10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

[quote]tonn
BS, You can not use viper sniper rifle to everyting and never use any other weapon. You will run out of ammos, in some missions.

[/quote]

Some missions is the right word.


And he make his squadmates useless with comparing them with shotguns.

[Iakus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

iakus wrote...
You are partly right, at least in my opinion.  But in addition, most of the quests in ME 2 are not part of the main plot at all (if we consider the Collectors to be "main plot".  If there were more missions like the Collector Ship quest, where we learn more about them and "what makes them tick" this would have been a far better game even if nothing else was changed (and believe me when I say I think far more needed to be changed)

I dunno, I'm replaying ME1 right now, and I'm really finding that a lot of what goes on in the main quests seems kind of tangential too. For example, Noveria is really more about the Rachni than anything else, and it's largely a self-contained story with its own beginning, middle and end (and it borrows heavily from the Alien movies - just throwing that in here.) Sure, it's connected because it's part of Saren's preparations for the attack on the Citadel, but that really doesn't matter much through most of it.

Ah, but the fact remains that they are part of Saren's plan.  The fact that this particular arc has it's own story-within-a-story is a bonus.  The various recruitment and loyalty missions in ME 2  are self-contained, but how many of them actually have anything to do with the Collectors or missing colonies?

I posted smeting like this before, but how uch cooler would the story have been in:

Thane's wife had been taken by the Collectors?
Garrus' squad was already trying to fight the Collectors and failed?
If Jack had friends on one of the missing colonies?
Samara had dealt with the Collecto's before trying to find a cure for her children?
If there had even been a half dozen or so "take the fight to te Collectors" missions where you gather more intel for TIM?

The story would have been far more cohesive.

Actually, now that I think about it, you could look at ME2's story structure as simply being a reversal of ME1's. In ME1, Saren had various plans going on in different places to gather allies for his attack on the Citadel and you were going around foiling those various plans. In ME2, it's Shepard who's gathering allies all over the galaxy. The problem being that a lot of players question Shepard's motivation to recruit all these people and/or say it's not what they would do, which is problematic for an RPG. But we're never really given a compelling reason why Saren needed the Rachni, the Thorian or the Krogan clones, in the end he just attacks the Citadel anyway. It's just that you're not playing from his perspective and just reacting to him, so it seems less forced.

If Shepard's playing out the role of Saren in ME 2, I wanna know why TIM just gave him a frigate to play with instead of a full sized dreadnaught with mind control capabilities

But the problem I had was there was entirely too much recruiting and not enough main storyline.  The sheer number of squaddies dilutes their importance.  Inevitably, you only take your two favorites (except for the loyalty mission, where you take the one and yoour favrite) and everyone else  "guards the ship". Well, except for that one incident...

Plus the game all but ignores the Collectors, who were really an intriguing concept.  All for putting together a supersquad for an (ultimately anticlimatic) suicide mission.

A bit of an aside, did anyone else notice how much more "X-treme" your ME 2 squad is compared to ME 1?

You do learn the reasons behind them all, though not immediately:

Saren needed the rachni queen.  Specifically, her racial memory of the location to the Mu Relay to get to Ilos.

The thorian was needed for the Cipher.  It had toouched the minds of Protheans and knew how they tought and could keep Saren put the beacon's message in perspective.(Saren, lke Shepard, not being Prothean the images were too confusing to properly understand)

Krogan clones were to supplement the geth army. Remember, most of the galactic community is still terrified of the idea of a krogen army even a thousand years after the Rebellions.  The turians even got their Council seat for holding them off long enough for the genophage to kick in.  Seriously powerful force they are.

[Lumikki]

You really don't know how ME2 story was different and why Shepard was recruiting so many others?

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2010 - 07:17 .

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Actually, there is an issue with that scene. Rotational gravity in the Presidium is 0.3 G per the Codex, and presumably a bit more where Shepard gets off the elevator. You'd need some magnetic boots to hang on.

That is like twice the amount of the gravity of the moon.Did the astronauts need magnetic boots on the moon??

No, but they weren't trying to walk up any vertical cliffs on the moon either.

[Darth Drago]

KennyRogers wrote...

Are you trying to say Mass Effect 1 never spoon-fed you, or took the easy way out to cover up plot holes?

