10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Dick Delaware]

Vena_86 wrote...

From my observation those who relentlessly defend ME2 do so by black and white analysis. Its either ME1s way or ME2s way. Where is the imagination?
ME1 had some flawed systems that in their state had more to offer than the systems in ME2 but with very clunky, ineffecient, partly annoying implementation. But that doesnt make the ME2 systems any better only because they are implemented better.
What the sequel should have done is eliminating the bad things, while maintaining the good parts or even improving them. What ME2 did instead is eliminating whole systems, along with the bad AND the good parts. The only thing that really has improved for most people is the shooter combat mechanics, but to the sacrifice of many things that together made Mass Effect special and different. It is a step forward and atleast one step back. Instead of building upon the foundation, while scraping of the rough parts, the sequel started almost from scratch. That is not what a sequel should do, specially to a game that was quite successfull and respected in its own right.

That's exactly why I like ME2 better. It eliminated the things that I didn't like (shallow Mako exploration, an awful inventory system, a limited selection of weapons that were all identical in how they handled, characters who for the most part I didn't particularly care about, yet another formulaic "Collect 4 Star Maps" game) while simultaneously improving or maintaining good things (cinematics were better this time around, characters were more interesting and better fleshed out, dialogue system was improved with interrupts, the shooting aspect was greatly improved and more fluid, weapons that actually handled differently).

Now, I'm not discounting ME2's flaws here. Planet scanning was a very poor solution to endless commute of Mako corridors (the only reason I prefer it is because it takes less time), a limited selection of weapons (even though the weapons handled differently, they needed a bigger selection), choices from ME1 being mostly cosmetic, were indeed problems. However, on the whole, ME2 surpassed my expectations exactly because they eliminated the things I didn't like while improving the dialogue and combat.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 13 mai 2010 - 09:14 .

[bjdbwea]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

http://defconawesome...n-smoke-review/

Yet another who complains about too much dialogue. Wow. That's sad that one could consider dialogue in ME2 "too much".

It seems that's the new target audience though.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 mai 2010 - 09:22 .

[xster]

scanning surfaces? are you serious? I have a DS now?

[Dick Delaware]

bjdbwea wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

http://defconawesome...n-smoke-review/

Yet another who complains about too much dialogue. Wow. That's sad that one could consider dialogue in ME2 "too much".

It seems that's the new target audience though.

This kinda confuses me because ME2 had more lines of dialogue than ME1. ME2 had 31,000 lines of dialogue according to this link. I also remember hearing ME1 had about 25,000 lines, though I can't find a link for that. Hopefully, someone can help me out.

www.joystiq.com/2009/12/10/mass-effect-2-cast-bolstered-by-battlestar/

[Lumikki]

Vena_86 wrote...

From my observation those who relentlessly defend ME2 do so by black and white analysis. Its either ME1s way or ME2s way. Where is the imagination?
ME1 had some flawed systems that in their state had more to offer than the systems in ME2 but with very clunky, ineffecient, partly annoying implementation. But that doesnt make the ME2 systems any better only because they are implemented better.
What the sequel should have done is eliminating the bad things, while maintaining the good parts or even improving them. What ME2 did instead is eliminating whole systems, along with the bad AND the good parts. The only thing that really has improved for most people is the shooter combat mechanics, but to the sacrifice of many things that together made Mass Effect special and different. It is a step forward and atleast one step back. Instead of building upon the foundation, while scraping of the rough parts, the sequel started almost from scratch. That is not what a sequel should do, specially to a game that was quite successfull and respected in its own right.

What's missing in ME2 compared to ME1?

- Inventory only exist in ME1 (This was actually good thing to get removed)
- Ability define every squad members customation induvidualy.
- Squad armor customation (ME2 has extreme limited customation, choise of two look)
- Squad weapon customation (Very limited, just some weapon choises)

What does exist in ME2 even if it's done very differently than ME1 had.

