10273 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K.



I personally think each game went too far in one direction.



ME1 was more towards an RPG with lesser shooter mechanics, ME2 was more towards a TPS with less RPG mechanics.



Best thing to hope for is ME3 being directly in the middle with deep shooter and deep rpg mechanics.

[Batman90]

My only real disappointment with the game was the linearity of the level design.



The rest of the game's goodness makes up for it, though.

[Tazzmission]

Batman90 wrote...

My only real disappointment with the game was the linearity of the level design.

The rest of the game's goodness makes up for it, though.

my only really gripe with me2 is that it didnt have the threatning feel like me1 had. but it still is a amazing game.

[Vena_86]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

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

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

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

The main point was that ME2 tries to be something else. Something that has proven popular. But there is already so much of that (TPS with cover system, linear levels, cinematic cutscenes) that Mass Effect as a franchise has lost what made it stand out, what made it special. ME2 comes with BioWares awesome writing bonus but thats it. ME1 atleast atempted to give the player the illusion of exploring the galaxy which you can not do in CoD or Gears of War or GTA.
Mass Effect had something going on that was quite unique and instead of focusing on that strength while polishing of the rough edges BioWare decided to start again with something everyone else was doing already. If I was not aware of Mass Effects potential then I would probably hail ME2 as a great game in its own right.

[Tazzmission]

Vena_86 wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

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

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

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

but dont forget though like the mako fans have  indeed moaned about specific things in the game of me1. i dont blame bioware i blame the fans honestly. we as fans  have a golden opertunity by having bioware listen to its fans and what do the fans do? they cant figure out what they want and i think thats why me2 basicly got a huge overhaul. what i would suggest for every fan of this franchise to do is go back to the first game and write down what should be in me3. write down the diffrencase of both me1 and me2 and we as a fan community need to basicly figure out how to turn the pros into a great final chapter
The main point was that ME2 tries to be something else. Something that has proven popular. But there is already so much of that (TPS with cover system, linear levels, cinematic cutscenes) that Mass Effect as a franchise has lost what made it stand out, what made it special. ME2 comes with BioWares awesome writing bonus but thats it. ME1 atleast atempted to give the player the illusion of exploring the galaxy which you can not do in CoD or Gears of War or GTA.
Mass Effect had something going on that was quite unique and instead of focusing on that strength while polishing of the rough edges BioWare decided to start again with something everyone else was doing already. If I was not aware of Mass Effects potential then I would probably hail ME2 as a great game in its own right.

[Darth Drago]

Corehaven22 wrote...

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

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

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

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

-Totally agree on this. Most of the problems that ME2 had shouldn’t have been in the game to begin with. This is supposed to be a sequel not a remake/rebooting of the first game catered almost exclusively to the general masses of shooter game fans.

Some of the big problems (I have) with ME1 were not attempted at on fixing, they just out right dropped the problem issues out hoping no one would remember the first game apparently. The others were taken to the opposite extreme, to much credits-not enough for example.

Lets assume they get everything perfectly balanced for ME3. By then isn’t it already to late?

Terror_K wrote...

Agreed.

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

-So I’m not the only one who noticed how poorly put together ME2 was? ME2 to me felt like BioWare downsized their editing team to janitorial positions. It felt like you had several groups working on their own project for the game and without any idea of what the whole game was supposed to look and play like. Then instead of checking in on those groups to see if everyone was on the same page as it were, they Frankensteined the parts into the game after realizing they royally f’ed up.

If this game was a movie the reviewers would have ripped it to shreds and wondered if they had an editing crew at all for the film.

Like I mentioned someplace before reworded a bit though…
-Knights of the Old Republic was made by BioWare. Knights of the Old Republic 2 wasn’t, but it felt as though it could have been.
-Mass Effect 1 is made by BioWare, yet Mass Effect 2 feels like it was made by someone else who never played ME1.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 21 avril 2010 - 08:01 .

[haberman13]

I agree Darth Drago (previous post)

ME2 was ruined for me because of the simplification of the game and the seeming change to a console oriented shooter.

I can always play through ME1, I will only ever play through ME2 twice (right before ME3 for a 2nd run).

