10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...

That is wrong, and you probably know it. Renegade in ME 2 too often means pointless violence, probably just because it looks "cool". This is not what renegade in ME 1 was about. At the same time, paragon has been changed too. To help someone with their business, a paragon Shepard would threaten to break someone's legs? Really? That's not my Shepard. [/quote]

Really? Are you absolutely certain that you want to use this argument? "That's not my Shepard"? And then call yourself an RPG fan? [/quote]

What does one thing have to do with the other?

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

My Shepard doesn't sound like Mark Meer or Jennifer Hale. My renegade Shepard doesn't hate aliens. My renegade Shepard wouldn't say half the things Mass Effect forces me to say because I can't see the actual dialogue. As I said before, you're applying double standards. In short, none of Mass Effect's Shepards are my Shepard.[/quote]

I am not at all applying double standards. On the contrary. What you are missing is that ME 1 set the precedent. Shepard was voiced by those voice actors, like it or not. It would be very strange if the successor suddenly worked with other voice actors. Likewise, ME 1 set some standards what paragon and renegade mean. If the successor suddenly changes that concept so much as it did, then that is strange and uncalled for too. That's actually the main problem with ME 2, it doesn't continue ME 1, it is a very different game.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]
It seems to me that much more thinking has been put into the writing for ME 1. Whereas ME 2 remains very shallow most of the time, just out for the flashy cutscene.
[/quote]

Mass Effect 1 is basically a giant flashy cut-scene.
[/quote][/quote]

Whatever you say. Then ME 2 is basically a collection of unrelated flashy cutscenes.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:54 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...
And how many of these people who complained were true RPG fans? This was par for the course for Baldur's Gate, NWN and pretty much any D&D-based RPG. Same with many fantasy RPGs that weren't. Too many players who want everything to be easy, want instant gratification and don't want to have the limits and restrictions that an RPG should put on you because of all the action games that don't have it.

I am a true RPG fan. I've played Baldur's Gate 1+2. I've beaten Deus Ex twice. I beat Planescape Torment. I've beaten Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 17 times,  and Jade Empire 8 times. I've clocked hundreds of hours in the Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and less so with Oblivion. I beat Knights of the Old Republic 2 twice and even wrote a philosophy paper on Kreia, the protagonist's mentor. I currently have 4 pen and paper campaigns running at the moment with detailed back stories for two of them. I've beaten Mass Effect 5 times and Mass Effect 2 twice. I consider Mass Effect 2 to be just as much an RPG and a much better video game than Mass Effect.

Sort through your own fan-base and tell me how many are 'true RPG' fans.

You kind of can roleplay in WoW, but it's completely up to you. The problem is next to nobody does. Other MMO's can be better at this, but even then it's generally limited to the rare RP servers and is nowhere near as common as those who just care about grinding and getting "teh ultimatorz!!1 stuff!" etc.

I would agree if the emphasis was anywhere on role-play. Even on RP servers most people don't follow this as a rule. Role-playing in WoW amounts to nothing more than

a) take a quest or don't take it.
enter an area or don't enter it.

That's really it. There's absolutely no way to develop my character's persona through any dialogue.

While I agree with what you say to a certain degree, when I say that 'the RPG elements have been dumbed down" and that I want them back or them to have more depth, I'm referring to the statistical stuff and not roleplaying stuff.

But I'm still not seeing what statistical stuff is used for if it can't even foster role-play. If I'm a Mage, then I would like people to respond to me as if I'm a mage, etc. This is of much higher priority for role-playing than increasing the number of statistics just so we have "numbers to play with". I can do that in a Calculus Course. I would like my gameplay to have some relevance to who I am. I completely forget about the fact that I'm a Vanguard out of combat in both games. You're telling me numbers are more important than immersion in our world?  

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
What does one thing have to do with the other?

It should be pretty clear. Every person has a different mental image for how their character's voice sounds. That is often why CRPG's would avoid giving a fully voiced protagonist (think any Bioware game before Mass Effect). The idea was that since they couldn't account for everyone's voice, they would account for all of them.

Mass Effect killed this with Mark Meer/Jennifer Hale. You're here complaining because some dialogue options don't meet with how you see your Shepard acting. Mark Meer doesn't fit my bill for Shepard's voice and most of the renegade options in Mass Effect (anti-alien racism) don't fit the bill either. It's made worse because I can't even see what my Shepard is saying before I choose the dialogue.

I am not at all applying double standards. On the contrary. What you are missing is that ME 1 set the precedent. Shepard was voiced by those voice actors, like it or not. It would be very strange if the successor suddenly worked with other voice actors. Likewise, ME 1 set some standards what paragon and renegade mean. If the successor suddenly changes that concept so much as it did, then that is strange and uncalled for too. That's actually the main problem with ME 2, it doesn't continue ME 1, it is a very different game.

If after making Jade Empire, Bioware had announced that they were going to cease production of RPGs and instead make FPS games, what would you say? My guess is that you wouldn't be sitting here telling me that "their new FPS games set the precedent so it's okay"' you would be embittered and quite justified. Mass Effect is an RPG. I am going to judge it as an RPG. Your notion that it's the start to a new series so it's alright to change whatever they want is a false one. Especially when none of their previous games featured a fully-voiced protagonist. Mass Effect 1 could have been an FPS and by your logic it would have been fine.

