10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan312]

iakus wrote...

Actually, the fleet was losing to Sovereign.  About halfway through the fight, Soverein starts to detach and is blowing apart cruisers with its cannons.  The fleet actually wants to pull back, but Hackett orderes them to keep going.  It's their only shot at stopping Sovereign.

There are still debates as to whether destroying Sovereign/Saren is what ultimately destroyed Sovereign or not.

Like I said, maybe it's my choice of character, but I always found Saren to be a reasonable challenge.  Not like the "Go for the eyes" Termireaper.

CyboSaren was annoying to fight, not really hard, at least to me.  He was just a more twitchy fight than anything else in ME1, ME2 brought that back with the Specter in LotSB. But ya, the mutant cyborg hybrid terminator fetus reaper was beyond ridiculous and is the moment in ME2 when I truly feared for the final installment.. If they were willing to throw all atmosphere out the window for a huge robot made of human SPAM that you can kill with pistol fire then what else are they willing to throw to the side.

Modifié par Revan312, 22 septembre 2010 - 09:44 .

[Il Divo]

[quote]iakus wrote...

True enough, loot isn't everything.  But in ME 2's case we get little/no loot, characters that develop almost exclusively in missions centered on them,  and  worlds that are composed mainly of corridors full of people shooting at you. [/quote]

And said missions did far more at developing the characters than most I've seen in previous Bioware games. I also think that we're not giving the conversations themselves enough credit here. Thane describing how he met his wife, Mordin on the Genophage, etc, there was more than enough character development for my tastes even through conversation, especially considering how people actually interact during conversations now. Personally I'll take 3 interactive conversations with Thane where he has facial expressions over 5 non-interactive conversations with Ashley where we stand in the exact same spot where only our heads move.

Loot in my opinion is not a big deal. When I hear complaints about the loot (or lack), I immediately think of WoW and how the entire game is driven by the need to acquire purple epics (no offense intended to anyone who does enjoy collecting loot). It's not that I have a problem with it, but at times it feels like loot is the 'fallback' option when a developer is too lazy to create a more compelling reason for anyone to experience a story.

[quote]
Jade Empire's setting is different than Mass Effect.  JE is based on a mythological version of ancient China.  It isn't even trying to be "realistic".  It's essentially a fairy tale rpg. [/quote]

I'm confused. Am I to assume that because they are fantasy settings they should not be internally consistent? In Jade Empire, if I am cut by a sword, then I will bleed. If I jump, I fall back down. This does not change despite the fantasy setting we are shown. They remain internally consistent. If we can assume this is the case, then I can assume that armor likewise will prove functional and so characters fighting in their undies is out of place. 

[quote]
 KOTOR is based on a comic book version of the Star Wars universe.  Not that I found the armors particularly odd.  A little gaudy maybe.  The only thing that really got my head scratching was how easy it seemed to be to block a lightsaber. [/quote]

And even in the Star Wars universe, we are shown that characters wear armor (both Sith and Republic soldiers). Carth starts off wearing a shirt and Canderous/Mission both begin wearing sleeveless vests. Does this seem practical for personal combat? Probably not, yet we suspend our disbelief. We of course do have the option of giving these characters armor, but then one look at Carth wearing light combat armor and I put him right back in his orange shirt. Is this really any different than Jack fighting mercs shirtless?

[quote]
Mass Effect, the first one, at least, established that the laws of physics work more or less the same as in the real world, save for the existence of mass effect fields.  You wear armor in combat.  Said armor had all sorts of neat gizmos:  shield generators, medigel dispensers, hardsuit computers, and oh yeah, protection from the elements.  So it was ugly, yes, fixing that for ME 2 could have been one of the tweaks I mentioned.  But instead of Miranda and Jacob gong into battle wearing suits of Cerberus armor, they wear spandex (wear do they even keep the shield generators?  Nevermind, I don't wanna know)  And Jack apparantly believes tattoos are bulletproof. [/quote]

Actually, I would say that we have a mistaken proposition here with the bolded: who precisely wears armor in combat? Your squad mates are not in the military, should we assume that everyone (pirates, thieves, etc) handles their dealings wearing full plate armor? I would think not, especially given that most of Mass Effect 2 takes place in the lawless Terminus. Here I'd actually say every merc wearing armor is non-sensical, if anything. Jack ( an extremely individualistic personality) refusing to wear armor bothers me less in light of this.  

[quote]
Unique armors for squadmates=good.  "I'm so bad**** bullets fear me!"=silly

Even modified Cerberus armors for each squadmates would have been fine. [/quote]

Emphasis on 'unique'. Mass Effect does not incorporate 'unique' armors which is the problem. It feels like each armor was custom-skinned to Shepard (on whom they look relatively fine), but then simply reskinned onto Ashley/Kaidan (on whom the armors look relatively terrible). In this case, I prefer Bioware creating a custom appearance for each squad mate (Jack, Jacob, Thane) even if it is less realistic than if they had put them all in reskinned N7 armor. .

[quote]
I place a high emphasis on interaction.  Banter is an important part of it.  The entire point of ME 2 was to get twelve powerful beings of various specialties on your team.  These people are strongly individualistic, come from a variety of backgrounds, have a variety of motives, and they're all on the same ship for the same mission.  Yet almost nothing is done with this. [/quote]

And here, we have a great example of how Bioware could have made Mass Effect 2 better through banter. I wish I had constructive criticism on how they could have improved the squad personalities in Mass Effect. I can't think of much to say beyond that Mass Effect's cast felt boring in comparison to Mass Effect 2's or even previous Bioware games.

[quote]
Each character has a personal mission.  This is good, you get to see more of their background.  But it's not enough.  The third squadmate is practically a mute on these missions.  They don't interact on other missions, on other planets, or on the ship.  They do their mission, and have a personality there.  [/quote]

Well, I would say what you are describing in Mass Effect was hardly enough either. Once more, I received a grand total of two elevator conversations in Mass Effect accompanied by 3 rather bland/generic character missions. I prefer 12 dedicated in-depth loyalty missions overall to this approach.

I would also say there is a bit more interactions in Mass Effect 2 than most claim. Tali/Garrus on the Citadel, your squadmates on the Collector Ship mission, etc, the interaction is there.

[quote]
Afterwards they thank you fo rit (and yes the moving around while talking is nice) then they go back to being robots, standing around, or following oyu, not speaking or interacting.  As far as their concerned, Shepard is the entirety of their existence.  As Terror_K put it a while ago, it's all very insular. [/quote]

And I'd say your underlined is still an understatement. Calling the character interactions 'nice' is the rough equivalent of saying that Kotor featuring fully voiced npcs was 'nice'. Here we have the full potential to move a genre forward. Shepard and company are not blocks. In conversations, people do not remain motionless. They are not stiffs. They stand up, sit down, move around, etc, express their emotions in a million different ways, some extremely subtle, others less so. Mass Effect however still operates under the philosophy that every thought or emotion a character has can only be expressed into words. Mass Effect 2 is moving away from this into a more interactive world.

