10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Videit]

Mass Effect and mediocre dont even fit in the same sentence together.  Some of best RPG's ive ever played have been created by those two companies.  So I would rather they keep doing what they are doing and making great games by my standards of course and the millions who bye and love their games standards.

Modifié par Videit, 09 mai 2010 - 11:43 .

[Circlestrafe]

I dunno. Lot of BS in real life that just plain sucks. ME2 isn't perfect, most games never will be, but it sure as hell beats the crap out of some of that RL garbage mentioned a second ago, and it's far from terrible. Great that people make suggestions and point out likes/dislikes, but some of the arguing... waste time arguing about that other crap... or better yet, so many games, so little time, instead of wasting your time arguing, play a game instead.

Modifié par Circlestrafe, 09 mai 2010 - 11:41 .

[TJSolo]

Videit wrote...

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 for 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.  

Just like how you keep saying things are fubar for you, things about ME2 are weak and bad in my opinion.  There is nothing wrong with episodic story telling, it just has strengths and weaknesses. The biggest weakness is how disjointed the stories are from the actual plot.  A strength about it is how much easier it is to produce tiny unrelated content as opposed to content that has tie ins but this strength benefits the makers more than the player.  Serialized content can also have some episodic storyteling but with added cohesion to the overall plot.

So basically when there is a plot involved serialized story telling is stronger than episodic. If there is not plot or a very weak on, episodic story telling flourishes.

[Mykel54]

I think ME2 is a great game, with many improvements over the first game (specially concerning relations with squad mates/romances). Still the things i didn´t like much are:

-The citadel, it works ok but i really don´t understand why they striped it of all the cool places to visit and things to do.

-The ammo, in the end you get used to it, but i prefer the heat system of the original mass effect. I´m more a rpg player than shooter thought.

-The lack of equipment, in ME1 there was too much perhaps, but in ME2 there is too little. It really have little about rpg item personalization other than the talents or the colour you put on the N7 armour.

-The more rail-road approach. It is not necesarily bad, but sometimes i kinda miss the freedom of the first game where you could make Feros later than Noveria, or leave Therum for the end. I also think the planets of ME1 are a lot bigger and with more "life" outside the missions. The places in ME2 are very mission-focused compared to them. I don´ think this is too bad thought, but perhaps a middle ground would be better.



Overall i think it is a great game, and it have a lot of improvements over the first one (graphics, animations, controls, ui, etc.) and it have managed to be as epic and enjoyable. I miss some things of the original, and i hope that the last game is a combination of the best thing from both games. They only have one chance to make ME3 great, i hope they give the trilogy the ending it deserves with a bioware masterpiece.

[Videit]

TJSolo wrote...

Just like how you keep saying things are fubar for you, things about ME2 are weak and bad in my opinion.  There is nothing wrong with episodic story telling, it just has strengths and weaknesses. The biggest weakness is how disjointed the stories are from the actual plot.  A strength about it is how much easier it is to produce tiny unrelated content as opposed to content that has tie ins but this strength benefits the makers more than the player. 

I only ever said the belief that action games and or gamers and rpg games and or gamers dont get along is fubar.  I agree with most of what you said here except about it benefiting the makers more than the players cause thats a case by case scenario.  All different ways of storytelling have their strengths and weaknesses just as all games do rpg, shooter or other type.  Does this mean that bioware is going down a wrong road... or they were wrong for trying something different I dont think so and besides I think ME3 will be a more plot driven story with some faction interaction and drama.

TJSolo wrote...

Serialized content can also have some episodic storyteling but with added cohesion to the overall plot.

Agreed, maybe the whole plot of ME2 was to add cohesion to the overarching plot by advancing it in this limited form.

TJSolo wrote...

So basically when there is a plot involved serialized story telling is stronger than episodic. If there is not plot or a very weak on, episodic story telling flourishes.

I dont really agree with that but if you think so....

[TJSolo]

Videit wrote...

I only ever said the belief that action games and or gamers and rpg games and or gamers dont get along is fubar.  I agree with most of what you said here except about it benefiting the makers more than the players cause thats a case by case scenario.  All different ways of storytelling have their strengths and weaknesses just as all games do rpg, shooter or other type.  Does this mean that bioware is going down a wrong road... or they were wrong for trying something different I dont think so and besides I think ME3 will be a more plot driven story with some faction interaction and drama.

