10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

javierabegazo wrote...

Can someone please explain how making combat tighter, and more reactive controls turn a game into "cheep eazy shooter" ?


Anyone who i've seen gripe about ME2 has a 50% chance of including that in their "argument"

I'm pretty neutral when it comes to the combat mechanics.  There's stuff in there i would change, but most of my gripes come from the lack of "modibility" of weapons and overall lack of customization options in Shepard.

I suspect that a fair number of claims that ME 2 is a"cheap shooter" is that while combat has clearly been seriously worked over, the story was seriously lacking.  To the point where it ME 2 seems to have been written by an entirely different writing team who worked off of notes left by the first team and have no firsthand experience with the ME universe (note to everyone:  I said seems, not was this is an opinion here)  So all that's left is running up one corridor and down the other blasting away at mercs to hire another merc (or solve someone's family crisis which has been simmering for years, decades or centuries and only now is a real distraction)

Like I've said:

Good gameplay +bad story=boring game

mediocre gameplay +good story= game I'll keep coming back to

good gameplay + good stroy=  I'll wear out the disk playing it,

[Iakus]

[quote]Sleepicub09 wrote...

[/quote]how is the story bad, I can understand that it has it's plotholes, but bad?[/quote]

For me, it comes down to three broad reasons:

1) Sequel  The story effectively severs you from the events that took place in the first game.  Consequences for anything you did are minimal at best.  Fate of the Council, human Councilor, who lived and who died on Virmire, love interest, if any.  None of it matters.  Granted this simplifies things for plotting out the story for ME3, but I really think they overdid it.    Take the word "Reaper" out of the game and you have a completely standalone game

2) Collectors.  They had the potential to be a really cool villain group.  A mysterious, half-legendary group of highly advanced aliens who have taken an interest in humans.   But nothing was done with them.  Even the big revelation about them had no real impact, in dialogue or gameplay.  In the end, they were just another group to shoot at, along with all the mercs.

3) the Squad.  Supposedly the entire point of the game was "build a squad and earn it's loyalty" But these people you pick up don't act like a squad.  Or a team of any sort  They barely acknowledge each others presence.  They only develop a personalilty while doing their loyalty mission, and only for the duration of that mission.  In effect, they don't really grow or change.  If the game is supposed to be about them, We need to see them as something other than windup toys.

That's what I think, anyway

[Iakus]

Revan312 wrote...


After playing both games back to back like this, I have to say the atmosphere of both titles is so drastically different it's startling. I felt like I was in a Michael Bay film in ME2 whereas in ME1 it felt more like a Blade Runner or Star Trek. ME1 is much more reserved and clinical which imo worked extremely well. The music, the lighting and the dialogue was all dystopian under the surface but utopian to the naked eye. It was complex and layered, an onion of codex entries and side conversations that revealed how fragmented and aloof the galactic community had become since the discovery of the citadel.

ME2 threw that out the window for quote unquote "grittiness" and lead the player down a very familiar path in media involving bombastic characters and over the top action that just didn't seem to fit with the previous games lore. I really liked the subdued and low-key universe of ME1 and was expecting a pretty direct continuation of that concerning the sequel.

QFT.

The sequel to A New Hope is The Empire Strikes Back.  Not Lethal Weapon 2

Modifié par iakus, 03 juillet 2010 - 12:38 .

[Spornicus]

I had a great time playing ME2. They seemed to streamline a lot of the problems from ME1, and I personally found the story interesting and engaging.

[Max Legend]

@Revan312:So ME2 features a hopeless idiot hooking up with the prettiest girl,US marines,quasipatriotism,overused slow-mo,Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery?



J/K J/K



Sorry you feel this way about the game.Personally I dont feel dissapointed about the story of ME2-well only thing i am dissapointed is some obvious plot holes and how short the main story is.

[SithLordExarKun]

Darth Drago wrote...




-AI for everyone is not much of an improvement over ME1. Instead of being rushed by everyone when you enter a room (mostly seen in the UNC quests) you get enemies that have a single combat program. Not once have I seen any opponent run out of ammo or switch weapons either.

