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.
Cohesive doesn't mean 'easy to understand', it basically means whether all plot elements facilitate main plot progression. You can have all the side content you want as long as it assists the main plot in moving forward. If it doesn't then the plot breaks down at that point and is no longer cohesive. Now that's just a convention, it's a very important one, but it's still possible to 'break the rules' if the work can justify it. The question is does ME2 justify it? Discussing that is better than arguing semantics.
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.
That is fair enough.
How ever, for you also please be constructive manner with you critism about ME2. I my self liked both ME1 and ME2. They both also have bad and good points. I was equal disapointed and happy about both games. There is how ever, small different between giving constructive feedback and trash talk every possible detail, because persons own personal disapointment.
Example my disapointments about ME2.
1. Story was build too much about squad members, what did leave main story very weak. 2. Story had alot of plot holes, like what just happen and how is this possible. 3. Weapon and armor customation was way too general and limited. More induvidual customation needed. 4. Character "power" abilities where way too limited and simple. Only like 4-6 powers / skills? 5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. 6. Combat had too many and too unnatural handy cover possibilities, what made it too easy. 7. Clips lying around without reason to be there, why clips could not been loot in enemy bodies. 8. End boss looked like some comic joke as been human looking spaceship. 9. Way too many squad members and too many of them where forced choises. 10. Mining planet wasn't really fun to do, made my mouse hand hurt.
I agree with almost all your points, except the bits about clips lying around and too many squadmates. I like the squadmates and clips are lying around in every videogame I play.
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? [/quote]
They are not organic. They are a synthesis of machine and organic components. In Mass Effect, Shepard and co. (the Protheans) assume they are machines. I would argue that Sovereign's absolute disdain for the Geth is equally puzzling and that Saren's comments at the conclusion of Mass Effect do hint slightly at what the Reapers really are: "I understand that the Reapers need organics." There's a little more about machine-organic symbiosis if you want to rewatch the scene yourself.
[quote] 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. [/quote]
Where is this implied? EDI tells us that each Reaper to some degree resembles the species from which it is constructed. They are facilitating the equivalent of 'Reaper reproduction'. Certainly, they used the Collectors to forge a new Reaper, but where are we told that the Reapers ever acknowledged failure as an option? Sovereign's comments don't indicate this at all given that they have been successful with every genocide they have performed. [quote] 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. [/quote]
The Reaper's age 37 million years was identified by examining the Great Rift on Klendagon, not the Reaper itself as I recall. As for 'luck', how lucky was it that the Turians were discovered during the Krogan rebellions? Or the Krogan were located during the Rachni Wars? Video games, especially rpgs, are filled with contrived plot elements.
In Mass Effect, Shepard using a single (albeit advanced) ship is able to travel across four completely isolated planets and identify the location of the Conduit in the same amount of time that Saren using a much larger fleet of Geth is able to do so. Shepard even lands on Ilos as Saren reaches the Conduit and is able to confront him in the Citadel Tower despite having tea time with Vigil. Contrived plot elements are found in every rpg.
[quote] 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? [/quote]
This is a plot hole? They are machine-organic hybrids with a God complex and view themselves as the pinnacle of evolution. I would say the final result of that race is pretty indicative that the Reapers were 'more powerful'.
[quote] 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? [/quote]
Depends. We don't actually know the circumstances of how that Reaper was destroyed. Did it attempt to engage this species entirely on its own? What sort of technology? Where were the other Reapers at the time? Was it perhaps a previous vanguard? We admittedly have no way of knowing that at this time, but I'm hoping we do get some answers. The Klendagon Rift is one of my favorite elements of Mass Effect 2.
[quote] 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? [/quote]
The Collectors are the remnants of the Protheans. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Reapers did not maintain the entire species, hence 'remnants'. We are told on the Collector Base that the reason why the Protheans were repurposed is that they were deemed unfit genetically to produce a Prothean Reaper, hence they were altered. Perhaps the Reapers have done this with other species before (Keepers) or perhaps they have always been successful up until this point in producing Reapers. But we are never told that the Collectors were intended as a 'backup plan' in case Sovereign failed. They merely were around, performing experiments on odd specimens of organics. When Sovereign fell, they were the only ones close enough to the Citadel as the Reapers are trapped in dark space.