[quote]
FOr a game which the focus is the characters, rather than the Big Bad, you need more character development, not less.  Given the story, even ME 1's limited banter would have been enough.  you'd need someting more like the BG games, Kotor 1 or 2, or ideally, Dragon Age [/quote]

So if this is the case, would you argue that elevator conversations developed the Mass Effect cast more than each individual loyalty mission developed the Mass Effect 2 cast? I would heavily disagree on this, especially given how obscure it can be at times to come across an elevator conversation.

[quote]

I see little that needed to be chopped off.  Certainly not Character personalities and protective gear, even as a skin. [/quote]

I dunno. Imo, character personalities were already chopped off with ME so if anything Mass Effect 2 would be 'reparing the base, rather than removing it.

[quote]
Here we go again with the walls of text debates [/quote]

They'll get progressively longer, I have no doubt.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 septembre 2010 - 10:09 .

[Terror_K]

Jade Empire is based around martial arts. Martial artists don't generally wear armour for the most part, since the art of fighting is as much about dexterity and speed as anything else, and armour kind of hampers that.



The main issue with ME2's (lack of armour) isn't the combat issues (which are also very much present though) so much as the terrible unrealism when it comes to your squaddies running around in dangerous environments protected only by a breathing mask. In the first ME the game always made sure everybody was completely covered and sealed in these situations. ME2 just doesn't seem to care about it at all, and it makes what came across as a fairly serious and semi-realistic universe suddenly a moronic farce, throwing almost all credibility out the window.



Regarding squaddies and conversations, the ME2 ones are nice, but to limit it all to the ship comes across as rather lacking. These are your squaddies, the ones who you're taking with you into combat. They shouldn't just be silent 90% of the time when you're out there and only really speak and open up on the ship. It also makes gameplay unbalanced, meaning you have about half an hour of nothing put pure talking on The Normandy and then almost nothing but shooting for an hour or so on a mission, where your squaddies are nothing but cannon fodder and pawns you direct. They don't feel like real people when they're blocks of stone almost everywhere else beyond The Normandy's hull.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

And said missions did far more at developing the characters than most I've seen in previous Bioware games. I also think that we're not giving the conversations themselves enough credit here. Thane describing how he met his wife, Mordin on the Genophage, etc, there was more than enough character development for my tastes even through conversation, especially considering how people actually interact during conversations now. Personally I'll take 3 interactive conversations with Thane where he has facial expressions over 5 non-interactive conversations with Ashley where we stand in the exact same spot where only our heads move. [/quote]

How about if Thane actually had something to say about other missions?  Wouldn't it be nice if he commented on Samara's quest to kill Morinth?  Gerrus' feelings of vengence against Sidonis?  Jacob's search for his father?

Maybe Garrus and Tali should acknowledge Liara's existence.

Shouldn't Jack feel uncomfortable hanging out With Captain Bailey in C-Sec?  Or the Illium police station?

Shouldn't Samara have something to say to Zaed about torching a refinery full of workers?  Or about Jack being on the team at all?

There's a frakking geth in the AI core, and not even Tali seems to mind until you do both her and Legion's personal missions.  No one else notices or cares at all.  And just a point of interst:  Jacob was on Eden Prime.  He should really have more to say than "Tali's gonna freak"  particularly since, no, she doesn't.

I'd take motionless conversatoins any day if it meant I got to see this stuff.

The dossiers in LOTSB give more personality to the squadmates outside their personal missions than the entirety of teh main game.  No voice acting.  No cinematics.  Nothing.  I find that incredibly sad.

[/quote]
Loot in my opinion is not a big deal. When I hear complaints about the loot (or lack), I immediately think of WoW and how the entire game is driven by the need to acquire purple epics (no offense intended to anyone who does enjoy collecting loot). It's not that I have a problem with it, but at times it feels like loot is the 'fallback' option when a developer is too lazy to create a more compelling reason for anyone to experience a story. [/quote]

I think of loot as another means of customizing your character.  I like it when I can get it, but it's not a gamebreaker for me.

[quote]
Jade Empire's setting is different than Mass Effect.  JE is based on a mythological version of ancient China.  It isn't even trying to be "realistic".  It's essentially a fairy tale rpg. [/quote]

I'm confused. Am I to assume that because they are fantasy settings they should not be internally consistent? In Jade Empire, if I am cut by a sword, then I will bleed. If I jump, I fall back down. This does not change despite the fantasy setting we are shown. They remain internally consistent. If we can assume this is the case, then I can assume that armor likewise will prove functional and so characters fighting in their undies is out of place. [/quote]

I'm saying that they operate (or operated, at this point) on different rules.  In one setting, you're in a mythical world where you are trianed to use chi to heal your wounds, focus to create "bullet time" and to fight without armor.  In another, we saw marines wearing armor to protect themselves from enemy fire, vacuum, and toxic enviroments.  If halfway through Jade Empire.  Those are the rules that were established.  If Sir Roderick presented teh character with a breastplate, we might have seen if it had provided protection.  But he didn't.  Mass Effect 2 did break the Mass Effect rules, and chose to go with something more like Jade Empire's.


[quote]
 KOTOR is based on a comic book version of the Star Wars universe.  Not that I found the armors particularly odd.  A little gaudy maybe.  The only thing that really got my head scratching was how easy it seemed to be to block a lightsaber. [/quote]

And even in the Star Wars universe, we are shown that characters wear armor (both Sith and Republic soldiers). Carth starts off wearing a shirt and Canderous/Mission both begin wearing sleeveless vests. Does this seem practical for personal combat? Probably not, yet we suspend our disbelief. We of course do have the option of giving these characters armor, but then one look at Carth wearing light combat armor and I put him right back in his orange shirt. Is this really any different than Jack fighting mercs shirtless? [/quote]

Carth was gong incognito among the Taris citizens.  Mission was an urchin.  Canderous is the only one whom it made little sense to not wear armor from the beginning.  But yes, we let it go, because we're gonna deck all new characters out right away, because there will be combat. 

I'd say it is a difference, because in KOTOR you have armor which can protect Carth.  You simply choose not to wear it (which is perfectly cool).  Jack apparantly scares bullets.away because Shepard and Grunt appear totally decked out while Jack is dressed mainly in tattoo ink, yet is equally protected no matter what.

Different univeses, different rules.

[quote]
Mass Effect, the first one, at least, established that the laws of physics work more or less the same as in the real world, save for the existence of mass effect fields.  You wear armor in combat.  Said armor had all sorts of neat gizmos:  shield generators, medigel dispensers, hardsuit computers, and oh yeah, protection from the elements.  So it was ugly, yes, fixing that for ME 2 could have been one of the tweaks I mentioned.  But instead of Miranda and Jacob gong into battle wearing suits of Cerberus armor, they wear spandex (wear do they even keep the shield generators?  Nevermind, I don't wanna know)  And Jack apparantly believes tattoos are bulletproof. [/quote]

Actually, I would say that we have a mistaken proposition here with the bolded: who precisely wears armor in combat? Your squad mates are not in the military, should we assume that everyone (pirates, thieves, etc) handles their dealings wearing full plate armor? I would think not, especially given that most of Mass Effect 2 takes place in the lawless Terminus. Here I'd actually say every merc wearing armor is non-sensical, if anything. Jack ( an extremely individualistic personality) refusing to wear armor bothers me less in light of this.  [/quote]

Judging by the numerous mercs we fight in ME 2, yes, mercs wear armor.  Cerberus it appears makes their own armor.  Wrex wore armor in ME 1 as a merc.  Not necessarilly "full plate"  but some sort of protective body armor is not an unreasonable assumption when you are in a dangerous line of work where poeple may try to kill you on a regular basis.

