10273 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

All posts I make on this board I take seriously, no matter what the topic.

And I share Magician's stance by the way.

The difference is that you don't post just the stance.

[AlanC9]

Why no pictures, anyway? I'm too lazy to bother with them myself, but what's the harm? Too many "Cool Story, Bro" pics?

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 juin 2010 - 06:59 .

[Christmas Ape]

I think when the primary argument is "Console gamers, shooter fans especially, are idiots when compared to the mighty golden god-king that is the PC RPG gamer, and they're ruining our paradise!" you're kind of at a lost cause.

[Pups_of_war_76]

felt ME2 was less immersive than its predecesor on the grounds that I wasn't really able to relate to my own protagonist. I kept catching myself thinking things like:

"Damnit, Shep! Why aren't you getting all up in TIM's ass for, you know, murdering your whole surrogate family on Akuze?"

"Shep! Why aren't you reacting to the fact that you just died and were miraculously ressurected?"

"Shep! You just found out that your woman risked her life in a berserk rage-quest to liberate your body from the Collectors so that Cerberus could ressurect you, and is now embroiled in a hopeless vendetta against the most powerful figure in the galactic underworld! Why are you just sitting in that damned chair derping off?"

"Shep! Why can't you establish friendships with any of these people upon completion of their personal favors without sexing any of them up?"

Also: parts of the interface broke immersion. After-action screens? Really?

Modifié par Pups_of_war_76, 05 juin 2010 - 07:06 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Christmas Ape wrote...

I think when the primary argument is "Console gamers, shooter fans especially, are idiots when compared to the mighty golden god-king that is the PC RPG gamer, and they're ruining our paradise!" you're kind of at a lost cause.

Like I've said, I play on the Box and I prefer story over combat.

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

Because ME1 was trying to be more than just a game and tried to pull you into its universe and make you feel part of it. ME2 is comes across as being another game, and does almost everything it can to remind you of this.

My elite force Shepard not knowing how to use weapons reminds me that it's just a game.
People dying in cutscenes and not being resurrectable reminds me that it's just a game.
Carrying dozens of different weapons and armor and switching them during a combat reminds me that it's just a game.
Loading screens reminds me that it's just a game.
Etc.

Whether or not something is 'immersive' has nothing to do with those.

[Darth Drago]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why no pictures, anyway? I'm too lazy to bother with them myself, but what's the harm? Too many "Cool Story, Bro" pics?

-I’m trying to keep this topic as civil as possible. Considering the topic, that alone can be tough. When people start adding spam like pictures, several of them can be considered hostile in nature. It takes away that civility I’m trying to keep in here. I’m sure you have seen in other topics as well were a picture will get quoted several times as well adding to the destruction of that topic. I will not allow that to happen to this topic.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 05 juin 2010 - 07:13 .

[The Mythical Magician]

AlanC9 wrote...
What's "immersive"? Why was ME1 "immersive" and ME2 not?

Cause in ME1 I actually felt that I am Shepard, I can be a neutral character making both very good & very bad decisions, landing & exploring many open world planets,  finding unique & neat stuff while exploring like the space cow for an example, story wasn't cliche at all it was well written unlike ME2 (ME2 IMO haves no "OMG" or "WTF"surprises), realistic love/sex scenes (ME2 could of been better with the love/sex scenes if it just showed less of the "Body parts"  yet still keeping the characters nude), Squad interactions at the end of a main mission (I love how the squad discuss how the missions went in the council room and how Liara & Ash fight with each other, in ME2 its replaced with a tactics room and only one time did it ever had every squadmate in it and it happen very late in game), forced to lose a squadmate (In ME2 every squadmate can survive aka not force to see the drama of death and lost)

[Terror_K]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Because ME1 was trying to be more than just a game and tried to pull you into its universe and make you feel part of it. ME2 is comes across as being another game, and does almost everything it can to remind you of this.

My elite force Shepard not knowing how to use weapons reminds me that it's just a game.
People dying in cutscenes and not being resurrectable reminds me that it's just a game.
Carrying dozens of different weapons and armor and switching them during a combat reminds me that it's just a game.
Loading screens reminds me that it's just a game.
Etc.

Whether or not something is 'immersive' has nothing to do with those.

People dying it cutscenes and not being resurrectable reminds you that its a game? What... as opposed to real life where people can be resurrected all the time?

That (and the fact that loading screens were far more prevalent in ME2) aside, all those are examples of things you do on your terms, if you understand me. You choose to access the weapons screen and skill trees, etc. when you want to. ME2 constantly pops up game-related aspects all the time without your input with things like "Mission Complete" screens, the weapons loadout and your skill tree appearing every time you enter a new area, that horrid "Press and hold 'F' to exit the mission" prompt that won't go away, automatically making you leave your location without you even choosing to leave it yet, etc. And on top of it all, ME2 just feels like its just another game. It doesn't have a sense of trying to be more than the sum of its parts, while ME1 felt epic and as if it were trying to really bridge the gap between video game and interactive cinema and be something that is both and neither... almost as if it were trying to be its own genre. It felt ambitious and bold. ME2 doesn't: it feels more like its trying to fit in with the crowd and be "a game" and that's about it.

