10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 pushed ME1 aside massively... I suspect mostly because BioWare wanted each game to also stand on its own rather than be the proper trilogy as it was originally stated. ME2 isn't so much The Empire Strikes Back to A New Hope as it is Aliens to Alien, or Temple of Doom to Raiders. Aside from the Reaper stuff that's at the core of the matter most of the stuff that seemed important or was linked to in ME1 is swept under the rug and/or pushed into the background.

Mass Effect 1 tells us at the end that 1) the Reapers are still out there. 2) Shepard must stop them. However much people enjoyed the Mass Effect 1 squad, I've yet to see a reason why we the audience should expect everything to remain the same. The common tie in Mass Effect was that everyone wanted to stop Saren. Mass Effect 2 is Empire Strikes Back as far as tone goes; it's the 'dark moment' of the trilogy. But yes, I would say you're right that in terms of plot and direction it was closer to Aliens or even Alien 3.

For instance, becoming a Spectre was set up as a very defining moment in the original game. Not just a Spectre, but the first human one. It was a landmark in the first game and was presented as such, and felt very much crucial and significant. In ME2 its completely pushed aside, treated as something completely insignificant and glossed over (hell... you don't even need to be reinstated as one).

And you just hit on the very point of that scene where you become reinstated. Didn't you notice that in Mass Effect, everyone's always talking about "Shepard- first human Spectre"? In Mass Effect, you felt important. You're constantly reminded that everyone's eyes are on you. You're the good hero protecting the world from Saren.

In Mass Effect 2, that's all gone. You're not the Council's little pet. You're not the Alliance Poster boy. No one besides Cerberus really knows or cares about the Collectors. Mass Effect 2's Spectre status was meant to be hollow and insignificant. Shepard isn't a Spectre anymore. He's not relying on that reputation as he did before. You're operating in the Terminus Systems where everything he did doesn't mean jack to the mercenaries, Aria, etc. Even if you are reinstated, the Council basically tells you "Don't come back here". That was the intended message from that scene. No one cares about you anymore, besides the occasional citizen.

It's like watching Requiem for a Dream and complaining that the movie made you feel depressed. That is the very point. Everything that Shepard is exposed to in Mass Effect 2 is entirely different from what he (and the audience) knew in Mass Effect. I could not enjoy the feeling of loss from Mass Effect 2 without experiencing that sensation of importance in Mass Effect.

It's almost as if the first game gave you a sapphire and then the second one came along and said, "no, that's just blue glass" and told you to move on. The same goes with The Council, whose fate ends up having no real significant effect on anything it turns out, as well as The Alliance. These were the two major organisations in the original game, and now --like the Spectre factor-- they're just pushed into the background entirely. Even Anderson and Udina are relegated to tiny cameo roles.

I would say the Anderson/Udina interaction was more significant than you give it credit for. Your decisions certainly have adverse consequences for the Citadel itself. But beyond that? You're not in the Citadel. You're in Terminus, where no one really cares about that. You're not Shepard "Spectre Bad-Ass". All you have anymore are your accomplishments which don't mean much anymore.

With the exception of the Reapers, all the most significant things in ME1 are just no longer that significant at all in ME2. It doesn't feel like part of the same story at all, just merely a different story set in the same universe. If you're going compare Mass Effect to Star Wars it's more like (quality aside) ME1 was "The Phantom Menace" and that ME2 was "The Empire Strikes Back"

It was meant to be different. But I would still say your comparison is rather odd. If I gave you Phantom Menace and said, predict the next movie, Episode 1 tells us 1) Obi-Wan will train Anakin and 2) Darth Sidious is out there. If I gave you Episode II and said predict the next movie, we know 1) the Clone Wars have begun, 2) Anakin and Padme have gotten married and violated the Jedi Code and 3) Darth Sidious instigated this entire conflict. So on and so forth.

If I gave you Mass Effect and said predict Mass Effect 2, we know that 1) Reapers are out there and 2) Shepard will fight them. There was no foundation set to tell us that the squad would remain together or that Shepard would even continue to use the Normandy which was "on loan" to the Citadel. Much like how if I gave you Episode IV and said predict Episode V, you would probably say it'll involve the rebels fighting the Empire.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 août 2010 - 05:23 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Thirdly, are you attempting to highlight that ME1 is not?

Yes.
Fighting green zombies in combination with an "asari clon" at the end of the ferros mission. I didnt expect this.

That something like biotic rachni exists and shepardt found them and have to kill them.

