10273 réponses à ce sujet

[dislye]

hmmmm, I'm not disappointed really, well, not at all. The game is freaking amazing!! There were things that could have been a bit better and there could have been more armor parts, but some things can come as dlc, and I'm sure the Devs will iron out the other problems in ME3.

[FlintlockJazz]

TJSolo wrote...

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.

I know, just as people's opinion of a game company's storytelling skills should not influence your enjoyment of a game, I just felt that I should make that clear since you felt the need to do the same earlier:

TJSolo wrote...

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.

My first response was primarily a dig at Bethesda, but no worries.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 20 avril 2010 - 09:39 .

[TJSolo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I know, just as people's opinion of a game company's storytelling skills should not influence your enjoyment of a game, I just felt that I should make that clear since you felt the need to do the same earlier:

I was being spefic about my issues and opinion, no sweeping statements like "XYZ sucks" or "XYZ would never be able to accomplish something positive".

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

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.

What do you mean, asking question after question? I asked what the signatures were about and then I just wanted to know what you thought was wrong with the game. When did I say or imply that the people who didn't like ME2 are idiots. That's what you said.

Also the design document you linked, I actually take issue with people saying "Bioware are wrong, here is exactly what they did wrong". Pointing out why you didn't like the game, and maybe talking about how you think it could be improved is fine. Implying you know better than the head designers at Bioware isn't OK. I think this is somewhat akin to going to an artist and telling him exactly what his next painting should look like. He won't and shouldn't have to listen to you, because you're not the one making the art work.

And actually read my posts, I said stopping for ten minutes, not stopping every 10 minutes. You probably only have to clear the inventory out every 2 hours and that is pretty much why I play ME1 in 2 hour lots.

I think a not very good culture is forming around games. This kind of I'm paying for this game therefore I get a say in how the next one is made. You don't get a say, developers can choose to listen to some of your feedback, but when it comes down to it, it's there game.

[2pac Shakur]

only disappointment was squad size is 3 and not enough missions where I fight collectors



also the end boss sucked (in terms of fighting mechanics)

[TJSolo]

"Also the design document you linked, I actually take issue with people saying "Bioware are wrong, here is exactly what they did wrong". Pointing out why you didn't like the game, and maybe talking about how you think it could be improved is fine. Implying you know better than the head designers at Bioware isn't OK. I think this is somewhat akin to going to an artist and telling him exactly what his next painting should look like. He won't and shouldn't have to listen to you, because you're not the one making the art work."

This is not a private work of art meant for the sole consumption of the artist.
You wanted to have answers and some resolutions, now you are taking offense to some of the wording and ignoring the message. Offering advice, improvements, or statements of what could have been done differently is basically saying someone did it wrong, incorrectly, or could be improved.  THAT is the whole intent of this board, Bioware makes it OK for them to be criticized. You feel insulted for BW, interesting symbiotic relationship there.

Give me a break. Feign ignorance and do you dance with somebody else. Thanks.

Modifié par TJSolo, 20 avril 2010 - 10:31 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

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!

If they removed that, then the game would cease to be an RPG at all.

Yeah... that pretty much confirms that your opinions are now worthless to me. You clearly just want this game to be another shooter with as little depth as possible with things so dumbed down the game almost plays itself for you.

[Onyx Jaguar]

This discussion is going nowhere.



Besides at its core both ME games are far from generic shooters. Both sides are trying to ****** off the other side deliberately.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

This is not a private work of art meant for the sole consumption of the artist.
You wanted to have answers and some resolutions, now you are taking offense to some of the wording and ignoring the message. Offering advice, improvements, or statements of what could have been done differently is basically saying someone did it wrong, incorrectly, or could be improved.  THAT is the whole intent of this board, Bioware makes it OK for them to be criticized. You feel insulted for BW, interesting symbiotic relationship there.

Give me a break. Feign ignorance and do you dance with somebody else. Thanks.

You're right, the art is not meant for the sole consumption of the artist, but that's not what I was saying. I have no problem with criticism, I have a problem with people writing an entire design document. I'd also like to say that I'm not offended for BW I'm offended by the idea in general. I'm studying to be a game designer/developer and if I had made a game and someone emailed me saying that many of the design choices that I'd made were wrong and here's exactly how you should fix those mistakes, I wouldn't listen to that person. I would take criticism, complaints and ideas from the forum, but I'm going to come up with my own way to fix the problem not have my game designed for me by some guy on the internet.

And also, please stop implying that anyone who disagrees with you has some kind of mental illness, like you did in that last post. Cheers.

[TJSolo]

"I have no problem with criticism, I have a problem with people writing an entire design document."



Amazing how Bioware asks for clarification and well worded posts in regards to improvements, but you have a problem with someone writing something too clarified in this regard.