+ Multible weapons ( I think this was done nicely in ME2)
+ Upgrades, armor and weapon. (Both ME's has them, just very different ways)
+ Sheaperd armour customation (This was done fine, but more choises, not just one type of armour)
+ Sheapard weapon customation (Done by using powers, bad choise if you ask me, ME1 did better)

*)  Word customation can mean look of something, but also change of effect of something.

If You look the list you see easyly where ME2 is lacking. Basicly it forgot the squad member customation and general attribute/effect customation of weapons and armours was very limited in ME2.

If they want ME3 to be better than ME1 and ME2, then they need to get best part of both systems and combinate them. This means leave the inventory system out, what ME1 had, but bring the induvidual customation back what was missing in ME2. This give players ability to micro manage gears while not drowning players into huge list of inventory. Players doesn't need 100 same items with different names, they need to customize they gears to all they squad members.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 mai 2010 - 10:00 .

[Dick Delaware]

Absolutely, Lumikki. I think that the best solution would be to keep the current inventory system (or lack thereof) while allowing customization of squadmates, a larger selection of weapons, reintroducing biotic amps and omni-tools, and maybe mods as well, so long as they provide adequate trade-offs.



This way, you'll have more variety and options, but at the same time, it won't be a nightmare to deal with.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

Well clearly I feel most strongly about plot and story. I could have forgiven pretty much all the changes if there had been a better story behind ME1.

I'd also like the leveling system to be more interesting and complex. The current way seems too simplistic.

Putting mods back into weapons would also be a good idea. I'd like to be able to customize my weapons to better serve individual playsyles. Rate of fire or stopping power? Ammo capacity or accuracy? Bigger damage or better armor penetration? That sort of thing. Amps and omnitools would probably also fit in this.

Helmet toggles would be nice, but I see as a more cosmetic change. I have no particular problem with planet scanning, though I had no particular problem with the Mako either

Another thing I'd like to see in ME3 are better outfits for squaddies.  Does anyone else thing that the Cerberus uniform makes it look like they ressurected Shepard to win them the World Cup rather than fight the Collectors? And many of the other squaddies...Jacob looks like he needs a cape and cowl, plenty's already been said about Miranda and Samara.  Maybe they were going for a "dark and edgy" look but to me it was closer to "ridiculous" Presentation is important, Bioware!

I think the main issue with ME2's story was it suffered from middle-part-of-trilogy-itis. The second story is always the weakest (especially when the focus of ME2 was on the gameplay) so I wouldn't worry about that.

I'm not sure how to fix the levelling system (I would like a variation of the one in ME2, as it showed promise) but I agree, being able to create slightly more diverse characters would be cool (although not essential).

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Maybe you could have a scope slot and a generic slot or something. More ammo, or increased accuracy or maybe even a laser sight (which could detect cloaked enemies or something). I reckon the upgrades shouldn't be essential though or, if they are, have some kind of auto equip system maybe?

Helmet toggle is essential. I never use my 4 sets of DLC armor because I can never see my characters face (which is an important part of ME).

I don't think the scanning mini game is terrible, but it's not good that such an average mini game is such a major part of the game. Making it less important would go a long way towards fixing it.

Yes, absolutely correct and that's actually going on the list. I don't want to go back to ME1 where all the characters had generic armor, but couldn't Miranda's, um, outfit just be her casual wear and then she could put on some armor (still unique to her character though).

[Blam1200]

Reading all the complaints on removing inventory, xp points for killing and

statistics I realized one thing: those complaining sobs are not true RPGs

players. And yes, D'n'D - this crude grinding machine - doesn't count.



Inventory gone - good. Game master would never allow to carry more than one

armor (not to mention over 150 of them along with guns and mods) as long as

you don't hire a companion to push the cart. And even if so, cart would be

vulnerable to enemy fire as well as all the stored loot. Anyway, every assault

gun fired in the same mode, differed only by figures. Same with armor.

Everyone ended up with Spectre guns and Colossus armor. And why snooping for loot

in every potential storage tank is supposed to make RPG experience deeper?

