10273 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I'm still trying to figure out why they should add more equipment managing in ME3. People who say they want it back often don't say why they do.

Edit: just because you like it would be a reason. Not of much interest to me, but if that's the reason, so be it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 juin 2010 - 09:35 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Kalfear wrote...

What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.
All the RPG fans have granted the combat was better so they not asking for the combat to be dumbed down
All the RPG fans have granted the graphics were better so they not asking for lesser graphics
They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Really this whole fight/arguement is just ME2 crowd being greedy. They got vanilla removed from the flavor list and know they fighting to keep it off where as the ME1 and RPG fans simply want a wider menu of flavors!

Really?  I'm an RPG fan and I don't agree with you at all.  Please, feel free to put forward your argument as to why you feel the way you do but do not presume to speak for me or all roleplayers.  And maybe you should talk with a bit more respect towards those that have a differing opinion to your own instead of presuming that they must be dumb or selfish because they don't see it from your angle just as they should talk to you with more respect. 

Getting fed up with people not listening to you on the internet?  Maybe you should take a step back, reevaluate your approach or just give up, because making posts that insult the intelligence of those you are arguing with does not help you at all.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 08 juin 2010 - 09:39 .

[tonnactus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Well its really ascetic due to the mission layout. They could easily rewrite the skills and the level system to how it is presented in ME 1 and it would take you to the same place as ME 2 (instead going up by smaller increments). WIthout the lost skills of course. Granted I liked Damping but Stasis was extremely... useless?

For an adept bastion it was the only ability that work on drones(works even on thresher maws) and allow to destroy them safely.And its the biotic power with the biggest duration.Useless???

But ok,a lot of people think warp was useless in the first game...

[ShakeZoohla]

AlanC9 wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

I actually think its pretty universally agreed upon that ME2 failed at being a proper sequel, whether some people are willing to admit it or not.  There are just too many people who loved the first game and are now disapointed by the second to make a valid argument otherwise.

By "too many" you mean a large percentage, obviously. Is that percentage large? Gamespot user reviews don't show any pattern of ME1 fans not liking ME2 because it changed stuff from ME1. A few didn't like the changes, a lot did.

I see a minority of people who really don't like the changes, but if you've got some sort of hard data I'll look at it.

No, i have no data, but just from reading these forums, the place I would think people with strong opinions about either game would gather, it seems clear there is a divide among fans.  A 200 page thread so heated on both sides about whether the changes implented were good or bad will probably never see a winning side emerge, but i think it does evidence that these changes implented were drastic, and drastic to the people that actually matter: the fans.  ME2 changed so much, combat, story-focus, lore, gameplay in general, and a lot more, that millions of people liking it means only that it succeeded as a game, not as a sequel.  Maybe the minority of people were disapointed, and maybe not, either way there is a good chunk of fans who were fans of ME1 and are not of ME2.

[Mayson02]

tonnactus wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

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?)..

Someone has to really explain why this comlain is and was only made concerning weapons.

Why shepardt has to learn biotics? You would expect,shepardt would be trained to use biotics beginning in his childhood  and evolved them in the army?

Why shepardt has to learn tech attacks? Didnt he learn that in his military training?

If shepardt could use all things perfectly fine from the start, how this game could persists to be an Rpg.

Its impossible.

I posted something similar in the wishlist thread, but I think it makes sense.

I think it would have been better if they tied powers/abilties into the items that you get.  You seem to need "amps" to make biotic powers powerful enough to matter.  Suppose you start without any powers, but you find some "warp gauntlets" as a piece of armor that contains a warp amp that gives you the warp ability.  For the rest of the powers you could have done something similar.

[Normandy30]

The Biggest problem i have with ME2 is that it just seems like BioWare got lazy with the story. Like they were thinking ok how are we going to make the reapers come back and how are we going to link it to the first game..... I KNOW LETS JUST KILL HIM! So much easier then we can just pretty much start him up under another group and BAM! problem solved we can write whatever we want now to make it easy on us!

[sirandar]

I think ME2 was great but I really don't like the trend:

ME2 was way too combat oriented even though the combat was well done.  ME2 was really pretty much at my upper limit to still enjoy the game.  I especially got tired of shooting mercs.  One of the things I liked about ME1 was that you were mostly shooting machines. I really like to avoid shooting humanoids unless the situation demands it.

