10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaysonie]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

What? You hate Uncharted?
I'm also a Tomb Raider fan, I thought that Uncharted would suck cuz it looked like a copycat but I started loving it even more than TR.

*sigh* At least I named some trilogies whose second parts were better than the first.

Your probably did, im just hard to please.

With tomb raider, ive just played it for so long that any game similar to it are automaticly bad in my mind.

[JasonTheGod]

http://social.biowar...5/index/1929758

[Radwar]

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

[Onyx Jaguar]

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil.

YES

NO

No

Plot twist

[Radwar]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil.

YES

NO

No

Plot twist

Ok then, please explain to me how you need to be skilled at shooting a certain type of bullet? Let's say inferno vs. cryo? Also why does it make any sense that you need to be advanced in the inferno bullet skill to be able to learn the cryo bullet skill?
For me, having to learn the skill to shoot with a certain weapon type, that makes sense since they should all handle differently.

Modifié par Radwar, 28 mars 2010 - 03:20 .

[Jaysonie]

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

[zazei]

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

Well if you look at Throne of Bhaal as the last part of the story Baldur's gate could be seen as a three part story. Now of course it would have a easier time to bridge things together since the story never had that much optional things to take into account. However because of the way Mass effect handles it I'm not sure if it could be called a real trilogy when all it does is resets the field in each part while keeping the main character. 

Honestly how many trilogy's are there where people can be told they can start at each part without too much problems. I never seen a book/movie trilogy that would made the tinest bit of sense for people who first picked up book two before reading the first one.

Because of this Mass effect doesn't really do anything to different from other games out there that doesn't claim to be trilogy's and the only real difference between them seems to be that in Mass effect you can get emails from people you meet in the earlier game.

Modifié par zazei, 28 mars 2010 - 03:48 .

[Jaysonie]

zazei wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

Well if you look at Throne of Bhaal as the last part of the story Baldur's gate could be seen as a three part story. Now of course it would have a easier time to bridge things together since the story never had that much optional things to take into account. However because of the way Mass effect handles it I'm not sure if it could be called a real trilogy when all it does is resets the field in each part while keeping the main character. 

Honestly how many trilogy's are there where people can be told they can start at each part without too much problems. I never seen a book/movie trilogy that would made the tinest bit of sense for people who first picked up book two before reading the first one.

Because of this Mass effect doesn't really do anything to different from other games out there that doesn't claim to be trilogy's and the only real difference between them seems to be that in Mass effect you can get emails from people you meet in the earlier game.

Im guess im trying to tell him that ive seen enough trilogys in my day and the second part isnt supposed to be as grand or large as the first/third. The first part is the begining, the second is the bridge and the third is the conclusion. You cant conclude alot during the bridge because if you do, the third isnt going to be as big as it should in terms of story. 

Although i see your point, i guess its the limitations of bieng a video game.  

[zazei]

Jaysonie wrote...

zazei wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

Well if you look at Throne of Bhaal as the last part of the story Baldur's gate could be seen as a three part story. Now of course it would have a easier time to bridge things together since the story never had that much optional things to take into account. However because of the way Mass effect handles it I'm not sure if it could be called a real trilogy when all it does is resets the field in each part while keeping the main character. 

Honestly how many trilogy's are there where people can be told they can start at each part without too much problems. I never seen a book/movie trilogy that would made the tinest bit of sense for people who first picked up book two before reading the first one.

Because of this Mass effect doesn't really do anything to different from other games out there that doesn't claim to be trilogy's and the only real difference between them seems to be that in Mass effect you can get emails from people you meet in the earlier game.

Im guess im trying to tell him that ive seen enough trilogys in my day and the second part isnt supposed to be as grand or large as the first/third. The first part is the begining, the second is the bridge and the third is the conclusion. You cant conclude alot during the bridge because if you do, the third isnt going to be as big as it should in terms of story. 

Although i see your point, i guess its the limitations of bieng a video game.  

Well for what it's worth I do in part agree with what your saying as well. I just think the flaw of Mass effect 2 plot wise isn't that it's the second part of the story as much as that it's a video game that had to make sense for new people that never played the first. Not sure if it's possible to tell a great story if the writer have to worry about new people without any knowlegde about what happend earlier all the time.

I also suspect this might be why Bioware used to make new stories for all their games instead of continuing old ons outside expantions. They might just have promised more then was possible to deliver when they marketed the first game.