A boss with tech abilities.(Helena Blake)

Or helena blake beeing a biotic herself.

I would say there are far more suprising encounters in Mass Effect.

But when the game told me: Blue Sun signal i know exactly what to expect. Nothing that could suprise someone who meet them once.

Its even the same with the collectors: Once you met them,you know all their types.No suprises. Why harbinger didnt
get stronger at least at the end on the suicide mission?

Modifié par tonnactus, 02 août 2010 - 06:26 .

[bjdbwea]

The enemies in ME 2 are just nameless cannon fodder. Including the so-called main enemies. Unremarkable and bland. One of the major flaws in story telling is the absence of a real main adversary. Even the ones that are still out there - the reapers - play virtually no role at all.

A bit of that can still be rectified if and when we learn the full tragic truth about the collectors. But - since they were the "stars" of this second part of the trilogy, and since part 3 has to concentrate on the reapers again, the truth about the collectors had to be in this game, not in the next. Another major flaw in story telling.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

The enemies in ME 2 are just nameless cannon fodder.

Mostly,except warden kuril.Dialog with subbosses/bosses? To bad for the "flow of the combat" i guess.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...Perhaps, but I still think there is an important distinction to make in your logic. We don't need to see the specialists 'work together' so to speak, as much as interact. Most Bioware games don't involve your characters talking to each other all the time, yet they seem to get along fine in combat. So no, I don't think we need proof that they can work together. When I bring Mission and HK-47 onto the Star Forge, people don't start dying left and right because they've never conversed. What I would simply like is to simply see what my squad-mates think of each other, etc, in the manner of Dragon Age. We get a little in the manner of Jacob-Miranda/recruitment missions, but more would have been great. [/quote]

I'd settle for just interacting, though imo working together should be demonstrated (in some form) as well.  These characters are mosly loners and many of them have  personality quirks that may set each other on edge.  Jack and Miranda being the most obvious examples.  Seeing them working together and cooperating would, to me be actual growth in character, demonstrating that Shepard is able to affect them besides getting them a costume change.  But yes, just talking would be good enough.  "Adequate" would be a better term, I think

And it should be suprising if people don't start dying left and right when you take HK-47 anywhere

[quote] How did Mass Effect 2 'push' Mass Effect aside? You earlier made the point "Discover the enemy, learn about the enemy, fight the enemy". What is your basis for this assertion? When I beat Mass Effect, two things were made clear. 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard's going to stop them. That's it. In Mass Effect 2, 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard is trying to find a way to stop them. Full stop. That was all Mass Effect implied and that was what we got.

There was no "Save Han Solo" or "Return to Dagobah" implied by Mass Effect 1. Mass Effect 2 did not guarantee anything Mass Effect 1 did not promise. If so, demonstrate for me what made you certain Mass Effect 2 would be "learn about the enemy" instead of "fight the enemy part 1" or "build an armada against the enemy". [/quote]

TerrorK puts it very well in a later post.  The implication at the end of ME 1 is that Shepard was "Going to find a way to stop them"  This implies that Shepard is going to go and "look for a way to stop the Reapers". 

Paragon Shepard to Council: "Sovereign was only a vanguard. The Reaper fleet is still coming! Hundred of ships, maybe thousands! And I'm going to find some way to stop them!"

Renegade Shepard to Council: "Sovereign alone nearly wiped you out!  You won't stand a chance if the whole Reaper fleet shows up. Not unless I find a way to stop them!"

 Anderson to Council: "Shepard's right. Humanity is ready to do its part. United with the rest of the Council, we have the strength to overcome any challenge! When the reapers come, we must stand side-by-side! We must fight against them as one, and together, we will drive them back into dark space!"

Udina to Council: "Shepard's right. We're on the verge of war with an enemy unlike any the galaxy has ever known! A war for the survival of all life as we know it! Humanity is ready to do its part. We will not back down. We will not surrender. We will lead you into battle against the Reapers and drive them Back into dark space!"

This clearly does not happen as DM Fiat made him die a few weeks later.

Imagine it this way: at the end of Episode V, Lando and Chewie are taking of in the Millenium Falcon telling Luke and Leia that they're going to find where Boba Fett took Han.  Episode VI, rather than opening with the infiltration of Jabba's palace,  instead opens with a Yuuzon Vong ship blowing apart the Falcon. 

