10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Once you're out of sight of your leaving point all you basically see is the same passing textures and/or lights beyond the elevator. All one needs to do is have this repeating until the loading is done with the minimum time synced up with the length of the news report or squad banter, then proceed to insert the destination that's been fully loaded in that time.[/quote]

Is that actually how it works or just a guess? Because surely if it works like that the elevators should end as soon as the conversation is over.[/quote]

Not sure how it works, but that's how I'd do it. And I'm pretty sure there were elevators a lot faster loading on PC than on 360.

[quote]
And Sheperd said how much during the Mako parts of most of the missions?[/quote]

Nothing much while in The Mako itself, but most of the UNC quests themselves at least had some dialogue attributed to it, usually set up by Admiral Hackett or something and then the odd comment at a computer terminal or something... sometimes a moral choice and an NPC to talk to. Companions would sometimes even weigh in (in ME1 each companion had unique dialogue for things like finding the right monkey, finding a dead Kahoku, etc.) which is completely missing in ME2 aside from rare occasions where they made a generic, non-specific quip. When Shepard found The Hammerhead there was no comments about it, just the silent opening of a crate. Shepard said nothing about The Geth or the artifact, etc. whatsoever, and nor did anybody else. It smacks of cheapness and makes the whole thing feel lacking in polish. Again, the N7 missions themselves also suffered this greatly, as well as having a very "so what?" feeling to them compared to ME1's which actually had weight. 

[quote]
The Hammerhead appears crappier from a technical standpoint (weaker etc) but gameplay wise it's much better. Mako combat essentially involved zooming in on a target, firing a rocket, going back a few metres to avoid a rocket, fire another rocket, inch forward a bit to avoid another rock, rinse, repeat, cry. It wasn't exciting and it felt gamey. Hammerhead combat felt fast, furious and fun (although not being allowed to quicksave sucked). And I'm generally in favour of reduced HUDs, makes things more immersive.[/quote]

Disagree on all these points personally. Hate the trend of minimalist HUDs in games these days because its gone beyond minimalist to the point where info I want to be able to see is also gone. The Hammerhead is too zippy and this make combat easy (you can simply strafe and shoot far faster than any enemy can turn). Mako combat could be boring, yes, but it could also be exciting and fun if you chose to keep moving and driving while attacking targets. The Mako just felt stronger and more weighty too, and at least had decent shields. This just feels like a big step back as a replacement vehicle, and I find it hard believing that it would be considered a replacement in-universe (an alternate vehicle for a different purpose, maybe... a replacement: no). 

[quote]
Still, doesn't mean that it needed to be random or that you didn't omnigel 99% of the items anyway.[/quote]

It was better random, whether it "needed" to be or not. In ME2 there's no surprise or randomness at all... it boring and repetitive. And the omni-gel factor can be easily fixed by utilising ME2's scanning function (one of the few good ideas in the ME2 system). 

[quote]
What mods have become powers? Ammo have become powers but I can't think of any mods that have.[/quote]

Those are the ones I was referring to. After all, those ammo types were mods in ME1.

[quote]
Who was the major dev who hadn't played ME1? The only people who I think need (I mean everyone probably should have) to play the original are the Project Director, Lead Designer, Art Director and the Lead Programmer.[/quote]

I can't remember which one it was. One of the ones who frequently posts here, or at least did at the old board. If anybody else can remember who it was, feel free to say. I'd search the old forums, but they have that annoying 6 month search limit thing, and I know it was over 6 months ago it was said.

[quote]
I totally agree that some of these choices should've made bigger changes, although I think it was probably a mistake going in expecting them to. I don't really agree with your argument about save files though because a) the game does need to appeal to newcomers to a certain extent and the people who did lose their save games (for whatever reason) would get annoyed that because they made an honest mistake they're getting punished.[/quote]

I actually meant more that the story and plot and choices regarding ME1 shouldn't have been so pushed into the background and made so insignificant just to hold the hands of newcomers. BioWare could have made something very special if they'd just concentrated on it being a proper trilogy instead of making so sure that newbies don't get confused and pushing prior events to the side so much. All that stuff about you becoming a Spectre --one of the most significant, defining and poignant moments in the first game-- is reduced to so little in the second. One can easily forget about things in ME1 when playing the sequel because there's so little connection to anything that matters beyond the Reaper stuff.

