10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Vena_86 wrote...

You may take appart these two examples but are you seriously considering that everything that is popular by a wider audience is automaticly better? So the religion with the most followers is the "right" one? Fast-food is the best food? Britney Spears (or what ever current carbon copy) is a musical genious?

Depense how you define what's better?

Isn't better just what fit you needs more than something else.  Right is just opinion what people believes to be right. Best is depending what values people put for comparing, what is also based people's opinions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2010 - 09:49 .

[Orchomene]

AlanC9 wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
 I just say that there is no evidence whatsowever to say that ME2 is factualy better than AP. Opinions are not facts.

Are you saying that there is no evidence whatsoever, or that it's not possible for such evidence to exist? Is it just a category mistake to say that something is "factually better"?

I would say yes. Just because "better" is highly subjective. You can say that it's a fact that ME2 is better recepted by the market because the sales are higher. There are points that can be stated objectively and other that remain subjective. For the objective parts, you sure can find facts. Ecael did a good job on those comparisons. But the product itslef is not really the sum of its parts. A game is a set and comparing two games at appreciation level vary from one person to another.
I've heard many people saying that MW2 or RDR  not being better than ME2 5I don't know, I've not played those games), yet the market seems to appreciate more those games. The Sims have a good sale figure and a game like Europa Universalis is not very well known. Yet a lot of people I know that tested both games would not hesitate to say that EU is better than the Sims (for them). You can also consider Wii games, typically for casual gamers. Some people will say they are the best games, other will say they are not interesting.

[Jigero]

Orchomene wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Wow. Okay, so can I cite graphics? No, of course not because graphics are not important to everyone. How about technical flaws, no wait, some people can look past those. Hmmmm. Very well, I give up.

Bioware! If you are listening please redo your extremely successful and popular franchise because the small majority claim they know better even though in all likelyhood, they aren't contributing to your sales numbers. Also Bioware, please ignore the praise coming to your game because they are just opinions and the opinions of your customers are not important.

Wake up Orcho, reviews and sales number are the ONLY relevant facts.

That's why it's becoming more and more boring arguing with people having the media culture of "facts" that are going back time after time like a mantra. Ok, think what you want with your facts. I can also say me that God existing is a fact or that alien life existing is a fact, it doesn't matter. This game is better than another because people say it is, good for you. You can of course deny easily more than two thousand years of philosophy, it doesn't matter. It's your choice to remain blinded by mass media communication. Don't forget, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it's a fact. It's been proven and the majority thought it was true, that means it's a fact. Do you think that if the majority thinks that the World doesn't exist we will all disappear ? Really ? Ok, your choice.

So the whole idea behind your logic is, because it's the Majority, their opinion is wrong, but because your minority your "opinion" is right, and thats all you been putting forth is, opinion, You scream about facts, but you haven't given a single one. So where are all these people who hate it? where is your data? you happen to know over a million people who hate the game? Wheres your proof, you can't establish Fact with out proof. Without proof you have nothing but opinion. Sure maybe alot of people hate the game, but they are in the minority. The fact is ME2 did better then ME1. The data is there, and we have proof for it. But you have none to even support your arguement.

[Iakus]

nelly21 wrote...

Who said it was supposed to be XY? Did Bioware ever make the claim that ME 2 was going to be the rpgest rpg of all rpgs? YOU expected it to be that way. I can understand YOUR disappointment. But to take the leap and say ME sucks and they should change it because YOU don't like it is a bit ridiculous.

The "big deal" about the Mass Effect trilogy was that it was an rpg/tps hybrid XY.  So no, I wasn't expecting the "rpgest rpg of all rpgs" (XX?)  I actually found ME 1 to be quite a fun novelty, not being much of a shooter fan.  In my book, ME1 did it right with a nice blend of two genres.  It was NOT the deepst of rpgs, but it was "rpgish" enough to be fun.  Silly, me, I expected ME 2 to continue in that traditon. 

And for the record, I have NEVER, not once. said, "ME sucks" (nor ME 2 for that matter) I HAVE said:

I thought  plot is anemic

I believed the leveling system is boring

I have given my opinion that  are too many squadmates, with too little interaction

I have mentioned that not enough was done with the Collectors as a villain group

I questioned the point of importing ME 1 careers, given how little the choices mattered

I have made disparaging comments on  the outfits of several squadmates and the Cerberus uniform in general.

I have commented (at length) on the railroad-style storyline.

I have also commented on the incredibly cliched "death" of Shepard at the beginning of ME 2, effectively hitting the "reset" button on his career.

I have also had unkind words about the final boss.

I have bemoaned the loss of exploration in general.

But I have NEVER said "ME 2 sucks"

If you have no problems with any of these, then go forth and play, and i won't even comment on your standards. 

Also:   I have no illusions that ME 2 will be changed, regardless of what I or anyone else say .  The problems I have with the game, no patch could change. What I can hope for is that ME 3 will somehow redeem ME 2.  And the voices of those who feel they have been alienated by the changes of ME 2 need to be heard if that is to happen.  Despite all te arguing on these boards, I still hold to the belief that it is possible to have a decent shooter that's also a decent rpg.  One needn't stifle the other, despite the experiences of ME 2

[Pocketgb]

Vena_86 wrote...

You may take appart these two examples but are you seriously considering that everything that is popular by a wider audience is automaticly better? So the religion with the most followers is the "right" one? Fast-food is the best food? Britney Spears (or what ever current carbon copy) is a musical genious?

But there's quite a big problem here that throws everything about 'ratings' and copies sold into flux, and it's that both ME1 and ME2 have sold really well and received very positive reviews.

In regards to ME2's boost of success near release, is this a result of the game being more 'streamlined', or just riding on the success of the previous chapter?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 25 juin 2010 - 11:00 .

