10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Kalfear wrote...

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.

And this is where I implore you to revisit what Ecael's been saying numerous times throughout this thread.

[Darth Drago]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

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

Just like in your link (interesting by the way, thanks) it is something that happens a lot in games. In contrast, in Dragon Age you do die in combat and you switch to another group member when it happens.

Its just a plot device to keep the story moving a lot of the times. As for resurrecting your fallen team mates that’s been in games for a very long time.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Kalfear wrote...

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.

I believe that but do you have source for anything specific?

[Kalfear]

Pocketgb wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

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.

And this is where I implore you to revisit what Ecael's been saying numerous times throughout this thread.

Tried (normally dont read her stuff to be honest) and saw big letters on a blue background (you want arrogent and rude, thats arrogent and rude) and stopped reading.

If he she has questions, type them out normal and lose the attitude

[Pocketgb]

What?

She's mimicking Jeoprady because it's supposed to be funny. Given the overall tone of most if not all of the thread (incredibly negative) it should be a refreshing take.

Regardless if it's offensive or not, a true trooper looks past that - and wins in proving them wrong, and makes their attempt at sarcasm and humor make them look like an idiot.

That is, of course, if you can prove them wrong!

And this:

Kalfear wrote...

Tried (normally dont read her stuff to be
honest)

Then you are missing out on ALOT!!!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juin 2010 - 09:05 .

[Orchomene]

KennyRogers wrote...

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

This is blantantly pityful. For someone like me speaking english as a foreign language, I feel insulted by such argument. Yet I can't really be called uneducated by many, having a PhD, even if I can do some semantic mistakes in english. Try to speak german, french or spanish perfectly before using such arguments.

[KitsuneRommel]

Darth Drago wrote...

Just like in your link (interesting by the way, thanks) it is something that happens a lot in games. In contrast, in Dragon Age you do die in combat and you switch to another group member when it happens.

Its just a plot device to keep the story moving a lot of the times. As for resurrecting your fallen team mates that’s been in games for a very long time.

I know. I wasn't really fussed about it either.

http://tvtropes.org/...n/PlotlineDeath

Edit: http://tvtropes.org/...torySegregation

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 05 juin 2010 - 09:51 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Kalfear wrote...
Tried (normally dont read her stuff to be honest) and saw big letters on a blue background (you want arrogent and rude, thats arrogent and rude) and stopped reading.

If he she has questions, type them out normal and lose the attitude

Way to cop out because you know she's right and you don't have anything to counter her. She's making a point. All of these things have been said by her and others who love both games equally (including me, obviously, or I wouldn't be jumping in here) numerous times, and they keep getting flat-out ignored by the "ME1 was better" crowd. This is frustrating. And she's venting that frustration by presenting the observations in that way.

There were numerous changes made to the plot and mission structure and to the gameplay, and if someone has a problem with these changes and wants to present a reasoned argument as to why he/she like ME1 better based on that, I'm all ears. That's actually interesting. But complaining about things that are exactly the same in ME1 makes some of the ME2 haters look like complete idiots.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

I would not call ME1 and ME2 shooter

When it comes to the gameplay with weapons, Mass Effect 2 is a shooter.The player just use the weapons and the damage with them is dependent on the players skill. Things like carnage, marksmen that are special attacks bound to one weapon didnt exists anymore. Those things exists and matter in the first game.

[doombringer23]

one of the many flaws of me2 is that i felt the scanning part was not very exciting. also, they should increase the number of cities and planet just so we could have more exploration. i have not played me1 so i wont make any comparision between them.



the other thing is that they should make armor and loot and guns.. etc etc become drops from enemies. that way, i believe that me2 would be a deeper experience. dun get me wrong though. many other parts of the game were very good. just that they left out some stuff.

cant wait for me3. me2 was a good game.

[tonnactus]

fortunesque wrote...

Biotics were made into a pale shade of what they used to be. Instead, a "mage" sort of class has to rely on a weapon during a shared cooldown time between all of their skills. Also, their skills cannot work in some instances, forcing the player to rely on a gun for combat. Yes, I know they made the guns and cover system more like mainstream TPS games. Some folks find this to be an improvement, but I find it to be an annoyance that a mage/rogue class has been turned into a class that has a weapons reliance.

Like i wrote in another posts: Just imagine a mage have to destroy an armor with an dagger(smg) before he/she could actually use spells.That should show everyone how dumb the "protection system" in Mass Effect 2 is.
A soldier is a soldier on all difficulties and against all enemies.
Its the same with the infiltrator.Enemies dont have anto cloak devices in this game.
An adept is a gimped soldier against enemies like ymir/geth primes on all diffculties. And he is a gimped soldier on hardcore and insanity against all enemies.

