10273 réponses à ce sujet

[P3G4SU5]

worm_burner wrote...

kold213 wrote...

I miss docking at a station then having to run to the airlock. The little things like that made it feel more sci-fi-y.

I don't like how many cutscenes had my Shep hold an AR, even when I didn't have one. ME1 had a similar problem, he would use a pistol when I had no stat points in it.

It annoys me when characters go to rub their head or scratch their neck when they have a large helmet on.

The ammo type hologram looks stupid, let me remove it pleeeeeeeease!

I can't stand having a squad that all different color scheme. There should be an option to have your team's clothes colors set up in 2 different sections (primary/secondary) and they should follow Shep's prim/sec.
 -I'd also love to be able to change their actual clothes/armor.

I hate how when you're in open space and your team just has a small mask covering their nose/mouth.

The Citadel is incredibly dissappointing, the Wards are tiny and cramped and don't even get me stared on the Presidium (ONE ROOM!)

Completely agree with everything you stated , especially some of the little things that were included in ME1 such as the airlock just gave the game a better sci fi - rpg feel.

Agreed.

[P3G4SU5]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

One annoying thing is that if for example i´m docked at Omega, and i want to go to the Normandy, to change looks or whatever, a cutscene opens showing the Normandy leaving dock. NO i´m still docked and i didn´t leave lol, its annoying.

Too much simplicity ruins the mood for this game, ME1 had this much better and it worked just fine.
Some might say this is better because its faster, but imo it looks silly and rushed, it felt great to walk to the ship and enter it, then decide if i want to leave.

Yes, this irked me as well. Sometimes I'd just want to go back to the ship to check out a new armor part I'd bought or cabin feature, but instead the ship would depart. This wouldn't even be so annoying if the load screens weren't so terribly long.

[Icinix]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Icinix wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

No complaints for me except that there could have been a Grunt romance or at least more dialogue with him. Overall an epic game.

That was a joke...right?


RIGHT???

Lol......nope:D

Well then...hope it all works out for you.

If it does...um...send picture or it never happend!

[Darth Drago]

tonnactus wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


In ME1 the combat/character interaction ratio was even and sometimes it actually favored character interaction.

I also want to add that the player gained a lot of levels only with talking. Like6-8 levels for the citadel quests alone.
Now you get 50 xp for it.(except two loyality missions)

-I get to level 10 by doing all the Citadel quests you can do when you first get there. I cant remember now what level you are when you first arrive anymore though, 6? Just go to the Council to become a Spectre as your last thing to do. Even doing it this way I still have Scan the Keeper’s, Rita’s Sister and Presidium Prophet to do. The last 2 require (for best results) a higher charm/intimidate skill to do.

It’s a shame that in ME2 there just are not that many side quests like those you got on the Citadel in the first game. To much focus on comabt missions I guess.

In ME1:
The Citadel had 21 to do on it or ones that take you off the station (not including your background ones), Feros had 5, Noveria had 3 and there are 2 for Virmire but I don’t think you can actually call them side quests. Thats 31 (32 if you count your background quest) to do.

in ME2:
Normandy 3, Omega 6, Citadel 3, Tuchanka 3 and 9 on Illium (2 of those require an import Shepard to get). Thats 24 in total

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


In ME1 the combat/character interaction ratio was even and sometimes it actually favored character interaction.

I also want to add that the player gained a lot of levels only with talking. Like6-8 levels for the citadel quests alone.
Now you get 50 xp for it.(except two loyality missions)

-I get to level 10 by doing all the Citadel quests you can do when you first get there. I cant remember now what level you are when you first arrive anymore though, 6? Just go to the Council to become a Spectre as your last thing to do. Even doing it this way I still have Scan the Keeper’s, Rita’s Sister and Presidium Prophet to do. The last 2 require (for best results) a higher charm/intimidate skill to do.

There are even more quests.Like help the doctor with the blackmailer ,the ai near to the hanar salesman, schells the gambler,the consort, samesh batia.

[Jebel Krong]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

One annoying thing is that if for example i´m docked at Omega, and i want to go to the Normandy, to change looks or whatever, a cutscene opens showing the Normandy leaving dock. NO i´m still docked and i didn´t leave lol, its annoying.

