10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

Of course the story in ME 1 was told better, much better. The cutscenes were great and diverse, the crew meetings added a lot of atmosphere. All gone in ME 2. Main story is told through several meetings between Shepard and TIM. Just standing (and sitting) there, talking to each other. How's that interesting? How's it captivating? Did the movies you cited tell their stories like that? No, of course not.

[bjdbwea]

exxxed wrote...

they even removed the falling animation

Ah, someone else noticed that. Just like they replaced the dancing animation, as well as the "change direction on the spot" animation. It's a small thing, but I just can't figure out why they did it. Just one more odd decision, I guess.

[Barquiel]

I think the story was fine up to (and through) Horizon.

then...
We get a (more or less interesting) collection of mini-stories.

Modifié par Barquiel, 09 mai 2010 - 11:16 .

[Videit]

Like I said the story in ME 2 wasnt plot driven it was character and choice driven.

[Terror_K]

Yeah, ME1's story had a better flow and better structure, and unfolded and shifted as it progressed, making it more in line with that of a movie. ME2 was a lot more generic, though was well written. It didn't flow quite as well and does have a more episodic feel, and really does consist of a lot of repetitive factors (find potential squaddie, do task to gain squaddie, get squaddie, do loyalty mission for squaddie, rinse and repeat about 10 more times with the odd "explore Collector-themed location" between and then suicide mission). Both are extremely well-written though, but ME1's story is far superior in structure and more filmlike, even if ME2's writing within its more flawed style is excellent.

[SkullandBonesmember]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

No but you're going off how "story" is essential for an RPG and i simply proved that your point was moot, you obviously chose to ignore it because you cannot accept being wrong. That was the whole point of this argument, now you're simply trying to derail it into something else like "balance" etc etc.

All forms of media EVOLVE over the years. That includes video games. With the advancement of technology, dialogue options are only the first of countless changes to RPGs.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

That is subjected to opinion and ME1's clunky combat is a far cry from being enjoyable, weren't you the dude complaining how overwhelming ME2's combat is on casual and then were promptly smashed to pieces by other forum members because you don't know how to "point and click"?

You want to know why  you keep accusing people that like ME2 of being idiots? Its because you suck at shooting and need it to be dumbed down because you simply don't know how to point and click without you getting annihilated in the process.

I play the Box. I know how to press buttons, but no, I don't like when enemies encircle me from all sides. I've never implied I'm good at shooters because my entire life, 99% I've played games for story first and foremost. Even so, I can do a completionist playthrough on Veteran for ME1 and STILL enjoy it.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Right more "balance" when there were plenty of clunky combat moments in ME1 with enemies charging towards you like retarded zombies, forgot about that. ME2 had much more cutscenes to begin with and weren't always shot from a few angles that made it look stagnant.

You do realize that there were several moments that ME1 tried to be a shooter but failed miserably?

Who cares if it "tried to be a shooter but failed"? If ME2 is an example of a "good" shooter, I'll take the "clunky mechanics" any day of the week.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Yeah limited, at least the characters aren't walking codex's and boring like the ones in ME1.

I prefer the long character interaction if it gives me a breather from the 'SPLOSHUNS.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

You DO know ME2 turned out the way it is because of fans in the original forum complaining about the horrible features of ME1?

Right, again with "story", how many times do we have to bring this up? Do you really think bashing people and constantly calling them "halo tards" is going to change anything? Or make you look more idiotic than you already are? Seriously you behave like a red shirt protester in bangkok, just that you are getting over emotional over a video game.

Yeah, I do know people, AKA shooter fans, asked for a massive overhaul with the combat. Those people that asked for it though saw the trailer for ME1 and thought 'SPLOSHUNS. When they didn't get their 'sploshuns, they were pissed off.

The phrase IF IT AINT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT applies here. RPG fans didn't have a problem with the combat. Shooter fans did. When an RPG and FPS or TPS is combined, there is bound to be friction. As I've said before, shooter fans and story driven fans can't and do not mesh.

exxxed wrote...

You have a point, but you went a little overboard there .

 There were times in ME 1 when i deliberately went searching for UNC missions just for blowing crap up, because of all the character interaction and lack of action at some point, and i liked it that way, after that they released Pinnacle Station for trigger happy people which was fine by me. 

