10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

Orchomene wrote...

1. "ME2 and ME1 are similar games"
You can find a lot of arguments on differences in essence between both games but the most notable ones are the combat gameplay (RPG in ME1 with PC skill that influence efficiency of a shot, TPS in ME2 with player skill that influence efficiency of a shot) and the pace and space usage of the games (some exploration in ME1 and small corridors in ME2). Dismissing the differences by saying that the stories are linked is as valid as saying that Jedi Knight and Kotor are similar or that Super Mario Bros arcade game is similar to Super Mario Kart.

Can you name a game that's more similar to ME1 than ME2?

[Jebel Krong]

@ orchomene: if you can't understand basic concepts like "game strcuture" i.e. universe, beginning, middle, end, how you play the game, the fundamental mechanics that underpin the entire experiences; then i'm not going to explain it to you, suffice to say that both games play out almost identically, apart from where me2 expands the numbers and types of missions.

story structure links to #1, and again they are almost identical in how they play out: start, find threat, recruit team over a series of worlds, unravel the mystery, kill the big bad, the end. simplified, but these are the core elements.

4. no, you are right: boxes/cover is more unanimous, but being a game you have to balance the universe with gameplay mechanics, and if a few arbitrary boxes are present to provide cover for the TPS mechanics, so be it, at least the combat arenas are a lot better designed, allowing for more taactical and exciting gameplay in me2.

6. in me2 balances better with the character you play. you don't start as a green recruit, and even in me1 where you didn't, in essence you were because of the traditional rpg mechanics that were stuck to, despite being completely immersion-breaking and universe-unrealistic (what soldier is given a gun that cannot hit a target, even now?). you still develop throughout the game, perhaps not as drastically, but better-balanced. character development also extends to the characters you meet - squaddies or not, and in me2 they were far more varied, far deeper and more complex, with more dialogue even in minor encounters, and they weren't all restrcited to one place (citadel) like in me1. your party also develops a lot more than in me1 over the course of the game, with the loyalty missions.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 08 juin 2010 - 11:54 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Xeranx wrote...

You have hurt your cause.  On the last page you made it out to look like you were being reactionary.  That the things that you were saying to others was in direct response to what was said to you.  However, you've gone against that just with this post.  

Orchomene's opening line shows no animosity and says a lot of what Drago wanted which is to go back to having a civilized discussion.  Later you respond the way you did in the part I bolded calling him a fanboy (which never goes over well that I've seen) and saying that he has nothing to say so there's not point in him saying anything (broken-record).  I'm not saying this so people can gang up on you or try and smack you down.  I'm saying this because I think you're getting in your own way here and you will actually have the opposite effect of what you are possibly going for in trying to change other people's minds.

I may have overreacted a little in that post, but honestly i am sick and tired of the majority of ME1 fanboys with raging hormones trying to change the fact that more people prefer ME2 over the first game and twist it to suit their own agenda.

While it is true that "two wrongs" don't make a right, whether or not the individual prefers ME2 or ME1 is entirely up to them, and then of course we have people like bjdbwea or kalfear that try to convince people the game is absolutely horrible.

I, while very much liking ME2 and have a little bit of a short fuse, don't bother with trying to convince people why i think ME2 > ME1 because of a word called OPINION, but of course many pro ME1 fans don't understand that and become stuck up elitists that think they are entitled to anything and everything.

bjdbwea wrote...

That is true. A big part - maybe perhaps
indeed a majority - of players seems content with cool graphics and
being able to shoot stuff. It is therefore entirely unsurprising that
catering to this group of players will sell games. And since it's a
rather uncritical audience, exaggerated scores are not at all surprising
either. But like in politics, just because a majority thinks
something or someone is cool and the right idea, doesn't automatically
make it so. That's why "but it sold well" is no argument whatsoever
as far as the actual quality of the game is concerned, even though it is
of course true that sales numbers are always very important too.

^
Wow, so you want to bring in politics? No offence but with that logic
don't you think we should destroy "democracy"(whats the point of
choosing our leaders  because we think they are capble leaders but it
"doesn't automatically make it so") and replace it with a tyrannical
dictatorship or communism?

For your information, if you think
shooters are shallow, how was it possible that hardcore shooters like
call of duty had much deeper weapon customisation than both ME games?
But i'll assume you will just ignore this as you usually ignore
questions you can't answer.