[tonnactus]

Massadonious1 wrote...
 The only reason you took anyone that didn't fit your "visual taste" or had a combat proficiency that you liked in ME1 was because they could open doors or chests

Maybee you think thats their only use.I found it helpfull that a member of my team could hack geth armatures and heavy rocket turrets. And could damp biotics and enemy techs.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

ME1: Defensive Power go

´

Barrier never protected against melee attacks,rockets and poison.Unlike in Mass Effect 2,where shields and barriers protect against everything.

Husks could kill even a soldier with immunity with their electronic blasts.

Enemy adepts and krogan battlemasters could do it too if their warp hit the enemy.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
ME is part a RPG but ME2 is not at all an RPG, not to the slightest element. There is no RPG gameplay, no choice involved. Having cool cinematics and dialogues do not make a game a RPG. Putting skills neither. Otherwise, Borderlands would be a RPG, or Bioshock. Or Diablo. But besides sometimes the name, those are not RPG.

What does make an RPG?

I'm sure there's 1,001 different possible answers, but here's how it works for me (roughly in order of preference):

1) Strong, interactive story,

2) Well-developed characters (npcs and party members) with well-written dialogue

3) Plot advancement and consequences  based on decisions I make.

4) Customizable character (skills, equipment, specialties, class abilities)

5) Side quests as well as a main story

6) Explorable enviroment, prefereably with  interactive elements as well


There's a little bit of 2 and 5 in ME 2, 1 was really weak. same with 4.  3 and 6 were nonexistant..  IMO

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Barrier never protected against melee attacks,rockets and poison.Unlike in Mass Effect 2,where shields and barriers protect against everything.

Very true. However, rockets are easily avoided with strafing and actually having an enemy get close enough to you to be in melee range is another problem all in itself (more below).

tonnactus wrote...

Husks could kill even a soldier with immunity with their electronic blasts.

Also very true. However, husks and creepers are possibly the easiest enemies to neutralize. Pretty much every obstacle they throw at you can be avoided by backing up.

tonnactus wrote...


Enemy adepts and krogan battlemasters could do it too if their warp hit the enemy.

Enemy biotic attacks were awesome because of their CC. It was good to see more of this in ME2. Flamethrowers could equal instant death in most cases.

[tonnactus]

Lusitanum wrote...

Good for him. And my point still stands.

What stands??

Because getting yourself killed because you gravitated somewhere that killed you instantly or getting stuck on a piece of scenery is so much better and not at all cheap.

Yes its better.If bioware is unable or better do not want(Bringing Down the Sky show it was possible) to make challenging enemy biotics and engineers,its better they took  them out completly instead of making them warp bots or incinerate spammers. Asari commandos that only spam warp and use shotguns at all ranges.
n Bringing Down the Sky they make the enemy engineers on par with shepardt when it comes down to their talents.
Good beware an enemy could do the same as the player. So they even take out even enemy snipers too remove all challenge out of the game.

What you call "cheap" i call fair,believable and challenging. Why shouldnt an enemy biotic instant kill you when the player could do the same with him???

Yes, the ones in the second game even have different abilities like lifting really heavy enemies or a group of them or greatly weaken the defenses of an enemy and yet somehow they're still less varied than the ones in the first that had one use and one use only (mostly converging on the same thing half of the time).

Didnt you understand my examples or what?? Kaidan and Liara could lift enemies like the geth colossus and groups of lesser ones. Both had overload and liara had warp.So whats you point???
And yes, "varied" somehow if they have only 3 talents...
Jacob has pull.Samara and jack too. He has fire ammo.Like grunt.Varied???

Who cares if Miranda is a Sentinel or not, the point still stands if you apply the same thought process to characters like Jack or Samara: each power has a different use.

Not even their special powers are varied.Reave is just an dot version of warp with an healing effect for the biotic.Warp ammo is the ammo variant of warp except the detonations.

And can a Infiltrator with Warp Ammo Pull people? Use Singularities? Knock out Shields? Shrugh off damage like a Soldier?

Who cares.He has tools against all defenses with warp ammo.

The Infiltrator is a Jack of All Trades, he can do pretty much everything but there are still things that other classes can do better than him.

Or really? I always thought the sentinel has that role and the infiltrator is the sniper specialists. Maybee i am wrong...

[tonnactus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...


Very true. However, rockets are easily avoided with strafing and actually having an enemy get close enough to you to be in melee range is another problem all in itself (more below).
[/quote]

In the last bunker on luna it was not very easy to aviod those things only by strafing...
Two teammates with sabotage and/or hacking was definetly better and make this mission a very easy one.


[quote]
Also very true. However, husks and creepers are possibly the easiest enemies to neutralize. Pretty much every obstacle they throw at you can be avoided by backing up.[/quote]
For an adept yes,but the husks sometimes even when flieing or laying on the ground perform their attack.For an soldier: What besides grenades and hammer ammo?? Dont help much then a lot them be in close quarters like in this one ship. Only the right team helps.



[quote]tonnactus wrote...


Enemy adepts and krogan battlemasters could do it too if their warp hit the enemy.[/quote]

Enemy biotic attacks were awesome because of their CC.
[/quote]
(More of this in Mass Effect Too??)
Something that they dont have know.And the only flamethrower that cause problems was the one around the corner in the archangel mission...

Would be better if they included krogans with flamethrowers. That dont die instantly when they got overloaded or incinerated.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

In the last bunker on luna it was not very easy to aviod those things only by strafing...

Draw aggro, retreat back to entryway connected to long hallway, fend them off from there. If things get hairy just go outside. Dead ones won't respawn.

tonnactus wrote...