Edit: And don't get me started on Mass Effect's renegade options. I wanted to play my character as someone who believed the ends justify the means: someone who made that clear with all their actions. I didn't think I was going to play a racist jerk which is pretty much what Renegade Shepard is in Mass Effect.

Whatever you say. Then ME 2 is basically a collection of unrelated flashy cutscenes.

Well, I thought it made sense, but to each his own.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 03:09 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

If after making Jade Empire, Bioware had announced that they were going to cease production of RPGs and instead make FPS games, what would you say? My guess is that you wouldn't be sitting here telling me that "their new FPS games set the precedent so it's okay"' you would be embittered and quite justified. Mass Effect is an RPG. I am going to judge it as an RPG. Your notion that it's the start to a new series so it's alright to change whatever they want is a false one. Especially when none of their previous games featured a fully-voiced protagonist. Mass Effect 1 could have been an FPS and by your logic it would have been fine.

It is their right to make whatever kind of game they want. The big difference with ME 2 is that it was supposed to be and sold as a successor to ME 1, when in fact it was an almost complete change in so many regards. If BioWare/EA had stated that they see the shooter crowd as the new target audience, and that RPG fans are little more than an afterthought, then this thread would probably not have become as long as it is. Because disappointment usually requires some expectations. And the expectations were of course a game with at least the quality and the RPG content as part 1.

Il Divo wrote...

Edit: And don't get me started on Mass Effect's renegade options. I wanted to play my character as someone who believed the ends justify the means: someone who made that clear with all their actions. I didn't think I was going to play a racist jerk which is pretty much what Renegade Shepard is in Mass Effect.

I don't think that's the case. I think you could pretty well the Shepard you describe in ME 1. No one said you have to select each and every renegade reply. If you can see by the text on the dialogue wheel that the renegade response might be a "racist" one, you can always choose a different answer.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 03:23 .

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

no it isn't - there's a couple of pro-cerberus lines in there, but unless you are just determined to just click on the bottom right all the time regardless, the balance is almost identical to mass effect 1 - renegade shepard is generally the more efficient, get-to-the-point type of guy.

That is wrong, and you probably know it. Renegade in ME 2 too often means pointless violence, probably just because it looks "cool". This is not what renegade in ME 1 was about. At the same time, paragon has been changed too. To help someone with their business, a paragon Shepard would threaten to break someone's legs? Really? That's not my Shepard.

It seems to me that much more thinking has been put into the writing for ME 1. Whereas ME 2 remains very shallow most of the time, just out for the flashy cutscene.

bjdbwea wrote...

relying on mods to customise the game to your liking doesn't count.

I disagree. I have a lot of complaints against ME 2, and can do little about it. Whereas I also have complaints about DA, but I can easily mod the game more to my liking, or just install one of the countless mods the community has already developed. It goes without saying that I can forgive the shortcomings of DA much easier than I can with ME 2.

ah i remember now why i stopped reading your posts... 

[bjdbwea]

Let me guess... because I voice a different opinion from yours?

[zazei]

Il Divo wrote...
It should be pretty clear. Every person has a different mental image for how their character's voice sounds. That is often why CRPG's would avoid giving a fully voiced protagonist (think any Bioware game before Mass Effect). The idea was that since they couldn't account for everyone's voice, they would account for all of them.

Mass Effect killed this with Mark Meer/Jennifer Hale. You're here complaining because some dialogue options don't meet with how you see your Shepard acting. Mark Meer doesn't fit my bill for Shepard's voice and most of the renegade options in Mass Effect (anti-alien racism) don't fit the bill either. It's made worse because I can't even see what my Shepard is saying before I choose the dialogue.

ME1 established the character of Shepard and told us this would be his/her story. It's nonesense to complain Shepard in ME1 didn't fit the personality since it created one and told us that we couldn't choose exactly what to say but instead guide a already established character that allowed some choice in how to do it with the options we where given. It's not so strange then to believe those paths would stay more or less the same for the sequel when we played the same character but instead they went around and changed it.

Now I think ME2 paragon is a lot more appealing to play then the ME1 one but that doesn't change the fact that they are nothing alike while they are suppose to be the same damn person. At the same time my racist Shepard that I personally played for ME1 is gone. M character disliked and distrusted aliens two years ago and made a enemy or killed those she brought along, now in the second game when I meet people like Tali that had no reason to remotly like Shepard they both act like best friends and all anti-alien options are gone. Yet it's suppose to be the same one we played in ME1? I somehow can't see how when they are nothing alike and can't be played in the same manner.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
It is their right to make whatever kind of game they want. The big difference with ME 2 is that it was supposed to be and sold as a successor to ME 1, when in fact it was an almost complete change in so many regards. If BioWare/EA had stated that they see the shooter crowd as the new target audience, and that RPG fans are little more than an afterthought, then this thread would probably not have become as long as it is. Because disappointment usually requires some expectations. And the expectations were of course a game with at least the quality and the RPG content as part 1.

