10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

Kronner wrote...

As I said, if all you do is stay in cover, shoot for 2 seconds, Warp something and take cover until your shields recharge, then you are right. But Mass Effect 2 can be fun too. It is up to the player to play the game.

That however is true for ME 1 as well. You don't have to purchase the best armor and weapons and you don't have to use the best powers. But the possibility to defeat most enemies easily has repeatedly been cited as supposed "prove" for the "broken" combat.

How good that a 100 percent damage increase at level one,with a cooldown time of 3 sec on level 4 combined with a 50 percent damage decrease isnt broken,right? Its called adrenaline rush and is a talent in Mass Effect 2.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Funny how everyone talks about "elitism" now, even Bioware funnily enough. Strange why they didnt talk about elitism when people were supposedly criticising the fact that ME1 wasnt enough of a dumbed down shooter.



Guess its only "elitist" when it conflicts with Biowares making-money oriented game development.

[bjdbwea]

Absolutely. The finale in ME 1, especially the moment when we don't know Shepard's fate, is one of the best executed scenes ever in a game. That kind of atmosphere and emotions you don't create with flying bullets and huge explosions. Unfortunately, ME 2 has very little of that left.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

Absolutely. The finale in ME 1, especially the moment when we don't know Shepard's fate, is one of the best executed scenes ever in a game. That kind of atmosphere and emotions you don't create with flying bullets and huge explosions. Unfortunately, ME 2 has very little of that left.

I personally felt the exact opposite; I thought it was one of the most cliche finales to a Bioware game I'd ever seen. The hero kills the major villain, but appears to die, only to turn up a second later miraculously unharmed. It doesn't get much more story-book than that.

I sometimes think Bioware should have killed Shepard at that point. It would've been a more dramatic finish, made Mass Effect 2's intro more anticipated, and we wouldn't have had to deal with whether the Council believed Shepard or not.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 juillet 2010 - 02:32 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...


I personally felt the exact opposite; I thought it was one of the most cliche finales to a Bioware game I'd ever seen. The hero kills the major villain, but appears to die, only to turn up a second later miraculously unharmed. It doesn't get much more story-book than that.

I sometimes think Bioware should have killed Shepard at that point. It would've been a more dramatic finish, made Mass Effect 2's intro more anticipated, and we wouldn't have had to deal with whether the Council believed Shepard or not.

I don't find ME 1's finale cliched.  I find it classically cinematic.  ME 2's final boss, however, defines cliche in a video game.  I swear that final boss is a refugee from a Final Fantasy or Metal Gear game, not sure which.   
 
Iam actually inclined to agree that killing Shepard off at that point would have made a much better lead-in to ME 2 than the "Oops, you're dead" intro we did get

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...
I don't find ME 1's finale cliched.  I find it classically cinematic.  ME 2's final boss, however, defines cliche in a video game.  I swear that final boss is a refugee from a Final Fantasy or Metal Gear game, not sure which.  

I find ME1's ending to be cliched for any movie or game concept. Cinematic (in my opinion) has more to do with how a scene is portrayed than what is portrayed. I've always had a stigma against the whole "Hero appearing to die" that began with most disney/cartoon movies. I often find myself asking what was the point of this?

And I'm gonna call shenanigans on the final boss. C'mon I'm not gonna pretend that the giant human reaper was a good idea, but are you really going to try to defend robo-Saren? I really don't want to bring up pics. : P 
 

Iam actually inclined to agree that killing Shepard off at that point would have made a much better lead-in to ME 2 than the "Oops, you're dead" intro we did get

Think about it; for two years we would've had the opportunity to be like "WTF? O.O" wondering what Bioware had planned for zombie-Shep. A greater ending to a Bioware game, I cannot imagine. We got screwed. >.<

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 juillet 2010 - 02:50 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

I find ME1's ending to be cliched for any movie or game concept. Cinematic (in my opinion) has more to do with how a scene is portrayed than what is portrayed. I've always had a stigma against the whole "Hero appearing to die" that began with most disney/cartoon movies. I often find myself asking what was the point of this?

