283 réponses à ce sujet

[ZennExile]

Souai wrote...

Unfortunately reviews tend to be purchased hype rather than actual valid reviews and reviews also tend to come after the fact.  Hense the term "Review" or to view again. 

However if this wasn't a sequel to a highly successful RPG and wasn't directly marketed and hyped as a story driven masterpiece of an RPG, your point would be valid and all those thousands of people would have been victims of their own stupidity.  But we both know that isn't the case now don't we?

That's why you read reviews and find the reviewers who write what you find as meaningful reviews.  I thought Sessler did a good job on ME2, especially if you watched both his soapbox and review of it, but that's me.  The reviews for ME2 largely were posted on or before the game's release.

It was pretty clear to me how the game's mechanics had changed on release, and helped me to make a purchasing decision.  I'm sure there are other review sources that cater more towards your tastes that you can rely on.

I personally consider ME2 a better RPG than every Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest.  It mostly comes down to personal taste and definition of what a role playing game should be.  I was seeking a cinematic space RPG with a relatively robust shooting system and got exactly what I wanted.

Sessler openly hates RPG elements and avoided mentioning them in any way...  He also dodged the story review by just saying "Boiware has good story telling" and focusing entirely on the combat.  AND i know for a fact Sessler himself loves complicated shooter event mechanics but fails to mention anything about how droll and bland the combat in ME2 ends up being.  "It feels great"  is about like telling a fat girl she "has a nice personality".

Sessler is too full of himself to get his hands dirty playing an RPG.  I garuntee you he played about an hour and let interns write his review for him.

The scores for ME2 were way out of line no matter where you looked and every single review sounded like the Bioware press conference being regergitated.  None of the major reviewers were willing to go against EA and with good reason.  They'd have been shunned for it simply because EA can throw enough money around to make it happen.

If you want to think about the reviews rationally you have to compare ME2 to shooters.  Cover shooter mechanics are the only thing anyone would dare to talk about so why the hell would ME2 get as high a score as Modern Warfare 2 ?  That seems pretty stupid considerin CoD:MW 2 is 5000 times the shooter ME2 could ever dream of being.

It doesn't take a PhD to see something was up with how ME2 launched and how it got a tons of great reviews that were all exactly the same and only covered the combat.

[didymos1120]

ZennExile wrote...
Mario 2 wasn't a bad platformer.  It was quite fun.  But the real reason people hated it?  It was NOTHING like Mario 1.

That'd be because it wasn't actually a Mario game, just a graphical hack (essentially) of Doki Doki Panic.
The real Mario 2 was basically just Mario 1, but harder and with slightly altered levels.  It even used identical graphics. 

[ZennExile]

Souai wrote...

ZennExile wrote...
I felt like those were more or less handed to me as well.  Ish maybe less so but Liara definately.  You get sent to visit her and she "mentions" her issues.  I can't really consider anything on rails to be hidden or secret.

What content in ME1 was missable if you talked to every person, landed on every planet/moon, mash clicked the asteroid belts and followed every hackett mission?  I remember it being very straightforward but it has been a couple years since my last full playthrough.  I remember rolling around on a bunch of planets with the Mako, setting a white flag on the orange markers, and moving towards the Anomolies to shoot the same four geth models a lot.  I don't know why, but that's my most distinct memory from the game.

What type of game were you expecting ME2 to be based on the information available before launch?  Are there any other titles that would function as a good analogy?

My expectations were pretty simple.  Make ME1 better and continue the story.  Fix the mako controls, make the planets you explor more unique and diverse, improve the combat system so it felt more organic (done), use organic combat to improve level design and combat AI (not done), take the connections made in ME1 and use them to prepare the galaxy for the final battle,....

Basically I expected ME1's sequel.  Instead I got a cover shooter that handles well but has no horsepower.

[ZennExile]

didymos1120 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...
Mario 2 wasn't a bad platformer.  It was quite fun.  But the real reason people hated it?  It was NOTHING like Mario 1.