[P3G4SU5]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Kalfear wrote...
Tried (normally dont read her stuff to be honest) and saw big letters on a blue background (you want arrogent and rude, thats arrogent and rude) and stopped reading.

If he she has questions, type them out normal and lose the attitude

Way to cop out because you know she's right and you don't have anything to counter her. She's making a point. All of these things have been said by her and others who love both games equally (including me, obviously, or I wouldn't be jumping in here) numerous times, and they keep getting flat-out ignored by the "ME1 was better" crowd. This is frustrating. And she's venting that frustration by presenting the observations in that way.

There were numerous changes made to the plot and mission structure and to the gameplay, and if someone has a problem with these changes and wants to present a reasoned argument as to why he/she like ME1 better based on that, I'm all ears. That's actually interesting. But complaining about things that are exactly the same in ME1 makes some of the ME2 haters look like complete idiots.

I'm gone for a few days and you guys write 30+ pages. I must say it takes some effort to keep up with this thread, especially since it is now reduced to an exchange of posts which are dangerously close to bickering. Regardless of what points have been made and whether such points are valid, I find it very obnoxious to come across messages by members which believe their message is so important it should take up disproportionate amounts of space, using large text over bright backgrounds. The message contained in these bill-board sized posts contained hardly enough words to form a paragraph, let alone the page length that was used and could have been conveyed just as easily in a few sentences.

Excuses of messages not being heard are no justification for childish behaviour. Furthermore, if it is believed that members are purposefully ignoring messages, there is no reason to believe large text and colors will change this. Let's keep this thread mature please, for our sake and the Bioware devs trying to use it to improve ME3.

Modifié par P3G4SU5, 05 juin 2010 - 11:52 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I would not call ME1 and ME2 shooter

When it comes to the gameplay with weapons, Mass Effect 2 is a shooter.The player just use the weapons and the damage with them is dependent on the players skill. Things like carnage, marksmen that are special attacks bound to one weapon didnt exists anymore. Those things exists and matter in the first game.

Yes, but there is different to call HOLE game as shooter or just it's combat side. Because there is ALOT more in both games than just combat. Combat has big role, but also cinematic storytelling with dialogs has major role. Also in both games ME1 and ME2 combat is 3rd person SHOOTER.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2010 - 11:47 .

[tonnactus]

[quote]fortunesque wrote...

[quote]searanox wrote...

[quote]fortunesque wrote...


Then again, I was an open Kaidan fan on the old ME forums. That was... an experience... <_<

[/quote]

Yes, i remember the stupid "kaidan is carth and a winner" posts. Now shepardts squad is full of real winners and no one cares about it.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

When it comes to the gameplay with weapons, Mass Effect 2 is a shooter.The player just use the weapons and the damage with them is dependent on the players skill. Things like carnage, marksmen that are special attacks bound to one weapon didnt exists anymore. Those things exists and matter in the first game.

Those things are also dependent on the players' skill, since they're all worthless if you can't hit a thing.

[SithLordExarKun]

Kalfear wrote...


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.

Again how is this actual evidence to prove the reviews were paid for? Any one with common sense(but not you obviously duh!) would at the very least back the claims they made.

You on the other hand go like this
-Its a FACT that all ME2 reviews were paid for!!11!!1!!1oneoneeleven1!.

*and when asked for proof
-Its a KNOWN practice, therefore its FACT(again not proving your claims that its even a known practice)

*when you get proven wrong you go
-LOL!! little trolls like u r so funny, i r rite u r wrong!!

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.

Exactly,
its your opinion on the matter.

[Terror_K]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

There were numerous changes made to the plot and mission structure and to the gameplay, and if someone has a problem with these changes and wants to present a reasoned argument as to why he/she like ME1 better based on that, I'm all ears. That's actually interesting. But complaining about things that are exactly the same in ME1 makes some of the ME2 haters look like complete idiots.

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 don't actually share many problems, IMO. They may both have issues in the same areas, but because both games are actually really different they're usually rather different issues, or the issues are caused by a different source. There are a few issues that are still present, but many of those are things BioWare hasn't touched. For example, both games have problems with their inventory, but they're different problems entirely: ME1's was too filled with redundant and unbalanced items and cumbersome, while ME2's was overly linear, simple and lacking in customisation and items overall.

