10273 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

From another thread...

Hahren wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

And, BTW, which big choices are there in ME2? They can be counted on the fingers of a single hand and those 1000 that Mr Hudson mentions probably end up as e-mails and cameos in ME3. Hehe.

I think that ME2 has about the same amount of galaxy effecting choices, but we'll see how it plays out in ME3 I guess.

The theme of ME1 is decisions. The theme of ME2 is building a team, and earning loyalty. While both games fit within the cog of the Reaper story wheel they have seperate themes. I feel both games deliver in their respective themes.

ME1 has more than it's share of grind missions. The game is broken down into 3 main worlds before you open the 2 end game worlds, and the final race to the finish. The core plot worlds have longer missions, but there is no loss for fluff. The exploration in ME1 is rather pointless, but I still love to do it!

I don't know. The recruitment missions felt important, and the loyalty missions felt like more meaningful side quests. The core plot events felt too short, and that is my biggest gripe with ME2. Horizon, and the Collector Base are over too fast.

Anyway thanks AngryFrozenWater for the replies. I enjoyed reading your opinion on ME2 as a an RPG, or lack their off. :happy:

Thanks for your reply. You are one of the few who don't throw with dirt when it comes to opnions. And that's all they are. People seem to enjoy both games, no matter what the extreme ME1 or ME2 defenders say.

What irritates me (here I go, hehe) is that there is no real impact of decisions you make. These are all cosmetic and just change a dialogue line, or you will receive an e-mail, or you'll get a cameo. But none of those have real impact. The Council decision is the best example. Everything plays out the same, no matter what you did in ME1. This to me is unforgivable. ME3 really need to change that.

BTW: Another thing that I don't like is closing threads and redirecting them to this one. Like I said earlier, that will happen sooner or later. And it has happened more than once. That effectively silences people. I don't intend to ventilate my opinion in some place that is convenient to ignore. So, I will try to do that everywhere, but this thread. I used it only because the thread mentioned above was closed. Again.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2010 - 06:48 .

[Shockwave81]

Now I'm not being nostalgic here, merely stating a few differences that I believe made ME1 more 'interactive' and 'customisable' as far as player choices go (I will elaborate and probably deviate from this, but thoughts will pop into my head as I progress...)

1: Shepard's interactions with the Council on the SR1. Players could choose whether or not to take a holo-call in almost every single instance. The game did not force players to speak to the powers-that-be, before railroading them into the next main story mission.
2: Players could choose the order in which they would visit each main world.
3: Many (if not most) side quests encouraged players to consider the consequences of their actions (irrespective of a potential carry-over to ME2) see: Toombes, Tali's data, Helena Blake, Major Kyle etc.

Now, some might argue that ME2 railroaded players into the main story missions because it would have adversely affected the pacing if players were allowed to fly around scanning planets and completing side quests while the events on Horizon were taking place, but I beg to differ.

Using Virmire as an example, the Council gives you a tip that a certain someone may be on the planet - however they also go as far as telling you that they don't want to become involved in the 'specifics' of Spectre activity, but only want you to be aware of all of your options (love those little interactions in case you didn't notice).

I didn't rush off to Virmire as a result of this information - I dithered about on numerous uncharted worlds, mucked around talking to my squad mates etc. When I finally DID visit Virmire (on every playthrough), I never felt as though I was 'late for tea' - a tribute to the game's design as far as I'm concerned.

As I briefly mentioned earlier, while there was a general itinerary to follow (Therum->Feros/Noveria->Virmire in my case), players could choose the order in which they would visit each world AND this was actually factored into the game as evidenced by the debriefings in the SR1 comms room.

The fact that this is not possible in ME2, by virtue of the fact that the Collectors can't be in two places at once for certain reasons, is indicative (again, my opinion only) of a weaker story (in terms of the main villains) and pacing. Assuming players gather every team mate, there is almost no connection between the order you build your team, and how the story pans out.

Your squad-mates are kept so entirely separate from one another (on and off the SR2), that it robbed ME2 of the potential for a sense of team spirit that could have made the game even better.