For an adept yes,but the husks sometimes even when flieing or laying on the ground perform their attack.For an soldier: What besides grenades and hammer ammo??

Shotguns. Aim for the chest area. This works for numerous classes.

tonnactus wrote...


Dont help much then a lot them be in close quarters like in this one ship. Only the right team helps.

Same strategy as above.

tonnactus wrote...

Something that they dont have know...

Engineer attacks, biotic attacks, rockets, singularities from Harbinger, etc. While not as effective as the 'knockdown' in ME1, more varieties were pretty interesting.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...
]

Engineer attacks,

Mass Effect Too: Incinerate and sometimes a drone

Mass Effect: Overload, Sabotage, Neuralshock, Damping, rocket drones.

biotic attacks

Mass Effect Too: aside frome harbingers easy to avoid attacks only warp spam even from "Asari commandos"
Mass Effect: Throw, Lift cover,stasis ,warp

rockets,

Yes,even two didnt kill the player. Go in cover and wait for the fast health regeneration.

[Felfenix]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
ME is part a RPG but ME2 is not at all an RPG, not to the slightest element. There is no RPG gameplay, no choice involved. Having cool cinematics and dialogues do not make a game a RPG. Putting skills neither. Otherwise, Borderlands would be a RPG, or Bioshock. Or Diablo. But besides sometimes the name, those are not RPG.

What does make an RPG?

I'm sure there's 1,001 different possible answers, but here's how it works for me (roughly in order of preference):

1) Strong, interactive story,

2) Well-developed characters (npcs and party members) with well-written dialogue

3) Plot advancement and consequences  based on decisions I make.

4) Customizable character (skills, equipment, specialties, class abilities)

5) Side quests as well as a main story

6) Explorable enviroment, prefereably with  interactive elements as well


There's a little bit of 2 and 5 in ME 2, 1 was really weak. same with 4.  3 and 6 were nonexistant..  IMO

2) Recruitment missions, loyalty missions, and on-ship dialog (each character had as much as an ME1 character, for a net gain). There was a lot more character detail and even more character dialog. ME1 had you randomly pick up the first 6 people you meet, and none of them have any real role in the story. Seriously, go back and play ME1 and ME2. You're dellusional if you think ME1 had character interaction or content.

1 & 3) How did ME1 have any plot advancement based on your decisions? Youcould do anything and things would turn out the same. You couldn't even affect the characters, other than choosing to kill one of them. Your decisions in ME2 could get everyone killed in more ways than one. You can fail loyalty missions. Even if everyone is loyal, bad choices in the final mission can get some killed. Upgrading the normandy made a huge difference in the story. ME2 has TONS of possibilities. ME1... had the illusion of it, but if you played it more than once, it's clear how linear the game was, and how decisions were pointless other than giving you paragon/renegade points. Ash/Kaiden was the only decision in the whole game, and it had no long term effect. Failing a loyalty mission, or generally just being an ass, could really **** things up in the long term in ME2.

As for your not liking the story, that's just opinion. Apparently just because ME2 doesn't follow the exact same plot of every single Bioware game ever means it doesn't have a plot. If there were no recruitment/loyalty missions and everyone joined you on the Cerbersu station, then you were given Reaper, Horizon, and Collector Ship as three locations to choose to visit from the start, with the suicide mission after, you'd think the game was brilliant and packed full of content.

4) There was far more actual customization in ME2. Viper v Widow, for example, instead of just LOL+1 RIFLE. You could modify your appearance FAR more, instead of just having the same spandex suit in black, pink, yellow, or brown. The equipment pieces did interesting nonlinear things like choosing between ammo, shields, health, storm speed, and headshot damage, instead of just +1 to defense with each upgrade like ME1. ME2 was the game with unique classes, and abilities that mattered, instead of the generic spamfest of ME1. You really think ME1 Vanguard was more of a unique class than ME2's? There was no "customization" or uniqueness in ME1. Just the illusion of it, as if upgrading but being essentially the same as you were is customization. It's not. The lab and limited credits had you actually making decisions on what upgrades you wanted, and the upgrades were far better than anything in ME1.

6) Planet scanning actually gave planets a purpose and you could actually find things (side missions, rare minerals) out there via exploring. ME1 just had a bunch of planets with the same bland and ridiculously mountainy terrain, a couple enemies at the planet's objective, and a few minerals scattered about that served no purpose. ME1 was a lazily made game with lazy crappy sidequests/exploration/gear that served no purpose.

In reality, it sounds like all you actually want or liked in ME1 was seeing numbers go up while clapping your hands excitedly.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...
]

Engineer attacks,

Mass Effect Too: Incinerate and sometimes a drone

Mass Effect: Overload, Sabotage, Neuralshock, Damping, rocket drones.

biotic attacks

Mass Effect Too: aside frome harbingers easy to avoid attacks only warp spam even from "Asari commandos"
Mass Effect: Throw, Lift cover,stasis ,warp

rockets,

Yes,even two didnt kill the player. Go in cover and wait for the fast health regeneration.

You completely missed what I was saying. Heck, I'm not even entirely sure about what you're saying.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 26 juin 2010 - 01:03 .

[Lumikki]

Felfenix wrote...

Seriously, go back and play ME1 and ME2. You're dellusional if you think ME1 had character interaction or content

I just comment this. It's not so much had character interaction, but what kind of character interaction player is counting as interaction. That has been the problem here, little like "selective reading". Some people only count those stuff what fits they needs or liking and they mind blocks what doesn't fit. Both games had alot of character interaction, if player just payed attention.

What some people here are refering is two thing, one of them is impression details. Many times some small minor details gives player better impression. Good example in elevator ride. It's not really needed, but it exists only to create impresion of reality where player is. Like squad members talkign in elevators. That's what happens between ME1 and ME2. Some small impression stuff got redused to work little more efficient and faster way. Sometimes faster and easyer way is even better, but not allways. Most the time people really underestimate how big affect some small detail can have.

