10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Christmas Ape]

Christmas Ape's First Law Of Internet Argument

In any given community holding itself to a certain standard of debate, all arguments will eventually be reduced to arguing about how the other participant is making their argument.

[KitsuneRommel]

finnithe wrote...

Also, one of you guys said that you didn't trust game critics, immediately after posting an article written by Tom Chick. Guess what, the guy's a game critic (as well as an actor). Why are you imposing this double standard? The piece itself is pretty bad. One of the reasons that he didn't like Mass Effect 2 was because it was too much of a sequel. It's sort of silly to sight the 2nd game in a series as having too many callbacks to the first. 

Maybe they wanted the game to be even more standalone? I don't get it either.

[TomY90]

To be honest I completely 100 percent disagree with you in my opinion it's biowares best ever game and just look at the reviews the press has given it. All of them pretty much give nearly 10/10. However I do agree with it needing more side missions but to be honest I used to get annoyed with ME1 with how they always use the same stuff for the level even feros and Noveria have the same port. Whereas ME2 everything is pretty much custom made for each level and with critism being given in this thread about shooting most of ME1 was the same but using the Mako for it making it feel weird and boring in comparison to ME2. Finally I am glad they killed off inventory it made it annoying with how much u needed to sell ur goods and how in the world would they carry that much equipment.

[bjdbwea]

Darth Drago wrote...

The thermal clips in ME2 are not even doing what they should do, add extended firing without overheating as fast. They are nothing but an ammo system. Toss in the fact that you also find them in places where they shouldn’t be even found like in the Collector ship and base or on a planet that’s been isolated from anyone for about 10 years (Jacob’s loyalty mission).

That would be my main complaint in this regard. Actually, I prefer an ammo system. But one that is realistic. It could even add a challenge, like in Fallout, where you can quickly run out of ammo (at least in the beginning). While you can run out of ammo in ME 2, it usually doesn't happen. Because there are clips lying around everywhere. This not only reduces the challenge, it's as you said completely unrealistic to the extent that it breaks the immersion, as it's a constant reminder that you're playing a video game where the designers have carefully pasted all the clips into the levels.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 juin 2010 - 11:09 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Did anyone notice another problem with the ammo system in ME2 that doesn't make sense?



For example, i pick up one heat clip and suddenly all my weapons have "extra heat clips"?



You know for example if i am completely out of ammo for all my weapons, i pick up ONE clip and then all my weapons suddenly have ammo?

[bjdbwea]

Indeed, it would be better if you could use the clips in the weapon of your choice. Should be no problem if they're interchangeable, right? Or maybe add different types of ammo for different weapons. But that would both go against the philosophy of "streamlining" the game. <_<

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 juin 2010 - 11:28 .

[Jebel Krong]

the ammo clips for weapons are a bit like introducing a fuel mechanic for the normandy and then having to put refuelling hubs in every star system, even "uncharted" ones - it doesn't make sense from any "universe"/codex perspective, but it was done for "gameplay" reasons. both are still completely lame. see? - there is room for improvement in me3.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 04 juin 2010 - 11:43 .

[Ecael]

Pocketgb wrote...

^ Has not been following Ecael's posts.

Unless, of course, you're referring to ME1 as well?

No, they're just ignoring it instead.

It's easier to ignore facts, numbers, statistics, striking comparisons and logical deductions and continue using the same anecdotal evidence, emotion-based appeals, and assumptions of BioWare as a greedy company and its fanbase as dumb.

Welcome to the BioWare Forum.

Christmas Ape wrote...

Christmas Ape's First Law Of Internet Argument
In any given community holding itself to a certain standard of debate, all arguments will eventually be reduced to arguing about how the other participant is making their argument.

Modifié par Ecael, 04 juin 2010 - 01:56 .

[Lulia]

Sorry, i am really VERY picky but i do not feel disappointed by either ME1 or ME2.

There is always a reason i buy a particular game and as long as it satifies that respect, i don't mind.

I bought into ME1 and ME2 because i had yearned for a game with 100% voice actors for so long. Add that to a great story and character development that allows a real choice with real consequences and i was hooked.

It looks great too.

Everything i do in the game is to progress the story or influence the story.

I set it on easy and pew pew anything that moves.

I just hope they give shepard a happy ending and don't send her off into oblivion or make her send her love into oblivion - anything else is ok.

[Orchomene]

Critics may not be reliable but reading a critic gives the opinion of someone. You know, some people in this thread think that ME2 is a great game. I don't consider that their opinion would correspond to mine, that doesn't mean I would ignore their opinion.