And I'm gonna call shenanigans on the final boss. C'mon I'm not gonna pretend that the giant human reaper was a good idea, but are you really going to try to defend robo-Saren? I really don't want to bring up pics. : P 

Well, I thought it was portrayed quite well.  Shep limping a little was a nice touch

Robo-Saren?  I actually thought of him as "Saren the sock-puppet"  Not a great villain, but it fits.  After all, we'd already established that Sovereign had placed cybernetic implants in him.  The fact that Sovereign could activate them to manipulate is body after death is a little goofy, but makes sense.  I do admit there are a few things I wonder about, like where the rocket launcher was kept.  On second, thought, nevermind, i don't wanna know.

I also liked how the battle between "Saren" inside the Citadel and Sovereign outside mirrored each other.  Nice touch.  Kinda wish we saw that with "Hold the Line" and te final boss (along with a better final boss)

 

Iam actually inclined to agree that killing Shepard off at that point would have made a much better lead-in to ME 2 than the "Oops, you're dead" intro we did get

Think about it; for two years we would've had the opportunity to be like "WTF? O.O" wondering what Bioware had planned for zombie-Shep. A greater ending to a Bioware game, I cannot imagine. We got screwed. >.<

Yes.  I posted in the "Hate on Plot" thread when the best ways to crush a hero:  kill at the moment of greatest triumph, or a slow slide to obscurity.  ME 2 did neither.

[Orchomene]

I'm sure that a good shooter player can win ME2 with a level 1 character at insanity difficulty, with the begining equipment maybe even without any squad mate, because :

- enemies do level, so being level 1 or level 30 doesn't change anything.

- squad mates are totally inefficient in ME2 with a poor AI (same as ME1) and a 50% malus

- powers are not useful and change so little. At least for a soldier.

- beginning armour is about the same as the end armor, making the game even easier is you don't level (since enemies keep being at level 1).

- beginning weapons are not that less efficient than the end of game weapons.



So, this game is a cinematic shooter game, not a RPG.

[Massadonious1]

 

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Absolutely. The finale in ME 1, especially the moment when we don't know Shepard's fate, is one of the best executed scenes ever in a game. That kind of atmosphere and emotions you don't create with flying bullets and huge explosions. Unfortunately, ME 2 has very little of that left.

ME1 final battle was pretty good until the end Saren happen. That was the biggest joke ever. I mean hardly could done worst than it was done. Terminator. It did not make any sense at all.

[SizzlinKola]

I'm disappointed that you can't replenish medi-gel (really annoying on Insanity) and there is regenerative health. What is this? MW2?



The AI is still un-reliable at times...and there isn't enough freakin' medi-gel to revive them back on Insanity runs.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Technically, yes. But then everything is done in the comparative degree. Even if Kotor is a dumbed down version of Baldur's Gate, one could say it's still closer to the game in depth than Mass Effect. The problem is not that Kotor is dumbed down against Baldur's Gate, but that Mass Effect is dumbed down to a much higher degree.

Then why do you have a problem with people compaining that ME2 is dumbed down even more? If you agree with the overall sentiment, why is saying that ME2 is "dumbed down" an issue? Just because you feel ME1 was already a step halfway there?

Mass Effect went for something different from previous Bioware games, yes. Mass Effect 2 also went for something different than Mass Effect 1. Having a '2' in the title does not mean it's going to replicate everything the original installment will. It also does not mean the original is immune from criticism because it's a 'new style'.

But it should do when it's supposed to be essentually part two in a three part game. ME2 shouldn't be trying to go for something different than ME1, it should be trying to carry on where it left of and do what ME1 tried to do but better. This is supposed to be a trilogy of games in the same style, not three different games that just have the same setting. A sequel should add depth to the series, not take it away.

And Mass Effect 2 is somehow not a hybrid or interactive cinematic experience?

It is, but it's not as well balanced. ME1 was about a third RPG, a third Shooter and a third interactive movie. ME2 was about 10% RPG, 50% shooter and 40% interactive movie. ME2 is simply too unbalanced and feels schizophrenic with its elements, with minor RPG elements being strong and what should be crucial ones taking a back-seat or gone entirely. ME2 feels like the devs went "let's scrap everything, build a shooter system and then slap on the minimal amount of RPG elements for this game to still fit the genre, then try to hide it by adding some minor RPG fluff here and there."

