10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


Number of bugs is hardly objective.What's considered a large number? How big is the game? Who experiences the bugs?

I cant believe that reviewers not recognize the squad ammo power bug.That alone should have prevented 10 of 10 ratings.
And that is something every player experienced, it was relevant to gameplay and it destroyed strategies.Like some people didnt took thane after his loyality mission.

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 août 2010 - 06:11 .

[benf2004]

haberman13 wrote...

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.

It's good to know that I'm not the only one who didn't like the combat in ME2. I felt exactly the same way. Even most of the people I've talked to who have been disappointed with ME2 have thought I was crazy when I told them I found the combat tedious. It was honestly so bad that it sucked all of the fun out of the game. I could only play the game a couple of hours per day before I got tired of the combat and quit. The only parts of the game where the combat wasn't terrible were the N7 missions (or at least the few I did) , and that was only because they were too short to become tedious.

ME2 was basically a huge disappointment. I played through ME1 four times (100% of the game every time) and will certainly play through it again at some point. I beat ME2, only doing a handfull of the N7 missions, and I can't bring myself to pick the game up again. It just wasn't fun. It didn't feel like Mass Effect at all. It felt like I was playing a bad Gears of War ripoff.

Now I'm just left hoping they don't ruin the Dragon Age franchise as well.

[tonnactus]

benf2004 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

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.

It's good to know that I'm not the only one who didn't like the combat in ME2. I felt exactly the same way. Even most of the people I've talked to who have been disappointed with ME2 have thought I was crazy when I told them I found the combat tedious.

If someone only played the soldier class in the first game...

But real combat control like this:


Isnt possible in the second game anymore.

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...

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

Calling something objective does not make it so. "Objectively, Mass Effect has the best story ever told", "Objectively, Fallout is the greatest RPG ever made." You get the idea.

Offer me a reason why your idea is objective instead of just telling me it is so. Now, we can say (objectively) what came first. We can say objectively that Half-Life is one of the first FPS games ever made. We can objectively say that Ocarina of Time was the first 3-D Zelda game. We can objectively say anything regarding numbers, but that is all.

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.

Objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. http://dictionary.re...rowse/Objective

This is the definition of objective. Show me why your opinion is objective. Again, throwing in the adverb 'objectively' doesn't quite cut it. Without using your personal feelings or interpretations, explain to me how Mass Effect 2 is (objectively) bland and uninspired. You'll have to do this using premises that are 100% true for everyone regardless of opinions, otherwise it can't be considered objective.  

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

I cant believe that reviewers not recognize the squad ammo power bug.That alone should have prevented 10 of 10 ratings.
And that is something every player experienced, it was relevant to gameplay and it destroyed strategies.Like some people didnt took thane after his loyality mission.

Same reason I didn't take Sledgehammer rounds. The CC from them was awesome, but the physics in the game were incredibly wonky and kept knocking them through the floors to live forever.

tonnactus wrote...

If someone
only played the soldier class in the first game...

._. I feel this is directed towards me for some reason.

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

For many it's the first time Bioware's made combat sections 'fun'.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 03 août 2010 - 10:31 .

[haberman13]

Il Divo wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

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

Calling something objective does not make it so. "Objectively, Mass Effect has the best story ever told", "Objectively, Fallout is the greatest RPG ever made." You get the idea.

Offer me a reason why your idea is objective instead of just telling me it is so. Now, we can say (objectively) what came first. We can say objectively that Half-Life is one of the first FPS games ever made. We can objectively say that Ocarina of Time was the first 3-D Zelda game. We can objectively say anything regarding numbers, but that is all.

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.

Objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. http://dictionary.re...rowse/Objective

This is the definition of objective. Show me why your opinion is objective. Again, throwing in the adverb 'objectively' doesn't quite cut it. Without using your personal feelings or interpretations, explain to me how Mass Effect 2 is (objectively) bland and uninspired. You'll have to do this using premises that are 100% true for everyone regardless of opinions, otherwise it can't be considered objective.  

I cede your point, I can't define a perspective that encompasses every person's definition of special or bland.

That being said, trying to be objective, I would say that ME2's combat was bland and uninspired (objectively, for me)

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

For many it's the first time Bioware's made combat sections 'fun'.

And for me, it's the first time they've made it feel like any other console port. No, wait - it's the second time after JE. At least I could freely configure the keys in that game though.

