10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
Right. But when the Empire "struck back" it was during Hoth and Cloud City. My point still remains that watching Han and Leia fly around did nothing to move the plot forward in any direction. We could skip everything that happened and all we would have missed is them falling in love, which is not really plot-related. I can likewise condense Luke's scenes to "train to be a Jedi". I certainly enjoyed watching it. I loved Luke's character, but I also loved Mass Effect 2's cast. Both were still almost completely filler. If we skipped the cave Millenium Falcon chases, would you say that the Empire had "not" struck back?

You could.  But you'd also sense that a lot of "stuff" was missing.  Like how did Han and Leia get captured?  Han's this big shot smuggler who's been dodging bounties for years.  And in a really fast ship to boot.  What exactly goes into Jedi training?  Description, context, motivation.  We need to see that stuff, which is why I'm sad we saw so little of the compaions outside their own personal crises.  Or the Collectors for that matter. As Butch and Sundance put it:  "Who are these guys?"

Well, I'm glad you at least don't have a Bobba Fett fetish, like so many people I know. XD

But I'm gonna be honest in saying that I think Mass Effect already shot itself in the foot. At the conclusion, I had absolutely no idea what to expect with Mass Effect 2. Sure, Shepard says "I'm going to stop the Reapers". But how? It's not like we'd come across obvious Reaper settlements or more Prothean beacons in our travels. At that time, we had no idea about Klendagon, etc. I honestly found Shepard's end speech melodramatic. There was no 'clue' left at the conclusion for us to follow. No detail waiting to be unveiled for Mass Effect 2. It was unclear where the story was going.

Boba Fett was a potentially intersting, but totally underused character who went out as mysteriously and abruptly as he appeared.  Like the Collectors

I'm inclined to agree about Bioware shooting themselves in the foot with ME 1's ending.  It would have flowed much better if:

ME 2 focused on Shepard and crew out searching for more information on the Reapers, more Prothean technology or records, whatever. ME 1 identity the threat; ME 2 study the threat; ME 3 deal with the threat.  

 Barring that, Bioware should have opened with Shepard spending two years trying and failing to find this information, becoming a sad joke to teh Citadel and Alliance, and forced to turn to Cerberus for aid. 

Alternatively, Shepard should have been killed during the battle with Sovereign, and no "I'm gonna find a way to stop the Reapers" speech given.

The path they did take is a cliched joke to rival any claim of ME 1 being thin or derivative.  And now we have no real idea what's going to happen in ME 3; everything is such a mess and up in the air.  I ended ME 1 going "Wow, can't wait to see what happens next!"  I ended ME 2 going "That's it?  Now what?"  And it seems ME 3's gonna be yet another standalone game, which likely means, Suprise!  Another reboot.

Well, I think it was pretty clear that the basics of these questions were answered once we reach the Collector Ship. They're indoctrinated/enslaved to serve the Reapers. Nothing we hadn't seen before.

Now as far as the squad members themselves, as per Miranda's words: Shepard is a "natural leader". What we get in any Bioware RPG, essentially. People feel inspired to follow him. And aside from Jack, I can't really think of any party members who joined Shepard 'unreasonably'. Samara is a Justicar, which as Detective Anaya explains are "drawn to impossible missions" and Thane is seeking out atonement. Standard fare, but still very sensible. Which characters in particular did you take issue with?

Yes, once we reach the Collector Ship, and most of the squad is recruited, we did get the magical infodump from EDI, the Dea Ex Machina.  But no research or speculation had been done beforehand.  No "What do the legends say?"   No "what do we know about them, any little bit could help"  Only one attempt to actually talk to someone who's dealt with them.  Just an infodump when the plot demands an infodump.

Shepard as leader:  In ME 1, Shepard was a popular first officer of the Normandy leading a squad of people who already had  a reason to go after Saren.  A "natural leader"  Extraordinary, but still "mere mortal"  In ME 2 he/she seems to have developed borderline mind-control powers to easily convince people to join up.  HEck you'd at elast think the Council living or dying might influence how potential recruits react to Shep.

Jack you mentioned is an obvious choice for "not a team player"  Honestly I would have expected her tyo jump ship as soon as she got Cerberus documents.

Grunt apparantly played the odds that you'd find something really big to fight.  ood thing he didn't go immediately on some kind of bloody rampage.

