EVER), you (specifically) and others whined so freaking much and Jaiver locked so many threads it was obvious open and real discussion not allowed or permitted!

I should point out that in my BIG BOY and ADULT thread, you see people talking and discussing in a mature manner. Whats missing, posters like Sith and others from this thread that break every negative thread into a argument about the game rather then letting people voice their displeasure!

Trolls of the world (thats you Sith and others) stand up and be counted for what you are.

Agreed with everything except the highlighted parts. Whether you want to admit it or not, most, including myself, are going to get ME3 just to see how it all ends. We may be pessimistic, and RIGHTFULLY SO concerning ME3's direction, but we'll still get it, even if it's used so Bioware doesn't get the money. The last part isn't true. Just as I'm not a troll and think ME2 blows overall, Sith isn't a troll and genuinely, albeit sadly, is content with and prefers ME2.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 02 juin 2010 - 01:55 .

[smudboy]

I just wanted to chime in here: Sith just sent me a personal message, and it appears my videos changed his mind. I don't want to quote him, because it's personal, but I think he's up for some real discussion.



Did someone just change the internet this morning when I woke up?

[Icinix]

Ecael wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

(SNIPPED)

I was not talking game details, but really the base consept, what is about 80% of the game.

You know when you start game, you get cinematic graphics with voice acting, telling story. You have 3rd person character to roleplay with dialog weels to make choises by talking with npcs and then go missions with 3rd person shooter part.

That is the real base consept, what is really what the game is all about.. If we go details how some stuff are design, there will be differences. How ever the base consept is very same kind and even the feels same, I mean this base consept, what is also most of the game anyway.

Not sure if I explain this well?

I understood, but it's a perception thing.  You see the whole game for the similarities, other people see the whole game for it's differences.

Doom, Half Life, Duke Nukem 3d, Quake. The base concept is the same, but the details are different.  Its those details that people focus on to create different games. (Very generic reference, but foruming between uni assignments )

The people who claim the Mass Effect games are different, are those people focusing on the details, not the base concept.

Everyone is right, nobody is wrong.  It's just two different perceptions.

Me, I love anything Mass Effect, yet to be REALLY dissapointed with anything.  Except maybe the CGI shepard and the upcoming figures.  They be ugly. 

I think it's more a difference in taste that does that - comparing McIntosh apples to Cortland apples.

People can discuss the differences between the two all they want, but they're essentially the same thing. You can't like one of the two and then say you absolutely hate apples because you don't like the other, however.

No but you can say you generally hate apples, with exceptions.
It is a sense of taste, and everyone enjoys different things, (keeping with the food theme) you can say you love vegetables but hate particular types of vegetables.  Same as styles of games, you can hate / love a particular genre, but the details can cause exceptions.  So even though, ESSENTIALLY the two Mass Effect games are the same thing, the details can skew opinions massively.
It's like the Gadsby: Champion of Youth.  It's essentially just another book, but theres something different about it, a tiny detail that makes it read differently.  It doesnt use the letter E.  It's a tiny difference, but it makes the whole book feel like a very different read, not like any other book you've ever read.

Same as what the naysayers (Which I guess I'm kind of defending for some obscure reason, must be a slow night ) the tiny details have skewed what is essentially the same game into something thats not like the first at all, despite their essential base similarities.

[Lumikki]

Orchomene wrote...

Of course, the "concept" is the same in ME1 and ME2, but that doesn't change the fact that all the RPG element have been removed in ME2.

Sorry, but that is not  true.

They aren't removed, they are simplefyed. That's totally different thing. Only few real RPG stuff what was removed, like city elevators, inventory and none combat related skills. Every other RPG aspect is turned to different design or simplefyed.

I agree that they simplifyed RPG elements in ME2 way way too much, but they where not removed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juin 2010 - 02:38 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Orchomene wrote...

ME1 is an hybrid game since it adds some RPG elements, but there is not any more such elements in ME2.

Of course, the "concept" is the same in ME1 and ME2, but that doesn't change the fact that all the RPG element have been removed in ME2.

That element being? What? Inventory? Did ME2 suddently change into Tetris or what?

Both are shooters with RPG elements and while ME1 had inventory, ME2 has greatly improved character interaction.