[quote]In the "Hate on the Plot" thread, I believe you made the point that Mass Effect nowhere implied the existence of the Collectors in Mass Effect 2. So clearly, you did take issue with Mass Effect not implying Mass Effect 2. Did Episode IV imply Luke's training with Yoda or the rebels being on the run? New elements were introduced in both stories. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But your assertion of "learn from the enemy" still has no logical basis, beyond conjecture. [/quote]

Episode IV did imply that Luke would become a Jedi, given how he destroyed the Death Star, his father was a Jedi, he was Force sensitive, etc.  No, Yoda's existence was not implied specifically,  But it was that somehow he would learn to use the Force. 

Given that the Rebels hidden base was no longer hidden, it makes sense that they'd end up on the run.

Was it implied in ME 1 that Shepard's death at the hands of a slave race of the Reapers?  Or even that his death was immenent?  No, it was implied that Shepard was going to use his "I can do whatever I want" status as a Spectre to go look for a way to save the galaxy from the Reapers.  How he was going to do that was not implied. 

[quote]Closer to 5.

1) Murdering Shepard at the start of Mass Effect 2.
2) Liara explains that she saved your body from the Collectors.
3) Attacking your LI on Horizon in order to draw your attention.
4) Collector Ship mission.
5) Reaper IFF incident. [/quote]

1 Is kind of iffy, given they killed rather than capture Shepard, but I'll give it to you
2 Isn't this a continuiation of 1?  Anyway, that's a very easy to miss conversation which one can easily be permanently locked out of
3 We only have TIM's word that that's the reason the Collectors attacked.  As far as I'm concerned you can't trust anything he says

[quote]What made the Prothean revelation interesting was not necessaily that it changed the parameters of the mission, but that it implied another consequence of Shepard failing. "This could be you" is the indication given. Extinction might seem more frightening, but the Collectors are something I can look in the face and understand. I also don't think this aspect of the story is finished. Why, for example,were the Collectors operating on one of their own? The Reapers would already have had all relevant information on Prothean DNA. I suspect that there's more at work in the Human-Prothean connection, much like the Human-Forerunner relationship in Halo. [/quote]

I'm not talking about the parameters of the mission, I'm talking about the parameters of the story.  Shouldn't the revelation give you some sort of sympathy for them?  Horror?  Revulsion?  Sadness?  No, they're still just targets.  Mordin is the only one to show any sort of effect based on the Reveal.  It would not suprise to if this part of the story is over, and the Collectors were simply a throwaway enemy, the way they were so casually treated.

[quote]I think the mystery died when Bioware told us that human colonies are disappearing and that we'd be fighting the Collectors, much like Sovereign's revelation in Mass Effect. [/quote]

Maybe I just went out of my way to avoid being spoiled, but I didn't know anything about the Collectors before I started playing ME 2.  All I knew was human colonies were going missing.

[quote] I'd also like to point out that Shepard's new employment was a result of circumstance. Most Bioware games 'railroad' the player into working with a certain organization. This is not uncommon and was done by Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 took an interesting approach. 1) The Council back-pedaled on the Reaper menace. 2) Cerberus however does support you. 3) They are willing to give you the equipment, resources, and intel so you can stop this threat, the Collectors, which you now have a double motivation for (tied to the Reapers + murdered Shepard). Cerberus does not make you murder innocent children, burn any villages, etc. The first controversial order you are given (preserving the base), Shepard has the option to tell TIM to shove it. [/quote]

"Interesting" is not the term I'd use.  I'd say "ham-fisted"  Usually when Bioware guides you down a particular path, it seems like the logical course of action at the time.  This time around it's more like the game says "because I said so"  The Council's backpedalling was worthy of a Darwin Award (or at least a future contender)  Sure TIM's willing to help you.  Why is still a major puzzle to me.  He gives you a ship and crew, but instead of buying your own equipment you have to mine your own resources so you can make the geear yourself.  Wow, that's much better  

I actually wanted TIM to give more controversial orders, so you could be Renegade and agree to it or be a Paragon and tell him to perform an anatomical impossibility.  This is Cerberus, they of the unethical medical experiemnts, murderers of Admiral Kahoku, instigators of the Akuze incident.  If  I'm going to have to work for a terrorist organization, I want "morally grey" areas.  I want to have to find a line and take a stand, prefereably before the endgame.

[quote]So while I cannot make an argument that 'Mass Effect 2 is good' using this, I can attempt to force you into one of these two possibilities by making a successful comparison. [/quote]

All right, but we've already got a lot of Star Wars mixed into the ME 2 discsussion, you really want to add ME 1 into the mix?