-Why in the holy mother of god does Shepard carry weapons he has no use for? What's the logic?
-Why do only 4 types of weapons exist in the entire universe?
-Why don't the most powerful, secretive, and well trained warriors on all the citadel get their gear for free?
-How does Shepard manage to suddenly switch the pull of gravity in his location, and walk down the side of the citadel? (Even Wrex, or Tali,two aliens of very different species and technologies are able to come along.)
-How in the holy mother of god do weapons shoot forever? It's not possible.

1. Ok you have me there on that one. I have wondered why a non soldier class would still have equipped all of the weapons on their backpack thing when they cant officially use it.

2. As opposed to the 10 heavy weapons alone in ME2? Actually just the 4 types makes sense. Pistol, shotgun, assault rifle and sniper rifle pretty much covers everything you need. There are others mentioned like a Turian knife. A had to hand like knife in ME3 would be nice actually. In ME2 you still only have 4 weapons if you don’t cont the over stock of heavy weapons (that only Shepard can use?), the heavy pistol, assault rifle, shotgun and sniper rifle.

3. Why should they? A Spectre comes from various races and each races probably has their own preferred weapons and other gear that they would use just by their training alone. Just because you’re a Spectre doesn’t mean you should get anything free or be forced to use that hi end gear they offer on the Citadel. Besides it can be a source of income for the Spectre organization itself.

4. They don’t. If you watch the cut scene you realize that they are using some sort of magnetic device in their boots. This is a very old device that’s been seen in several sci-fi films/books over the years.

5. They don’t, it just seems that way. Here, this is a part from the ME1 Codex on weapons:
“The ammo magazine is a simple block of metal. The gun's internal computer calculates the mass needed to reach the target based on distance, gravity, and atmospheric pressure, then shears off an appropriate sized slug from the block. A single block can supply thousands of rounds, making ammo a non-issue during any engagement.”

[cachx]

iakus wrote...
Thane's wife had been taken by the Collectors?
Garrus' squad was already trying to fight the Collectors and failed?
If Jack had friends on one of the missing colonies?
Samara had dealt with the Collecto's before trying to find a cure for her children?
If there had even been a half dozen or so "take the fight to te Collectors" missions where you gather more intel for TIM?

The story would have been far more cohesive.

To me ME2 is not a story about the reapers or the collectors. Is more about gathering a team and go into the unknown to fight a powerful enemy. Having too much exposition on the Collectors would ruin the "unknown" part.

ME1 is considered superior because the story is very tight and conclusive (ME franchise could have ended right there if they wanted ). ME2 is more of a bridge between 1 and 3.

I think I'm going to reserve final judgement until I see 3 and we can look ME as a whole.

[spacehamsterZH]

iakus wrote...
Ah, but the fact remains that they are part of Saren's plan.  The fact that this particular arc has it's own story-within-a-story is a bonus. 

Still, you could take Saren out of the equation and the Feros and Noveria arcs (it's been too long since I've played Virmire, so I don't have an opinion atm) could be their own separate stories. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but if you want to argue plot cohesion as something that ME1 did significantly better, there were a lot of tangents there too. The main missions in ME2, on the other hand, were 100% about the Collector threat. The more valid complaint, if you ask me, is that in the grand scheme of things, the Collectors now kind of seem like they were never that important to begin with. Or that they were a lame and underdeveloped, largely generic alien bug race with zero personality.

That said, I still agree that it would have been cooler if the squadmates' loyalty missions were somehow connected to the Collectors and they actually had a personal grudge against them to add to their otherwise somewhat murky motivation to "follow Shepard into hell itself." True enough.

A bit of an aside, did anyone else notice how much more "X-treme" your ME 2 squad is compared to ME 1?

Eh... not this again, please. Plus I'd rather just discuss plot differences and which ME1 vs ME2 complaints I actually consider valid for the moment. But if you have to know, no, I don't agree with that at all. The characters in ME2 were extremely well developed and their loyalty missions were obviously the best written parts of the game. It's not Bioware's fault if you associate them with stereotypes from weaker stories.

