10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...
Y'know, as opposed to the first game where impending combat was cleverly hidden by your squad all pulling their guns and the appearance of red dots or jamming warnings in the lower right corner.....

The enemy radar still exist...
But is useless now thanks to the cover crates everywhere that even show where exactly the fight would happen from some meters away. The game designer also thought that it was a bad idea
to actually see how much shields and health the squad has left.
The squad hud was just another thing where was something fixed what never needed to be fixed.

[Spartas Husky]

tonnactus wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...
Y'know, as opposed to the first game where impending combat was cleverly hidden by your squad all pulling their guns and the appearance of red dots or jamming warnings in the lower right corner.....

The enemy radar still exist...
But is useless now thanks to the cover crates everywhere that even show where exactly the fight would happen from some meters away. The game designer also thought that it was a bad idea
to actually see how much shields and health the squad has left.
The squad hud was just another thing where was something fixed what never needed to be fixed.

there is a radar? I thought that blob in the corner, was a glitch lol

[Rejoy Skinler]

Lack of airlocks.

Tell me about it... and Fallout 3 doesn't even have ladders!. Makes you wonder if either game is worth playing.

Modifié par Rejoy Skinler, 23 août 2010 - 06:57 .

[Spartas Husky]

I like fall out 3... not the best game out there, but tons to do, good to kill time.



is it worth buying new, no.. is it worth, buying for cheap, yes

[bjdbwea]

ME 2 could learn a lot from Fallout 3. Namely:

• How to properly combine player-skill based shooting and RPG elements.
• You can make a game accessible for the current generation of gamers without sacrificing everything that made the game great.
• You don't have to close doors behind the player constantly to railroad them through the levels. You can provide freedom, and many players still appreciate it.
• Good RPGs, even with the "boring" features like skill systems and inventories, still sell.
• Even on consoles.
• You can allow for proper modding, and still make money with DLCs.
• Even on PCs.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 août 2010 - 07:19 .

[Whatever42]

bjdbwea wrote...

ME 2 could learn a lot from Fallout 3. Namely:

• How to properly combine player-skill based shooting and RPG elements.
• You can make a game accessible for the current generation of gamers without sacrificing everything that made the game great.
• You don't have to close doors behind the player constantly to railroad them through the levels. You can provide freedom, and many players still appreciate it.
• Good RPGs, even with the "boring" features like skill systems and inventories, still sell.
• Even on consoles.
• You can allow for proper modding, and still make money with DLCs.
• Even on PCs.

I find combat far more fun in ME2 than in FO3. I also enjoy that graphics and cinamatic style of ME2 more than FO3, but that engine does mean no modding, which makes me sad but there it is. Its a technical limitation.

And the inventory doesn't make FO3 great. Sure, its there but to my mind, its not terribly important to my enjoyment. It does work in the setting, scavanging for repair parts and ammunition in a wasteland makes sense, but I do find it annoying. In ME2, Shepard stripping corpses to make few credits would also be annoying and makes no sense whatsoever.

I like FO3 and ME2 both. One doesn't have to become like the other to make the game good.

The closed doors thing, I completely agree with. ME2 with the narrow corridors and sections that locked behind you made it feel a little closed in. I understand why they did it but personally I want to see wider levels and enough with the locked doors.

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
What I don't understand is why it's bad voice-acting when the scenes that I mentioned aren't in the script at all.  How can one act out a scene if there is nothing written to say?[/quote]

It's not that I believe the voice-acting is bad, it's more that I believe voice-acting in and of itself is bad for an RPG.
[/quote]

Hmm, well personally I think voice acting can be used well.  Unfortunately it's a resource hog.  So much more could have been done for both the story and the characters if they'd added more lines.

[quote]iakus wrote...
Hmm, I must have just listened to that owl once and got it the first time.

I can never understand why someone would get a game from a company known for Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and KOTOR and want to skip all the "talky parts".[/quote]

Right, which is why I question the stance that Bioware did all these changes strictly to appease the 'shooter crowd'. As mentioned previously they'll have to chop off an overwhelmingly large amount of dialog to get them to come near it.

