10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Normally that's true.  Howver, in this case the squad is the story.

Isn't that same in DAO, emotional connection to companions was "main" story. I finded the real main story in DAO very dull and booring.

The main story in DAO was building an army.

The main story in ME2 was building an army.

In ME 2, getting companions is the whole point.

In DAO , getting companions and ally's is the whole point.

In both games it was about getting ready for war, by getting your army ready for it. This happen by recriting and solvign problems what had allmost nothing to do with the war.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 septembre 2010 - 09:19 .

[Mister Mida]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

The main story in DAO was building an army.

The main story in ME2 was building an army.

In ME 2, getting companions is the whole point.

In DAO , getting companions and ally's is the whole point.

In both games it was about getting ready for war, by getting your army ready for it.

If everything is all the same to you, how can you say ME2 is superior to ME (1)?

Modifié par Mister Mida, 04 septembre 2010 - 09:20 .

[Lumikki]

Mister Mida wrote...

If everything is all the same to you, how can you say ME2 is superior to ME (1)?

I have allways sayed ME1 and ME2 are equal good, just different ways.  What's you point?

I just don't like this hypocritical where one story is better, when they are very similar. The emotional opinions are based how much player liked and connected to characters and then judge one story is better than other. It wasn't the story, it was players ability connect to characters what was different. In ME2 character aren't so emotional and there is many of them, so it's hard to connect with them. Also they did not talk each other much, what happen to DAO. This was a lot better in DAO to make characters more alive. How ever story is story, not just how charcaters are technicaly done. Sure, it affects too, but the base of story is very similar.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 septembre 2010 - 09:27 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
Because there's no surprise at all, and it's all completely linear and the same every time, with no variation whatsoever.

I find the Master Sword in the exact same place every time I play through the Ocarina of Time, and it's no less epic and/or less enjoyable because of that. This isn't to say that picking up the Vindicator is just as epic, but still: You really need to start stating this less as a problem with the game and more a problem you have with the game.

Terror_K wrote...
I don't feel like I've earned it and it doesn't come as any pleasant surprise...it's just there.

You didn't really earn that Collosus X armor drop, either. You got lucky. What do you think they can do to make getting a good dice-roll feel like you've "earned" it?

Terror_K wrote...
I can see how the gameplay works better, but I can't see how one would think it was the right direction to take things and that it was an improvement.

Because not everyone liked how Mass Effect 1 played, Terror. Like every game there is flaws, but not everyone feels the same about them - just like how you feel the flaws for ME2 are great, someone will feel that the flaws of ME1 are greater.

Terror_K wrote...
Again, we've been over this: both these games weren't going for the same type of thing Baldur's Gate or NWN were.

They weren't trying to be complex? Deep? Challenging? Alright then. If that's the case then why are you so surprised with ME2?

And personally I wouldn't put NWN in the same boat as BG, even if they are both DnD.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Revan312 wrote...

So since we all agree on that, what are your biggest hopes and fears for the story going into the final installment?

I
hope - that it is going to be Reaper centric with Shepard perhaps going
into darkspace on a mission you have a 99% chance of not coming back
from, unlike ME2 where you have to actively try to get Shepard killed...
I'm really expecting something extremely dark, such as team mates
becoming indoctrinated at various points, even Shepard potentially
helping the Reapers, multiple endings based on decisions you've made in
the past two games etc etc..

I fear - Bioware is going to once
again go the Michael Bay route and have Shepard spewing out one liners
like a bad Tarentino film while the Reapers get their asses handed to
them.. That it will be 90% getting ready for the "final battle", that of
which will be short, cliched and overly predictable and finally that
our decisions will mean jack all to the main story and we'll be left
with yet another "standalone" game..

I'm gonna put my assumption
on the 'I fear' section as I just don't want to get hyped up for the
game only to play it and watch the entire potential of the franchise go
down in B movie flames...