[grevinilvic]

in my opinion this is not an rpg game, this is a shooter with a realy good story. i enjoyed the game very much but for me this was not the experience i expected . the game is way to short for an rpg its more mission based the way you levl up you dont have to kill every enemy to gain xp just finish the mission? thats not rpg for me. the way you do lvl is for me way to simplistic and didnt give me the rpg feel i like in a game. i enjoy the combat but i feel it shortened the game the way bioware chose to do it in this game ,go bace to the mass effect 1 style and ill be fine. at the very least give us 2 expansions for mass effect 2 like dao to make up for how short me2 is, the replay value is not their for me with out more to do if left this way.

[Radwar]

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

- Throne of Bhaal is considered the conclusion which makes Baldur's Gate II the middle game.
- The Empire Strikes Back was voted the best of the first trilogy by the fan base by far, infact it's been heralded the best of the 6 movies. So it's safe to say that a heck of alot more people will agree with me on this one.

[Radwar]

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

- Throne of Bhaal is considered the conclusion which makes Baldur's Gate II the middle game.
- The Empire Strikes Back was voted the best of the first trilogy by the fan base & critics by far, infact it's been heralded the best of the 6 movies. So it's safe to say that a heck of alot more people will agree with me on this one.

[Radwar]

Radwar wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

- Throne of Bhaal is considered the conclusion which makes Baldur's Gate II the middle game.
- The Empire Strikes Back was voted the best of the first trilogy by the fan base & critics by far, infact it's been heralded the as the best of the 6 movies. So it's safe to say that a heck of alot more people will agree with me on this one.

[Jaysonie]

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Radwar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ME2 has its flaws (like every other game) but it is better in pretty much every way then ME1.

Oh please. You think that changing ammo types which were upgrades for your weapons in ME1 (which was perfect) to skills (which makes absolutely no sense at all) was a good idea?

Armors for you and your squad. All it needed was to be improved in a way that better armors are more easily accessible. You think it was a good idea to completely scrap your ability to buy your squad armor and leave you with only 2 choices (which looks the same mostly) and makes no sense most of the time like Jack wearing straps or Miranda wearing a skimpy outfit and yet have as much protection as someone with a full body armor?

You think it made sense to remove the fact that you could equip/unequip your helmet when you wanted to, and to even have the gall to make most armors have unequipable helmets which totally hides the face.

Also when it comes to story and twists, ME1 beats the crap out of ME2. Nowhere in ME2 do you have great moments like when you talk to Sovereign or Vigil. All you have is the part where you learn that the Collector's are actually Protheans, and even that is done in a distastful way. "What the Collector's are the Protheans? Quick we must move since I don't want to end up like them", pfft.

The story was going to be weaker, if you could name a trilogy where the second part was better than the first ,i would loved to know. The second part of a trilogy's purpose is to build a bridge between the first and the third. The rest is opinion,  you shouldnt try to dissprove it because your not going to change his/her mind on the gameplay.

Games: Baldur's Gate II
Movies: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Lot's of twists in this one)

Since theres no baldurs gate 3, Baldurs gate 2 cant be considerd the second part of a trilogy. Baldurs gate 2 didnt need to bridge anything.

You'll find a ton of people who disagree with you on "The Empire Strikes Back". And by people, i mean posters on this forum.

- Throne of Bhaal is considered the conclusion which makes Baldur's Gate II the middle game.
- The Empire Strikes Back was voted the best of the first trilogy by the fan base by far, infact it's been heralded the best of the 6 movies. So it's safe to say that a heck of alot more people will agree with me on this one.

Well then, im talking in general here. Not a few glowing examples. (btw, its an opinion, your not convincing me otherwise)

Edit: I refer to my earlier post:
  "Im guess im trying to tell him that ive seen enough trilogys in my day and the second part isnt supposed to be as grand or large as the first/third. The first part is the begining, the second is the bridge and the third is the conclusion. You cant conclude alot during the bridge because if you do, the third isnt going to be as big as it should in terms of story. 

Although i see your point, i guess its the limitations of bieng a video game. "

Modifié par Jaysonie, 29 mars 2010 - 02:30 .

[Master Smurf]

Many people give ME2 a pass because of the great combat system but I hope BW at least are being honest with themselves behind closed doors. If this is the type of game they truly wanted to make then they should level with the fans and hopefully include some of the stuff from ME for the original fans.

I really think they can offer enough stuff from both of the games for the finale to be great.

They need to understand you dont need to strip out to cater for a broad audience.