Would you really take everything from somebody else's apartment? Snoop in every

container for a pistol if you were a top galactic agent?



XP points for killing enemies gone - great. It's the most ridiculous

grinding machine ever invented. It's the utmost stupidity to make players focus on

ways to achieve the most xp points instead of trying to act as they would in

the place of protagonist. If you were in the middle of sandstorm with unknown

number of enemy droids assaulting you would you sit and count how many kills

you need to improve your skills? Would you really jump out of armored vehicle

in the middle of combat to charge outnumbering enemy? This system rewards

tons of frags instead of decisions made. Game master never rewarded kills, he

rewarded jobs done, decisions made, quests completed and a way how it was

done. What about players who don't want to kill guards but instead sneak past

them, reach the target silently? Should they be penalized by less xp?



Statistics - more numbers... Combined with kill-for-xp system it's starting

to be really funny: "ok, I killed 25 mercenaries, for this xps I'll raise my

charisma..." First RPGs had tons of statistics but they evolved, many of the

statistics were removed as an obstacle to the story. The less figures, less

dice throws - the better. Some systems are not using dices at all. There were

ideas for GMs to hide stats from players to make them think, not calculate,

to make them feel being in a certain situation and act on it, instead of

counting.



I don't know who are the guys wanting to bring CRPG elements back - account

managers probably? It does not make RPG deep, it makes it primal. For all

these "deep RPG" fans: you don't really know what does RPG mean.

[bjdbwea]

uberdowzen wrote...

I think the main issue with ME2's story was it suffered from middle-part-of-trilogy-itis. The second story is always the weakest (especially when the focus of ME2 was on the gameplay) so I wouldn't worry about that.

That is no excuse whatsoever. It is always possible to deliver a good story, even in the second part of a trilogy. The reason that the story in ME 2 is in the range between bad and ridiculous, is because they simply didn't invest the required time and effort in writing and execution. Instead they decided to tell a lot of unrelated short stories, which allowed them to reduce development time, and make the game more compatible with the short attention span they probably figured their new target audience has.

[TJSolo]

Blam1200 wrote...

I don't know who are the guys wanting to bring CRPG elements back - account
managers probably? It does not make RPG deep, it makes it primal. For all
these "deep RPG" fans: you don't really know what does RPG mean.

Please, getting rewards per kill in the avenue pnps are using even if it is called something different then xp. There are mutiple ways to advance your character in current pnps, not just the ONE way ME2 offers.
Yes I feel offering points per kill, per mission, and some kind of per use reward combined is a deepth mechanic then just offering per mission.

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

That is no excuse whatsoever. It is always possible to deliver a good story, even in the second part of a trilogy. The reason that the story in ME 2 is in the range between bad and ridiculous, is because they simply didn't invest the required time and effort in writing and execution. Instead they decided to tell a lot of unrelated short stories, which allowed them to reduce development time, and make the game more compatible with the short attention span they probably figured their new target audience has.

No it is no excuse, but the story isn't bad or ridiculous. It's not great but it's one of the better game stories out there. And you're accusing ME2 of bad writing? Man, how many games have you played? You want bad writing go play a Tomb Raider game or pretty much any RTS ever. Also, the approach they went for I think would actually increase development time rather than reduce it as they must've had to make a lot more environments then ME1 and each of those stories was very well developed. And finally they're not totally unrelated to the plot, they are all connected even if only loosely:

• Grunt: created with Collector technology
• Mordin: plague created by Collectors
• Jack: helping you in exchange for Cerberus files (which ties into the are you willing to side with Cerberus to achieve your goals plotline, which everyone seems to ignore)
• Garrus: old friend
• Tali: old friend
• Miranda: assigned by Cerberus
• Jacob: assigned by cerberus
• Zaeed: not connected, but is DLC
• Samara: no connection (?)
• Morinth: haven't done yet (NO SPOILERS!!!!)
• Legion: connected to Shepherd
• Kasumi: haven't gotten around to buying her yet but DLC (no spoilers!)