You know what would be a potential epic? If the consequences for your infidelity would lead to the possibility of having to personally kill your previous love interest or it a horrified twist if you took certain converstion directions could lead to your present LI killed due to indoctrination. This does not necessarily have to extend to LIs and could pose an crushing end to Garrus and Shepard's relationship as student/teacher. A bad ending for Garrus means you have to kill him and a bad ending for Shepard means he has to kill you. There are so many possibilities if roleplay becomes the focal point of ME3 that would make it a treasured title all future RPGs should strive to live up to. Bioware is capable of that... if they put forth the effort.

Your fears emulate my own however. My biggest concern is gameplay will again hold dominance and the focus will continue to shift in the direction of the shooter gamers in a misguided belief they can appease both crowds when such is a delusional fantasy. Hopefully Bioware has realized that ME2 is as close as possible to reeling in the aforementioned group unless they cut dialogue down to a Gears of War level. If that was the case... I would drop this series faster than a stone sinks.

My second large concern is the Suicide Mission leading to a "Wrex Effect" - pun completely intention. This being, everyone is cameo'd due to a cop out in not wishing to develop a multitude of alternate scenes a person could not experience all in a single file. If this is the case, I again may bail on the series. ME2 will have been completely pointless if at the conclusion everyone is off doing their own thing and we have yet another new crew. The threat of the Reapers is just secondary for everyone except Shepard.

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Normally that's true.  Howver, in this case the squad is the story.

Isn't that same in DAO, emotional connection to companions was "main" story. I finded the real main story in DAO very dull and booring.

The main story in DAO was building an army.

The main story in ME2 was building an army.

In ME 2, getting companions is the whole point.

In DAO , getting companions and ally's is the whole point.

In both games it was about getting ready for war, by getting your army ready for it.

No, in ME2 you were building a team. Thirteen people forming a ragtag team to combat the Collectors is moe Final Fantasy-esque than army building, since that would require legions. Nonetheless in DAO the characters came to life at seemingly random moment to add flair and spice to the game. Zev seducing Morrigan and admitting it was all for based on a bet with one of the other party members was absolutely hilarious. Shale calling Leilana gullible for being relgious was once again amusing. It provided depth, they were presenting their own opinions beyond the confined bubble of the Gray Warden.

Tali threatening Garrus with a shotgun is a good example of some interaction that should have been branched further upon. Mirand/Jack's fight was precisely what I had coveted as a RPG fan, just how about something civil or amusing. Perhaps Kasumi attempts to reel in Jacob's attention and steals something or hell maybe the script makes fun of itself. I would die laughing if one of the characters ever found out about the horrid line Jacob utters and taunts him on it. How about Garrus being nervous with Shepard having been pushed to go forward by another character? Yes I know these are somewhat juvenile in execution, the basis of my point remains all the same. It gives depth.

You dislike that? Remember the skip button I continue to pound into the ground like kicking a dead horse? I am going to do so one more time. Use it! This is the compromise for everyone because the RPG portion of ME's fanbase will not be satisfied with minimal dialogue content and those less enthusiastic in regards to large quantities of dialogue can avoid or skip it. If that is not enough for you, well the words "too bad" come to mind because stating such is unreasonable. You want, yet you will not give?

[Mister Mida]

Lumikki wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

If everything is all the same to you, how can you say ME2 is superior to ME (1)?

I have allways sayed ME1 and ME2 are equal good, just different ways. What's you point?

I tend to have other things to do so I'm sorry I don't read every page of this thread and know exactly what people's views here are.

Lumikki wrote...

I just don't like this hypocritical where one story is better, when they are very similar.

Ah yes, I do remember you saying this before. Then by your logic every story that is similar to ME2/DA: O or to something else deserves the same praise, even when the execution is lacking.

[Lumikki]

In meeting with TIM, Shepard sayed, I'm gonna need army or really good team. TIM did give Shepard team of "specialists" and Normandy with crew to do the job.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 septembre 2010 - 09:52 .

[Lumikki]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ah yes, I do remember you saying this before. Then by your logic every story that is similar to ME2/DA: O or to something else deserves the same praise, even when the execution is lacking.

Any better than saying there is huge difference when there isn't. Opinions are just opinions.

[Darth Drago]

With the arrival of the Lair of the Shadow Broker coming out in a few days I want to ask what are your opinions on the downloadable content we have gotten so far for Mass Effect 2.

