10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

ME2's story was alot of good ideas excecuted so badly that most of it became a huge mess.

[Il Divo]

Revan312 wrote...

My English professor in college pounded a single line into my creative writing class at least 100 times during that semester, "No bad writing!" She told us don't add in twists simply for the sake of it being a twist, that's bad writing. The info about Reaper construction is just that, bad writing, it serves no purpose other than to have a twist. Reapers never needed that to make them intriguing. There was and still is enough mystery surrounding them that that plot device was completely unneeded. There could have been a million more plausible ways of explaining their origin than they're made of creature slushies.

I don't understand how it's a bad twist. The entire plot of Mass Effect 2 revolves around finding out what the Collectors are doing. Illusive Man makes it a point to explain to Shepard that the Collectors aren't killing the humans, so there must be some alternative motive in mind. When you reach the Collector Base, you find out what that twist is. It may not be your 'cup of tea', but even considering Harbinger's role/comments throughout Mass Effect 2, "Prepare these humans for Ascension" it's not as badly written imo.

Luke being DV's son is a twist with a meaning and a purpose that shapes the entire story, Reapers being made of blenderized meat bags is nothing more than a device to have that boss at the end of the game, at least I hold onto that belief until ME3 comes out. Maybe..MAYBE they'll use that as a device that is integral to the overall plot, but I reeaallyy doubt it...

Who's to say it won't be important? Again, if I asked you to explain the plot importance of Luke being DV's son using only Episode V, could you do so? For all we knew, in Episode VI Lando could have blown up the Death Star without Luke ever setting foot inside to confront Vader. The human reaper fills the same 'role'. It is technically possible that Bioware will ignore it, but I feel it is more likely that they will take advantage of this element for Mass Effect 3 especially considering the massive amount of debate surrounding the Reapers now. If Bioware had to give the Reapers a 'motivation' to cull the galaxy, I can't think of one much creeper than reproduction.  

[Il Divo]

Darth Drago wrote...

He does have a point on the reason behind recruiting all of these people. All we really know at the beginning just before we get our first batch of recruiting dossiers is the Collectors are involved and TIM believe they are linked to the Reapers. Personally if I’m going to fight against anyone connected with Reapers I would like to have a few more ships at my disposal to use not a bunch of people shooting spitballs at them as Ashley put it in ME1.

And I would agree with him if TIM said, "Shepard, I need you to find the Collectors." This is not the case. When they join forces, the deal is 1) Illusive Man will track the Collectors for you and 2) Shepard will prepare a team designed to infiltrate the Omega IV Relay and discover what is going on. Unlike the Reapers, we know the Collectors have ground forces beyond husks. We also want to discover what they are planning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we possess the means of collecting information without actively infiltrating our enemy?

As for everyone that we recruit just what did they actually bring to the game in their special fields?
-The Tech specialists (Tali, Legion and Kasumi) were used to open a single door or was it two doors?
-The Biotic specialists (Samara, Morinth and Jack) used their powers just once.

"Just once". If we did not have any biotics, we would not have even been able to make it through the seeker swarms. Which is the point here. This was a team designed to handle anything (except demolitions stupid as it sounds). We could have reached the Collector Base and had absolutely no need for biotics. We could have reached the Base and neeeded biotics every step of the way. Saying that they were used 'just once' to undermine their value doesn't do it justice when we had no way of knowing what we would need them for until we reached the facility.

There was a lot of unused potential wasted in there. For example, Thane and Garrus could have been used as snipers (something we know for a fact they excel at) to take out Collectors in a similar way I’ve seen in Half life 2: Episode 2 with Alyx shooting nasties covering you as you work your way through an area.

Which imo would have destroyed any sort of pacing the suicide would have had. The mission was short, sweet, and to the point which I can't say for most Bioware games. Playing through Mass Effect or Kotor's climax doesn't give me the same sensation that anything could happen at any moment. Kotor still remains my favorite Bioware game, but Bioware does seem to think that we need long drawn-out end-game sequences. During the final mission, every second I was wondering whether I'd made a bad choice, if someone was about to die, etc.

