10273 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

worm_burner wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

I haven't been here in ages but it just popped up in the recent forum threads so I came to have a look. My main thought...

...why is this still going?!?!?! After 306 pages has no one realised that you can't persuade anyone else that they're wrong and that Bioware is not going to read through this book length tome?

Its simple, they have nothing to do IRL and spend nearly all their time bashing this game.

Except that most people here aren't bashing the game, we just wanted more out of it and want ME3 to be this much better than ME2.

Claiming the game sucks, is stupid and meant for dumbshooter fans "sounds" more like bashing to me, that doesn't change the fact that people like you don't really have much of a life outside these forums considering you post here nearly 24/7 going baw baw baw.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

What I want are examples. Who in Mass Effect 2 does not undergo some form of character development (Zaeed aside)? Who is left a completely static character? How do you feel that Tali and Kaidan "develop" throughout Mass Effect?

I didn't say there was no character development in ME 2. There is some, in some loyalty quests. Mordin's for example is great, no question about that. But that's just not enough. It's like a TV series starring a new character with each episode.

The "character development" in the loyalty quests makes no difference whatsoever in the rest of the game, because the characters have no connection to it. Except for the switch that makes them "loyal", which suddenly makes them survive being hit by the same piece of debris.

That said, "development" is not everything that's required for a well written character. Believability, coherence, quality and quantity. ME 2 has too little of all these things. Though part of the problem is also the writing for Shepard, which too often withholds some obvious replies. Which reduces the development of Shepard and the characters he's talking to.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

I didn't say there was no character development in ME 2. There is some, in some loyalty quests. Mordin's for example is great, no question about that. But that's just not enough. It's like a TV series starring a new character with each episode.

Like I said, I just think it's a different style. It could've been done better, but I still don't see it being 'dumbed down' to appease shooter fans. If anything, they wouldn't have been included at all.

The "character development" in the loyalty quests makes no difference whatsoever in the rest of the game, because the characters have no connection to it. Except for the switch that makes them "loyal", which suddenly makes them survive being hit by the same piece of debris.

Well, does character development make a difference for the rest of the game in Mass Effect 1? To use some more prominent examples, Tali, Kaidan, and Garrus. What I found odd about these characters is how brief their participation in the main plot is, especially for Kaidan and Tali. I wouldn't say any of them go through any character development that affects the rest of the game.

I also find it more acceptable to look at loyalty as a "focus" bar, which makes sense given the context of Illusive Man's and Jacob's comments. Tali getting hit by debris because she's worried about her exile rather than because she doesn't like me.

That said, "development" is not everything that's required for a well written character. Believability, coherence, quality and quantity. ME 2 has too little of all these things. Though part of the problem is also the writing for Shepard, which too often withholds some obvious replies. Which reduces the development of Shepard and the characters he's talking to.

Well, I'd say Shepard's writing withholds just as many replies in Mass Effect; I didn't want to know about Quarian culture, rather I wanted to learn about Tali, but there we have it. I'd also say Shepard never develops between either game, save the romance and drinking with Chakwas. It's hard to develop someone who's supposed to relate to everyone.

But you're still not giving examples; you're just giving me your conclusions which is not what I asked for. I know how you feel about the Mass Effect 2 cast already. I can't do much when you're just telling me they lacked "quality or coherence". But to leap off your one point, I thought Mass Effect's cast was too believable, to the point where it didn't make sense that I would bring them. Kotor comparison coming!

Kotor: You have 10 squad members in Kotor. Each of them (save maybe Bastilla) lacks that "over the top" feeling in their intro, yet they're all developed incredibly well and it's easy to understand what they bring to the table. Bastilla, Juhani, and Jolee are Jedi Knights. Zaalbar is a wookie, Canderous is a Mandalorian, etc. The point is at no point do I find myself asking why this party is here.

Mass Effect: You have 6 squad members in Mass Effect. Each's "role" in the main plot is contrived, short, and their 'use' in fighting Saren isn't really clear. Good example: Recruiting Tali. I just saved this girl's life to get her datapad and for some inexplicable reason Udina tells me to bring her along because she "encountered Saren once". How does that help me? Same with Ashley and Kaidan. Once I become a Spectre, why am I not working with other Spectres? Instead I'm taking a ragtag Alliance group because they were in the first 2 hours of gameplay.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juillet 2010 - 10:46 .