Note I'm not saying a uniform.  That's different.  I'm saying personal protection.  Jack may be crazy, but not suicidal.  Nor is Miranda, Jacob, Samara, Thane (well, Thane may have a death wish)  I can easily see them getting different kinds of armor, then decorating them as a way to personalize them. Jack with garish colors and maybe blotting out a Cerberus logo.  Samara with asari holy symbols.  Thane with markings to represent each person he killed.  That sort of thing.

[quote]
Unique armors for squadmates=good.  "I'm so bad**** bullets fear me!"=silly

Even modified Cerberus armors for each squadmates would have been fine. [/quote]

Emphasis on 'unique'. Mass Effect does not incorporate 'unique' armors which is the problem. It feels like each armor was custom-skinned to Shepard (on whom they look relatively fine), but then simply reskinned onto Ashley/Kaidan (on whom the armors look relatively terrible). In this case, I prefer Bioware creating a custom appearance for each squad mate (Jack, Jacob, Thane) even if it is less realistic than if they had put them all in reskinned N7 armor. [/quote]

Each character has a unique outfit.  Could said outfits (appearances) not have been armor of some sort?  Grunt and Garrus wear armor, after all.

[quote]
And here, we have a great example of how Bioware could have made Mass Effect 2 better through banter. I wish I had constructive criticism on how they could have improved the squad personalities in Mass Effect. I can't think of much to say beyond that Mass Effect's cast felt boring in comparison to Mass Effect 2's or even previous Bioware games. [/quote]

You are right on that.  ME 1 was light on conversation.  But the emphasis on the game wasn't the squad.  It is in ME 2.  THe best description I can think of for ME 2's characters were they were "deep"  but not "broad"  In their own little areas, yes, they came alive.  Anywhere else, they were scenery.  At least in ME 1 I can count on them to voice an opinion from time to time.

[quote]
Well, I would say what you are describing in Mass Effect was hardly enough either. Once more, I received a grand total of two elevator conversations in Mass Effect accompanied by 3 rather bland/generic character missions. I prefer 12 dedicated in-depth loyalty missions overall to this approach. [/quote]

The game must really hate you.  I'm still finding conversations in the elevators.

12 personal missions is cool.  12 personal mission with mute third squadmate=cut corners.  3 mainline missions with mute squadmates= boring.  12 missions +squad banter= Dragon Age in space.

[quote]
I would also say there is a bit more interactions in Mass Effect 2 than most claim. Tali/Garrus on the Citadel, your squadmates on the Collector Ship mission, etc, the interaction is there. [/quote]

That's the only time I've been able to find two squad members talking.  That's the only one I've even heard of.  And it's mocking the elevator conversations.  THis doesn't bode well for ME 3

[quote]
Afterwards they thank you fo rit (and yes the moving around while talking is nice) then they go back to being robots, standing around, or following oyu, not speaking or interacting.  As far as their concerned, Shepard is the entirety of their existence.  As Terror_K put it a while ago, it's all very insular. [/quote]

And I'd say your underlined is still an understatement. Calling the character interactions 'nice' is the rough equivalent of saying that Kotor featuring fully voiced npcs was 'nice'. Here we have the full potential to move a genre forward. Shepard and company are not blocks. In conversations, people do not remain motionless. They are not stiffs. They stand up, sit down, move around, etc, express their emotions in a million different ways, some extremely subtle, others less so. Mass Effect however still operates under the philosophy that every thought or emotion a character has can only be expressed into words. Mass Effect 2 is moving away from this into a more interactive world. [/quote]

All this assumes that the characters are actually talking.  It doesn't matter how much they move around if you only get to chat with them three times over the course of the game.Sure it'll be three very realistic conversations, but I'd rather have ten chats I have to read than just three that have movement and voice. (all else being equal)

It's more than the quality of the talks it's the lack of connection that the characters have with their world.  With each other.  With the mission they're on.

[quote]
FOr a game which the focus is the characters, rather than the Big Bad, you need more character development, not less.  Given the story, even ME 1's limited banter would have been enough.  you'd need someting more like the BG games, Kotor 1 or 2, or ideally, Dragon Age [/quote]

So if this is the case, would you argue that elevator conversations developed the Mass Effect cast more than each individual loyalty mission developed the Mass Effect 2 cast? I would heavily disagree on this, especially given how obscure it can be at times to come across an elevator conversation. [/quote]

The elevator talks by themselves?  No.  Though it is nice to see those squadmates acknowledging each others presence.But the fact that a character may chime in with an observation on a side mission, will voice an opinion when you have to make a choice.  It's nice to have to tell Ashley there's nothing to worry about letting Wrex and Garrus on board.  I't nice to get extra dialog in the Benezia fight if you take Liara with you.  It's nice to click on a character and have them comment on their surroundings.

[quote]
I dunno. Imo, character personalities were already chopped off with ME so if anything Mass Effect 2 would be 'reparing the base, rather than removing it. [/quote]

Mass Effect giveth, and Mass Effect taketh away. 

[quote]

They'll get progressively longer, I have no doubt. [/quote]

Yup

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
That depends on the game.

More importantly, the player.
As our technology becomes crazier and crazier, so do our expectations. The 'immersive' quality of a game is always hard to pinpoint and define since it's as personal as a favorite color.

iakus wrote...
Shepard was meat.  Then Shepard was not-meat.  End of story.  That's not dark, that's depressing.

So yeah, you can understand why people are upset with Shepard as a whole, and from the get-go of ME1. The problem is that Bioware is attempting to have Shepard be the player's character as much as he is the game's. Thus, the railroading of the role-playing and of Shepard as a character.

I do, however, give credit to Bioware to actually try to make the 'reset' of the main character at least somewhat interesting and tangible. In all the Metroids you just "lose" your stuff for some reason, and in the Other M one of the main characters just doesn't want you to use them.

iakus wrote...
Omega was Chora's Den.  But bigger.  Yeah it really shows off how much improved the graphics are.  But it takes more than a bad neighborhood to make a game dark.

I really don't think you're giving it enough credit.

In the PS3 game Demon's Souls (I purchased it a few months ago and fell completely in love with it, I STRONGLY recommend it to any RPG fans), very rarely do you encounter a talking personality. The only 'codexes' or pieces of lore you find are the short descriptions of each area, and the small captions to each weapon. But From Software developed and created an incredibly lonely and foreboding atmosphere containing nothing but the areas themselves. They greatly depict a battle not being fought, but a battle that's already won - and the good guys lost.

