10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

I've said it before that the term "dumbed down" is admittedly a bit derogatory. Nevertheless, it's a convenient summarization of what happened. If you prefer to call it "made simpler", "made more accessible" or "streamlined", you are of course free to do so.

What you shouldn't do though is deny that the game has changed a lot into that direction. And you can't deny the reasons either. Since even the developers admitted that they had to make the game more "immediate" to "introduce" shooter fans and other non-RPG players "to the RPG genre".

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

[Sparda Stonerule]

Darth Drago wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Fine perhaps I over reacted and extracted some things that may not have been there. I just know iakus and bjdbwea. They tend to post a lot about the streamlining the game and dismissing it as less of a thinking game. I guess I just got to a minor boiling point. I realize they don't have to like the game but I get tired of people telling me the games that I like aren't for "smart and mature people".

Fair enough and understandable and it happens to all of us at some point in here more or less. You should check out the posts in the first 50 pages in here it gets kind of heated at times.

Their viewpoints are valid that ME2 does indeed feel a lot more streamlined and in a lot of cases in the game it does feel less of a thinking game especially when every situation you encounter for missions only have the “kill everyone” option to do. A few missions like we saw in ME1 where you could avoid combat completely or in part and have multiple outcomes/results for them as well would have been nice to see.

With that said, I doubt they are telling you (intentionally at least) or anyone that you are not smart and mature people because you like Mass Effect 2, it just seems that the game itself has a feel or look that is aimed in that way.

You enjoy playing Mass Effect 2 and that’s all that matters. Your counter arguments to defend it or even point out things that you don’t like if you have any, is in part why I made this topic. Just expect things to get a little heated at times in here.

I have one tiny little sticking point in that statement. I only recall 2 N7 missions in which you didn't have to kill anyone. Major Kyle and the one mission I never did where you get a call from Hackett once you have enough Renegade points. Even then you had to take the Paragon routes both times to not do any killing. Heck I was even astonished in the first game when the Geth attacked after I found the data module from a monkey.

In Mass Effect 2 there are 3 non killing missions. The station where you need to fix the shield. The ship that is falling off a cliff. Finally the mission with the VI taking over a facility. There's even a non combat DLC in the form of the Normandy crash site. Plus if you wanted to get really picky the firewalker missions had 2 missions where you didn't need to kill anything at all.

So with DLC included you potentially have three times the number of non combat missions (ME 2 almost had 7, but that one mission where you had to replace the YMIR mechs power supplies had 2 Varren so I won't count it).

Not only that but no hub mission had any killing in ME 2. Several hub missions had combat in ME 1. So I don't see where the only objectives in ME 2 are kill everything argument comes from.

[Xeranx]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

iakus wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

This game has a not very mature approach in regards to women at times. That Miranda scene, or the way they reduced Kelly to little more than a piece of decoration in the end. Maybe even the way female Shepard talks to Jacob. It feels like it was written for a young male audience. And while that is in fact certainly the case for most games, previous BioWare games never felt the need to be so blatant.

ME 2 might have been "M for Mature"   but ME 1 was far more "mature" a game.  There were patches of ME 2 I actually felt embaressed to be playing.

It bugs me that anyone can feel this way. I get the feeling you are saying this is because you are more disappointed with the streamlining of RPG elements then actual characterization. It really bugs me because people in real life act like that. Some people have actual emotions and actual personalities.

Considering the fact that Iakus was replying to a post by bjdbwea (couldn't have made an easier handle? =P) in which she makes reference to how ME2 doesn't approach women maturely I don't see how you can mistake that Iakus' response is in any way referencing the streamlining of the game.  I feel it's unfair and that it seems like you're pushing an agenda.

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I feel like what you want is for everyone to just stand there and be a dispenser for information with no emotion behind it. Heaven forbid someone hit on someone else during a dangerous time. It's not like that's never happened. I honestly felt it was refreshing to see characters with more than one memorable trait. After all ME 1 was, Ashley: Racist, Garrus: Rebel, Kaiden: Biotic, Liara: Archeologist, Tali: Mechanic, and Wrex: Agitated Krogan.

