10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Here's the question: How sure can we be that we wouldn't see the same amount of complaints if ME2 followed more along ME1's path? Players become upset when the formula changes, players become upset when it doesn't. The problem is that both "sides" are huge fans of ME1.

So what does Bioware do?
Flip a coin.

I don't think most people wanted the formula to change... they simple wanted the existing one refined.

Sure... one can say that some --even most-- have reacted positively to most of the changes made in ME2, but post-ME1's release I don't recall many fans saying that they wanted "inventory scrapped" and "loading screens" and "an ammo system" etc. at all. In fact, many said regarding the inventory that they simply wanted it refined. There was positive response to the alterations in the PC version for instance, which cleaned things up a bit, but many thought it needed more, and there were calls for better sorting, the ability to sell or omni-gel all items, etc. Heck, even the devs came along at one point shortly after ME1's PC release and had threads asking players what type of improvements they'd want to the inventory system for ME2... and there were a lot of responses from players and a lot of good ideas. I don't recall seeing "scrap it entirely!" in there at all.

This is just an example, but the same pretty much applies to most of the changes made in ME2. Looking back players didn't want the formula to change so much, and mostly wanted more of the same but simply done better, with perhaps a few additions here and there, some of which they got (armour design, interrupts back, no texture-pop, etc.). So whether the changes were received well or not, they weren't what the player base was asking for.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lol. The loading and mission complete screens really help to achieve this goal.Whatever drugs he take,i want them too.

Dunno 'bout ya'll, but *I* had a great time being immersed in it

How?

Seriously, not being sarcastic or anything, but how could you find this game immersive at all?  I see so many posts from people claiming tis is the "best game ever" or some variaton of that spelling.  I honestly cannot see it.  It's just running around shooting stuff.  Shallow story, little depth, no customization, no point to it.  It's like a starter version of an rpg at best.

ME 1's story wasn't exactly original, but the Shepard I made was my own.  I felt that I could take that story and make it my own.  ME 2 I'm just herded up one corridor and down another.  How is this better?  Honestly.

Modifié par iakus, 16 juin 2010 - 12:45 .

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

No. All that amounts to is the fact that some people can't separate gameplay mechanics from narrative.

Or don't want to separate them. You keep showing a devotion to existing CRPG conventions without actually expressing any reason why those conventions are good.

Like I said though, they'll conveniently ignore the clashes between gameplay and narrative when it suits them. It only becomes an issue when the factor gets in their way.

As for the RPG conventions I'm so devoted to, I've actually explained this countless times why I feel they're good, some of which is automatic if you read between the lines when I say why the ME2 method is bad.

For example, having a greater selection of weapons in each type with visible stats and the ability to mod them gives me far more variety and customisation. How can you say this isn't a good thing in an RPG? Having more weapons of each type gives me more choices, having visible stats and abilities with them gives me a clear indication as to how each one performs and where their strengths and weaknesses are (many have complained that they have to go to the ME wiki just to find this currently with ME2) and thus gives me a choice in which type I'd prefer, while modding allows me to upgrade my gun in a meaningful way, making it more personal while also forcing me to pick and choose between various options so I can have a weapon that suits my playstyle. Items being randomised means I don't always know where they are, and forces me to perhaps put up with a lesser weapon for a while until I can find a better, as well as giving me a "thrill of the hunt" and sense of surprise when coming across stuff, which is much like the difference between opening an Xmas present and just seeing what it is as it lies beneath the tree unwrapped. I fail to see how all these factors can't be considered better than ME2's  complete lack of weapon variety, with items always in the same place every time, a completely linear progression system and no ability to modify your weapons, customise them or make them personal in any way, shape or form.

That's just one example... I'm not going through them all, since I've explained my reasons countless times in countless threads before. Suffice to say most of them come down to variety, more options and restricting the player, all of which are good things in an RPG, IMO.

AlanC9 wrote...

This is an RPG, and its supposed to be about character building and progression. If Shepard was as apparently badass as is made out, there'd be next to no character building and progression.

