10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...


Rushers do just that, home in on what seems like Shepard all the time. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a rusher seek any cover at all regardless of distance. Krogans and Mechs I could understand. I haven’t noticed myself but some have stated that Krogan chargers only use shotguns no matter the range.
 

Not only krogans.All shotgunner,including asari vanguards and even "asari commandos" use shotguns at all ranges. Its so dumb...
Even krogans used two weapons in the first game and cover at time to time.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lusitanum wrote...

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.

That's how the most planets in space look like. Like a barren wasteland. Sure, they could make more unique placeable objects like that big skull on Maji, more varied design of the underground bunkers and mines... That's the direction they should have worked in.

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.

Ha! So, it's still just corridors with fancy paint job on the walls? Knew it.

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

This was the feeling ME2 "jungle" planets instilled in me much faster than ME1 wastelands.

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

What "certain angles"? Maybe it's a confusion here just like about the ME1 hacking minigame, which was very much better on PC. On PC the Mako had 3 degrees of zoom. The first one gave you the view like you were sitting at the top of the turret, and it helped with driving. And the second and third ones offered the "visor view", similar to the sniper scope view, which made shooting very precise. If that wasn't the case with the X-Box version then I understand the Mako hate, and admit that the Hammerhead may look like an improvement to X-box users. But to me, the Hammerhead is an utterly dumbed down thing.

[Iakus]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

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.

I agree, making each game standalone is a cheap cop-out. 

This is why I think if Bioware had simply made the game about Cerberus saving an Alliance soldier from certain death to help them figth the servants of the Reapers in the Terminus Systems, it might have been a halfway decent game.  Well, if they actually gave it a stroy, that is.  Shepard's off looking for ways to defeat the Reapers wile Cerberus is fighting "the war at home".  They could have called it "Mass Effect:  The Hellhound" or something.

Modifié par iakus, 03 juillet 2010 - 05:14 .

[Dudeman315]

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.

Please clarify tighter controls of combat and I may be able to answer that from my view.

That last point almost sounds trollish--No 2 games anywhere have a combat system exactly like any other. Halo's is different than Halo 2. Change one billionth of a number and it is no longer exactly like the original.

@Siegdrifa
RPG implys numbers with the word "game".  Let's take Soccer/Footbol: # of teams, # of players, # of goals, # of minutes to play, # balls on the field, # of meters/ft to length of feild, Goal size, etc.  Games are about numbers to varying degrees.

[Orchomene]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
As for the "squad banter", it was taken out due to the number of companions. In ME1 there were 64 possible pairs of squadmates. In ME2 there are 1024 possible combinations (4096, nearly 5K! with Zaeed and Kasumi). Related poll here.

In DAO and Kotor 2, there are a lot of NPC too and a lot of interactions. So that's not a real problem.

[Iakus]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

@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.

Elevators.  Mako.  Equipment.  These are what I call "monkey's paw" type wish granting.  They get granted, but in unexpected and horrific ways

[Zulu_DFA]

Max Legend wrote...
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.

Actually, no. Mass Effect 2 tried so hard to copy the Michael Bay's style, that this satire movie mocking Michael Bay's style is strangely applicable to ME2 as well. If it wasn't filmed years ago, I'd think that it is in part a parody of ME2. But as it goes, ME2 contains some elements that look like a homage to that parody movie... Which leads me to a wild thought: is Mass Effect 2 a parody game?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 juillet 2010 - 05:45 .

[Dudeman315]

Lusitanum wrote...

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

Beause the gun is still mounted to the top of a tank if I'm understanding you correctly.  You didn't change the firing arc just the zoom.

[Lusitanum]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That's how the most planets in space look like. Like a barren wasteland. Sure, they could make more unique placeable objects like that big skull on Maji, more varied design of the underground bunkers and mines... That's the direction they should have worked in.

If you're making a game, then you should take the opportunity to make it more interessting. Life can be boring, but that doesn't mean that making a game boring because it's "realistic" is a good choice. Especially when these planets are usually points of interesst for someone (economical, military, whatever) and you could always use that to make them more interessting.

So yeah, they could certainly make the planets more interessting.

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Ha! So, it's still just corridors with fancy paint job on the walls? Knew it.

Dude, don't talk about things you don't know about .

