10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Sparda Stonerule]

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

A non clunky inventory would be better if it worked. The problem with the Mako wasn't the control for me. It was the planets. But yes a better controlling, more dynamic vehicle exploration mode would obviously be better, if it worked. As I said there are 20 talents in ME 1, but there are 32 powers in ME 2. More points to distribute doesn't mean that the RPG is gone from ME 2. It just means the powers per character are reduced a bit to make every class actually feel unique. I have in fact played both games with all classes and I felt ME 2 made every class unique. But of course RPG elements are important, I am certainly not opposed to more levels and more powers for Shepard to use. 

Customization is only important (to me) if it makes you feel like you altered something significant. In ME 1 it just felt like making kind of redundant upgrade choices throughout the game. It may not have felt linear to you but I had no reason to not change armors as soon as I got a better one. Same goes for a weapon. The modular pieces in ME 2 allow for a lot of people wearing different armors during the game. So (for me) the system is better in ME 2 but it could use more pieces.

If you read what I wrote you know I'm not opposed to ME 3 having feature return. I don't see why I would be if they make the game better. As I've said I want an absolutely astounding third game.

[Epic777]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

A non clunky inventory would be better if it worked. The problem with the Mako wasn't the control for me. It was the planets. But yes a better controlling, more dynamic vehicle exploration mode would obviously be better, if it worked. As I said there are 20 talents in ME 1, but there are 32 powers in ME 2. More points to distribute doesn't mean that the RPG is gone from ME 2. It just means the powers per character are reduced a bit to make every class actually feel unique. I have in fact played both games with all classes and I felt ME 2 made every class unique. But of course RPG elements are important, I am certainly not opposed to more levels and more powers for Shepard to use. 

Customization is only important (to me) if it makes you feel like you altered something significant. In ME 1 it just felt like making kind of redundant upgrade choices throughout the game. It may not have felt linear to you but I had no reason to not change armors as soon as I got a better one. Same goes for a weapon. The modular pieces in ME 2 allow for a lot of people wearing different armors during the game. So (for me) the system is better in ME 2 but it could use more pieces.

If you read what I wrote you know I'm not opposed to ME 3 having feature return. I don't see why I would be if they make the game better. As I've said I want an absolutely astounding third game.

I agree me1 lacked unique weapons and armors

[Terror_K]

Epic777 wrote...

I agree me1 lacked unique weapons and armors

While ME2 simply lacks items overall (and ones with stats at that). It's only now with DLC that we're starting to get a decent amount, but even then armour still doesn't act like armour and we don't have biotic amps and omni-tools any more... not to mention modding capabilties.

I'm hoping that in ME3 the vanilla game at least has all the DLC items from ME2 in it as well, or if it doesn't that the DLC items from ME2 are cross-compatible. 2-3 weapons in each category is pathetic.

Modifié par Terror_K, 13 août 2010 - 02:00 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Terror_K wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

I agree me1 lacked unique weapons and armors

While ME2 simply lacks items overall (and ones with stats at that). It's only now with DLC that we're starting to get a decent amount, but even then armour still doesn't act like armour and we don't have biotic amps and omni-tools any more... not to mention modding capabilties.

I'm hoping that in ME3 the vanilla game at least has all the DLC items from ME2 in it as well, or if it doesn't that the DLC items from ME2 are cross-compatible. 2-3 weapons in each category is pathetic.

I agree I want more items. They have stats but I would like to see them in the game. I don't really need the whole modding thing but I wouldn't mind a comeback of them in another form. I love the feel of the guns. Besides I disagree that the armor doesn't feel like armor. It felt more like armor than ME 1. Modular pieces were a good idea it just needs more "depth" I suppose.