[Pocketgb]

worm_burner wrote...

Except that most people here aren't bashing the game...

Er, what? There are plenty of people on both sides bashing both games. This IS an internet forum after all?

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I used training montage as a bit of humor, since films that involve a bunch of misfits coming together for a big mision always have one:  the thieves practicing their robbery, the teeam training for the Big Game, the soldiers training as a unit.   While it would be cool if we could see Tali and Wrex (and others) practicing together.  Wile an "Eye of the Tiger" music video isn't really needed, some sort of interaction that shows the squad coming together as a unit was really needed and sorely missed.  Two personality clashes solved via paragon/renegade dialogue simply isn't enough.

Interaction, perhaps. I would've liked to see a Firefly style encounter where they all sit around a table eating dinner, etc though this could be difficult given the variables in who is or isn't recruited.

Small difference here.  Han and Leia were constantly being menaced Imperial forces. The "Reapers" if you will.  Or their minions.  This maintains the connection with the main story, the struggle to free the galaxy from the Empire.  In ME 2, the "Empire" is almost entirely absent.  Only three missions have "Stormtroopers" in them at all.  I'd say Han and Leia's role would be more "filler" if they spent the entire movie in various Wretched Hives of Scum and Villainy recruiting  freelancers to join the Rebel Alliance.  Or if Luke froze to death on Hoth and was revived and put to work by Jabba.

We're really stretching tihs analogy, aren't we?

Eh, we can stretch it a bit further, I think. It's when we start discussing the prequels that we have a problem.

But anyway, my point is that "filler" implies that we can cut it all out and not lose the overall meaning of the plot. This is much more difficult with Episode IV or VI where things are constantly moving. In describing Episode V, if I said "Han and Leia are running from the Empire" or "Luke trains to be a Jedi", in those two statements I've already encompassed at least half the movie.

Same how I can say "Shepard recruited a team" or "Shepard focused his team-mates" which probably encompasses more than half the time spent playing Mass Effect 2. But the point remains the same that even though Episode V may feature the Empire, it was not done to any purpose until we reach Cloud City.That's a huge reason why I liked the Collectors; they only appear on *their* terms instead of being a constant threat that blends into the background like stormtroopers or Geth. That you only encounter them in combat 3 times is a plus, in my opinion.

What,  Tali/Garrus fanfic?

I'm sure it's been done by someone.

It is true that ME 1 predates Dragon Age by a couple of years.  ME 2, however does not.  Also, ME 1 had much less focus on the squad. Talking to them "in the field" would only get you a single line about the situation.  But ME 2 doesn't even have this. 

Well, my point was that "elevator conversations" could have been "anywhere conversations" which would still be within the scope of Mass Effect's limits.

Using ME2's system, we wouldn't have Ashely commenting on how the stairs in teh Council chambers would make a good defensive position in an attack, or Wrex noticing sniper perches there as well.  Kaiden wouldn't have given us our first clue that the "Relay Monument" in the Presidium is more than it seems (he senses a low hum coming from it)  We wouldn't have Tali and Wrex talking about the fate of the krogan after the Rebellions.  Nor would we have gotten what I think is one of the funniest single lines in ME 1:  Ashley on Virmire "Nothing like a nice realxing walk on the beach, blasting bad guys with my boom stick!"

People often say that ME 1 was "plot focused" and ME 2 is "character focused"  I say ME 1 focused on the plot way better than ME 2 focused on the characters.  And it didn't focus much on the plot either.

For me, Mass Effect 1 is entirely a plot-experience game. It was Bioware-quality, but nothing I hadn't seen in a different or better incarnation before. Main issue really is that there's no 'incentive' to keep going until we reach Virmire. Jade Empire has you wondering about Death's Hand, Kotor had the visions. "Locating the Conduit" just didn't do it for me.

As for the party members themselves, I thought Mass Effect 2 had a spectaclular cast which was made better by the cinematic style. Mass Effect forgets it's a "movie" everytime you talk to your party. You stand "here", Ashley stands "there" and you talk. Mass Effect 2 brings its squad to life, which is something I hope to see more in future Bioware games. People don't stand still in conversation; they have mannerisms, habits, etc that identify them.