 

You DO know that even in great shooters were they have excellent AI, the AI doesn't switch weapons either? How the hell does this make it bad AI?

[Jaron Oberyn]

iakus wrote...

2) Collectors.  They had the potential to be a really cool villain group.  A mysterious, half-legendary group of highly advanced aliens who have taken an interest in humans.   But nothing was done with them.  Even the big revelation about them had no real impact, in dialogue or gameplay.  In the end, they were just another group to shoot at, along with all the mercs.

3) the Squad.  Supposedly the entire point of the game was "build a squad and earn it's loyalty" But these people you pick up don't act like a squad.  Or a team of any sort  They barely acknowledge each others presence.  They only develop a personalilty while doing their loyalty mission, and only for the duration of that mission.  In effect, they don't really grow or change.  If the game is supposed to be about them, We need to see them as something other than windup toys.

That's what I think, anyway

The truth.

 -Polite

[Lumikki]

About 10-20 years ago the ability build games where alot different than now.

One most important difference is visuality, sound/voice and impression. This mean todays modern games starts to become closer and closer to interactive movie. In past the important part wasn't the graphics or sound or impression, because it could not even be achieve in those days. So, the style of games where alot different. This also caused that game had to be created sertain ways, because other ways it could not be intresting enough.

My point is that todays style and old style doesn't allways mix well, because old style can break the impression what newer technology allows to achieve in games. Exampe good game atmosphere and impression can easyly broken by download screenies, character sheet number assiments and so on..

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juillet 2010 - 04:23 .

[Terror_K]

javierabegazo wrote...

Thanks slimgrin,

Sometimes i think people lump the tighter controls of combat in with all the flaws of ME2.
ME2 has ALOT of flaws, but i really don't think combat is one of them. Perhaps it's too intense of a game for the more traditional RPG players, but the Mass Effect series was always intended to be this kind of shooter combat. It's what makes Mass Effect incredibly unique, marrying the RPG style narrative with the action of a shooter game. As much as you may dislike ME2, and despite all the claims of ME2 being a "shooter clone", try and point out to a game that is as dynamically narrative as ME2, and has a combat system exactly like ME2.

It's only a flaw where it links in with the lack of RPG factors and messes with established lore (e.g. the thermal clip system. biotics being so ineffective suddenly, etc.). Beyond that, while the combat is fairly solid and tighter, it's rather generic and repetitive. Run until you find waist-high cover, get "ambushed" by enemies, take them out, find next lot of waist-high cover or proceed to next cutscene, rinse and repeat. I'm not saying the combat is bad, but it's just not used to its full potential and personally I find it rather tedious, which is why I still play ME1 more and often find myself stopping partway through ME2 playthroughs from boredom most of the time and then almost forcing myself to finish them.

RPGs with good story rarely do that to me, even grindy ones, since I'm keen to see the alternatives and where things go... but with ME2 it just isn't enough because the combat it just dull and there aren't enough RPG elements to make me care about it because I feel it barely effects a thing and I never feel like it was be building a character right and giving them the right gear, etc. that is really effecting things. Everything is just so linear and the same every single time gameplay wise, it just bores me to tears.

Pure TPS games like Gears of War just do a better job, because at least they tend to change things up a little combat-wise and integrate puzzles and alternatives within the combat itself. ME2 fails to do this, with the closest thing to it being Haelstrom with the intense sun harming your shields adding another dimension. The rest is pretty much the same over and over and over and over, and this is even on multiple playthroughs, and isn't helped by the fact that all the weapons and items are always in the same places and that you can get every upgrade without trade-off for them.

