10273 réponses à ce sujet

[kraidy1117]

Terror_K wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Any flaw ME1 had, and it had many, was fixed in ME2. ME2 has its own flaws but they're less than the amount in ME1. The formula BioWare uses to make games was broken too by giving us a caper story of assembling the best of the best and doing the impossible instead of travel to 3-4 places collect info/item and then locked to the finale.

This is a great game. Threads like this are saddening.

First of all, no... ME1's flaws weren't fixed in ME2 at all, they were just ignored and thrown away while the devs went for the simplest "solution" to the problem by simply eliminating the issue. It's like saying "my car isn't going properly" and the solution being "trash the car."

Secondly, I believe ME2 has far more flaws than ME1 did. Its just that the flaws aren't quite as significant and are also more determined by taste. ME1 had less flaws but they were more significant, while ME2 has lots of little problems. The other difference is ME1's problems come from the attempt to add depth not quite working, while ME2's problems stem from a complete lack of depth and oversimplification. ME2 is a less technically flawed game, but its also a shallower one.

Jebel Krong wrote...

as games get more fully-featured and more complex, a lot more of the old "boundaries" between genres are going to disappear, and this is a good thing: it shows evolution.

Yes. Because as we all know, throwing out RPG mechanics and replacing them with simple shooter ones that aren't much deeper than the systems in Doom or Quake is evolution. <_<

Inventory does not mean it's a RPG. A RPG is about you taking a role and and making it oyur own, something ME2 did, just like ME. It's a RPG.

[Octarin]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Octarin wrote...

6. I liked the loyalty missions well enough, I understand their usage, but I don't agree with the loyalty handling. I like DAO better where companions agree/disagree with your actions and thus formulate their like/dislike accordingly. The ME2 one seemed like a cheap emotional tradeoff, "do right by me personally and i'm your dog", sorry it just doesn't cut it role-play wise.

They should have called it 'conviction' instead of 'loyalty'. You help them tie up loose ends in their lives before the suicide mission. And DA:O isn't really a good example. You could be as evil (or good) as you wanted as long as certain partymembers were not in your group at the time. Add the 'gifts' and you actually have to work hard to get someone to hate you.

Ashley and Kaidan were very strong characters in ME1 and despite the fact that you do sacrifice one of them, or maybe exactly because you have to sacrifice one of them, the other takes a special role in the team from then on, if he/she hasn't already, as a lover.

Difference in tastes. I felt that both characters were utterly boring and thus the 'choice' had no impact. If it had been Tali/Liara and Garrus/Wrex...

I agree with you regarding DAO. It is immensely difficult now to get people not to like you, since especially the feastday gifts give a 50 approval, you're all covered from day 1. It's just the logic behind it that I liked better, you're on the road with some people, you interact with them in many ways, you're in each other's face all the time, that's bound to result to like/dislike etc. It makes a bit more sense. I do like the loyalty missions, except Jacob's, and i usually just do all of them just cause I enjoy them. But it seems forced. Like other things in the game, it has the feeling of being forced on you somehow. Minor point really, tbh.

As for Ash and Kaidan, yes sometimes I've thought that it could have been Wrex vs Garrus for example, or Tali vs Liara, but it wasn't, because thee two were there as the major love interests. It sort of took me by surprise when lately I decided to make a maleshep in ME1 and carry him over, and I found out that the person who closes in on the beacon at the very beginning isn't Kaidan if you're male, it's Ash. So these two were particularly planted in the game for a reason, from what I can gather. In ME2 if someone gave me a similar choice between, say Tali and Jack, I'd be a bit baffled, so I understand where you're coming from.

[bjdbwea]

kraidy1117 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote..
.
i think a more pertinent question for bjdbwea would be: why would BW keep wanting to make the exact same game/type of game, whatever the setting, and not push the boundaries instead? why not a TPS? (and neither me1 or me2 are  a straight TPS anyway).

No reason, really. Pushing the boundaries would be great. Maybe they'll do it with ME 3? Because they surely didn't with ME 2. There's nothing new, nothing unique, nothing innovative, nothing that wasn't done by countless shooters before.