Too much simplicity ruins the mood for this game, ME1 had this much better and it worked just fine.
Some might say this is better because its faster, but imo it looks silly and rushed, it felt great to walk to the ship and enter it, then decide if i want to leave.

Yes, this irked me as well. Sometimes I'd just want to go back to the ship to check out a new armor part I'd bought or cabin feature, but instead the ship would depart. This wouldn't even be so annoying if the load screens weren't so terribly long.

personally i prefer a rock-steady framerate throughout than the spotty one in me1 when you had to have all that memory taken up with menu screens/armour permutations etc. loads are longer because of the much higher detail and bigger normandy. tech limitations factor into the design as much as gameplay ones, sometimes.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Yet again, more people calling for less story, even less story OPTIONS. ME2 never drew in the shooter crowd though and aren't interested in changing an RPG to be more of a shooter.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 03 juin 2010 - 11:36 .

[P3G4SU5]

finnithe wrote...

The negative response to the thermal clips always strikes me as a knee-jerk response towards shooter mechanics for some reason.

In Mass Effect 1, or any game with regenerating ammunition, the problem is that you gain unlimited use of your powerful weapons. There would be no incentive to use your powers or other guns if I could just snipe everyone, especially since only a select few enemies charge you. By limiting the ammunition you have in your shotguns and sniper rifles, the game forces you to prioritize targets and use abilities like Incinerate and Warp more often. Ammo would have to regenerate really slowly for a regenerating system to work.

I don't think a system relying solely on cooldown would work, as it would have to take a while to regenerate as not to promote dependency on a single weapon, while still making sure as to not to slow the player down when they're in a drawn out battle sequence. I would rather have a hybrid system where it takes several minutes for weapons to cool down (it should not regenerate to full, maybe only to a certain percentage) while still having thermal clips lying around to have players pick up. Even a system just relying on thermal clips would work, as Mass Effect 2 has shown.

Don't say looting thermal clips is a bore. It's the same thing as looting bodies in Mass Effect 1. They even shine and everything. I do wish that the bodies didn't immediately disappear however, but I guess that's there to remove performance demands (why can't this be an option in the PC version?).

There are several problems with what has been said. Regenerating ammunition is not a part of the ME lore, what was actually being discussed previously was the mechanic whereby the metal ammo blocks inside weapons needed to be replaced periodically.
There is also the issue whereby if a player depletes all clips for his assault rifle (just an example), for some reason there are still clips left in his/her remaining weapons. We are told the clips are universal so why can players not choose to use all of their clips in the preferred weapon of choice?
If you consider the fact that most classes actually only specialise in 2/3 weapons, of which only one of these weapons is used most often, an overheating system is still feasible. As mentioned previously the thermal buildup could be increased with the more powerful weapons and be lowered with less powerful sidearms, to a degree which balances usage. The same could be applied to heavy weapons to make overheating unavoidable after firing a few shots whilst also increasing the cooldown time to prevent their overuse so that the player switches to other weapons in their arsenal.
There actually was no looting of bodies in ME1. Any potential loot from fallen enemies was automatically added to the player inventory to prevent the player from scrounging, which saved time and prevented repetitive looting actions.
I 'm not opposed to the idea of a thermal clip system, I just wish it had been fully realised before being integrated. Personally I think it would work perfectly in conjunction with an overheating weapon system so that only a handful of clips are carried. Then if a player overheated his/her weapon and did not want to wait for the cooldown period to end, he/she could eject a thermal clip and replace it with a another to allow for continued fire. However clips would be a rarer commodity and therefore there would be an incentive to save them for emergency situations in firefights. It would also be nice if the enemy AI could tidentify when players had overheated weapons (perhaps the gun would have to be vented - giving off some kind of steam) and press the advantage by advancing/charging (perhaps something that would be more noticeable on harder difficulties).
I do agree that in modern gaming we shouldn't be seeing disappearing bodies, especially not with PC  games. PCs have access to more superior hardware than consoles and as such it would be nice to see it utilised by games. I can understand needing to save memory on consoles which have limited
resources but PCs have the power and it should be taken advantage of.

[Jebel Krong]

Darth Drago wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


In ME1 the combat/character interaction ratio was even and sometimes it actually favored character interaction.