I honestly couldn't see why Samara would want to go on this mission without dealing with Morinth first.  Since this is a "Suicide Mission" it left the very real possiblity that an Ardat-Yakshi would be left on the loose if she died.

Just how much money exactly did Cerberus pile in front of Zaed to go on a "Suicide Mission"?  Just what did he plan to spend it on, since it's, you know, a "Suicide Mission"  He's either supremely confident in his abilities, or the shot to his head destroyed that part of is brain that knew what 'Suicide" means.

Neither. Just pointing out that the "elevator conversation" (for me) argument would work better if these squad interactions were more accessible. It certainly was better than Mass Effect, but still far worse to Bioware's standard fare.

Fair enough.  But my point is instead of "poorly accesible interacton", we instead got "no interaction" when the very focus of the game should have demanded "more interaction"  I'm not saying we should have had the elevators, I'm saying we should have, nay derserved, better than the elevators.

I just found it rather bland. It was standard "Save the World, stop the bad-guy" only this time around we had a rather bland motivation to spur us on. "Saren hates humans" is our motivation to save the world from the evil mastermind. I think Bioware should have built up just how unusual Saren's flagship was long before we reached Feros. It's mentioned on Eden Prime and it ends there.  

"Save the world, stop the bad guy" is pretty much a staple to science fiction and fantasy, and rpgs in general.  You think Mass Effect did it poorly, I can't stop you from thinking so.  I think it was done failrly well.  Not increbily great, but "It got the job done"

"Saren hates humans" was Anderson's motivation.  It was pretty obvious right from the start there was way more to it than that.  From Saren's ship which should have been way too big to maneuver in atmosphere, to teh strange fact that geth, who "hate organics", accept him as their leader?  And why was a respected Matriarch like Benezia following him?  Perhaps not enough was made of Sovereign right away, but there were so many other questons to be answered it never bothered me.

Modifié par iakus, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:26 .

[kraze07]

Bom_diggidy_Wrex wrote...

MASS EFFECT 2 IS BETTER THAN MASS EFFECT 1

The looting system in ME1 was annoying and boring. ME2 needs more options but i don't want to go back to the copy paste jumpsuits with diffrent colors and more varied stats...I like presentation in RPG's if i wanted to farm gear i'll go play an MMO or borderlands.

Also if you think the Shooter style from ME1 was better your opinion is now wrong sorry...

1)ME1 is better than ME2.
2) Yes ME2 needs more options.
3) You don't want more varied stats? Sounds like you dont like RPGs
4) You do know most MMOs are MMORPGs and Borderlands is an FPS/RPG hybrid right? Starting to sound like you aren't too sure what a RPG actually is.
5) The combat in ME1 was better than the GeoW clone we ended up with in ME2. The actual shooting mechanics may not have been better but players had more freedom in how they neutralized enemies. There was also the ability to crouch and players had to worry about weapons overheating instead of picking up thermal clips ( which is a huge lore kill imo). Not to mention ammo mods being actual powers limited to certain characters in ME2.

[Massadonious1]

kraze07 wrote...
Im sure the fans disliked having their intelligence insulted when they found out how dumbed down ME2 was.

As I've said before, dumbing something down generally requires the previous version require any amount of intelligence in the first place. I don't know about the rest of you, but I never noticed any significant taxing going on inside my head when I was putting that extra 1% into my pistol skills or omni-gel'ing my 637869386938th Avenger IX

I'm pretty sure I can fire up more brain cells putting my socks on.

bjdbwea wrote...

(even though it won't earn you the next game for free)

Speaking of strawmans.

bjdwea wrote...
 Is ME 2 perfect, yes or no? Obviously not, as there are at the very least some bugs. So a perfect score is of course absurd. If you deny even that, then there is indeed nothing to discuss.

No, it's not. Not to you, and not to me. But to whoever gave this magical score (which I'm not even sure exists, or is something ridiculous like some arbitrary 3 out of 3 or 5 "stars') it is. I consider Inception to be the perfect movie, but there are 13% of reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes that disagree with me. Who's opinion is right? Mine? Yours? Theirs? I've seen a glowing review of The Last Airbender, of all things. As much as I question that person's sanity, it is his opinion, and he's certainly entitled to it without anyone like me trying to invalidate it.