 Now coming to ME2 , which has my old pals Wrex and Garrus who don't speak to each other for some stupid reason ... hell Garrus would probably  calibrate the rest of his life if he'd spend it on the SR 2,   with all the shooting, chest-high walls and crates, it's becoming tedious after a while, hell, everyone states the combat has been improved... how? One button do all? Or the fact that i have to take cover to jump up a crate... it looks stupid ( Climbing the pile of boxes to get to Harkin), they even removed the falling animation, yea the cover system works better, but I personally didn't find anything wrong with the first one either and the objects used for cover weren't that obvious.

 The only thing i could find wrong with the first one were the weapons and the economy system... weapons improved, economy removed job done *sigh*

Take care!

Don't know why, but that made me laugh. 

[SkullandBonesmember]

Videit wrote...

Like I said the story in ME 2 wasnt plot driven it was character and choice driven.

Characters, plot, and choices in video games are all branches of the same tree.

[exxxed]

Videit wrote..
.
 I loved the story and the way they told it in ME2 so to me thats a little much especially since ME2 is the more popular and better reviewed of the two ME games.  

 You know why ME 2 is the more popular and better reviewed? 

 First off, it was the massive "hype building" campaign, hell i knew allot of the story before it was even released... 

 Secondly, the better reviewed part, it's because it was reviewed as a stand-alone game not a sequel, which by all means it's better than the first because it was more polished and the gameplay was spot on AS a stand-alone, tho' the PC version didn't receive the attention it deserved ( no menu hotkeys, the inability to use scroll, one button do all etc.).

 Cheers!

[SkullandBonesmember]

Videit wrote...

Going in the wrong direction... I think not.  So you didnt like the storytelling in one game that doesnt mean the whole company is f'ed.  I loved the story and the way they told it in ME2 so to me thats a little much especially since ME2 is the more popular and better reviewed of the two ME games.  The plot and the narrative werent huge in ME2 but thats cause they were concentrating on a different form of storytelling.  Just cause some people dont get that doesnt mean failure.  

The way I see ME3 playing out is either a much larger plot or an even larger more choice driven story like ME2.  Either way I just hope its bigger and badder.

It's plain as day that they're going, and have gone in the wrong direction with ME2, with their marketing as well as the product itself.

[Barquiel]

Videit wrote...

Like I said the story in ME 2 wasnt plot driven it was character and choice driven.

I don't know.

Every character has his/her 15 minutes of fame. Shepard helps squadmate X  (resolves some family problems...), squadmate X is loyal - that all.

then...
You can forget him/her. I think that's not really character-driven  (Planescape: Torment or KOTOR 2 were character-driven imo)

[Videit]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

It's plain as day that they're going, and have gone in the wrong direction with ME2, with their marketing as well as the product itself.

Yeah going in the wrong direction with two of their best selling and reviewed games and franchises theyve ever had.  Yeah cause thats totally the wrong direction to go in.

[exxxed]

Barquiel wrote...

Planescape: Torment or KOTOR 2 were character-driven imo

Quote for truth, i agree with you sir!

[Videit]

Barquiel wrote...

Videit wrote...

Like I said the story in ME 2 wasnt plot driven it was character and choice driven.

I don't know.

Every character has his/her 15 minutes of fame. Shepard helps squadmate X  (resolves some family problems...), squadmate X is loyal - that all.

then...
You can forget him/her. I think that's not really character-driven  (Planescape: Torment or KOTOR 2 were character-driven imo)

Your right that the characters didnt all have 50 hours of story and gameplay that revolved around them but the entire story was about characters and your choice to help them or not.

[bjdbwea]

Many reviewers love shooters and good graphics above everything else, as does a large number of gamers. They don't care about any "complicated" stuff. So of course a game that offers a lot of pew-pew and amazing visuals will receive good reviews and sell well. RPGs were never as popular, even though offering much better gaming experiences to anyone who cares about more than "owning" enemies. BioWare was the last company to produce quality RPGs, and it's very disappointing to see them go down the path they're going right now.

[Videit]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Videit wrote...

Like I said the story in ME 2 wasnt plot driven it was character and choice driven.

Characters, plot, and choices in video games are all branches of the same tree.

Your right about that but that doesnt mean the game cant focus more on one of those aspects.

[KitsuneRommel]

Oh boy.