Shoot em up is easy and lazy in terms of games design,  character interaction and innovative ways of handling situations is much harder.

IMO ME2 was 80% shoot-em-up
For a premier dev making a Story-RPG-Shooter the shoot-em-up shopuld be at about 40%

Modifié par sirandar, 08 juin 2010 - 10:35 .

[Lumikki]

Kalfear wrote...

They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Can you please define this better, because I'm also RPG fan and as I can also see rpg side did get redused in ME2. How ever, I want you define what are those RPG stuff what are redused (dumped down), because even if I see many of them. I don't know what the big deal is all about. When I mean define, I mean REALLY detailed with examples, to show what's got redused. Not some abstract description, like impression got redused, but give real examples from the game.

[Max Legend]

sirandar wrote...



IMO ME2 was 80% shoot-em-up
For a premier dev making a Story-RPG-Shooter the shoot-em-up shopuld be at about 40%

Same goes for ME1.I recently finished ME1(this time completed 90% of side quests) and I only found couple of side missions where you could end things peacefully through charm/intimadate.The rest was shooting your way through geth/mercs/soldiers/biotics with the help of the MAKO,enter the base/mine,shoot the rest of the enemy,mission complete.

[Kalfear]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

Thats flat out wrong Jebel!
That like saying, if you want to play a traditional shooter, go play Modern Warfare.
Mass Effect 1 and 2 were suppose to be action / RPG mixes.
Not all shooter
Not all RPG

What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.
All the RPG fans have granted the combat was better so they not asking for the combat to be dumbed down
All the RPG fans have granted the graphics were better so they not asking for lesser graphics
They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Really this whole fight/arguement is just ME2 crowd being greedy. They got vanilla removed from the flavor list and know they fighting to keep it off where as the ME1 and RPG fans simply want a wider menu of flavors!

This isnt about Mass Effect being one or anouther genre because they were never designed, advertised, or intended to be a straight RPG or a straight shooter!

All the Original fans want is balance!

PS: The characters were not even remotely as deep as some fangirls state in ME2, they were shallow, undeveloped sketches of what the origuinal ME1 crew was. Thats discussed in lenght in thread in signature if you want to read a real discussion on the topic and not pages upon pages of drivel to find a decent post.

look i wouldn't mind deeper rpg mechanics in #3 (ironically it should be easier to take me2's more stripped-down approach and add things, rather than try and fix the mess me1's sytems were), certainly in the areas of equipment, mods etc but to say the character in #2 were underdeveloped compared to me1 is nonsense and crazy talk. and yes if they can do more content with characters/conversations/locations etc, i'm all for it! depth is the holy grail, but i disagree when you say me2 lacked it, because in most (and important) areas, it most certainly didn't.

But they were, Maybe its the purely linear and unbending way you learn about them in ME2 that bothers me.
I mean I could spit on Miranda and shoot her sister and shes going to tell me the same story at the same time every time unlike characters in DA:O where you have to influence them and by not impressing them you stop the sharing or at least the character shares less.

ME2, do what ever you want, Party member going to tell their little bit of story (Thane being the one exception, Thane ALMOST found the right amount and degree of story). But thats just it, their little bit. It really doesnt tell you anything but that little specific story, you still dont know their passions or what makes them tick. What you learn is shallow and only enough to set up the Loyalty quests in most cases.

I want to know about my squadmates so I can make a connection with them.

Ashley was a army brat, has a sister, is god fearing. None of this really matters but it builds up the character so you form a connection.
Liara, you learn so much about Liara in ME1, or Wrex, or Garrus, and even Tali. 
Hell they basically didnt wroite anything for Garrus or Tali in ME2 as ME1 told you so much (big mistake)

DA:O- you learn so freaking much about your group members. Some transfers to side quests, much doesnt. Its background information to form a connection and bond with those characters, and you do.

When someone tells me they formed a bond in ME2 I just roll my eyes and dismiss them to be honest (like those that say they RPG fans but dont care about RPG elements being stripped in ME2). Only people that formed a bond or connection with the NPCs of ME2 are those that went in LOOKING TO rather then letting the game develope the needed storyline and atmoshphere required. Me personally (and many many many many many many others that have posted about this) want the game to do the work. If I just go in expecting the connection regardless, I may as well post about pokemon being a RPG.

sorry Jebel, but ME2 most definately did lack in personal connections and emotional connections to the squadmates. Those connections require backstories and personalities that get played on during the game. ME2 was just a poorly wrote novel that lacked emotion. I know you know what I mean as you seem literate enough to have experience a wide variety of writings. Some are excellent, some, not so much. ME2 was the not so much.

