10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

LilKis1 wrote...

How could anyone be dissappointed in this game when it got rave reviews everywhere!

That's simple, some players wanted ME2 to be something else than it is. It's like company makes car game when some people wanted motorcycle game. There are only few valid complains in this threads, what most of players can agree. Mostly this thread seem to be about ME1 VS ME2. I want this and not that. What someone allready sayed, opinion as taste of games.

Yes. These players wanted ME2 to be like Mass Effect, and not like something else. They didn't want Gears of War meets Fisher Price: My First RPG.

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...
Also, if it's such a tiny scar, then they wouldn't have made the first claims regarding development of ME3 to be "strengthening the RPG aspects and customisation." They know there are people here who are ticked off at the direction they took or at the very least thought they went too far with it, and they're afraid to show their faces because of it.

Yes, that must be it. They couldn't of said that they were focusing more on such things because they themselves were personally dissapointed with the lack of said things. They were clearly pressured by the 20 or so repeat offenders on the forums who took them to task.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I've seen at least one developer hover around, but not on this specific sub forum.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Yes, that must be it. They couldn't of said that they were focusing more on such things because they themselves were personally dissapointed with the lack of said things. They were clearly pressured by the 20 or so repeat offenders on the forums who took them to task.

If they were personally disappointed by it, then they're liars. They said they felt the RPG elements were still very rich prior to release, and since release Casey Hudson has said he was very satisfied with ME2 and wasn't disappointed with anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they were being pressured a bit to purposefully make the game more mainstream and oversimplified though, and that they can't really say anything about that. I have a hard time believing that the same people who made such strong RPGs in the past really wanted to make a game so watered down in that regard as ME2 was. As I said once in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if ME2 wasn't the game they wanted to make, even if it was the game they intended to make.

[Onyx Jaguar]

No

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...
No, but beyond some fanatic douches I don't see anybody here worth paying attention to saying that ME2 was better than ME1 in every way. Most of those who defend ME2 still at least acknowledge that it has some weaknesses here and there, and that the original game did do some things better (for example, many feel squad banter was better in ME1, that The Mako was still better than The Hammerhead, that elevators were better than loading screens, that weapons mods disappearing are a step back and that UNC missions had more polish and better set-ups and integration than N7 ones... just for a few examples.).

You DO realize i have stated many times what ME2's flaws were? So no, i don't fit the category of a "fanatical douche".

Claiming ME2 being greater than ME1 in every way isn't being fanatical, but repeatedly posting and bashing the game for months , getting nitpicky, bashing people who like the game, conjuring up unsupported conspiracies, is.

Terror_K wrote...
Indeed. I suspect they're afraid of posting here after ME2's release because of some of the backlash, because BioWare used to be known for their community interaction, and right now it's at an all time low. ME2 may have been one of their most critically acclaimed games out there in the press, but here on the forums it's also one of the most criticised too. A lot of people have a lot of genuine concerns, and they said prior to release that the game was still a strong RPG that would satisfy old fans, and now post release many don't feel that way at all.

Also, if it's such a tiny scar, then they wouldn't have made the first claims regarding development of ME3 to be "strengthening the RPG aspects and customisation." They know there are people here who are ticked off at the direction they took or at the very least thought they went too far with it, and they're afraid to show their faces because of it.

Your suspicions don't make it true. And "one of the most critisized"? Yes, i would agree, but only by a small handful of clowns that doesn't know that enough is enough. Hell the whole reason why they stopped interacting totally is due to their posts getting bashed with the constant backlash by the same old clowns who doesn't know when to shut up.

The only time anyone of them comes here is to lock a thread.

And yes, this IS a tiny scar, just because a tiny handful of people made bioware wanting to claim that they will strengthen the RPG aspects in the next game does not make the scar any larger.

[Darth Drago]

Lusitanum wrote...
I also could have lived without the whole "attack on the Normandy" thing. I brought about 2 main problems for me:

1. There's no way to see it coming and, unless you just happened to leave the IFF mission for last, chances are that you won't have all the party members in your group and their loyalty missions, meaning that you have to choose between leaving your crew to die or getting your squadmates killed/not recruit them at all. Especially annoying when you're never supposed to worry about taking too long to save people in an RPG.