My issue here is that you only remember just one trait.  That you only remember one, in my mind, shows bias.  I can't sum up either character from ME or ME2 in just one word.  If I were to do that I would pick the word that best describes them in my eyes and it doesn't do any of them justice no matter how negative of an opinion I have on them.

Sparda Stonerule wrote...
If you don't think it's a mature game at least admit your entire feelings about it. Try not to be so general when you say who you feel it was obviously marketed for. Because if that's the case then I wouldn't have enjoyed it even though I enjoyed it very much.

I'm glad you didn't feel the game talked down to you.  That's not an insult.  I'm genuinely happy for those who can look past what I feel is someone talking down to you.  Having characters making light of Miranda's choice in dress forces me to acknowledge that she's there to ogled.  It doesn't do her character justice as far as I'm concerned and it doesn't do the actress who is the face and voice of her either.  Yvonne receives a lot of praise for the way she looks.  I praised her as well for the same things, but I stopped because as nice as it sounds it's not necessarily a good thing.  It's like over-tickling someone.  They may laugh, but at some point it hurts.  If Yvonne isn't regarded as more than just a pretty face what can we expect her to do when she's "a bit weathered" by shallow standards?  This was highlighted when Yvonne pointed out that her physical attributes and Miranda's aren't in any way similar.  I have to think she's enjoying it less and less as time goes by.  Then again that's just me.

[Sparda Stonerule]

catabuca wrote...

It really doesn't help either side of the argument to generalise by saying "shooter fans say/want this" or "RPG fans say/want that". Not all shooter fans are created equal, likewise for RPG fans. What's more, some shooter fans are also RPG fans. Imagine that!
I think people on both sides of the debate would do themselves a huge favour by not lumping everyone who expresses criticism about ME2 into the 'RPG' crowd, and everyone who criticises ME1 into the 'shooter' crowd. It just makes people angry, and it isn't at all representative of the broad crowd of players, nor of the opinions for or against any one aspect of either game.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out that he stated that a lot of casual and shooter fans complained. I just asked if that means he thought that the majority of people who bought the game were shooter and casual gamers rather than RPG players. That is all.

bjdbwea wrote...

I've said it before that the term "dumbed down" is admittedly a bit derogatory. Nevertheless, it's a convenient summarization of what happened. If you prefer to call it "made simpler", "made more accessible" or "streamlined", you are of course free to do so.

What you shouldn't do though is deny that the game has changed a lot into that direction. And you can't deny the reasons either. Since even the developers admitted that they had to make the game more "immediate" to "introduce" shooter fans and other non-RPG players "to the RPG genre".

It was made more accessible so they could get more people into the RPG genre. I find nothing wrong with that and I enjoy what they did. I feel like the powers have weight and diversity, they really feel different and most of the react differently than others powers. Also numbers do not lie, Mass Effect had 20 talents, 22 if you really want to add charm and intimidate, and 24 if you really must add all 3 skills that give you shield boost. Mass Effect has 32 powers, 26 if you really want to discount ammo powers. This makes every class feel really different instead of the way Mass Effect 1 did it. Soldiers, Engineers, and Adepts were the base classes. Vanguard is a Soldier/Adept, Infiltrator is a Soldier/Engineer, and Sentinel is an Adept/Engineer.

Besides I do in fact like traditional RPG's. I happen to love Dragon Quest VIII and Lost Odyssey. Neither game was particularly easy (Especially not DQ8) nor were they "dumb". However, I like genere combinations and I felt it worked. I would agree that it changed a lot but I feel that it leaned more towards for the better than for the worst.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 12 août 2010 - 03:29 .

[bjdbwea]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I would agree that it changed a lot but I feel that it leaned more towards for the better than for the worst.

At least you're able to recognize it. Believe it or not, some people even deny the changes.

