10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

In Mass Effect 2 we focused on what we love about RPGs: An awesome sense of exploration,

Really? And here I thought all exploration had been cut out in ME 2, in favor of convenient and completeley linear levels.

intense combat,

Perhaps. If you call repetitive cover-shoot-cover-shoot sequences "intense".

a deep and non-linear story that's affected by your actions,

And here I thought most of your choices were reduced to emails, and not even saving or sacrificing the council made any difference. Deep and non-linear too? Hmm... wait, I get it! Someone has to have made a mistake! He is the only one who actually played ME 2 - they released the wrong game to the public! Of course!

and rich customisation of your armour, weapons and appearance...

Right. That's why we're stuck with one kind of armor and a few DLC armors, as well as a handful of weapons that can't be modded anymore. That's also why we have to use mods to equip the numerous armors and clothes that are in the game, but normally unusable.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 août 2010 - 02:43 .

[Pocketgb]

What intrigues me is how little of that applies to ME1

[Whatever42]

Bioware games have never had open world exploration. And their stories have only ever been non-linear in the sense that you can do all the required elements in any order and that you usually have a fork that results in a different ending. ME2 is no different than any other Bioware game ever. If you want to hate Bioware for being Bioware thats your right.



I think you want to play Morrowind or Fallout 3. Both awesome games. I usually feel immense freedom in a very non-linear and deep setting in Bethesda games. The characters in their games are usually very thin and sometimes the game just feels empty because its so wide open but I love them nonetheless.



I enjoy Bioware games equally but for different reasons. If you don't then fine but I wouldn't expect them to change their formula anytime soon.

[catabuca]

The linearity argument stems, I think, from 2 things:
1) Certain key missions are triggered and you have no option but to play them when the game wants you to (not necessarily a bad thing, but different from ME1);
2) The missions themselves promote a feeling of linearity due to them generally following the same formula: land; walk down corridor; find something out down a corridor; see some crates; shoot lots of people/aliens/synthetics in lots of corridors; kill a slightly more difficult person/alien/synthetic in a slightly wider, open space; leave; mission complete screen (again, not necessarily a bad thing, but different from the main ME1 missions - I agree the UW assignments in ME1 were repetitive, although the driving around, love it or hate it, gave a sense of space rather than 'arrive, corridor, leave').

I think the ME1 main missions felt less 'linear' because they involved different things: driving, talking to people, investigation, smaller side missions - then on to the main shooty-shooty stuff. And, it's easy to discount the subconscious effect of walking out of the Normandy's airlock onto a planet - little things like that improve the immersion for some, with only the squad selection screen breaking the continuity. Even going back onto the Normandy was integrated, with the decontamination and voice-over about Pressley being relieved (rofl, etc.). Being magically transported back to the Galaxy Map, after a mission recap screen that tells you how many XP points you earned, might not matter to a lot of people, and that's fine, but for some I think it's just one of the little things that added up to making it feel less like exploring a galaxy and more like doing a mission, then doing another mission, then another, etc.

[Normandy30]

catabuca wrote...

The linearity argument stems, I think, from 2 things:
1) Certain key missions are triggered and you have no option but to play them when the game wants you to (not necessarily a bad thing, but different from ME1);
2) The missions themselves promote a feeling of linearity due to them generally following the same formula: land; walk down corridor; find something out down a corridor; see some crates; shoot lots of people/aliens/synthetics in lots of corridors; kill a slightly more difficult person/alien/synthetic in a slightly wider, open space; leave; mission complete screen (again, not necessarily a bad thing, but different from the main ME1 missions - I agree the UW assignments in ME1 were repetitive, although the driving around, love it or hate it, gave a sense of space rather than 'arrive, corridor, leave').

