10273 réponses à ce sujet

[finnithe]

Darth Drago wrote...

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?

The problems you have listed are nowhere near that of Mass Effect 1's. I will however cede that the planet scanning mechanic is something that should be improved, and if that's not possible, taken away from the game.

Something like a lack of a helmet toggle is small compared to the gameplay problems Mass Effect 1 had. ME1 was simply too easy, and the overheating weapon mechanic became largely irrelevant with the right mods, leaving you to spam the trigger/mouse1 button as long as you felt was necessary. Similarly, the inventory system was also broken, but I wont go into that, since its been discussed to death on these forums.

Linearity is a very contentious point in games, but I'll try to address it anyways. First of all, you do know that all Bioware games follow a similar structure. In most if not all fheir games, you have several locations (or planets) that you must go to, recruiting support (armies in DA or party members in ME2) or just investigating threats, like you were in Mass Effect 1. Alongside this main plot structure you have the side quests which may or may not take place on the same planets, and requires some exploration to find (exploration of party member dialogues, of the galaxy in ME2/ME1). In this regard ME2 is almost identical to ME1.

If your point is that you must always recruit Garrus/Jack/Mordin/Grunt, fight through Horizon, then recruit Tali/Samara/Thane, somewhere during then do the Collector Ship mission and then go to the disabled Reaper, you are still wrong. It's my theory that this was not only the case, and it was only implemented since this would force a lot more disc switching for the 360 users.

EDIT: I forgot to address some points. You described not having enough credits in ME2 as a problem, but isn't that a problem in every RPG? Why are you evaluating ME2 different in this regard?

Similarly, you probably are talking about ME2's lack of inventory with the comment about moving to other extremes. How many guns are in the game right now? There are five assault rifles (if the Collector Assault Rifle is included),  three SMG's, four sniper rifles (again if the Incisor DLC is included), two pistols, several heavy weapons, and three shotguns. Presumably, with an Inventory system, Shepard or his teammates would be carrying every one of these weapons. Where are these weapons being stored? Shepard only seems to carry the weapons on his back. For the sake of my suspension of disbelief, it makes more sense to have weapon lockers scattered across levels. I will say that it was somewhat jarring that these weapon lockers stored the very weapons that I had on the Normandy, but I think I'd rather have that than carry all my other weapons by myself.

Darth Drago wrote...

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.

Please list the flaws you're talking about. 

Modifié par finnithe, 22 avril 2010 - 02:56 .

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

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.

But you're reasoning assumes there are people who are fans and people who aren't. That's not right. There are varying degrees of, for want of a better word, "fandomship". There are many strata of fans for example:

• People who aren't fans and didn't play ME because they were put off by elements like uncharted worlds.
• People who played ME1, but weren't going to pick up the sequel unless some elements were fixed.
• People who played ME1 and got sucked into the story and so would pick up the sequel no matter what.
• People, like me, who are obsessed by ME's universe and loved ME1 to death but definitly despite the elements we hated.
• People, like you, who loved every facet of ME1 and, I don't mean this in an unkind way, probably wouldn't be 100% happy with ME2 unless is had been exactly the same as ME1.

When designing a sequel, you have to decide which fans you're going to please to get the biggest audience. Every developer, from Blizzard to Valve, has at some point decided to ****** off the truly hardcore fans to get a bigger audience, it's smart business. The changes made in ME2 are only going to annoy the audience of fans such as you, and when it comes down to it, why does Bioware care? You're probably going to buy ME3 even if it is exactly the same as ME2.

[uberdowzen]

@ finnithe,



You're right, the people who didn't like ME2 do tend to focus on minor problems. ME1 was too easy at low difficulty, but I thought it was actually borderline impossible at the harder difficulties. And don't ask for flaws to be listed, you get in trouble for doing that.

[finnithe]

uberdowzen wrote...

@ finnithe,

You're right, the people who didn't like ME2 do tend to focus on minor problems. ME1 was too easy at low difficulty, but I thought it was actually borderline impossible at the harder difficulties. And don't ask for flaws to be listed, you get in trouble for doing that.

My point with ME1 was that it was too easy to "break" in terms of gameplay. Also, some enemies in ME1 were sort of cheap. The Rocket drones for example would one shot me sometimes, whereas every death I've experienced in ME2 I felt was my fault, either for not being cautious enough, or not reacting to a Harbringer projectile for example. 

[Darth Drago]

finnithe wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

@ finnithe,

You're right, the people who didn't like ME2 do tend to focus on minor problems. ME1 was too easy at low difficulty, but I thought it was actually borderline impossible at the harder difficulties. And don't ask for flaws to be listed, you get in trouble for doing that.

