10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Drago]

kram0789 wrote...

I am playing on a PC. Did not play the first ME. I bought ME2 on-line, so no operating instructions. The worst thing about this game is figuring out how to control it. Example, I found an anomaly. I started a search mission. Now I cannot get out. I cannot find any information on how to get out. It is apparently a big secret. Very frustrated with this game.

-Believe me your not missing much with the low EA standards for what they call a manual (thin paper, no color and rarely full instructins in the fist place) but I feel for you nether the less on trying to figure out the game. Wasn’t there even a downloadable instruction manual? That’s just stupid if there wasn’t but wouldn’t surprise me at all.

What anomaly and search mission are you talking about?

Try this site for some help. Just be warned it will have a ton of spoilers since it’s a guide site. Its also for both games. http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_Wiki

Modifié par Darth Drago, 21 juin 2010 - 08:43 .

[tonnactus]

awpdevil wrote...

When you require a certain skill, or certain character to just open something, your taking away from the player the option to use who he/she wants to take on a mission. In me1 you had to be an engineer, or have tali, or garrus in the party through out the entire game.

3 of the 6 Mass Effect partymembers have decryption and no one pleased you? And sabotage was usefull in combat anyway.Also damping and ai-hacking.

[tonnactus]

kram0789 wrote...

I am playing on a PC. Did not play the first ME. I bought ME2 on-line, so no operating instructions. The worst thing about this game is figuring out how to control it. Example, I found an anomaly. I started a search mission. Now I cannot get out. I cannot find any information on how to get out. It is apparently a big secret. Very frustrated with this game.

http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=633410&forum=104

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

Replace ME2 with Fallout 3 and Me1 with Fallout 1/2 and you have the exact same argument that people had with FO3.

Still great games regardless, though.

You're going by the argument that the claims by fans of ME1 who aren't happy with the result of ME2 are biased and unwarranted. Fallout 3 did not continue the story of any main character, riding on the heels of previous titles. However ME2 did and will with ME3.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 juin 2010 - 08:54 .

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

You're going by the argument that the claims by fans of ME1 who aren't happy with the result of ME2 are biased and unwarranted.

Actually the most unbiased people in this thread of been Iakus and Ecael, Iakus because he's actually posted tangible reasons why he felt that ME2 was inferior and Ecael because she likes both games equally and has plenty of reasoning to show it. So yeah, we're definitely pretty biased here and I'm not excluding myself.

But I'm not saying that the claims are unwarrented. If something was wrong with something I created myself it'd be great to hear praise, but I also want to know what to improve. The only "problem" is that there's a lot of crap coming from both sides, but that's why I call it a 'problem': it's unavoidable.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Fallout 3 did not continue the story of any main character, riding on the heels of previous titles...

Neither did Fallout 2. But that's besides the point. The only chief difference with ME1 and ME2 is equipment, leveling, and combat mechanics. The main bread-and-butter of the game - directing Shepard - still persists.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 juin 2010 - 09:28 .

[AlanC9]

Pocketgb wrote...
 The only chief difference with ME1 and ME2 is equipment, leveling, and combat mechanics. The main bread-and-butter of the game - directing Shepard - still persists.

Depends on your definition of the "bread-and-butter," of course. I'm with you, myself, but that's only because I didn't think those mechanics worked for ME1 in the first place.

[Pocketgb]

AlanC9 wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...
 The only chief difference with ME1 and ME2 is equipment, leveling, and combat mechanics. The main bread-and-butter of the game - directing Shepard - still persists.

Depends on your definition of the "bread-and-butter," of course. I'm with you, myself, but that's only because I didn't think those mechanics worked for ME1 in the first place.

I agree there too.

I called it the 'b-n-b' because throughout all the announcements, trailers, and press for ME1, it was the ony thing that stuck out above the rest. This was still the case when it was released. As limited as it's been since ME1 it's still a very interesting take on role-playing.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

Actually the most unbiased people in this thread of been Iakus and Ecael, Iakus because he's actually posted tangible reasons why he felt that ME2 was inferior and Ecael because she likes both games equally and has plenty of reasoning to show it. So yeah, we're definitely pretty biased here and I'm not excluding myself.

But I'm not saying that the claims are unwarrented. If something was wrong with something I created myself it'd be great to hear praise, but I also want to know what to improve. The only "problem" is that there's a lot of crap coming from both sides, but that's why I call it a 'problem': it's unavoidable.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Fallout 3 did not continue the story of any main character, riding on the heels of previous titles...

Neither did Fallout 2. But that's besides the point. The only chief difference with ME1 and ME2 is equipment, leveling, and combat mechanics. The main bread-and-butter of the game - directing Shepard - still persists.