Finally , you must have terrible luck with the elevators, as I find myself regularly rotating characters I travel through the Citadel with for different combinations on elevator rides.

You have no idea. I'll purposely make trips to the Citadel switching people in or out, etc, only to either have silence or that weird commentator in the background. Like I said, it was too obscure for me to effectively evaluate.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juillet 2010 - 10:44 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

@Il Divo: so what it basically comes down to is that you're of the belief that BioWare made the right move in making the game shallow and simple in order to make things work, as opposed to myself (and most of the others who post in this topic and feel ME2 was dumbed down) who thought that the ME1 system could have been tweaked to make it work.

My point was that Mass Effect was incredibly dumbed down. Pretty much as far as you can go. You're comparing the fact that because Mass Effect's system "takes time" that it is complex. My inventory was not complex. Making omnigel, changing my weapon, etc, were not complex decisions. Bioware should have made Mass Effect with a "dnd in space" mentality. Give the player attributes, skills, feats, etc. Make the Engineer a space rogue with stealth, etc. But this isn't the case. Mass Effect pretty much is instant gratification from the start just like its sequel.

What is so complex about 1% pistol damage? It was not a new spell, it didn't drastically alter my character or playstyle, it just meant I was slightly better at killing people than I was a second ago. The only thing that did this were the powers themselves. There were 3 in each skill tree. Mass Effect 2 gave you 4 points in each tree, plus a bonus on maxing it out.  

I don't think anybody denies that the ME1 system(s) were flawed and could have done with a little work, but that's no reason to just strip and gut half the stuff and essentially make the game more of a shooter because it's the easy way out. That's not fixing the issues, that's just ignoring them by no longer making them a factor. And that's why many feel ME2 is a shallower and lesser game for it. ME1 may not have succeeded but at least it tried. ME2 didn't even try, and went for the easiest answers and shallow mechanics that don't fail because they don't have enough attributes to fail.

And yet, it sounds like you're comparing Mass Effect 2 to what you wanted it to be rather than what it was. I personally would have preferred if they just radically shifted Mass Effect's system around instead of the option they took it. Unfortunately, Bioware chose not to do that. I can't compare Mass Effect 2 against what it "could have been". I have to compare Mass Effect 2 against Mass Effect 1. Those are the only two factors that matter. And as it stands, the fast-paced streamlined approach worked alot better for this series. 

You give Mass Effect 2 more credit for this... I (and many others here) give it less. Oversimplification is not the answer, and just results in a shallow game. I don't care if it does work better on a technical level... so does Doom or Quake. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become Doom or Quake just because the systems work better. Especially when the answers to the problems aren't that complicated. Heck, BioWare were on the right track with some things, except that they took them too far.

Mass Effect. is. shallow. I grow tired of repeating this. 9 ranks of useless points which don't do anything. If your point is still that it's just "better than Mass Effect 2", then we're still left knowing that Mass Effect did a crap job on its RPG mechanics.

Give me attributes. Give me skills. Give me a half-way decent inventory. And let me keep the powers (simply add attribute requirements for each). Mass Effect does none of these. It tacks on intimidate at the end which makes some people think that they have to "choose" between combat and non-combat skills. This isn't Elder Scrolls where you have a variety of non-combat skills to choose from. They attached one entirely random skill onto a whole host of combat abilities. I really don't see how this makes sense or adds depth to the gameplay. When playing Mass Effect, I want to use whatever system works best. It wasn't Mass Effect 2's. Mass Effect 2's however does surpass Mass Effect 1's.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juillet 2010 - 11:13 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

My point was that Mass Effect was incredibly dumbed down. Pretty much as far as you can go. You're comparing the fact that because Mass Effect's system "takes time" that it is complex. My inventory was not complex. Making omnigel, changing my weapon, etc, were not complex decisions. Bioware should have made Mass Effect with a "dnd in space" mentality. Give the player attributes, skills, feats, etc. Make the Engineer a space rogue with stealth, etc. But this isn't the case. Mass Effect pretty much is instant gratification from the start just like its sequel.