No, instead we would have a 10k page thread complaining how Bioware abandoned their loyal fan base. If it wasn't you complaining in that instance, it would be a million other players. Understand this: the Mass Effect fan base encompasses more than just those who liked Mass Effect. It includes those who've played a million other RPGs. We had no problem accepting Mass Effect's dumbed down elements, I really don't see why we shouldn't ignore Mass Effect 2's.

And you said disappointment requires expectations. Would you say that those who had played all of Bioware's previous games shouldn't have had any expectations of Mass Effect? If we follow your logic, then the only comparison we could ever make between video games are those which are in the same series. That's not how it works. If you're going to claim that Mass Effect 2 did not focus on its RPG fans, then I'm going to compare Mass Effect (what you're calling a true RPG) to other  true RPGs. That's how comparisons work. If we compare Mass Effect to Baldur's Gate or even Kotor, Mass Effect is really just Gears of War in comparison.

Il Divo wrote...
I don't think that's the case. I think you could pretty well the Shepard you describe in ME 1. No one said you have to select each and every renegade reply. If you can see by the text on the dialogue wheel that the renegade response might be a "racist" one, you can always choose a different answer.

More often than not, you'll find that the dialogue wheel fails to convey the proper tone of my response, let alone the actual words. The dialogue wheel tells you almost nothing. It's why it's such a terrible idea, cinematic quality aside.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 03:42 .

[Il Divo]

zazei wrote...
ME1 established the character of Shepard and told us this would be his/her story. It's nonesense to complain Shepard in ME1 didn't fit the personality since it created one and told us that we couldn't choose exactly what to say but instead guide a already established character that allowed some choice in how to do it with the options we where given. It's not so strange then to believe those paths would stay more or less the same for the sequel when we played the same character but instead they went around and changed it.

And I would agree if we were talking about a positive element. Let's say Mass Effect handled Paragon options incredibly well in Mass Effect. Then it underwent a change in style for Mass Effect 2. You would be justified in saying "what the hell?". If we're talking about a negative element (anti-alien racism) which has come under criticism before, I don't see why altering Shepard's personality is a problem. Is it a little inconsistent? Perhaps, but compare this to forcing players to endure a personality they don't like for 3 consecutive games and I personally will endure a slight retcon.

Edit: That's not to say that my perception of negative elements is perfect. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But if we look at an element that we know is misplaced, I don't see anything wrong with removing it.

Bioware told us that this would not be your stereotypical good vs. evil. There would be choices; some very hard choices. Mass Effect is basically just Jade Empire 2.0 as far as the alignment goes. Yes, we're told that this isn't just good vs. evil, but it doesn't really play out any different. If Shepard is an established personality/hero, even offering anti-alien sentiments just seems so foreign. I don't feel like Shepard is making a hard decision; he's just being an ass.  

I don't think it's a huge deal when you consider how the dialogue wheel can even result in Shepard making very strange comments.

Now I think ME2 paragon is a lot more appealing to play then the ME1 one but that doesn't change the fact that they are nothing alike while they are suppose to be the same damn person. At the same time my racist Shepard that I personally played for ME1 is gone. M character disliked and distrusted aliens two years ago and made a enemy or killed those she brought along, now in the second game when I meet people like Tali that had no reason to remotly like Shepard they both act like best friends and all anti-alien options are gone. Yet it's suppose to be the same one we played in ME1? I somehow can't see how when they are nothing alike and can't be played in the same manner.

Well, recruitment/Geth Incursions mission aside, I don't really recall many opportunities to be offensive towards Tali. But as I said, you're describing a 'negative element'. Or rather what I perceive to be a negative element. I didn't think turning Shepard into a racist was the correct route to go. That didn't fully bring out the idealist vs. the realist which is what paragon/renegade were supposed to emulate.

But you'll find that many characters undergo slight alterations in personality. I'm not saying it was the best idea in the world, but I do find Renegade Shepard a little more sympathetic in Mass Effect 2 (but not much).

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:00 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

No, instead we would have a 10k page thread complaining how Bioware abandoned their loyal fan base. If it wasn't you complaining in that instance, it would be a million other players. Understand this: the Mass Effect fan base encompasses more than just those who liked Mass Effect. It includes those who've played a million other RPGs. We had no problem accepting Mass Effect's dumbed down elements, I really don't see why we shouldn't ignore Mass Effect 2's.

And you said disappointment requires expectations. Would you say that those who had played all of Bioware's previous games shouldn't have had any expectations of Mass Effect? If we follow your logic, then the only comparison we could ever make between video games are those which are in the same series. That's not how it works. If you're going to claim that Mass Effect 2 did not focus on its RPG fans, then I'm going to compare Mass Effect (what you're calling a true RPG) to other  true RPGs. That's how comparisons work. If we compare Mass Effect to Baldur's Gate or even Kotor, Mass Effect is really just Gears of War in comparison.

I played all previous BioWare games and I know that. BG 2 is still my favorite game - together with ME 1. You are right that ME 1 was already dumbed down. But ME 2 went much further yet.