I also want to add that the player gained a lot of levels only with talking. Like6-8 levels for the citadel quests alone.
Now you get 50 xp for it.(except two loyality missions)

-I get to level 10 by doing all the Citadel quests you can do when you first get there. I cant remember now what level you are when you first arrive anymore though, 6? Just go to the Council to become a Spectre as your last thing to do. Even doing it this way I still have Scan the Keeper’s, Rita’s Sister and Presidium Prophet to do. The last 2 require (for best results) a higher charm/intimidate skill to do.

It’s a shame that in ME2 there just are not that many side quests like those you got on the Citadel in the first game. To much focus on comabt missions I guess.

In ME1:
The Citadel had 21 to do on it or ones that take you off the station (not including your background ones), Feros had 5, Noveria had 3 and there are 2 for Virmire but I don’t think you can actually call them side quests. Thats 31 (32 if you count your background quest) to do.

in ME2:
Normandy 3, Omega 6, Citadel 3, Tuchanka 3 and 9 on Illium (2 of those require an import Shepard to get). Thats 24 in total

1. it's called pacing. 4+ hours doing pointless sidequests on the citadel before the actual game got going was not it. and it meant there wasn't anything much to do when you came back later (only a couple more).
2. not punishing players who don't want to explore every side-quest/nook and cranny for maximum xp is fine by me - it drives you into the story more, increasing immersion, rather than worrying about how much xp you will get for doing things. (i'd like to point out that i am of the obsessive type that would explore everywhere and do everything anyway).

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Yet again, more people calling for less story, even less story OPTIONS. ME2 never drew in the shooter crowd though and aren't interested in changing an RPG to be more of a shooter.

They are? I haven't notice them. I haven't see anyone here to say, we have too much story in these games?
Can you point some quote for me? What I have seen that few RPG fans are saying that some is saying it, but I haven't seen anyone actually saying it. If you get my point.

[P3G4SU5]

Jebel Krong wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

One annoying thing is that if for example i´m docked at Omega, and i want to go to the Normandy, to change looks or whatever, a cutscene opens showing the Normandy leaving dock. NO i´m still docked and i didn´t leave lol, its annoying.

Too much simplicity ruins the mood for this game, ME1 had this much better and it worked just fine.
Some might say this is better because its faster, but imo it looks silly and rushed, it felt great to walk to the ship and enter it, then decide if i want to leave.

Yes, this irked me as well. Sometimes I'd just want to go back to the ship to check out a new armor part I'd bought or cabin feature, but instead the ship would depart. This wouldn't even be so annoying if the load screens weren't so terribly long.

personally i prefer a rock-steady framerate throughout than the
spotty one in me1 when you had to have all that memory taken up with
menu screens/armour permutations etc. loads are longer because of the
much higher detail and bigger normandy. tech limitations factor into the
design as much as gameplay ones, sometimes.

...loads are longer because of the much higher detail and bigger normandy...

Which makes it all the more vital not to the have irritating game behaviour described previously.

...personally i prefer a rock-steady framerate throughout than the spotty one in me1 when you had to have all that memory taken up with menu screens/armour permutations etc...

I never noticed any of the things you describe, although I played it on PC. If you also played it on PC maybe your hardware wasn't high enough for smooth gameply.  If you played it on a console and had those issues perhaps it hadn't been fully optimized for that platform.

...tech limitations factor into the design as much as gameplay ones, sometimes...

Holds some truth, expecially considering the problems you experienced above.

*EDITED*: Fixed layout

Modifié par P3G4SU5, 03 juin 2010 - 12:13 .

[Jebel Krong]

finnithe wrote...

The negative response to the thermal clips always strikes me as a knee-jerk response towards shooter mechanics for some reason.

In Mass Effect 1, or any game with regenerating ammunition, the problem is that you gain unlimited use of your powerful weapons. There would be no incentive to use your powers or other guns if I could just snipe everyone, especially since only a select few enemies charge you. By limiting the ammunition you have in your shotguns and sniper rifles, the game forces you to prioritize targets and use abilities like Incinerate and Warp more often. Ammo would have to regenerate really slowly for a regenerating system to work.

I don't think a system relying solely on cooldown would work, as it would have to take a while to regenerate as not to promote dependency on a single weapon, while still making sure as to not to slow the player down when they're in a drawn out battle sequence. I would rather have a hybrid system where it takes several minutes for weapons to cool down (it should not regenerate to full, maybe only to a certain percentage) while still having thermal clips lying around to have players pick up. Even a system just relying on thermal clips would work, as Mass Effect 2 has shown.