Exactly what I was saying. The plot says that Shepard should start as maybe a level 50 character, assuming the universe works on a 1-60 scale. If your definition of an RPG requires more character progression than 50-60 then by your definition of RPG ME2 not only isn't an RPG, but ME1 shouldn't have been an RPG.

No, that's by your definition. By my definition people should get over this and just ignore it.Otherwise RPGs will be limited to only ever being about farmboys becoming "the chosen ones" or heroes with amnesia. If somebody were to play as Shepard and run around like an idiot shooting at the walls and ground and never hitting an enemy, constantly running into the wall and dying every two minutes because they never hit anybody then the game is clearly flawed because you're not automatically a badass. Same principle, since Shepard is now only as good as a player's skill. If a player sucks, does that mean the game is broken because it automatically doesn't make them win?

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 juin 2010 - 12:53 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

...So whether the changes were received well or not, they weren't what the player base was asking for.

According to whom?

I was there too, ya know, and saw a lot of complaints about the inventory, the combat, the numerous plotholes, the progression, and all sorts of other facets with the game. Since I was a bit displeased with a lot of it I kept an open eye for people that sympathized with what I felt. Reasonably so, there were a lot of people upset. A lot of people wanted to see things fixed up: the same inventory, the same methods, all a bit more cleaned up and functional. Then there were people who didn't give a damn and just wanted it out of the window.

Regardless, neither of us can really bring to the table what we saw in the past. We both viewed the game differently, thus viewed the forums differently.

iakus wrote...

How?

Characters, setting, environments, gameplay, world, progression, dialog, etc. It also didn't have the Conduit and nor did it consider MP3 files as "indisputable evidence" ;p

It may not be ME1 grade (which is pretty much impossible to beat: there's no sword big enough to cut through that nostalgia!) but it's still Awesome grade.

Terror_K wrote...

No, that's by your definition...

And interestingly enough, it's just as valid and plausible as yours.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 16 juin 2010 - 01:10 .

[bjdbwea]

iakus wrote...

Seriously, not being sarcastic or anything, but how could you find this game immersive at all?  I see so many posts from people claiming tis is the "best game ever" or some variaton of that spelling.  I honestly cannot see it.  It's just running around shooting stuff.  Shallow story, little depth, no customization, no point to it.  It's like a starter version of an rpg at best.

Two reasons:

1. For shooter players, the game has to be amazing. Remember the games they are used to are completely linear, quite short, have generic and shallow stories, little if any customization, and no interaction with characters or choices at all. If you're used to RPGs and previous BioWare games, you will of course notice that ME 2 is actually a step back and far from great in these regards. But if you haven't seen these features in a game before at all, it isn't hard to understand that people will still be amazed by ME 2, and find it very immersive in comparison.

2. The media. Whether they admit it or not, many people believe and repeat what the media says. A well-oiled hype machine is half way to success in selling products (or politics).

Modifié par bjdbwea, 16 juin 2010 - 02:40 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

1. For shooter players, the game is amazing...

Too bad all that dialog is in the way for them

bjdbwea wrote...

Remember the games they are used to are completely linear, quite short, have generic and shallow stories, little if any customization, and no interaction with characters or choices at all. If you're used to RPGs and previous BioWare games, you will of course notice that ME 2 is actually a step back and far from great in these regards. But if you haven't seen these features in a game before at all, it isn't hard to understand that people will still be amazed by ME 2.

As a whole, the ME series can be considered one giant step back in terms of RPG depth and playability while both are leaps forward in terms of story and presentation. Both are flawed for different reasons, both are filled with enough potholes to rival Michigan, both have relatively good strengths.

bjdbwea wrote...

2. The media. Whether they admit it or not, many people believe and repeat what the media says. A well-oiled hype maching is half way to success in selling products (or politics).

I.e. like ME1.

:3

[Pirate Jet]

How?

Seriously, not being sarcastic or anything, but
how could you find this game immersive at all?  I see so many posts
from people claiming tis is the "best game ever" or some variaton of
that spelling.  I honestly cannot see it.