[SSV Enterprise]

On the subject of ME2's customizable armor not really being "armor" because of no damage reduction- well, isn't that essentially the same thing as increasing health? Think about it. When you get damage reduction, it means enemy gunfire now removes a lesser percentage of your total health. When you increase your health, again, enemy gunfire removes a lesser percentage of your total health. So while the way numbers are processed for damage reduction and health increases is different, the end effect is the same. Health bonuses from ME2 armor is just that- the effect of your armor.

[MassEffect762]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

On the subject of ME2's customizable armor not really being "armor" because of no damage reduction- well, isn't that essentially the same thing as increasing health? Think about it. When you get damage reduction, it means enemy gunfire now removes a lesser percentage of your total health. When you increase your health, again, enemy gunfire removes a lesser percentage of your total health. So while the way numbers are processed for damage reduction and health increases is different, the end effect is the same. Health bonuses from ME2 armor is just that- the effect of your armor.

Good point, thing is I personally never noticed a difference(likely due to the cover system) while playing ME2. I did sense improvement/progression in ME1(even if subtle) before reaching later levels.(immunity spam)

Modifié par MassEffect762, 13 août 2010 - 04:35 .

[SSV Enterprise]

There is progression in ME2 as well. With the adept, at first your powers don't last long and do little damage. Later in the game, though, singularity stays around a long time, and warp is very damaging, to the point of one-shot-killing most mooks on normal.  Then there's the progression through weapons upgrades.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 13 août 2010 - 04:42 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
While ME2 simply lacks items overall (and ones with stats at that)...

Given the complete static nature of the item progression, there's not much depth lost. Depth can actually be considered gained in the fact that the Avenger differs largely in function than the Vindicator. But the loss of weapon modding puts ME1 and ME2 even in terms of complexity.

Stats aren't terribly vital when you have a set amount of items that vary in function, but it is a cool thing to see.

Terror_K wrote...
It's only now with DLC that we're starting to get a decent amount, but even then armour still doesn't act like armour and we don't have biotic amps and omni-tools any more... not to mention modding capabilties..

Does the amount of health vary between classes in ME2?

Terror_K wrote...
I'm hoping that in ME3 the vanilla game at least has all the DLC items from ME2 in it as well, or if it doesn't that the DLC items from ME2 are cross-compatible. 2-3 weapons in each category is pathetic.

Better than ME1's, which was one weapon per category, and that weapon was always the best one you had on you. For reiteration: The piece of gear you picked up in ME1 was either better than what you were wearing - in which case you should equip it - or worse than what you were wearing - in which case you trash it. That's all there was to it.

[Throw_this_away]

I would like to see research similar to that of X-com. But I know it will not happen... and it would be out of place.

[Sanzee]

Lack of RPG mechanics

Oh, and ABANDONING the 1980's bladerunner-like sci-fi feel of the original. That WAS Mass Effect. What the hell happened?

Modifié par Sanzee, 13 août 2010 - 05:55 .

[sevach]

I dislike what they done to the Citadel, too small and there isn't much going on there, definitely worst. ME1 was a game with it's elevators and decontamination that never took you out of character, that was great for immersion and cinematic feel, in ME2 we are back to loading screens, effectively regressing on an innovation to the same level that every other game still is (party banter also got knocked off a bit because of it)

Inventory really is a mixed bag, we have no customizations and very few weapons(bad), but the few things we have got alot more tangible differences to one another, and there isn't a clear cut "this weapon is the best, every other thing i got is useless!". Fair to say that it could've been better, but it's not a totally wrong direction imo.

Where they really dropped the ball for me was in focussing the plot more on the characters than on fighting the treat at hand.
This brought three things:

It absolutely murdered the sense of urgency...

A disconnected story, a bunch of small disconnnected story's, focussed on the side characters, instead of a big one focussed on Shepard and his fight.

A whole bunch of small linear missions (except the awesomeness of the suicide mission) , instead of bigger, more involved ones (Noveria always comes to mind here).

 Gameplay wise ME2  is a lot better to me, and i love that now i have a shuttle instead of the stupid Mako. Exploration you say??? What's the point of exploring something that is completely empty???? I rather explore a big hub like the ME1 Citadel then empty planets...

