10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Kalfear]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...



In DA:O your protagonist doesn't talk at all, and I have no problem in filling in the
rest myself, the entire game is built around that. Yet the PC has to deal with many issues related to both themselves and others. More to the point, the player is not always in control of when they have to make a decision that critically affects the party as a confrontation might wait when you get back to camp. In ME2 there are *two* such instances - Legion/Tali and Miranda/Jack. That's it.

So true.
This could easily be handled by using the influence system in KotOR1 and 2 and DA:O

Influence system is so awsome a system caus eyour not going to please everyone all the time and people can have strong feelings to things done that go against their personal make up!

How awsome would ME be if it had the paragon/Renagade system but also the influence system and how much communication you unlock is dependant on influencing said NPC.

It would be as awsome as DA:O was which was a far better system then ME2 used which was forced, linear, and relatively uncreative if we being honest

[Kalfear]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

he complained about MULTIPLE CUTSCEENS (hense the plural he use "cutsceenS')

So sorry but reads as he wants to skip all the cutsceens, not just the prologue!

That's what the prologue was. Multiple cutscenes with a playable part in the middle. I guess we have to ask him to elaborate.

LOL, why?

He will now just agree with you to not come off as a shooter only player

No biggy, I think I understood his meaning the first time correctly.

He wanted to get past all the talking and get to the shooting faster.

[KitsuneRommel]

Kalfear wrote...

It would be as awsome as DA:O was which was a far better system then ME2 used which was forced, linear, and relatively uncreative if we being honest

I don't think DA:O did it quite right either. It was too easy to keep everyone happy with trinkets and your decisions didn't matter if they were not in the party at the time.

He will now just agree with you to not come off as a shooter only player

*shrug*
If you say so.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 06 juin 2010 - 09:17 .

[Kalfear]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

It would be as awsome as DA:O was which was a far better system then ME2 used which was forced, linear, and relatively uncreative if we being honest

I don't think DA:O did it quite right either. It was too easy to keep everyone happy with trinkets and your decisions didn't matter if they were not in the party at the time.

I agree after you learned about the gifts and such but I usually try to relate my FIRST experience when its not so clear cut and forthcoming (I dont read or use spoilers/walk throughs for games I play) so the whole gift thing in DA:O wasnt immediately appearent so most of my influence manipulation had to come through conversation which made things great.

I agree though, I can definately do with out the gifts. Influence should be gained/lost soley by conversation and in game actions.

[finnithe]

I sort of just realized that I've never actually described my own issues with ME2 in this thread. I'm pretty sure that's some good situational irony right there.

1. The End Mission
I hate playing the game a lot of posters here like to play, the one where we compare ME1 and ME2, but I really liked how well Ilos flowed into the Citadel fight in ME1 (I guess that's spoilers but what are you doing on a Mass Effect board if you haven't played the game). My main problem with the mission is that despite collecting a team of specialists, we get to see very few of them in action. I would have liked to have seen that "hold the line" scene, and see my team come together. This would have alleviated some of the problems with not feeling as if we really had a team by the end of the game.

Some people have said that they don't feel like a Commander. Perhaps you could have let us plan the tactics of the "hold the line" part a bit more, allowing us to deploy certain people in certain areas, It would have been nice to see Thane and Legion sniping, with Garrus, Zaeed, Grunt, Jack and Jacob doing most of the fighting. In other words, it would have been nice to see our specialists in their roles. Seeing team leaders, tech specialists and biotic specialists in action I thought was a great idea, and went further in making the attack believable, Still, this would have improved it a lot.

The mission itself felt just a bit on the short end.

2. Squad made interactions
When I say this I am referring to conversations between squad mates. These are pretty much restricted to the squad mates' own loyalty mission or recruitment, where your other squad mate will make short conversation with the loyalty mission squad mate. While this is nice, the game needs A LOT more. Additionally, restricting interactions to single missions results in players experiencing only a small amount of the dialogue.