[quote]
So I've been playing ME2 for the past few days with the vanguard I just finished up in ME1 and here's the changes I'd make for ME3:

• Ditch, or drastically improve planet scanning[/quote]
  I'd say improve rather than ditch. Ditch is BioWare's answer to everything it seems for one, but planet scanning does have potential. Just don't make it too easy either. There has to be some degree of either challenge or some obstacle to not just make it as simple as "point, find, take"
  
  [quote]Create a special weapon selection screen rather than just using the standard interface
  [/quote]
  
  Agreed. With stats. Must have stats back.
  
  [quote]
• Downplay the upgrade element (don't remove it though) and give it a special upgrade interface which shows how weapons advance etc (again rather than just using the standard interface)[/quote]
  
  Depends what you mean here. Upgrades should mostly return in modding form, IMO, with research upgrades reduced to simply leveling your weapon up for the most part.
  
  [quote]
• Stronger plot (almost a cert)
• Improve the levelling system (it's not very satisfying at all) specifically, remove the dead levels where you can't level up.
• Tie persuades to a power (I was thinking that they could do this Dragon Age style, so a basic persuade requires 1 point in your class power, a slightly harder one require 2 etc, in addition to requiring your paragon/renegade points to be at a certain point)
• Expand upon the current weapon system, allowing you to customise the look of weapons and install mods, that you either buy or find, at the start of the mission.
• Bring back Omnitools and Biotic amps (maybe just have it so that different amps provide bonuses to different powers)
• Helmet Toggle
• More sets of armor in the game rather than just DLC.

I reckon that's about it, if there's something I've forgotten I'll add it.
[/quote]

Considering I disagree with you a lot in general, I can't help but agree with pretty much all of these points you make. All of these would make for a deeper and better ME3.

[TJSolo]

Dick Delaware wrote...

"Mass murder" or not, whatever. The
point is that only having XP per kill opens the door for exploits with
areas that have unlimited XP (remember those creatures in Tatooine in
KotOR?) and it gives incentives for taking the run-and-gun approach
instead of looking for stealthy/deceptive/diplomatic alternatives or a
mix of those approaches.

So yeah, more diplomatic solutions for
ME3. Both ME1 and ME2 were pretty bad at this, ME1 slightly less
so.

There are no respawning enemies in ME1.
ME1 has
alternative ways to complete missions other than combat.; no matter how
you "power game" ME1 it will still take 2
playthroughs to get level60. The gain from opting to kill things instead
of a diplomatic approach is extremely marginal.
Again I say looking for fights is not a negative in games. The
attempt to portray it as such is silly.

[SithLordExarKun]

I would like them to keep the ME2 galaxy map honestly, i kinda liked it but bring back the inventory system too.

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

Nothing much while in The Mako itself, but most of the UNC quests themselves at least had some dialogue attributed to it, usually set up by Admiral Hackett or something and then the odd comment at a computer terminal or something.

I wasn't really a fond of that. I flew to a star cluster. "Incoming message from Admiral Hackett". Ok not worth it to do this quest yet. Fly to next star cluster. "Incoming message from Admiral Hackett". Again? Not doing this either. Next custer. "Incoming message from Alliance Command." Oh, Geth you say? Going there right away.

Companions would sometimes even weigh in (in ME1 each companion had unique dialogue for things like finding the right monkey, finding a dead Kahoku, etc.) which is completely missing in ME2 aside from rare occasions where they made a generic, non-specific quip.

Well that's a lie. They had plenty of comments during missions (even Zaeed and Kasumi did). Take the Collector ship for example. Every squadmate had something to say about the pile of bodies, empty pods, the vast hall with thousands of those pods etc. Or whether you pushed certain person down through the fence or not Garrus had different comments.