[SithLordExarKun]

Kalfear wrote...

David Knight wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...
EA not only bought reviews to hype up ME1 and ME2, but they also bought whoever reported that ME sex scandal story. Brilliant marketing on their part! Any random gamer falls for sex scenes, no matter how short they are.

You have sources to back these claims up?  Or is this opinion?

Actually I know it is your opinion, but your stating it as if it is a proven fact, when it is not.

Want to explain why ME2 got such endearing praise then?

That's the only reason I can think of.

Um... maybe because most people liked ME2? I'm sorry to say it, but the game got good reviews, and the majority of people who played the game liked it. You know, when things are done well and are entertaining, they generally receive praise. Odd, isn't it?

But majority of folks that posted here and elsewhere didnt. (dont say they did, numbers dont lie and I been watching the numbers since day 1 of release. 1 pro ME2 person posting 50 times to argue with 25 negative is not a majority.

This is the problem with the ME2 crowd, they cant admit this game had glaring holes in it!

This game was far from perfect, its good reveiws were mostly bought and paid for (which explains why almost every post release reveiw dropped 2 stars (or more) from over all score and is in real danger of losing over a million ME1 players/buys unless they majorly rework the RPG elements.

This game got great sales on lies about how the game was designed. If the pre release reveiws had even mentioned the dumbed down and removed RPG elements, this game would have sold considerably less sales!

Shepard Wrex isnt right cause he/she/it wants a ll out shooter with no story and thats not what ME franchise is but ME2 fans also not right cause they delude themselves into thinking this game, if it stays the same, will do same number sales for part 3, it will not, not even remotely close to the numbers.

Kalf, you keep pulling these figures out of your 40 year old ass and never back your claims up, when are you going to admit you're wrong? Seriously, you get proven wrong all the time and then you start cussing which makes you look foolish and shows that you have no faith in your "arguments" at all.

Its funny how people keep proving you wrong yet you choose to ignore it because you cannot accept being wrong at all, but seriously, for a guy your age, you are starting to look like a deranged psycopath.

Really, you hadn't been following anything  from day 1 except your deluded opinions.

Terror_K wrote...


Because ME1 was trying to be more
than just a game and tried to pull you into its universe and make you
feel part of it. ME2 is comes across as being another game, and does
almost everything it can to remind you of this.

Remember
Terror_K, you saying so does not make it so, it is your personal
opinion that its "more than a game".

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 05 juin 2010 - 07:23 .

[Orchomene]

Darth Drago, could you PM a moderaor and ask for a clean of all that is totally out of topic ? That would ease a lot the following of the discussion. I mean, the single picture posts and the popcorn or anything eating.



On topic and about romances. I think that BW put romance in all their games since BG2 for two main reasons : this is asked frequently by the fanbase and it's an easy way to introduce a social relation. Easy in a sense that's it's a topic that is universally understood and that matters to the vast majority of people. I'm not against romance nor pro romance specifically. Not against because it's better to have an interaction revolving around it than no interaction at all. Not specifically for it because there could be some more originality in social interactions. I don't think that EA has anything to do in this. They may be involved on the "shooter" aspect because it's not the usual orientation of Bioware, but romances were already a part of what Bioware use as a recipy for story telling.



I think the lack of immersion comes more from the lack of cohesion in the story and the too poor reactions of Shepard in many situations than just the gameplay. Of course, at the moment a gameplay element triggers in our mind the reflex "why is this gameplay element in the game ?", the imersion is broken, but it's more because that you've lost the concentration on the game than anything else.

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

People dying it cutscenes and not being resurrectable reminds you that its a game? What... as opposed to real life where people can be resurrected all the time?

Opposed to rest of the game where you are constantly resurrecting people.

http://tvtropes.org/...eneIncompetence

[Pocketgb]

Darth Drago wrote...

...If you have nothing to contribute to the discussions then maybe this topic isn’t for you.

Not to defend the Wendy-goers, but what more is there to contribute?

For pages upon pages in this thread it's been nothing but hair-splitting, "semantics", and completely conflicting opinions. For every "ME2 was dumbed down because of X" there's been a "it wasn't because of Y". Everytime someone attempts to write what was list from the original, someone highlights what was gained. Every plothole or disappointment found in ME2's plot there's been a reminder of what was in the original.

All of it pinpoints to both games still holding very true to each other. Blue Album and Pinkerton, Lemon and Lime, Kool-Aid and Kool-Aid.