I for one never said that ME 1 was a "true" RPG. I certainly would have liked more RPG elements. But it was okay. It was advertised as a mixture of RPG and shooting, and that's what we got. Only ME 2 went much further into the shooting direction, and I dislike that.

But the removal or dumbing down of RPG elements was never my main complaint against ME 2 anyway. The story and presentation too have been dumbed down. That's where ME 1 impressed me most, that's why I like the game so much, and that's where ME 2 disappointed me most.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:22 .

[Whatever42]

zazei wrote...
Now I think ME2 paragon is a lot more appealing to play then the ME1 one but that doesn't change the fact that they are nothing alike while they are suppose to be the same damn person. At the same time my racist Shepard that I personally played for ME1 is gone. M character disliked and distrusted aliens two years ago and made a enemy or killed those she brought along, now in the second game when I meet people like Tali that had no reason to remotly like Shepard they both act like best friends and all anti-alien options are gone. Yet it's suppose to be the same one we played in ME1? I somehow can't see how when they are nothing alike and can't be played in the same manner.

Thats perfectly valid. There are definately some continuity issues with some of the rpg options, such as around the Earth-first Shepard. Its not that bad - you can pretty much be a Cerberus fanboi and give them the Collector station but the flavour isn't quite the same. You can't continue with your anti-Turian tirades.

Fortunately, that didn't affect my Shepard but I can see how that would be annoying.

[sAxMoNkI]

I'm probably not the first to have noticed this but it strikes me that Mass Effect has fallen foul of the same problem as the halo series.



Both halo: CE and mass effect were sleeper hits that came out of nowhere and did astoundingly well. Giving the gamer an unparalled sense of scale and immersion. Both sequels were then anticipated immensely and touted as "the game to watch" and due to this immense pressure both from fans and publishers, the game studio itself felt the need to give itself a ludicrously short deadline to complete the game.



This resulted in cut content and ideas that couldn't be implemented in time.



Where I hope Mass Effect 3 will differ is that it will mirror the ethos behind the devlopment of Halo: Reach not Halo 3, in that it retains the original feeling and nostaligia of the first game whilst still innovating and incoporating the lessons learned from the previous games. And for the love of god...(and this is to the whole games industry) allow the developers the time to finish the game properly, because in the long run it will pay dividends.



Finally I would just like to add I loved mass effect 1 and 2, each for different reasons and am very excited for mass effect 3! (And that if this sounds like a rant it is unintentional .)

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
I played all previous BioWare games and I know that. BG 2 is still my favorite game - together with ME 1. You are right that ME 1 was already dumbed down. But ME 2 went much further yet.

And I've also played all previous Bioware games and came to a different conclusion. Mass Effect is my second least favorite Bioware game, surpassing only Neverwinter Nights. This doesn't say much since I think Bioware just craps gold, but are you understanding my point? You claim that Mass Effect 2 sacrificed everything for flashy graphics, gameplay, etc. Prior to Mass Effect 2, I could easily have said exactly the same about Mass Effect 1. Before this, you would have been the "dumb shooter fan", so to speak. We're all just idiots with opinions but this notion you have that Mass Effect 2 caters to only shooter fans is insulting.

Answer me this: would I have been justified in asking Bioware to return to the days of Kotor, much like you're doing now with Mass Effect 2? You probably would have been insulted.

And I would say that Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect was a much larger degree of dumbing down than Mass Effect 1 to 2. You're taking into account a transition from advanced dungeons and dragons, silent protagonists, over the top camera, etc to real-time shooter combat, fully voiced npc's, and eye candy. Mass Effect started this trend. Unfortunately for myself, many players, and quite a few critics the gameplay did not live up to expectations.

I for one never said that ME 1 was a "true" RPG. I certainly would have liked more RPG elements. But it was okay. It was advertised as a mixture of RPG and shooting, and that's what we got. Only ME 2 went much further into the shooting direction, and I dislike that.

So when promoting the game, didn't Bioware tell you they were placing more emphasis on gameplay? I recall this being an important aspect of their marketing strategy. Regardless, it still remains a mix of action and RPG. The difference is that Mass Effect's gameplay was not fluid at all. Ducking behind cover, aiming your weapon, etc. for alot of us felt awkward.

But the removal or dumbing down of RPG elements was never my main complaint against ME 2 anyway. The story and presentation too have been dumbed down. That's where ME 1 impressed me most, that's why I like the game so much, and that's where ME 2 disappointed me most.

And ironically enough, that's where Mass Effect disappointed me the most my first playthrough. Until the Virmire revelation (you know the one I speak of), Mass Effect felt relatively standard fare. Had the world not been interesting, I probably wouldn't have finished it. Having beaten it the first time, subsequent playthroughs became more interesting because I knew each time what was actually at stake.

Mass Effect 2 had a thin story-line. It gets the job done, certainly. But then, compare this to Mass Effect 1 which had absolutly fail squad members compared to every other Bioware game. Mass Effect 2 actually brought some life into this area, which the series drastically needed. Mordin alone has more personality than all your squad-mates, Wrex aside Mass Effect 1 was really all plot. If you couldn't become interested, there was nothing to hold you there. Mass Effect 2 takes the reverse approach and is "everything else".