To some, the layout and overall design of an area is negligible to the immersiveness of the game. To me, a well-designed area with a properly-developed atmosphere speaks just as loud as any NPC.

Also bear in mind when I said "darker" wasn't entirely the most appropriate word. It is definitely a bit more on the moody side especially compared to ME1, but not enough to warrant the label, I

iakus wrote...
There are still debates as to whether destroying Sovereign/Saren is what ultimately destroyed Sovereign or not.

And what of debates regarding Sovereign devoting his attention to Shepard? Because I felt none of that. The only thing he did to come close to being a threat to Shep was when he exploded and huge chunks of debris flew at him. I don't know if that was really planned out or not, though.

Epic777 wrote...
Out of cusoristy would you have preferred the ME series to be a straight RPG? While BG2 was harder than your average game it was not that challenging when you learn a few tricks such as overloading your stats.

Oh, definitely. The 'shooting' aspect in ME1 just felt incredibly forced. Even though I enjoy it a lot more in ME2, I've always been upset with Bioware attempting to develop shooting mechanics.

Ever tried Dawn of War 2? While the multiplayer component is pretty niche, the campaign mode is a huge blast to play with a friend. It showed the potential that Bioware could've catered to: A top-down and tactical cover-based RPG.

[MhorRioghain]

iakus wrote...


There's a frakking geth in the AI core...

Speaking of which...

Legion. A Geth. An AI. A species that are renowed as basically as capable of hacking into electronic systems as it is possible to be. Where do they store this Geth? THE AI CORE. 

There is no facepalm big enough, sometimes...

[MhorRioghain]

Pocketgb, IlDivo, Epic777, Whatever(random numbers) and co wrote...

We're pulling at straws, but straws are all we got.

[SithLordExarKun]

Embrosil wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...



And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Its the same? According to who? You? Oh hell no sir, your unbacked claims are not absolute facts, especially when i noticed the difference between the avenger and the vindicator in a single burst. 

You might as well cry to the military that theres no point in researching and developing new combat rifles when all rifles kill human beings in a single shot. Seriously, you just got demolished and annihilated with statistical data yet to still try to dismiss it and try to prove to the world that you are right and everyones wrong.

No, according to this thread http://social.biowar...1/index/4696232 Especially shotguns are nearly the same (I count only those in game, not DLC ones).

You're still wrong. So whats your point arguing like a broken record?

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
That depends on the game.[/quote]

More importantly, the player.
As our technology becomes crazier and crazier, so do our expectations. The 'immersive' quality of a game is always hard to pinpoint and define since it's as personal as a favorite color.[/quote]

Perhaps, but I hope that doesn't squeeze out more "traditional" aspects like story, charactarization, and worldbuilding.  When the ability to show a person pacing about during a conversation becomes more important than the actual discussion, what does that say about the story?

[quote]
[quote]iakus wrote...
Shepard was meat.  Then Shepard was not-meat.  End of story.  That's not dark, that's depressing.[/quote]

So yeah, you can understand why people are upset with Shepard as a whole, and from the get-go of ME1. The problem is that Bioware is attempting to have Shepard be the player's character as much as he is the game's. Thus, the railroading of the role-playing and of Shepard as a character.[/quote]

That's not it, exactly.  The problem is death is a Big Deal.  In virtually any genre.  Killing a main character off is huge.  Returning a said character from death, even near death, is a momentous occasion.  What Bioware did was cheapen the entire concept for a simple reset button.

If more was made of Shepard's death and ressurection, it it was explored more deeply, that would have meant something.  Conversations with the crew about death and what Project Lazarus was all about.  Side missions exploraing what exactly Cerberus did to revive you.  Conversations about what Shepard's death meant to those close to him.  Something.  Anything!  A TV movie even!  But no, we have to get the Shadow Broker DLC to even get someone you're not romancing to ask how you're doing.  That is depressing.  Not dark.

"You're not embracing life, you're fleeing death!  So you're caught in-between. Unable to go forward or backward. Your friends need what you can be when you're no longer afraid. When you know who you are and why you are and what you want... It's easy to find something worth dying for. Do you have anything worth living for?"

There's an example of a darker beginning.  From Babylon 5, dealing with Sheridan's impending death.


[quote]
I do, however, give credit to Bioware to actually try to make the 'reset' of the main character at least somewhat interesting and tangible. In all the Metroids you just "lose" your stuff for some reason, and in the Other M one of the main characters just doesn't want you to use them.[/quote]

You may see "intersting and tangible".  I see "heavy-handed and soap-opera-y"  I'm not even clear why a reset button was needed.  Yes gameplay changes a bit but I think we can handle a little "you're level 1 again.  Don't ask why"


[quote]iakus wrote...
Omega was Chora's Den.  But bigger.  Yeah it really shows off how much improved the graphics are.  But it takes more than a bad neighborhood to make a game dark.[/quote]

I really don't think you're giving it enough credit.

In the PS3 game Demon's Souls (I purchased it a few months ago and fell completely in love with it, I STRONGLY recommend it to any RPG fans), very rarely do you encounter a talking personality. The only 'codexes' or pieces of lore you find are the short descriptions of each area, and the small captions to each weapon. But From Software developed and created an incredibly lonely and foreboding atmosphere containing nothing but the areas themselves. They greatly depict a battle not being fought, but a battle that's already won - and the good guys lost.

To some, the layout and overall design of an area is negligible to the immersiveness of the game. To me, a well-designed area with a properly-developed atmosphere speaks just as loud as any NPC.

Also bear in mind when I said "darker" wasn't entirely the most appropriate word. It is definitely a bit more on the moody side especially compared to ME1, but not enough to warrant the label, I[/quote]

Well, I'm afraid I didn't see that level of immersiveness in ME 2 (and I don't have a PS3 so I can't comment on that other game)  Omega was essentially the Afterlife, a few shops. and a couple of pocket universes you enter when doing recruitment/loyalty missions that disappear immediately afterwards. Omega's portrayal was nice.  But cramped and limited.  Like much of the game.  It wasn't a world, it was a waystation.


[quote]iakus wrote...
There are still debates as to whether destroying Sovereign/Saren is what ultimately destroyed Sovereign or not.[/quote]

And what of debates regarding Sovereign devoting his attention to Shepard? Because I felt none of that. The only thing he did to come close to being a threat to Shep was when he exploded and huge chunks of debris flew at him. I don't know if that was really planned out or not, though.[/quote]

Well, I found him a reasonable challenge (not a shooter player, remember), and story-wise, he (they?) made for a much better enemy.  Shepard and Soveregin battling inside the Citadel whiel the ALliance and Sovereign fought outside.  Like Return of the Jedi with the Rebel Allliance assaulting the Death Star while Luke and Vader slugged it out in the Emperor's throne room.