-Normandy Crash Site: Could have been so much more. I keep thinking of two ship mates that were also on the Normandy 1 as crew mates (Joker and Doc Chakwas), that should have gone with Shepard to the crash site. Each one could have said a few lines at each “flashback moment”. Adding a meeting with Anderson/Udina to turn in the dog tags would have been a nice touch as well.

-Zaeed -The Price of Revenge: The character isn’t bad and I have to admit the renegade direction choice and its consequences are the best in the game but having now recruiting mission was not a great idea. Not having actual dialog when you talk to him can go both ways since his stories are pretty good.

-Cerberus Weapon and Armor: Not really impressed with the armor with no customization at all.

-Arc Projector: Kind of nice but did we need another heavy weapon in the game?

-Firewalker Pack: Stank from beginning to end and is now obsolete with the freebie Hammerhead you get in Overlord. We gave up the Mako for this trash can?

-Alternate Appearance Pack 1: The revenge of the ‘80’s costumes pack. Not impressed with Thane’s reskin and his shades or Garrus’s fixed armor that should have been his alternate in the game in the first place. Jack’s outfit is actually worth it.

-Kasumi -Stolen Memory: Kind of a cool character but yet again no recruiting mission. Her mission started out good but fell flat when you had to shoot your way out. Her on ship dialog is more rumor based but is still like Zaeed. Her on ship room is oddly missing an EDI terminal but yet we get some lame bar to get drunk at because getting drunk at the bars in the game wasn’t good enough.

-Equalizer Pack: Inferno armor was nice since it was a preorder gift but two more helmets? Still waiting on some of the other items from the preorders that were supposed to have been released in packs like this.

-Overlord: So-so at best. The on foot quest wasn’t to bad but was a rip off of Lawnmower Man and a few other books/films. The hamerhead parts stank completely with no improvements on the hamerhead or any of its other issues (saving the game, leaving the vehicle between designated areas, no shield/damage bar, guided missiles that are not guided and so on) as well as lame plat former game elements like jumping your vehicle like Frogger or playing dodge the blast with the Geth ship gun. Having to reselect you squad every time you enter one of the bases was just stupid. The clichéd gimmick of the scientist brother showing up just at the last minute was weak. Of course no additional dialog from any of your squad mates hurts this even more.

-Aegis Pack: At least we finally get more armor parts for the rest of your body with this one. Funny how that’s all it was instead of a full Kestrel armor wasn’t a full new modular set like the N-7 with new colors and patterns.

-Firepower Pack: Why wasn’t the Geth shotgun put in the Geth ship in Overlord? Or for that matter putting each weapon in 3 of the bases in Overlord.

-Lair of the Shadow Broker: Like all the above I’ll probably end up getting it but sometime later since the game just does not interest me at all right now. For something that was so hyped about with obvious plans for it going back as far as before the game was released, why is it looking like its going to be yet another 2 hour or less download instead of something more like Dragon Age Awakenings in size?

Will it be any surprise that Liara’s friend she wants to rescue will likely get killed or be working for the Shadow Broker after you rescue him by being brainwashed and probably will kill himself at a critical plot point?

Modifié par Darth Drago, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:46 .

[Whatever42]

I found Zaeed was a pretty gripping mission, although I'm not overly fond of him as a character. I thought Kasumi was very well done and a fun character. Overlord was awesome - my only complaint was the complete lack of party interaction, which was understandable - it was still well worth the money.



If Liara is Overlord quality, I will be very happy. Anything more than that is pure gravy.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Which is the very problem. In a lot of cases ME1 admittedly didn't do things right, but it at least tried to actually do things.

Who's opinions, yours?

Exactly, not everyone else see it this way. What you think was "they tried to do it right" is in reality "they did tryed to do way I liked". See the difference. Not everyone see it as they tryed to do it right, some see ME2 tryed to do it right. Or they both tryed to do it right, but both are what they are.

My point, some people see it opposite than you do, so of cause they disagree. My self do both agree and disagree with you. I'm disagree mostly related  base style of game and agree with impression, customation and variety related stuff. It's more about how something is done, than should it be done.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. What I meant is that ME1 at least tried to have some depth and variation, even if it didn't quite pull it off. ME2 didn't even try and went for the simplest "solutions" possible.