Well, from that post it definitely seems you're at least saying MY views are warrantless since I've made it crystal clear countless times that while I certainly acknowledge there was combat in ME1, I feel the character interaction was on par in terms of ratio with combat and I'm not the only one who feels this way. Even most of the optional missions in ME1 had more character interaction compared to ME2's optional sidequests. And unlike in ME1, there are many instances where he/she speaks without being prompted. I don't give a damn if the dialogue is supposedly "neutral", that's not directing Shepard.

So many things said in this thread and others here of similar nature are personal, subjective tastes, but the fact there are too many shooters and not enough RPGs/story driven games ISN'T subjective.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...
The main bread-and-butter of the game - directing Shepard - still persists.

Directing shepardt?? Strange, i got the feeling that the human smoking funnel direct him more then i as a player did it.

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

So many things said in this thread and others here of similar nature are personal, subjective tastes, but the fact there are too many shooters and not enough RPGs/story driven games ISN'T subjective.

GAME is what it is, but if you think game should not be what it is, then maybe the problem is not the game, but you thinking that game should be for you.

It's little like I would start bashing comedy tv-series on tv-serie forum, because in my opinion there isn't enough horrow tv-series. If I just happen to like horrow tv-series more than comedy.

Point is, like any game, choose your game, don't try to change every game to fit your own taste. If You think there isn't enough to choose, because you have so narrow taste, then who else you could blame about that, than your self.

[cachx]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Has it occurred to you that not all games with guns are for you? Who says if you, or anybody else THINKS the gameplay mechanics suck that the developers are obliged to make any and all games with guns play like a TPS or FPS?

The only thing they're "obliged" to is to make a game that doesn't play like ass. Whether the developer wants to make it TPS, FPS, turn based, or a mix.

In the case of FO3, I gave my opinion when prompted. I didn't like it, so I moved on... I didn't go to Bethesda's forums to take potshots at FO3 in every other thread in a empty attempt to be a martyr or a "defender of the old rpg ways".

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Well, from that post it definitely seems you're at least saying MY views are warrantless since I've made it crystal clear countless times that while I certainly acknowledge there was combat in ME1, I feel the character interaction was on par in terms of ratio with combat and I'm not the only one who feels this way

And that 'point of perfection' will vary for every single player: Some people want more combat as long as there's meaningful dialog, some people want more dialog as long as there's meaningful combat, some people want it 50/50. Who is more right? Whose 'definition of RPG' bears more meaning? This is why Bioware cannot win in this regard.

It's true: I enjoy the combat in ME2 more than I did in ME1. But while much of it is indeed the mechanics, honestly a lot of it is in regards to aesthetics.

However, you can combine every single battle in the game and it still won't be able to match the awesome and amount of epic I felt when Shepard gave his paragon speech in defense of Tali.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

And unlike in ME1, there are many instances where he/she speaks without being prompted. I don't give a damn if the dialogue is supposedly "neutral", that's not directing Shepard.

This is why I had a hard time getting into ME1. I certainly didn't think of hugging that escaped slave girl, but Shepard sure did. But that's what I starting thinking of Shepard less as 'me' and more as, well, Shep.

There's very few ways you can 'direct' a character who has actual VO for every choice you choose. This is what drew me into ME1 in the first place, and why I pre-ordered the hell out of ME2.

In regards to the specifics of Shepard speaking without the players' say, I felt it made the conversation appear a bit more natural. My favorite instance is Shepard's "uh huh" when Garrus explains why he had to shoot him a few times ;p

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

So many things said in this thread and others here of similar nature are personal, subjective tastes, but the fact there are too many shooters and not enough RPGs/story driven games ISN'T subjective.

Indeed. That's why I was confused at ME1 being a shooter hybrid.


And no, I don't think that what you say is worthless. I just disagree with a lot of what you do, and *how* you say your opinions. I can understand being upset but there's much better ways to display it.

[tonnactus]

Just a question to those who enjoy the combat of Mass Effect 2 more then that of the first game:
What class/classes did you choose to play this game?

Modifié par tonnactus, 21 juin 2010 - 10:53 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Just a question to those who enjoy the combat of Mass Effect 2 more then that of the first game:
What class/classes did you choose to play this game?

I ques I can aswer this, because your ask only combat side, liking.

Infiltrator.

Why? Mostly because weapons feeled like correct weapons.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 juin 2010 - 10:59 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Just a question to those who enjoy the combat of Mass Effect 2 more then that of the first game:
What class/classes did you choose to play this game?

Soldier

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

GAME is what it is, but if you think game should not be what it is, then maybe the problem is not the game, but you thinking that game should be for you.

It's little like I would start bashing comedy tv-series on tv-serie forum, because in my opinion there isn't enough horrow tv-series. If I just happen to like horrow tv-series more than comedy.

