10273 réponses à ce sujet

[David Knight]

tonnactus wrote...

With things like the krogan memorial,the lake,the park and the small mass portal?Really?


That was my feel with most "recruitment" and loyality missions. Like they took out the most boring sidemissions out of Mass Effect and extend them. 90 percent of the game the player did nothing more the slaughtering mercs with no relation to the story. If even one merc group has contracts with the collectors.but no.

Land ,kill, take the new squad member to the ship.

Yes. The Citadel Presidium was visually impressive... with lots of not anything to do. There wasn't a lot of "background life" as you could call it. In ME2 at least you had the advertisements and side convos. Better than people sitting around completely silent. As for the wards, THOSE were alright, but I again liked the ME2 versions better.

And, at the very least, you shot at something during the ME2 missions. In the Mako uncharted side quests, you saw the SAME CINEMATIC over and over again and I didn't particularly enjoy driving the Mako. It seems we are at an impasse, as we differ in opinion, nothing more. Neither of us is right, it seems.

[David Knight]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Yeah, but in case you havent noticed, Bioware ignored the "trilogy" story arc as well.

ME2 advanced precisely nothing. It fleshed out a few shaky concepts involving people pate, and terminator cosplays, but ME1 and ME2 end in EXACTLY the same way: the reapers coming towards the milky way and the galaxy without a plan to stop them.

Maybe well get lucky, and that the ME1 LIs, like the overall plot of ME, gets a second beginning, this time finishing for good.

Or maybe they get a cameo that is complete crap a second time as one of MEs many supporting character, who while often quite good, dont feature much at all in teh grand scheme of things.

Actually, depending on ME3's plot, ME2 could have advanced precisely a lot of things (I know, it's a stupid pun). Yeah, Bioware could scrap this squad and build a new one. Here's an idea; they could also do what we'd like and keep the ME2 squad for the ME3 battles. With such an advanced team at his disposal, all of a sudden Shepard's gathering of a force suddenly makes very much sense.
Do you actually think Haestrom isn't going to play a part in ME3? True, it might not, but there was some heavy forshadowing.
Liara's bit with the Shadow Broker... likely something that could have come out with ME3, now DLC, but Liara's arc definitely isn't finished.
With the geth and possible the quarians getting ready for war with each other, the entire quarian arc has progressed. Much better than in ME1, where we saw exactly ONE quarian and no others.
Cerberus is no longer such a shady organization. There's a lot of potential for tension between them and the Alliance, and it allowed pro-human Shepards a team to ally with.
It gave us the fate of the Protheans. Maybe somehow that knowledge will help us with the war?
It showed us how Reapers are made in the first place; in hindsight, we know more about the Reapers now than we did in ME1.
It gave us a primary antagonist (Harbinger), who should show in ME3. I'm hoping for a mano a mano fight between him and Shep, somehow.
The Rachni are gathering strength, as are the krogan.
So really? Nothing advanced? I'd say things advanced plenty. No, things didn't come to a crux, but why should they in ACT TWO?
As for the characters, I honestly thought they were well done. All of them (excapt maybe Zaeed and his lame predictable revenge thing). I also liked the themes that were presented time and time again throughout all of their missions.
Self-determination/ free will or enslavement- Legion's mission is heavy with this. So is, surprisingly, Miranda's. Her entire ordeal with her sister deals with the fact that she gave her sister a chance to make her own destiny, and Niket's argument strongly suggests that a comforted but controlled lifestyle is better. This theme shows up slightly on Samara's mission, where Morinth chooses her own destiny rather than be a recluse.
Parent/child- this theme is overdone, but powerful enough. Thane and his son, Jacob and his father, Tali and her father, Miranda and her father, Samara and her daughter. I mean, come on, Bioware. You can be creative. More than this, heh.
Greater good/ paragon- the final mission, and the final choice. Tali's mission with the data. Zaeed's. Kasumi. Mordin's is heavy with this. The entire time he argues with Shepard, almost trying to convince himself the genophage is necessary. Interestingly enough, Tali argues that attacking the geth first was necessary as well. I could go on, but I won't. It's an interesting theme that has been continued from the first Mass Effect, and well.
Regret and absolution- Miranda wishes to have a normal life. Thane feels guilty about his son. Garrus feels responsbile for his team, and thinks that killing Sidonis will do them justice and put his own unease to rest. Etc, etc, etc.
There are all kinds of these themes sprinkled throughout the entire universe if you look. And did no one notice the similarities between Shepard and Saren, now? They are both cyborgs, and both are, in a way, working for their enemy "for the greater good".
I don't know. Mass Effect 2 had a lot of theme advancement and plot preparation. I enjoyed it, and I find it difficult to believe that the recruitment and loyalty missions were boring. In some of them you didn't even fire a single shot, and it was all storytelling and your choices. Or your party member's.
They were, IMO, much greater than the generic side quests of ME1. Mass Effect had five great storyline missions, and the rest were repetitive and boring. The same bunker was assaulted by my team dozens of times, filled with the same enemies. Granted, Mass Effect 2 has the same enemies all over the place as well, but at least the scenery changed. Drastically, which allowed for a feeling of greater scope, IMO.
I guess it's all opinion. I just suppose I don't understand yours, or many others'.