I think the ME1 main missions felt less 'linear' because they involved different things: driving, talking to people, investigation, smaller side missions - then on to the main shooty-shooty stuff. And, it's easy to discount the subconscious effect of walking out of the Normandy's airlock onto a planet - little things like that improve the immersion for some, with only the squad selection screen breaking the continuity. Even going back onto the Normandy was integrated, with the decontamination and voice-over about Pressley being relieved (rofl, etc.). Being magically transported back to the Galaxy Map, after a mission recap screen that tells you how many XP points you earned, might not matter to a lot of people, and that's fine, but for some I think it's just one of the little things that added up to making it feel less like exploring a galaxy and more like doing a mission, then doing another mission, then another, etc.

I agree for me one thing i loved in ME 1 was when you would pull up to the citidel or on Feros or any other planet with a docking staion and you would actually "Walk off the ship" and the Ship's VI would log you either ashore or on board the ship.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

If someone could design this in five minutes I'd suggest they apply to every single big gaming company out there because they'll get hired on the spot.

Just look what fallout 3 moders did.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...


And come on, you know the statements from the developers. You know they changed the game to make it more appealing to shooter fans and casual gamers. It's laughable to deny what they admitted themselves.

Its obvious enough.A to B missions, no different paths, no different options how to resolve missions.Not that MAss Effect has enough of it,but  Mass Effect 2 has none of that.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 05:47 .

[Whatever42]

ME1 did have more open spaces, I abosolutely agree. Unfortunately, it was very empty and bland.

I always have to adjust when switching from a Bethesda game to a Bioware game. I run around in a wide open world in Morrowind and then suddenly in KOTOR, I have these narrow little corridors with invisible walls. grrr...

Perhaps ME2 was even a bit more closed in and people felt it more. I always feel it. If they want to open up the world more in ME3 (and fill actually fill it with something) then I'll cheer, absolutely. Heck, if Bioware wants to do an open world with their great characters and stories, I would be ecstatic. I would be as giddy as a schoolgirl at a boy band concert.

But I still love ME2 as it is.

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...


-What non linear story that affected by what actions I make?

Its funny.The best chance to make at least one mission non linear was the thane recruitment mission.Contacting
nassana dantius instead of slaughtering trillions of mercs just to meet one person.And the option to prevent the assassination. Completly wasted for a "cool cutscene".

Or if someone rescued the council to give those players some small "spectre missions"(like n7 missions) and ressources they otherwise dont get.

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME1 did have more open spaces, I abosolutely agree. Unfortunately, it was very empty and bland.
 

The old citadel alone was better then all the small shoping malls together,calls "hubs" now,have to offer.

I didnt only mean the size. Example: Go to harkin or barla von. Noveria: Fight the guards or give some smuggling evidence to anoleis.Such things simply didnt exist in Mass Effect 2. Options and choices. All linear and boring. No variations.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 06:03 .

[Il Divo]

Darth Drago wrote...
I think I see the problem, they have no clue what a RPG is outside of their little boxed in world. So by his statement ME1 was a RPG and because ME2 has no inventory, its not? Oh wait, I forgot ME2 is a shooter game that gave the illusion that your playing anything but a shooter because there is selectable dialog that you can choose from. 

Really? So, I take it you have a perfect definition of role-playing game lined up and ready to go? I can only assume, but judging by your certainty I would like to learn from your 'expertise'.

-What awesome sense of exploration? All I see is small levels built to make everything a convenience for the player so they wont have to walk to far (to miss all the combat moments I guess) to do anything. 

Combat>Driving the mako across the same barren textures. If you want exploration, play Elder Scrolls.

-What non linear story that affected by what actions I make? All I recall is having to kill everyone I met, choosing an outcome for my loyalty missions that didn’t have any affect on the squad mate in question at all or whether to keep or destroy a Collector base. Not a lot really is there.

What exactly were you expecting the loyalty missions to do, out of curiosity? At least we get to see characters' perceptions changed through them. Compare this to Tali, Liara, and Kaidan who are almost entirely static characters in Mass Effect. I also find it odd that you think there was "no effect". It's not like this decided whether each party member lived or died...

Besides the Virmire decision, I don't recall affecting my squad-mates in any way in Mass Effect. 