[quote] Practicality comes into play as well as power. One ship gets things achieved a lot slower than fifty. Fifty slower than one hundred. [/quote]
The Collectors do not have a single ship. They have multiple. When on the Collector Ship, EDI comments on how she identified this particular vessel as the one that attacked Shepard by comparing it to known Collector profiles. Shepard: "The same ship dogging me for 2 years? This can't be a coincedence."
[quote] 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. [/quote]
I'm not certain what you mean here.
[quote] 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? [/quote]
What is the alternative? Travel all the way through dark space? They had no other forces to rely on, to our knowledge. We have seen multiple times why the Council does not become involved with matters in the Terminus Systems. When humanity comes to power, whether as an ally to the current Council or in place of, it's too busy rebuilding civilization to worry about fringe threats.
[quote] 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. [/quote]
How much were they able to know? From what we're told, the Reapers wipe out all traces of their existence at the conclusion of every genocide. Could they have thoroughly identified whether the Protheans had been exterminated or captured or (more likely) some combination of the two? We do know that some Protheans knew of the Collectors as Shepard does discover another beacon during a side quest. But to quote Legacy of Kain, Mass Effect promises more twists before this drama unfolds completely.
[quote] 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. [/quote]
A stupid amount of time building another Reaper vs. a stupid amount of time traveling through dark space. We don't understand the full context of the situation at hand. At this point, the Citadel is still in denial about the Reaper threat. And as the example of the Rachni/Geth attacks show us, the Reapers can accomplish quite a bit on their own.
[quote] 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? [/quote]
Plot hole? Yes, but it's small enough that I'm personally willing to ignore it. No story is perfect.
See Whatever6666's example of the Dearth Star exhaust port.
[quote] 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. [/quote]
I didn't notice quite as many loose strands as you did. Regardless, it sounds like you are overanalyzing the plot. Did all these things honestly pop out at you your first time playing? I mean, the idea that there exists a race of sentient machines that commit genocide every 50k years might raise a question or two, but I go along with it because I'm interested. I'm not saying you're wrong to point out plot holes, but some do feel a little nitpicky.
1. Story was build too much about squad members, what did leave main story very weak.
I thought this was an improvement but the unfortunate result was that the main story was ditched and less taken care of, if they were both strong elements then it would have been an exellent change. You can't knock down the depth of the characters, it was very well done --- but I can also agree that the main plot suffered a bit for that exchange.
2. Story had alot of plot holes, like what just happen and how is this possible.
Would need some specifics.
3. Weapon and armor customation was way too general and limited. More induvidual customation needed. Ahhh... well that was because your fellow fans complained about the need for too much micro-management and item collecting in the last one so they answered that problem with the generalized solution of prototypes and upgrades.
4. Character "power" abilities where way too limited and simple. Only like 4-6 powers / skills?
Wasn't this one of their experiments? I didn't really bother to use too many powers at the end of the day but thats probably because of different playing stragetities. If they had more than 6 it would have been tedious to manage while ducking and shooting, especially if you had to bring up the power wheel all the time.
5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. I found they opted to limit gun play and did give you plenty of non-combat situations. That one whole mission about you being in that club for Samara is one example. Or the mini-games with helping strangers ect. I believe this was also a concern by fans from the first one and so they changed it up a bit.
6. Combat had too many and too unnatural handy cover possibilities, what made it too easy.
I couldn't say --- at times cover wasn't even managble because of the bum rushing husk zombies. I suppose this portion evolves around how good of a third persion shooter one is.
7. Clips lying around without reason to be there, why clips could not been loot in enemy bodies.
Well... the reason being was that a body should have been there where a clip was laying but since the bodies dissapeaerd after you killed them, hence, the clip was in their place. You could also stretch your mind a little bit, perhaps they were getting ready for Shepard and his team so they had clips lined up to use. I could see where this would have been an inconsistancy but the body part was due to their dissolving into thin air.
8. End boss looked like some comic joke as been human looking spaceship. Ditto. I found this very strange and it wasn't explained either that well.