That these largely unconnected subplots seemed to take up a lot of space while the main plot was short, linear and uninspired is true, though. It works as a scaffold for the game's structure (lots of 45-60 minute missions that can be played one at a time) but it's a bit odd as a story. But the point I wanted to make was exactly that ME1 is guilty of incorporating a lot of tangents because the structure of the story ultimately has to serve the structure of the game too, it just may have done it in a less transparent and thus seemingly more elegant way.

You do learn the reasons behind them all, though not immediately

Sure, but like I said, in the end Saren attacks the Citadel anyway, and the only difference all these discoveries make for what Shepard does is that the Mako comes crashing through the Conduit just as he's about to launch his assault. It's a plot device that serves the gameplay, just like most things in videogame stories.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
I posted smeting like this before, but how uch cooler would the story have been in:

Thane's wife had been taken by the Collectors?
Garrus' squad was already trying to fight the Collectors and failed?
If Jack had friends on one of the missing colonies?
Samara had dealt with the Collecto's before trying to find a cure for her children?
If there had even been a half dozen or so "take the fight to te Collectors" missions where you gather more intel for TIM?

The story would have been far more cohesive.

Cohesive? I suppose. But cooler? I don't see any particular reason why the quests would be better if they were related to the Collectors. If anything, that feels kind of ham-fisted, like someone's designing the whole universe to drive these people to their Ultimate Destiny. That's obviously true in an RPG since the game is being designed, but why make it obvious?

[Pocketgb]

Ecael wrote...



Weird stuff going on today...

I kinda gave up when most of the people here were selective of what they want to include into the "discussion", regardless of how tame it was. Thread is pointless.

[Ecael]

Pocketgb wrote...

Ecael wrote...



Weird stuff going on today...

I kinda gave up when most of the people here were selective of what they want to include into the "discussion", regardless of how tame it was. Thread is pointless.

Pretty much. I can refute an argument point-by-point and people will either just dismiss it or fling insults my way. It seems to be irrelevant whether it's purely objective or purely subjective - people rely only their confirmation and observation biases anyway.

[Spectre_907]

Ignoring all other discussions: My only disappointments are the cutscenes in the final mission, and some preceding missions, where Shepard and many squad members are using the Magic M-8 Avenger regardless of training or equipment. Perfect examples are the cutscenes during the Collector Base where every single squad member magically conjures up an M-8 out of thin air and shoots Collectors. I would have only had Grunt, Garrus, Zaeed, or Samara placed in the "hold the line" parts of the cutscenes. Those parts irk me the most but I see no major flaws elsewhere aside. Minor continuity issues, clashing with the codex, and dialogue things are others but I tend to overlook them anyway.

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

To me ME2 is not a story about the reapers or the collectors. Is more about gathering a team and go into the unknown to fight a powerful enemy. Having too much exposition on the Collectors would ruin the "unknown" part.

ME1 is considered superior because the story is very tight and conclusive (ME franchise could have ended right there if they wanted ). ME2 is more of a bridge between 1 and 3.

I think I'm going to reserve final judgement until I see 3 and we can look ME as a whole.

I'm not saying I want a huge infodump on the Collectors.  But if, over the course of many hours of play time, they were to drop a few tidbits of information about the Collectors, it might have felt more like an enemy to oppose, rather than your typical Bug-Eyed Aliens.

Bioware might as well have called them the Macguffins and it wouldn't have changed anything.

I sincerely hope that with ME 3, everything will become clear as day and make sense.  I doubt it, but I hope so. 

A bridge is all well and good, but I would have preferred it to be a continuation of ME 1.  As it is, instead of ME 1 and ME 2,  we now have Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect Too.

[Darth Drago]

Orchomene wrote...

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.

-Just did that. Sent a note to the only real active Mod here. Went back to page 160 to get the links for all of the images at least. Did some spam reporting as well on a few of them as well.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 05 juin 2010 - 08:02 .

[Jebel Krong]

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.

it's funny you say that because i agree with you that mass effect 1 did that, and for all it's faults it is one of the reasons i love it so much. i disagree that me2 didn't also do the same thing, however. me2 does a lot of things better than me1 did, and certainly has the same "magic" as me1 (minus some of the exploration, but better in terms of story, presentation, characters, interaction, combat etc) but there were still some things BW did wrong, which they'll hopefully correct for #3. both games have arbitrary mechanics and features that remind you you are playing a game, different for each game, but no less immersion-breaking (me1: you carry all weapons all the time - even ones you're mysteriously not able to use, trained N7 spec-ops soldier (whatever class) can't use weapons properly at start either, standard alliance weapons were awful, xp for talking to people, ability to carry 150+ items, armour, guns etc all the time etc; me2: end-missions screens, "universal ammo", not being able to use all standard weapons (depending on class) - but can all heavy weapons, no real exploration - arcadey hammerhead (the single worst addition post-game) etc.