Console gamers ruined this series for me, assuming they maintain the tardation in ME3.  I had 3 friends instantly swear off the game when they saw the "loading screen" and "drop you back on the normandy" button right after a quest.

The levels were very linear too, it felt like a standard corridor shooter, maybe even worse because of the "here is a wall to hide behind, now wait for the waves of AI and move to the next wall for another wave"

ME1 felt grand, explorable and epic; ME2 feels like a tarded console game.

Are PC gamers elitist?  yes, and with our elitism we look down on the tarded consoles, just a fact 

Are all console players tarded? no, many copies of ME1 sold and were loved

Did console tards ruin ME2? yes, with their unreasoned criticism and desire for Halo 4

Modifié par haberman13, 21 avril 2010 - 08:08 .

[uberdowzen]

I'm a PC gamer and I don't consider myself elitist. Firstly the change to a "console oriented shooter". If that means that they polished up the gameplay and removed all the irritating elements, then I think more games should become "console oriented shooters".



I am in the camp that I didn't like the mission end screen, but I don't think the game was utterly ruined by their inclusion. And the dump right back onto the normandy button? That's there so that you don't waster 5 minutes running back to your ship.



People may have forgotten this, but the levels in ME1 were quite linear too. I'm replaying ME1 to take a new character through to ME2 and having done Feros and Therum so far, both are very very linear. And before you say that Feros has the whole part around the camp and that, how's that any different than the quest hubs in ME2?



You complain about the combat in ME2, but the thing is the combat is a lot deeper than in ME1. ME1 you can basically just spam your powers and you'll be fine. ME2 you have to decide which is the best power to use in your situation, because you can only use one at a time.



ME1 did feel more explorable (I'd argue whether it felt bigger) but that was because of all the stupid uncharted world. Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2.



I don't really get the argument that the game has been "tarded". The talky bits are a lot deeper, obviously have a lot more crafting than ME1's and feel smoother. The combat is much much better. The roleplaying system is just as good (or as bad) and the inventory in ME1 added nothing to the game.

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

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

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

The HUD in ME2 has the health stats in the bottom middle, which might not seem much but does make it easier to take note quickly of everything, whereas being in the bottom left did take your eyes off what was going on more than you think, which with the changes in gameplay is important.  As health and shields go up and down more in ME2, within seconds sometimes, the health bars and shields displays from ME1 would not work as well.  Faces are quicker to recognise than reading a name, yes we are talking a difference of a second at the most but it all adds up.  There is also alot less of the screen being taken up by the HUD, allowing you a better view of the battlefield.

But the HUD is a minor thing anyway, it does the job it was meant to, and in my opinion it does it better than ME1.

EDIT: Also, is the HUD the only thing you had to comment on in my post?

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 21 avril 2010 - 08:50 .

[Darth Drago]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

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

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

The HUD in ME2 has the health stats in the bottom middle, which might not seem much but does make it easier to take note quickly of everything, whereas being in the bottom left did take your eyes off what was going on more than you think, which with the changes in gameplay is important. As health and shields go up and down more in ME2, within seconds sometimes, the health bars and shields displays from ME1 would not work as well. Faces are quicker to recognise than reading a name, yes we are talking a difference of a second at the most but it all adds up. There is also alot less of the screen being taken up by the HUD, allowing you a better view of the battlefield.

But the HUD is a minor thing anyway, it does the job it was meant to, and in my opinion it does it better than ME1.

-But seeing their health/shields had no actual use to you since you can no longer use a first aid talent/power on them to heal anyone in ME2 when you see their health drop. All you can do is find a safe spot and wait for them to die to use a resurrect on them. Such advancements in gameplay here… With their questionable AI as well in combat for wandering around to get killed a simple mini-map of your location to at least see where they went or more importantly where you are and need to go, would have been preferable.

Besides I would rather not see my squad mates faces plastered on my ass everywhere I went.

The ME2 HUD is just like a lot of changes made to the game, they went to the other extreme. In ME1 you had one that worked and didn't take up your screen as much as some would think it did. In ME2 its been cut down to as little as it is to the point you have to really ask if it is a actual HUD.