I for one like the interrupt system. Graphics and sound were much improved. Combat works better in some aspects and worse in others. The DRM system is less annoying. Apart from that, in my opinion there's not a single change in ME 2 that was for the better.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 12 août 2010 - 04:01 .

[catabuca]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

catabuca wrote...

It really doesn't help either side of the argument to generalise by saying "shooter fans say/want this" or "RPG fans say/want that". Not all shooter fans are created equal, likewise for RPG fans. What's more, some shooter fans are also RPG fans. Imagine that!
I think people on both sides of the debate would do themselves a huge favour by not lumping everyone who expresses criticism about ME2 into the 'RPG' crowd, and everyone who criticises ME1 into the 'shooter' crowd. It just makes people angry, and it isn't at all representative of the broad crowd of players, nor of the opinions for or against any one aspect of either game.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out that he stated that a lot of casual and shooter fans complained. I just asked if that means he thought that the majority of people who bought the game were shooter and casual gamers rather than RPG players. That is all.

I wasn't actually directing it at you. Sorry if it came across that way. It was more of a general gripe, because it gets thrown around a great deal.

[Sparda Stonerule]

bjdbwea wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I would agree that it changed a lot but I feel that it leaned more towards for the better than for the worst.

At least you're able to recognize it. Believe it or not, some people even deny the changes.

I for one like the interrupt system. Graphics and sound were much improved. Combat works better in some aspects and worse in others. The DRM system is less annoying. Apart from that, in my opinion there's not a single change in ME 2 that was for the better.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. That being said I do think you raise valid points about the game better than most people who just seem to denounce it off hand. If you feel your changes will do the series good then by all means fight for it. I never thought I would enjoy ME if it changed but I did. I just want to enjoy the third game and I am open to alterations. Even if I disagree I want you to rally for what you want and what you think will make a better game in your eyes.

I do realize the changes. On paper it may not seem like much but in practice change is noticeable. I will argue you to the death about why I think it was for the better but that's not productive. The second game is out and won't be changing, but you can always change the third game. I kind of hope you do honestly, I don't want a ME 2 clone. I want a fantastic final act that blows both games out of the water.

[Sparda Stonerule]

catabuca wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

catabuca wrote...

It really doesn't help either side of the argument to generalise by saying "shooter fans say/want this" or "RPG fans say/want that". Not all shooter fans are created equal, likewise for RPG fans. What's more, some shooter fans are also RPG fans. Imagine that!
I think people on both sides of the debate would do themselves a huge favour by not lumping everyone who expresses criticism about ME2 into the 'RPG' crowd, and everyone who criticises ME1 into the 'shooter' crowd. It just makes people angry, and it isn't at all representative of the broad crowd of players, nor of the opinions for or against any one aspect of either game.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out that he stated that a lot of casual and shooter fans complained. I just asked if that means he thought that the majority of people who bought the game were shooter and casual gamers rather than RPG players. That is all.

I wasn't actually directing it at you. Sorry if it came across that way. It was more of a general gripe, because it gets thrown around a great deal.

Understandable, to be honest I wasn't sure if you were referring to one person in particular or several. So I just clarified what I said for clarifications sake. I do agree generalizations get tossed around a lot and even I'm guilty of doing it. It's hard to always think of things in a broad sense because experiences are so personal. But I agree and I think the tone of this thread has changed just a little bit. I'm sure in a day or two it'll be back to shouting but for now the lull is very nice.

[Darth Drago]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...
I have one tiny little sticking point in that statement. I only recall 2 N7 missions in which you didn't have to kill anyone. Major Kyle and the one mission I never did where you get a call from Hackett once you have enough Renegade points. Even then you had to take the Paragon routes both times to not do any killing. Heck I was even astonished in the first game when the Geth attacked after I found the data module from a monkey.

In Mass Effect 2 there are 3 non killing missions. The station where you need to fix the shield. The ship that is falling off a cliff. Finally the mission with the VI taking over a facility. There's even a non combat DLC in the form of the Normandy crash site. Plus if you wanted to get really picky the firewalker missions had 2 missions where you didn't need to kill anything at all.

