10273 réponses à ce sujet

[SkullandBonesmember]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Once again you pull assumptions out of your ass and make ridiculous claims that you cannot back up.

First you claim that shooter fans complained in the suggestion thread, when in reality it was the RPG fans complaining. you now say that is BS and ME2 was already pre planned to be the way it is with yet again offering up a shred of evidence.

The only RPG fans that were complaining wanted Mass Effect to be like an MMO.

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The only RPG fans that were complaining wanted Mass Effect to be like an MMO.

Pretty much so or traditional RPG.

I have no problems these people to complain and some of them have pointed alot of good points, what should be taken consideration when making ME3. How ever, few of them are gone beoynd reason and started just bash the games every aspect, because they can't get over they own personal disapointment and narrow gameplay style liking. What cause alot of non constructive arguments.

When I look both Mass Effect games, I don't see rpg  OR shooter game. I see cinematic action game with alot of dialogs. Basicly Mass Effects are hybrid games with few rpg elements, alot of combat and cinematic dialog side. In my opinion too much combat side, but that's my personal taste, because I'm more RPG player than shooter player.

I think developers already knows what to do and what to improve. There is allways room for improvements. I just hope they put alot of "love" in ME3, because it's the series last game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juin 2010 - 01:50 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

bjdbwea wrote...

Plus, if you believe the official declarations, the changes in ME 2 were due to constant complaining (no doubt mostly from the shooter crowd) on the old forums. I for one don't believe this, as I think the changes - in other words, the cutting out and dumbing down of features - were planned anyway, and the complaints were just a convenient excuse. That's also why I think that no amount of complaining about ME 2 could bring about a different approach for ME 3. Still, if you give them the benefit of the doubt, then it would make sense to continue complaining now too, maybe it'll make a difference after all.

Thats my view as well bjd. Come ME3 (or maybe an expansion if were lucky) well really see if Bioware is big on player feedback, or if instead theyre only big on it when it coincides with their own agenda to try and snare a portion of a different fanbase out of greed.

Id have to say from my own experiences there has been at least as much player criticism towards ME2 as there was for ME1. Maybe Bioware is more concerned with journalist reviews though, because they can be manipulated, and more interested in their metacritic score.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 19 juin 2010 - 01:51 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

Pretty much so or traditional RPG.

I have no problems these people to complain and some of them have pointed alot of good points, what should be taken consideration when making ME3. How ever, few of them are gone beoynd reason and started just bash the games every aspect, because they can't get over they own personal disapointment and narrow gameplay style liking. What cause alot of non constructive arguments.

When I look both Mass Effect games, I don't see rpg  OR shooter game. I see cinematic action game with alot of dialogs. Basicly Mass Effects are hybrid games with few rpg elements, alot of combat and cinematic dialog side. In my opinion too much combat side, but that's my personal taste, because I'm more RPG player than shooter player.

I think developers already knows what to do and what to improve. There is allways room for improvements. I just hope they put alot of "love" in ME3, because it's the series last game.

So you actually admit it? Nobody here wants to see Mass Effect turned into a middle earth RPG or MMO, just throwing that out there.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 19 juin 2010 - 02:04 .

[smudboy]

I just have to chime in here:

After playing Alpha Protocol, I got the Mass Effect 2 experience I was looking for. The replay value/story variation is through the roof.

[tonnactus]

smudboy wrote...

I just have to chime in here:
After playing Alpha Protocol, I got the Mass Effect 2 experience I was looking for. The replay value/story variation is through the roof.

Too bad it isnt a sci fi game with an interesting universe and alien races. The market really lacks those type of games and i dont like star wars.(that i would call a fantasy game anyway)
But i still will try this out.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 juin 2010 - 02:22 .

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

So you actually admit it? Nobody here wants to see Mass Effect turned into a middle earth RPG or MMO, just throwing that out there.

Admit what?  I liked both Mass Effect games equal much.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

Admit what?  I liked both Mass Effect games equal much.

Lumikki wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The only RPG fans that were complaining wanted Mass Effect to be like an MMO.

Pretty much so or traditional RPG.

[Jaysonie]

smudboy wrote...

I just have to chime in here:
After playing Alpha Protocol, I got the Mass Effect 2 experience I was looking for. The replay value/story variation is through the roof.

However the third peson shooting which makes up a large portion of the game is just terrible and the game is about half the length of Mass Effect 2. Its easy to have replay value/story variation when there isnt much content to begin with.

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Admit what?  I liked both Mass Effect games equal much.

