10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

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.

It may or may not be.. it depends. But whatever solution you come up with should at least encompass and consist of all the necessary factors in order to pull off the system and make it fully do what it is intended to do. ME2's system fails at this, because it goes for such a simple and bare-bones approach. Rather than trying to come up with an A+ system, it seems like the devs just went for the C- one: it just passes, but that's it. I personally think that all the ME1 systems needed was some tweaking and adjusting, but instead they got binned and replaced by the simplest and easiest ways out: falling back on systems that have simply worked before in other games.

You should try Pokemon!

I happen to be playing Pokemon: Heart Gold on my DS currently too. 

[SithLordExarKun]

Shavon wrote...



So, I hope ME3 is a mix of the best of both games. Story and personal feel of ME1, combat and fun characters of ME2

^ This.

And shepard neds more depth in the final game, she(femshep for me) lacked alot of personality and depth in both games.

[Orchomene]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

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.

Exactly what I'm trying to say. That even put me in the "me1 fanboy group". I was a bit exhaustive to read people stating "facts". You can compare figures and what you will obtain is just a comparison of figures, not a proof.
That's why I'd rather the discussion going back to the real parts. There are a lot of weaknesses in ME1 that have been pointed out and lead to changes in ME2. Some agree with the changes and some not.Now the point is : outside the changes (or similarities) between games, ME2 has weaknesses. Those weaknesses may be the result of changes or not (that is, some things that where already weaknesses in ME1).
I don't like the gameplay, but there is possibly enough balance. But I think that leveling of enemies is a poor way to achieve this. You may agree or not, but it doesn't hurt me to sometime face very difficult enemies and sometimes very easy enemies. It gives some relief out of potentially boring fights.
I don't like the lack of replayability storywise, because I do think that the story is straightforward and allow only very minor variations. Of course, you may disagree.
Plot holes. Many people agree on this point and Smudboy raised a lot of the issues in term of plot. I feel the storytelling less polished than in ME1 whereas the combat is more. But in the end, the both games suffered of the "cliche" of epic scenario revisited. How many movies, books, video games have poor sequels because of this ? I mean, you can't save the world in ME1, in ME2 and in ME3. So, there is a bit modification in ME2 with a focus on the isolated members of the team. But it should (IMHO) have been a real change to achieve some more efficiency : interaction between characters, depth in the evolution of Shepard, reaction. May be more tension. Certainly a better logic on who dies and who survives in the end.
On the RPG elements, I feel there is a lack of customization in powers and equipment, a lack of evolution too. This results, for me at least, to a stagnation of my character. Or at least a feeling of stagnation. Some may think, in contrary, that's better. Each one his/her opinion.

[Orchomene]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

@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.

Did you buy it to judge it ?
It's really like saying that reviews are important. You didn't get my point at all. Saying the game is good on not based on review is non sense. So there is no point, no justification by resorting to review score.
Elcael's point about the game "universally acclaimed" is dismissed. All of the point raised by Elcael are absurd and presented as "proof". Nobody can't say they have the truth or that they proved that ME2 is equal or better than ME1. Because if that was the case, it would be possible to convince (as a rational conviction) me that I enjoy playing ME2, which is wrong.
It's my job to write proofs. I certainly know when a thing is a proof or just an affirmation. Elcael's argument are just arguments hidden behind numbers, nothing more. Depending on the reader of such arguments, it reflects something that corresponds to their feeling or not.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

i agree completely with you here, but everyone has differing ideas of what was better in both games, BW should chart their own course, for better or worse, because you certainly can't please everyone. as long as they are at least ambitious, and keep it coherent, then i'll be happy - even if there are some individual elements that i don't like.

[Lumikki]

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.

I agree that it's helpfull that people tells Bioware why they are disapointed. It's not the problem to tell that, problem is how it's told. Basicly the problem is attacking game company or other players, when it's players own disapoinment. Also bigger problem is that player who does the feedback, thinks that this game should fit players own taste of gameplay. When other players point that out, then this players starts attacking them and say they are wrong.

Example can you name any other game what is more close to what ME1 is than ME2?

Examples of ME2 issues as disapointed.