All that's left is to find some middle ground and see what can be improved with what both games have achieved - but of course, that's for another thread.

Terror_K wrote...

Because ME1 was trying to be more than just a game and tried to pull you into its universe and make you feel  part of it. ME2 is comes across as being another game, and does almost everything it can to remind you of this.

Speak for yourself, bub!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juin 2010 - 07:41 .

[Darth Drago]

Terror_K wrote...

That (and the fact that loading screens were far more prevalent in ME2) aside, all those are examples of things you do on your terms, if you understand me. You choose to access the weapons screen and skill trees, etc. when you want to. ME2 constantly pops up game-related aspects all the time without your input with things like "Mission Complete" screens, the weapons loadout and your skill tree appearing every time you enter a new area, that horrid "Press and hold 'F' to exit the mission" prompt that won't go away, automatically making you leave your location without you even choosing to leave it yet, etc. And on top of it all, ME2 just feels like its just another game. It doesn't have a sense of trying to be more than the sum of its parts, while ME1 felt epic and as if it were trying to really bridge the gap between video game and interactive cinema and be something that is both and neither... almost as if it were trying to be its own genre. It felt ambitious and bold. ME2 doesn't: it feels more like its trying to fit in with the crowd and be "a game" and that's about it.

-How true.

The Mission Complete screen kills it for me right next to those “Press B to end mission” pop ups, especially at the end of Tali‘s loyalty mission. (360 version here)

ME1 played more like a movie you went from one mission to the next seamlessly. In ME2, the entire game is broken up into little missions.

Lets not forget how it also forces you to equip the new weapon you pick up on a level even if you don’t want to use it or how touching a weapons locker will reset all your equipped weapons with whatever ammo you had on them.

What i hate a lot is how everything is practically handed to you as well. Look how conveniently the Normandy 2 is docked at Illium, Omega and the Citadel where you’re a very short walk to who you need to talk to or all of the mission on those hub locations. Look at where all your cameo appearances on Illium are. In ME1 Therum, Ferros, Noveria, Vermire and Ilos you had a long way to go to get to your main quest location.

[Pocketgb]

No comment, eh?

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Remember Terror_K, you saying so does not make it so, it is your personal opinion that its "more than a game".

That doesn't make it false either. Only BioWare would know for sure. All I'm saying is that to me (yes, to me, so I fully admit this is an opinion) it feels like the people behind Mass Effect were saying to themselves "let's make something really special here" while the people behind ME2 were simply saying "let's just make a really good game" instead. ME2 just doesn't feel like it was trying to give its all or be something beyond a game. ME1 felt like it was trying to be a dragon in a flock of sheep, while ME2 just comes across like another sheep.

[Kalfear]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Kalfear wrote...
This game was far from perfect, its good reveiws were mostly bought and paid for (which explains why almost every post release reveiw dropped 2 stars (or more) from over all score and is in real danger of losing over a million ME1 players/buys unless they majorly rework the RPG elements.

I am going to ask you the same question I asked ShepardWrex.

You have sources to back this claim up?  Or is this your opinion?  Your stating it as if it is a fact.  If this is your opinion or an assumption then that is fine, but stating it as fact when it is not, undermines your credibility.

And Ill answer you the same way I always have before

This is a KNOWN PRACTICE through out the video game industry and insiders have come out and validated its happenings in the past! Anyone with ANY common sence and history in gaming has heard this and what websites are associated to such things.

But ill go a step further and counter your uneducated query with this question.

If you REALLY think EA had nothing to do with the pre release reveiws, why did NO pre release website mention the gutting of the RPG elements (that even Christina Norman has admitted to in a round about way now) yet EVERY post release reveiw that didnt get pre release benefits and had to buy the game to reveiw it did mention these missing elements.

Why are all Post release reveiws 2-3 stars outta 10 ranking lower then the Pre release reveiws. I mean you might be able to cast suspicion on the statement if it was only some but it was accross the board almost. Almost every reveiw after the release of the game (and I read ALOT) was 2-3 ranking lower for game then any of the in question pre release reveiws.

And you dont think people wanted to know about the new leveling system? the new inventory system? the rated G romances? Yet none of that covered in the pre release reveiws but covered indepth in all the post release reveiws.

If you cant come up with a common sence answer after that, nothing is going to prove you anything.

Or you one of these people that thinks the game just suddenly got worse when you had to pay for it?

Modifié par Kalfear, 05 juin 2010 - 08:31 .

[Pocketgb]

So really, ME1 is just as likely to have acquired "bought reviews" as much as ME2.

:I

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juin 2010 - 08:30 .

[Kalfear]

Pocketgb wrote...

So really, ME1 is just as likely to have acquired "bought reviews" as much as ME2.