A better view of the battlefield? That is until you set your screen filled with the bloody veins or whatever they are covering your screen. I would rather have a small HUD mini-map to get a better view of a battlefield.

[exxxed]

uberdowzen wrote...


 
I'm a PC gamer and I don't consider myself elitist. Firstly the change to a "console oriented shooter". If that means that they polished up the gameplay and removed all the irritating elements, then I think more games should become "console oriented shooters".

 Hm, the irritating elements like aiming efficiency based on stance, skill (character and player wise) and weapon quality? 

 Or the automatic cover system? 

 Crouch in and out of cover?

 Maybe you're talking about the weapon mods...

 Come to think of it, maybe you didn't like the fact that powers had their own cool-down bar.

 From where i stand, there's no improvement over the combat system... , classes all play like soldier +/- powers, less skill to differentiate one character from another ( i had over four different infiltrators in ME1, and yes i started a new character every time i played it because NG+ is a very stupid option in my opinion).

 How is it an improvement adding the heat clips? Does it feel more tactical to you? 

 Or adding a "one button do all action" feature?

 Damn if i think adding weapon mods as powers is anything but an improvement... 

 What's not to like about the inventory system on the PC? It was pretty organized in my opinion, the only fault was the unbelievably excessive loot items, Mako handled smooth, some of the planets were annoying, yea, like Nodacrux, even tho' i enjoyed finding that trinket artefact. 

 They screwed up the secondary quests by copy/pasting the same prefabs, BUT they showed us that it was possible to make them amazingly original, fun, long, complex, NOT LINEAR, story immersive etc. with Bring Down The Sky DLC, they should have picked up from that, but nooooo, let's make them 3 minutes long and "original" on the same boring ass canyon...

/RANT

 

 Take care!

[uberdowzen]

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 Hm, the irritating elements like aiming efficiency based on stance, skill (character and player wise) and weapon quality? [/quote]

Do you mean you're more accurate when crouched? How much difference did that make? All they've changed in ME2 is that whether you hit or miss is determined by player skill now. Weapon quality? You just ended up giving yourself the weapon with the most green bars you didn't actually think about it.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 Or the automatic cover system? [/quote]

That cover system sucked. I'm playing ME1 and I've lost count of the number of times that I've accidently been sucked towards cover or, even more irratatingly, tried desperately to get out of cover while some Krogans charge me and, moments later, kill me.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 Crouch in and out of cover?[/quote]

Actually Bioware explained that they changed this because it was easy to cheat the AI. I forget the exact details but it was something along those lines.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 Maybe you're talking about the weapon mods...[/quote]

The new weapon mod system is great, how could you not like that?

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 Come to think of it, maybe you didn't like the fact that powers had their own cool-down bar.[/quote]

No I didn't. It means you end up with two bad situations: a) you just end up spamming your powers without thinking about what each one does and it means the cooldown times are several minutes long, and that's just to use warp!!!

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 From where i stand, there's no improvement over the combat system... , classes all play like soldier +/- powers, less skill to differentiate one character from another ( i had over four different infiltrators in ME1, and yes i started a new character every time i played it because NG+ is a very stupid option in my opinion).[/quote]

You mean every class has been tailored to play more like the favourite class from ME1? I can understand how this could irritate you, but honestly in ME1 soldier was the most fun class by a mile. It was the only class that felt like the game mechanics had been built around.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 How is it an improvement adding the heat clips? Does it feel more tactical to you? [/quote]

Yes, in my current ME1 playthrough I'm playing a vanguard and my shotgun has overheated like 3 times. I don't have to think about how I shoot, I can just run in all guns blazing, spam a few powers, hey! I won again.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 Or adding a "one button do all action" feature? [/quote]

This is slightly irritating although I have found it's easier on my hands, none of those slightly straining hand movements to the ctrl key.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 Damn if i think adding weapon mods as powers is anything but an improvement... [/quote]

Yeah, you're right, it was so much fun having to dip into the inventory every time the enemy type changed and having to change the ammo type for each gun. Oh no wait, that was tedious, my bad.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

 What's not to like about the inventory system on the PC? It was pretty organized in my opinion, the only fault was the unbelievably excessive loot items, [/quote]

What's not to like?! There's no stacking, you have to omnigel every item one by one, if you put off clearing out the inventory too long you can lose items. The comparison I've made before is it's like they replaced the inventory screen with KOTOR's equip screen, it's useless.

