10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

Gandalf used his sword a lot.

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.

Not really. Oblivion was also a 'hybrid'. If you were familiar with shooter mechanics (movement, obstacles, use of elevation, etc) the game was a lot easier. RPG combat is when you select a target and computer makes an "attack roll" solely based on your characters abilities.

[ShepardWrex]

[quote]Kalfear wrote...

[quote]David Knight wrote...

[quote]ShepardWrex wrote...

[quote]JohnnyDollar wrote...

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Want to explain why ME2 got such endearing praise then?

That's the only reason I can think of.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
COOL STORY BRO.

Continuing deluding yourself that ME1 is any better than ME2 in substandard shooter gallaries.

ME1 reviews and sex scandals brought to you by EA™

ME1 and 2 will sell a ton as long as it's got sex appeal and violence.

You can quote me on this.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Hilarious how deluded ME1 fanboys are. Only person reminding you that ME2 is another game is YOU.

[quote]The Mythical Magician wrote...

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
What's "immersive"? Why was ME1 "immersive" and ME2 not?
[/quote] 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)[/quote]
I FOUND A SPACE COW! OMGZ I'M EXPLORING! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png[/smilie]

You're no better than the defensive ME2 zombies. Keep trying to find something redeeming in ME1, bro.

The blue alien just touched my Shep's face again after talking! Interactionz!!!111

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

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

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.
[/quote]
Here's my opinion: You ALL come across as sheep.

""ME2 is baaaaaaaaad! Baaaaaaaad! MY OPINION!"
"Nono, ME1 baaaaaaaaad! Baaaaaaaad!"

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-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. [/quote]
This guy's got jokes.

GoW loads a ton faster than the terrible load screens of ME1 and ME2. I bet this guy covers his eyes whenever he sees LOADING in ME1!

NEWSFLASH: Citadel transit hands you everything.

The big space ship could take an hour to dock and load and you'd call it "IMMERSION!" I call it "Giant waste of time!"

[quote]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.

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?[/quote]
Damn straight. Loved how EA conveniently put up that sex scandal to sell more copies of ME1. The game industry loves viral marketing, and you fell for it. Hard.

Why else would they mention that there was HARDCORE SEX SCENES when there WASN'T any?

[quote]Kalfear wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

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

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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
Keep covering you eyes whenever you watch the ME1 and ME2 credits, boyo.

Same team, same mediocre garbage.

Same mediocre apologists defending their beloved game.

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

And this is where I implore you to revisit what Ecael's been saying numerous times throughout this thread.[/quote]
THIS IS NO PLACE FOR FACTS.

And WTF is the blue screen for?

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

I would not call ME1 and ME2 shooter
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
In The Thread:

Guy says staring at inventory menus requires mad skillz

Halo requires more strategy and skillz than this farce does.

[quote]Widowlover wrote...

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]KitsuneRommel wrote...

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

[/quote]

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

[/quote]


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.  [/quote]
In The Thread:

Guy whining that ME isnt EZ-mode anymore with double HP

So easy to point out the EA/BW apologists.

Modifié par ShepardWrex, 05 juin 2010 - 01:13 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

RPG combat means character is doing the shooting based character skills and player skill is not involved, player only deside what to shoot. That's RPG combat. Yes, it means characters skil is what matter in RPG combat.

How ever, this is not in case on ME1 or ME2. Because the aiming is done by PLAYER. You don't just choose you target, but you need to do the aiming. That's is what shooter is. Shooter is define by when player is doing the shooting, not character.

Do you UNDERSTAND now the difference. In rpg combat character is doing the shooting and player just choose targets. In Shooter combat it's the player who need to aim the target and do the shooting.

The difference is who shoot, player or character. 

Is ME1 combat system closer to rpg combat system than ME2 combat system? YES
How ever, that is not what defines what category some combat system belongs.
It's the who does the shooting, character or player.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2010 - 01:24 .

[ShepardWrex]

Lumikki wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

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.

RPG combat means character is doing the shooting based character skills and player skill is not involved, player only deside what to shoot. That's RPG combat. Yes, it means characters skil is what matter in RPG combat.

How ever, this is not in case on ME1 or ME2. Because the aiming is done by PLAYER. You don't just choose you target, but you need to do the aiming. That's is what shooter is. Shooter is define by when player is doing the shooting, not character.

Do you UNDERSTAND now the difference. In rpg combat character is doing the shooting and player just choose targets. In Shooter combat it's the player who need to aim the target and do the shooting.

The difference is who shoot, player or character.

This is why Squaresoft (SE??) is superior to BW.

RPG combat. None of this primitive shooter or RPG BS that you people keep raving on and on about.

Modifié par ShepardWrex, 05 juin 2010 - 01:27 .