You're mixing up "complexity" with "being complex" here. The ME1 systems may have not been that complex, but they did have a certain degree of depth and complexity to them that the ME2 systems lack completely. They were still RPG-based systems instead of these shallow, linear and lacking shooter-based ones that ME2 had. I still had to pick and choose, could modify my weapons for different situations, and had stats to compare items. In ME2 there is no customisation, no randomisation, and no chance of missing a weapon, not getting the best stuff, and not being able to upgrade everything to the max with no downside. It's all inevitable and linear, and everything can be maxed with no downside without any real effort. ME1 wasn't much better, admittedly, but at least items could be customised, had stats and weren't inevitable and linear. If it wasn't for Spectre Weapons and the items had some more balance and variation, then things would have been okay. Instead we have a system that's no more complex than Doom's weapon system.

What is so complex about 1% pistol damage? It was not a new spell, it didn't drastically alter my character or playstyle, it just meant I was slightly better at killing people than I was a second ago. The only thing that did this were the powers themselves. There were 3 in each skill tree. Mass Effect 2 gave you 4 points in each tree, plus a bonus on maxing it out.

The small upgrade wasn't complex, but it did mean you at least had to work your way up to actually making some marked improvement and that it was smoother. As opposed to ME2's system where you just go "Bang. Bang. Bang" and improve so dramatically without needing to work your way up to something significant. ME2 was instant gratification with every level-up... ME1 you at least had to work your way up to it. Progression should be smooth, not just something new to keep the ADD crowd from getting bored. In other RPGs you generally have base stats that do this (e.g. Strength, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, etc.) but when you lack that you need to make progression smooth in another way. ME1 did this with its gradual skills... ME2 fails at this and just give you insta-bonus each time, which isn't smooth at all.

And yet, it sounds like you're comparing Mass Effect 2 to what you wanted it to be rather than what it was.

I'm comparing it to Mass Effect 1, as well as what ME1 could potentially have been with some tweaking.

I personally would have preferred if they just radically shifted Mass Effect's system around instead of the option they took it. Unfortunately, Bioware chose not to do that.

Here we at least agree on something.

I can't compare Mass Effect 2 against what it "could have been". I have to compare Mass Effect 2 against Mass Effect 1. Those are the only two factors that matter. And as it stands, the fast-paced streamlined approach worked alot better for this series.

I disagree. Strongly.

And it's funny that you can only compare Mass Effect 2 against Mass Effect 1, but yet Mass Effect 1 can apparently be compared to every BioWare game that came before it. That seems a little unfair... that Mass Effect has such a big legacy to live up to, yet the sequel only has to lived up to it's admittedly flawed predecessor.

Mass Effect. is. shallow. I grow tired of repeating this. 9 ranks of useless points which don't do anything. If your point is still that it's just "better than Mass Effect 2", then we're still left knowing that Mass Effect did a crap job on its RPG mechanics.

You get tired of repeating stuff? Think how I feel: I'm rehashing the same damn stuff from since ME2 first came out. You've only been arguing for a couple of weeks on this.

And it is still better than ME2. Even if ME1 did a "crap job" on the RPG mechanics (I personally think you exaggerate here... flawed, definitely. I wouldn't go as far as "crap") I'd still rather the game try to be an RPG and not quite pull it off than just throw in the towell and go for the easy answers and dumb itself down to basically become "Gears of War with dialogue choices" and become "Fisher Price: My first RPG" in the process. At least ME1's skills felt like they impacted and shaped your character beyond being new toys to play with during combat... ME2's system could have just been replaced with purchasable power-ups like an old-fashioned shooter where you purchase your "double shot" or "shields" or "missiles" or "smart bomb" between levels and it would barely have changed.

Give me attributes. Give me skills. Give me a half-way decent inventory. And let me keep the powers (simply add attribute requirements for each). Mass Effect does none of these. It tacks on intimidate at the end which makes some people think that they have to "choose" between combat and non-combat skills. This isn't Elder Scrolls where you have a variety of non-combat skills to choose from. They attached one entirely random skill onto a whole host of combat abilities. I really don't see how this makes sense or adds depth to the gameplay. When playing Mass Effect, I want to use whatever system works best. It wasn't Mass Effect 2's. Mass Effect 2's however does surpass Mass Effect 1's.

Again, I disagree. I'd rather have semi-broken elements that give some semblance of RPG mechanics than working generic ones that are shallow, linear and offer nothing new or interesting. ME1's mechanics had potential and with some tweaking could have worked well. It wouldn't have taken much. ME2's are as simple as you can get, and I find it hard to believe somebody who claims to love RPGs so much would think that they were the answer to ME1's issues, let alone actually good for the series and make a better RPG for it.