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

I think the main issue with ME2's story was it suffered from middle-part-of-trilogy-itis. The second story is always the weakest (especially when the focus of ME2 was on the gameplay) so I wouldn't worry about that. 

It's beyond middle of trilogy, it was just plain bad.  Not just the lack of focus on the current story, but continuity with ME1.  Every time I start to think about playing ME2 again I think "But then I have to do Horizon again, and face Ashley" and the urge goes away. 

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm not sure how to fix the levelling system (I would like a variation of the one in ME2, as it showed promise) but I agree, being able to create slightly more diverse characters would be cool (although not essential). 

What I'd like to see would be more unlockable powers.  Not really sure how to impement this either, but I like having choices in abilities beyond just what class to take.

uberdowzen wrote...

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Maybe you could have a scope slot and a generic slot or something. More ammo, or increased accuracy or maybe even a laser sight (which could detect cloaked enemies or something). I reckon the upgrades shouldn't be essential though or, if they are, have some kind of auto equip system maybe?

This has me thinking of KOTOR's upgrade system, where certain items were upgradable (to greater or lesser degrees) and had specific slots for particular upgrades.  maybe the Normandy 3 will have a workbench instead of a ressearch station?

uberdowzen wrote...

Yes, absolutely correct and that's actually going on the list. I don't want to go back to ME1 where all the characters had generic armor, but couldn't Miranda's, um, outfit just be her casual wear and then she could put on some armor (still unique to her character though).

Common ground!

Modifié par iakus, 14 mai 2010 - 12:30 .

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

That is no excuse whatsoever. It is always possible to deliver a good story, even in the second part of a trilogy. The reason that the story in ME 2 is in the range between bad and ridiculous, is because they simply didn't invest the required time and effort in writing and execution. Instead they decided to tell a lot of unrelated short stories, which allowed them to reduce development time, and make the game more compatible with the short attention span they probably figured their new target audience has.

No it is no excuse, but the story isn't bad or ridiculous. It's not great but it's one of the better game stories out there. And you're accusing ME2 of bad writing? Man, how many games have you played? You want bad writing go play a Tomb Raider game or pretty much any RTS ever. Also, the approach they went for I think would actually increase development time rather than reduce it as they must've had to make a lot more environments then ME1 and each of those stories was very well developed. And finally they're not totally unrelated to the plot, they are all connected even if only loosely:

• Grunt: created with Collector technology
  
  
• Mordin: plague created by Collectors
  
  
  
• Jack: helping you in exchange for Cerberus files (which ties into the are you willing to side with Cerberus to achieve your goals plotline, which everyone seems to ignore)
  
  
  
• Garrus: old friend
  
  
  
• Tali: old friend
  
  
  
• Miranda: assigned by Cerberus
  
  
  
• Jacob: assigned by cerberus
  
  
  
• Zaeed: not connected, but is DLC
  
  
  
• Samara: no connection (?)
  
  
  
• Morinth: haven't done yet (NO SPOILERS!!!!)
  
  
  
• Legion: connected to Shepherd
  
  
  
• Kasumi: haven't gotten around to buying her yet but DLC (no spoilers!)

I've given a lot of thought to what could have helped the plot of the story, and I've concluded that the following would have done wonders for it (shooting for super-vague on details here):

Pre-Horizon:

Collector involvement suspected but not proven. Along with recruitment, given three assignments to investigate possible collector involvement (other colonies, past Collecotr deals, etc) culminating with Horizon.

Post Horizon. Along with loyalty missions, TIM gives you a half dozen or so missions to thwart further Collector activities (along with the Collector ship quest); disrupting trade deals, gathering data, maybe fighting off another attack. During this time, the squad members start interacting with each other as well as you.

Suicide Mission: After all the trouble you go to gathering a team and earning their loyalty, the Suicide Mission should have been the last 25-30% of the game. The Omega 4 relay should have been the Landsmeet, not the Archdemon, for those who understand the reference.

[SithLordExarKun]

One other thing i didn't like is that ME2 needed more "main plot missions", i honestly did like the other shorter stories but felt the "main collector missions" were a little too short and the build up wasn't enough.