Lumikki wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The only RPG fans that were complaining wanted Mass Effect to be like an MMO.

Pretty much so or traditional RPG.

Not sure what you try here to point, but what I mean here as some people see mass Effects too much as RPG only game, when that's not what Mass Effects really are. So, they try to say, Mass Effects need more "traditional" RPG to be balanced. I agree that mass effects could need more rpg, but not necassary traditional RPG. So, I'm not necassary agree with them, because Mass Effect games are more like fluid cinematic action game with alot of dialogs, than some "traditional" RPG. It's like difference between real time game and turn based, but here we talk more in RPG side shift. Like numbers to action choises. Like actions choises it self defines the character, not as pre-defined character defines the actions choises. The difference is like in traditional RPG, players choises are restricted by pre-define created character. Now we look situation little differently and player define in his/her mind what charcater is and then roleplay it and game defines the character by choises what player makes. Meaning the restrictions comes later based players choises. Like you are what you choises are.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juin 2010 - 03:16 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

Not sure what you try here to point, but what I mean here as some people see mass Effects too much as RPG only game, when that's not what Mass Effects really are. So, they try to say, Mass Effects need more "traditional" RPG to be balanced. I agree that mass effects could need more rpg, but not necassary traditional RPG. So, I'm not necassary agree with them, because Mass Effect games are more like fluid cinematic action game with alot of dialogs, than some "traditional" RPG. It's like difference between real time game and turn based, but here we talk more in RPG side shift. Like numbers to action choises. Like actions choises it self defines the character, not as pre-defined character defines the actions choises.

There has not been one game Bioware has released that they themselves say isn't an RPG in some caliber.

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

There has not been one game Bioware has released that they themselves say isn't an RPG in some caliber.

Yes, but word RPG (roleplaying game) has very broad meaning. RPG doesn't mean just traditional RPG or MMO. There is huge variense of RPG's and Mass Effects aren't just RPG, they are hybrid games. I my opinion more like cinematic RPG action adventure shooter.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juin 2010 - 02:56 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but word RPG (roleplaying game) has very broad meaning. RPG doesn't mean just traditional RPG or MMO. There is huge variense of RPG's and Mass Effects aren't just RPG, they are hybrid games. I my opinion more like cinematic RPG action adventure shooter.

But regardless of those who feel Mass Effect 2 is one of, if not the best GAME Bioware has released so far, it's easily their weakest RPG from every definition whether due to the lack of emphasis on in-game stats in favor of relying more on the player's own ability, lack of loot, lack of character interaction overall, and the main story getting such little attention.

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but word RPG (roleplaying game) has very broad meaning. RPG doesn't mean just traditional RPG or MMO. There is huge variense of RPG's and Mass Effects aren't just RPG, they are hybrid games. I my opinion more like cinematic RPG action adventure shooter.

But regardless of those who feel Mass Effect 2 is one of, if not the best GAME Bioware has released so far, it's easily their weakest RPG from every definition whether due to the lack of emphasis on in-game stats in favor of relying more on the player's own ability, lack of loot, lack of character interaction overall, and the main story getting such little attention.

I don't know, because I don't realy care what company release games. Maybe Mass Effect 2 is one of best game they have make. How ever, it also depense how you define best game. It's also about what they target customer base is, as who the game was design. Players can like different kind of games, so for some it could be best game ever, while for some other worst possible ever. It's all about our taste of games. In my opinion even with few design mistakes, Mass Effect 2 is still well done game. Maybe it has lowest amount of rpg in it, maybe not. Does it matter if game is good to some players.

Many stuff what you say as lack of something, has been noted many of this thread, incuding me. Also developers has them allready notice that too because our feedback. So, we could make assumtion those stuff get more attention in ME3, but assumptions are very dangerous, because they can leads disapointments. What can cause players lack of interest of the game after release, not because it's not good game, but because expection was something different.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juin 2010 - 03:39 .

[spacehamsterZH]

So I just finished another ME1 playthrough and I thought I'd toss in some thoughts. Maybe we can steer this thread away from this f**king retarded "my favorite genre can beat up your favorite genre" discussion for a few pages again, but I seriously doubt it as long as the usual suspects are here. You don't know who you are, but those who aren't know who I mean. *cough*



Anyway, ME2's biggest weakness to me has always been that the story falls flat on its face in its conclusion. Now that I've just put down the controller (yes, controller, PC elitists, feel free to stop reading here) on ME1 and I've been thinking about just why the ending to ME1 feels so vastly superior, here are some ideas.