But saying something like "critics have all given a best score to game A vs game B, thus game A is better than game B" is simply something absurd : appreciation of a good or bad game is individual. It's the same thing for movies, theatre, paintings, music, art in general.



Of course, I'm totally ignoring numbers and statistic when I feel a game is good or not. Everyone can find that "Titanic" is a great movie, yet I can find this movie bad. I really appreciate eating tripes (entrails), yet a lot of people I know find it disgusting. It's just a matter of taste. Thus, of course, if I didn't appreciate a game, I won't say I appreciate it and of course, I'm naturally wondering "why" I don't appreciate this game and I have thus tried to explain some of the reasons. Those reasons are not always objective since these are linked to feelings. I hope it's clearer.

[Ecael]

Orchomene wrote...

Critics may not be reliable but reading a critic gives the opinion of someone. You know, some people in this thread think that ME2 is a great game. I don't consider that their opinion would correspond to mine, that doesn't mean I would ignore their opinion.
But saying something like "critics have all given a best score to game A vs game B, thus game A is better than game B" is simply something absurd : appreciation of a good or bad game is individual. It's the same thing for movies, theatre, paintings, music, art in general.

Of course, I'm totally ignoring numbers and statistic when I feel a game is good or not. Everyone can find that "Titanic" is a great movie, yet I can find this movie bad. I really appreciate eating tripes (entrails), yet a lot of people I know find it disgusting. It's just a matter of taste. Thus, of course, if I didn't appreciate a game, I won't say I appreciate it and of course, I'm naturally wondering "why" I don't appreciate this game and I have thus tried to explain some of the reasons. Those reasons are not always objective since these are linked to feelings. I hope it's clearer.

The key word is critics - plural. Game critics may be giving inflated scores to games as of the last decade, but I adjust by being suspicious of any game than can't hit the 90% mark on GameRankings or Metacritic. 80-89% means there's disagreement among them, 70-79% means it's mediocre, and anything below that is an almost automatic not-buy.

You can apply that to movies, too (and there are a lot of movies not worth watching these days). A RottenTomatoes ranking in the 90%'s is an indication of a good movie, while past 95% is unanimous agreement that it's good. Pixar is one example of a company that always meets that standard, making their movies enjoyable for all audiences. I'm sure people can find plot holes in their stories too.

So people can disagree with all the critics they want, but remember, BOTH Mass Effect 1 and 2 received great scores (95.70%, 91.20%). If you want to dismiss one as being overly inflated, the other should get the same treatment - especially since they're both made by BioWare, and they're both part of the same series.

[Orchomene]

Well, score that are so unanimous can also be the result of a product very "market-tailored", like Hollywood movies. I'm not someone that digest easily things that are for "everyone, from the young one and the old one". I much appreciate some movies that are not for everyone, not because of that, but because among all of those movies, there are some that correspond exactly to my taste but not to other ones taste. It's the same for food : you have on one hand hamburgers and french fries that everyone like and one the other hand you may appreciate some specific corsican cheese that very few people appreciate because it has a too strong taste and an awful smell.

This is the same for video games, I love Planescape : Torment, I'd rather play KOTOR II more than KOTOR I because of the nietzschean moral approach the I feel refreshing in a video game, I loved also playing Vampire : Bloodlines even with all the bugs, I am amazaed by Europa Universalis that is not well known. On the other hand, I don't appreciate playing the Sims, the Diablo series, the FPS/TPS do not attract me, racing games are not my taste, neither are sport games nor warcraft/starcraft RTS genre. Of course, I can understand that some people appreciate those games.

The problem I have with ME2 is that it's been advertised as a RPG, yet it's not an RPG for me and even if an action/RPG like ME1 is at the limit of my appreciation, I may enjoy those games whereas I do not at all enjoy games like ME2.

To me, video games are like whisky : some single malt are really exceptional and blends are generally mediocre.

[Ecael]

Orchomene wrote...

Well, score that are so unanimous can also be the result of a product very "market-tailored", like Hollywood movies. I'm not someone that digest easily things that are for "everyone, from the young one and the old one". I much appreciate some movies that are not for everyone, not because of that, but because among all of those movies, there are some that correspond exactly to my taste but not to other ones taste. It's the same for food : you have on one hand hamburgers and french fries that everyone like and one the other hand you may appreciate some specific corsican cheese that very few people appreciate because it has a too strong taste and an awful smell.

The problem I have with ME2 is that it's been advertised as a RPG, yet it's not an RPG for me and even if an action/RPG like ME1 is at the limit of my appreciation, I may enjoy those games whereas I do not at all enjoy games like ME2.
To me, video games are like whisky : some single malt are really exceptional and blends are generally mediocre.