2. The whole thing about Shepard leaving the Normandy in a shuttle with every single specialized fighter in the group while they tested the technology they knew nothing about still makes no sense whatsoever. And that's all that needs to be said about that incredibly stupid moment.

1. Yea, this part of the game what I call the “lets all go for a shuttle ride!” moment was very poorly done.

However, I for one did see this coming a mile away in my first run through. When you got the option to go get the Reaper IFF or keep recruiting I went with the logical choice of finish recruiting the team. Why go after the IFF when its obviously a turning point in the game that would lead to the final chapter? At least that’s how I looked at it. So when I did do and finish the IFF mission and when the little bit came up where I was told the whole team was going to meet me in the shuttle for our next mission, I had no missions to go on at that point.

I did all the recruiting and loyalty missions as they were given to me. I played the game as it was handed to me and I get an obvious set up like this? Maybe, just maybe, if we saw more cut scenes showing the crew actually moving between some missions like they did at this moment I would have been slightly surprised but not likely.

As I’ve mentioned before, there should have been an actual mission to go on. You would start the mission and half way through it, it would cut to what happens on the Normandy 2. Then when that’s done you return to you mission to finish it up and get Jokers message about what happened. This would now give you an option to leave your current mission immediately or finish it maybe giving you paragon/renegade points for your choice or even missing something like an upgrade if you leave. With an actual mission here it would have been an actual surprise for players like me who play the game as it was handed to them.

2. As for the taking your entire team with you for this joke moment, yea its pretty stupid especially considering after Miranda we don’t actually know who is next in command of the ship. In ME1 we had XO Pressley who was clearly next in command. After him it wasn’t clear who was next but it didn’t matter since he was always left in command when you left the ship.

**Minor Spoilers below**

A simple solution would go hand in hand with my above idea and could even be foreshadowing of what you have to do in the final mission. You are told by Miranda that someone needs to stay on the ship, someone with leadership skills as well as 2 others. You would then play as this squad when the “surprise event” happens you control this squad either individually like Joker or as a group at the spot where the guests come in at. They however meet with the same fate as the rest of the crew and you still get to play as Joker like normal. In addition if your late to the rescue one of these squad mates (randomly picked) join Kelly in her fate.

[Massadonious1]

Eh, that's all PR speak, and utterly irrelevant to my point anyway, which is why they would annouce or decide to do such a thing in the first place.

I'm pretty sure they weren't "scared" of the backlash, or that they ultimately decided they needed to impliment more RPG features because they caved to your subjectively superior position on the matter.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 06 juillet 2010 - 08:24 .

[Lumikki]

What game developers did make, is newer fully what they wanted. Because only after something is done, it will be noticed what went wrong. How ever, there is different as what went wrong and what game should be as taste of games. We here in forum can only see what both Mass Effects are, not what they should be. Because what should be is personal taste of games. Meaning what we as induvual player here wants from Mass Effect series, can be different what Mass Effects is or will be in developers eyes.

Problem is that some players liked ME1, but can't accept the possibility that Mass Effect serie is maybe not what ME1 was. I'm not saying that it isn't, but as there is only two Mass Effect game so far. I can only look what's "similar" in both games and consider that is what Mass Effects is. There is no reason to think that style would be something else what it is in both games. Just because there is differences, it maybe be that those differences aren't the main style of Mass Effect series.

Yes , developers have sayed few things what went wrong in ME2, but so they have also sayed what went wrong in ME1. I can only assume they tryed to fix and improve Mass Effect game.

What went wrong in my opinion?

1. Main story was weak, because story was too much about squad members and had too many plot holes.
2. Gameplay as total experience was too much about combat and too little about non-combat
3. Customation and development of characters and squad members got too simplifyed, general and limited.
4. Some good impression details where lost to provide more faster gameplay experience.
5. Planet mineral scanning wasn't so good gameplay as substitute for real exploration.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2010 - 07:43 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

*snipper* ME2 feels, for lack of a better term, schizophrenic to me in its design...