Modifié par sevach, 13 août 2010 - 07:28 .

[yoomazir]

Sanzee wrote...

Lack of RPG mechanics

Oh, and ABANDONING the 1980's bladerunner-like sci-fi feel of the original. That WAS Mass Effect. What the hell happened?

new dev team

Modifié par yoomazir, 13 août 2010 - 01:16 .

[bjdbwea]

sevach wrote...

I dislike what they done to the Citadel, too small and there isn't much going on there, definitely worst. ME1 was a game with it's elevators and decontamination that never took you out of character, that was great for immersion and cinematic feel, in ME2 we are back to loading screens, effectively regressing on an innovation to the same level that every other game still is (party banter also got knocked off a bit because of it).

I don't understand it either. For me, the elevators or the need to walk in and out of the Normandy were never a "problem", but a feature. It was different, especially for an action game, that Mass Effect brought there, and it was good. It adds a whole lot to the famous immersion factor. And now they went back and made ME 2 much more like any other random game.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 août 2010 - 09:36 .

[Terror_K]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

On the subject of ME2's
customizable armor not really being "armor" because of no damage
reduction- well, isn't that essentially the same thing as increasing
health? Think about it. When you get damage reduction, it means enemy
gunfire now removes a lesser percentage of your total health. When you
increase your health, again, enemy gunfire removes a lesser percentage
of your total health. So while the way numbers are processed for damage
reduction and health increases is different, the end effect is the
same. Health bonuses from ME2 armor is just that- the effect of your
armor.

This doesn't really work though, since not every piece of armour has increased health. For it to act like armour it would need to have common ground amongst all pieces, which it doesn't. It only has bonus effects, which is why to me it seems more akin to covering Shepard in rings and amulets.

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
It's only now with DLC that we're starting to get a decent amount, but even then armour still doesn't act like armour and we don't have biotic amps and omni-tools any more... not to mention modding capabilties..

Does the amount of health vary between classes in ME2?

Huh? What's that got to do with what I listed above? That aside, I don't know... I didn't really pay that much attention to what the health levels were for my ME2 Shepards and compare them.

Better than ME1's, which was one weapon per category, and that weapon was always the best one you had on you. For reiteration: The piece of gear you picked up in ME1 was either better than what you were wearing - in which case you should equip it - or worse than what you were wearing - in which case you trash it. That's all there was to it.

Not this again. Saying that ME1 only had one weapon is like saying DAO only has one longsword and one dagger because they all essentially feel and act the same. Yes, the weapons felt the same, but it was never about feel with ME1, that was purely an ME2 (and shooter) thing.

I'll admit that the balancing of the items in ME1 was terrible, but this is another case where it's a matter of "just because it wasn't quite done right in ME1 doesn't mean it can't be made to work or can't be replaced with a system that gives us the same result in a better way." If ME1's weapons were better balanced and hadn't had their values so that 90% of the weapons you came across that were better were better across the board then it wouldn't have been so much of an issue.

ME2's system (before the DLC weapons) wasn't much better than if you'd taken the ME1 weapons and simply erased all but two in each category. The weapons are only unique in the same fashion that five jellybeans are all unique when they're different colours and isolated from the others but not when you toss them into the bag with the rest. On top of it all modding was gone, upgrading was linear and inevitable and they were all always found in the same boring places in every playthrough.

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...

On the subject of ME2's
customizable armor not really being "armor" because of no damage
reduction- well, isn't that essentially the same thing as increasing
health? Think about it. When you get damage reduction, it means enemy
gunfire now removes a lesser percentage of your total health. When you
increase your health, again, enemy gunfire removes a lesser percentage
of your total health. So while the way numbers are processed for damage
reduction and health increases is different, the end effect is the
same. Health bonuses from ME2 armor is just that- the effect of your
armor.

