10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
So, what was the point in making a character-centric game if they couldn't afford...charactarization?[/quote]

The same can be said of DA's main plot goal: What's the point of 'vanquishing the Darkspawn" if they're an incredibly boring adversary?[/quote]

The point was to keep the darkspawn from destroying/corrupting every living being on Thedas.

As adversaries, yes, one weakness in Dragon Age was we didn't get to learn much about the darkspawn. themselves.  Just legends and such.  Hopefully further sequels will remedy that, since they weren't all killed by a nuclear explosion at the Battle of Dennerim

But you have to admit, the allies were well done.  Well, maybe not Oghren...

[quote]
[quote]iakus wrote...
Or who wanted teamates that existed outside of their personal missions.[/quote]

They did for plenty: I find a lot of solace in seeing that Thane still has plenty to say after doing his loyalty quest, and having loyalty sidequests that are more than "Oh it's my sis, hi sis! Bye sis!" is pretty sweet.[/quote]

Did Thane have anything to say about Garrus's thirst for vengeance in his loyalty mission?  Any reactions about Samara wanting to kill her own daughter?  What does he say about Tali's father wanting to "build a house on the homeworld" for her?  What does he think of Cerberus in general?  Does he agree with Shepard's decision to save the Council/let the Council die?  What are his thoughts about the Collectors?

The loyalty missionsas missions were well done.  but "Hi sis!  Bye sis!" had a far more profound affect on the game than "Sins of the Father"  Allistair's basic assumptions about human kindness were badly shaken.  You have the opportunity to nudge him in a more cynical direction which can alter his reactions later in the game.

[quote]
[quote]
For a long time here I advocated that there's no reason a game couldn't be both.  I'm starting to wonder now.  It seems some poeple (like me) use combat as a challenge to get from one storypoint to the next.  While others use the storypoints as a break between bouts of combat.  Sort of a "Do you see a vase or two faces in this picture" question.[/quote]

Sort of, except it's highly doubtful that they're attempting to please 'shooter fans'. They're not gonna draw that crowd in unless they make it multiplayer and cut out 98% of the dialog. Sure you can keep pressing the 'skip dialog' button, but have you ever played the Ocarina of Time?[/quote]

I'm not a big shooter fan (I don't dislike shooters, simply little interset in them), so I have no idea if that's the crowd they're going for.  I am noticing, however, that some praise the combat and cinematics like that's all that's needed.  And yes, I have seen calls for multiplayer too.

And yes I played Ocarina of Time more years ago than i care to count (on the orginal N64).  Fun game as I recall.


[/quote]
That still doesn't nullify the fact that both genres cater to opposite desires of play. Skill oriented players (the 'shooter' crowd) prefer to play via using their own reflexes and 'aim'. Build oriented players ('RPG' crowd) prefer
'create' what would be a skilled soldier. It's just preference: Do you like to play with Legos to build them, or build them to play with them? Apples or oranges? Red or blue?[/quote]

As long as it's consistent I don't care.  Just as long as combat development doesn't swallow up the story.  There's a reason why I've played Alpha Protocol three times and Borderlands once.

[quote]
Of course there's the problem of 'catering to all and pleasing none', a problem I feel ME has and will always suffer from.[/quote]

On this, sadly, I'm inclined to agree.

[quote]
Like 'RPG', 'action' is an incredibly broad genre. God of War and Call of Duty are both 'action' game franchises, but people will find they share little to no resemblance[/quote]

That's why I try to steer clear of debates over "What is an RPG"

[Neuzhelin]

ME1 is superior storywise because of Drew Karpyshyn and ME2 is inferior storywise because of the lack of Drew Karpyshyn. I do not see ME2 as a failure though, as the better combat makes ME2 very enjoyable (at least with the vanguard, which is the only thing they got right imho).

[Epic777]

Neuzhelin wrote...

ME1 is superior storywise because of Drew Karpyshyn and ME2 is inferior storywise because of the lack of Drew Karpyshyn. I do not see ME2 as a failure though, as the better combat makes ME2 very enjoyable (at least with the vanguard, which is the only thing they got right imho).

What was wrong with the other classes?