1. Main story was weak, too much squad member related missions.
 - Opinion based players own needs, but valid feedback

2. Character development as powers got too simplifyed.
 - Valid point and good feedback, but also personal taste of games affecting, some people may like it more simple.

3. Too little npcs dialogs as making comments what Shepard is doing.
- Valid point, but taste of games is affecting this opinion, also the affect to game in minimal.

4. Combat system feels more like shooter now, because characters skills aren't affecting combat so much.
 - This is true, but both of ME's combat are shooters, also ME1's skill affecting to combat was not all positive.
 - Example pistols "marksman" skill totally destroyed balance of combat and weapon feel (pistol to submachine gun).

5. Customation got too simplifyed, can't even change squad members armors or modify weapons & armors.
 - Yes, ME2 lost alot of personal customation to squad members and modificaton.
 - How ever, the basic design does work better than ME1 with long inventory list.
 - This is because fixing ME1 inventory would require simplifying amount of items. What would simplify hole customation what ME1 has.
 - Making ME2 customation better would require expande the current customation to bigger and more personal.

6. ME2 story had alot of plot holes what makes storytelling not so good.
- Valid feedback, there seem to be more missing part of stories in ME2.
 - How ever is story it self better and other, is personal taste.

7. ME2 is less rpg than ME1 is.
 - Valid observation, but what it has to do with game. It was done by purpose by developers.
 - So only feedback here is that player likes rpg.
 - How ever, there is also alot of player who doesn't like to much rpg side. They get boored when so much talking.
 - So in the end this is just saying players own taste of games. So the taste is valid feedback of customer.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juin 2010 - 02:13 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Orchomene wrote...



Did you buy it to judge it ?

Ever heard of the fact that i could play it at a friends house which i did? No you don't.

Orchomene wrote...
It's really like saying that reviews are important. You didn't get my point at all. Saying the game is good on not based on review is non sense. So there is no point, no justification by resorting to review score.

If reviews aren't important then what are their purpose mr albert einstein? They give us a brief idea of how good or bad a certain thing may be, they are simply opinions on how good or bad something is. Nobody ever said they are the end be all.

Orchomene wrote...
Elcael's point about the game "universally acclaimed" is dismissed. All of the point raised by Elcael are absurd and presented as "proof".

  No it hasn't, it has yet to be debunked by anybody including you. Just remember my russian friend, your say so doesn't make it so.

I hate pokemon and i got to admit how many good points ecael actually made in his/her thread of how pokemon is more of an RPG than both ME games, if you think you're so damn good, why don't you go this ecaels thread and try to rip his/her posts to pieces? Say what? Oh, you can't.

Orchomene wrote...
Nobody can't say they have the truth or that they proved that ME2 is equal or better than ME1.

Do you understand of the word "opinions"? Its MY opinion that ME2 is better than the first game, NOBODY, including me is stating that for a fact. HOWEVER the pro ME1 fanwankers are trying to claim that ME1 is factually a better game, do you get the discrepancy?

Orchomene wrote...
Because if that was the case, it would be possible to convince (as a rational conviction) me that I enjoy playing ME2, which is wrong.
It's my job to write proofs. I certainly know when a thing is a proof or just an affirmation. Elcael's argument are just arguments hidden behind numbers, nothing more. Depending on the reader of such arguments, it reflects something that corresponds to their feeling or not.

Hidden behind numbers? Numbers that happen to be evidence you simply choose to ignore? And how do you write "proofs"? You don't, you simply find "proofs", you can't write down "proofs".

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Example can you name any other game what is more close to what ME1 is than ME2?

What's that supposed to prove anyway? No other game claims to be a successor to the masterpiece that ME 1 was. That's exactly the issue here. ME 2 as a stand-alone game would be okay, certainly still not a 10/10 like some reviews laughably claim, and a kind of game that normally wouldn't really interest me, but a good game nevertheless. But as a supposed second part in a trilogy, it has to be measured as such. And as such, it is not good. So no, there is probably no other game that is closer to what ME 1 is than ME 2 , but the problem is that ME 2 itself is too far away also.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 juin 2010 - 02:13 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...
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.