And if Shepard really had been flattened at that moment of his greatest truimph, that would have been a great ending and an excellent lead-in to ME 2.  Particularly if it had ended with Shep's body disappearing...

But they still would have screwed it up,sweeping the whole "dead for two years" thing under the rug of course

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
 But no, we have to get the Shadow Broker DLC to even get someone you're not romancing to ask how you're doing.  That is depressing.  Not dark.

I only recall Liara asking "how are you" in ME1 when you *weren't* romancing her. There's little I can remember about when people actually show an ernest interest into Shepard's well-being.

iakus wrote...
Yes gameplay changes a bit but I think we can handle a little "you're level 1 again.  Don't ask why"

How sure are you of that?
I'm not disagreeing that I can deal with the "back to route 1 even though you were 60" approach, but would it fix the problem for everyone?

Essentially: If ME2 turned out to be what the majority of posters in this thread want it to be, would this thread ever exist? Or would it be the same thing with different posters?

iakus wrote...
Well, I'm afraid I didn't see that level of immersiveness in ME 2 (and I don't have a PS3 so I can't comment on that other game).

That's fine that you don't see it, you just have to understand that plenty of people place high emphasis on a well-constructed environment.

iakus wrote...
Well, I found him a reasonable challenge (not a shooter player, remember)...

You don't have to be a 'shootah playah' to be good at ME (if you're having trouble aiming just hold the 'pause' button and re-adjust your aim), you just have to know what's good to use. Run around a lot, get the best possible defensive power, and a decent weapon and you can rest your face on the keyboard for success.

(More or less the same thing with ME2, honestly. They just throw a curveball at you with the Collector ship.)



That's about all I was able to chip out of that quote war that didn't turn into a ping-pong match about our 'feelings'.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 septembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Regarding squaddies and conversations, the ME2 ones are nice, but to limit it all to the ship comes across as rather lacking. These are your squaddies, the ones who you're taking with you into combat. They shouldn't just be silent 90% of the time when you're out there and only really speak and open up on the ship. It also makes gameplay unbalanced, meaning you have about half an hour of nothing put pure talking on The Normandy and then almost nothing but shooting for an hour or so on a mission, where your squaddies are nothing but cannon fodder and pawns you direct. They don't feel like real people when they're blocks of stone almost everywhere else beyond The Normandy's hull.

a bit like me1 you mean? except of course there's more squadmates and more conversations in me2? because i don't count the odd random comment on the citadel "character development."

all of you me2 bashers act like pretty much everything wasn't the same in the first game - only worse, if anything - and pick selective things to try and justify your bull**** posts. i loved mass effect 1 as much as anyone, but i can't play it again after mass effect 2  -the relative primitiveness and restrictiveness of a lot of it is just too apparent.

you also might like to try considering the fact that a. nobody else makes games as ambitious as Bioware does with mass effect. and b. the current technology restrictions - especially on console - that prevent your magic "wish-lists" coming true, at present. you also might like to remember that whilst mass effect 1 was quite rightly lauded, mass effect 2 was even moreso.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 23 septembre 2010 - 08:07 .

[Jebel Krong]

iakus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

More importantly, the player.
As our technology becomes crazier and crazier, so do our expectations. The 'immersive' quality of a game is always hard to pinpoint and define since it's as personal as a favorite color.

Perhaps, but I hope that doesn't squeeze out more "traditional" aspects like story, charactarization, and worldbuilding. When the ability to show a person pacing about during a conversation becomes more important than the actual discussion, what does that say about the story?

and when did that happen, exactly? i'll come on to story in a minute, but characterisation and worldbuilding were better in the sequel by a long way - diversity and depth in both: more locations, more variety in said locations, better design of said locations with much more unique content, more characters, more character conversations, more unique characters, character-specific missions, need i go on?

iakus wrote...

That's not it, exactly. The problem is death is a Big Deal. In virtually any genre. Killing a main character off is huge. Returning a said character from death, even near death, is a momentous occasion. What Bioware did was cheapen the entire concept for a simple reset button.

If more was made of Shepard's death and ressurection, it it was explored more deeply, that would have meant something. Conversations with the crew about death and what Project Lazarus was all about. Side missions exploraing what exactly Cerberus did to revive you. Conversations about what Shepard's death meant to those close to him. Something. Anything! A TV movie even! But no, we have to get the Shadow Broker DLC to even get someone you're not romancing to ask how you're doing. That is depressing. Not dark.

except the game is not about shepard's death and resurrection (though that could have made a good part of it) but people already complain about soap-opera elements - yourself included in you last post. it is brought up a couple of times in conversations with several people, but not really explored (another victim of Bioware's "blank-slate" enforced policy for dealing with the multitude of shepards.

iakus wrote...

pocketgb wrote...
I do, however, give credit to Bioware to actually try to make the 'reset' of the main character at least somewhat interesting and tangible. In all the Metroids you just "lose" your stuff for some reason, and in the Other M one of the main characters just doesn't want you to use them.

You may see "intersting and tangible". I see "heavy-handed and soap-opera-y" I'm not even clear why a reset button was needed. Yes gameplay changes a bit but I think we can handle a little "you're level 1 again. Don't ask why"

so you complain about soap-opera things after requesting the same thing in the previous paragraph?

iakus wrote...
Omega was Chora's Den. But bigger. Yeah it really shows off how much improved the graphics are. But it takes more than a bad neighborhood to make a game dark.

pocketgb wrote...

I really don't think you're giving it enough credit.

To some, the layout and overall design of an area is negligible to the immersiveness of the game. To me, a well-designed area with a properly-developed atmosphere speaks just as loud as any NPC.

Also bear in mind when I said "darker" wasn't entirely the most appropriate word. It is definitely a bit more on the moody side especially compared to ME1, but not enough to warrant the label, I

Well, I'm afraid I didn't see that level of immersiveness in ME 2 (and I don't have a PS3 so I can't comment on that other game) Omega was essentially the Afterlife, a few shops. and a couple of pocket universes you enter when doing recruitment/loyalty missions that disappear immediately afterwards. Omega's portrayal was nice. But cramped and limited. Like much of the game. It wasn't a world, it was a waystation.

pocketgb is right once again - the design of an area can tell you as much as talking to any of it's inhabitants. once of mass effect 2's strengths is the depth and breadth of it's environments - variety alone it's individual worlds are amazing sights - you can't tell me that comparing the citadel to illium to tuchanka, to omega any are remotely similar, and all are leagues above feros/noveria/virmire and ilos. your first port of call in mass effect 2 is a striking example - getting off at Omega you are immediately confronted with the darker side of the universe - crime, stench and the criminal underworld - a marked contrast to the relatively pristine mainstay of me1 - the citadel.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 23 septembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Regarding squaddies and conversations, the ME2 ones are nice, but to limit it all to the ship comes across as rather lacking. These are your squaddies, the ones who you're taking with you into combat. They shouldn't just be silent 90% of the time when you're out there and only really speak and open up on the ship. It also makes gameplay unbalanced, meaning you have about half an hour of nothing put pure talking on The Normandy and then almost nothing but shooting for an hour or so on a mission, where your squaddies are nothing but cannon fodder and pawns you direct. They don't feel like real people when they're blocks of stone almost everywhere else beyond The Normandy's hull.

a bit like me1 you mean? except of course there's more squadmates and more conversations in me2? because i don't count the odd random comment on the citadel "character development."

all of you me2 bashers act like pretty much everything wasn't the same in the first game - only worse, if anything - and pick selective things to try and justify your bull**** posts. i loved mass effect 1 as much as anyone, but i can't play it again after mass effect 2  -the relative primitiveness and restrictiveness of a lot of it is just too apparent.

you also might like to try considering the fact that a. nobody else makes games as ambitious as Bioware does with mass effect. and b. the current technology restrictions - especially on console - that prevent your magic "wish-lists" coming true, at present. you also might like to remember that whilst mass effect 1 was quite rightly lauded, mass effect 2 was even moreso.

