10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Drago]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

-Maybe start a poll or see if one was already made.

It would probably work better to just like them all by classes though in one poll. But then it would almost be a favorite class poll so maybe a poll for each class will be needed.

Did you like the Soldier in ME1
Did you like the Soldier in ME2

Did you like Adept in ME1
Did you like Adept in ME2

Did you like Engineer in ME1
Did you like Engineer in ME2
and so on..

[SkullandBonesmember]

Mahkana wrote...

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.

I don't understand how people say the combat in ME1 wasn't smooth or even sucked unless they went in expecting it to play like Gears Of War or Halo.

[tonnactus]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Mahkana wrote...

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.

I don't understand how people say the combat in ME1 wasn't smooth or even sucked unless they went in expecting it to play like Gears Of War or Halo.

Even combat classes have their problems because the ammo powers were bugged when Mass Effect 2 come out. Squadmates ignored squadammo and use their own versions or overwrite the heavy version of shepardt with their squadammo(this bug still exists).

Vanguard charge still didnt work on collector platforms and sometimes even when shepardt has a clear line of sight to an enemy that is some meters away.

I cant remember that Mass Effect had such an amount of gameplay relevant bugs.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 juin 2010 - 12:00 .

[Mahkana]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Mahkana wrote...

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.

I don't understand how people say the combat in ME1 wasn't smooth or even sucked unless they went in expecting it to play like Gears Of War or Halo.

True, true, but my case still stands it was difficult to play the game it was difficult to get in and out of cover, I hardly remember a time when my teammates used their ability. The point is it didn't quite succeed in the combat part, which Mass effect 2 does, but it does succeed in having great moods, great roleplaying aspects, which Mass Effect 2 has a little of. Another thing I didn't quite like about mass effect 1, and this is just nitpicking, was that it lacked humor, I don't remember laughing at all in mass effect, but in 2 I laughed until I cried at some parts.

[Lumikki]

Darth Drago wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

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.

-Maybe start a poll or see if one was already made.

It would probably work better to just like them all by classes though in one poll. But then it would almost be a favorite class poll so maybe a poll for each class will be needed.

Did you like the Soldier in ME1
Did you like the Soldier in ME2

Did you like Adept in ME1
Did you like Adept in ME2

Did you like Engineer in ME1
Did you like Engineer in ME2
and so on..

If You make polls remember it's NEVER just choise of two. But there is four possible with choise of two liking/disliking.

1. Like A (Dislike
2. Like B (Dislike A)
3. Likes A and B
4. Dislikes A and B
5. Don't care

Also often every poll is also added also for option, don't care. As opinion what ever, doen't care how it was or it is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 juin 2010 - 12:11 .

[Mahkana]

tonnactus wrote...
Even combat classes have their problems because the ammo powers were bugged when Mass Effect 2 come out. Squadmates ignored squadammo and use their own versions or overwrite the heavy version of shepardt with their squadammo(this bug still exists).

Vanguard charge still didnt work on collector platforms and sometimes even when shepardt has a clear line of sight to an enemy that is some meters away.

I cant remember that Mass Effect had such an amount of gameplay relevant bugs.

I never encountered these bugs in all four of my ME2 careers, but then again I'd be lieing if I said I played as a vangaurd, and the overwrite, I played as an Engy, a Soldier, and an Infiltrator and I used my ammo power ups and they never overwrote it.

[tonnactus]

Mahkana wrote...

True, true, but my case still stands it was difficult to play the game it was difficult to get in and out of cover, I hardly remember a time when my teammates used their ability.

???
Maybee you accidently choose the defensive option in the gameplay menu.Tali used tech abilities like every 2-3 seconds after getting a good omnitool,maxed ai-hacking and two medical exoskletons.

And she used carnage very often too.

[tonnactus]

Mahkana wrote...


I never encountered these bugs in all four of my ME2 careers, but then again I'd be lieing if I said I played as a vangaurd, and the overwrite, I played as an Engy, a Soldier, and an Infiltrator and I used my ammo power ups and they never overwrote it.

Then you never evolved their ammo version to the squad ammo version. And no one that played as a vanguard could tell me that he/she never got the "cant reach the target" message when they wanted to charge an enemy that was in their range and acessable.

This is a clear bug. It is also impossible to charge from one collector platform to another when they are connected. All that happens is that the charge animation works but shepardt still ends in his cover.

Also a bug.

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

First of all, the way Meer delivered that "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.

I was including those when I referenced the 'uh huh' line. When Shepard spoke out of turn it was usually a pleasent surprise for me, and made sense given how little control we have over him anyways (since ME1).