Also, ME1 had more than just Intimidate as non-combat skills, it also had Charm, Decryption, Hacking, etc. and even if it did only have Intimidate, that's more than ME2 had, which only had combat skills and nothing else. Sure... you can say that these were only minor in the grand scheme of things, but add them up to everything else that was lost between ME1 and ME2 and the list gets larger and so does the gap. And while the difference may have been small, that small gap made all the difference.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

And it is still better than ME2. Even if ME1 did a "crap job" on the RPG mechanics (I personally think you exaggerate here... flawed, definitely. I wouldn't go as far as "crap") I'd still rather the game try to be an RPG and not quite pull it off than just throw in the towell and go for the easy answers and dumb itself down to basically become "Gears of War with dialogue choices" and become "Fisher Price: My first RPG" in the process. At least ME1's skills felt like they impacted and shaped your character beyond being new toys to play with during combat... ME2's system could have just been replaced with purchasable power-ups like an old-fashioned shooter where you purchase your "double shot" or "shields" or "missiles" or "smart bomb" between levels and it would barely have changed.

This. As I said before: Yes, ME 1 was already dumbed down, unfortunately. As far as the RPG elements are concerned, it could have been better. But is that any reason to dumb down the successor even more? No, of course not. A developer with the reputation and and aspirations of BioWare should try and improve things that didn't work well enough, instead of cutting them out completely.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 28 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .

[Jebel Krong]

iakus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

I haven't been here in ages but it just popped up in the recent forum threads so I came to have a look. My main thought...

...why is this still going?!?!?! After 306 pages has no one realised that you can't persuade anyone else that they're wrong and that Bioware is not going to read through this book length tome?

Because there is no other recourse to expressing our disappointment in ME  2, and our hopes that Bioware will not make the same mistakes in ME 3. 

Foolish hope?  Perhaps.  But it's all we (or at least I) have.  Some people here have made some very cogent arguements defining problems in ME 2.  Some have made very intelligent counterarguements to them (you were one of them, as i recall)  If  Bioware doesn't have someone at least checking up on these posts every once in a while, they're doing themselves a disservice..

frankly, uberdowzen is right: BW are actually better off ignoring everything said here and doing what they feel is best - a la what they did with mass effect 2 - the third highest rated 360 game ever. what one person considers an improvement, another considers a detraction.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 28 juillet 2010 - 01:58 .

[geertmans]

I haven't read 307 pages but here is my opinion. Some things are definitely discussed before but just wanted to give my two cents:

ME 1 was a great game despite being a rough diamond. Like a reviewer on metacritics said: "The first game was rough but visionary. Instead of refining these rough edges, Bioware decided to cut them off and remove them altogether, thus making the outcome a bit more polished but shallower in almost every regard."

Let me just start with the good things first. ME2 had great voice acting and sounded great. The music sounded epic and overall was very atmospheric. I did find ME1's music to have its own character which I missed a little in ME2. No big deal though. I found the voice acting/dialogue overall to be very good with the exeption of Shepards ultimate badass/goody goody lines. The squadmates were awesome in almost every way: believable, diverse, well designed and rich on background.

This last point should of course be a great accomplishment and I'm not saying its not, the problem however is that in ME2 the main story has almost been replaced by the characters and their history. ME 1 had an apocalyptic plot: a great unknown thread which was bent on annihilating the galaxy combined with a cassandra complex. This made the game much more dark than ME 2 because of the constant feeling of running out of time which is completely absent in the second installment. Showing gruesome scenes and grotesque enemies does not make a game darker. Saying it over and over in developer diaries neither. I could go on an on about this but it is proven by the truly lame endboss that felt so out of place and uninspired that on first sight I thought was some sort of joke, I just couldn't believe it. When ME1 is like The Silence of the Lambs movie, then ME2 is definately like Hannibal. Tact and Thrills traded for Shock value. Still okay in a way, but not the classic the first part was.