On the story - because its a bridge it doesnt have to be crap - look at the Two Towers - opportunity was missed to advance the story in other ways - We got some with Tali - that could have been done for Liara, Garrus and Kaiden/Ash through some missions or those famous BW cutscenes we usually get to fill in gaps.

[Hulk Hsieh]

We'll ultimately need to give pass to every games that we like but with flaws, or we will have no game to play. ME2 just happens to be more likable than many other games.
Also, game development is alwasy a continuous learning, trial and error process. If there was an end all formula, there would be no bad games at all. I'd expect them to make changes in ME3 too and it might be somewhat different than ME2.  
I don't think the story of ME2 is the best either, but it does leaves many untied end that I can't imagine not buying ME3 to have a closure. I won't call it crap though, that isn't contributing to good discussion.
 

[sammcl]

For me, ME2 was an improvement in almost every way, the few things that stop it from being perfect:

-Planet scanning is preferrable to the Mako but still felt arbitrary, may as well just put more minerals in crates on the missions and give me an hour of my life back. To make it less arbitrary you would have to have a greater motivation for scanning than just minerals, although to do that with the sheer number of planets in the game would be incredibly tedious for the player, so again just put the minerals in crates for me I did like the little joke when you scan Uranus though

-The Paragon/Renegade requirements for some conversation options were too high, i don't believe people can be perfectly good or evil and to feel pressured to be excessively naughty or nice just to open up conversation options was disappointing. The choices themselves should be where future consequences originate, not the paragon/renegade bar which then allows you to make those choices which then have future consequences.

-Lack of interaction with a villain, Saren was a great villain, you met him several times, you met his allies, you heard about his background from others who had met him, you learned his motivations. ME2 lacks this kind of character which left the main story feeling a bit weak, the side stories of your squadmates were a significant improvement however.

[Payne by name]

These opinions aren't law and don't constitute fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and these are mine.

Number of crew members - There were too many and not enough dialogue. I'd rather have half as many characters and twice as much dialogue. You wouldn't have to hear every line but with a greater amount of content to sort from, you would feel your exchanges were more fluid.

Game structure -  To me you always felt like you were being pushed along. Whether it was the channeled nature of the mission on horizon (the one where the collector ship landed) or in those mission summation screens.

Scanning of the planets - Long, slow and tedious

Driving the Normandy around the space map - A small point but this felt childish and immature. ME is the combination of great form and practical function. Driving it around 'vroom, vroom' style felt out of place.

Reloading of the pistol - A real bug bear of mine

Lack of customisation of your look - Primarily not being able to remove your helmet as and when. I love the look of my crew wearing helmets. They all look so badass but it seems I coulnd't have this option.

The music - Nowhere near as good, as iconic or as memorable as the first one.

Sacrificing story for action. Mood for boom, boom - I don't think this point needs elaboration.

Not the same level of killer decisions - Less 'stop dead' decisions and in turn the realisation that your decisions haven't really had the kind of consequence that the developers said they were going to have. Whatever decision you do make, can be resolved either way with two lines of differing text, thus making the weight that you put behind the decisions ultimately pointless.

The ending - No reveals, no real WTF moments, no clever twists like in ME1 or a similar feeling to that when you raced back to the Citadel. The end bad guy, to me, felt like one of those overblown, continually expanding bad bosses that you get at the end of Japanese games.

In summary - The game felt that it was play tested but not emotionally play tested. The developers seemed more interested in asking the testers how it played rather than how they felt.

Again, these are just my emotive thoughts and experiences.

For my expanded, and potentially tedious, thoughts check here - http://social.biowar...index/1852848/1

Modifié par Payne by name, 30 mars 2010 - 07:40 .

[kyle-mac]

exxxed wrote...

kyle-mac wrote...

exxxed wrote...
...BUT Bio stated that they ****ed up, so we can expect a more in-depth not-so-much-linear GAME FINALE... hopefully!

did i miss something? when did anyone from bioware ever say that? i haven't seen that anywhere.

 Well not exactly with those words, but i like to read between the lines, some things have been mentioned in Christina Norman's interview at GDC which led me to believe that they actually kind of admitted that.

 Anyway here's a video interview pre-GDC starring Christina Norman and ME 2 changes xD:

http://www.justin.tv...79e1809c57cc535

thanks for the link. it was a kind of interesting interview. kind of awkward. i just don't hear anything that led me to believe she was even implying that. i agree with your opinion that they didn't put their best foot forward in every area, and maybe she thinks so, but i don't get that from the interview at all without reading words that i'm inserting myself in-between the lines.

she seems proud of the combat improvements and she should be. that and the graphics were better. everything else made a good game, but not on par with what i was expecting the improvements after playing the first game would be. i think almost everyone can at least agree on the planet scanning and i'm shocked they didn't catch that in development considering how focused most of the rest of the game is.