[ShepardWrex]

mashavasilec wrote...

 I agree with ShepardWrex: You're all IDIOTS!!!

Finally someone who can discuss things in adult and sensible manner, yay 

/sarcasm mode off

ME1 whining = Mature and Sensible
ME2 whining = Mature and Sensible
ME1/ME2 whining = Immature! OH NOES1

[ShepardWrex]

mashavasilec wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

mashavasilec wrote...

 I agree with ShepardWrex: You're all IDIOTS!!!

Finally someone who can discuss things in adult and sensible manner, yay 

/sarcasm mode off

ME1 whining = Mature and Sensible
ME2 whining = Mature and Sensible
ME1/ME2 whining = Immature! OH NOES1

yup

Want me to split my posts so that they're only whining about either ME1 or ME2 then?

Then I'll REALLY sound like all teh sheep in this thread.

[Widowlover]

[quote]ShepardWrex wrote...

[quote]Kalfear wrote...

[quote]David Knight wrote...

[quote]ShepardWrex wrote...

[quote]JohnnyDollar wrote...

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Want to explain why ME2 got such endearing praise then?

That's the only reason I can think of.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
COOL STORY BRO.

Continuing deluding yourself that ME1 is any better than ME2 in substandard shooter gallaries.

ME1 reviews and sex scandals brought to you by EA™

ME1 and 2 will sell a ton as long as it's got sex appeal and violence.

You can quote me on this.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Hilarious how deluded ME1 fanboys are. Only person reminding you that ME2 is another game is YOU.

[quote]The Mythical Magician wrote...

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
What's "immersive"? Why was ME1 "immersive" and ME2 not?
[/quote] 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)[/quote]
I FOUND A SPACE COW! OMGZ I'M EXPLORING! ../../../images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png../../../images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png

You're no better than the defensive ME2 zombies. Keep trying to find something redeeming in ME1, bro.

The blue alien just touched my Shep's face again after talking! Interactionz!!!111

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

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

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.
[/quote]
Here's my opinion: You ALL come across as sheep.

""ME2 is baaaaaaaaad! Baaaaaaaad! MY OPINION!"
"Nono, ME1 baaaaaaaaad! Baaaaaaaad!"

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-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. [/quote]
This guy's got jokes.

GoW loads a ton faster than the terrible load screens of ME1 and ME2. I bet this guy covers his eyes whenever he sees LOADING in ME1!

NEWSFLASH: Citadel transit hands you everything.

The big space ship could take an hour to dock and load and you'd call it "IMMERSION!" I call it "Giant waste of time!"

[quote]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.

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?[/quote]
Damn straight. Loved how EA conveniently put up that sex scandal to sell more copies of ME1. The game industry loves viral marketing, and you fell for it. Hard.

Why else would they mention that there was HARDCORE SEX SCENES when there WASN'T any?

[quote]Kalfear wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

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

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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
Keep covering you eyes whenever you watch the ME1 and ME2 credits, boyo.

Same team, same mediocre garbage.

Same mediocre apologists defending their beloved game.

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

And this is where I implore you to revisit what Ecael's been saying numerous times throughout this thread.[/quote]
THIS IS NO PLACE FOR FACTS.

And WTF is the blue screen for?

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

I would not call ME1 and ME2 shooter
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
In The Thread:

Guy says staring at inventory menus requires mad skillz

Halo requires more strategy and skillz than this farce does.

[quote]Widowlover wrote...

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]KitsuneRommel wrote...

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

[/quote]

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

[/quote]


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.  [/quote]
In The Thread:

Guy whining that ME isnt EZ-mode anymore with double HP

So easy to point out the EA/BW apologists.[/quote]

Sorry just thought it was odd that they changed that kind of stuff. insanity is hard, but it gets kinda boring shooting from cover the whole time, it was nice to be able charge atleast one or two enemys and survive, not stick your head out to take a shoot and yours shield drop.

[ShepardWrex]

INVAYNED wrote...

all im ganna say is story was a bit weak,the new mini games suckd.i hate the character miranda with a passion and for goddamn good reasons.the finale boss was the freaking terminator really bioware,i understand the human reaper thing.but honestly lame.way too much shooting gears style.no where near the dialog is should have had,and the rpg elements were tuned down.thats my beef.at least there was no F***ing mulitplayer of any kind cause if there would have been i wouldnt even have bought the game at all

Loelz, this guy thinks ME1 wasn't a blatant ripoff of the original GoW.

Describe the ME1 story without spoilers and without sounding so utterly trite. I dare ya.

Widowlover wrote...

