10273 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

AlanC9 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...
 KOTOR and DAO in my opinion had much better character interaction where character dialogue isn't only limited to one specific place.

Of course, KotOR 2 notoriously required you to have the right characters in the right places. But that wasn't a Bio game.

Well yeah for gaining character influence.

[finnithe]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ecael wrote...

iakus wrote...

A standalone game could have been made without taking a chainsaw to the first game's plot though. I can understand (to a certain degree) not wanting to confuse new players.  But really, the plot could have been advanced a little bit.

ME1's plot was like an entire season of Babylon 5:  an overall storyline with a few  standalone stories.
ME2's plot was like an entire season of The A-Team.  You can pick it up anywhere and not really miss anything.

And do NOT reference the Matrix Reloaded with Mass Effect, or I'll get so depressed I won't bother to get ME 3

There seem to be very few standalone sequels that even carry over the last game's plot with any continuity. Usually the writers of those sequels will just take a few characters and write an entirely new story or write the same exact story in a different way. Dragon Age 2 will be the former.

So, about those Matrix Lord of the Rings movies...

And Lord of the Rings was essentially one long story split up into three volumes.  Kinda what I hoped Mass Effect would be.

Well thats because it was one story that was split up.  In regards to Mass Effect though may have had an arc outlined for three stories but I doubt they wrote it as a singular story to begin with.  Technology can limit story telling and you have to adjust, if not you get a situation like Awakenings.

Lord of the Rings was a book first. The production cost of a book pales in comparison to a series of games. Its not just technology which is limiting the story, but economics as well. 

[McMaze]

Vena_86 wrote...


Well, I think people are too lazy to use their imagination and are only able to compare what ME1 had and what ME2 had. ME2 did not correct any flaws, it removed them with the precision of a carpet-bombardment.
Most of ME2s improvements could have been made without sacrificing atmosphear, depth and freedom.
Every second game these days has intense shooter action with heavy scripting. Mass Effect 2 is now just one of them. Previously the Mass Effect franchise had something to offer which was quite unique, exploring the galaxy. It did this imperfecty, but here I was hoping for BioWare to improve that which makes Mass Effect matter and not just be another game. Instead they did the opposite: They almost removed the "explore the galaxy" aspect and focused the whole game on shooter action like so many other freakin games already do.

Its like using a violin as a baseball bat. Sure the "majority" thinks its cool but it is a complete waste of potential.

The gameplay changes are not responsible for the loss of atmosphere and wether ME 2 offers depth and freedom with regard to the new gameplay mechanics is a matter of opionion. You can even argue that the new gamplay mechanics from ME2 offer more freedom than the old gameplay mechanics did in ME 1.


btw. the exploring part in ME 1 is hardly unique. Every second JRPG and nearly every MMORPG is using this concept.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I don't want character development to be only on the Normandy, I just want a breather from combat. A relaxed, personal environment is ideal for character development. And I've already quoted a few posts of people complaining about dialogue and story.

Even if you want those parts to not be only on the Normandy, it still seems like you want to completely seperate the combat and the character development which, I assume from your general dislike of the combat, kind of goes against your argument. And there are areas such as Tuchanka and Omega where character development occurs outside of combat missions.

My point was why would you want to seperate the game into combat sections and dialogue sections? The threads of the game should be interwoven.

Finally, ME1 did this all the time. On Feros, for example, you fight some Geth, then talk to Lizbeth, then fight some Varren, then see Krogan talking to VI, then fight Krogan, then access VI... Do you mean that you just don't want character development during combat? I don't really see how that breaks immersion.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Even if you want those parts to not be only on the Normandy, it still seems like you want to completely seperate the combat and the character development which, I assume from your general dislike of the combat, kind of goes against your argument. And there are areas such as Tuchanka and Omega where character development occurs outside of combat missions.

My point was why would you want to seperate the game into combat sections and dialogue sections? The threads of the game should be interwoven.

Finally, ME1 did this all the time. On Feros, for example, you fight some Geth, then talk to Lizbeth, then fight some Varren, then see Krogan talking to VI, then fight Krogan, then access VI... Do you mean that you just don't want character development during combat? I don't really see how that breaks immersion.

