10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lusitanum]

tonnactus wrote...

Mass Effect? Doing only the main missions still allowed it to get spectre weapons and a good set of armor.

No it didn't because the equipment you can get (both from drops as well as stores) was dependent on your level, so if you only played the main missions, chances are you'd never get to a high enough level to get the best items. Unless, you know, you played New Game+ about 15 times...

Bottom line, there should be an incentive to make you explore more of what the game has to offer to you and ME2 did it better than ME1, since the rewards are more directly connected to your actions and the missions go beyond the constant "go to this planet, shoot everyone there, go to the next planet".

[Driveninhifi]

I didn't like that you could miss weapons and the world felt like a collection of shooter levels more than a world.

I'm a big loot fan, so more loot would be nice (though not ME1 levels).



Really, I think the biggest problem with ME1 is the overall story and writing though. There were way too many instances where it felt like someone said "Hey, it would be awesome if we did THIS" - but they don't give a good reason WHY that has to happen for the story. The lack of a strong villain hurts it as well (Dragon Age also suffered from this).



It's a lot of great ideas executed poorly. For example, the ME1 love interests not coming. Good idea, but the reasons they give are incredibly contrived in each case. They just scream "I can't come because the writers decided I can't" instead of something that makes sense.

Working with Cerberus: again, why? They're there....and that's about it. They really don't offer you much in the way of support other than the ship. You do all the recruitment on your own, etc. You don't really need them.

It happens all over the place in the story.

[awpdevil]

I like loot as well, me2's version with more would be great.



I would say a reaper roaming the galaxy, and scooping up humans to make a into smoothly for a reaper is pretty darn evil.



I did just want to punch liara and kidnap her, but ashley/kaiden's reason was pretty clear. I hate cerberus, no way in hell.



Cerberus provided the resources for those missions. There was what you found, and what they gave you. Without them, you'd be poor, and normandyless, and probably a reaper smoothy.

[Darth Drago]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

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 *edited spoilers *…

-Feros had the Thorian, Saren’s attempt to trying to find a way to beat the indoctrination process that he must be aware he’s undergoing. This theme of finding a cure for the indoctrination process is also apparent on Virmire. You also got the Cipher (a key item needed for the main quest) from Shiala here.

-Noveria had the Rachni which were to be bred and used as an army for the Reapers (and Saren) just like it was hinted at in ME2 in the cameo appearance and in ME1 when the queen talked about "a tone from space" that forced the Rachni to "resonate with its own sour yellow note". You also ran into Benezia who revealed a lot about whats going on.

In both of those, I wouldn’t consider them big in your face plots for ME1 but they did add some serious depth to the over all big picture of what is going on.

As for the Geth, they are not just something to shoot at. They are a reminder of who your fighting. Every time you ran into them you were reminded of Saraen and the threat he represents and it shows that during the final battle at the Citadel with the Geth fleet escorting Sovereign. Not all Geth attacks were random like encounters either. There were a few cases where they are a sort of sub plot in the game. The little ambush for one (Saren’s possible attempt to take you out) and of course the Geth Incursion quests to shut down a staging area for a full invasion. They are the backbone of Saren’s forces.

The Collectors should have been more like the Geth in ME1 was. You should have ran into them a lot more than the few times that you did. They were a great resource that fell flat on its face. It would be like a Star Wars (episode 4-6) film with the hero’s running into or us seeing Stormtrooper’s only 3 times during a film.

But you are correct that Shepard seems to be the only one who hasn’t a clue what a Collector is. That’s not a good thing when everyone you talk to knows about them and yet the possibility that they could be a threat to anyone just never crossed anyone’s mind at all is rather cheesy on its own. I think a better way to have done this would have been to slowly reveal who the Collectors are over time and not find out that they are the ones responsible in the first real mission you go on. Maybe some of those the you recruit will have some information that they know or better still you need to find someone who know more about them. Instead everything is handed to you on a silver platter every time you encounter them.

[Iakus]

Darth Drago wrote...


But you are correct that Shepard seems to be the only one who hasn’t a clue what a Collector is. That’s not a good thing when everyone you talk to knows about them and yet the possibility that they could be a threat to anyone just never crossed anyone’s mind at all is rather cheesy on its own. I think a better way to have done this would have been to slowly reveal who the Collectors are over time and not find out that they are the ones responsible in the first real mission you go on. Maybe some of those the you recruit will have some information that they know or better still you need to find someone who know more about them. Instead everything is handed to you on a silver platter every time you encounter them.