That'd be because it wasn't actually a Mario game, just a graphical hack (essentially) of Doki Doki Panic.
The real Mario 2 was basically just Mario 1, but harder and with slightly altered levels.  It even used identical graphics. 

Did I not mention "I am Gamer" earlier?  There were no discussion forums back then.  Just actual reviews in magazines like Gamepro and sales figures.  No one knew anything about this at the time.  The vast majority of people who owned a Nintendo didn't even know there were gaming magazines with which to read reviews.  We can't just gloss over that key bit of info.

[didymos1120]

ZennExile wrote...
We can't just gloss over that key bit of info.

My point was simply that the reason "It was NOTHING like Mario 1" is because it wasn't really a Mario game at all.  There was no glossing, merely explanation.

[USMCTanker]

I think my definition of an RPG is easy enough to find, in the name. Role Playing. I think ME2 does an incredible job of making me feel like i am in the ME universe, that I actually am shepard, to a degree that i have yet to find in any other game. Some people like to think that just because you can spend 30 points in a skill instead of 12 makes the game more in depth, but i would much rather have an engaging story than have to worry about allocating 100 skill points into stuff that i will rarely ever use...

[bbfan13]

Zenn - you issued a challenge regarding RPGs that don't have secret areas etc. I am actually having the opposite problem. I'm looking at my recent RPG catalog and seeing a bunch of games that don't do this well. It seems like easter eggs have taken over for true hidden rooms with special treasures.



I'll give the nod to the Bethesda games but they are sandbox style so the whole gameplay is based on finding hidden things. The Witcher I had to scrounge around for a couple of the sex cards but they weren't really hidden. Drakensang had the rock goblin that opens the cave in your house for the hawaiian shirt and a couple other funny items. Titans Quest is a Diablo clone but I can only remember one hidden merchant in the game. DA:O had some hidden passages but you could usually make them out on the map.



Can you give me some examples of games you feel did a good job at this in the last few years? I might try them out as I'm an old school rpg fan myself.

[ZennExile]

didymos1120 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...
We can't just gloss over that key bit of info.

My point was simply that the reason "It was NOTHING like Mario 1" is because it wasn't really a Mario game at all.  There was no glossing, merely explanation.

Disingenuous much?  The explaination you provide is a clear attempt to avoid the perspective that matters and that perspective being the players themselves.  Those players had no knowledge that justifies your explaination.   All they saw was Mario 2 sucks Mario was way better.  Your explaination both assumes I'm an idiot and assumes everyone in the 80's should have had a time machine.

Don't add false context to a discussion just to try and win an argument.  It's rude and annoying. 

[USMCTanker]

ZennExile wrote...

 take the connections made in ME1 and use them to prepare the galaxy for the final battle,....

Basically I expected ME1's sequel.  Instead I got a cover shooter that handles well but has no horsepower.

To be honest, i would also have liked the decisions you made in ME1 have more of an impact in 2. Hell i played 1 on the xbox originally, but bought it for pc after my first playthrough of 2 so i could have a full run through. I have a feeling though that all of your decisions as a whole will have a huge effect in ME3, much larger than the effect your decisions in 1 had on 2. just my 2 cents though.... we will just have to wait and see

[Souai]

ZennExile wrote...

Souai wrote...

Unfortunately reviews tend to be purchased hype rather than actual valid reviews and reviews also tend to come after the fact.  Hense the term "Review" or to view again. 

However if this wasn't a sequel to a highly successful RPG and wasn't directly marketed and hyped as a story driven masterpiece of an RPG, your point would be valid and all those thousands of people would have been victims of their own stupidity.  But we both know that isn't the case now don't we?

That's why you read reviews and find the reviewers who write what you find as meaningful reviews.  I thought Sessler did a good job on ME2, especially if you watched both his soapbox and review of it, but that's me.  The reviews for ME2 largely were posted on or before the game's release.

