I agree 100%. They got lazy because they were reconfiguring crap. Hopefully now that they have a working battle system. They can focus more on the environments in ME 3 and I will leave it there.
Critical Analysis - Mass Effect 2(Long)
Débuté par
SLPr0
, mars 02 2010 09:17
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 12:00
Cyadina
-
- Members
- 22 messages
Your post is way too long to quote, even in sections.
Not being able to fully explore the citadel is in my mind a combination of several factors. First off, its repetative to visit the same area of the game, especially if its necessary to put the presidium in ME3. They'd have to update many things, and frankly they've got an entire game full of new stuff, revisiting the old stuff is simply wasted development time. For every person complaining they couldn't go back and revisit everything, there'd be 2 more complaining that there wasn't enough new stuff. Now think of that in terms of a real choice, revist old stuff with even less new stuff, or keep the game as it is, you don't get both this is the real world.
Secondly, parashep is laying low on the citadel because that's what he told the council he'd do. Reneshep is person non grata on the citadel, which means he also needs to lay low. The story line supports you not wanting to go hit all the old places. Those people who cared do contact you, if any complaint its valid, its just that's there's no way to make those feel like real communications because its just a text email. And that's not c-sec's headquarters its more like a precinct of c-sec, or even a security check point specifically for that section of that ward.
Some people liked the Mako, I didn't mind it occasionally, travelling around on the Mako through that crap awful terrain looking for resources was miserable, doing that makes planet scanning a breeze, jumping out to randomly scan something that contains more crap gear or some random bit of lore things was just a time sink. Basically the point was to drive to some in door place to shoot things anyway, ME2 just skips the driving time sink.
As to your shooting gallery comment, ME is simply a different flavor of RPG. Its more of a guided story, its linear because its a story, but you have some interactive parts, like whether your shepard is a bad ass or a "paladin" as you put it. Traditional RPG's tend to let you tell more of the story, ME stories are not like that. Its pretty obvious Bioware spent some series time upgrading combat in a lot of ways, some of which I'll mention farther on, but most of the changes they made were to make that part of the game more interactive and interesting.
Ok, this part is simply you saying over and over you want your choices to have universe shattering outcomes. First off, you can't shaft ME2 players who never played ME1, which means you can't have insanely different outcomes when they can only play the default.
Second, you're asking for explonential development here with choices making differences so radically. Ask yourself why DAO took so long to get out the door and it probably has a lot to do with accounting for all those freaking options and story lines. Personally don't want to wait 7 years for ME3 because they have to tie up an exponential progression of lose ends.
Here's the reason you don't get differences between paragon and renegade. Its a guided story, Shepard gets from point A to point B, he eithers stomps people in the ground or supports them to the end, but regardless you're going to point B, you just get some flavor on the way there. You read a book the characters are always the same, the choices are always the same. We live our lives wishing we'd made different choices or said different things. Here's the reality, you still go to point B and those dramatic differences you expected, they'd probably get you to practically the same place anyway. Bioware made a conscious choice to tell a story but let the player add their own flavor, regardless its their story and it is going to progress along the same path. See above on exponential development just so it sinks in.
The choices you make with your team are fairly neutral responses, they agree with you equally whether you're a bad ass or a saint, you can interpret that how you want. It either means that their personality is reflecting yours, or they're their own person and you aren't quite the center of the universe you wish you were. Think about it this way, most of them are there to save the universe from being harvested whether they like you or not, even if they frequently say they're there for you.
Ok this part I disagree with you almost entirely on. All that "stuff" that made you think ME had depth or whatever boils down to, if it was an upgrade you equipped it, and you were lucky if you noticed the slightest difference in the game. That's not an RPG that's a shallow system, and hey what do you know they got rid of it and replaced it with something streamlined and more meaningful, but I would argue that it wasn't necessarily meaningful enough, right track, not quite the finish line.
Look in ME1 if you wanted your guns performing the best you frequently had to stop, swap out mods and keep playing. That's a tedious time sink that serves no real purpose, so what did Bioware do? They made guns and abilities have specific uses. They did the exact same thing with squad mates. ME1 had achievements for you to use specific squad members through the entire game, that was a choice allowing you to play with the characters you wanted. They got rid of that in 2, why? because they want you to execute some strategy and pick the right people for the right missions. Now the game is easy enough that you can play with whatever gun you want, and with whatever team you want, even through most of insanity. The theory is sound, stream line the stuff, focus on what makes combat fun, dodging fire and shooting down enemies with guns and abilities. The choices isn't going into your inventory and swapping 5 mods, its pull out the pistol because that mob has armor. Each weapon plays different even in their sub categories, just not differently enough. Many weapons had clearly superior weapons and that reduced the choices too far, needed some better balance is all. Still at least the weapons ARE different as opposed to that pistol you never overheat being exactly the same from start to finish.