No... I seem to recall in ME1 that they'd talk to each other on elevators, weigh in more during major parts of the main quest and sometimes even comment during minor sidequests, on top of the observational dialogue we'd get on The Citadel. The problem with ME2 is that they're all so insular and live in their own little worlds, and the problem is almost everything is character development, which feels artificial and false. People complained that Tali was a walking codex in ME1, yet pretty much all the characters in ME2 are walking codexes on themselves and that's about it. As others have said before, Tali and Garrus don't even acknowledge each other, Tali says next to nothing about Legion being on the ship beyond an initial objection if (and only if) you take her with you. The banter in ME1 at least had characters interacting, and the Citadel and mission comments gave you a chance to see their thoughts on the same subjects and gave you an impression of their character through interpretation. In ME2 the only way you find out about thier characters is them talking about them selves and saying "I feel like this" and "I want this" and "My life is tragic because of X" etc.

Did ME1 have lots of banter, lots of squaddie moments and interaction and loads of stuff dedicated to them? No, not especially. But most people wanted more for ME2 and instead got less, or at least got it in less natural and meaningful ways. I love talking with my squaddies on The Normandy, it's one of my favourite parts of both games in fact. But while there may be more of this in ME2 and while it may have been admittedly even done better, that's almost all there was. ME1 had more moments where during key conversations with a major NPC you'd get a little input from squaddie A and B. Even moreso in sidequests. But if you really want to look at an example of how to do it well, look at Dragon Age: Origins. Now that was a game where it actually felt like your squadmates were more than just pawns to make your fights easier. I also like NWN2's little system where you can ask squaddies what they think of other squaddies, which would be nice to see in ME3.

And I've seen plenty of games that do these things we're after, some of them even from BioWare themselves (such as the examples I gave above, particularly DAO). It's not hard, and it isn't restricted by hardware, it just requires some effort and care on the part of the developer.

And how does your difficulty playing ME1 differ from my difficulty playing ME2?

[Jebel Krong]

MhorRioghain wrote...

iakus wrote...


There's a frakking geth in the AI core...

Speaking of which...

Legion. A Geth. An AI. A species that are renowed as basically as capable of hacking into electronic systems as it is possible to be. Where do they store this Geth? THE AI CORE. 

There is no facepalm big enough, sometimes...

seriously. please PLEASE actually find out what an AI is before posting retarded comments.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

No... I seem to recall in ME1 that they'd talk to each other on elevators, weigh in more during major parts of the main quest and sometimes even comment during minor sidequests, on top of the observational dialogue we'd get on The Citadel. The problem with ME2 is that they're all so insular and live in their own little worlds, and the problem is almost everything is character development, which feels artificial and false. People complained that Tali was a walking codex in ME1, yet pretty much all the characters in ME2 are walking codexes on themselves and that's about it. As others have said before, Tali and Garrus don't even acknowledge each other, Tali says next to nothing about Legion being on the ship beyond an initial objection if (and only if) you take her with you. The banter in ME1 at least had characters interacting, and the Citadel and mission comments gave you a chance to see their thoughts on the same subjects and gave you an impression of their character through interpretation. In ME2 the only way you find out about thier characters is them talking about them selves and saying "I feel like this" and "I want this" and "My life is tragic because of X" etc.

Did ME1 have lots of banter, lots of squaddie moments and interaction and loads of stuff dedicated to them? No, not especially. But most people wanted more for ME2 and instead got less, or at least got it in less natural and meaningful ways. I love talking with my squaddies on The Normandy, it's one of my favourite parts of both games in fact. But while there may be more of this in ME2 and while it may have been admittedly even done better, that's almost all there was. ME1 had more moments where during key conversations with a major NPC you'd get a little input from squaddie A and B. Even moreso in sidequests. But if you really want to look at an example of how to do it well, look at Dragon Age: Origins. Now that was a game where it actually felt like your squadmates were more than just pawns to make your fights easier. I also like NWN2's little system where you can ask squaddies what they think of other squaddies, which would be nice to see in ME3.

And I've seen plenty of games that do these things we're after, some of them even from BioWare themselves (such as the examples I gave above, particularly DAO). It's not hard, and it isn't restricted by hardware, it just requires some effort and care on the part of the developer.

And how does your difficulty playing ME1 differ from my difficulty playing ME2?

as i said - the odd comment on an elevator is not "character development." in mass effect 2 you got entire missions devoted to such, and confrontations on the normandy as well as just much interaction from party members during cut-scenes (in fact probably more). sure you actually had to go to a specific point on worlds to get the random comments, but that came of having a much-expanded cast, and - as i said - is not character development at all. btw garrus does talk to tali about me1 on the citadel btw.

all tali was in me1 was be a codex. none of her conversations were about anything else - at least in me2 you get more about her (even if she's still annoying) and a specific mission that involves her people - if that material isn't leagues better, i don't know what is. the specific interactions in places by having legion, particularly, was also nicely done - although the logic flaws bely why they tried to minimise the chances of it happening. you could argue that legion, even is codex-alike in me2, however being so different (and well-thought-out) as different as the geth ai is, i found all of his conversations very interesting.

dev resources will always be restricted - focusing on one thing will always cost in something else - would you sacrifice character material for a better inventory system - i'd say certainly not, you - i don't think so, because you define your gaming experiences by things you can tick off in little boxes that fulfil rpg "criteria."

[Embrosil]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...



And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Its the same? According to who? You? Oh hell no sir, your unbacked claims are not absolute facts, especially when i noticed the difference between the avenger and the vindicator in a single burst. 

You might as well cry to the military that theres no point in researching and developing new combat rifles when all rifles kill human beings in a single shot. Seriously, you just got demolished and annihilated with statistical data yet to still try to dismiss it and try to prove to the world that you are right and everyones wrong.

No, according to this thread http://social.biowar...1/index/4696232 Especially shotguns are nearly the same (I count only those in game, not DLC ones).

You're still wrong. So whats your point arguing like a broken record?

Wrong? You have two shotguns that destroy armor in the same time, but I am wrong? What is you point telling me I am wrong without any proof?

