10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

I think that's the first time I ever posted something that left someone speechless

[AlanC9]

Orchomene wrote...


Tasks can be parallel, what is important is the production effort resource wise you put in it. Seeing the inconsistencies, discontinuities, lacks of originality in the story, it appears that this part of the design was not very important. It's the same for all the RPG elements and the lack of originality of the gameplay. It seems to me that they didn't put much effort in this game.

Honestly, I didn't think the ME1 story was all that original or well-polished. And to the extent ME1's gameplay was original, it wasn't good. And the ME1 tiered items were also brain-dead. ME2 simply doesn't strike me as requiring any less effort than ME1 did.

But since we don't have access to Bioware production documents, this is just personal impressions and speculation. Kinda worthless, really.

[Some Geth]

[quote]iakus wrote...

I think that's the first time I ever posted something that left someone speechless [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie].

[Some Geth]

At iakus bad internet and crap forums make my posts go to post hell that is all.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

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

The only class that was become more interesting for for me was the soldier because of the utility of the ammo powers.

Charge was good idea, but is bugged as hell and i also like to use other biotics then that even as a vanguard. The sentinel is now even more boring then the soldier. Same for the infiltrator. A cheap chameleon spell as boring as in oblivion.
And the adept: Absurd thing that singularity dont work on fenris mechs and varren.Boring cover shooting at enemies like the ymir or using heavy weapons to ends those tedious and annoying fights at least as fast as possible instead of crowd control powers. Boring and dissapointing.

[AlanC9]

smudboy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

smudboy wrote...
While we're at it, let's use hedonic calculus for our Pareto efficiency and start a correlation agreement.

Those who like ME1 like it for what it's worth.  Ditto with ME2.  Unfortunately, ME2 is not coherently worth much.  Unless you absolutely love popcorn, cover shooting and explosions over story.

See, that's the thing -- Terror_K actually makes an argument, rather than pretending to make one so he can insult ME2 fans.

I mean, even you can't believe what you just said there. If we really are using hedonic calculus, your second paragraph is irrelevant except to determine the value you personally place on the experience.

Edit: or was the first paragraph  a joke, and we don't have to do any such calculation because your personal taste is objectively and obviously correct?

I'm not making an argument, I'm making a statement.

Gotcha. My bad for assuming that your statement about ME2 was anything but your personal data point. Noted and logged

Simple number-scoring system, find an equilibrium, then try to determine what all those individual scores have to do with each other from individuals.  It's rather a large study, but sounds something along the lines of what you're going for, but with stats.  Is that your argument?

I was actually asking what Terror_K's argument was, if you'll recall. Not so much about doing a study, but about what the numbers would mean if we did do one.

[spacehamsterZH]

iakus wrote...
The Collectors are in exactly three missions.  The mercs are way bigger a threat to Shepard in this game.  Everything we learn about the Reapers was from an info dump EDI gives us at the end of the Suicide Mission.  Everything we learn about the Collectors is from an info dump EDI gives us in the Collector Ship mission.  Story had almost nothing to do with the revelations we received.  ("dead Collector, cue the exposition!")

You actually confront Saren exactly three times in ME1, though. The Citadel hearing, Virmire and at the end. He briefly pops up in two cutscenes during the Eden Prime mission, but that's it. Honestly, as much as I agree that he's a far more compelling villain than Harbinger and the collectors, Feros and Noveria are about as vaguely connected to the main ME1 plot as most of the loyalty missions in ME2. Sure, the Geth are there, but what real purpose do they serve to the story other than being something for you to shoot at? They didn't really get interesting until ME2 expanded on them.

The problem with the Collectors isn't that they're barely in the game, it's that there's nothing interesting about them. You find out who's been attacking the colonies in the first mission and everybody seems to already know everything relevant about them, including that you have to through the Omega 4 relay to get to their homeworld. You later discover that they're genetically engineered Protheans, which is kind of cool, but it doesn't really serve any purpose as nothing changes and it also doesn't explain why the Reapers want to turn the entire human race into the galaxy's biggest orange smoothie. And use it to power their giant toy robot.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 22 juin 2010 - 05:48 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Honestly, I didn't think the ME1 story was all that original or well-polished. And to the extent ME1's gameplay was original, it wasn't good. And the ME1 tiered items were also brain-dead. ME2 simply doesn't strike me as requiring any less effort than ME1 did.