:I

Probably did but ME1 reveiws were not under the scope like ME2 reveiws

ME1 was anew franchise, not a established franchise

[KennyRogers]

Kalfear wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Kalfear wrote...
This game was far from perfect, its good reveiws were mostly bought and paid for (which explains why almost every post release reveiw dropped 2 stars (or more) from over all score and is in real danger of losing over a million ME1 players/buys unless they majorly rework the RPG elements.

I am going to ask you the same question I asked ShepardWrex.

You have sources to back this claim up?  Or is this your opinion?  Your stating it as if it is a fact.  If this is your opinion or an assumption then that is fine, but stating it as fact when it is not, undermines your credibility.

And Ill answer you the same way I always have before

This is a KNOWN PRACTICE through out the video game industry and insiders have come out and validated its happenings in the past! Anyone with ANY common sence and history in gaming has heard this and what websites are associated to such things.

But ill go a step further and counter your uneducated query with this question.

If you REALLY think EA had nothing to do with the pre release reveiws, why did NO pre release website mention the gutting of the RPG elements (that even Christina Norman has admitted to in a round about way now) yet EVER post release reveiw that didnt get pre release benefits and had to buy the game to reveiw it did mention these missing elements.

Why are all Post release reveiws 2-3 stars outta 10 ranking lower then the Pre release reveiws.

If you cant come up with a common sence answer after that, nothing is going to prove you anything.

Or you one of these people that thinks the game just suddenly got worse when you had to pay for it?

1. It's also a known practice to change game mechanics, nimrod.
2. Why are all the post release reviews lower? You know, he had a point about unfounded accusations, especially when the game was given consistent ratings, wether prerelease or post. 
3. If you're so much more educated than he is, why can't you spell "Sense" right?

[Pocketgb]

KennyRogers wrote...

3. If you're so much more educated than he is, why can't you spell "Sense" right?

Regardless of what was presented, that was an incredibly douche move.
To the rest of what Kalfear said: Really don't know what to say, since I honestly find much of it too ridiculous to comment on. But I will say that ME1 was also very, very far from perfect, yet still it retained very positive reviews. Maybe Bioware just makes good games...?

[KennyRogers]

Pocketgb wrote...

KennyRogers wrote...

3. If you're so much more educated than he is, why can't you spell "Sense" right?

Regardless of what was presented, that was an incredibly douche move.
To the rest of what Kalfear said: Really don't know what to say, since I honestly find much of it too ridiculous to comment on. But I will say that ME1 was also very, very far from perfect, yet still it retained very positive reviews. Maybe Bioware just makes good games...?

Hey, when someone calls someone uneducated, they deserve some degree of douchebaggery. :-P

[Kalfear]

Terror_K wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Remember Terror_K, you saying so does not make it so, it is your personal opinion that its "more than a game".

That doesn't make it false either. Only BioWare would know for sure. All I'm saying is that to me (yes, to me, so I fully admit this is an opinion) it feels like the people behind Mass Effect were saying to themselves "let's make something really special here" while the people behind ME2 were simply saying "let's just make a really good game" instead. ME2 just doesn't feel like it was trying to give its all or be something beyond a game. ME1 felt like it was trying to be a dragon in a flock of sheep, while ME2 just comes across like another sheep.

Terror, you and I agree on almost everything but I gotta disagree on this one aspect!

I do think the devs from ME2 tried to make the best game they could make.
I think the mistake is they changed the original crew that made ME1 and brought in a new crew that focuses to much on combat over story.

Everything Ive read when people from the ME2 crew comment tells me they still dont understand why we want story and progression and all the RPG elements.
Not meant as a insult but they have a very narrow shooter veiw of things.

So I think they tried to make something special, just it didnt measure up to the original standards set before them.

I have long maintained that if they simply made ME2 a new IP title not assosiated to ME1, EVERYONE would have liked it more because it would be a original IP but its not and thats the problem.
ME1 said this is what the Mass Effect franchise is and what you can epect from it and ME2 devs came along and said, we dont really like that type of gaming so here is our version of MAss Effects but were not going to warn you ahead of time so you still buy this game with ME1 expectations.

Thats how I see it anyways.
They tried to make something special, for a different set of customers all the while telling the original set everything was good and the same.

[Gundar3]

Terror_K wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Remember Terror_K, you saying so does not make it so, it is your personal opinion that its "more than a game".

That doesn't make it false either. Only BioWare would know for sure. All I'm saying is that to me (yes, to me, so I fully admit this is an opinion) it feels like the people behind Mass Effect were saying to themselves "let's make something really special here" while the people behind ME2 were simply saying "let's just make a really good game" instead. ME2 just doesn't feel like it was trying to give its all or be something beyond a game. ME1 felt like it was trying to be a dragon in a flock of sheep, while ME2 just comes across like another sheep.

Or a dragon among dragons, depending how you look at it.  Still in the end, a dragon among dragons is still just as mundane as the other ones.