[Fhaileas]

Not only does ME2 NOT progress the overarching series' story of the reapers and their cyclic extermination of galactic civilization and conclude its own plot arc properly, it actually opens up a whole assortment of new questions.

ME1 went to great pains to stress that Reapers are the peak of evolution - above all organic life, in Sovereign's eyes. This not only contradicts their use of Collectors as a back up, but also the fact that they ARE organic themselves (if the end game is to be taken as a collective rule). Not least they are making the new Reaper in the shape of its inspiring race. This seems like too much of"homage" to keep in line with their disdain. Why model themselves on something they despise?

To answer point a); if the Reapers acknowledged failure as an option - why leave the Citadel as the only Mass Relay? Why not have other Relays also? Why are they not sat outside Omega 4 Relay? It makes no sense for them to have organics step in for a Reaper in the event of it failing - if ME2 and ME1 switched seats: perfect. There is (barely) no problem.

The Reaper husk - 37 Million years old (side note: how is this determined? And how lucky is it that we find it exactly when needed?) strikes holes in a couple of things. c) a Reaper has been defeated before d) the ignorance of the Reaper's existence.

c) Being the case, Reapers will know they are not invincible - even if this was prior to their creation of their galactic wildlife preserve - and thus it is plausible to have something MORE powerful than them to step in. If they truly think organics fit this bill, how do they get off on stating they are above us?

d) If a Reaper had been floating around for that long, surely someone would have noticed. I'm sorry, but if this Reaper was found in a neighboring galaxy I would accept the possibility of it remaining hidden. However it isn't - its stumbled upon. Does this not seem messy or am I being pedantic? What I'm not being pedantic on, is the fact this Reaper is a loose end. It will be known if one of their own falls, and they would amend this. Not least because of the IFF - seriously, sentient machines do not work this out?

In any case c), they would mean they need a greater force than Sovereign to succeed in the event of its failure. For the sake of this passage only, we acknowledge the Collectors are that force. Why aren't there more? The Reapers have had 37 Million years to transform every race in 50,000 year blocks into Collector-esque drones. Why is it that only the Protheans have been chosen for this? Why did they need a back up plan off the back off this particular race? Why have they left behind only one ship for the Collectors, when one ship (Reaper) on its own failed?

Practicality comes into play as well as power. One ship gets things achieved a lot slower than fifty. Fifty slower than one hundred.

Why don't they have one ship per plant in the galaxy? They swarm in, nick the people, and never come back. The next you hear is a new Reaper. THAT is a back up plan - one worthy of a sentient race.

Additionally, the Reapers must have thought; "If members of a race vanish, others remaining might have something to say about it". No matter the inane reasons supplied for the reasoning behind the Alliance not stepping in, the Reapers surely could not have banked on such disgraceful apathy?

