10273 réponses à ce sujet

[javierabegazo]

Pocketgb wrote...

TLDR (even though it's short as balls); As a whole, Mass Effect allows for very little role-playing, largely due to voice-over for every single dialog choice.

Exactly, there's only so much that you can record before your budget explodes.

Because Mass Effect takes the cinematic approach, it does more "rail roading" in terms of Character Dialog than most other Western RPG's.

[SkullandBonesmember]

javierabegazo wrote...

Saying something just simply doesn't make sense, while (having a time and a place) can be taken as derogatory.

What he's saying is the variation of role play in Mass Effect is Extremely limited in comparison to most Western RPG's, such as DAO, Baldurs gate, you name 'em

Never meant for it to come across a derogatory since having posted on many boards I've often said that without somebody jumping to the conclusion I'm being an ass. Now let me clarify.

I felt like I was part of the story in a living world in ME1, only for in ME2 for it to do a 180, and I'm not the one who feels that way.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 06 juin 2010 - 09:20 .

[bjdbwea]

Then why did ME 1 still have so many decisions? Why did even side missions allow for different solutions? Why do the ME 2 side quests not offer any freedom or different outcomes, even though they actually do not require voice-overs, thanks to the email system?

The voice-overs are not the problem, it's the distribution. No one forced the developers for example to include so many companions. Arguably, that was detrimental to the quality and depth of every single one anyway.

[Pocketgb]

It's hard to determine whether that's an effect from a poor game or the fact that many fell in love with Grape Kool-Aid and received Cherry.

bjdbwea wrote...

Then why did ME 1 still have so many
decisions?

ME2 has plenty of decisions. The "problem" is that the story is dealt more on a personal level - talking to squadmates, learning their backstories - as opposed to what was done with ME1.

Some of the N7 missions allowed choice, some of the UNSC missions allowed choice. Both have a hefty amount of HUB sidequests as well, ME2's different in that they're spread over numerous hub worlds.

Either way, this is going *right* back to Ecael's Jeoporady-esque questions that, despite the snarkiness, are good at proving a point.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 06 juin 2010 - 09:15 .

[tonnactus]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...


I don't think so. And you seem to run away from my point, which is use warp and overload is much less risky than shoot with an ammo power.

What is risky on Mass Effect 2 insanity? Not even a rocket is enough to kill the player.The simple solution is it to just go to cover for some seconds.This game is tediuos, but not challenging.

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 juin 2010 - 09:12 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

ss Effect 2 insanity? Not even a rocket is enough to kill the player.The simple solution is it to just go to cover for some seconds.This game is tediuos, but not challenging.

We've already gone over how both games are fairly easy, just due to different reasons.

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

ME2 has plenty of decisions.

Actually, it doesn't. It's fine that you like the game, and it's nice that you try to defend it, but it would be great if everyone could stop making things up. I love ME 1, and I am very critical of ME 2, but I try to be objective. For example, it is a simple fact that ME 2 has more companions. Another simple fact is that ME 1 has more decisions.

The reduction of possible choices was probably to reduce development time as well as reduce the amount of different outcomes they have to consider for ME 3.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 juin 2010 - 09:23 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...


Actually, it doesn't. It's fine that you like the game, and it's nice that you try to defend it, but it would be great if everyone could stop making things up. I love ME 1, and I am very critical of ME 2, but I try to be objective...

Given that one out of every thousand posts in this thread actually *has* a source, it's nigh impossible to be "objective."

This isn't to say "screw you, ME2 and ME1 are both teh same", it's more that nearly every single issue in this thread revolves around preference.

This also isn't to say "nothing can be learned in this thread" (even if a lot of the discussion has been off-point and a bit confrontational) because there's a *lot* to be learned from this thread: people have expressed plenty of concerns, and it would be hard to say that Bioware wouldn't want to please the largest amount of its playerbase. DA:O's success backs this up.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 06 juin 2010 - 09:38 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

This isn't to say "screw you, ME2 and ME1 are both teh same", it's more that nearly every single issue in this thread revolves around preference.