Since you are under the impression that your opinion is the correct one. I guess we do have nothing to discuss. I apparently have to go argue with more elitists on the DA2 forums in the hopes of getting a free game.

Because that's the only reason I post. To get free games. 

[kraze07]

"I don't know about the rest of you, but I never noticed any significant taxing going on inside my head when I was putting that extra 1% into my pistol skills or omni-gel'ing my 637869386938th Avenger IX"

I bet you haven't even noticed that ME2 doesn't have an inventory system at all have you? Or the fact that ammo mods have been turned into powers? Or that XP is only awarded at the end of missions and the level cap has been cut in half? What about the Hammerhead not having a machine gun or scoped firing while the Mako had these things? Or having a refined cover system but no crouch? Universal cool down for all powers? No grenades? Shall I continue?

These things may not be complex, but the fact that they have either been simplified or stripped away would classify ME2 as being dumbed down .

Modifié par kraze07, 30 juillet 2010 - 07:28 .

[VoidShaman]

Where one can say "dumbed down," another, such as I, says "refined."



Both ME 1 and 2 were very enjoyable IMO ME 2 took steps in the right direction.

[Terror_K]

VoidShaman wrote...

Where one can say "dumbed down," another, such as I, says "refined."

Both ME 1 and 2 were very enjoyable IMO ME 2 took steps in the right direction.

Yes... refined...

A bit like distilling wine down until it has next to no alcohol whatsoever in it. Mass Effect 2 is essentially grape juice, that's how "refined" it is.

[Whatever42]

kraze07 wrote...

"I don't know about the rest of you, but I never noticed any significant taxing going on inside my head when I was putting that extra 1% into my pistol skills or omni-gel'ing my 637869386938th Avenger IX"

I bet you haven't even noticed that ME2 doesn't have an inventory system at all have you? Or the fact that ammo mods have been turned into powers? Or that XP is only awarded at the end of missions and the level cap has been cut in half? What about the Hammerhead not having a machine gun or scoped firing while the Mako had these things? Or having a refined cover system but no crouch? Universal cool down for all powers? No grenades? Shall I continue?

These things may not be complex, but the fact that they have either been simplified or stripped away would classify ME2 as being dumbed down .

Well, if dumbing down is bad, lets add 50 more skills. I think we should have a crouching skill. Every point lets you crouch 1% more.  Lets add a lie down and a jump. Lets add 4 more screens to get to your inventory and swap ammo.

Actually, all bioware games are dumbed down. We should all be playing morrowind.

RPG gamers do love ME2. Gamers in general far prefer ME2 to ME1. You can't reading a gaming forum or read a review without reaching that conclusion. I completely accept that you don't like it as much as ME1. We don't all enjoy the same things. But the ME series is what it is and its widely enjoyed. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 30 juillet 2010 - 07:51 .

[Revan312]

Besides there being far less tactical options in the way you go about killing enemies, I didn't mind the gameplay from a combat standpoint.



But the story, oh the story, it's really a mess of a plot in this game, especially when you look at it in the shadow of the first as this is a sequel.



That's all I want Bioware, is a coherent story that doesn't try to beat me over the head with stereotypes and bombastic characters and also tries to stay consistent with the first games plot, is that so much to ask? *cries sour tears into his pillow*

[Terror_K]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

RPG gamers do love ME2. Gamers in general far prefer ME2 to ME1. You can't reading a gaming forum or read a review without reaching that conclusion. I completely accept that you don't like it as much as ME1. We don't all enjoy the same things. But the ME series is what it is and its widely enjoyed. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Yeah... that's what happens when you make a game more mainstream. It always amuses me when those of us who aren't happy say, "Mass Effect 2 was dumbed down for the masses" and pro-ME2 people respond back with "That's not true! ME2 was far more popular than ME1 and more people like it."

And you say that "the ME series is what it is" but you have to remember that those of us who liked ME1 liked what it was then, and don't like what it's become. So the Mass Effect series isn't "what it is" because it was something different the first time than it was the second. We liked what it was, not what it's become. And I'm sure somebody will pop up and say "it's not that different at all" and start pointing at other RPGs and how much deeper they are, but ME2 sure as hell feels a lot different than ME1 to me. Next thing I'll be hearing that Wrath of Khan wasn't that different from J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, or that the Star Wars prequels fit so well with the original trilogy.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

I've said it a dozen times, but I'll say it again: Unreal Tournament is my favourite game of all time. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become it. Mass Effect, on the other hand, is my favourite game IP of all time. It still is despite what ME2 did to it.

funny because Mass Effect 1&2 are my favourite games and IP, because of what both games did.