I bring up the Zelda Owl example because people like to claim that it easily becomes a 'shoota game' when you skip all of it. While somewhat true it also completely bewilders the player, which sucks.
[/quote]

Well chalk me up as someone who doesn't think the game's been "dumbed down " so much as just plain "badly done".  At least as far as the story/sequels go.

I'd add a quote about Hanlon's Razor, but that might offend people

[Spartas Husky]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

ME 2 could learn a lot from Fallout 3. Namely:

• How to properly combine player-skill based shooting and RPG elements.
• You can make a game accessible for the current generation of gamers without sacrificing everything that made the game great.
• You don't have to close doors behind the player constantly to railroad them through the levels. You can provide freedom, and many players still appreciate it.
• Good RPGs, even with the "boring" features like skill systems and inventories, still sell.
• Even on consoles.
• You can allow for proper modding, and still make money with DLCs.
• Even on PCs.

I find combat far more fun in ME2 than in FO3. I also enjoy that graphics and cinamatic style of ME2 more than FO3, but that engine does mean no modding, which makes me sad but there it is. Its a technical limitation.

And the inventory doesn't make FO3 great. Sure, its there but to my mind, its not terribly important to my enjoyment. It does work in the setting, scavanging for repair parts and ammunition in a wasteland makes sense, but I do find it annoying. In ME2, Shepard stripping corpses to make few credits would also be annoying and makes no sense whatsoever.

I like FO3 and ME2 both. One doesn't have to become like the other to make the game good.

The closed doors thing, I completely agree with. ME2 with the narrow corridors and sections that locked behind you made it feel a little closed in. I understand why they did it but personally I want to see wider levels and enough with the locked doors.

[*]m3h only thing ME2 has to learn from fall out.... is the inventory,, which as good as it is, is not essential, but it brings depth.
[*]Quests, bit mroe open than just drop and shoot.
[*]The rest is ME1 stuff. upgrades and the like, although between Fallout and ME , ME wins hands down.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

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]

But I think you're missing my point. I'm not just saying to take that little paragraph of text and literally convert it to cut-scene form. I'm saying they should have done something with it. We were originally talking about side quests in relation to how we can convey depth. I don't just want Shepard standing over Kahoku's body. If I'm supposed to feel emotion through this, then I want some effort to be made at expressing emotion. No comment from Shepard? No opportunity to create my own desire for revenge? Instead, a journal entry is telling me how I'm supposed to feel and we call that emotional depth? [/quote]

This is a good point.  All I can really say is resources are finite.  The cinematic look was new (to me at least) and  a treat.  But I'm sure expensive too.  Other games used the lines of text for both main and side quests, even newer games like Dragon Age.  I guess I saw Kahoku's quest as "the norm" and things like Rachni queen or the Virmire choice as "new and shiny" 

I guess with ME 2, the technology got cost effective enough to use cutscenes for everything (except for the story)

[quote]
[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]

I'm not saying it's perfect. Hell, I'd scrap all of Mass Effect 2's side quests if I could and just have more in the style of Overlord or Bringing Down the Sky. But I feel that Bioware underestimates the value of "less is more" in some cases which is why they insist on piling so many useless side quests on us.  [/quote]

Sidequests are always a mixed bag.  Fortunately. being sidequests you can pick and choose which ones you want to do and when.  I don't mend them, even the DA Chantry Board and Mages Collective (or as I call them "supplementary income") 

[quote]
I don't mean that all the choices I made in ME 1 should be meaningful.  Most should in fact be quietly forgotten. 
[/quote]

At least we agree on this.

[quote]
Hmm, so just to be clear, is your issue that you wanted more of those emails to become better implemented, or you just want the emails dropped altogether?[/quote]

Either.  Ideally the first, but the second works too.  As they stand now, their an insult to the concept of choice and consequences.