Don't say looting thermal clips is a bore. It's the same thing as looting bodies in Mass Effect 1. They even shine and everything. I do wish that the bodies didn't immediately disappear however, but I guess that's there to remove performance demands (why can't this be an option in the PC version?).

no the ammo system is just a confused, broken mess. added to the fact it breaks previous codex completely, i'm amazed it ever got past concept testing tbh. the overheat mechanism worked quite well in me1, and i would have kept that, with an ammo system for the heavy weapons (where it's believable). the ammo system is just an arbitrary limiter in combat situations, especially on certain classes with limited weapon skills. given the freedom afforded in the improved combat level design and (generally) ai, this is doubly disappointing and the biggest let-down of me2, imo.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

They are? I haven't notice them. I haven't see anyone here to say, we have too much story in these games?
Can you point some quote for me? What I have seen that few RPG fans are saying that some is saying it, but I haven't seen anyone actually saying it. If you get my point.

Click Joker and he'll show you the way.

[tonnactus]

Jebel Krong wrote...


1. it's called pacing.

I dont need pacing.A reason why I play rpgs because they are the games that gives you a lot of freedom how you play them.True with ovlivion and the first Mass Effect game.
I dont need a smoking idiot that commands me to go somewhere.The story could be always written in a way that pacing isnt needed. Colonies could be big.Enemies need some time to organize their attacks so the player doesnt come to late.
If this isnt written in the game, players could use their imagination.

If i want pacing i play shooters.

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 juin 2010 - 12:06 .

[Mayson02]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


In ME1 the combat/character interaction ratio was even and sometimes it actually favored character interaction.

I also want to add that the player gained a lot of levels only with talking. Like6-8 levels for the citadel quests alone.
Now you get 50 xp for it.(except two loyality missions)

-I get to level 10 by doing all the Citadel quests you can do when you first get there. I cant remember now what level you are when you first arrive anymore though, 6? Just go to the Council to become a Spectre as your last thing to do. Even doing it this way I still have Scan the Keeper’s, Rita’s Sister and Presidium Prophet to do. The last 2 require (for best results) a higher charm/intimidate skill to do.

It’s a shame that in ME2 there just are not that many side quests like those you got on the Citadel in the first game. To much focus on comabt missions I guess.

In ME1:
The Citadel had 21 to do on it or ones that take you off the station (not including your background ones), Feros had 5, Noveria had 3 and there are 2 for Virmire but I don’t think you can actually call them side quests. Thats 31 (32 if you count your background quest) to do.

in ME2:
Normandy 3, Omega 6, Citadel 3, Tuchanka 3 and 9 on Illium (2 of those require an import Shepard to get). Thats 24 in total

1. it's called pacing. 4+ hours doing pointless sidequests on the citadel before the actual game got going was not it. and it meant there wasn't anything much to do when you came back later (only a couple more).
2. not punishing players who don't want to explore every side-quest/nook and cranny for maximum xp is fine by me - it drives you into the story more, increasing immersion, rather than worrying about how much xp you will get for doing things. (i'd like to point out that i am of the obsessive type that would explore everywhere and do everything anyway).

I've heard people say that, instead of fixing some of the problems, they just got rid of them.  I remember hearing on some forums people say that the beginning of ME1 on the Citadel was boring and that the game would really pick up later.  So they nixed the fetching sidequests to make it more X-TREME! 

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...


I dont need pacing.A reason why I play rpgs because they are the games that gives you a lot of freedom how you play them.True with ovlivion and the first Mass Effect game.
I dont need a smoking idiot that commands me to go somewhere.The story could be always written in a way that pacing isnt needed. Colonies could be big.Enemies need some time to organize their attacks so the player doesnt come to late.
If this isnt written in the game, players could use their imagination.

If i want pacing i play shooters.

To be fair, a good story needs a "smoking idiot", or rather characters with character. ME 2 is lacking that too, at least the "smoking idiot" is one. Not enough to make the story good in this case, but you get what I mean.