It was pretty clear to me how the game's mechanics had changed on release, and helped me to make a purchasing decision.  I'm sure there are other review sources that cater more towards your tastes that you can rely on.

I personally consider ME2 a better RPG than every Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest.  It mostly comes down to personal taste and definition of what a role playing game should be.  I was seeking a cinematic space RPG with a relatively robust shooting system and got exactly what I wanted.

Sessler openly hates RPG elements and avoided mentioning them in any way...  He also dodged the story review by just saying "Boiware has good story telling" and focusing entirely on the combat.  AND i know for a fact Sessler himself loves complicated shooter event mechanics but fails to mention anything about how droll and bland the combat in ME2 ends up being.  "It feels great"  is about like telling a fat girl she "has a nice personality".

Sessler is too full of himself to get his hands dirty playing an RPG.  I garuntee you he played about an hour and let interns write his review for him.

The scores for ME2 were way out of line no matter where you looked and every single review sounded like the Bioware press conference being regergitated.  None of the major reviewers were willing to go against EA and with good reason.  They'd have been shunned for it simply because EA can throw enough money around to make it happen.

If you want to think about the reviews rationally you have to compare ME2 to shooters.  Cover shooter mechanics are the only thing anyone would dare to talk about so why the hell would ME2 get as high a score as Modern Warfare 2 ?  That seems pretty stupid considerin CoD:MW 2 is 5000 times the shooter ME2 could ever dream of being.

It doesn't take a PhD to see something was up with how ME2 launched and how it got a tons of great reviews that were all exactly the same and only covered the combat.

I seriously doubt you read or watched his review and soapbox entry.  You're willfully ignoring the details and overgeneralizing game reviewing with the strawman of business somehow irrationally having them by the balls by vaguely witholding the goods somehow from sources that don't rate them as high as they'd like. 

You don't have to compare a multiplayer shooter to a single player RPG.  I'm sorry you don't think ME2 is an RPG first and foremost.  The only thing that seems up with the launch of ME2 is that you didn't enjoy the game as much as the majority and that it was developed for a broader base.  It's a great game with surprisingly huge reach.  I have no problems recommending it to my more RPG adverse friends.

[ZennExile]

bbfan13 wrote...

Zenn - you issued a challenge regarding RPGs that don't have secret areas etc. I am actually having the opposite problem. I'm looking at my recent RPG catalog and seeing a bunch of games that don't do this well. It seems like easter eggs have taken over for true hidden rooms with special treasures.

I'll give the nod to the Bethesda games but they are sandbox style so the whole gameplay is based on finding hidden things. The Witcher I had to scrounge around for a couple of the sex cards but they weren't really hidden. Drakensang had the rock goblin that opens the cave in your house for the hawaiian shirt and a couple other funny items. Titans Quest is a Diablo clone but I can only remember one hidden merchant in the game. DA:O had some hidden passages but you could usually make them out on the map.

Can you give me some examples of games you feel did a good job at this in the last few years? I might try them out as I'm an old school rpg fan myself.

RPG elements are kinda vanishing from the market for some reason.  ME2 just seems to be the first radical RPG amputation.  I was kinda hoping ME2 would break this trend to be honest.

But there are a few notable exceptions and some alternatives:

Avatar.  I liked the game.  It wasn't epic but it's most definatley an RPG.  

Borderlands is another one that was good but more shooter than RPG. 

Star Ocean was a great purest RPG experience with roaming encounter mechanics....

Demon's Souls on the PS3 ended up pretty stellar.  It's a hardcore experience though.  Not for the casual RPG fan for sure heh.

White Knight Chronicles definately worth a play through as well.

Assassin's Creed 2 was more modern but even better than the original.  And the original was ****in amazing.

Purest RPGs though Avatar, Star Ocean:The Last Hope, Demon's Souls...  I know I'm forgetting something but it'll come to me eventually heh.