Those are just the limits of the "map" you're given to explore. You know, like the areas "outside of the operational area" in the first game. And truth be told, the river I saw seemed to be so far away, I highly doubted that I could make it there, but that didn't stop me from gleefully trying...

And that doesn't mean you can't explore, there's quite a big area to play around. At one point, I even found a waterfall and that actually made me happy! A waterfall!! Water in a ME planet! Oh joy! Oh glee!

And I would have never found it if I hadn't decided to ignore the arrow pointing to the main mission and just explore the world, which is the exact opposite of what I did in ME1, where I just marked the important stuff on the map and headed straight for it, only diverting course for the sake of the damned minerals that didn't show up on the map.

Oh, and in the end, even if you were right, I'd still take fancy paint job over depressing paint jobs any day. Desserts filled of gray and brown are the reason why I still haven't mustered the courage to play Morrowind again.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

This was the feeling ME2 "jungle" planets instilled in me much faster than ME1 wastelands.

How could they be any worse than the bases/planets of the first? Not trying to challenge you or anything, just asking a legitimate question.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

What "certain angles"? Maybe it's a confusion here just like about the ME1 hacking minigame, which was very much better on PC. On PC the Mako had 3 degrees of zoom. The first one gave you the view like you were sitting at the top of the turret, and it helped with driving. And the second and third ones offered the "visor view", similar to the sniper scope view, which made shooting very precise. If that wasn't the case with the X-Box version then I understand the Mako hate, and admit that the Hammerhead may look like an improvement to X-box users.

Nah, I'm a PC user too.

And what I mean by certain angles is that, with the outside vision, you couldn't shoot below the level of the Mako, but with the visor vision, you could pretty much shoot in every angle except for the bottom of the vehicle.

Apparently the turret goes through the Mako in order to shoot when you're not looking. <_<

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But to me, the Hammerhead is an utterly dumbed down thing.

OK, seriously, the expression "dumbed down" is being used to absurd lengths here.

Something dumbed down is when you take something that takes actual intellectual effort and take all the thought process needed for it out of the equation.

So, with that in mind, how can the Hammerhead be "dumbed down" when the Mako was never something that required anything besides the most basic of your brain functions? It was a test in patience, yes, but that doesn't turn it into freaking Chess.

And while we're on the subject, can we stop with the ridiculous "ME2 is a dumbed down version of ME1"? It's already pathetic enough to hear things like "the ME series is a dumb down version of RPGs that never needed anything besides memorizing a given set of rules", but when that sentence comes from inside the same community... it just becomes incredibly sad .

[Iakus]

Lusitanum wrote...


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.

Could die, yeah.  But really, how hard is it to keep everyone alive?  Simply play the game and there is vitually zero chance of death.  It's harder to surgically kill off just the ones you want to die than to get everyone out alive (tus maing it  a "dumping ground for for getting rid of the least likable characters").  I expected to have to put at least a little thought into it.  maybe a bit of random chance thrown into the mix.  As it was my first playthrough I sweated most about the escort back because there were no blindingly obvious clues about who to use (turned out there's a reason for that)

Virmire decision, someone's gonna die.  Someone who had been with you since Eden Prime.  Someone you have had the most chances to get to know and grow attached to.  The choice might be easier for some than others, but it's still a choice on who to lose.  The Suicide Mission it's more of a choice of whether to lose.

[Iakus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

 Which leads me to a wild thought: is Mass Effect 2 a parody game?

Don't taunt me with vain hope

[Iakus]

Lusitanum wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That's how the most planets in space look like. Like a barren wasteland. Sure, they could make more unique placeable objects like that big skull on Maji, more varied design of the underground bunkers and mines... That's the direction they should have worked in.

If you're making a game, then you should take the opportunity to make it more interessting. Life can be boring, but that doesn't mean that making a game boring because it's "realistic" is a good choice. Especially when these planets are usually points of interesst for someone (economical, military, whatever) and you could always use that to make them more interessting.

So yeah, they could certainly make the planets more interessting.

If they had done that for ME 2, I'd have been totally cool with that.  Instead, out caem the chainsaw, and exploration was reduced to corridors full of mercs.

Except for one DLC, apparantly.