All of these above contradict Sovereign directly, and don't cohere with Vigil's massive plot reveals on Ilos. I will begrudgingly accept that perhaps Protheans wouldl not have been able to program Vigil with Collector information, even though they programmed Beacons to warn of Reapers. Remember also, Ilos was the last bastion of the Protheans, they would have known everything possible at this stage. However, I will not accept that Sovereign is basically lying or an idiot. Both impossible qualities to an "all-powerful" race.

AND to top this off: It is one Reaper; again. Their back up plans in the event of a Reaper failing is to take a stupid amount of time to build another.... What? If fire doesn't burn something down the answer isn't another fire.

We now move onto a vast, overlooked plot hole. Mordin's Seeker. Where did he get it? So much for "no trace". Speaking of "no trace", how does a colossal ship arrive/leave without appearing visually/on radar or leaving impact/take off craters?

Simple Answer: Bioware didn't "invent" The Collectors until Mass Effect 2. They conjured them up post hoc so they could have a story for ME2. A contrived and forced plot device that allowed for a disjointed narrative and created way too many loose strands for the sequel to coherently tie up.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 19 août 2010 - 05:09 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

You however are one of the few who found
the Mako and large, empty areas to be 'immersive'. If most gamers find
them bland and lifeless and it breaks their immersion, explain to me how
Bioware wins an instance like this. Who should they be pleasing with
regards to environments?

I found them to be both immersive and bland and lifeless, because I felt their "bland and lifeless" nature is what made them immersive. It actually felt like I was exploring a dead world in space with no civilisation for miles and miles, which was something ME2 failed to do entirely. As a big fan of sci-fi and astronomy as a whole being able to do that was simply awesome. Having everywhere seem alive and Earth-esque just seems unrealistic and fake to me. I fail to see how dead worlds that are more likely to be out there than living ones are immersion breaking.

There's a difference in
that and just being bored by it because there's not enough action or differentiaton. I'm sure if there had been more varied bases and less of them they wouldn't have been as much of an issue, which is why for ME3 I'd like a mix of UNC worlds, N7 style worlds and Overlord style worlds. They won't seem as bad when there's more than just them for sidequest worlds.

Beyond that, they're completely optional. Don't want to do them, then don't. Simple as that. There's no reason those of us who enjoy them should miss out (like we did in ME2) because other people are bored by optional content.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Bioware continues to insist that ME1 and ME2 actions will have large consequences in ME3. Dire even. Yes, a number of posters are pouting and stating that they think Bioware are liars but if they dislike and distrust the developer that much then I respectfully suggest that they stop playing Bioware games and leave.

The reason for this is because BioWare also insisted the same thing going from ME1 to ME2, and that was one of the biggest cases of hyperbole in the whole Mass Effect marketing campaign, possibly secondly only to either the game being "a rich RPG experience" or "rich item customisation."

In other words, BioWare cried wolf on this already, and we're calling them on it before they keep doing it.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 août 2010 - 08:33 .

[Teh Chozen Wun]

Who in the world gets disappointed over a game? Seriously. Does everyone have high-standards or something? Y'all be raised by critics or something?

[Halo Quea]

bjdbwea wrote...

That's a very interesting point that you made there. Do you remember what Shepard said at the end of ME 1?

"The reapers are still out there, and I'm going to find a way to stop them."

And that's exactly what ME 2 should have been about, as surely everyone expected. Instead, the game pulls a new threat ouf of a hat and tells us where to go to end it almost from the beginning, meandering all over the place, as you said, with all the totally unconnected character missions.

All of this really depends on if Bioware has decided to stretch out the conflict with the Reapers beyond ME3.

If that in fact is the case then battling with new threats or some other henchmen of the Reapers showing up in ME3 would make alot of sense.  It's going to take the Reapers time to make their journey from dark space, it would only be logical that they send other nasties to prep and set the stage for their eventual arrival.   It also makes it clear that the Reapers have all kinds of contingencies in place when any of their main objectives are thwarted.

[Halo Quea]

Teh Chozen Wun wrote...

Who in the world gets disappointed over a game? Seriously. Does everyone have high-standards or something? Y'all be raised by critics or something?