3. Weapon Customization

It disappoints me that I get more weapon customization when I'm playing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on my PC. That said, BC2 is a great game, and the game would benefit if it took some lessons from it. Games like BC2 and CoD allow gun customization by letting you add sights with varying magnification, foregrips, (smoke) grenade launchers, shotgun attachments, or silencers. I haven't played Alpha Protocol but I understand it also lets you do that. It'd be nice to have the Mass Effect universe version of a silencer for my Locust. Mechanics such as Threat still have a place in Mass Effect, as Army of Two has shown that a rudimentary implementation of it can work in a shooter.

4. Armor customization
I sort of just want a few more parts and more armor types. There's a good base here, it just needs to be increased.

5. The Collector Threat
The Collectors just don't feel threatening to me. It would have been nice for TIM to maybe give you some sidequests to foil some trades the Collectors are wont to do. I think there isn't really enough news about colonies getting hit either. Seeing examples of empty colonies on news vids, hearings Councilors getting more and more stressed as these colonies get hit, or things of that nature would have helped in this regard. I sort of wish that the rest of the Presidium was still in game so that I could see and hear the Councilors or other citizens but oh well.

Modifié par finnithe, 06 juin 2010 - 09:30 .

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

So what DL pointed out
doesn't bother you?

Well, what do you want? More squadmates with overall less conversation, or
fewer squadmates with more conversation? Unless you're pointing out
something else? (Late at night, mind is fuzzy).

Kalfear wrote...

Mass Effect 1 and supposably 2 are equal parts RPG and shooter so its impossible for them to have to much story or interaction.
In fact, the more interaction, the better.....

Like I mentioned above: If anything this can also be attributed to the nearly overwhelming number of squadmates (now reaching 12!). In ME1 we have a modest 6, while ME2 is nearly twice that amount. A novel, or numerous short stories as big as the novel? Tough call, and one side will always be pissed.

Kalfear wrote...

In ME2, you knew what was going to happen next at all times so there was nothing driving you through the missions unlike ME1 and DA:O. ME2 lacked suspence in the writing and there for the pacing really didnt matter. There was no surprises (beyond Horizon to some extent) so nothing pushing you to finish that mission you were on!

What was suspensful about DA:O's storyline that was lacking in ME2? In both games you have to kill the main bad guys specific to the plot and that's exactly what happens. Secrets and interesting twists happen in both games, but they're still nearly similar in concept.

The characters in DA:O were awesome, though. That's the only thing able to bring me back to ever replaying it. I only wish the gift system never existed.

Kalfear wrote...

Plus, and I said this before, ME2 missions on general (side missions and loyalty missions) should have been 5 times to 20 times larger. What you got was over so fast it was kinda a let down. Horizon was a decent size mission time wise (first time through) as was the end game mission time and size wise. Other then that, things felt small in scope and over to fast in ME2. In ME1, for better or worse, you had the Mako which dragged out many missions finding the structures and areas needed making those missions at least feel larger then they were (tho all the plot planets were nicely sized in ME1).

Again, I'd attribute this feeling to the amount of squadmates. With so much ground to cover you can only do so much - but it's a lot more variety as opposed to getting half the squadmates.

[Revan312]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

True but BioWare are barely allowing any control of Shepard as it is. The only thing the player gets to define about Shepard is the moral compass - Nice, Neutral, Baby-Eating-Monster, so I'd argue that we're already there and that's what's ultimately holding back the character. I think that us being required to fill in the blanks simply doesn't gel with the cinematic feel of the Mass Effect games because it results in Shepard seeming nerfed in terms of personality when compared to those around him/her. So it's not a question of taking away the moral-compass director's chair that players are currently getting, it's more a matter of giving greater impact when we select one of those directions. A scene where Shepard has Tali or Garrus come up and ask if they're alright could still easily be handled within the current ME morality system.

In DA:O your protagonist doesn't talk at all, and I have no problem in filling in the
rest myself, the entire game is built around that. Yet the PC has to deal with many issues related to both themselves and others. More to the point, the player is not always in control of when they have to make a decision that critically affects the party as a confrontation might wait when you get back to camp. In ME2 there are *two* such instances - Legion/Tali and Miranda/Jack. That's it.

Yep, this ^

Shepard is a cardboard cutout in such a way as to feel almost lifeless. Having to much definition does run a risk, but as it stands he/she doesn't even have any of the defining characteristics of the "hero" people constantly make him/her out to be.  I mean I would trust at least half the characters on my squad more than Shepard to make a decision and have some motivation behind it.  People just blindly follow your character even though Shepard is as deep as ****** on a sidewalk. 