And how was ME1 immune to this? It's combat was all over the place, the plot progression was all over the place, the character progression was all over the place, it's victim of the same thing. ME2's 'skitzo'ness' was no different only that it was 'crazy' in different areas.

Terror_K wrote...

Every since the game came out, that has been one of the biggest exaggerations and misnomers ever spouted about ME2. ME2 is about as deep as a dried up puddle that never existed. It's gameplay is linear and samey, no matter what the class you choose or the import you bring in, and it does such a bad job in living up to its legacy and promises that it would make Peter Molyneux blush.

Is it deep? Of course not. Is it deep by Bioware's standards? Definitely.

Now, is it entertaining? Not for everyone.

bjdbwea wrote...

This is my opinion as
well. There's no way that the same developers who went from BG 2 over
KotoR to ME 1, would think that ME 2 is the next logical step in
evolution.

Bioware's last game before ME was Jade Empire.
There were no more 'logical' steps after that.

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Claiming ME2 being greater than ME1 in every way isn't being fanatical, but repeatedly posting and bashing the game for months , getting nitpicky, bashing people who like the game, conjuring up unsupported conspiracies, is.

I'm not taking your flamebait, Sith... so you may as well give up and stop putting lures in every post.

And despite claims, there is more than just a handful of people here that are disappointed. One can say it's only "the same clowns" or whatever posting over and over, but new threads come and get closed on an almost weekly basis from fresh posters, and there are just as few "same clowns" repeatedly defending ME2 in this and similar threads too. Though at least most of them can bring up good points and debate with some maturity and don't have to result to veiled insults. 

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

*snipper* ME2 feels, for lack of a better term, schizophrenic to me in its design...

And how was ME1 immune to this? It's combat was all over the place, the plot progression was all over the place, the character progression was all over the place, it's victim of the same thing. ME2's 'skitzo'ness' was no different only that it was 'crazy' in different areas.

I personally didn't see that at all. ME1 was flawed, I'll admit, but it all felt very tight and balanced despite this. I especially don't see how plot and character progression were apparently all over the place. ME1 was pretty evenly polished and evenly focussed, and there didn't seem to be too much fluff or too little major stuff. It didn't feel like there were major chunks missing like ME2 did. ME1 felt evenly cooked, while ME2 has hot spots and cold spots amongst its well done areas.

Is it deep? Of course not. Is it deep by Bioware's standards? Definitely.

Uh... not at all. I think it's their least deep game yet. I'd actually say it's deeper than most other game developer's standards, except maybe Bethesda, Rockstar and Obsidian, but by BioWare standards it's pretty weak. And that's the thing here: I know BioWare for releasing A-Grade products time after time. ME2 just felt B-Grade and gameplay like something any other developer could do. BioWare used to be a cut above most game developers, particularly regarding story-driven RPGs.

Bioware's last game before ME was Jade Empire. There were no more 'logical' steps after that.

Jade Empire is a very different game. Then again, ME2 is a very different game from ME1. I can't help but draw parallels to Deus Ex in fact.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm not taking your flamebait, Sith... so you may as well give up and stop putting lures in every post.

Whoever said i was trying to flamebait you? Don't you think you ought to relax, get a fresh of breath air and then stop being so paranoid?

Terror_K wrote...
And despite claims, there is more than just a handful of people here that are disappointed.

And yet you guys are still in a tiny minority. At least those other guys post their dissapointments once and then move on.

Terror_K wrote...
One can say it's only "the same clowns" or whatever posting over and over, but new threads come and get closed on an almost weekly basis from fresh posters, and there are just as few "same clowns" repeatedly defending ME2 in this and similar threads too. Though at least most of them can bring up good points and debate with some maturity and don't have to result to veiled insults.

The only difference between the clowns who defend ME2 and the ones who bash it are that the ones who bash ME2 are genuinely hilarious with their terrorist threats, constant elitist attitude, constantly conjuring conspiracies without proving them or having any sort of back up, bashing the people who liked ME2, calling anyone who likes ME2 a "dumb sploshun shooter fan" and then of course, theres you.