So with DLC included you potentially have three times the number of non combat missions (ME 2 almost had 7, but that one mission where you had to replace the YMIR mechs power supplies had 2 Varren so I won't count it).

Not only that but no hub mission had any killing in ME 2. Several hub missions had combat in ME 1. So I don't see where the only objectives in ME 2 are kill everything argument comes from.

-Sorry I should have elaborated in it and said “on missions that you encountered anyone with guns“.

-UNC: Hostile Takeover: the final part when you meet up with Helena Blake you have the option to shoot up the place or talk to her about to disband her gang or just take the reward and go.

-UNC: Major Kyle: Gives you the option of forcing your way in and shooting everyone or talking peacefully to have Kyle surrender without a single shot.

-UNC: The Negotiation (the renegade mission): Gives you the option to meet their demands peacefully or shoot everyone as expected.

-Citadel: Doctor Michel: The second mission you get, you have the choice of killing the blackmailers of talking them out of blackmailing the Doc.

-Citadel: Rita's Sister: the final part where you have to make the trade. You can go with the expected route and make the trade or you can shoot them.

-Citadel: Jahleed's Fears: You can end this one in a few ways including getting into a fight and shooting Chorban and his friends.

-On Noveria one of the ways you cold get that garage access key was to avoid combat. Do you do Lorik’s quest to break into his office (the most common route I’m sure) and kill everyone or do another quest that required no combat to get the key?

In ME2 there is not a single mission you can do that involved anyone or mech with a gun that did not end up in a shoot out. There were a few moments in main mission quests like rescuing Mordins assistant in his recruitment mission but that’s all they were, moments.

Those N7 missions you mentioned had you in a complete non shooter mission even the N7: Abandoned Research Station (part 2 of 3 in that chain) Unless you count shooting boxes or parts of the scenery there was no combat. To be fair downloadable content shouldn’t be included in these as well since ME1 will never get anymore new content.

But it would be nice to see a N7 mission pack that had a balance of combat and non combat exclusive missions -and the non combat ones had better be longer than the 10 minute or less ones that we saw in the game.

Even on main missions you were never given the opportunity to convince the enemy or a boss that attacking you is not going to end well for them. Take the recruiting Jack mission on Purgatory as a perfect example. The boss if you will of that place clearly knows about Shepard’s history and how dangerous Shep is yet even after we’ve practically destroyed his operation he still thinks engaging me in a fight while hiding in a corner is a good idea. We never had the option to just say “Get out before I really get pissed.” so we could end the fight and go our separate ways. ME1 had a few of these situations in the UNC missions that gave you the choice.

Look at:
-UNC: Dead Scientists: How did you deal with Toombs? There were 4 ways to end this one alone. 1. Shoot Toombs, 2. Toombs surrenders, 3. Toombs shoots the Cerberus scientist or 4. You shoot the Cerberus scientist.

I cant think of a single mission main or side quest that came close to this many options on how to settle or end it.
To me this should be that standard not the exception.

*edited the wall...  sorry this site gets buggy with my posts to often than not.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 12 août 2010 - 04:38 .

[joriandrake]

argh, big wall-o text

[Sparda Stonerule]

Darth Drago wrote...
-Sorry I should have elaborated in it and said “on missions that you encountered anyone with guns“.

-UNC: Hostile Takeover: the final part when you meet up with Helena Blake you have the option to shoot up the place or talk to her about to disband her gang or just take the reward and go.

-UNC: Major Kyle: Gives you the option of forcing your way in and shooting everyone or talking peacefully to have Kyle surrender without a single shot.

-UNC: The Negotiation (the renegade mission): Gives you the option to meet their demands peacefully or shoot everyone as expected.

-Citadel: Doctor Michel: The second mission you get, you have the choice of killing the blackmailers of talking them out of blackmailing the Doc.

-Citadel: Rita's Sister: the final part where you have to make the trade. You can go with the expected route and make the trade or you can shoot them.