If the main story of ME2 had of been all about TIM's manipulations (and Shepard's reactions to these) as opposed to building an uber team to fight the Collectors, then I'd be inclined to think more highly of ME2, especially in terms of foreshadowing for ME3 anyway - which remains to be seen.

I won't bother talking about the side quests - that's been done to death.

Bla bla bla. I'm actually getting bored of visiting the forums now. Guess I'll just stay away until new DLC is announced or something.

Modifié par Shockwave81, 25 avril 2010 - 10:08 .

[Kyzzo]

ME2, in and of itself, is not really disappointing. It's one of the most entertaining games I've played. I don't find the lack of conventional RPG mechanics particularly disappointing either. However, the radical "paradigm shift", if you will, that Bioware seem to have deemed necessary for whatever reasons is indeed quite a bummer.

The first time I played ME1, I had the impression that Bioware had intended for the game to be more than "just a videogame", something beyond mere escapist entertainment. I recall one of the good doctors of BW (I'm almost certain that it was Dr. Muzyka) stating in an interview that they wanted to take their videogames to the level of serious art. ME1 was, I thought, a good, promising -albeit a bit awkward and indecisive- initial attempt in that direction. The game seemed to be striving to be larger than the sum of its parts, yet not confident enough that it could actually achieve that goal. But that made the game very charming at the same time, and despite its more than a few weaknesses, it still made it possible for the player to actively participate in creating a memorable "experience" far beyond that of just shooting and blowing sh** up. Fortunately, it sold reasonably well and garnered critical acclaim. After those wobbly first steps that ME1 had taken, I thought that the sky was the limit for BW.

Then came ME2. It's no doubt a far more polished game and quite addictive. I'm on my 10th playthrough and still having a blast. It is, however, "just a videogame", nothing more, nothing less, with hardly any trace of the lofty ideals and aspirations of the first game. I don't even mind the somewhat sloppy writing and the lazy design (E.g. in a game which is supposedly heavily character-based, there are no interactions, no dynamics among the characters that make up the "badass squad", the focus of the whole game). The shiny veneer that the much touted combat system is more than compensates for such shortcomings of the game. It is, after all, mere escapist entertainment. Needless to say that I'm looking forward to playing ME3, even if it too turns out to be just a videogame. But I hope that in time BW finds the courage to do what they claim to aspire to.

Modifié par Kyzzo, 26 avril 2010 - 01:14 .

[ShakeZoohla]

Kyzzo wrote...

ME2, in and of itself, is not really disappointing. It's one of the most entertaining games I've played. I don't find the lack of conventional RPG mechanics particularly disappointing either. However, the radical "paradigm shift", if you will, that Bioware seem to have deemed necessary for whatever reasons is indeed quite a bummer.

The first time I played ME1, I had the impression that Bioware had intended for the game to be more than "just a videogame", something beyond mere escapist entertainment. I recall one of the good doctors of BW (I'm almost certain that it was Dr. Muzyka) stating in an interview that they wanted to take their videogames to the level of serious art. ME1 was, I thought, a good, promising -albeit a bit awkward and indecisive- initial attempt in that direction. The game seemed to be striving to be larger than the sum of its parts, yet not confident enough that it could actually achieve that goal. But that made the game very charming at the same time, and despite its more than a few weaknesses, it still made it possible for the player to actively participate in creating a memorable "experience" far beyond that of just shooting and blowing sh** up. Fortunately, it sold reasonably well and garnered critical acclaim. After those wobbly first steps that ME1 had taken, I thought that the sky was the limit for BW.

Then came ME2. It's no doubt a far more polished game and quite addictive. I'm on my 10th playthrough and still having a blast. It is, however, "just a videogame", nothing more, nothing less, with hardly any trace of the lofty ideals and aspirations of the first game. I don't even mind the somewhat sloppy writing and the lazy design (E.g. in a game which is supposedly heavily character-based, there are no interactions, no dynamics among the characters that make up the "badass squad", the focus of the whole game). The shiny veneer that the much touted combat system is more than compensates for such shortcomings of the game. It is, after all, mere escapist entertainment. Needless to say that I'm looking forward to playing ME3, even if it too turns out to be just a videogame. But I hope that in time BW finds the courage to do what they claim to aspire to.