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]
I think it's because the paragraph of text is the conclusion of the mission.  You battled your way here, now what you se is:  It describes things you do or see which are probably not necessary to show, such as hacking a computer, examining a body, and so on.  I know what's going on, so if they wanna cut that corner, they can.. A more cinematic scene might be better, if there's unique dialogue or a decision to be made.  [/quote]

So, are you saying that hacking a computer is comparable to finding your quest-giver lying dead on the floor, murdered by a terrorist organization? I would think this is something to warrant a cut-scene or special delivery of some kind, not a paragraph of text. [/quote]

I'm saying that there's little to show.  A five second clip of Shepard bending over a body?  Okay that would work.  But I'm not upset that it wasn't shown.  Not saying the text is good or bad, just that it's a valid way to go.

[quote]
[quote]
However, I'd rather have the paragraph than a cutscene of Shepard doing something, followed by Grunt saying "That should do it"  which is followed by a black and gold box flashing "Press F to exit the mission"  At least with the text I can believe the resources went to something more important. [/quote]

To be honest, I feel the opposite. Sure, these instances in Mass Effect 2 you are describing may feel useless, but it still represents a conclusion of the quest. [/quote]

They feel very much useless.  They took enough care to do a cinematic cutscene of Shepard using an omnitool, but couldn't get Liara and Tali to say hello to each other?

[quote]
[quote]
Why is this better than emails?  Because the emails are completely unnecessary.  They're just reminders that  "I did this quest.  I met this person" 

They have no impact on the story, Toombs?  I'd really like to explain things to him, given the threatening lett I received.  I'd hate to have to kill him in self-defense.  Except, I can't reply, which doesn't matter since I never actually see him anyway.

They give no opportunity for character development.   Han Olar, presumably in an institution of some kind, also sends a message I can't respond to (poor guy really needs a friend)

They do not expand the universe in any meaningful way. Dr. Michel wants me and Garrus to stop by and see her on the CItadel.  Well, that may be a problem, given that section of the wards apparantly no longer exists

Some of them don't even make sense. It's nice that Samesh Bhatia opened his restaurant and all, but how'd he get this account? [/quote]

Ironically, I have the same conclusion as you do but for the exact opposite reasons. I recall you mentioning that you wanted your choices to be more meaningful in Mass Effect 2. To be honest, I felt 100% opposite. Not opposed to huge decisions (Saving the Council, exterminating the Rachni, etc) being relevant, but the truth is why must Shepard be confronted with every decision he made in Mass Effect?[/quote]

I don't mean that all the choices I made in ME 1 should be meaningful.  Most should in fact be quietly forgotten.  But the ones that do carry over in ME 2 should be in a meaninful way.  I hold the Parassini meeting as one of the few well-done decision carryovers.  In ME 1 Parassini said she owed me a beer  In ME 2, she buys me a beer, we have a nice chat, she gives some foreshadowing into what is likely to be an ME 3 plot point.  Good stuff.

Unless Samesh Bhatia's restauant is going to be my base of operation s in ME 3, I really don't see how that message was relevant.
 
[quote]
Is saving/exterminating the Feros colony really going to have adverse consequences throughout the galaxy? If I save/kill the biotic cult and Major Kyle, do I really need such a minor side quest to have huge ramifications? Hell, I would honestly be opposed if they took all those emails and made them in-game cameo appearances or become new side quests. It would have felt too forced. I'm honestly glad that all these 'decisions' can at least be ignored in their email form. The only decisions I really thought should be relevant for future games are Shepard's choice for Councilor, extinction of the Rachni, and letting the Council die. Those aside, I didn't see the need for my choices to be hugely relevant. [/quote]

I agree.  The Shiala cameo felt forced.  As did Helena Blake.  I'm not saying I want more than the emails, I'm saying I wasnt less.  But what does appear should be more, if that makes any sense.  I don't want to get emails from every random NPC I had a conversation with in ME 1, but I do want the decision regarding to Council to have a greater impact.  I want more divergence based on whether Ashley or Kaiden lived.  Greater consequencees for who is the human Councilor.  Wrex living or dying.  Who the LI was, if any.  These were the Big Choices in the last game, either for Shepard personally or for the galaxy as a whole. But in the end they only had slightly more impact than the emails that flooded my Shepard's mailbox.