[bjdbwea]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

What "certain angles"? Maybe it's a confusion here just like about the ME1 hacking minigame, which was very much better on PC. On PC the Mako had 3 degrees of zoom. The first one gave you the view like you were sitting at the top of the turret, and it helped with driving. And the second and third ones offered the "visor view", similar to the sniper scope view, which made shooting very precise. If that wasn't the case with the X-Box version then I understand the Mako hate, and admit that the Hammerhead may look like an improvement to X-box users. But to me, the Hammerhead is an utterly dumbed down thing.

I don't understand it either. On PC, I always thought the Mako controls are close to perfect. I can understand complaints about the terrain, but not about the vehicle itself. Maybe it is different on consoles. But without wanting to start the platform discussion here, that's just the problem with consoles in general: They don't have proper controls. The developers always need to make compromises and simplify the gameplay for that reason.

And unfortunately that often diminishes the PC version too, because the developers don't bother to adapt the controls properly. Fortunately they did for ME 1, hence the good controllability of the Mako. Unfortunately, ME 2 is an example of the opposite. Forcing several actions on a single key without the chance to configure key bindings, not providing hotkeys, not providing proper mouse configuration options, are things that should just not happen, especially not from a renowned developer like BioWare.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 juillet 2010 - 05:51 .

[Tasker]

One of the things that annoys me a little bit about ME2 is that they made all this hoohar about the suicide mission being really difficult, and yet  you have to actually go out of your way and put thought into getting the team mates killed. ( Although it is really easy for the NPC crew to be killed off. )

Unfortunately though, the very fact that the team mates can die, means that it's unlikely that any of the ME2 characters will have a large part in ME3. Unless of course ( and this is something I really hope they do ) they decide that everone surviving the mission is going to be the canon ending that they are going to transfer over to ME3 for the new game mode. But this is something that I doubt they'll do as they've said that that was the reason they held back Liara : they didn't want to risk not having her availiable for ME3.

I really hope i'm wrong, but I really expect that the ME2 team mates will be treated with the same love and care that the team mates from ME1 were given and just be 5 second cameos if they're even included at all.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lusitanum wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That's how the most planets in space look like. Like a barren wasteland. Sure, they could make more unique placeable objects like that big skull on Maji, more varied design of the underground bunkers and mines... That's the direction they should have worked in.

If you're making a game, then you should take the opportunity to make it more interessting. Life can be boring, but that doesn't mean that making a game boring because it's "realistic" is a good choice. Especially when these planets are usually points of interesst for someone (economical, military, whatever) and you could always use that to make them more interessting.

So yeah, they could certainly make the planets more interessting.

That's what I'm talking about. In ME2 there are no "planets". There are corridor levels. It seemed quite awkward during Mako rides on the main missions except for Feros and Ilos, where the "corridors" were of artificial origin in-game. But on the uncharted worlds you had a lot of freedom, and this "operational area" thing was pretty seemless. You could climb mountains or you could find a way around them. Or you could dismount and take a walk, if you felt like it.

Lusitanum wrote...
Oh, and in the end, even if you were right, I'd still take fancy paint job over depressing paint jobs any day. Desserts filled of gray and brown are the reason why I still haven't mustered the courage to play Morrowind again.

I suppose you never looked at the skys in ME1. Because in ME2, altough in higher resolution and with some new special effects, the skys are not that impressive.

Lusitanum wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
This was the feeling ME2 "jungle" planets instilled in me much faster than ME1 wastelands.

How could they be any worse than the bases/planets of the first? Not trying to challenge you or anything, just asking a legitimate question.

I dunno, I'd always choose a vast open space landscape, than a forest... And even of forests I prefer those of pines. Claustrophobia, maybe? So, is ME2 a horror game?

Lusitanum wrote...
And what I mean by certain angles is that, with the outside vision, you couldn't shoot below the level of the Mako, but with the visor vision, you could pretty much shoot in every angle except for the bottom of the vehicle.
Apparently the turret goes through the Mako in order to shoot when you're not looking.

As I remember it there was some angle limitations even with the visor view. You could not send a shell to the feet of a geth trooper, standing right in front of the Mako. However, you could aim at its "flashlight" and take it out.

Lusitanum wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
But to me, the Hammerhead is an utterly dumbed down thing.

OK, seriously, the expression "dumbed down" is being used to absurd lengths here.

Something dumbed down is when you take something that takes actual intellectual effort and take all the thought process needed for it out of the equation.