Irritating to say the least when no matter how some try to convey their issues to Bioware there will be a bystander somehow taking offense.

[Corehaven22]

dislye wrote...

hmmmm, I'm not disappointed really, well, not at all. The game is freaking amazing!! There were things that could have been a bit better and there could have been more armor parts, but some things can come as dlc, and I'm sure the Devs will iron out the other problems in ME3.

I keep reading this over and over on these forums.  " Im sure problems in ME 2 will be ironed out in ME 3! " 

How?  I mean, yes some problems were solved in ME 2 in comparison to ME 1.   Such as combat.  However, they also eliminated a ton of features and content instead of improving them.  Which meant ME 2 has less content than ME 1.  

Not to mention ME 2 has NEW problems ME 1 didnt have.  Such as the awful planet scanning, no helmet toggle, a linear story structure ( Get companion, help companion, get another companion, help them, do end game), and no distracting mechanic like Mako exploration to take up some time.  

ME 2 was not a massive improvement over the first game.  In fact, I almost think ME 2 has more problems or at the very least the same amount as ME 1.   So I see no reason ME 3 is going to be a vast improvement over either game.  If the trend holds true, some things will be improved, some things will be removed, and new problems will rear their ugly heads.  

[SithLordExarKun]

A problem to you may be an improvement to others. And ME1, with the exception of noveria is just as linear as ME2.



In my opinion, ME2 is a vast improvement over ME1, that being said there are still certain things that i don't like, such as the poor intergration of N7 missions, the fact that if you enter the normandy it leaves the current location without prompting you, the lack of land exploration and the watered down romance.

[GTYKDME22]

I was a little disappointed that they made it a TPS with RPG elements, instead a RPG with TPS elements. I liked the customizable armor, but I would to have seen different types of armor. I didn't like that you have scan and research weapons and things to upgrade weapons/armor, instead of just buying the upgrades/weapons. Also, I didn't like the thermal clips, but I can understand they implemented it, or regenerative health, or universal cooldown, or planet scanning. But overall, I liked it, as great as the first game, if not bettter.

[Terror_K]

Corehaven22 wrote...

I keep reading this over and over on these forums.  " Im sure problems in ME 2 will be ironed out in ME 3! "  

How?  I mean, yes some problems were solved in ME 2 in comparison to ME 1.   Such as combat.  However, they also eliminated a ton of features and content instead of improving them.  Which meant ME 2 has less content than ME 1.  

Not to mention ME 2 has NEW problems ME 1 didnt have.  Such as the awful planet scanning, no helmet toggle, a linear story structure ( Get companion, help companion, get another companion, help them, do end game), and no distracting mechanic like Mako exploration to take up some time.  

ME 2 was not a massive improvement over the first game.  In fact, I almost think ME 2 has more problems or at the very least the same amount as ME 1.   So I see no reason ME 3 is going to be a vast improvement over either game.  If the trend holds true, some things will be improved, some things will be removed, and new problems will rear their ugly heads.  

Agreed.

My basic feelings on ME1 and ME2 are this: ME1 is a game with a lot of good concepts that are flawed, while ME2 is a game that instead has quite a few bad concepts. I prefer ME1 not just because I feel its a better RPG and a more solid and well-defined game, but because its flaws are understandable. ME2 is just poorly designed and its flaws are a result of it being watered down, oversimplified and mainstreamed. ME2 also has this horrible mishmash feel to it; like it was never quite completed or polished properly or something. Almost like it was all thrown together and then taped up rather than carefully crafted.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

Amazing how Bioware asks for clarification and well worded posts in regards to improvements, but you have a problem with someone writing something too clarified in this regard.

Irritating to say the least when no matter how some try to convey their issues to Bioware there will be a bystander somehow taking offense.

When? I never heard about that. Link me.

Clarification = explain what issue you are referring to. Clarification does not = write a four page long design document. Well worded = well written not blocks of incomprehensible text. Well worded does not = write a four page long design document.

I think honestly the only things that need fixing for ME3 are the planet scanning (which is tedious), the story (ME2 had a much weaker story compared to ME1, this doesn't mean what story there is isn't excellent), longer missions (didn't see the point of the shorter missions), improve the levelling system and find a compromise with the inventory (not a full party inventory a la DAO or ME1, but not as simplistic as ME2's system, maybe shepherd could have a full detail inventory and the rest of his/her party are done automatically).

I've listed what I think's wrong with the game and I'm going to leave it up to Bioware to see if the pay off is worth it for changing those features and, if they do change them, they can use there collective intelligence and resources to decide how best to address them. And I haven't questioned anyone's mental health or called anyone an idiot in the process.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

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!

If they removed that, then the game would cease to be an RPG at all.

