Aller au contenu

Photo

Disappointment With Mass Effect 2? An Open Discussion.


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
10273 réponses à ce sujet

#5776
kalle90

kalle90
  • Members
  • 1 274 messages

KitsuneRommel wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

And the only reason to bring other people (combat or biotics) is to kill people... The only point I see for having a team of jack of all trades is to allow to people spend time with the companions they want, which is stupid IMO. It doesn't make much sense gameplaywise or storywise.


And they do it a lot better than a techie. If we changed the phrase to "the only reason to bring a cleric is to heal people" and you just found out why (almost) no one wants to play them in PnP.


That says something about the game. Killing is so important people don't care about other characters. Was it the same in KOTOR? People only used the most lethal companions?

I could say life is a female dog. If you want to have maximum effiency in a firefight you choose soldiers and biotics, if you want to explore you use a tech. I like the concept of choice and consequence. It's not like having a tech around is necessary. If anyone can do anything it kinda makes those skills moot. It's like any action game "shoot shoot shoot, activate/collect/open something move on"

But thinking storywise the damage is already done. Just going back to ME1 style would stick out like a sore thumb so IDK what Bioware should do. Maybe just simplify things further, it's the only logical thing to do? As long as they do it believably I atleast have an open mind

#5777
Orchomene

Orchomene
  • Members
  • 273 messages
Mass Effect 2: A Narratological Review

It's called review but it's more an analysis based on story and storytelling.

#5778
KitsuneRommel

KitsuneRommel
  • Members
  • 753 messages

kalle90 wrote...

I could say life is a female dog. If you want to have maximum effiency in a firefight you choose soldiers and biotics, if you want to explore you use a tech.


Well, there's always Garrus who's a great shot AND knows how to open locks. The only pure techie is Tali.

#5779
kalle90

kalle90
  • Members
  • 1 274 messages
Yup. I democraticaly ended up switching between Tali and Garrus as my tech-man

#5780
Vena_86

Vena_86
  • Members
  • 910 messages
I would really appreaciate it if there was more strategy involved regarding the choice of your squad. In ME2 its all combat strength. ME1 isnt much better.
If there would be situations where you need a certain expert for achieving secondary objectives (techy for opening a locked door, biotic for lifting a heavy object) the characters would feel less like pointless, lifeless bots during missions as they do right now.
But such thing should not be done via trail and error but strategy. So you would base the selection of your squad on information from scans or whatever such as synthetic resistance, locked doors, rocks might block the way etc.
This was one of the things where I was hoping BioWare will make something of the potential. But instead they stepped back even further.

Modifié par Vena_86, 14 juin 2010 - 03:23 .


#5781
spacehamsterZH

spacehamsterZH
  • Members
  • 1 863 messages

Orchomene wrote...

Mass Effect 2: A Narratological Review

It's called review but it's more an analysis based on story and storytelling.


Well, the guy who wrote this isn't as eloquent as he thinks he is, but still - I pretty much agree with every word of that except that I wouldn't say the choices in the Suicide Mission are particularly compelling or interesting. The fact that the whole loyalty mechanic somehow falls flat on its face when it's supposed to come to some kind of thrilling fruition is actually one of my bigger gripes with the game.

Also, this:

a whole considerably less than the sum of its
parts.


is the exact phrase I've had in my head for a while, and now I'm pissed that this guy beat me to it. I think ME2 is a great game and absolutely ME1's equal, but I always kind of feel like it could've been better. I feel that way about ME1 too, but mostly because of the technical issues and the horrible combat.

#5782
MotoSkunkX

MotoSkunkX
  • Members
  • 145 messages
People saying the story was bad obviously have mental issues. It was way better than the first game. More fleshed out characters, continuation of the good 'ol fight, excellent setup for final showdown in the third game.




#5783
spacehamsterZH

spacehamsterZH
  • Members
  • 1 863 messages

MotoSkunkX wrote...
People saying the story was bad obviously have mental issues. It was way better than the first game.


The main plot wasn't. It does some things better than ME1, mostly the "urgent" situations actually being urgent and its individual episodes being more clearly and necessarily tied to it, but ultimately it's not very interesting or engaging. What holds the game together is the excellently written loyalty missions, the great characters and most of all the fantastic dialogue. That's all really well done and enjoyable, but what does the main plot really accomplish in terms of continuing the Reaper storyline? The conclusion is pretty much "the Reapers are still out there". You know, exactly like at the beginning.

#5784
Tempest

Tempest
  • Members
  • 191 messages

Orchomene wrote...