Indeed. But as I said, there are things that can be objectively measured. Fact: ME 2 has more companions. Now if you like that, is indeed a question of preference. Fact: ME 1 has more decisions. Again, people can prefer the linear outcomes that ME 2 imposes, but one shouldn't deny obvious numbers just to defend - or bash - a game.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 juin 2010 - 09:37 .

[Aphexdash]

ME1 for me was a 9/10

ME2 for me was a 7/10

ME2 felt too dumbed down / Consolized (for me).

ME1 was great, planet exploration, inventory, deep Talent trees, smaller group of supporting cast so you grew more attached to them.

ME2 was pretty good, but playing it on a PC makes you realise how much was Catered to for console players who found an 'Inventory' and talent customization too complex.

For Mass Effect 3, maybe use ME1 as the interface/inventory/talent layout for the PC and ME2 for consoles.

Oh and pleeeease bring back "M4 Part II" by the Faunts!!

Modifié par Aphexdash, 06 juin 2010 - 09:41 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

bjdbwea wrote...

Indeed. But as I said, there are things that can be objectively measured. Fact: ME 2 has more companions. Now if you like that, is indeed a question of preference. Fact: ME 1 has more decisions. Again, people can prefer the linear outcomes that ME 2 imposes, but one shouldn't deny obvious numbers just to defend - or bash - a game.

Another fact is the combat-dialogue ratio wasn't even in ME2.

[spacehamsterZH]

Aphexdash wrote...

ME2 felt too dumbed down / Consolized (for me)

What an incredibly intelligent point you make, given that ME1 was originally a console exclusive and ME2 wasn't. That really makes a ton of sense.

The lols: this thread still brings 'em.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

This isn't to say "screw you, ME2 and ME1 are both teh same", it's more that nearly every single issue in this thread revolves around preference.

Indeed. But as I said, there are things that can be objectively measured. Fact: ME 2 has more companions. Now if you like that, is indeed a question of preference. Fact: ME 1 has more decisions. Again, people can prefer the linear outcomes that ME 2 imposes, but one shouldn't deny obvious numbers just to defend - or bash - a game.

Not too sound terribly negative (I am TERRIBLE with analogies) but making an already messy toilet bowel slightly messier isn't going to make much of a difference to me. But it's going to make a difference to someone else.

Also edited my previous post, if you're interested.

[Kalfear]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...
ME2 wasnt a RPG, but it was suppose to be in part.

Oh and its NOT my personal assumption, its how it was presented to the public and marketted.
Its you saying your personal assumptions are reality when in fact they are everything but in this case

You keep saying that's objectively true, but you never actually produce any evidence of it. Just putting bold around your assertions doesn't make them any more convincing. 

Anouther pro shooter I try to not respond to (like Sheppardwrex and sithlordexarkun and Ecael) but this is so out there I cant help myself1

Evidence?

LOOK AT THE FREAKING ADS FOR ME1. THATS YOUR FREAKING EVIDENCE!

Mass Effect is MARKETTED as a RPG/shooter hybred.

BIOWARE has said this a million times over

How freaking stupid are you that all you can write is there is no evidence, jesus!

Quit TRYING to constantly pick fights on this board and use some freaking common sencefor once!!

Gawd I wish this board had a ignore cause Alan C9 has yet to make one worth while post of any quality. Him and Sheppardwrex are 2 peas in a pod! Trolls for life.

Alan, wheres your evidence that your of the human race?
Wheres your evidence that you were suppose to be born with opposing thumbs?
Wheres you evidence you even think before posting? (oh wait you dont so scratch that, no evidence for that one).

Jesus this whine by the shooter crowd gets old. Anytime you post something they dont like (insert whine) "wheres your evidence? I refuse to look for myself no matter how common place it might be".

Asking for evidence that Mass Effect as a franchise and Mass Effect 1 in particular were marketed and presented as a RPG/Shooter hybred tells me this poster has no clue about Mass effect, never read or watched any articles or interveiws on the product and just here to troll and cause trouble!

Get this through your head once and for all. Mass Effect has NEVER been a straight shooter! In design or concept! As I and many many many many others have said over and over, if Mass Effect had been designed and presented as a straight shooter, we would not have played and there would have been no issues.

Modifié par Kalfear, 06 juin 2010 - 09:47 .

[Aphexdash]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Aphexdash wrote...