Yeah... that pretty much confirms that your opinions are now worthless to me. You clearly just want this game to be another shooter with as little depth as possible with things so dumbed down the game almost plays itself for you.

that's not what i said at all and you know it. why is it you rpg-whiners constantly resort to the "you people just want it to be a shooter" argument when you run out of evidence/things to say? for all your supposed elitism, you sure aren't all that smart.

YOU made the point that xp seemed arbitrary. i agree, so what difference would there be (bearing in mind enemies auto-level anyway) if you replaced "xp" with certain technologies that unlock at various points in the game, which make you stronger (could also replace the random upgrade system)?
Is that less 'rpg'? you will probably say yes, purely because there's not enough stats or boxes to tick there. at the end of the day, you want mass effect to revert to being something it has never been - a traditional, old, clunky, top-down, dice-rolling rpg. you don't want change, improvement, refinement, what you want what is what is comfortable and staid for you. it is you who has the problem, not the game.
sure some things didn't work too well in me2, but you have to try to know.
for me i certainly don't want "dumbed-down" but i don't see the point in forcing unnecessary complexity (like point-based aiming) which ruins any kind of immersion in the universe just for the sake of conforming to some "rpg/gameplay" tradition. complexity can be arrived at in different ways: better combat mechanics, smarter ai, character development, level design, story, concepts, moral choices etc.

[Vena_86]

ME1: An unpolished diamond. Its rough, flawed look might distract from the real value that lies inside and makes it unique.



ME2: Glass that is shaped and polished to look like a diamond. But it is just glass, trying to be something else. It shatters once you put too much pressure on it. Since it is not rare at all its true value is not what it appears at a first glance. But only those who care and look deeper will see, everyone else will enjoy it as what it appears to be, a diamond.

[Massadonious1]

your mom

Modifié par Massadonious1, 21 avril 2010 - 09:32 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Vena_86 wrote...

ME1: An unpolished diamond. Its rough, flawed look might distract from the real value that lies inside and makes it unique.

ME2: Glass that is shaped and polished to look like a diamond. But it is just glass, trying to be something else. It shatters once you put too much pressure on it. Since it is not rare at all its true value is not what it appears at a first glance. But only those who care and look deeper will see, everyone else will enjoy it as what it appears to be, a diamond.

Why do people feel the need to bash those that like ME2?  Grow a pair of Quads!

[Vena_86]

You missunderstood, ME1 is not what it could be while ME2 is all that it can be, with few more potential,

no bashing intended

[FlintlockJazz]

Vena_86 wrote...

You missunderstood, ME1 is not what it could be while ME2 is all that it can be, with few more potential,
no bashing intended

You stated that those who like it are those who don't care to look deeper, implying they are less thoughtful than those like you.  You tried to do it subtly because you lack the quads to come out and say it outright.

And no, that is not what you said, you said that ME2 is glass pretending to be a diamond, there are those of us who see 'deeper' as you put it and see the potential of ME2 and think that it is more of a diamond than ME1.  Personal opinion mate, don't like it fair enough but no need to look down your nose at people who do like it.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 21 avril 2010 - 09:46 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

If they removed that, then the game would cease to be an RPG at all.

Yeah... that pretty much confirms that your opinions are now worthless to me. You clearly just want this game to be another shooter with as little depth as possible with things so dumbed down the game almost plays itself for you.

that's not what i said at all and you know it. why is it you rpg-whiners constantly resort to the "you people just want it to be a shooter" argument when you run out of evidence/things to say? for all your supposed elitism, you sure aren't all that smart.

YOU made the point that xp seemed arbitrary. i agree, so what difference would there be (bearing in mind enemies auto-level anyway) if you replaced "xp" with certain technologies that unlock at various points in the game, which make you stronger (could also replace the random upgrade system)?
Is that less 'rpg'? you will probably say yes, purely because there's not enough stats or boxes to tick there. at the end of the day, you want mass effect to revert to being something it has never been - a traditional, old, clunky, top-down, dice-rolling rpg. you don't want change, improvement, refinement, what you want what is what is comfortable and staid for you. it is you who has the problem, not the game.

You know what this is an example of: hypocrisy.

You say of my comment "why is it you rpg-whiners constantly resort to the "you people just want it to be a shooter" argument when you run out of evidence/things to say? for all your supposed elitism, you sure aren't all that smart" and then right afterwards go on to say "at the end of the day, you want mass effect to revert to being something it has never been - a traditional, old, clunky, top-down, dice-rolling rpg" which is entirely false because I want nothing like that at all from Mass Effect. It wouldn't work in something like that, and I don't expect ultra complex D&D-styled rules and turn-based combat from it. What I want is a good middle-ground. I also find it ironic that such RPG elements as you mention above are constantly referred to in a manner just like you did, and that people keep saying that ME2 is "moving the genre forward" and "keeping with the times" in its efforts despite the fact that pretty much every element in the game that replaced the RPG ones from the original is even more hackneyed, staid and standard by falling back on by-the-book shooter mechanics, most of which have existed since the days of DOOM and even earlier.