I wouldn't even mind if they kind of went with a D&D style of morality where in at the beginning you pick neutral good, chaotic evil, lawful neutral etc as that would at least allow them to kind of expand on what kind of a person Shepard is rather than just "good response/bad response/decision inept response".  It would designate how your character acts and gives a sort of personal motivation behind the decisions they make, either good or bad.  I'm not saying implement that exact system but maybe one like it because Shepard is uber bland atm.

[Fraevar]

Revan312 wrote...

Shepard is a cardboard cutout in such a way as to feel almost lifeless. Having to much definition does run a risk, but as it stands he/she doesn't even have any of the defining characteristics of the "hero" people constantly make him/her out to be.  I mean I would trust at least half the characters on my squad more than Shepard to make a decision and have some motivation behind it.  People just blindly follow your character even though Shepard is as deep as ****** on a sidewalk. 

I wouldn't even mind if they kind of went with a D&D style of morality where in at the beginning you pick neutral good, chaotic evil, lawful neutral etc as that would at least allow them to kind of expand on what kind of a person Shepard is rather than just "good response/bad response/decision inept response".  It would designate how your character acts and gives a sort of personal motivation behind the decisions they make, either good or bad.  I'm not saying implement that exact system but maybe one like it because Shepard is uber bland atm.

To elaborate, I think it's a question of BioWare daring to actually include choices that target Shepard herself/himself. Let's say you get back to the Normandy and a cutscene starts where Shepard's in the Captain's Quarters. Garrus/Tali enters and talks about how good it is to see Shepard again and if he/she is ok, since she was dead, afterall. Dialogue wheel props up: Top Right: "Thanks, it's not something I'm sure how to handle", Middle: "I'll be alright, thanks for asking, though.", Bottom Right: "I'm fine, don't worry about it." The latter option ends the scene, where the other two will grant extended dialogue. Would this really be taking control away from the player or is it a question of BioWare thinking this will somehow turn people off? BioWare keeps trying to push Mass Effect as a series of choices, so please give us some with regard to our protagonist's emotions.

Or rather, give our protagonist emotions asides from the basic anger or sense of duty.

Modifié par Delerius_Jedi, 06 juin 2010 - 09:44 .

[Pocketgb]

Revan312 wrote...

Yep, this ^

Shepard is a cardboard cutout in such a way as to feel almost lifeless. Having to much definition does run a risk, but as it stands he/she doesn't even have any of the defining characteristics of the "hero" people constantly make him/her out to be.  I mean I would trust at least half the characters on my squad more than Shepard to make a decision and have some motivation behind it.  People just blindly follow your character even though Shepard is as deep as ****** on a sidewalk.

With the Mass Effect series, Bioware's doing a very interesting thing in their story-telling. Being able to dictate multiple paths for Shepard each with its own voiceover can make for some pretty awesome moments.

But I agree fully: This is why I never got immersed into the ME series as much as I did in RPGs of 'Olde Tymes'. It might be really cool what Bioware's done with ME so far, but the concept has been the biggest deterrent of me considering the series more of an RPG than an action/adventure game.

[Lumikki]

Kalfear wrote...

Mass Effect 1 and supposably 2 are equal parts RPG and shooter so its impossible for them to have to much story or interaction.

WHAT?

My point is that, where you get the information that Mass Effects suppose to have equal amount of rpg and shooter.  ME1 has very little rpg and ME2 even less. Mass Effect series are cinematic storytelling 3rd person shooters. Problem is not what games are, problem is some people thinking they should be something else.

I like my self alot  rpg and don't like 1st person shooters, but that doens't mean I only have to like rpg. There is difference between game has to be what you self like or trying to change game to what you like and game be as what it is. Both Mass Effects where design to be what they are on purpose, there where no accident.

Would my self like more story and less combat in Mass Effects 3. I would be fine by it. It's not combat what is important to me in Mass Effects, it's the cinematic storytelling. How ever, I can only accept what mass effect is, not define what it should be. Because who's taste we follow when design what Mass Effects are, because there is millions of players with different taste.