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

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.

I actually feel like that would be a huge hindrance to Dragon Age and it would greatly limit the PC's options, not to mention break off a little immersion that some can develop through non-voiced protaganists in RPGs.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


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.

Can't comment too much in this regards, mainly since most of my playthroughs of both ME1 and ME2 were done on Insanity. With ME1 on this setting battles take fricking forever so my opinion would like to say that there was way too much combat in ME1 as opposed to ME2.

Thinking back, way back, and playing it on normal I have not noticed much of a difference. If I can find Ecael's posts (or anyone else's) buried somewhere in here I'll see if they actually bring anything objective in regards to this.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

...Clarify what you mean
please?

Sure.

You assume that no ME1 fans liked ME2. You assume that 'RPG fans' (which is an incredibly broad label in itself) didn't like ME2. You assume that everyone who were huge fans of ME1 were fans of it for the exact same reasons. You assume everyone that liked ME2 liked it for its combat, hence why you label people who liked ME2 as "shooter fans".

tonnactus wrote...

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.

I did. As a whole, for every class, I liked the combat more, especially the vanguard. Soldier was my favorite just because the Warrior archetype if my favorite: no spells, no 'tricks', just precision and skill...at least that's the concept

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I don't understand how people
say the combat in ME1 wasn't smooth or even sucked unless they went in
expecting it to play like Gears Of War or Halo.

Look at the trailers showcasing the combat and that's exactly what it looked like.

Everythingabout it felt more tailored to be played in either a KotOR or DoW2-ish
fashion (imagining ME like this just makes me wet in the pants). It was like playing BG2 but forced through the over-the-shoulder perspective.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 juin 2010 - 12:19 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

I actually feel like that would be a huge hindrance to Dragon Age and it would greatly limit the PC's options, not to mention break off a little immersion that some can develop through non-voiced protaganists in RPGs.

And I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum where the immersion I feel with silent protagonists is practically null when compared to voiced protagonists. I feel more immersion playing Tidus from Final Fantasy X even though I can't choose anything he says or make choices than I do playing the Lone wanderer in Fallout 3.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


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.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

If I can find Ecael's posts (or anyone else's) buried somewhere in here I'll see if they actually bring anything objective in regards to this.

Let me save you the trouble in case you didn't read my specific post-

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

How is the combat emphasised over plot? I'll give you combat emphasised over RPG elements but not over plot. And considering that there is just as much (if not more) character interaction in ME2 than in ME1, how has it suffered?

Let me spell it out for you. To get from the beginning of a main world to the end took about 35-45 minutes on average with my ME1 Shepard. After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali, we could chat it up with Conrad again at the Citadel, we could check in with Anderson and Udina, and we could give the post mission report to the council. There was also the scenic view. When all is said and done, dialogue was even with the length of missions, sometimes even more. In addition there was a lot of dialogue and character interaction DURING the missions. Now let's look at ME2. We could get maybe 10 minutes of dialogue on average with SOME characters if milked dry. After those 10 minutes, we're thrown in with an hour long plus mission stopping for the occasional renegade/paragon interrupt. We can talk to Garrus only TWICE. Your entire squad is almost always too busy to speak with you. We have more squad members, but not more dialogue to reflect that. And there's hardly any discussion with anybody post main mission. Instead we get text to read from emails. The only time Anderson talks again is after meeting Ashley.

Oh, and we couldn't even chat with Rebecka and Michael. What was the point in bringing their VAs back if not being able to interact with them?

Pocketgb wrote...

You assume that no ME1 fans liked ME2. You assume that 'RPG fans' (which is an incredibly broad label in itself) didn't like ME2. You assume that everyone who were huge fans of ME1 were fans of it for the exact same reasons. You assume everyone that liked ME2 liked it for its combat, hence why you label people who liked ME2 as "shooter fans".

Yes, "RPG fans" is a broad label.

Seraphael wrote...

Is the RPG genre something static that will never change? Is the "core fan base" some kind of uniform group all wanting the same thing?

For me ME2 is all about getting rid of the nonsensical roleplaying game implementations (like overly bloated loot systems and overly complex character builds) and instead focusing on that which furthers roleplaying; like realism and immersion. Romances are a powerful tool as they tap into deeper emotions and can motivate a player on a whole new level.

If I was simply about "killing everything that moves" I would pick a pure shooter, not an RPG. Levelling up, and skill and attribute allocation is character development in the narrowest possible sense and best confined to MMORPGs who focus on this area to compensate for the lack of story or roleplaying. I'll pick 'real' character development, where romance could play a vital role, any day of the week.