Sorry just thought it was odd that they changed that kind of stuff. insanity is hard, but it gets kinda boring shooting from cover the whole time, it was nice to be able charge atleast one or two enemys and survive, not stick your head out to take a shoot and yours shield drop.

Nice to have EZ-mode combat in ME1 instead of BORE-fest combat in ME2? Ok.

[IoCaster]

spacehamsterZH wrote...
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.

I think the problem is the attempt to equate quantity to substance and relevance to the plot.

To advance the plot in ME you have to do Citadel, Feros, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos and Citadel final. Other than Ilos and the Citadel you can choose to do these missions in whatever order you prefer.

To progress the plot in ME2 you have FP, Mordin, Garrus, Jack, Grunt, Horizon, any combination of Thane, Samara, Tali or (X) number of Loyalty/N7 quests. That gets you to the Collector Ship. You can do some more Loyalty/N7 missions or get the IFF at this point, but it should already be obvious what the main difference in structure between the two games is.

There's a quantitative difference in the number of required combat missions in ME as compared to ME2. Just doing a raw mission count to compare both games isn't a particularly apt rebuttal to the claim that ME2 places "more emphasis on combat".

A similar case can be made regarding the number of lines of dialogue in each game. Raw numbers don't tell the whole story if you break it down to mission critical as opposed to 'getting to know you' dialogue.

[Ecael]

Weird stuff going on today...

Modifié par Ecael, 05 juin 2010 - 02:07 .

[Widowlover]

ShepardWrex wrote...

INVAYNED wrote...

all im ganna say is story was a bit weak,the new mini games suckd.i hate the character miranda with a passion and for goddamn good reasons.the finale boss was the freaking terminator really bioware,i understand the human reaper thing.but honestly lame.way too much shooting gears style.no where near the dialog is should have had,and the rpg elements were tuned down.thats my beef.at least there was no F***ing mulitplayer of any kind cause if there would have been i wouldnt even have bought the game at all

Loelz, this guy thinks ME1 wasn't a blatant ripoff of the original GoW.

Describe the ME1 story without spoilers and without sounding so utterly trite. I dare ya.

Widowlover wrote...

Sorry just thought it was odd that they changed that kind of stuff. insanity is hard, but it gets kinda boring shooting from cover the whole time, it was nice to be able charge atleast one or two enemys and survive, not stick your head out to take a shoot and yours shield drop.

Nice to have EZ-mode combat in ME1 instead of BORE-fest combat in ME2? Ok.

Did you you see the iron specter challenge, no powers no weapons just melee, thats nuts. how could you kill the drones in freedom progress let alone the YMIR.  EZ-mod

[ShepardWrex]

Ecael wrote...



Weird stuff going on today...

FAIL.

[Ecael]

ShepardWrex wrote...

Ecael wrote...



Weird stuff going on today...

FAIL.

As others have already said, if you hate ME so much...

...why bother coming to this forum?

[ShepardWrex]

Ecael wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

Ecael wrote...



Weird stuff going on today...

FAIL.

As others have already said, if you hate ME so much...

...why bother coming to this forum?

And let stupid BW fangirls like you rave over pointless mediocrity like this trite crap?

Hell no. Try responding to anything I said. I dare ya.

[Lumikki]

IoCaster wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...
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.

I think the problem is the attempt to equate quantity to substance and relevance to the plot.

To advance the plot in ME you have to do Citadel, Feros, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos and Citadel final. Other than Ilos and the Citadel you can choose to do these missions in whatever order you prefer.

To progress the plot in ME2 you have FP, Mordin, Garrus, Jack, Grunt, Horizon, any combination of Thane, Samara, Tali or (X) number of Loyalty/N7 quests. That gets you to the Collector Ship. You can do some more Loyalty/N7 missions or get the IFF at this point, but it should already be obvious what the main difference in structure between the two games is.

There's a quantitative difference in the number of required combat missions in ME as compared to ME2. Just doing a raw mission count to compare both games isn't a particularly apt rebuttal to the claim that ME2 places "more emphasis on combat".

A similar case can be made regarding the number of lines of dialogue in each game. Raw numbers don't tell the whole story if you break it down to mission critical as opposed to 'getting to know you' dialogue.

What are you saying here?

Are You saying that raw numbers are less accurate than players personal emotional feelings as opinion?

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2010 - 02:13 .

[Ecael]

ShepardWrex wrote...

And let stupid BW fangirls like you rave over pointless mediocrity like this trite crap?

Hell no. Try responding to anything I said. I dare ya.

Maybe if you could do that without attacking other people outright, you might be worth the time and effort.

Modifié par Ecael, 05 juin 2010 - 02:14 .

[Ecael]

mashavasilec wrote...

Ecael wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

Ecael wrote...



Weird stuff going on today...

FAIL.