Like many of you say you opinion of taste, what's totally fine. It give developers good feedback of players taste of games and what they want more. But don't try to say somehting like what I bolded, because that's not true. It's your personal assumption how you want to see the Mass Effects.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juin 2010 - 10:13 .

[spacehamsterZH]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Why does story have to take a
backseat to combat 100 percent of the time? WHY CAN'T we have more
games like Heavy Rain? 

Because I'm a
dumb, dumb console user who only wants "sploshuns" in his games, obviously. Just saving you some time here, that's what you  wanted to hear and you're obviously not the least bit interested in a productive exchange of opinions.

You're welcome. Feel free to write "sploshuns" a couple more times in response to this since you enjoy saying that so much. Yawn.

iakus wrote...
Actually, yeah.  I would say they were that disconnected "Shepard needs a squaddie" is pretty much the only common thread through all the recruitment/loyalty missions.  Once you have them, the rest of the squad barely acknowledges there's someone new on board (I think only Joker and Kelly Chambers have anything to say about each one)

My point was that they're all ultimately set in the same world and feature the same main character, so they're not quite as disconnected as short stories in an anthology, but every analogy fails if you pick it apart too much, and I thought your general point made sense.

Is one better than the other?  Personally, I prefer novels, big epic stories.  But I can see the appeal of shorter stories.  The big problem here was ME 1, the first in a trilogy, and thus the one that sets the stage, was a novel.  One would expect that a sequel would follow the same format. 

I dunno, I think if the story followed the same format too closely it might become predictable. Not in the sense that you know what is going to happen, but when - if the dramatic structure of a sequel is too similar to that of the first movie/game/whatever, people tend to see the strings. One thing I thought actually worked well in ME2 was how the main story missions seemed to trigger out of nowhere on my first playthrough, whereas in ME1 I was constantly told it was absolutely imperative that I did them as soon as possible, but I could actually fart around and do whatever if I wanted to.

I also think the more compartmentalized story structure just works better for a videogame. The question here, again, is whether or not ME2 overdid it. You think it did, I think it came close but didn't - we've gotten as far as working out exactly where we disagree and now we're starting to go in circles.

Think back to other stories, be they books movies, whatever.  Lord of the Rings. Major League, The Magnificent Seven, heck Justice League even.  The cast interacts with each other.  They bond with each other, not just the leader.

There wasn't much of that in ME1 either, though. Three of the squadmates were actually standing in the same room most of the time and never said a word to each other. There was a bit of interaction in the briefing scenes and in the elevators, but ME2 actually has more than that if you add up the three post-loyalty mission scenes (Miranda/Jacob, Miranda/Jack, Tali/Legion) and the various possible interactions during the Suicide Mission briefing. The problem in both cases being that the relationships don't develop, of course.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 06 juin 2010 - 10:18 .

[Lumikki]

Why was Shepard recruiting squad members and so many of them?

After the prology in ME2 TIM and Shepard talked about go after Collectors trough omega mass relay. Shepard sayed, I'm gonna need army or really good team. So, while TIM tries to figure how to get pass omega mass relay, Shepard is recruiting people. Now just because collectors are the enemy doens't mean every squad members has to have some personal vengeance agaist collectors. They can be just hired guns or anyone willing to do it for humanity. So, hole story was about get stronger enough to survey and get the job done after passing omega mass relay. Most the squad members thinked that it's gonna be one way trip. What caused they emotion to think the unfinnish stuff in they lives, what they have. Why Shepard helped them on they personal idiotic stuff. Because it will guarantee they focus is on mission and they take orders without hesitation. Story was army agaist army, Shepards crew agaist many collectors.

The real problem here is that some people here in this forum expected ME2 carry same story forward from ME1 and got disapointed that story was totally different one. This isn't games fault, it's players own to expect something else. Example do You remember TV-serie 24, does it continue every season same story or is there just same characters in different story. You can try to justify that it was reasonable expectition to expect story to continue, maybe it was, but that's not the problem. It's players unability adjust to situation and accept the new story as it is. Now the storytelling in ME2 wasn't best, but it's still the story.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juin 2010 - 11:10 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

The real problem here is that some people here in this forum expected ME2 carry same story forward from ME1 and got disapointed that story was totally different one. This isn't games fault, it's players own to expect something else. Example do You remember TV-serie 24, does it continue every season same story or is there just same characters in different story. You can try to justify that it was reasonable expectition to expect story to continue, maybe it was, but that's not the problem. It's players unability adjust to situation and accept the new story as it is. Now the storytelling in ME2 wasn't best, but it's still the story.