Jebel Krong wrote...


tonnactus, you're a complete tool - i'm ignoring everything you post from now on - and i should have stuck to that before.

LOL, now you know how I feel about the trolls I named before. I came to same conclussion about what they write. Which is why I try to push good posters like yourself to a more beneficial discussion thread (signature) so can leave all the trolls in this one.

As I said to Finn yesterday in thread, differeing opinions help thread and promote discussion if presented in a mature way and style. I want more of that and (looks around this thread) less of this.

[SSV Enterprise]

ME2 had two major missions (Thane and Samara's loyalty missions) that involved no shooting at all. Mass Effect 2 had no more emphasis on shooting than Mass Effect 1. The fact that Mass Effect 2's shooting mechanics were smoother and improved does not mean the other elements of the game were given any less attention.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 09 juin 2010 - 01:22 .

[Kalfear]

Lumikki wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Can you please define this better, because I'm also RPG fan and as I can also see rpg side did get redused in ME2. How ever, I want you define what are those RPG stuff what are redused (dumped down), because even if I see many of them. I don't know what the big deal is all about. When I mean define, I mean REALLY detailed with examples, to show what's got redused. Not some abstract description, like impression got redused, but give real examples from the game.

see my signature

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

While ME2 had two major missions (Thane and Samara's loyalty missions) that involved no shooting at all.

This wasnt the choice of the player.Those missions were just designed without combat,thats it.

This is not the same like the major kyle quest in Mass Effect to name an example.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 12:24 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Interesting point, but that has more to do with the control the player has over the course of the mission. The point that Mass Effect 2 is no more shooter focused than Mass Effect 1 still stands.

[Lumikki]

Kalfear wrote...

see my signature

I did read your OP from you signature, so what I got so far ME2 vs ME1 reduction as RPG.

1. Group interaction redused, how many percentage?
7. Romance was redused,how many percentage?
9. Email vs computer decryption missions, basicly missions without voice briefing.
 - ME2: Emails we got maybe 12 missions from 65, that's about 20%.
 - ME1: Decryption missions? (Hard to say how many?)
 
Most the other what was sayed so far has nothing to do with ME2 vs ME1 rpg reduction. More like nice wishes to ME3.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 juin 2010 - 01:27 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Kalfear wrote...

But they were, Maybe its the purely linear and unbending way you learn about them in ME2 that bothers me.
I mean I could spit on Miranda and shoot her sister and shes going to tell me the same story at the same time every time unlike characters in DA:O where you have to influence them and by not impressing them you stop the sharing or at least the character shares less.

ME2, do what ever you want, Party member going to tell their little bit of story (Thane being the one exception, Thane ALMOST found the right amount and degree of story). But thats just it, their little bit. It really doesnt tell you anything but that little specific story, you still dont know their passions or what makes them tick. What you learn is shallow and only enough to set up the Loyalty quests in most cases.

I want to know about my squadmates so I can make a connection with them.

Ashley was a army brat, has a sister, is god fearing. None of this really matters but it builds up the character so you form a connection.
Liara, you learn so much about Liara in ME1, or Wrex, or Garrus, and even Tali. 
Hell they basically didnt wroite anything for Garrus or Tali in ME2 as ME1 told you so much (big mistake)

DA:O- you learn so freaking much about your group members. Some transfers to side quests, much doesnt. Its background information to form a connection and bond with those characters, and you do.

When someone tells me they formed a bond in ME2 I just roll my eyes and dismiss them to be honest (like those that say they RPG fans but dont care about RPG elements being stripped in ME2). Only people that formed a bond or connection with the NPCs of ME2 are those that went in LOOKING TO rather then letting the game develope the needed storyline and atmoshphere required. Me personally (and many many many many many many others that have posted about this) want the game to do the work. If I just go in expecting the connection regardless, I may as well post about pokemon being a RPG.

sorry Jebel, but ME2 most definately did lack in personal connections and emotional connections to the squadmates. Those connections require backstories and personalities that get played on during the game. ME2 was just a poorly wrote novel that lacked emotion. I know you know what I mean as you seem literate enough to have experience a wide variety of writings. Some are excellent, some, not so much. ME2 was the not so much.