[quote]
 I personally was comfortable with how my choices became involved, but then I wasn't following Mass Effect 2 every step of the way. I know alot of people were discontented with the Council's role. I looked at it like this: I'm operating in the Terminus Systems. The Council simply doesn't matter out here, so why should my decision to save them matter? On the other hand, if I spent most of the game in Citadel Space, I could see why the lack of carryover is an issue.  [/quote]

If a major government power goes through a violent shift in power, either adding to its leadership or replacing it entirely, it should make waves.  Maybe not huge waves, but a noticeable effect.  
 
[quote]
[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. [/quote]

And I would agree that these should have been hugely relevant, especially given how much Bioware hyped the import utility. But as someone who didn't really pay attention to Mass Effect 2's development until about two days before release, I missed most of that hype. All I knew was "Import Shepard, you die somehow, and evil space bugs called the Collectors". [/quote]

My knowledge of ME 2 consisted of:
import saves
LIs not recruitable
"Suicide mission"
interrupt system
Shepard "dead"
and there's some assassin called Thane you could recruit.

The big selling point for ME 2 for me was that ME 1 was only the first third of the story.  So what if a lot of the choices didn't play out, they will in other games!  Snowball effect!  Everyone's playthroughs will be unique!  Unfortunately, "unique" turned out to mean the lists of emails you receive

[quote]
As it was, I thought the idea of killing Shepard did serve as a good way of separating him from his life and actions. You're not the "Hero of the Citadel" anymore, so it makes sense that the Alliance doesn't care about you. Sure, some things should have been done better. The Ashley sequence on Horizon was absolutely terrible, for example. Emails were idiotic. That sort of thing. [/quote]

I thought it was awful, cliched, and hamfistted.  (but that's just me)  Much better would have been to destroy Shepard's reputation, turn him or her into a laughingstock or an embaressment the Council would be glad to see gone. 

Agree 110% on Ashley and emails

[quote]
I also know alot of people were disappointed by how Shepard's death didn't really affect him at all, but I'd say Chakwas did a great job of lampshading this fact "What you've been through would change most people. But not you." Sure, Shepard's reactions might be considered 'unrealistic', but any more than some of his other reactions? If you discovered a race of evil sentient machines capable of galactic destruction every 50k yeras, would you really take that in stride? We just go along with it because we need to move things along. But as it is, Shepard should be in an institution given some of the things he's experienced.  [/quote]

Well, I could say that "eveil sentient machines" are something Shepard can cope with .  They're just geth.  But bigger.  Okay they're more than that.  But same baasic idea.  Death, however is death.  Shep went from "meat" to "not-meat".  That's something which there really isn't a comparisson outside religious texts.

But then, others have noted that Shep's pretty laid-back about everything.


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

That's fine. I feel mostly the same. But let me strawman your argument for a moment; let's say you went to 'fight Cerberus' in their base and instead of the generic four walled room, you found a Jade Empire-style environment. Same enemies, different look. Wouldn't you say that there is something seriously wrong here, despite it being a place? [/quote]

That would be rather odd, fighting a futuristic terrorist organization inside a quasi-Imperial China teahouse...

I would point out, however, that that's a little extreme, Commander...

[quote]
You probably see where I'm going with this. Environments obviously shouldn't be the developers' first concern, but they still are an aspect of the world which you interact with. I could understand if the side quests themselves really felt fleshed out, but they were lacking in most respects especially compared to past Bioware games.  [/quote]

Unfortunately, in ME 2 background and enviroment was the first concern here and the missions themselves don't even pretend to have a point.  You've noted I've seen depth to the side missions, even if I had to use my own imagination to see it.  As far as ME 2 goes, even my imagination's not that good


[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]

Well, I'm not saying I loved Cerberus. Obviously there are issues that Shepard needed to resolve. But quite simply, the delivery on Admiral Kahoku's death was terrible. [/quote]

In this case, we'll have to agree to disagree.  It could have been done better, yes.  But almost everything can be improved upon.

[quote]
Let's say I were to go to work tomorrow and find out that my boss was firing me because of performance issues. I'm probably not going to be jumping with joy; I'm probably going to be upset, wallow in my misery, wonder what to do, etc. Now let's say my best friend were to call me up and ask me to play Basketball for a few hours. So, I play basketball. Now I may be distracted by the game (focusing on the action), but deep down I'm not playing to the best of my ability because I know something feels wrong. I'm not actively thinking about unemployment, but it's expressed through my body's performance and a lack of ability.