Ok, then you remove all that is linked to customization of the character : in the end, your character knows everything that is not combat related : decryption/medecine/persuasion... That means there is no compromise at all to do like "Do I invest in combat at the expense of technical talent or do I focus more an a Jack-of-all-trade character ?"
In the end, you just chose the kind of power you will use to kill the enemy. Having combat based of player ability is lain wrong : imagine I'm really bad at aiming in a video game. Thus, my Shepard, being a soldier elit won't touch any enemy even at top level. That means that if the player is not good in aiming, then the character is not good in aiming. The same is true with the minigames. In the end, you are just playing a character that has your talent, not his/her talent. It's the gameplay of an action game, not a RPG.

In the end, you can strip the game from all the RPG elements. You will obtain an action game, or an hybrid action/adventure game. This is a valid choice, there are a lot of interesting action/adventure games. But don't throw it's a new kind of RPG, it's just insulting the intelligence of players. A game that doesn't play as a RPG, that doesn't have a RPG aspect, that is linear, is not a RPG. Simple as that. They can say ME2 is a RPG and I can say I'm the master of the universe. Saying things many times or loudly doesn't make things true.


Now here is the thing.  As someone stated before, there is a difference between restricing game content vs restricing gameplay that RPG's do.  Game content restrictions example would be the assault on Virmire.  Unless you had Decryption/Electronics (I forget which one) you cannot gain access to a codex.  The transmitter for those that may have forgotten.

I do agree that the game lacked variety in talent/skill branches to make a unique character.  But I am glad they removed the "old school" style of using points.   What they should have focused on was how to improve on the old style and place in a new one.  Here is an example of what I mean.
  • Storm:  Put in points to increase movement speed to max to gain a "Falcon Punch" like attack that sends an enemy backwards after using storm. (He does have all the Super Advanced Science upgrades).  During building up of this area, he could gain the ability to Dodge, Strafe, Roll, even jump?  Now that is just being silly.
  • Melee:  Max points, you get a CD instand kill (on most enemies) attack.  Doesn't have to be a punch, but would be pretty sweet to see a Casshern type of hit.  What you can get on the way is maybe the ability to Dual Wield, faster loading times, double punching, things melee related or using arms.
  • Armor:  This is an easy one, but really lacked in ME2.  What can be focused on with armor could be ability boosters.  biotic blast could go through Shields, Hack will now cause the robots to explode (not killing, but do dmg to itself and those around it, Reduced CD on Storm.  i'll add in alot more on this after examples.  There is alot to put in.
  • Weapons:  Someone already posted what they can do with weapons with the image.  I highly approve and acknowledge that the image was/is awesome.
  • Skill Talents:   Really a good choice and should stay.  Problem wasn't that it was a bad skill tree.   Just that is was practicly the only good customization in the game.
Now the Armor that I had mentioned.  Each piece of Armor would have the basic personal stat booster.  You know, more health, faster healing, carry more ammo, increase dmg from certain weapons or skills, etc.  What can be added to the armor are abilities ONLY available once you get the requirement for it.  What I mean is whether or not your are high enough on the Melee, biotics, tech, or storm tree to recieve the bonuses I meantioned.  You can't get the biotic blast ignore shields if you did not have a high enough lvled biotic blast.  Cannot get robots exploding if you hacking is too low, etc.   Each piece of armor would have its own unique unlockable skill ONLY if your ability is high enough.
That is just my 2 cents.

Edit:  In short.   Points should be put in to make the character unique, NOT to make them go from a New Recruit to a Professional.  That method only works if your character was trully a rookie to battles.  Shepard is not a Rookie to battles, so points to improve what he has is a better choice.  Kind of like, you already have a very well built car, now what can I do to tweak it?
[/list]

Modifié par Tempest, 14 juin 2010 - 04:46 .


#5785
Guest_worm_burner_*

Guest_worm_burner_*
  • Guests

7a7ec wrote...

MotoSkunkX wrote...

To me an "RPG" is about the storyline and how deeply the game pulls me into it.

Not a bajillion of weapon customization options that are 99.9% similar to one another or pointless statistical analysis on how to best turn my character into a D&D nerd's wet dream.

So no, Mass Effect 2 wasn't disappointing at all.


Thats funny, the storyline of ME 2 was the most dissapointing aspect of the game ...


I was unaware that ME2 had a story.  Loyalty missions =/= main story imo they are side quests that are not necessray to the completion of the game, sure they help but they are not necessary.  For me at least the story did not pull me in at all and Im still struggling to finish another playthrough. :(

#5786
Lumikki

Lumikki
  • Members
  • 4 239 messages

worm_burner wrote...

7a7ec wrote...

Thats funny, the storyline of ME 2 was the most dissapointing aspect of the game ...