Look, if you're one of those that doesn't have anything to contribute then find another dicussion more appealing.

[eldav]

Yes exploring the galaxy was very well done in ME 1, and i was expecting more of it in ME 2 with new technical fetures. Imagnive visiting different planets with different gravity. ( man i wish we could mod ME1)



And yes Bioware led on us thinking that ME2 was bigger with more to explore and that there was REALY big consequences to your choices made in the previous game.

Lets face it, they just made the story up as they went.

[Solaris Paradox]

I can't say I was "disappointed" with Mass Effect 2, as a lot of the changes simply seemed appropriate. The exploration factor did bug me--the most irritating points being the inability to revisit mission areas and the inability to explore the blasted Presidium--but I feel the improvements made up for this and by gum I spent most of my time shooting rather than driving a moon-buggy, which is aces in my book.

One rather annoying aspect is that the game has a way of sneaking either Renegade or Paragon points into your meters without you even meaning to get them. In ME1, it was always clear-cut as far as that went; you can do a pure Paragon or pure Renegade run without worrying about "accidentally" getting the opposite moral score, which I took satisfaction in. In ME2, you get Renegade points out of nowhere, and you get Paragon points out of nowhere. I thought I was doing a good deed that one time, transmitting that screwy shipping manifest thing, but SURPRISE MR. MYSTERY MAN IS A CRIMINAL HERE'S YOUR EVIL POINTS seriously, wut? And then there's our old friend the info-broker. Hack a bunch of terminals to help and old friend, RENEGADE POINTS. Continue helping old friend, PARAGON POINTS. Screw you, shades of grey.

I do much prefer the combat, and sifting through long lists of armor and weapon mods isn't something I particularly miss (the inventory in the 360 version of ME1 single-handledly defines the phrase "slow as mollases"), and ME2's sidequests--the N7 missions--were more satisfying than moon-buggying across varying versions of the same mountain range and revisiting the same generic warehouse and/or generic facility and/or generic mine sixteen billion times. The divergences from standard RPG conventions also aren't necessarily bad things; the game has a streamlined feel to it that ME1 lacked, and when you're not being obsessive-compulsive about the lousy planet-probing stuff, it flows very nicely. It's an awesome game, it just has its complaint points like any other. That it doesn't entirely cater to the same mentality as other BioWare games in some ways isn't in and of itself a bad thing, though--to say that it is, is snobbish, as if no other genre or any aspect of such should be touched by BioWare with a ten-foot stick, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

Having expressed that viewpoint... keep complaining if you see fit to do so. Democracy would have starved in the womb if nobody ever got up and shot someone because they thought the current system didn--alright, you know what, that's a crappy metaphor, ABORT JOKE.

EDIT: I loved ME2's story, by the way. I don't see where anyone gets that "made it up as they went" idea. It's not like it's FF13, which never explains itself outside of a goddang glossary. ME2 was plenty cohesive and I love its focus on the team and how their loyalty and dedication affects the mission. Also, the Illusive Man was an awesome hook. I'm just worried about how ME3 will turn out. I'm having difficulty imagining a credible scenario in which Shepard can save the galaxy from the entire Reaper fleet.

EDIT 2: The, uh, Mako. Decent idea. Sometimes it felt right. That it was ultimately just endless driving around empty mountainscapes with a moonbuggy that handles somewhere between "managable" and "slippery," entering the same three buildings over and over, was what killed the Mako for me. Still, there were times when the aesthetic was oddly breathtaking or I actually did get swept up in the feeling of exploring an empty planet. If the vehicle had been more fun to use, the environments more various, and the sidequests less copy/paste, it'd have been quite awesome. The Hammerhead in the ME2 DLC actually demonstrates a good chunk of how a vehicle could have been pulled off better, although its screwy sense of damage (SOMEONE'S SHOOTING IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF MY GENERAL DIRECTION, SO MY CAR IS ON FIRE. SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS MAKES SENSE) I can do without.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 19 août 2010 - 09:33 .