You are entitled to your opinion, Kalfear.  But I respectfully disagree.  ME2 characters had just as much backstory as the characters in Mass Effect 1- Thane had his wife and son, Miranda had her father and sister, Mordin had his service with the STG, etc.  But more than that, each of their backstories figured into their loyalty missions.  In ME1, Ashley, Kaidan, and Tali's backstory never came up while on missions.  Liara's did, but in a very limited way- the mission on Noveria is hardly changed whether Liara comes with you or not.  Garrus and Wrex get side missions with very simple resolutions- for Garrus, you find a guy, talk a bit, then kill him.  For Wrex, you go shoot some guys, retrieve his armor, and that's it.  ME2's loyalty missions were all far more complex, with the past of characters coming to haunt them, characters confronting their pasts, or new problems arising from their backgrounds.  It added to their character development, making them seem more like real people and less like audio recordings.

[SithLordExarKun]

Orchomene wrote...


If you want, I can show you some extracts of what you said stating that Ecael's arguments are proofs.


Kalf, you're a disgrace
seriously, people actually prove you wrong and you absolutely refuse to
accept it and still try to argue like you're the end be all. [...]

Really,
ecael made VERY logical points, but you, simply being the arrogant
individual you are w, simply chooses to ignore it because you cannot
accept being wrong and is simple way to arrogant to do so.

You
ask for people to make logical arguments and provide evidence, yet when
people do so, you refuse it and accuse them of trolling instead and on
the other hand, you yourself has yet to even offer a single shred of
proof other than your own deluded opinions which always get proven
wrong.

You are incredibly stupid beyond belief and incompetant my friend. I just said ecael made very logical points, i didn't say what she said was absolute proof.

The other "proof" i was talking about to kalfear was how darth caine posted user scores to proved more people liked ME2 over ME1.

Seriously, i am done with someone as stupid and idiotic as you are to think they are so damn in telligent when he cant even read a simple sentance

Orchomene wrote...
About mathematics, I'll pass on your apparent ignorance. Yes, mathematicians write proofs. I'm well placed to know it, I am a mathematician.

Prove that mathematicians write "proofs", you keep saying "you need proof you need proof" and keep telling me "mathematicians write proofs" but never say how nor did you prove it.

And judging by your level in intelligence, you are no way a mathematician, you can't even read properly, how do you expect me to believe you're a mathematician?

Orchomene wrote...
But overall, your insulting and superior attitude is going too far. I have no reason to accept being insulted in a moderated forum.

You have no reason to even be here so do me a favour, STFU and gtfo.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Some of them were, some of them weren't. Some of them would have been if they hadn't been taken too far. Others are pretty bad ideas in the first place. ME1 tended to have good ideas with bad execution, while ME2 tended to just have bad ideas, or at least bad ideas regarding an RPG; in a pure shooter they may work, but in an RPG, even a hybrid one, not so much.

That's obviously dependent on what you think an RPG is -- and more importantly, what it should be

While many people these days will say the narrative factors are important, while I agree I don't think they are as crucial, mainly because they can be attributed to any story-driven game (e.g. Heavy Rain). What's important to me are stats, progression, choice, variation and a solid RPG ruleset behind it all. ME2 lacks in all these respects, IMO. Most of them are overly simplified, scaled back and/or incredibly shallow and linear.

I actually personally have more problems with the apparent mindset of the devs and the direction they seemed to want to take ME2 overall than I do with the individual changes themselves.

So you're more concerned about what you think the developers think than you are about the game they actually made, the game you're actually playing? Seriously?

Yes. Because that's what shaped and defines the game they're making. Because of the nature of the changes and the direction they seemed to want to take the game in, it doesn't give me much hope for ME3. ME1 was admittedly flawed but the type of game the devs seemed to be going for pleased me. The direction they took for ME2 is probably best described as being akin to "retooled by the network to reach our target demographic" to me. Reminds me of the second seasons of Space 1999 and Buck Rogers, or more recently of the horribly grim-dark and gritty and serious turn the Stargate franchise took with Stargate Universe.

Pocketgb wrote...

It depends on what everyone wants.

For Mass Effect 2, everyone wanted something different. This will be true for every sequel.