Well said!

[Dron22]

I found it disappointing that decisions made in ME1 had very little impact on the storyline and events in ME2. I mean things like saving the council and choosing Anderson or Udina among many others. I played ME1 with different paths and imported one full paragon and one full renegade character to ME2, and there was hardly any difference, only on a few occasions I would get a different dialogue. This tells me that making choices in this game ultimately changes nothing, only that you get either Paragon or Renegade points.

[smudboy]

Dron22 wrote...

I found it disappointing that decisions made in ME1 had very little impact on the storyline and events in ME2. I mean things like saving the council and choosing Anderson or Udina among many others. I played ME1 with different paths and imported one full paragon and one full renegade character to ME2, and there was hardly any difference, only on a few occasions I would get a different dialogue. This tells me that making choices in this game ultimately changes nothing, only that you get either Paragon or Renegade points.

And considering the only two choices in ME2 you must make are 1) Keep/sell Legion, 2) Keep/destroy base, guess how much variation you may get in ME3?

Two x two x too many variations.

You might even get an email.

Modifié par smudboy, 23 juin 2010 - 03:31 .

[Dron22]

smudboy wrote...

Dron22 wrote...

I found it disappointing that decisions made in ME1 had very little impact on the storyline and events in ME2. I mean things like saving the council and choosing Anderson or Udina among many others. I played ME1 with different paths and imported one full paragon and one full renegade character to ME2, and there was hardly any difference, only on a few occasions I would get a different dialogue. This tells me that making choices in this game ultimately changes nothing, only that you get either Paragon or Renegade points.

And considering the only two choices in ME2 you must make are 1) Keep/sell Legion, 2) Keep/destroy base, guess how much variation you may get in ME3?

Two x two x too many variations.

You might even get an email.

I am not too sure about that but it seems that in your final conversation with Illusive Man after the Suicide Mission you decide whether you stay friends with him or not. Then of course there are those minor decisions whether to kill someone or not, like Niket or Ronald Taylor, as they might reappear in ME3 if you let them live, but then again it will have almost no meaning, just like with Shiiala, Parasini and Helen Blake in ME1, you just get to see them for a brief conversation in ME2 and that's it.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The problem is though, to make ME3 great they need to get rid of the problems ME1 and ME2 has. Most of my wishes for ME3 are pretty much just that it be less like ME2.

Just corrected that one. I'm sure you know why.

Actually, aside from the limited Shepard creator and a few minor things, most of ME1's problems are already gone. Not because they were fixed, but because the things causing the problem were just thrown out or simplified so much as to remove not only the faults but almost everything else. This unfortunately caused a lot of new problems, and these are where most of ME2's faults actually lie.

AlanC9 wrote...

Could you clarify something, Terror_K?

Terror_K wrote...
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.

I'm a little confused as to the precise meaning of the argument. Some ME1 fans like ME2 better, some didn't. So is the argument that the number of who dislike the changes is greater than the number who liked the changes? Is it that the lost utility to the people who disliked the changes is greater than the gain for people who liked them, so ME2 is overall of worse value even if more ME1 fans liked it better? Is it that the design wasn't optimal, since a different version of ME2 could have been equally appealing to improvement  fans without hurting you guys as much (Pareto optimality, IIRC)? Or is it a quasi-Kantian argument that ME1 fans have a right to a game just like it for ME2, regardless of whether some or even most of those fans would prefer a changed design?

First of all, sorry for the late reply... been working all day. Even now I have about... ten minutes before I have to go to my weekly Star Wars Saga Edition P&P RPG night, so I'll try and make this quick and will go  more in-depth when I get back if you wish.

First thing is first: who are the people we're talking about here preferring ME2's changes? Are we actually talking about full-blown ME1 fans only, or casual gamers, reviewers, so-called "fans" who complained on the old forums about ME1 not being "shooter enough" and thus expecting a different game, new fans who only came aboard for ME2 and maybe went back to ME1 afterwards, etc? In the case of full-blown ME1 fans, how can we tell which fans are in greater numbers? And then lets remember this isn't black and white and that there'll be fans likely ranging from "Everything in ME2 was done better!" to "ME2 is a complete travesty that failed in every respect!" and everything between.