[bjdbwea]

It doesn't surprise me at all that shooter fans are amazed by ME 2, including its story. Let's face it, shooters are usually very short and bland as far as a single player story is concerned, completely linear, offer neither choices nor consequences, nor selectable dialogue, nor companions, let alone romances. So of course ME 2 beats these games thoroughly, and if you suddenly notice that you like the things I mentioned in a game, it has to be a fantastic experience.

If all you care about is the shooting part though, of course pure shooters do that much better, and this has to be one reason why ME 2 didn't sell as much as BioWare/EA no doubt hoped.

On the other hand, RPG fans and BioWare fans have played many games before that offered these features. And then of course it is very difficult not to notice the flaws, the shortcomings, the cut corners and the steps back that are in ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 août 2010 - 10:56 .

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea, why you are so surprise that developers doesn't write here?

I mean would you be interested to talking to people who seem to trash talk they own work every day, as job they have done. You attitude is so hostile and negative agaist company and they work, there isn't really any reason to talk to you at all. Also don't use it as excuse as you are hostile because they don't talk, because that's not truth. You are hostile because how dare Bioware make game what isn't made for your taste of games. Look your own post, you are bashing shooter community, You are bashing game companies, you are bashing the game, because it's not fiting your own taste.

I'm my self RPG fan and I have played many Bioware games. How ever, I'm not here to bash Biowares game, just because it's less RPG than some other game. Also just because I'm RPG fan doesn't mean I don't understand also many RPG games flaws. I see them, I don't close my eyes and say how are they so good, because they are RPG's.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 août 2010 - 11:13 .

[bjdbwea]

You are completely wrong. I never expected them to talk to me personally. I also don't expect them to post in this thread. I would expect some communication though. Why do I expect it? Not because a developer would be obliged to do it, but because BioWare used to do it by themselves in the past. Oh, no doubt they'll participate again once ME 3 is around the corner, but of course only to sell it. Do you think that's a good way of dealing with a community?

I am also not hostile, I am merely critical.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 août 2010 - 11:22 .

[Lumikki]

Okey, then could you be critical about example Mass Effect 1. Start listing ME1 problems.Why?

Because you are only critical agaist ME2 and not agaist ME1. Do, you know what that's called? Hostile.

[tonnactus]

David Knight wrote...



Yes. The Citadel Presidium was visually impressive... with lots of not anything to do. There wasn't a lot of "background life" as you could call it. In ME2 at least you had the advertisements and side convos.

First: Advertisment make it feel even more like a shopping mall in addition to the laughable size.

Side convos? There are enough,more then in the second game for sure.That guy from the crew talking about the consort. The asari and the turian c-sec member talking about fist and one them leave c-sec and go to noveria for better
payment.
Some people talk abouts the keepers and their repairs or that the volus will never be members of the council
The asari recetptionist shepardt could talk to. The volus and the elcor abassador.The old citadel was big,beautifull,full of life,quests and interesting conversations. Even with some merchants like the hanar,who give you some information about his culture.

The new citadel is just an awfull small shopping mall. Like all the other hubs.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 août 2010 - 11:38 .

[Solaris Paradox]

bjdbwea wrote...

It doesn't surprise me at all that shooter fans are amazed by ME 2, including its story.

For the record, I'm terrible at shooters and tend to avoid them like the plague. My brother owned Mass Effect for over a year before I tried it out. Incidentally, there's absolutely nothing about ME1's story that is in any way superior to the second, so I don't know where this "well shooter fans would like it" bollocks is coming from.

[spacehamsterZH]

For the record, I'm terrible at shooters and tend to avoid them like the plague.

That's not possible. If you like... scratch that, if you didn't abjectly despise Mass Effect 2, you're a shooter fan. Thus decrees bjdbwea, knower of all, speaker of truth.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 19 août 2010 - 11:53 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

 Incidentally, there's absolutely nothing about ME1's story that is in any way superior to the second, so I don't know where this "well shooter fans would like it" bollocks is coming from.

Apart from pretty much everything, down to the basics like a cohesive plot, as opposed to a string of disconnected short plots that dont impact the main story in a meaningful way.