Pocketgb wrote...

I find the Master Sword in the exact same place every time I play through the Ocarina of Time, and it's no less epic and/or less enjoyable because of that. This isn't to say that picking up the Vindicator is just as epic, but still: You really need to start stating this less as a problem with the game and more a problem you have with the game.

If I consider it a problem with the game it's a problem with the game from my perspective. That's what all of these discussions are about after all. Why is this suddenly any more different than any other point I've brought up?

And there's a difference between a rare drop that's the same each time and every item being exactly as special as every other item (i.e. not really special at all) in such a limited pool where absolutely nothing is a surprise. How is this in any way a satisfactory system? I've still yet to hear anybody actually defend the system itself without having to resort to putting down ME1's to do so.

You didn't really earn that Collosus X armor drop, either. You got lucky. What do you think they can do to make getting a good dice-roll feel like you've "earned" it?

Actually you can also get it as a reward for BDtS, in which case you did kind of earn it. In either case at least it's random and not a guarantee and not always in the same tedious place. If ME1's items had been in the same places each time people wouldn't even need to bother with the other items at all: they'd just rush straight to where the Colossus X was.

Terror_K wrote...
Because not everyone liked how Mass Effect 1 played, Terror. Like every game there is flaws, but not everyone feels the same about them - just like how you feel the flaws for ME2 are great, someone will feel that the flaws of ME1 are greater.

Again, you have to come back to ME1 to try and defend ME2. Do you honestly believe that ME1 was so beyond help that it couldn't have been tweaked and improved? If that's the case, how did you even get into it in the first place? I swear to God... there have been complaints and hyperbole concerning ME1 that I never saw until after ME2 came out. It doesn't matter that ME1 was flawed, what matters is what did ME2 really do to improve upon it and what did it do to add depth? As far as I'm concerned, in the key areas, absolutely nothing. And I don't get how people can defend ME2 and yet be unhappy with ME1 when they claim to want more depth and complexity, simply because they felt ME2 was more functional via less depth and simplicity. It's like claiming to be an environmentalist and then defending a gas-guzzling muscle car.

They weren't trying to be complex? Deep? Challenging? Alright then. If that's the case then why are you so surprised with ME2?

And personally I wouldn't put NWN in the same boat as BG, even if they are both DnD.

Oh please... now you're putting words in my mouth. You know what I'm talking about, so stop being coy and feigning ignorance.

And if you feel that way, then why are you defending ME2?

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[FataliTensei]

Lumikki wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Characters can carry an entire plot. Imo, DA:O did this superbly. The darkspawn weren't terribly interesting, but the characters and how they responded to them were.

Assuming that player is interested to connect to characters in personal level, what if player isn't. What's left then for story?

Then they probably don't really care about being entertained anyway and they should sell their games and system because it's just a waste of money. If you'ren ot interested with connecting with the characters, there is really no point in following a story because it's basically Person A and Person B want to stop Person C for Reasons A-D.

[Carmen_Willow]

I've only recenty played ME 1 and ME 2 but have played Dragon Age a great deal. While I've found all three stories pretty interesting, I must say that the romances don't work very well in the ME storylines. I'm trying to figure out why. First of all, I think you get to know the characters of DA:O more completely. The romances have depth because the characters involved have more depth. Secondly, you really feel as though the dragon age characters are truly in love with your PC. Didn't get that feeling in ME and ME2. There was a shallowness to the romances that made them less intense. Third, the denouement comes too late in both ME and ME2. DA:O's romances carried beyond the first and only bedroom scene. There were tender exchanges and moments...afterward. There were disagreements and breakups. I would love to see the ME writers take a lesson from the DA:O crowd in this area.



As to which is best ME or ME 2? ME2's gameplay was better. ME's was so awkward, it got in the way of the story for me. Both had interesting tales to tell. ME2 was too short overall, but some parts of ME just seemed to go on forever, sort of like the Deep Roads or the FADE. Had it not been for ME2, I would not have gritted my teeth and forced myself to try ME again. So I like them both and I think the writers of ME3 could learn from both games.