My point with ME1 was that it was too easy to "break" in terms of gameplay. Also, some enemies in ME1 were sort of cheap. The Rocket drones for example would one shot me sometimes, whereas every death I've experienced in ME2 I felt was my fault, either for not being cautious enough, or not reacting to a Harbringer projectile for example.

-Lol! Yea, you want to heed uberdowzen’s advice and not ask for a full list of flaws, you’ll be opening a can of worms with no bottom depending on who you ask. If you haven’t read through this thread that would be my best advise on seeing a lot of peoples views of flaws that ME2 has.

If you want I can note you with my list but it might take a few days since I have to dig up a lot of notes on it.

By the way it’s a lot of the little things that can make or break a game, movie or book. If you experience a lot of these little things that rub you in the wrong way it builds up by the time you get to the end of in this case a game. For me ME2 is packed with these little things that do rub me the wrong way.

Mass Effect 1 has its own bucket load of issues as well so its not the holy grail that some of you may think i hold it up to.

For me its not that I don’t like ME2 its because ME2 was rather a large let down to what it should have been. Its because I DO LOVE this franchise that I voice my gripes about what I think they (BioWare) messed up on.

[Cabob]

I really liked how ME1 handled the main missions. You get the first three, and then you tease more over time. I think ME2 tried to do the same thing (you get a character or two, advance with them, then get a new dossier from the Illusive Man) but it felt like it was on rails to me.



And no offense to any of the good writers at BioWare, but some of the dialogue felt stilted to me. A lot of people complained that in the first game Shepherd's dialogue didn't always match the conversation options very much. It never really bothered me in ME1, but ME2 definitely had some moments... such as the "you see this gun" comment to the batarians outside of Afterlife.

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

But you're reasoning assumes there are people who are fans and people who aren't. That's not right. There are varying degrees of, for want of a better word, "fandomship". There are many strata of fans for example:



# People who aren't fans and didn't play ME because they were put off by elements like uncharted worlds.

# People who played ME1, but weren't going to pick up the sequel unless some elements were fixed.

# People who played ME1 and got sucked into the story and so would pick up the sequel no matter what.

# People, like me, who are obsessed by ME's universe and loved ME1 to death but definitly despite the elements we hated.

# People, like you, who loved every facet of ME1 and, I don't mean this in an unkind way, probably wouldn't be 100% happy with ME2 unless is had been exactly the same as ME1.

When designing a sequel, you have to decide which fans you're going to please to get the biggest audience. Every developer, from Blizzard to Valve, has at some point decided to ****** off the truly hardcore fans to get a bigger audience, it's smart business. The changes made in ME2 are only going to annoy the audience of fans such as you, and when it comes down to it, why does Bioware care? You're probably going to buy ME3 even if it is exactly the same as ME2.

I didn't use the word fan for a very good reason. I didn't want to have the conversation disengrate with such a subjective term. Sort of like how you are trying to abuse the term in your dissection of my post.

I simply used the terms market and audience.

You do not know the strata I belong in and your attempt to shoehorn me into one that makes sense to you is utterly laughable.



The revamping and re-categorization for go after a new audience is not smart and not logical. It introduces new risks and problems, sort of like how the revamping of ME2 introduces a new set of issues that ME1 did not have without addressing the ones there.

Continue to use such subjective terms like hardcore to try and assist your poor reasoning in the matter.

Constant changes in a product to attract a new audience is detrimental to the established base. Doing it over and over, repeats the pattern of gaining some and losing some just to try and get more.

ME3 for me is not a sure buy; you should stop trying to sound like some idiotic EA lackey, me being into the franchise does not guarantee a sale. If ME3 is not a combination of ME2 and ME1, full of improvements, with a proper story I will not be buying.



You are receiving a bad education if you believe the ideology of EA in respect to business(they are horrible at it) or gaming(pretty bad as a whole).

[TJSolo]

gmartin40 wrote...

A whole thread to talk about a disappointment with a game that's sold several million copies...no.

It happens. The same happened to DAO , ME1, and pretty much ever other game that has an attached official website.
Because, quantity sold is not directly related to quality.

[DTKT]

You cant please everyone.



End thread.



!

[TJSolo]

gmartin40 wrote...

"...The key to failure is trying to please everybody."