Other is more like players connection to characters. I'm talking here how npcs interact with players, situations and eviroment. Example some players wants that squad members would have more active personality. Meaning they would actually show emotions and act when they have moral conflicts. Not to be so neutral all the time. I my self like characters to be active, but I don't really like this over emotional stuff what some players seem to need. I hate when in movies people become totally emotional and do stupid stuff.

What I find totally tasteless is this ME1 vs ME2 stuff. There was some small differences, but not anything what would require this totally overreaction to situation. We can only hope it gets better in ME3, there is allways room for improvements.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 juin 2010 - 01:20 .

[Felfenix]

All the engineer abilities were basically a tech explosion with a single side effect. They were redundant, and ME2 consolidated them, and then added some different/real abilities. Since the cooldowns in ME1 were so long but unlinked, you'd just spam all the different abilities for more or less the same purpose (CC or damage) without needing to think or strategize. It was too easy and simple, even though there was more junk, but that's what it was: junk.

[Iakus]

Felfenix wrote...

2) Recruitment missions, loyalty missions, and on-ship dialog (each character had as much as an ME1 character, for a net gain). There was a lot more character detail and even more character dialog. ME1 had you randomly pick up the first 6 people you meet, and none of them have any real role in the story. Seriously, go back and play ME1 and ME2. You're dellusional if you think ME1 had character interaction or content.

Recruitment missions were essentially running down corridors shooting mercenaries (or geth in Tali's case)  I'll take your word for it that there's as much dialogue per character.  I haven't gone and counted each line.  But there's little reason given for why we want to recruit them beyond 'they're uber" and "TIM says so.  The "random people you meet" in ME 1 at least have a motive for joining you besides "Seemed like a good idea at the time" and "$$$"

Loyalty  missions are good.  I actually approve of them in principle.  Problem is with so many characters the loyalty mission become just another mission to do, swallowed up in all the other random stuff  that's not really connected to anything else in the game.  As side misssions, they'd be nice.  As part of the main storyline, not so much.

What's really missing is dialogue between squad members. They barely interact with each other at all.  Shepard is the entirety of their universe.  Not condusive for creating well-rounded characters.  People have complained at the lack of inventory in ME 2.  Maybe they're wrong.  Maybe the inventory is the squadmates.  They just stand around until they're needed.  THenkill whatever you point at them.  Upgrade by doing loyalty missions.

Remember, quantity is not the same as quality. 

Plus I've played plenty of ME 1. I have been very civil in this discussion.  I'll thank you to be likewise

Felfenix wrote...

1 & 3) How did ME1 have any plot advancement based on your decisions? Youcould do anything and things would turn out the same. You couldn't even affect the characters, other than choosing to kill one of them. Your decisions in ME2 could get everyone killed in more ways than one. You can fail loyalty missions. Even if everyone is loyal, bad choices in the final mission can get some killed. Upgrading the normandy made a huge difference in the story. ME2 has TONS of possibilities. ME1... had the illusion of it, but if you played it more than once, it's clear how linear the game was, and how decisions were pointless other than giving you paragon/renegade points. Ash/Kaiden was the only decision in the whole game, and it had no long term effect. Failing a loyalty mission, or generally just being an ass, could really **** things up in the long term in ME2.

Mass Effect we were told was going to be a trilogy.  We would be able to import our choices from one game to the next, and our choices would affect how the sequel plays.  Aside from a few cameos and a slew of emails, I've seen very little in the way of these results in ME 2

Help Feros, or kill the colonists?  Save Council or let them die?  Sell Cerberus intel to Shadow Broker or give it to Alliance?  Who do you romance, if anyone?  Who do you nominate as the human Councilor?  Do you talk Wrex down k=or kill hiim?  It's rather sad that the only choice that seems to have any results of substance is whether or not you spare the rachni queen, and the cryptic message you get.  Eveything else is swept aside.  Zeroed out.  Rendered irrelevent.  Reduced to "glad you're not dead" emails.  Granted I still like the stories, but yes, the consequences were not delivered as promised.  That's a part of my frustration.

Note:  Yes I'm sure more consequences will be addressed in ME 3, but Bioware could have at least thrown us a bone!

Yes, you can get squadmates killed in ME 2, but the choices to prevent this are...not difficult, let's just leave it at that.  Almost all the loyalty missions you'd have to actively sabotage to fail (I'm not sure it's even possible to do that in a couple of them)  Upgrading the Normandy is a no-brainer and the choices in the Suicide Mission are laughably easy to make.  I believe it is harder to surgically kill off the squadmates you want to die than to get through it with everyone alive.  I'll grant you that is role-playing, if you're doing it deliberately.

Felfenix wrote...

As for your notliking the story, that's just opinion. Apparently just because ME2 doesn't follow the exact same plot of every single Bioware game ever means it doesn't have a plot. If there were no recruitment/loyalty missions and everyone joined you on the Cerbersu station, then you were given Reaper, Horizon, and Collector Ship as three locations to choose to visit from the start, with the suicide mission after, you'd think the game was brilliant and packed full of content.

Yes it is my opinion.  I never stated otherwise.  What I have been doing is explaining why I have this opinion.  I want to be more helpful to Bioware than just saying "This game sucks" and giving no reason.

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

What I thought would have been brilliant would be to travel the Terminus Systems trying to figure out why colonies are disappearing.  Along the way you meet others also on the hunt.  Some may have lost friends or family in the attacks.  Others out for justice, or revenge, or a chance to be "Spectre Lite" or any number of reasons that have to do with the story.  These characters would actually interact with each other.  They'd be friends, or rivals.  They'd argue, debate, swap stories, and generally act like a squad rather than weapons in Shepard's arsenal. loyalty missions would exist, as side missions to add more flavor to a character, not be the flavor in its entirety. 