This doesn't really work though, since not every piece of armour has increased health. For it to act like armour it would need to have common ground amongst all pieces, which it doesn't. It only has bonus effects, which is why to me it seems more akin to covering Shepard in rings and amulets.

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
It's only now with DLC that we're starting to get a decent amount, but even then armour still doesn't act like armour and we don't have biotic amps and omni-tools any more... not to mention modding capabilties..

Does the amount of health vary between classes in ME2?

Huh? What's that got to do with what I listed above? That aside, I don't know... I didn't really pay that much attention to what the health levels were for my ME2 Shepards and compare them.

Better than ME1's, which was one weapon per category, and that weapon was always the best one you had on you. For reiteration: The piece of gear you picked up in ME1 was either better than what you were wearing - in which case you should equip it - or worse than what you were wearing - in which case you trash it. That's all there was to it.

Not this again. Saying that ME1 only had one weapon is like saying DAO only has one longsword and one dagger because they all essentially feel and act the same. Yes, the weapons felt the same, but it was never about feel with ME1, that was purely an ME2 (and shooter) thing.

I'll admit that the balancing of the items in ME1 was terrible, but this is another case where it's a matter of "just because it wasn't quite done right in ME1 doesn't mean it can't be made to work or can't be replaced with a system that gives us the same result in a better way." If ME1's weapons were better balanced and hadn't had their values so that 90% of the weapons you came across that were better were better across the board then it wouldn't have been so much of an issue.

ME2's system (before the DLC weapons) wasn't much better than if you'd taken the ME1 weapons and simply erased all but two in each category. The weapons are only unique in the same fashion that five jellybeans are all unique when they're different colours and isolated from the others but not when you toss them into the bag with the rest. On top of it all modding was gone, upgrading was linear and inevitable and they were all always found in the same boring places in every playthrough.

I would disagree on this one like me1 da:o has tiers, unlike me1 it has several unique weapons per tier. such as Gorim's Sword. Think the swords  umbra and goldbrand in the elder scrolls, what makes the previously mentioned swords unique wasn't just stats but also special ability , goldbrand has more enchantment charge that is normally possible, umbra casts soul trap. me1 doesn't have this at all the weapons had better/worses stats than the previous set and thats it. 

[Mister Mida]

Epic777 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Not this again. Saying that ME1 only had one weapon is like saying DAO only has one longsword and one dagger because they all essentially feel and act the same. Yes, the weapons felt the same, but it was never about feel with ME1, that was purely an ME2 (and shooter) thing.

I would disagree on this one like me1 da:o has tiers, unlike me1 it has several unique weapons per tier. such as Gorim's Sword. Think the swords  umbra and goldbrand in the elder scrolls, what makes the previously mentioned swords unique wasn't just stats but also special ability , goldbrand has more enchantment charge that is normally possible, umbra casts soul trap. me1 doesn't have this at all the weapons had better/worses stats than the previous set and thats it. 

Yes, but that's where the mods came in. Sort of.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 13 août 2010 - 10:25 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
Huh? What's that got to do with what I listed above?

If an Adept in ME2 has less health than a Soldier, it can effectively be classified that the Adept is wearing "lighter armor" on the basis that it takes less shots to kill her than the 'geared-up' Soldier.

Terror_K wrote...
Not this again...

Not a Terror_K post again...
(Being disrespectful turns you into quite the ass hole, doesn't it?)

Terror_K wrote...
Saying that ME1 only had one weapon is like saying DAO only has one longsword and one dagger because they all essentially feel and act the same...

For the most part yeah, it did. But it's largely understandable/forgivable in DA:O because there were plenty of interesting items, and the progression made sense with the story: Your start out modest and inexperienced, growing out to be stronger and wiser. This was not the tone that was set with ME1, and definitely not the tone set for ME2.

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, the weapons felt the same, but it was never about feel with ME1...

Yes, it's about function, and the 'function' only varied from bad to good in ME1.