They are both RPGs, its just that one is more stats-based and the other is shooter-based.  If I was to draw a line between Stats gameplay and shooter gameplay then ME1 would go in the middle, AP would lean more towards stats-based end and ME2 would lean more towards the shooter end, yet they would all fit under the RPG umbrella.  I consider AP to be the better RPG not because it is more stat-based but because of the effect choices can make in the game, how people react to the way you actually play your character etc.

Note I said better RPG, I love both of them around the same, with ME1 lagging behind simply because I did not feel the love until very near the end of my playthrough, despite being stat-based it pretty much had only one method of doing things (kill everything), that was repeated ad nauseum.

The sooner we can get away from this belief that RPG needs to be tied to a specific type of gameplay and to what an RPG is the sooner we can also get away from having to have an abundance of combat in them leading to more diverse games again (hopefully).  Then again, I'm probably being too hopeful.

And I'm legging it now, didn't want to get dragged back into the ME forums, hate what I turn into when I do, so will be going back to the off-topic forum again.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Example can you name any other game what is more close to what ME1 is than ME2?

What's that supposed to prove anyway? No other game claims to be a successor to the masterpiece that ME 1 was. That's exactly the issue here. ME 2 as a stand-alone game would be okay, certainly still not a 10/10 like some reviews laughably claim, and a kind of game that normally wouldn't really interest me, but a good game nevertheless. But as a supposed second part in a trilogy, it has to be measured as such. And as such, it is not good. So no, there is probably no other game that is closer to what ME 1 is than ME 2 , but the problem is that ME 2 itself is too far away also.

Point is that there is no other game what is more smilar than ME2 to ME1. Meaning if You want to play any game what is similar to ME1, then ME2 is the closest one there is. You may not like it as much you want, but that's only choise there is.

If I may be direct here. Your problem is that you expect ME2 to made what you desire it to be. Not what it is, as what developers made it to purpose to be. You seem to love too much rpg side to really enjoy this kind of adventure action game what ME2 is. If you can't get over it, no-one here can help you. Also there is big change ME3 will continue style of what ME2 did do. Because it's very unlikely they would go back to older design. They may expanse customation, main story and impression, but I don' think they bring the "rpg" side back anymore, as what you seem to desire.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juin 2010 - 02:38 .

[Orchomene]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
Did you buy it to judge it ?

Ever heard of the fact that i could play it at a friends house which i did? No you don't.

Orchomene wrote...
It's really like saying that reviews are important. You didn't get my point at all. Saying the game is good on not based on review is non sense. So there is no point, no justification by resorting to review score.

If reviews aren't important then what are their purpose mr albert einstein? They give us a brief idea of how good or bad a certain thing may be, they are simply opinions on how good or bad something is. Nobody ever said they are the end be all.

Orchomene wrote...
Elcael's point about the game "universally acclaimed" is dismissed. All of the point raised by Elcael are absurd and presented as "proof".

  No it hasn't, it has yet to be debunked by anybody including you. Just remember my russian friend, your say so doesn't make it so.

I hate pokemon and i got to admit how many good points ecael actually made in his/her thread of how pokemon is more of an RPG than both ME games, if you think you're so damn good, why don't you go this ecaels thread and try to rip his/her posts to pieces? Say what? Oh, you can't.

Orchomene wrote...
Nobody can't say they have the truth or that they proved that ME2 is equal or better than ME1.

Do you understand of the word "opinions"? Its MY opinion that ME2 is better than the first game, NOBODY, including me is stating that for a fact. HOWEVER the pro ME1 fanwankers are trying to claim that ME1 is factually a better game, do you get the discrepancy?

Orchomene wrote...
Because if that was the case, it would be possible to convince (as a rational conviction) me that I enjoy playing ME2, which is wrong.
It's my job to write proofs. I certainly know when a thing is a proof or just an affirmation. Elcael's argument are just arguments hidden behind numbers, nothing more. Depending on the reader of such arguments, it reflects something that corresponds to their feeling or not.

Hidden behind numbers? Numbers that happen to be evidence you simply choose to ignore? And how do you write "proofs"? You don't, you simply find "proofs", you can't write down "proofs".