Funny... considering everyone apparently wanted something different, I sure didn't. And I know a lot of others here didn't either. In fact, thinking back to comments on the original forums, think most people wanted it basically the same but with the broken stuff fixed. I don't recall fans saying back then "I want all this stuff gone and it to be more of a shooter" beyond the odd shooter fanboy who'd troll in and complain about his shots not hitting, there being too much talking and it not being Gears of War enough.

Terror_K wrote...
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.

Under whose grading scale, exactly?

I'd say many old-school BioWare fans, ME1 fans and old-school RPG fans. Seriously... the systems that replaced the ME1 ones may technically work "better" in a functional sense, but they're shallow as hell. I'm not saying ME1 had an A+ system, but I'm saying that at least they tried, even if it got about a C+. With the ME2 systems the BioWare devs are like that kid in school who doesn't seem to care about doing a good job and does what he can to scrape a pass through and move on.

I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat despite almost all its RPG systems being far more solid than ME2's simply because it has flawed combat, yet ME2 gets an average of about 9 or so for having combat that works, but weak RPG systems. Seems reviewers put more emphasis on combat when grading a game these days. Also, I can't help but wonder whether most of them were playing AP as if it were Gears of War, Army of Two or ME2 in combat and that's why they thought it failed in this respect, because playing it properly as a stealth game and not as a standard shooter works rather well for the most part.

[SithLordExarKun]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

But they were, Maybe its the purely linear and unbending way you learn about them in ME2 that bothers me.
I mean I could spit on Miranda and shoot her sister and shes going to tell me the same story at the same time every time unlike characters in DA:O where you have to influence them and by not impressing them you stop the sharing or at least the character shares less.

ME2, do what ever you want, Party member going to tell their little bit of story (Thane being the one exception, Thane ALMOST found the right amount and degree of story). But thats just it, their little bit. It really doesnt tell you anything but that little specific story, you still dont know their passions or what makes them tick. What you learn is shallow and only enough to set up the Loyalty quests in most cases.

I want to know about my squadmates so I can make a connection with them.

Ashley was a army brat, has a sister, is god fearing. None of this really matters but it builds up the character so you form a connection.
Liara, you learn so much about Liara in ME1, or Wrex, or Garrus, and even Tali. 
Hell they basically didnt wroite anything for Garrus or Tali in ME2 as ME1 told you so much (big mistake)

DA:O- you learn so freaking much about your group members. Some transfers to side quests, much doesnt. Its background information to form a connection and bond with those characters, and you do.

When someone tells me they formed a bond in ME2 I just roll my eyes and dismiss them to be honest (like those that say they RPG fans but dont care about RPG elements being stripped in ME2). Only people that formed a bond or connection with the NPCs of ME2 are those that went in LOOKING TO rather then letting the game develope the needed storyline and atmoshphere required. Me personally (and many many many many many many others that have posted about this) want the game to do the work. If I just go in expecting the connection regardless, I may as well post about pokemon being a RPG.

sorry Jebel, but ME2 most definately did lack in personal connections and emotional connections to the squadmates. Those connections require backstories and personalities that get played on during the game. ME2 was just a poorly wrote novel that lacked emotion. I know you know what I mean as you seem literate enough to have experience a wide variety of writings. Some are excellent, some, not so much. ME2 was the not so much.

You are entitled to your opinion, Kalfear.  But I respectfully disagree.  ME2 characters had just as much backstory as the characters in Mass Effect 1- Thane had his wife and son, Miranda had her father and sister, Mordin had his service with the STG, etc.  But more than that, each of their backstories figured into their loyalty missions.  In ME1, Ashley, Kaidan, and Tali's backstory never came up while on missions.  Liara's did, but in a very limited way- the mission on Noveria is hardly changed whether Liara comes with you or not.  Garrus and Wrex get side missions with very simple resolutions- for Garrus, you find a guy, talk a bit, then kill him.  For Wrex, you go shoot some guys, retrieve his armor, and that's it.  ME2's loyalty missions were all far more complex, with the past of characters coming to haunt them, characters confronting their pasts, or new problems arising from their backgrounds.  It added to their character development, making them seem more like real people and less like audio recordings.

Don't bother telling kalfear yous disagree with him, he will just call you an ME2 fanboy or a troll.

[AltiusO83]

Why the FUKK are people still moaning about this? Just when I think it's over, I find yet another live thread in which impulsive fools go about spreading their opinions in a forceful and critical manner. Discussing is one thing - bittching is another.