[quote]So Shepard is a Spectre, free to employ "any means" to achieve his objective. Objective: Track down Saren. What we do not know. So, to do this, we should have a series of leads, right? Some logical basis to track our organic prey. And I can easily imagine several different, more logical conclusions than 'Geth'.

1) Saren's files. To find my enemy, I should learn about my enemy (as you said with the Reapers). Saren's files were classified as a Spectre, so I should learn all I can about how my prey operates. And no, he is "ruthless" doesn't quite cut it.
2) Shadow Broker. We know Saren is tied to Benezia. We should use the Shadowbroker as a resource to find any info on either of them. Especially since the Shadowbroker has a personal motivation to stop Saren.
3) Tali's Geth lead. Here, we meet your requirement (tracking the Geth) and one we know that is *actually* related to Saren. The Geth patrol makes much more sense than Noveria.
4) Fist. We knew that Saren employed him as an agent. Find out how they got into contact with each other.
5) Send a different Spectre entirely. In fact, send your second-best Spectre. If Saren was the Council's best agent, I don't want to entrust a shiny new baby Spectre with this kind of responsibility. Send another either with or in place of Shepard who is intimately familiar with how a Spectre conducts himself.
6) Set a trap for Saren. Why simply 'revoke his status'? We want to catch this guy. So why make an open declaration that he is an outlaw? Lead him into a trap, perhaps offering him the opportunity to execute Shepard personally. [/quote]

1) I admit, this would have made for an intersting look into Saren's mind, to see his personal records as he falls under Sovereign's influence. 
2) The Shadow Broker trades in secrets.  I can only assume the Council did not set Shepard up with an expense account for that. 
3) I'm not sure what you mean here.  Disabling as many geth as possible and hope to repeat Tali's feat of extracting information?
4)  Fist is dead in most of my playthroughs.  Maybe I should have asked Emily Wong if Saren came up in that info I gave her.  Ah well, hindsight is always 20/20
5) Saren is no longer a Spectre and has none of the Spectres' resources or authority.  They think he's just a criminal, not a threat.  Sending Shepard after him is just their way to shut Udina and Anderson up.
6) The Council actually want s to keep this quet.  If you mention Saren was responsible for the Eden Prime during the interview, Hackett calls you on it.

[quote] Shepard is a Spectre, as I said. Supposedly he should have "free reign" in how he performs his mission. With an investigation, I start with the most logical source. With these Geth investigations, we have no idea 1) if they are absolutely tied to Saren, 2) if they will turn up any relevant information, 3) we don't even know what we are looking for at this time. So it doesn't make much sense that we are starting with this. But lo and behold! The Council homes in on exactly 4 leads, each providing exactly 1 critical element in order to reach Ilos. I would say this is as contrived, if not more, then Shepard on Freedom's Progress. At least there, the Illusive Man already has a clue that the Collectors are behind this. [/quote]

1) Geth follow Saren.  Geth are at Noveria and Feros.  Therefore, Saren must be there or was there recently.  2) True.  One flaw I had with ME 1 was that it was a bit too short.  A couple of false leads could have padded the game out nicely. 3) You're looking for Saren or what Saren's up to. 

So which is more contrived, four elements leading up to the answer over the course of a game, or one element stumbled over at the very start?

[quote]
If Mordin can engineer a plague-cure from scratch against a group as advanced as the Collectors, I can easily see him creating a seeker. [/quote]

Which leads to my coplaint that the squadmates in ME 2 are too "super-duper"...

[quote]
Uh-uh. So you can't buy EDI (based on Reaper tech) being able to hack the Collectors, but you have no probem with the Normandy's stealth systems (not even based on Reaper tech) working against Sovereign?

I can't buy EDI being able to easily hack the Collectors.  I don't know if the Normandy's stealth systems worked against Sovereign, or Sovereign simply couldn't be bothered to swat such a tiny ship down (I assume you're referring to Virmire)

[quote]Okay, so what do these three examples say about Shepard as a "Spectre". The first two are merely racist sentiments (which don't have any relevance to Shepard as a Spectre). They couldn't care less about how many people you work with, if they're all human. Anderson, while useful, also serves as an odd conclusion. Why is this the 'perfect ship' for a Spectre? From all you've heard about them, do Spectres really operate like this? If so, there probably would be better intel on how many Spectres actually exist. [/quote]

The first two statements are people questioning Shepards' methods.  Nobody really questions Shepard's methods "as a Spectre".  A Spectre's methods are whatever the Council doesn't forbid said Spectre  from doing.  "Whatever it takes" seemed to be the catchphrase for Spectre tactics

The Normandy is a perfect ship because it lets Shep go pretty much anywhere quickly and quietly.  The crew is loyal to Shep, that's all that matters. 