***

on another topic (maybe i should just make this another post but... eh. whatever.), about the whole trilogy, can a second movie/game be as good as the bookends of a pre-determined franchise... the arguments against it are just bull****, nothing more. while being an entertaining game, the story was outright lazy hollywood summer blockbuster "who cares why, just blow stuff up" fare. it was not a bridge to the third. a bridge does exactly that: bridges. it gets you from one point to another point that would be otherwise inaccessible without the bridge. at the end of this game, you are left basically at the same point you were at in the storyarc as when you started the game.

the end cutscenes could have been played at the end of mass effect 1, immediately after you beat the game with nothing else in-between and it would've been the same effect. the small stories within the story, aka loyalty missions, were decent stories by themselves, but not that deep and really didn't matter in the overall scheme of the main story. that's ok because not everything has to connect directly to the main story and it's nice to have more personal quests, but when nothing connects to the main quest, even in-directly, and the small stories you have are more interesting and have more depth than the main story, then what you have is no real story at all.

taken as it is, a collection of individual stories within a universe, it would have been far more effective and interesting to see at least a few of them intersect in some way or another. think of movies like crash or 11:14 with this concept. it's ok the way it is, too. not as interesting - they just all happen to be on the same ship in the end. either way, it's a standalone and doesn't even need shepard present.

it's not a bridge. it's a collection of small, personal stories that take place within the same universe but are otherwise totally unrelated. as a stand-alone game that still wouldn't be a horrible idea. but it's not a valid second part to a trilogy. a good bridge would be invaluable to the whole. it gives you information you need. it defeats you and forces you to face yourself and get back up to fight harder. revelations, twists, growing relationships, a major and (presumably) meaningful change in status, a little self discovery... the middle act is the place for these. what did we get from this? the collectors are actually the [spoiler censor text], but who cares? they showed up at the beginning of this game and we beat 'em but good! oh, and the reapers are coming. that seems familar. didn't...? yeah. yeah, i think we already knew that at the end of the 1st game. and shepard seemingly needlessly died at the beginning of the game so that he could be recruited into a terrorist organization only to use the same (basically) ship, pilot, some crew members and official alliance N7 armor to go out and continue the mission that he was already set on. oh, and so that he'd have a better excuse to recruit much more "badass" squad members than those boringly noble squad members from the first game that had less-forced character dimensions (my opinion, though i do like the new character, too, to varying degrees) only to have a probable chance of having some or all of them die by the end of the game so that they really didn't matter, anyway.

so... where'd that leave us? oh, yeah. without a story. which is why i preordered and picked it up on the first day. hey, yes, it's a great game. a lot of stuff was improved. some other game mechanics were made worse, but i'll concede those are often more of a preference issue. on the story issue - especially in the context of being the middle of a trilogy, for the reasons stated above, i cannot find reason to award much credit at all in the ME2 team's direction. if it were simply a sequel with no intention to link it other than being in the same universe, it might be a (slightly) different... ahem... story. and the story, more than anything else, is what made me come back for seconds.

Modifié par kyle-mac, 03 avril 2010 - 06:52 .

[Bllacky]

I can see that most of the people here have the same opinion regarding what was bad in ME2.

Again like I said in my first post here, ME2 is not a disappointment but it does not rise to the level of ME1, it is a decent game but not an excellent one.



The person who started this thread should try to sum up in the first post the grievances most often encountered in this thread, I think this will make the entire discussion more easily to follow.



@kyle-mac That is exactly the problem with the story in ME2. The personal stories where nice if they were all side missions and not necessary for progressing through the main plot, they are unrelated to the main story.