I guess overall what I'm saying is that as tight as ME2's combat is, its relation to the other factors in the game let it down, IMO. It's a bit like having a smart, successful student sitting in the middle of a classroom and being effected by every other kid around him in each compass direction teasing him, throwing things at him and distracting him from working properly.

even IF you were to take out all the rpg elements ME1 had, you STILL have an amazing driven storyline, and narrative, everything fully voiced, great CG acting, where you can tell an emotion by how a character is looking

And then you'd just have a story-driven shooter, which may be fine as a stand-alone game with a new IP, but isn't a good sequel for a game that's supposed to be an RPG for the most part. Or at least was initially. Yes, yes... I know it's a hybrid, but the original game was always touted as being an "action RPG" and the term "shooter" was never really applied from the devs until ME2's marketing began. The game was intended to be an RPG with shooter combat, not a shooter with some RPG elements.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

It's only a flaw where it links in with the lack of RPG factors and messes with established lore (e.g. the thermal clip system. biotics being so ineffective suddenly, etc.). Beyond that, while the combat is fairly solid and tighter, it's rather generic and repetitive. Run until you find waist-high cover, get "ambushed" by enemies, take them out, find next lot of waist-high cover or proceed to next cutscene, rinse and repeat.

This is every single shooter ever created, mixed in with the (groan) occassional vehicle section. The 'campaign' mode of every shooter is incredibly unvariable, repeatitive and - quite honestly - boring. But that's not what the 'big names' are known for, their known for their multiplayer.

Honestly, the most fun I've had singleplayer in an FPS this gen has been the Halo series. The levels are usually presented in such a large fashion to provide a certain degree of open-ended gameplay, and it is pretty funny seeing how many (often idiotic) ways you can accomplish a goal.

Terror_K wrote...

And then you'd just have a story-driven shooter, which may be fine as a stand-alone game with a new IP, but isn't a good sequel for a game that's supposed to be an RPG for the most part...

There are many different RPG factors that create a Bioware game, and combat isn't the only one. Mass Effect 2 still has plenty to seperate it from being your 'standard shooter'.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 03 juillet 2010 - 07:31 .

[Fraevar]

Revan312 wrote...

After playing both games back to back like this, I have to say the atmosphere of both titles is so drastically different it's startling. I felt like I was in a Michael Bay film in ME2 whereas in ME1 it felt more like a Blade Runner or Star Trek. ME1 is much more reserved and clinical which imo worked extremely well. The music, the lighting and the dialogue was all dystopian under the surface but utopian to the naked eye. It was complex and layered, an onion of codex entries and side conversations that revealed how fragmented and aloof the galactic community had become since the discovery of the citadel.

Dude, get out of my head! But yes, a very accurate assessment and the reason for my own disappointment with ME2. BioWare kept saying that they were doing this like Empire Strikes Back and what they delivered was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. There is no overall connection beyond the bad guys still being the Reapers out in darkspace and Shepard being the one who has to try and stop their nefarious plot, simply because the whole opening of ME2 is one giant reset button.

Revan312 wrote...
Saren, love him or hate him, was at least an antagonist you could sink your teeth into but Harbinger? A completely flat and faceless enemy that only served to sling insults at you during a fight like a school yard bully. It just all felt so spin off to me and really if you look at the full story progression you could completely cut out this sequel and the plot would still make complete sense. ME1 moves directly into ME3 minus some squad mate and employment issues. You could simply preface ME3 with some short text segments about this game and you'd never need to play it. *shrug*

Gameplay wise I prefer ME1 but that's just my preference, I really don't play these games for the shooting aspects and I didn't have a problem with ME2 in that respect particularly. Though I will say I hope they don't revamp yet again and will instead concentrate on a coherent story and characters...

And in that first paragraph you have the real tragedy of ME2 from a narratological perspective. Sure you may find it a decent enough action/TPS game on its own but as the supposed second chapter it is just such a massive disappointment because of the disconnect from ME1. You're right - you don't really need ME2 for anything as it stands now, maybe the writers will surprise us for ME3, but only if they get over this timid notion that each game has to be standalone. It's unambitious to say the least and for all the PR spins about your choices making a difference, the reality is that they don't.

[KitsuneRommel]

jlewlotr wrote...

1. The star system exploration. I much preferred the exploration system in ME1, simply clicking on stars/planets and zipping to them, It felt more like you are at a holographic console pressing buttons. In ME2, you control a toy-sized Normandy, which, for me, makes the galaxy feel so much smaller, as if it actually takes the Normandy 3 seconds to fly between planets. The abstraction of the system in ME1 did not play with your mind's concept of the scale of the galaxy.