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

as i said - the odd comment on an elevator is not "character development." in mass effect 2 you got entire missions devoted to such, and confrontations on the normandy as well as just much interaction from party members during cut-scenes (in fact probably more). sure you actually had to go to a specific point on worlds to get the random comments, but that came of having a much-expanded cast, and - as i said - is not character development at all. btw garrus does talk to tali about me1 on the citadel btw.

And as I said, the problem with ME2 was that it was almost all character development. You never got to see the characters just acting natural and talking about irrelevant things. It was all "me, me, me" all the time, and that's not natural. Character development is good, but you need to see more than just one side of a character. Again, they're all completely insular, living in their own little bubbles and barely peeking out. Miranda and Mordin are also the only ones who even seem to relate to the main plot at all, which doesn't help matters. ME2 didn't need much more, but it did need some. I liked what was there, but it --like much of ME2-- felt overall like a step back, despite the steps forward that were taken as well.

dev resources will always be restricted - focusing on one thing will always cost in something else - would you sacrifice character material for a better inventory system - i'd say certainly not, you - i don't think so, because you define your gaming experiences by things you can tick off in little boxes that fulfil rpg "criteria."

And yet they had plenty of time to add essentially superfluous stuff like collecting little trinkets for your Normandy, customising your armour's look, dozens of holographic ads on The Citadel, Legion doing "the robot" and Joker making dozens of off-hand remarks if you stand in the cockpit for long enough, etc.

Now, I love all these things that I've listed above. But in the grand scheme of things, they're essentially fluff when you get down to it, and there are more important things that could have been focused on with ME2 than this stuff. Which is why I've always felt that ME2 has a very schizophrenic feel to it: so much feels underpolished and lacking in detail and integration, while other parts that don't really matter shine like trophies under a disco ball.

And I define my gaming experiences by the things I enjoy and expect from a game. ME1 satisfied me not always because of what it did, but what it was trying to do. ME2 didn't because of the expectations raised by its predecessor, and the fact that it tried to be something else I feel it shouldn't have been. I've played games with less depth than ME2 that I've enjoyed more because they met the potential and expectations that were set before them. ME2 fell way short of it by not only being less than its predecessor, but not even trying to be more, and by taking the easy way out and abandoning many aspects that I enjoyed. Not just RPG stuff either, but as a whole. I wouldn't call planet exploration an RPG aspect for instance, but it was something that very much fit in with the style of the game and its sci-fi nature. And now it's gone, and all The Hammerhead does is prove that BioWare missed the whole point.

[PD ORTA]

Embrosil wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...



And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Its the same? According to who? You? Oh hell no sir, your unbacked claims are not absolute facts, especially when i noticed the difference between the avenger and the vindicator in a single burst. 

You might as well cry to the military that theres no point in researching and developing new combat rifles when all rifles kill human beings in a single shot. Seriously, you just got demolished and annihilated with statistical data yet to still try to dismiss it and try to prove to the world that you are right and everyones wrong.

No, according to this thread http://social.biowar...1/index/4696232 Especially shotguns are nearly the same (I count only those in game, not DLC ones).

You're still wrong. So whats your point arguing like a broken record?

Wrong? You have two shotguns that destroy armor in the same time, but I am wrong? What is you point telling me I am wrong without any proof?

You are wrong. I'm assuming you're compairing the GPS and the Eviscerator. What you're missing is the diference between the two against shields and barrier as well as optimum range.

[Embrosil]

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...



And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Its the same? According to who? You? Oh hell no sir, your unbacked claims are not absolute facts, especially when i noticed the difference between the avenger and the vindicator in a single burst. 

You might as well cry to the military that theres no point in researching and developing new combat rifles when all rifles kill human beings in a single shot. Seriously, you just got demolished and annihilated with statistical data yet to still try to dismiss it and try to prove to the world that you are right and everyones wrong.

No, according to this thread http://social.biowar...1/index/4696232 Especially shotguns are nearly the same (I count only those in game, not DLC ones).

You're still wrong. So whats your point arguing like a broken record?

Wrong? You have two shotguns that destroy armor in the same time, but I am wrong? What is you point telling me I am wrong without any proof?

You are wrong. I'm assuming you're compairing the GPS and the Eviscerator. What you're missing is the diference between the two against shields and barrier as well as optimum range.

Nope, I am comparing only non-DLC weapons. Katana and Scimitar.
Nearly the same values and Katana is even slightly better according to
this.

[MhorRioghain]

Jebel Krong wrote...

MhorRioghain wrote...

iakus wrote...


There's a frakking geth in the AI core...

Speaking of which...

Legion. A Geth. An AI. A species that are renowed as basically as capable of hacking into electronic systems as it is possible to be. Where do they store this Geth? THE AI CORE. 

There is no facepalm big enough, sometimes...

seriously. please PLEASE actually find out what an AI is before posting retarded comments.

Your moronic one line statement without exposition is retarded in and of itself along with all you other asinine comments. Why don't YOU explain to me what an AI is since you seem so butthurt about it Mr. Alan Turing.

Modifié par MhorRioghain, 23 septembre 2010 - 01:58 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
 But no, we have to get the Shadow Broker DLC to even get someone you're not romancing to ask how you're doing.  That is depressing.  Not dark.[/quote]

I only recall Liara asking "how are you" in ME1 when you *weren't* romancing her. There's little I can remember about when people actually show an ernest interest into Shepard's well-being.[/quote]

Shepard didn't spend two years dead and return via mysterious-but-expensive technology in ME 1.  I would have thought Shepard in ME 2 would have elicited a few more questions and comments concerning his health or state of mind.  Or what he might have seen while dead.  Or questions about what could have brought him back from the dead (not that Shep could really answer)

[quote]iakus wrote...
Yes gameplay changes a bit but I think we can handle a little "you're level 1 again.  Don't ask why"[/quote]

How sure are you of that?
I'm not disagreeing that I can deal with the "back to route 1 even though you were 60" approach, but would it fix the problem for everyone?

Essentially: If ME2 turned out to be what the majority of posters in this thread want it to be, would this thread ever exist? Or would it be the same thing with different posters?
[/quote]

Given they went the player-skill route rather than weapon-skill.  Yes, I think most people would have been content.  Alternatively, something that wasn't as cheesy as killing Shepard could have been worked out: 

As to "would this have thread never have existed?"  Well, my DeLorean is in the shop right now, but my own personal speculation would be:  There would have been a thread here regardless.  In all probability, though, it would have been a lot smaller.  If for no other reason than I would not be here debating the game


[quote]iakus wrote...
Well, I found him a reasonable challenge (not a shooter player, remember)...[/quote]

You don't have to be a 'shootah playah' to be good at ME (if you're having trouble aiming just hold the 'pause' button and re-adjust your aim), you just have to know what's good to use. Run around a lot, get the best possible defensive power, and a decent weapon and you can rest your face on the keyboard for success.

(More or less the same thing with ME2, honestly. They just throw a curveball at you with the Collector ship.)[/quote]

Maybe that's why i don't get people who compain that ME 1 is too easy due to "Immunity spam"  I rarely took immunity.  Tthere were so many more interesting powers to work on.