Your aggressive attitude leads the discussion to nowhere. If you can't understand the point that you can't prove
a rpg is better than another, then I'd rather give up. There is no fact, no evidence, not even "common-sense" that lead to any proof of the superiority of a game vs another one.
That's what you say at the middle of your intervention just between two intervention saying the reverse. There is thus a patent lack of objectivity : you may admit there are proofs of a game superior to another if this is Pokemon, yet this can't be possible if this is ME1. Where is the logic ? Of course I won't go in the thread of Elcael proving that what she put was wrong. Because I can respect his/her opinion even if I don't share it (I've never played Pokemon). But that remain opinions and not facts, evidences or proofs.
Oh, btw, you write proofs, of course. What do you think do mathematicians ? Do you think they write reviews ? No, they write proof (after finding such proof, of course, else there is no point).

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Your problem is that you expect ME2 to made what you desire it to be.

No, I expected a proper successor to ME 1. Nothing more, nothing less. I expected a game of the quality BioWare used to deliver. I for one didn't play ME 1 for the combat either. Pew-pew, the enemy is dead, next please. Once you gained a few levels and credits, that was true even with the RPG system. Been there, done that (one reason I don't understand the popularity of single player shooters). I don't mind challenging combat, but that would be Fallout 3 (with mods) or OFP. Or in the RPG genre DA, more so the old DnD games. What I love ME 1 for is the story, fully voiced and believable characters, dialogue, choices and different outcomes. That's where ME 2 disappointed me the most, not with the dumbing down of RPG and gameplay elements. These changes are unfortunate too, but I could overlook them.

Lumikki wrote...

You seem to love too much rpg side to really enjoy this kind of adventure action game what ME2 is. If you can't get over it, no-one here can help you. Also there is big change ME3 will continue style of what ME2 did do. Because it's very unlikely they would go back to older design. They may expance customation, story and impression, but I don' think they bring the "rpg" side back anymore what you desire.

Well, that would be something, wouldn't it. Right now I'd rather expect them to dumb down the next game even more, but if they instead do what you say, I might buy it after all.

[StodgyFrost98]

Mesina2 wrote...

What I established in this thread.

ME2 sucks cause story isn't better from ME1.
ME2 sucks because is TPS.
ME2 isn't RPG.
ME2's Shep has no personality.
ME2's characters suck since... eh... Liara lost her personality?

You don't have legitimate proof of these things.  Look at the ratings on Ign.com or Gametrailers.com they gave it a 9.6 and 9.7.  Personally you are wrong in everything you are saying right now.  If the story was awful how in the world would it get a 9.6 or 9.7.  ME2 is still an RPG because you can make choices and customize you equipment.  Shepard has multiple personality's. Shepard can be paragon or renegade, he can also be neutral too.  And how do ME2 character's stink?? They don't.  You are making up false claims about the game.

[StodgyFrost98]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

I agree that it's helpfull that people tells Bioware why they are disapointed. It's not the problem to tell that, problem is how it's told. Basicly the problem is attacking game company or other players, when it's players own disapoinment. Also bigger problem is that player who does the feedback, thinks that this game should fit players own taste of gameplay. When other players point that out, then this players starts attacking them and say they are wrong.

Example can you name any other game what is more close to what ME1 is than ME2?

Examples of ME2 issues as disapointed.

1. Main story was weak, too much squad member related missions.
 - Opinion based players own needs, but valid feedback

2. Character development as powers got too simplifyed.
 - Valid point and good feedback, but also personal taste of games affecting, some people may like it more simple.

3. Too little npcs dialogs as making comments what Shepard is doing.
- Valid point, but taste of games is affecting this opinion, also the affect to game in minimal.

4. Combat system feels more like shooter now, because characters skills aren't affecting combat so much.
 - This is true, but both of ME's combat are shooters, also ME1's skill affecting to combat was not all positive.
 - Example pistols "marksman" skill totally destroyed balance of combat and weapon feel (pistol to submachine gun).

5. Customation got too simplifyed, can't even change squad members armors or modify weapons & armors.
 - Yes, ME2 lost alot of personal customation to squad members and modificaton.
 - How ever, the basic design does work better than ME1 with long inventory list.
 - This is because fixing ME1 inventory would require simplifying amount of items. What would simplify hole customation what ME1 has.
 - Making ME2 customation better would require expande the current customation to bigger and more personal.