Paradigm Quake wrote...

Frankly, the days mindlessly killing 'mobs' and level grinding are ones I'm perfectly happy to see gone forever.

When I say "RPG fan" I'm referring to more of a modern definition, not the fans that are stuck in the dungeon crawling days, or focus on MMOs thinking stats and loot, while they can be cool I'll admit, are the be all end all of RPGs which is why I try my best to throw the term "story driven fans" in my posts as often as possible when discussing the many types of fans.

Find me one post, just ONE, or feel free to try for multiple, where I've said no ME1 fans like ME2(and I've stated for the record I do, just that it was vastly sub par).

Look at the marketing for ME2 and tell me that wouldn't make a shooter fan's eyes widen. There have been plenty here and around other parts of the Net that say things from the story in ME1 "dragged" to "who cares about the story? It's all about the combat".

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 22 juin 2010 - 01:28 .

[Some Geth]

Yes but most story games you like have a ton of of plot holes so they suck at what they try to do fact.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Some Geth wrote...

Yes but most story games you like have a ton of of plot holes so they suck at what they try to do fact.

Ahhh, the troll of this thread.

The plot hole of all plot holes of any and all games is from ME2 itself.

The "mystery mission" where EVERYBODY gets on the shuttle without any explanation.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Doesn't happen if you don't do all the missions before. Its suppose to activate when you launch a mission. For completionists though they break the setup.

[AlanC9]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Look at the marketing for ME2 and tell me that wouldn't make a shooter fan's eyes widen.

And the ME1 marketing was different? From what I've seen ME1 brought in a lot of shooter fans..

[Some Geth]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Yes but most story games you like have a ton of of plot holes so they suck at what they try to do fact.

Ahhh, the troll of this thread.

The plot hole of all plot holes of any and all games is from ME2 itself.

The "mystery mission" where EVERYBODY gets on the shuttle without any explanation.

Oh ME2 has plot holes yes ME1 has them too.

oh here by the way this guy will show you how good Heavy Rain is http://thatguywithth...y-heavy-rain-01 have fun .

[SithLordExarKun]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Yes but most story games you like have a ton of of plot holes so they suck at what they try to do fact.

Ahhh, the troll of this thread.

The plot hole of all plot holes of any and all games is from ME2 itself.

The "mystery mission" where EVERYBODY gets on the shuttle without any explanation.

Every game has plot holes, so does ME1, and so does heavy rain.

That doesn't make any of these games bad.

[Terror_K]

It's all very well to say "perhaps ME2 isn't the type of game for you" and all, but if ME1 really was the type of game for Me (or anybody else), then shouldn't ME2 also therefore be the type of game for me? Especially considering this is supposed to be a trilogy and all. The point is that the sequel should carry-on the legacy and style that's started by the first one, and gameplay wise it largely doesn't except perhaps at its most basic level. One can say that the "bread and butter" of controlling Shepard is still there, but that's only one element of many. ME2 could have been solely a point'n'click adventure game or in the style of Heavy Rain and still allowed this aspect, without either RPG factors or shooter factors, but that's not a satisfactory follow-up at all (though it could make an excellent spin-off).

And yes, a good game is a good game, but when you're working with a direct sequel --especially when its essentially supposed to be the second part of three games that for all intents and purposes should be largely the same-- it also needs to be a good sequel as well as a good game. ME2 is a good game, but a poor sequel, IMO. Aside from not really adhering to the whole trilogy nature as was initially hyped by BioWare, it changes far too much and simplifies a lot to the point of being an almost entirely different game, even if it is wrapped in the same packaging.

The main point remains as this overall: good game or not, a direct sequel should be just as much a game for the fans of the first one as the first one was. While this is true for some, there are a great number of those this is not true for.

[Some Geth]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Yes but most story games you like have a ton of of plot holes so they suck at what they try to do fact.

Ahhh, the troll of this thread.

The plot hole of all plot holes of any and all games is from ME2 itself.

The "mystery mission" where EVERYBODY gets on the shuttle without any explanation.

Every game has plot holes, so does ME1, and so does heavy rain.

That doesn't make any of these games bad.

Well ME1 and ME2 are good but Heavy Rain a game that put it all on the plot has to have a good plot it did not so I think it sucks .