9. Way too many squad members and too many of them where forced choises.
This I disagree, I wished ME1 had the same choices ME2 had --- what I would ask in stead is that the ground team have 4 members instead of 3 members. I don't know if they were forced or not. In theory, you really didn't need to go through all of those missions if you didn' t feel like it.
10. Mining planet wasn't really fun to do, made my mouse hand hurt.
Well... again... this was the result of the fans who said that the redundant Mako missions were too tedious and therefore this was their solution. I suppose its one of those " damned if you did, damned if you didn't" parts of the game. I didn't like it either but then again --- after getting used to it --- I'd say since its an RPG and all RPG have some sort of repetivie element that requires patience, I'll take the mining sequences over hanging around an area ofr 3 hours killing monsters to increase experince.
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.)
"All numbers". I've seen a million people here post numbers with a million different results, each person telling another that they are wrong.
But regardless, you seem intent on ignoring my point. Mass Effect 1 sold a certain number of copies. Mass Effect 2 so far has sold about the same number of copies as Mass Effect 1, according to you. Explain to me how you know that this means it was less than what Bioware expected. It's very well possible that sales for Mass Effect 2 might have been worse had changes not been made. I can't conclude that this was what happened, but neither can I conclude your scenario from these facts.
I for example was not originally going to buy Mass Effect 2 at launch? Why? Well, I wasn't impressed by Mass Effect. It was a good game, that I had played in several better incarnations. A friend of mine showed me the trailer for Mass Effect 2 and I immediately reserved it and was pleased to see that it was not more of the same formula.
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.
Let me outline your own argument for you.
Premise 1: Bioware was talking about a target of 10 million sales with future games.
Premise 2: ME2 did not sell anywhere close to 10 million units.
Conclusion: ME2 did not sell as well as Bioware/EA had hoped.
If this is your logic, then you need a supplemental statement demonstrating either that Bioware expected Mass Effect 2 would sell something close to 10 million units or explaining how many units of Mass Effect 2 Bioware expected to sell at a certain point.
1. Story was build too much about squad members, what did leave main story very weak. 2. Story had alot of plot holes, like what just happen and how is this possible. 3. Weapon and armor customation was way too general and limited. More induvidual customation needed. 4. Character "power" abilities where way too limited and simple. Only like 4-6 powers / skills? 5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. 6. Combat had too many and too unnatural handy cover possibilities, what made it too easy. 7. Clips lying around without reason to be there, why clips could not been loot in enemy bodies. 8. End boss looked like some comic joke as been human looking spaceship. 9. Way too many squad members and too many of them where forced choises. 10. Mining planet wasn't really fun to do, made my mouse hand hurt.
Well, yeah. I completely agree on all those complaints. And those are pretty serious ones. If you still could enjoy the game, great for you. I couldn't, not nearly as much as ME 1 at least. My list would continue:
11. Story was reset for no good reason other than to reset the character and mechanics. 12. My choices from ME 1 made almost no difference whatsoever. 13. Nothing was ever done with the death and resurrection theme. 14. Characters I liked were tossed aside like old rag dolls. 15. There was no "dark" second act to the romance, there was none at all. 16. Shepard acts like a robot too often, I can't feel a connection, it's not my Shepard anymore. 17. Side quests are ridiculously simple, way too short and lack spoken briefings. 18. No exploration. 19. Why is there no proper economy? Why can't I sell stuff and minerals? 20. Everything is way too railroaded and "streamlined" at the cost of immersion.
And I could go on. But most of it has already been mentioned in this thread and others.
I didn't notice quite as many loose strands as you did. Regardless, it sounds like you are overanalyzing the plot. Did all these things honestly pop out at you your first time playing? I mean, the idea that there exists a race of sentient machines that commit genocide every 50k years might raise a question or two, but I go along with it because I'm interested. I'm not saying you're wrong to point out plot holes, but some do feel a little nitpicky.
When a large game like this is made, and people start to get into it, the waiting period for the next game usually makes us conjure the Who-What-Where-When-Why-and How Come? Its just one of those things that naturally happens... not only in books but also video games and TV shows. How many people re-wrote some plot twist in their heads because they didn't agree where the story went or what favorite character was changed/killed? Plenty.