[quote]'Requisition aid' is one thing. Shepard finding out that he needs a Prothean Expert, so he is forced to drag Liara with him on his search makes sense. But that's quite different from a fully staffed ship. Spectres operate alone, on most occassions. Why Ashley? Why Kaidan? Why Garrus/Wrex? Certainly, people comment on your aliens and make controversial statements. This was just the Bioware 'call to arms' with little thought behind as Shepard's status went. Besides Liara, once I became a Spectre, what use were any of them to me? I don't care that Garrus wants to stop Saren, that Ashley wants to prove herself, etc. I want people who are critical to mission success. [/quote]

Why?  Because they believe Shepard and want to help.  They're all there is that's willinag and able to help.   If you don't care about Garrus or Ashley, that's fine.  Treat em as crew and just let them "guard the ship"  But even as a Spectre, having someone you can trust at your back can be handy (Nihlus sure could have used one)

[quote]This is not entirely true. Her code "requires", not allows that she cooperate with the authorities. What you also forget is that there is some subjectivity in her code, odd as it may seem. On the Normandy, Samara uses the example where if she must kill a man, she would not want to know he's a dedicated father. No question about it, the code may 'allow' her to harm innocents, but to say that it requires such things (as the Nihlus examples tells us) is very untenable. Samara was in a difficult position and did not want to resort to that, therefore she made a deal with Shepard where she could continue her search at a later time. The best plan? No. But "possibly dead" fighting Collectors is more noble than possibly dead fighting civilians. [/quote]

You are right that she was obligated to cooperate for one day.  However, there is zero room for subjectivity in her Code.  She may not like some of the things she has to do, but she will do them, because that's what justicars do

The full quote you used was "If I must kill a man because he has done wrong do I wish to know he is also a devoted father?"  to explain her lack of curiosity about the Collectors.  All she needs to know is they need to be fought.  To her, there is no mercy, no sympathy, only pitiless justice.

Samara:  You risk a great deal by following your orders, detective.  Fortunately, I will not have to resist.  My code obligates me to cooperate with you for one day.  After that I must return to my investigation.

Detective Anya: I won't be able to release you that soon

Samara:  You won't be able to stop me.

Bolded parts for emphasis

[quote]So let them insist. The humans insist on many things throughout Mass Effect. The Council knows that he is up to something through his interaction with the Geth, his massive warship, involvement with Benezia, and search for the Conduit. This obviously has bigger implications than just humanity if Saren is working with the Geth. So this isn't just a human concern. [/quote]

We have dismissed this claim

But seriously, while the geth seemed to be of some concern with the Council, Saren and Benezia were not.  Yeah there was some concern that a matriarch would throw in with  Saren's mad scheme, but as far as the Council was concerned, Saren's on the run and is just one more criminal out there.  They don't even believe in the Conduit.  Thus the one thing that united Anderson, Shepard, and Udina was the Council's apathy. 

[quote]If there is plenty of reason to go after him, then this contradicts your assertion that the Council would simply let him rot in space. [/quote]

Not really, if the Council doesn't care about the reasons  But the Council also had to worry about a war with the Terminus Systems if they sent a fleet after Saren (Why they had to fear three mercenary outfits is beyond me)
To Wrex, he was trying to kill Saren before Sren killed him.  Tali was trying to foil the geth's plans, Kaiden and Ashely wanted payback for Eden Prime.  And Garrus was after a corrupt Spectre.  To the COuncil, none of these reasons were worth the effort.

[/quote]Edit: Dear God, these responses are reaching essay-level. [/quote]
[/quote]

Try typing one out twice because the Internet ate the first one

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Mostly,except warden kuril.Dialog with subbosses/bosses? To bad for the "flow of the combat" i guess.

Just imagine the final confrontation with Saren without the dialogue. That's how ME 2 feels to me. It would be understandable if BioWare were a new company, and this were their first game. But to do a thing so wrong which they did correct in their last game? I don't understand it.

[SithLordExarKun]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Thirdly, are you attempting to highlight that ME1 is not?

Yes.
Fighting green zombies in combination with an "asari clon" at the end of the ferros mission. I didnt expect this.

That something like biotic rachni exists and shepardt found them and have to kill them.