Bolded for emphasis. The reason you 'cannot see it' is because you're so steeped in your own opinion, you won't see it. You
have an opinion, you're entitled to it. But what you're basically
saying is that everyone who's opinion differs from yours is wrong. Frankly, I don't even know why you'd want to make this post - it's clear that you're firm in your opinion, but you've come to a discussion forum with no intent to have an open discussion.

Can improvements be made on the game? Improvements can be made on everything. Even ME1. But I don't think ME2 is as flawed as so many like to believe. Honestly, I respect the sheer, monumental effort it takes to make something like a Bioware game, and ME2 is no exception. I think that one of the biggest 'problems' doesn't lie with Bioware or any game developer - it's this spoiled, entitled attitude that so many gamers have. It reminds me of a little girl crying because she didn't get a pony for Christmas, even though she got the awesome Barbie Dreamhouse or whatever. Even as a consumer of the product, you're not 'entitled' or 'deserving' of anything.

*cough*

I apologize for the tangent.

Modifié par Pirate Jet, 16 juin 2010 - 02:55 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

As a whole, the ME series can be considered one giant step back in terms of RPG depth and playability while both are leaps forward in terms of story and presentation. Both are flawed for different reasons, both are filled with enough potholes to rival Michigan, both have relatively good strengths.

ME 1 was a huge step forward in terms of story and presentation, that's true. A milestone in gaming history, one of several BioWare has produced. Unfortunately, from ME 1, ME 2 is not only not a step forward, it's a huge step back. Suddenly, the spoken briefings are replaced by text boxes again. Instead of dynamic and bombastic cutscenes with different actors, the story is told by Shepard and TIM sitting/standing in always the same office. Instead of choices, there's linearity. And where there are choices, they either don't make a difference, or we don't actually get to see it. Instead of being able to define our own Shepard, we are forced to accept that is his attitude to pretty much everything, including his own death and resurrection, and the strange behaviour of the person he loves. And so on.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Instead of dynamic and bombastic cutscenes with different actors, the story is told by Shepard and TIM sitting/standing in always the same office.

What's the problem with this, exactly?

bjdbwea wrote...
Instead of being able to define our own Shepard, we are forced to accept that is his attitude to pretty much everything, including his own death and resurrection, and the strange behaviour of the person he loves. And so on.

This is the cost of having a main character that speaks for every response and then some. In both games you're only able to 'nudge' Shepard in a certain direction, and that's all that you can hope for. Not only that, we can see the huge difference in Dragon Age. The series as a whole railroads you very specifically with very few degrees of change. As has been noted, the exception here has been Noveria. As to why the rest of ME1 and all of ME2 didn't follow in Noveria's footsteps? Hard to say.

This isn't bad, perse, because Mass Effect as a whole still delivers a solid experience. RPG has been on the backburner for both games, just on varying degrees.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...

How?

Characters, setting, environments, gameplay, world, progression, dialog, etc. It also didn't have the Conduit and nor did it consider MP3 files as "indisputable evidence" ;p

It may not be ME1 grade (which is pretty much impossible to beat: there's no sword big enough to cut through that nostalgia!) but it's still Awesome grade.

See, I think the characters, while interesting in concept, had very litle to do outside their loyalty missions (not that the missions themselves were necessarily bad, but they weren't enough to really add a third dimension)

World enviroments are definitely better from a technical perspective, but felt very claustrophobic,

Dialog I'll admit has remained pretty much unchanged from ME 1.  Just wish I could have done more with it, especially with TiM.  Interrupt system also an improvement over ME 1

And I don't see "MP3 files as "indisputable evidence" nearly as odd as how certain people react to the supposedly dead Commander Shepard walking around.  Guess everyone takes their machines' readings at face value

ME 1 is not nostlagia to me.  I've done three full playthroughs since ME 2 came out (was working on a fourth before I got my copy of alpha Protocol)  ME 1 is an interactive story to me.  ME 2 is...eye candy.  And I'm not just talking about Miranda.

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...

World enviroments are definitely better from a technical perspective, but felt very claustrophobic,

That's the problem with variety. Same exact trade-off by having nearly double the squadmates.

iakus wrote

And I don't see "MP3 files as "indisputable evidence" nearly as odd as how certain people react to the supposedly dead Commander Shepard walking around.  Guess everyone takes their machines' readings at face value

It depends on what you personally find more ridiculous. Both games have issues with their plot.

iakus wrote...