I know I as a huge Star Wars fan that I did just that. Not my creation though and in the end, your either going to have to see it as it is or be forever contemplating why it remains imperfect. At the end of the day, its a video game segment. What some more hard core individuals are asking for is a novel type of depth that is just not going to work on a video game because you'll loose half your audience due to too much dialouge and not enough ships blowing up.
Like I said --- Mass Effect has taken a life of its own. I am sure there are people in the Dragon Age game are also doing this --- I just got the game my self so I can't comment on it yet.
I would caution some of you to look at it as a Space Opera. This isn't supposed to be Larry Niven's Ring World or the Dune trilogy. Next someone will be bothered about how the mechanics of the Normandy's propulsion system works! ( someone probably did it already). Ease up. Have fun. Its a loose story with a video game plot in space. If we wanted to get too technical, why can I hear explosions and laser fire in a space vaccume? If we wanted to be hard core about it, our cut scenes would be nothing more than silent movies... but they aren't right? Exactly.
By the way, I'm not saying this is a bad thing to do, its fun to contemplate what happened or why something may be occuring. Its just that your expectations are increasing to levels that aren't going to be met if that same activity turns into a demand for the game.
1. Story was build too much about squad members, what did leave main story very weak. 2. Story had alot of plot holes, like what just happen and how is this possible. 3. Weapon and armor customation was way too general and limited. More induvidual customation needed. 4. Character "power" abilities where way too limited and simple. Only like 4-6 powers / skills? 5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. 6. Combat had too many and too unnatural handy cover possibilities, what made it too easy. 7. Clips lying around without reason to be there, why clips could not been loot in enemy bodies. 8. End boss looked like some comic joke as been human looking spaceship. 9. Way too many squad members and too many of them where forced choises. 10. Mining planet wasn't really fun to do, made my mouse hand hurt.
Well, yeah. I completely agree on all those complaints. And those are pretty serious ones. If you still could enjoy the game, great for you. I couldn't, not nearly as much as ME 1 at least. My list would continue:
11. Story was reset for no good reason other than to reset the character and mechanics. 12. My choices from ME 1 made almost no difference whatsoever. 13. Nothing was ever done with the death and resurrection theme. 14. Characters I liked were tossed aside like old rag dolls. 15. There was no "dark" second act to the romance, there was none at all. 16. Shepard acts like a robot too often, I can't feel a connection, it's not my Shepard anymore. 17. Side quests are ridiculously simple, way too short and lack spoken briefings. 18. No exploration. 19. Why is there no proper economy? Why can't I sell stuff and minerals? 20. Everything is way too railroaded and "streamlined" at the cost of immersion.
And I could go on. But most of it has already been mentioned in this thread and others.
11. The character mechanics were an improvement... but it probably turned off many for the character dump. That was indeed a painful turn of events for sure. The only good turn of an event was Wrex, Tali, and Garrus. Unfortunately the 2 characters selected to have changed dramatically were the 2 selectable people Ashley/Kaiden/Liara . So that was a big.. WTF?!? I was pissed off just as you were.
12. Some were...some weren't. The e-mails basically covered various things you chose to do and there were small background NPC's from the 1st one that were changed. I'm going to say that those suggestions may affect 3...but none of us can say that and it depends on what your personal outlook with Bio Ware is like.
Let me shoot you this question. It seems to me the great element for keeping you on board was the possibility of the relatioship extention from the previous game to the 2nd one. What if things were different and there was a cohesive story branch that aloud this to happen --- would you have been less turned off?
11. Story was reset for no good reason other than to reset the character and mechanics. 12. My choices from ME 1 made almost no difference whatsoever. 13. Nothing was ever done with the death and resurrection theme. 14. Characters I liked were tossed aside like old rag dolls. 15. There was no "dark" second act to the romance, there was none at all. 16. Shepard acts like a robot too often, I can't feel a connection, it's not my Shepard anymore. 17. Side quests are ridiculously simple, way too short and lack spoken briefings. 18. No exploration. 19. Why is there no proper economy? Why can't I sell stuff and minerals? 20. Everything is way too railroaded and "streamlined" at the cost of immersion.
And I could go on. But most of it has already been mentioned in this thread and others.