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah... that's what happens when you make a game more mainstream. It always amuses me when those of us who aren't happy say, "Mass Effect 2 was dumbed down for the masses" and pro-ME2 people respond back with "That's not true! ME2 was far more popular than ME1 and more people like it." 

And you say that "the ME series is what it is" but you have to remember that those of us who liked ME1 liked what it was then, and don't like what it's become. So the Mass Effect series isn't "what it is" because it was something different the first time than it was the second. We liked what it was, not what it's become. And I'm sure somebody will pop up and say "it's not that different at all" and start pointing at other RPGs and how much deeper they are, but ME2 sure as hell feels a lot different than ME1 to me. Next thing I'll be hearing that Wrath of Khan wasn't that different from J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, or that the Star Wars prequels fit so well with the original trilogy.

unfortunately there is a disconnect between  what you *think* mass effect 1 was, and what it actuallywas a lot of the time. the fact that 90% of Mass Effect 2 is pretty much identical in terms of what you do and the feel to Mass effect 1, kinda skips your notice. perhaps if you spent more time playing, and less whingeing, you might all see it.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 30 juillet 2010 - 09:00 .

[Jebel Krong]

Revan312 wrote...

Besides there being far more tactical options in the way you go about killing enemies, I didn't mind the gameplay from a combat standpoint.

fixed for truth.

[TuringPoint]

Are we talking about the same ME1 I'm thinking of?



I remember running around with my pistol and holding down the trigger, marksman on, ticking down enemy health and shield bars as fast as possible. Past level thirty or forty I didn't need to use cover. ME 1 was blithe about its faults - you did have options, but those options didn't make a significant difference to how you could play the game. If you can name one way that ME 1 did that, gave meaningful option that significantly altered how you could play, and if I can't think of something comparable or better in ME 2, then I stand correted.



ME 2 has a long way to go, and ME 1 has a certain blitheness about its own faults which ME 2 does not have, but ME 2 is, whether you like the game better or worse than it's prequel, more refined by definition. More conscious of criticism and improvement. Maybe refined by poor judgement for some of you, but still refined.



In ME 2, ticking away at enemy health/armor with warp and shield with shotgun, smg or overload isn't much better, but you at least have... wait for it...

More options.

And this diversity is the very thing that made teammates more tactically useful.



Given, ME 2 requires you to be in cover in order to avoid enemy fire much of the time. ME2 also has weapon modifications, but they are all linear. That is admittedly a problem, something that could be improved. ME 1 does not have this problem.



However, mod's in ME 1, I would say, were not better. I say this for several reasons. Number one, the weapon mods didn't make that much difference, and couldn't be applied to a given situation. They could be, for example, attached to a different weapon so your pistol has synthetic crushing rounds and your shotgun has organic shredding rounds, but if you wanted to switch your pistols mods to match a situation, going between geth and krogan killing, you needed to go into your inventory and hunt down the other mod. Rinse and repeat. Or just ignore the mods, because the weapons are pretty effective if you just hold the trigger down, in any case. (In ME 2, you couldn't custom mod your weapons. It was linear, and somewhat effected by class and skill choice.)



Two. The mods had linear re-iterations. Many of them. It made a confusing clutter to deal with. (ME 2 had linear re-iterations of upgrades to weapons. These upgrades were more generic than the upgrades in ME1, but they also opened up bonuses that were unique to the weapon - like the critical damage bonus for pistols or headshot bonus on sniper rifles)



Three. Perhaps more importantly, you didn't earn your weapon mods, you found them randomly. It wasn't your RPG or tactical choice to use a mod many times, but a result of what was available, and just saying, "might as well." That's okay in an MMO, but a single player game? From bioware? What happened to hand-crafted experience? (ME 2, to be fair, while you had to earn every upgrade by getting to various points in the game and actively searching, did not give you the chance to make your favorite pistol a shield buster, and your shotgun an armor or synthetic crasher. But it still allowed you options, in that you could use a shotgun to take down biotic barriers and heavy pistol to put down a scion)



While ME1 allowed you to use a greater variety of abilities, those abilities were simpler. You actually have to put more thought into using your abilities in ME 2 because you need to read the descriptions of the abilities to realize what their various effects are and how that might help you strategically. You don't have to, but the game because a lot easier and the fights go faster if you pay attention to the complexity. Something Biotics and tech powers didn't require in ME1. Level 1 overload did the same set of things, more powerfully, at 1st level as at 60th.



