10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

GodEmperor0956 wrote...

The major disappointment i have with me2 is that 80% is about the characters while 20% is about the story and me2 didn't further the plot at all in my opinion.

In ME1 it was about under 20% of "main" story and 80% of something else. (Meaning missions not main story related).

Yes, I agree there was too little main story in BOTH ME1 and ME2.

My point is that if you people complain about lack of main story missions, then do it fair and complain both Mass Effect games.

[lazuli]

Orchomene wrote...

On the other hand, DAO has 9 NPCs (one is a dog, so you can remove it) without counting DLC. Kotor 2 has twelve NPCs (two couples are mutually exclusives so you have ten NPCs in one playthrough). Both games have a high NPC interaction system with one game being five year old and fully voiced (for NPC interactions).
So ME2 having ten NPCs (with two more in DLC) and an emphasis on character interactions (character driven game) is not well done at this level. I don't think it's the number of NPCs the problem, I think this is the effort put into it. ME2 remains a cheap game : cheap story, cheap equipment, cheap gameplay system (TPS without originality), cheap engine (same as ME1, UE). After ME1, the changes done in ME2 didn't require a lot of effort, most is just milking the dev done in ME1 and modify the gameplay to be closer of the one adapted to the engine. In the end, even after the reviews praising this game so high (95-100% and ME1 inferior to this), the sells remain inferior of the ME1 sells as per VGChartz estimations :
http://www.vgchartz....ame=mass effect

I would argue that neither of us knows the industry and its ins and outs well enough to make sweeping statements like this.

[Orchomene]

I agree I don't know the video game industry, just a bit of the services software industry (I had been working for three years in services development and maintenance). Yet, we can have a look at the cost of development and its evolution :

http://www.escapistm...ryone-Except-Me



I'm not sure that the salaries of the developers and designers have followed those evolutions thus I imagine that the advertisement, voice acting, graphics, special effects and things like that take a big part of the budget. Of course, I can be wrong doing those assumptions. Yet, even if games being five or ten year old are a little less shiny, there was not less depth story-wise.



About the engine, ME2 uses UE 3.

http://en.wikipedia....al_Engine_games

[Zulu_DFA]

Lumikki wrote...

GodEmperor0956 wrote...

The major disappointment i have with me2 is that 80% is about the characters while 20% is about the story and me2 didn't further the plot at all in my opinion.

In ME1 it was about under 20% of "main" story and 80% of something else. (Meaning missions not main story related).

Yes, I agree there was too little main story in BOTH ME1 and ME2.

My point is that if you people complain about lack of main story missions, then do it fair and complain both Mass Effect games.

ME1 main plot: non-linear (four middle "chapters" of it you could replay in 12 different orders), felt like collecting pieces of a puzzle.

ME2 main plot: linear, forced on the player, felt like executing TIM's orders with him doing all the thinking.

Therefore ME2 plot is not what most people would expect from an RPG. Personally I am OK with that. But I am not OK with ME2 plot being completely predictable, cliche, and ending up in a bunch of self-evident plotholes. ME1 plot had holes too, but they were not that obvious and maybe they are not plotholes at all (but rather somthing that's going to overarch into ME3)... ME2 holes are ofthen the result of poor artistic solutions, "fluent shooter gameplay" focus, and general policy shift from making sense to "fleshing out coolness".

The more coolness is fleshed out, the more sense is flushed out. That should be a good phrase to summarize the dissapointment with Mass Effect 2.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

GodEmperor0956 wrote...

The major disappointment i have with me2 is that 80% is about the characters while 20% is about the story and me2 didn't further the plot at all in my opinion.

In ME1 it was about under 20% of "main" story and 80% of something else. (Meaning missions not main story related).

Yes, I agree there was too little main story in BOTH ME1 and ME2.

My point is that if you people complain about lack of main story missions, then do it fair and complain both Mass Effect games.