Squadmate dies, squadmate survives, it makes almost no difference.

Oh and, "well shooter fans would like it" is coming from the fact that shooter games, like Gears of War, which ME2 wants to ape, tend to have little story outside of what is required to gun down hordes of enemies.

A lot like ME2.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 19 août 2010 - 11:52 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

It doesn't surprise me at all that shooter fans are amazed by ME 2, including its story.

I would be suprised.Half life,regarding the story,isnt any worser then Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 août 2010 - 11:59 .

[ngen]

I like both of the games, its a compelling story and it gives me a thirst for more.



But that said ME2's story progress is weird. Most of the time you run around helping your crew with personal matters, which would be okey if it didnt take most of the game. It ruins the immersion and the sense of reality and drives you away from the feeling that you are actually fighting a galactic enemy.



I wouldnt mind so much with all the buddy missions if it was short missions that took a really small portion of the game. But I have this feeling, like when I read a book that builds up and up and up and the suspension is immense and then you get to the end you are like "hey wait a minute, is this it". First time I played ME2 'till the end I thought that after I did all the companion missions we were finally ready for the big onslaught.

But it turns out that the final is just a single running battle 'till the end and then credits. I missed the feeling that we were going to war against this enemy. I didn't really feel the mass effect of my decisions helping out companions for 80% of the game.



I hope that ME3 is more focused on building relations through talk and actions, and more focused on fighting a common enemy, both on a battle field but also through politics. Let's face it Shepard should have huge influence by now through his actions in the first two games. I would love to see him working more behind the scene and less in front of a gun in semi secluded battles that has no real impact on the story.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Okey, then could you be critical about example Mass Effect 1. Start listing ME1 problems.Why?

Because you are only critical agaist ME2 and not agaist ME1. Do, you know what that's called? Hostile.

Do you know what it would be called to start listing ME 1 problems in this thread? Off-topic.

Of course there's a few things I don't like in ME 1 (mostly technical stuff), but this thread is about our disappointment with ME 2. If you want to talk about disappointments with ME 1, go ahead and start a new thread, I won't call you "hostile" or a "hater" for it if you do so in a constructive manner. I for one was very happy with ME 1 and am very disappointed with ME 2, so it's only natural that this thread is of more interest to me.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 août 2010 - 01:37 .

[shootist70]

Nice post, Fhaileas, but I'd watch out for spoilers.



I agree with you, though, and it's not simply the plot weakness of ME2 or the fact that it's essentially a repetition of ME1, it's the tropes that ME2 falls back as a result of it's plot weakness that are a bit inexcusable in this day and age.



Take The Illusive Man - he's the goddawful trope of the 'wise old guide'. Okay, he's an evil wise old man, but he's right up there with Gandalf, Ben Kenobi etc as an artificial device for feeding you plot and exposition. Bioware have fell back on the TIM device simply because ME2 doesn't offer any new overall plot discovery for the player. TIM does it all for you and guides you away from where you finished up at the end of ME1.

[Il Divo]

And once more you're back to these comments, I see. 

If all you care about is the shooting part though, of course pure shooters do that much better, and this has to be one reason why ME 2 didn't sell as much as BioWare/EA no doubt hoped.

Again, evidence for this? No one has exact numbers on how many copies Bioware has sold. As another user pointed out, had they made Mass Effect 2 a clone of Mass Effect in terms of style, they may very well have made alot less sales. We have no way of knowing what 'may have happened'. You have no basis under which to make these absolute judgments. Neither do I. So stop making them.

On the other hand, RPG fans and BioWare fans have played many games before that offered these features. And then of course it is very difficult not to notice the flaws, the shortcomings, the cut corners and the steps back that are in ME 2.

