10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Videit]

TJSolo wrote...

That is why in that post I went into depth about it. The problem is the use of a different ratio mid-series. Go back to my comment that you paraphrased for a more descript opinion.

I read it and could care less about the ratio change cause it didnt matter to me.  To other people who are more picky about that sort of thing it may matter but to me it doesnt so its still fubar to me cause you can give me any ratio of story to sploshuns and as long as the game is fun and engaging I dont care about ratios of the previous games in the series.  Especially when a year before the game came out I knew there was going to be more pronounce shooter aspects in the combat system.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

If you are playing the game then you can define "lots" of points with actual numbers. Turn it on, tell us you skill level, and weapon, as your statement reads more like simile then actual experience.

Just got Advanced Assassination so it was probably 6 points (half of max) when I did the quest. I know it will get a lot better after you start getting weapons with real accuracy rating on them.

bjdbwea wrote...

Then you're good at the game, so what.
Doesn't change the fact that you'd have to reload if you made a mistake
and were hit by a rocket or sniper. And hitting anything with that
sniper rifle yourself IS a bit hard, but it gets better as you gain
levels, as it should be in an RPG.

If they give you a backstory where you are a damn war hero and a career soldier then you'd expect to use a weapon better than a 12 year old with no training. That's why you don't give your PnP characters ridiculous backstories either.

[SkullandBonesmember]

iakus wrote...

Long post, apologies ahead of time. 

No, gear does not make an rpg, Nor does designing armor.  They help in customizing your character, much like picking a class does.  But by itself it doesn't make an rpg.  Borderlands does as much.

Role playing means adopting the persona (usually the protagonist) of a story-based game where you make choices that affect the outcome.  Your character has a goal, a motivation, a reason for doing what you do.  In a good rpg, you are immersed in a story, just like you can get immersed in the stry of a good book or movie. 

Now, about ME2:  it is my belief that the story is the weakest part of the game, to the point where I had to doublecheck to make sure it was in fact a Bioware game.

I mean, what is the plot?  First it seems to be "find out why human colonies are disappearing".  Sounds intiguing, except...it gets solved with the first mission.  Okay, now we're going after the Collectors, right?  Find out who and what they are, what they're after, what's their connection to the Reapers, what their interest is in humans.  Heck, finding out who's leading them would be a good first step!  You've got a place for us to start, right TIM?

Not exactly.  We're going to deal with the Reapers by...slaughtering dozens and dozens of mercs as we build an elite  team to ...do something.  Asari mercs, human mercs, krogan, vorcha, batarians, salaraians.  Harbringer isn't "our salvation through destruction", it's Shepherd!

But this team, they're specialists, right?  They each have some connection to the Collectors, or they possess information we need?  Umm, not so much. Half seem to join up cause they have nothing better to do.

Ah, but this is a character-driven story, right?  This is about Sheperd building an elite team to do the impossible!  This is the Dirty Dozen!  Kelly's Heroes!  Ocean's Eleven!  They're going to come together as a well-oiled fighting machine and Fight for the Lost!

Well, not so much, in my opinion.  They have loyalty mission, which is nice, but in the end, all you end up with are 10-12 individuals personally loyal to you.  There's little to no communication amongst the squad.  Only two personality clashes.  Once a character is recruited and made loyal, they pretty much spend the rest of the game "guarding the ship" while you go out with your prefererd two (or the one you're making loyal plus your favorite character) 

So the storyline for ME2 is to go stop the Collectors by fighting everyone EXCEPT the Collectors in order to create an elite team of semirandom supercharacters to go forth and do something somewhere to somebody.  Glad that's straightened out.

 If this was a true "character-based" story, we'd see a lot more of the characters and their motivations.  More personalized comments on missions, more dialogues (both with Shepherd and other squadmates), more cutscenes.  Not that those are entirely absent.  But there really isn't enough if this is the route Bioware intended. In a movie featuring an ensemble cast like this, there's typically a "training montage" in the second act.  The disparate cast of characters work together and bond as a team while sorting out their personal problems.  Something like that is really lacking in ME2.  I mean, it's not just Shepherd's life that on the line here.  The squad needs to trust their fellow squadmates, right?