Why do people always view things so black and white here then its not. Mass Effect doesn't need to be a turn-based, dice-rolling game with overly complex rules, but it also doesn't been to simply be Gears of War with a better story. There needs to be that balance, and the fact is that I and many others who feel the same way happen to think that ME1 was far closer to that balance than ME2 was, which went too far in the shooter direction by sacrificing so many elements. And if they got rid of XP entirely, it would no longer be an RPG at all and simply be a story-driven shooter with RPG elements instead.

sure some things didn't work too well in me2, but you have to try to know.

Except that ME2 didn't try, and that's one of its biggest faults. In fact, almost all of ME1's problems come from the fact it was trying to bring something new to the table and those things didn't quite work out and could have used some work. ME2 is almost the opposite, as almost all its problems come from the fact it didn't try at all, and went for the easy answers by simply avoiding the issues entirely; chucking out any of the elements that had issues and falling back on overly simple shooter mechanics as a "solution" to them. That's not trying: that's running away from the problems and giving up on them. It's the equivalent of your oven breaking, but instead of fixing it or getting a new one the repair guys just chucks it out and hands you a microwave. Sure, the microwave can't grill and you can't put put pots or pans on it to boil or fry things, but the microwave works, right? No, that wouldn't be an acceptable answer, and neither was ME2 when it came to "solving" ME1's issues. No longer having an issue is not fixing it.

for me i certainly don't want "dumbed-down" but i don't see the point in forcing unnecessary complexity (like point-based aiming) which ruins any kind of immersion in the universe just for the sake of conforming to some "rpg/gameplay" tradition. complexity can be arrived at in different ways: better combat mechanics, smarter ai, character development, level design, story, concepts, moral choices etc.

What is unnecessary though is a point of view, and it again comes down to balance. If one makes too complex it puts people off, but if one makes things too simple it provides a lack of depth. And the fact is, there are a lot of really simple things the disgruntled fans are wanting that aren't that big of a deal and shouldn't effect too much of the game for those who don't care. For example, would having some visible stats on the weapons really put out the pro-ME2 group that much? Would having similar stats on our armour? Would bringing back weapon modding on our guns? Would changing the HUD back to something closer to the ME1 one? Would getting rid of those mission complete screens and having your XP appear as you earned it in the bottom corner? Would they really complain about The Mako returning if the worlds you landed on with it were closer to the ones in the N7 missions? These are all really simple things that would together make a huge difference.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 avril 2010 - 11:47 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...
For example, would having some visible stats on the weapons really put out the pro-ME2 group that much? Would having similar stats on our armour? Would bringing back weapon modding on our guns? Would changing the HUD back to something closer to the ME1 one? Would getting rid of those mission complete screens and having your XP appear as you earned it in the bottom corner? Would they really complain about The Mako returning if the worlds you landed on with it were closer to the ones in the N7 missions? These are all really simple things that would together make a huge difference.

I suppose I could be classed as a member of the pro-ME2 group (though really I don't think of it as terms of groups or myself as having a 'side'), and not only would I have no problem with many (not all) of your suggestions but I would love many if not most of those features.  They would have to make sure they did it like it was discussed earlier by yourself and others (can't remember if it was this thread or another, but it was the one where you showed a photoshopped image of the proposed screen), as the method used in ME1 was clunky and did indeed need alot of work imho.

Loved the mako, and would like its return in the main story quests as opposed to the dire hammerhead and its optional nature, driving through the collector ship is a must.  Modding weapons, I can see them adding this now that they have nailed the weapon system for ME3.  Changing the HUD back to ME1 would be wrong though I think, its too clunky and the new one is fine in my opinion, and the mission complete screens would work perfectly if they had optional xp for completing the mission in different ways that they could display the awards for.

ME2 has nailed the gameplay mechanics imho, now they can devote energies to adding things to it.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 21 avril 2010 - 12:19 .

[Terror_K]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Changing the HUD back to ME1 would be wrong though I think, its too clunky and the new one is fine in my opinion, 

Are we talking about the same HUD here? ME1's was simple and elegant, telling you the names of your squaddies, their health and shields and with a radar/map there all the time. I've played ME2 through entirely two and more than a half times and I still don't know what those silly heads and those coloured bars mean... its just a confusing mess.

[Onyx Jaguar]

ME 2 shouldn't have a hud. ME 1's system made the HUD necessary. ME 2's however is unnecessary and just takes up space. The only useful part of it is that it indicates when your teammates are down which can be easily replaced by something else.