A boss with tech abilities.(Helena Blake)

Or helena blake beeing a biotic herself.

I would say there are far more suprising encounters in Mass Effect.

But when the game told me: Blue Sun signal i know exactly what to expect. Nothing that could suprise someone who meet them once.

Its even the same with the collectors: Once you met them,you know all their types.No suprises. Why harbinger didnt
get stronger at least at the end on the suicide mission?

Yes, its much more surprising to see the same batch of enemies in the very same bunkers on each UNC world, its also much more surprising to expect geth on both feros and noveria. I agree wholeheartedly.

[HeatClipNotFound]

Wait, Mass Effect 2 DID push Mass Effect aside. Holy crap...



You dont send your prized super killing horse on clean up machines for remnant geth, you fund the mother like crazy and hell abduct him and turn him into a robot super hero yourselves so he has an edge.



In fact, the story of Mass Effect 2 should have started as Shepard trying to infiltrate Cerberus to see if they know anything about reaper technology or ways to give humanity an edge that theyve been keeping secret.







Noooo this thread has made me doubt the validity of Mass Effects 2 story!!!

[Iakus]

HeatClipNotFound wrote...

Wait, Mass Effect 2 DID push Mass Effect aside. Holy crap...

You dont send your prized super killing horse on clean up machines for remnant geth, you fund the mother like crazy and hell abduct him and turn him into a robot super hero yourselves so he has an edge.

In fact, the story of Mass Effect 2 should have started as Shepard trying to infiltrate Cerberus to see if they know anything about reaper technology or ways to give humanity an edge that theyve been keeping secret.



Noooo this thread has made me doubt the validity of Mass Effects 2 story!!!

Shep infiltrating Cerberus because they are suspected of playing around with Reaper tech isn't a half-bad idea.  There could be plenty of opportunuties to examine ends justifying the means.  Is this experiment okay?  How about this one?  Where is the line drawn for your Shep concerning "good" research and "bad" research?  Might even solve the problem of Shepard looking for old reaper artifacts by saying Cerberus already found some and aren't sharing

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Thirdly, are you attempting to highlight that ME1 is not?

Yes.

Then do it properly.

tonnactus wrote...

Mostly,except warden kuril.Dialog with subbosses/bosses? To bad for the "flow of the combat" i guess.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 03 août 2010 - 02:41 .

[Captain Artenon]

I think its a matter of preference, really; BioWare was trying to make ME2 more appealing to shooter fans, whereas the original is much more of a traditional RPG/shooter.



I preferred the combat mechanics of MEI (PC version), personally. Mainly in how Biotic/Tech Powers, Healing, and Grenades were used, and how the squad control system (attack, hold position, rally) was much more straightforward.

[Fuhjem24]

 Well, this is my two cents.

Being able to fill my team early on let me get to know them better as actual characters. Having to collect them as the main focus of the game made them seem more like trophies than allies.

I don't like how Bioware overreacted to the problems with exploration and inventory. Making both more fun instead of just stripping them down to almost nothing and a boring mini-game was just a bad decision.

It felt weird that whenever Shepard wanted to go aboard the Normandy when docked, they had to fly away into space. I mean, come on, I just wanted to try on my new shoulder pads, but Joker just has that lead foot (IRONY) and can't help but speed away from the planet! I just felt that the ship leaving should happen 'after' Shepard accesses the Galaxy Map.

The game felt a lot like Gears of War. There, I said it. With meter high walls everywhere, it's really hard not to tell when an encounter is going to spring up. It just feels like every corridor and room was built around a battlefield. No place I visited where I could bring out my weapons ever felt like it had any purpose other than to shoot someone. That's another point, only being able to take out your weapons in certain areas really telegraphs an oncoming fight. In ME1, you could open fire anywhere, so you never really knew when you'd run into a fight.

Now, instead of ****ing, here are some solutions.

- Have the team full early on. Easy enough.

- Have a faster inventory. And have lots of weapons and armor. People Enjoy Looting!

- Let me go planetside. Being able to cross huge landscapes on a lot of planets made the game feel HUGE.

- Bring back the cursor to the galaxy map. The ship just complicates things and having to manage fuel seem like a complete downgrade from the original. The cursor was faster and didn't rely on fuel.

- Just cut the planet scanning. Please.

- Have more 'lived in' enviornments. Have cover set behind actual walls, tables, and other things that make the place seem like it was supposed to be used for something other than war.
 