ME1 was like Star Wars, Terminator 2 or Matrix while ME2 was more like The Shawshank Redemption, Godfather trilogy or Pulp Fiction.

[Videit]

bjdbwea wrote...

Many reviewers love shooters and good graphics above everything else, as does a large number of gamers. They don't care about any "complicated" stuff. So of course a game that offers a lot of pew-pew and amazing visuals will receive good reviews and sell well. RPGs were never as popular, even though offering much better gaming experiences to anyone who cares about more than "owning" enemies. BioWare was the last company to produce quality RPGs, and it's very disappointing to see them go down the path they're going right now.

Wow, now its the reviewers who are wrong and have something against traditional RPG's cause they liked ME2 better.  WOW amazing how people only see in their little rear view window.

[Videit]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Oh boy.

ME1 was like Star Wars, Terminator 2 or Matrix while ME2 was more like The Shawshank Redemption, Godfather trilogy or Pulp Fiction.

Those are all good movies how do you decide...

[SkullandBonesmember]

Videit wrote...

Yeah going in the wrong direction with two of their best selling and reviewed games and franchises theyve ever had.  Yeah cause thats totally the wrong direction to go in.

Popularity is subjective and irrelevant.

Videit wrote...

Your right about that but that doesnt mean the game cant focus more on one of those aspects.

But Bioware didn't focus on ANY of them. They focused on combat first, at the expense of story.

bjdbwea wrote...

Many reviewers love shooters and good graphics above everything else, as does a large number of gamers. They don't care about any "complicated" stuff. So of course a game that offers a lot of pew-pew and amazing visuals will receive good reviews and sell well. RPGs were never as popular, even though offering much better gaming experiences to anyone who cares about more than "owning" enemies. BioWare was the last company to produce quality RPGs, and it's very disappointing to see them go down the path they're going right now.

Damn true.

[SithLordExarKun]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...



All forms of media EVOLVE over the years. That includes video games. With the advancement of technology, dialogue options are only the first of countless changes to RPGs.

You're still avoiding the topic, Good story does not = good game.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
I play the Box. I know how to press buttons, but no, I don't like when enemies encircle me from all sides. I've never implied I'm good at shooters because my entire life, 99% I've played games for story first and foremost. Even so, I can do a completionist playthrough on Veteran for ME1 and STILL enjoy it.

Knowing how to press buttons means jack, any kid can do that pretty damn easily, but actually knowing how to point and "press" properly is another thing, something which by your own admission you suck horribly at.

And you do know enemies in ME1 do encircle you from all sides due to their horrible AI? If you want to play games for story first, go play a JRPG. Not even ME1's story was fantastic or the rest of biowares game for that matter.

You enjoyed ME1's combat? Good for you.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Who cares if it "tried to be a shooter but failed"? If ME2 is an example of a "good" shooter, I'll take the "clunky mechanics" any day of the week.

  No one, but seeing you have made it clear you rather take the clunky and horrible combat mechanics over the more "refined" and "polished" combat mechanics of the second game.

You would obviously prefer something so simple and clunky because by your own admission you don't even know how to shoot properly with a controller.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


I prefer the long character interaction if it gives me a breather from the 'SPLOSHUNS..

There was just as much 'SPLOSHUNS in the first game(which was more horribly implemented) as the second.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Yeah, I do know people, AKA shooter fans, asked for a massive overhaul with the combat. Those people that asked for it though saw the trailer for ME1 and thought 'SPLOSHUNS. When they didn't get their 'sploshuns, they were pissed off.

 Cute you are passing  this off as a fact, do you remember the ME2 suggestions thread? Nobody asked bioware to remove the broken inventory system or lessened some of the RPG elements, nobody asked biowre to turn the whole thing into a "shooter."(As far as i am concerned, its still an RPG but with much more emphasis on combat)

Hell it was most of the regular forum posters that were obsessed with ME1 caling out ME1's broken combat system and asked bioware to improve on it, nobody asked bioware to "make a massive overhaul".

Do me a favour, find the original thread and prove to me that every one posting in that thread were shooter fans asking for an overhaul because i remember posting in that thread and i call BS on this one, you're pulling this out of your arse.

Not only are you going to have to prove that everybody there is a shooter fan, but you are going to have to prove that they asked for a massive "overhaul" as well.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
The phrase IF IT AINT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT applies here.

  Good statement, many problems.