You'd think the Suicide Mission would have the ME1 endgame beat. Post-Ilos, ME1 is basically "run up corridor, shoot all Geth, argue with Saren, boss fight." The only plot element here is the dialogue sequence before the confrontation with Saren, the rest is exactly the simplistic, linear gameplay that ME2 is always accused of. Yet the ending is more satisfying, and I think it's because of what builds up to it.



1) Location. Taking Shepard back to the Citadel, now completely trashed from Sovereigns attack, has far more of an impact on the player than the Collector base. Sure, going through the Omega 4 relay with the odds of survival supposedly being next to nil sounds good in theory, but what you find is just another familiar looking "Collector tech" level, and it turns out getting people killed is harder than surviving. The Citadel in defensive mode with everything on fire and Geth running around everywhere after the hours you've spent in the same location, on the other hand - that has you going "holy sh*t" every 30 seconds.



2) Sovereign is actually there. Sure, he's just part of the background scenery, but it works. It really drives home the terrifying size of the Reapers if you don't just see him in cutscenes. Yes, single moving tentacle in the background can make that kind of a difference in terms of story believability.



3) Saren vs the Reaper Baby: No Contest. When you finally go toe to toe with Saren, this guy's been taunting and belittling you everytime you ran into him (and in better ways than "this hurts you", too), he's to blame for at least one of your teammates dying, and he's just about to hand over the Citadel to the giant space squid who called you a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" and said something about his buddies' numbers darkening the skies of every world. Gameplay-wise it's not a particularly good fight, you just spam powers and run around the room for a bit until he croaks, but in terms of story, this is a confrontation that's been built up to for 20-30 hours and actually feels that way, whereas the final confrontation in ME2 is a completely ridiculous giant robot preceded by a "wait, they did... what?" reveal. Granted, it's disappointing to find out Saren's just another victim of Reaper indoctrination (which is a lame plot device anyway), which completely negates the dialogue scene on Virmire where he seems like he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing, but it still works better than a ridiculous giant robot that basically comes out of nowhere because its connection to the main plot is so contrived it makes you want to scream.



So basically, while the idea to have the gameplay and the story more tightly intervoven and expand the endgame into a longer mission that requires several decisions the effect of which depend on what you've done earlier in the game is great, it doesn't work because there's no emotional impact. Whatever endgame ME3 has needs to have the elements of the Suicide Mission that did work - length (I'd prefer if it was longer, actually), several decisions along the way, connection to the rest of the game that impact gameplay - but it also very badly needs a more compelling villain with whom you establish a relationship over the course of the the game and a location for the endgame that drives home what's at stake, rather than some random alien space station.

[bjdbwea]

At least we can agree on that. As I keep saying: I don't like most of the gameplay changes in ME 2, but I wouldn't care if at least the most important thing, the story, would be on par with ME 1. But that's just where ME 2 disappointed the most in my opinion.

Some loyalty quests are written well enough, but they can't carry a game. If they would be side quests to a strong main quest, as it should be, then the game would truly deserve the praise it got. It would certainly have to be considered the best character side quests ever. But if we have to treat those missions as "the" story, then it just doesn't cut it.

But if you don't have enough resources and/or time to create detailed character missions and a strong main story, then you concentrate on the latter first. That's obviously what BioWare did for ME 1, and while longer and more detailed character missions would have been nice, the comparison with ME 2 proves it was the right way.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 juin 2010 - 04:13 .

[lazuli]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Come ME3 (or maybe an expansion if were lucky) well really see if Bioware is big on player feedback, or if instead theyre only big on it when it coincides with their own agenda to try and snare a portion of a different fanbase out of greed.

Id have to say from my own experiences there has been at least as much player criticism towards ME2 as there was for ME1. Maybe Bioware is more concerned with journalist reviews though, because they can be manipulated, and more interested in their metacritic score.

I think you're blowing the importance of a few hundred/thousand forum users out of proportion.  The average Mass Effect 2 player probably does not regularly read or contribute to the Bioware forums.

[spacehamsterZH]

lazuli wrote...
I think you're blowing the importance of a few hundred/thousand forum users out of proportion.

The Overlord DLC has free vehicle exploration and is generally structured a lot like a UNC mission from ME1...