This explains the situation perfectly.  ME2 is more polished than ME1, but it just doesn't have that presence as a piece of art.  It just comes off as a standard "good game".

[SP One Nineteen]

Maybe its just me, but i ADORED ME2, i got a huge depressed feeling when i was done with it, i was sad it was over. I wasn't entirely disappointed with the ending, like i hear so many people were. Of course i wish my decisions had massive repercussions, but then again, bioware has constraints. If every decision that you made had serious repercussions, then that makes for PLENTY of combinations and turn-outs. If they gave us what we really wanted, we'd be juggling around 5+ disks of ME3.



And, honestly......i'd have no problem with that whatsoever.

[Terror_K]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

Kyzzo wrote...

ME2, in and of itself, is not really disappointing. It's one of the most entertaining games I've played. I don't find the lack of conventional RPG mechanics particularly disappointing either. However, the radical "paradigm shift", if you will, that Bioware seem to have deemed necessary for whatever reasons is indeed quite a bummer.

The first time I played ME1, I had the impression that Bioware had intended for the game to be more than "just a videogame", something beyond mere escapist entertainment. I recall one of the good doctors of BW (I'm almost certain that it was Dr. Muzyka) stating in an interview that they wanted to take their videogames to the level of serious art. ME1 was, I thought, a good, promising -albeit a bit awkward and indecisive- initial attempt in that direction. The game seemed to be striving to be larger than the sum of its parts, yet not confident enough that it could actually achieve that goal. But that made the game very charming at the same time, and despite its more than a few weaknesses, it still made it possible for the player to actively participate in creating a memorable "experience" far beyond that of just shooting and blowing sh** up. Fortunately, it sold reasonably well and garnered critical acclaim. After those wobbly first steps that ME1 had taken, I thought that the sky was the limit for BW.

Then came ME2. It's no doubt a far more polished game and quite addictive. I'm on my 10th playthrough and still having a blast. It is, however, "just a videogame", nothing more, nothing less, with hardly any trace of the lofty ideals and aspirations of the first game. I don't even mind the somewhat sloppy writing and the lazy design (E.g. in a game which is supposedly heavily character-based, there are no interactions, no dynamics among the characters that make up the "badass squad", the focus of the whole game). The shiny veneer that the much touted combat system is more than compensates for such shortcomings of the game. It is, after all, mere escapist entertainment. Needless to say that I'm looking forward to playing ME3, even if it too turns out to be just a videogame. But I hope that in time BW finds the courage to do what they claim to aspire to.

This explains the situation perfectly.  ME2 is more polished than ME1, but it just doesn't have that presence as a piece of art.  It just comes off as a standard "good game".

While I agree with the general sentiment, I definitely don't agree that  ME2 is more polished than ME1. I found it to personally be BioWare's least polished title to date, with a feeling of being rather patchy and uneven, as well as a little rushed and dare I say even unfinished. Especially the PC version which suffered from porting issues, despite not apparently being a port (I just call them these since they are issues commonly seen in poor console to PC ports). The original Mass Effect felt far more polished, balanced and complete than ME2 did.

But yes, the main thing Mass Effect 2 fails at being is a sequel to Mass Effect 1. And you're right, it does feel more like its just another game than a piece of art in game form with some class and ambition. Mass Effect definitely had the feeling that it was trying to be something more than it was, and overall felt more sophisticated and high-brow for it. ME2 feels almost the complete opposite: like its just trying to be one of the crowd.

Modifié par Terror_K, 26 avril 2010 - 06:06 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Personally i disagree about ME1 being more polished than ME2. But that is another story for another time.

[KitsuneRommel]

Shockwave81 wrote...

As I briefly mentioned earlier, while there was a general itinerary to follow (Therum->Feros/Noveria->Virmire in my case), players could choose the order in which they would visit each world AND this was actually factored into the game as evidenced by the debriefings in the SR1 comms room.

The fact that this is not possible in ME2, by virtue of the fact that the Collectors can't be in two places at once for certain reasons, is indicative (again, my opinion only) of a weaker story (in terms of the main villains) and pacing. Assuming players gather every team mate, there is almost no connection between the order you build your team, and how the story pans out.