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 06:05 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

And I've also played all previous Bioware games and came to a different conclusion. Mass Effect is my second least favorite Bioware game, surpassing only Neverwinter Nights. This doesn't say much since I think Bioware just craps gold, but are you understanding my point? You claim that Mass Effect 2 sacrificed everything for flashy graphics, gameplay, etc. Prior to Mass Effect 2, I could easily have said exactly the same about Mass Effect 1. Before this, you would have been the "dumb shooter fan", so to speak. We're all just idiots with opinions but this notion you have that Mass Effect 2 caters to only shooter fans is insulting.

Insulting to whom? I would never have been the "dumb shooter fan", because I never played the ME series for the shooting part. I like ME 1 so much because of the story, the presentation, the characters, the choices, the immersion into an amazing galaxy. I also like that my main character is fully voiced, and plays a real role in the cutscenes. (I would like to see DA maintain the more traditional dialogue system though.)

Il Divo wrote...

Answer me this: would I have been justified in asking Bioware to return to the days of Kotor, much like you're doing now with Mass Effect 2? You probably would have been insulted.

You would of course have every right to ask them that. And unlike some in this thread, I wouldn't insult you for that opinion. In some aspects, I would even agree that a return to the "days of KotoR" would be preferable.

Il Divo wrote...

And I would say that Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect was a much larger degree of dumbing down than Mass Effect 1 to 2. You're taking into account a transition from advanced dungeons and dragons, silent protagonists, over the top camera, etc to real-time shooter combat, fully voiced npc's, and eye candy. Mass Effect started this trend. Unfortunately for myself, many players, and quite a few critics the gameplay did not live up to expectations.

Mass Effect did not start that trend. Actually, the gameplay in JE was much more dumbed down than in ME 1. I really thought that they had found their way back to less dumbing down with that game. Only to have even more in ME 2.

But as I said before, I don't play the ME series for the pew-pew. Dumb it down or not, whatever. I can't see how the story or the characters in ME 1 are dumbed down. They certainly have a bit less to say because of the voice acting, but story and characters are very much up to BioWare's previous standards, and the presentation set a new milestone. The same can not be said about ME 2 in my opinion.

Il Divo wrote...

So when promoting the game, didn't Bioware tell you they were placing more emphasis on gameplay? I recall this being an important aspect of their marketing strategy. Regardless, it still remains a mix of action and RPG. The difference is that Mass Effect's gameplay was not fluid at all. Ducking behind cover, aiming your weapon, etc. for alot of us felt awkward.

On consoles, perhaps? I'm playing ME 1 once again, and I have neither problems with combat, nor with the Mako. The PC version is actually much better to control than ME 2, which forces several functions on one key, and its lack of hotkeys.

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect 2 had a thin story-line. It gets the job done, certainly. But then, compare this to Mass Effect 1 which had absolutly fail squad members compared to every other Bioware game. Mass Effect 2 actually brought some life into this area, which the series drastically needed. Mordin alone has more personality than all your squad-mates, Wrex aside Mass Effect 1 was really all plot. If you couldn't become interested, there was nothing to hold you there. Mass Effect 2 takes the reverse approach and is "everything else".

Have to disagree again. I think the writing in ME 1 was great, and I liked all characters. And they were very well integrated into the main story. Where is any tie to the main story in ME 2? Where are the opinions of my companions on Shepard's past and present actions, anything that happens in the game, or each other? They all have their hour of glory in their loyalty quests, and then they're pretty much decoration apart from the romances. And the romances lack depth and connection to the main story too.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 06:38 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

And ironically enough, that's where Mass Effect disappointed me the most my first playthrough. Until the Virmire revelation (you know the one I speak of), Mass Effect felt relatively standard fare. Had the world not been interesting, I probably wouldn't have finished it. Having beaten it the first time, subsequent playthroughs became more interesting because I knew each time what was actually at stake.

Mass Effect 2 had a thin story-line. It gets the job done, certainly. But then, compare this to Mass Effect 1 which had absolutly fail squad members compared to every other Bioware game. Mass Effect 2 actually brought some life into this area, which the series drastically needed. Mordin alone has more personality than all your squad-mates, Wrex aside Mass Effect 1 was really all plot. If you couldn't become interested, there was nothing to hold you there. Mass Effect 2 takes the reverse approach and is "everything else".

Me, I thought ME 1's plot was "thin but got the job done"  I also really enjoyed the squadmates in ME 1.  They seemed like "real" people struggling to accomplish the impossible.

ME 2's story was even thinner.  In addition, it seemed to completely forget about ME 1.  Like whoever was writing the story was operating off someone else's notes on ME 1's story, and wasn't personally familiar with it.  They took such pains to make it "accessible"  to new players that I feel that my playing through ME 1 simply didn't matter.  Yeah, Sovereign's been defeated, Woo-hoo.  But does it matter how or why, or what steps were taken along the way?  Nope.   A direct sequel, more than a regular sequel like DA2, has an added requirement of being a, well, "direct" sequel.  A sense of continuity is needed.