As others have already said, if you hate ME so much...

...why bother coming to this forum?

You know, I often entertain the idea of coming to some Britney Spears forum and BASHING her fangirls to HELL!!11 That would be fun, mwahahaha.

They're lucky I'm such a lazy sheep-_-

I was always under the impression that Britney Spears fans consisted of... well, never mind. Even then, there's no point in making an account on the forum just to bash everything and everyone.

[ShepardWrex]

Ecael wrote...

mashavasilec wrote...

Ecael wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

Ecael wrote...



Weird stuff going on today...

FAIL.

As others have already said, if you hate ME so much...

...why bother coming to this forum?

You know, I often entertain the idea of coming to some Britney Spears forum and BASHING her fangirls to HELL!!11 That would be fun, mwahahaha.

They're lucky I'm such a lazy sheep-_-

I was always under the impression that Britney Spears fans consisted of... well, never mind. Even then, there's no point in making an account on the forum just to bash everything and everyone.

BWHAHAHA.

The true BW apologist has finally awoken!

I AM THE VOICE OF REASON.

Like ME1? BW apologist.
Like ME2? EA apologist.
Like ME1/ME2? BW AND EA apologist.

Third category is you. In fact, let's make a fourth category:

Blinded by ME1/ME2 love? Escael.

[finnithe]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I've actually been wondering about the loading screens. Wouldn't they limit the level design? An elevator is a great way to load in parts of a level because the length can be variable depending on how long its taking to load, and your have no view of the outside. Maybe my imagination's limited, but I can't think of anything that would work as well as an elevator. Can't really use a long tunnel because I don't think you could change the length depending on the loading times, and you can't take away player control in a tunnel, and other ones probably have their own limitations. Loading screens are unfortunately a staple of games (even Oblivion and Fallout 3, possibly the most immersive games to day, have loading screens). It's something that should be ingrained into your suspension of disbelief by now.

tonnactus wrote...

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.

I don't think they handled the resistance as well as they could have either. I would rather have biotics have lessened affects on enemies (much like Singularity does). I would have been fine with some knockdown effects for protected enemies. Still, that's a pretty bad analogy, especially since there aren't really any mages in this game. Besides spells, mages' only attack are staff attacks, which are very weak in RPG's due to their lack of STR. In Mass Effect 2 however, even the "spellcaster" classes (i.e. the Engineer, Sentinel and Adept) have guns that are just as effective as the ones the Soldier has. 

You guys still haven't addressed the balancing issue a weapon cooldown system creates. Specifically that most people will end up using just one weapon, which doesn't really make for challenging gameplay. 

Also I'm pretty sure ShepardWrex is just trolling this threat so could you guys please, please just ignore him or her. It's not hard, just don't press the reply button.

Modifié par finnithe, 05 juin 2010 - 02:24 .

[Lumikki]

ShepardWrex wrote...

And let stupid BW fangirls like you rave over pointless mediocrity like this trite crap?

You do know that saying negative stuff is fine and arguing with other players here. How ever, you have done alot of trolling on this forum. You lucky that moderators don't ban people easyly here. There is fine line between saying opinions and  deliberately trolling on games own forum to hurt it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2010 - 02:29 .

[ShepardWrex]

finnithe wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I've actually been wondering about the loading screens. Wouldn't they limit the level design? An elevator is a great way to load in parts of a level because the length can be variable depending on how long its taking to load, and your have no view of the outside. Maybe my imagination's limited, but I can't think of anything that would work as well as an elevator. Can't really use a long tunnel because I don't think you could change the length depending on the loading times, and you can't take away player control in a tunnel, and other ones probably have their own limitations. Loading screens are unfortunately a staple of games (even Oblivion and Fallout 3, possibly the most immersive games to day, have loading screens). It's something that should be ingrained into your suspension of disbelief by now.

tonnactus wrote...

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.

I don't think they handled the resistance as well as they could have either. I would rather have biotics have lessened affects on enemies (much like Singularity does). I would have been fine with some knockdown effects for protected enemies. Still, that's a pretty bad analogy, especially since there aren't really any mages in this game. Besides spells, mages' only attack are staff attacks, which are very weak in RPG's due to their lack of STR. In Mass Effect 2 however, even the "spellcaster" classes (i.e. the Engineer, Sentinel and Adept) have guns that are just as effective as the ones the Soldier has. 

You guys still haven't addressed the balancing issue a weapon cooldown system creates. Specifically that most people will end up using just one weapon, which doesn't really make for challenging gameplay. 

Also I'm pretty sure ShepardWrex is just trolling this threat so could you guys please, please just ignore him or her. It's not hard, just don't press the reply button.

If I'm trolling this "threat", then everyone else is.


LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD.