10273 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

That post you linked is a small novel.

[SithLordExarKun]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

I very clearly wrote all of us posting on this game board have some level of emotion investment. Never did I exclude myself.
Everyone has a report this post button, so everyone has an equal ability to police the forums. You saying I am doing it means nothing special.
Attacking someone on the forum is not justifiable, even if you attempt to proclaim it so. Read the other posts others asked you to stop and you didn't.
I am not asking you to do anything because that is pointless, I am however voicing my distaste for your attacks and slander, or in your words sly remarks.

Nobody asked me to stop, not even drago himself, don't bring up something that wasn't ever mentioned.
In fact i got bashed in the process by one other member which i am totally ok with considering i bashed to begin with. That isn't hypocritical, thats being fair.

Say what ever you like honestly as it just makes you look more and more hypocritical, you say that you're voicing your dislike for my behaviour so why can't i say the same for drago? What? Because i was rude? Aren't you really rude as well? Say what? Because i called him pathetic? Isn't that the same as you trying to tell me i may have a mental condition as well?

You see? This is pointless seeing that even if i were that hypocritical, you mirror it by mimicking my behaviour. And yes, you ARE policing the forums, you're telling people what they can or cannot do, hardly anybody goes to the extent of actually stalking people online scrutinizing their every post(thats you by the way). Reporting a troll post is not policing, stalking people and telling them what they cannot do is.

You say its not justifiable, but heres a little fact of life, regardless of what you think, people are always going to bash one another for whatever reason. That is something you're going to have to live with for the rest of your life.

Now, would you like to either go back to "read mode"(which you have yet to despite your claims), stay on topic or continue this useless rant?

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 20 avril 2010 - 09:57 .

[Shockwave81]

All I'm seeing at the moment is "something, something, something, hypocrite, something something hypocritical."



Can we talk about Mass Effect 2 again?

[FlintlockJazz]

Shockwave81 wrote...

All I'm seeing at the moment is "something, something, something, hypocrite, something something hypocritical."

Can we talk about Mass Effect 2 again?

No.

BANNED!!!!!!!!111111 

[SithLordExarKun]

Shockwave81 wrote...

All I'm seeing at the moment is "something, something, something, hypocrite, something something hypocritical."

Can we talk about Mass Effect 2 again?

Yes, i am about done rambling.

[THExDRIZZLE]

The only thing i miss in mass effect 1 that wasnt in 2 was the massive amount of things you could get xp from. In 2 the way you get xp is very linear, you only get it after missions i miss killing enemies and searching for little things to inspect every where i go.

Modifié par THExDRIZZLE, 20 avril 2010 - 12:13 .

[Jebel Krong]

THExDRIZZLE wrote...

The only thing i miss mass effect 1 that wasnt in 2 was the massive amount of things you could get xp from. In 2 the way you get xp is very linear, you only get it after missions i miss killing enemies and searching for little things to inspect every where i go.

that lets you enjoy the game without interacting with everything everywhere just to maximise the xp, it's called immersion.

[Terror_K]

Yes, because there are few things more immersion breaking than a screen popping up and pulling you out of the game saying "Mission Complete" and handing you a bunch of arbitrary numbers that you have no idea where they came from, how you got them exactly or even if they even really reflect your progress at all. For all we know its just a random number given to you to give the illusion of earning XP. Pretty damn convenient we always seem to level up after EVERY damn mission after all.

[FluxDeluxe]

THExDRIZZLE wrote...

The only thing i miss in mass effect 1 that wasnt in 2 was the massive amount of things you could get xp from. In 2 the way you get xp is very linear, you only get it after missions i miss killing enemies and searching for little things to inspect every where i go.

Agreed this method was stupid it would have been much better to have a summary through character interaction rather than some stupid screen. It's a shame that they took out the individual awards for xp for enemies/actions. The N7 crashed cargo ship mission where you get spammed by the droids. You can kill as many as you like but don't get any reward. The next game needs to be more open ended, somewhere between 1 and 2.  

[FlintlockJazz]

Don't care one way or another about the mission complete screen, but I just got to say that I hate the 'xp per person killed' method. It means that if you try and be sneaky you are just deprieving yourself of the xp for sneaking past the enemy instead of just killing them, or penalising someone for being able to talk their way out of a situation. It falls into the trap of just rewarding the violence and not the roleplay.  Then again, I have never seen the reason why someone should be rewarded more for wandering around killing everyone instead of getting in and doing their mission like a proper soldier.

VtM: Bloodlines did it better, not only did you get the xp award for succeeding the mission as opposed to killing people, but for many of the missions you actually got bonuses for not killing people or for finding alternative methods to butchering everyone in the room and for preserving the masquerade.

I'm pretty certain that, while the xp for the missions stay the same, there are some side bits that give xp by themselves for accomplishing them too.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 20 avril 2010 - 12:54 .

[ToJKa1]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Don't care one way or another about the mission complete screen, but I just got to say that I hate the 'xp per person killed' method.

Agreed. I myself prefer the Bethesda method, skills increse as you use them, level goes up when enough skills go up. Why would your tech skills increase by shooting people in the head?

Mass Effect 2 method works too, but as the whole game is very combat focused there really isn't any other choice than to kill everyone. And it really is mystery how the experience is rewarded. Is it a an amount that doesn't change no matter what you do, or does finding items, hacking, bypassing and killing enemies affect it?

Modifié par ToJKa1, 20 avril 2010 - 01:04 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, because there are few things more immersion breaking than a screen popping up and pulling you out of the game saying "Mission Complete" and handing you a bunch of arbitrary numbers that you have no idea where they came from, how you got them exactly or even if they even really reflect your progress at all. For all we know its just a random number given to you to give the illusion of earning XP. Pretty damn convenient we always seem to level up after EVERY damn mission after all.

well i would have taken that out as well, but BW were probably wary of even more rpg-whining... i agree that the screen is immersion-breaking but you lot already complain vociferously about the rpg mechanics as it is... how dare they remove xp points!

[mi55ter]

I'm glad the "Disappointment with ME2" title to this thread has a question mark at the end of it. I saw it, and I thought, cripes, there's actually someone that doesn't like this game. I suppose it'd be possible, considering how many people bought it and all, but still. People will b.itch about anything.

[Blk_Mage_Ctype]

Not disappointed at all, really...



The only things I miss from ME1 are Helmet Toggle, Squad Armor, and Elevator Rides in place of loading screens.



And none of those are a big enough deal for me to be all "booooo hissssss" at Bioware.



Besides those 3 details, Bioware did an outstanding job with ME2.

Kudos for getting rid of that crappy Loot/Inventory System. I don't need Dungeon Crawler Elements in my Action RPG.



Kthnxbai

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

Sorry, wait, what views do I have
against the people who have negative opinions about ME2? I think your
signature implies that anyone who likes ME2 is some kind of idiot who's
obsessed with explosions.

And how does it not break the flow when you have to stop for 10 minutes to clear out your inventory?

You
continue to waste time asking question after question. If you really
want to know the answer to your orginal question, read the thread and
the link.
Small novel or not, that would be one of the best places to find the clarifications and resolutions you asked for.

My sig only has implications about ME2 as a game, nothing directed at people that enjoy it. If you want to take the way you are, I will not stop you.

Having to stop and clear inventory out every 10mins is blatantly incorrect. If a player stops and addresses their inventory that much it is entirely their choice, not the fault of the inventory for being there.
State that you don't like inventory management, call it clunky; that would be fair. The inventory is capped at 150 itms it takes far longer than 10mins to fill that, claiming a falsehood in a conversation is a waste of time and effort.

[THExDRIZZLE]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Don't care one way or another about the mission complete screen, but I just got to say that I hate the 'xp per person killed' method. It means that if you try and be sneaky you are just deprieving yourself of the xp for sneaking past the enemy instead of just killing them, or penalising someone for being able to talk their way out of a situation. It falls into the trap of just rewarding the violence and not the roleplay.  Then again, I have never seen the reason why someone should be rewarded more for wandering around killing everyone instead of getting in and doing their mission like a proper soldier.

this is where the mission complete screen could come in and award people who sneakily complete the mission or talk there way out of it.

[TJSolo]

THExDRIZZLE wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Don't care one way or another about the mission complete screen, but I just got to say that I hate the 'xp per person killed' method. It means that if you try and be sneaky you are just deprieving yourself of the xp for sneaking past the enemy instead of just killing them, or penalising someone for being able to talk their way out of a situation. It falls into the trap of just rewarding the violence and not the roleplay.  Then again, I have never seen the reason why someone should be rewarded more for wandering around killing everyone instead of getting in and doing their mission like a proper soldier.

this is where the mission complete screen could come in and award people who sneakily complete the mission or talk there way out of it.

Sneaking around going for the fastest way to end a mission is an optional tactic. If it costs XP based upon per kill, it is a consequence the person using the tactic is fully aware of. Being able to sneak or talk your way out of a mission was in boon of ME1.
No instead of being able to pick a tactic everything is mandatory Enter level A, kill until completion, then get flat experience. Great for people that want everyone to be on the same rails and same decision paths as them, otherwise the concept is bland.

[Tazzmission]

i think people expected mass effect 2 to be mass effect 1 2.0 or something. look impo i think mass effect 2 is a major step up from me1. people complain wine and moan about it being more of a shooter but lets be real for a minute. didnt mass effect 2 feel similar to me1 lenghwise with both rpg and shooter elements? yea me2 has a clip system and who cares? it feels more realistic and fun with the clip system

[TJSolo]

Mass Effect 2 is the sequel to Mass Effect.

Essentially it is ME 1 2.0.

It didn't feel more realistic. It just felt more like a clone of GOW and other systems that use clips.

If you want me to be real; when I want to play shooters I think of COD and GOW not ME. I picked up ME1 for the story and RPG aspects. ME2 tries too hard to be a shooter clone and sacrificed its content for it.

So I am still left with playing COD when I want to play a shooter and waiting for Bethesda/Obsidian for a game with story and RPG aspects.

[Iakus]

Tazzmission wrote...

i think people expected mass effect 2 to be mass effect 1 2.0 or something. look impo i think mass effect 2 is a major step up from me1. people complain wine and moan about it being more of a shooter but lets be real for a minute. didnt mass effect 2 feel similar to me1 lenghwise with both rpg and shooter elements? yea me2 has a clip system and who cares? it feels more realistic and fun with the clip system

From a technical perspective, it was a step up.  Personally I have no opinion one way or the other about the clip system or heat sinks (same for prospecting/planet scanning, truth be told)  I don't mind any of that.  The one big flaw IMO  is the lack of a strong central storyline.  Without that, the game feels empty, no matter how much content is put into it.

[FlintlockJazz]

TJSolo wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is the sequel to Mass Effect.
Essentially it is ME 1 2.0.
It didn't feel more realistic. It just felt more like a clone of GOW and other systems that use clips.
If you want me to be real; when I want to play shooters I think of COD and GOW not ME. I picked up ME1 for the story and RPG aspects. ME2 tries too hard to be a shooter clone and sacrificed its content for it.
So I am still left with playing COD when I want to play a shooter and waiting for Bethesda/Obsidian for a game with story and RPG aspects.

I'm sorry but you lost all credibility by linking Bethesda and story together.   Seriously though, Bethesda can't do story, they suck at it.  Not to say their games suck, they are brilliant sandbox games, but they couldn't write a story even if they were to kidnap the Obsidian staff and rip out their brains for it.

[KotOREffecT]

ME 2 didn't sacrfice anything, it did what it was suppose to do. It upgraded the shooter aspect, and continued the epic story with the additional stories(The quarians/geth/genophage/human/alien struggle) tied into the plot. The only thing with the plot is, it didn't expand that much, but what was there to expand? We all know the reapers are coming to wipe us all out, so ME 2 kinda outlines what is to come. It didn't change up the bad guys, the reapers were still the main threat with they're now once Prothean Collectors doing they're bidding. And recruiting your team and taking the fight to them after getting killed felt damn good. We got to halt the reapers plans until the inevintable in ME 3.

I personally dug the the whole character approach, because they were all amazing and helped the story greatly, esp TIM for example. That's exactly what we got, a decent plot that sticks to the ME universe with great characters(including of course our Shepard), that helped define the plot elements in the story better. I also felt ME 2 was a much more personal experience, esp for Shep. All these things plus taking in the fact that this is a trilogy is what makes ME 2 and its story epic to me.

As far as the rpg elements goes, it proved you didn't need all that stuff for this game to be an intense "role-playing" game, and thats exactly what it was.

Modifié par KotOREffecT, 20 avril 2010 - 08:05 .

[TJSolo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is the sequel to Mass Effect.
Essentially it is ME 1 2.0.
It didn't feel more realistic. It just felt more like a clone of GOW and other systems that use clips.
If you want me to be real; when I want to play shooters I think of COD and GOW not ME. I picked up ME1 for the story and RPG aspects. ME2 tries too hard to be a shooter clone and sacrificed its content for it.
So I am still left with playing COD when I want to play a shooter and waiting for Bethesda/Obsidian for a game with story and RPG aspects.

I'm sorry but you lost all credibility by linking Bethesda and story together.   Seriously though, Bethesda can't do story, they suck at it.  Not to say their games suck, they are brilliant sandbox games, but they couldn't write a story even if they were to kidnap the Obsidian staff and rip out their brains for it.

If you say so.
You statements will not stop me from waiting for FO:NV to be the resident RPG for me while COD is my resident shooter. Aslong as they don't do a retcon with the lore of FO, I am certain FO:NV will be great for me.

[FlintlockJazz]

TJSolo wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is the sequel to Mass Effect.
Essentially it is ME 1 2.0.
It didn't feel more realistic. It just felt more like a clone of GOW and other systems that use clips.
If you want me to be real; when I want to play shooters I think of COD and GOW not ME. I picked up ME1 for the story and RPG aspects. ME2 tries too hard to be a shooter clone and sacrificed its content for it.
So I am still left with playing COD when I want to play a shooter and waiting for Bethesda/Obsidian for a game with story and RPG aspects.

I'm sorry but you lost all credibility by linking Bethesda and story together.   Seriously though, Bethesda can't do story, they suck at it.  Not to say their games suck, they are brilliant sandbox games, but they couldn't write a story even if they were to kidnap the Obsidian staff and rip out their brains for it.

If you say so.
You statements will not stop me from waiting for FO:NV to be the resident RPG for me while COD is my resident shooter. Aslong as they don't do a retcon with the lore of FO, I am certain FO:NV will be great for me.

Right, and your statements will not stop me from enjoying ME2 and its content, including the RPG in it.

[TJSolo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Right, and your statements will not stop me from enjoying ME2 and its content, including the RPG in it.

Thumbs up to you.
There is no reason an open discussion that talks about some peoples disappointment, or lack of, should influence your enjoyment of the game.