6. ME2 story had alot of plot holes what makes storytelling not so good.
- Valid feedback, there seem to be more missing part of stories in ME2.
 - How ever is story it self better and other, is personal taste.

7. ME2 is less rpg than ME1 is.
 - Valid observation, but what it has to do with game. It was done by purpose by developers.
 - So only feedback here is that player likes rpg.
 - How ever, there is also alot of player who doesn't like to much rpg side. They get boored when so much talking.
 - So in the end this is just saying players own taste of games. So the taste is valid feedback of customer.

Well first of all these things you are saying wasn't said in the reviews of the game.  The only major disappointments that I had with the game were the hacking minigames and the infamous yet tedious Planet Scanning.  The combat in ME2 was so much better than in ME1. In ME1 when you were aiming down your gun and your accuracy depended on your skill with the weapon you were using.  I am glad they got rid of putting skills into weapons.  Secondly how did the ME2 story have plot holes? To me it explained what happened to the protheans and what their ultimate demise was. ME2 story's was weak??? I mean come on this is a suicide mission.  What do you expect Shepard to do other than drinking beer and whiskey at Omega.  Each recruitment mission opened up different content and challenges to complete.  The recruitment and loyalty missions all were excellent and one The powers and character development was simplified so that other new gamers could open up and play the game. This isn't the PC version where you can hotkey multiple powere to launch at an enemy.  This is the Xbox 360 version where you have so many buttons to do multiple things.  If they put too many new powers in then the player would have to rememberize too many button presses to perform the action.  Personally I think your criticizing the game too much and not giving it a chance.

Modifié par StodgyFrost98, 08 juin 2010 - 03:06 .

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Your problem is that you expect ME2 to made what you desire it to be.

No, I expected a proper successor to ME 1. Nothing more, nothing less. I expected a game of the quality BioWare used to deliver. I for one didn't play ME 1 for the combat either. Pew-pew, the enemy is dead, next please. Once you gained a few levels and credits, that was true even with the RPG system. Been there, done that (one reason I don't understand the popularity of single player shooters). I don't mind challenging combat, but that would be Fallout 3 (with mods) or OFP. Or in the RPG genre DA, more so the old DnD games. What I love ME 1 for is the story, fully voiced and believable characters, dialogue, choices and different outcomes. That's where ME 2 disappointed me the most, not with the dumbing down of RPG and gameplay elements. These changes are unfortunate too, but I could overlook them.

er, except for the fact that me2 clearly was the successor to me1, improving the combat, yes, but all those wonderful other factors you mentioned were also in the sequel - often also improved, like with the interrupt system for conversations, or having a larger cast of at-least-as-deep characters. the choices and the outcomes of me2 can't be fully judged yet because we don't know how they'll play out in #3, i don't expect much more than what led from #1-#2 though, simply because as a technical challenge, currently, it maybe BWs ambition outweighs their ability to deliver. still i appreciate that they did reach for the highs and attempt something no other developer has done, no matter how it eventually turns out. if you want a traditional RPG play DA:O, but that's not what Mass effect is or has ever tried to be.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 08 juin 2010 - 02:59 .

[Iakus]

smudboy wrote...

Thought you guys could use a laugh.

I like this human!  He understands!

I hope the ME 3 team is taking notes.

[StodgyFrost98]

Jebel Krong wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Your problem is that you expect ME2 to made what you desire it to be.

No, I expected a proper successor to ME 1. Nothing more, nothing less. I expected a game of the quality BioWare used to deliver. I for one didn't play ME 1 for the combat either. Pew-pew, the enemy is dead, next please. Once you gained a few levels and credits, that was true even with the RPG system. Been there, done that (one reason I don't understand the popularity of single player shooters). I don't mind challenging combat, but that would be Fallout 3 (with mods) or OFP. Or in the RPG genre DA, more so the old DnD games. What I love ME 1 for is the story, fully voiced and believable characters, dialogue, choices and different outcomes. That's where ME 2 disappointed me the most, not with the dumbing down of RPG and gameplay elements. These changes are unfortunate too, but I could overlook them.