Point is, like any game, choose your game, don't try to change every game to fit your own taste. If You think there isn't enough to choose, because you have so narrow taste, then who else you could blame about that, than your self.

Very good. It's a game. Basketball is a game. Tetris is a game. Air hockey is a game. Hide and go seek is a game. Dungeons and Dragons is a game. Halo is a game. Legend Of Zelda is a game. Heavy Rain is a game. Go Fish is a game. Solitaire is a game. And yet while all of what I just listed can fall under the category of "game", they all give you a different experience. All sports are games but usually appeal to DIFFERENT PEOPLE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. Same with video games. Same with movies. Same with books. What you're saying is "just enjoy the game". Well, not everybody likes Tetris but there are those who like Halo. *GASPS* What a shocker. People can like CERTAIN games, but not ALL?

It's analogy time again! People can like both Stephen King and JK Rowling but not want Harry Potter to duke it out with Pennywise. People can like Lost and Law&Order and not want to see Detective Benson and Detective Stabler crash land on the island. And I can like ME1 and not want ME2 and ME3 to turn into mostly a shooter with limited inventory, dialogue/character interaction, limited skill use going for an emphasis on the PLAYER'S own "skill" instead of the character, and little choices.

cachx wrote...

The only thing they're "obliged" to is to make a game that doesn't play like ass. Whether the developer wants to make it TPS, FPS, turn based, or a mix.

In the case of FO3, I gave my opinion when prompted. I didn't like it, so I moved on... I didn't go to Bethesda's forums to take potshots at FO3 in every other thread in a empty attempt to be a martyr or a "defender of the old rpg ways".

No, but obviously there were plenty that didn't like it and if they payed they have every right to voice their opinions. Don't feel like going back 100 pages, but use some common sense. I, along with everybody else saying ME2 was a punch in the gut CARE ABOUT the franchise. We don't want it to suck. It's perfectly fine if Bioware wants to make a shooter, but it most certainly is a punch in the gut to their established fanbase since every single game they've made previously has been an RPG and ME1 was an RPG. If they must who am I to complain about Bioware making a shooter(s), it just shouldn't be done on an EXISTING game series of theirs at the expense of the RPG fans. But who cares? You love it, so why SHOULD you care if RPG/story driven fans have little to no titles to pick from when the shooter fans do?

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

And I can like ME1 and not want ME2 and ME3 to turn into mostly a shooter with limited inventory, dialogue/character interaction, limited skill use going for an emphasis on the PLAYER'S own "skill" instead of the character, and little choices.

No you can't want ME2 be turned to anything, because the game is allready done. Game is what it is. You can only say what you like or dislike in ME2, but do it polite and costructive ways.

What you want from future is just for ME3, because that game hasn't done yet. So, our problem here isn't that what you want from ME3, because what ever wishes you have, it is fine. How ever, bashing ME2 and it's player base is not fine, just because the ME2 wasn't best for you.

Why we have disagreement's here so often. Mostly because many of you compare something in ME2 to ME1, so that it's not allways how others see the same situation. Problem isn't the base message, it's how it's sayed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 juin 2010 - 11:19 .

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

No, but obviously there were plenty that didn't like it and if they payed they have every right to voice their opinions. Don't feel like going back 100 pages, but use some common sense. I, along with everybody else saying ME2 was a punch in the gut CARE ABOUT the franchise. We don't want it to suck. It's perfectly fine if Bioware wants to make a shooter, but it most certainly is a punch in the gut to their established fanbase since every single game they've made previously has been an RPG and ME1 was an RPG. If they must who am I to complain about Bioware making a shooter(s), it just shouldn't be done on an EXISTING game series of theirs at the expense of the RPG fans. But who cares? You love it, so why SHOULD you care if RPG/story driven fans have little to no titles to pick from when the shooter fans do?

This is a good example to show what I disagree with: a big block of assumption.


Not everyone was a huge fan of Mass Effect 1 for the same reasons.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 juin 2010 - 11:13 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

And that 'point of perfection' will vary for every single player: Some people want more combat as long as there's meaningful dialog, some people want more dialog as long as there's meaningful combat, some people want it 50/50. Who is more right? Whose 'definition of RPG' bears more meaning? This is why Bioware cannot win in this regard.

It's true I enjoy the combat in ME2 more than I did in ME1. But while much of it is indeed the mechanics, honestly a lot of it is in regards to aesthetics.

However, you can combine every single battle in the game and it still won't be able to match the awesome and amount of epic I felt when Shepard gave his paragon speech in defense of Tali.

This is why I had a hard time getting into ME1. I certainly didn't think of hugging that escaped slave girl, but Shepard sure did. In regards to the specifics of Shepard speaking without the players' say, I felt it made the conversation appear a bit more natural. My favorite instance is Shepard's "uh huh" when Garrus explains why he had to shoot him a few times ;p

Indeed. That's why I was confused at ME1 being a shooter hybrid.