I'd have been a lot happier if they just came up with a "Top Ten list of choices that should shape the course of the game, a second list of "cameo" worthy choices, and dump the rest.

[quote]
And I feel the same when my environments are not exact replicas of each other. Admittedly, this is not Bioshock's Rapture. That is not the main appeal of Mass Effect; we are not meant to explore our environments with incredible awe as we do Rapture. But the reason why I don't focus on every detail of Mordin's apartment is because it looks like an apartment (what it's supposed to look like). Unless I see something incredibly unexpected/awesome, I will inevitably tune it out my environment. When I'm on Tuchanka, it's supposed to look like a desert wasteland and it does. So I tune it out. Same basic philosophy.

The problem becomes Mass Effect tells me that I am going to infiltrate a top secret terrorist organization. If I feel like I am doing so, then I will probably tune out my environment. Unfortunately, I don't feel like I'm doing so which causes problems for my believability, especially when it looks exactly like any other structure.  [/quote]

I dunno, I guess I just notice distinct people or objects more than places.  Rooms and walls are just background to me.

[quote]
My reaction was more like "What are the odds that I'm going to explore another four-walled room on this next quest?" [/quote]

I can state with complete honesty that the thought never once entered my head.

[quote]
Regardless, what you are describing sounds more like you felt emotions in spite of Bioware's paragraph of text rather than because of it. I'm going to be honest in saying I couldn't care less that Admiral Kahoku was dead. I didn't know him long enough for it to matter and the narrative didn't give me a reason to care. It takes more than a journal entry telling me that I must avenge him to give me the desire to avenge him. There are ways (even with a paragraph of text) to convey these emotions, yet Bioware was once more idle. Example: 

You check for a pulse but find none. Admiral Kahoku is dead. Despite the ferocity of the creatures he was sealed in with, there are no signs of trauma to his corpse. The needle marks on his arm suggest a different means of execution. You notice in his hand that he is clutching a small picture of what must be his family with the words "Love you, Dad! Can't wait to see you!" scrawled across the back.

Hardly perfect and could use alot of work, but the point is there are ways to create emotional impact. Planescape and BG could both do it relying strictly on text. Mass Effect didn't. The paragraph of text was quite simply lazy writing with little thought given to the context of what I (the player) should have been feeling at the time. Hence why I feel that this quest lacked any sort of emotional depth. [/quote]

Perhaps it's because my first playthrough in ME 1 was Sole Survivor, but the Kahoku quest chain pretty much sealed my distaste for Cerberus.  Could the descrition have been better?  Certainly.  But the implications of the needle marks pretty much sold me on just how nasty Cerberus was.

[quote]
[quote]
If by "lowers the number of points needed", you mean "down to zero", then yes I agree.  Otherwise it has to be near-maxed or he dies either by your hand or Ashley's. [/quote]

Was it that low? To be quite honest, I always max renegade first so I never really noticed it. [/quote]

Yup, you can talk Wrex down using regular dialogue if you got him his armor.

[quote]
[quote]
If these were "focus missions" I would have liked to see them make a mistake that gets them or others killed.  Or refer to their personal mission as what gets them through.  Something to show how or why the lost focus, or kept it.   For example: [/quote]

So, choosing the wrong biotic specialist (which kills off a squad mate) is not an example of the bolded? Choosing the wrong fire team leader (which kills off your tech specialist) is not an example of this?

The reason I say this is because you say "or refer to their personal missions", which implies it could be one or the other. I would very much say that your squad mates can get your party members (and themselves) killed.  

 [/quote]
Picking the wrong specialist is Shepard's mistake, for not choosing someone with the correct skillset.  What I'm talking about is choosing somone who is strong enough, or skilled enough, but isn't focused enough. For example, how is choosing a non-loyal Jack (a superpowerful biotic) any different than choosing Thane (who is not)?  We know Jack's strong enough, but if she's not loyal, she fails identically to Thane.  Why?