Once more, these comments from you: "RPG fans" and "Bioware" fans. When you say things like this, you sound less like a constructive poster and more like an embittered fan. I am an RPG fan. I am a Bioware fan. You have seen in this thread RPG, dnd, and Bioware fans who loved Mass Effect 2 more than Mass Effect. We didn't notice the flaws because we were too busy enjoying the game.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

I found them to be both immersive and bland and lifeless, because I felt their "bland and lifeless" nature is what made them immersive. It actually felt like I was exploring a dead world in space with no civilisation for miles and miles, which was something ME2 failed to do entirely. As a big fan of sci-fi and astronomy as a whole being able to do that was simply awesome. Having everywhere seem alive and Earth-esque just seems unrealistic and fake to me. I fail to see how dead worlds that are more likely to be out there than living ones are immersion breaking.

They don't have to be 'alive' and filled with people, but if you are going to implement exploration, then there must be something to explore beyond minerals and one mercenary base per planet (which the map always points out to you). We could explore Prothean ruins, come across raiders, etc, any number of things. The fact that mercenaries, geth, etc, all use the exact same one room base is its own immersion breaker.

I don't mind the planets being lifeless, but the truth is they are boring, lack atmosphere. One element they could have done to add to the realism is remove sound depending on what planet you are one. This gives the planets a sense of diversity (depending on which planet you inhabit) and makes them feel more realistic. Give us atmosphere or give us activities, but don't simply retexture the same few square miles and try to sell me this as a universe.

There's a difference in
that and just being bored by it because there's not enough action or differentiaton. I'm sure if there had been more varied bases and less of them they wouldn't have been as much of an issue, which is why for ME3 I'd like a mix of UNC worlds, N7 style worlds and Overlord style worlds. They won't seem as bad when there's more than just them for sidequest worlds.

Which would be fine. The problem isn't that there have to be 'splosions or people dying every second. But as Knight points out, watching the Mako graphic gets old. At least the Mako implements it in a different manner for each main quest mission.

Beyond that, they're completely optional. Don't want to do them, then don't. Simple as that. There's no reason those of us who enjoy them should miss out (like we did in ME2) because other people are bored by optional content.

Which is the argument of doing vs. not doing side quests. Side quests are typically considered a staple in rpgs. Others have handled them in different, and better ways imo. Mass Effect 2 admittedly does suck in this manner as well. I will say though at least I spent most of those quests completing the actual quest objective. The problem becomes, can Bioware implement meaningful exploration in Mass Effect 3 and still focus plenty on the story/characters/whatever? If not, I'd rather see exploration go altogether to be honest and instead see focus on the story.  

[Solaris Paradox]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
Apart from pretty much everything, down to the basics like a cohesive plot, as opposed to a string of disconnected short plots that dont impact the main story in a meaningful way.

Yeah, "cohesive plot." Because Mass Effect 2 is so confusing. It took me so long to wrap my brain around "colonists get captured > colonists get processed > Collectors building a Reaper." That the game overdosed on sidestories doesn't make it less cohesive. Less structured, yeah. Less focused on the main plot, sure. Less cohesive? No.

Squadmate dies, squadmate survives, it makes almost no difference.

You played a Renegade run, didn't you?

Oh and, "well shooter fans would like it" is coming from the fact that shooter games, like Gears of War, which ME2 wants to ape, tend to have little story outside of what is required to gun down hordes of enemies.

A lot like ME2.

Saying that's what ME2 is like doesn't make it so. Mass Effect 2's story is plenty substantial. You can argue about the story's cohesion if you want, but don't try to B.S. about how much of it there is.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Again, evidence for this? No one has exact numbers on how many copies Bioware has sold. As another user pointed out, had they made Mass Effect 2 a clone of Mass Effect in terms of style, they may very well have made alot less sales. We have no way of knowing what 'may have happened'. You have no basis under which to make these absolute judgments. Neither do I. So stop making them.

Oh, please. All numbers indicate it sold about the same as ME 1. You don't make so many changes and do so heavy marketing without expecting a significant increase in sales. Plus, it's supposedly BioWare's most critically acclaimed game ever. Yet they feel the need to release a demo months after release. (I won't mention the PS 3 version, because I now believe this was planned from the beginning, as that would explain a lot.)

And recently they were talking about a target of 10 million sales with future games even.

So yeah, I think I have a pretty strong basis to allege that ME 2 didn't sell as well as BioWare/EA had to hope.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 août 2010 - 02:23 .