In ME1, Lift meant instant kill, maybe. Then you cycle to your next biotic power, maybe push (effectively killing them instantly, assuming you are doing the right thing and holding down your trigger), regardless of whether it would be more convenient or strategically useful to use Biotic Pull/lift again to get someone out of cover. But then again, you didn't need to do that because enemies would soon run right out of cover and circle strafe, with no reasonable cause. Shouting such infinitely 'immersive' things as, "Enemies Everywhere!"



It had moments, at least. I would not have been happy if they kept it exactly the same between games. It would show that Bioware was unwilling to at least try to refine their games.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

unfortunately there is a disconnect between  what you *think* mass effect 1 was, and what it actuallywas a lot of the time. the fact that 90% of Mass Effect 2 is pretty much identical in terms of what you do and the feel to Mass effect 1, kinda skips your notice. perhaps if you spent more time playing, and less whingeing, you might all see it.

Oh please... beyond the simple fact that they're story-driven games with dialogue choices and TPS combat, they're barely the same at all. ME2 is so watered down and simplified that it's like BioWare pulled a reverse Jesus and turned wine into water.

Perhaps I would play ME2 more if it weren't so damn repetitive, linear and tedious. Then again, it helped me get through ME1's similar moments thinking that going through all these times would be worth it because of all those consequences I'd see in the sequel(s) that would pay off form my big choices. What a joke that turned out to be, which is another good reason why I haven't even taken half of my import Shepards into ME2 at all. When my two supposedly complete opposite Shepards go through first and find next to nothing crucial has changed at all, I see little point in repeating the same crap with slightly different emails with the rest. Perhaps if ME3 comes along and has some actual consequences, then I might go back and take them through the tediousness just to see the good stuff in the final part.

[kraze07]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

unfortunately there is a disconnect between  what you *think* mass effect 1 was, and what it actuallywas a lot of the time. the fact that 90% of Mass Effect 2 is pretty much identical in terms of what you do and the feel to Mass effect 1, kinda skips your notice. perhaps if you spent more time playing, and less whingeing, you might all see it.

Oh please... beyond the simple fact that they're story-driven games with dialogue choices and TPS combat, they're barely the same at all. ME2 is so watered down and simplified that it's like BioWare pulled a reverse Jesus and turned wine into water.

Perhaps I would play ME2 more if it weren't so damn repetitive, linear and tedious. Then again, it helped me get through ME1's similar moments thinking that going through all these times would be worth it because of all those consequences I'd see in the sequel(s) that would pay off form my big choices. What a joke that turned out to be, which is another good reason why I haven't even taken half of my import Shepards into ME2 at all. When my two supposedly complete opposite Shepards go through first and find next to nothing crucial has changed at all, I see little point in repeating the same crap with slightly different emails with the rest. Perhaps if ME3 comes along and has some actual consequences, then I might go back and take them through the tediousness just to see the good stuff in the final part.

Apparently trying to explain the difference between ME1 and ME2 to some people is equivalent to explaining the difference between apples and oranges to a bear. ME1 felt nothing like ME2. The atmosphere was almost completely lost in ME2.

[bjdbwea]

Massadonious1 wrote...

bjdwea wrote...

Is ME 2 perfect, yes or no? Obviously not, as there are at the very least some bugs. So a perfect score is of course absurd. If you deny even that, then there is indeed nothing to discuss.

No, it's not. Not to you, and not to me. But to whoever gave this magical score (which I'm not even sure exists, or is something ridiculous like some arbitrary 3 out of 3 or 5 "stars') it is. I consider Inception to be the perfect movie, but there are 13% of reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes that disagree with me. Who's opinion is right? Mine? Yours? Theirs? I've seen a glowing review of The Last Airbender, of all things. As much as I question that person's sanity, it is his opinion, and he's certainly entitled to it without anyone like me trying to invalidate it.