[Tal-N]

There are several points in the planetary systems where you hear the noise like you've moved over a planet or something but there is nothing there. Maybe a bug from content which was removed or not fully implemented? Or hints that stuff I haven't unlocked yet.



But there are hidden planets and asteroids in the game, usually in the asteroid belts. One system specifically says there are three asteroids which have Element Zero cores and make for some good mining.

[ZennExile]

Souai wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

Souai wrote...

Unfortunately reviews tend to be purchased hype rather than actual valid reviews and reviews also tend to come after the fact.  Hense the term "Review" or to view again. 

However if this wasn't a sequel to a highly successful RPG and wasn't directly marketed and hyped as a story driven masterpiece of an RPG, your point would be valid and all those thousands of people would have been victims of their own stupidity.  But we both know that isn't the case now don't we?

That's why you read reviews and find the reviewers who write what you find as meaningful reviews.  I thought Sessler did a good job on ME2, especially if you watched both his soapbox and review of it, but that's me.  The reviews for ME2 largely were posted on or before the game's release.

It was pretty clear to me how the game's mechanics had changed on release, and helped me to make a purchasing decision.  I'm sure there are other review sources that cater more towards your tastes that you can rely on.

I personally consider ME2 a better RPG than every Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest.  It mostly comes down to personal taste and definition of what a role playing game should be.  I was seeking a cinematic space RPG with a relatively robust shooting system and got exactly what I wanted.

Sessler openly hates RPG elements and avoided mentioning them in any way...  He also dodged the story review by just saying "Boiware has good story telling" and focusing entirely on the combat.  AND i know for a fact Sessler himself loves complicated shooter event mechanics but fails to mention anything about how droll and bland the combat in ME2 ends up being.  "It feels great"  is about like telling a fat girl she "has a nice personality".

Sessler is too full of himself to get his hands dirty playing an RPG.  I garuntee you he played about an hour and let interns write his review for him.

The scores for ME2 were way out of line no matter where you looked and every single review sounded like the Bioware press conference being regergitated.  None of the major reviewers were willing to go against EA and with good reason.  They'd have been shunned for it simply because EA can throw enough money around to make it happen.

If you want to think about the reviews rationally you have to compare ME2 to shooters.  Cover shooter mechanics are the only thing anyone would dare to talk about so why the hell would ME2 get as high a score as Modern Warfare 2 ?  That seems pretty stupid considerin CoD:MW 2 is 5000 times the shooter ME2 could ever dream of being.

It doesn't take a PhD to see something was up with how ME2 launched and how it got a tons of great reviews that were all exactly the same and only covered the combat.

I seriously doubt you read or watched his review and soapbox entry.  You're willfully ignoring the details and overgeneralizing game reviewing with the strawman of business somehow irrationally having them by the balls by vaguely witholding the goods somehow from sources that don't rate them as high as they'd like. 

You don't have to compare a multiplayer shooter to a single player RPG.  I'm sorry you don't think ME2 is an RPG first and foremost.  The only thing that seems up with the launch of ME2 is that you didn't enjoy the game as much as the majority and that it was developed for a broader base.  It's a great game with surprisingly huge reach.  I have no problems recommending it to my more RPG adverse friends.

It's huge reach hasn't even overcome ME1's reach so I can't really follow your logic.

[Skilled Seeker]

Ok Zenn we get it you don't like ME2. However the vast majority of the people that played the game did and so it is rather rude of you to wish for the game to be changed just to meet your vision of what it should be. If you don't like it then don't play it! Go play something else instead of trolling these forums please.

[didymos1120]

ZennExile wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...
We can't just gloss over that key bit of info.

My point was simply that the reason "It was NOTHING like Mario 1" is because it wasn't really a Mario game at all.  There was no glossing, merely explanation.

Disingenuous much?

No.

The explaination you provide is a clear attempt to avoid the perspective that matters and that perspective being the players themselves. 

Stop mind-reading.  You're terrible at it.