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Depending on where one's priorities lie and if they think shooters are teh best pwning game evar. However, for those that are fed up with the excessive amount of shooters and not enough RPGs and/or story driven games, no. Plus the fact the sequel is a 180 from the original so it's hardly a continuation let alone the same game. For the record, I'm not looking for a copy-paste ME1 version 2.0, just for ME2 to have stayed true to its predecessor, which it didn't. But you've made it quite clear you think the changes were phenomenal and in comparison ME1 sucked.[/quote]

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.


[/quote]

Small problems here:

Fallout 3 was made nearly a decade after Fallout 1 & 2

Fallout 3 was made by a different company

Fallout 3 was not a direct sequel to either of the previous games

While ME 2:

Was released three years (tops) from ME 1

Same company

Was not only a direct sequel, but allows importing of ME 1 save files into ME 2

So yeah, complaints of ME 2 not staying true to ME 1 might carry a bit more weight in this case

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...

Wrong.
There was not a single lock that you had to unlock. You could
just ignore the crates, and the XP and money weren't exactly needed. It
is however only realistic that you need certain skills in an RPG to
perform certain tasks. All players who can not grasp or do not like this
concept, should just stick with shooters. But they should not try to
take over and force their preferences other gaming series.
[/quote]

Why couldn't a combat-focused class bash the crate open, or a biotics-based class use - well, biotics?

[/quote]

This is not an unreasonable request.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

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.

Eh, I wouldn't call it "bread-and-butter".  As far as continuing the story goes, it's what the people at the concession stands at the movies call "butter-flavored topping"  Definitely lacking something

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

It's all very well to say "perhaps ME2 isn't the type of game for you" and all, but if ME1 really was the type of game for Me (or anybody else), then shouldn't ME2 also therefore be the type of game for me? Especially considering this is supposed to be a trilogy and all. The point is that the sequel should carry-on the legacy and style that's started by the first one, and gameplay wise it largely doesn't except perhaps at its most basic level. One can say that the "bread and butter" of controlling Shepard is still there, but that's only one element of many. ME2 could have been solely a point'n'click adventure game or in the style of Heavy Rain and still allowed this aspect, without either RPG factors or shooter factors, but that's not a satisfactory follow-up at all (though it could make an excellent spin-off).

And yes, a good game is a good game, but when you're working with a direct sequel --especially when its essentially supposed to be the second part of three games that for all intents and purposes should be largely the same-- it also needs to be a good sequel as well as a good game. ME2 is a good game, but a poor sequel, IMO. Aside from not really adhering to the whole trilogy nature as was initially hyped by BioWare, it changes far too much and simplifies a lot to the point of being an almost entirely different game, even if it is wrapped in the same packaging.

The main point remains as this overall: good game or not, a direct sequel should be just as much a game for the fans of the first one as the first one was. While this is true for some, there are a great number of those this is not true for.

There's inevitably going to be at least one, but probably a few that will argue that though.

[Kileyan]

ME2 was a great game if it had never involved the main story at all. It was awesome up until they actually got to the meat of the story.

IMHO, it should have been ME 1.5, a story about Shep knowing what was coming, building an alliance of new friends in case he had to take on the reapers on his own. Maybe solving the problems of the major races, and convincing them to help. Honestly I could have totally lived without the collectors and the reaper base at all.

Rather than that crap, I could have filled that with more Geth content, more about the Rachni and getting them into the fight.

The pay off of ME2 wouldn't have been that lame reaper and the silly bug skittering away. It would have been about Cerebus, taking them down, destroying them, or even taking them over. We were set up in ME1 to see them as friggin crazy people who killed solidiers and civilians at a whim for power and propaganda. When I heard we'd join them, I thought it was a set up to take them down.

Obviously this middle in a trilogy can't let us beat the reapers, it should have been a set up to satisfy us with taking down Cerebus. Instead, they dropped the whole Cerebus thing almost the second it started, and made it as simple as "well I don't really work for them, I AM JUST USING THEM". Thats it, that is all there is, no taking them down, no real major choices, we are suddenly just buddy buddy because they have some cash. It was a let down, and very lame, especially for certain Shep origins. 

Modifié par Kileyan, 22 juin 2010 - 02:55 .

[Iakus]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

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?

Maybe I should put this in my sig:

 I can already hear the protests: "You just want Mass Effect 1 all over again!" No, I don't. In fact, Mass Effect 2 might have been a worthy "Mass Effect 1" on its own. There was little enough indication that anything had happened beforehand.     What  I wanted (and still want) is a continuation, not a wholly separate game that happened to be set in the same universe. In effect, I wanted" Mass Effect 2", not "Mass Effect Too"

[kmcd5722]

I already made similar posts like this in other threads, but I really want to stress how important I felt this was.