-Citadel: Jahleed's Fears: You can end this one in a few ways including getting into a fight and shooting Chorban and his friends.

-On Noveria one of the ways you cold get that garage access key was to avoid combat. Do you do Lorik’s quest to break into his office (the most common route I’m sure) and kill everyone or do another quest that required no combat to get the key?

In ME2 there is not a single mission you can do that involved anyone or mech with a gun that did not end up in a shoot out. There were a few moments in main mission quests like rescuing Mordins assistant in his recruitment mission but that’s all they were, moments.

Those N7 missions you mentioned had you in a complete non shooter mission even the N7: Abandoned Research Station (part 2 of 3 in that chain) Unless you count shooting boxes or parts of the scenery there was no combat. To be fair downloadable content shouldn’t be included in these as well since ME1 will never get anymore new content.

But it would be nice to see a N7 mission pack that had a balance of combat and non combat exclusive missions -and the non combat ones had better be longer than the 10 minute or less ones that we saw in the game.

Even on main missions you were never given the opportunity to convince the enemy or a boss that attacking you is not going to end well for them. Take the recruiting Jack mission on Purgatory as a perfect example. The boss if you will of that place clearly knows about Shepard’s history and how dangerous Shep is yet even after we’ve practically destroyed his operation he still thinks engaging me in a fight while hiding in a corner is a good idea. We never had the option to just say “Get out before I really get pissed.” so we could end the fight and go our separate ways. ME1 had a few of these situations in the UNC missions that gave you the choice.

Look at:
-UNC: Dead Scientists: How did you deal with Toombs? There were 4 ways to end this one alone. 1. Shoot Toombs, 2. Toombs surrenders, 3. Toombs shoots the Cerberus scientist or 4. You shoot the Cerberus scientist.

I cant think of a single mission main or side quest that came close to this many options on how to settle or end it.
To me this should be that standard not the exception.

*edited the wall...  sorry this site gets buggy with my posts to often than not.

I think you misread my post. I talked about hub missions at the end. No mission that took place within the HUB part of Illium, the Citadel, or Omega needed to have you kill people. The collection HUB missions on the Citadel and Noveria did actually involve combat at some point. Now to clarify for ME 2 I'm not counting the missions where you get sent somewhere near the HUB. I just mean the HUB itself.

In ME when you go to see Fist there is combat, no way to avoid fighting there. Noveria has the fight in the garage before you leave. Can not be avoided.

Now for Toombs, the facility he was in had killing. You had to kill enemies to get to him. Also I'm pretty sure dealing with Kolyat had a lot of ending options. Disarming Kolyat, killing Joram, and wounding Kolyat. Not to mention the options even after that when talking to Bailey about Kolyat. Thane's mission involves no combat, no one has to die, and there are tons of options throughout that whole quest.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 12 août 2010 - 04:54 .

[Tazzmission]

i found a way to fix the paragon renegade situation.... in me1 i maxed out both of the renegade and paragon meters and so far in me2 i havent had a issue when it came to the choices

[haberman13]

Busomjack wrote...

People who don't like Mass Effect 2 fail at life. End of discussion.

Odd, I'm successful and don't like ME2 ... making your statement wrong.

I don't understand going from an immersive game full of life to one with loading screens, corridor levels and bland combat equates to a better game.

Modifié par haberman13, 12 août 2010 - 06:40 .

[joriandrake]

haberman13 wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

People who don't like Mass Effect 2 fail at life. End of discussion.

Odd, I'm successful and don't like ME2 ... making your statement wrong.

I don't understand going from an immersive game full of life to one with loading screens, corridor levels and bland combat equates to a better game.

this, very much this

[bjdbwea]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. That being said I do think you raise valid points about the game better than most people who just seem to denounce it off hand. If you feel your changes will do the series good then by all means fight for it. I never thought I would enjoy ME if it changed but I did. I just want to enjoy the third game and I am open to alterations. Even if I disagree I want you to rally for what you want and what you think will make a better game in your eyes.