Secondly: For other examples, who is right in an argument between a Star Wars Original Trilogy Fan who hates the prequels and a Prequel fan? Who is right between a Stargate SG-1 fan who hates Stargate Universe and a Stargate Universe fan? Who is right between a Transformers: Generation 1 fan and a Michael Bay's Transformers fan? Who is right between an original 1970's Battlestar Galactica fan and a 2000's Battlestar Galactica fan? Who is right between a Star Trek: TOS fan and a Star Trek 2009 fan? I think you get the point here.

Thirdly: Just because something is preferred by some, does that mean it suits the changes made to it? To clarify, let me put it this way: I like Firely, and I also like Babylon 5. Does that mean I would want a second season of Firefly to be like Babylon 5 and not so much like Firefly? Even if I preferred Babylon 5, that doesn't mean that's the case, and that doesn't mean that being like that suits Firefly. The same goes for Mass Effect: just because ME2 may be preferred, doesn't mean it suits being Mass Effect.

And as of writing this its now been just over ten minutes, so I gotta go.

Modifié par Terror_K, 23 juin 2010 - 07:08 .

[Orchomene]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...
Even on Normal, you can still die if you stay out in the open for more than 5 secs when there's atleast 3 enemies

Yeah, but see, taking cover is for dumb console shooter fans. In smart games (i.e. real RPGs), you just stand there and spam powers because that's how it worked back when RPGs were all turn-based and therefore better.

Not at all. In real time combat maybe, but not in turn based. I remember clearly Fallout 1/2 where you had many times to use the environment as cover to avoid being killed by rockets or machine guns. Even in BG some combats may turn awfully if you are not prepared and careful.
It's since the arrival of the action RPGs that combat became so easy. Nobody would want to play a hack&slash game where you can die every combat if you don't use tactics. Thus real time combat is for me inferior to turn based combat in difficulty. It's the same for strategy games. You can compare Warcraft or C&C and X-Com.

[Orchomene]

Lusitanum wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Mass Effect? Doing only the main missions still allowed it to get spectre weapons and a good set of armor.

No it didn't because the equipment you can get (both from drops as well as stores) was dependent on your level, so if you only played the main missions, chances are you'd never get to a high enough level to get the best items. Unless, you know, you played New Game+ about 15 times...

Bottom line, there should be an incentive to make you explore more of what the game has to offer to you and ME2 did it better than ME1, since the rewards are more directly connected to your actions and the missions go beyond the constant "go to this planet, shoot everyone there, go to the next planet".

Not sure. I've done none of the side quests in ME2 because there was no incentive to do said quests. In ME1, while exploring I had a talk with Admiral Heckett (or something like that) asking me to do him a favor and explaining the situation. This gave some motivation to do the mission. In ME2, I received some mails I just let in some place and just forgot about.

Also, ok, you don't have to do the loyalty missions and only some of the recruitments. I don't care about the result of the suicide mission. But then, what is the size of the game ? It's ridiculously small for a RPG without the loyalty missions. That's just that BW took just an hour to write some poor main story and may be half a day for the loyalty missions and the recruitments. It reminds me of the level of the NWN OC : more or less same subtility in the NPC quests and the lack of cohesion of the main quest.

[Vena_86]

Lusitanum wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Mass Effect? Doing only the main missions still allowed it to get spectre weapons and a good set of armor.

No it didn't because the equipment you can get (both from drops as well as stores) was dependent on your level, so if you only played the main missions, chances are you'd never get to a high enough level to get the best items. Unless, you know, you played New Game+ about 15 times...

Bottom line, there should be an incentive to make you explore more of what the game has to offer to you and ME2 did it better than ME1, since the rewards are more directly connected to your actions and the missions go beyond the constant "go to this planet, shoot everyone there, go to the next planet".

What is there to explore if you find everything in the exact same place, every single time? In ME1 the reason to go out and do all the extra stuff, was because you would level up your character (and your team) and at the same time find new, better equipment. Each playthrough would be different, sometimes more, sometimes less but different. The balance is way off but the basic mechanics are far more rewarding then in ME2, which has only a little more exploration than CoD by design.