I was unaware that ME2 had a story.  Loyalty missions =/= main story imo they are side quests that are not necessray to the completion of the game, sure they help but they are not necessary.  For me at least the story did not pull me in at all and Im still struggling to finish another playthrough. :(

I don't think there was anything wrong on ME2 main story it self, but there was way too many plot holes in it. So, storytelling wasn't the best in ME2, even if the story it self was fine. There is two problems what people here seem to have with ME2 story. If we don't count those plot holes, what was problem, I think for most of players.

1. Some players expected ME2 story continue ME1 story, so they got disapointed.
2. Some players did not understand the story, what story was all about and why Shepard did something.

So, those who did not understand the ME2 story main points, here it is.

ME2 story was all about Shepards army get stronger enough to deal Collectors threat,  who where superior by technology standards. So, while TIM was looking way to get Collectors base. Shepards JOB was recruit, train and equiment Shepards army to be as strong as possible. So, when TIM would found way to Collectors, Shepards army could be stronger enough to handle collector army. This stronger enough did incuded recruiting, loyalty, technologic advancements and Normandy upgrades.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2010 - 04:57 .


#5787
bjdbwea

bjdbwea
  • Members
  • 3 251 messages

Lumikki wrote...

2. Some players did not understand the story, what story was all about and why Shepard did something.


Do you really think so? What's there to understand? Like everything else, the story was conveniently simplified to better appeal to a new audience. If ME 1 was a carefully prepared menu, ME 2 is fast food as far as the story is concerned.

Of course you could do something interesting with the general idea of death and resurrection, the abduction of human colonies, gathering a crew of skilled individuals for an almost impossible mission, etc. So yeah, it's not the story per se that's bad. Rather the execution is terrible, the writing and presentation. There's no proper flow, virtually no highlights, almost no emotional impact, no coherence or connections between different plot elements. Plus the plot holes, as you mentioned.

Or to put it differently: ME 2 certainly had the ingredients to make a nice menu too. Unfortunately, they were wasted by a cook who either had not the time or the will to do so.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 juin 2010 - 05:11 .


#5788
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

Lumikki wrote...

Because only Infiltrator has all 3 main skill required to have fun, I played that class in ME1. Those skills where, pistoll skill (attack), protective skill (immunity) and decryption skill. Decryption skill, because it allowed full freedom for squad members choises.


There are three partymembers with tech skills anyway.So what squadmembers you took??

#5789
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, the best military person what human race has offer and Shepard can hardly even hold sniper rifle and would not hit in lower levels to anything.


Why shepard has still to learn biotic and tech attacks?

Why shepardt is to dumb to use different ammo types without points in them?


How is this better now??


#5790
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

Lumikki wrote...

ME2 story was all about Shepards army get stronger enough to deal Collectors threat,  who where superior by technology standards.

So explain: How garrus, a former c-sec und then just a merc group leader has acess to the plans of the thannix cannon? Does this make sense? And why in the hell the turians would allow a cerberus ship to use that technology if he have some connections?

The problem with the whole teambuilding is that they all are interchangeable. Miranda,Garrus and Jacob could lead a team. Samara and Jack could do the biotic bubble.Even Miranda and Thane if the player dont care if someone of his/her team dies.(its a suicide mission,o wait...)
There are also 3 techs that could go in the vents and survive.
So what is the point to recruit so much people?
The motivation why people join and stay with shepardt is also nonsensical. Jack needs some data and would really risk her life for it?? I would just take the information and leave the ship then...

The story is just a horrible piece of crap. Even barely meet uwe boll standards.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 juin 2010 - 07:32 .


#5791
KitsuneRommel

KitsuneRommel
  • Members
  • 753 messages

tonnactus wrote...

The problem with the whole teambuilding is that they all are interchangeable. Miranda,Garrus and Jacob could lead a team. Samara and Jack could do the biotic bubble.Even Miranda and Thane if the player dont care if someone of his/her team dies.(its a suicide mission,o wait...)
There are also 3 techs that could go in the vents and survive.


Redundancy. ME1 had 3 combat npcs (Ashley specialist), 3 tech npcs (Tali specialist) and 3 biotic npcs (Liara specialist). How is that different? Take Tali, Garrus or Kaidan. Take Liara, Kaidan or Wrex. All bases covered.

#5792
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

KitsuneRommel wrote...


Redundancy. ME1 had 3 combat npcs (Ashley specialist), 3 tech npcs (Tali specialist) and 3 biotic npcs (Liara specialist). How is that different? Take Tali, Garrus or Kaidan. Take Liara, Kaidan or Wrex. All bases covered.


With the difference that it wasnt the purpose of Mass Effect to gather a team of specialists.Specialists mean they should be really special and not interchangeable.

#5793
Lumikki

Lumikki
  • Members
  • 4 239 messages

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...