[Iakus]

Darth Drago wrote...


With the arrival of the Lair of the Shadow Broker coming out in a few days I want to ask what are your opinions on the downloadable content we have gotten so far for Mass Effect 2.

I haven't gotten many DLC s for ME 2.  It's quite simply not worth the money.  I might get Lair fo the Shadow Broker, depending on what people say about it. 

But what I have played:

Crash Site:  Was...okay...I guess.  Got to visit the Normandy one last time, though that's abou it.  Would have been ncie if the mission included talking to Normandy survivors, or Admiral Hackett or...something...Meh.

Zaed:  I liked his personal quest.  I like that he can actually talk to someone during the Archangel mission.  Otherwise, just another merc to "guard the ship".

Blood Dragon armor, et al:  I think the less said about the armors the better.  Weapons very underwhelming too.  Never saw the point to most heavy weapons anyway.

Firewalker:  I'm pretty sure I lost brain cells playing that.

Alternate Appearance pack:  The only one I actually spent money on.  I just got so tired of Jack running around shirtless I figured it's worth a couple of bucks.  Garrus' armor was a bonus.  In my more cynical moments I think the ridiculous outifts in ME 2 are a ploy to get people to buy reskins.

-Lair of the Shadow Broker: Like all the above I’ll probably end up getting it but sometime later since the game just does not interest me at all right now. For something that was so hyped about with obvious plans for it going back as far as before the game was released, why is it looking like its going to be yet another 2 hour or less download instead of something more like Dragon Age Awakenings in size?

Will it be any surprise that Liara’s friend she wants to rescue will likely get killed or be working for the Shadow Broker after you rescue him by being brainwashed and probably will kill himself at a critical plot point?

Like I said, I'll wait and see what others have to say about this before buying.  But it is the first DLC content  I'm actually tempted to purchase.  If it's just another 2 hour same old, same old "run 'n gun" with mute squadmates, no way.  If it actually has some story content, prefereably something that helps ME 2 make some kind of sense and provides several hours of playable content, maybe.

And actually, I'm betting Liara's friend will end up going out in a blaze of glory, sacrificing himself for Liara and Shepard .  Liara will then give the developers yet another opportunity to show off the "tearful asari" expression. 

Modifié par iakus, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:58 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. What I meant is that ME1 at least tried to have some depth and variation, even if it didn't quite pull it off. ME2 didn't even try and went for the simplest "solutions" possible.

Mostly I agree with you because simplicity often cause players to become boored faster, because there isn't anything new interesting to learn anymore left. Meaning repeating same kind of stuff over and over isn't really that interesting, having real variety is what makes games more interesting. How ever, complexity what is just illusion as filled with "junk" what has no real meaning, doesn't really make game better. Also assuming that because you and me like more complex games, doens't mean everyone likes same. In ME1 there was some good customation what was removed, like weapon, armor and ammo modifications. How ever, there was also some stuff what was removed and for good reason. Even if we don't agree with it.

FataliTensei wrote...

Then they probably don't really care about being entertained anyway and they should sell their games and
system because it's just a waste of money. If you'ren ot interested with connecting with the characters, there is really no point in following a story because it's basically Person A and Person B want to stop Person C for Reasons A-D.

You post is good example how people assume that every people are same as them self. Like example some romance stuff has big meaning to everyone. Some people connect to just they own character, so they can enjoy good "hero" story as anyone else. You people seem to think like this personal connection to virtual characters is what makes game good, when in my opinion it's just some part of the game. Without interesting story and gameplay, what hell I do with these virtual barbie dolls. My point is that if hole game is build to play barbie dolls as emotional connections , but main story and gameplay sucks, that isn't really so good game. To really have good game, it has to have interesting main story by it's own, gameplay has to be well done and have enough interesting character what create illusion of living world. Meaning good story isn't just player playing house with virtual barbie dolls, but have actual story to adventure.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Terror_K]

I don't think there's much that was removed from ME1 "with good reason" at all. Okay, there are things that didn't quite work as well as they could have, but that wasn't reason enough to eliminate them entirely. They should have been tweaked and fixed, not neutered and nixed. Pretty much everything in ME1 I feel could have worked and would have fit if it had been executed properly. Instead they decided that rather than execute these elements properly the elements were simply executed.