That's honestly how I perceive the characters reacting. Thane fails the biotic portion because he's not strong enough. Unloyal Samara also fails (exactly the same way). But do you think that while she is in the midst of combat that Samara is actually thinking about Morinth while someone is shooting her in the back? I'd say not. Her lack of focus instead manifests in her physical performance. That's how I look at it. [/quote]

The problem I have is these people are "the best of the best"  They can push away your standard crisis to get the job at hand done.  The problems that these personal missions seems to have are deeper, at least for the persona you're helping.  They go beyond jobs and ability and into addressing who they are, what their priorities are.  Even caring whether they live or die.  Jack has to confront whether she's going to let what Cerberus did to her shape the rest of her life.  Samara has to deal with the fact that she is at least partly responsible for Morinth.  Thane has to deal with his responsibility for the destruction of his family.  The sort of thing most people would end up on a couch talking to someone with letters after their name about. 

The point being, these people eventually crack under the mental stress, despite being capable enough to do the job.  There should be a sign that they don't fail due to ability, but they simply snapped.

[quote]
I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but taking shape in the form of everyone having their own battlecry isn't the best solution, imo. What makes Aragorn's "For Frodo" line so poignant is that with two words it expresses the entire purpose of the battle. Every character doesn't need a supplemental speech to go along with it. I'm not saying Shepard's speech is the equivalent of Caesar here, but I don't quite see how every squadmate needs their own 'focus animation'. [/quote]

Not so much as a focus animation as a focus itself.  A sign that they are ready to give their all to the mission.  Besides a costume change that is.  Even something as minor as having Thane look at a holo of Kolyat (which he distinctly did not have at the start of his mission) or Miranda leaving a letter for Oriana with Joker.  Matching outfits just doesn't do it for me.

[quote]
[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. 
[/quote]

To be quite honest, this was one of my favorite ideas for how to improve Mass Effect 2. It would have been very emotional. The only idea I remember hearing on the forums that beat this was beginning Mass Effect 3 with a flashback to Shepard's service history (Torfan, Akuze, etc). [/quote]

See.  Writing sequels ain't so tough

[tonnactus]

Spartas Husky wrote...

[*]m3h only thing ME2 has to learn from fall out.... is the inventory,, which as good as it is, is not essential, but it brings depth.

There is far more then the inventory.How about something like class specific dialog? If my science was high enough,i got specific dialogue options with scientists in that game. Just one example of a lot others.

Just imagine that Mass Effect 3 had class specific interupts:
A biotic could intimidate someone like jack did in her loyality mission.

Its not that Mass Effect has the best dialogue system and couldnt be improved.

Modifié par tonnactus, 23 août 2010 - 09:55 .

[Sidney]

tonnactus wrote...

The enemy radar still exist...
But is useless now thanks to the cover crates everywhere that even show where exactly the fight would happen from some meters away. The game designer also thought that it was a bad idea
to actually see how much shields and health the squad has left.
The squad hud was just another thing where was something fixed what never needed to be fixed.

You knew the same thing in ME1 for the same reason even w/o the radar - which was  a bad idea that they carried over badly and should just drop all together. You can't complain about disliking the advanced knowledge from the crates and complain about a loss of radar.

The squad HUD needs to be improved for clairity and also moved so it isn't on your butt for the whole game.

[Vena_86]

Sidney wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

The enemy radar still exist...
But is useless now thanks to the cover crates everywhere that even show where exactly the fight would happen from some meters away. The game designer also thought that it was a bad idea
to actually see how much shields and health the squad has left.
The squad hud was just another thing where was something fixed what never needed to be fixed.

You knew the same thing in ME1 for the same reason even w/o the radar - which was  a bad idea that they carried over badly and should just drop all together. You can't complain about disliking the advanced knowledge from the crates and complain about a loss of radar.

The squad HUD needs to be improved for clairity and also moved so it isn't on your butt for the whole game.

Knowing enemy positions through a radar still makes much more sense than through predictable level design.