You are hell bent on assigning right or wrong to this. It is not that one genre is right while another genre is wrong. This is about some of the changes not being done that well and the feeling that the direction ME2 goes in can be disappointing for some people that preferred the direction ME1 went.
No one is right or wrong in the matter of what they prefer.
Saying that episodic stories are easier to make is a larger benefit to those that make them
Also Bioware is not trying something different in ME2. ME1 was the attempt to be unique and different. ME2 is the attempt to fall inline more with conventions.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

For the billionth time, if you want to talk about an "action" RPG, no need to look beyond ME1 because everything from the plot to the combat was damn near perfect but that wasn't the case with ME2.

This. And I agree that combat in ME 1 was superior too. And not because it is easier, it isn't. I'm only playing both games on the highest difficulty. In ME 1 with its RPG system, at least in the beginning you're so weak that a single hit from a sniper or rocket means reloading the game. And it's very hard to hit anything with a sniper rifle. Only later does the game get easier, as you're getting stronger, like it should be in an RPG. In ME 2, Shepard can shrug off even a direct hit from a missile, and is a perfect shot, from the very start. The only occasions when ME 2 is challenging is when it spams you with lots enemies, sometimes even respawning, Serious Sam style. Krogans in ME 2 are quite weak too, whereas in ME 2 they are very tough, as they should be.

My only real complaint with the combat in ME 1 is that on PC there was no way to completely deactivate auto-aim, which is completely unnecessary. That at least is gone in ME 2.

I stopped taking you seriously after reading your very first sentence.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 10 mai 2010 - 12:30 .

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

Of course the story in ME 1 was told better, much better.

In your own opinion.

bjdbwea wrote...
The cutscenes were great and diverse, the crew meetings added a lot of atmosphere.

1) the cutscenes were few and far  from diverse,being only shot from 2-3 perspectives whereas in ME2, the cut scenes were far more diverse and varied. 

Right there were only 2-3 meetings with half the crew not even contributing to the discussion and shutting up most of the time. Sure, its "very" atmospheric.

bjdbwea wrote...
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.

Sorry to dissapoint, but yes. Let me guess, did you even watch any of the movies i mentioned? Luke, leia and han were seperated for most of the movie, the marines in aliens spent half the time trying to stay alive and sarah connor was running for her life the entire movie.

[SkullandBonesmember]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

I stopped taking you seriously after reading your very first sentence.

Of course you did. Because anybody that prefers ME1's combat over its sequel will definitely lose their credibility by default, IF they had any to begin with.

[Iakus]

Sidney wrote...

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.

Another long one.  Sorry, but this is someting I feel strongly about:

But the problem with the character stories being the main thrust of the plot is they all happen more or less in a vacuum.  Part of charactarization is seeing how the different characters react with other.  Characters I mean, you'd think Samara would have something to say about Thane's loyalty mission, given her own history with her daughters (trying to be vague here)  Shouldn't Mordin have some comments about Jack's backstory?  Does Garrus have anything to say about Tali's situation, given their history on the Normandy 1?  I'm not talking about comments about the current situation("Oh, look, a hospital!"), I'm talking about the whole purpose of the trip.  Would they support an act of vengence?  Do the ends justify the means here?  Even if they ultimately go along with your decision, what do they BELIEVE is the correct course of action?  This is why I say Shepard does not form a team, but a group of individuals directly loyal to Shep.  A character-driven story should show ow loyal they are to each other as well.  Maybe they aren't friends, but at least comrades-in-arms.  I don't get that impression at all.

Thus my comment onh how te game could use a "training montage" section.  Specifically a group of missions designed to have the crew interact with each other.  Missions with someone other than Shepard leading?  Maybe a mission like the Fort Drakon quest in DAO where your squadmates have to rescue Shep.  Perhaps some "dry run" missions requiring one or more specialists before the SM.  Something to flesh the characters out more fully. 

DAO had a really good banter system where your companions would talk with each other in the group.  The BG games could actually have your companions fight each other (to the death!) if they despised each other enough (important safety tip:  not a good idea to have a paladin and a drow in the same party)  Even ME1 had the whole elevator conversationgoing for it.