Which is quite funny considering what the usual complaints about ME2 are.

In ME1 your "exploration" consisted of moving the mouse cursor around. In ME2 you fly around in a starship.
In ME2 you had to buy fuel and probes. In ME1... never mind.
In ME1 you have a LOADING screen when you travelled to another system. In ME2 you don't.

If ME1 had had the ME2 system and vice versa you can bet people would have complained about it being dumbed down too. But to be fair I would have preferred the version they showed few years before ME1 launch.

5. In ME1, one of the most intense moments was when you had to decide whether Ashley or Kaiden dies.

Sacrifices only work if you care for the characters. I believe the impact would have been a lot greater if it had been between Tali and Garrus for example. The only time I didn't kill off Kaidan was when I played my femshep and romanced him.

6. I know everyone hated the elevators in ME1, but to be honest, I would rather have elevators than loading screens. At least the characters would sometimes engage in dialog, or there would be an news report of some sort.

The problem was that even when I took completely new squadmates with me to hear them talk I'd have to take an average of 2-3 elevator rides before they'd say anything. And basically hearing the squad banter is the only reason not to use mass transist. It got so annoying that I watched them on youtube instead.

[Vena_86]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

jlewlotr wrote...

1. The star system exploration. I much preferred the exploration system in ME1, simply clicking on stars/planets and zipping to them, It felt more like you are at a holographic console pressing buttons. In ME2, you control a toy-sized Normandy, which, for me, makes the galaxy feel so much smaller, as if it actually takes the Normandy 3 seconds to fly between planets. The abstraction of the system in ME1 did not play with your mind's concept of the scale of the galaxy.

Which is quite funny considering what the usual complaints about ME2 are.

In ME1 your "exploration" consisted of moving the mouse cursor around. In ME2 you fly around in a starship.
In ME2 you had to buy fuel and probes. In ME1... never mind.
In ME1 you have a LOADING screen when you travelled to another system. In ME2 you don't.

If ME1 had had the ME2 system and vice versa you can bet people would have complained about it being dumbed down too. But to be fair I would have preferred the version they showed few years before ME1 launch.

5. In ME1, one of the most intense moments was when you had to decide whether Ashley or Kaiden dies.

Sacrifices only work if you care for the characters. I believe the impact would have been a lot greater if it had been between Tali and Garrus for example. The only time I didn't kill off Kaidan was when I played my femshep and romanced him.

6. I know everyone hated the elevators in ME1, but to be honest, I would rather have elevators than loading screens. At least the characters would sometimes engage in dialog, or there would be an news report of some sort.

The problem was that even when I took completely new squadmates with me to hear them talk I'd have to take an average of 2-3 elevator rides before they'd say anything. And basically hearing the squad banter is the only reason not to use mass transist. It got so annoying that I watched them on youtube instead.

Universe exploration:
His argument is very valid. Controlling a toy Normandy in a simplified universe makes the universe feel small, and stripped down for the game. Moreover it adds nothing to the game. It isn't fun on any level but it has the negative effect of making no sense at all. It seems like a child book presentation of space travel. In ME1 you as the commander choose the destination and the ships computer/pilot flys you there. This makes more sense and makes the roleplaying feel more believable. At the same time the 3 seconds loading screen you see shows the ship flying instead of something unrealated to the situation. The only thing that ME2 added was that you have to care for fuel which actually makes sense.

Sacrifice:
Having to choose between Ashley and Kaiden was a smart choice by BioWare because these two should have some sympathy points with the player through the story, but not be such a big loss as exotic/intereasting characters such as Garrus or Tali. It was a good way of showing the intensity of the story without sacrificing essential characters.

Elevators:
Party banter was not the only thing they were good for. The whole basic concept of elevators was to have fluent transitions between levels and make the world/universe you play in feel large and connected and not just like "game-levels". There is a good reason why so many developers try to build open worlds with as little loading screens as possible.
Obvious solutions for improving elevator rides would be
-improving loading efficiency on consoles(which ME2 even did to an extend)
-more party banter and more news reports, includuing things that are not related to shepard (a huge universe with billions of individuals in the intergalactic community should have many news worthy things going on)
Scrapping a smart concept and replace it with the old loading screen technique can only be summarized with one "word": DERP!