Modifié par Vena_86, 23 août 2010 - 10:47 .

[Sidney]

Vena_86 wrote...

Knowing enemy positions through a radar still makes much more sense than through predictable level design.

 ME1 had the same issues of spotting the battlefield. Radar just made it so you knew how many guys were gonna jump you.

[Fhaileas]

Sidney wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

Knowing enemy positions through a radar still makes much more sense than through predictable level design.

 ME1 had the same issues of spotting the battlefield. Radar just made it so you knew how many guys were gonna jump you.

No.The radar in ME1 also allowed for tactical positioning and engagement with enemies. Furthermore, apart from combat, the radar/map combo in ME1 provided an overview of where you were and were you were going. This feature is all but gone in ME2. You have no map in most cases, and the radar rarely shows you more than you can see in front of you. Now I understand that you don’t always have plans for the places you go, but an option to find/buy them in game would work, also how is it that the ships AI can tell me what is on the other side of a door, but cant provide a map of a complex I am wandering around in. Additionally why is there no mapping logic in any of the tech I have. Let me get this straight. I am carrying what is basically a zero point energy particle accelerator that fires bose-einstein condensates at near the speed of light, but none of my gear has the same GPS I have on my phone.

[KotOREffecT]

iakus wrote...

As it was, I thought the idea of killing Shepard did serve as a good way of separating him from his life and actions. You're not the "Hero of the Citadel" anymore, so it makes sense that the Alliance doesn't care about you. Sure, some things should have been done better. The Ashley sequence on Horizon was absolutely terrible, for example. Emails were idiotic. That sort of thing.

I thought it was awful, cliched, and hamfistted.  (but that's just me)  Much better would have been to destroy Shepard's reputation, turn him or her into a laughingstock or an embaressment the Council would be glad to see gone. 

Agree 110% on Ashley and emails

Oh cmon, the Ash thing was not that terrible, at all. She had a reason to act like that, yea it was a bit akward, but can you blame her. And Shep, what did you expect? The man has been through hell and Ash expects the world from him, like he's some damn emotional teddy bear for her, newsflash, the mans a soldier. He's been brought back from the dead and is now is the clucthes of Cerberus and has no one else nor the people he thought were always gonna be there for him. The man is pratically a heartless emo at this point, he has to be. So yea that scene was a bit akward because of the that, but it was for the best how it happened, esp how the game went. Hopefully we get Sheploo emo tears in ME 3 and it better damn not be akward!

Which is why I think the whole kill Shep and take away everything from him that he loved(being the spectre hero,love interest, friends, alliance and anderson whom he kinda looks up to), and introduce him to the darker aspects which was what ME 2 was about worked well. ME 3 will clear a lot of things up no doubt, all the akward bs, the plot issues, everything, and hopefully the email system as well, not that it was all bad(Ash's email was actually pretty heartfelt. Hopefully all choices and relationships come to fruition.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Deus Ex works well as both. That's what makes it so great. That's why even 10 years later it's still often taking the top spot in "Greatest Games of All Time" lists.

Don't get me wrong. I hold Deus Ex in the highest regard. It's quite simply an experience. I give it a solid 9.4.

I'm just saying that the gameplay probably isn't going to please someone as a shooter fan, which is why I think that Deus Ex has trouble standing on its own as a shooter (issues such as clunky mechanics). There's simply not enough action elements, even if the game is played with a brute force style. That's not to say that a shooter can't be deep. Bioshock and Half Life 2 are both characterized by a deep plot, well-written script, and memorable characters, but the emphasis of the gameplay is almost entirely on shooting mechanics, with the occasional break for puzzles or dialogue.

I just think that Deus Ex pleases much more as an rpg than it does as a shooter, which is still fine. But of course, as you blend genres, the distinction of what makes  a genre becomes a little blurry.