If they manage to provide actually challenging and diverse combat in ME 3, that's good. But I'll still not buy the game if the important things - story and presentation, choices and depth - don't improve.

And ME did that?

Not as far as combat is concerned, no. Also not as far as the RPG system is concerned, of course other games offer more there. But most certainly as far as the things I named as the important ones are concerned. In comparison to that, ME 2 doesn't push any boundaries. On the contrary, except for the interrupt system, it took several steps back.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 10 juin 2010 - 10:22 .

[Terror_K]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Inventory does not mean it's a RPG. A RPG is about you taking a role and and making it oyur own, something ME2 did, just like ME. It's a RPG.

Oh not this BS again... <_<

No, an RPG is about statistical character building and progression centred around a ruleset. Any story-driven game can have you playing a role and making it your own, but those games aren't RPGs. ME2 is an RPG, but its a damn shallow one. Just because it fits the definition doesn't mean it does a good job of it. Almost every other RPG out there does a better job of at least being a satisfactory RPG than ME2 does, and that includes the likes of Gothic 3 and Two Worlds which are awful. ME2's systems are about as deep as a dried up puddle. It still flabberghasts me to this day that people who claim to be RPG fans think its deep and involved and superior to ME1 in this respect.

[kraidy1117]

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...

[quote]kraidy1117 wrote...

No reason, really. Pushing the boundaries would be great. Maybe they'll do it with ME 3? Because they surely didn't with ME 2. There's nothing new, nothing unique, nothing innovative, nothing that wasn't done by countless shooters before.

If they manage to provide actually challenging and diverse combat in ME 3, that's good. But I'll still not buy the game if the important things - story and presentation, choices and depth - don't improve.
[/quote]

And ME did that? [/quote]

Not as far as combat is concerned, no. Also not as far as the RPG system are concerned, of course other games offer more there. But most certainly as far as the things I named as the important ones are concerned. In comparison to that, ME 2 doesn't push any boundaries. On the contrary, except for the interrupt system, it took several steps back.

[/quote]

The whole upgrade system was a smart idea, however there is many ways this could have been amazing and had alot of potinal to be amazing and unuqe. When I do my ultimate ripping part the ME series, I will get very ciritical into this aspect and how Bioware should have done. Both games have strong flaws, ME was the combat, the uncharted planet, lvel-up system and inventory. ME2 has like ME a level-up system, planet scanining (tho it is better now) lack of explorable worlds(which Overlord is going to fix) and the plot. Thoose are the big flaws wih both games. ME2 fixed the combat, tird to do a new inventory system but it was wasted pontianal.

There is other flaws I could rip at for both games but I won't until I finish my guide if you want to call it that, I think you will enjoy it

[Epantiras]

Mesina2 wrote...

www.explicitgamer.com/article/14-reasons-hate-mass-effect-2

1st retarded
2nd understandble
3rd Aperently that guy has no hearth
Oh yeah, 30% something gamers don't like Zaeed and same with Jacob and Jack, while 70% didn't pick that choice
And if you read comments on that pool people mostly don't like Zaeed becouse he has no dialogue wheel.
Aperently dialogue wheel=character
4th ME1 didn't had looting ether. You just get equpmnent automaticly when you kill some enemies. I don't call that looting.
5th this is Bioware's mistake. They should just say DIFFRENT GAME MECHANIC! And I saw people that compare Termal clips with mediclorian B.S. from Star Wars. Like ammo is big part of ME plot.
6th agreed
7th they can fix it with DLC, why they didn't yet I don't know so we agree
8th TRY ROMANCE WITH JACK ON PARAGON!
9th you are complaing about fish? I have no comment
10th maybe if you didn't suck you would know how to use powers
11th YOU HAVE OVERLOAD IN ME1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12th hmh, OK?
13th *facepalm*
14th no comment

I'm dismissing that article on Explicitgame. Seems like the writer was more a casual player than a "hard-core" gamer. Man, he was really too focused on Miri's and Kelly's ass than anything else <_<

Modifié par Epantiras, 10 juin 2010 - 10:27 .