To answer your first question, you didn't seem to mind drawing the line after Mass Effect. But suddenly you decided that Mass Effect 2 crossed some threshold of RPG gaming. Others felt that Mass Effect 1 had already crossed the line. You're asking when Mass Effect is no longer Mass Effect? Every Bioware game since Neverwinter Nights has become progressively more main-stream. Kotor featured a more fast-paced dnd system. Jade Empire took out turn-based combat completely. Mass Effect began the "Hollywood effect" by featuring a fully-voiced main character and dumbed down the dialogue system. And actually introduced shooter mechanics to an RPG. And now Mass Effect 2 has an increased emphasis on those shooter mechanics.

So to your question, I ask another: when are Bioware games no longer RPG's? Because from where I stand, it certainly didn't start with Mass Effect 2.

While I agree that BioWare's RPGs have been getting gradually less deep since after NWN, I think they all fit the definition. As long as there is some form of statistical character progression then it's technically an RPG. I don't claim and have never claimed that Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG. What I've said a lot is that I feel it's a shallow and unsatisfactory one. I suppose some people will say the same of ME1, but it had enough elements present for me to still love the game. And I personally love the game more for its narrative, setting, visual style and cinematic styling more than I do for its RPG elements. As long as I feel that my choices in building a character matter and I have lots of choices and variations to deal with I'm generally happy, because this is what defines depth for me in an RPG when it gets down to it. ME2 just failed to do this entirely, with everything so cut-back and watered down and linear. ME2 rewards anybody whether they've put effort into things or not, and relies on instant gratification and allowing people to become Masters of All Trades, which are things I just don't like in games, particularly RPG's. But the worst thing for me is that ME2 doesn't stick to its roots, which is ME1, and lacks consistency and identity because of it. It's just far too removed from the original game, which may have been fine for a stand-alone title or spin-off, but makes it fail as a sequel, IMO.

[bjdbwea]

iakus wrote...

I don't find ME 1's finale cliched.  I find it classically cinematic.  ME 2's final boss, however, defines cliche in a video game.  I swear that final boss is a refugee from a Final Fantasy or Metal Gear game, not sure which.

Yeah, classically cinematic. I also think that's a good thing. For it's less the lack of imagination from the producers that makes this a regular theme in movies. It's more because it works. That's what the audience likes to see. Especially happy endings. The people who want "darkness" are certainly a minority.

If anything, most games are cliched, because they usually have much worse writing than movies. I found it a very refreshing change that BioWare "copied" so skillfully from the movie industry. There's nothing wrong with that.

Whereas ME 2 felt much more like a game and less like a movie to me. The writing and presentation was mediocre, the pacing was wrong, the story was cut into stand-alone short stories, the terrible end boss. And then the lack of a real main villain as a major error in story telling. A perfect example that "change" is not per se a good thing.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 juillet 2010 - 10:58 .

[catabuca]

bjdbwea wrote...
Whereas ME 2 felt much more like a game and less like a movie to me. The writing and presentation was mediocre, the pacing was wrong, the story was cut into stand-alone short stories, the terrible end boss. And then the lack of a real main villain as a major error in story telling. A perfect example that "change" is not per se a good thing.

This sums it up great for me. I've said before, in ME1 I felt like I was in the Mass Effect Universe; in ME2 I felt like I was playing a Mass Effect video game. ME1 did such a good job of pulling me in and making it feel like everything flowed, especially from Virmire to the end (if you chose to do Virmire right before Ilos at least). ME2's story felt like a series of levels. I understand Horizon, the Collector ship, and the dead Reaper were threads holding it together, but they seemed too few and far between. I also recognise that there were links to the overall story in many of the loyalty missions (Mordin's mission was one I particularly enjoyed, at least in terms of story - it still played like another corridor-driven level-fest), but the writers just didn't manage to integrate them well enough to make it matter. You can sit and think about something and find links, and say, "oh, that's very good, how clever", but imo the game should make you feel that as you play it as well.