Some characters in ME 2 were pretty well done (Mordin, Samara, Jacob in particular).  However, they all seem to suffer from "superhero syndrome"  Garrus used to be a promising young C-Sec agent with a temper.  Now he's a super-vigilante hwo can hold off an army of mercs with just a sniper rifle.  I've seen the comparison that ME 2 story is more like a dozen fanfiction stories tied together.  That's a harsh, but unfortunately not entirely inaccurate comparison.

Modifié par iakus, 27 juillet 2010 - 06:47 .

[tonnactus]

Jebel Krong wrote...


i hated in me1 taking people i hated (tali) just so i could open locked boxes - that wasn't RP that was retarded.

I found teammembers with tech abilities really usefull on any difficulty.Not just for open containers...

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

Me, I thought ME 1's plot was "thin but got the job done"  I also really enjoyed teh squadmates in ME 1.  They seemed like "real" people struggling to accomplish the impossible.

ME 2 seemed to completely forget about ME 1.  Like whoever was writing the story was operating off someone else's notes on ME 1's story, and wasn't personally familiar with it.  They took such pains to make it "accessible"  to new players that I feel that my playing through ME 1 simply didn't matter.  Yeah, Sovereign's been defeated, Woo-hoo.  But does it matter how or why, or what steps were taken along the way?  Nope.

Some characters in ME 2 were pretty well done.  However, they all seem to suffer from "superhero syndrome"  Garrus used to be a promising yound C-Sec agent with a temper.  Now he's a super-vigilante hwo can hold off an army of mercs with just a sniper rifle.  I've seen the comparison that ME 2 story is more like a dozen fanfiction stories tied together.  That's a harsh, but unfortunately not entirely inaccurate comparison.

And outside of a few missions in ME1, all the missions were bland cut-and-paste experiences.  And while the dialogues were pretty good with most of the characters (I rarely could be bothered to talk with Kaiden), it was all pretty much fluff. Sure you got Wrex's armor and shot some guy in the head for Garrus (or not) but those missions were just more cut-and-paste.

In ME2, you actually immersed yourself into the character's world. We got to see the quarian fleet. We got to track an assasination with our Drell badass. We got to help Grunt to become a "man". That was awesome. ME1 was shallow fluff by comparison. Interesting backstory that went almost no where.

Yes, more continuity would have been great. Yes, the pacing of the story bogged down - I would have preferred a couple less teamates and a couple more plot-driven missions (although we would all choose different teammates to drop). But while giving plot to ME1, I easily give characters, gameplay, dialogue, and immersion to ME2. For me, it was a far more enjoyable experience.

I find that many complaints on these forums seem to centre around that the story didn't take them where they wanted to go. They wanted to remain the big hero, the shining knight, and in ME2, here they were in the muck. I can appreciate that its not the story they wanted. However, I think its colouring their persceptions too much.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

And ME2 is hardly the middle ground: ME1 was closer to that. ME2 caters far too much for the type of gamer I listed above who doesn't want depth or restriction and just wants everything to fall into their lap. Heck... for ME3, let's just give every class access to biotic powers while we're at it!

In Mass Effect 2, a soldier with reave have a shorter cooldown time for this power then samara herself.
Thats just retarded and not far away from giving all classes biotic powers.
In the first game,non biotic classes at least couldnt use omnitools/bioamps.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
Insulting to whom? I would never have been the "dumb shooter fan", because I never played the ME series for the shooting part. I like ME 1 so much because of the story, the presentation, the characters, the choices, the immersion into an amazing galaxy. I also like that my main character is fully voiced, and plays a real role in the cutscenes. (I would like to see DA maintain the more traditional dialogue system though.)

True, but that still results in the mistaken assumption that you're playing for the shooting part. On page 298 you go into it in quite detail about how all reviewers are biased, etc and Mass Effect 2 only pleases shooter fans, not those looking for depth. I don't play Mass Effect 2 for the pew pew and still thought it was an amazing experience. The character being fully voiced results in a character that becomes less our own however, hence why I say "dumbed down".

Mass Effect did not start that trend. Actually, the gameplay in JE was much more dumbed down than in ME 1. I really thought that they had found their way back to less dumbing down with that game. Only to have even more in ME 2.

Well, strictly speaking it did. "Voice-acting, real time shooter combat, and eye candy". Jade Empire's combat system may have been overly simplistic, but my point is that all 3 of those elements are something typically attributed to the shooter genre, not the RPG genre. Hence why I say "Mass Effect" started that trend. Bioware decided to enter very dangerous waters. Some such as yourself thought they pulled it off, while others put their controllers down in disgust. Mass Effect regardless did cause some alienation.

But as I said before, I don't play the ME series for the pew-pew. Dumb it down or not, whatever. I can't see how the story or the characters in ME 1 are dumbed down. They certainly have a bit less to say because of the voice acting, but story and characters are very much up to BioWare's previous standards, and the presentation set a new milestone. The same can not be said about ME 2 in my opinion.

Wrex aside, none of the characters I would say live up to Bioware expectations. If someone asked me if I liked Garrus, I would respond "Yes". If they asked if I liked Liara, I would respond "Yes". Yes, for every party member. If they asked me whether I liked the Mass Effect party, I would respond "Hell no".