Instead of feeling part of a universe (literally and figuratively speaking) I now feel like I'm playing a game with some elements borrowed from ME1 but mostly borrowed from sci-fi movies in general. This feeling is amplified by cutting the sequel up in levels and showing gameplay statistics at the end of each stage. Why not let me walk back to the Normandy? Where is the exploring? It does not feel like a crafted universe anymore. I wouldn't mind getting the inventory back either although it doesn't bother me as much as some others. The mako however was one of my favorite ME1 elements and added to this explore feeling. Yes it was wobbly and difficult to handle but why not improve it? The hammerhead in ME2 is just over the top and again feels out of place compared to the world ME1 created.

I want to say the graphics look beautiful and in fact they do, but this element is intertwined with the level design of the game and here, again, ME2 disappoints. I guess its great they tweaked the gunplay itself to be more like GoW but it makes the levels look so incredibly artificial. In fact I could predict, every time, when the shooting was going to start by looking into the room: fallen table and waist high walls everywhere, even in the organic parts of the game. It all felt so constructed and unnatural. I guess the design is a bit of hit and miss: some places look beautiful like parts on Illium and Omega, others look utterly generic. Like the first level where Shepard wakes up for instance.

ME 2 ultimately tries to please everyone and by trying to do so never really knows what it wants to be. This is shown in almost every aspect: it's way too dumbed down to be an RPG and too slow for the action packed shooter it also tries to be. The characters are as said almost perfectly written but the main story feels lazy and full with plotholes when taking the first part into account. For me ME2 is to ME1 what Matrix 2 and 3 were to the original Matrix. I prefer story and atmosphere above gameplay and action.

Modifié par geertmans, 28 juillet 2010 - 02:16 .

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Alright, after playing again for a few hours I want to reform my opinion; I think that this game misses 3 things now:

- Important desicions that REALLY impact how the story goes on

- Side mission and through these side missions more desicions what to spend money on; Right now you can buy small upgrades, no problem with that as they add up, however there's really no way to "level up" or "grind" outside of story missions, which you have to do anyway.

- Improved combat. I think they should keep the combat system from Mass Effect 2, but improve enemy as well as friendly AI. Also classes should play more different, impacting also enemy classes and squad member classes.

[Whatever42]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Alright, after playing again for a few hours I want to reform my opinion; I think that this game misses 3 things now:
- Important desicions that REALLY impact how the story goes on
- Side mission and through these side missions more desicions what to spend money on; Right now you can buy small upgrades, no problem with that as they add up, however there's really no way to "level up" or "grind" outside of story missions, which you have to do anyway.
- Improved combat. I think they should keep the combat system from Mass Effect 2, but improve enemy as well as friendly AI. Also classes should play more different, impacting also enemy classes and squad member classes.

Important decisions that really impact how the story goes would turn ME3 into a $200 game because of all the different story arcs that they would have to support. The main story is linear. You will join with Cerberus. You will defeat the Collectors. The ME series variability is just in its tone and flavour, but it can't be anything significant in its plot. Just as with BG2, KotOR, ME1, the only real choice will affect the ending. Do we become a god or stay with pookie? Do we become a villianous Sith again or the Saviour of the Republic? Do we replace the Illusive Man as the leader of Cerberus or do we finally get to hear the council admit that they've been dumbasses?

The side missions give you money. They give you xp. They give you upgrades. If you want to grind as in killing and looting mobs for hours then I would disagree with you.

Can't argue with that. Can always do with better squad and enemy AI.

[Whatever42]

Jebel Krong wrote...

frankly, uberdowzen is right: BW are actually better off ignoring everything said here and doing what they feel is best - a la what they did with mass effect 2 - the third highest rated 360 game ever. what one person considers an improvement, another considers a detraction.

I don't think they should outright ignore. There are some legitimate annoyances that they could easily fix. However, I think they know to take much of this with a big grain of salt. Some people just want a game that the ME series is not. Some even want a game that just hasn't ever been in Bioware's repitoire.

For example, many want a much more open world. But Bioware doesn't do open worlds. They are not Bethesda and I'm grateful for that. I adore both developers but I'm glad they're making different games. Bethesda makes the hardcore, open world RPG. You have all the choices you could ever want. You mod the hell out of it. It's awesome. But the story and characters are cardboard.

Bioware pushes you through a narrative. Yes, you have a little choice. You can decide on the wallpaper and perhaps pick the curtains but you will walk the path that Bioware has set.