As to the whole "waiting for stuff to happen" part, I still don't see why Shepard can't be more proactive and go investigate himself.  Two or three pre-Horizon quests to investigate the Collectors would have done a world of good for me.  Plus a half dozen or so "take the fight to the Collectors" missions post-Horizon for that matter.

I don't deny that stuff happens in the game.  Mordin, Legion, and possibly Tali's missions have big implications for the future.  What I dislike is that in the end, Bioware took what amounts to a multitude of sidequests and tried to make them stand as the main storyline. To me, it simply did not work.  They did not blend together well enough.

If ME1 was a novel, ME2 is a short story collection, with each member of the squad having his or her own story, but each story standing completely on it's own, and having little to do with the main plot of the series.  Might be interesting reading, but what does it have to do with anything? This is made even more apparant when you realise that any or all of these characters might be dead for ME3.

On a somewhat related not, there's also the feeling that very little of what you accomplish in ME1 ended up really mattering, so does anything you do in ME2 really worth it? (Yeah yeah, "middle of a trilogy"  doesn't change the feeling that the entire universe has hit the reset button after Shepard's "death")  And I feel really sorry for anyone who thinks ME2 is "too talky" 
And don't get me started on how Reapers are born, that's the SECOND weakest thing about ME2

Modifié par iakus, 10 mai 2010 - 04:39 .

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

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.)

Firstly, you say that Bioware was one of the studios still producing high quality RPGs. What about DAO? Bioware was and still is producing high quality RPGs.

So, Bioware, because they still make RPGs, aren't allowed to go off and make some other kind of game? What if they did want to make a game which is entirely a shooter? Would you say they're not allowed to? I also don't think that the RPG genre (which is doing quite well, you forgot to mention The Witcher and it's forthcoming sequel, Alpha Protocol, Borderlands sort of, Diablo 3 and Arcania) is going to be helped by just making the same games over and over again. Bioware had the balls to try something new, and while it may not have been a success on every level, it's still a fantastic game and RPG.

[Videit]

[quote]TJSolo wrote...

[quote]Videit wrote...

I only ever said the belief that action games and or gamers and rpg games and or gamers dont get along is fubar.  I agree with most of what you said here except about it benefiting the makers more than the players cause thats a case by case scenario.  All different ways of storytelling have their strengths and weaknesses just as all games do rpg, shooter or other type.  Does this mean that bioware is going down a wrong road... or they were wrong for trying something different I dont think so and besides I think ME3 will be a more plot driven story with some faction interaction and drama.[/quote]

You are hell bent on assigning right or wrong to this.[/quote]
Ok if you say so... maybe its because I was also giving a rebuttal to something that you didnt say that you dont understand this cause quite a few people have stated that it is a fact that because ME2 is how it is that bioware used to be good and is going down the wrong path.  Which I find funny because the ME series is only one of the projects that bioware is working on and of course I only stated my oppinion.
 
[quote]TJSolo wrote...

It is not that one genre is right while another genre is wrong.[/quote] 
I agree with you here but it seems that some especially if you look at the first page of this thread state that their genre is the only one that belongs in the ME series RPG and Shooter people.  So why dont you talk to them about it.

[quote]TJSolo wrote...
This is about some of the changes not being done that well and the feeling that the direction ME2 goes in can be disappointing for some people that preferred the direction ME1 went.
No one is right or wrong in the matter of what they prefer.[/quote]
Sorry to say but I think those people are in the minority.

[quote]TJSolo wrote...
Saying that episodic stories are easier to make is a larger benefit to those that make them
Also Bioware is not trying something different in ME2.[/quote]
I beg to differ

[quote]TJSolo wrote...
ME1 was the attempt to be unique and different. ME2 is the attempt to fall inline more with conventions.[/quote]
Says the fact cannon and people who swear that RPG's arent mainstream.  Bioware makes RPG's they always have.  Wouldnt it be fair to say that ME1 and ME2 are both an exercise in combining elements of both RPG and Shooter genre to create a interesting, unique and fun franchise of games.  Thats what I would say but then again who am I but a guy who like to play good games instead crying over ones I think are bad.