Those players had no knowledge that justifies your explaination.   All they saw was Mario 2 sucks Mario was way better.  Your explaination both assumes I'm an idiot and assumes everyone in the 80's should have had a time machine.

Jesus Christ..  from where do you get this nonsense?  I said nothing of the sort.  I implied nothing of the sort.

Don't add false context to a discussion just to try and win an argument. 

How is simple fact false context?  Since you apparently cannot read for comprehension, let me be as clear as possible about why I really posted that: people who didn't like it back then because it didn't seem like a proper Mario game to them?  Yeah, they were right: it wasn't a proper Mario game.  

It's rude and annoying.  ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png

That's not all that's rude and annoying.

[Knoll Argonar]

Okay, if ME2 doesn't have "hidden" things, ME1 also doesn't.



I mean, the Joker's or Hackets lines every time you arrived on a crappy system were less "hidden" than the "Anomaly Detected".



Oh, and ME1 Mako planets doesn't count: you had a map =/

[ZennExile]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Okay, if ME2 doesn't have "hidden" things, ME1 also doesn't.

I mean, the Joker's or Hackets lines every time you arrived on a crappy system were less "hidden" than the "Anomaly Detected".

Oh, and ME1 Mako planets doesn't count: you had a map =/

You still had to find them and explore them.  And many of them had secrets that weren't on the map.  There were also hidden items and codex updates in the bases you were attacking.  It also had actual ambushes...  But that's getting off topic...

"Exploration and Discovery" are the focus here.  Finding what's hidden from you or missing it entirely.  There was quite a bit in ME1 that was easy to miss.  Why?  Because the level designers actually attempted to hide things from you and supprise you from time to time.  The level designers in ME2 made no such attempt and even seemed to overly "silver platter" much of the content.  The game is on rails.  Start to finish, 2 rails, 1 cup.  It really left little to explore and even less to discover and Exploration and Discovery are the defining elements of an RPG.  Story telling is awesome but even Call of Duty has an Epic story.  Just story elements are not enough to make an RPG.

[ZennExile]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Ok Zenn we get it you don't like ME2. However the vast majority of the people that played the game did and so it is rather rude of you to wish for the game to be changed just to meet your vision of what it should be. If you don't like it then don't play it! Go play something else instead of trolling these forums please.

There are thousands of posts on this forum that seem to suggest maybe this "vastness" you speak of might not actually be the majority.  But I'm not gonna quote thousands of posts and threads for you.  Yer gonna have to do some reading. 

[bbfan13]

ZennExile wrote...


RPG elements are kinda vanishing from the market for some reason.  ME2 just seems to be the first radical RPG amputation.  I was kinda hoping ME2 would break this trend to be honest.

But there are a few notable exceptions and some alternatives:

Avatar.  I liked the game.  It wasn't epic but it's most definatley an RPG.  

Borderlands is another one that was good but more shooter than RPG. 

Star Ocean was a great purest RPG experience with roaming encounter mechanics....

Demon's Souls on the PS3 ended up pretty stellar.  It's a hardcore experience though.  Not for the casual RPG fan for sure heh.

White Knight Chronicles definately worth a play through as well.

Assassin's Creed 2 was more modern but even better than the original.  And the original was ****in amazing.

Purest RPGs though Avatar, Star Ocean:The Last Hope, Demon's Souls...  I know I'm forgetting something but it'll come to me eventually heh.

Thanks for the feedback.  It's funny because I hated the original Assassin's Creed. I will honestly say I thought it was the most over rated game in history.  Great graphics, good idea but boring. I heard the second one fixed the repetitive nature of the first game.  I was waiting to get it on PC, but recently read about the DRM was a bit overkill so I crossed it off the list.  Maybe I'll pick it up on the 360. Hate taking the graphics hit but what can you do.  Demon's Souls is going to finally make me break down and buy a PS3.   Star Ocean I can probably get out of discount bin these days so that is definitely worth a look.  I'm not familiar with White Knite at all, so I'll give it look.  Thanks again.