[Orchomene]

bjdbwea wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

While we all look for different things in RPGs I do ask that you at least try AP, despite what the reviews say it is nowhere near as bad as they made out, I encountered more bugs with the Mass Effect games than I did with AP personally on PC.

Yes, I think I might. At least AP doesn't claim to be anything else than it is, especially not a successor to a truly outstanding game. And I certainly don't trust the reviews, not from reviewers who give ME 2 a 10/10. Why shouldn't their scores for AP be just as wrong, just in the other direction? Still, it seems obvious enough that AP is not of the same quality the BioWare RPGs used to be.

Well, AP is maybe less polished in terms of voice acting, fluidity in movement or character expression, it's better than many BW games as an RPG.
Ok, it's less an RPG that can be seen as a movie, but it sure gives more freedom and chains of actions/reaction in the story is impressive. There is less manicheism (that I find a bit tedious in many of the BW games, even if called paragon/renegade, it's just manicheism), dialogues have a depth given by the simple fact that what has been done before changes the dialogues. Ex : if you do some mission not stealthy, at some encounter someone may refer to the way your presence has been detected. Those are small things, but things that really efficient for immersion.
If you want to try the game, I think you should take it on PC. That would allow you to modify some technical settings that are not well optimised. Technical settings are the same more or less, than the ME games because it uses UE too.

[kraidy1117]

Terror_K wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Inventory does not mean it's a RPG. A RPG is about you taking a role and and making it oyur own, something ME2 did, just like ME. It's a RPG.

Oh not this BS again... <_<

No, an RPG is about statistical character building and progression centred around a ruleset. Any story-driven game can have you playing a role and making it your own, but those games aren't RPGs. ME2 is an RPG, but its a damn shallow one. Just because it fits the definition doesn't mean it does a good job of it. Almost every other RPG out there does a better job of at least being a satisfactory RPG than ME2 does, and that includes the likes of Gothic 3 and Two Worlds which are awful. ME2's systems are about as deep as a dried up puddle. It still flabberghasts me to this day that people who claim to be RPG fans think its deep and involved and superior to ME1 in this respect.

First I never said it was deep, in fact both ME and ME2 are shallow RPGs. The point I am making is that it does not need a invetory system to be a RPG. There are many non-RPGs that have inventory systems, does that mean they are a RPG? Of course not, ME2, like the first ME is strong in it's intrections and building a character to be your own. I found mE2 did this laot better then in ME, but when it comes to that it's personal prefrence.

[kraidy1117]

Epantiras wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

www.explicitgamer.com/article/14-reasons-hate-mass-effect-2

1st retarded
2nd understandble
3rd Aperently that guy has no hearth
Oh yeah, 30% something gamers don't like Zaeed and same with Jacob and Jack, while 70% didn't pick that choice
And if you read comments on that pool people mostly don't like Zaeed becouse he has no dialogue wheel.
Aperently dialogue wheel=character
4th ME1 didn't had looting ether. You just get equpmnent automaticly when you kill some enemies. I don't call that looting.
5th this is Bioware's mistake. They should just say DIFFRENT GAME MECHANIC! And I saw people that compare Termal clips with mediclorian B.S. from Star Wars. Like ammo is big part of ME plot.
6th agreed
7th they can fix it with DLC, why they didn't yet I don't know so we agree
8th TRY ROMANCE WITH JACK ON PARAGON!
9th you are complaing about fish? I have no comment
10th maybe if you didn't suck you would know how to use powers
11th YOU HAVE OVERLOAD IN ME1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12th hmh, OK?
13th *facepalm*
14th no comment

I'm dismissing that article on Explicitgame. Seems like the writer was more a casual player than a "hard-core" gamer. Man, he was really too focused on Miri's and Kelly's ass than anything else <_<

It's a joke article.

[KitsuneRommel]

Octarin wrote...

I understand where you're coming from.