[Iakus]

[quote]Jebel Krong wrote...

Perhaps, but I hope that doesn't squeeze out more "traditional" aspects like story, charactarization, and worldbuilding. When the ability to show a person pacing about during a conversation becomes more important than the actual discussion, what does that say about the story?[/quote]

and when did that happen, exactly? i'll come on to story in a minute, but characterisation and worldbuilding were better in the sequel by a long way - diversity and depth in both: more locations, more variety in said locations, better design of said locations with much more unique content, more characters, more character conversations, more unique characters, character-specific missions, need i go on?[/quote]

I'm talking about the limited way the squadmates interact with their world or each other.  Yes when they talk with Shepard it's cool how they pace around, sit stand, pour a drink, whatever.  But how many conversations do you get?  How often do they chime in  when doing a side mission?  How much chatting do they do during an N7 mission?  Do they argue over your choices in the game?  Do they talk to each other?

Does Thane agree with Garrus about killing Sidonis?  Does Samara?  Jack?  Legion?  Does Miranda think you should keep the genophage research?  Does Zaed?  Tali?  Which squadmates spoke in favor or arresting Jacobs's father?  Which thought he should die?  Who thought he should be abandoned to his fate?

There may be more lines of dialogue in ME 2 than ME 1, but there's a lot less talking, if that makes any sense.

Locations did have more variety.  They were prettier.  But while that may make them "deep"  they sure weren't very "wide"  They were mostly composed of cramped corridors, shopping malls, and immediate regions around the shuttle.  Little room to actually go aobut and see this magnificent backdrop.  And so it loses a lot of its impressiveness with me.

That is what I mean when I say:
When the ability to show a person pacing about during a conversation becomes more important than the actual discussion, what does that say about the story?

It seems to matter less that the characters actually interact with the world than they look good while interacting with Shepard.

[quote]iakus wrote...

That's not it, exactly. The problem is death is a Big Deal. In virtually any genre. Killing a main character off is huge. Returning a said character from death, even near death, is a momentous occasion. What Bioware did was cheapen the entire concept for a simple reset button.

If more was made of Shepard's death and ressurection, it it was explored more deeply, that would have meant something. Conversations with the crew about death and what Project Lazarus was all about. Side missions exploraing what exactly Cerberus did to revive you. Conversations about what Shepard's death meant to those close to him. Something. Anything! A TV movie even! But no, we have to get the Shadow Broker DLC to even get someone you're not romancing to ask how you're doing. That is depressing. Not dark.[/quote]

except the game is not about shepard's death and resurrection (though that could have made a good part of it) but people already complain about soap-opera elements - yourself included in you last post. it is brought up a couple of times in conversations with several people, but not really explored (another victim of Bioware's "blank-slate" enforced policy for dealing with the multitude of shepards.[/quote]

Thus what I mean when I say killing Shepard was a very bad idea.  Shepard dies in the very beginning.  And two years later is ressurected.  Yet that's not what the story is about?  That is a story right there!  That all by itself could have been Mass Effect.  And it's swept away like it was nothing!  Shep may as well have been on a two year cruise in unexplored space for all that people react to him.

If Bioware (or any other company) is gonna introduce such a major theme into a game, they'd better be willing and able to run with it.

[quote]iakus wrote...
[You may see "intersting and tangible". I see "heavy-handed and soap-opera-y" I'm not even clear why a reset button was needed. Yes gameplay changes a bit but I think we can handle a little "you're level 1 again. Don't ask why"[/quote]


so you complain about soap-opera things after requesting the same thing in the previous paragraph?[/quote]

I request that if Bioware is going to introduce death/ressurection into the game, that they actually take the time to explore it, it's method, it's effects, and its consequences.  Best case scenerio:  they never go that route to begin with.  Failing that, incorporate it into a story that actually treats it with the gravitas it deserves.  Minimize the damage.

[quote]

 nice. But cramped and limited. Like much of the game. It wasn't a world, it was a waystation. [/quote]

pocketgb is right once again - the design of an area can tell you as much as talking to any of it's inhabitants. once of mass effect 2's strengths is the depth and breadth of it's environments - variety alone it's individual worlds are amazing sights - you can't tell me that comparing the citadel to illium to tuchanka, to omega any are remotely similar, and all are leagues above feros/noveria/virmire and ilos. your first port of call in mass effect 2 is a striking example - getting off at Omega you are immediately confronted with the darker side of the universe - crime, stench and the criminal underworld - a marked contrast to the relatively pristine mainstay of me1 - the citadel.[/quote]


Citadel:  Shopping mall
Illium:  Shopping mall
Omega:  Seedy shopping mall
Tuchanka:  Bombed-out shopping mall

Better graphically than ME 1, no question.  But you're so hemmed in in those places that I can't appreciate them as worlds.  The few non-shopping mall places you can go are one-way trips and people are shooting at you the whole time so you can't really take it in.

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
Shepard didn't spend two years dead and return via mysterious-but-expensive technology in ME 1.

If people didn't care about me before, I don't think they'd care so much if I died. Or maybe they did care that you died and no longer care knowing that you're alive, who knows!

Regardless, people not caring is one of the more consistent 'features' transitioning from ME1 to 2.

iakus wrote...
In all probability, though, it would have been a lot smaller.

Everyone I ask that's disappointed with ME2 says the same thing. But I don't get the same answer from someone who liked it.

It comes down to the point that Bioware will not be able to please everyone. Nintendo's been doing that for years and just look at how avid their fans can get. "Link's too cartoony!" "Link's not cartoony enough!" "This Mario game's just a rehash!" "This Mario game strays too far from the original formula!"

Here's another great example:

iakus wrote...
Better graphically than ME 1, no question.  But you're so hemmed in in those places that I can't appreciate them as worlds.

And how many complaints were there of the Citadel being a huge, unnavigatable mess?

iakus wrote...
Maybe that's why i don't get people who compain that ME 1 is too easy due to "Immunity spam"  I rarely took immunity.  Tthere were so many more interesting powers to work on.

And thus why you gimped yourself: The game was challenging for you by choice, not by design.

People complain about OP skills in general because they judge the overall difficulty of the game based on using the best abilities. If for them it's still challenging while being given the 'best of the best' then they're pleased. Otherwise they feel they have to resort to 'gimping' themselves for challenge.

Terror_K wrote...
And yet they had plenty of time to add
essentially superfluous stuff like collecting little trinkets for your
Normandy, customising your armour's look, dozens of holographic ads on
The Citadel, Legion doing "the robot" and Joker making dozens of
off-hand remarks if you stand in the cockpit for long enough,
etc.

I've considered the combat in ME1 to be the most superfluous of all.


No one listens to me, though :_(

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 septembre 2010 - 04:18 .

[Chris Priestly]

Ok, now too full of spoilers to continue.

Thank you for your opinions. Hopefully you'll enjoy what the Mass Effect team comes up with next.


LOCKDOWN!