Your problem is that you consider the recruitment quests as simply side quests. You aren't simply getting some random people to join in your suicide squad but most of them have a reason to be recruited (knowledge about collectors etc.) ME2 does change a little according to which order you recruit people and who you bring with you but I admit it should have been more noticeable.

[KotOREffecT]

SP One Nineteen wrote...

I wasn't entirely disappointed with the ending, like i hear so many people were.

So many people? Haven't heard that one yet, maybe it might seem like that to you, but most people actually enjoyed it greatly from what I've seen, esp the youtube comments on various ME 2 vids and diff sites. There were maybe some elements in the end that some didn't enjoy, like the boss fight for example, much like zombie Saren, but the ending has been praised quite a bit just like ME 1's epic ending.

[uberdowzen]

I think the problem with a lot of the arguments against ME2 is that they are confusing Roleplaying with Roleplaying Elements. Roleplaying is making choices as a character that affect outcomes of situations etc. Roleplaying Elements are things such as inventorys, stats and combat with random elements. Roleplaying Elements can, if used properly, improve RPGs but they don't define them. I love RPGs but I've think they've gotten into a rut where any change to that formula causes fans to call it dumbed down. Bioware has experimented with ME2 and for that I applaud them.

[TJSolo]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Shockwave81 wrote...

As I briefly mentioned earlier, while there was a general itinerary to follow (Therum->Feros/Noveria->Virmire in my case), players could choose the order in which they would visit each world AND this was actually factored into the game as evidenced by the debriefings in the SR1 comms room.

The fact that this is not possible in ME2, by virtue of the fact that the Collectors can't be in two places at once for certain reasons, is indicative (again, my opinion only) of a weaker story (in terms of the main villains) and pacing. Assuming players gather every team mate, there is almost no connection between the order you build your team, and how the story pans out.

Your problem is that you consider the recruitment quests as simply side quests. You aren't simply getting some random people to join in your suicide squad but most of them have a reason to be recruited (knowledge about collectors etc.) ME2 does change a little according to which order you recruit people and who you bring with you but I admit it should have been more noticeable.

Well except your starter two members, returning two members, and Mordin most of the people you pick up don't give a damn about Collectors or Reapers.

The Bioware boards are not the only channels of discussion about ME2. There are others not here voicing opinions about it; good, bad, and the ugly.

There are many shades of opinions floating around...spooky.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

There are many shades of opinions floating around...spooky.

Ok, how about a compromise? ME2 is not a good or a bad game, it's just a game and people are freely allowed to choose whether they like it or not.

[SaiWisinski]

Over00 wrote...

It's common knowledge that there's no way you can please everyone in anything in life.

...

Very true, Anyways for me im disappointed in the lack of RPG element mainly few weapons/armor ,  you can't uprade weapons besides flat out damage, you can't equip teammates with the armor you want, forced completly regenerating health, Garrus didn't have much to say outside of his loyalty side quest and talking to him afterwards, and  your choices don't make as much a difference as I hoped they would.

[Jebel Krong]

TJSolo wrote...

Well except your starter two members, returning two members, and Mordin most of the people you pick up don't give a damn about Collectors or Reapers.

they're not necc. supposed to: it's a suicide squad not a "people who have a grudge against the collectors" squad...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Personally i disagree about ME1
being more polished than ME2. But that is another story for another
time.

of course you do... and you must be blind, deaf and dumb, too, i expect. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 26 avril 2010 - 09:52 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

While I agree with the general sentiment, I definitely don't agree that  ME2 is more polished than ME1. I found it to personally be BioWare's least polished title to date, with a feeling of being rather patchy and uneven, as well as a little rushed and dare I say even unfinished. Especially the PC version which suffered from porting issues, despite not apparently being a port (I just call them these since they are issues commonly seen in poor console to PC ports). The original Mass Effect felt far more polished, balanced and complete than ME2 did.

really? because apart from me2PC not recognising the fact that i have 2 Sli-ed graphics cards, i haven't noticed any problems not in both editions so far. technically though, mass effect 2 is miles ahead of 1 in terms of any glitches, you still get a few, but that can be said for any game...