That's just from the top of my head. There are LOTS and LOTS of those.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

ME1 has alternative ways to complete missions other than combat.

You mean 1 UNC and then some minor side quests?

[Terror_K]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Well that's a lie. They had plenty of comments during missions (even Zaeed and Kasumi did). Take the Collector ship for example. Every squadmate had something to say about the pile of bodies, empty pods, the vast hall with thousands of those pods etc. Or whether you pushed certain person down through the fence or not Garrus had different comments.

That's just from the top of my head. There are LOTS and LOTS of those.

Uh... I was actually referring to sidequests and not the main plot in this case. In sidequests ME1 companions would sometimes weigh in and have unique dialogue, etc. while in ME2 this was not the case (except for, like I said, rare occasions where they'd say something generic and vague). As I said, even Shepard was overly silent on the sidequests. 

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

Uh... I was actually referring to sidequests and not the main plot in this case. In sidequests ME1 companions would sometimes weigh in and have unique dialogue, etc. while in ME2 this was not the case (except for, like I said, rare occasions where they'd say something generic and vague). As I said, even Shepard was overly silent on the sidequests. 

Oh, right. Well the ME1 style of Kaidan saying "Commander, I've tracked the signal to a star system in this cluster." has been changed to ME2 style of EDI saying the same thing.

[Dick Delaware]

TJSolo wrote...

There are no respawning enemies in ME1.
ME1 has
alternative ways to complete missions other than combat.; no matter how
you "power game" ME1 it will still take 2
playthroughs to get level60. The gain from opting to kill things instead
of a diplomatic approach is extremely marginal.
Again I say looking for fights is not a negative in games. The
attempt to portray it as such is silly.

Looking for fights isn't negative, certainly. That form of play shouldn't be discouraged. I'm just saying that the other side, say, having a stealthy or diplomatic character (note: obviously, stealth isn't part of ME, but diplomacy certainly can be), shouldn't be discouraged either. Having XP awarded only on a per-kill basis really is bad design because it limis options. Ideally, I'd like something like ME2's system, where XP is given upon mission completion, combined with some diplomatic solutions as an alternative to combat.

I don't remember any respawning enemies in ME2. Yeah, I remember waves of enemies, but I've never been in a situation where I've returned to a place to find the enemies I've killed have come back again. Can you clarify what type of respawning occurs? I honestly didn't notice.

There are a few, very scant examples of being able to avoid combat with a diplomatic solution in ME1, but those are rare and confined to side-quests that were quite minor. I feel that Saren is a poor example as you'll have to fight him anyways. It's not like say, convincing The Master to kill himself in Fallout if you've found out the super-mutants are sterile. Really, the series as a whole is poor in this regard and I'd like to see some progress made on this front.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 13 mai 2010 - 08:37 .

[uberdowzen]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Not sure how it works, but that's how I'd do it. And I'm pretty sure there were elevators a lot faster loading on PC than on 360.[/quote]

Well, whatever they decide, they need to choose one or the other. It felt messy in ME1 when sometimes you'd have an elevator, sometimes a load screen.

[quote]
Nothing much while in The Mako itself, but most of the UNC quests themselves at least had some dialogue attributed to it, usually set up by Admiral Hackett or something and then the odd comment at a computer terminal or something... sometimes a moral choice and an NPC to talk to. Companions would sometimes even weigh in (in ME1 each companion had unique dialogue for things like finding the right monkey, finding a dead Kahoku, etc.) which is completely missing in ME2 aside from rare occasions where they made a generic, non-specific quip. When Shepard found The Hammerhead there was no comments about it, just the silent opening of a crate. Shepard said nothing about The Geth or the artifact, etc. whatsoever, and nor did anybody else. It smacks of cheapness and makes the whole thing feel lacking in polish. Again, the N7 missions themselves also suffered this greatly, as well as having a very "so what?" feeling to them compared to ME1's which actually had weight. [/quote]

Well, we were kind of talking about the hammerhead bits, not the N7 missions. More dialogue would be good in the N7 missions, not denying that.