There is still a difference between common people and supposedly professional reviewers though. I can understand if there are some gamers who think every shiny new game is the "bestest ever". Until the next shiny new game comes around. And if someone usually only plays shooters, of course ME 2 with all its flaws still has to be a completely amazing new experience. If only they'd learn from it and try more RPGs, maybe they'd understand what they've missed so far.

But professional reviewers shouldn't hand out perfect scores so easily, or probably not at all. So the question remains: Is ME 2 the perfect game? Answer: Of course not, no game so far has been. A reviewer who wants to be taken seriously has to take the whole game into account.

Massadonious1 wrote...

Since you are under the impression that your opinion is the correct one. I guess we do have nothing to discuss.

Huh. And here I thought everyone was under the impression that their opinion is the correct one.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:14 .

[Jebel Krong]

kraze07 wrote...

Apparently trying to explain the difference between ME1 and ME2 to some people is equivalent to explaining the difference between apples and oranges to a bear. ME1 felt nothing like ME2. The atmosphere was almost completely lost in ME2.

evidence? or more (crap) opinion?  how exactly was the atmosphere lost? because apart from a slightly darker theme, and grubbier/more detailed locations (thanks to being in the terminus systems most of the time) the "feel" of both games is pretty much identical.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 30 juillet 2010 - 10:34 .

[kraze07]

Jebel Krong wrote...

kraze07 wrote...

Apparently trying to explain the difference between ME1 and ME2 to some people is equivalent to explaining the difference between apples and oranges to a bear. ME1 felt nothing like ME2. The atmosphere was almost completely lost in ME2.

evidence? or more (crap) opinion?  how exactly was the atmosphere lost? because apart from a slightly darker theme, and grubbier/more detailed locations (thanks to being in the terminus systems most of the time) the "feel" of both games is pretty much identical.

They feel nothing alike. I wasn't talking about the theme of the game. ME2 feels like a somewhat linear TPS with a few open-world style hub locations to explore and the main plot of the game was going around the galaxy acquiring squadmates as if they were nothing more than simple assets needed to get a job done. ME1 had that sort of LOTR feeling to it only in a sci-fi universe. It felt like an adventure to stop a powerful adversary that had exploration (more freedom in general I should say) and deeper plots in it.

I wont deny the fact that ME2 is a well polished game but it's not what the gamers wanted. The mainstream crowd just happened to like it. IMO Bioware should've waited until they finished the ME triligoy before making such substantial changes to the franchise.

And there's no need to call someone's opinion crap just because they don't agree with you. It's no wonder why people think us die hard RPG lovers are elitists. Immature comments like that are why we sometimes actually feel above the rest of the crowd.

Modifié par kraze07, 30 juillet 2010 - 11:00 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
But professional reviewers shouldn't hand out perfect scores so easily, or probably not at all. So the question remains: Is ME 2 the perfect game? Answer: Of course not, no game so far has been. A reviewer who wants to be taken seriously has to take the whole game into account.

"So easily". As of now, Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Baldur's Gate II, Bioshock, and Starcraft II (which just came out) hold higher ratings than Mass Effect 2. Tell me, were those scores handed out unreasonably? My guess is you'll say no for Baldur's Gate II because it made your cut, even if it didn't make someone else's.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 juillet 2010 - 11:17 .

[Jebel Krong]

kraze07 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

kraze07 wrote...

Apparently trying to explain the difference between ME1 and ME2 to some people is equivalent to explaining the difference between apples and oranges to a bear. ME1 felt nothing like ME2. The atmosphere was almost completely lost in ME2.

evidence? or more (crap) opinion?  how exactly was the atmosphere lost? because apart from a slightly darker theme, and grubbier/more detailed locations (thanks to being in the terminus systems most of the time) the "feel" of both games is pretty much identical.

They feel nothing alike. I wasn't talking about the theme of the game. ME2 feels like a somewhat linear TPS with a few open-world style hub locations to explore and the main plot of the game was going around the galaxy acquiring squadmates as if they were nothing more than simple assets needed to get a job done. ME1 had that sort of LOTR feeling to it only in a sci-fi universe. It felt like an adventure to stop a powerful adversary that had exploration (more freedom in general I should say) and deeper plots in it.

I wont deny the fact that ME2 is a well polished game but it's not what the gamers wanted. The mainstream crowd just happened to like it. IMO Bioware should've waited until they finished the ME triligoy before making such substantial changes to the franchise.