[quote]
Miranda:  "For Oriana"
Tali:  "For you, father"
Legion "For the future"
Samara "For righteousness" (Morinth (quietly) "For me")
Jacob "For duty"
Thane "For Kolyat"
Garrus "For the dead"
Mordin "For the living"
Grunt "For Clan Urdnot"
Jack "For pain"
Zaed "For vengence"
Kasumi:  "For love"

The LI could substitute "for Shepard" for their line.  And Shepard could wrap up with "For EACH OTHER!" (or, as the ads said "For the lost!")[/quote]

Eh, to be honest I couldn't really get into this idea. I could see Shepard's line "Fight for the Lost", but I find the idea of each party member "invoking" a different cause to be a little weak (absolutely no offense intended). I'm not saying there couldn't be "something". Think LOTR the scene where Gandalf and Pippin are waiting for the Orcs to break through the door, for example, but at the same time this might be overextending what Bioware could do with so many possible variables at this point based on who can live or die. [/quote]

Actually, I was thinking of Aragorn's "For Frodo" line before the Black Gate...

The purpose of the exercise is to find a way to demonstrate that the squadmates are focused, that they have something worth fighting for, or living for.  That doing the mission accomplished more than a costume change and a "don't kill me" flag

[quote]
Instead, I would think something like your Mass Effect 2 LI (if you had one) pulling you aside and breaking down at the last moment might fully capture the emotion of the scene. One of my favorite ME2 dialogue sequences was with Miranda where she talks about how she is afraid of you dying again. I'd like to see that invoked for the finale.  [/quote]

Yeah my favorite (imaginary) scene in ME 2 would be if Your Shep had an ME 1 LI to receive a hologrphaic message just before hitting the relay.  There could be a heartfelt message, but Shep couldn't touch him/her (hologram, after all) ending with a look of resolve on Shep's face. 

[ArchDemonXIII]

Pocketgb wrote...

Sort of, except it's highly doubtful that they're attempting to please 'shooter fans'. They're not gonna draw that crowd in unless they make it multiplayer and cut out 98% of the dialog. Sure you can keep pressing the 'skip dialog' button, but have you ever played the Ocarina of Time?

 Don't confuse shooter fan with mainstream gamer. Shooters that actually have a coherent narrative (half-life series, FEAR, Max Payne) are generally held in high regard. I don't play the multiplayer of either. For MP, I usually stick with MP oriented titles: TF2, Unreal series, or mp mods. A good SP shooter rarely translates well into a good MP experience. 

And since any post not including negativity directed at BW/ME2 gets ignored:

 It annoys me that you can't use the airlock anymore. After I recruit Mordin, why is the Normandy suddenly parked across the star system from Omega? Even without an airlock sequence,, you should be able to go onto the last place you docked without the docking cinematic.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Freedom is so big consept.

In Bioware games we have illusion of freedom.

Not in the sequel .There is not even a illusion of that when the illusive man wants to talk with the player
and the galaxy map is deactivated....
Shepardt as a dumb cerberus puppy.
Thats great....

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 août 2010 - 07:40 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

I hate to keep repeating this, but if the design and layout of the game wasnt clear enough, they actually flat out said during marketing that this game is perfect for Gears of War and Modern Warfare style players.



Its no longer an opinion to suggest ME2 was made above all else to appeal to mainstream shooter fans, its simply a fact. Christina Normans (the lead gameplay designers) presentation tells you a fair bit about the prime goal when developing ME2: make a stronger shooter above all else.



Of course, that isnt even taking into account the clues pointing towards ME2 getting a multiplayer mode in future as well.



Im expecting ME3 to have a multiplayer system with it. The question Ill need answering is does it signify a shift in the SP campaign back towards plot and dialogue over shooter missions, or will it still play out like ME2 with the shooter element dominating the rest of the game, with the multiplayer mode only pouring salt into the wound?



Simply put, the only way I could bother with ME3 knowing that resources and effort were wasted on a stupid multiplayer system is because the SP campaign is losing some of its incessent shooter focus.

[SSV Enterprise]

Christina Norman is the gameplay designer. AFAIK that means her main job is making the combat, so her main goal will be improving the combat. That doesn't mean there was any less focus by others on the plot, characters, and dialogue. There are writers and cinematic directors for that.