About being bland and uninspired: For someone who plays ME 2 as his first game ever, it certainly doesn't feel like that at all. Just like, as I keep saying, shooter fans certainly have to be amazed by the additional stuff this game offers in comparison to pure shooters. So yeah, there's no objective measurement.

That said, in comparison to other games, combat in ME 2 is indeed bland and uninspired. There are numerous games where you have more weapons, more ways to defend yourself, more strategies, better level design and a larger variety of more interesting enemies. ME 2 does have its powers (if reduced and dumbed down from ME 1), but there are also other games which did things like that, and better. ME 2 fails to introduce anything new or innovative. It is certainly better than many other games that are even more bland and uninspired (the majority of games), but that alone can't be the benchmark for BioWare games, can it?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 août 2010 - 10:57 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

And for me, it's the first time they've made it feel like any other console port. No, wait - it's the second time after JE. At least I could freely configure the keys in that game though.

Why is ME1 exempt? The squadmates are hollow, the dialog streamlined, and the combat shooterized.

bjdbwea wrote...

That said, in comparison to other games, combat in ME 2 is indeed bland and uninspired. There are numerous games where you have more weapons, more ways to defend yourself, more strategies, better level design and a larger variety of more interesting enemies. ME 2 does have its powers (if reduced and dumbed down from ME 1), but there are also other games which did things like that, and better. ME 2 fails to introduce anything new or innovative.

And ME1 shares this failure. Nothing new in combat, nothing new in pacing, nothing new in squadmembers. Only the setting.

bjdbwea wrote...


It is certainly better than many other games that are even more bland and uninspired (the majority of games), but that alone can't be the benchmark for BioWare games, can it?

No, which is why it's not. I can say that for every Bioware game since BG2: The combat sucked, and the mechanics revolving around the combat were lackluster.

There's more to Bioware than that, though, and that's why I still love their games.

[Terror_K]

The combat may have improved from the original game, but it's still not up to the standards of a pure TPS like Gears of War because it fails to change things up much and is pretty much the same old thing over and over and over, with linear A to B levels that feel more like levels and less like environments, obvious ambush points and a failure to innovate and use the mechanics to its advantage. The closest thing we got to things having a slight twist was Haestrom with the intense sun giving something new to the situation. But if you look at Gears of War it manages to provide little puzzles, unique situations and unusual bossfights along the way to keep things fresh and interesting. If ME3 is going to continue to be more a shooter than an RPG it really needs to do more than just be "Move Forward, Find Obvious Waist-High Cover Spot, Kill Enemies, Rinse and Repeat"

[Pocketgb]

Combat bad? In a Bioware game?? Whoulda thunk it!? Good thing there's more - FAR more - to ME2 and Bioware games in general than just that.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 04 août 2010 - 01:19 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Combat bad? In a Bioware game?? Whoulda thunk it!? Good thing there's more - FAR more - to ME2 and Bioware games in general than just that.

That may be, but when your combat is bad and your RPG mechanics are lacklustre then all that's left is the storyline stuff, in which case you could have just made the game an interactive movie in similar vein to Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

That may be, but when your combat is bad and your RPG mechanics are lacklustre then all that's left is the storyline stuff, in which case you could have just made the game an interactive movie in similar vein to Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain.

Since you already know how I view "RPG mechanics" in regards to depth, you'd know I'd say this exact same thing in regards to every Bioware game after BG2. It's not just that the mechanics are there, it's that they're balanced, and that they work. We've already talked about this.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 04 août 2010 - 01:52 .

[Whatever42]

Have we all agreed that Bioware sucks and produces crap games yet?

[Spartas Husky]

Not crap games. Bioware made DA and it was good. Bioware made ME1 and it was near perfect. ALl it needed was a few new ideas, and improving on old ones.



Not scraping alot of what worked, being so damn greedy as to scrap other things, only to sell it back to us in small DLCs....

[PHub88]

I love Mass Effect...but for what it was "for its time" I think ME1 was better THEN....than ME2 is now...The only things that I didnt like was it feeling so much more like an attempt at turning into a simplistic shooter...I did not like having options taken from me...I dont like having hardly any weapon choices...I was sad the detail of the Citadel and Omega came at the cost of making them both puny.

[Pocketgb]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Not crap games. Bioware made DA and it was good.

"Tank and spank" gameplay, bad balance (regarding performance *and* progression), and potion spamming were just *some* of the things that made DA's combat far from its supposed predecessor.

Spartas Husky wrote...