And this is beside the point that with two exceptions, all the characters from ME1 are almost entirely absent (Empire Strikes Back did NOT feature an almost entirely new cast, btw)  Maybe they didn't want to confuse those who didn't play ME1, I dunno.

You're totally wrong about your definition of RPGs. And we don't want too much dialogue now that would interfere with combat. Unless of course, if it's implemented DURING missions so convos won't have to drag as they always do in personal settings and once we get a brief discussion with our squad mates(as it SHOULD be), we can get right back to headshots.

[Videit]

tonnactus wrote...

I i dont know what gamedesigners smoke when they give a 30 s cooldown to combat drones of legion and tali.

Yeah that was annoying especially for my engineer Shep who used both Tali and Legion and drone overwhelm tactics.  So awesome....

[David Knight]

I think that a lot of us (myself included, sometimes) ask or expect too much from Bioware. ME2 is a great game, and I believe that sometimes we don't give the devs the credit they deserve for putting such time and effort into a product. It has its down spots, sure but so does everything else. I don't know. Eh. Just seems to me like everyone complains and makes it seem like the game was terrible and it was not. Hmm. Food for thought.

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

Then you made something wrong.Two Squadmates have immunity.One have barrier and immunity,three have barrier.
Garrus was the only real squishy squadmember in Mass Effect.Tali has really high shields.None of them die often,even on insanity.And even when,with the medic specialisation you could revive them fast and often with medigel.
Weapon damage and accury of the companions were good enough with specter weapons.Even liara was quite good with the pistol and combat optics.

Sure, after you've almost beaten the game already. My previous walkthrough was with a Vanguard with no bonus talents (I could have just edited them back but.. meh). Squad mates were 95% of the time Liara (because Singularity is just too much fun) and Garrus because otherwise I would have had a squad with pistols only and you NEED someone with electronics and decryption.

I would have taken someone else instead of Liara if I had had the Singularity talent myself.

Edit: Damn I'm glad the got rid of the Charm and Intimidate talents.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 09 mai 2010 - 10:01 .

[bjdbwea]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

If they give you a backstory where you are a damn war hero and a career soldier then you'd expect to use a weapon better than a 12 year old with no training. That's why you don't give your PnP characters ridiculous backstories either.

If they give you a story where you have to stop a mighty race harvesting tens of thousands of people, then you wouldn't expect having to travel through the entire galaxy in order to gain someone's "loyalty" either. But that's a non-argument, because non-linearity is a must in an RPG. Just like some sort of skill system. There are enough plain shooters.

[Videit]

David Knight wrote...

I think that a lot of us (myself included, sometimes) ask or expect too much from Bioware. ME2 is a great game, and I believe that sometimes we don't give the devs the credit they deserve for putting such time and effort into a product. It has its down spots, sure but so does everything else. I don't know. Eh. Just seems to me like everyone complains and makes it seem like the game was terrible and it was not. Hmm. Food for thought.

Lets all hug now

[Sidney]

iakus wrote...


I mean, what is the plot?  First it seems to be "find out why human colonies are disappearing".  Sounds intiguing, except...it gets solved with the first mission.  Okay, now we're going after the Collectors, right?  Find out who and what they are, what they're after, what's their connection to the Reapers, what their interest is in humans.  Heck, finding out who's leading them would be a good first step!  You've got a place for us to start, right TIM?

The plot here is of a different variety to a lot of them. The story is a lot about the people, not about the threat so much. What bothers people about the story is one of the things I most enjoyed about the way they structured the story. They actually sort of explained why time DOESN'T matter.

Since, well as long as a I can recall, RPG's have horrible nasty evil forces at work to wipe out or ruin life as we know it - or as our character knows it. So what does our intrepid hero do? He dinks around with side quests. In BG2 you got 10k for Imoen and then kept exploring. In any Betheda game god only knows if you ever bothered with the plot but when you did, no biggie it has been on hold for you. Bioware had the same problems and still does in DAO where you do all kinds of silly stuff while an archdemon bears down on you. I think the sort of jerk and go narrative in ME2 bothers people because, really, you are sort of "waiting" while things happen - you need clues or events to occur for you to investigate. It is awkward but I like the fact that it explains why I've got time to handle a host of sidequests. In ME1 things are dire, things are bad, but I've got time to Moon Patrol all over the galaxy.