That's exactly what I mean. Naigating the Mako successfully through some uneven terrain required and stimulated some thinking. You had to work with the minimap from time to time. Thoughout the Firewalker pack I didn't turn my brain on even once. I completed if by trial and error method, even though it would not allow saving mid-level, and uninstalled it. Forever.

Lusitanum wrote...
can we stop with the ridiculous "ME2 is a dumbed down version of ME1"?

No, because that's how it is. ME2 is a dumbed down version of ME1. And this is ridiculous.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 juillet 2010 - 06:30 .

[Siegdrifa]

Dudeman315 wrote...

@Siegdrifa
RPG implys numbers with the word "game".  Let's take Soccer/Footbol: # of teams, # of players, # of goals, # of minutes to play, # balls on the field, # of meters/ft to length of feild, Goal size, etc.  Games are about numbers to varying degrees.

Of cause video games use numbers.

Like i said in video games RPG the numbers are used to determin the effectivenes of your choice and action.
But this is a tool

And like i'm tired to repeat, it's not because computer use number that RPG interface must go through with numbers as well (at least, not for everything).
A caracters can evolve in different way, you don't have to show his level with a number to make the player understand he his progressing. (you can use rank, graphiques, sounds and other parameters modification to let the player understand clearly his caracter go up).
And this kind of choice could be made for everything in a RPG letting number not appear on the screen or caracter status.
I'm talking about game design here.

I have nothing agains RPG using fully numbers displayed for everything, heroes level 87, ability level 6, it classical but work well.

But i don't agree when someone say "If there is no numeric level up with numeric skils and numeric damage, then it's NOT a RPG no matter the evolution of the caraters, the story and the freedom to make action and choices".


So, no matter what we do with video games, it will be numbers for the computer, but it doesn't have to shown brutaly for the players.
Some people seems to be lost when they don't have their numbers... it's their problem if they can't deal with them and see the big picture.

I play RPG (video games or not) for the story, the interaction i will be able to make, the choice i could make, the atmosphere and ambience, the new expereince.
I don't play RPG for "how many level do i get? how many capacity do i use?".

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


The same can be said about the Mako. Simplified planets

Most planets in the universe are boring,lifeless rocks.
I never had a problem with them.

[tonnactus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

What "certain angles"? Maybe it's a confusion here just like about the ME1 hacking minigame, which was very much better on PC. On PC the Mako had 3 degrees of zoom. The first one gave you the view like you were sitting at the top of the turret, and it helped with driving. And the second and third ones offered the "visor view", similar to the sniper scope view, which made shooting very precise. If that wasn't the case with the X-Box version then I understand the Mako hate, and admit that the Hammerhead may look like an improvement to X-box users. But to me, the Hammerhead is an utterly dumbed down thing.

This was the same on the xbox.I dont understand the mako hate anyway. Easy to control when driving it and i also never had problems in combat with this vehicle.

[Zulu_DFA]

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...


The same can be said about the Mako. Simplified planets

Most planets in the universe are boring,lifeless rocks.
I never had a problem with them.

People with a taste for science fiction are a dying breed these days.

So, it's of little surprise that, ME1's uncharted worlds and hardsuit armor gets hacked to give place to "N7" levels with twittering birds and murmuring waterfalls and fashion show outfits.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 juillet 2010 - 06:48 .

[ChuckNorris18]

Lusitanum wrote...
can we stop with the ridiculous "ME2 is a dumbed down version of ME1"?

No, because that's how it is. ME2 is a dumbed down version of ME1. And this is ridiculous.

You're saying that like it's a fact.  While I may agree with you on some points and even that mass effect 2 was dumbed down a bit I cannot agree with you on saying "That's how it is".

Pro mass effect 2 people believe that it has better gameplay, pro mass effect 1 people believe that mas effect 2 is too "dumbed down".

Modifié par ChuckNorris18, 03 juillet 2010 - 07:26 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Orchomene wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
As for the "squad banter", it was taken out due to the number of companions. In ME1 there were 64 possible pairs of squadmates. In ME2 there are 1024 possible combinations (4096, nearly 5K! with Zaeed and Kasumi). Related poll here.

In DAO and Kotor 2, there are a lot of NPC too and a lot of interactions. So that's not a real problem.