That would be a ****** poor way to look at objective problems some players are having.
While game are not structure to please everyone there is still an attempt to please some. The problem a game has is still something the developers keep in mind and try to improve on.
Posters that don't talk about the problems or try and dismiss problems that are not relevant you, quickly lose sight of the bigger picture.
Bioware is looking for input and feedback about their products. Nothing but praise will bring about no improvement and stagnation.
If you have a few issues with a game it doesn't lessen the validity that someone else could have more issues.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

I didn't use the word fan for a very good reason. I didn't want to have the conversation disengrate with such a subjective term. Sort of like how you are trying to abuse the term in your dissection of my post.
I simply used the terms market and audience.
You do not know the strata I belong in and your attempt to shoehorn me into one that makes sense to you is utterly laughable.

The revamping and re-categorization for go after a new audience is not smart and not logical. It introduces new risks and problems, sort of like how the revamping of ME2 introduces a new set of issues that ME1 did not have without addressing the ones there.
Continue to use such subjective terms like hardcore to try and assist your poor reasoning in the matter.
Constant changes in a product to attract a new audience is detrimental to the established base. Doing it over and over, repeats the pattern of gaining some and losing some just to try and get more.
ME3 for me is not a sure buy; you should stop trying to sound like some idiotic EA lackey, me being into the franchise does not guarantee a sale. If ME3 is not a combination of ME2 and ME1, full of improvements, with a proper story I will not be buying.

You are receiving a bad education if you believe the ideology of EA in respect to business(they are horrible at it) or gaming(pretty bad as a whole).

Your argument reminds of the situation that occured with Fallout 3. The fans wanted the exact same game as F1 and F2, but Bethesda decided to make a game that'd appeal to more people. If you don't really change a game in sequels it just stagnates and nothing is gained.

So what Strata do you belong in? And don't give me some rubbish about not wanting to be sorted into a catergory, EA can't individually take each customer and decide what kind of game they want.

I don't want to be too critical here, but your arguing style does seem to involve you implying that anyone elses argument is ludicrous and just dismissing it. My points about different strata of fans was more trying to point out that sometimes developers choose to ****** off the people who really really loved the previous game to try and reach a broader audience. If you are just making games for the people who really liked the game, you're not expanding your audience, of anything it could shrink because you're just making the same game over and over again and people get bored.

How have the issues of ME1 had not been addressed? I can't think of any problems ME1 had that have not been fixed in ME2.

The part about changes are detrimental to the original base. That's true but if you end up with a bigger base than you started with, why wouldn't you do that. EA doesn't care who is giving them their money as long as they have more than before.

And how is EA horrible at business? If having huge amounts of money and making very successful products is bad business then we should be getting more of those bad business men to run the economy, they'd do a much better job then whoever is doing it at the moment.

I'm sorry I shoehorned you into a strata of fan. Please tell me what Mass Effect as a franchise means to you.

[uberdowzen]

Got around to reading TJSolo's link. I actually agree with quite a bit of what he has to say and think his views are a lot more balanced and sensible than some I've seen. I don't agree 100% with what he says (I don't think for example that the new power cooldown system is that great) but he does have some valid points and I like how he admits that while ME1 did do 1 or 2 things better on the whole ME2 is a better game.

Having read that, I'd now appreciate if TJSolo could read the forum I started: http://social.biowar...3/index/2129425

I'd like to see arguments to my points.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 22 avril 2010 - 06:13 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Darth Drago wrote...

-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.

First off, if there's no point to seeing the health of your teammates anymore then why not do away with it altogether then instead of reverting back to the ME1 HUD?  In fact, that shows how the ME1 HUD would now be even worse then wouldn't it?  Though if you are having problems with healing your teammates then you are not using the medigel upgrades, when they hit red you pull them back or focus on helping them, works fine for me.  The questionable AI was worse in ME1 and has no bearing on the HUD.  And as for it being plasted on your arse, it keeps it in your view better than in the bottom left of the screen, which when you're using a widescreen monitor like me is a pain. 

Second, I was talking from my personal opinion, which I stated in my original post when I mentioned it.  All of your complaints are personal preferences, not facts, just the same as my defense of it, I was merely showing that some of us like the new HUD better, if you can't accept that then it is your own problem.

Finally, it's the fecking HUD, as long as it does the job its fine, and it is easy to use unless you are unable to adapt to change for some reason.  My HUD comment was one single line in my original post, a post that was intended to move this thread away from the usual flaming, bashing and arguing and to a more constructive discussion, but instead you both just focused on the one single line where I disagree with you in order to continue flaming, bashing and hating, showing that no one here is actually interested in discussing how ME can go from here, but rather want to stroke their epeens.  Thanks for clarifying this for me, goodbye.

Minsc would be so disappointed with the lot of you, feel the gaze of his hamster upon you!  Yes Boo, I agree, this group could do with a swift kick in the morals.  This behaviour must not continue, feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 22 avril 2010 - 09:13 .