[quote]exxxed wrote...

Mako handled smooth, some of the planets were annoying, yea, like
Nodacrux, even tho' i enjoyed finding that trinket artefact.

 They screwed up the secondary quests by copy/pasting the same prefabs, BUT they showed us that it was possible to make them amazingly original, fun, long, complex, NOT LINEAR, story immersive etc. with Bring Down The Sky DLC, they should have picked up from that, but nooooo, let's make them 3 minutes long and "original" on the same boring ass canyon...

[/quote]

Yeah essentially what they did was they replaced the 30 mins you spent going backwards and forward over the planet in the MAKO with planet scanning and they replaced the 5 minute quest parts of uncharted worlds with a much better crafted 3 minute mission. Yeah, we definetly got screwed over there...

[KotOREffecT]

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm a PC gamer and I don't consider myself elitist. Firstly the change to a "console oriented shooter". If that means that they polished up the gameplay and removed all the irritating elements, then I think more games should become "console oriented shooters".

I am in the camp that I didn't like the mission end screen, but I don't think the game was utterly ruined by their inclusion. And the dump right back onto the normandy button? That's there so that you don't waster 5 minutes running back to your ship.

People may have forgotten this, but the levels in ME1 were quite linear too. I'm replaying ME1 to take a new character through to ME2 and having done Feros and Therum so far, both are very very linear. And before you say that Feros has the whole part around the camp and that, how's that any different than the quest hubs in ME2?

You complain about the combat in ME2, but the thing is the combat is a lot deeper than in ME1. ME1 you can basically just spam your powers and you'll be fine. ME2 you have to decide which is the best power to use in your situation, because you can only use one at a time.

ME1 did feel more explorable (I'd argue whether it felt bigger) but that was because of all the stupid uncharted world. Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2.

I don't really get the argument that the game has been "tarded". The talky bits are a lot deeper, obviously have a lot more crafting than ME1's and feel smoother. The combat is much much better. The roleplaying system is just as good (or as bad) and the inventory in ME1 added nothing to the game.

/End thread.

[uberdowzen]

KotOREffecT wrote...

/End thread.

I take it that means you agree with me?

[TJSolo]

"ME1 did feel more explorable (I'd argue whether it felt bigger) but that was because of all the stupid uncharted world. Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2."



Out of their way? How so?

Why would you believe someone spending their cash on a game is going to try and go out of their way to try and not like it?

I preferred the exploration that was in ME1 over the smaller 3min worlds in ME2. I am not going out of my way to come to that conclusion.

[KotOREffecT]

uberdowzen wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

/End thread.

I take it that means you agree with me?

No, I hate your halo loving face. You shooter obsessed tards who ruined our beloved grand and all that is holy RPG. You people dumbed downed this game with your epic sploshuns with your much more fun even though more leanear levels and better character movement and pacing, and much more realistic convos. And seriously, who thought up the whole renegade/paragon interrupt thing? I mean what does that add? Back in the day when RPGs were keepin it real like ME 1, all we needed was a simple convo and were off, non of that flashy shooter bs and better lighting effects, I mean seriously, is ME 2 that shallow? Who really cares is Shep can walk and talk at the same time and randomly interrupt punch some guy who he is interrogating, that kind of stuff is so not immersing in a real golden RPG like ME 1. Those kinds of things add nothing to a real intense "role-playing" experience, unlike ME 1 which keeps it "R-eal-PG".




 

[ShakeZoohla]

uberdowzen wrote...


Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2.