ME2 felt too dumbed down / Consolized (for me)

What an incredibly intelligent point you make, given that ME1 was originally a console exclusive and ME2 wasn't. That really makes a ton of sense.

The lols: this thread still brings 'em.

/facepalm

I realise ME1 was originally an Xbox360 that was ported to the PC.  But the main complaints about the things I have mentioned were from CONSOLE GAMERS.  PC Gamers are used to and like things i've discussed above.

Intelligent comment by the way, 'The lols'.  If you actually had read the entire thing you might have understood what I was trying to discuss.

Modifié par Aphexdash, 06 juin 2010 - 09:45 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Yes because we all like the same things. You'd think Doom had killed PC gaming. Besides Inventory? Games like Deus Ex and Diablo handled it better, ME just had that KOTOR inventory except worse. The loadout system is not that different from what you'd find the the Tom Clancy games (PC based! New ones kept this system!) and it works fine with ME since it plays similarly to Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon as it is.

[cachx]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

ME2 has plenty of decisions.

Actually, it doesn't.

Actually, we don't know until someone starts counting. How does it matter if ME1 had more, anyway? ME2 still has plenty.

Plus, ME2 has to piggyback on the decisions that carry over from ME2 and account for all possible scenarios. This will exponentially grow for ME3.

A lot of people are just selfishly angry that their favorite part/character didn't get enough love. Without really caring or acknowledging the very real technical and/or budget limitations.

[Pocketgb]

Hate to be a bit assertive here, but really:

Kalfear wrote...

Anouther pro shooter I try to not respond to but this is so out there I cant help myself1

This has to stop, Kalfear. If you want to maintain a civil discussion in this thread, you have to follow your own advice:

Kalfear wrote...

Quit TRYING to constantly pick fights on this board and use some freaking common sencefor once!!

I'm no saint, but I do try.

[Mister Mida]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Aphexdash wrote...

ME2 felt too dumbed down / Consolized (for me)

What an incredibly intelligent point you make, given that ME1 was originally a console exclusive and ME2 wasn't. That really makes a ton of sense.

The lols: this thread still brings 'em.

People should do their homework before they say that a game has been 'consolized'.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

What an incredibly intelligent point you make, given that ME1 was originally a console exclusive and ME2 wasn't. That really makes a ton of sense.

The lols: this thread still brings 'em.

I know what you mean. Ive been loling at the desperation of folks trying to defend ME2 from criticism for a long time now. Im sure Bioware massively appreciates your futile efforts to deny complaints about ME2 that are cropping up on numerous sites across the internet.

[KCFender]

I do hope Alpha Protocol gets played by some of the Mass Effect 3 devs, so they can maybe realize what an RPG/Shooter hybrid can actually be like: An inventory system that offers a plethora of choices in what you load onto your character - with various gun attachments to pick and choose from as well, a battle system that requires your character to build his/her stats and offers more choice in gameplay than simply going into cover and shooting/power-spamming the enemy, and a story that really does offer you, time and time again, real meaningful choices that shape the story in a variety of ways, beyond simply having a "good ending" and a "bad ending".



If ME3 turns out to be half the RPG Alpha Protocol is, it'll be a great improvement to the series. True story.

[Aphexdash]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Games like Deus Ex and Diablo handled it better, ME just had that KOTOR inventory except worse

I had suggested to use the ME1 Inventory system, if it was either that or the ME2 No Inventory Upgrades system.

I'm all for a better inventory, but even ME1's I find better than having no inventory at all.

[CroGamer002]

Inventory in ME1 is pathetic.

At least after you are higher level.

[spacehamsterZH]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
I know what you mean. Ive been loling at the desperation of folks trying to defend ME2 from criticism for a long time now. Im sure Bioware massively appreciates your futile efforts to deny complaints about ME2 that are cropping up on numerous sites across the internet.

I'm not sure what this post has to do with me, I have plenty of criticisms about ME2, it's not a perfect game. But neither is ME1. I just generally find that anyone who uses short circuit logic like "all console games are inherently stupid" is not someone capable of constructing an intelligent argument.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Kalfear wrote...

Gawd I wish this board had a ignore

Agreed.

There are just as many console gamers who like RPGs as there are who are PC gamers.