Uh... not really. Mass Effect's main missions were pretty much all centred on the main plot. Sure, there were a lot of sidequests and a lot of wandering around on planets in The Mako, but everything that was part of the main mission was linked to the main plot, as opposed to ME2's main plot regarding The Collectors being sidelined for companion quests all the time. The main difference is that in ME1 the focus of the main plot keeps shifting and changing as you progress and uncover more. ME2 has a somewhat pre-defined structure whereby as soon as TIM outlines what's ahead of you you pretty much know what's going on and just carry out your task. ME1 is more about trying to find out what's ahead of you and uncovering things. At the start of ME2 you know that the end involves a Suicide Mission. At the start of ME1 you have no idea where it's going to end up.

[Iakus]

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

 The development isn't only present in the loyalty missions but everytime you talk to them when new dialogues are availible, other than that i agree that they needed more connection to the plot, but as i said they focused much more on the characters than the actual plot.

[/quote]

True there is development in the dialogue, though that was present in ME 1 as well (whether it was done as well is debatable)  But I was referring to development in other missions, be it main questline missions or other characters' recruitment/loyalty ones.  I could not believe how passive some of the characters can be towards what's happening, given what kind of people they are supposed to be.

quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

I wanted them to continue more on the reaper plot, the little revelation at the end did little to expand on the plot and should have had more discoveries as the plot advanced.

[/quote]

Agree 100%  The Reaper plot is what's supposed to be connecting the Mass Effect Trilogy.  This game had us spinning our wheels in that regard.  Makes me wonder why they bothered with a trilogy. 

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Uh... not really. Mass Effect's main missions were pretty much all centred on the main plot. Sure, there were a lot of sidequests and a lot of wandering around on planets in The Mako, but everything that was part of the main mission was linked to the main plot, as opposed to ME2's main plot regarding The Collectors being sidelined for companion quests all the time. The main difference is that in ME1 the focus of the main plot keeps shifting and changing as you progress and uncover more. ME2 has a somewhat pre-defined structure whereby as soon as TIM outlines what's ahead of you you pretty much know what's going on and just carry out your task.

I'm sorry but you are wrong here. Most main side missions in ME1 and ME2 was all little related to main plot equal much. You know, exploring geth activity to find clues and recruiting squad memebrs to become stronger. Shifting happens in ME1 more because that was part of the story.  Both games shift alot in beging, but after sertain early missions, direction does become clear as what needs to be done.

ME1 is more about trying to find out what's ahead of you and uncovering things. At the start of ME2 you know that the end involves a Suicide Mission. At the start of ME1 you have no idea where it's going to end up.

You problems and assumptions is comming that you keep ignoring ME2 main story. What you say above is the difference in main stories. You do understand that what story is? In the Lord of the Rings did the hobbit has job to destroy the ring and how early of the story was this known? Story is not just the uncovering story, it can also be about journey in the story. You base you assumption like story has to be done this way and then make assumption that other game is bad because story isn't told the way you want. That has been the problem here all the time. People wanting they way, not what it is. Like every game has to be design how someone wants it to be. Are you sure everyone wants same as you?

I keep hearing this crap how good ME1 is and how bad ME2 is. That's 100% BS. Both games has they problem and major ones. Yes, ME1 storytelling was better than ME2 in my opinion, but that doesn't make ME2 bad game or ME1 good game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2010 - 06:31 .

[Xeranx]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Uh... not really. Mass Effect's main missions were pretty much all centred on the main plot. Sure, there were a lot of sidequests and a lot of wandering around on planets in The Mako, but everything that was part of the main mission was linked to the main plot, as opposed to ME2's main plot regarding The Collectors being sidelined for companion quests all the time. The main difference is that in ME1 the focus of the main plot keeps shifting and changing as you progress and uncover more. ME2 has a somewhat pre-defined structure whereby as soon as TIM outlines what's ahead of you you pretty much know what's going on and just carry out your task.

I'm sorry but you are wrong here. Most main side missions in ME1 and ME2 was all little related to main plot equal much. You know, exploring geth activity to find clues and recruiting squad memebrs to become stronger. Shifting happens in ME1 more because that was part of the story.  Both games shift alot in beging, but after sertain early missions, direction does become clear as what needs to be done.

Doing a geth mission is paramount because of your first introduction to the geth.  You met them on Eden Prime.  They have ravaged a colony and you don't know why until you are told of Saren.  You lose a squadmate to machines, gain a squadmate who has lost her entire squad due to machines,and  are attacked by husks that were once civilian colonists on the very world you stand.  And to the last part of that sentence, you know the husks were once colonists because you saw a couple of machines impale a barely alive civilian on a spike much like the spikes that held the husks that come after you later.