[Terror_K]

Well, to be honest, I personally found ME2's HUD to be one of the worst factors. I personally think its awful and that it DOESN'T do the job at all. To me its an ugly and confusing mess. As far as I'm concerned the ME1 HUD was fine, and its a classic case of something that was never broken being "fixed" (I actually never recall it being complained about in the first place by a fan ever.. one of the few things that wasn't in some way) for ME2, which is a common problem with the game overall. Also, I'm not a fan of the recent "minimalistic HUD" approach of recent games that tend to take the concept too far and should be more accurately be called "sub-minimalist HUDs" as far as I'm concerned. They've gone from showing the bare information to showing even less. And it doesn't help that what is shown is so badly designed.

[javierabegazo]

Reminder to keep your posts free of personal attacks/comments on a person's education please.

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...

Well, to be honest, I personally found ME2's HUD to be one of the worst factors. I personally think its awful and that it DOESN'T do the job at all. To me its an ugly and confusing mess. As far as I'm concerned the ME1 HUD was fine, and its a classic case of something that was never broken being "fixed" (I actually never recall it being complained about in the first place by a fan ever.. one of the few things that wasn't in some way) for ME2, which is a common problem with the game overall. Also, I'm not a fan of the recent "minimalistic HUD" approach of recent games that tend to take the concept too far and should be more accurately be called "sub-minimalist HUDs" as far as I'm concerned. They've gone from showing the bare information to showing even less. And it doesn't help that what is shown is so badly designed.

I have lost myself in your words but Boo thinks you are just ducky.

Onward!

[tonnactus]

finnithe wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

@ finnithe,

You're right, the people who didn't like ME2 do tend to focus on minor problems. ME1 was too easy at low difficulty, but I thought it was actually borderline impossible at the harder difficulties. And don't ask for flaws to be listed, you get in trouble for doing that.

My point with ME1 was that it was too easy to "break" in terms of gameplay. Also, some enemies in ME1 were sort of cheap. The Rocket drones for example would one shot me sometimes, whereas every death I've experienced in ME2 I felt was my fault, either for not being cautious enough, or not reacting to a Harbringer projectile for example. 

If the rocket drone oneshot you,it was you fault.Plain and simple.Its cheap that shepardt survive rockets now and enemie snipers dont exist anymore(they remove immunity for what??).Also Mass Effect 2 is full of bugs,especially when playing a vanguard.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 avril 2010 - 02:09 .

[FlintlockJazz]

tonnactus wrote...

If the rocket drone oneshot you,it was you fault.Plain and simple.Its cheap that shepardt survive rockets now and enemie snipers dont exist anymore(they remove immunity for what??).Also Mass Effect 2 is full of bugs,especially when playing a vanguard.

Boo does not trust this quote.  See how his nose twitches?  Something smells about this, and it is not stinky clouds from Boo's furry backside.

[Darth Drago]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

-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.

First off, if there's no point to seeing the health of your teammates anymore then why not do away with it altogether then instead of reverting back to the ME1 HUD? In fact, that shows how the ME1 HUD would now be even worse then wouldn't it? Though if you are having problems with healing your teammates then you are not using the medigel upgrades, when they hit red you pull them back or focus on helping them, works fine for me. The questionable AI was worse in ME1 and has no bearing on the HUD. And as for it being plasted on your arse, it keeps it in your view better than in the bottom left of the screen, which when you're using a widescreen monitor like me is a pain.

Second, I was talking from my personal opinion, which I stated in my original post when I mentioned it. All of your complaints are personal preferences, not facts, just the same as my defense of it, I was merely showing that some of us like the new HUD better, if you can't accept that then it is your own problem.

Finally, it's the fecking HUD, as long as it does the job its fine, and it is easy to use unless you are unable to adapt to change for some reason. My HUD comment was one single line in my original post, a post that was intended to move this thread away from the usual flaming, bashing and arguing and to a more constructive discussion, but instead you both just focused on the one single line where I disagree with you in order to continue flaming, bashing and hating, showing that no one here is actually interested in discussing how ME can go from here, but rather want to stroke their epeens. Thanks for clarifying this for me, goodbye.

-Both HUD’s in each game served a purpose for its game. In ME1 you had the ability to monitor your teams health and with a single push of the button heal them. ME2 I honestly don’t know why they even have a bar (or actually what its supposed to mean honestly) I do know that you cant heal them in combat at all. The best you can hope for is that the AI controlling them gives them the sense to get out of the way to heal themselves or die in a spot out of the main firefight so I can resurrect them without them getting killed seconds later.