But since we don't have access to Bioware production documents, this is just personal impressions and speculation. Kinda worthless, really.

ME 1's plot wasn't original, it was "classic" space opera,  which is no more a bad thing than an original plot is a good thing (or a bad thing)  I do believe that the story was told well, however. 

The fact that an rpg incorporated real-time shooting combat was a novelty I had not seen since Deus Ex.  Yes it was flawed, but to me, it worked well enough.  Any problems could be hammered out in patches or sequels.  Overall, it made ME 1 into a real novelty, and a fun one.

Items?  The only real flaw was that in any given battle, it rained loot.  There was simply too much of it.  If loot had been made more rare, and with fewer tiers,  perhaps more care could have been given to its qualities, making each suit of armor, each weapon more "special". 

Remember, Good idea""Less Loot".  Bad idea: "No Loot"

Less effort?  Overall I'm neutral as far as combat mechanics go, since to me combat is just the vehicle to get to different parts of the story.  But I can say, customizing cyour Shepard and squadmates really doesn't take much effort anymore, since there's so little you can do.  Any upgrade you get to a particular weapon affects all weapons of that type.  Same with shield mods.  Skills you have so few of them that sooner or later you'll probably have at least a rank or two in all of them.  Outfits you can only alter Shepard's armor.  Everyone else  you're limited to starting outfit and loyalty one, with maybe the Alternate Appearance packs for a third.

[Orchomene]

Careful with the spoilers, you should edit a bit your post, spacehamsterZH.

Modifié par Orchomene, 22 juin 2010 - 05:58 .

[smudboy]

AlanC9 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

smudboy wrote...
While we're at it, let's use hedonic calculus for our Pareto efficiency and start a correlation agreement.

Those who like ME1 like it for what it's worth.  Ditto with ME2.  Unfortunately, ME2 is not coherently worth much.  Unless you absolutely love popcorn, cover shooting and explosions over story.

See, that's the thing -- Terror_K actually makes an argument, rather than pretending to make one so he can insult ME2 fans.

I mean, even you can't believe what you just said there. If we really are using hedonic calculus, your second paragraph is irrelevant except to determine the value you personally place on the experience.

Edit: or was the first paragraph  a joke, and we don't have to do any such calculation because your personal taste is objectively and obviously correct?

I'm not making an argument, I'm making a statement.

Gotcha. My bad for assuming that your statement about ME2 was anything but your personal data point. Noted and logged

Simple number-scoring system, find an equilibrium, then try to determine what all those individual scores have to do with each other from individuals.  It's rather a large study, but sounds something along the lines of what you're going for, but with stats.  Is that your argument?

I was actually asking what Terror_K's argument was, if you'll recall. Not so much about doing a study, but about what the numbers would mean if we did do one.

Hehe, don't worry man.  "You seem a decent fellow.  I'd hate to kill you."  Compared to a lot of the other people on here, you're at least being rational.

Right.  A lot of people in this post see ME2 as mostly fluff, due to the lack of story, plot advancement, plot, (meaning) etc.  It's like if the sequels to The Godfather suddenly became an action-romance blockbuster.

[Some Geth]

So far I don't think you have the power to kill anyone smudboy.

[spacehamsterZH]

Orchomene wrote...

Careful with the spoilers, you should edit a bit your post, spacehamsterZH.

This thread hasn't been spoiler free in months, though. The plot elements I mentioned have been discussed here tons of times and in far more detail.

[Lumikki]

I agree, it's really sad to see that some people don't want to understand Mass Effect stories.

[Iakus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

iakus wrote...
The Collectors are in exactly three missions.  The mercs are way bigger a threat to Shepard in this game.  Everything we learn about the Reapers was from an info dump EDI gives us at the end of the Suicide Mission.  Everything we learn about the Collectors is from an info dump EDI gives us in the Collector Ship mission.  Story had almost nothing to do with the revelations we received.  ("dead Collector, cue the exposition!")