And there's no need to call someone's opinion crap just because they don't agree with you. It's no wonder why people think us die hard RPG lovers are elitists. Immature comments like that are why we sometimes actually feel above the rest of the crowd.

it's crap opinion, because how you described mass effect 1 could exactly also be used to describe mass effect 2 - the fact that you choose not to accept this, is up to you...

the fact that you may "feel above" other people, when in actuality you aren't, may be part of the problem, however.

[kraze07]

I just feel above other people that try to insult other people or their opinions. Small kids usually resort to tactics like this when arguing.

Let's try no to get off topic. This is the only constructive criticism thread that probably won't get locked so let's keep it civilized shall we.

Modifié par kraze07, 30 juillet 2010 - 11:31 .

[tonnactus]

lazuli wrote...


Why do Adepts need ammo powers?  Their strength isn't in gunplay.  And why is it always about Adepts?

Why an adept shouldnt use all ammo mods that exists? Or the engineer? Or the vanguard? Or the infiltrator?
All classes could use all ammo mods in Mass Effect. Now that doesnt work anymore,because ammo mods are powers
now. An awfull replacement.

[Il Divo]

kraze07 wrote...
I bet you haven't even noticed that ME2 doesn't have an inventory system at all have you?

Well, I did notice that I wasn't breaking down any more omnigel...

1. Or the fact that ammo mods have been turned into powers? 2. Or that XP is only awarded at the end of missions and the 3. level cap has been cut in half?

1. What is the big deal about ammo mods becoming powers?
2. In traditional dnd, XP is only ever awarded at the end of an adventure. No leveling up halfway through.
3. Baldur's Gate had a level cap of 7. Is Mass Effect 2 more of an RPG than Baldur's Gate? 

1. What about the Hammerhead not having a machine gun or scoped firing while the Mako had these things? 2. Or having a refined cover system but no crouch?

1. What about everyone hating the Mako period?
2. We lost something and got something back in return, though I would like a crouch mechanic.

1. Universal cool down for all powers? 2. No grenades? 3. Shall I continue?

1. Cooldowns on the powers have been drastically lowered as well, simply encouraging a different playstyle.

2. Grenades, as Bioware said, were replaced with heavy weapons of which we have a good variety.

3. Please continue.

These things may not be complex, but the fact that they have either been simplified or stripped away would classify ME2 as being dumbed down .

RPGs are characterized by requiring a certain amount of thought before creating a character between all the statistics, concepts, etc. Complexity implies a certain amount of thought required before taking a given action. I did not find myself intellectually stimulated when I broke down all my extra weapons. So no, if it's not complex, I wouldn't say its removal makes Mass Effect 2 dumbed down.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:30 .

[tonnactus]

Alocormin wrote...

Are we talking about the same ME1 I'm thinking of?

I remember running around with my pistol and holding down the trigger, marksman on, ticking down enemy health and shield bars as fast as possible.

Try this with a krogan warlord on insanity.Have fun.

[Terror_K]

Not EVERYbody hated the Mako. Quite a few have stated that the problem wasn't The Mako itself as much as the worlds you were forced to drive on with it. And The Hammerhead has actually got more thumbs down than thumbs up from players (which seems to be the crucial thing whenever it comes to Mass Effect, whether things be good or bad: majority vote). In either case, many have stated that if the planets were more unique, didn't have as many steep hills, had more than just the three types of bases to visit and involved more to them, The Mako wouldn't have been that bad at all.



Just like the elevators when they went The Mako went because it was the common buzzword associated with the problem when it wasn't actually the problem at all. Seems to me these were two cases of BioWare gathering feedback on ME1's issues, jotting down the words "elevators" and "Mako" that came up a lot and scrapping them without actually evaluating what was wrong with them at all, and thus missing the point entirely. Instead we have tedious and plain loading screens and a horrible vehicle that seems to miss the point entirely.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...


Just like the elevators when they went The Mako went because it was the common buzzword associated with the problem when it wasn't actually the problem at all. Seems to me these were two cases of BioWare gathering feedback on ME1's issues, jotting down the words "elevators" and "Mako" that came up a lot and scrapping them without actually evaluating what was wrong with them at all, and thus missing the point entirely. Instead we have tedious and plain loading screens and a horrible vehicle that seems to miss the point entirely.

And shepardt get beamed to location instead of using an airlock and the decontamination.