Could the suicide mission have been made better? Yes, but then so can most things. I find Shepard's idea of dropping the Mako on an army of Geth to be somewhat ridiculous. He plans to stop Saren +Reaper + Geth with a 3 man squad 'somehow'? 

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2010 - 01:18 .

[Fhaileas]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

At the end of the Two Towers, there was no way in sight to defeat Sauron. At the end of the Empire Strikes back, there was no way in sight to defeat the Empire. At the end of the Subtle Knife, I'm not sure I even knew who the villain was.

Many series have little or vague foreshadowing of how the villain will be defeated.

I believe you're applying arbitrary standards to ME2 to somehow rationalize your subjective dislike for the game.

The examples you cite have enough plot twists and intrigue for each chapter to stand as a resonating tale all on its own. 

The issue with the collectors is that they come out of left field, after maybe one mention in the first game. So we fight them and defeat them, but after that we're back at square one. It's like if the Two Towers consisted of the fellowship going to fight some dragon that came out of nowhere to threaten the shire. And yeah, they beat the dragon but its all basically a gigantic side thing that came out of nowhere and doesn't really fit into the main plot.

In ME1, subtle story points kept the action alive. You find out early on that a spectre who should be an ally, isn't. You think you're chasing Saren, instead, you're after a reaper. You become a Spectre. The music and revery of the moment makes you feel important, you're excited that the galaxy's highest governing body believes in and is counting on you. 

More twists follow. The revelation that the reapers aren't here for the first time; that the Citadel is a huge Mass Relay the Reapers built to force civilizations to develop along a pre-determined technological path; that the Protheans didn't build the relays but were used by them; that they survived long enough to give you a chance to succeed where they failed. Then the council is blown to space dust (or not). All of these plot points make for a great and epic story line because there is always something interesting to discover. For example: even before most of the aforementioned occurs, the fact that an earlier technologically superior race went extinct without a trace is motivation enough to keep searching for clues as to why.

In comparison, ME2 is cheap and hollow. No longer are you a Spectre, or if you are, it means little to nothing. The council is not respected anymore. You're working for someone you don't know and for whom your are given no reason to care for other than, "he put you back together." The characters are interesting, but they aren't tied strongly enough into the overarching plot. Why do I care if Grunt or Miranda survive? I'll pick up new squad members next game anyway.

Plain and simply, ME2 is a boring story. Did anyone really care who The Collectors were? I did. That is until I realized the developers didn't. The collectors are pretty much rehashed secondary plot points... We found out in ME1 that some Protheans were turned into workers for the Reapers, so no surprise there.

Also, lots of people are recalling ME2 as being the 'bridge' in the trilogy as a reason to be more forgiving: this fact actually makes me less forgiving. I find it even more important that ME2 get through alot of plot because it was the second in the trilogy and so many - too many - questions are still unanswered from ME1 that without at least scratching into the details a little bit there simply seems to much to get through in ME3.

[Halo Quea]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

Halo Quea wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 So where some might call it a dumed down RPG, II think of it more as a smartened up shooter.

FINALLY!!  Some honesty!   And it took a shooter fan to point it out!

Bless you ArchDemon, we've had so little honesty here.   In fact if you've been paying attention to the last few pages and all of the amazingly open-ended definitions of role playing I guess one could come to the conclusion that anything could be declared an RPG.

Hell, let's declare Halo an RPG while we're at it! 

 Well before you go completely off the rails with what I said, I should point out That i do still consider ME 2 an RPG. Why? because you still get to imbue shephard with a sense of personality and dictate his/her actions. Being that some of the decisions you make have dire consequences in the game world (possibility of destroying the council in ME 1, the possible allegiance of rachni, quarians, krogan etc. in ME 2).

  In fact some of the games heralded as classic RPG's don't really deserve the name in my opinion. I haven't played most of the FF games, but from the ones I saw, there weren't really any grand decisions for you to make that had any real tangible effect on the game world.  Choosing who you bring with you to battle or what inventory you use doesn't make it an RPG, that's no different than choosing your gear in Modern Warfare 2. Customization doesn't make an RPG, because there's more ability to customize your character in any Smackdown Vs Raw game.