If that's the case, then I can't see the balance ever being found: I can't see shooter fans being pleased without the RPG ones being disappointed. To me Deus Ex got the blend pretty much dead-on, and Alpha Protocol and ME1 got pretty close as well. If you go and start making the game too action-oriented and simple then you start alienating the RPG nuts, and that's kind of what ME2 did, IMO. Sure... there are some RPG fans out there who aren't alienated much at all, but even then they fully admit that the game has become less an RPG when it comes to mechanics and more of a shooter and they merely think that the changes, while admittedly shallow, were improvements simply because they made the gameplay tighter and things less awkward and they don't really care that the game became more of a shooter for it.

To me Mass Effect was about being a story-driven, cinematic RPG that used real-time TPS combat. ME2 came across more as a story-driven, cinematic TPS that used a few RPG elements.

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Deus Ex works well as both. That's what makes it so great. That's why even 10 years later it's still often taking the top spot in "Greatest Games of All Time" lists.

Don't get me wrong. I hold Deus Ex in the highest regard. It's quite simply an experience. I give it a solid 9.4.

I'm just saying that the gameplay probably isn't going to please someone as a shooter fan, which is why I think that Deus Ex has trouble standing on its own as a shooter (issues such as clunky mechanics). There's simply not enough action elements, even if the game is played with a brute force style. That's not to say that a shooter can't be deep. Bioshock and Half Life 2 are both characterized by a deep plot, well-written script, and memorable characters, but the emphasis of the gameplay is almost entirely on shooting mechanics, with the occasional break for puzzles or dialogue.

I just think that Deus Ex pleases much more as an rpg than it does as a shooter, which is still fine. But of course, as you blend genres, the distinction of what makes  a genre becomes a little blurry.

If that's the case, then I can't see the balance ever being found: I can't see shooter fans being pleased without the RPG ones being disappointed. To me Deus Ex got the blend pretty much dead-on, and Alpha Protocol and ME1 got pretty close as well. If you go and start making the game too action-oriented and simple then you start alienating the RPG nuts, and that's kind of what ME2 did, IMO. Sure... there are some RPG fans out there who aren't alienated much at all, but even then they fully admit that the game has become less an RPG when it comes to mechanics and more of a shooter and they merely think that the changes, while admittedly shallow, were improvements simply because they made the gameplay tighter and things less awkward and they don't really care that the game became more of a shooter for it.

To me Mass Effect was about being a story-driven, cinematic RPG that used real-time TPS combat. ME2 came across more as a story-driven, cinematic TPS that used a few RPG elements.

I think rpg and shooters can mix, I think the way to do it is for the rpg elements to passively backup the shooter elements. So instead of a improving a players accuracy every level up, a players shooting distance is vastly improved upon level up.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

To me Mass Effect was about being a story-driven, cinematic RPG that used real-time TPS combat. ME2 came across more as a story-driven, cinematic TPS that used a few RPG elements.

Many can understand this, but it's because you put alot of value to RPG (and shooter) side of game.

I'm my self RPG player, but I never expected Mass Effect series to have much RPG at the first place. Meaning, my values wasn't in the RPG, but in dialog based cinematic action story game. So, RPG side in ME1 or ME2 wasn't important feature, because more valuable feature was cinematic story telling for me. So when I look both Mass Effect games, I see the differences, but the most important aspects for me are still there and same.

My point is that, it all depends what you are looking from the game. If you look too much RPG, then both Mass Effects aren't really much of traditional RPG at all. Sure, the amounth of RPG was bigger in ME1, but it was never really good in there, more like just and just okey. Also most of ME1 problems are related to it's traditional RPG side. Example skills affecting negative ways to combat side and then there was this junk based inventory system. Most of ME1 good sides are connected to games impression details, good customation and for well writen story. So, try to look Mass Effects more as cinematic action story, than this shooter versus RPG, as they aren't even main point of Mass Effect series, but just technical gameplay styles.

Mass Effect series excelent graphics with voice acting in cinematic action story telling, is in my opinion main selling feature for Mass Effect series. The smootness between gameplay and cinematic scene is unbelivable.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 août 2010 - 06:32 .