ME 1 is not nostlagia to me.  I've done three full playthroughs since ME 2 came out (was working on a fourth before I got my copy of alpha Protocol)  ME 1 is an interactive story to me.  ME 2 is...eye candy.  And I'm not just talking about Miranda.

I've done about 9 playthroughs of ME1, six so far with ME2. Once I get my card working again I'll be getting the DLC.

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Instead of dynamic and bombastic cutscenes with different actors, the story is told by Shepard and TIM sitting/standing in always the same office.

What's the problem with this, exactly?

It's boring. And nowhere near the atmosphere that ME 1 created with its diverse cutscenes.

[Nightwriter]

Ultimately I think it is a mistake to make the plot revolve around these recruitment and loyalty missions.

ME2 had great characters, gorgeous scenery, awesome CGI acting, good combat, but no skeleton to bring these separate musculatures together into a living thing. Bioware is flexing muscle that does not belong to a moving body which gives that muscle purpose.

[Iakus]

Pirate Jet wrote...

How?

Seriously, not being sarcastic or anything, but
how could you find this game immersive at all?  I see so many posts
from people claiming tis is the "best game ever" or some variaton of
that spelling.  I honestly cannot see it.

Bolded for emphasis. The reason you 'cannot see it' is because you're so steeped in your own opinion, you won't see it. You
have an opinion, you're entitled to it. But what you're basically
saying is that everyone who's opinion differs from yours is wrong. Frankly, I don't even know why you'd want to make this post - it's clear that you're firm in your opinion, but you've come to a discussion forum with no intent to have an open discussion.

Can improvements be made on the game? Improvements can be made on everything. Even ME1. But I don't think ME2 is as flawed as so many like to believe. Honestly, I respect the sheer, monumental effort it takes to make something like a Bioware game, and ME2 is no exception. I think that one of the biggest 'problems' doesn't lie with Bioware or any game developer - it's this spoiled, entitled attitude that so many gamers have. It reminds me of a little girl crying because she didn't get a pony for Christmas, even though she got the awesome Barbie Dreamhouse or whatever. Even as a consumer of the product, you're not 'entitled' or 'deserving' of anything.

*cough*

I apologize for the tangent.

Okay The first time I played this game (was very excited to finally see the sequel to ME 1) I knew something was wrong.  The game definitely felt off to me. Not as deep, far more linear than I remembered ME 1. So I figured I needed a refresher.  Maybe doing a full playthrough of both games will show me how well they fit together.  So I started up a new vanguard, and played through both ME 1 and immediately imported to ME 2,

The result was worse than the first time around.  The differencese were plain as day to me.  ME 2 definitely felt like an inferior rpg.  Technically far advanced, but story-wise, rpg-wise, it was barely recognizable as a Mass Effect Game.

So the reason I cannot see it is not that I will not see it.  I have been trying to see it.  I want to enjoy this game, like I've enjoyed every single Bioware game ever made.  The entire reason I'm here is because this is  a unique occurence to me.

You're right, I'm pretty steeped in my opinion.  I can't shake it, and I've explained in detail (and in a quite reasonable and polite manner, if I do say so myself.) why I think the way i do.  I simply cannot understand how people, many of whom also seem to be Bioware fans, see ME 2 as a superior product.  How is asking why people think otherwise not being interested in an open discussion?

As to entitled?  I'll go for the Paragon option here and just say that some of the the last words of ME 1 were:

 Anderson to Council: "Shepard's right. Humanity is ready to do its part. United with the rest of the Council, we have the strength to overcome any challenge! When the reapers come, we must stand side-by-side! We must fight against them as one, and together, we will drive them back into dark space!"

Udina to Council: "Shepard's right. We're on the verge of war with an enemy unlike any the galaxy has ever known! A war for the survival of all life as we know it! Humanity is ready to do its part. We will not back down. We will not surrender. We will lead you into battle against the Reapers and drive them back into dark space!"

But in ME2:

Turian Councillor:  "Ah, yes  'Reapers...'"