First, BioWare, thank you thank you thank you for ME2. It was above and beyond what I thought it could be. However, I have one small, very small, area for improvement for ME3 so as to make it the best game ever.



My small complaint/humble request relates to the "feel" of immersion that ran so deep in ME1. I felt much of this enchanting and truly almost euphoric sense of reality in ME1 didn't quite make the transfer over to ME2. Here's how:



1) The MAKO and "Copy/Paste" Barren Landscape Environments

Much of the "immersion" and "exploration" that felt so real, epic, awe-inspiring, and truly (if you stopped every now and then while you driving the MAKO over some barren planets) humbling and mystifying was lost from ME1 when the MAKO was out for ME2. I loved the fleshed out planets from ME2, it was really cool to see that. I for one posted constantly about that in the old ME1 forums. However, I guess I never realized that the MAKO and all the copy/paste worlds would be entirely dropped. And now I somewhat regret it, seeing as I truly did love how they offered you incredible views of space, light-years away from earth, that made you reflect on the vastness of space as you looked up at the horizon. What I wanted was more variety, in addition to the already awesome barren world space vistas, not that all the barren landscapes be entirely removed. It was this lack of immersion that I missed so much when playing ME1. Maybe for ME3 or ME2 DLC add in another 15-20 truly uncharted worlds like ME1. (There is a thread much like this already, so go there if you want to see the whole argument and pictures of the cool space vistas)



2) Elevators and "Decontamination in Progress"

Really, truly, I didn't mind the elevators or having to walk back to the Normandy in ME1 as it made the game feel like you were truly always in it; there were no "discontinuities" in the storyline that loading screens unfortunately made the ME2 feel less personal. The "taken outside the movie" kind of feeling crept up more I felt with all the loading screens in ME2, versus ME1 I always felt "in the game/movie." Don't get me wrong, some of the load screens were pretty cool, being able to see where you were traveling; however, maybe for ME3, have those load screens very very intermittently and bring back the elevators. (To all future posters, please don't hurt me for this idea, I promise I am being truly sincere in my requests)



3) Status Reports with your Superiors

Not talking directly to Hackett/the Council like ME1 really made me feel even less immersed for the things I did in the game. I felt this really made me think about my decisions, as eventually my superiors would know about it. Versus just receiving an email from TIM, I felt BioWare could have made it so it would have been neat to hear his voice, and then discuss with the squad about the last mission. Simply reading the emails is not nearly as entertaining nor as immersive as talking to an NPC.



3.5) Mission Complete Screens/End of Mission Reports

After a truly intense moment, emotional or not, they were just jarring, out of place, and felt almost forced. The whole in-game movie experience is lost. However, the unique movie feel of a well-immersed experience in a video game turned into a stock FPS with these screens. If I just want to shoot the hell out of something, I can play COD or Halo, but if I want to be alive in a game, I want to play ME.



4) Squad Banter

Simple. It just brings out a sense your squadmates aren't mutes who don't have feelings towards each other. In ME2, they just seemed like mindless servants obeying orders when you couldn't even have the opportunity to talk to them on a mission or post-mission about your in-game decisions. Granted, I am not ripping on the incredible character development that was present by talking to your squadmates about their personal lives in ME2, but what the mission and how they get along with the rest of the crew?



All in all, ME2 was absolutely fantastic to play, but I miss the planets and other small things that made ME1 feel so real.



Because I couldn’t say it any better, I quote:

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

ME2 is a great game, but ME1 was a great experience.

[Terror_K]

Kileyan wrote...

ME2 was a great game if it had never involved the main story at all. It was awesome up until they actually got to the meat of the story.

IMHO, it should have been ME 1.5, a story about Shep knowing what was coming, building an alliance of new friends in case he had to take on the reapers on his own. Maybe solving the problems of the major races, and convincing them to help. Honestly I could have totally lived without the collectors and the reaper base at all.

Rather than that crap, I could have filled that with more Geth content, more about the Rachni and getting them into the fight.

I actually have a strong suspicion that this is pretty much what ME3 is going to entail for the most part. There seems to be quite a bit set-up between the two first games for something like this. It could be a lot like DAO in that respect too, in that your main focus is to go to different groups and try and recruit them, with maybe alternate options with each one depending on your choices, both in previous games and in the missions themselves.

The thing I'm the most unsure about with ME3 is your companions, given that so many of them can die, etc. but I'm guessing that for the most part they'll be taking a back-seat, at least story-wise, with the possible exception of newcomers.

Modifié par Terror_K, 22 juin 2010 - 03:14 .