[quote]
Disagree on all these points personally. Hate the trend of minimalist HUDs in games these days because its gone beyond minimalist to the point where info I want to be able to see is also gone. The Hammerhead is too zippy and this make combat easy (you can simply strafe and shoot far faster than any enemy can turn). Mako combat could be boring, yes, but it could also be exciting and fun if you chose to keep moving and driving while attacking targets. The Mako just felt stronger and more weighty too, and at least had decent shields. This just feels like a big step back as a replacement vehicle, and I find it hard believing that it would be considered a replacement in-universe (an alternate vehicle for a different purpose, maybe... a replacement: no). [/quote]

Minimalist huds are awesome when they work. I mean think about it, if the same information can be got across to you without having a number floating weirdly in your vision, that's definetly better. Portal is a great example of this (although to be fair, that game has very little info to put across). Mako combat could be exciting when you did the driving around and shooting thing, the problem was you missed most of the time.

[quote]
It was better random, whether it "needed" to be or not. In ME2 there's no surprise or randomness at all... it boring and repetitive. And the omni-gel factor can be easily fixed by utilising ME2's scanning function (one of the few good ideas in the ME2 system). [/quote]

Well, we'll see.

[quote]

Those are the ones I was referring to. After all, those ammo types were mods in ME1.[/quote]

But the ammo system in ME2 is brilliant. I'm of the opinion that in an Action RPG (not standard RPGs like DAO etc) you shouldn't really have to "exit" the combat (or to a certain extent have to worry about RPG elements). The way I see it, in Action RPGs, the RPG system is just there to set up interesting combat situations and at the player level, the player shouldn't have to worry about it even if there are complex calculations going on underneath.

[quote]

I can't remember which one it was. One of the ones who frequently posts here, or at least did at the old board. If anybody else can remember who it was, feel free to say. I'd search the old forums, but they have that annoying 6 month search limit thing, and I know it was over 6 months ago it was said.[/quote]

Will be interested to know.

[quote]
I actually meant more that the story and plot and choices regarding ME1 shouldn't have been so pushed into the background and made so insignificant just to hold the hands of newcomers. BioWare could have made something very special if they'd just concentrated on it being a proper trilogy instead of making so sure that newbies don't get confused and pushing prior events to the side so much. All that stuff about you becoming a Spectre --one of the most significant, defining and poignant moments in the first game-- is reduced to so little in the second. One can easily forget about things in ME1 when playing the sequel because there's so little connection to anything that matters beyond the Reaper stuff.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm with you to a certain extent. Although, I suspect the whole Spectre thing is going to become a factor in ME3 (my current theory is that there is going to be some sort of choice between whether you're working for the alliance or cerberus, possibly based on the final choice of ME2).

[quote]
I'd say improve rather than ditch. Ditch is BioWare's answer to everything it seems for one, but planet scanning does have potential. Just don't make it too easy either. There has to be some degree of either challenge or some obstacle to not just make it as simple as "point, find, take"[/quote]

Yeah, it's definetly not beyond saving. Just maybe not have it for every planet or something.

[quote]
Agreed. With stats. Must have stats back.[/quote]

Did you see the picture in the "Where did my inventory go" presentation? I was thinking something along those lines.

[quote]
Depends what you mean here. Upgrades should mostly return in modding form, IMO, with research upgrades reduced to simply leveling your weapon up for the most part.[/quote]

I mean a very similar upgrade system to ME2 (in combination with mods) only with some kind of tech tree like diagram. Because as is, that system is pretty confusing.