Terror_K wrote...
But yes, the main thing Mass Effect 2 fails at being is a sequel to Mass Effect 1. And you're right, it does feel more like its just another game than a piece of art in game form with some class and ambition. Mass Effect definitely had the feeling that it was trying to be something more than it was, and overall felt more sophisticated and high-brow for it. ME2 feels almost the complete opposite: like its just trying to be one of the crowd.

that is completely retarded. i am surprised at you.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 26 avril 2010 - 09:56 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

While I agree with the general sentiment, I definitely don't agree that  ME2 is more polished than ME1. I found it to personally be BioWare's least polished title to date, with a feeling of being rather patchy and uneven, as well as a little rushed and dare I say even unfinished. Especially the PC version which suffered from porting issues, despite not apparently being a port (I just call them these since they are issues commonly seen in poor console to PC ports). The original Mass Effect felt far more polished, balanced and complete than ME2 did.

really? because apart from me2PC not recognising the fact that i have 2 Sli-ed graphics cards, i haven't noticed any problems not in both editions so far. technically though, mass effect 2 is miles ahead of 1 in terms of any glitches, you still get a few, but that can be said for any game...

I was more referring to things like not allowing us to access things via the keyboard and having to press Esc to get to the menu to get to them (i.e. pressing 'J' to access the Journal), the fact that remapping the keys wasn't taken into account by the prompts (e.g. I remap the action function from 'Spacebar' to 'E' and yet it still keeps telling me to press 'Spacebar' to do things) and the fact that despite having a buttload of keys on a PC we still have to put up with the same key for taking cover, sprinting and performing an action. It just feels like it needed some final polishing and not being treated like a lazy console port when it came to functionality.

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
But yes, the main thing Mass Effect 2 fails at being is a sequel to Mass Effect 1. And you're right, it does feel more like its just another game than a piece of art in game form with some class and ambition. Mass Effect definitely had the feeling that it was trying to be something more than it was, and overall felt more sophisticated and high-brow for it. ME2 feels almost the complete opposite: like its just trying to be one of the crowd.

that is completely retarded. i am surprised at you.

Sure, say that if you want, but I find it absolutely true. ME2 came across as wanting to lump in with the Modern Warfares, Gears of Wars and Halos while ME1 felt like it was trying to at least be unique and different. ME1 felt like it was more for the refined gamer rather than for the mainstream everygamer of today. Maybe I should put it as the following:-

ME1 = An Aston Martin
ME2 = A Honda Civic

ME1 = Caviar
ME2 = A Cheeseburger

ME1 = Beethoven
ME2 = 50 Cent

ME1 = 2001: A Space Odyssey
ME2 = Michael Bay's Transformers

etc.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

I was more referring to things like not allowing us to access things via the keyboard and having to press Esc to get to the menu to get to them (i.e. pressing 'J' to access the Journal), the fact that remapping the keys wasn't taken into account by the prompts (e.g. I remap the action function from 'Spacebar' to 'E' and yet it still keeps telling me to press 'Spacebar' to do things) and the fact that despite having a buttload of keys on a PC we still have to put up with the same key for taking cover, sprinting and performing an action. It just feels like it needed some final polishing and not being treated like a lazy console port when it came to functionality.

meh, i use the default controls - i find with all pc games it's easier to do that than try and remap them (for better or worse), at least you generally need less keys these days... i think it's slightly ridiculous that you expect the game to recognise that you have re-mapped you controls during precanned tutorials though, you should have more sense than that. there's nothing wrong with the having the same key for those actions, either - the game was clearly designed for that, it makes navigating/interacting a lot easier in combat particularly. i can't say i've ever found that the controls have caused me problems even once during play (unlike weird automatic things that happen like your character standing up randomly in firefights when you change weapon - both versions).