All that said, the plot is better than people credit it. There's a lot of interaction with the world - trust me I referred any number of shooter fans to the game telling them this was an approachable RPG and they all told me the thing was too #$%^ talky. There is more going on than it might feel like. In the end, in addition to all your squaddies (and with someone like Legion there is asome big stuff in there)  you learn what actually happened to the Protheans which was a big question from ME1 and also how new reapers are "born" which wasn't a question but certainly is interestng.

I felt there was a lot of story packed into ME2 but it wasn't laid out structurally as "clearly" as it was laid out in ME1. It is odd because in a game people gripe about "shooter" and simple to follow and stay up with ME2's storylines is a lot more complex than ME1's which is actually a lot more straight forward.

[KitsuneRommel]

bjdbwea wrote...

If they give you a story where you have to stop a mighty race harvesting tens of thousands of people, then you wouldn't expect having to travel through the entire galaxy in order to gain someone's "loyalty" either. But that's a non-argument, because non-linearity is a must in an RPG. Just like some sort of skill system. There are enough plain shooters.

I'm sorry but that's not even comparable. You CAN have a skill based RPG without making the characters worse shooters than Stormtroopers high on red sand.


People here love to use the term "immersion breaking" and that's what it basically is.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

"Cannot reach the target" at least one time in each mission.On collector platforms it didnt work if you are in cover.You have to be on the other platform even when it connected with the one you are.So you have to take a lot of bullets first before you can use charge.Sometimes i charge an enemy with the result i stands onto a cover and shot at me from above.

Vanguard gameplay is bugged as hell.

Would you rather that it tried to use charge when the engine has decided it can't and it ends up charging you out of the level or something?

[Icinix]

David Knight wrote...

I think that a lot of us (myself included, sometimes) ask or expect too much from Bioware. ME2 is a great game, and I believe that sometimes we don't give the devs the credit they deserve for putting such time and effort into a product. It has its down spots, sure but so does everything else. I don't know. Eh. Just seems to me like everyone complains and makes it seem like the game was terrible and it was not. Hmm. Food for thought.

I agree, however I think it needs to be done.
I was never a forum member prior to Dragon Age / Mass Effect 2.  Never would have even crossed my mind. 
Now I get on here and complain, suggest, argue etc. all because after Mass Effect 1 came out, people jumped on the forums to complain about a host of things, things that I never had an issue with for example.  Then ME2 came out with changes based on what those people complained about.  Things that I was shocked to discover had been removed or changed dramatically. 
So now because I love Mass Effect, and I want to defend what I like about it, I signed up and get fired up on these forums about various issues because I'll be dammed if Mass Effect 3 goes further away from (In my opinion) it's Mass Effect 1 roots that I loved so much.
However, Mass Effect 2 is still an awesome game, and BioWare still rocks.  I for one can't just sit idly by and not let my thoughts be known if some peoples thoughts can influence the direction of a game, for right or wrong.

[TJSolo]

Videit wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

That is why in that post I went into depth about it. The problem is the use of a different ratio mid-series. Go back to my comment that you paraphrased for a more descript opinion.

I read it and could care less about the ratio change cause it didnt matter to me.  To other people who are more picky about that sort of thing it may matter but to me it doesnt so its still fubar to me cause you can give me any ratio of story to sploshuns and as long as the game is fun and engaging I dont care about ratios of the previous games in the series.  Especially when a year before the game came out I knew there was going to be more pronounce shooter aspects in the combat system.

Caring is one thing, understanding is another. It is not picking when the fact is the ratio changed, it is an honest statment. What a game offers as far as genre does matter to people. You don't see any game hitting 100% market penetration because no matter how good a game is some people just don't like certain genres. You actually do seem to care about the ratio seeing the support you have with the shooter aspects and the dismissive attitude you have with people wanting to get more of an RPG feel into the game.  With all your fubar talk it really looks like you are vested in the current ratio.