er, except for the fact that me2 clearly was the successor to me1, improving the combat, yes, but all those wonderful other factors you mentioned were also in the sequel - often also improved, like with the interrupt system for conversations, or having a larger cast of at-least-as-deep characters. the choices and the outcomes of me2 can't be fully judged yet because we don't know how they'll play out in #3, i don't expect much more than what led from #1-#2 though, simply because as a technical challenge, currently, it maybe BWs ambition outweighs their ability to deliver. still i appreciate that they did reach for the highs and attempt something no other developer has done, no matter how it eventually turns out. if you want a traditional RPG play DA:O, but that's not what Mass effect is or has ever tried to be.

Exactly what I am trying to say to these people.  It has an improved dialogue conversation system, an excellent cast of actors, choices that carry over from ME1 to ME2 to be seen, improved and streamlined combat, and a robust story.

[StodgyFrost98]

iakus wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Thought you guys could use a laugh.

I like this human!  He understands!

I hope the ME 3 team is taking notes.

Its hard for the ME3 team to take which notes specifically. Some notes are false claims while other are legitimate claims. 

[SithLordExarKun]

Orchomene wrote...


Your aggressive attitude leads the discussion to nowhere. If you can't understand the point that you can't prove
a rpg is better than another, then I'd rather give up.

I think its a great idea you simply shut the hell up. Why are you attacking a point i never even made? Where was i trying to prove that RPG A >>>> RPG B?

Orchomene wrote...
There is no fact, no evidence, not even "common-sense" that lead to any proof of the superiority of a game vs another one.

You are seriously incompetant, i already stated that its OPINIONS that lead certain individuals on what they like or don't like, i keep repeating this but you are just too damn stubborn to read my posts properly.

But yes, there IS evidence to suggest some games are better than others, you ever heard of the absolute disaster called rogue warrior? Try comparing that game to a more acclaimed one like Mass effect and you will see how horrible that game is.

The problem is both Mass effect 1 and 2 are great games and both are loved by different crowds, thats where there is no factual game better than the other but then there are opinions on who prefers what.

Or how about a game riddled with bugs that make in unplayable? Isn't that some evidence on how horrible a game can be?

Orchomene wrote...
That's what you say at the middle of your intervention just between two intervention saying the reverse. There is thus a patent lack of objectivity : you may admit there are proofs of a game superior to another if this is Pokemon, yet this can't be possible if this is ME1.

  You keep throwing around big words and you don't even understand them, for one, i never argued pokemon was superior to ME1.

Secondly, it was ecaels personal opinions on how pokemon is a greater RPG, thirdly, ecael never presented his/her opinions of how pokemon is superior as facts, you're the one that started jumping to conclusions that everything Ecael and i say are facts which is false.

Orchomene wrote...
Where is the logic ? Of course I won't go in the thread of Elcael proving that what she put was wrong. Because I can respect his/her opinion even if I don't share it (I've never played Pokemon). But that remain opinions and not facts, evidences or proofs.

Ok Einstein, where did i say Ecaels arguments were the universal law of facts? Can you do me a favour? Follow these instructions.

1) Find a quote where i said Ecaels arguments was facts
2)Post it here where everybody can see
3)Stop being an idiot.

Let me translate this into idiot speech so you can understand it
1) Err plz find wher i say ecalz arGumentZ r farcts
2) put heRe wer ppl can c it
3)Omg u shUd st0p b#ing stupid BAW BAW BAW!!!!

Orchomene wrote...
Oh, btw, you write proofs, of course. What do you think do mathematicians ? Do you think they write reviews ? No, they write proof (after finding such proof, of course, else there is no point).

And just how exactly do mathematicians "write proof"? Is there even a term? Let me correct you, its called "writing down evidence".

[Max Legend]

Hello.This is my first post on the Bioware forums so I guess this is the good place to start.



For me both ME games are excelent.Yes,they have their flawes but nothing is perfect.



Since this thread is dedicated to the flaws ME2 has here are my 2 cents:



1)Choices from ME1 to ME2 didnt quite matter.I was hoping for a more bigger impact of the choices you made in the main missions,kinda like The witcher accomplished.However I was satisfied to see the outcome of many side mission consequences.