I wanted Mass Effect 2, not Mass Effect Too. How silly of me

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea
wrote...

Instead of dynamic and bombastic cutscenes with
different actors, the story is told by Shepard and TIM sitting/standing
in always the same office.

What's the problem with this,
exactly?

It's boring.

For whom? I actually found the
delivery between the two characters to be pretty enthralling. It's sure
not the discussion between all your squadmembers as it was in ME1, but
making it captivating all lies in the performance. For some it delivered, and others it didn't.

Nightwriter wrote...

Ultimately I think it is a mistake to make the plot revolve around these recruitment and loyalty missions.

ME2 had great characters, gorgeous scenery, awesome CGI acting, good combat, but no skeleton to bring these separate musculatures together into a living thing. Bioware is flexing muscle that does not belong to a moving body which gives that muscle purpose.

I appreciated the mission structure because it was a well deserved break from the (GODDAMN!!!) KotOR formula. But now the break's over and I agree with a return to ME1's style.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...
Instead of being able to define our own Shepard, we are forced to accept that is his attitude to pretty much everything, including his own death and resurrection, and the strange behaviour of the person he loves. And so on.

This is the cost of having a main character that speaks for every response and then some. In both games you're only able to 'nudge' Shepard in a certain direction, and that's all that you can hope for. Not only that, we can see the huge difference in Dragon Age. The series as a whole railroads you very specifically with very few degrees of change. As has been noted, the exception here has been Noveria. As to why the rest of ME1 and all of ME2 didn't follow in Noveria's footsteps? Hard to say.

This isn't bad, perse, because Mass Effect as a whole still delivers a solid experience. RPG has been on the backburner for both games, just on varying degrees.

Part of the problem with this is the whole point of ME 2 has been Shepard forming personal bonds with the crew.  The whole recruitment and loyalty being the thrust of the story pretty much demands interpersonal and, yes, emotional contact.  ME 1 would skate by without that, since everyone on the team was already focused on bringing Saren down.  ME 1 was one big mystery/chase.  ME 2 is supposed to be about preparing for a suicide mission.  A little more emotional intensity is demanded there.

Ironically, it's is ME 1 that had more intensity, at least for me. Matriarch Benezia's final words to Liara  still gives me a lump in my throat.that nothing In ME2 can match (no not even the interrupt in Tali's loyalty mission, though that is a good one)

[Nightwriter]

Yes, I know many people who say they liked the game purely because it broke the formula.

I was never one of these people. Perhaps the formula did need to be broken, but ME2 felt empty and lacking in something indefinable but very much palpable, something I now believe a game intrinsically needs, even if that means returning to the old formula.

[drunkenposter]

I'll throw in with those expressing disappointment. I was very let down by ME2, and not because of the loss of inventory (though I do like fiddling with inventory) and not because of the changes to combat (I do much prefer ME"s combat, although I still find ME2"s fun).



ME2 just lacks the heart and soul of the first game. It has a whiff of staff meetings, power point presentations, and lists of goals about it. It feels more like a polished commercial product, ruthlessly designed to expand Bioware/Ea's market share, and less like a loving work of passionate creative artists.



For me, there was nothing in ME2 with the emotional, immersive heft of, for example, the following moments in ME:



1) Convincing Saren to comit suicide.

2) The conversation with Sovereign.

3) And, especially, the conversation with Vigil. The sad story of the demise of the Protheans was filled with more pathos than anything I've encountered in any other videogame.



I suppose I can understand that people just didn't like Kaiden/Ash/Liara, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the nuts and bolts of the romances were handled better in ME2. One of the first things that broke the immersion of ME2 for me was when my Femshep, in basically her first conversation with Jacob, lustily leaned back against a table and in an extremely flirty voice asked to get to know him better. No, my Shepard just wouldn't do that. She sure as hell didn't in the first game. Just felt like a different character ...

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...

Part of the problem with this is the whole point of ME 2 has been Shepard forming personal bonds with the crew.  The whole recruitment and loyalty being the thrust of the story pretty much demands interpersonal and, yes, emotional contact.  ME 1 would skate by without that, since everyone on the team was already focused on bringing Saren down.  ME 1 was one big mystery/chase.  ME 2 is supposed to be about preparing for a suicide mission.  A little more emotional intensity is demanded there.