[Videit]

iakus wrote...

No, gear does not make an rpg, Nor does designing armor.  They help in customizing your character, much like picking a class does.  But by itself it doesn't make an rpg.

I agree with that.

iakus wrote...
Role playing means adopting the persona (usually the protagonist) of a story-based game where you make choices that affect the outcome.  Your character has a goal, a motivation, a reason for doing what you do.  In a good rpg, you are immersed in a story, just like you can get immersed in the stry of a good book or movie. 

Thats why its called a Role Playing Game.

iakus wrote...
Ah, but this is a character-driven story, right?  This is about Sheperd building an elite team to do the impossible!  This is the Dirty Dozen!  Kelly's Heroes!  Ocean's Eleven!  They're going to come together as a well-oiled fighting machine and Fight for the Lost!

This a thousand times this cause thats what the game felt like for me.  Cant speak for everyone but this is what ME2 was for me.

Sidney wrote...

iakus wrote...


I mean, what is the plot?  First it seems to be "find out why human colonies are disappearing".  Sounds intiguing, except...it gets solved with the first mission.  Okay, now we're going after the Collectors, right?  Find out who and what they are, what they're after, what's their connection to the Reapers, what their interest is in humans.  Heck, finding out who's leading them would be a good first step!  You've got a place for us to start, right TIM?

The plot here is of a different variety to a lot of them. The story is a lot about the people, not about the threat so much. What bothers people about the story is one of the things I most enjoyed about the way they structured the story. They actually sort of explained why time DOESN'T matter.

Totally agree about the story being of a different variety.

[uberdowzen]

Removing the inventory
I love RPGs and I love inventorys, but I can't count the number of times
I've stopped playing ME1 because I can't face clearing out the inventory
(not to mention the times I've had to omni-gel good items because I'd
reached the 150 item limit).

Thermal Clips
Brilliant idea. No downtime when your weapon overheats
and it forces you to be sensible about your shots rather than just
randomly spraying your Assualt Rifle.

The Combat
Anyone saying that ME1 had better combat is
just being argumentative. ME2's combat is perfect (20X better than
Modern Warfare's). It's exciting, tactical and satisfying.

The Leveling System
I do have mixed feelings about this. ME's system had the issue that you levelled up far
to often and your character improved very little. With ME2's system
however, you level up at a better pace but you often don't have enough
points to upgrade anything, making levelling very unsatisfying.

Story
ME1 did have a better story
though. ME2's essentially consists of 5 missions and is surrounded by
lots of unrelated recruitment quests. ME1's story felt more focussed on
***SPOILER***stopping Saren***SPOILER*** but ME2's plot
feels a bit all over the place. Still better than most game stories
though.

These are some points I brought up in another thread and I'd be really interested to see what some of the people who didn't like ME2 think of them.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 09 mai 2010 - 10:23 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Icinix wrote...

Now I get on here and complain, suggest, argue etc. all because after Mass Effect 1 came out, people jumped on the forums to complain about a host of things, things that I never had an issue with for example.

This is another thing I've been stressing since November. At the very least, fans of story didn't mind the combat in ME1 at all, but mostly thought the combat was awesome. The only gamers that had a problem with it are those consider combat a priority over story.

[Videit]

TJSolo wrote...

Videit wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

That is why in that post I went into depth about it. The problem is the use of a different ratio mid-series. Go back to my comment that you paraphrased for a more descript opinion.

I read it and could care less about the ratio change cause it didnt matter to me.  To other people who are more picky about that sort of thing it may matter but to me it doesnt so its still fubar to me cause you can give me any ratio of story to sploshuns and as long as the game is fun and engaging I dont care about ratios of the previous games in the series.  Especially when a year before the game came out I knew there was going to be more pronounce shooter aspects in the combat system.

Caring is one thing, understanding is another. It is not picking when the fact is the ratio changed, it is an honest statment. What a game offers as far as genre does matter to people. You don't see any game hitting 100% market penetration because no matter how good a game is some people just don't like certain genres. You actually do seem to care about the ratio seeing the support you have with the shooter aspects and the dismissive attitude you have with people wanting to get more of an RPG feel into the game.  With all your fubar talk it really looks like you are vested in the current ratio.