I love the Command & Conquer series of games and have for over 15 years.  I absolutely hated the newest one but am I over at the C&C boards complaing and crying bout it hell no cause someone likes the game it just isnt me.  So with that said I think im done here I am going to go play ME1 and ME2 again while I wait for Fallout New Vegas and eventually Dragon Age 2 and ME3 and a slew of non RPG's.

[/quote]

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Firstly, you say that Bioware was one of the studios still producing high quality RPGs. What about DAO? Bioware was and still is producing high quality RPGs.

It seems Bioware isn't interested in giving the RPG heavy games a voiced protagonist.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Firstly, you say that Bioware was one of the studios still producing high quality RPGs. What about DAO? Bioware was and still is producing high quality RPGs.

It seems Bioware isn't interested in giving the RPG heavy games a voiced protagonist.

Why do you need a voiced protagonist?

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

So, Bioware, because they still make RPGs, aren't allowed to go off and make some other kind of game? What if they did want to make a game which is entirely a shooter? Would you say they're not allowed to? I also don't think that the RPG genre (which is doing quite well, you forgot to mention The Witcher and it's forthcoming sequel, Alpha Protocol, Borderlands sort of, Diablo 3 and Arcania) is going to be helped by just making the same games over and over again. Bioware had the balls to try something new, and while it may not have been a success on every level, it's still a fantastic game and RPG.

If Bioware wanted to make a pure shooter, I'd be very surprised, given they have a long history of making very good rpgs. Sure they''d be allowed to, just as we'd be allowed to question their sanity.

ME1 was something new, and far far as I'm concerned a great success.  ME2 refined some things.  But went too far in some ways.  It's like the wishes people expressed about the first game were granted in some terrible Monkey's Paw kind of way (problems with inventory?  No more inventory at all!  Don't like exploring  for minerals?  Planet Scanning!) 

ME2 is a good game, no denial there.  Good rpg?  Meh.  I think of this as Bioware, normally a straight-A student, just came home with a C on its report card.  Still a passing grade, but I'm kinda concerned about what happened here.

[TJSolo]

Videit wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
This is about some of the changes not being done that well and the feeling that the direction ME2 goes in can be disappointing for some people that preferred the direction ME1 went.
No one is right or wrong in the matter of what they prefer.

Sorry to say but I think those people are in the minority.

Majority, minority, greenpeacers all irrelavent in this conversation. Enough are talking about it and are holding the discussion here.  Appealing to the majority or declaiming the minority do not help discussions as Bioware wants to have feedback from anyone capable of posting.

TJSolo wrote...
ME1 was the attempt to be unique and different. ME2 is the attempt to fall inline more with conventions.

Says the fact cannon and people who swear that RPG's arent mainstream.  Bioware makes RPG's they always have.  Wouldnt it be fair to say that ME1 and ME2 are both an exercise in combining elements of both RPG and Shooter genre to create a interesting, unique and fun franchise of games.  Thats what I would say but then again who am I but a guy who like to play good games instead crying over ones I think are bad.

I love the Command & Conquer series of games and have for over 15 years.  I absolutely hated the newest one but am I over at the C&C boards complaing and crying bout it hell no cause someone likes the game it just isnt me.  So with that said I think im done here I am going to go play ME1 and ME2 again while I wait for Fallout New Vegas and eventually Dragon Age 2 and ME3 and a slew of non RPG's.

This is not crying. This is commenting on the product through the means Bioware has in place. The same means Bioware had up for ME1. I am just excersing my best interest to put a say in how I think Bioware can improve the next iteration. I can and am doing most of what you said; playing games and waiting on future titles. Doing so does not restrict me from being able to post.

[Dudeman315]

Videit wrote...

I love the Command & Conquer series of games and have for over 15 years.  I absolutely hated the newest one but am I over at the C&C boards complaing and crying bout it hell no cause someone likes the game it just isnt me.  So with that said I think im done here I am going to go play ME1 and ME2 again while I wait for Fallout New Vegas and eventually Dragon Age 2 and ME3 and a slew of non RPG's.

Well duh because they ended that series it would be pointless since there is no next game. 
You had people ****ing on the forums about ME1 and that's the reason for the changes that you like in ME2 so yes it does make sense to complain about it on these forums.