[Terror_K]

bjdbwea wrote...

BioWare should be thankful to everyone who cares enough to let them know why exactly they were disappointed in the game, for that is the only chance to improve the next part. Forums full of people shouting down anyone who dares criticize the game, would be of no help in this.

Exactly. I don't know about everybody else who is critical of the second game, but the reason I'm personally criticising some of its aspects even to the point where it may sound like I hate the game (I don't, btw) is not to be intentionally antagonistic or put down the pro-ME2 group but because I want BioWare to make the third game better. That's why I keep bringing up what I think didn't work in ME2, that's why I keep offering alternatives and suggestions and that's why I keep asking for deeper, richer RPG elements.

If I sound annoyed or frustrated or even as if I'm bashing BioWare, then that's because I'm frustrated with them, because I feel they wasted the potential that ME2 had and made a lot of bad decisions. And because of that, despite being a BioWare fan, I think the ME2 devs rightly need a kick up the arse and some perspective on things. I know its technically their game and they can make it how they like, but in the end I don't think they really succeeded in making a well-balanced RPG/TPS hybrid in ME2, and I think they went for the simplest solutions in too many cases. And I think they did it intentionally in order to reach a new audience more than they did to make a better, richer game. I don't care what the reviews said or how many people preferred the changes made, the game is shallower and simpler.

It may be technically less flawed than the original, but when you remove many of the moving parts that tends to happen because there's less to go wrong. Just because something technically works better doesn't mean it does the full extent of the job, especially if you removed functionality in order to get it to work better. The reviews may all be inferior to that of ME2, but after playing Alpha Protocol I have to say that it does a far, far better job of actually being an RPG than the highly-praised ME2 does.

And while ME1 admittedly may not have hit all the right notes in that aspect either, gosh darn it... at least it tried to be a decent RPG. Just because ME1 didn't fully succeed in this respect doesn't mean that ME2's so-called "problem solving" technique of eliminating the issue entirely was the best course of action, just like making ME3 a deeper RPG doesn't involve falling back on the way ME1 did it. There are other ways and other RPG systems that can be put in place to bring back some RPG qualities and depth without having to fall back on ME1's broken methods or ME2's shallow ones. There are hundreds of RPG's out there, both cRPG and Pen+Paper based, all with different systems that usually work well. Just do some research and work it out.

And before anybody starts going on about "old RPG mechanics stagnating the games industry's growth" and the like, falling back on old shooter mechanics that aren't really that more advanced than systems in Doom or Quake isn't exactly moving forward either, especially when overall the blending of genres is starting to make a lot of games overly similar these days (i.e. more story-driven shooter or action titles with light RPG elements) rather than producing unique stuff. Some may say Dragon Age is rather "out of date," but let's be honest here... its a breath of fresh air amongst the fetid stench of action-shooter games. And good game mechanics are good game mechanics, no matter when they're made. Just because something doesn't fit in with the current trend of the mainstream gamer doesn't mean its bad or outdated.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

That's why "but it sold well" is no argument whatsoever as far as the
actual quality of the game is concerned, even though it is of course
true that sales numbers are always very important too.

As my previous post stated: Regardless of how good anything is, someone will complain about it. Always. This isn't to say that the dissenters are complaining for the sake of complaining rather that the disappointment in a game can be just as easily dismissed as the praise.

bjdbwea wrote...

BioWare should be thankful to everyone who cares enough to let them know why exactly they were disappointed in the game, for that is the only chance to improve the next part. Forums full of people shouting down anyone who dares criticize the game, would be of no help in this.

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what happened when ME1 got out...

Regardless, both sides have been immensely unproductive: for every person that attempts to "shoot down a naysayer", a "naysayer" high-fives someone making a baseless criticism of the game. There are only a few exceptions to both spectrums while the rest is filled with hatespam, name-calling, and ignorance.

[CroGamer002]

Orchomene wrote...


2. "ME2 is universally acclaimed, see metacritic score and comments".
First, Metacritic focuses a lot on US console reviews. In Europe and Russia, average score of ME2 is between 80% and 85%, lower than DAO. PC reviews are a bit lower than console one, but the difference are minor. Since game reviewed have an average around 80%, Europe and Russia think ME2 is a B or B+ game, which is not bad but not "universally acclaimed".