The reason the armor bonuses are trivial are two things. First you can't shaft people who didn't buy the collectors or don't want DLC. You end up with stuff too powerful and the game is a joke making armor a non choice, and those people without that DLC get angry that its not available to them. Secondly, trivial bonuses let you make a decision based on looks, it goes back to that guided story. You think that armor looks bad ass, great wear it those bonuses are so small its like nothing anyway, if you don't care, great min max what you can.
Now if you want to make a complaint that there's not enough customization making it a non issue, then I might agree with you there, but its all about development cycles again. I'd rather have a few pieces of good looking armor then tons of crappy looking armor.
Oh right resources, here's the trick, hit the big spots, don't scan every planet to death, and don't go harvesting more resources than you need. You burn credits on fuel and probes you could be using to buy stuff. I tend to agree that I wish there was more to research though, but I didn't feel overly shafted either considering most people seemed to find the scanning boring. They made a decent balance between scanning for what you do need and what you can buy. Not their fault people KEEP scanning then complain its boring and they can't do anything with the resources.
Honestly, not even sure what this section is ranting about, but it is definitely a rant. Different classes play differently, some have access to more weapons. ME1 players could use "everything" but basically couldn't hit anything unless they used the right weapons. Now its simply restricted to the appropriate weapons, you ARE specialized in the weapons you are carrying, you can learn a new one or upgrade one half way through the game. Its a non choice they removed from ME1, you always specialized to use a weapon, then you were stuck using it, now you can use them all if they're available to you, its honestly MORE choices.
Development time yo, there are limits, exponential game growth, feature creep, delays delays delays. Empty systems are boring, you really want more planets with resources to scan, really? Oh wait no you want more meaningful content to explore, right, sorry they had to cut somewhere and ship the game.
If it helps think of it this way, you shouldn't be wasting your time in the "time line." You're trying to stop the reapers and the collectors, not killing time jazzing around in your space lambo, you've got critical missions, and emergency distress beacons that pop up while you're collecting resources to fight the collectors, thats it.
This IS a fantastic game, it tells a good story as part of a trilogy. The combat is fun and engaging, and many of the choices combat wise and inventory wise are MORE meaningful than before. Bioware made a really tough design decision, and honestly I admire them for taking the harder way which is to risk improvement and of course get the angry fan griping because its not the game they would have made if they could wave a magic wand.
BTW you're right about DLC, you bought a complete game, anything else they give you is a big ol f******* cherry on that sundae, be happy they care enough about their fans to give it.
Glad that guy chewed you out several posts above, made me interested enough to read your novel and honestly he was more right than you were.
SLPr0 wrote...
Multi-Linear Story Meets Linear Level Design:
Not being able to fully explore the citadel is in my mind a combination of several factors. First off, its repetative to visit the same area of the game, especially if its necessary to put the presidium in ME3. They'd have to update many things, and frankly they've got an entire game full of new stuff, revisiting the old stuff is simply wasted development time. For every person complaining they couldn't go back and revisit everything, there'd be 2 more complaining that there wasn't enough new stuff. Now think of that in terms of a real choice, revist old stuff with even less new stuff, or keep the game as it is, you don't get both this is the real world.
Secondly, parashep is laying low on the citadel because that's what he told the council he'd do. Reneshep is person non grata on the citadel, which means he also needs to lay low. The story line supports you not wanting to go hit all the old places. Those people who cared do contact you, if any complaint its valid, its just that's there's no way to make those feel like real communications because its just a text email. And that's not c-sec's headquarters its more like a precinct of c-sec, or even a security check point specifically for that section of that ward.
Some people liked the Mako, I didn't mind it occasionally, travelling around on the Mako through that crap awful terrain looking for resources was miserable, doing that makes planet scanning a breeze, jumping out to randomly scan something that contains more crap gear or some random bit of lore things was just a time sink. Basically the point was to drive to some in door place to shoot things anyway, ME2 just skips the driving time sink.
