10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Sparda Stonerule]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

I agree. However it kind of forces you to decide if you are more disappointed then you are satisfied. It kind of makes you make a choice instead of dithering around in uncertainties. There should be several poles with various aspects presented in them, however as far as the pole goes a lot of people seem to be more satisfied than disappointed. 

[shootist70]

iakus wrote...

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.

So true. That was the main flaw with ME2, and it's surprising because it's such a basic screw up. Plot cohesion and progression must be maintained at all times. If additional content is to be introduced it needs to be woven into the main plot and assist it, not arrest it.  Any characterisation of additional characters should be plot-related in some way, not down some side-alley. And it's not good enough to tie it all back together in a later sequel - that's the sign of a weak plot.

I can see why it's happened in ME 2. Bioware wanted you to care about those characters so you'd care about your choices, so they chose very familiar themes that we can identify with for almost all of them. You know what I mean - it's almost all family-related or child related. It's takes some skill and a deft hand to weave that into a sci-fi combat setting. Tbh Bioware should have avoided such easy cheesy set-ups and made you more involved with the other characters by having fewer of them and giving them more impact on how you the player interacted with the main plot, rather than stuff totally unrelated to it.

I guess they thought it was ok  for another important reason: RPG's tend to let players jump out of the main story-arc at almost any point to go explore the world. Yet I'm guessing that most of us like our RPG exploration to be voluntary, and not be channeled into it by contrived means. Bioware don't do open-world, though, so I'm assuming that they thought the character missions would be a convenient way to make the game less linear.

Modifié par shootist70, 14 août 2010 - 06:18 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

I think the point is that we recruit all these people, yet when the time comes, only a couple of them get a chance to shine.Here we've recruited the best of the best, to the point of superheroics, and we don't get a chance to see why we bothered.  We have three tech specialists, but only one door to open.  We have two super-biotics, and only one opportunity to use them.  We don't even get to see the "Hold the Line" bonuses in action.

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Short, yes, sweet not so much.  More like anticlimatic.  Remember, this is the mission Bioware had been plugging for over a year, saying This could be a total bloodbath where everyone, including Shepard, can die.  The entire point of the game was to recruit a team and get them ready for this one mission.  Yet half the team isn't even needed.  The only stretch of the Suicide Mission I thought properly captured the tension of the game was the Long Walk.  The mission should have been much, much longer, with a chance for every squaddie to have a

Crowning Moment of Awesome

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'? 

That was more of a moment of  "We're it, there's no one else who sees the threat, so we have to try"  Lo and behold, it worked!  Could have been better, yeah, but at least ME 1 didn't play up that it was coming

Modifié par iakus, 14 août 2010 - 06:11 .

[Darth Drago]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Very true on the lack of middle ground on the poll. Plus I doubt everyone who has posted in the BioWare Mass Effect forums has seen the poll or even voted let alone those who don’t come here more than a few times.

As much as I hate to say it, the overall opinion that seems to go in this site is that BioWare cant do no wrong. Everything they do is perfect at least in regards to anything dealing with Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2 and future games. Any opinion that goes against that belief is usually attacked, sometimes rather harshly to the point that some might not feel comfortable even coming back to say anything for fear of getting attacked again.

Working on something a project I should have done a long time ago) to add to the original posting in here I have read a lot of postings where a lot of people like ME2 overall but still do have a few issues with the game. No matter how small of an issue it may have been, that just tells me that ME2 was not as perfect or near perfect as everyone claims it to be especially by those game reviewers. Enjoyable yes, perfect no.

[Iakus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

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. 

The original quote:

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

Me 1 wasn't a character based game.  ME 2 was.  THerefore, ME 2 needed character interaction.  It would have been great if ME 1 had it too, but it isn't vital for that particular story.

And yes, bringing squaddies onto hubs would have been a great way to get them to interact.  It would also encourage people to vary their squad composition.

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.