Terror_K wrote...

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.

indeed, but looking through a lot of the complaints in this thread it is exactly as spacehamester said as quoted, i have been saying and ecael has also been saying: a lot of the time people are complaining about things in me2 that were almost identical in mass effect 1, but me2 is somehow worse.

and then of course there's the idiots like shepardwrex who are just trolling - how is he not banned?

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 05 juin 2010 - 09:07 .

[Pocketgb]

Spectre_907 wrote...

Ignoring all other discussions: My
only disappointments are the cutscenes in the final mission, and some
preceding missions, where Shepard and many squad members are using the
Magic M-8 Avenger regardless of training or equipment. Perfect examples
are the cutscenes during the Collector Base where every single squad
member magically conjures up an M-8 out of thin air and shoots
Collectors. I would have only had Grunt, Garrus, Zaeed, or Samara placed
in the "hold the line" parts of the cutscenes. Those parts irk me the
most but I see no major flaws elsewhere aside. Minor continuity issues,
clashing with the codex, and dialogue things are others but I tend to
overlook them anyway.

This happened in ME1 as well. There
were numerous instances where Shep's first reaction were to pull out
his pistol (which I hadn't upgraded in a very
long time) and there are a few areas where one of the squad members
whipped out a gun they weren't proficient in (Tali and Liara pulling out
their ARs on Noveria). Bioware commented on this, and explained that it
was too much work for little effort, and that the impact of the scene -
regardless of what weapon is used - still remains.

Darth Drago wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

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.

-Just did that. Sent a note to the only real active Mod here. Went back to page 160 to get the links for all of the images at least. Did some spam reporting as well on a few of them as well.

It's a bit hypocritical to attempt to moderate and maintain a thread when you yourself have participated in ignoring discussion that can actually take the thread someplace else as opposed to keeping it in the track it's currently going.

[Ecael]

Jebel Krong wrote...

and then of course there's the idiots like shepardwrex who are just trolling - how is he not banned?

I would hope that SW was already banned, or was at least discouraged to post at one point or another.

However, reading through the last 10 pages or so, it's kind of weird how both posters who favored Mass Effect 1 as well as those who favored Mass Effect 2 took offense to the same posts.

With that in mind, the two games are not all that different (at least, to the people who don't carry with them their black-and-white thinking around here) when both sides can agree and unite against a single troll or cause.

Modifié par Ecael, 05 juin 2010 - 08:36 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Ecael wrote...

it's kind of weird how both posters who favored Mass Effect 1 as well as those who favored Mass Effect 2 took offense to the same posts.

How is it weird if most here love Mass Effect whether they prefer 1 or 2 and want it to be the best possible?

[Iakus]

[quote]spacehamsterZH wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
Ah, but the fact remains that they are part of Saren's plan.  The fact that this particular arc has it's own story-within-a-story is a bonus.  [/quote]

Still, you could take Saren out of the equation and the Feros and Noveria arcs (it's been too long since I've played Virmire, so I don't have an opinion atm) could be their own separate stories. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but if you want to argue plot cohesion as something that ME1 did significantly better, there were a lot of tangents there too. The main missions in ME2, on the other hand, were 100% about the Collector threat. The more valid complaint, if you ask me, is that in the grand scheme of things, the Collectors now kind of seem like they were never that important to begin with. Or that they were a lame and underdeveloped, largely generic alien bug race with zero personality.[/quote]

You're right, there's nothing wrong having seperate stories within a greater whole. However, hetween the lack of investigation into the Collectors and the their general lack of presence, the Collectors may have been the main plot of the game, but "lame and undeveloped" is putting it mildly  As I've said before, the game would have made more sense if the major villains had been a coalition of indoctrinated mercenaries.