[ZennExile]

bbfan13 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...


RPG elements are kinda vanishing from the market for some reason.  ME2 just seems to be the first radical RPG amputation.  I was kinda hoping ME2 would break this trend to be honest.

But there are a few notable exceptions and some alternatives:

Avatar.  I liked the game.  It wasn't epic but it's most definatley an RPG.  

Borderlands is another one that was good but more shooter than RPG. 

Star Ocean was a great purest RPG experience with roaming encounter mechanics....

Demon's Souls on the PS3 ended up pretty stellar.  It's a hardcore experience though.  Not for the casual RPG fan for sure heh.

White Knight Chronicles definately worth a play through as well.

Assassin's Creed 2 was more modern but even better than the original.  And the original was ****in amazing.

Purest RPGs though Avatar, Star Ocean:The Last Hope, Demon's Souls...  I know I'm forgetting something but it'll come to me eventually heh.

Thanks for the feedback.  It's funny because I hated the original Assassin's Creed. I will honestly say I thought it was the most over rated game in history.  Great graphics, good idea but boring. I heard the second one fixed the repetitive nature of the first game.  I was waiting to get it on PC, but recently read about the DRM was a bit overkill so I crossed it off the list.  Maybe I'll pick it up on the 360. Hate taking the graphics hit but what can you do.  Demon's Souls is going to finally make me break down and buy a PS3.   Star Ocean I can probably get out of discount bin these days so that is definitely worth a look.  I'm not familiar with White Knite at all, so I'll give it look.  Thanks again.

np

I bought a PS3 specifically for the hardocre RPGs I know are coming out exclusively on it because of blue ray.  There are also a handful of console based MMO's that will be releasing exclusively on the PS3 and I'm tired of playing MMO's with 50 thousand RMT spams per minute and 15 hacks and bots availible even before release.  Console MMO's should offer a more secure experience on all counts and only the PS3 has the media required to make it a reality.

That and it's pretty much the same price to buy a blueray player so why the hell not? 

Definately pick up Star Ocean though.  The story is pretty unique and the game is FUXING HUGE.  3 disks and less fluff makes for a metric ****ton of content.

[Knoll Argonar]

ZennExile wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Okay, if ME2 doesn't have "hidden" things, ME1 also doesn't.

I mean, the Joker's or Hackets lines every time you arrived on a crappy system were less "hidden" than the "Anomaly Detected".

Oh, and ME1 Mako planets doesn't count: you had a map =/

You still had to find them and explore them.  And many of them had secrets that weren't on the map.  There were also hidden items and codex updates in the bases you were attacking.  It also had actual ambushes...  But that's getting off topic...

"Exploration and Discovery" are the focus here.  Finding what's hidden from you or missing it entirely.  There was quite a bit in ME1 that was easy to miss.  Why?  Because the level designers actually attempted to hide things from you and supprise you from time to time.  The level designers in ME2 made no such attempt and even seemed to overly "silver platter" much of the content.  The game is on rails.  Start to finish, 2 rails, 1 cup.  It really left little to explore and even less to discover and Exploration and Discovery are the defining elements of an RPG.  Story telling is awesome but even Call of Duty has an Epic story.  Just story elements are not enough to make an RPG.

.... so?

Really, there is a difference between being critique and talking about what does ME2 wrong and what YOU think ME2 should have been.

Example: you may talk about character interaction, because ME2 lacks it quite a lot. They forgot about that. But the "Mako thing", the "exploration" (more like boring time-waste) was actually ripped off the game premeditate. From now on, Mass Effect isn't focused on exploration, not even a bit.

ME2 is just not a full RPG, not a full anything. And that's what they wanted to do.

Don't like it? Sorry, go and replace Hudson if you want. But there's a difference between making something better and making something the way you want.

[ZennExile]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Okay, if ME2 doesn't have "hidden" things, ME1 also doesn't.