And the Mass Effect series isn't for everybody. If people don't like complexity and depth in a game, they shouldn't be playing RPGs in the first place... even RPG-Lite affairs like ME1. That's not a good reason to dumb the sequel down. The sequel should appeal to those who are fans of the original first and foremost. Especially when it's supposed to be a trilogy. And yes... I know that there will be people out there who say "but I liked ME1 and loved ME2 too!" and the like, but you can't avoid the fact that ME2 is a very different game and a lot was lost in the transition... even if you do think it was an improvement.

[Lumikki]

Traditional RPG characters skills affecting negative way to players own playing skills in TPS combat was BAD design. Hole combat in ME1 feeled like some simple middle age RPG, where players stand next to enemies and who does more damage and have better armor wins. In modern warfare combat it's more about range and cover, not about rushing gun blazing into battle and hope my armor and fire power is better than enemies.

Mass Effects are not just RPG's. You still keep thinking that Mass Effect serie is RPG. Get over it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 septembre 2010 - 10:32 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't think there's much that was removed from ME1 "with good reason" at all. Okay, there are things that didn't quite work as well as they could have, but that wasn't reason enough to eliminate them entirely. They should have been tweaked and fixed, not neutered and nixed. Pretty much everything in ME1 I feel could have worked and would have fit if it had been executed properly. Instead they decided that rather than execute these elements properly the elements were simply executed.

And the Mass Effect series isn't for everybody. If people don't like complexity and depth in a game, they shouldn't be playing RPGs in the first place... even RPG-Lite affairs like ME1. That's not a good reason to dumb the sequel down. The sequel should appeal to those who are fans of the original first and foremost. Especially when it's supposed to be a trilogy. And yes... I know that there will be people out there who say "but I liked ME1 and loved ME2 too!" and the like, but you can't avoid the fact that ME2 is a very different game and a lot was lost in the transition... even if you do think it was an improvement.

Even so, it's still better to do one thing right than it is to do a dozen things poorly. Sonic the Hedgehog knows that, bless his spiky heart.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Traditional RPG characters skills affecting negative way to players own playing skills in TPS combat was BAD design. Hole combat in ME1 feeled like some simple middle age RPG, where players stand next to enemies and who does more damage and have better armor wins. In modern warfare combat it's more about range and cover, not about rushing gun blazing into battle and hope my armor and fire power is better than enemies.

Mass Effects are not just RPG's. You still keep thinking that Mass Effect serie is RPG. Get over it.

Mass Effect is an RPG. It is classified as one and it was marketed as one. It was constantly referred to as one prior to release. It was an RPG with TPS-based combat. Always was, always will be.

ME2 on the other hand... not so much. It's still an RPG, but only just holds onto that title. Just because a game has guns in it doesn't make it a shooter. ME2 wasn't marketed as an RPG either... at least not as much. It wasn't really labelled at all, beyond BioWare constantly saying "it's as much a shooter now as it is an RPG" and the like. I'd personally argue that it's more of a shooter now than an RPG, but that's another matter.

Solaris Paradox wrote...

Even so, it's still better to do one thing right than it is to do a dozen things poorly. Sonic the Hedgehog knows that, bless his spiky heart.

Except that ME2 does far more poorly than ME1 ever did. ME1 has about half a dozen fairly major things that were executed poorly but conceptually sound. ME2 on the other hand has loads of little problems that are far more annoying, far weaker and just terrible ideas and concepts in the first place. ME2 doesn't really even do the shooting stuff that well really, not compared to the pure-class shooters out there. It simply gave up on the RPG stuff. And let's not forget there are action and shooter titles out there with more depth and customisation than ME2. BioWare took the easy answers and didn't solve the issues of the first game, instead going with oversimplification as their response to the criticism. Half the time they even missed the point of what was wrong with the things being criticised with the first game, which the absense of elevators and The Hammerhead prove marvellously. Almost every aspect of ME2 is flawed to some degree, while ME1 only had a few things that were flawed... they just happen to be fairly major things.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 septembre 2010 - 12:27 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 does far more poorly than ME1 ever did.