Terror_K wrote...
ME2's system (before the DLC weapons) wasn't much better than if you'd taken the ME1 weapons and simply erased all but two in each category.

Not sure what you mean here, because the Avenger and Vindicator/Claymore and Scimitar/Predator and Carnifex differ largely in function.

Terror_K wrote...
The weapons are only unique in the same fashion that five jellybeans are all unique when they're different colours and isolated from the others but not when you toss them into the bag with the rest.

You may've wanted to spare your post from this analogy...

[catabuca]

As regards powers or talents or whatever they are called, I know not everyone feels this way, but I really don't feel there is as much 'uniqueness' in ME2 as some say. So each team member has a different roster of powers. But there are still only a handful that are distributed differently amongst them.

So Zaeed has Concussive Shot and Disrupter Ammo (and Incendiary Grenade); Garrus has Concussive Shot and Overload (and Armor-piercing ammo); Miranda has Overload and Warp (and Slam) = in what they achieve there is very little difference between these. Each has a shield stripping power, an armor/health stripping power, and a biotic stripping/forceful smashy power, they are just called different things. Also, several powers are repeated among different members, like overload, warp or concussive shot, and so the actual number of unique powers isn't as many as it might seem, just the way they are put together is.

As it is, apart from on specific missions where I know I'll need a specific skill, I find no reason to take anyone other than Miranda and Zaeed with me. Both can strip shields or biotic barriers, both can strip armour, then both can go in for the kill. Very methodical. I've tried taking others with me to mix it up, but I've found a combination that works so well, and since I can give myself any of the bonus powers I want before any given mission there's barely any point in the others being there.

Like I said, I know others don't feel like this, and I don't profess to have the only valid opinion on this matter. I just wanted to comment on it in light of remarks about the supposed plethora of unique powers available in ME2.

[Tazzmission]

Busomjack wrote...

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

thats really sad if you say it like that man. being a critic is one thing but being a d*ck rider is another. i enjoyed mass effect 2 and i admit yes there are some people who despise it but cmon bro to say if they didnt like me2 fails at life is pathetic.

[smudboy]

Tazzmission wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

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

thats really sad if you say it like that man. being a critic is one thing but being a d*ck rider is another. i enjoyed mass effect 2 and i admit yes there are some people who despise it but cmon bro to say if they didnt like me2 fails at life is pathetic.

There are many things to like.  Luckily, liking something does not imply also not liking the same thing.  In any event, generalized statements usually aren't a good thing.  We can appreciate and dislike many qualities in the same thing just fine.  Neither makes us "fail at life", whatever pop culture inference that implies.

[usmack5]

sevach wrote...

I dislike what they done to the Citadel, too small and there isn't much going on there, definitely worst. ME1 was a game with it's elevators and decontamination that never took you out of character, that was great for immersion and cinematic feel, in ME2 we are back to loading screens, effectively regressing on an innovation to the same level that every other game still is (party banter also got knocked off a bit because of it)

Inventory really is a mixed bag, we have no customizations and very few weapons(bad), but the few things we have got alot more tangible differences to one another, and there isn't a clear cut "this weapon is the best, every other thing i got is useless!". Fair to say that it could've been better, but it's not a totally wrong direction imo.

Where they really dropped the ball for me was in focussing the plot more on the characters than on fighting the treat at hand.
This brought three things:

It absolutely murdered the sense of urgency...

A disconnected story, a bunch of small disconnnected story's, focussed on the side characters, instead of a big one focussed on Shepard and his fight.

A whole bunch of small linear missions (except the awesomeness of the suicide mission) , instead of bigger, more involved ones (Noveria always comes to mind here).