I do realize the changes. On paper it may not seem like much but in practice change is noticeable. I will argue you to the death about why I think it was for the better but that's not productive. The second game is out and won't be changing, but you can always change the third game. I kind of hope you do honestly, I don't want a ME 2 clone. I want a fantastic final act that blows both games out of the water.

Okay, you think the changes were for the better. But answer me this: The inventory was clunky. So they removed it. You think it's better now. But wouldn't a non-clunky inventory be even better? (And of course that's very possible.) The Mako controls were apparently not perfect on consoles. So they removed it. You think it's better now. But wouldn't a vehicle and exploration with proper controls be even better? Same thing with RPG elements: So the system wasn't perfect in ME 1. So it has to be removed? Wouldn't a refined system with about the same amount of features, abilities and chances for customization be even better?

And so on. That's for the situations where their "solution" was simply cutting features out of the game altogether.

As far as my other complaints are concerned, for example the change from a fantastic story and presentation in ME 1 to a bad one in ME 2, we will indeed have to agree to disagree. You think it's better, and I of course don't agree at all.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 12 août 2010 - 07:09 .

[Iakus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Fine perhaps I over reacted and extracted some things that may not have been there. I just know iakus and bjdbwea. They tend to post a lot about the streamlining the game and dismissing it as less of a thinking game. I guess I just got to a minor boiling point. I realize they don't have to like the game but I get tired of people telling me the games that I like aren't for "smart and mature people".

I believe you are the first person on any thread here to call me an elitist.  I'm really not sure how to react to that.

I think I'll just direct you to the link in my sig.  It'll tell you pretty musch all the major problems I have with the game.  Then think about whether the label fits.

Finally, I have never ever called anyone who played, liked, or loved ME 2 stupid or immature. I comment on the game players, but on the game in hopes of a better ME 3.  If you liked ME 2, good for you.  I didn't, and I don't want ME 3 to end up the same way.

As for Miranda, the first time I played the game I barely noticed her ass shots. I notice them a lot more now. Heck I even began noticing the camera angle on Jack usually shows her chest from a side angle. But when I was first playing I was trying to pay attention to the conversation and not how the character was positioned on screen. I think the real immaturity comes in when someone sees an ass and just jumps to conclusions about characters. I really liked Miranda's story and she was a lot different then I pegged her at the beginning of the game.

The strategically placed dialogue wheel at times made it impossible to ignore, particularly with Miranda.  But Jack and Samara are also dressed in a manner that, let's say would provide little or no combat protection.  To be fair, Jacob and Thane are similarly outfitted.  But the camera seems to make that fact a bit less blatant.

I admit no one actually said they were embarrassed about that specifically. However, Iakus did in fact say he felt embarrassed to be playing patches of ME 2, and I did in fact assume he meant the parts where sexuality was a bit more overt.

In ME 1, I felt the love scene was pushing the envelope, but still within the bounds of good taste.  In ME 2, it seemed like the female characters in particular are just there for eye candy.  Which is a shame.  I found the concept of Samara to be a really interesting one.  But the outfit was purely to titllate the audience.

So I apologize if I went overboard but when it comes to the same people saying the same things over and over I don't want to repeat what I said to them before. Because I'm sure most of us know that many arguments are the same argument over and over and over.

The Elitism merely comes into play when people begin saying what direction a series needs to go in. They talk as if they know how to make the game better. instead of admitting that some people like the game and that it is a matter of opinion they dismiss it as inferior. Even when many many people love the game they still say that those people are wrong and that they know the game is inferior despite people disagreeing. That is Elitism. I may be a bit Elitist when it comes to me suggesting that they don't know best. If that is the case then yes I suppose I am an Elitist. It just gets my goat when people feel the need to say how inferior a game is despite so many people liking it.

Apology accepted.