[SkullandBonesmember]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

So I just finished another ME1 playthrough and I thought I'd toss in some thoughts. Maybe we can steer this thread away from this f**king retarded "my favorite genre can beat up your favorite genre" discussion for a few pages again, but I seriously doubt it as long as the usual suspects are here. You don't know who you are, but those who aren't know who I mean. *cough*

DURRRRR ME DUMB. ME NO KNOW WHO U INSINUATE. WAYT. WUT DOZ INSINUATE MEEN?

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Anyway, ME2's biggest weakness to me has always been that the story falls flat on its face in its conclusion. Now that I've just put down the controller (yes, controller, PC elitists, feel free to stop reading here) on ME1 and I've been thinking about just why the ending to ME1 feels so vastly superior, here are some ideas.

Newsflash: I'm a console gamer too.

spacehamsterZH wrote...

You'd think the Suicide Mission would have the ME1 endgame beat. Post-Ilos, ME1 is basically "run up corridor, shoot all Geth, argue with Saren, boss fight." The only plot element here is the dialogue sequence before the confrontation with Saren, the rest is exactly the simplistic, linear gameplay that ME2 is always accused of. Yet the ending is more satisfying, and I think it's because of what builds up to it.

1) Location. Taking Shepard back to the Citadel, now completely trashed from Sovereigns attack, has far more of an impact on the player than the Collector base. Sure, going through the Omega 4 relay with the odds of survival supposedly being next to nil sounds good in theory, but what you find is just another familiar looking "Collector tech" level, and it turns out getting people killed is harder than surviving. The Citadel in defensive mode with everything on fire and Geth running around everywhere after the hours you've spent in the same location, on the other hand - that has you going "holy sh*t" every 30 seconds.

2) Sovereign is actually there. Sure, he's just part of the background scenery, but it works. It really drives home the terrifying size of the Reapers if you don't just see him in cutscenes. Yes, single moving tentacle in the background can make that kind of a difference in terms of story believability.

3) Saren vs the Reaper Baby: No Contest. When you finally go toe to toe with Saren, this guy's been taunting and belittling you everytime you ran into him (and in better ways than "this hurts you", too), he's to blame for at least one of your teammates dying, and he's just about to hand over the Citadel to the giant space squid who called you a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" and said something about his buddies' numbers darkening the skies of every world. Gameplay-wise it's not a particularly good fight, you just spam powers and run around the room for a bit until he croaks, but in terms of story, this is a confrontation that's been built up to for 20-30 hours and actually feels that way, whereas the final confrontation in ME2 is a completely ridiculous giant robot preceded by a "wait, they did... what?" reveal. Granted, it's disappointing to find out Saren's just another victim of Reaper indoctrination (which is a lame plot device anyway), which completely negates the dialogue scene on Virmire where he seems like he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing, but it still works better than a ridiculous giant robot that basically comes out of nowhere because its connection to the main plot is so contrived it makes you want to scream.

So basically, while the idea to have the gameplay and the story more tightly intervoven and expand the endgame into a longer mission that requires several decisions the effect of which depend on what you've done earlier in the game is great, it doesn't work because there's no emotional impact. Whatever endgame ME3 has needs to have the elements of the Suicide Mission that did work - length (I'd prefer if it was longer, actually), several decisions along the way, connection to the rest of the game that impact gameplay - but it also very badly needs a more compelling villain with whom you establish a relationship over the course of the the game and a location for the endgame that drives home what's at stake, rather than some random alien space station.

So, essentially you're saying the main story in ME1 WAS superior, and story IS important, but character interaction isn't?

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...


A lot of people questioning the gameplay changes should see Ms. Norman's presentation, by the way.

I will forever after be suspicious of anyone who claims to be "refining" something.

[Lusitanum]

smudboy wrote...

I just have to chime in here:
After playing Alpha Protocol, I got the Mass Effect 2 experience I was looking for. The replay value/story variation is through the roof.

And the bug count is through the roof too. And the unfinished feel of the whole game. And the painful gameplay. And pretty much every single thing that was wrong with ME1 that they decided to adapt poorly in their game.

That's not to say that ME2 is perfect in any way, but... Alpha Protocol? Seriously? I'll take the worst of ME1 and ME2 over such an unfinished and clunky game.

[InvaderErl]

Wow, just hearing people praise Alpha Protocol and say they want ME2 to be more like it - it really puts some of these arguments into perspective.

I couldn't get through the first hour to experience said story, the game was so horrendously designed, so immediately and clearly going to be a headache inducing fest I didn't want to be gnashing my teeth every step of the way and decided I'd be better off not subjecting myself to the experience. 

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 06:07 .