Gee, its no wonder im so much more immature than them, considering i bash the people who literally ask for it.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 06 juillet 2010 - 08:58 .

[Nightwriter]

I wish I could put ME1's plot and ME2's characters together and just make the best game ever.

... That being said (and I don't know if this thread is still about what's disappointing about ME2 or just if complainers are trolls or not) in ME2, the plot made me feel like I was moving through the story on a conveyor belt.

I don't really know any other way to describe it.

Maybe this is because I never really felt on board with joining Cerberus, which is what the whole game was based on. It's not something my character would do and they never really justified it satisfactorily to me... the Council's behavior felt like a glaring plot device that disrupted the sense of progress and accomplishment I felt I'd achieved in ME1.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I personally didn't see that at all. ME1 was flawed, I'll admit, but it all felt very tight and balanced despite this.

Immunity, defensive powers in general, poor scaling, insignificant modification, unspecialized character progression, imbalanced classes, the works.

Bioware games usually have a lot of variety and choice in regards to the mechanics. The problem with that is that a game is only as in-depth as the balance that holds it all together. They've never been good in this regard, hence why the actual RPG systems have always been remarkably lackluster.

Terror_K wrote...

I especially don't see how plot and character progression were
apparently all over the place.

That may've been improper. Rather, most if not the rest of the game seemed lacking after you visit Noveria for the first time. It also didn't help that it was the first mission hub I visited: quite a bit to do, a long and varied mission, lots of choices, all sorts of goodness. You did not recieve the same dish with the rest of the game.

Terror_K wrote...

Jade Empire is a very different game. Then again, ME2 is a very different game from ME1. I can't help but draw parallels to Deus Ex in fact.

The point was that Bioware 'broke their mold' with Jade Empire, showing that they're willing to try something different, to go into certain paths of game development that's rather new to them. It was just a direction that some didn't appreciate.

So why did Bioware go this direction? All sorts of reasons, likliest being they weren't satisfied with ME1. This is also the first direct sequel they've made since BG2, and ME's systems are their own, not copy-pasted from DnD.

Nightwriter wrote...

Maybe this is because I never really felt on board with joining Cerberus, which is what the whole game was based on. It's not something my character would do and they never really justified it satisfactorily to me... the Council's behavior felt like a glaring plot device that disrupted the sense of progress and accomplishment I felt I'd achieved in ME1.

Screw the move from big hub missions to loyalty missions, forget the way combat works, I truly felt that this was the riskiest thing they did with ME2. The pay-off for such a bold move in terms of narrative can be pretty sweet, but there is also plenty of harm to be done as well.

All I can say is that I liked it, but my Shepard isn't everyone's Shepard.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 06 juillet 2010 - 10:24 .

[Nightwriter]

I don’t mind if the story is about working with them, I’m not the type to whine just because I have no choice in what the entire plot of a game should be, but I never felt like they made the necessity of working with them believable. So from the very beginning, the story started on a wrong note, and since the whole song was built off that note the whole song felt wrong. I wasn’t on board and the train took off without me.

But, like you, I don't pretend my Shepard is everyone's Shepard, or that BioWare should care that little old me got left at the train station.

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

The point was that Bioware 'broke their mold' with Jade Empire, showing that they're willing to try something different, to go into certain paths of game development that's rather new to them. It was just a direction that some didn't appreciate.

I for one did appreciate the game. The big problem with that game was - tada! - that it was dumbed down. Fortunately, in JE that was still confined to the RPG part and the combat system. There's not much that could be said against the story, writing and presentation. Whereas in ME 2 even those parts were, for the lack of a better term, dumbed down.

After JE, I was very pleasantly suprised with ME 1 exactly because it was a step into a new direction, but a functioning, well thought-out one. They once again delivered their biggest strength, a fantastic story, they set a new milestone with the presentation, and even if the current market demands more action and less RPG, they still refrained from the overdone dumbing down and focus on button smashing that was present in JE, and instead tried to find a balance.

I actually thought they'd continue with that recipe, of course refine it here and there. Until I played ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 juillet 2010 - 02:16 .

[Terror_K]

bjdbwea wrote...