 A lot of  "RPG's" are really just tactical fantasy/sci fi sims with an emphasis on story that happen to allow you to be  a jerk to merchants.

How about we call the ME series an ARPG (action role playing game). Shooter fans can like it because it gives them more to do than blast stuff, and RPG fans can like it because it brings more to combat than number-crunching. Purists of either genre can go **** themselves and play the large assortment of games they already have as alternatives.

I don't know if it was at all your intention, but I think you just made my argument for me.   And come on Arch, for one brief moment someone (YOU) called Mass Effect 2 by it's RIGHT NAME-

A Smartened Up Shooter.

And now it's all purists can go *blank* themselves?   How did you go from truth and then arrive to this?   *sigh*  Was that even necessary?


But no matter,  because it seems to me that those still defending ME2 as a dedicated RPG don't really seem to know what to call it anymore.   The last few 4-5 pages is SOLID PROOF of that.   The argument has quickly (and conveniently I might add) moved from "what an RPG is"   to "An RPG is whatever you want to call it" 

Now this is most interesting because after all of the open-ened definitions flying around this thread, it's only logical that people still calling ME2 an RPG would finally arrive to this.  So it's not me going off the rails, it's me recognizing that this discussion has finally turned a crucial corner.

[Lumikki]

You people whould really re-read what RPG really means. If you read this, then you know that Mass Effects aren't strong RPG, but something else. More in direction adventure games, than traditional RPG's.

ME1 and ME2 are BOTH action rpgs with weak rpg side. Why? Because they are partly roleplaying role of Shepard in story with dialogs and other half they are 3th person shooter. How ever, there was very little traditional RPG in both games. ME1 had little more, but also most ME1's problems was actually connected to this traditional RPG side. Now try to understand different between roleplaying role in games and traditional table top roleplaying game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 août 2010 - 04:03 .

[Il Divo]

Halo Quea wrote...

Now this is most interesting because after all of the open-ened definitions flying around this thread, it's only logical that people still calling ME2 an RPG would finally arrive to this.  So it's not me going off the rails, it's me recognizing that this discussion has finally turned a crucial corner.

Then provide me with the perfect definition of RPG. There are quite a few who would argue that Mass Effect wouldn't even fit the term given its drastic changes to the bioware formula.

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...


I agree with your list of Grunt, Tali, Legion and Samara but would add:
-Jack’s for its Cerberus background. We knew they were nasty from ME1 but to hear her experiences of what they did hit’s a nerve.
-Mordin’s for its genophage research info and how it really affected him.

Toombs already told me about the things cerberus did with him as a human guniea pig.I would even say that jack had some luck that she was the best biotic and they make dangerous experiments with other kids before testing them on her.Toombs didnt have such luck.Mordins mission make the genophage a little more personal,there wasnt much new.
And i was annoyed about the human genetic diversity bull**** again.But better then the others.

However I will say all the loyalty missions were the best part of the game.

For me,only 4 of them.For others i dont care.

I just wish they had done something for Morinth.

Thats right.Thats just another thing the game designers completly wasted.

-How many sci-fi RPG are out there for us to choose from?

Fallout New Vegas.Thats it.But i would call this rahter a doomsday rpg. But cliffy b. mentioned that Gears of War 3 will have light rpg features...

[Lumikki]

Il Divo wrote...

Halo Quea wrote...

Now this is most interesting because after all of the open-ened definitions flying around this thread, it's only logical that people still calling ME2 an RPG would finally arrive to this.  So it's not me going off the rails, it's me recognizing that this discussion has finally turned a crucial corner.

Then provide me with the perfect definition of RPG. There are quite a few who would argue that Mass Effect wouldn't even fit the term given its drastic changes to the bioware formula.