Every character is far too stoic for my taste. We rarely if ever see emotion, no rare moments of intrigue, etc. They never seem to raise their voices beyond room-level and it's a great weakness. Kotor featured diversity through Hk-47, Jolee Bindo, etc. Jade Empire did the same. And Mass Effect 2 returned to this trend thank God. Mordin has more personality than the entire cast put together. Compare this to Tali/Liara who feel more like walking encyclopedias on Asari/Quarian culture. We don't need 3 different characters filling that function.

On consoles, perhaps? I'm playing ME 1 once again, and I have neither problems with combat, nor with the Mako. The PC version is actually much better to control than ME 2, which forces several functions on one key, and its lack of hotkeys.

Not problems with controlling as much as gameplay itself being clunky, which was heavily criticized.

Have to disagree again. I think the writing in ME 1 was great, and I liked all characters. And they were very well integrated into the main story. Where is any tie to the main story in ME 2? Where are the opinions of my companions on Shepard's past and present actions, anything that happens in the game, or each other? They all have their hour of glory in their loyalty quests, and then they're pretty much decoration apart from the romances. And the romances lack depth and connection to the main story too.

I liked the characters too. It just feels like Bioware put the wrong group together for Mass Effect. Kaidan might've been a better fit in Jade Empire to give more variety or something. I would also say that barring the rare elevator conversation, my Mass Effect squad didn't have any interaction. I didn't ride on enough elevators to really understand what they all thought of each other. And each loyalty mission was infinitely superior to Mass Effect's frail attempts. We learn alot about each character through these quests. Miranda's quest was more touching than Tali's, Garrus', and Wrex's put together.

Mass Effect is more like a movie while Mass Effect 2 is a tv series is the comparison I've heard. I think it fits quite well. I can understand preferring one style to another, but I'm still not seeing how Mass Effect 2 (especially the characters) are "dumbed down". Think Firefly if you will. The loyalty missions are each individual episode while the suicide mission functions as the film "Serenity". It's not a perfect format, but it gets the job done.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 07:27 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...
Me, I thought ME 1's plot was "thin but got the job done"  I also really enjoyed the squadmates in ME 1.  They seemed like "real" people struggling to accomplish the impossible.

It's just weird because Mass Effect 1's plot goes from "rather boring" to "OMG WTF?!" status. It's an interesting shift and one I like better with every playthrough. I know having just beaten the game again 5 days ago.

But my issue with the squad-mates is, as I said, that they all feel too constrained. Each character has a believable story/motivation. Unfortunately, I feel like I'm walking around with 5 Sten's +Wrex. They just didn't all function well together when they all seemed stoic. They didn't feel diverse.

ME 2's story was even thinner.  In addition, it seemed to completely forget about ME 1.  Like whoever was writing the story was operating off someone else's notes on ME 1's story, and wasn't personally familiar with it.  They took such pains to make it "accessible"  to new players that I feel that my playing through ME 1 simply didn't matter.  Yeah, Sovereign's been defeated, Woo-hoo.  But does it matter how or why, or what steps were taken along the way?  Nope.   A direct sequel, more than a regular sequel like DA2, has an added requirement of being a, well, "direct" sequel.  A sense of continuity is needed.

I personally felt the opposite as far as continuity. I thought the comparison with Empire Strikes Back was a good one: lackluster plot with incredible character exploration. It certainly could have been better, but I wasn't bothered by the plot-holes as much as others I know (heat sinks, etc).

Some characters in ME 2 were pretty well done (Mordin, Samara, Jacob in particular).  However, they all seem to suffer from "superhero syndrome"  Garrus used to be a promising young C-Sec agent with a temper.  Now he's a super-vigilante hwo can hold off an army of mercs with just a sniper rifle.  I've seen the comparison that ME 2 story is more like a dozen fanfiction stories tied together.  That's a harsh, but unfortunately not entirely inaccurate comparison.

Well, I would hardly say fanfiction. These probably are among Bioware's best characters (which even Smudboy concedes in his review). Super hero syndrome didn't bother so much as it fit the theme of "finding the best of the best", etc. And the loyalty missions themselves had so much depth to them, imo. Even the dlc characters'. I honestly could not pick out a favorite amongst the bunch; it changes every day.  

Edit: No, scratch that. Today my favorite is Garrus'. "Betrayal repaid, Sidonis." That was just so cold and calculating.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 07:10 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Wrex aside, none of the characters I would say live up to Bioware expectations. If someone asked me if I liked Garrus, I would respond "Yes". If they asked if I liked Liara, I would respond "Yes". Yes, for every party member. If they asked me whether I liked the Mass Effect party, I would respond "Hell no".

Every character is far too stoic for my taste. We rarely if ever see emotion, no rare moments of intrigue, etc. They never seem to raise their voices beyond room-level and it's a great weakness. Kotor featured diversity through Hk-47, Jolee Bindo, etc. Jade Empire did the same. And Mass Effect 2 returned to this trend thank God. Mordin has more personality than the entire cast put together. Compare this to Tali/Liara who feel more like walking encylcopedias on Asari/Quarian culture. We don't need 3 different characters filling that function.