 Gameplay wise ME2  is a lot better to me, and i love that now i have a shuttle instead of the stupid Mako. Exploration you say??? What's the point of exploring something that is completely empty???? I rather explore a big hub like the ME1 Citadel then empty planets...

thank you sevach for not just being negative, negative, negative, or positive, positive, positive....I really felt the same on basically everything except my feelings weren't as extreme. I'm going to say outright that the "sense of urgency" in Mass Effect 2 was not on the cinematic level ME1 was. That said, the periodic cerberus mission that pressed the story forward did prevent that feeling from being totally destroyed imo. What really brought that feeling to a halt by the end of ME2 however was the fact that the story is explained to you within the first couple of hours. The whole game then becomes about the journey, and not the end result. Hopefully your decision about the collector facility at the end of the game will have more impact on ME3 than the council decision in the first ME made on ME2, which was almost none since the council had absolutely no role in ME2. That being said the council decision did change the attitude and atmosphere with aliens, especially on the citadel, but hopefully that will be coupled with some more tangible evidence of your decision in ME3

[usmack5]

I'm just gonna say I really did like ME2, though. With all my complaints on how ME2 went forward as much as it went back, with characters on the former and story and main character development on the latter, it was still a fantastic game. I'm just hoping that now the great aspects of both games, coupled with the consistency of your decisions affecting the world and the characters around you, will be carried on to make a supersequel out of ME3

[haberman13]

Sanzee wrote...

Lack of RPG mechanics

Oh, and ABANDONING the 1980's bladerunner-like sci-fi feel of the original. That WAS Mass Effect. What the hell happened?

Absolutely!

I loved the Blade Runner feel of ME1, I still listen to the soundtrack in my car lol.

[haberman13]

bjdbwea wrote...

sevach wrote...

I dislike what they done to the Citadel, too small and there isn't much going on there, definitely worst. ME1 was a game with it's elevators and decontamination that never took you out of character, that was great for immersion and cinematic feel, in ME2 we are back to loading screens, effectively regressing on an innovation to the same level that every other game still is (party banter also got knocked off a bit because of it).

I don't understand it either. For me, the elevators or the need to walk in and out of the Normandy were never a "problem", but a feature. It was different, especially for an action game, that Mass Effect brought there, and it was good. It adds a whole lot to the famous immersion factor. And now they went back and made ME 2 much more like any other random game.

Unfortunately the Gear of War fans consider immersion to be "nerdy".  Really anything that reminds them of an RPG turns them off, as evidenced by the proponents of ME2 (generalizing here).

For me, immersion is the key to absorbing me into the world.  ME2 is terrible at suspending my disbelief by constantly reminding us that this is more/less an arcade game with "levels" and loading/warping to the next level.

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...

Unfortunately the Gear of War fans consider immersion to be "nerdy".  Really anything that reminds them of an RPG turns them off, as evidenced by the proponents of ME2 (generalizing here).

Yes you're massively generalizing in a way that simply isn't true. A gamer that loves a well designed shooter can love a well designed RPG just as much. I love playing Gears with a friend, but I also love playing Mount&Blade by myself.
And almost all gamers I know even those "gears" people love immersion in any game. Immersion simply means being absorbed and focused in the game. Riding elevators and crashing your car down mountains don't add to that.

For me, immersion is the key to absorbing me into the world.  ME2 is terrible at suspending my disbelief by constantly reminding us that this is more/less an arcade game with "levels" and loading/warping to the next level.

ME2 was pretty much the best game of Bioware (except for Shattered Steel) immersion wise, since it had far lessgame flow breaking moment than previous games. And immersion is actually one of the reasons I massivly prefer ME2 over ME1.

For example:
At the beginning I had nothing against the elevators, but after awhile they did get tedious. Now the original intent was to mask the loading screen, which in theory is a fine idea. But due to the nature of the elevators, they *massivly* increased the load times for people with faster PCs. In ME2 the load screen last only a few seconds for me, which is far less immersion breaking than the tedious elevator rides where I would step away from the game and do something else.

And let's not even mention the thousands of tons of armor and weapons you carried around or found in random crates.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 04:37 .