Horizon would occur after several trips to other planets to actually confirm the Collectors are behind the abductions, rather than have it spelled out to you in the first mission after the tutorial

There would be multiple "Collector Ship" type quests where you find yourself pitted against the Collectors, demonstrating just how powerful and relentless the Collectors are. The story behind the Collectors would also be uncovered gradually, not just one big info dump that's ultimately meaningless to the plot.

The Suicide mission would be roughtly the last quarter of the game, as you explore the base and every single squadmate you recruited would get an opportunity to shine, not just "hold the line"  You got all these specialists, use em!

Felfenix wrote...

4) There was far more actual customization in ME2. Viper v Widow, for example, instead of just LOL+1 RIFLE. You could modify your appearance FAR more, instead of just having the same spandex suit in black, pink, yellow, or brown. The equipment pieces did interesting nonlinear things like choosing between ammo, shields, health, storm speed, and headshot damage, instead of just +1 to defense with each upgrade like ME1. ME2 was the game with unique classes, and abilities that mattered, instead of the generic spamfest of ME1. You really think ME1 Vanguard was more of a unique class than ME2's? There was no "customization" or uniqueness in ME1. Just the illusion of it, as if upgrading but being essentially the same as you were is customization. It's not. The lab and limited credits had you actually making decisions on what upgrades you wanted, and the upgrades were far better than anything in ME1.

Customizing the appearance of the armor is one ting I really liked.  I wished I could do that for all my squadmates, as I generally despised all their costumes except Grunt, Mordin, and Tali. (for one thing, they were costumes, not oufits)

But aside from the sniper rifles, I felt little difference between the weapons.  I would have appreciated being able to modify weapons a bit more in-depth.  Is it a better trade-off to get more damage or greater rate of fire?  Accuracy or clip size?  Ultimately, I'd like to be able to say "This is my sniper rifle!  There are many like it, but this one is mine!"  And not have Legion saying "Shepard-Commander is incorrect."

The armor pieces were definitely a step in the right direction.  Problem is there were too few pieces to really get much out of it.

re:  spamfest in ME 1 was I the only player of ME 1 that didn't do some kind of min-max powergame through combat, and simply picked abilities/upgrades that seemed fun to use?  I can say I never had cooldowns as short as some people have described, and infiltrator was my favorite class to play.

And yes I tink customization was better in ME 1.  you could choose which abilities to get.  You could bypass one to quickly master another.  As a Soldier, which weapon do you want to be best at?  As an adept, do you want stasis?  Or put those points in lift or singularity.  DId you want Wrex to focus on his combat powers or biotics?  In ME 2, sooner or later, you're gonna get everything to some degree. 

Felfenix wrote...

6) Planet scanning actually gave planets a purpose and you could actually find things (side missions, rare minerals) out there via exploring. ME1 just had a bunch of planets with the same bland and ridiculously mountainy terrain, a couple enemies at the planet's objective, and a few minerals scattered about that served no purpose. ME1 was a lazily made game with lazy crappy sidequests/exploration/gear that served no purpose.

In reality, it sounds like all you actually want or liked in ME1 was seeing numbers go up while clapping your hands excitedly.

Unlike many, many people, I didn't have too much trouble with the planet scanning.

That being said, I still miss exploring planets in the Mako.  Yes the mountains could be a pain.  So Bioware should have just fixed the mountains and maybe alter the terrain to be more  colorful, since that seems to be what's in demand.  Instead they took a chainsaw to it, and that's what seems to be lazy, at least in my book.

Instead of again asking you to be a bit more civil, I have to ask, with all this hate for ME 1, did you actually finish a game?  It just seems surprising that you'd have bothered with ME 2 if ME 1 was such a horrible experience.  Serious question.  No snark here.

Modifié par iakus, 26 juin 2010 - 03:15 .

[Felfenix]

I've played through ME1 countless times, and ME2 is an improvement in almost every aspect. I played through both games again this week, even. Just because I don't want every game to be exactly like the previous game, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the previous game. I like that Bioware takes steps forward, instead of every single game being exactly the same. If I wanted ME3 to be ME1, I'd play ME1.

You criticize the choices and possibilities in ME2 as being easily controlled or manipulated, but how is killing the rachni queen or colonists on Feros somehow an innovation of ME1 in which ME2 simply cannot compete? You could choose to fail a loyalty mission, just as you could choose to spare or kill the rachni queen, but at least the loyalty mission made a difference. Sparing or killing her in ME1... made difference in ME1... and a pretty poor cameo, I guess, in ME2. Rachni Queen, Feros, etc... were pretty meaningless decisions. Your complaint was that the decisions in ME2 were meaningless, compared to ME1. I couldn't disagree more. Within ME1 those decisions made no difference. The ME2 decisions at least make a difference within ME2.

Instead of taking everything personally, maybe you should look at what you write objectively, and see for youself, instead of "I haven't played ME1 or ME2 in forever, but my perfect memory says..." You should calm down instead of getting worked up and freaking out over what you admit to not even remember clearly nor experienced in a while. No need to attack people just because they aren't hysterically claiming there was no dialog in ME2 and tons in ME1. Take off the nostalgia goggles. For someone claiming to prefer quality over quantity, all your complaints seem stem from the number of gear pieces, dialog lines, collector quests, etc.

Modifié par Felfenix, 26 juin 2010 - 05:14 .

[Iakus]

Felfenix wrote...