What i think they need to do for ME3 is combine both the short "episodic" stories from ME2 and combine it a much longer more plot relevant story(ME1 didn't handle this well enough in my opinion).

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
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.

Yeah, it's irritating but not a game breaker.

Yeah, not quite, but it is an immersion breaker and just feels sloppy to me. The N7 missions being this poorly implemented and having the feeling of just being slapped on is a major reason I believe ME2 is less polished than ME1.

I think the thing about the hammerhead is that it's either damaged or undamaged so the interface would be telling you very little.

It does have degrees of damage, but it happens so quickly its hard to tell.

Well, in ME2 for example, you shouldn't have to pause, open the inventory, select that character, select the right weapon, change ammo. I should be able to do this through the ingame interface. Also, to clarify, my opinion is that in an action RPG you shouldn't have to go into the inventory or the stats screen if you can possibly avoid it. The stats and inventory are essentially allowing you to customise a character that you then use in an action game. I shouldn't be worrying about both aspects at once.

I would personally have it that only the weapon-modding system would be accessible on a mission on the fly, and only for Shepard (to change other squaddies' weapon mods one would need to get to a Weapons Loadout screen). Heck... on the PC version one could even possibly do it with the tactics screen HUD. That's how I'd personally do it anyway. One could just limit it entirely to the Weapons Loadout screen, but that wouldn't make much sense lore-wise since one is supposed to be able to change mods easily on the fly in a weapon (then again, lore has already been stomped in the nuts with thermal clips, so...).

Just had a look, I mean the one in the section entitled "How do we make Mass Effect 2", then under upgrade GUI. Not exactly like that (I mean this is one of the designs they dismissed) but something along those lines.

I actually came up with a mock-up that incorporated some of that one and mixed it with the ME2 system and added ME1's stats, mods and comparisons, as well as showing the upgrades related to the weapon selected. I posted it in that very topic and even PM'ed it to Christina Norman when a lot of people approved of it and suggested I should. She even thanked me in a nice response. Not sure whether they'll look at it or just bin it, but... I tried to help.

EDIT: here it is:-

Modifié par Terror_K, 14 mai 2010 - 01:12 .

[xster]

what's wrong with crouching?

[Vicious]

Absolutely, Lumikki. I think that the best solution would be to keep the current inventory system (or lack thereof) while allowing customization of squadmates, a larger selection of weapons, reintroducing biotic amps and omni-tools, and maybe mods as well, so long as they provide adequate trade-offs.

YES.

[exxxed]

I found a lovely article about one of the ME2's bigger design flaws:

http://honestcake.wo...sible-clothing/

I just hope they won't resort to cheap gimmicks for the last installment of the series...

Cheers!

Modifié par exxxed, 14 mai 2010 - 02:30 .

[Iakus]

exxxed wrote...

I found a lovely article about one of the ME2's bigger design flaws:

http://honestcake.wo...sible-clothing/

I just hope they won't resort to cheap gimmicks for the last installment of the series...

Cheers!

"I like the way this human thinks"

Tali's outfit in ME1 was probably the most daring of the squaddies, "snug in all the right places"  In ME2, it's practically a burka comapred to Miranda, Samara and Jack.

In some ways, ME2 seemed aimed to be more "Mature" but less" Grownup", if you catch my meaning

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...
I would personally have it that only the weapon-modding system would be accessible on a mission on the fly, and only for Shepard (to change other squaddies' weapon mods one would need to get to a Weapons Loadout screen). Heck... on the PC version one could even possibly do it with the tactics screen HUD. That's how I'd personally do it anyway. One could just limit it entirely to the Weapons Loadout screen, but that wouldn't make much sense lore-wise since one is supposed to be able to change mods easily on the fly in a weapon (then again, lore has already been stomped in the nuts with thermal clips, so...).

I dunno, I think whether you can change in missions can only be determined with playtesting. And they're not going to do a vastly different interface for Xbox and PC.