[FluxDeluxe]

kyle-mac wrote...

the end cutscenes could have been played at the end of mass effect 1, immediately after you beat the game with nothing else in-between and it would've been the same effect. the small stories within the story, aka loyalty missions, were decent stories by themselves, but not that deep and really didn't matter in the overall scheme of the main story. that's ok because not everything has to connect directly to the main story and it's nice to have more personal quests, but when nothing connects to the main quest, even in-directly, and the small stories you have are more interesting and have more depth than the main story, then what you have is no real story at all.

taken as it is, a collection of individual stories within a universe, it would have been far more effective and interesting to see at least a few of them intersect in some way or another. think of movies like crash or 11:14 with this concept. it's ok the way it is, too. not as interesting - they just all happen to be on the same ship in the end. either way, it's a standalone and doesn't even need shepard present.

it's not a bridge. it's a collection of small, personal stories that take place within the same universe but are otherwise totally unrelated. as a stand-alone game that still wouldn't be a horrible idea. but it's not a valid second part to a trilogy. a good bridge would be invaluable to the whole. it gives you information you need. it defeats you and forces you to face yourself and get back up to fight harder. revelations, twists, growing relationships, a major and (presumably) meaningful change in status, a little self discovery... the middle act is the place for these. what did we get from this? the collectors are actually the [spoiler censor text], but who cares? they showed up at the beginning of this game and we beat 'em but good! oh, and the reapers are coming. that seems familar. didn't...? yeah. yeah, i think we already knew that at the end of the 1st game. and shepard seemingly needlessly died at the beginning of the game so that he could be recruited into a terrorist organization only to use the same (basically) ship, pilot, some crew members and official alliance N7 armor to go out and continue the mission that he was already set on. oh, and so that he'd have a better excuse to recruit much more "badass" squad members than those boringly noble squad members from the first game that had less-forced character dimensions (my opinion, though i do like the new character, too, to varying degrees) only to have a probable chance of having some or all of them die by the end of the game so that they really didn't matter, anyway.

so... where'd that leave us? oh, yeah. without a story. which is why i preordered and picked it up on the first day. hey, yes, it's a great game. a lot of stuff was improved. some other game mechanics were made worse, but i'll concede those are often more of a preference issue. on the story issue - especially in the context of being the middle of a trilogy, for the reasons stated above, i cannot find reason to award much credit at all in the ME2 team's direction. if it were simply a sequel with no intention to link it other than being in the same universe, it might be a (slightly) different... ahem... story. and the story, more than anything else, is what made me come back for seconds.

EDIT:  HUGE SPOILERS DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED THE GAME
 
I completely disagree it resolved the question of what happened to the remaining indoctrinated Protheans, It confirmed what sovereign informed us about in the first game (reapers in darkspace) It reinforced the power of the reapers and introduced new types of husk enemies. It gave us an insight into the construction of a reaper and also massively expanded the role of cerberus from illusive boogey man to formidable organisation with complex political and patriotic motivations. It fleshed out jokers character and performed an important function in terms of story. It also included several choices which will (hopefully) have a big impact on three. To say that it was a loose collection of stories really misses the point. It was a bridge nothing more, i think the only thing it lacked which it could have done with in terms of story is an Oh My God moment (Vader being lukes father for instance, or Saul Ty being one of the five). There are a lot of questions left to be answered but that's what the third part and DLC is for. At least you can rest easy that now they have nailed the combat mechanics they can spend more time on developing characters, story and (hopefully!) limited inventory management for you and your (Armour !) crew as well as greater visual control over their look. Oh and some kick ass weapon mods.

Modifié par FluxDeluxe, 09 avril 2010 - 02:46 .

[catabuca]

ME2 shouldn't get a free pass on story because it's 'the bridge in a trilogy'. BW also intended it to be playable as a stand-alone game for new players. It should work in both ways. In fact, I'd say it's more successful as a stand-alone game, because it doesn't provide the depth of feeling and continuity those who love ME need to carry them through.

[exxxed]

catabuca wrote...

ME2 shouldn't get a free pass on story because it's 'the bridge in a trilogy'. BW also intended it to be playable as a stand-alone game for new players. It should work in both ways. In fact, I'd say it's more successful as a stand-alone game, because it doesn't provide the depth of feeling and continuity those who love ME need to carry them through.

That's exactly what i was about to say!

Anyway, Bioware  screwed up when they decided that new players are more important than the ones who already played the first, and many of those who don't like, or actually hate, the first one are those who started with the sequel and xbox players, because the PC version was improved in many, MANY, ways (graphics, squad commands, Mako, inventory etc.), that is the main reason why i was shocked when i first played ME 2 on the pc.
 
 It didn't receive that special attention the first one got when it was ported, i mean hell, besides some effects and UI it was basically the same, tutorial pop-ups everywhere, screwed up tips in term of key binding, large fonts etc.

 Now back to the story, i really hope Bioware is not going to make the Finale "newb" friendly and actually focus on the trilogy part of the story.

 Take care guys!