Exactly how does what I'm saying contradict my argument? The way it was implemented in ME1 was different in comparison to ME2. Said it before, buuuuuuut, I'm fine with combat. I thought ME1's combat was SWEET, same with Fallout 3's and Prince Of Persia. There was just hardly any break to RELAX and get to know your crew in a personal setting. Yes, I realize you can't grasp that because as a lot of people feel, there's no such thing as too much combat but there is such a thing as too much dialogue and story as I have quoted others saying. Even if there's 25 percent or more combat in ME3 and the character interaction remains the same, there are those that would consider that an improvement, and I find that pretty damn sad.

[CroGamer002]

iakus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

iakus wrote...

Between bouts of ME 1, I'm slowly working my way through a tird playthrough of ME2 between bouts of ME 1 as well, but as an experiment (How small a squad can I do the Suicide Mission with, trying for six)  And it's less bad, than before.  But I think that's because I'm using an import frm an ME 1  that I didn't run.  This game is less personal.  This Shep isn't really "mine" so I care a lot less about what choices were or were not made.  Kaiden's all mad at me?  So what?  My choices last game are ignored? Who cares, they weren't my choices to begin with Collectors working for Reapers?  If you say so, Villain-wise though they seem to  be placing fourth, somewhere between security bots and wild varren.   I have nothing invested in this Shep but curiosity. 

ME 2 is playing much better as a standalone game.  This is probably not a good thing.

Life isn't perfect. Why should Shepherd's life be then? It pulled at my heartstrings when Kaidan turned is back on me, I was like "No!!! Come with us!!!!". I think that shows how good ME2 is rather than how bad it is.

"I Remember Me"  pulled at my heartstrings
The Virmire choice pulled at my heartstrings
Tali's loyalty mission pulled at my heartstrings (best paragon interrupt ever)
Miranda's loyalty mission pulled at my heartrings
Heck, the female krogan in Mordin's loyalty mission kinda tugged at my hearstrings

Horizon just makes me go "Huh?"

I have to agree Horizon is pretty weak.

[CroGamer002]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Have you actually played ME2? It's a deep emotionally complex game, with tough choices. Just because those choices don't always have an immediate effect doesn't mean that they aren't tough choices or that they won't affect things later on. Each of the 10 companions are very well fleshed out (with the possible exception of Garrus and Zaeed) and are a lot deeper than ME1's.

You seem to be guaging ME2 on the sum of it's parts. Rather than taking the experience as a whole, you're dividing it up into it'd individual parts (talks on Normandy, combat, sidequests, etc) and then comparing them to ME1. Sure, some of the characters don't have quite as much dialogue (although most do) than in ME1 but you're completely ignoring character development in the loyalty missions. Going back to the Normandy conversations, you are judging these entirely on the amount of dialogue, rather than how effective the digital acting (micro gestures, action etc) is in getting the same amount of character development across.

And how can you not see that the combat in ME2 is so much better than in ME1? It's satisfying, tactical and fun. Every class feels well thought out and have there own unique play style, encouraging replay value.

If Bioware made a terrible game I would be totally willing to spurn it. I just don't think that ME2 is a terrible game.

I don't consider little chats in between combat emotionally satisfying. If anything it takes away from the immersion. Bioware saw people wanting less dialogue and they said "Screw it. We're going to go out of our way to lengthen combat as much as possible, we'll throw in dialogue in between headshots and call it 'character development'. THAT'S the way to go."

Have to agree on that one.

Modifié par Mesina2, 21 mai 2010 - 10:19 .

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Exactly how does what I'm saying contradict my argument? The way it was implemented in ME1 was different in comparison to ME2. Said it before, buuuuuuut, I'm fine with combat. I thought ME1's combat was SWEET, same with Fallout 3's and Prince Of Persia. There was just hardly any break to RELAX and get to know your crew in a personal setting. Yes, I realize you can't grasp that because as a lot of people feel, there's no such thing as too much combat but there is such a thing as too much dialogue and story as I have quoted others saying. Even if there's 25 percent or more combat in ME3 and the character interaction remains the same, there are those that would consider that an improvement, and I find that pretty damn sad.