Definition of RPG is above your own post in link in my post. Why it has to be ON or OFF. Both Mass Effect games had WEAK traditional RPG side, but it's still there, even how weak it is. Why Biowares games HAVE to be RPGS at all? Why can't they example make good adventure game? What does it matter what the game is defined, as long it's good game? If you mean marketing BS what we see. When we people become so dumm than we actually started to believe advertisement?

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 août 2010 - 04:16 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

I understand that the Dirty Dozen and Ocean's Eleven was the inspiration for the game.  But an ensemble story like that requires character interaction, which ME 2 almost completely lacks (yes ME 1 wasn't great at it either, but ME 2 needed it and didn't get it)  Instead you get squad members stashed in different parts of the ship until they're needed.
.

Thats right.A "character focused game" with nearly zero squad banter.I guess thats an "evolution" of the rpg genre too.
:happy:

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Thats right.A "character focused game" with nearly zero squad banter.I guess thats an "evolution" of the rpg genre too.
:happy:

Yeah. How difficult would it have been to let the companions speak to each other at least once ? Or if you can't even be bothered to do that in your "character-driven" game, then where are the crew meetings from ME 1? Streamlined out of the game too? <_<

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 août 2010 - 04:19 .

[shootist70]

Lumikki wrote...

 Why it has to be ON or OFF. Both Mass Effect games had WEAK traditional RPG side, but it's still there, even how weak it is. Why Biowares games HAVE to be RPGS at all?

Why even use the label at all? I detest these sort of genre labels, they lead to the production of the generic and formulaic. Judge a product on its own merits and stop expecting it to confom to some pre-set formula. That road leads to stuff like Mills & Boon - stories written to a spreadsheet.

[ArchDemonXIII]

Halo Quea wrote...


I don't know if it was at all your intention, but I think you just made my argument for me.   And come on Arch, for one brief moment someone (YOU) called Mass Effect 2 by it's RIGHT NAME-

A Smartened Up Shooter.

And now it's all purists can go *blank* themselves?   How did you go from truth and then arrive to this?   *sigh*  Was that even necessary?


But no matter,  because it seems to me that those still defending ME2 as a dedicated RPG don't really seem to know what to call it anymore.   The last few 4-5 pages is SOLID PROOF of that.   The argument has quickly (and conveniently I might add) moved from "what an RPG is"   to "An RPG is whatever you want to call it" 

Now this is most interesting because after all of the open-ened definitions flying around this thread, it's only logical that people still calling ME2 an RPG would finally arrive to this.  So it's not me going off the rails, it's me recognizing that this discussion has finally turned a crucial corner.

  Ok, maybe i was a bit harsh about stating it, it's just that purists have a way of stagnating a genre. They complain that games drift from the status quo while simultaneously deriding them for not providing a fresh, new experience. Sometimes getting the same game with a different story can be good, especially if the earlier games left you wanting more. But if you don't try something new, eventually you end up with a core base of diehards who won't be large enough to support  your company.

  I find it kinda ludicrous that there are people screaming that BW "sold out" to the shooter or console crowds. They are a company: Selling stuff is their job. Why cater to a small group of fans who only support you if you cater only to them when you have the opportunity for company growth? They haven't sacrificed integrity, the quality of their product is still good, they just happened to make a product that doesn't cater to only their core fans.

 So if you want t make the argument that ME isn't a dedicated RPG, well congrats. It's not supposed to be. Even BW has said it's as much a shooter as it is an RPG. On the same token, though, you really can't call it just a shooter with RPG story elements. The upgrade system and the fact that enemies scale to your level are RPG constructs that honestly aren't necessary in a shooter. Truthfully, I'd like it a lot better if it was MORE shooter focused.

 Sometimes I think people just like to complain. Like all the people who complained that the side missions were bland. Now they have more distinct side missions but less of them and people complain. Well, what did people think was gonna happen? Making stuff takes dev time, and either way someone has to pay for it (and anyone who says they paid for it by buying the game fails economics. When you put in massive overtime at your job without pay just to make sure the product you sell is extra fine quality, you may have a point; otherwise, your chair is over there, please sit in  it quietly). 