The main problem with ME2 character stories and the plot is they exist in a vaccum for the most part and ME2 is almost entirely pointless in the grand sceme of things.  If they would have taken the time to weave the loyalty missions into each other or into the ME universe in general(and got rid of mission complete screens)
then it would have felt less broken up and piecemeal look at pulp fiction or Sin City for episodic stories done well.  It that missions like Thane's, Samara's, Jacob's, Miranda's, Garrus's, and Jack's didn't feel like they added anything to anyone or anything else and could have been completly removed without breaking up the story or leaving you feeling like you missed something.  The collector story was basically fed to you by TIM and EDI who magically knew thing about the main plot with little explaination.  Also you squad seemed join for no good reason.  Thane is a super sneaky assassin so it makes perfect sense that he would fight in your face instead using his assassins skills to find and exploit weaknesses in your oppnent's security. Seriously the whole thing felt like they turned DLC for ME1 into a game for ME2 instead of having a well thought out ME2.  Also everything in Empire has some relavence to the universe and story as a whole(such as luke's training, yoda being friend's with kanobi, history etc.)

Thermal clips= Midichlorians--lore breaking crap . (listen to yoda's decription of the force in Emipire and tell me he was talking about midichlorians) "Hey soilder,  we are replacing your infinite ammo weapon with one that
has finite ammo, and extra weight for you to carry but it's an 'upgrade.' "

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

If Bioware wanted to make a pure shooter, I'd be very surprised, given they have a long history of making very good rpgs. Sure they''d be allowed to, just as we'd be allowed to question their sanity.

ME1 was something new, and far far as I'm concerned a great success.  ME2 refined some things.  But went too far in some ways.  It's like the wishes people expressed about the first game were granted in some terrible Monkey's Paw kind of way (problems with inventory?  No more inventory at all!  Don't like exploring  for minerals?  Planet Scanning!) 

ME2 is a good game, no denial there.  Good rpg?  Meh.  I think of this as Bioware, normally a straight-A student, just came home with a C on its report card.  Still a passing grade, but I'm kinda concerned about what happened here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've thought very long and hard about it and (with the possible exception of the removal of the inventory) there isn't a single descion that Bioware made that I wouldn't have made myself put in their shoes.

I'm not saying Bioware would make a shooter, but if they did and it was the best shooter of all time would you then go onto the forums and complain that it's not an RPG?

This is one of the better changes in the games articles I've seen.

[Dudeman315]

Planet Scanning

Mass Effect: Scanning was an
incredibly simple -- and somewhat boring -- affair. All you had to do
was find yourself a planet, press a button, and you scanned the entire
planet automatically.

Mass Effect 2: You must now manually scan
each planet, moving a marker across its surface and waiting for a
rumble in your controller. Once you feel said rumble and your
mineral-detection chart is going off the map, you send off one of the
few dozen probes at your disposal and collect whatever mineral is
present. Because of the added depth and the need for minerals to
upgrade your ship and equipment, this is one of the most addicting
aspects of the game.

Read more: Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes:
How Mass Effect 2 Updates the Franchise http://www.bitmob.co...s#ixzz0nV4JkxeP

And I can stop reading after that statement.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 10 mai 2010 - 05:10 .

[AlanC9]

uberdowzen wrote...
I'm not saying Bioware would make a shooter, but if they did and it was the best shooter of all time would you then go onto the forums and complain that it's not an RPG?

Wouldn't that depend on if that hypothetical shooter displaced an RPG or not? If Bio makes less RPGs because they're also making shooters, I can see someone being upset about that.

Not an issue with ME, of course. Even if ME was a pure shooter Bio would still be making as many RPGs as it ever did.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 mai 2010 - 05:12 .

[Dick Delaware]

Uberdowzen, I agree completely with most of the points that you've made and felt that ME2 was the superior game, but that article praises planet scanning as "addicting". It's not an objective piece and it's typical gaming journalist tripe.



While Mass Effect 2 was episodic, plenty of choices feel like they might have consequences for the future, or, at the very least, allowed you to learn more about the universe. The ones with the deepest potential consequences are Legion, Tali, and Mordin's missions. Likewise, Jack, Samara, and Grunt's missions added a lot of flavour to the universe by showing you more of Cerberus, the darker side of asari culture, and more information about the krogans. Even in the other loyalty missions, while they are more personal and not involved in the grander scheme of things, the game still makes it quite clear why you're doing what you're doing - you need to make sure that these people are mentally together and willing to die for you so that your mission can succeed.