Except for the sacrifice part, these things remind me so much of one of the biggest problems with ME2. It does not feel like a scifi experience anymore. I feels like a game with a fictional setting. There are just so many things that make no sense. Its the way the normandy is handled, its the planet scanning which made a lot more sense in ME1 where you as the commander only have to choose the planet to be scanned and the computer does the rest, includuing mining. Its the drinking through helmets and other helmet inconsistencies. Its planets at the edge of a solar system with earth like atmosphears. Its breathing masks and exposed skin in open space or other hazardous environments. Science fiction works best when it is believeable, like it could actually happen. ME2 went several big steps in the wrong direction for that matter. It is always details that seperated short lived entertainment from experiences which you can really dive into.
Then there are things like loading screens and mission complete screens that constantly remind you that you are playing a game. The first game was developed for people who appreaciate a believable science fiction experience with an atmosphear similar to classics like blade runner or the old star trek movies. This has been stated by the developers them selfs. The second game seems to be developed for teenagers who appreciate nothing more than MICHAEL BAY EXPLOSIONS! Logic mistakes? Inconsistencies? Believable atmosphear? Nothing matters as long as there is a cool presentation, that suger coats the hollow cake. The only thing thats missing is the silhouette of a helicopter flying infront of a sunset. But there is always ME3...

[Max Legend]

@Vena_86:Why the hell are you insulting me?So if I love the second game makes me a fan of Michael*explosion quasipatriotic slow-mo*Bay?Kid,I know how to distinguish quality from trash and utter bull****,and I can tell you ME2 is 742942394623894 times better than any of his utter bull**** films and well 90% of films released for the last 2 years.



Side note:I'm amazed how people believe ME is a pinnacle of Nirvana perfection/cosmic awesomeness.Down to earth:It's still a game and as a game it still goes by the simple rule of what a game must be:to have fun.The ME games are nothing more than games and yes they do offer good fun.

[ChuckNorris18]

@Vena_86:
You shouldn't blame Bioware for the removal of elevator sequences, WE are the people that complained about it to the point where it seemed like it caused the game to crash, same thing with the galaxy map, I heard that complaint very often on the old ME boards. They took our complaints into consideration and thought of new ways of doing things, while you may not agree with the direction they took somethings in, you have to give them credit for listening to their fans. I'm sure they'll listen to the complaints that happen the most often and try to work on those again.

Modifié par ChuckNorris18, 03 juillet 2010 - 02:12 .

[bjdbwea]

Vena_86 wrote...

Universe exploration:
His argument is very valid. Controlling a toy Normandy in a simplified universe makes the universe feel small, and stripped down for the game. Moreover it adds nothing to the game. It isn't fun on any level but it has the negative effect of making no sense at all. It seems like a child book presentation of space travel. In ME1 you as the commander choose the destination and the ships computer/pilot flys you there. This makes more sense and makes the roleplaying feel more believable. At the same time the 3 seconds loading screen you see shows the ship flying instead of something unrealated to the situation. The only thing that ME2 added was that you have to care for fuel which actually makes sense.

But not even that was done properly. What happens if you run out of fuel? Nothing. You are conveniently teleported to a star system and can refuel. What more is such a system than a small annoyance? Granted, a game-over screen would probably be over the top. But if you implement such a fuel system, shouldn't it have some kind of impact? Otherwise, better spend the development resources on something else. It adds no fun, and certainly no atmosphere, anyway.

Vena_86 wrote...

Sacrifice:
Having to choose between Ashley and Kaiden was a smart choice by BioWare because these two should have some sympathy points with the player through the story, but not be such a big loss as exotic/intereasting characters such as Garrus or Tali. It was a good way of showing the intensity of the story without sacrificing essential characters.

I disagree with this sentiment. For me, the choice between Ashley and Kaidan was much more difficult than a choice between Tali and Garrus could ever be. But of course unlike some, I never had much interest let alone fascination with those two characters.