That said, you're completely right: ME 2 is way too railroaded, even repeatedly forcing you to go on a mission. While that may be "realistic" (not really an argument, since many other things aren't either), it takes away freedom. But, the new audience needs "pacing". The game has to take their hands, and ME 2 certainly does. The concept of freedom is apparently too strange for this kind of audience. That you don't have to do all those boring side quests with all that boring talking, that idea hasn't occurred to them, it seems.

Mr. Woo himself said they had to make the game more "immediate", and that the game now has "fewer stoppages in the story like the hours and hours walking around the Citadel in ME1". And there you have it.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 juin 2010 - 12:30 .

[Lumikki]

It's really hard to count quest and compare them, because what is quest, how long mission is counted as quest. Also some quest are like continued story, when we count them as seperate quest. How ever, if You really start counting quest, you will find that both games has allmost same amount of quest.

ME1 had 7 main mission and 1 important recruit related missions.
ME2 had 5 main mission and 1 important recruit related missions.

ME1 had 25 side missions in cities
ME2 had 24 side missions in cities (including normandy)

ME1 had 37 out world missions (including gathering quests).
ME2 had 13 out world missions.

ME1 had 5 squad member related missions
ME2 had 23 squad member related missions

ME1 had 74 total missions
ME2 had 65 total missions

These numbers are NOT totally accurate, but they do give some direction.

Now people have sayed here that ME1 feeled more like main story related and ME2 not. If You look missions, then I can only say, it's not really true. ME1 only had 2 mission more related main story, what's not much. What you can say while comparing missions, that ME1 had out world missions alot more than ME2 had. But also ME2 had alot more squad members related missions than ME1 had. That's the real difference between missions. People make assumptions how something is, but it's not allways the correct one, because it's colored by feelings. PS: I did not count DLC missions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juin 2010 - 01:25 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...


I dont need pacing.A reason why I play rpgs because they are the games that gives you a lot of freedom how you play them.True with ovlivion and the first Mass Effect game.
I dont need a smoking idiot that commands me to go somewhere.The story could be always written in a way that pacing isnt needed. Colonies could be big.Enemies need some time to organize their attacks so the player doesnt come to late.
If this isnt written in the game, players could use their imagination.

If i want pacing i play shooters.

To be fair, a good story needs a "smoking idiot", or rather characters with character. ME 2 is lacking that too, at least the "smoking idiot" is one. Not enough to make the story good in this case, but you get what I mean.

That said, you're completely right: ME 2 is way too railroaded, even repeatedly forcing you to go on a mission. While that may be "realistic" (not really an argument, since many other things aren't either), it takes away freedom. But, the new audience needs "pacing". The game has to take their hands, and ME 2 certainly does. The concept of freedom is apparently too strange for this kind of audience. That you don't have to do all those boring side quests with all that boring talking, that idea hasn't occurred to them, it seems.

Mr. Woo himself said they had to make the game more "immediate", and that the game now has "fewer stoppages in the story like the hours and hours walking around the Citadel in ME1". And there you have it.

I dont know.The marketing department of bioware must be really awfull if they dont recognize the better sales numbers of oblivion and fallout 3.These games for sure are not streamlined for an new audience and are still bigger sucesses then Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.

The sequel dont even pass the sales of the first game despise the fact that is was dumbed down oviously.After all that hype,costs for prominent voice actors this must be dissapointing for bioware.

[Ecael]

Mesina2 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

No Escael, Just no. Nostalgia? No.

Only similar characteristics that come off the top of my head immediatley are Shepard/ME1Squad/races/Space/Dialogue tree.

Nostalgia, please.<_<

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not true RPGs compared to...? (Spoilers)

What?
Pokemon has better plot?:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I do get your other points but I laughed at that one.

Try pointing out the plot holes in the original Pokémon game.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...


I dont know.The marketing department of bioware must be really awfull if they dont recognize the better sales numbers of oblivion and fallout 3.These games for sure are not streamlined for an new audience and are still bigger sucesses then Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.

The sequel dont even pass the sales of the first game despise the fact that is was dumbed down oviously.After all that hype,costs for prominent voice actors this must be dissapointing for bioware.

How You can compare two games (ME1 vs ME2) when other has been out few months and other for years. Do, You have example sales numbers for same periot time from release to compare somewhere?

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juin 2010 - 12:54 .

[Ecael]

tonnactus wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...