I actually came up with a mock-up that incorporated some of that one and mixed it with the ME2 system and added ME1's stats, mods and comparisons, as well as showing the upgrades related to the weapon selected. I posted it in that very topic and even PM'ed it to Christina Norman when a lot of people approved of it and suggested I should. She even thanked me in a nice response. Not sure whether they'll look at it or just bin it, but... I tried to help.

I do actually quite like your interface. On that note, I didn't realise developers would except direct ideas. Bearing that in mind, I think I'm going to start a new thread to come up with (building on and improving the list I wrote) an ultimate compromise list of game changes and issues we want addressed in ME3, for the lovers and haters of ME2. The way I see it, the community is so divided that Bioware is probably just going to ignore everyones suggestions, but if we come up with a list both sides can cope with and officially submit it to Bioware, that'd be awesome. Who's with me?

[Dick Delaware]

iakus wrote...

"I like the way this human thinks"

Tali's outfit in ME1 was probably the most daring of the squaddies, "snug in all the right places"  In ME2, it's practically a burka comapred to Miranda, Samara and Jack.

In some ways, ME2 seemed aimed to be more "Mature" but less" Grownup", if you catch my meaning

Yeah, the squaddie outfits were pretty ridiculous. At the very least, if they want those kind of outfits in the game, they could just make a more combat appropriate one for whenever Miranda, Samara, or Jack leave the Normandy. It's a really quick fix - if Bio can whip out Appearance Packs, they can make squaddie clothing for ME3 that doesn't look stupid.

Something like Ashley's outfit in the beginning of ME1 is more along the lines of what I'd like to see. It's snug, and the camera does focus on her body a bit to remind you that she's sexy, but it's not over-the-top.

I don't mind some fanservice at all, I certainly didn't mind when the camera focused in on Miranda's ass, but there is a point where things get ridiculous.

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

I do actually quite like your interface. On that note, I didn't realise developers would except direct ideas. Bearing that in mind, I think I'm going to start a new thread to come up with (building on and improving the list I wrote) an ultimate compromise list of game changes and issues we want addressed in ME3, for the lovers and haters of ME2. The way I see it, the community is so divided that Bioware is probably just going to ignore everyones suggestions, but if we come up with a list both sides can cope with and officially submit it to Bioware, that'd be awesome. Who's with me?

I've actually contemplated making a massive thread/post outlining all the features of both games, comparing them, illustrating what worked and what didn't in both cases, and trying to come up with the best solution for ME3 via that. What's put me off is how much effort, research and work it would take to cover everything.

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

I've actually contemplated making a massive thread/post outlining all the features of both games, comparing them, illustrating what worked and what didn't in both cases, and trying to come up with the best solution for ME3 via that. What's put me off is how much effort, research and work it would take to cover everything.

Well, I think we need to more point out the issues we have rather than come up with solutions. We're not here to do Bioware's jobfor them (and let's be honest, they're a lot better at it than us) and often solutions which sound good on paper suck when you actually try them out. I was thinking more just perfect the list I wrote (based on feedback and other peoples ideas, we could use polls).

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

We're not here to do Bioware's job for them (and let's be honest, they're a lot better at it than us) and often solutions which sound good on paper suck when you actually try them out. 

Before ME2 I would have agreed. Afterwards... I'm not so sure. I'm simply too annoyed at BioWare's so-called "solutions" in ME2, which were in most cases a failure as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps if they'd actually looked for solutions instead of just scrapping pieces entirely or simplifying them down to their most basic I'd have more confidence in their ability to come up with a better ME3.

[uberdowzen]

I'm playing ME2 at the moment and, despite having criticised it before, I'm actually really warming to the story. It's not as good as ME1 - lacking the focus of Saren and going off on too many tangents - but Shepherd's relation with Cerberus is very interesting, the characters are all very well formed and I'm finding, having just brought a character forward from ME1 rather than waiting a year, I'm finding the story a lot more touching. It's definetly not Bioware's best story, but it is very good.