And the "go to that planet and shoot everyone there" is exactly what ME2 does most of the time, if you exchange planet with "corridor level".

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

 The same goes for Mass Effect: just because ME2 may be preferred, doesn't mean it suits being Mass Effect.

But what "suits being Mass Effect" is just as subjective and personal as the other examples in your post.

Vena_86 wrote...

What is there to explore if you find
everything in the exact same place, every single time?

There wasn't much to explore in the first place. The only thing I truly appreciate about scaling nearly everything to the players' level is the choice in what order he wants to experience the areas of the game.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 juin 2010 - 10:26 .

[spacehamsterZH]

I just don't find looting particularly appealing if all I find is the same damn item eleventy billion times with slightly varying stats, not to mention 95% of the time it's something weaker than what I already have and the vast majority of the weapons and armors are just reskins of the same model. And the stat increases are so incremental that you barely notice them. It always gets to that point where I don't really want to open any crates anymore and just do it out of my natural compulsion to collect stuff in games, only to heave a deep sigh everytime it turns out that I've found the 15th Katana V when I already have a VII equipped.



And I'm sorry, but it's not just dumb dumb console shooters where different weapons actually behave differently in noticeable ways other than having a higher number next to a stat in the inventory screen. I fully agree with the complaints that the looting/inventory shouldn't have been neutered as much as it was for ME2, but I can't think of much that I found enjoyable about the looting in ME1. I think the one time I said "oh cool" on my last playthrough was when I found the Ursa armor because it looked kind of cool. And maybe once or twice when I picked up a really good bioamp somewhere.

[Terror_K]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

 The same goes for Mass Effect: just because ME2 may be preferred, doesn't mean it suits being Mass Effect.[/quote]

But what "suits being Mass Effect" is just as subjective and personal as the other examples in your post.
[/quote]
[/quote]

My answer is simply "what came first" just in all those other examples. Most people would just choose to say "which version I like best" I guess, but I pretty much take the first stuff as the correct stuff. Comics are somewhat of an exception, but beyond that the original.

[quote]spacehamsterZH wrote...

I fully agree with the complaints that the looting/inventory shouldn't have been neutered as much as it was for ME2, but I can't think of much that I found enjoyable about the looting in ME1. I think the one time I said "oh cool" on my last playthrough was when I found the Ursa armor because it looked kind of cool. And maybe once or twice when I picked up a really good bioamp somewhere.[/quote]

It's still more than ME2 gave you, which in every case was "Oh look... it's the same item I always find here in the same place every time I come here. Just like the last twenty times" and "now to buy the same list of same supplies from this shopkeeper again, with no inventory change or randomisation at all."

Modifié par Terror_K, 23 juin 2010 - 11:10 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

My answer is simply "what came first" just in all those other examples. Most people would just choose to say "which version I like best" I guess, but I pretty much take the first stuff as the correct stuff.

And some people qualify what shines the most as the "correct stuff".

Sometimes someone's first work may not always be their best. Plenty of of developers (and bands, artists, everyone in general really) start out rough before finding their niche or something that they better resonate with. A great example? Look at Bioware's very first game.

Terror_K wrote...

It's
still more than ME2 gave you...

Both games are bad on the loot level, but ME2 does have the Collecter Ship weapons...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 juin 2010 - 11:21 .

[bjdbwea]

Orchomene wrote...

Not sure. I've done none of the side quests in ME2 because there was no incentive to do said quests. In ME1, while exploring I had a talk with Admiral Heckett (or something like that) asking me to do him a favor and explaining the situation. This gave some motivation to do the mission. In ME2, I received some mails I just let in some place and just forgot about.

You are of course right about the emails. The email system itself is a nice addition. The only problem is, it shouldn't have been used as an excuse to cut out the spoken briefings.

But, no incentive to do quests? How about: You paid for it? And more importantly: To have fun? I've done every quest in the game. Too bad it's almost impossible to have fun with most side quests. Some of them are so simple, it's laughable. You can't even fail. What were the developers thinking?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 juin 2010 - 11:27 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

My answer is simply "what came first" just in all those other examples. Most people would just choose to say "which version I like best" I guess, but I pretty much take the first stuff as the correct stuff.

And some people qualify what shines the most as the "correct stuff".