Oh I understand im just not thinking about people who dont like RPG's or Shooters.  They shouldnt be anywhere near the Mass Effect series.  I dont think my attitude is dismisive and if it comes off that way to people who want more RPG aspects or story in an Action RPG then my bad.  I more have a problem with the people being snobish about it and those that only understand one type of storytelling.  ME2 weak plot yes, weak story no, great game yes and the later was proven by sales and reviews.

I myself am hoping for some more interesting new RPG elements like the paragon and renegade action in ME3 along with some more ways to make things explode and of course an awesome story to finish off the series.  Just dont tell me im some halotard fat kid on crack cause I like action as much as story. 

Whatever ratio ME1 and ME2 was it was fun ratio for me.

Modifié par Videit, 09 mai 2010 - 10:33 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...


Would you rather that it tried to use charge when the engine has decided it can't and it ends up charging you out of the level or something?

??
An enemy is in an building,just 3 m away from.How in hell i could charge outside the level??
Its also not posible on the platforms because you need a lock on an enemy before you could charge.There are only two possibities:Without protection like shields,the enemy could fly from the platform.Without it,it bounces a little back,shepardt still reach the target and could shot it.

Its just bugged and not nearwhere polished.

[bjdbwea]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I'm sorry but that's not even comparable. You CAN have a skill based RPG without making the characters worse shooters than Stormtroopers high on red sand.

So you agree that skill based weapon proficiencies would be good to have again in ME 3? Good. As to the characters being bad on the lower levels - well, that's the point, isn't it. Besides, ME 2 also forbids you to use some weapons, based on your class. Based on your logic, Shepard should be able to use them all perfectly.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 mai 2010 - 10:33 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Videit wrote...

Oh I understand im just not thinking about people who dont like RPG's or Shooters.  They shouldnt be anywhere near the Mass Effect series.  I dont think my attitude is dismisive and if it comes off that way to people who want more RPG aspects or story in an Action RPG then my bad.  I more have a problem with the people being snobish about it and those that only understand one type of storytelling.  ME2 weak plot yes, weak story no, great game yes and the later was proven by sales and reviews.

I myself am hoping for some more interesting new RPG elements like the paragon and renegade action in ME3 along with some more ways to make things explode and of course an awesome story to finish off the series.  Just dont tell me im some halotard fat kid on crack cause I like action as much as story. 

Whatever ratio ME1 and ME2 was it was fun ratio for me.

Please refer to all my previous posts that says there's nothing wrong with action RPGs provided there's not TOO MUCH combat or at the very least it's implemented in a way that the combat is fun and when after fights, the character interaction and plot is a good relaxing counteraction with good ratio.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I'm sorry but that's not even comparable. You CAN have a skill based RPG without making the characters worse shooters than Stormtroopers high on red sand.

So you agree that skill based weapon proficiencies would be good to have again in ME 3? Good. As to the characters being bad on the lower levels - well, that's the point, isn't it. Besides, ME 2 also forbids you to use some weapons, based on your class. Based on your logic, Shepard should be able to use them all perfectly.

And to add something:

Adepts and engineers got nothing that improves their core abilities on the collector ship.No special omnitool,no bioamp.Only some additional weapon training they dont need anyway.

[GraciousCat]

yoda23 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Seriously, don't start a thread with /discuss. Its wholesomely unproductive. This thread would be on so much better footing if you made a thesis, taking care to follow your own guidelines.

The same sex romance thread started with a FAQ and several points of contention.    

Though I suppose its better then the other guys flame ridden OP.    

WRONG! It's posts like this that got some of the good stuff in ME1 removed from the game. I just wish I had participated more in the ME1 forums before the XBOX twits got their hands on ME2. IMO the XBOX crowd has dumbed down ME enough already. Time to speak up for ME3 before the console crowd fully ruins the game for everyone else. Check my math but this WAS a dynamite Sci-Fi RPG. Not a FPS! But obviously it only counts if the RPG fans step up and start posting. i.e. Lack of Inventory, Fewer weapon choices, Boring planet scanning. I recall all the harrassment over the Mako and the elevator scenes and look where all that hot air got us, a linear FPS action game with fewer RPG elements and LESS exploration. Not this time, not for ME3! People need to speak up before the XBOX ers ruin that game too.