[quote]
Considering I disagree with you a lot in general, I can't help but agree with pretty much all of these points you make. All of these would make for a deeper and better ME3.[/quote]

Great! Now we're finally getting somewhere.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Looking for fights isn't negative, certainly. That form of play shouldn't be discouraged. I'm just saying that the other side, say, having a stealthy or diplomatic character (note: obviously, stealth isn't part of ME, but diplomacy certainly can be), shouldn't be discouraged either. Having XP awarded only on a per-kill basis really is bad design because it limis options. Ideally, I'd like something like ME2's system, where XP is given upon mission completion, combined with some diplomatic solutions as an alternative to combat.

I don't remember any respawning enemies in ME2. Yeah, I remember waves of enemies, but I've never been in a situation where I've returned to a place to find the enemies I've killed have come back again. Can you clarify what type of respawning occurs? I honestly didn't notice.

There are a few, very scant examples of being able to avoid combat with a diplomatic solution in ME1, but those are rare and confined to side-quests that were quite minor. I feel that Saren is a poor example as you'll have to fight him anyways. It's not like say, convincing The Master to kill himself in Fallout if you've found out the super-mutants are sterile. Really, the series as a whole is poor in this regard and I'd like to see some progress made on this front.

Erm, I could see a Fallout 3 XP system working in ME3 where dialogue options could provide XP gaining.

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Well, whatever they decide, they need to choose one or the other. It felt messy in ME1 when sometimes you'd have an elevator, sometimes a load screen.

The only times I remember ME1 having loading screens instead of elevators was when you weren't using an elevator, such as the Mass Relay one, the Normandy in hyperspace one, and the Citadel view when using rapid transit. All these cases made sense, and felt like proper transitions.

Well, we were kind of talking about the hammerhead bits, not the N7 missions. More dialogue would be good in the N7 missions, not denying that.

I did say, and I quote, "When Shepard found The Hammerhead there was no comments about it, just the silent opening of a crate. Shepard said nothing about The Geth or the artifact, etc. whatsoever, and nor did anybody else" which refers directly to The Hammerhead missions. It just so happens that the Hammerhead missions suffer from N7 syndrome too.

Minimalist huds are awesome when they work. I mean think about it, if the same information can be got across to you without having a number floating weirdly in your vision, that's definetly better. Portal is a great example of this (although to be fair, that game has very little info to put across). Mako combat could be exciting when you did the driving around and shooting thing, the problem was you missed most of the time.

The key there is the words "when they work" because my main issue with the trend is quite often they don't show you enough, and you have to go into another screen or press a button to get that information. A classic case of this is Brutal Legend, where I kept having to go to the map screen to see where I was when driving and other screens to get other details. If I have to keep doing that when a small indicator on screen all the time would be better, then its annoying. The Hammerhead sections really should be closer to the HUD you had in ME1 for the Mako. If it really bothers people to have something on screen, then make it toggle-able and give the player a choice.

Regarding Mako combat I suddenly realise that what was simple and fun on the PC version would be tricky and a chore on the 360 one, but the 360 Mako controls needed a major overhaul anyway.

But the ammo system in ME2 is brilliant. I'm of the opinion that in an Action RPG (not standard RPGs like DAO etc) you shouldn't really have to "exit" the combat (or to a certain extent have to worry about RPG elements). The way I see it, in Action RPGs, the RPG system is just there to set up interesting combat situations and at the player level, the player shouldn't have to worry about it even if there are complex calculations going on underneath.

Not sure exactly what you mean here. Are you referring to having to change out weapon mods in guns as opposed to having them as powers? My main beef with the powers thing was that they didn't make much sense (why would a skill effect whether you could use an ammo mod or not and how well it worked? Makes as much sense to me as your persuasion skill being changed to a weapon mod). Beyond that, I think they just work better as weapon mods. I'd actually prefer it even if you couldn't change them on-foot and modifications to weapons had to be done at a weapon loadout station. Or at the very least not in a combat situation (i.e. if you can't save the game, you can't mod a weapon).

Did you see the picture in the "Where did my inventory go" presentation? I was thinking something along those lines.

Not sure which picture you are referring to... that presentation had a lot of slides and pictures after all.