 

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...
 If Bioware had to give the Reapers a 'motivation' to cull the galaxy, I can't think of one much creeper than reproduction.  

That would be atually an incredible dumb reason and i hope there is far more behind it.If the reapers just needed organics for reproductions,they wouldnt wiped
out whole civilisations.Instead they would find one suitable race once and then just breed them in numbers that were enough for their needs.The only things that made sense is that organics tend to destroy theirselfs and the reapers rescued the essence of a race like the thorian did with the protheans by turning them into reapers when the race is at their peak.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 août 2010 - 04:49 .

[Iakus]

Fhaileas wrote...

Did ME2 even set the stage for ME3 ? I don't see it. What in this game is a bridge for what's to come? Every single one of your team members can be written out. The Reapers are still coming and you still know next to nothing about them - they're using Protheans and they use species to build themselves. OK, so how are we going to fight them? What does that picture of Harbinger tell me?

At the end of ME1, I knew that we'd just stopped a huge threat, the citadel was a trap, and luckily, we were able to stall the Reapers. Now what? They were still coming! So we had to find out how we're going to stop them. Great setup - you discovered the trap but this only delayed the threat, not eliminate it. Now, you have to find out how you're going to defeat them. And this is not neccesarily going to be easy or cheerful - it could be just as dark as Bioware was implying Instead, we get ME2's 'story' in which nothing about the main threat really happens. It ends in the exact same fashion, except instead of anticipation, you're confused. What? So what exactly are we going to do?
The main plot of ME2 would have been a great expansion pack with your ME1 team - then you'd have an even better explanation for why they're all missing in ME2. They died or were seriously injured in this suicide mission against the Collectors. But alas, what's done is done. Hopefully, Bioware recognizes the big gaps they have to fill and release something in the interim that involves a lot more story.

I like this human, she understands.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

  Ok, maybe i was a bit harsh about stating it, it's just that purists have a way of stagnating a genre. They complain that games drift from the status quo while simultaneously deriding them for not providing a fresh, new experience. Sometimes getting the same game with a different story can be good, especially if the earlier games left you wanting more. But if you don't try something new, eventually you end up with a core base of diehards who won't be large enough to support  your company.

  I find it kinda ludicrous that there are people screaming that BW "sold out" to the shooter or console crowds. They are a company: Selling stuff is their job. Why cater to a small group of fans who only support you if you cater only to them when you have the opportunity for company growth? They haven't sacrificed integrity, the quality of their product is still good, they just happened to make a product that doesn't cater to only their core fans.

 So if you want t make the argument that ME isn't a dedicated RPG, well congrats. It's not supposed to be. Even BW has said it's as much a shooter as it is an RPG. On the same token, though, you really can't call it just a shooter with RPG story elements. The upgrade system and the fact that enemies scale to your level are RPG constructs that honestly aren't necessary in a shooter. Truthfully, I'd like it a lot better if it was MORE shooter focused.

 Sometimes I think people just like to complain. Like all the people who complained that the side missions were bland. Now they have more distinct side missions but less of them and people complain. Well, what did people think was gonna happen? Making stuff takes dev time, and either way someone has to pay for it (and anyone who says they paid for it by buying the game fails economics. When you put in massive overtime at your job without pay just to make sure the product you sell is extra fine quality, you may have a point; otherwise, your chair is over there, please sit in  it quietly). 

Theres a lot of contradiction there. ME2 was a game designed to appeal to shooter purists (they said precisely that in the marketing). The shooter genre is a lumbering, stagnant beast that sells well, so stagnantion isnt the problem, selling is the draw.

Supposed claims that quality hasnt been sacrificed is just opinion. The discontent during ME2s development, posts release, and the situation in the DA2 boards begs to differ. Truth is, Bioware might not want to sacrifice quality, but clearly they would rather do so if it complies to some idea that the game will sell better.