I don't know what the overarching story is going to be like or how it will work out.  I do find it hard to enjoy a story if I keep getting jerked about in random directions.  What if George R R Martin finished A Dance With Dragons and it turned out to have an almost entirely new cast and be a romantic comedy?  It would be a bit jarring wouldn't it?  Maybe he could pull off a good story like that in his morally grey, dark and gritty fantasy world.  But how would something like that fit into the overall plot?

Modifié par iakus, 14 août 2010 - 06:38 .

[tonnactus]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...
 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?
 

Fallout 3 sold 3 million copies on the xbox alone. I wouldnt call that a small group of fans.And in this game stats decided
about the damage the player made too.Players even have to do such "game flow breaking things" like to repair weapons and armor.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 août 2010 - 07:01 .

[tonnactus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...


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.

First,Mass Effect was never meant to be a character driven story. Then all of them have their unique lines,like when shepardt destroyed the ship on feros.They even have something to say on some side missions like with the data pad.

And tell me where in Mass Effect 2 something like this ever happened:



A character driven game should have something like this more then once.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 août 2010 - 07:13 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

I never said it was a character driven game. As I've stated I believe ME 2 handled the Reapers well. Instead of it being about finding out precisely how to kill the Reapers it was about following the only lead Shepard has about the Reapers. If you notice Shepard isn't really all that interested in what TIM has to say until he mentions Reapers. TIM suggests that the Collectors may have something to do with the Reapers and Shepard agrees to check it out, and if he finds nothing he can walk away.

I would concede the plot was bad, but only if there were more active Reapers around. However from the ending I got the impression that Harbinger was the only one awake at the time. I also got the impression that the Human Reaper was being made so they could wipe out humans and make a new Reaper to open the relays for the Reapers in one fell swoop. All in all it's a decent plan.

The characters were memorable but when I think about ME 2 I don't really think about them much. I tend to think about the Reapers and how the data we got can be used to stop them. I think about the plans Sovereign and Harbinger had and how that may factor into things and how they are done. In short I consider the plot. I can't say much for the original vision of the game since even the developers don't seem to completely agree on what the vision was. All I can say it is a story about stopping the Reapers with some vivid characters.

In regards to Iakus. Changing a fantasy epic into a Romantic Comedy is not the same as the changes from ME 1 to ME 2. The story and universe (at least to me) feels the same. The tone feels the same. There's a big threat out there and despite evidence not many people believe it exists. I was actually impressed that despite evidence the council didn't believe Shepard. That almost never happens in stories, but even though it annoyed me at first I thought about it and came to the conclusion that they aren't completely off base thinking it may have been a Geth construction. Maybe a little juvenile but a lot of politicians ignore things that are in front of their face. Heck a lot of people in general ignore what is right there in front of their face.

The changes made from ME 1 to ME 2 are like what actually happened in a Song of Ice and Fire introducing the magical men beyond the wall in the north. At first it seemed like things were pretty standard in the story, then magical elements come into it. Some people didn't like it when the dead rose in that story but I did enjoy it. There wasn't really any buildup to them either. Just like there wasn't a lot of buildup to the Collectors. As I've said it's a matter of opinion on if it was good or not. But I do in fact understand where your criticism's come from and I can tell you that you aren't wrong. That doesn't make you right either, but it doesn't make your opinions any less valid. I just feel like I get talked down to sometimes just because I think the story was good.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 14 août 2010 - 07:36 .

[ArchDemonXIII]

tonnactus wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...
 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?
 

Fallout 3 sold 3 million copies on the xbox alone. I wouldnt call that a small group of fans.And in this game stats decided
about the damage the player made too.Players even have to do such "game flow breaking things" like to repair weapons and armor.

FO 3 also drew in a lot people that wouldn't otherwise play an RPG by adding elements of FPS Lite. And even then, there's tons of original FO stalwarts pissing and moaning that it isn't really an FO game ( deja vu all over again).

[Epic777]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...
 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?
 

Fallout 3 sold 3 million copies on the xbox alone. I wouldnt call that a small group of fans.And in this game stats decided
about the damage the player made too.Players even have to do such "game flow breaking things" like to repair weapons and armor.