[Sidney]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

I hate to keep repeating this, but if the design and layout of the game wasnt clear enough, they actually flat out said during marketing that this game is perfect for Gears of War and Modern Warfare style players.

Then they failed miserably. My friends are overwhelmingly shooter players. When I pointed them to ME2 their reaction was "too much talking". Shooters might have cutscenes and some dialog but they don't have conversations and you don't have to get to know many people. Bioshock - as fun as it was- was about as talky as most shooter fans are gonna want to get and other than a handful of moments there's not really much interruption of the shooting to talk.

MW sold 15 million units, The last GoW hit over 5m units. ME2 didn't sniff those figures so either Bioware is wholly incompetent at what they set out to do or people are wrong about what they set out to do. Hmmm, who made the mistakes, hmmm, goofy fans or a highly competent video game company, hmmm, who doesn't know what they're doing? Any bets?

[tonnactus]

Sidney wrote...


Then they failed miserably.

Trying didnt mean sucess.And a lot of professional companies failed at copy the World of Warcraft sucess for example.So what?
I am also sure that Medal of Honor would  fail to be a real competition to Cod.And sony failed with making killzone to a sucessfull Halo competition.(not regarding gameplay but the sales for sure)

I could also mention how many companies failed where apple was sucessfull.(mp3 players,i-tunes etc.)

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 août 2010 - 08:31 .

[bjdbwea]

Sidney wrote...

Then they failed miserably. My friends are overwhelmingly shooter players. When I pointed them to ME2 their reaction was "too much talking". Shooters might have cutscenes and some dialog but they don't have conversations and you don't have to get to know many people. Bioshock - as fun as it was- was about as talky as most shooter fans are gonna want to get and other than a handful of moments there's not really much interruption of the shooting to talk.

MW sold 15 million units, The last GoW hit over 5m units. ME2 didn't sniff those figures so either Bioware is wholly incompetent at what they set out to do or people are wrong about what they set out to do. Hmmm, who made the mistakes, hmmm, goofy fans or a highly competent video game company, hmmm, who doesn't know what they're doing? Any bets?

That is an interesting take on it. I for one assume that most changes were enforced from above, because someone decided the ME series has to sell to the shooter crowd. But it seems that strategy didn't really work out. Apparently it's still too much of the "boring" RPG stuff in the game for many shooter fans, while many RPG fans are already annoyed that it's too little. It seems impossible to satisfy both. So I wonder what they will do with ME 3. I fear they're going to shooterize and dumb it down even more, figuring that the RPG fans will buy a game anyway if it has the label "made by BioWare" on the box.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Sidney wrote...

Then they failed miserably. My friends are overwhelmingly shooter players. When I pointed them to ME2 their reaction was "too much talking". Shooters might have cutscenes and some dialog but they don't have conversations and you don't have to get to know many people. Bioshock - as fun as it was- was about as talky as most shooter fans are gonna want to get and other than a handful of moments there's not really much interruption of the shooting to talk.

MW sold 15 million units, The last GoW hit over 5m units. ME2 didn't sniff those figures so either Bioware is wholly incompetent at what they set out to do or people are wrong about what they set out to do. Hmmm, who made the mistakes, hmmm, goofy fans or a highly competent video game company, hmmm, who doesn't know what they're doing? Any bets?

Oh I agree that, despite what they said in the marketing, it hardly sits alongside MW2 and GoW as big hitting shooter games.

Never the less, Bioware went all out to try and snare shooter fans, and I fully expect that instead of toning it down in ME3, theyll just try and turn it up even further.

After all the "fan feedback" about the weakness of the RPG elements, Im fully expecting ME3s marketing to probably centre around multiplayer and further improved shooter mechanics, and the game, like ME2, completely reflect the marketing.

A lot of folks were worried about how biased the marketing was in favour of the shooter side, and people told them the game wouldnt reflect that as much, with the devs saying "the rpg elements are still there and still as rich as before" (lol! BS!)

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 22 août 2010 - 08:44 .