Its a pretty dangerous road to go down though. Many people have already said in this thread that core fanbases like Bioware has (had?) might not break sales records, but they do offer a consistent following. If Bioware isnt winning more than enough new fans to justify these changes, what does your economics tell you is likely to happen to them?

For how overrated ME2 is, it certainly hasnt justified its reputation. I dont believe its a top 10 selling video game this year.

[Sparda Stonerule]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Thats right.A "character focused game" with nearly zero squad banter.I guess thats an "evolution" of the rpg genre too.
:happy:

Yeah. How difficult would it have been to let the companions speak to each other at least once ? Or if you can't even be bothered to do that in your "character-driven" game, then where are the crew meetings from ME 1? Streamlined out of the game too? <_<

I find this statement laughable. The only people who had any decent amount of lines during those was Liara, Shepard, and Ashley. I don't recall Tali ever saying anything at all during them. Kaiden rarely spoke. Wrex had one line. I don't remember Garrus saying anything in them.

I mean you want all this banter, but ME 1 had hardly any. I mean the only way to even do it in ME would to do it while you are walking around in a hub. Either that or have sections where your entire squad gets off the ship (or maybe just some of them) and hang out around a hub in groups, and maybe some of them just stay alone. Granted I would like that, but I would much rather have a good ending to the series. 

Also I adore how you and other "disappointed" fans are denouncing the games story already. I find quite a few stories to be kind of pointless until the end. There are very rare occasions that I like stories before they culminate. All the books in A Song of Ice and Fire are an example of me liking a story even before the end. I like it because as a reader I know everything that all the characters discover. However since each chapter is a point of view of certain characters, I get to learn how they think. Not only that but they don't know what other characters know unless another POV character was nearby and shared the information with them. That's one way to make a self sustained story. The point is you don't know how good or bad the overarching story will be until we get to the end. Until then you can't call something pointless because you can't see the point. I actually applaud Bioware for making a story where I can't tell where it's going until we get there. I don't know how we are going to defeat the Reapers and I like that. I do not like it when a story hands the hero some big "kill your enemy with ease" device.

However I honestly feel that ME 2 makes no sense without ME 1. ME 1 introduced a lot of alien species. It also told us a bit. Now we get to see more of those aliens and more about how those species handle situations. We learn a bit about the Reapers, and we also have whatever that datapad has on it at the end of ME 2. I mean heck ME 2 had many circumstances when you are strengthening your alliance with other races. Also I find it interesting that some people think all the Collectors are dead. They certainly could be but I would find it interesting if you find a few in ME 3 but they have no real direction anymore and were just collecting random assortments of things.

Still I always find it amusing when people call any story "bad" storytelling. As if there is only one way to tell a story. Bad storytelling is entirely subjective, and anyone who thinks everyone has to follow the normal model is essentially railroading any genre. There I said it, when you want everything to be traditional and follow all your suspected notions of what the genre should be you are railroading things. This always for little change and growth. This causes genres to stagnate and become the same game over and over and over with very minor changes to the storyline. Is Mass Effect 2 perfect? No, not at all. It is however something different and I appreciate it for trying new things. 

[bjdbwea]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

Sometimes I think people just like to complain. Like all the people who complained that the side missions were bland. Now they have more distinct side missions but less of them and people complain.

But is it the same people who complained then and now?

I think the side missions in ME 2 are more bland than in ME 1. But whatever you may think about that, BioWare spent their resources dedicated to side missions completely wrong. I mean, each level is unique and hand crafted this time. That's fine. But for what? Hey BioWare, here's a newsflash: The content you fill your levels with is just as important, if not more. So you carefully build a level so that we can pick up a battery and feed it to a Mech three times? Really? So you build a level so we can walk from A to B and press a button? Really?

They could've made even less side missions for all I care, if the content would be there.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 août 2010 - 05:14 .

[bjdbwea]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I mean you want all this banter, but ME 1 had hardly any. I mean the only way to even do it in ME would to do it while you are walking around in a hub. Either that or have sections where your entire squad gets off the ship (or maybe just some of them) and hang out around a hub in groups, and maybe some of them just stay alone. Granted I would like that, but I would much rather have a good ending to the series.