Vena_86 wrote...

Elevators:
Party banter was not the only thing they were good for. The whole basic concept of elevators was to have fluent transitions between levels and make the world/universe you play in feel large and connected and not just like "game-levels". There is a good reason why so many developers try to build open worlds with as little loading screens as possible.

I liked the elevators. They made it feel much more like a real world and less like a "streamlined" game.

[Lusitanum]

tonnactus wrote...

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

I mean overall ME2 is a better experience when compared to ME1 even though there is quite a large list of things that I see wrong with it.

But if Mass Effect 2 is the better experience, how the first game could encourage you to play it again and the game with the better experience fail to do that?

Because it still does? If you don't feel encouraged to do it, then that's your opinion, but don't put a label on the game just because of that.

I'm still not done with ME2, there's still a lot of game in it, paths to choose and things to try out. And, as someone once put it: "I have about 6 different saves from ME1 to play ME2. Now, by the time ME3, I'm probably going to have 50 different saves to start that game with."

[KitsuneRommel]

Vena_86 wrote...

Universe exploration:
His argument is very valid. Controlling a toy Normandy in a simplified universe makes the universe feel small, and stripped down for the game. Moreover it adds nothing to the game. It isn't fun on any level but it has the negative effect of making no sense at all. It seems like a child book presentation of space travel. In ME1 you as the commander choose the destination and the ships computer/pilot flys you there. This makes more sense and makes the roleplaying feel more believable.

The same can be said about the Mako. Simplified planets, tiny land area, no fun terrain, carbon copy buildings and why are YOU driving the vehicle. If it had worked like being a tank commander in Operation Flashpoint it would've made more sense.

[Zulu_DFA]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

In ME1 your "exploration" consisted of moving the mouse cursor around. In ME2 you fly around in a starship.
In ME2 you had to buy fuel and probes. In ME1... never mind.
In ME1 you have a LOADING screen when you travelled to another system. In ME2 you don't.

In ME1 the exploration was mostly associated with the Mako. In ME2 there is no exploration. Even with the bastardish Hammerhead you can "explore" the same corridor-style levels, as during main and N7 missions.

As for flying the Normandy around and buing fuel it's nonsensical (it's Joker's job) and pointless (unless you're a fan of the old school RPGs, "where you had to remember to drink water, and it took real time to fly somewhere..."). It's just unnecessarily an annoyingly extends the time necessary to go from point a to point be.Just like the elevators in ME1 (only the elvators made sense in-game and a olt of interesting things happened there).

KitsuneRommel wrote...

5. In ME1, one of the most intense moments was when you had to decide whether Ashley or Kaiden dies.

Sacrifices only work if you care for the characters. I believe the impact would have been a lot greater if it had been between Tali and Garrus for example. The only time I didn't kill off Kaidan was when I played my femshep and romanced him.

And how BioWare dared to call the final level of ME2 a "suicide mission" when not even one Virmire-like choice was included there?

KitsuneRommel wrote...

6. I know everyone hated the elevators in ME1, but to be honest, I would rather have elevators than loading screens. At least the characters would sometimes engage in dialog, or there would be an news report of some sort.

The problem was that even when I took completely new squadmates with me to hear them talk I'd have to take an average of 2-3 elevator rides before they'd say anything. And basically hearing the squad banter is the only reason not to use mass transist. It got so annoying that I watched them on youtube instead.

I don't miss the elevators much, as the news terminals and loudspeakers are plentiful on the hub worlds. As for the "squad banter", it was taken out due to the number of companions. In ME1 there were 15 possible pairs of squadmates. In ME2 there are 45 possible combinations (66 with Zaeed and Kasumi). Related poll here.

On another note: the loading screens were better in ME1, only there were too few of them.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 juillet 2010 - 07:34 .

[Zulu_DFA]

KitsuneRommel wrote...
why are YOU driving the vehicle. If it had worked like being a tank commander in Operation Flashpoint it would've made more sense.