Reading Croatian PC game magazine.
It gives score 97% for MKass Effect 2.
Only minus not really deep story.
Plus:
Combat
Characters
Animation
Graphics
Sound

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

If I sound annoyed or frustrated or even as if I'm bashing BioWare, then that's because I'm frustrated with them, because I feel they wasted the potential that ME2 had and made a lot of bad decisions. And because of that, despite being a BioWare fan, I think the ME2 devs rightly need a kick up the arse and some perspective on things. I know its technically their game and they can make it how they like, but in the end I don't think they really succeeded in making a well-balanced RPG/TPS hybrid in ME2, and I think they went for the simplest solutions in too many cases. And I think they did it intentionally in order to reach a new audience more than they did to make a better, richer game. I don't care what the reviews said or how many people preferred the changes made, the game is shallower and simpler.

Agreed. I bought ME 2 because ME 1 was amazing, but I will not buy ME 3 if it doesn't improve over ME 2. We're under no obligation to let them know why, and indeed many people probably just didn't buy ME 2 and moved on. The forums are a chance for BioWare/EA maybe to understand why ME 2 doesn't seem to have sold as well as they anticipated. The main reason why I criticize the game though, is because I do care about the series, not because I somehow want to bash a game or a company. Whatever would be the point?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 juin 2010 - 12:17 .

[smudboy]

Thought you guys could use a laugh.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

And while ME1 admittedly may not have hit all the right notes in that
aspect either, gosh darn it... at least it tried to be a decent RPG. Just because ME1 didn't fully
succeed in this respect doesn't mean that ME2's so-called "problem
solving" technique of eliminating the issue entirely was the best course
of action...

It isn't the best course of action.
Nor is attempting to fix what you've messed up the best course, either.

If something goes bad, you're given two options: you can either try to mend what you've broken or start from scratch. Both paths can wind you up in the same spot.

Sequels are tough to do in general because you're dealing with two crowds: people who want more of the original but expanded, and people who wanted something different. Both routes are highly likely to receive the same results, and this is enforced seeing as how DA:O - a very traditional RPG with LOTS of dialog - was quite a success.

Bioware delivered a cherry pie with ME1 and with ME2 we
got blueberry. Nothing wrong with making blueberry, nothing wrong with
expecting cherry. Bioware *could* have made another cherry pie, but not everyone wanted another cherry pie...

Mmm...pie...

Terror_K wrote...

The reviews may all be inferior to that of ME2, but after playing Alpha Protocol I have to say that it does a far, far better job of actually being an RPG than the highly-praised ME2 does.

You should try Pokemon!

[CroGamer002]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

 I really love ME1 fanboys in denial who constantly argue like broken records, you DO know that ameria is a far larger market for video games than both russia and europe? You DO know there are literally dozens of other websites where users actually show their praise for ME2?

How many people gave their score in russia and europe as opposed to america? How do you know that the number of ME2 players eclipse those of that in russia and europe? How do you know that russia and europe is the majority?

So yes, do a little reading and ME2 DID get alot of praise. Whether you like the game or not, its time to deal with the cold fact that many people DO prefer ME2 over ME1.

In Russia, Sweeden and in former communist countries pirating( and not just games) is really common so that really affects marketing too.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...



 We're under no obligation to let them know why, and indeed many people probably just didn't buy ME 2 and moved on.

And mass effect "probably" took place on a microscopic scale in my rectum. With no evidence, don't claim it.

smudboy wrote...

Thought you
guys could use a laugh.

*clap clap*  Good one honestly.

@Terror

Yeah, protocol being a better RPG than mass effect 2 doesn't make it a better game(with such unbelivably stupid AI) and monotone voice acting that sounds worse than ashley simpson sing.

Trying to tell me alpha protocol is a good game is like trying to tell me justin bieber can sing. But hey, thats your opinion.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 08 juin 2010 - 12:27 .

[Orchomene]

About reviews.