The ME series, as a shooter/RPG hybrid is even more limiting. The dialogue trees are trimmed down; you can't talk for hours about about shoes and broken mirrors. I don't mind what they did in ME2, though, because you get to live with the NPC through an important part of their life. I find it actually quite deep. Would I object if they made it even deeper? Hell no! Do I still think the game is awesome, definately yes.

I don't dwell on the unrealized possibilities and then compare the game to that. No game ever made can survive that comparison.

[Il Divo]

And it is still better than ME2. Even if ME1 did a "crap job" on the RPG mechanics (I personally think you exaggerate here... flawed, definitely. I wouldn't go as far as "crap") I'd still rather the game try to be an RPG and not quite pull it off than just throw in the towell and go for the easy answers and dumb itself down to basically become "Gears of War with dialogue choices" and become "Fisher Price: My first RPG" in the process. At least ME1's skills felt like they impacted and shaped your character beyond being new toys to play with during combat... ME2's system could have just been replaced with purchasable power-ups like an old-fashioned shooter where you purchase your "double shot" or "shields" or "missiles" or "smart bomb" between levels and it would barely have changed.

Which was exactly how many fans felt when Bioware decided to make Mass Effect. Do you think you're the only "true" RPG fan? Do you think it's only the ones in these forums who hate Mass Effect 2 that are true RPG fans? Most in these forums who love Mass Effect 2 also loved Mass Effect. We are not just "Gears of War rejects".
 
Mass Effect is my least favorite Bioware game, Neverwinter Nights aside. It simply wasn't my style compared to Jade Empire. The gameplay was a terrible attempt at blending RPG-shooter mechanics. However, I didn't turn it into this claim that Bioware "hath forsaken me" and all the true RPGers! When you said you wished Bioware would make games more like Mass Effect 1, I didn't mind. When you said you preferred Mass Effect 1's gameplay, I didn't mind. But when you said that Mass Effect 2 is instant gratification and dumbed down for all shooter fans, I became insulted as an RPG fan and as a Shooter fan.

Understand this: you and I are simply the next link in a long line of fans who hate/love Bioware's latest product. Baldur's Gate purists hated Kotor. Kotor players hated Jade Empire. Jade Empire players hated Mass Effect. And Mass Effect players now hate Mass Effect 2. Explain to me why you are just as much a "true RPG fan" as all those fans who think Mass Effect is nothing more than a crappy Gears of War rip-off. When you show me how it's not just "slightly better than Mass Effect 2", but comparable to other complex RPG games of the past, then we can continue this discussion on the combat mechanics. Until then, this is just false elitism.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juillet 2010 - 03:28 .

[Some Geth]

All this talk of RPGs and you know what BioWare can not make an RPG as good as Pokemon thank you and goodnight.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

...I would call this a sick obsession.

Which is what Liara essentially developed pretty much the second time you speak to her: "Why do I feel so close to you..?"

Mental link,not obsession.("Melding")

[Some Geth]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

...I would call this a sick obsession.

Which is what Liara essentially developed pretty much the second time you speak to her: "Why do I feel so close to you..?"

Mental link,not obsession.("Melding")

So cuz you say so am i right?.

[tonnactus]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Alright, after playing again for a few hours I want to reform my opinion; I think that this game misses 3 things now:
- Important desicions that REALLY impact how the story goes on

At least they could gave players who did the nasana dantius mission in the first game an alternative route option/way to recruite thane and stop him before he could kill her...
But even this was too much.

[BirdieShepard]

Things which dissapointed me...

1) No more MakoMako. Yes, I liked the drivey bits from ME1.

2) Conversation options with characters dried up quickly.

3) The collectors - as the main enemies they lacked variation, the geth from ME1 were better.

4) The loading screens. They are no longer amusingly concealed (. +I really did prefer being able to mess around with the camera, listen to music/announcements and compare the derrieres of my team to sitting around passive. This would be void if there was a noticable improvement to their length. Which there isn't.



These are only minor niggles, still a great game Bioware (y)

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Alright, after playing again for a few hours I want to reform my opinion; I think that this game misses 3 things now:
- Important desicions that REALLY impact how the story goes on
- Side mission and through these side missions more desicions what to spend money on; Right now you can buy small upgrades, no problem with that as they add up, however there's really no way to "level up" or "grind" outside of story missions, which you have to do anyway.
- Improved combat. I think they should keep the combat system from Mass Effect 2, but improve enemy as well as friendly AI. Also classes should play more different, impacting also enemy classes and squad member classes.