Agreed. The Mako driver would make a lot of sense in-game, especially since somebody has to take her back to the Normandy in situations like on Therum. Could solve the out-of-game problem with the people who can't learn to drive her. But using visor to sight on the enemies and blast them to hell makes sense, a lot more sense than the Hammerhead's pew-pew with rockets.

[Lusitanum]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In ME1 the exploration was mostly associated with the Mako. In ME2 there is no exploration. Even with the bastardish Hammerhead you can "explore" the same corridor-style levels, as during main and N7 missions.

"Exploring" bland and uninteressting worlds isn't worth it either if they're bland and uninteressting. If you just give me a new kind of desert every time I land on a new planet with just a different paint job (and slap in a god-awful vehicle to boot), then it's not exploring, it's a chore.

Though Bioware seem to be starting to understand that, now that Overlord came out and gave us vehicle section in a planet that we actually wanted to explore. I don't recall in ME1 saying anything like "wow, this place looks gorgeous! I wonder if I can get to that river... "

Unfortunately, I couldn't, and that actually made me sad.

Unlike in ME1 where every planet was an exercise in endurace to boredom.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

As for flying the Normandy around and buing fuel it's nonsensical (it's Joker's job) and pointless (unless you're a fan of the old school RPGs, "where you had to remember to drink water, and it took real time to fly somewhere..."). It's just unnecessarily an annoyingly extends the time necessary to go from point a to point be.Just like the elevators in ME1 (only the elvators made sense in-game and a olt of interesting things happened there).

I also never really did get what was the point on giving you a fuel system. It adds nothing to the game, it's just another thing that you have to manage, it forces you to backtrack almost every time you try to go somewhere because you spent half of your fuel just getting somewhere and, hence, cuts on your willingness to explore!

Kind of like the elevators, only it's faster and it doesn't make me pull up a book to entertain myself while I play the game. (sorry, I just couldn't agree with you on that last one :happy: )

Zulu_DFA wrote...

And how BioWare dared to call the final level of ME2 a "suicide mission" when not even one Virmire-like choice was included there?

Because people could die? Including your own character? Only this time, characters that you did care could die given your decisions, instead of just being a dumping ground for getting rid of the two least likable characters in the whole game.

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Agreed. The Mako driver would make a lot of
sense in-game, especially since somebody has to take her back to the
Normandy in situations like on Therum. Could solve the out-of-game
problem with the people who can't learn to drive her. But using visor to
sight on the enemies and blast them to hell makes sense, a lot more
sense than the Hammerhead's pew-pew with rockets.

BTW,
what sense did it make that you could only shoot in certain angles on
the Mako when you had the visor sights on?

[Chuvvy]

bjdbwea wrote...
I disagree with this sentiment. For me, the choice between Ashley and Kaidan was much more difficult than a choice between Tali and Garrus could ever be. But of course unlike some, I never had much interest let alone fascination with those two characters.

Tali or Garrus would be easy. I hate Tali so much. Legion or Wrex? I'd be sitting there for an hour at least.

[Christmas Ape]

So, 277 pages.



Get anywhere yet, or is the readjustment of game priorities, subjective preferences for one mode over another, and the inclusion of numerically more content being "less content" still the fault of shooter fans everywhere who of course, as a uniform and homogeneous group, can barely tie their shoes or read a sentence?

[Vena_86]

Max Legend wrote...

@Vena_86:Why the hell are you insulting me?So if I love the second game makes me a fan of Michael*explosion quasipatriotic slow-mo*Bay?Kid,I know how to distinguish quality from trash and utter bull****,and I can tell you ME2 is 742942394623894 times better than any of his utter bull**** films and well 90% of films released for the last 2 years.

Side note:I'm amazed how people believe ME is a pinnacle of Nirvana perfection/cosmic awesomeness.Down to earth:It's still a game and as a game it still goes by the simple rule of what a game must be:to have fun.The ME games are nothing more than games and yes they do offer good fun.

Insulting you? I don`t even know who you are. I said ME2 goes that direction where as ME1 started with another direction.
And I never said ME1 is the pinnacle of perfection blablabla. I am very aware of Mass Effects flaws. Actually you insult me by putting words into my mouth and exaggerate what i say.