I dont need pacing.A reason why I play rpgs because they are the games that gives you a lot of freedom how you play them.True with ovlivion and the first Mass Effect game.
I dont need a smoking idiot that commands me to go somewhere.The story could be always written in a way that pacing isnt needed. Colonies could be big.Enemies need some time to organize their attacks so the player doesnt come to late.
If this isnt written in the game, players could use their imagination.

If i want pacing i play shooters.

To be fair, a good story needs a "smoking idiot", or rather characters with character. ME 2 is lacking that too, at least the "smoking idiot" is one. Not enough to make the story good in this case, but you get what I mean.

That said, you're completely right: ME 2 is way too railroaded, even repeatedly forcing you to go on a mission. While that may be "realistic" (not really an argument, since many other things aren't either), it takes away freedom. But, the new audience needs "pacing". The game has to take their hands, and ME 2 certainly does. The concept of freedom is apparently too strange for this kind of audience. That you don't have to do all those boring side quests with all that boring talking, that idea hasn't occurred to them, it seems.

Mr. Woo himself said they had to make the game more "immediate", and that the game now has "fewer stoppages in the story like the hours and hours walking around the Citadel in ME1". And there you have it.

I dont know.The marketing department of bioware must be really awfull if they dont recognize the better sales numbers of oblivion and fallout 3.These games for sure are not streamlined for an new audience and are still bigger sucesses then Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.

The sequel dont even pass the sales of the first game despise the fact that is was dumbed down oviously.After all that hype,costs for prominent voice actors this must be dissapointing for bioware.

Incorrect. Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 boosted EA out of a three-year financial slump. Also, you're assuming two things:

1. Mass Effect 1 wasn't designed to attract a new audience in the first place (shooter gameplay)

2. Mass Effect 1 wasn't released 2 years ago

This is the sales of the last three BioWare games over the course of 16 weeks:

[tonnactus]

[quote]Ecael wrote...


1. Mass Effect 1 wasn't designed to attract a new audience in the first place (shooter gameplay)
[quote]
Right. An unusable sniper rifle in the first game,if you dont have like 6-8 points in it.How in the hell this would attract the shooter crowd? Assault rifles with very low accuracy at the start. It doesnt matter if you hit the head or not.

Designed to appeal to the shooter crowd? Then this is an epic fail.


[quote]
2. Mass Effect 1 wasn't released 2 years ago

This is the sales of the last three BioWare games over the course of 16 weeks:


[/quote]
The difference is low and mostly because a lot of fans of the first game buy this game so it sells faster.I am sure they expected that the sales would be more in the region of shooters like gears.

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 juin 2010 - 01:10 .

[CroGamer002]

Ecael wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

No Escael, Just no. Nostalgia? No.

Only similar characteristics that come off the top of my head immediatley are Shepard/ME1Squad/races/Space/Dialogue tree.

Nostalgia, please.<_<

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not true RPGs compared to...? (Spoilers)

What?
Pokemon has better plot?:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I do get your other points but I laughed at that one.

Try pointing out the plot holes in the original Pokémon game.

You got me there since I never had console.

[Ecael]

tonnactus wrote...

Right. An unusable sniper rifle in the first game,if you dont have like 6-8 points in it.How in the hell this would attract the shooter crowd? Assault rifles with very low accuracy at the start. It doesnt matter if you hit the head or not.

So... because the progression doesn't make any sense (Shepard not knowing how to use a rifle as a Spectre), that means it wasn't designed to attract the shooter crowd?

The Mass Effect trilogy was designed with that purpose. The gun combat (and ground vehicle combat) illustrates this.

The difference is low and mostly because a lot of fans of the fibuy this game because of the first so it sells faster.I am sure they expected that the sales would be more in the region of shooters like gears.

Except Mass Effect 1 was based off of Gears of War 1, so you could say the same thing about both games. That's why Mass Effect 1 used Unreal Engine 3.

They would expect the sales to be more like other shooters if it had multiplayer, co-op and online multiplayer. However, they have not implemented this in either game.

You can "assume" what the fans are doing when buying each Mass Effect game, but the numbers clearly state what is already obvious.

[Arwyl]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, ME1 had 2 mission more in main plot. Wow, that's huge difference. 5 vs 7.

Well, that is actually "pretty huge difference". It amounts to 30%.