No: 18 does get little bit my support, but same problem is in hole Mass Effect serie. Everything else is way too much your personal issues as what you like. Most of them seem to come from ME1 or from you personal taste and needs. So, you issues aren't disapointments for me.
Did Kotor 2 continue Kotor 1 story and characters?
I know I as a huge Star Wars fan that I did just that. Not my creation though and in the end, your either going to have to see it as it is or be forever contemplating why it remains imperfect. At the end of the day, its a video game segment. What some more hard core individuals are asking for is a novel type of depth that is just not going to work on a video game because you'll loose half your audience due to too much dialouge and not enough ships blowing up.
Exactly. As a Star Wars fan, I find myself forced to pick and choose between what aspects of the lore I love and what I don't. I love most expanded universe content before Episode IV (especially the Great Jedi Schisms) but hate the new backstory for Revan and Malak. I hate most expanded universe content after Episode IV (Sidious having clones, Luke becoming his apprentice), but find myself enjoying the Legacy Era once again. Sometimes you're forced to pick and choose between what you do and don't accept.
By the way, I'm not saying this is a bad thing to do, its fun to contemplate what happened or why something may be occuring. Its just that your expectations are increasing to levels that aren't going to be met if that same activity turns into a demand for the game.
Once more, a good point. To keep using your Star Wars analogy, we could talk all day about how illogical it is for Storm Troopers to have terrible aim or Bobba Fett to be 'killed' (seemingly) by a blind man. Or we can joke about it and love those scenes all the same. I treat some of the more inconsistent scenes in Mass Effect (1 and 2) the same way, like how all these people are so quick to ally with Shepard.
Let me shoot you this question. It seems to me the great element for keeping you on board was the possibility of the relatioship extention from the previous game to the 2nd one. What if things were different and there was a cohesive story branch that aloud this to happen --- would you have been less turned off?
Well, yes and no. As far as the story is concerned, the idiotic (non-) "continuation" of the ME 1 romances was my biggest disappointment (even ahead of the idiotic boss enemy). But even if that element was there, the rest of my complaints would remain, and they would still have made me enjoy the game a lot less than ME 1. My disappointment with the LIs is not the reason I am critical of the rest of the game, if that was your question.
Did Kotor 2 continue Kotor 1 story and characters?
Unfortunately not! If only! But while that game was promised to be a trilogy too (see how that turned out, talk about disappointments), it wasn't promised to be a continuation of my player character's story and characters, even though it of course always should have been. ME 2 did promise that, but it didn't deliver.
1. Story was build too much about squad members, what did leave main story very weak. 2. Story had alot of plot holes, like what just happen and how is this possible. 3. Weapon and armor customation was way too general and limited. More induvidual customation needed. 4. Character "power" abilities where way too limited and simple. Only like 4-6 powers / skills? 5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. 6. Combat had too many and too unnatural handy cover possibilities, what made it too easy. 7. Clips lying around without reason to be there, why clips could not been loot in enemy bodies. 8. End boss looked like some comic joke as been human looking spaceship. 9. Way too many squad members and too many of them where forced choises. 10. Mining planet wasn't really fun to do, made my mouse hand hurt.
Well, yeah. I completely agree on all those complaints. And those are pretty serious ones. If you still could enjoy the game, great for you. I couldn't, not nearly as much as ME 1 at least. My list would continue:
11. Story was reset for no good reason other than to reset the character and mechanics. 12. My choices from ME 1 made almost no difference whatsoever. 13. Nothing was ever done with the death and resurrection theme. 14. Characters I liked were tossed aside like old rag dolls. 15. There was no "dark" second act to the romance, there was none at all. 16. Shepard acts like a robot too often, I can't feel a connection, it's not my Shepard anymore. 17. Side quests are ridiculously simple, way too short and lack spoken briefings. 18. No exploration. 19. Why is there no proper economy? Why can't I sell stuff and minerals? 20. Everything is way too railroaded and "streamlined" at the cost of immersion.
And I could go on. But most of it has already been mentioned in this thread and others.
