uberdowzen wrote...
Terror_K wrote...
That's not the only reason I (and many others) feel ME1 was better though.
Is the other reason less dialogue? Because I'm playing ME1 right now, and there isn't any less (I think overall there's actually slightly more companion dialogue.
It's a whole bunch of things. Overall one of my main beefs is that its a game that seems to do its damndest to hide its RPG nature at every turn, which in turn accounts for many problems. The overall style and feel of the game and the direction the team took with it and what they seemed to want to do with it overall probably best sums up my problems with it, because it encompasses a lot of them. I've specified these things so many times that I'd rather not repeat myself again and again and again if I can help it.
I'd actually be willing to go with ME2 being a worse RPG (statistics and "crunchy" stuff wise) if you admit that it's a better game than ME1.
Edit: I do actually have to add a caveat. I would be willing to say that it is a better RPG, but you, on top of having to say that ME2 is a better game, have to admit that it is still an RPG, not a shooter.
I can't really do that myself, though why you should need
me to admit to something for you to agree or form an opinion on it yourself is beyond me.
I'll admit it does a better job at being a shooter than ME1 did, and that it has snappier combat overall. I'll admit that ME2 still
is an RPG too, even if only just. An unsatisfactory one personally, but an RPG nonetheless. I've said for a while now that one can either view ME2 as one of the deepest shooters or one of the shallowest RPGs, and how much one enjoys it may depend on which genre they prefer. But its really hard for me to say that ME2 is a better game... though take in mind that that also means that it's not entirely that easy to say that ME1 is the better game either.
The thing is, both games have issues to me, but they're both rather different ones. To me, ME1 is a flawed game, but its filled with good concepts and the flaws mostly come from understandable mistakes and/or poor execution. ME2 to me has more flaws that come from bad concepts and changes that kind of work well to a degree, but don't suit the spirit and style of the game as established with the original. Many of the solutions to ME1's problems get rid of the problem, but do so by eliminating the cause entirely rather than fixing it. Just because a game functions better doesn't mean that the game
itself is better.
I guess what I'm saying is that admittedly ME1 is a more flawed game, but that ME2 is a more poorly conceived one in some areas. ME1 is filled with a lot of stuff that didn't work, but while ME2 has more aspects that technically worked it also has what can best be described as "WTF?! moments" too; where the devs decided to go with an idea or concept or change that just seemed to jar so much and I just found awful in almost every sense. I didn't really have those in the original game.
ME1 I also feel is a tighter game, that knows more what it wants to be and is more balanced for it. It has a clear identity and style to it. ME2, for lack of a better term, feels schizophrenic. Most parts of it feel that overall they're well done, but some parts feel like they needed a lot more polish, while others still feel like they were given too much focus and were overpolished, mostly because of the stuff that felt lacking, and due to the fact that the stuff that felt lacking felt more crucial and more deserving of polish and focus than the stuff that got it. It makes ME2 feel unbalanced and off... a little like it's not quite sure what it wants to be and where it should focus itself. A little like Dr. Frankenstein's monster in a way, but with one arm shorter than the other.
Finally, ME1 felt like it was trying to be something more and had some weight and depth to it. It felt epic, and less like a video game and more like a piece of interactive art. ME2 just feels like its trying to be another game, and a rather mainstream one at that. It doesn't quite have the grace and dignity the original had... doesn't seem as intellectual or refined or like its trying to be a cut above the rest of the stuff out there. It feels more like one of the crowd; more generic. I suppose in a certain sense one could say that makes it a better game, but I'm not entirely sure. Better at
being a game doesn't mean a better game.
So... yeah. Because of these reasons I can't even really find it in myself to say ME2 is a better game than ME1, because I don't really think it is.
UNWs weren't brilliant, and needed some work, but they weren't horrid either and provided a sense of exploration and desolation that ME2 lacks entirely. I'm all for a mix of N7 style places and UNC style places in ME3.
But that's what ME2 did. Just think of the N7 missions as the copy and paste dungeons of the UCWs and the planet scanning as the tedious Mako part. A combination of N7 missions and ME2's Hammerhead parts though, now that would be awesome.
Aside from the fact I far prefer the Mako to planet scanning, I don't think that's what the N7 missions did well at all. Besides the fact that the UNC ones were better set-up and presented, the N7 ones felt too cramped and linear. They were better to look at and more original, but lacked polish, professionalism and none of them had that same feeling the UNC ones game. I by no means want only UNC style worlds back, but I do want some big open worlds to drive around on that feel empty, vast and desolate like space mostly is. The N7 missions felt too restrictive and controlled, and when every world is special it takes away from things. They also felt like badly done DLC that just happened to be part of the game. What I'd really like is UNC-sized worlds as interesting looking and different as N7 ones, but that's too much to hope for and I know this. I'd be happy with a mix of both, but better integrated than both too (more polish for the N7 ones and less generic bases, overly steep hills and mining for the UNC ones).
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