Mass Effect 1 lost points with critics not because it wasn't market-tailored, but because of the glitches inherent in the X-Box version and the long loading times (ironically). Even back in 2007 people were forecasting doom for Mass Effect 1 because of who it was trying to appeal to:

http://www.destructo...ing-40483.phtml

"[Mass Effect 1's] gameplay looks like your standard FPS fare, which is to say that I didn't see anything great or remarkable..."

http://news.filefron...-disappointing/

"Even the action they showed though looked all too familiar: moving a targeting reticule around and shooting at enemies in real time. [Mass Effect 1] didn’t feel like an RPG, but more like a third-person shooter with RPG elements (which we didn’t get to see in action either)."

http://www.dailygame...ives/005656.php

"Using these weapons is much different than simply upgrading and creating lightsabers in KOTOR, though, as the combat in Mass Effect is entirely real time. Basically, Mass Effect is a third-person tactical shooter, much like Rainbow Six played in third-person mode."

http://previews.team...Mass-Effect/p1/

"While it can definitely be classified as an RPG, Mass Effect is a third-person shooter that features a nice variety of combat elements."

http://www.gamespot....id=m-1-41285859

"I was shocked that this game was as bad as it was. I expected to be a new KotOR but it was far from it...

I understand this game was pretty sweet, but, honestly, who wants to die in 2 bullets, wait 5 minutes for your health to recharge to full, wait like 1 minute to use a medkit again, ALWAYS have your teammates dying, and then button mash lift/throw/RT/warp, and STILL lose, and then start back from the last save point?"

The same criticisms are being handed out now for Mass Effect 2, yet it continues the same kind of dialogue-heavy shooter gameplay from the first.

So, to use your analogy, Mass Effect 2 is just two shots of the same whiskey that is Mass Effect 1. Same content, same taste, but some people just can't handle their liquor.

[Christmas Ape]

What We've Learned: A Study In Genre
You are playing an RPG if weapons and armor from fallen enemies immediately appear in your ridiculously huge but nowhere near infinite 'storage space' that requires you to periodically become an arms trader wealthy beyond dreams of avarice.
You are playing a shooter if you decline to strip every corpse you create, relying on a collection of top-grade materials from your employer and the occasional lucky find, research project, or purchase. Money is occasionally tight beyond basic operational expenses.

You are playing an RPG if you enter mission areas by flinging a dune buggy out the back of your ship, regardless of how inimical to human life the planet is, somewhere in the rough vicinity of your reason for coming to the planet. And some surface deposits of minerals. And some salvage. Maybe a space monster.
Except for that one time that "time" matters, and they drop you right where you need to be.
You are playing a shooter if you can land a shuttle near something to do, do it, and go back to saving the universe.

You are playing an RPG if your ability to attack the enemy is measured by a gauge.
You are playing a shooter if your ability to attack the enemy is measured in attacks available.

You are playing an RPG if you can stumble into cover in a firefight. Sometimes.
You are playing a shooter if you can use cover in a firefight.

You are playing an RPG if you gain frequent but almost unnoticeable increases in ability.
You are playing a shooter if you gain infrequent but pronounced increases in ability.

You are playing an RPG if you run around trying to stop the bad guys.
You are playing a shooter if you hit back.

Don't we all feel smarter now?

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 04 juin 2010 - 05:00 .

[IoCaster]

Ecael wrote...

So, to use your analogy, Mass Effect 2 is just two shots of the same whiskey that is Mass Effect 1. Same content, same taste, but some people just can't handle their liquor.

I don't usually get caught up in debates about the comparative differences between ME and ME2, but to claim that there aren't any doesn't make much sense. Is that the point you're trying to make?

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Hmmm, interesting...

Orchomene wrote...



Well, score that are so unanimous can also be the result of a product very "market-tailored", like Hollywood movies. I'm not someone that digest easily things that are for "everyone, from the young one and the old one". I much appreciate some movies that are not for everyone, not because of that, but because among all of those movies, there are some that correspond exactly to my taste but not to other ones taste. It's the same for food : you have on one hand hamburgers and french fries that everyone like and one the other hand you may appreciate some specific corsican cheese that very few people appreciate because it has a too strong taste and an awful smell.