Most of ME2's issues I actually feel stem from either taking the right steps too far or from gutting and not replacing with a system that does a decent job of filling the role of the old one, combined with an overall direction of solving problems by eliminating them entirely rather than actually solving them. As such, I feel the answers to many issues regarding ME2 lie somewhere between both games. For example, the inventory issues could be resolved by gearing back towards ME1's style but just not too much. So many answers to so many issues seem to lie in taking what works well from both systems and combining them, while adding a little more depth to them and getting rid of what doesn't work. ME2 felt a little too much like BioWare looked at ME1 and felt it didn't work so they went back to the drawing board and instead of redoing the whole formula they only did the minimum required formula to get things functional and left it at that.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

My elite force Shepard not knowing how to use weapons reminds me that it's just a game.

And now he is too dumb to use different ammo types without points in it.Improvement??

[P3G4SU5]

Terror_K wrote...
Most of ME2's issues I actually feel
stem from either taking the right steps too far or from gutting and not
replacing with a system that does a decent job of filling the role of
the old one, combined with an overall direction of solving problems by
eliminating them entirely rather than actually solving them. As such, I
feel the answers to many issues regarding ME2 lie somewhere between both
games. For example, the inventory issues could be resolved by gearing
back towards ME1's style but just not too much. So many answers to so
many issues seem to lie in taking what works well from both systems and
combining them, while adding a little more depth to them and getting rid
of what doesn't work. ME2 felt a little too much like BioWare looked at
ME1 and felt it didn't work so they went back to the drawing board and
instead of redoing the whole formula they only did the minimum required
formula to get things functional and left it at that.

Couldn't agree more with you.

[Widowlover]

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

My elite force Shepard not knowing how to use weapons reminds me that it's just a game.

And now he is too dumb to use different ammo types without points in it.Improvement??

Its also funny that half of his health is missing, and you think that in the two years he was dead that they would have upgraded the sheilds instead of  down grading them. 

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...


Yes, but there is different to call HOLE game as shooter or just it's combat side. Because there is ALOT more in both games than just combat. Combat has big role, but also cinematic storytelling with dialogs has major role. Also in both games ME1 and ME2 combat is 3rd person SHOOTER.

No, that is wrong. Mass Effect combat with weapons is inluenced by stats and the skill trees have special attacks like carnage,marksmen etc.

This is Rpg combat with modern weapons. How good you are with weapons in the second game depends only on your skill, nothing more. This is shooter combat.

Modifié par tonnactus, 05 juin 2010 - 12:52 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...



Those things are also dependent on the players' skill, since they're all worthless if you can't hit a thing.

The important difference is also  but not only.

This is rgp combat. You also suck in Oblivion if your reflexes are not fast enough to block an attack.You still have a skill that is called "blocking" and that decide how much damage is blocked.

Modifié par tonnactus, 05 juin 2010 - 12:54 .

[spacehamsterZH]

P3G4SU5 wrote...
Excuses of messages not being heard are no
justification for childish behaviour. Furthermore, if it is believed
that members are purposefully ignoring messages, there is no reason to
believe large text and colors will change this. Let's keep this thread
mature please, for our sake and the Bioware devs trying to use it to
improve ME3.

Generally speaking I completely agree with you, but I really don't think it applies here. I'm not going to go on for five paragraphs defending Ecael now, but while I don't always agree with her, I think she's always made an effort to argue intelligently for her viewpoint that both games are equally good if different, and the points raised in the "billboard" post we're talking about are criticisms of ME2 that recur here about five times a day, so it makes a certain amount of sense to single out these issues and respond to them the way she did. It's not as if she continually spams the board with stuff like that or ruins civil discussions with posts like this.

Terror_K wrote...

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 don't actually share many problems, IMO. (snip) 

I agree with a lot of that, especially the "problem solving strategy" of just removing everything people didn't like instead of trying to fix it. But I'm not sure why you're posting this in response to what I said. There are complaints about ME2 that I agree with (e.g. the main plot missions in ME1 were better), there are ones that I think are legitimiate even if I don't agree with them (e.g. the character stats are too simplistic), and there are ones that are just flat-out retarded (e.g. there's more emphasis on combat in ME2 than ME1 or basically all of the others in Ecael's posts), and those are the complaints I was talking about. Yours all fall into the other two categories.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 05 juin 2010 - 12:55 .

[tonnactus]

Widowlover wrote...



Its also funny that half of his health is missing, and you think that in the two years he was dead that they would have upgraded the sheilds instead of  down grading them. 

The shields are not the problem.Percentage based damage reduction didnt exist anymore(only for a short time with hardened adrenaline rush but not steady like with the armor in Mass Effect), shepardt have shields and enchantements, but not what is armor in most games.