No.

I'm not going to justify that statement. I'm going to shake my fist at the Four-Room Warehouse and rest my case on that.

ME1 has about half a dozen fairly major things that were executed poorly but conceptually sound. ME2 on the other hand has loads of little problems that are far more annoying, far weaker and just terrible ideas and concepts in the first place.

Qualify that with an example, please. And if you bring up story elements, I'm going to slap you. No amount of plot-related fail can justify calling Mass Effect 2 worse than the game with all the big-time problems I listed in that other thread.

ME2 doesn't really even do the shooting stuff that well really, not compared to the pure-class shooters out there. It simply gave up on the RPG stuff. And let's not forget there are action and shooter titles out there with more depth and customisation than ME2. BioWare took the easy answers and didn't solve the issues of the first game, instead going with oversimplification as their response to the criticism. Half the time they even missed the point of what was wrong with the things being criticised with the first game, which the absense of elevators and The Hammerhead prove marvellously.

The elevators sucked. Stop acting like they didn't, because they did. Having to ride an elevator down to the damn quick-transit button just so I could sit through a load screen anyway was a pain in the ass and riding down one elevator just so I could ride down another to fight a few bad guys and then ride up an elevator to ride up the first one again (Noveria, I hope you freeze to death in your own snowstorm) was annoying. Period.

Almost every aspect of ME2 is flawed to some degree,

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. Explain.

while ME1 only had a few things that were flawed... they just happen to be fairly major things.

A few things. Like, you know, the entire smucking inventory system. Every single planet that wasn't a main story planet. The enemy AI. The squad AI. Eighty percent of the achievement list. The goddamn mutant eyelids. The craptacular film-grain and motion blur filters. The moon buggy's odd ability to send an enemy flying high enough to land on a mountaintop without actually damaging their health to a noticible degree on Insanity mode.

Frankly I'm amazed the game is as fun as it is despite all that crap.

[bjdbwea]

The elevators were great. The only flaw was that there were too many repeats of news and too little dialogue between companions. But that could easily have been improved, and it would have solved another problem in ME 2, namely that the companions are not interacting with each other.

Apart from that, like almost all things that "annoy" the shooter fans because it "wastes their time" with things other than shooting stuff, the elevators added to the atmosphere and immersion. Besides, now there are loading screens too, that take almost as long. Just that they are boring and repetitive simple animations.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Lumikki wrote...

Traditional RPG characters skills affecting negative way to players own playing skills in TPS combat was BAD design. Hole combat in ME1 feeled like some simple middle age RPG, where players stand next to enemies and who does more damage and have better armor wins. In modern warfare combat it's more about range and cover, not about rushing gun blazing into battle and hope my armor and fire power is better than enemies.

Mass Effects are not just RPG's. You still keep thinking that Mass Effect serie is RPG. Get over it.

You know, for a combat system that is apparently riddled with poor tactical interface and a sluggish control, there are remarkably similar except it their versatility and complexity. I played a Vanguard in both and my style of combat revolved around taking cover and returning fire whenever I am provided an opportunity. In Mass Effect I had a pool of abilities to use such as Singularity, Throw, Lift, Shield Boost, Barrier and Carnage to rip everything to pieces. In Mass Effect 2, I have Barrier and Charge to rely upon almost exclusively, with the occasional usage of Cyro ammo. Combat is more fast pace however it is not this immense difference akin to night and day as some of you have attempted to insinuate.

ME, you were ungodly overpowered following 25-30 and up however it allowed you to break cover and once you acquired the Colossus armor and Spectre weapnry, it was laughable. In ME2, you are essentially playing a glorified variation of whack-a-mole to some degree. The cover system is decent due to remedying the overpowered qulam of its predecessor, it is still not a radical difference. Instead of tossing on a Barrier, throwing a Singularity and going to town with my trusty Shotgun, I ... toss on a Barrier, fire cover, Charge when possible, back track to cover or set up Charge again, raise and repeat. Barrier became nigh obsolete in ME, not so in ME2. Personally I miss using my Shotgun exclusively, although I understand the reason to balance.