If I remember correctly, on every main side mission you go up against the geth.  They're more like your plot points.  They let you know that something of importance is/was/might be going on there that might interest you in your battle against Saren and later Sovereign.  It seems you're trying to diminish something that represents a highly likely important piece of a very large puzzle you're trying to solve in ME1.  

[Ravage1992]

I thought Mass Effect 2 was loads better than the first one, you know? Everything (in my opinion) is improved: the combat, the controls, graphics, more fleshed-out characters, all that good stuff... but if there is one thing which I will instantly STOP playing the game even if I just encounter them it's the guys with flamethrowers. 

The amount of frustration they cause is remarkable. It surprises me that people haven't talked about these guys. It's not about the damage they do; that's just fine. It's realistic because... well, they carry a flamethrower. But what breaks my BALLS about them is the overly long animation Shepard does when he's struck by this. It's realistic, yes, but the guy with the übergun just shoots a mere cloud of fire and four thousand years later Shepard is still doing the overacted animation of pain.

I swear, I'm playing the game a third time on Insanity now and I'm as careful as a brain surgeon. But when I encounter these guys, I'm just doomed. These guys just seem to pop out of nowhere and do more damage than any other enemy. If the entire game was filled with these enemies, the game would be virtually unbeatable.

I love the game, I'm longing for the next one, and hopefully not the last one, but if Bioware wants to do me any favor, it's just rediscussing this animation again. That's not much work is it, or is it? I don't expect from you to actually WORK on the ****ing problem, hah, what was I thinking of? Actually listening to your very own fans?

If only Bioware would shorten the animation a little so it gives me time to get back, at least, that would be fantastic. It would be such a big improvement for me that Bioware could repackage and resell the game at full price and it would be a totally different game for me, that's how big this problem is.

[SSV Enterprise]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

ME1 main plot: non-linear (four middle "chapters" of it you could replay in 12 different orders), felt like collecting pieces of a puzzle.

ME2 main plot: linear, forced on the player, felt like executing TIM's orders with him doing all the thinking.

Because it's not like you were told to go to Feros, Virmire, Noveria, and Therum.  Nor that you were able to do loyalty missions in whatever order you chose, which ends up with 144 different order combinations.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 28 juin 2010 - 09:55 .

[Xeranx]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

ME1 main plot: non-linear (four middle "chapters" of it you could replay in 12 different orders), felt like collecting pieces of a puzzle.

ME2 main plot: linear, forced on the player, felt like executing TIM's orders with him doing all the thinking.

Because it's not like you were told to go to Feros, Virmire, Noveria, and Therum.  Nor that you were able to do loyalty missions in whatever order you chose, which ends up with 144 different order combinations.

I'm going to chalk it up to the fact that a lot of people are upset at being a Cerberus agent.  Many have said that if you were asked to work with them for now it would be easier.  Shepard is an Alliance soldier.  If you were a soldier for your respective nation you wouldn't take kindly to being locked into working for another nation who happens to be at odds with your homeland unless your you were ordered to by a [insert official here] from your homeland.  I imagine it would be painful.

[FireEye]

I hesitate to participate in this thread, since I'm not much of a debator, but my $0.02:

I played Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 almost back to back just recently.  I played ME1 out of the bargain bin, and went out to buy ME2 as soon as I could afford it.  No nostalgia here, I am an unrepentant Mass Effect newbie.

ME1 was the most enjoyable game I've played in years.  It was epic.  It was self-contained.  I would have been happy just to have ME1 and play it over and over again.

ME2 disappointed me.  I can't really explain how.  It was a good game; I enjoyed playing it; but the more I think about it, the more it breaks down.  It was simply not as enjoyable as ME1.

Part of it was the story, which I felt was good but needed... tightening up or something, that I have trouble putting into words.  Part of it was the gameplay - I prefer ME1's system to ME2's system.  I preferred exploring planets with the Mako, and the insta-scan system; I preferred the old inventory system; I preferred the old skills system; the duck and cover of ME2 screwed me over, while the duck and cover of ME1 I was fine with; etc.