So ME 1 had little of it. So you remove it completely for the successor? The patented BioWare/EA solution to any problem a game had?

You can't even talk to your companions during missions anymore, in this so-called character-driven game!

[Sparda Stonerule]

bjdbwea wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I mean you want all this banter, but ME 1 had hardly any. I mean the only way to even do it in ME would to do it while you are walking around in a hub. Either that or have sections where your entire squad gets off the ship (or maybe just some of them) and hang out around a hub in groups, and maybe some of them just stay alone. Granted I would like that, but I would much rather have a good ending to the series.

So ME 1 had little of it. So you remove it completely for the successor? The patented BioWare/EA solution to any problem a game had?

You can't even talk to your companions during missions anymore, in this so-called character-driven game!

Whoa wait, you want to be able to talk to companions during missions again when all they told you is where to go? Whenever I tried that they told me things I already knew. Not to mention sometimes when I tried to run past them in combat it would initiate dialog with them and they would basically yell at me because they were fighting. 

Do I want squad banter? Yes. Is it absolutely vital? No. Besides I'm glad you conveniently don't bring up how you essentially want to railroad the RPG genre into one type of game repeated forever. I mean the shooter genre is stagnated beyond belief and you don't care for shooters. But when happens when genres stagnate? They never gain any new fans and create divides where certain people only play certain types of games. Hell it even promotes only sticking with one genre and not trying others because they don't change. I want genres to mix it up and try something new. Mass Effect 2 did and I greatly enjoyed it. You did not. I think it's a good step forward in trying to break bloody stagnation though.

[Iakus]

Kai Hohiro wrote...
ME2 was the Heist plot, which they have NEVER done before. Yes it is rough around some edges, but it is still an entirely different plot than what BW has done before. It actually takes balls to go try something new.

If by "rough around the edges" you mean "I practically cut my fingers on it" I agree.

You cannot compare ME1s plot with ME2s they have entirely different foundations. 
I'm not saying ME2 was an absolutly perfect execution of the Heist plot, but then again neither was ME1 an outstanding version of the Hero's journey plot. And it definitly is not wrong for BW to try something different for once.

It is a different plot.  And if Bioware wants to try a new method of storytelling, I say all power to them.  Go for it, and I hope it works!   But not in the middle of the story.  Create a new title and try it out.  It can even be in the Mass Effect universe.  But once you start down a storytelling path, see it through.

And yes the majority of ME2 is a buildup to The Heist, because that's how a heist plot works. And people around here don't understand what a different plot is, because you only know Hero's Journey plots(any previous BW and Bethesda game) and have never played anything else.

I seem to recall much of the buildup to a heist plot is the team getting to know each other, plan out the heist,  train, and practice for it.  The buildup for ME 2 seems to be mainly recruit person, run errand for person. Repeat as needed. 

Modifié par iakus, 14 août 2010 - 05:30 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

As far as me liking a story and a game then being upset about it. Gears of War and Gears of War 2. I loved the first game. The story of the Locust interested me greatly. Then Gears of War 2 showed up and I didn't like where it went so I won't be getting the third game. You don't see me going to a board about GOW 2 complaining about how I didn't like the story. Heck the only reason I stuck with Halo was because I liked the story and 3 let me down in every way possible. I don't complain to people online about these things. I discuss them with my friends because it is a lot more interesting.

As far as RPG's go I like a lot of "complex" RPG's such as Jade Empire and KOTOR. I like some "average" RPG's like Dragon Quest 8 and Losy Odyssey. I also like some "simple" RPG's like just about every Final Fantasy (although I haven't liked any FF game that has come after X, even then I barely liked X).

No one is any more of an RPG fan over the other. Everyone has their own tastes I just get sick when people say one side is blatantly wrong or something is "obvious". Those are all personal feelings and I see on average a bit more of the down talking coming from the people who are disappointed.