[Maeson]

I liked the combat changes they did in ME2. But that is personal preference. Being a long time shooter fan I have to catch myself in ME2 from leading my targets whenever I'm not slow-mo (scoping).
That being said, the targeting system was nice. Tough I wish they would of kept the ME1 version of the crosshairs. We've done the cross for nearly 20 years(possible exaggeration). Something new looking doesn't kill the mood. The problem also being that there was never any incentive to shoot at anything other than the head for the extra damage. Granted I haven't tested this out all the way but some enemies (namely the scion) should take MORE damage if shot to the leg than upper body (compared to the rest of the body, those legs are like pretzel sticks) or simply make it stationary.

No way to sell excess resources. This irks me to no end. I found, that the resources required are nominal at best. First play through (on hardcore) and I ended up with eezo at 200k and everything else between 500k and 700k. How about letting me drop off some of that excess in the nearest fuel station?

Limited N7 armor options. I was rather downed by the lack of choice when it came to armor bits. All of them being going from "Space Marine" to "Tank armored Space marine". An option to go for more lighter looking armors (for sake of aesthetics) would be nice since even with soldier class in ME1, I never went above medium armor, preferring light.

And finally, An IDEA! For a while I was rather bothered about all these weapons I had unlocked. Some skills and some other stuff that I NEVER used! So it got me thinking. "Repeatable Conflicts".
Yes, it sounds corny, but hear me out.
Repeatable Conflicts (RC's) are basically small "Missions" that offer little reward other than some credits, heavy weapon ammo and experience points IF the game gives any for kills. You talk to some NPC who gives you a mission in the line of "There are X forming at Y. But we are too busy elsewhere, mind going and killing everyone?" You simply go in, kill everything and enjoy the vistas. 
Possible arenas/locations:
Tuchanka, I love this place. It'd go SOOOO good. Fighting against a rogue clan, Blood Pack or a merc band. Open spaces, good for long range combat and trying out whatever heavy weapon you have unlocked.
Illium/Citatel/Omega. Back-street wars against gands, mercs and mechs. Dominantly close quarters, maze-like arenas.
Terminus locations (varied locations, jungle, colony, factory, ancient). Can be open, can be closed. Primarily against various mercs and heretic geth. Haestrom could be one of the prime locations for the later.

These arenas could also have the varied option of using many environmental effects like dust storms/fog(reduced visibility), freezing cold(exposure for longer periods drains health but leaves the shield untouched), and excess radiation(see Haestrom). All of which can be shielded from within "bunkers" or with other objects(higher ground for visibility, wind cover for cold, shade for light radiation), changing the open-air combat to cut-throat range closed quarters in the mater of minutes by simply going from open range to cover. Naturally, these hazards should also affect the enemy NPC's and they should be actively looking for cover. 
Strictly optional, these missions would only be of use to the more bloody-thirsty players.

Modifié par Maeson, 19 juin 2010 - 06:01 .

[Jarlravn]

Alpha Protocol is a good game, with a captivating story and interesting character interaction, and your choices actually matter. The action is pretty good too, in my opinion, if you can get over the fact that it isn't a shooter, but an RPG. I haven't found any more bugs than what I normally do in a Bioware game.



Mass Effect 2 definetly does combat better, and has a better cinematic quality, but when it comes to story, character interaction and RPG elements, AP is a lot better, in my opinion.



Anyway, what bothers me about ME2 is the almost complete lack of RPG elements. I'm by no means a number cruncher, but I think they give an interesting touch to games that makes them fun to play over and over. What little RPG elements there is in ME2 just seems like a novelty feature. That, and a lot of tiny little things annoy the heck out of me; such as not being able to remove helmets, squadmates don't need to wear armor, shields appearantly protects from everything instead of just high velocity projectiles (unlike ME1), and biotic barriers appearantly acting the exact same way as shields (again, unlike ME1).



Then there's also some larger features that annoy me, such as the ammo system. I love reloading and thought that was a good idea, as opposed to just holding down a button without ever overheating, but limited ammo? That's just annoying. If they wanted people to stop spraying their guns, perhaps they should have made guns overheat more easily, and induced penalties to accuracy, rate of fire and damage the more hot a gun become, encouraging short bursts.



Then there's of course also the fairly lackluster main plot, and the fact that your decisions from ME1 hardly make much difference, other than what cameos you meet and how many e-mails you get.



With all those negatives, ME2 is still a very good really, and highly enjoyable. It just didn't feel much like a continuation of the first. Not saying that they should have been identical, gameplay wise, but it feels like a completely different game, which is sad.