And no, I don't think that what you say is worthless. I just disagree with a lot of what you do, and *how* you say your opinions. I can understand being upset but there's much better ways to display it.

First of all, the way Meer delivered the "uh huh" line was damn funny so I won't argue that. But do you remember his "fun fun" paragon line in ME1 talking to Joker? The mouth clearly didn't move so I personally feel both those instances spontaneous on Meer's part just ad libbing. Ad libbing doesn't really bother me, what does is multiple sentences. And it's not difficult at all. There have been people saying if the main character in Dragon Age was voiced the game would have been a lot longer. Why the hell is that? Shepard has on average six or seven lines in a convo. It's the same with Dragon Age's main character. It would NOT lengthen the game by any large stretch if we had voice actors.

While there are plenty of games with a lot of shooting, mostly shooting/adequate dialogue, there are hardly any games with the amount of dialogue and character interaction we saw in ME1 or Heavy Rain or even Persona. I hesitate to add Persona to the mix because as I said a while back in this thread, that game really suffers from cultural differences when translated, but it's still a good example. And why can't Bioware just use the bar that they've used in their previous titles? That would be more than sufficient.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 juin 2010 - 11:30 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

No you can't want ME2 be turned to anything, because the game is allready done. Game is what it is. You can only say what you like or dislike in ME2, but do it polite and costructive ways.

What you want from future is just for ME3, because that game hasn't done yet. So, our problem here isn't that what you want from ME3, because what ever wishes you have, it is fine. How ever, bashing ME2 and it's player base is not fine, just because the ME2 wasn't best for you.

Why we have disagreement's here so often. Mostly because many of you compare something in ME2 to ME1, so that it's not allways how others see the same situation. Problem isn't the base message, it's how it's sayed.

Arguing linguistics? Typo, meant to put "have wanted".

Pocketgb wrote...

This is a good example to show what I disagree with: a big block of assumption.


Not everyone was a huge fan of Mass Effect 1 for the same reasons.

Are you saying people wanted to be more of a shooter? If so, that's my point. Bioware has always gone above and beyond to make a deep game without being an overabundance of combat but there are many shooter fans who feel entitled to a game with guns that want it to play like a shooter by default as I've said like 3 times today. Clarify what you mean please?

[tonnactus]

What i thought.People who liked combat classes liked the combat in the second game better.I still have to find someone who like the new adept/engineer better then the old one.

[Dudeman315]

Sorry this is kinda late for the posts that they relate to but:

You can play ME2 without firing your weapon as a class with incinerate, it take along time but can be done.

AP is a simply amazing game if you read the title and understand that it no where says TPS or that it wants to be one.
"Alpha Protocol: The Espionage RPG" is the title of the game, just because it looks like as TPS doesn't mean it tries to be one any more than a duckbill platypus tries to be a beaver.

And as for why people are upset at the changes it was pitched to players as a TRILOGY, which was apparently not what I and some others feel is being delivered.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 21 juin 2010 - 11:46 .

[Mahkana]

Are you saying people wanted to be more of a shooter? If so, that's my point. Bioware has always gone above and beyond to make a deep game without being an overabundance of combat but there are many shooter fans who feel entitled to a game with guns that want it to play like a shooter by default as I've said like 3 times today.

But if you're in a roleplaying game where you are a soldier in the military fighting an alien threat, it would be very important to have a smoother combat system. I do agree though bioware toned down the story just a bit, but it still has some unique dialogue and roleplaying mechanics i.e conversation interruptions.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Sorry this is kinda late for the posts that they relate to but:

You can play ME2 without firing your weapon as a class with incinerate, it take along time but can be done.

AP is a simply amazing game if you read the title and understand that it no where says TPS or that it wants to be one.
"Alpha Protocol: The Espionage RPG" is the title of the game, just because it looks like as TPS doesn't mean it tries to be one any more than a duckbill platypus tries to be a beaver.

And as for why people are upset at the changes it was pitched to players as a TRILOGY, which was apparently not what I and some others feel is being delivered.

BUT THEY WERE MEANT FROM DAY 1 TO BE STAND ALONE. Because it would have totally made sense for George Lucas to make the Star Wars trilogy stand alone assuming that the viewer may not have watched the prior film. Same with Robert Zemeckis and Back To The Future.

[tonnactus]

Dudeman315 wrote...


You can play ME2 without firing your weapon as a class with incinerate, it take along time but can be done.

 

Sure,but this is not what i liked in the first game.It was disabling enemies with sabotage,damping or biotic powers.Now those powers have only small ranges and the "protection system" prevent to use them when they could have the greatist benefit in combat.When enemies are dangerous.

Modifié par tonnactus, 21 juin 2010 - 11:50 .