Redundancy. ME1 had 3 combat npcs (Ashley specialist), 3 tech npcs (Tali specialist) and 3 biotic npcs (Liara specialist). How is that different? Take Tali, Garrus or Kaidan. Take Liara, Kaidan or Wrex. All bases covered.


With the difference that it wasnt the purpose of Mass Effect to gather a team of specialists.Specialists mean they should be really special and not interchangeable.

What specialist? Did You read what I wrote about what ME2 story is about. It's not about finding specialist. It's about finding people who know to fight well in Shepards strong ARMY. Only really specialist in story was Mordin as science officer. Little like Liara was in ME1 the Protheans expert.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2010 - 09:17 .


#5794
Lumikki

Lumikki
  • Members
  • 4 239 messages

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Because only Infiltrator has all 3 main skill required to have fun, I played that class in ME1. Those skills where, pistoll skill (attack), protective skill (immunity) and decryption skill. Decryption skill, because it allowed full freedom for squad members choises.


There are three partymembers with tech skills anyway.So what squadmembers you took??

Mostly I did take Asley and Wrex. Also I did take Asley and Tali, until got problems with Talis armor. Then sometimes I did take Asley and Liara.


tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, the best military person what human race has offer and Shepard can hardly even hold sniper rifle and would not hit in lower levels to anything.


Why shepard has still to learn biotic and tech attacks?

Why shepardt is to dumb to use different ammo types without points in them?


How is this better now??

I have no clue what you talk here.

Ahh.. I think I got it. You mean why in ME2 there is biotic and teck skills, but not weapon skills. Actually those ammo skills are the "weapon" skills.

I think different is that if you have the skill, it's still usefull without putting alot of points. In ME1 sniper skill isn't usefull untill alot later with alot of points in it.


Don't worry, I did not like ME2 skill system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2010 - 09:26 .


#5795
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 825 messages

bjdbwea wrote...
Like everything else, the story was conveniently simplified to better appeal to a new audience. If ME 1 was a carefully prepared menu, ME 2 is fast food as far as the story is concerned.


The ME1 story was complicated? How so?

#5796
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 825 messages

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...


Redundancy. ME1 had 3 combat npcs (Ashley specialist), 3 tech npcs (Tali specialist) and 3 biotic npcs (Liara specialist). How is that different? Take Tali, Garrus or Kaidan. Take Liara, Kaidan or Wrex. All bases covered.


So Shepard should be dumb enough to only have one irreplaceable person for each job?

With the difference that it wasnt the purpose of Mass Effect to gather a team of specialists.Specialists mean they should be really special and not interchangeable.



#5797
Pocketgb

Pocketgb
  • Members
  • 1 466 messages

Terror_K wrote...

The entire point of classes existing in the first place is to categorise the different types of specialists and what their strengths are and to limit you from being too good at everything.


Or is it to provide a different take on the same situation?

I agree that the Thief archtype classes need to be the only ones, or at least the best, who can lockpick. But I also believe that Warriors should be able to skillfully slice or bash a lock open, or a Mage could use a spell to unhinge it. The less a certain class is required the more freedom a player has in a party configuration.

Terror_K wrote...

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that was terrible. You could just be everything with a single character... it was awful. Didn't encourage multiple playthroughs at all... why bother when one character can do it all. They needed restrictions on them.


People appreciated Bethesda's systems because of one question: Why couldn't I master everything? Why couldn't I learn a bit of lock-picking on the side of my weapon and armor training? What's stopping me from learning how to use a sword while also studying how to cast fire magic? It was all a refreshing take on the genre, and that's why Bethesda's been one of the most influential and successful RPG developers.

And do you know what encouraged multiple playthroughs of every single TES game? Role-playing!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 14 juin 2010 - 10:31 .


#5798
bjdbwea

bjdbwea
  • Members
  • 3 251 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Like everything else, the story was conveniently simplified to better appeal to a new audience. If ME 1 was a carefully prepared menu, ME 2 is fast food as far as the story is concerned.


The ME1 story was complicated? How so?


Ah, straw man arguments. -_-

#5799
Ecael

Ecael
  • Members
  • 5 634 messages

bjdbwea wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Like everything else, the story was conveniently simplified to better appeal to a new audience. If ME 1 was a carefully prepared menu, ME 2 is fast food as far as the story is concerned.


The ME1 story was complicated? How so?


Ah, straw man arguments. -_-

...That wasn't even a straw man or an argument. That was a question asking you to further elaborate on your analogy.

:o

#5800
bjdbwea

bjdbwea
  • Members
  • 3 251 messages
Yeah, right. Whatever you say. -_-

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 juin 2010 - 11:21 .