[Massadonious1]

bjdbwea wrote...
There is still a difference between common people and supposedly professional reviewers though.

I just gave you an example of different opinions from "professional" reviewers.  I fail to see how a movie reviewer giving a movie 5 out of 5 stars, while another gives it a 2, is any different from a video game reviewer thinking a game is "perfect" and someone else giving it a 70, or whatever arbitrary review metric you would like to use.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 03 août 2010 - 08:43 .

[Shermonation]

I may have been expecting too much from Mass Effect 2 but to be honest, I was quite dissapointed with the extent of my choices, I mean half of them ended with an email or one random character talking to you. Still loved the game though and waiting for ME3

[bjdbwea]

Massadonious1 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

There is still a difference between common people and supposedly professional reviewers though.

I just gave you an example of different opinions from "professional" reviewers.  I fail to see how a movie reviewer giving a movie 5 out of 5 stars, while another gives it a 2, is any different from a video game reviewer thinking a game is "perfect" and someone else giving it a 70, or whatever arbitrary review metric you would like to use.

There is not much of a difference. But a perfect score for a movie is almost as ridiculous as a perfect score for a game. You can say that the story is a 5/5 in your opinion, but movies - and especially games - consist of more than just the story. Especially for games, there are some completely objective aspects, like the number of bugs or how well the controls work (the latter is a mess in the PC version). If you're going to give an overall rating, everything has to be considered.

I for one would give the story in ME 1 a 4.8/5, and the story in ME 2 a 2/5.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 août 2010 - 03:27 .

[Il Divo]

Especially for games, there are some completely objective aspects, like the number of bugs or how well the controls work (the latter is a mess in the PC version). If you're going to give an overall rating, everything has to be considered.

Number of bugs is hardly objective.What's considered a large number? How big is the game? Who experiences the bugs? Some people couldn't run Dragon Age Awakening, while I had no trouble. Hence, more subjectivity enters the picture.

And Mass Effect's controls are a mess on the console version. Out of every Bioware game I've ever played, Mass Effect has been the most flawed. I could point out many things I can't stand about it. Yet, I still give it a solid 9/10. Why? Because a game can be more than the sum of its parts, or the "sum total experience" as I call it. Mass Effect is riddled with flaws, yet my overall enjoyment far outweighed any problems I had.
 
That's what a reviewer is doing when he gives a game a nigh perfect score. It doesn't mean "this game is perfect". It's a way of saying how much enjoyment they received from the experience. Much like how Ign's overall rating is not an average of graphics/gameplay/presentation. I remember once they gave Ocarina of Time an 11/10. It was very controversial. A game can't be "super perfect", but it's a testament to how incredible they felt the experience was that they did so.

I for one would give the story in ME 1 a 4.8/5, and the story in ME 2 a 2/5.

And I would give Mass Effect's story a 4/5 and Mass Effect 2's a 3/5. As you can see, everyone has differing opinions. As a whole, I would give Mass Effect a 4.5/5 and Mass Effect 2 a 4.8/5.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 août 2010 - 03:51 .

[bjdbwea]

So you're not giving either game a perfect score, and that's all I was talking about. It's also not a question of whether bugs bother you or not, a perfect game would need to have not a single noticeable one. Otherwise it would have to be a 4.99/5 at best, not that ME 2 would be anywhere close to that.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 août 2010 - 03:51 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

So you're not giving either game a perfect score, and that's all I was talking about.

Didn't you say earlier that a "near perfect" score is still ridiculous?

It's also not a question of whether bugs bother you or not, a perfect game would need to have not a single noticeable one. Otherwise it would have to be 4.99/5 at best, not that ME 2 would be anywhere close to that.

I didn't notice a single my first playthrough of Mass Effect 2, Jade Empire, etc. There are many games where we don't notice them. But you just demonstrated why objectivity is impossible. If I don't notice a single bug in Awakening, while another reviewer notices 10, how are you going to obtain an 'objective review', out of curiosity? Again, reviews tell us the quality of the reviewer's overall experience, not whether or not a game is absolutely "flawless".

[haberman13]

bjdbwea wrote...

So you're not giving either game a perfect score, and that's all I was talking about. It's also not a question of whether bugs bother you or not, a perfect game would need to have not a single noticeable one. Otherwise it would have to be a 4.99/5 at best, not that ME 2 would be anywhere close to that.

ME2 is further proof that metacritic and reviews in general are pointless drivel.

Otherwise ME2s flaws would have been shredded in reviews.