As part of the so called "XBOX crowd" I take offence to your post, I for one enjoyed the RPG elements of the original Mass Effect and was fairly disappointed at their removal in Mass Effect 2. After saying this however, I thoroughly enjoyed both Mass Effect games and can't wait for Mass Effect 3 whenever it it released, though I do hope it launches with the RPG elements back in the game formula this time.

[TJSolo]

Videit wrote...

Oh I understand im just not thinking about people who dont like RPG's or Shooters.  They shouldnt be anywhere near the Mass Effect series.  I dont think my attitude is dismisive and if it comes off that way to people want more RPG aspects or story in an Action RPG then my bad.  I more have a problem with the people being snobish about it and those that only understand one type of storytelling.  ME2 weak plot yes, weak story no.

I myself am hoping for some more interesting new RPG elements in ME3 along with some more ways to make things explode and of course an awesome story to finish off the series.  Just dont tell me im some halotard fat kid on crack cause I like action as much as story. 

Whatever ratio ME1 and ME2 was it was fun ratio for me.

Well to continue with the topic of story. ME2 is weak though. It would be better to say the stories are weak because the majority of the content is a collection of character mini-stories that have little connection to the plot.  It is the connection, tie in, the relevancy of the character to the overall plot that strenghens storytelling. The lack of relation the plot is to the characters involved is one reason I think it is weaker.
Another problem is that  even though a lot of events happened from the beginning to the end, nothing really happned to the actual ME story. ME2 felt like it was just running in place working up a sweat instead of progressing the story. This is another reason why I feel the story is weaker.

[Videit]

TJSolo wrote...

Well to continue with the topic of story. ME2 is weak though. It would be better to say the stories are weak because the majority of the content is a collection of character mini-stories that have little connection to the plot.  It is the connection, tie in, the relevancy of the character to the overall plot that strenghens storytelling. The lack of relation the plot is to the characters involved is one reason I think it is weaker.
Another problem is that  even though a lot of events happened from the beginning to the end, nothing really happned to the actual ME story. ME2 felt like it was just running in place working up a sweat instead of progressing the story. This is another reason why I feel the story is weaker.

Is there a problem with it being episodic.  For me the story wasnt weak the overall plot was.  I loved the stories and was still engaged in the mini-plots surrounding each character.  Could they have focused more on the major plot, yes and then maybe you would be happy of course I would still be happy, but they didnt they told a different type of story then what was expected of them.  They told the middle chapter that sets everything up for the final one and like Empire I loved it.  Myself and so many other people loved the story and the way it was told.  Its just that elements of it were more reserved than people like you and skull wanted.  Understandable that you guys have a different oppinion on it, but it wasnt bad just because it was different or cause you didnt like it. 

You were dissaponted and that why you posted here.  I posted here to say hey look it was a different type of story for a different type of game and I recieved dumb signatures and people going pew pew at me.

I tell my very oppinionated nerd friends all the time that oh I didnt like that but some people did so I guess it wasnt a bad movie or game or whatever.  I guess it just wasnt for me and I move on.  

Modifié par Videit, 09 mai 2010 - 11:24 .

[bjdbwea]

Videit wrote...

I tell my very oppinionated nerd friends all the time that oh I didnt like that but some people did so I guess it wasnt a bad movie or game or whatever.  I guess it just wasnt for me and I move on.  

The problem is, you can't do that with games. BioWare was one of the last few companies that produce high-quality RPGs. Bethesda makes great RPGs too (but their stories are nowhere near BioWare's quality), and Obsidian did okay with NWN 2. But that's about it. You can't just move on. Where to? There just aren't many good RPGs released in each year, sometimes there are none. There are however countless shooters. I don't want BioWare to become another company developing shooters. Posting on these forums is all we can do to make our voices heard.

(I recognize ME 2 has still some RPG elements, but it's way too little. And other parts of the game - especially the story - are also in danger of becoming as mediocre as in any random shooter.)