I was looking for whichever dev has said they hasn't played ME1, and while I couldn't find it I couldn't help but find the following post from Preston Watamaniuk from almost a year ago:-

Preston Watamaniuk wrote...

Your comment about us selling out and making the game too generic is mirrored in many other posts and threads throughout the message boards and it does concern me greatly. 

What we did at the end of ME1 was examine where certain mechanics, game play experiences and narrative were not working well together. We looked at your feedback and the feedback of reviewers and team members to really figure out where our problems were. My goal with ME2 was to make it more accessible to a larger fan base but in a way that did not sacrifice its RPG depth. I think those two goals can co-exist and over the last year and a half we have made great strides in being able to examine things such as inventory and make it better. Inventory, its acquisition, use and management is much more streamlined on ME2. We took the single activity of switching out gear and mods and broke it down into a set of more manageable tasks that accomplish the same exact result. These tasks are also hooked into the wider game in more interesting ways than on ME1 as well. Let me be very clear you will be able to collect, upgrade, personalize and manage inventory on ME2.

There was more, but that's what caught my eye. Especially the stuff in bold. Sorry Preston, but I have to say you failed in your task. You may have made it more accessible to a larger fanbase, but you did sacrifice its RPG depth doing so. And that last part is just laughable.

Modifié par Terror_K, 13 mai 2010 - 10:07 .

[Darth Drago]

KitsuneRommel wrote...



Well that's a lie. They had plenty of comments during missions (even Zaeed and Kasumi did). Take the Collector ship for example. Every squadmate had something to say about the pile of bodies, empty pods, the vast hall with thousands of those pods etc. Or whether you pushed certain person down through the fence or not Garrus had different comments.

That's just from the top of my head. There are LOTS and LOTS of those.

Sorry, but in a lot of those cases everyone said the same lines. It was a rare occasion that anyone actually said anything different especially in the recruiting/loyalty missions.

[Terror_K]

I have to say, reading some of these old, pre-release dev comments on the old forums again is interesting post-ME2...

Jarrett Lee wrote...

Please, don't worry. The game is going to be everything you want it to be and then some. In fact, one of the first tennets of the marketing (hope I used that work - "tennets" - correctly) is to make sure fans of the first game get everything they want out of the sequel.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong! And Bzzzzzz! Wrong!

Christina Norman wrote...

You have more options, and more meaningful options, to customize our weapon experience playing Mass Effect 2.

 

Bzzzzzt! Wrong!

Brenon Holmes wrote...

I can't quite recall who mentioned it (I think it was an author), but they basically said that the problem with sequels and series is that your fans always want more of the same. They don't want things to change, for fear of losing the things they enjoyed the most.

Even here in the office, there have been a bunch of cases where we've talked about changes or new features and from the discussion, a feature/change would be thought to be a bad idea. Then we'd prototype it and the reaction would be the exact opposite. In a lot of cases, people don't want what they think they want.

Oh, I know what I want. And what I want isn't what ME2 gave me. I did lose many of the things I enjoyed the most.

Christina Norman wrote...

This isn't really that complicated, Mass Effect 1 had FPS and RPG elements, and we're trying to do both better with the sequel!

Well, you failed.

 
Just like ME1, the core design team has a tonne of old school RPG experience, that hasn't changed. We know what makes a great RPG.

 

That is true. Shame you didn't make a great RPG with said knowledge.

Christina Norman wrote...

There always seems to be a prejudice or bias or whatever in "X" group of gamers that you cannot change the game to make it appeal to more people without making it worse for the "X" group. You cannot make changes to a racing game, an RPG a shooter, an RTS or whatever without somehow spoiling the original idea.

THIS IS NOT TRUE

True. Deus Ex did it a decade ago. Mass Effect 2 however didn't.

We are keeping the strong story, dialog, cutscene, romance, emotional choice, NPCs, moral choices, etc and all the great elements that go into an excellent RPG and improve the other game systems like combat, travel, etc that will make the overall product better.