I completely agree that there is definetly such a thing as too much combat (DAO's plot sparse Deep Road section springs to mind) but I honestly don't think that ME2 has too much combat. I think I'm also being misrepresented, I think that, especially in a game like Mass Effect, there is plenty of room for plot. In fact I think that if you removed the plot, ME would be a fun but on the whole generic shooter that I'd probably playthrough once. There is a difference however between interesting character development/important plot progression and KOTOR style walls of text much in the same way that dull and generic combat gets old pretty quick.

Character development in ME1 (which was somewhat rudimentary) was almost entirely confined to the Normandy, how is that better than in ME2?

Finally, I don't think I've seen anyone saying that ME3 would be better with 25% more combat. That'd be insane, it doesn't need more combat, BW already got the balance perfect.

Once again, I don't think you're examing the game as a whole. You're thinking of it as short bit of combat, chat with crew. Why can't these be interconnected like in ME2. I don't see how character development during missions (where it makes sense obviously) could be considered anymore immersion breaking than having a cinematic mid mission.

[Lumikki]

uberdowzen wrote...

I completely agree that there is definetly such a thing as too much combat (DAO's plot sparse Deep Road section springs to mind) but I honestly don't think that ME2 has too much combat.

Only if the game isn't about combat. If we talk about Mass Effect then yes, because it's also about RPG. How ever, if You compare ME1 and ME2, I don't see much of difference between them as amount of combat. There was in ME1 big time consume without combat like when You become Specter and did Citidel missions. How ever, there was also in ME2 missions, what did not have combat. Example Thane's loyalty mission and other missions in cities too. Maybe ME1 had little more fluffy stuff, but both had alot of combat.

Character development in ME1 (which was somewhat rudimentary) was almost entirely confined to the Normandy, how is that better than in ME2?

Location is not important, but how much character development possibilities there is, is. Meaning, in ME2 they simplifyed alot players customation possibilities compared to ME1. In my opinion it was allready limited in ME1, if you think game from RPG perspective.

Finally, I don't think I've seen anyone saying that ME3 would be better with 25% more combat. That'd be insane, it doesn't need more combat, BW already got the balance perfect.

Yeah, I hope they do balance combat and non combat part better in ME3.

What they have learn from ME1 and ME2 should give all the possibilities ME3 to be great game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 mai 2010 - 10:58 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Character development in ME1 (which was somewhat rudimentary) was almost entirely confined to the Normandy, how is that better than in ME2?

Location is irrelevant. It's how it was handled. I don't want 5 seconds of dialogue and right after that, 5 minutes of combat.

uberdowzen wrote...

I don't think I've seen anyone saying that ME3 would be better with 25% more combat. That'd be insane, it doesn't need more combat, BW already got the balance perfect.

They already had the perfect balance in ME1.

uberdowzen wrote...

I don't think you're examing the game as a whole. You're thinking of it as short bit of combat, chat with crew. Why can't these be interconnected like in ME2. I don't see how character development during missions (where it makes sense obviously) could be considered anymore immersion breaking than having a cinematic mid mission.

Yes I am because the radical changes of ME2 had a negative effect on the game as a whole.

[uberdowzen]

Lumikki wrote...

Only if the game isn't about combat. If we talk about Mass Effect then yes, because it's also about RPG. How ever, if You compare ME1 and ME2, I don't see much of difference between them as amount of combat. There was in ME1 big time consume without combat like when You become Specter and did Citidel missions. How ever, there was also in ME2 missions, what did not have combat. Example Thane's loyalty mission and other missions in cities too. Maybe ME1 had little more fluffy stuff, but both had alot of combat.

Location is not important, but how much character development possibilities there is, is. Meaning, in ME2 they simplifyed alot players customation possibilities compared to ME1. In my opinion it was allready limited in ME1, if you think game from RPG perspective.

Yeah, I hope they do balance combat and non combat part better in ME3.

What they have learn from ME1 and ME2 should give all the possibilities ME3 to be great game.

Completely agree. ME2 had just as much non-combat stuff, just not in big chunks like in ME1.

Agree on the location thing, although we were more talking about the characters in terms of story rather than gameplay.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Location is irrelevant. It's how it was handled. I don't want 5 seconds of dialogue and right after that, 5 minutes of combat.