Well I was a bit too harsh towards them. Ashley does grow onto you if you can get past her racist outlook (or you play one yourself). I'm sure the same will happen with Kaidan if you play a female character. As a male he had nothing to talk to you for most of the game.

[Terror_K]

kraidy1117 wrote...
First I never said it was deep, in fact both ME and ME2 are shallow RPGs. The point I am making is that it does not need a invetory system to be a RPG. There are many non-RPGs that have inventory systems, does that mean they are a RPG? Of course not, ME2, like the first ME is strong in it's intrections and building a character to be your own. I found mE2 did this laot better then in ME, but when it comes to that it's personal prefrence. 

True. But in an RPG I expect more than a shallow, linear and limited selection of weapons with no variation or customisation whatsoever beyond an equally linear upgrade system with no trade-offs whatsoever. The fact that CoD4 and Hitman: Blood Money --two non-RPG action titles-- have a far more in-depth and superior weapons system in place just proves how shallow and pathetic the ME2 system is.

The more I think about it, the more I think ME2 is being held up purely because of its writing and cinematic mastery, because its RPG systems are shallow as hell and its shooter systems are functional but generic. Take away its presentation, dialogue, writing and cinematic factors and there's not much left that's any good and/or unique.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 juin 2010 - 10:37 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

...Take away its presentation, dialogue, writing and cinematic factors and there's not much left that's any good and/or unique.

Just like every single other Bioware game!

And now that it's mentioned:

Terror_K wrote...

The
more I think about it, the more I think ME2 is being held up purely
because of its writing and cinematic mastery...

That's interesting since I felt the same way about ME1...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 juin 2010 - 10:42 .

[kraidy1117]

Terror_K wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
First I never said it was deep, in fact both ME and ME2 are shallow RPGs. The point I am making is that it does not need a invetory system to be a RPG. There are many non-RPGs that have inventory systems, does that mean they are a RPG? Of course not, ME2, like the first ME is strong in it's intrections and building a character to be your own. I found mE2 did this laot better then in ME, but when it comes to that it's personal prefrence. 

True. But in an RPG I expect more than a shallow, linear and limited selection of weapons with no variation or customisation whatsoever beyond an equally linear upgrade system with no trade-offs whatsoever. The fact that CoD4 and Hitman: Bloody Money --two non-RPG action titles-- have a far more in-depth and superior weapons system in place just proves how shallow and pathetic the ME2 system is.

The more I think about it, the more I think ME2 is being held up purely because of its writing and cinematic mastery, because its RPG systems are shallow as hell and its shooter systems are functional but generic. Take away its presentation, dialogue, writing and cinematic factors and there's not much left that's any good and/or unique.

Not really. CoD4 had a better weapon system then ME. In ME you had only four weapons. There was diffrent colors, three reskins but the only diffrence was the stats.

In ME2 each weapon was unque.

Lets look at the Vindicator and the Rev. Vindicator is very powerful, has fantastic acrucay(sp) but has low "ammo" and is a burst weapon, using ammo like crazy. Now we have the Rev. This is a machine gun. It's less aceuate, but holds alot of ammo and is very very strong, it als has a strong kickback then the other guns. While yes there might seem like there's less weapons, while in ME there was only four, in ME2 there is over ten and each one is diffrent.

You also just said it, if you took away the dialog, lvel up, interactions and made the whole game linear (both games where kinda linear but you can still mess around and explore the Galaxy) it would be a wanna be Gears 2, and that is applied to the first ME too. The strong point with the ME trilogy so far is the characters and the intrections.  As for the upgrade system, well when i post my ripping apart ME series, I will pm you the link so you can have a good read.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 10 juin 2010 - 10:45 .

[Octarin]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Octarin wrote...

I understand where you're coming from.

Well I was a bit too harsh towards them. Ashley does grow onto you if you can get past her racist outlook (or you play one yourself). I'm sure the same will happen with Kaidan if you play a female character. As a male he had nothing to talk to you for most of the game.