ME1's hubs could feel quite disconnected as well. Virmire obviously was quite connected to the plot, but the others weren't nearly as relevant.

[Terror_K]

rplong wrote...

I agree with uberdowzen on how ME2 is more polished. The correction of having all textures loaded when going into a scene is a massive improvement. I hated watching the textures slowly come into focus or improve as a scene progressed in ME1

I don't get why people keep saying this. ME2 comes across as BioWare's most slapdash and rough-around-the-edges game they've ever made, IMO. It clearly could have done with a little more time in the oven. Heck, it wasn't even delayed at all when it could have easily been. ME2's polish overall is rather schizophrenic though (some bits really polished, other aspects as if they've just been slapped on and left as is). It reminds me a little bit of KotOR2 in this regard.

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 used to have a lot of respect for the Mass Effect team, but I'm afraid I don't think the devs deserve credit for producing such a watered down product shaped to appeal to the masses that has lost its spark and gone for the easy answers in order to solve the problems of its predecessor. The devs really do need a good kick up the arse, especially after the grandiose claims that it would still be a deep and full RPG before hand.

So, sorry... but I'll give credit where credit's due. It's not due here. Well, okay... that's not entirely true, because those who did the music, animations, graphics, cinematography, etc. do deserve credit and kudos. But those who designed the way the game works and the systems in place did a poor job.

[Dick Delaware]

Terror_K wrote...
I don't get why people keep saying this. ME2 comes across as BioWare's most slapdash and rough-around-the-edges game they've ever made, IMO. It clearly could have done with a little more time in the oven. Heck, it wasn't even delayed at all when it could have easily been. ME2's polish overall is rather schizophrenic though (some bits really polished, other aspects as if they've just been slapped on and left as is). It reminds me a little bit of KotOR2 in this regard.

The only part I feel was awkwardly put together was the part where your crew gets kidnapped. Definitely felt that there was some cut content there. Otherwise, I felt the quest hubs had a more solid sense of identity (particularly Omega and Tuchanka), and the core elements of the game (dialogue, cinematics, shooting) were weaved together in a far more focused manner than in the original game. There wasn't the excessive exposition dumping often found in the first game, the interrupt system worked great, more camera angles in cinematics, better and more tactical shooting mechanics, etc.

I think that removing stuff like driving and inventory really allowed more focus to be put into those core elements. It was a bold decision and I think it paid off. 

It's funny that you mention KotOR II, since I felt that game, as rushed and as flawed as it was, was better than the original because of it's better writing and ability to rise above the typically predictable Star Wars setting. ME1 reminded me of Knights of the Old Republic too much at times, since it re-used (yet again) that same BioWare formula where you go through four plot hubs, meet the same character archetypes over again, hit a plot twist, then head to the final planet for a dramatic conclusion. I thought ME2 mixed it up a bit, and for that, I'm grateful.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 10 mai 2010 - 05:56 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Why do you need a voiced protagonist?

Because the technology is there and we're in 2010 not 2000 and even then a good percentage of games had voice acting from the main character. When your protagonist isn't voiced like in a game such as DA, it kills the immersion.

[uberdowzen]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Planet Scanning

Mass Effect: Scanning was an
incredibly simple -- and somewhat boring -- affair. All you had to do
was find yourself a planet, press a button, and you scanned the entire
planet automatically.

Mass Effect 2: You must now manually scan
each planet, moving a marker across its surface and waiting for a
rumble in your controller. Once you feel said rumble and your
mineral-detection chart is going off the map, you send off one of the
few dozen probes at your disposal and collect whatever mineral is
present. Because of the added depth and the need for minerals to
upgrade your ship and equipment, this is one of the most addicting
aspects of the game.

Read more: Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes:
How Mass Effect 2 Updates the Franchise http://www.bitmob.co...s#ixzz0nV4JkxeP

And I can stop reading after that statement.

Yeah, I do disagree with that part. Planet scanning seems cool for about the first 10 minutes, then you realise how crap it is.