Ha ha, I like how you disregard any opinions that aren't your own.  I personally enjoyed exploring in the Mako, just as I enjoyed most of the aspects cut out of ME1 for its sequel.  I must just be a liar or mentally unstable or something though... either that or you're just going out of your way to like ME2.  I don't know.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...
Out of their way? How so?
Why would you believe someone spending their cash on a game is going to try and go out of their way to try and not like it?
I preferred the exploration that was in ME1 over the smaller 3min worlds in ME2. I am not going out of my way to come to that conclusion.

But essentially the N7 missions in ME2 have taken the very brief glimmers of fun from the uncharted worlds and compacted it into a much better crafted bite size chunk. Most of the uncharted worlds in ME1 had this basic pattern:

• Land on planet.
• Start zig zagging across the planet trying to find minerals.
• When you find minerals or arrive at debris/anomaly, get out, play frogger minigame, move on.
• On the way to finding main dungeon, fight thresher maw.
• Die because the thresher maw decided to come out of the ground right where the MAKO was instantly killing you.
• Return to step 3 because you forgot to quicksave.
• Go to main dungeon.
• Fight through one of the 3 possible dungeon layouts (with crates in different places).
• Read text message resolving the quest.
• Rinse
• Repeat
• Cry.

It just wasn't fun and a streamlined version is found in ME2. Steps 1 to 5 are resolved in the planet scanning game which, bad though it is, is much better than finding minerals with the MAKO. Step 7 are N7 missions.

I also notice that you just seem to be reading through other peoples posts and finding the points that you can criticise whereas I'm trying to counter every point where possible. If you're going to counter someones point, counter all of them.

[uberdowzen]

KotOREffecT wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

/End thread.

I take it that means you agree with me?

No, I hate your halo loving face. You shooter obsessed tards who ruined our beloved grand and all that is holy RPG. You people dumbed downed this game with your epic sploshuns with your much more fun even though more leanear levels and better character movement and pacing, and much more realistic convos. And seriously, who thought up the whole renegade/paragon interrupt thing? I mean what does that add? Back in the day when RPGs were keepin it real like ME 1, all we needed was a simple convo and were off, non of that flashy shooter bs and better lighting effects, I mean seriously, is ME 2 that shallow? Who really cares is Shep can walk and talk at the same time and randomly interrupt punch some guy who he is interrogating, that kind of stuff is so not immersing in a real golden RPG like ME 1. Those kinds of things add nothing to a real intense "role-playing" experience, unlike ME 1 which keeps it "R-eal-PG".

Nice one.

[uberdowzen]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...


Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2.

Ha ha, I like how you disregard any opinions that aren't your own.  I personally enjoyed exploring in the Mako, just as I enjoyed most of the aspects cut out of ME1 for its sequel.  I must just be a liar or mentally unstable or something though... either that or you're just going out of your way to like ME2.  I don't know.

No, I just struggle to see how anyone could enjoy that. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't really how you could enjoy driving around boring unrealistic looking planets. That's your opinion though.

[Ashton808]

Have to say, Firewalker sucked.

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...


Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2.

Ha ha, I like how you disregard any opinions that aren't your own.  I personally enjoyed exploring in the Mako, just as I enjoyed most of the aspects cut out of ME1 for its sequel.  I must just be a liar or mentally unstable or something though... either that or you're just going out of your way to like ME2.  I don't know.

No, I just struggle to see how anyone could enjoy that. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't really how you could enjoy driving around boring unrealistic looking planets. That's your opinion though.

If you are studying game design you should be more open minded in regards to what some gamers may like. There is a vast pool if different gamers and attitudes, there is no logical reason for one gamer to like one aspect of a game and another gamer to like a completely different aspect.
Wondering about HOW it is possible and trying to deny it will make sure the games you design fail as they will not reach any gamer other then yourself.

[ShakeZoohla]

uberdowzen wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...


Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2.

Ha ha, I like how you disregard any opinions that aren't your own.  I personally enjoyed exploring in the Mako, just as I enjoyed most of the aspects cut out of ME1 for its sequel.  I must just be a liar or mentally unstable or something though... either that or you're just going out of your way to like ME2.  I don't know.

No, I just struggle to see how anyone could enjoy that. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't really how you could enjoy driving around boring unrealistic looking planets. That's your opinion though.