I would argue that it's great that they told us these things through the companions instead of just a codex entry. The codex is great for additional information, but to hear it from a character adds a lot of atmosphere. Of course you don't have to introduce the players to the basics in a second part of a trilogy, so naturally Tali for example is able to talk about other things.

I see what you mean about the characters and their opinions. But I don't really agree. No opinions or emotions? What about Liara insisting (twice) that you save the Rachni queen? What about the famous locker scene, where the LI comforts Shepard? Perfect example of how to integrate companions into the main story. Whereas the companions - and their romances - in ME 2 exist in their own universe and have no connection whatsoever to the main story.

I do agree that Mordin was by far the best written companion in ME 2. In fact, he's the only one where I think the writing was up to BioWare's standards of quality and quantity, and up to the standards of ME 1. And his loyalty quest had the depth I was missing in most of the rest of the game.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 07:26 .

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

Edit: No, scratch that. Today my favorite is Garrus'. "Betrayal repaid, Sidonis." That was just so cold and calculating.

Yes. So exiting. Garrus didnt develop and change his character despite the fact that a paragon shepardt seemed to influence him to take the path of the law instead of the stupid vigilante trip he made in the sequel. So deep,its amazing.

I just hope that liaras mission wont be such a stupid,boring and awfull revenge trip like that of garrus.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 juillet 2010 - 07:59 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

But my issue with the squad-mates is, as I said, that they all feel too constrained. Each character has a believable story/motivation. Unfortunately, I feel like I'm walking around with 5 Sten's +Wrex. They just didn't all function well together when they all seemed stoic. They didn't feel diverse.

That's strange, because all the characters in ME 1 feel unique to me.  Kaiden is calm and thoughtful, keeps a cool head under pressure.  Ashley has a fiery temper and suspicious of others' motives.  Tali is young and idealistic while Wrex is older and more pragmatic (not to mention casual about inflicting violence).  Garrus has a strong sense of justice combined with a sense of frustration at red tape.  Liara is scholarly and a bit naive and nerdy (though her scene with Benezia is absolutely heartbreaking)

The squaddies in ME 2 are generally well done, but only within the confines of their own missions.  Outside of it, they might as well be robots.

I personally felt the opposite as far as continuity. I thought the comparison with Empire Strikes Back was a good one: lackluster plot with incredible character exploration. It certainly could have been better, but I wasn't bothered by the plot-holes as much as others I know (heat sinks, etc).

I don't judge the game just as a video game.  I also judge it as a sequel.  Like I said, more is expected of sequels
I'd probably be a lot more forgiving of this game if it didn't "star" Commander Shepard.  As it is, I expected it to be a continuation of the stroy, not a brand new adventure with all contact with the previous game artificially cut off.  Thus my comparisson to "Matrix Reloaded"

Well, I would hardly say fanfiction. These probably are among Bioware's best characters (which even Smudboy concedes in his review). Super hero syndrome didn't bother so much as it fit the theme of "finding the best of the best", etc. And the loyalty missions themselves had so much depth to them, imo. Even the dlc characters'. I honestly could not pick out a favorite amongst the bunch; it changes every day. 

The characters and thier backstories are pretty good, generally speaking.  The problem is they're all way over the top, competency-wise.  "Not just a leader, a genetically engineered dynasty in the making!  Not just a krogan warrior, a tank bred superkrogan distilled from the bloodlines of the greatest krogans EVAR!   I think this is why I like Jacob (no i haven't played a femshep and tried the romance, which I understand is pretty bad)  Compared to the others, he's "just a guy" 

"Finding the best of the best" is fine.  But they took it way over the top, to "Oh come ON!" extremes.  They even dress like supereroes!

The loyalty missions were fine.  Great even, as far as they go.  but these are the only times the characters really come to life.  And the third member of the party contributes nothing but extra firepower in the battles.  Outside the loyalty missions, they're little more than dols.  Or action figures, I guess. 

Edit: No, scratch that. Today my favorite is Garrus'. "Betrayal repaid, Sidonis." That was just so cold and calculating.

I'd have to say Samara is my favorite of the ME 2 characters.  I found  the whole concept of justicars and their oaths to be pretty neat.  Plus her personal mission was one of two that didn't involve running down corridors killing mercs.  I just wish she didn't dress like a space-hooker.

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

Yes. So exiting. Garrus didnt develop and change his character despite the fact that a paragon shepardt seemed to influence him to take the path of the law instead of the stupid vigilante trip he made in the sequel. So deep,its amazing.

I just hope that liaras mission wont be such a stupid,boring and awfull revenge trip like that of garrus.

This.

It's just one example of the lack of continuity between ME 1 and ME 2.   What you did or didn't do  doesn't matter

[horvagab]

ME 1 companions felt bland to me also. I mean, Liara, Wrex and Tali were defined by their race. Wrex was badass, but in the beginning he was a simple (but awesome) Krogan mercenary. Kaidan's back story was fun but short, Ashley and Garrus were the only ones with some real 'character' in my opinion.