I mean, the Joker's or Hackets lines every time you arrived on a crappy system were less "hidden" than the "Anomaly Detected".

Oh, and ME1 Mako planets doesn't count: you had a map =/

You still had to find them and explore them.  And many of them had secrets that weren't on the map.  There were also hidden items and codex updates in the bases you were attacking.  It also had actual ambushes...  But that's getting off topic...

"Exploration and Discovery" are the focus here.  Finding what's hidden from you or missing it entirely.  There was quite a bit in ME1 that was easy to miss.  Why?  Because the level designers actually attempted to hide things from you and supprise you from time to time.  The level designers in ME2 made no such attempt and even seemed to overly "silver platter" much of the content.  The game is on rails.  Start to finish, 2 rails, 1 cup.  It really left little to explore and even less to discover and Exploration and Discovery are the defining elements of an RPG.  Story telling is awesome but even Call of Duty has an Epic story.  Just story elements are not enough to make an RPG.

.... so?

Really, there is a difference between being critique and talking about what does ME2 wrong and what YOU think ME2 should have been.

Example: you may talk about character interaction, because ME2 lacks it quite a lot. They forgot about that. But the "Mako thing", the "exploration" (more like boring time-waste) was actually ripped off the game premeditate. From now on, Mass Effect isn't focused on exploration, not even a bit.

ME2 is just not a full RPG, not a full anything. And that's what they wanted to do.

Don't like it? Sorry, go and replace Hudson if you want. But there's a difference between making something better and making something the way you want.

There is also a difference between making a sequel and making a new game.  Just like there is a difference between making something "better" and starting over from scratch.

ME2 is marketed as a sequel to an RPG and as an RPG itself.  But it's not really either of those things.  Maybe you don't think that's an issue but thousands upon thousands of people do.  There are thousands of posts on this very forum saying this.  But your "if you don't like it don't play it" auto-responder is always on you miss them or ignore them.

Oh and in case you missed this the "Hammermako(see what I did there?) was removed from the game pre-release because it wasn't ready yet.  So your perspective seems to be a bit ... off. 

Modifié par ZennExile, 01 mars 2010 - 12:13 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Where are these thousands upon thousands of people? You are really in the minority. The casual gamers (the vast majority of people that bought ME2 and hence the biggest source of income) all found ME2 to be a fantastic game and don't care about stupid irelevant things like you do Zenn. Bioware is not going to change their game structure because some loud forumites demand it. ME2 is still selling like hotcakes and thats means it did something right and its all that matters to Bioware. So either accept the game for what it is or bugger off!

[ZennExile]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Where are these thousands upon thousands of people? You are really in the minority. The casual gamers (the vast majority of people that bought ME2 and hence the biggest source of income) all found ME2 to be a fantastic game and don't care about stupid irelevant things like you do Zenn. Bioware is not going to change their game structure because some loud forumites demand it. ME2 is still selling like hotcakes and thats means it did something right and its all that matters to Bioware. So either accept the game for what it is or bugger off!

So they're not gonna get rid of the elevator rides that acted in place of loading screens?  Ooops.  They did that didn't they....

However, all you need to do to verify whether or not people care about these "stupid irrelavent" things is to read the forum here and noticed the page buttons down at the bottom.  Every day there are no less then 4 new threads started about how ME2 is lacking RPG elements and how it doesn't seem like a sequel to ME1.  But to see those you are going to have to venture forth into the unknown.   The page 2+ region of the forums where all the scary stuff that contradicts your narrow minded views hides out waiting to pounce on your perspective and smash it into itty bitty bits.

So get to readin.  I'm not gonna quote thousands of posts just so you can make up some new excuse about how all those people are stupid and irrelevant.

[Varenus Luckmann]

"Why is nothing hidden" goes doubly for storyline in ME2.

I suppose hidden stuff, mechanical, gameplay-wise or storyline, would be too hard to fathom from the console shooter crew.

Modifié par Varenus Luckmann, 01 mars 2010 - 12:24 .