-The AI isn’t all that better in ME2 on your squad mates actions n my experience. I have seen them many times stand up on top of crates to get shots off as well as go right into the enemy group. I have actually lost one more than once because they went so far away from where I was only to find him suddenly standing up after the battle next to the final guy I killed.

-The mini-map I do miss a lot especially considering you cant access any map on a lot of missions as simple option to have it on or off would have fixed this problem. Other Games have such options. 



-You mean this posting?

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
For example, would having some visible stats on the weapons really put out the pro-ME2 group that much? Would having similar stats on our armour? Would bringing back weapon modding on our guns? Would changing the HUD back to something closer to the ME1 one? Would getting rid of those mission complete screens and having your XP appear as you earned it in the bottom corner? Would they really complain about The Mako returning if the worlds you landed on with it were closer to the ones in the N7 missions? These are all really simple things that would together make a huge difference.

I suppose I could be classed as a member of the pro-ME2 group (though really I don't think of it as terms of groups or myself as having a 'side'), and not only would I have no problem with many (not all) of your suggestions but I would love many if not most of those features. They would have to make sure they did it like it was discussed earlier by yourself and others (can't remember if it was this thread or another, but it was the one where you showed a photoshopped image of the proposed screen), as the method used in ME1 was clunky and did indeed need alot of work imho.

Loved the mako, and would like its return in the main story quests as opposed to the dire hammerhead and its optional nature, driving through the collector ship is a must. Modding weapons, I can see them adding this now that they have nailed the weapon system for ME3. Changing the HUD back to ME1 would be wrong though I think, its too clunky and the new one is fine in my opinion, and the mission complete screens would work perfectly if they had optional xp for completing the mission in different ways that they could display the awards for.

ME2 has nailed the gameplay mechanics imho, now they can devote energies to adding things to it.

It’s the only one I found where you mention the HUD.

Maybe no one commented on anything else you said in it because the HUD part is really the only thing you mentioned that apparently people wanted to continue discussing. The Mission End Screen has been mentioned and a lot of people do not like it from what I recall. By the way the screenshot your refer to is from another thread, cant remember what one though.

I didn’t see one person “continue flaming, bashing and hating” on anything in regards to your postings. My comments are just my own opinions based on my game experiences, just like yours.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 22 avril 2010 - 02:33 .

[Sarevok Synder]

[/quote]

"Boo does not trust this quote.  See how his nose twitches?  Something smells about this, and it is not stinky clouds from Boo's furry backside."
[/quote]


Ranger, turn your rodent's gaze another direction! I will not be scrutinised as though by some ridiculous divining rod!


Now, back to the topic please.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 22 avril 2010 - 02:35 .

[tonnactus]

haberman13 wrote...

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,

Mass Effect is a console game.It was developed for the xbox and then ported to the pc.

[FlintlockJazz]

Darth Drago wrote...

-Both HUD’s in each game served a purpose for its game. In ME1 you had the ability to monitor your teams health and with a single push of the button heal them. ME2 I honestly don’t know why they even have a bar (or actually what its supposed to mean honestly) I do know that you cant heal them in combat at all. The best you can hope for is that the AI controlling them gives them the sense to get out of the way to heal themselves or die in a spot out of the main firefight so I can resurrect them without them getting killed seconds later.

-The AI isn’t all that better in ME2 on your squad mates actions n my experience. I have seen them many times stand up on top of crates to get shots off as well as go right into the enemy group. I have actually lost one more than once because they went so far away from where I was only to find him suddenly standing up after the battle next to the final guy I killed.

-The mini-map I do miss a lot especially considering you cant access any map on a lot of missions as simple option to have it on or off would have fixed this problem. Other Games have such options. 

-You mean this posting?
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1472797/25#2364571
It’s the only one I found where you mention the HUD.

Maybe no one commented on anything else you said in it because the HUD part is really the only thing you mentioned that apparently people wanted to continue discussing. The Mission End Screen has been mentioned and a lot of people do not like it from what I recall. By the way the screenshot your refer to is from another thread, cant remember what one though.

I didn’t see one person “continue flaming, bashing and hating” on anything in regards to your postings. My comments are just my own opinions based on my game experiences, just like yours.

I grow tired of yelling battle cries when fighting this mage, Boo will finish his eyeballs once and for all!

[FlintlockJazz]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
"Boo does not trust this quote.  See how his nose twitches?  Something smells about this, and it is not stinky clouds from Boo's furry backside."

Ranger, turn your rodent's gaze another direction! I will not be scrutinised as though by some ridiculous divining rod!


Now, back to the topic please.

Ah, we are all heroes; you and Boo and I.  Hamsters and Rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 22 avril 2010 - 02:38 .