People come and go on these boards, so it stands to reason that we have to give our reasons over and over. One reason I finally wrote them down a couple months ago.  People may love the game.  But people like me do not, and think Bioware went in the wrong direction in many ways.  Story in particular.  Again, if you like it, fine.  But I don't, and I explain exactly why.  To paraphrase what you wrote:

"Even when many many people do not  love the game they still say that those people are wrong and that they know the game is superior despite people disagreeing"

If having an opinion means being elitist, then we're all elitist.  I can live with that.

[tonnactus]

...

Modifié par tonnactus, 12 août 2010 - 09:06 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...
Okay, you think the changes were for the better. But answer me this: The inventory was clunky. So they removed it. You think it's better now. But wouldn't a non-clunky inventory be even better? (And of course that's very possible.)

Anything's possible. Whether or not it would make sense is a different matter altogether. An inventory of upgrades and minor boosts would be pretty interesting, an inventory full of various armor types seems bland and unfitting.

haberman13 wrote...
I don't understand going from an immersive
game full of life to one with loading screens, corridor levels and
bland combat equates to a better game.

Because immersiveness varies from player to player, and many considered ME1's combat 'bland' (and the combat for every Bioware game since KotOR bland...)

Modifié par Pocketgb, 12 août 2010 - 08:59 .

[bjdbwea]

When talking about "immersive" you think of "combat" first? On my list of things that make a game "immersive", combat - even good combat - is very far down.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

When talking about "immersive" you think of "combat" first?

Nope, you read that wrong.

Good try, though :3

Modifié par Pocketgb, 12 août 2010 - 08:59 .

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...



-Sorry I should have elaborated in it and said “on missions that you encountered anyone with guns“.

The important point is that Mass Effect didnt let the player decide.A mission is either a non combat or a combat mission.
Considering download content,there is to add,that the player could make a deal with the second in command in Bringing down the sky ,avoided a rahter long combat this way.There is something comparable like this in MAss Effect 2?

Modifié par tonnactus, 12 août 2010 - 09:06 .

[tonnactus]

[quote]





 It's not like that's never happened. I honestly felt it was refreshing to see characters with more than one memorable trait. After all ME 1 was, Ashley: Racist, Garrus: Rebel, Kaiden: Biotic, Liara: Archeologist, Tali: Mechanic, and Wrex: Agitated Krogan. 
[/quote]
Miranda:Cerberus **** Thane: A drell version of james dean,with the kung fu abilities of jackie chan.Should i continue this way? Or maybee some people just dont want or able to see if characters are deep or not without "loyality missions"?


[quote]
A That's like saying you want the visions to be present throughout the entire series. If the visions had any more data on how to stop the Reapers then the Protheans would have done it themselves.
[/quote]
The proteans were annilated in a suprise attack by the reapers.The only thing they could do was to leave some advises/warnings/knowledge to following races to solve the reaper problem.Thats exactly what happens in Mass Effect.Shepardt got the cipher and even know the prothean language at the end.Their conduit is an important reason why the cycle could be stopped.

[quote]
 Well there's the bad guy we somehow bumped into during a training mission.

[/quote]

That is so funny.Saren a cliched bad guy? Did you ever played the first game?He seems to be that,he of course hated humans,but he didnt want to doom the whole galaxy.

[/quote]

Modifié par tonnactus, 12 août 2010 - 10:16 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

When talking about "immersive" you think of "combat" first?

Nope, you read that wrong.

Good try, though :3

If I read that wrong, sorry.

[Destroy Raiden_]

In 2 you do 90% of kill everything that moves in the ship falling off the cliff you're alone, in put the shield back up on that station you're alone, Normandy crash alone, the only one you're not alone on is Overlord there is some fighting and some mental twisting that was a nice balance more missions like that would be a nice change.



Also when you're in mission weather that be loyalty or anomaly missions more open areas would be great stop the one way in one way out method.



On Virmire there was not second extraction option, that made sense but in like Miranda's mission to save her sister you can only run through the docking bay area I want the whole place opened up so if I go through docking I get a fight but if I go through say packaging and shipping I don't get a fight in a protection detail like this case I'd also have placed sniper guards on Oriana to ensure no sneak ups on her while my team was trying to get to her.