This is the same for video games, I love Planescape : Torment, I'd rather play KOTOR II more than KOTOR I because of the nietzschean moral approach the I feel refreshing in a video game, I loved also playing Vampire : Bloodlines even with all the bugs, I am amazaed by Europa Universalis that is not well known. On the other hand, I don't appreciate playing the Sims, the Diablo series, the FPS/TPS do not attract me, racing games are not my taste, neither are sport games nor warcraft/starcraft RTS genre. Of course, I can understand that some people appreciate those games.

The problem I have with ME2 is that it's been advertised as a RPG, yet it's not an RPG for me and even if an action/RPG like ME1 is at the limit of my appreciation, I may enjoy those games whereas I do not at all enjoy games like ME2.

To me, video games are like whisky : some single malt are really exceptional and blends are generally mediocre.

Good for you. Then tell me something. Why should anyone, I for example, looking for games trust more the articles you sent than a metacritcs score? Why should anyone trust more ONE guy, supposedly a formal or not-critic from a whatever blog/website sending 10 reasons why a considered mediocre game be better than considered AAA game, and not a 100 telling the contrary? What does that article have that it puts more credibility than IGN reviews (a good source IMO),for example?



Assuming that the product is "market-tailored" is not an answer to this question. And if it pleases you is not some kind of "point" why is a critic better than any other, or a product better than any other. It's just what mostly every critic and person has: an opinion. Now, put that on a large number, than you have something different. It becomes an statistic.

[Ecael]

Christmas Ape wrote...

What We've Learned: A Study In Genre
You are playing an RPG if weapons and armor from fallen enemies immediately appear in your ridiculously huge but nowhere near infinite 'storage space' that requires you to periodically become an arms trader wealthy beyond dreams of avarice.
You are playing a shooter if you decline to strip every corpse you create, relying on a collection of top-grade materials from your employer and the occasional lucky find, research project, or purchase. Money is occasionally tight beyond basic operational expenses.

You are playing an RPG if you enter mission areas by flinging a dune buggy out the back of your ship, regardless of how inimical to human life the planet is, somewhere in the rough vicinity of your reason for coming to the planet. And some surface deposits of minerals. And some salvage. Maybe a space monster.
Except for that one time that "time" matters, and they drop you right where you need to be.
You are playing a shooter if you can land a shuttle near something to do, do it, and go back to saving the universe.

You are playing an RPG if your ability to attack the enemy is measured by a gauge.
You are playing a shooter if your ability to attack the enemy is measured in attacks available.

You are playing an RPG if you can stumble into cover in a firefight. Sometimes.
You are playing a shooter if you can use cover in a firefight.

You are playing an RPG if you gain frequent but almost unnoticeable increases in ability.
You are playing a shooter if you gain infrequent but pronounced increases in ability.

You are playing an RPG if you run around trying to stop the bad guys.
You are playing a shooter if you hit back.

Don't we all feel smarter now?

RPG is defined by how many Pokémon game elements it has!

http://social.biowar...index/2791290/1

[Ecael]

IoCaster wrote...

Ecael wrote...

So, to use your analogy, Mass Effect 2 is just two shots of the same whiskey that is Mass Effect 1. Same content, same taste, but some people just can't handle their liquor.

I don't usually get caught up in debates about the comparative differences between ME and ME2, but to claim that there aren't any doesn't make much sense. Is that the point you're trying to make?

Differences worth mulling over? No, there aren't.

Differences in storyline? They're part of the same storyline.

The games may be standalone, but the writers purposefully made the connections between the stories. Most people wouldn't judge a book by separating its chapters.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

What about all the assignments across Illium, Omega, and the Citadel  in ME2? How much further do we need to split hairs here?

What about them? The difference is, non combat sidequests have a much bigger reward than those in Mass Effect 2.
50 xp per sidequest in the sequel.I gain at least 6 levels with the citadel sidequests alone.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 juin 2010 - 05:48 .

[tonnactus]

Mesina2 wrote...


"Loyalty" missions in ME1:
Garrus: kill some zombies and kill doctor
Wrex: kill bunch of dudes and get his armor
Tali: kill platoon of Geth in 4-5 planets with Mako and get some Geth data

I dont know why you use quotation marks. Wrex family armor was the only loyality mission in the sense of the word in both games. Not a lame gameplay mechanic that affects the survival rate of your squadmembers in the last mission.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 juin 2010 - 06:09 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

tonnactus wrote...

I dont know why you use quotation marks. Wrex family armor was the only loyality mission in the sense of the worth in both games. Not a lame gameplay mechanic that affects the survival rate of your squadmembers in the last mission.

I agree, I think ME1 managed to execute the loyalty mission mechanic far better than ME2 in the form of Wrex.

Guess since they decided to cram 12 expendable squadmates into the game, is was quantity over quality in ME2.