There was a lot of emotional connection, but spread albeit thinly due to the massive number of party members. DA didn't fail in this regards but suffered from a "meh" story.

It'll be interesting to see what they'll do for ME3. I wouldn't be opposed to having another big number of squadmates like ME2 since I love looking at a variety of faces, but seeing things a bit more personally connected would be sweet to see as well.

iakus wrote...

Ironically, it's is ME 1 that had more intensity, at least for me. Matriarch Benezia's final words to Liara  still gives me a lump in my throat.that nothing In ME2 can match (no not even the interrupt in Tali's loyalty mission, though that is a good one)

I dunno, that part always struck me as corny for some reason. Looks like I'll have to fit in another playthrough of ME1, eh?

[Nightwriter]

Really? I felt like DA:O was a superb example of a good character driven story. As opposed to ME2.

In reality DA:O's plot wasn't that inspired. An evil menace attacking, your generic hordes of monster bad-guys, a civil war, fight for Middle Earth, etc.

But because the characters and the emotional interplay between them were done so well, the story was incredibly entertaining and engaging. The conflict with Loghain, his struggle with his beliefs and what was happening around him, the fight to rally the separate nations, each headed by characters who presented their own conflicts, the stories of the people around you and how they interacted - that is a character driven story, and an outstanding one.

ME2 did not carry it off so well. A story should be something more than errands.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 16 juin 2010 - 04:26 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Errands like what visiting a characters sister to pay her some money?



Oh wait.

[Iakus]

drunkenposter wrote...

For me, there was nothing in ME2 with the emotional, immersive heft of, for example, the following moments in ME:

1) Convincing Saren to comit suicide.
2) The conversation with Sovereign.
3) And, especially, the conversation with Vigil. The sad story of the demise of the Protheans was filled with more pathos than anything I've encountered in any other videogame.

QFT

Vigil's story actually illustrates what a waste ME 2 was.  Here was a golden opportunity to explore the final days of the Protheans, and show just how horriblle a threat the Reapers are. 

Other moments for me in ME 1:

1)The beacon on Eden Prime:  The confused, disjointed, yet disturbing images haunt Shepard for most of the game, making it clear Something Really Bad is out there

2) If "I Remember ME" doesn't bring a tear to your eye, you have no soul

3) Seeing the Destiny Ascension for the first time, demonstrating that humanity is not the biggest fish in this pond.

I suppose I can understand that people just didn't like Kaiden/Ash/Liara, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the nuts and bolts of the romances were handled better in ME2. One of the first things that broke the immersion of ME2 for me was when my Femshep, in basically her first conversation with Jacob, lustily leaned back against a table and in an extremely flirty voice asked to get to know him better. No, my Shepard just wouldn't do that. She sure as hell didn't in the first game. Just felt like a different character ...

More disturbing is maleShep, while sounding more casualand not so flirty sits in the exact same position.  It looks really, really awkward.  I hope Ashely, my Shep's "babe with a boomstick" doesn't find out

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Really? I felt like DA:O was a superb example of a good character driven story. As opposed to ME2.

In reality DA:O's plot wasn't that inspired. An evil menace attacking, your generic hordes of monster bad-guys, a civil war, fight for Middle Earth, etc.

But because the characters and the emotional interplay between them were done so well, the story was incredibly entertaining and engaging. The conflict with Loghain, his struggle with his beliefs and what was happening around him, the fight to rally the separate nations, each headed by characters who presented their own conflicts, the stories of the people around you and how they interacted - that is a character driven story, and an outstanding one.

ME2 did not carry it off so well. A story should be something more than errands.

This.

Plots can be story driven or character driven.  Ideally they're both of course.  But one can cover for the other.  Dragon Age was definitely character driven.  Story is pretty run of the mill, but had a large cast of characters with their own peronalities and motivations.  IT dealt with "shades of gray" really well.  ME 2 could have done that, but quite frankly fell on its face.  And it didn't even try to have a story to drive it.