You actually confront Saren exactly three times in ME1, though. The Citadel hearing, Virmire and at the end. He briefly pops up in two cutscenes during the Eden Prime mission, but that's it. Honestly, as much as I agree that he's a far more compelling villain than Harbinger and the collectors, Feros and Noveria are about as vaguely connected to the main ME1 plot as most of the loyalty missions in ME2. Sure, the Geth are there, but what real purpose do they serve to the story other than being something for you to shoot at? They didn't really get interesting until ME2 expanded on them.

Saren doesn't pop up too much, true, but his presence felt throughout the game.  Something the Collectors cannot claim.  The main story missions in ME 1 has Shepard literally following in Saren's footsteps, trying to find out what he knows.  You go to Noveria because Saren was trying to use the rachni queen to get the location of the Mu Relay.  You go to Feros because Saren cut a deal with the thorian for the Cipher.  There's even bad blood between Saren and Captain Anderson.  Saren may not have had much screen time, but he was a presence in the game.

The geth did gain more depth in ME 2.  In ME 1, they were sort of "Reaper-lite"  Now that's the Collectors' job.  Maybe we'll learn a bit more about them in ME 3, but barn door/horse-wise, that's probably not gonna happen.

If the Collectors could have been more of a presence in the game without actually bringing them in, I'd have been all for it.  More research, more people who have dealt with them in the past.  more involvement in backstories (Shepard's or others) cool.  However, it seems in ME 2 we never learn anything about them unless we see them face to face.  Which happens, as I said, three times.

Collectors=wasted opportunity

[nelly21]

Orchomene wrote...

Well, no. Really, the story is very poor. The game is character driven, yet the characters are caricatural. There is a strong lack of continuity since almost all the loyalty missions are isolated as side missions. The main story is of abysmal originality. This game can be really enjoying, I don't say it's not. But it's not a game that will be remembered for a long time.

How is it of abysmal originality? If anything, it was more original than the first one. The first one was Independence Day, War of the Worlds, Starship Troopers, etc. This one at least added the twist of the Collectors.

Also, how are the characters caricatural? The only character I found to be stereotypical was Jack and even she was made a bit more interesting when we find out her memories weren't entirely correct.

In the end, Mass Effect has never been about the originality of the story. It is about giving the player a massive amount of control over how the story unfolds. The first one did it marvelously and in my opinion, the second one did as well.

[Iakus]

nelly21 wrote...

How is it of abysmal originality? If anything, it was more original than the first one. The first one was Independence Day, War of the Worlds, Starship Troopers, etc. This one at least added the twist of the Collectors.

And just how much use did they make of that twist?  How did that change anything in the game?

nelly21 wrote...
Also, how are the characters caricatural? The only character I found to be stereotypical was Jack and even she was made a bit more interesting when we find out her memories weren't entirely correct.

While the characters in general weren't written with as much depth as they could have, I'd hesitate to call them cariactures (well, Grunt is pretty much a thug)  I did find it hard to take several of them seriously, given their outfits.

nelly21 wrote...
In the end, Mass Effect has never been about the originality of the story. It is about giving the player a massive amount of control over how the story unfolds. The first one did it marvelously and in my opinion, the second one did as well.

Huh?  ME 2 railroaded you up til the very end.  What you did in ME 1 meant squat to ME 2.  Sure you have control, as long as you do everything TIM says.  The final decision is the only one you can make to defy him, and even that one people grumble over.

[nelly21]

iakus wrote...

Saren doesn't pop up too much, true, but his presence felt throughout the game.  Something the Collectors cannot claim.  The main story missions in ME 1 has Shepard literally following in Saren's footsteps, trying to find out what he knows.  You go to Noveria because Saren was trying to use the rachni queen to get the location of the Mu Relay.  You go to Feros because Saren cut a deal with the thorian for the Cipher.  There's even bad blood between Saren and Captain Anderson.  Saren may not have had much screen time, but he was a presence in the game.

The geth did gain more depth in ME 2.  In ME 1, they were sort of "Reaper-lite"  Now that's the Collectors' job.  Maybe we'll learn a bit more about them in ME 3, but barn door/horse-wise, that's probably not gonna happen.