[bjdbwea]

But that still doesn't explain why the story in ME 2 is so much worse than in ME 1. It's not only stupid ideas like the human reaper thing or the completely unnecessary killing of the protagonist. It's also the presentation. How is the main story told? Basically in a few cutscenes with just Shepard and TIM talking in a bland office. And a few sentences here and there during the missions. Compare that to the diverse and cinematic cutscenes in ME 1: The meetings with the council, the meetings on board the Normandy, the conversations with Benezia and Saren, and much more.

Of course the main story in ME 1 consisted of much more to begin with, so it's no surprise that we get to see more cutscenes. Whereas the main story as a whole is much shorter and very shallow in ME 2, as that game puts much more emphasis on the side missions. Those missions are mostly presented quite well, but as has been established before, a few well done but totally independent and unconnected side quests are just not enough.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 août 2010 - 10:52 .

[Terror_K]

I think part of the problem is the structure of it. Once you've completed your first mission for TIM you're basically told the ending and you know what's ahead of you: a suicide mission. The plot doesn't unfold, and is instead laid right there on the table, and the rest of it consists of doing the same thing repeatedly. I personally think the stories within the story (if you get my meaning here) are generally very good and interesting, but the main story itself is sidelined for these other ones to the point that you can play for a few hours and completely forget what you're supposed to be doing because you're getting caught up in something else entirely just to get person X or person Y to either join you or stay focused by dealing with one of their personal problems. This makes the actual main plot stuff fewer and far between, and it doesn't help that there's no true central villain and that it pushes aside almost everything that seemed relevant from the first part, such as becoming a Spectre. ME2 is almost the equivalent in this regard of if The Empire Strikes Back came along and Luke went to see Yoda, Yoda said the "I cannot teach him. He is too impatient, old, etc." stuff and Luke just left it at that and never got trained in the force.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

The plot doesn't unfold, and is instead laid right there on the table, and the rest of it consists of doing the same thing repeatedly.

I don't think the first part is a problem. In ME 1, Shepard usually had to react to things that happened. Now in the second game, the idea is that Shepard knows what's happening and has to plan for a mission, in other words: Shepard has to act this time. We know how the game will end, but that's okay.

The problem is the constant sidetracking. First we have to work on a shopping list of collecting companions, then we have to deal with each of their own problems, most of which are totally unrelated to the actual story. Whereas Shepard should have spent much more time actually preparing for the final mission. Instead of pulling that new weapon out of Garrus' hat, why don't we go somewhere to collect it? Or the new shields? And why don't we see some training of the crew? They're not all soldiers, some would have no idea of how to work together. Why wasn't the plot hole of the whole crew leaving the ship at some point bridged with an actual mission?

Or why, at the very least, aren't the actual story missions a little longer and why don't they offer a little more content other than shooting stuff?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 août 2010 - 11:38 .

[shootist70]

Inarborat wrote...

- Open world doesn't automatically mean interesting.

I think FO3's open world was a hell of a lot better than Oblivion's, but yeah, it does suffer from the same problem in that almost anything you do there is unrelated to the main story-arc, so the main thrust of the game totally loses impetus.

I prefered The Witchers world model. It does a great job of convincing you that it's more open world without ever being open world. It's certainly a lot better than the world model we get in Bioware games (and definitely in ME2) which tend to be little more than a thin track with scenery and backdrops on either side.

People are drawn to sci-fi and fantasy because of their settings, yet Bioware neglect them too much, imo. Bethesda can't seem to thread a decent story through their world, and Bioware have all story thread and very little world around it. The Witcher strikes a better balance, even if it does lose momentum at times (and has lousy voice acting). 

[tonnactus]

Vena_86 wrote...



Knowing enemy positions through a radar still makes much more sense than through predictable level design.

And Mass Effect had some ambushes.Not enough,but still...

[Lumikki]

Mass Effect 2's story telling was worst, because it was way too much about squad members, what did left the main story weak. I ques like Terror_K wrote, it was also so repeatable, the main formula with squad members was same. When there is like 10-12 squad members and you do allmost with all of them two missions. Recruit and loyalty, it's alot of missios about squad members. If you compare it to amouth of main story missions. Like bjdbwea wrote, story doesn't go forward well, it seem to side track with these squad members issues a lot.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 août 2010 - 12:54 .