FO 3 also drew in a lot people that wouldn't otherwise play an RPG by adding elements of FPS Lite. And even then, there's tons of original FO stalwarts pissing and moaning that it isn't really an FO game ( deja vu all over again).

On the same alot of fans complain starcraft 2 is starcraft 1 with better graphics....

[sevach]

Darth Drago wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Very true on the lack of middle ground on the poll. Plus I doubt everyone who has posted in the BioWare Mass Effect forums has seen the poll or even voted let alone those who don’t come here more than a few times.

As much as I hate to say it, the overall opinion that seems to go in this site is that BioWare cant do no wrong. Everything they do is perfect at least in regards to anything dealing with Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2 and future games. Any opinion that goes against that belief is usually attacked, sometimes rather harshly to the point that some might not feel comfortable even coming back to say anything for fear of getting attacked again.

Working on something a project I should have done a long time ago) to add to the original posting in here I have read a lot of postings where a lot of people like ME2 overall but still do have a few issues with the game. No matter how small of an issue it may have been, that just tells me that ME2 was not as perfect or near perfect as everyone claims it to be especially by those game reviewers. Enjoyable yes, perfect no.

I'm on this boat as well, ME1 isn't the lightside and ME2 isn't the darkside, it's not as simple as that.

Some members here make a very good point that ME1 is essentialy KOTOR, which is true, they do follow the same model plot.
But, personally, ME2 story didn't do it for me, it has been pointed out (very clever i might add) that it's more of an Ocean's 11 type plot, but it's not fun/interesting enough imo and the guys don't look like they really care about the main mission. 


Regarding characters, specifically Ashley, i find that even without a mission designed to flesh her out, you get to find out everything about her, why is she like that? what of her family, her belief's, what's her feelings on the mission and the others... 

Modifié par sevach, 14 août 2010 - 08:36 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

FO 3 also drew in a lot people that wouldn't otherwise play an RPG by adding elements of FPS Lite. And even then, there's tons of original FO stalwarts pissing and moaning that it isn't really an FO game ( deja vu all over again).

Only it didnt, since it got figures comparable to Oblivion which isnt surprising, since its essentially a Bethesda RPG with guns set in the Fallout universe, which is actually what got so many of the old Fallout guard upset.

Not because it added "mega inovayshun" by having a (Bethesda) first person perspective with guns that shoot when you pull the trigger, as opposed to when its your turn.

New Vegas? That sounds more like its aiming to attract shooter fans, since a recent video I watched said it added "down the sight" aiming to make shooter fans feel like they are at home.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 14 août 2010 - 08:36 .

[bjdbwea]

But that's okay. Fallout 1 and 2 were years ago. Fallout 3 is pretty much a new game. It has a new main character, a new setting and and a new story. But ME 2 was marketed and sold as a successor to the more recently released ME 1, yet unfortunately it's pretty much a new game too.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 août 2010 - 09:05 .

[Pocketgb]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
New Vegas? That sounds more like its aiming to attract shooter fans, since a recent video I watched said it added "down the sight" aiming to make shooter fans feel like they are at home.

You seem to be speaking as if the ME series didn't start out catering to 'shooter fans'. 

bjdbwea wrote...
But that's okay...

A horde of Fallout fans are ready to disagree with you.

Heard of the new X-Com yet? It's going to be a first-person shooter and set in the sixties, while the original X-Com was turn-based strategy and role-playing set in the near future.

bjdbwea wrote...
But ME 2 was marketed and sold as a successor to the more recently released ME 1, yet unfortunately it's pretty much a new game too.

Yet many consider it a strong continuation of the prequel...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 14 août 2010 - 09:22 .

[tonnactus]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...


FO 3 also drew in a lot people that wouldn't otherwise play an RPG by adding elements of FPS Lite.

Yes.But without to take out the inventory.Without taken out such things like repair and lockpicking what is breaking the gameflow according to some people in this thread.Stat based weapon combat. The game has still perks.So what were the complaints?That it wasnt possible to kill kids anymore?

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 août 2010 - 09:48 .

[tonnactus]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

New Vegas? That sounds more like its aiming to attract shooter fans, since a recent video I watched said it added "down the sight" aiming to make shooter fans feel like they are at home.