IMHO, ME2 with a couple of story changes with no changes to the ME1 system or just minor tweaking could have been a smooth continuation (and equal or better to the first game).  As it is, I'll probably play ME3 to see what the developers have in mind, but am just as likely to disavow all knowledge of what comes after ME1.

[lazuli]

Ravage1992 wrote...

I thought Mass Effect 2 was loads better than the first one, you know? Everything (in my opinion) is improved: the combat, the controls, graphics, more fleshed-out characters, all that good stuff... but if there is one thing which I will instantly STOP playing the game even if I just encounter them it's the guys with flamethrowers. 

The amount of frustration they cause is remarkable. It surprises me that people haven't talked about these guys. It's not about the damage they do; that's just fine. It's realistic because... well, they carry a flamethrower. But what breaks my BALLS about them is the overly long animation Shepard does when he's struck by this. It's realistic, yes, but the guy with the übergun just shoots a mere cloud of fire and four thousand years later Shepard is still doing the overacted animation of pain.

Pyros and Geth Destroyers are the enemies I take most seriously.  I treat them with the amount of respect you might treat a chainsaw wielding zombie in RE4.  "If that thing gets too close, I die."

That said, you do know that Overload destroys them instantly once their defenses are down, right?

[lazuli]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

ME1 main plot: non-linear (four middle "chapters" of it you could replay in 12 different orders), felt like collecting pieces of a puzzle.

ME2 main plot: linear, forced on the player, felt like executing TIM's orders with him doing all the thinking.

Because it's not like you were told to go to Feros, Virmire, Noveria, and Therum.  Nor that you were able to do loyalty missions in whatever order you chose, which ends up with 144 different order combinations.

I can't speak for Zulu_DFA, but I think he's only referring to the plot missions over which we have little to no control.

[Lumikki]

Xeranx wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I'm sorry but you are wrong here. Most main side missions in ME1 and ME2 was all little related to main plot equal much. You know, exploring geth activity to find clues and recruiting squad memebrs to become stronger. Shifting happens in ME1 more because that was part of the story.  Both games shift alot in beging, but after sertain early missions, direction does become clear as what needs to be done.

Doing a geth mission is paramount because of your first introduction to the geth.  You met them on Eden Prime.  They have ravaged a colony and you don't know why until you are told of Saren.  You lose a squadmate to machines, gain a squadmate who has lost her entire squad due to machines,and  are attacked by husks that were once civilian colonists on the very world you stand.  And to the last part of that sentence, you know the husks were once colonists because you saw a couple of machines impale a barely alive civilian on a spike much like the spikes that held the husks that come after you later.

If I remember correctly, on every main side mission you go up against the geth.  They're more like your plot points.  They let you know that something of importance is/was/might be going on there that might interest you in your battle against Saren and later Sovereign.  It seems you're trying to diminish something that represents a highly likely important piece of a very large puzzle you're trying to solve in ME1.  

I bolded for you,  where I was talking about ME1. After the word "and" in same sentense is about ME2. My point is that one way or other "many" main side missions was little connected to main plot in BOTH games.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2010 - 10:58 .

[tonnactus]

lazuli wrote...



Pyros and Geth Destroyers are the enemies I take most seriously.  I treat them with the amount of respect you might treat a chainsaw wielding zombie in RE4.  "If that thing gets too close, I die."

That said, you do know that Overload destroys them instantly once their defenses are down, right?

And incinerate and the arc projector too. The only pyro that is a real problem is that one behind the corner in the archangel mission. Mass Effect didnt have really hard enemies anyway.

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 juin 2010 - 10:59 .

[lazuli]

tonnactus wrote...

The only pyro that is a real problem is that one behind the corner in the archangel mission. Mass Effect didnt have really hard enemies anyway.

Oh that one.  I hate that one.  It doesn't help that the wall on the right is glitched and absorbs most companion powers.

[SSV Enterprise]

lazuli wrote...

I can't speak for Zulu_DFA, but I think he's only referring to the plot missions over which we have little to no control.