I can't help it. I think I need to jump back into this and start cracking skulls.

Modifié par AltiusO83, 09 juin 2010 - 03:02 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Funny... considering everyone apparently wanted something different, I sure didn't.

Yeah, some people wanted the same. Some didn't. Some were satisfied as long as it was still a tasty pie.

I'm not saying that there were more people wanted something different, rather that there was never any unanimous agreement on where the game should go. This goes straight to the blueberry vs. cherry pie conflict.

Terror_K wrote...

I'd say many old-school BioWare fans, ME1 fans and old-school RPG fans...

Many of which are also supportive of ME2.

Terror_K wrote...

With the ME2 systems the BioWare devs are like that kid in school who doesn't seem to care about doing a good job and does what he can to scrape a pass through and move on.

ME2 was surprisingly well-done on the terms of being an over-the-shoulder shooter. Things are highly funcitonal, and this is what needed to be accomplished first above all else.

Add in all the powers and other attributes that can affect the combat and it's one of the more entertaining and intriguing systems out there, zounds above what any other third person shooter has reached. Still a bit rough, especially considering this is only the second time they've really branched out this far (first being Jade Empire), but I would not be disappointed to see them increase the depth with what they've reached in ME2.

Terror_K wrote...


I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat despite almost all its RPG systems being far more solid than ME2's simply because it has flawed combat, yet ME2 gets an average of about 9 or so for having combat that works, but weak RPG systems. Seems reviewers put more emphasis on combat when grading a game these days. Also, I can't help but wonder whether most of them were playing AP as if it were Gears of War, Army of Two or ME2 in combat and that's why they thought it failed in this respect, because playing it properly as a stealth game and not as a standard shooter works rather well for the most part.

Above all else it's a technical mess. I'm still trying to get it to work on my PC. It just needed a bit more polish is all, and this'll probably happen with later patches. I remember when NWN2 was crap to play. I come back a few months later and it feels entirely different: felt much smoother to play and ran at least three times better.

[AlanC9]

Dude, this thread's been here for, like, months.

[KalosCast]

Kalfear wrote...

Thats flat out wrong Jebel!
That like saying, if you want to play a traditional shooter, go play Modern Warfare.
Mass Effect 1 and 2 were suppose to be action / RPG mixes.
Not all shooter
Not all RPG

What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.
All the RPG fans have granted the combat was better so they not asking for the combat to be dumbed down
All the RPG fans have granted the graphics were better so they not asking for lesser graphics
They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Really this whole fight/arguement is just ME2 crowd being greedy. They got vanilla removed from the flavor list and know they fighting to keep it off where as the ME1 and RPG fans simply want a wider menu of flavors!

This isnt about Mass Effect being one or anouther genre because they were never designed, advertised, or intended to be a straight RPG or a straight shooter!

All the Original fans want is balance!

PS: The characters were not even remotely as deep as some fangirls state in ME2, they were shallow, undeveloped sketches of what the origuinal ME1 crew was. Thats discussed in lenght in thread in signature if you want to read a real discussion on the topic and not pages upon pages of drivel to find a decent post.

Yeah, you just keep hitting that Strawman!

[Xeranx]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Prove that mathematicians write "proofs", you keep saying "you need proof you need proof" and keep telling me "mathematicians write proofs" but never say how nor did you prove it.

And judging by your level in intelligence, you are no way a mathematician, you can't even read properly, how do you expect me to believe you're a mathematician?

http://research.micr...ow-to-write.pdf

http://www.mat.puc.c...uments/FPTP.pdf

http://www.maa.org/d...vlin_06_03.html

http://en.wikipedia....hematical_proof

http://www.britannic...HEMATICAL-PROOF

Modifié par Xeranx, 09 juin 2010 - 04:57 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Xeranx wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Prove that mathematicians write "proofs", you keep saying "you need proof you need proof" and keep telling me "mathematicians write proofs" but never say how nor did you prove it.

And judging by your level in intelligence, you are no way a mathematician, you can't even read properly, how do you expect me to believe you're a mathematician?

http://research.micr...ow-to-write.pdf

http://www.mat.puc.c...uments/FPTP.pdf

http://www.maa.org/d...vlin_06_03.html

http://en.wikipedia....hematical_proof

http://www.britannic...HEMATICAL-PROOF

Thanks for being the competant one. This still doesn't prove he is intelligent though.