First off the combat was broken and clunky, whether you enjoy it or not doesn't change the fact that ME2's combat mechanics are vastly superior, that was something they needed to fix.

What bioware SHOULD have done is redesign the horrible inventory system and stat distribution system and not remove them.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
RPG fans didn't have a problem with the combat. Shooter fans did.

If you read the original thread, many did, but no one asked for a massive overhaul. And if ME1 is a pure story driven game as you said, why would shooter fans bother even playing it? It makes absolutely zero sense.

You are just grasping at straws to suit your weak argument.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 09 mai 2010 - 11:52 .

[exxxed]

bjdbwea wrote...

Many reviewers love shooters and good graphics above everything else, as does a large number of gamers. They don't care about any "complicated" stuff. So of course a game that offers a lot of pew-pew and amazing visuals will receive good reviews and sell well. RPGs were never as popular, even though offering much better gaming experiences to anyone who cares about more than "owning" enemies. BioWare was the last company to produce quality RPGs, and it's very disappointing to see them go down the path they're going right now.

 That's certainly true. no doubt, i mean looking back at the Gametrailers review of STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, they rated the game down for being too unforgiving ( in other words HARD) and the shooting mechanic was clunky because of recoil and other stupid reasons, i don't think GT talked about the story, but i do recall some review stating the story of the Marked One cuts out in the middle of the game, * doh* , you have to read your PDA to find out more of the mystery...

 The only thing wrong about reviewing any Mass Effect games is the fact that most of the critics take them as stand-alone when they were announced as a damn trilogy from the beginning, so continuity and flow should have been a major part of the reviews...

 Ahh well, take care guys!

Modifié par exxxed, 09 mai 2010 - 11:52 .

[Videit]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

When an RPG and FPS or TPS is combined, there is bound to be friction. As I've said before, shooter fans and story driven fans can't and do not mesh.

Lies!!!

The Mass Effect series is an Action RPG so thise things should mesh and do very well for me in both games, they just do it differently.

Modifié par Videit, 09 mai 2010 - 11:54 .

[KitsuneRommel]

bjdbwea wrote...

Many reviewers love shooters and good graphics above everything else, as does a large number of gamers. They don't care about any "complicated" stuff. So of course a game that offers a lot of pew-pew and amazing visuals will receive good reviews and sell well. RPGs were never as popular, even though offering much better gaming experiences to anyone who cares about more than "owning" enemies. BioWare was the last company to produce quality RPGs, and it's very disappointing to see them go down the path they're going right now.

Sorry. I'm getting a lot of bull**** on this channel. There's been computer RPGS for decades now and generally they get very favorable reviews.

Few examples:
Ultima Underworld - The Stygian Abyss 98
Ultima Underworld 2 - Labyrinth of Worlds 96
Baldur's Gate 91
Baldur's Gate 2 92
Planescape Torment 88
Wizardry 7 86
Dungeon Master 94
AD&D The Dark Queen of Krynn 89
Elder Scrolls III Morrowind 87
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion 92
Fallout 2 93
Final Fantasy 7 93

Yes, they really got horrible reviews. Maybe you should change what magazines you read?

[SithLordExarKun]

Videit wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

When an RPG and FPS or TPS is combined, there is bound to be friction. As I've said before, shooter fans and story driven fans can't and do not mesh.

[

Lies!!!

The Mass Effect series is an Action RPG so thise things should mesh and do very well for me in both games, they just do it differently.

Uhh i forgot to remove that, that was skulls post not mine.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

Many reviewers love shooters and good graphics above everything else, as does a large number of gamers. They don't care about any "complicated" stuff. So of course a game that offers a lot of pew-pew and amazing visuals will receive good reviews and sell well. RPGs were never as popular, even though offering much better gaming experiences to anyone who cares about more than "owning" enemies. BioWare was the last company to produce quality RPGs, and it's very disappointing to see them go down the path they're going right now.

So you're saying RPG's DONT get good reviews? So how did ME1 rank so high? Or DAO? Or Jade empire? Or KOTOR?

Watch the video reviews for ME2 on ign and see how the reviewer didn't rate the game on "pew pew pew", ME2's shooter mechanics obviously cannot be on par to lets say COD or Battlefield, but its ratings and user ratings were higher, do you think its soley attributed to "pew pew pew"? Fcuk no.