Sometimes someone's first work may not always be their best. Plenty of of developers (and bands, artists, everyone in general really) start out rough before finding their niche or something that they better resonate with. A great example? Look at Bioware's very first game.

Well, I also happen to far prefer the original examples in all those cases too. I'm a firm believer that if you're going to continue to do something, especially when you've got an established fanbase, you should stick to your original source material, at least for the most part. If you're going to deviate so much to the point that it more resembles something else than the original stuff, it just makes it seem like you're a hack who can't come up with your own ideas so you'd rather just plaigarise somebody else's idea and warp it to your own vision but claim its a reimagination of the original one to try and bring in the existing fans and justify your lack of originality, ala Michael Bay's Transformers and J.J. Abrams Star Trek.

Now, I personally don't think that story and style wise when it comes to the universe, setting and cinematic and narrative style of ME2 that it's deviated a lot from the original (even if it did become a little more ridiculous and modern-Hollywood in some places... thankfully fairly minor, yet still annoying) but the gameplay definitely has. A lot of people point at Fallout 3, but I actually think it does a better job of staying to the spirit of the original games and modernising them without deviating soo much than ME2 does with comparison to ME1. But if Mass Effect was originally intended to be a sci-fi epic for sci-fi and RPG nerds of old, it should remain as such and not be warped into a mainstream shooter aimed more at young gamers who like explosions more than good dialogue.

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...
It's still more than ME2 gave you, which in every case was "Oh look... it's the same item I always find here in the same place every time I come here. Just like the last twenty times" and "now to buy the same list of same supplies from this shopkeeper again, with no inventory change or randomisation at all."

The only thing I hate more than random loot is random stat-scaled loot. Personal preference.

And it's not like what loot you find really affects the way the game plays out in any significant way. I mean, if you enjoy that, sure, fair enough, but this really just comes down to personal taste. And like I said, I agree they went too far with the way the looting was neutered in ME2.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

But if Mass Effect was originally intended to be a sci-fi epic for sci-fi and RPG nerds of old, it should remain as such and not be warped into a mainstream shooter aimed more at young gamers who like explosions more than good dialogue.

If that's what they were intending to do with ME1, they missed the mark completely. If you want to cater to my old-school RPG psyche you don't do it by making an action/RPG hybrid. The more techinical it can get, the more buried I can become under so many settings and rules and mechanics, the better. Make it strategic and not reliant on being able to blast shots quickly out of cover, or keep a target locked-in on my sights, or by forcing me to keep my scope from wabbling.

This is why quite honestly I, and quite a few of my close-knit RPG buds, were disappointed with ME1: I was hoping for an actual RPG - top-down, turn-based, possibly with some interesting cover mechanics (given the lore's emphasis on gunplay), and valuing 'knowledge' over 'iaimgoodz' - and instead was presented a nasty mucky combination of action and RPG. ME1 gave me a bad shooter with lame RPG elements while ME2 gave me an average shooter with light RPG elements. This is why I consider nothing of value being lost in regards to the gameplay department.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The problem is though, to make ME3 great they need to get rid of the problems ME1 and ME2 has. Most of my wishes for ME3 are pretty much just that it be less like ME2.

Just corrected that one. I'm sure you know why.

Actually, aside from the limited Shepard creator and a few minor things, most of ME1's problems are already gone. Not because they were fixed, but because the things causing the problem were just thrown out or simplified so much as to remove not only the faults but almost everything else. This unfortunately caused a lot of new problems, and these are where most of ME2's faults actually lie.

Yes, but fixing ME2 problems, should not bring the ME1 problems back. Remember, some of people have been asking to go back more the ME1 direction. How ever, there is danger that it brings some ME1 problems back too.

Terror_K wrote...

My answer is simply "what came first" just in all those other examples. Most people would just choose to say
"which version I like best" I guess, but I pretty much take the first stuff as the correct stuff. Comics are somewhat of an exception, but beyond that the original.

So, what you say here is, even how bad the first game is, every other sequel has to made same technical design.  So, with this kind ideology, if players get crap game design, it can't be fixed in sequels. Now if you say of course problems can be fixed, then how you define what's the problem? Is it based your own personal decissions or game developers?

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2010 - 12:37 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

But if Mass Effect was originally intended to be a sci-fi epic for sci-fi and RPG nerds of old, it should remain as such and not be warped into a mainstream shooter aimed more at young gamers who like explosions more than good dialogue.