Important decisions that really impact how the story goes would turn ME3 into a $200 game because of all the different story arcs that they would have to support. The main story is linear. You will join with Cerberus. You will defeat the Collectors. The ME series variability is just in its tone and flavour, but it can't be anything significant in its plot. Just as with BG2, KotOR, ME1, the only real choice will affect the ending. Do we become a god or stay with pookie? Do we become a villianous Sith again or the Saviour of the Republic? Do we replace the Illusive Man as the leader of Cerberus or do we finally get to hear the council admit that they've been dumbasses?

The side missions give you money. They give you xp. They give you upgrades. If you want to grind as in killing and looting mobs for hours then I would disagree with you.

Can't argue with that. Can always do with better squad and enemy AI.

You are right on the desicion point; However, I chose the wrong words, let me re-formulate this: I'd like choices in Mass Effect 3 that have a bit more of an effect on the current mission, not the story as a whole. In Mass Effect 2 these were either not noticeable or affected just short parts of a mission. 
Also, they shoul actually hold true to what they said: The paragon/renegade meter is a reputation meter; However, in Mass Effect 2 you aren't treate different wether you have a high paragon or renegade meter, it's just about wether you can make some desicions or not, which isn't ba at all, but not enough in my opinion.

To get back to the side missions: Oh sure you can do the N7 assignments, but they give very low xp and about 4000 credits per mission. First, neither is the sum of XP from all missions enough to level up, nor can you buy something for all those credits (which would lead to the problem of too few purchasables,maybe Ill talk about that sometime else). The only missions that do give a decent amount of credits are Project Overlord and Kasumi's Loyalty mission. That's 2 goo side missions. All the other assignments are just really, really poor. Find out if there's fish in the water tanks on the Citadel? Really? I think I need to put some skill points in my Spectre talent because I don't exactly feel like one...Oh wait that's gone too.

[bjdbwea]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

To get back to the side missions: Oh sure you can do the N7 assignments, but they give very low xp and about 4000 credits per mission. First, neither is the sum of XP from all missions enough to level up, nor can you buy something for all those credits (which would lead to the problem of too few purchasables,maybe Ill talk about that sometime else). The only missions that do give a decent amount of credits are Project Overlord and Kasumi's Loyalty mission. That's 2 goo side missions. All the other assignments are just really, really poor. Find out if there's fish in the water tanks on the Citadel? Really? I think I need to put some skill points in my Spectre talent because I don't exactly feel like one...Oh wait that's gone too.

That's funny, because I think the "mission" with the Krogans and their fish was a refreshing change. I always appreciate these small, "useless", no-combat quests in an RPG. Unfortunately, there was too little of that ME 2. But what was there was okay. But nearly all N7 missions are indeed boring, linear, simplistic and just bad.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 28 juillet 2010 - 08:03 .

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

I just want to clarify that I like both Mass Effect 1 and 2 as well Bioware itself; What I post here is not intended as an offense but as both constructive criticism and subject of debate - after all that's what forums are for. Now with that out of the way: If you like these little refreshing quests, that's your thing. I don't like them, but the game doesn't force me to complete them. Also, I didn't want to say that I liked the N7 assignments, no. But at least they were longer then most other side missions and difficult to complete. That may be because they were combat missions, but you can make simple quests that involve only talking difficult as well; for example, make the player think, as in puzzles. Or you can test the players with difficult desicions, wether to take paragon or renegade, in questions of believe and philosophy. That said, such missions weren't in the game which really disappointed me.



Random positive thing: Not only are Mass Effect 2's graphics awesome, but according to reviews run smoothly on most computers as well!

[Iakus]

geertmans wrote...

ME 2 ultimately tries to please everyone and by trying to do so never really knows what it wants to be. This is shown in almost every aspect: it's way too dumbed down to be an RPG and too slow for the action packed shooter it also tries to be. The characters are as said almost perfectly written but the main story feels lazy and full with plotholes when taking the first part into account. For me ME2 is to ME1 what Matrix 2 and 3 were to the original Matrix. I prefer story and atmosphere above gameplay and action.

I like this human.  He understands

[Some Geth]

 

Modifié par Some Geth, 28 juillet 2010 - 08:58 .