Well, I don't know specifically about UK, I've seen around 90 as you say, some above, some bellow. For Russia, Germany, Benelux or France, it's more between 80% and 85%, as I said. The problem is that most of those reviews are not in english and thus not considered in metacritics.

http://computergames.ro gave 85% : "Mass Effect 2 is a good game… but not quite. Good because, strictly from an entertainment standpoint, it can be recommended without hesitation, not quite because some of the good things from its predecessor were left out, while others were overly “streamlined”."

http://www.gamekult.com gave 70% : "Avec son élimination d'un réel inventaire, sa gestion simplifiée à l'extrême de l'équipement et son système d'évolution des personnages tronqué, Mass Effect 2 a perdu ou altéré quasiment tout ce qui faisait de son prédécesseur un jeu de rôle pour devenir un shoot à la troisième personne à peine glorifié par des dialogues et des choix scénaristiques qui se limitent en grande partie à choisir dans quel ordre on remplira nos objectifs."

Which can be translated into : With the elimination of the inventory, its extrem simplification of equipment and its truncated character evolution system, ME2 has lost or altered almost that made its predecessor a RPG to become a TPS hardly glorified by dialogues and scenaristic choices limited generally in chosing the order in which objectives are completed.

It's hardly a very good review.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

you DO know that ameria is a far larger market for video games than both russia and europe?

It may be hard for you to believe it, but it appears that in Europe and Russia, we do have electricity and even, sometimes, computers.

If you want some stats :

http://www.afjv.com/...ideo_europe.htm

"In 2007 interactive software sales in nine of the major European markets* reached an approximate total of €7.3 billion.[...] Comparatively, reported software revenue in the United States was approximately €6.9 billion** in 2007 [...]"

Now, of course, you need to add Russia in it but I don't have the figures.

So no, the US are not a "far larger market".

[Sleepicub09]

smudboy wrote...

Thought you guys could use a laugh.

are retarded that's a rapper who goes by the name: The Game. smh

[spacehamsterZH]

This whole debate on how the game was received and by who (outside of this community, that is) is completely unproductive to begin with. Yes, sales figures are a poor indicator of quality. Especially if you buy into the whole "game as art" thing. Applies to every art medium out there, it's usually the biggest pile of sh*t that sells the most. At least in my opinion, I hasten to add before the Britney Spears fans threaten to lynch me. But the "RPG fans like this and shooter fans like that and those two groups are mutually exclusive because saying so makes me feel smart" line of argument is just as idiotic as "it sold well, so it must be good", and both offer absolutely nothing constructive.

Constructive criticism is based on reasonably observable fact and follows a logical train of thought beginning with that reasonably observable fact and ending with the conclusion that something is bad and/or could have been done better, possibly with a suggestion as to how it could have been done better. If your criticism doesn't have these qualities, it will likely be ignored because it's no use to anyone and it taints everything else that person says because you tend to ignore someone's opinions if they make themselves look like they're not able to reason through an idea.

My favorite kind of idiocy here, though, is the people who will latch on to absolutely any criticism, no matter how poorly argued, and go "oh oh yeah, that too" because any ammunition against ME2 is good enough. I won't name names, you all know what I mean. That pretty much nullifies any criticism coming from those people because you're left with the inevitable impression that they're just out to bash the game no matter what and will happily grasp at the tiniest straw if need be.

Anyway, I guess the point of my wall of text is if we have things we don't like about ME2 (I know I do), we have to phrase them in a way that makes sense and without sweeping generalizations that don't help our point. And just because the game sold well and received good reviews in the chronically corrupt gaming press doesn't mean it's perfect in every way.

[smudboy]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Thought you guys could use a laugh.

are retarded that's a rapper who goes by the name: The Game. smh

Wow.  My eyes.

[Orchomene]

Jebel Krong wrote...

@ orchomene: if you can't understand basic concepts like "game strcuture" i.e. universe, beginning, middle, end, how you play the game, the fundamental mechanics that underpin the entire experiences; then i'm not going to explain it to you, suffice to say that both games play out almost identically, apart from where me2 expands the numbers and types of missions.

story structure links to #1, and again they are almost identical in how they play out: start, find threat, recruit team over a series of worlds, unravel the mystery, kill the big bad, the end. simplified, but these are the core elements.

4. no, you are right: boxes/cover is more unanimous, but being a game you have to balance the universe with gameplay mechanics, and if a few arbitrary boxes are present to provide cover for the TPS mechanics, so be it, at least the combat arenas are a lot better designed, allowing for more taactical and exciting gameplay in me2.