Loyalty missions are so central to the game that I consider them as important as the main plot.  If you're not going to consider squad recruitment/loyalty missions as part of the main plot, then you have to admit that ME2 is FAR superior over ME1 with regards to "side" missions.

[Lumikki]

lazuli wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

ME1 main plot: non-linear (four middle "chapters" of it you could replay in 12 different orders), felt like collecting pieces of a puzzle.

ME2 main plot: linear, forced on the player, felt like executing TIM's orders with him doing all the thinking.

Because it's not like you were told to go to Feros, Virmire, Noveria, and Therum.  Nor that you were able to do loyalty missions in whatever order you chose, which ends up with 144 different order combinations.

I can't speak for Zulu_DFA, but I think he's only referring to the plot missions over which we have little to no control.

I also assume Zulu_DFA is talking main missions. Oh my GOD this is miracle, you get 3 main missions at ones. This has to be BEST game ever. Give me break. You are forced to do them all anyway.

[Lumikki]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

lazuli wrote...

I can't speak for Zulu_DFA, but I think he's only referring to the plot missions over which we have little to no control.

Loyalty missions are so central to the game that I consider them as important as the main plot.  If you're not going to consider squad recruitment/loyalty missions as part of the main plot, then you have to admit that ME2 is FAR superior over ME1 with regards to "side" missions.

Loyalty missions are important in ME2, but they aren't  "all" forced to you. How ever, if we talk forced missions as what you have to do, then there is the four recruit missions, what is forced and you can choose what order you do them. (Mordin, Jack, Grunt and Garrus).

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2010 - 11:22 .

[lazuli]

Lumikki wrote...

Loyalty missions are important in ME2, but they aren't  "all" forced to you. How ever, if we talk forced missions as what you have to do, then there is the four recruit missions, what is forced and you can choose what order you do them. (Mordin, Jack, Grunt and Garrus).

To clarify, Lumikki, I agree that recruitment and loyalty missions are central to the plot of ME2.  Shepard needs a team, after all.  And, for the final mission to mean anything, we as players should care about Shepard's teammates, or at least feel something about them.

[smudboy]

lazuli wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Loyalty missions are important in ME2, but they aren't  "all" forced to you. How ever, if we talk forced missions as what you have to do, then there is the four recruit missions, what is forced and you can choose what order you do them. (Mordin, Jack, Grunt and Garrus).

To clarify, Lumikki, I agree that recruitment and loyalty missions are central to the plot of ME2.  Shepard needs a team, after all.  And, for the final mission to mean anything, we as players should care about Shepard's teammates, or at least feel something about them.

How was it clarified that Shepard needed a team?

For the mission to mean anything, we need to know wtf it is, and why everyone is doing what they're doing: we have no clue, and thus, don't care for these people if they die or not.  We only care to the point of being a "power gamer", one that does everything they can, but not for the characters themselves.

[SSV Enterprise]

smudboy wrote...

How was it clarified that Shepard needed a team?

"If this is a war, then I'll need an army.  Or a really good team."

[lazuli]

smudboy wrote...

How was it clarified that Shepard needed a team?

For the mission to mean anything, we need to know wtf it is, and why everyone is doing what they're doing: we have no clue, and thus, don't care for these people if they die or not.  We only care to the point of being a "power gamer", one that does everything they can, but not for the characters themselves.

I think you're using "we" when you should be using "I."

Aside from that, the Illusive Man makes it quite clear that he's sending Shepard out to face the unknown.  Shepard isn't supposed to know a lot about the Collectors.  He and his sources steadily piece clues together until they learn what the Collectors actually are and what their purpose is.

In this regard, it's not too different from ME1.  The council sends Shepard out with a checklist of places to visit in his quest to stop the enigmatic enemy.  But that's where the similarities end.  Because the Illusive Man knows less about the Collectors than the council did about Saren, the missions in ME2 don't really embody ME1's "chase down the mysterious villain" vibe.  Instead, Shepard needs to be prepared to face this vague threat.  So he builds a team.

What some people are calling the main plot missions (missions vs. Collectors) are basically all responses to sudden Collector action.  Shepard doesn't have the warning he did for most missions in ME1.

My assumption is that you know all of this already.  You just don't buy it as a suitable plot structure.