Terror_K wrote...
Sure, say that if you want, but I find it absolutely true. ME2 came across as wanting to lump in with the Modern Warfares, Gears of Wars and Halos while ME1 felt like it was trying to at least be unique and different. ME1 felt like it was more for the refined gamer rather than for the mainstream everygamer of today. Maybe I should put it as the following:-

ME1 = An Aston Martin
ME2 = A Honda Civic

ME1 = Caviar
ME2 = A Cheeseburger

ME1 = Beethoven
ME2 = 50 Cent

ME1 = 2001: A Space Odyssey
ME2 = Michael Bay's Transformers

etc.

rubbish - me series stands more on it's own than almost anything out there. having said that, there's nothing wrong with having a broader demographic appeal as long as you stay true to your core vision, me2 has that (and that's the most important thing); and the games have a very unique feel as a result (apart from me2 having a more mature "grittier" look/feel to go with the plot and locations). anyone looking at both games for the first time would be able to tell they were from the same series, and not gears/halo/mw2/DA:O etc.

and 2001 was an incredibly boring film, completely limited by the technology of the time. and i have no idea where you get off comparing me2 with transformers...?

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

i think it's slightly ridiculous that you expect the game to recognise that you have re-mapped you controls during precanned tutorials though, you should have more sense than that.

Oh yes... ridiculous...

I mean, just because 95% of PC games out there are programmed professionally enough by the designers and programmers to take this into account and adjust it so the appropriate keys are correctly bound whenever giving instructions to the player, I shouldn't expect the "professionals" programming ME2 to do the same.

As somebody who has done programming, let me add that it's not exactly difficult to set up a reference to a key bind as opposed to simply stating the default key; all you need to do is get it to read what the set bind is and display that. Clearly the programmers here were just lazy and rather than set up a reference to do such they simply had it display the defaults. What's worse is that it wasn't even fixed when The Hammerhead came out. Seriously... this is grade school programming stuff here.

rubbish - me series stands more on it's own than almost anything out there. having said that, there's nothing wrong with having a broader demographic appeal as long as you stay true to your core vision, me2 has that (and that's the most important thing); and the games have a very unique feel as a result (apart from me2 having a more mature "grittier" look/feel to go with the plot and locations). anyone looking at both games for the first time would be able to tell they were from the same series, and not gears/halo/mw2/DA:O etc.

and 2001 was an incredibly boring film, completely limited by the technology of the time. and i have no idea where you get off comparing me2 with transformers...?

You seem to be looking at the game purely from an aesthetic and cinematic standpoint from the look of it. If we take away the cinematic aspects entirely and look purely at the gameplay elements alone, we have two completely different kettles of fish.

That said, the fact that you called 2001 "incredibly boring" just makes me realise the pointlessness of this argument and that I'm wasting my time on you.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

That said, the fact that you called 2001 "incredibly boring" just makes me realise the pointlessness of this argument and that I'm wasting my time on you.

just taking that bit tells me enough - your snooty elitism showing through. 2001 WAS crap. it was over-long, slow, typically (for the director) impersonal, self-important fluff (maybe that's why you like it?). all of kubricks films are very similarly shot and structured, whatever the setting/story, he wasn't visionary and his lack of output is down to his complete control-freakish nature, which comes out in all of his films as i mentioned above.

you can pine away wanting mass effect to be something it's not (and has never been btw), viewing mass effect 1 through your rose-tinted spectacles and deriding mass effect 2 as much as you like, I and millions more like me will continue to enjoy the sequels. the shame of it is mass effect 1 is a great game - it set up a wonderful universe, style, story and for all it's flaws (and there are many) the ambition shone through. the same goes for me2, for many of the same reasons - and sure there are flaws - but the brilliance still shines through, and the beauty of it is combat is actually enjoyable and challenging.

oh and btw, you're not the only one with programming knowledge - what i meant is there are more important things to worry about than going through and binding innumerable combinations of key prompts when the default sets work well for probably 99% of people. but i guess you were also hoping for an isometric view being thrown in there, a load more stats, probably some spells and dice whilst they were at it, huh?

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 = An Aston Martin
ME2 = A Porsche Carrera GT

ME1 = Caviar
ME2 = Fugu

ME1 = Beethoven
ME2 = Bach

ME1 = 2001: A Space Odyssey
ME2 = Blade Runner

fixed your list for you [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 26 avril 2010 - 02:02 .

[Terror_K]

Oh, I was wondering when that annoying buzzword "elitism" would come up again in another piece of misguided hypocrisy. Seems whenever somebody wants even the slightest bit of depth and sophistication in their games rather than the samey and oversimplified action-oriented pap getting shoveled down out throats these days they get labeled as an elitist, because God-forbid somebody with something between their ears want a game that's not just dumbed down simplicity for the masses.