21. A braindead council.
22.No choice between combat or a way to solve a problem in a peacefull way.Before someone again mentioned thanes and samaras mission are just designed as non combat mission without involving any choice for the player
23. No alternative routes except zaeeds mission 24. Near zero dialog with bosses/remember benezia and saren. 25. nonsensical ammo powers who should stayed mods instead 26. loyality is only a gameplay switch 27. restricted roleplaying/a player has to focus either to be completly paragon or renegade,otherwise some conflicts are not possible to resolve
I know I as a huge Star Wars fan that I did just that. Not my creation though and in the end, your either going to have to see it as it is or be forever contemplating why it remains imperfect. At the end of the day, its a video game segment. What some more hard core individuals are asking for is a novel type of depth that is just not going to work on a video game because you'll loose half your audience due to too much dialouge and not enough ships blowing up.
Exactly. As a Star Wars fan, I find myself forced to pick and choose between what aspects of the lore I love and what I don't. I love most expanded universe content before Episode IV (especially the Great Jedi Schisms) but hate the new backstory for Revan and Malak. I hate most expanded universe content after Episode IV (Sidious having clones, Luke becoming his apprentice), but find myself enjoying the Legacy Era once again. Sometimes you're forced to pick and choose between what you do and don't accept.
By the way, I'm not saying this is a bad thing to do, its fun to contemplate what happened or why something may be occuring. Its just that your expectations are increasing to levels that aren't going to be met if that same activity turns into a demand for the game.
Once more, a good point. To keep using your Star Wars analogy, we could talk all day about how illogical it is for Storm Troopers to have terrible aim or Bobba Fett to be 'killed' (seemingly) by a blind man. Or we can joke about it and love those scenes all the same. I treat some of the more inconsistent scenes in Mass Effect (1 and 2) the same way, like how all these people are so quick to ally with Shepard.
Ha Ha! Don't get me started on the Star Wars universe -- I think you and I could be talk for days about it I am sure. Ever since they invented Star Killer, it made it worse. I mean... damn... here is the mythical Darth Vader who is supposed to be the ulitmate bad ass of Jedi-dum and he gets thrown around like a cheap suit, he's bashed to peices far harsher than what Luke did?
Wow. Just wow. Made me wish they canceled the Luke character out and instead had Star Killer as the son. That is a different genre and conversation though.
22.No choice between combat or a way to solve a problem in a peacefull way.Before someone again mentioned thanes and samaras mission are just designed as non combat mission without involving any choice for the player
23. No alternative routes except zaeeds mission 24. Near zero dialog with bosses/remember benezia and saren. 25. nonsensical ammo powers who should stayed mods instead 26. loyality is only a gameplay switch 27. restricted roleplaying/a player has to focus either to be completly paragon or renegade,otherwise some conflicts are not possible to resolve
Okey, so comments.
No: 21 is same issue in ME1. But I agree they where little too much with politics as excuse over reason. No: 22 actually there was small ones, but you are right way too much one way only. No: 23 ME1 did not do any better here. No: 24 and 26: why are these issue? No: 25 Yes, I also would have liked ammos to be ammos and not powers. If you meaned that. No: 27 Of course exactly how it should be. Way better than ME1 did. Meaning players past actions should matter.
my biggest dissapointment is i see all this hate torwards me2 and yet everyone throws a fit because it jumped ship to ps3. i dont know if alot of these whiners are serious or just pathetic because how can anyone say they dont like something then flip on it when the game goes to another counsel?
My main disappointment with ME2 is that there has been no patch as yet to fix the bugs where you did one thing in ME1 (or killed someone) but they showed up or dont acknowledge your actions in ME2.
i didnt even know he was in me2 so i had to replay me1 just to talk to him.... im gona start my 18th playthrough of me2 today or tonight because i caught the video on youtube and im like how did i miss that?
my biggest dissapointment is i see all this hate torwards me2 and yet everyone throws a fit because it jumped ship to ps3. i dont know if alot of these whiners are serious or just pathetic because how can anyone say they dont like something then flip on it when the game goes to another counsel?
That's just the latest complaint. The usual complaints before the PS3 issue are the differences between the first Mass Effect and the second. Some liked the changes between the games, some didn't. For those that didn't, this thread is for them to air their grievances. Nothing wrong with a good bit of criticism once in a while if it's constructive and done in the right spirit. But there are a select few who seem to do nothing else but rage about ME2. Everyday, these same people pop up in multiple threads with the same thing, over and over. A point made 1000 times kind of loses all meaning after a while.