As far as i know it still has stat based weapon combat.

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

Yet many consider it a strong continuation of the prequel...

... but of course they're wrong.

[Sparda Stonerule]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Yet many consider it a strong continuation of the prequel...

... but of course they're wrong.

It's a good thing I know you're joking. Even still it feels like you are giving a back hand to the people who actually like it. Not the greatest or most constructive post ever.

[Epic777]

tonnactus wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

New Vegas? That sounds more like its aiming to attract shooter fans, since a recent video I watched said it added "down the sight" aiming to make shooter fans feel like they are at home.

As far as i know it still has stat based weapon combat.

HOLD UP! You know that the original members of fallout development group are making this right?

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...
But ME 2 was marketed and sold as a successor to the more recently released ME 1, yet unfortunately it's pretty much a new game too.

Yet many consider it a strong continuation of the prequel...

Honestly, I don't see how.  I mean, it feels more like a reboot than a sequel.  It's like saying the latest Star Trek movie was a sequel to the original series.

[Iakus]

Epic777 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

New Vegas? That sounds more like its aiming to attract shooter fans, since a recent video I watched said it added "down the sight" aiming to make shooter fans feel like they are at home.

As far as i know it still has stat based weapon combat.

HOLD UP! You know that the original members of fallout development group are making this right?

This is true, actually.  I never played the original Fallout, but I've played 2 and 3 and enjoyed them both (for different reasons of course)  I'm curious to see what happens in New Vegas with old development group and new engine.

[grey_venger]

tonnactus wrote...

Yes.But without to take out the inventory.Without taken out such things like repair and lockpicking what is breaking the gameflow according to some people in this thread.Stat based weapon combat. The game has still perks.So what were the complaints?

According to the Old Guard, FO3 was so dumbed down that it wasn't a Fallout game any more, like having only one value for the effectiviness of armor, and several values for different damage types.  The plot was shallow, the characters not as well written as in FO 1 + 2 .... you get the picture (and it is eerily similar to some of the complaints brought forward here)
In essence, they were dissapointed that FO3 was not an expanded version of Fo2, but something new.
Gamers always want lots of new stuff that's the same as before.

That it wasnt possible to kill kids anymore?

Was possible, with mods. And given little lamplight (a whole village of the litte pests) I can understand the urge to rid the virtual Washington DV from them.

[ArchDemonXIII]

tonnactus wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...


FO 3 also drew in a lot people that wouldn't otherwise play an RPG by adding elements of FPS Lite.

Yes.But without to take out the inventory.Without taken out such things like repair and lockpicking what is breaking the gameflow according to some people in this thread.Stat based weapon combat. The game has still perks.So what were the complaints?That it wasnt possible to kill kids anymore?

 

 It's not as if BW switched from an RPG to an RTS. It went from ARPG to ARPG. They took baby steps and played it safe with ME1 to appease their RPG fanbase. Once they realized people would respond to the shooter elements, they were able to make bolder steps in that direction. They tried something different. I applaud that. If DA2 becomes a 3rd person hack & slash, what you're talking about will be a legitimate gripe. In this case, they just happened to focus on a different set of priorities than you would like them to.

 If you don't like this series, wait for them to make another dedicated RPG. 

[bjdbwea]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

If you don't like this series, wait for them to make another dedicated RPG.

Yeah, like DA 2. Oh, wait...

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 août 2010 - 10:23 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...
...So what were the complaints?

Depends on what side you're looking at. If you're looking at it from a FO1/2 fans perspective it lost a lot: The top-down turned based strategic combat that the series was known for was thrown away for shooter mechanics, and the VATS is essentially a free headshot viewer.

bjdbwea wrote...
... but of course they're wrong.

Just like you, amirite?

grey_venger wrote...
Was possible, with mods. And given little lamplight (a whole village of the litte pests) I can understand the urge to rid the virtual Washington DV from them.

It is NOT fair to not only make an NPC unkillable but also annoying as hell.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 14 août 2010 - 10:31 .