Bioware made ME1 and it was near perfect. ALl it needed was a few new ideas, and improving on old ones.

Pointless inventory, progression, and shooter gameplay does not a terribly 'fun' game make. Suffered from a few balance mishaps but wasn't as bad as DA:O.

[Spartas Husky]

It needed some polishing, but the overall idea, and the road they took was sound. If it wasn't fun, thats well... your beef.



When your disappointing is because you liked alot about it... not just criticizing the entire game.



Sounds to me, I am sorry if I am mistaken... that you just didn't like them... so where does disappointment come in?

[Whatever42]

I studied a bit of marketing back in university and this is what is known as cognitive dissonance. In marketing, this is a huge deal. For example, car companies spend tens of millions trying to reduce it.

From wikipedia:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

_________________

Essentially, people have preconceptions of what ME2 should be. ME2 is not what they anticipated, so they hold two contradictory ideas of the game in their head, making them uncomfortable. To justify their discomfort, they attack and blame the game.

Personally, I pretty much forgot about ME1 right after I played it. I had zero expectations of ME2 so no cognitive dissonance. Other people had their expectations met so no problem. Others had no expectations and disliked the game, which again does not cause "disappointment".

Just some very amateur psycho-babble. No need to take this overly seriously! 

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 04 août 2010 - 03:36 .

[Pocketgb]

Spartas Husky wrote...

It needed some polishing, but the overall idea, and the road they took was sound. If it wasn't fun, thats well... your beef.

That's always been the case with Bioware's games, really. The overall ideas with what the present in the games is always sound. But the implementation, the depth, the balance has not been nailed. DA:O was supposed to change this: introducing a combat system that's just as intriguing as what BG2 developed. This expectation was not met.

And no, I still found them fun, just not due to the mechanics: Bioware is pretty good at making combat look flashy, and they're great with animations.

Not to mention that there are other huge chunks to what draws me in as a Bioware fan.

Spartas Husky wrote...

Sounds to me, I am sorry if I am mistaken... that you just didn't like them... so where does disappointment come in?

There's far more to a Bioware game than the combat or the mechanics. I loved pretty much everything Bioware's made since. I've just not been such a big fan of the mechanics they've attempted to convey nor their implementation, hence why I'm laregly indifferent to this supposed "dumbing down" of of ME2.

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

[Lumikki]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Essentially, people have preconceptions of what ME2 should be. ME2 is not what they anticipated, so they hold two contradictory ideas of the game in their head, making them uncomfortable. To justify their discomfort, they attack and blame the game.

This is pretty much what I have tryed to say many times too. People expect game to be something and when it's not they blame the game or company. These people just can't get over the fact that not every game is design for they personal needs. So, these people invent alot of excuses to support why they have rights to blame the company or the game.

There has been few good complains, but most of last 200 page from few same people, has been pure whining about why game isn't good because I don't presonaly like something. The different is bad game design vs game not to my taste. How ever, there is only few same people doing it so who cares.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Essentially, people have preconceptions of what ME2 should be. ME2 is not what they anticipated, so they hold two contradictory ideas of the game in their head, making them uncomfortable. To justify their discomfort, they attack and blame the game.

This is pretty much what I have tryed to say many times too. People expect game to be something and when it's not they blame the game or company. These people just can't get over the fact that not every game is design for they personal needs. So, these people invent alot of excuses to support why they have rights to blame the company or the game.

There has been few good complains, but most of last 200 page from few same people, has been pure whining about why game isn't good because I don't presonaly like something. The different is bad game design vs game not to my taste. How ever, there is only few same people doing it so who cares.

But as has been explained several times over now, the first Mass Effect was something that a lot of these people liked. They expect ME2 to be a similar game and also for them not only because it's the direct sequel to ME1 but because it's essentially supposed to be the second part of a trilogy. Usually when a trilogy is made all three parts are, for the most part, the same. People have also pointed out plenty of examples of poor game design as well throughout the topic, but the main point is that whether ME2 is a good game or not, it's a bad follow-up to the original and a weak RPG. If ME3 came along and really was Gears of War with dialogue choices and completely abandoned all RPG mechanics entirely that wouldn't necessarily mean it was a bad game, but it wouldn't be a good Mass Effect 3.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

...but the main point is that whether ME2 is a good game or not, it's a bad follow-up to the original and a weak RPG.

ME1 was a weak RPG, and you yourself - albeit not directly - have admitted to this. ME1 aiming to be something 'different' does not exempt it from neither RPG nor shooter standards, both of which many considered lackluster in the prequel.