[quote]
That said, I still agree that it would have been cooler if the squadmates' loyalty missions were somehow connected to the Collectors and they actually had a personal grudge against them to add to their otherwise somewhat murky motivation to "follow Shepard into hell itself." True enough.
[/quote]

Common ground!

[quote]
A bit of an aside, did anyone else notice how much more "X-treme" your ME 2 squad is compared to ME 1?[/quote]

Eh... not this again, please. Plus I'd rather just discuss plot differences and which ME1 vs ME2 complaints I actually consider valid for the moment. But if you have to know, no, I don't agree with that at all. The characters in ME2 were extremely well developed and their loyalty missions were obviously the best written parts of the game. It's not Bioware's fault if you associate them with stereotypes from weaker stories.
[/quote]

Fair enough.  And I do think many of the characters in ME 2 are interesting.  I just noticed that te squadmates in ME 1 are "extraordinary, but mere-mortal" while in ME 2 they tend more towards "super-duper".  Maybe the reason Jacob's the least popular character is because he's the "vanilla human" compared to the others

[quote]

That these largely unconnected subplots seemed to take up a lot of space while the main plot was short, linear and uninspired is true, though. It works as a scaffold for the game's structure (lots of 45-60 minute missions that can be played one at a time) but it's a bit odd as a story. But the point I wanted to make was exactly that ME1 is guilty of incorporating a lot of tangents because the structure of the story ultimately has to serve the structure of the game too, it just may have done it in a less transparent and thus seemingly more elegant way.

[/quote]

Then offhand I'd say that more transparant is more elegant in this case.  The tangents in the main plot didn't feel distracting.  They were part of a greater whole.  ME 2 didn't inspire that feeling.  Tehh comparison has been made before:  ME 1 felt like chapters in a novel.  ME 2 felt more like short stories in an anthology.

[quote]

[quote]
Sure, but like I said, in the end Saren attacks the Citadel anyway, and the only difference all these discoveries make for what Shepard does is that the Mako comes crashing through the Conduit just as he's about to launch his assault. It's a plot device that serves the gameplay, just like most things in videogame stories.

[/quote]
[/quote]It's a little more than that.  These revelations show how all these quests you went on fit together.  Then you go crashing through the Conduit with the Mako.  Why can be as a big part to rpgs as what.

[Ecael]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Ecael wrote...

it's kind of weird how both posters who favored Mass Effect 1 as well as those who favored Mass Effect 2 took offense to the same posts.

How is it weird if most here love Mass Effect whether they prefer 1 or 2 and want it to be the best possible?

It's weird because he represents a rare breed of forum poster on here - a person who has unyielding and adverse criticism of every aspect of both games. There are those who like one or the other and those who like both. You'll see many of those (including me), but someone who hates both games wouldn't show their face here.

It's a different perspective that's not often seen.

Modifié par Ecael, 05 juin 2010 - 08:45 .

[Jebel Krong]

thankfully i'm not online daytime at weekends then - i missed all that oddness in the thread... (though i have just been checking back though it).

coming back to which is better: loading screens or loading screens disguised as slow elevators? personally i prefer me2's solution - the graphics were more interesting even after a while than the same boring wait in frustratingly slow, almost-windowless elevators with either the same music, same few conversation lines and the same broadcasts over and over. even going back to the normandy was annoying after a while, in me1. loading screens are more "gamey" than the more seamless elevators, but until memory and bandwidth improve to where they are not needed, loading screens are a necessary evil whichever way you do them.

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

Bioware commented on this, and explained that it was too much work for little effort, and that the impact of the scene - regardless of what weapon is used - still remains.

That's quite ridiculous, and I almost can't believe they said that. It would be very easy to implement, just a script that would automatically equip the appropriate weapon for any character. That said, I never noticed it in ME 1. Probably because you can at least equip any weapon, so it didn't feel that strange. It's more obvious in ME 2, and I thought it was just another of many cut corners. There are many that I found more annoying than this, though.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 juin 2010 - 08:56 .

[Jebel Krong]

iakus wrote...


You're right, there's nothing wrong having seperate stories within a greater whole. However, hetween the lack of investigation into the Collectors and the their general lack of presence, the Collectors may have been the main plot of the game, but "lame and undeveloped" is putting it mildly  As I've said before, the game would have made more sense if the major villains had been a coalition of indoctrinated mercenaries.

the tradgedy of the downfall of the protheans was a lot more horrifying and moving than a random band of mercs would have been.

iakus wrote...