Wrexs loyalty actually comes up at a unique moment specific to the character. All "loyalty" in ME2 determines is their chances of survival in a series of given, interchangeable situations.

Its one of the reasons why I think ME2 feels like such cheap busywork. Even the meat of the game that are the loyalty missions, which take up about 80% of it, feel cheap and cut off from the rest of the game in all but lip service.

As I keep saying, since ME2 isnt by the looks of things doing significantly better than ME1 at this time.,you wonder why so many are convinced its a flawless continuation and improvement in one swift stroke, and anyone who disagrees is a bitter member of a poor minority restricted to these forums. That is despite it being a fairly common occurrence to see discontent about ME2 across the internet.

Still, hopefully this time we are the voice that is listened to for ME3, and Bioware dont go into ME3 moulding almost the entire gameworld around shooting galleries with "mission complete" screens. Maybe they will actually try and recapture that "uninterrupted story with tremendous scale" rather than repeat the "brief missions based on shooting galleries littered with waist high cover everywhere you look" that segmented ME2 into lots of tiny, forgettable pieces.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 04 juin 2010 - 06:05 .

[tonnactus]

Ecael wrote...


"While it can definitely be classified as an RPG, Mass Effect is a third-person shooter that features a nice variety of combat elements."

http://www.gamespot....id=m-1-41285859

They critized the first game for something it never was and now praise the second game who would meet those critic points.(that show me the worth of their opinion)

If someone would create a rpg with modern weapons like pistols and assault rifles without turned based combat and without shooter gameplay, it would look exactly like the first game. Stats matter how much damage you do to the enemies with weapons and all weapon talents have their special attacks like marksmen, carnage und assasination shot.
The second game has shooter gameplay, the first game obviously doesnt have it.
Just because someone has to aim at the enemy,it isnt shooter gameplay.

If someone disagree with this opinion, just answer one question: How an rpg with modern weapons and a rpg combat(not turned based)  system should work without beeing guilt to have shooter gameplay? 

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 juin 2010 - 06:19 .

[Christmas Ape]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Still, hopefully this time we are the voice that is listened to for ME3, and Bioware dont go into ME3 moulding almost the entire gameworld around shooting galleries with "mission complete" screens. Maybe they will actually try and recapture that "uninterrupted story with tremendous scale" rather than repeat the "brief missions based on shooting galleries littered with waist high cover everywhere you look" that segmented ME2 into lots of tiny, forgettable pieces.

So your problem is loading screens? There was one when you went back to the Normandy too. Given this same much-lauded Wrex loyalty mission is composed of - guess what? - a shooting gallery full of waist-high cover and a storage container at the end.

Do you want more storage containers then?

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Christmas Ape wrote...

So your problem is loading screens? There was one when you went back to the Normandy too. Given this same much-lauded Wrex loyalty mission is composed of - guess what? - a shooting gallery full of waist-high cover and a storage container at the end.
Do you want more storage containers then?

Yeah, loading screens are a problem. Unlike ME1, where things were mixed up a bit, and you had great banter and news to listen to, ME2 uses the same loading screens AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. And they are no faster than elevators. Verdict: No improvement.

Also, the mission complete screens totally suck major ass. I hope they are removed in ME3. Totally banal and artificial garbage. Makes you wonder why in their overzealous pursuit of cover based TPS gameplay, and "streamlining" (dumbing down) the RPG combat, they left in two monstrosities like planet scanning and mining, and mission complete screens listing off worthless numbers and credits, with a stupid debrief from a character the game has railroaded you into being subservient to.

Given this much lauded Wrex loyalty mission composed of the same flaw that littered the rest of ME1, namely the bland prefabs and lacklustre combat that took place in them, thats got nothing to do with ME2.

Maybe you werent paying attention, or your eyes were blocked by your denial, but unlike ME2 where its 75% shooting in the majority of loyalty missions and then a bland, interchangeable outcome in the main event shooting mission, ME1 actually had an awesome moment of drama and roleplaying that was immensely influenced by the outcome of the loyalty mission for Wrex.

Put it simply, in terms of giving "earning loyalty" a meaning at a crucial moment, Wrexs "loyalty mission" was better than any ME2 squadmates by far. Thats simply fact, and clearly obvious by looking.

You can side with doing a loyalty mission for an ME2 squadmate deciding if they die escorting the crew, or when the ship is attacked, or if they are doing the biotic bubble, or unlocking the door, or fighting the T-800 with you if you want. Youd be wrong, but its still your call.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 04 juin 2010 - 06:26 .