In 1 it was more RPG in 2 its more shooter I like both types of styles but I wish alittle more RPG could've been in 2. Half Life 2 did a nice job of doing RPG and Shooter you maybe shooting everything that wasn't human but the RPG made you care about who you where fighting with and not wanting to throw away what squad mates you had.

[Sparda Stonerule]

iakus wrote...

I believe you are the first person on any thread here to call me an elitist.  I'm really not sure how to react to that.

I think I'll just direct you to the link in my sig.  It'll tell you pretty musch all the major problems I have with the game.  Then think about whether the label fits.

Finally, I have never ever called anyone who played, liked, or loved ME 2 stupid or immature. I comment on the game players, but on the game in hopes of a better ME 3.  If you liked ME 2, good for you.  I didn't, and I don't want ME 3 to end up the same way.

At the moment I don't recall I don't recall if I was referring directly to you but I probably was. I apologize, I just feel that sometimes you state things in a way where it sounds like you think it will be better for everyone. You very well may not be suggesting that but it does seem like you are talking down to people sometime. In regards to ME 3 I said on this very page I didn't think I'd like ME if it changed. Oh boy did it change but I liked it. I want the third game to be the best it can be and if you honestly feel your improvements will make it better than please push for them. I want a game that blows ME and ME 2 out of the water.

Oh and I have read your entire blow post. I read it about a month ago when arguing with Smudboy. I did feel like you are talking down to people to happened to like ME 2. Maybe you aren't but that's how it felt. You make generalizations in it, but also make some good points. like most things it isn't perfect.

iakus wrote...
The strategically placed dialogue wheel at times made it impossible to ignore, particularly with Miranda.  But Jack and Samara are also dressed in a manner that, let's say would provide little or no combat protection.  To be fair, Jacob and Thane are similarly outfitted.  But the camera seems to make that fact a bit less blatant.

Maybe impossible for you to ignore but I honestly barely noticed the first time and it never bugged me. I don't drool over digital female figures. I mostly noticed how the camera moved when I was talking to people and I loved that. The static poses of people in ME just felt boring. I don't know if I'm mature or weird for not taking immediate notice of Miranda's ass, but it never came across as objectifying women to me.

iakus wrote...
In ME 1, I felt the love scene was pushing the envelope, but still within the bounds of good taste.  In ME 2, it seemed like the female characters in particular are just there for eye candy.  Which is a shame.  I found the concept of Samara to be a really interesting one.  But the outfit was purely to titllate the audience.

I never felt that way. Miranda showing her bra was not really graphic at all. Jack's seen is her emotionally accepting someone and growing quite a lot in terms of character development. Tali's is just, well if there is eye candy in there for her then I've never seen it and I always pick her as a romance.

Again I never found Samara titillating. Her personality was strong and she never came across as anything but an old Asari with a troubled past. I know some people will just say cleavage and cry pandering, and I know some people will just be overjoyed to see cleavage. However I am of the mind that looking past the things you say are obvious to just see the character is a lot more important than concentrating on outward appearance. 

iakus wrote...
Apology accepted.

People come and go on these boards, so it stands to reason that we have to give our reasons over and over. One reason I finally wrote them down a couple months ago.  People may love the game.  But people like me do not, and think Bioware went in the wrong direction in many ways.  Story in particular.  Again, if you like it, fine.  But I don't, and I explain exactly why.  To paraphrase what you wrote:

"Even when many many people do not  love the game they still say that those people are wrong and that they know the game is superior despite people disagreeing"

If having an opinion means being elitist, then we're all elitist.  I can live with that.

It's not the opinion that makes the elitist. It's how they carry the opinion that makes an elitist. You admit that there are opinions that are valid. You admit you feel ME 2 wasn't a good step but you realize that not everyone feels that way and they aren't wrong. So no you aren't an Elitist I just feel you talk down to people sometimes.

That's all.