If the Collectors could have been more of a presence in the game without actually bringing them in, I'd have been all for it.  More research, more people who have dealt with them in the past.  more involvement in backstories (Shepard's or others) cool.  However, it seems in ME 2 we never learn anything about them unless we see them face to face.  Which happens, as I said, three times.

Collectors=wasted opportunity

I don't think so. The Collectors are felt in every story mission. Where the disconnect occurs is in the loyalty missions. I agree they made up too big a portion of the game (I still enjoyed them). However, playing the minimum number of missions to get through the story cuts away the fat and offers a very enjoyable (not mind blowing) story with very good characters.

[nelly21]

iakus wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

How is it of abysmal originality? If anything, it was more original than the first one. The first one was Independence Day, War of the Worlds, Starship Troopers, etc. This one at least added the twist of the Collectors.

And just how much use did they make of that twist?  How did that change anything in the game?

nelly21 wrote...
Also, how are the characters caricatural? The only character I found to be stereotypical was Jack and even she was made a bit more interesting when we find out her memories weren't entirely correct.

While the characters in general weren't written with as much depth as they could have, I'd hesitate to call them cariactures (well, Grunt is pretty much a thug)  I did find it hard to take several of them seriously, given their outfits.

nelly21 wrote...
In the end, Mass Effect has never been about the originality of the story. It is about giving the player a massive amount of control over how the story unfolds. The first one did it marvelously and in my opinion, the second one did as well.

Huh?  ME 2 railroaded you up til the very end.  What you did in ME 1 meant squat to ME 2.  Sure you have control, as long as you do everything TIM says.  The final decision is the only one you can make to defy him, and even that one people grumble over.

I wouldn't say your decisions meant squat. The decisions shaped the sort of galaxy your Shepard steps into in ME 2. My paragon Shepard was a hero and humanity is exalted throughout his playthrough. My renegade is disliked and questioned while humanity is hated in his playthrough. The galaxy is pretty different depending on what choices you made in ME 1. And remember, we don't know the full extent of any of our choices from either game. Remember, there's still a third game coming. But did your choices not effect who was loyal and who wasn't? Did they not effect whether Tali is exiled in her mission?

I think the majority of people's frustration come from wanting immediate gratification. Nobody seems willing to wait until ME 3 to see the full extent of our choices.

[tonnactus]

nelly21 wrote...

Also, "easier"? Are we really going to claim that this game is easier than the ME 1?

Yes,it is for most classes(except the vanguard).The player start with weapons he could use even in the endgame. The player has a quick cooldown for powers right the start. The first game wasnt hard too,but at least the beginning at level one insanity offers some little challenge until the player reach level 30.

[tonnactus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

iakus wrote...
The Collectors are in exactly three missions.  The mercs are way bigger a threat to Shepard in this game.  Everything we learn about the Reapers was from an info dump EDI gives us at the end of the Suicide Mission.  Everything we learn about the Collectors is from an info dump EDI gives us in the Collector Ship mission.  Story had almost nothing to do with the revelations we received.  ("dead Collector, cue the exposition!")

You actually confront Saren exactly three times in ME1, though. The Citadel hearing, Virmire and at the end. He briefly pops up in two cutscenes during the Eden Prime mission, but that's it. Honestly, as much as I agree that he's a far more compelling villain than Harbinger and the collectors, Feros and Noveria are about as vaguely connected to the main ME1 plot as most of the loyalty missions in ME2.

???
The cipher and the location of the mu relay were vaguely plot connected?

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 juin 2010 - 07:43 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

If the Collectors could have been more of a presence in the game without actually bringing them in, I'd have been all for it.  More research, more people who have dealt with them in the past.  more involvement in backstories (Shepard's or others) cool.

In mordin recruitment mission there was some hope for that.But all the player got was 2 lines with rockettrooper vorcha.

[spacehamsterZH]

tonnactus wrote...
The cipher and the location of the mu relay were vaguely plot connected?

They're both basically tacked-on plot exposition at the end that give the Feros and Noveria another excuse to exist in the game aside from the fact that you're being told (mostly via text iirc) that you're going there to investigate what Saren's been up to. Most of what happens during the two missions has very little to do with Saren and Sovereign and what there is in the way of a connection to the main plot is just a few seconds of exposition.