The other problem is that reviews tend to be console focused (reviewer plays on XBOX only), so compared to other console games ME2 is stunning.

On PC it felt like a mediocre ME1 combined with Gears of War.

Waist high walls everywhere for cover is a really, really dumb combat system.  I found myself just "ducking" behind a wall, recover, move forward.

No strategy, just duck and wait.

On top of that they stripped the game down from it's already RPG-lite status in ME1, so that any redeeming qualities from ME1 were removed.

Cover system games blow on PC, its just boring hiding behind walls all the time.  Real combat >>>>> fake cover systems

Modifié par haberman13, 03 août 2010 - 04:07 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Didn't you say earlier that a "near perfect" score is still ridiculous?

That's my opinion, but a "totally perfect" score is objectively ridiculous as long as the game hasn't been proven to be perfect in every matter. And if the reviewer even mentions the flaws, it's even more laughable.

But I don't want to debate the state of the reviewing industry and their questionable (double) standards anymore, let's rather talk about the game.

haberman13 wrote...

Cover system games blow on PC, its just boring hiding behind walls all the time.  Real combat >>>>> fake cover systems

That is true. It's also why I don't understand all that praise for the combat in ME 2. Objectively, it's nothing special. The additional powers are nice, but games like the Jedi Knight series did it much better years ago.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 août 2010 - 04:12 .

[haberman13]

bjdbwea wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Didn't you say earlier that a "near perfect" score is still ridiculous?

That's my opinion, but a "totally perfect" score is objectively ridiculous as long as the game hasn't been proven to be perfect in every matter. And if the reviewer even mentions the flaws, it's even more laughable.

But I don't want to debate the state of the reviewing industry and their questionable (double) standards anymore, let's rather talk about the game.

haberman13 wrote...

Cover system games blow on PC, its just boring hiding behind walls all the time.  Real combat >>>>> fake cover systems

That is true. It's also why I don't understand all that praise for the combat in ME 2. Objectively, it's nothing special. The additional powers are nice, but games like the Jedi Knight series did it much better years ago.

Objectively I would say its pretty bad.  Having just finished Metro 2033 and DA:O (two extremes) I would say ME2 doesn't know what it wants for combat, and fails at both.

The combat doesn't satisfy my "blood lust" (lol), and it certainly doesn't satisfy my RPG-lust, so I'm left with a game whose combat is extremely tedious (no strategy, duck and wait, proceed).  This leaves only the other pieces of the game to make up for it, those being story/rpg/immersion etc.

ME2 basically doesn't do it for me, the combat is tedious, the RPG is non-existant, the story is decent (compared to ME1 its a thumbs down though), and the mini-games are tedious.

Ouch, I just re-affirmed my contempt for ME2, I thought I was over this

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

But I don't want to debate the state of the reviewing industry and their questionable (double) standards anymore, let's rather talk about the game.

Fair enough.

That is true. It's also why I don't understand all that praise for the combat in ME 2. Objectively, it's nothing special. The additional powers are nice, but games like the Jedi Knight series did it much better years ago.

But I still don't understand what you're saying here. What game can be considered "objectively special" in any sense? The very notion contradicts itself.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 août 2010 - 04:25 .

[haberman13]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

But I don't want to debate the state of the reviewing industry and their questionable (double) standards anymore, let's rather talk about the game.

Fair enough.

That is true. It's also why I don't understand all that praise for the combat in ME 2. Objectively, it's nothing special. The additional powers are nice, but games like the Jedi Knight series did it much better years ago.

But I still don't understand what you're saying here. What game can be considered "objectively special" in any sense? The very notion contradicts itself.

Note really, objectively I would say there are a lot of things you could consider "special".

Objectivity doesn't preclude finding something special.

I would say that objectively ME2's combat was bland and uninspired, where as I would say that Dark Messiah's combat (if you remember that game) was objectively special and unique amongst its peers.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

But I still don't understand what you're saying here. What game can be considered "objectively special" in any sense? The very notion contradicts itself.

Not really. If you would name the reasons why combat in ME 2 is supposed to be great ("special"), I could easily show why and where other (PC) games did the same things better. I don't really want to do it though, just an example.

[tonnactus]

Captain Artenon wrote...


I preferred the combat mechanics of MEI (PC version), personally. Mainly in how Biotic/Tech Powers, Healing, and Grenades were used, and how the squad control system (attack, hold position, rally) was much more straightforward.

Yes,i agree.Playing an engineer or an adept was far more satisfiying then now. Also artificial cover is just awfull.