Agreed, good thing it's not like that in ME2 then...

They already had the perfect balance in ME1.

Yeah, those parts where you were driving across barren plains with nothing to do or look at were really well paced (I actually started listening to podcasts during UCWs).

Yes I am because the radical changes of ME2 had a negative effect on the game as a whole.

That's kind of changing the subject.

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Yes I am because the radical changes of ME2 had a negative effect on the game as a whole.

This is little subjective, because both has example 30 hours of gameplay. So, what negative effect?

Yes, I know what you mean, but that's more like taste of games, isn't it? I mean if You liked ME1 more and ME2 less, but there are people also who could be opposite and like ME2 more than ME1. So, it's very subjective to persons own taste of games. I loved both ME games. I do hope that they bring back the customation in ME3, what was little limited to my taste in ME2.

[Ecael]

brfritos wrote...

Sure, the same can be said from the mail you receive on regarding the colony of Zhu's Hope, thanking you for the help with the colonist or Shiala on Illium, right?
Like Jack says, "come on, you know how the galaxy works, you've been around".

The context in wich this facts occours counts nothing, I'm assuming. 

About quotation from wiki, how about this one:

"Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

The subject may use: minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalisation)"

[ ]'s

So, where is this "overwhelming evidence" that you speak of?

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

That's kind of changing the subject.

In your own words-

uberdowzen wrote...

I don't think you're examing the game as a whole.

All I did was correct your erroneous statement, therefore, no, I didn't change the subject.

Lumikki wrote...

This is little subjective, because both has example 30 hours of gameplay. So, what negative effect?

Already explained it, but I guess I'm damned to keep repeating myself in this thread.

There were people who complained specifically there was too much cutscenes that dragged on and on and they interfered with combat. The negative effect was the focus on combat. Battles take longer, even at level 30, and character development was limited to on the battlefield for the most part. Cause you know, the more combat the better. Why should we have to HALT the combat to chat on the Normandy, and then having to get situated traveling to a new planet, and by the time you finally get into the heat of the battle, 10 minutes could have gone by. 10 minutes that could have been utilized for more combat.

[Tempest]

My only problem was the lack of true communication between your squadmates. In ME1 you had ALL your squadies in a room to discuss what happened and what they can now do. All you got in ME2 was either Miranda or Jacob talking to the new recruit. It was very hurtful since the game felt more like individuals together than a team. In ME1 it was the same, but at least their was communication between everyone.



This is what I would LOVE to see in ME3; Seeing your squadies actually move around the Normandy like they were comfortable around everyone instead of being stuck in their quarters looking like all your squadies are socially detached from EVERYONE except Shepard. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Garrus talking to Grunt in his quarters every once in awhile or even see Jack talking with Zaeed, like these people were alive instead of robotic?

[SkullandBonesmember]

Tempest wrote...

My only problem was the lack of true communication between your squadmates. In ME1 you had ALL your squadies in a room to discuss what happened and what they can now do.

*waiting for somebody to say how the crew still had little to nothing to add in ME1*

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 mai 2010 - 09:36 .

[Tempest]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Tempest wrote...

My only problem was the lack of true communication between your squadmates. In ME1 you had ALL your squadies in a room to discuss what happened and what they can now do.

*waiting for somebody to say how the crew still had little to nothing to add in ME1*

Totally, but at least they were in the same room.  Also enjoyed how Ashley made it clear she did not like aliens infront of ALL the aliens.

[KitsuneRommel]

Tempest wrote...

Totally, but at least they were in the same room.  Also enjoyed how Ashley made it clear she did not like aliens infront of ALL the aliens.

They didn't seem to mind my "We have to capture Saren ourselves. Aliens are useless." talk or how I agreed with Ashley and told her that I didn't like them either.

[javierabegazo]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Tempest wrote...

My only problem was the lack of true communication between your squadmates. In ME1 you had ALL your squadies in a room to discuss what happened and what they can now do.

*waiting for somebody to say how the crew still had little to nothing to add in ME1*

It makes me sad and nostalgic to think of all the cool things Wrex had to say, and then to think of what little conversation options the default squadmembers had available in ME2.