If that's what they were intending to do with ME1, they missed the mark completely. If you want to cater to my old-school RPG psyche you don't do it by making an action/RPG hybrid. The more techinical it can get, the more buried I can become under so many settings and rules and mechanics, the better. Make it strategic and not reliant on being able to blast shots quickly out of cover, or keep a target locked-in on my sights, or by forcing me to keep my scope from wabbling.

This is why quite honestly I, and quite a few of my close-knit RPG buds, were disappointed with ME1: I was hoping for an actual RPG - top-down, turn-based, possibly with some interesting cover mechanics (given the lore's emphasis on gunplay), and valuing 'knowledge' over 'iaimgoodz' - and instead was presented a nasty mucky combination of action and RPG. ME1 gave me a bad shooter with lame RPG elements while ME2 gave me an average shooter with light RPG elements. This is why I consider nothing of value being lost in regards to the gameplay department.

Well, I guess that's a preference thing. ME1 for the most part satisfied me, and I don't really think a top-down, turn-based approach would have worked since they were going for an interactive cinema experience just as much as they were going for anything else. It's not as deep as it could be RPG-wise, and I admit that: ME1 always has been kind of RPG-Lite, but I still very much enjoy what's there and what they were trying to do, even if they didn't nail it in every aspect (I also personally don't think the mechanics were as bad as post people make out though either). Most of my circle of friends loved it too, and many of them are the people I play P&P roleplaying with. ME1 was never trying to be a pure RPG from the start, that much is clear. But I severely doubt it was intended to be like ME2... I'm pretty sure most of that simply came about because too many people thought it looked like a pure TPS during combat and kind of half-played like it, so they expected it to be a pure TPS, albeit a story-driven one. I think BioWare saw which was the wind was blowing with the massive popularity of Halo, Gears of War and CoD4 and decided to follow the money that was being taken on the breeze, hence the culling and slimming of the RPG elements.

[Orchomene]

bjdbwea wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

Not sure. I've done none of the side quests in ME2 because there was no incentive to do said quests. In ME1, while exploring I had a talk with Admiral Heckett (or something like that) asking me to do him a favor and explaining the situation. This gave some motivation to do the mission. In ME2, I received some mails I just let in some place and just forgot about.

You are of course right about the emails. The email system itself is a nice addition. The only problem is, it shouldn't have been used as an excuse to cut out the spoken briefings.

But, no incentive to do quests? How about: You paid for it? And more importantly: To have fun? I've done every quest in the game. Too bad it's almost impossible to have fun with most side quests. Some of them are so simple, it's laughable. You can't even fail. What were the developers thinking?

I don't like the gameplay of ME2 so doing anything but discussions was a pain for me. So, I just forced myself to do the main missions and loyalty missions just to see the end of the story game. But I just after that uninstalled all of this. The point is that I don't like the shooter mechanics. So if the RPG elements are great I can enjoy a game even if the game is close to a shooter. But for ME2, it was too close to a shooter and the story wasn't interesting at all. I finfd the game boring : hide in cover to replenish life, aim, shot, cover, aim, shoot, cover, ...  When I tried to do a bit differently, like going out of cover, I was quickly dead so I stopped trying something different. Then romances may be fun to do, but there was really nothing of a challenge. I tried Miranda but it was like a vicious Shepard all looking at her ass during the discussion, it felt just wrong since they are working together and he found nothing more than talking to her ass. I've always found that BW was limit at story level. their stories lack of originality but can be well organized to be enjoyable. But in ME2, it was not even that. I'm not sure after having seen and played Awakenings and ME2 that I will buy another BW game after having plyed almost all their other games. Either I'm getting old or they are evolving in a direction that is not mine. A bit like the evolution of Bethesda from Daggerfall to Morrowind and then Oblivion. I couldn't finish Oblivion whereas the first two games were really enjoyable. Now that video game is a big market, we can see some companies going to the "easy way of mainstream developing". There is no return from this easy path. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

[Orchomene]

Terror_K wrote...
A lot of people point at Fallout 3, but I actually think it does a better job of staying to the spirit of the original games and modernising them without deviating soo much than ME2 does with comparison to ME1.

http://www.duckandco...hp?topstory=104