Modifié par GHOST OF FRUITY, 19 août 2010 - 05:59 .
22.No choice between combat or a way to solve a problem in a peacefull way.Before someone again mentioned thanes and samaras mission are just designed as non combat mission without involving any choice for the player
23. No alternative routes except zaeeds mission 24. Near zero dialog with bosses/remember benezia and saren. 25. nonsensical ammo powers who should stayed mods instead 26. loyality is only a gameplay switch 27. restricted roleplaying/a player has to focus either to be completly paragon or renegade,otherwise some conflicts are not possible to resolve
Okey, so comments.
No: 21 is same issue in ME1. But I agree they where little too much with politics as excuse over reason. No: 22 actually there was small ones, but you are right way too much one way only. No: 23 ME1 did not do any better here. No: 24 and 26: why are these issue? No: 25 Yes, I also would have liked ammos to be ammos and not powers. If you meaned that. No: 27 Of course exactly how it should be. Way better than ME1 did. Meaning players past actions should matter.
21: The council was not braindead at least at the end when shepardt saved their lives.Not even the turian 22: Considering bringing down the sky it wasnt just a small combat avoided when shepardt made a deal with charn 23: Did.At least in noveria 24. Because its good for the antagonists theirselves,making them more alife? 26.Situations,where the squadmates loyality to shepardt was tested didnt exist in the game/so the "loyality" mission were just pointless gameplay switches/and that isnt a problem?
27.Are you seriuos? That someone has to be either a complete "angel" or "devil" is not roleplaying. What you mean is something different anyway,called reputation,and is way more complex then just that.
1. Story was build too much about squad members, what did leave main story very weak. 2. Story had alot of plot holes, like what just happen and how is this possible. 3. Weapon and armor customation was way too general and limited. More induvidual customation needed. 4. Character "power" abilities where way too limited and simple. Only like 4-6 powers / skills? 5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. 6. Combat had too many and too unnatural handy cover possibilities, what made it too easy. 7. Clips lying around without reason to be there, why clips could not been loot in enemy bodies. 8. End boss looked like some comic joke as been human looking spaceship. 9. Way too many squad members and too many of them where forced choises. 10. Mining planet wasn't really fun to do, made my mouse hand hurt.
Well, yeah. I completely agree on all those complaints. And those are pretty serious ones. If you still could enjoy the game, great for you. I couldn't, not nearly as much as ME 1 at least. My list would continue:
11. Story was reset for no good reason other than to reset the character and mechanics. 12. My choices from ME 1 made almost no difference whatsoever. 13. Nothing was ever done with the death and resurrection theme. 14. Characters I liked were tossed aside like old rag dolls. 15. There was no "dark" second act to the romance, there was none at all. 16. Shepard acts like a robot too often, I can't feel a connection, it's not my Shepard anymore. 17. Side quests are ridiculously simple, way too short and lack spoken briefings. 18. No exploration. 19. Why is there no proper economy? Why can't I sell stuff and minerals? 20. Everything is way too railroaded and "streamlined" at the cost of immersion.
And I could go on. But most of it has already been mentioned in this thread and others.
Excellent summary, between the two of your "lists" this pretty much sums up why ME2 was not enjoyable.
I rage-quit (jokingly) when it became clear that ME2 was built for a different audience than the core Bioware nerds.
(I use nerds lovingly, I am one!)
Ultimately, if you enjoy console gaming, and gears of war style games, ME2 would be a shining city on the hill; I understand the rabid disagreement with this game. For a PC gamer who is more "hardcore" about stats/RPG/customization/immersion ME2 fails miserablly, to a new degree of misery.
Even vendoring was removed. I don't get it Bioware, I just don't get it.
27.Are you seriuos? That someone has to be either a complete "angel" or "devil" is not roleplaying. What you mean is something different anyway,called reputation,and is way more complex then just that.
Yes, I'm very seriously. But not the way you understand it.
Mostly because you look situation like two path. I don't even look it in that ways. What I mean, if you did not get those options to be solved, that's GOOD thing. Meaning it fits you characters actions in past. Playing role means making decissions based characters role, not based some numbers to get positive end result. It's not about creating positive outcome for player, but what you characters choises has cause to happen.