6. in me2 balances better with the character you play. you don't start as a green recruit, and even in me1 where you didn't, in essence you were because of the traditional rpg mechanics that were stuck to, despite being completely immersion-breaking and universe-unrealistic (what soldier is given a gun that cannot hit a target, even now?). you still develop throughout the game, perhaps not as drastically, but better-balanced. character development also extends to the characters you meet - squaddies or not, and in me2 they were far more varied, far deeper and more complex, with more dialogue even in minor encounters, and they weren't all restrcited to one place (citadel) like in me1. your party also develops a lot more than in me1 over the course of the game, with the loyalty missions.

I didn't say that ME2 was worse than ME1 when saying there were differences. It really depends on people. Some people would rather have the balance and gameplay of ME2, some would rather have the inventory and a big difference between the beginning and the end that is, as you said, more a "traditional rpg mechanic". But I'm not the one that would say we have to keep the traditions. It's just that some changes suit me well and some not. Again, it's a matter of personnal taste.

[bjdbwea]

smudboy wrote...

Thought you guys could use a laugh.

If this is a joke, it's the truthful rather than the funny sort.

Good video. Some things can be debated, but some of the claims that the developers made have simply objectively turned out to be untrue.

[Orchomene]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

1. "ME2 and ME1 are similar games"
You can find a lot of arguments on differences in essence between both games but the most notable ones are the combat gameplay (RPG in ME1 with PC skill that influence efficiency of a shot, TPS in ME2 with player skill that influence efficiency of a shot) and the pace and space usage of the games (some exploration in ME1 and small corridors in ME2). Dismissing the differences by saying that the stories are linked is as valid as saying that Jedi Knight and Kotor are similar or that Super Mario Bros arcade game is similar to Super Mario Kart.

Can you name a game that's more similar to ME1 than ME2?

Of course not. But that's not saying that if someone likes ME1 he will like without doubt ME2. It's a sequel that changes a lot of things. I'm sure you can find a lot of games that have a poor sequel, yet keeping a lot of things close. Or the reverse, the first one is mediocre and the sequel excellent.

[FieryDove]

spacehamsterZH wrote...


Anyway, I guess the point of my wall of text is if we have things we don't like about ME2 (I know I do), we have to phrase them in a way that makes sense and without sweeping generalizations that don't help our point.

I would normally agree but why bother?

A thread which by the title I had thought was a place for people to post disappointment with ME2 and hopefully get dev feedback is nothing but that.

Too many people bashing anyone who posted in the thread no matter how well written the post is. Then it goes off to game structure, sales of game in question, review scores etc. All for the purpose of proving to people they are wrong to find any disappointment at all with the game.

Bah.

[Sleepicub09]

FieryDove wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...


Anyway, I guess the point of my wall of text is if we have things we don't like about ME2 (I know I do), we have to phrase them in a way that makes sense and without sweeping generalizations that don't help our point.

I would normally agree but why bother?

A thread which by the title I had thought was a place for people to post disappointment with ME2 and hopefully get dev feedback is nothing but that.

Too many people bashing anyone who posted in the thread no matter how well written the post is. Then it goes off to game structure, sales of game in question, review scores etc. All for the purpose of proving to people they are wrong to find any disappointment at all with the game.

Bah.

the thread title is a question. So you say yes or no and why.

[SithLordExarKun]

Orchomene wrote...

About reviews.

Well, I don't know specifically about UK, I've seen around 90 as you say, some above, some bellow. For Russia, Germany, Benelux or France, it's more between 80% and 85%, as I said. The problem is that most of those reviews are not in english and thus not considered in metacritics.
http://computergames.ro gave 85% : "Mass Effect 2 is a good game… but not quite. Good because, strictly from an entertainment standpoint, it can be recommended without hesitation, not quite because some of the good things from its predecessor were left out, while others were overly “streamlined”."
http://www.gamekult.com gave 70% : "Avec son élimination d'un réel inventaire, sa gestion simplifiée à l'extrême de l'équipement et son système d'évolution des personnages tronqué, Mass Effect 2 a perdu ou altéré quasiment tout ce qui faisait de son prédécesseur un jeu de rôle pour devenir un shoot à la troisième personne à peine glorifié par des dialogues et des choix scénaristiques qui se limitent en grande partie à choisir dans quel ordre on remplira nos objectifs."
Which can be translated into : With the elimination of the inventory, its extrem simplification of equipment and its truncated character evolution system, ME2 has lost or altered almost that made its predecessor a RPG to become a TPS hardly glorified by dialogues and scenaristic choices limited generally in chosing the order in which objectives are completed.
It's hardly a very good review.