In case you all did not notice, Mass Effect 1 HAD combat, travel, etc to go along with a classic BioWare RPG. Most people liked what was there, a few poeple didn't or wanted it to be better. We are now making Mass Effect 2 better FOR ALL players.

You can make a good game better and we are making a great game better. For those people who doubt, you will just have to wait and see (which is exactly what those who believe we can do it will also have to do).

Sorry, but Mass Effect 2 wasn't better for all players. If it was, I and many others wouldn't be posting and making these threads.

And I doubted, and I have now waited and seen since. And I was mostly right: you didn't make a great game better.

Thomas R Roy wrote...

I give you a serious promise that its a better game, no matter what type of fan you are.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong! Promise broken.

[bjdbwea]

@ Terror_K

Very interesting, good finds! Maybe even worth of its own thread?

And note how much the developers had to say before release. Especially with the reassurances when concerns were raised. Now that we've all bought the game, there's just silence. Great way to treat your fans and community, BioWare! But here's a newsflash: That may have worked once, but everyone is warned now. No pre-ordering of any of your future games from me is the result. I will only buy the game once I've read credible (!) reviews and decided that it's worth it.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 mai 2010 - 11:09 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

Christina Norman wrote...

You have more options, and more meaningful options, to customize our weapon experience playing Mass Effect 2.

What was the date of that post TK?

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 13 mai 2010 - 11:33 .

[KennyRogers]

Really, guys? The only thing I found missing from Mass Effect 2 was atmosphere, but if you think that it's an example of a bad sequel, I can name about 20 efforts that went down the drain a helluva lot worse than that. Mass Effect 2 was the necessary sequel. If you expected it wasn't going to simplify things from the first game, you were bound to be angry. But my complaint about lack of atmosphere works; these two games are totally different. In the first game, you're a human operative, exploring space, and finding out dark secrets on the way. In the second game, you're a resurrected hero, who's found that he can only trust the shadowy organization that helped him in the first place. There is no place more easy to see this than in the main menu of the first game, and the main menu of the second game. The first game simply has a shot of space, as it floats by gracefully in the background. The second game shows a rigid display of computers, symbolic of the mechanical way Shepard was forcefully brought back to life. In short; stop ragging on either game. They're different.

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

The only times I remember ME1 having loading screens instead of elevators was when you weren't using an elevator, such as the Mass Relay one, the Normandy in hyperspace one, and the Citadel view when using rapid transit. All these cases made sense, and felt like proper transitions.

And those outnumbered the elevator rides by 20 to 1. Edit: You get that Mass relay loading screen when entering bunkers (and probably starships) too.

Sorry, but in a lot of those cases everyone said the same lines. It was a
rare occasion that anyone actually said anything different especially
in the recruiting/loyalty missions.

Nope. I many cases EVERYONE has a different line. The only exception was the loyalty missions where the second squadmate usually said nothing during the mission.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 13 mai 2010 - 11:55 .

[Icinix]

I'm not dissapointed with Mass Effect 2, but I am mildly dissapointed with some of the directional changes.



As I continue to get further away from new game feelings, the game doesn't feel as repayable as the first or other role playing games. It was definitely atmosphere as well that has been missing. Load screens are a great way to reduce atmosphere and immersion. Elevators were good for this. YES some people had load time issues, NO I was not one of them.



I don't know, I think all the issues people have had have been truly fleshed out by now, but the further away we get from when it was released, the more and more things I'm taking time to notice feel wrong with it. Where as Dragon Age / Mass Effect 1, those games I can still play along with a new game and still feel a sense of Awe. It isn't nostalgia either, it's definitely the way the game plays.

[Terror_K]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Christina Norman wrote...

You have more options, and more meaningful options, to customize our weapon experience playing Mass Effect 2.

What was the date of that post TK?

Posted: Saturday, 20 June 2009 01:04PM

So about 11 months ago.

[Dick Delaware]

Icinix wrote...

I'm not dissapointed with Mass Effect 2, but I am mildly dissapointed with some of the directional changes.