2)Stripping some of the skills.Why did Bioware removed stasis?It was a great skill for biotics.Same goes for engineer's damping.



3)Story felt kinda short.I wanted more missions investigating the Collectors.I loved the focus they brought on the characters but still ME1 has the upper hand.

[Iakus]

StodgyFrost98 wrote...

Exactly what I am trying to say to these people.  It has an improved dialogue conversation system, an excellent cast of actors, choices that carry over from ME1 to ME2 to be seen, improved and streamlined combat, and a robust story.

Improved dialogue:  Didn't really notice it was any different,  Except for the interrupt system, which I really liked.  So that's an improvement.

Cast of actors.  I agree the new squadmates were good.  Problem is quantity of them, more than quality.

Choices that carry over:  Well, Shepard's personal terminal is full of messages, so I guess that's true...

Improved and streamlined combat.:  True enough.  Some say it's a little too streamlined, but that's not somethnig I'd argue over.

robust story:   ...huh...?  What story?

[StodgyFrost98]

iakus wrote...

StodgyFrost98 wrote...

Exactly what I am trying to say to these people.  It has an improved dialogue conversation system, an excellent cast of actors, choices that carry over from ME1 to ME2 to be seen, improved and streamlined combat, and a robust story.

Improved dialogue:  Didn't really notice it was any different,  Except for the interrupt system, which I really liked.  So that's an improvement.

Cast of actors.  I agree the new squadmates were good.  Problem is quantity of them, more than quality.

Choices that carry over:  Well, Shepard's personal terminal is full of messages, so I guess that's true...

Improved and streamlined combat.:  True enough.  Some say it's a little too streamlined, but that's not somethnig I'd argue over.

robust story:   ...huh...?  What story?

The story is trying to recruit members for a suicide mission and does that vey well.  Problem with cast of actors, there are so many talented actors put into one movie that its a must buy for any RPG fan.

[CroGamer002]

iakus wrote...

StodgyFrost98 wrote...

Exactly what I am trying to say to these people.  It has an improved dialogue conversation system, an excellent cast of actors, choices that carry over from ME1 to ME2 to be seen, improved and streamlined combat, and a robust story.

Improved dialogue:  Didn't really notice it was any different,  Except for the interrupt system, which I really liked.  So that's an improvement.

Cast of actors.  I agree the new squadmates were good.  Problem is quantity of them, more than quality.

Choices that carry over:  Well, Shepard's personal terminal is full of messages, so I guess that's true...

Improved and streamlined combat.:  True enough.  Some say it's a little too streamlined, but that's not somethnig I'd argue over.

robust story:   ...huh...?  What story?

1st agreed, I didn't noticed ether even though there are more
2nd please make me recap why new characters aren't good as from ME1?( except Jacob, I don't need explenation for him)
3rd choices that will be carry over to ME3, choices to ME2 didn't matter much so we agree
4th that's just diffrence in people taste
5th I have no idea what he/she ment

[CroGamer002]

I'm gonna write in what ME2 succeed and in what failed.



Characters: succeed! enjoyed and cared for most of them( Jacob is not one of them). Even some members of Normandy's crew are great unlike in ME1. Oh and more then one Krogan has personality.



Mass Effect universe: succeed. ME2 gives you more information about ME universe outside of Codex. We know more about aliens( except Volus and Hanars) and even new ones( Drell, Vorcha).



Combat: succeed in my opinion. I do agree that powers in game are really downplayed, but I do like that AI is much better( both enemy and ally), combat is much faster and more challenging, more enemies...



Story: succeed and failed. Story is great and enjoyable but it does have WTF just happened moments that scratches your head and it doesn't make you feel like you did something in ME franchise. Well at least not until ME3.



RPG elements: fail. I do agree that lowering character level from 60 to 30 is lame and removing great powers like stasis and damping is really stupid.



Inventory: fail. But inventory in ME1 is pathetic so I don't complain much.



Exploration: fail. Planet scanning? It is better then Mako but that's it? It's incredibly boring. If there weren't mods for ME2 I would replay game more rarely.



Animation: succeed. It feels like I play interactive movie. But clipping errors should be patched ASAP.