-What rich customization of your armor, weapons and appearance? A handful of armor pieces and weapon upgrades that I really didn’t notice even did anything is rich customization? The appearance thing is subjective if its supposed to mean how your Shepard’s look when you create him/her.

Funny, I was going to say the same about Mass Effect's inventory...

Is Casey even looking at ME2 when he made those comments? But then isn’t he the one that said planet scanning is fun and addictive (could be wrong on that though but someone in the ME2 Bioware team said it)?

No different than all the people in this thread who thought driving the Mako to nowhere was fun.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2010 - 06:56 .

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME1 did have more open spaces, I abosolutely agree. Unfortunately, it was very empty and bland.
 

The old citadel alone was better then all the small shoping malls together,calls "hubs" now,have to offer.

I didnt only mean the size. Example: Go to harkin or barla von. Noveria: Fight the guards or give some smuggling evidence to anoleis.Such things simply didnt exist in Mass Effect 2. Options and choices. All linear and boring. No variations.

We can agree to disagree. I find the Citadel colorless and its filled with long empty halls and meaningless rooms, which I had to run through to talk with one NPC.

As far as choices: keep the genophage data or don't. Shoot the racist politican or don't. Help whatshername from Novaria or betray her (again). The game is overlowing with choices. There is an unbelievable amount of these decisions in the game. Do I reprogram the geth or destroy them? Do let I Garrus kill Sidonis or not?

Ok, there is one fork in one mission in ME1 where I can talk with two different NPCs to arrive at the same point. This is non-linear?

You're really stretching your credibility to make a point here and its not working for you.

[bjdbwea]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME1 did have more open spaces, I abosolutely agree. Unfortunately, it was very empty and bland.

What was empty and bland? The planets? Guess what, that's just realistic. The opposite is what ME 2 did: Drop you into small, confined levels full of enemies. I'll take some planets to explore first, thanks.

The hub worlds in ME 1 on the other hand were full of life, and full of quests. Whereas ME 2 felt a lot smaller there, and NPCs repeating their funny (?) conversations over and over like a broken record didn't exactly increase the immersion factor.

[Spartas Husky]

bjdbwea wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME1 did have more open spaces, I abosolutely agree. Unfortunately, it was very empty and bland.

What was empty and bland? The planets? Guess what, that's just realistic. The opposite is what ME 2 did: Drop you into small, confined levels full of enemies. I'll take some planets to explore first, thanks.

The hub worlds in ME 1 on the other hand were full of life, and full of quests. Whereas ME 2 felt a lot smaller there, and NPCs repeating their funny (?) conversations over and over like a broken record didn't exactly increase the immersion factor.

amen... sis? amen.

I take, 30 minutes of empty roadraging across an obviously desert planet... because well... the lack of atmosphere, amonia lakes... raining metiorites, too close to the system's star... does make it hard for it to be a garden world.. lol.

To perhaps.... planet scanning lol

again... amen sis amen

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

What was empty and bland? The planets? Guess what, that's just realistic. The opposite is what ME 2 did: Drop you into small, confined levels full of enemies. I'll take some planets to explore first, thanks.

It would be realistic if Shepard had to eat, drink, and ****** every 3-5 hours and took penalties for forgetting to do so. It would be realistic if Shepard pulling out his gun caused a huge panic on the Citadel. It would be realistic if Shepard had to physically take his armor on/off every single time he entered the Normandy. It would be realistic if it took several in-game months to stop Saren instead of 20-30 hours game time.

There are many things Bioware could do to make the experience 'more realistic'. Point is that realism is not always a good thing. Driving across barren planets may be realistic, but unfortunately it's completely boring and pointless. It also doesn't help when every planet has almost exactly the same texture model.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2010 - 07:45 .

[bjdbwea]

This "argument" again? Do you want me to name the things that are "completely pointless" in ME 2? I get it that you like a streamlined shooter - drop in -> shoot enemies -> teleport out - but maybe you can get that some people do like the "pointless" exploration in the hub worlds as well as on "empty" planets. It would of course be even better if they weren't empty, but in fact of course they already aren't.



Besides, the planets in ME 1 are far from having the same textures.