As I continue to get further away from new game feelings, the game doesn't feel as repayable as the first or other role playing games. It was definitely atmosphere as well that has been missing. Load screens are a great way to reduce atmosphere and immersion. Elevators were good for this. YES some people had load time issues, NO I was not one of them.

I don't know, I think all the issues people have had have been truly fleshed out by now, but the further away we get from when it was released, the more and more things I'm taking time to notice feel wrong with it. Where as Dragon Age / Mass Effect 1, those games I can still play along with a new game and still feel a sense of Awe. It isn't nostalgia either, it's definitely the way the game plays.

I guess it varies. With Dragon Age and ME1, I was kinda annoyed that they kept the same "Collect 4 Star Maps set-up". Dragon Age did this better than any BioWare game before because it had better consequences, choices (Redcliffe rocked) and roleplay opportunities, but it still had the same set-up. I was happy that ME2 changed things up a lot in that regard.

Personally, I thought ME2 absolutely oozed atmosphere. Tuchanka, Omega, and Illium all had distinctive identities to me and they really stuck out in my mind. I loved Noveria and the Presidium, but the other locations were pretty unremarkable IMO. The long corridors of Mako driving made things more irritating to me than atmospheric.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 13 mai 2010 - 12:42 .

[Terror_K]

I personally find both games about on-par atmosphere wise with what's there, though ME2 loses a little of that endless loneliness of space that ME1 had by lacking areas that are sparse, immense and vast like ME1's UNC worlds were. It's not that ME2's places were bad, its just that too many of them were overly distinctive and overly crafted and as such there was nowhere that felt mostly untouched by civilisation, which I think a game about space needs. That said, I agree that it was good that they broke from the standard formula and had a greater number of smaller locations rather than the standard "start place, four main large destinations, end place" model usually used.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

Posted: Saturday, 20 June 2009 01:04PM

But SURELY things change.

[Poison_Berrie]

Terror_K wrote...
Developer quotes

Too be honest most of what you are claiming as wrong are subjective matters and make the entire post a little spiteful and childish.

My biggest disappointment is that in general there wasn't enough sense of rewarding. Lack of equipment and research is symptomatic to that, but the structuring of missions is as well.
Not getting new gun or armor piece for beating that Merc-boss or having all side projects already available after three weapon/tech/whatever upgrades.
An actual reward for doing finishing the mission rather than just finding them at random.

Another one was that the Normandy had to be four separate maps rather than just one big one.

[Blackghost0]

my big disappointment was the Normandy and the leveling.

[Xpheyel]

Terror_K wrote...

It was better random, whether it "needed" to be or not. In ME2 there's no surprise or randomness at all... it boring and repetitive. And the omni-gel factor can be easily fixed by utilising ME2's scanning function (one of the few good ideas in the ME2 system). 

ME1's items are no better than the upgrade system from ME2. 

Find item with longer bars, equip item. It has no thought or depth outside the weapon/armor mods.

The fact that I find an Avenger IV in a crate in a play through and buy a Banshee III in some other playthrough is not even remotely interesting or exciting to me because both guns are crap I'm going to replace as soon as the rng smiles on me next. Spectre weapons are the only interesting ones in the entire game and that is solely because they're completely OP with respect to their listed tier and the level you can buy them at.

So in one game I go:
Avenger I
Banshee III
Avenger V
Tsunami VII
HWMA VII

In another game I go:
Avenger I
Avenger II
Banshee IV
Thunder VI
HWMA VII

What difference is there between these playthroughs? Nothing! There is no reason for me to give a rats rear end about any of those guns! It's just Gun Upgrade 1, Gun Upgrade 2,..., Gun Upgrade N, Spectre Weapon. Done. There is nothing there!

I know these are just opinions but since we're just going to keep blindly hurling epithets, ME2 has some interesting gun choices. ME1 has no interesting gun choices. ME2's item design >>> ME1's item design.

Modifié par Xpheyel, 13 mai 2010 - 02:22 .