I've played through ME1 countless times, and ME2 is an improvement in almost every aspect. I played through both games again this week, even. Just because I don't want every game to be exactly like the previous game, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the previous game. I like that Bioware takes steps forward, instead of every single game being exactly the same. If I wanted ME3 to be ME1, I'd play ME1.

You criticize the choices and possibilities in ME2 as being easily controlled or manipulated, but how is killing the rachni queen or colonists on Feros somehow an innovation of ME1 in which ME2 simply cannot compete? You could choose to fail a loyalty mission, just as you could choose to spare or kill the rachni queen, but at least the loyalty mission made a difference. Sparing or killing her in ME1... made difference in ME1... and a pretty poor cameo, I guess, in ME2. Rachni Queen, Feros, etc... were pretty meaningless decisions. Your complaint was that the decisions in ME2 were meaningless, compared to ME1. I couldn't disagree more. Within ME1 those decisions made no difference. The ME2 decisions at least make a difference within ME2.

Instead of taking everything personally, maybe you should look at what you write objectively, and see for youself, instead of "I haven't played ME1 or ME2 in forever, but my perfect memory says..." You should calm down instead of getting worked up and freaking out over what you admit to not even remember clearly nor experienced in a while. No need to attack people just because they aren't hysterically claiming there was no dialog in ME2 and tons in ME1. Take off the nostalgia goggles.

My complaint is less about the decisons in ME 2, since truth be told I have no idea how they will play out in ME 3.  I only see a few choices that are likely to have a major impact, since the fact that any squadmate could potentially be dead for ME 3 means it's unlikely they'll have more than cameo appearances.  The big problem is the decisions that were made in ME 1 were rendered meaningless. 

I will grant that many deicsions that here made are not what you would expect to have a huge impact on the galaxy at large.  But some were.  And others were personal to Shepard.  Yet these decisions are rendered meaningless.  They had no immediate impact on ME 1, save as a way to shape your Shepard's personality.  But there was promise that these would shape events yet to come.  Otherwise why bother to make a big deal out of all those hundreds of decisions being recorded?  Why bother with importing at all, when they could have gone the KOTOR 2 route and have a simple conversation prompts to say what happened before?

By importing saves and telling us our choices would have consequences in future games, then reducing those consequences to emails and cameos is what's frustrating.  Delayed gratification becomes denied gratification.  What will the consequences be for cheating on a LI, or defying TIM in ME 3?  Angry email? 

I think the disconnect we are having is that you are seeing ME 1 and ME 2 as completely seperate games, and I'm seeing them as a single story told in multiple volumes  I'm looking for continuity between these volumes all I'm seeing is a reboot.   I'm trying to see where the bog picture is going , the overall story, and I don't like what I'm seeing. 

re: decisions in ME 2 at least have an effect in ME 2  is true enough.  Though in that case I would wish for more challenging decisions.

I don't believe my memory of either ME 1 or ME 2 is that faulty.  I admit that I have been playing more Alpha Protocol than either of those in the last couple of weeks, but before that I was running a ME 1 (adept on hardcore) and ME 2 (soldier, minimalist run, to see just how few squadmates I could get away with recruiting) games pretty much side by side.  This is not nostalgia talking here, these are recent memories.  And when possible, I try to douoblecheck things before i cite them.

If you think I've been "freaking out" then I apologize  I take a bit of pride in not stooping to the mud-slinging and shouting that happens all too often on message boards.  I try to keep a cool head when I respond to something.  That being said, I stand by what I believe and I have tried to support what I believe with examples.  If you don't buy my arguements, that's your choice.  All I ask is you not disparage my intelligence or mental state just because I happen to have an opinion on a matter.  Remember, I'm the one who thinks a game can be a good shooter and rpg.  ME 2 just happens not to be it.

[Orchomene]

Jigero wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Wow. Okay, so can I cite graphics? No, of course not because graphics are not important to everyone. How about technical flaws, no wait, some people can look past those. Hmmmm. Very well, I give up.

Bioware! If you are listening please redo your extremely successful and popular franchise because the small majority claim they know better even though in all likelyhood, they aren't contributing to your sales numbers. Also Bioware, please ignore the praise coming to your game because they are just opinions and the opinions of your customers are not important.

Wake up Orcho, reviews and sales number are the ONLY relevant facts.

That's why it's becoming more and more boring arguing with people having the media culture of "facts" that are going back time after time like a mantra. Ok, think what you want with your facts. I can also say me that God existing is a fact or that alien life existing is a fact, it doesn't matter. This game is better than another because people say it is, good for you. You can of course deny easily more than two thousand years of philosophy, it doesn't matter. It's your choice to remain blinded by mass media communication. Don't forget, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it's a fact. It's been proven and the majority thought it was true, that means it's a fact. Do you think that if the majority thinks that the World doesn't exist we will all disappear ? Really ? Ok, your choice.

So the whole idea behind your logic is, because it's the Majority, their opinion is wrong, but because your minority your "opinion" is right, and thats all you been putting forth is, opinion, You scream about facts, but you haven't given a single one. So where are all these people who hate it? where is your data? you happen to know over a million people who hate the game? Wheres your proof, you can't establish Fact with out proof. Without proof you have nothing but opinion. Sure maybe alot of people hate the game, but they are in the minority. The fact is ME2 did better then ME1. The data is there, and we have proof for it. But you have none to even support your arguement.

I'm not sure I made myself clear if this what you understood. The idea behind my logic (which is not my logic but a logic commonly accepted) if that it's not because the majority thinks a thing is true that it is. But the minority doesn't know more the truth, if such truth even exists.
Of course I"ve given no fact affiring that ME2 is bad. It's not subject to facts, it's an opinion. Just like it's your opinion that ME2 is better. I hope it's clearer.

[Iakus]

Felfenix wrote...