Yes I sorta noticed that with my maleshep, although there is extensive interaction between the three humans if you have both Ash and Kaidan in your team, sexual comments, innuendos, and so forth. I've been tempted to re-start and keep both till Virmire, see all the dialogue.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Yes. Because as we all know, throwing out RPG mechanics and replacing them with simple shooter ones that aren't much deeper than the systems in Doom or Quake is evolution. <_<

and you know better than making a glib and factually incorrect statement, too, right? <_< (because the change to the RPG mechanics had nothing to do with the improvements to the combat mechanics - they both underwent substantial changes - accusing one of affecting the other, therefore, is flawed logic in the extreme).

bjdbwea wrote...

Not as far as combat is concerned, no. Also not as far as the RPG system is concerned, of course other games
offer more there. But most certainly as far as the things I named as the important ones are concerned. In comparison to that, ME 2 doesn't push any boundaries. On the contrary, except for the interrupt system, it took several steps back.

so... basically you want to pick and choose which factors to take from either game to support your arguments?

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 10 juin 2010 - 11:21 .

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote..
.
i think a more pertinent question for bjdbwea would be: why would BW keep wanting to make the exact same game/type of game, whatever the setting, and not push the boundaries instead? why not a TPS? (and neither me1 or me2 are  a straight TPS anyway).

No reason, really. Pushing the boundaries would be great. Maybe they'll do it with ME 3? Because they surely didn't with ME 2. There's nothing new, nothing unique, nothing innovative, nothing that wasn't done by countless shooters before.

If they manage to provide actually challenging and diverse combat in ME 3, that's good. But I'll still not buy the game if the important things - story and presentation, choices and depth - don't improve.

um, hate to break it to you again but me2 follows me1, and both are more similar than any other bioware game (rpg or not). nothing new? cinematic conversations system, deep and complex characters, interesting science-fiction universe? fusion of RPG and TPS mechanics. nothing new in either game, then?

[Alice829]

Terror_K wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think ME2 is being held up purely because of its writing and cinematic mastery, because its RPG systems are shallow as hell and its shooter systems are functional but generic. Take away its presentation, dialogue, writing and cinematic factors and there's not much left that's any good and/or unique.

Wow, I'm shocked that people actually think the writing in ME2 was masterful; I thought it was one of the weakest elements in the game. Poor handling of characters, plot holes you could throw a krogan through, and horrible dialogue - I can't imagine what they were smoking when this was put together. It's like it was edited by marketing people who just threw everything at the wall, but didn't tie it together in any meaningful way. I don't know why, because the novels were decent, and ME2 was supposedly written by the same person, but the character interactions are just clunkier than hell. To be fair, there are some moments that do work, especially humor, and I think the VAs do the best they can with what they have, but they need to borrow a few of the DA:O writers to help with ME3.

[Jebel Krong]

Alice829 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think ME2 is being held up purely because of its writing and cinematic mastery, because its RPG systems are shallow as hell and its shooter systems are functional but generic. Take away its presentation, dialogue, writing and cinematic factors and there's not much left that's any good and/or unique.

Wow, I'm shocked that people actually think the writing in ME2 was masterful; I thought it was one of the weakest elements in the game. Poor handling of characters, plot holes you could throw a krogan through, and horrible dialogue - I can't imagine what they were smoking when this was put together. It's like it was edited by marketing people who just threw everything at the wall, but didn't tie it together in any meaningful way. I don't know why, because the novels were decent, and ME2 was supposedly written by the same person, but the character interactions are just clunkier than hell. To be fair, there are some moments that do work, especially humor, and I think the VAs do the best they can with what they have, but they need to borrow a few of the DA:O writers to help with ME3.

the fact that you think the novels were "good" - especially the 2nd one, says a lot...

[Alice829]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Alice829 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think ME2 is being held up purely because of its writing and cinematic mastery, because its RPG systems are shallow as hell and its shooter systems are functional but generic. Take away its presentation, dialogue, writing and cinematic factors and there's not much left that's any good and/or unique.