I for one did appreciate the game. The big problem with that game was - tada! - that it was dumbed down. Fortunately, in JE that was still confined to the RPG part and the combat system. There's not much that could be said against the story, writing and presentation. Whereas in ME 2 even those parts were, for the lack of a better term, dumbed down.

After JE, I was very pleasantly suprised with ME 1 exactly because it was a step into a new direction, but a functioning, well thought-out one. They once again delivered their biggest strength, a fantastic story, they set a new milestone with the presentation, and even if the current market demands more action and less RPG, they still refrained from the overdone dumbing down and focus on button smashing that was present in JE, and instead tried to find a balance.

I actually thought they'd continue with that recipe, of course refine it here and there. Until I played ME 2.

Yeah, Jade Empire --though a good game-- was kind of a dip when it came to deep gameplay, and then that dip reversed a little with ME1 and then quite a bit with DAO, which was good. Then ME2 came along and it made a sharp dive again.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, Jade Empire --though a good game-- was kind of a dip when it came to deep gameplay, and then that dip reversed a little with ME1 and then quite a bit with DAO, which was good. Then ME2 came along and it made a sharp dive again.

I always am baffled whenever I see this. The distinction between Mass Effect 1 and 2 in terms of gameplay is a minor one. In ME1, inventory system merely involved replacing your current gun with a slightly better one. You would do this every few hours over the course of the game with absolutely no thought. That is not deep gameplay. Neither was the combat system. In Mass Effect, you had 12 or so ranks to a skill, each of which barely had any importance (1% increase to pistol damage, I'm looking at you). In Mass Effect 2, you have 4 ranks each of which actually has some importance.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 juillet 2010 - 03:32 .

[AlanC9]

Someone way upthread said that ME1 was better because it provided an illusion of depth.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 juillet 2010 - 05:10 .

[Lusitanum]

Darth Drago wrote...

1. Yea, this part of the game what I
call the “lets all go for a shuttle ride!” moment was very poorly
done.

I also have my own little name for that moment. I
call it "The Road Trip", but that's just me shamelessly plagiarizing
Strange Aeon's awesome ME2 Abridged which at part 4 goes
like this:

Interlude (Normandy)



[Shepard]:
Ok, we’ve just plugged a device made from Reaper technology into our
ship. We really have no idea what this will do, so we’re on full alert
until…



[Bioware]: ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL



[Shepard]: Road
trip!

Terror_K wrote...



Yes. These players wanted ME2 to be like
Mass Effect, and not like something else. They didn't want Gears of War
meets Fisher Price: My First RPG.

Wasn't that pretty much what people were already calling
ME1: just a Gears of War with RPG elements? With the exception of those who considered that the
combat system had to actually be good before you could even
compare it to GoW?

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, Jade Empire --though a good game-- was kind of a dip when it came to deep gameplay, and then that dip reversed a little with ME1 and then quite a bit with DAO, which was good. Then ME2 came along and it made a sharp dive again.

So DAO, the game that made you resort to the most basic of all RPG tactics was the big step forward in what makes an RPG deep? Seriously, it was as simple as the Warrior tanking and "drawing aggro", the Rogue is the DPS guy and the mages are support... until you realize that they're so incredibly overpowered that they just dominate the battlefield and then the rest of the party is just there for show.

And then you just had to repeat the same pattern for every

SINGLE!

combat in the game. Bosses included. It's been months since I last played the game, but I'm still sick of killing Darkspawn over and over again.

It had a nice (though incredibly basic) story and lots of characters to fall in love with (I never thought I could be bi-curious until I met Zevran... ), but given that combat was the meat of the game, and given how shallow it was, it really got old way too quickly.

Il Divo wrote...

I always am baffled whenever I see this.
The distinction between Mass Effect 1 and 2 in terms of gameplay is a
minor one. In ME1, inventory system merely involved replacing your
current gun with a slightly better one. You would do this every few
hours over the course of the game with absolutely no thought. That is
not deep gameplay. Neither was the combat system. In Mass Effect, you
had 12 or so ranks to a skill, each of which barely had any importance
(1% increase to pistol damage, I'm looking at you). In Mass Effect 2,
you have 4 ranks each of which actually has some importance.