But that's because BioWare were hyping the whole thing up as a trilogy whereby the three games were telling three different parts of the same story. Comparisons to the Star Wars Trilogy kept coming up, and in interviews BioWare only encouraged this notion. They kept saying trilogy, and when the Star Wars comparison came up they kept admitting that it was an apt comparison, and that ME2 really was supposed to be The Empire Strikes Back to ME1's A New Hope. This is clearly not the case, and what we have instead is something more akin to the Alien Trilogy (yes... the last Alien movie was Alien3 ), Indiana Jones or Die Hard instead. Mass Effect isn't really a trilogy as it was initially claimed and hyped by BioWare, but instead comes across like three separate games that happen to share the same universe and have the one main character throughout them.

[Pocketgb]

ME2 could be identified as not being a "true sequel" in that instead of fixing the mess of the systems in ME1, they created new systems in ME2 - which isn't a "wrong" approach. It's the difference between fixing what's broken and starting something new. If you're a Weezer fan, I mentioned already that I liked to think of ME1 and ME2 as The Blue Album and Pinkerton.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 06 juin 2010 - 11:36 .

[SithLordExarKun]

No it doesn't, so what if it was akin to the alien trilogy? Its a pretty damn good trilogy if you ask me(counting out Alien Ressurection which didn't live up to the standards).





But thats a good comparison i think. As there is a contrast between the two. Mass effect was more like Alien(ME being more rpgish and alien being more horror oriented) while Mass effect 2 was more like Aliens(Which is both being action oriented).

[Terror_K]

Well, its just that when comparisons of a true trilogy like Star Wars are made and confirmed that you raise the expectation of characters, situations, story and events from the first part following through directly through to the second one, especially when BioWare kept hyping up the whole "choices and consequences" thing carrying on through. Can players therefore be blamed into expecting to see not only the "Luke Skywalker" character and his personal story carrying through but the equivalents of Han, Leia, Chewy, etc. as well? Can they be blamed for expecting the thing story to continue on directly from the first part?



The point is, the Mass Effect "Trilogy" was hyped by BioWare into letting us believe that we would get to truly experience something along the lines of "What if Han died in A New Hope?" and "What if the Death Star managed to destroy the Rebel base before Luke took it out?" when instead what we got was "What if Brett hadn't followed Jones and got killed by the alien so he sent Ripley an email about it?" and beyond that it really has no bearing on part two at all.

[KitsuneRommel]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

No it doesn't, so what if it was akin to the alien trilogy? Its a pretty damn good trilogy if you ask me(counting out Alien Ressurection which didn't live up to the standards).


But thats a good comparison i think. As there is a contrast between the two. Mass effect was more like Alien(ME being more rpgish and alien being more horror oriented) while Mass effect 2 was more like Aliens(Which is both being action oriented).

I guess that means that in ME3 all our squadmates have died and we get to see Admiral Hackett as a bad guy.

[Orchomene]

About reviews, I've bought Alpha Protocol yesterday and played about a quarter of the game. Honestly, I've not seen a single bug or glitch (on PC). It runs pretty smoothly and its only "disadvantage" is to be a action ROG instead of being just a shooter. That is, skills of the PC matters. Interactions during discussions are very original and the story seems interesting. I think the game is very close to ME1 with less issues with mods/equipments (you are not submerged by the number) and there are a lot of strategic ways to do missions since the places are not only corridors. I find the game a bit speed to my taste (I'm an old scholl rpg gamer, sorry). The mini games, not being that original are more difficult than the ME2 one but you can bypass most of it with EMP grenades (at some cost, yet). Difficulty seems to be balanced but it's difficult to judge this aspect. The AI is not that great but not worse than in ME2, issue being that with stealth usage, the issues of AIs are more visible. By well chosing your path and developing the stealth skill, you can do many missions stealthy without killing anybody. Choices you do in the game do matter a lot since you can spare even spare your ennemies and keep contact with them to gain information and change your goals (I won't go into details). During missions you are alone but keep radio contact with your "team" and can thus discuss, gain reputation (that gives you some small bonuses) depending on your actions and strategies (like bluffing a guard to enter a place can be appreciated, sparing someone or not and so on).