So, because 3 reviewers(aka 3 people) didn't rate ME2 as high as IGN, gamespot,gametrailers,metacritic and the user reviews, it means that ME2 isn't that well praised?

You're arguing like a broken record, i asked you to show me user reviews, not website reviews. And by the way, do you honestly think i would take gamekult seriously considering that it gave a very high rating to a crappy game known as alien vs predator?

Orchomene wrote...

It may be hard for you to believe it, but it appears that in Europe and Russia, we do have electricity and even, sometimes, computers.
If you want some stats :
http://www.afjv.com/...ideo_europe.htm
"In 2007 interactive software sales in nine of the major European markets* reached an approximate total of €7.3 billion.[...] Comparatively, reported software revenue in the United States was approximately €6.9 billion** in 2007 [...]"
Now, of course, you need to add Russia in it but I don't have the figures.
So no, the US are not a "far larger market".

But how does this show that more people purchased ME2 from europe than in the united states alone? That could be TOTAL sales of all video games, that doesn't specifically point it down to one specific game.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 08 juin 2010 - 12:39 .

[Sleepicub09]

smudboy wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Thought you guys could use a laugh.

are retarded that's a rapper who goes by the name: The Game. smh

Wow.  My eyes.

never said I disagree with you, but the rapper "The Game" have nothing to do with mass effect. Some of what you say is just nitpicking, but most of what you say is accurate.

[spacehamsterZH]

FieryDove wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...


Anyway, I guess the point of my wall of text is if we have things we don't like about ME2 (I know I do), we have to phrase them in a way that makes sense and without sweeping generalizations that don't help our point.

I would normally agree but why bother?

A thread which by the title I had thought was a place for people to post disappointment with ME2 and hopefully get dev feedback is nothing but that.

Too many people bashing anyone who posted in the thread no matter how well written the post is. Then it goes off to game structure, sales of game in question, review scores etc. All for the purpose of proving to people they are wrong to find any disappointment at all with the game.

Bah.

Well... if you post your opinion on a public forum, people are going to respond to it. The question is how they're doing it. There's no denying that there's people who will defend ME2 no matter what, but there's also those who will bash it no matter what.

[SithLordExarKun]

Just to make it clear i am arguing on how ME2 received much praise from many user reviews, i am not arguing how more sales = better quality because if thats the case, shouldn't crap like justin bieber be the next best thing since sliced bread?

[CroGamer002]

Orchomene wrote...

About reviews.

Well, I don't know specifically about UK, I've seen around 90 as you say, some above, some bellow. For Russia, Germany, Benelux or France, it's more between 80% and 85%, as I said. The problem is that most of those reviews are not in english and thus not considered in metacritics.
http://computergames.ro gave 85% : "Mass Effect 2 is a good game… but not quite. Good because, strictly from an entertainment standpoint, it can be recommended without hesitation, not quite because some of the good things from its predecessor were left out, while others were overly “streamlined”."
http://www.gamekult.com gave 70% : "Avec son élimination d'un réel inventaire, sa gestion simplifiée à l'extrême de l'équipement et son système d'évolution des personnages tronqué, Mass Effect 2 a perdu ou altéré quasiment tout ce qui faisait de son prédécesseur un jeu de rôle pour devenir un shoot à la troisième personne à peine glorifié par des dialogues et des choix scénaristiques qui se limitent en grande partie à choisir dans quel ordre on remplira nos objectifs."
Which can be translated into : With the elimination of the inventory, its extrem simplification of equipment and its truncated character evolution system, ME2 has lost or altered almost that made its predecessor a RPG to become a TPS hardly glorified by dialogues and scenaristic choices limited generally in chosing the order in which objectives are completed.
It's hardly a very good review.

By that logic District 9 suck just becouse 3 reviewers said it sucked( New York Times jurnalist, some guys on Youtube and Doug Walker).