If you remove the way it's done you get exactly what ME1 and DAO had. You have higher enough points put to something, you get 100% positive result. It doesn't count what you have done past, it only count how many points you have put to something to get that postive result. That's not roleplaying, that's player geting what player wants as end result.
Real roleplayer can handle bad outcome too, as long it's part of the role.
In the end, system differences are: ME1: "Persuation" skill to get positive outcome from npcs. ME2: Past choises affecting you future outcome with npcs.
Which one is better? Hard to say. We players has allways asked that developers would give us choises in game what would matter. When we get those choises and it cause situation what we don't like, we blame system, because we can't handle our own choises.
5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. I found they opted to limit gun play and did give you plenty of non-combat situations. That one whole mission about you being in that club for Samara is one example. Or the mini-games with helping strangers ect. I believe this was also a concern by fans from the first one and so they changed it up a bit.
6. Combat had too many and too unnatural handy cover possibilities, what made it too easy.
I couldn't say --- at times cover wasn't even managble because of the bum rushing husk zombies. I suppose this portion evolves around how good of a third persion shooter one is.
7. Clips lying around without reason to be there, why clips could not been loot in enemy bodies.
Well... the reason being was that a body should have been there where a clip was laying but since the bodies dissapeaerd after you killed them, hence, the clip was in their place. You could also stretch your mind a little bit, perhaps they were getting ready for Shepard and his team so they had clips lined up to use. I could see where this would have been an inconsistancy but the body part was due to their dissolving into thin air.
I have something to add about this points
5- There are non-combat missions, but the missions that involved combat are straight into combat from beginning to end, in other RPGs you need to work with people, help them(or screw them,sometimes that's on the cards), so they help you accomplish your mission, there's something else going on, ME2 missions were just big "fetch this" quests.
6- I do think that the covers were to conveniently located, there are no situations that your forced to scramble around (or that it is a good idea to do it), plus it gives away the fact that enemies are nearby.
7- I don't know, after playing ME1 it feels bad to go searching for ammo after the combat ends, some kind of weapon venting system, one that takes too long to even think of using it during a fight but spares you from having to look for ammo.
2. Story had alot of plot holes, like what just happen and how is this possible.
Would need some specifics.
Okey, reasonable request. - When sheapard dies and drops to planet. How to hell did Shepard survey from that. There would not be more than flat meat left to save. - Why did in tutorial all the robots attack, why would the doctor who resurected Shepard to try to kill Shepard and everyone else. - When You meet Asley/kaidan, how did he/she escape from colletors, because in cinema she/he was captured (frozen). - Why was all squad members send to missions what player did not even know what it was, just that Normandy can be take over by collectors. mm.. There is many more, but I think that gives you picture..
3. Weapon and armor customation was way too general and limited. More induvidual customation needed. Ahhh... well that was because your fellow fans complained about the need for too much micro-management and item collecting in the last one so they answered that problem with the generalized solution of prototypes and upgrades.
I wasn't talking inventory, but more like weapon and armor modifications.
5. Gameplay design was too much about combat and could need more non-combat situations. I found they opted to limit gun play and did give you plenty of non-combat situations. That one whole mission about you being in that club for Samara is one example. Or the mini-games with helping strangers ect. I believe this was also a concern by fans from the first one and so they changed it up a bit.
In general most of ME2 gameplay was dialogs or combat. There could have been more something else, like in ME1 had mako driving. It's creates variety for gameplay as able to do different stuff. Example if You played Kasumi and Thane loyalty mission, you get my meaning. Not just combat but also something else.
9. Way too many squad members and too many of them where forced choises.
This I disagree, I wished ME1 had the same choices ME2 had --- what I would ask in stead is that the ground team have 4 members instead of 3 members. I don't know if they were forced or not. In theory, you really didn't need to go through all of those missions if you didn' t feel like it.
Many choises are good, but too many squad members create situation for player, player don't really create "relations" with so many of them. Mostly because playing too little with everyone. If there is only few squad members, they become more personal for player. Like getting know them very well. That's why I support more choosing you squad members, than forced to have many of them or forced to have some specific member in missions.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