That said, I still agree that it would have been cooler if the squadmates' loyalty missions were somehow connected to the Collectors and they actually had a personal grudge against them to add to their otherwise somewhat murky motivation to "follow Shepard into hell itself." True enough.

Common ground!

so you make the game better by reducing the size of the universe - i.e. everything being connected to *your* mission. nuh-uh, no way would that have been better. beside the whole point of recruiting the individuals in me2 is that they are extremely disparate, baddest-of-the-bad, types - not likely tohave common motivations for anything (until you give them one in following you). the collectors were alos supposed to be almost mythically rare - what are the chances one or more of your team would have even seen them (samara did tangle with them, albeit ship to ship, btw)?

iakus wrote...
Fair enough.  And I do think many of the characters in ME 2 are interesting.  I just noticed that te squadmates in ME 1 are "extraordinary, but mere-mortal" while in ME 2 they tend more towards "super-duper".  Maybe the reason Jacob's the least popular character is because he's the "vanilla human" compared to the others

yep and this is on purpose because you are going on a suicide mission against a near mythical, unknown foe. me1 you kinda just stumbled ino the mystery and picked odd people up along the way as you found out the threat and the universe was intriduced to you - in both games it's a natural progression, given the situations.

[Kalfear]

Wow, this thread was bad enough before for following with the "im coming to argue with anyone that says anything negative about ME2" people, now with the Shepardwrexs and popcorn pictures and other nonsence its almost impossible!

So touching on the few actual decent posts that cover actual issues.

I dont understand how people can say ME1 and ME2 shared problems. I was around for the old boards when ME1 came out and the complaints where almost all about combat and NPC movement.

Personally, as I said many times before, I dont play games for the combat, if I want to shoot guns ill go and shoot actual guns where actual skill and knowledge is required. But anyways, at least 85% of the complaints (that came from a couple hundread posters posting a couple thousand times to mislead how many actually posting) were combat orientated.

Story wise, ME1 was a huge success. ME2, the complaints are about story, not combat (other then there being to much). I think pretty much every one agrees combat was better in ME2, the problem was amount, not style of it.
Shooter crowd complained about ME1 inventory and yes the ME1 crowd has complained about ME2 inventory but you cant really say they the same complaint as they asking for such drastically different implimentations of the inventory!

I dont think anyone complained about how you leveled up in ME1 so im still at a loss why that was changed to the far less immersive system of ME2.

Ammo wasnt complained about in ME1 so why it was changed to inferior system in ME2 is again beyond me.

Point is, I dont think saying ME1 and ME2 complaints are similar is correct. They are not, what so ever and came from vastly different playing styles! Complaints about ME1 came from shooter players like KennyRogers and SithexarKun and Shepardwrex who didnt want a RPG what so ever to begin with. Complaints about ME2 have mostly come from RPG players.

I will say this, even though many of the pro ME2 players flat out refuse to let the pro RPG players have any threads where they list their complaints free of argueing and spam from the pro ME2/shooter players, RPG players at least offer up solutions when they list problems for the most part. Back in ME1 days, complaints rarely if ever came with a solution or suggestion. They were usually more like "this sucked and Im not giveing a reason why".

Now most of the threads here are
"this was not good and here is the reason why"
which is answered with
"you suck and im not giveing a reason why"

Jebel is totally right on one thing
"and then of course there's the idiots like shepardwrex who are just trolling - how is he not banned?"

Modifié par Kalfear, 05 juin 2010 - 08:57 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Kalfear wrote...

I think pretty much every one agrees combat was better in ME2, the problem was amount, not style of it.

I...hesitantly agree excluding the HUB and encircling from enemies.

Even though plenty have made wonderful rebuttals, many members still refuse to see that there was an emphasis on combat compared to the first.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Kalfear wrote...

Complaints about ME1 came from shooter players like KennyRogers and SithexarKun and Shepardwrex who didnt want a RPG what so ever to begin with. Complaints about ME2 have mostly come from RPG players.

Yes, most if not all complaints of ME2 came from RPG fans, but SW claims he's one of them.