I enjoyed a lot of things about ME2. It doesn't matter how many people come on here and say, "but you're nuts", or, "but ME2 was better" or whatever. You're entitled to your opinion; you won't change mine.

[catabuca]

I should also add: if I hadn't played ME1 before picking up ME2 I don't think I'd have the same problems with it that I do. I wouldn't know any different after all, right? I'd be able to take it on face value, as a great cinematic, shooter-based rpg-lite. It'd nearly be up there with some of my other favourite games: Assassin's Creed II, Red Dead Redemption, for example.



However, ME2 is the second installment of a trilogy. I had played the first one, and that first game is definitely right up there with my other favourite games. With that in mind, it's practically impossible for me to view it entirely on its own merits. I can try and be as objective as possible in evaluating the new shooting mechanics, the gameplay, the story etc., but it will always be a supposed continuation of Shepard's story from ME1. That's the way it was marketed to me as a fan of the franchise already, that's the narrative, and that's how it fits into my consciousness.



Because I am a gamer who values story and immersion above all else, that's the rule of thumb by which I naturally first evaluate a gaming experience. In that regard, ME2 didn't provide the same 'lump-in-throat' or 'knot-in-stomach' moments that ME1 did, and it didn't flow as seamlessly as ME1. As I said, had I not played ME1 beforehand, I couldn't have made those comparisons. This is why, for me, ME2 works better as a stand-alone game, where the critiques made by many just cease to be an issue, than as the second part of the trilogy story, where it is intended to act as a continuation of something that began elsewhere.

[bjdbwea]

If I didn't know better and if it wasn't for the graphics, I would think ME 2 was part 1 of the series and ME 1 was the next step of evolution. Okay, the shooting part works smoother in ME 2, but the things that I really care about, and the things that BioWare were always renowned for - story, story telling, presentation, immersion into a game world, the "flow", character development, replayability - all are much more refined in ME 1.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 juillet 2010 - 01:40 .

[catabuca]

bjdbwea wrote...

If I didn't know better and if it wasn't for the graphics, I would think ME 2 was part 1 of the series and ME 1 was the next step of evolution. Okay, the shooting part works smoother in ME 2, but the things that I really care about, and the things that BioWare were always renowned for - story, story telling, presentation, immersion into a game world, the "flow", character development, replayability - all are much more refined in ME 1.

It's interesting, because I think where a lot of us come to blows on here is when it comes down to trying to square one person's opinion, when that person values shooting and gameplay mechanics over all else, and another person's, when they value story and immerson over all else. The two are not equal, and do not create a level playing field from which to constructively debate.

I, like you, value story and immersion over all else. To me, in comparision with ME1, that flow wasn't as well executed. I'm first in line to say I agree that the shooting mechanics were overhauled for the better (and I'm somewhere in between on the debate regarding the inventory and talent distribution mechanisms), but since the gameplay mechanics and shooting isn't the most important thing to me, in any game I play, it's clear I'll place that aspect of the game lower down when I'm looking at things to compare the two games. Conversely, it's entirely natural that someone who cares about shooting first, and everything else second, will place that higher up the scale than the stuff I care about. That doesn't mean their opinion is any more or any less valid than mine, just that we might as well be talking about a different game - because it is a different game for us.

[catabuca]

To illustrate my last point:

If what I consider to be most important to me is at the top of the list, and least important at the bottom, I could score how I feel about the games as thus:

Mass Effect 1:

Story-telling/immersion: 10
RPG = story choices: 9
Gameplay = level design: 8
RPG = management of stats/skills: 7
Gameplay = shooter mechanics: 7

Mass Effect 2:

Story-telling/immersion: 6
RPG = story choices: 7
Gameplay = level design: 7
RPG = management of stats/skills: 7
Gameplay = shooter mechanics: 9

In ME1 you can see those things I value most (at the top of the list) score more highly than in ME2, whereas something like shooting, which I don't really care about at all, scores more highly in ME2. This is why, despite shooting being better in ME2, I still prefer ME1 - because it did the things I care about more better.