Shame on me! I gloriously screwed up the numbers. It's actually like this: 15 pairs in ME1 and 45/66 pairs in ME2. Still I think it's the main reason why the squadmates interaction was taken out.

ChuckNorris18 wrote...
You're saying that like it's a fact.

Do I have to start my every post with "IMHO"?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 juillet 2010 - 07:42 .

[WilliamShatner]

Revan312 wrote...

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

To those of you who think that 1 was better than two, I want you to play mass effect 1 again, then come back and tell me what you think. Yesterday i put my mass effect 1 disc on my 360 to do one more playthrough, but I could barely make it through Eden Prime again, why?
Because the gameplay was terrible compared to me 2's, while many of the core elements are the same they are very different games, even graphic wise, look at me 2's graphics then me 1's, the camera angle in me1 bothers me a lot too compared to me 2's, the simple fact is that after playing me 2 it's hard to go back to me1.
ME1 was a great game but ME2 is much greater. The only thing that me1 has that me 2 doesn't is that feeling where you fell compelled to go out and play through it again, ME2 just never gave me that feeling.

I still plan on following through with my me 1 playthrough because I got used to the controls towards the end of eden prime.
I'll come back and add more once I import my me1 playthrough to me2 then I'll tell you how I feel after playing both.

two things that I love about me1 that aren't included in me2 is the more complex skill tree, and grenades, after doing a couple missions I found that grenades are a very good way to take out a group of enemies, and useful in almost any situation.

I just got done playing through ME1 again with a brand new engineer on Insanity and loved it. Yes there are parts that get tedious such as planet exploration but on the whole I enjoyed it much more than my most recent ME2 playthrough.

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.

The argument of RPG really doesn't matter to me simply because ME1 was already extremely light on actual dialogue options and choices when all is said and done, but I didn't care because the story was really interesting and well produced. When people talk about the story of ME2 I have to strain to remember any details. It goes by in a blur and most of its trite, convoluted and threadbare. I guess I just didn't understand the need to introduce a new enemy when there was already many established factions of enemies (including the elephant in the room, the reapers) and then have that newly introduced antagonist fail to have any meaningful intellectual significance both in Shepard's personal life and that of the overarching story. The kidnapping human colonies bait rang hollow to me when looking at the first games implications let alone the fact that nobody really cared besides you and your team which only helped to exacerbate my feelings of 'meh'.

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...

Bang on.

[XyleJKH]

I have said this before the only thing I disliked about the 2nd one compared to the 1st one was the realism. Before you all jump down my throat hear me out. Mass effect is Sci Fi I know that, but they use theoretical science in their gameplay which is a great appeal to me.

ME1 was real for a bunch of reasons. Everyone wore armour, not just to in a fight, but also to protect from the elements of a hazardous environment, may it be vaccum, or a hazardous environment

ME2 took that away. When the group was fighting in the collector ship all the other party members wore were face masks exceptions being Garrus, Legion (obviously), Tali and Grunt.

That made ME1 a bit more realistic. I mean your only threat is not lack of oxygen. Extreme pressure, cold, heat, radiation and in some cases species related allergies.

The other fact is small, but I felt is due. Female fighters in the 1st one, didnt wear high heels.. sure their sexy but they are not practical for running, fighting and walking around uneven terrain.

That was a big thumbs down in my opinion.

Anyway that is it

[Pocketgb]

slimgrin wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

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?

Periods. Use em'.

That was actually a proper sentance.

[Andy the Salarian]

 I have to say mass effect 2 was very disappointing. The first one had a great atmosphere to it, an entire galaxy full of cool aliens and planets. I missed working for the alliance and Admiral Hackett of course. The music was better in the first and the elevator scenes were much better than the annoying loading screens. Removing the ability to change the armor of squad mates was a terrible decision and not being able to toggle your helmet during missions suck. The mako was way better than the hammerhead. I prefer the colour pallette in the first one because it felt more spacey if that makes any sense. I miss all of the rpg elements from the first such as completing missions on your own time rather than having them forced upon you. I also liked the sr1 way more than the sr2, the sr2 felt cold with all the bright lights and grey walls. Another thing that got too me was not being able to board your ship by walking up to it, instead you just appeared inside of the ship.

Modifié par Andy the Salarian, 03 juillet 2010 - 09:13 .