Wow, I'm shocked that people actually think the writing in ME2 was masterful; I thought it was one of the weakest elements in the game. Poor handling of characters, plot holes you could throw a krogan through, and horrible dialogue - I can't imagine what they were smoking when this was put together. It's like it was edited by marketing people who just threw everything at the wall, but didn't tie it together in any meaningful way. I don't know why, because the novels were decent, and ME2 was supposedly written by the same person, but the character interactions are just clunkier than hell. To be fair, there are some moments that do work, especially humor, and I think the VAs do the best they can with what they have, but they need to borrow a few of the DA:O writers to help with ME3.

the fact that you think the novels were "good" - especially the 2nd one, says a lot...

Actually, I said "decent", not good. I reserve "good" for good.

[Jebel Krong]

i'd like to know what eveidence you have for "poor handling of characters" and "plot-holes you could throw a krogan though"... oh and of course: "horrible dialogue"?

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 10 juin 2010 - 11:24 .

[Pocketgb]

A challenger approaches!

[Alice829]

1. How most characters had nothing to say when you weren't romancing them. How Horizon was handled. How Liara was handled. How Jacob was handled. How Jack was handled if you didn't romance her. How characters were inconsistent (Zaeed's a ruthless monster! Wait, he rescues kids!). I could go on, but why?

2. Who attacked the Lazarus space station? Why is TIM certain the Reapers are involved with the Collectors, when the only "confirmation" of that doesn't come until Shep sees the husks on Horizon? How does Anderson know Shep is alive and sends an email before Shep even gets on the Normandy? Those are three off the top of my head.

3. "the priiiiiiiiizzzeee"
Look if it works for you and you don't mind filling in the blanks, then great. Obviously, the devs agree with you.

Modifié par Alice829, 10 juin 2010 - 11:46 .

[Orchomene]

Well, reading a lot of Sci Fi books ( I mean, real books, not Star Wars waste or things like that), I found too that the writing of ME2 is awful. With ME1, it's middle, in a normal Bioware style : nothing original, epic story and stereotypical characters.

With ME2, it goes even below because the story is full of plot holes (like in the first one) but more than that, it's plain void. There is no story at all, just a succession of holes.

[KitsuneRommel]

Alice829 wrote...

How Jack was handled

You could have stopped there.

"Hey let's make players hire this psychotic mass murderer who hates Cerberus and then make it possible to 'cure' her by just showing her love."

[Terror_K]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Not really. CoD4 had a better weapon system then ME. In ME you had only four weapons. There was diffrent colors, three reskins but the only diffrence was the stats. 

In ME2 each weapon was unque.

Oh this rubbish again...

And each weapon would have been unique in ME1 if there'd only been one pistol, shotgun, assault rifle and sniper rifle too: its the same principle, but that would have been considered weak and unacceptable if that'd been the case in ME1, just like if Dragon Age Origins only had two longswords in the entire game. ME2 doesn't increase the amount of weapons there are, it just increases the amount of types, but then pretty much reduces it to two: one you start with and one you find inevitably in the same damn place every damn time. And they don't even have visible stats or attributes... just a stupidly vague description.

If this was a shooter I could understand the approval, but I just don't get the mentality that this is a deeper and better system when its no better than running around in Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you play. For an RPG that's unacceptable, and I've still yet to see anybody actually give a logical reason why its a better system that suits an RPG more than ME1's one. All I get it "Bu-bu-but each gun is unique!" all the time, but when all of the guns are unique, none of them are. Especially when they're always in the same place, completely inevitable and aways the same, with no means of modding them.

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yes. Because as we all know, throwing out RPG mechanics and replacing them with simple shooter ones that aren't much deeper than the systems in Doom or Quake is evolution. <_<

and you know better than making a glib and factually incorrect statement, too, right? <_< (because the change to the RPG mechanics had nothing to do with the improvements to the combat mechanics - they both underwent substantial changes - accusing one of affecting the other, therefore, is flawed logic in the extreme).

But they're linked. And the weapons system in ME2 was basically just a substandard shooter one, while the one in ME1 was at least more akin to fitting an RPG. At least it had some variety, randomness and customisation to it. ME2's weapons system can barely even be called a system at all.