. For someone claiming to prefer quality over quantity, all your complaints seem stem from the number of gear pieces, dialog lines, collector quests, etc.

This appears to have been added while I was responding to your post.

If you look at the history of my arguements, you'll see that my primary arguement has been with the story of ME 2 and how badly it flows from ME 1.  Yes, the Collectors were badly underplayed as the villain for this chapter.  I would liked to have seen more of them.   

Dialogue lines:  I never said Shepard needs more conversations.  Different ones, sure, but not necessarilly more.  Nor have I counted or compared the amount of dialogue between games.  I already obsess too much over this (as you have already pointed out)  I have said the squadmates need to interact more with each other.  I guess you could say that's a complaint.  So sure, guilty as charged

Gear is nice, but others have argued for it way more than I have.  I thought modular armor was a good idea.  I would liked to have seen more of it.  I said more than once concerning ME 1 and ME2  "Good Idea:  Less gear.  Bad Idea:  No gear".  Others make gear their rallying cry. I sympathize with them, but I think a happy medium lies between ME1 and ME 2 in this regard.  ME 1 had too much, ME 2 had too little.  Are you sure you're not merging other people's arguements with mine?  I'd hate to tke credit for work not my own

[Darth Drago]

iakus wrote...

I'm sure there's 1,001 different possible answers, but here's how it works for me (roughly in order of preference):

1) Strong, interactive story,

2) Well-developed characters (npcs and party members) with well-written dialogue

3) Plot advancement and consequences based on decisions I make.

4) Customizable character (skills, equipment, specialties, class abilities)

5) Side quests as well as a main story

6) Explorable enviroment, prefereably with interactive elements as well


There's a little bit of 2 and 5 in ME 2, 1 was really weak. same with 4. 3 and 6 were nonexistant.. IMO

For me I would say:
1. There was a decent story, but not a great one. It should have been a lot better when it came to the actual story about the Collectors and the Reapers. Ending the game just a few steps forward from how ME1 ended is not advancing anything.

2. There were, I will admit a good amount of well developed characters when you look at your squad mates. A lot of others you meet could use a lot of work to expand on or just seem to be randomly added for no reason like the Batarians you meet the first time you enter Afterlife. All the cameo appearances were weak at best and set up way to conveniently to be in your way as you walked through a location.

3. Very little actual plot advancement and consequences based on my decisions. A lot of the plot is just handed to you without any real investigation or delay. The decisions you make through the game have no real affects at all though the game and only a few would have any affect in ME3.

4. Very little customization at all with the limited amount of equipment, weapons and powers (talents) to choose from. Half way through the game everyone is armed with the same weapons that they can use and you have the same powers for them that you chose for them in your last game.

5. Again there is very little in the way of side quests for a game that is supposed to be bigger and better. You have a larger galaxy to explore but less to do in it. There should have been a balance of main quest and side quests. The loyalty missions blow away what passes for a main plot by far.

6. Exploration is an illusion in ME2 (see 5 above). Space exploration is an arcade game (Asteroids) without the shooting. Almost all of the planets you orbit are set up to only give you minerals. All the hub locations are set up to give the player everything they need without going anywhere. Al the N7 side quests have you land on the doorstep of your location giving you no exploration at all.

[Darth Drago]

Felfenix wrote...
2) Recruitment missions, loyalty missions, and on-ship dialog (each character had as much as an ME1 character, for a net gain). There was a lot more character detail and even more character dialog. ME1 had you randomly pick up the first 6 people you meet, and none of them have any real role in the story. Seriously, go back and play ME1 and ME2. You're dellusional if you think ME1 had character interaction or content.

-First off, in ME1 you didn’t randomly pick up anyone to join you. Kaidan and Ashley were with you on Eden Prime. Garrus was investigating Saren before you got to the Citadel, Wrex was hired to kill Fist one of Saren’s contacts and later has a personal issue with the Krogan Saren is cloning. Tali finds the evidence you need and is a Geth expert. Liara is related to Benezia (Saren’s second in command) and also can decipher the beacon info. Each one has a personal interest or role in the story of ME1.

The only ones that have any role in the story in ME2 is Jacob, Miranda Talli and Garrus. They are the only ones who are with you from the start (from either game) and know the real threat and whats at risk. Everyone else is just a merc, just hired for whatever specialty that they can bring or are supposed to bring to the mission. They have their personal reasons for joining you but its not to stop the Collectors and the Reapers. In actuality the only ones you need to finish the mission is Mordin and a powerful biotic (Jack, Samara or Morinth) and since Tali is your tech expert you really don’t need another.

Not one of your ME2 squad is even needed to bypass security or open locks since you as Shepard now is an expert at both.

Granted you do get more interaction and dialog with your squad mates in ME2, one of the things they did right in ME2. However they could have done so much more by adding actual interaction between them especially in loyalty missions and adding a few more lines after you beat the game.

The loyalty missions regrettably are the best part of the game. They brought out so much information about each of your squad mates (except Morinth) that the rest of the game seems like an afterthought.

Felfenix wrote...
1 & 3) How did ME1 have any plot advancement based on your decisions? Youcould do anything and things would turn out the same. You couldn't even affect the characters, other than choosing to kill one of them. Your decisions in ME2 could get everyone killed in more ways than one. You can fail loyalty missions. Even if everyone is loyal, bad choices in the final mission can get some killed. Upgrading the normandy made a huge difference in the story. ME2 has TONS of possibilities. ME1... had the illusion of it, but if you played it more than once, it's clear how linear the game was, and how decisions were pointless other than giving you paragon/renegade points. Ash/Kaiden was the only decision in the whole game, and it had no long term effect. Failing a loyalty mission, or generally just being an ass, could really **** things up in the long term in ME2.