[bjdbwea]

Yeah, the developers were quite active on the forums before release, weren't they? Telling everyone how great the game was, and not to worry, the RPG fans would be very happy too? If you want to see similar posts, just have a look at the DA 2 forums. And if the DA fans wanted to know how the communication will look like after release, once they've all bought the game, they'd just have to come over to the ME 2 forums.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 août 2010 - 08:53 .

[Sidney]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Never the less, Bioware went all out to try and snare shooter fans, and I fully expect that instead of toning it down in ME3, theyll just try and turn it up even further.

After all the "fan feedback" about the weakness of the RPG elements, Im fully expecting ME3s marketing to probably centre around multiplayer and further improved shooter mechanics, and the game, like ME2, completely reflect the marketing.

A lot of folks were worried about how biased the marketing was in favour of the shooter side, and people told them the game wouldnt reflect that as much, with the devs saying "the rpg elements are still there and still as rich as before" (lol! BS!)

Other than RPG luddites there's nothing wrong with the RPG elements of ME2 other than gun combat - and while that isn't RPG driven it is better than ME1. I know this cheeses off the RPG snobs to say it since anything that doesn't play liike BG2 isn't a "Real" RPG but sorry, the RPG elements were fine.

Again, if they went "all out" to get shooter fans they didn't apparently play many shooters because the game feels zero like any major shooter on the market.

[bjdbwea]

You shouldn't call that "fine RPG elements", you should say "the RPG elements were removed, and I like that". Many have said that, and while I don't understand why they didn't just leave the ME series alone and buy one of the countless shooters instead, they're of course entitled to their opinion.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 août 2010 - 09:28 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Sidney wrote...

Other than RPG luddites there's nothing wrong with the RPG elements of ME2 other than gun combat - and while that isn't RPG driven it is better than ME1. I know this cheeses off the RPG snobs to say it since anything that doesn't play liike BG2 isn't a "Real" RPG but sorry, the RPG elements were fine.

I know the shooter peasants are happy that 90% of the game is now dumbed down whack-a-mole shooting, but dont think that stops people who actually enjoyed playing the game like it wasnt a cheap Gears of War knock off from voicing complaints.

Sidney wrote...
Again, if they went "all out" to get shooter fans they didn't apparently play many shooters because the game feels zero like any major shooter on the market.

Oh absolutely, the game is only a pretentious Gears of War clone with interactive dialogue.

Sorry but they added ammo, health regen, forcing the player into waist high cover, and littered that cover throughout the game. They even FORCE power based characters to use weapons originally restricted to "shooter" classes.

The only thing missing to complete the gears ripoff was blind fire, which Im guessing has a good chance of making it into ME3.

Deny that ME2 is a bogstandard TPS all you want, but do so in the knowledge you are completely wrong. Its not opinion to say ME2 is 90% standard TPS, its plain, hard fact. As I said earlier, its all but been admitted by the devs. The only time they acknowledged the RPG elements in the marketing build up is to BS about them for marketing purposes.

ME2 was build first and foremost as a standard third person shooter. They added in everything else after they were satisfied that they had build a shooter that could stand on its own.

[Il Divo]

My God, one might think that playing Mass Effect is the rough equivalent of reading Plato given some of the attitudes in this thread.

[SSV Enterprise]

Regarding combat mechanics, sure, ME2 is a competent TPS, with a few mechanics to distinguish itself, but nothing revolutionary. And that's not a bad thing in itself, IMHO. What separates it from other TPSs as a game on whole is the extensive focus on characters, dialogue, and story. Increased quality in the shooter mechanics does not mean that those elements dropped in quality- if anything, they improved as well.

[tonnactus]

Sidney wrote...


Again, if they went "all out" to get shooter fans they didn't apparently play many shooters because the game feels zero like any major shooter on the market.

Oh interesting,i feel different.Like this game is a poor gears of war copy.A lot things that a similar,excluding good
bossfights and challenging enemies.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 août 2010 - 10:20 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Regarding combat mechanics, sure, ME2 is a competent TPS, with a few mechanics to distinguish itself, but nothing revolutionary. And that's not a bad thing in itself, IMHO. What separates it from other TPSs as a game on whole is the extensive focus on characters, dialogue, and story. Increased quality in the shooter mechanics does not mean that those elements dropped in quality- if anything, they improved as well.