Apparently
people think that having to go to your personal shopkeeper every couple of missions just to get rid of the hundreds of items you amassed is intelectual exercise. And to think that these poor souls deprived of any real notion of what makes something mentally stimulating are at the forefront of calling other people idiots for not agreeing with them.

Irony doesn't get any more better than this.

[Iakus]

Lusitanum wrote...

I also have my own little name for that moment. I
call it "The Road Trip", but that's just me shamelessly plagiarizing
Strange Aeon's awesome ME2 Abridged which at part 4 goes
like this:

Yeah that whole thing is funny 'casue it's true

Lusitanum wrote...

So DAO, the game that made you resort to the most basic of all RPG tactics was the big step forward in what makes an RPG deep? Seriously, it was as simple as the Warrior tanking and "drawing aggro", the Rogue is the DPS guy and the mages are support... until you realize that they're so incredibly overpowered that they just dominate the battlefield and then the rest of the party is just there for show.

And then you just had to repeat the same pattern for every

SINGLE!

combat in the game. Bosses included. It's been months since I last played the game, but I'm still sick of killing Darkspawn over and over again.

It had a nice (though incredibly basic) story and lots of characters to fall in love with (I never thought I could be bi-curious until I met Zevran... ), but given that combat was the meat of the game, and given how shallow it was, it really got old way too quickly.

Combat tactics are a little basic and that makes for a bad rpg?  Mages dominate?  My mage was a Spirit specialist.  Really good against casters, but hardly dominated the battlefield (and Mana Clash still causes the game to crash half the time!)

What DA had was incredible customization for the characters, better character development than either ME game, choices and consequences,  The story's a little basic, but aside from simply leaving, it pretty much lets you solve it your way.  That is what makes it a deep rpg.

Actually, what compbat could be more basic than "Put bullet in enemy's head.  Don't let enemy put bullet in your head"?

[

Lusitanum wrote...]

Apparently
people think that having to go to your personal shopkeeper every couple of missions just to get rid of the hundreds of items you amassed is intelectual exercise. And to think that these poor souls deprived of any real notion of what makes something mentally stimulating are at the forefront of calling other people idiots for not agreeing with them.

Irony doesn't get any more better than this.

A few people also think that having items with particular benefits and drawbacks that complement their playstyles is a Good Thing.  ME 1 went way overboard.  ME 2 was afraid to go out into the water.  Alpha Protocol is the way ME 2 should have done it.

[tonnactus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I disagree, ME 1 is such a technical mess it really shouldn't have been regarded as highly. ME 2 on the other hand is extremely polished.

Really?So things like the squad ammo problem never existed and still exist?(if shepardt didnt have his own squadammo version) ?

This is only one example.

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 juillet 2010 - 09:21 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

A few people also think that having items with particular benefits and drawbacks that complement their playstyles is a Good Thing.  ME 1 went way overboard.  ME 2 was afraid to go out into the water.  Alpha Protocol is the way ME 2 should have done it.

But the problem is that so many people have a tendency to blame Mass Effect 2 for the faults of its predecessor. Unfortunately cycling through your endless inventory was a huge part of the first game, one which resulted in lots of time and unneeded omnigel. All Mass Effect 2 did was strip away the illusion of a 'deep' system. People noticed its absence and accused it of dumbing down gameplay.

I personally enjoyed not having to deal with an inventory system at all. I believe it emphasizes the most shallow (albeit also traditional) aspects of RPGs which have allowed products like World of Warcraft to claim they are role-playing games. Mass Effect 2 as a result has more attention placed on player choices and interesting character interactions.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 juillet 2010 - 09:41 .

[tonnactus]

Massadonious1 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Where would you hide as a pirat? Those planets are ideal for this.

Planets whose only structures are 4 room bases that automatically show up on the minimap and apparently have all been scouted by the Alliance or random freighters who are only in the area to vent their engines.

Let's face it, the criminals in ME1 were idiots.

Gameplay reason.Mass Effect 2 criminals are even dumber.A possible enemy in in their star system and they dont stop their communication,not even encrypt it.