In regards to it being a "good sequel", this is largely determined by the fans. Given that there are plenty of fans for the series for different reasons I don't think we'll see an end to such a conflict. Do you think threads like this wouldn't exist if ME2 was more according to your own vision? Or would we still such a massive amount of forum posters just as disappointed?

[Vena_86]

Which brings us back to expectations. A sequel should follow the footsteps of its prequel while adding and improving things without changing the underlying game design like BG2 or Star Craft 2 or GTA 4. If it doesnt do so then there will be dissappointment, there is no way arround it. Now this wouldnt be a problem for a game that sucks and obviously needs to go a different direction to atleast justify the production costs. However, Mass Effect did not suck and it did not sell badly, despite technical problems. While it had its fixable issues, the whole concept of the game was exactly what many people wanted and it was unique enough to make it attractive.

Mass Effect 2 is not a good sequel and it was developed for the people who didnt really like the first game. In the progress the franchise lost what made it stand out and (more) interesting.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

ME1 was a weak RPG, and you yourself - albeit not directly - have admitted to this.

No, I admitted that it wasn't a pure RPG and that it was RPG-Lite. That doesn't mean I thought what was there was weak.

ME1 aiming to be something 'different' does not exempt it from neither RPG nor shooter standards, both of which many considered lackluster in the prequel.

Actually, beyond the inventory and shooting being stat-based I don't recall many ME1 fans complaining about the RPG elements that much. At least not until ME2 came along and then suddenly it got criticised just because some thought that ME2 did things better. I don't recall people saying "this game has too many RPG elements, we need to have less" or even saying "scrap the inventory entirely" etc. (most people just wanted the inventory improved, not removed).

In either case, even if people think the shooter elements were better in ME2, many think the RPG elements are even more lackluster than they (supposedly) were in ME1.

In regards to it being a "good sequel", this is largely determined by the fans. Given that there are plenty of fans for the series for different reasons I don't think we'll see an end to such a conflict. Do you think threads like this wouldn't exist if ME2 was more according to your own vision? Or would we still such a massive amount of forum posters just as disappointed?

This may sound arrogant, but I do think that if ME2 had come out and been closer to my own vision and expectations that while there would admittedly be some discontent, it would not have been anywhere near as much. People would likely have complained about the lack of changes and perhaps there not being enough action and that shooter combat was still too RPG dependent, but they certainly wouldn't have complained about the lack of RPG elements and that the game was being dumbed down.

Of course how I'd do ME2 after seeing the real ME2 now would be rather different from how I'd originally have done it. In either case you'd still have a decent amount of inventory, visible stats, armour that acted like armour, weapon modding, more squadmate conversations and proper planet exploration.

Vena_86 wrote...

Which brings us back to expectations. A
sequel should follow the footsteps of its prequel while adding and
improving things without changing the underlying game design like BG2 or
Star Craft 2 or GTA 4. If it doesnt do so then there will be
dissappointment, there is no way arround it. Now this wouldnt be a
problem for a game that sucks and obviously needs to go a different
direction to atleast justify the production costs. However, Mass Effect
did not suck and it did not sell badly, despite technical problems.
While it had its fixable issues, the whole concept of the game was
exactly what many people wanted and it was unique enough to make it
attractive.
Mass Effect 2 is not a good sequel and it was developed
for the people who didnt really like the first game. In the progress the
franchise lost what made it stand out and (more) interesting.

Exactly. Especially your last point. If you look at what was changed it was more to appease the casual gamer who happened to play Mass Effect and those who played it expecting more of a shooter than an RPG more than the actual Mass Effect fan. Of course, the ME1 fan isn't as likely to criticise the game as somebody who wasn't quite as much of a fan, but that doesn't mean the game should change to suit the non-fans more.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 août 2010 - 08:56 .

[Lt. Morke]

I think the Mass Effect series is going to fall victim to the Xenosaga effect:



1st game- Praised by everyone for everything about it

2nd game- Numerous changes from the prior game lead many of the fans to consider it the worst out of the series, if not even the SAME series

3rd game- Basically, third times a charm. As Saren put it, game 3 contains "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither" in reguards to its prequels



Thats basically my observation, plus, I'm not into the whole "this-RPG-is-good-cause-its-like-that-RPG" thing.





I don't know if anyone brought it up, but what are your thoughts on the Mass Effect series, or at least ME3, done with KOTOR's combat style?