I'm not questioning that the main plot in ME1 was better - it was. But it wasn't as tightly woven together as some people who criticize ME2's focus on the individual squadmates' stories make it out to be, and you can't measure the quality of the main threat in either game by the characters' respective screentime. Saren was mostly absent, just like the Collectors. The reason he and Sovereign were more interesting than the Collectors and Harbinger has nothing to do with the amount of screentime or the fact that you spend most of ME2 fighting the various merc groups.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 22 juin 2010 - 07:53 .

[nelly21]

tonnactus wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Also, "easier"? Are we really going to claim that this game is easier than the ME 1?

Yes,it is for most classes(except the vanguard).The player start with weapons he could use even in the endgame. The player has a quick cooldown for powers right the start. The first game wasnt hard too,but at least the beginning at level one insanity offers some little challenge until the player reach level 30.

The only class that caused me a problem on Insanity was Engineer. Every other class was a cake walk. The reason is that your skill was irrelevant. After five or six points in your weapon of choice, you almost had to look completely away from your target to miss. ME 2 brings player skill into the equation and the result is much better fire fights. Is it Demon's Souls difficult? Of course not, but it isn't a breeze on advanced difficulties either.

[Orchomene]

nelly21 wrote...

Also, how are the characters caricatural? The only character I found to be stereotypical was Jack and even she was made a bit more interesting when we find out her memories weren't entirely correct.

Let's have a look at the NPCs :

• Garrus : cop that wants to do his own justice, from Robocop, Harry, the marshal figure in the US mythology, various superheroes.
• Miranda : the creation that needs emancipation from its creator, Pinocchio, Frankenstein.
• Mordin : the scientist with ethic issues, rational in arguments but somewhat crazy in his behaviors. No need to develop this cliché.
• Grunt : the young cub, refreshing and a bit naive. The neonate, the blue, in need of recognition.
• Legion : the multiple in one, One of Many. Also the AI stereotype.
• Zaed : the mercenary without ethic, the veteran, Canderous.
• Thane : the poet assassin, delicate, he is a just a tool and would perfectly take care of a flower, François Villon.
• Samara : Judge Dredd, various superheroes, the monk, the jedi, Vailhor.
• Jacob and Tali are somewhat less caricatural as I've seen.
• Kasumi : No idea, didn't have the DLC.
• Morinth : Sith ? Don't really know, didn't play with her.

Who has a father/mother issue ? Miranda, Jacob, Tali, Morinth
A son/daughter issue ? Samara, Thane.
Of course, it's not always easy to have original characters with a bit of depth. In ME2, we can see some of the history of the chracters, but I don't feel it adds a lot of depth, with the exception of maybe Jack that was really too much as a caricature in the beginning and is a bit more complicate after it. Maybe. In the other cases, we just learn what ? That they have a story outside following the PC ? Ok, fine. But it doesn't give any depth to my taste.
For a "character driven game", it's a bit a failure, for me.

[nelly21]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
The cipher and the location of the mu relay were vaguely plot connected?

They're both basically tacked-on plot exposition at the end that give the Feros and Noveria another excuse to exist in the game aside from the fact that you're being told (mostly via text iirc) that you're going there to investigate what Saren's been up to. Most of what happens during the two missions has very little to do with Saren and Sovereign and what there is in the way of a connection to the main plot is just a few seconds of exposition.

I'm not questioning that the main plot in ME1 was better - it was. But it wasn't as tightly woven together as some people who criticize ME2's focus on the individual squadmates' stories make it out to be, and you can't measure the quality of the main threat in either game by the characters' respective screentime. Saren was mostly absent, just like the Collectors. The reason he and Sovereign were more interesting than the Collectors and Harbinger has nothing to do with the amount of screentime or the fact that you spend most of ME2 fighting the various merc groups.

Agreed. Also I think the Collectors are simply creepy, not menacing like the Reapers. When you play the first game and you down Sovreign, it feels like you just killed something unkillable (never liked how they tied Sovereign's conciousness to Saren either though). The Collectors simply aren't as intimidating as the Reapers in my opinion. But all in all, I don't think the story structure was all that different from ME 1.