Finally, Mass Effect was designed as a RPG, it is and will always remain a RPG and I am confident of this. In my surfing of other forums, Bioware has been cited as intending to better implement RPG back into the game. If this is true, they have accepted your criticism as constructive and at appeasing the fans, which should be the primary objective. Why is it, whenever Terror K states her opinion of what should have been rectified verse removed, you are quick to inform her it is only her opinion and not what everyone wants ? It is a hypocritical position to take because in actuality you are no different than she is, except you fancy ME2's decision to remove what you deemed failed experiments, whereas she believes it should be fixed. You want something your way, she wants something her way. Two sides to the same coin.

[Whatever42]

bjdbwea wrote...

And stop complaining about loading screens anyway, it's just because the game has to run on consoles that there are so many loading sequences in the first place. It wouldn't be necessary on PCs.

In ME2 on my PC, I just swap out the loading animations with a brief 2 second one and my loads are practically instant. 

But to other points (unrelated to the quoted post above)...

I confess I cannot fathom the whole "a crappy inventory system is better than no inventory system" argument. A crappy inventory distracts from what is good in the game while no inventory system just allows you to enjoy what is there.

I can only assume one of two things:

1) this could the typical "anything different is bad" reaction that you get with any change. There were very vocal groups of people who hated season 2 BSG, Aliens, Oblivion, etc. simply because it wasn't the same as the previous season/movie/game. Everything about the new show/movie/game sucked. 

2) Some people are really obsessive about inventory. They love inventory. They love to sit around for hours re-arranging their inventory. WoW is filled with thousands of these people. Of course, in WoW, you sometimes collect gear for a dozen specs/situations (I kid you not) and then you have all your alts and guildies you need to equip and help out. Maybe they want the same mini-game in every RPG, even if it does suck.

I don't think this is #2. Because its complaining about absolutely everything, not just one or two things per person. They hate practically everything. They sound just like the people on the BSG forum. Or the Chuck forum. Or the Bethesda forums. They don't like the new because they wanted more of the old. At first they just try to understand and rationalize their dislike. Then they stick around to convince everyone else that they're right and that the next installment should be just like the first.

Then people like me argue with them because we're afraid that it will go back to being like the first (even though there is zero chance here) and we repeat ourselves a few dozen times. And then, hopefully, we all get bored and go do something else. 

It's the cycle of... something.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[bjdbwea]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

In ME2 on my PC, I just swap out the loading animations with a brief 2 second one and my loads are practically instant. 

I know that, but it still breaks the immersion if I can't see my player character actually go from A to B.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I confess I cannot fathom the whole "a crappy inventory system is better than no inventory system" argument. A crappy inventory distracts from what is good in the game while no inventory system just allows you to enjoy what is there.

Perhaps, but that's not the point. By the way, the inventory system in ME 1 isn't nearly as bad as some people claim. But that's not the point either. The point is: The flaws were known and could easily have been fixed. There was never any reason to remove the feature completely.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[Lumikki]

I do it mostly because some people thinks that Mass Effect is and should be ONLY RPG. When if you look Mass Effects combat side, it is not RPG, but TPS. TPS means players skill, not character skill. If game developers would wanted to have character skill based combat, then why have they made it in TPS. When they allready has character based combat system, like in DAO.

Get it. Mass Effect isn't just RPG, it has non-RPG elements. If developers would wanted Mass Effect to be RPG, then after ME1 they would NEVER made ME2 with the combat system they made. They wanted non-RPG combat system, what worked. Look the games as what they are and what kind of style they present. Not what you want it to be. Mass Effect still has some RPG in it, but not in combat side.

Do, you people really think that direction where the combat system did go, just happen by accident? It is what developers wanted for this game serie. It is player skill based combat, not character skill like in DAO (rpg).

Zeschuk conceded, "Dragon Age is, in the structural sense, a fundamentally different game than Mass Effect"

* BioWare VP Greg Zeschuk

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:51 .