It's as if, unless your Shepard is romantically interested in a squadmember, they don't have any inclination to talk to you.  I still remember my first playthrough in ME2 where after every single mission I always kept going to every squadmember on the normandy to see if they had anything new to say and being let down about 80% of the time.

People may complain about how Zaeed and Kasumi aren't 'integrated properly" into the conversation system but they still were more fleshed out than most of the vanilla squadmembers and commented on recently completed missions

[KitsuneRommel]

javierabegazo wrote...

It makes me sad and nostalgic to think of all the cool things Wrex had to say, and then to think of what little conversation options the default squadmembers had available in ME2.

Only the major quests in ME1 give your squadmates something to talk about too. Pasting from another thread:

I just hit 29 (and now my Lift duration is 0.8 seconds longer!) on my
ME1 adept and I haven't done any of the 3 main worlds yet. You know what
the game has been about? Sniping enemies from afar and attacking carbon
copy bunkers and mines full of random boxes and enemies. Kaidan has had
nothing to talk about since I left the citadel, Ashley gave her alien
hate speech, Wrex and Tali played mr and ms Codex and only Garrus has
had more to say. We even got to do his side quest.

Now FINALLY I got something more out of Wrex and we're doing his armor quest. I don't even bother going to Kaidan anymore since he obviously doesn't want to talk to me.

[SkullandBonesmember]

javierabegazo wrote...

It makes me sad and nostalgic to think of all the cool things Wrex had to say, and then to think of what little conversation options the default squadmembers had available in ME2.

It's as if, unless your Shepard is romantically interested in a squadmember, they don't have any inclination to talk to you.  I still remember my first playthrough in ME2 where after every single mission I always kept going to every squadmember on the normandy to see if they had anything new to say and being let down about 80% of the time.

People may complain about how Zaeed and Kasumi aren't 'integrated properly" into the conversation system but they still were more fleshed out than most of the vanilla squadmembers and commented on recently completed missions

Huh. jav criticized something of ME2. 

[ShakeZoohla]

Lumikki wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

I completely agree that there is definetly such a thing as too much combat (DAO's plot sparse Deep Road section springs to mind) but I honestly don't think that ME2 has too much combat.

Only if the game isn't about combat. If we talk about Mass Effect then yes, because it's also about RPG. How ever, if You compare ME1 and ME2, I don't see much of difference between them as amount of combat. There was in ME1 big time consume without combat like when You become Specter and did Citidel missions. How ever, there was also in ME2 missions, what did not have combat. Example Thane's loyalty mission and other missions in cities too. Maybe ME1 had little more fluffy stuff, but both had alot of combat.

Im going to have to disagree.  Most of ME1's big missions, such as Noveria, Feros, and Illos, had a lot bigger focus on out of combat gameplay than any of ME2's.  The ME2 missions that have no combat are usually really short sidemissions or loyalty quests, and therefore seem unimportant.  Also I personally think ME1 flowed a lot better between combat and non-combat, and whether or not hour for hour it had less of it, ME1's combat took a backseat to the overall experience of the game, whereas ME2 seems to take a backseat to its combat.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

There were people who complained specifically there was too much cutscenes that dragged on and on and they interfered with combat.

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone was complaining about that. I haven't seen anyone complaining that there were too many cutscenes because, as I've pointed out before, the people who dislike the game that much weren't going onto the forums and complaing about it, they were going out and playing games that they liked. I'm going to look over the old forum again, but I suspect I know what I'm going to find...

[uberdowzen]

javierabegazo wrote...

It makes me sad and nostalgic to think of all the cool things Wrex had to say, and then to think of what little conversation options the default squadmembers had available in ME2.

It's as if, unless your Shepard is romantically interested in a squadmember, they don't have any inclination to talk to you.  I still remember my first playthrough in ME2 where after every single mission I always kept going to every squadmember on the normandy to see if they had anything new to say and being let down about 80% of the time.

People may complain about how Zaeed and Kasumi aren't 'integrated properly" into the conversation system but they still were more fleshed out than most of the vanilla squadmembers and commented on recently completed missions

But each mission is only half and hour long while ME1's were much longer. They'd have to write 3 times as much dialogue to make that work.