-Let me ask you, how did ME2 have any plot advancement based on your decisions? I cant think of a single one. Upgrading your ship or doing a loyalty mission has nothing to do with advancing the plot. The loyalty missions are nothing but a poorly implemented game mechanic to partially determine your squad mates fates in the final battle.

Choosing either Ashley or Kaidan or even how you deal with Wrex on Virmire had more long term effect in ME1 than any of the possible deaths of your squad in ME2 simply because you still have the final battle to do.

The fates of your squad in ME2 has nothing to do with the plot of the game. They are the result of how you play the game and your choices for the key positions in the final battle. Do you want to do a loyalty mission or not? Do you select the obvious persons for the tech and biotic roles in the final missions or just choose anyone? Lets see Jack over Jacob? Tali over Grunt? Its not rocket science for those positions. The leadership one is more tricky but again isn’t tough to figure out based on the needs of the role.

Just how many loyalty missions can you actually fail anyways? I count only 2, Zaeed and Tali. You cant count Samara since Morinth becomes loyal if you choose her. Your just replacing one for the other in that case. No matter your choice for any of the loyalty missions either paragon or renegade nothing changes with them.

Felfenix wrote...
4) There was far more actual customization in ME2. Viper v Widow, for example, instead of just LOL+1 RIFLE. You could modify your appearance FAR more, instead of just having the same spandex suit in black, pink, yellow, or brown. The equipment pieces did interesting nonlinear things like choosing between ammo, shields, health, storm speed, and headshot damage, instead of just +1 to defense with each upgrade like ME1. ME2 was the game with unique classes, and abilities that mattered, instead of the generic spamfest of ME1. You really think ME1 Vanguard was more of a unique class than ME2's? There was no "customization" or uniqueness in ME1. Just the illusion of it, as if upgrading but being essentially the same as you were is customization. It's not. The lab and limited credits had you actually making decisions on what upgrades you wanted, and the upgrades were far better than anything in ME1.

-Lets see.. One suit of armor for Shepard and none for any squad mates in ME2 versus all of the ones in ME1. A few armor upgrade pieces in ME2 versus several armor mods in ME. A few unique weapons that your entire squad uses in ME2 versus a large selection of not so unique looking weapons in ME1. No weapon mods for ME2 weapons and a lot of them for weapons in ME1.

By my count ME1 has ME2 beat by far with the variety of items for customization. Granted in ME2 you do get unique weapons that are far better than those in ME1 however there are way to few of them.

The armor upgrades you get for your armor in ME2 really is nothing more than what you got from your mods or by leveling your talents in ME1 so your not getting more but actually less due to streamlining of the game. If there was a lot more upgrades then it would be different but that’s not the case.

The only true customization with regards to your ME2 armor is the color choice and the fact that the upgrades do change the appearance of the armor. The 2 pattern choices are not even worth mentioning.

As for class uniqueness, sorry but again ME1 is far better with all of the talents you have to choose from when you level up. Even after the Rogue VI mission you are given a choice of 2 specializations for your class. What did ME2 bring? Oh yea, at a certain point you can choose a new weapon to now be trained in or depending on your class a new weapon. Big whoop. Doing that just makes any non soldier class into a more soldier one. That’s not more customization its less.

Felfenix wrote...
6) Planet scanning actually gave planets a purpose and you could actually find things (side missions, rare minerals) out there via exploring. ME1 just had a bunch of planets with the same bland and ridiculously mountainy terrain, a couple enemies at the planet's objective, and a few minerals scattered about that served no purpose. ME1 was a lazily made game with lazy crappy sidequests/exploration/gear that served no purpose.

-Unfortunately the only thing to do with all the planets in ME2 is to waste time scanning them for obscene amounts of minerals to make the smallest of upgrades. With a larger galaxy with more star systems to explore in ME2 there should have been a lot more of those N7 side quests. In ME1 we got a mission that brought you to all but one of the star systems in the game.

At least the UNC planets in ME1 were more believable than all the perfectly breathable planets we got in ME2.

I could say the same about ME2 being lazily made with a lot less side quests, no exploration, and very limited amount of gear.

-The fact is that there are a lot of things that ME1 had that should have been fixed or enhanced to bring into ME2 but hey either got butchered or completely removed. That said there are some things that ME2 did do right with regards to weapons and equipment but they fell flat with a very limited amount of them to select from.

[Iakus]

Darth Drago wrote...

1. There was a decent story, but not a great one. It should have been a lot better when it came to the actual story about the Collectors and the Reapers. Ending the game just a few steps forward from how ME1 ended is not advancing anything

At best, there's two "half-stories" in the game:  Disappearing colonies/ Collectors and building the team.  Either of these could have been really good.  Unfortunately, not enough focus is placed on either story.  Plus it didn't mesh well with ME 1 at all.  Almost like they regretted making ME 1 and this  is the "real" first chapter.

Darth Drago wrote...


2. There were, I will admit a good amount of well developed characters when you look at your squad mates. A lot of others you meet could use a lot of work to expand on or just seem to be randomly added for no reason like the Batarians you meet the first time you enter Afterlife. All the cameo appearances were weak at best and set up way to conveniently to be in your way as you walked through a location.

I'd go as far as say the squadmates were interesting, though "well developed' is stretching it.  The only time we really get into their history and motivation is in their loyalty missions.  Otherwise they really don't react much to anything or anyone escept Shepard, which doesn't leave a lot of room for development. 

Tali is the only real exception I can think of, as she seems to have something to say whenever quarians enter the picture.

Garrus i think actually lost development, as I was having "Dr Saleon" flashbacks throughout his loyalty quest. (though I will admit this mission actually played out better)

Modifié par iakus, 27 juin 2010 - 05:12 .