Someone else might order their list like this:

ME1:

Gameplay = shooter mechanics: 6
Gameplay = level design: 7
RPG = management of stats/skills: 6
Story-telling/immersion: 8
RPG = story choices: 8

ME2:

Gameplay = shooter mechanics: 9
Gameplay = level design: 8
RPG = management of stats/skills: 8
Story-telling/immersion: 7
RPG = story choices: 7

Again, for them the thing they value most of all - shooter mechanics - is greatly improved in ME2, and so that holds more weight when they assess the two games side-by-side than storytelling or RPG management.

Neither of these approaches is wrong, both simply reflect what is more important for each individual player. That is why it's always going to be such an explosive debate, because we don't all have the same list in the same order of preference.

Modifié par catabuca, 20 juillet 2010 - 02:02 .

[bjdbwea]

Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. The problem is, that BioWare sacrificed much of what gamers like you and me want, to get a bigger share of the shooter market. And not only by putting so much effort into the shooting part, that (in our opinion) would have been better spent elsewhere.

The problem goes beyond that, unfortunately. It also has influenced the story and everything else. Because apparently someone at BioWare/EA thinks that shooter fans can't appreciate (can't grasp?) a well written, long and coherent story, and it has to be cut into convenient, easily palatable "fast food" stories instead. They would never admit to such a thinking openly, but they'd not be the only developers / publishers to think so.

Or maybe they just think it's not needed to put all that much effort into story and all, because the audience doesn't care much about it anyway. It would be up to the shooter fans to tell them that they also want a great story, and not only an okay one that ties the action parts together.

Apparently BioWare/EA think that people like you and me will still buy the game anyway, so there's not really a downside to putting more and more emphasis on the shooter market. But if the reported sales numbers are valid, they certainly aren't all that much improved over ME 1, if at all. So maybe (hopefully) that tells them the strategy doesn't really work. I for one only bought ME 2 immediately because I loved ME 1 so much. Will certainly not pre-order ME 3, and might not buy it at all if it doesn't improve.

Unfortunately though, a similar strategy seems to be going to be applied to the DA series as well.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 juillet 2010 - 02:42 .

[catabuca]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. The problem is, that BioWare sacrificed much of what gamers like you and me want, to get a bigger share of the shooter market. And not only by putting so much effort into the shooting part, that (in our opinion) would have been better spent elsewhere.

The problem goes beyond that, unfortunately. It also has influenced to story and everything else. Because apparently someone at BioWare/EA thinks that shooter fans can't appreciate (can't grasp?) a well written, long and coherent story, and it has to be cut into convenient, easily palatable "fast food" stories instead. They would never admit to such a thinking openly, but they'd not be the only developers / publishers to think so.

Or maybe they just think it's not needed to put all that much effort into story and all, because the audience doesn't care much about it anyway. It would be up to the shooter fans to tell them that they also want a
great story, and not only an okay one that ties the action parts together.

Apparently BioWare/EA think that people like you and me will still buy the game anyway, so there's not really a downside to putting more and more emphasis on the shooter market. But if the reported sales numbers are valid, they certainly aren't all that much improved over ME 1, if at all. So maybe (hopefully) that tells them the strategy doesn't really work. I for one only bought ME 2 immediately because I loved ME 1 so much. Will certainly not pre-order ME 3, and might not buy it at all if it doesn't improve.

Unfortunately though, a similar strategy seems to be going to be applied to the DA series as well.

I understand your sentiment. I think I'd err on the side of being slightly more charitable, in thinking that while they are clearly influenced by the market and need to secure the mainstream audience that will ensure profitability, they still want to innovate in ways that marks them out from the general mainstream crowd.

At the moment they're learning new tricks, what works, what doesn't. It's going to be a continual learning process for them. I'm positive they don't want to alienate their core fans, but at the same time they need to attract new ones. Time will tell how well they manage to balance these two things.