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

As far as choices: keep the genophage data or don't. Shoot the racist politican or don't. Help whatshername from Novaria or betray her (again). The game is overlowing with choices. There is an unbelievable amount of these decisions in the game. Do I reprogram the geth or destroy them? Do let I Garrus kill Sidonis or not?

Choices and options that matters in the game itself. Non existent.

Ok, there is one fork in one mission in ME1 where I can talk with two different NPCs to arrive at the same point. This is non-linear?

Different paths,one avoided combat with the turian headhunters: A difference,non linear. And its not the only example.
Fight the biotic cult or convince the leader that he is wrong. Helena Blake. Convince her,let her doing her thing or fight her when she resisted to got captured.


Different paths,different options how to reach points in mission. Not enough but Mass Effect has zero of it.

Such things didnt exist in Mass Effect 2 that made the game linear and boring.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 07:56 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

This "argument" again? Do you want me to name the things that are "completely pointless" in ME 2? I get it that you like a streamlined shooter - drop in -> shoot enemies -> teleport out - but maybe you can get that some people do like the "pointless" exploration in the hub worlds as well as on "empty" planets. It would of course be even better if they weren't empty, but in fact of course they already aren't.

You wrote argument in quotations. I hope that's not some dig at my reasoning.

I'm simply following your logic. You said that barren planets were 'realistic' and so you enjoyed them. I'm asking, do you enjoy realism in all its forms? If your only requirement for enjoyment in a videogame is realism, then you wouldn't have any problems with the examples I listed. Realism is great when it achieves a purpose. The Mako only served as a transport to get you to your next 1 room firefight. It wasn't any different in function then the "Drop in, shoot enemies" of Mass Effect 2.

As for your bolded, it's called fast travel. Most RPGs employ it, even Mass Effect. I can get that you enjoy doing it all in person, but what are you expecting Bioware to do on this point? You can't even argue that there is some philosophical depth to driving the Mako around. It had nothing to do with shooter crowds and most fans who liked Mass Effect couldn't stand it. Who should Bioware please in this instance, out of curiosity?

Besides, the planets in ME 1 are far from having the same textures.

You're right. They come in different colors.

Edit: And I don't recall saying that exploring hub worlds is pointless.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2010 - 08:01 .

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


As for your bolded, it's called fast travel. Most RPGs employ it, even Mass Effect.

Yes. With the difference that player could decide in most rpgs, even Mass Effect, if they want to fast travel or not.
And that fast travel becomes only availbale after discovering places.

Someone who claimed to play a lot rpgs shouldnt forget those little but meaningful differences.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 08:33 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...
Yes. With the difference that player could decide in most rpgs, even Mass Effect, if they want to fast travel or not.
And that fast travel becomes only availbale after discovering places.

Really? You're joking, right? *This* is your point? Tell me, do you even know what fast travel is? Hint: If there's a loading screen, it's probably fast travel.

In Kotor, when I fly from Manaan to Korriban, there's fast travel. In Jade Empire, when I go from Tien's Landing to the Imperial City, it's fast travel. In Mass Effect, when I go from Feros to Noveria using a relay, it's fast travel. If you are not experiencing it in real time, then it's fast travel. Now, to answer your claim, when in Mass Effect am I given the choice "not" to fast travel between planets?

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2010 - 11:19 .

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Yes. With the difference that player could decide in most rpgs, even Mass Effect, if they want to fast travel or not.

But you can do that in ME 2. Sometimes. And just so you notice the feature, it constantly tells you which button you have to press. Even during dialogue. Isn't that great.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

Really? You're joking, right? *This* is your point? Tell me, do you even know what fast travel is? 

Yes: The possibility of return to a discovered place without walking after discovered it.
Like citadel fast travel.
Like in fallout,oblivion for example.
I dont think that i used fast traveling in dead space when i used the train there...

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 08:30 .

[tonnactus]

double post /froum issues.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 08:25 .

[tonnactus]

...

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 08:25 .

[tonnactus]

...

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 08:26 .