And once again, those of us with the label also get treated to the nicely black and white stamping of wanting an overly complex AD&D style affair with an isometric view and redundant stats and dice rolls... no matter how many times we say that's not what we're after with Mass Effect at all. Yes... because we complain we want the most extreme, complex RPG ever conceived. Perhaps if you people actually read what we were saying and could comprehend there being more than a binary resolution to every problem then this wouldn't keep coming up. What's the point in even debating with people who can't even seem to grasp what you're saying and jump to inane conclusions based on the mere fact that you disagree with them? Here, I'll make it simple: just because ME2 is a disappointment, doesn't mean we want a turn-based, dice-roll determined isometric RPG-fest with stats determining 10,000,000 different attributes. Read what we're saying, not what your mind has concocted merely because we disagree with you.

[Jebel Krong]

hmmm i was being sarcastic for the most-part, but your retort tells me i've touched a nerve. why is it ok for you to complain about me calling you elitist, but when i say i like the better shooter mechanics of me2 as well as all the great things that carried over from me1, plus all the other improvements, i'm just a "dumb halo/MW2 wannabe player and unable to appreciate 'depth'?" (and btw - depth =/= stat-based aiming).

[Dudeman315]

What are these great things that carry over?

Worse story, lore breaking mechanics, meaningless choices that have no gameplay effects, plot still exactly where you left it?

(depth =/= stat-based aiming). no but it does add +1 to depth

[racerx85x]

What disappointed me in Mass Effect 2. (plus some things that every game should do better)

1: I want to sprint past everything whenever I darn well please. I'll appreciate the scenery once and only once.

2: Bobbleheads on my otherwise clean and immersive screen. HUD OPTIONS PEOPLE!

3: Little floating orange and blue boxes on my otherwise clean and immersive screen! HUD OPTIONS PEOPLE!

3: EDI is a vagina-mouthed probe.

4: To all 3rd person shooters: If you're going to try and go for Gears of War style in the way you design a firefight, really go for it. Make moving around the battlefield as fluid as possible (i.e. I'm not saying easy or too simple, since Gears is a freaking challenge. I'm saying fluid once the player learns the controls as second nature.) ME2 doesn't feel clean.

5: Customizable controls PLEASE devs. Why must you dictate layouts!
Upon seeing that the Controls menu had optional layouts: "OOOH more layouts I don't want to use! Yay!"

Otherwise I love Mass Effect 2 and the Mass Effect universe and Bioware in general for an amazing job. This is one series I have honest to god fallen in love with. 

But seriously, bobbleheads. WTF

[finnithe]

Dudeman315 wrote...

What are these great things that carry over?
Worse story, lore breaking mechanics, meaningless choices that have no gameplay effects, plot still exactly where you left it?
(depth =/= stat-based aiming). no but it does add +1 to depth

The lore breaking mechanic (I guess the heat sink system) has always confused me. Isn't it just as lore breaking that in ME1 Shepard can carry every piece of armor and gun he owns? Where are these things being stored? Personally, I'm willing to tolerate such a small retcon, especially since it improved the gameplay, at least in my opinion (I know that some don't like the new system).

[Brako Shepard]

uberdowzen wrote...

I think the problem with a lot of the arguments against ME2 is that they are confusing Roleplaying with Roleplaying Elements. Roleplaying is making choices as a character that affect outcomes of situations etc. Roleplaying Elements are things such as inventorys, stats and combat with random elements. Roleplaying Elements can, if used properly, improve RPGs but they don't define them. I love RPGs but I've think they've gotten into a rut where any change to that formula causes fans to call it dumbed down. Bioware has experimented with ME2 and for that I applaud them.

One of the most sensible and truthful posts I have ever seen on here.

The one thing alot of gamers hate/fear, is change. If they loved the first game, you can gaurantee they will hate the second as they won't give the game much of a chance. Alot of gamers live in the past and refuse to accept that future sequals have mostly been changed for the better.

And for crying out loud I wish people would stop calling either of the Mass Effect games an RPG.