[Darth Drago]

-Makes me wonder just how many of these people and game reviewers who seem to praise ME2 as the best game ever made (or close enough) did actually play the first game. For a game that such high ratings I really have to wonder how the gaming industry standards for excellence have dropped so much. A game that gets a 10 out of 10 should be absolutely perfect in all aspects that make up that game. Completely flawless. Was ME2 really this perfect?

Will ME3 live up to the same level ME2 got for reviews and praise by these same people who gave ME2 such high marks?

I went from playing ME1 right into ME2 and I honestly cant even play ME2 again even to finish my first run in Overlord. The game no longer even interests me enough to play again. Yet I cant say the same with the first game. I played ME1 6 times back to back with no slowdown.

Unfortunately it has already been said by the developers that ME2 was set up as a stand alone game just like ME3 will also be.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...
Robo-Saren?  I actually thought of him as "Saren the sock-puppet"  Not a great villain, but it fits.  After all, we'd already established that Sovereign had placed cybernetic implants in him.  The fact that Sovereign could activate them to manipulate is body after death is a little goofy, but makes sense.  I do admit there are a few things I wonder about, like where the rocket launcher was kept.  On second, thought, nevermind, i don't wanna know.

I also liked how the battle between "Saren" inside the Citadel and Sovereign outside mirrored each other.  Nice touch.  Kinda wish we saw that with "Hold the Line" and te final boss (along with a better final boss)

And I personally would say that based on some of Saren's comments at the end of Mass Effect 1 about how he had achieved the perfect synthesis between organic and machine, the human reaper would make equal sense plot-wise. Unfortunately the execution of each idea was absolute trash, but I still don't see how it gives Mass Effect levels of depth compared to Mass Effect 2; it just illustrates that Bioware made two very stupid villains which some people find more or less aggravating.

Edit: I also thinking "fighting" the human reaper should never have happened. Every game does not need a huge boss fight. I would have preferred the final encounter to be actually holding the line.

 
Yes.  I posted in the "Hate on Plot" thread when the best ways to crush a hero:  kill at the moment of greatest triumph, or a slow slide to obscurity.  ME 2 did neither.

Hmm, what do you mean by slow slide?

Edit: Very bad spelling mistakes today, for some reason.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:48 .

[Lumikki]

ME2 got high marks because it's good game. It may not be good game for you, as your are here to complaining about it, but there are alot of players who has other opinions.

Like I have sayed 1000's of times here. It's not the game, it's YOUR taste of games. So, the problem isn't the game, it's your taste of games. It's like me going to sport game forum and start complaining how bad games they are making, because it doesn't have enough RPG. You people need to see the game as what it is and not complain how the game isn't made for your personal taste.

There has been a few good complains in this thread, but about 200 page has not been anything else than nit picking ME2 details and praising how good ME1 was. I ques you aren't the target customer for ME2 then. Deal with it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 juillet 2010 - 02:49 .

[bjdbwea]

Darth Drago wrote...

-Makes me wonder just how many of these people and game reviewers who seem to praise ME2 as the best game ever made (or close enough) did actually play the first game. For a game that such high ratings I really have to wonder how the gaming industry standards for excellence have dropped so much. A game that gets a 10 out of 10 should be absolutely perfect in all aspects that make up that game. Completely flawless. Was ME2 really this perfect?

Will ME3 live up to the same level ME2 got for reviews and praise by these same people who gave ME2 such high marks?

If you rate ME 2 as an RPG, it simply can not get nearly as high reviews as it got. But if you compare it to even the best shooters? Maybe. Sure, some have better graphics. But they usually have no depth, no interaction, no choices, no dialogue system, and are completely linear and often very short too. So I understand why some reviewers and many shooter fans are completely astonished by ME 2. If you care most about the action, and that works well, and you even get the other features I mentioned, it's probably got to be the best game ever in their opinion. On the other hand, if the action part doesn't work as good as it usually does in a shooter, they don't rate the game highly even if it has a fantastic story.

Only players who care more about story, interaction, dialogue, choices and the like are probably able to see where ME 2 falls short in comparison to ME 1. Unfortunately, most reviewers don't care about these things anymore.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:22 .