Again I will state. I doubt anyone doesn't want ME 3 to be an absolutely astounding game. So I know you will all do what you think is right. However there is no need to talk down to people because you feel the game is "simpler" or "dumbed down". Likewise there is no need to berate people for liking one RPG system over another. So everyone is actually allowed to complain but I don't feel it's anyones prerogative to declare themselves as knowing better or being "right" for any reason.

Since you are all so dead set in arguing I'm just going to quote myself because I doubt anyone read it. You can continue to argue and argue. However none of you seem to agree that it's just a matter of opinion. A lot of people on these boards do in fact like the game. I doubt any shooter fan joined the Bioware forums just to discuss the game. So I will just post this link from the first page of the thread. http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/ 

Like I said you are free to complain all day long if you think it will actually help the third game become better. The thing that I never got about people who complain about things (this includes people who complained about ME 1) is that they never seem to be happy about anything unless it is exactly what they wanted. There seems to be no compromise either way. It's kind of sad honestly because when things do change people backlash violently even though people were asking for change. The real crux of that is that some of you are so over the top that you all but say that ME 2 can not be a good game. That it isn't a good game. No matter how many people say they liked it you always state that it isn't good. 

[ArchDemonXIII]

bjdbwea wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

Sometimes I think people just like to complain. Like all the people who complained that the side missions were bland. Now they have more distinct side missions but less of them and people complain.

But is it the same people who complained then and now?

I think the side missions in ME 2 are more bland than in ME 1. But whatever you may think about that, BioWare spent their resources dedicated to side missions completely wrong. I mean, each level is unique and hand crafted this time. That's fine. But for what? Hey BioWare, here's a newsflash: The content you fill your levels with is just as important, if not more. So you carefully build a level so that we can pick up a battery and feed it to a Mech three times? Really? So you build a level so we can walk from A to B and press a button? Really?

They could've made even less side missions for all I care, if the content would be there.

 Matter of Opinion, I guess. I thought those missions you mentioned were good changeups to the standard "enter at door A, kill everything until you reach back wall B". Even the missions that did follow the linear kill from door to backwall felt more varied than any in ME1 where you had 3 prefab buildings with the only real variance being the arrangement of furniture or the enemies contained there in.

 The only notable side missions I can recall from ME1 were  Major Kyle (which depending on how you approached it  could end up being the same as the rest of the side missions), the one where you have to deactivate a nuke on a space  probe, and the one where you have to defend a base from rachni. Even the blue suns missions were more tactically varied among themselves than 90% of the side missions in ME1. Hell, even the mission with Toombs was a boring predecessor to Jack's loyalty mission.

 The only real loss of "non-linear gameplay" i see in ME2 missions is we no longer get to decide whether to go over a mountain or around it to start the mission. In ME2 I usually do all the side missions. In ME1 I usually only did the ones I mentioned.

[ArchDemonXIII]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...
 I doubt any shooter fan joined the Bioware forums just to discuss the game. 

I did.....

[Il Divo]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Since you are all so dead set in arguing I'm just going to quote myself because I doubt anyone read it. You can continue to argue and argue. However none of you seem to agree that it's just a matter of opinion. A lot of people on these boards do in fact like the game. I doubt any shooter fan joined the Bioware forums just to discuss the game. So I will just post this link from the first page of the thread. http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/ 

Like I said you are free to complain all day long if you think it will actually help the third game become better. The thing that I never got about people who complain about things (this includes people who complained about ME 1) is that they never seem to be happy about anything unless it is exactly what they wanted. There seems to be no compromise either way. It's kind of sad honestly because when things do change people backlash violently even though people were asking for change. The real crux of that is that some of you are so over the top that you all but say that ME 2 can not be a good game. That it isn't a good game. No matter how many people say they liked it you always state that it isn't good. 

You make a very good point with that poll. The fact that more forum goers (360 and PC) found Mass Effect 2 to be 'not disappointing' is a good indicator even on these forums of where the wind blows. However, as one user commented, the poll is very limiting. You are either forced into the "disappointed" or "not disappointed" category. I feel that more varied options listed in the poll would better capture the full opinion on these forums.