All in all, I"m enjoying a lot playing the game and its story and I can say that it doesn't deserve having a so low rating by us reviews (around 60%) since I find this game largely better than ME2 and close to ME1.

So, reviews, even in number, don't mean anything. More than that, reviwers are blatant lyers of accusing a game to have many flaws when you don't see most of the flaws announced.

Of course, people expecting a shooter won't find this game is a good shooter, people expecting a stealth game won't find it's a good one. But people expecting a good action RPG with choices that are not railroaded and some moral ambiguities should find a very promising and interesting game.

[Lumikki]

KitsuneRommel wrote...
I guess that means that in ME3 all our squadmates have died and we get to see Admiral Hackett as a bad guy.

There is difference between been reasonable and silly.

Yes, building expectition can very easyly lead big disapointment. How ever, that isn't really games fault.  Did Mass Effect marketing tell in any point that they will continue Mass Effect 1 story? Or was it your own assumption based what word serie usually means, as continue same story? Because that's not allways happen with series, even if it is true in most of the cases. Example what I sayed before TV-serie 24, sometimes it's just style and characters what continues in totally new story.

How you people gonna handle ME3 story, if You could not even accept ME2's story?

There is no guarantee ME3 will continue any of stories we now know. It's assumption, what builds persons own expectitions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juin 2010 - 12:46 .

[CroGamer002]

Closing to 200.

I'm preparing motivational for it.

[KitsuneRommel]

Lumikki wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...
I guess that means that in ME3 all our squadmates have died and we get to see Admiral Hackett as a bad guy.

There is difference between been reasonable and silly.

That was a jab at Alien 3. It basically did just that. Of course it won't be THAT bad with ME3.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

Spornicus wrote...

ME1 has a better plot than ME2, which isn't saying a lot because ME1 had one of the best plots ever, but I think a lot of the gameplay in ME2 is more streamlined and effective than ME1.

Can we agree on that Shooters/RPGers?

Perhaps. I for one didn't find much things that were more effective. It may be more "streamlined", but in my opinion that doesn't make it a better game. Most of those changes make it worse. Remember, gameplay is more than the combat elements.

Mass Effect combat has  three parts: Shooting, biotic powers, tech powers. The last two get so "nerfed" that i rather use disruptor ammo then overload, just to name a example.
2 parts of the Mass Effect combat get worser then in the first game.
Then,the hud. Enemy radar only when the player hold a button and its no even every time correct.

The player doesnt know how much health and shields his squadmates have.
This is better combat???

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 juin 2010 - 01:11 .

[SithLordExarKun]

tonnactus wrote...



The player doesnt know how much health and shields his squadmates have.
This is better combat???

You really aren't that bright are you? With that logic, shooters like Call of duty or Battlefield must have lousy combat compared to ME1 because you can't even see how much health you have.

Just because you "can't" see their shields or health, how does that make the combat inferior?

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 06 juin 2010 - 01:24 .

[tonnactus]

KalosCast wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

ME2 they main story was almost non-existent. There were a few main plot missions split up by loyalty missions. For me, not sure why, but the story missions just didnt seem to live up to the ones in the previous game. I mean nothing compared to the Virmire and Ilos missions (and their cut scenes).

Virmire, while cool looking with cool speeches had that mind-bendingly stupid bit where you had to kill one of your squad-mates because the game didn't let you remember the fact that you had at least two squadmates and several marines on board your ship to help defend Ash/Kaiden while you saved Kaiden/Ash

It doesnt matter because they wouldnt reach this place fast enough.

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

I must be getting tired because I fogot to add a few extra lines to my post. Thanks for the reminder


To continue:

I know what some people will say "But Mass Effect One didn't have all that bonding stuff, wy should it matter?"

At least the whole party comes together when a main missions ends. In Mass Effect 2,its just jacob and miranda,mordin only a part after the collector ship. The other partymembers dont matter i guess.