Yeah, totally agree. I was totally immersed in these characters and their plots while ducking up and down behind cover to pick off mercs.

Do people just say Mass Effect is character driven because its the done thing? Its character oriented, in that the plot involves completing a shopping list of characters and their issues, but not much of that is actualy taken up by heavy dialogue and development. In fact, most of the game is simply solved by "kill everything until you see a mission complete screen".

If Mass Effect 2 was really so character driven, loyalty missions like Thane and Samaras would be the norm, not the exception.

Honestly, ME1 stopped combat to take a breath far more than ME2 does.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 22 août 2010 - 10:32 .

[FataliTensei]

bjdbwea wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Then they failed miserably. My friends are overwhelmingly shooter players. When I pointed them to ME2 their reaction was "too much talking". Shooters might have cutscenes and some dialog but they don't have conversations and you don't have to get to know many people. Bioshock - as fun as it was- was about as talky as most shooter fans are gonna want to get and other than a handful of moments there's not really much interruption of the shooting to talk.

MW sold 15 million units, The last GoW hit over 5m units. ME2 didn't sniff those figures so either Bioware is wholly incompetent at what they set out to do or people are wrong about what they set out to do. Hmmm, who made the mistakes, hmmm, goofy fans or a highly competent video game company, hmmm, who doesn't know what they're doing? Any bets?

That is an interesting take on it. I for one assume that most changes were enforced from above, because someone decided the ME series has to sell to the shooter crowd. But it seems that strategy didn't really work out. Apparently it's still too much of the "boring" RPG stuff in the game for many shooter fans, while many RPG fans are already annoyed that it's too little. It seems impossible to satisfy both. So I wonder what they will do with ME 3. I fear they're going to shooterize and dumb it down even more, figuring that the RPG fans will buy a game anyway if it has the label "made by BioWare" on the box.

Had the opposite effect on me, I won't touch BW goods anymore.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Lol, just came across "popamole" on the urban dictionary and mass effect is listed for both entries. Cant argue with that.

[77boy84]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...



Oh absolutely, the game is only a pretentious Gears of War clone with interactive dialogue.

If we're gonna say that about ME2, then we might as label ME1 that too, since the only difference between the two games is better shooter mechanics, and less silly RPG mechanics where they really don't belong.

Sorry but they added ammo, health regen, forcing the player into waist high cover, and littered that cover throughout the game. They even FORCE power based characters to use weapons originally restricted to "shooter" classes.

I agree that ammo was kind of dumb. If I recall, you needed cover to survive a lot of the ME1 encounters. I don't know how this is a bad thing. How did they FORCE you to use weapons restricted to the soldier class?  I really can't think of any instance in the game where I felt forced to use a weapon restricted to the soldier class.

I don't know how you can say ME2 is a "bogstandard" TPS. I've played loads of TPS, and really, ME2 doesn't feel like a "standard" TPS.

Heck, I don't even get the Gears ripoff thing. The only real similarity between Gears and ME2 is that they're both third person shooters.

[tonnactus]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Do people just say Mass Effect is character driven because its the done thing?

But the "loyality missions".They made the characters so "deeep".(but kaidan was just "whiny")
It completly didnt matter that the other squadmate taken has in most cases absolutly nothing to say.
Character driven game without squadbanter.What a joke.
Just compare that with the discussion wrex and liara could have when shepardt decides to kill the rachni or not.
"Teammeeting" in Mass Effect 2? Either Miranda or Jacob,sometimes together with mordin.The other members of the team are not important enough i guess.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 août 2010 - 10:53 .

[tonnactus]

77boy84 wrote...


If we're gonna say that about ME2, then we might as label ME1 that too, since the only difference between the two games is better shooter mechanics,

No.The other difference is that defensive powers like barrier combined with armor actually acting like armor didnt force anyone
to use cover late game. If this is good or worse is another discussion,but its a huge difference. Not even the engineer
has to use cover when enemies dont shoot at him thanks to sabotage.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 août 2010 - 10:52 .