Driving through barren wastelands in order to get to sidequests for me adds both context and atmosphere.  I also dont find the environments ugly, to me they do their job well, and invoke a feeling of isolation.

You are right though it is all just opinions, atmosphere to one is boring and unrealistic to another.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...


Anyone who says that the uncharted worlds gave something to ME1 that was missing in the sequel is just going out of their way to not like ME2.

Ha ha, I like how you disregard any opinions that aren't your own.  I personally enjoyed exploring in the Mako, just as I enjoyed most of the aspects cut out of ME1 for its sequel.  I must just be a liar or mentally unstable or something though... either that or you're just going out of your way to like ME2.  I don't know.

No, I just struggle to see how anyone could enjoy that. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't really how you could enjoy driving around boring unrealistic looking planets. That's your opinion though.

If you are studying game design you should be more open minded in regards to what some gamers may like. There is a vast pool if different gamers and attitudes, there is no logical reason for one gamer to like one aspect of a game and another gamer to like a completely different aspect.
Wondering about HOW it is possible and trying to deny it will make sure the games you design fail as they will not reach any gamer other then yourself.

Actually, in game design terms, the uncharted worlds are pretty poor. They have very little variety, they do not add to the plot, they have very little logical design about how best to explore them and they take resources away from what the majority of gamers loved, the main story. I'm not saying that the Mako missions are beyond saving, a little bit more structure, less repeated environs and some scenery could go a long way (in fact making them more like the firewalker DLC and before you say anything I mean more in a they're well crafted rather than they have almost no combat). But I'd rather they put that effort into making the main plot better.

Also your argument about how people's tastes are different. You're totally right but you can't make the game appeal to everybody. You have to choose what kind of gamer you're trying to appeal to and, in the case of ME2, Bioware made the logical decsion to go for the majority audience. Don't try and deny that more people didn't like ME2 than did like it because that's just not true. What is Bioware meant to do? Make it appeal to the smaller audience who prefered ME1 or the bigger audience that prefered ME2. Seems like an easy choice.

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

Actually, in game design terms, the uncharted worlds are pretty poor. They have very little variety, they do not add to the plot, they have very little logical design about how best to explore them and they take resources away from what the majority of gamers loved, the main story. I'm not saying that the Mako missions are beyond saving, a little bit more structure, less repeated environs and some scenery could go a long way (in fact making them more like the firewalker DLC and before you say anything I mean more in a they're well crafted rather than they have almost no combat). But I'd rather they put that effort into making the main plot better.

Also your argument about how people's tastes are different. You're totally right but you can't make the game appeal to everybody. You have to choose what kind of gamer you're trying to appeal to and, in the case of ME2, Bioware made the logical decsion to go for the majority audience. Don't try and deny that more people didn't like ME2 than did like it because that's just not true. What is Bioware meant to do? Make it appeal to the smaller audience who prefered ME1 or the bigger audience that prefered ME2. Seems like an easy choice.

The uncharted worlds are not meant to add to the plot, being side quests.
The uncharted worlds add to the ambience, atmosphere, and scale that Bioware was trying to pull off.
Read the maps, there is logic in how to best explore them.
The structured missions involving the Mako would be the story missions, not the side quests in question. Play the game again or for the first time before making such statements that look so uninformed or try to stop feigning ignorance.

What would be logical about making the sequel for a game appeal to a new and slightly different audience?
At the time of development there would be no ME2 audience, that is an unknown. It is not logical to go after the unknown when the first iteration is proven to be a hit.

By doing that Bioware did you end up with people that have not played ME1 totally supporting all of ME2 with no perspective from the other game. Using your logic that it was right, then ME3 by all rights should continue to appeal to the new unknown audience yet again retconning the game to the point a new player would enjoy it that did not want to play the first two iterations, meaning you get the sales from the already established games + the sales from a new audience, bigger sales. The products integrity and continuity suffers but all is right if money was made, in the short term.
The previous group that is no longer considered for the product leaves but since the product is constantly retooled for a new audience it does not matter, at least until everyone is equally tired of being cast aside for the new potential.

Please compare the benefits of long term gain vs short term gain.