As to your shooting gallery comment, ME is simply a different flavor of RPG. Its more of a guided story, its linear because its a story, but you have some interactive parts, like whether your shepard is a bad ass or a "paladin" as you put it. Traditional RPG's tend to let you tell more of the story, ME stories are not like that. Its pretty obvious Bioware spent some series time upgrading combat in a lot of ways, some of which I'll mention farther on, but most of the changes they made were to make that part of the game more interactive and interesting.
SLPr0 wrote...
(Im)Moral Choices - Every action will have an immaterial non-reaction:
Ok, this part is simply you saying over and over you want your choices to have universe shattering outcomes. First off, you can't shaft ME2 players who never played ME1, which means you can't have insanely different outcomes when they can only play the default.
Second, you're asking for explonential development here with choices making differences so radically. Ask yourself why DAO took so long to get out the door and it probably has a lot to do with accounting for all those freaking options and story lines. Personally don't want to wait 7 years for ME3 because they have to tie up an exponential progression of lose ends.
Here's the reason you don't get differences between paragon and renegade. Its a guided story, Shepard gets from point A to point B, he eithers stomps people in the ground or supports them to the end, but regardless you're going to point B, you just get some flavor on the way there. You read a book the characters are always the same, the choices are always the same. We live our lives wishing we'd made different choices or said different things. Here's the reality, you still go to point B and those dramatic differences you expected, they'd probably get you to practically the same place anyway. Bioware made a conscious choice to tell a story but let the player add their own flavor, regardless its their story and it is going to progress along the same path. See above on exponential development just so it sinks in.
The choices you make with your team are fairly neutral responses, they agree with you equally whether you're a bad ass or a saint, you can interpret that how you want. It either means that their personality is reflecting yours, or they're their own person and you aren't quite the center of the universe you wish you were. Think about it this way, most of them are there to save the universe from being harvested whether they like you or not, even if they frequently say they're there for you.
SLPr0 wrote...
[b]"People Hate Gear and Weapons"
Ok this part I disagree with you almost entirely on. All that "stuff" that made you think ME had depth or whatever boils down to, if it was an upgrade you equipped it, and you were lucky if you noticed the slightest difference in the game. That's not an RPG that's a shallow system, and hey what do you know they got rid of it and replaced it with something streamlined and more meaningful, but I would argue that it wasn't necessarily meaningful enough, right track, not quite the finish line.
Look in ME1 if you wanted your guns performing the best you frequently had to stop, swap out mods and keep playing. That's a tedious time sink that serves no real purpose, so what did Bioware do? They made guns and abilities have specific uses. They did the exact same thing with squad mates. ME1 had achievements for you to use specific squad members through the entire game, that was a choice allowing you to play with the characters you wanted. They got rid of that in 2, why? because they want you to execute some strategy and pick the right people for the right missions. Now the game is easy enough that you can play with whatever gun you want, and with whatever team you want, even through most of insanity. The theory is sound, stream line the stuff, focus on what makes combat fun, dodging fire and shooting down enemies with guns and abilities. The choices isn't going into your inventory and swapping 5 mods, its pull out the pistol because that mob has armor. Each weapon plays different even in their sub categories, just not differently enough. Many weapons had clearly superior weapons and that reduced the choices too far, needed some better balance is all. Still at least the weapons ARE different as opposed to that pistol you never overheat being exactly the same from start to finish.
The reason the armor bonuses are trivial are two things. First you can't shaft people who didn't buy the collectors or don't want DLC. You end up with stuff too powerful and the game is a joke making armor a non choice, and those people without that DLC get angry that its not available to them. Secondly, trivial bonuses let you make a decision based on looks, it goes back to that guided story. You think that armor looks bad ass, great wear it those bonuses are so small its like nothing anyway, if you don't care, great min max what you can.
Now if you want to make a complaint that there's not enough customization making it a non issue, then I might agree with you there, but its all about development cycles again. I'd rather have a few pieces of good looking armor then tons of crappy looking armor.
Oh right resources, here's the trick, hit the big spots, don't scan every planet to death, and don't go harvesting more resources than you need. You burn credits on fuel and probes you could be using to buy stuff. I tend to agree that I wish there was more to research though, but I didn't feel overly shafted either considering most people seemed to find the scanning boring. They made a decent balance between scanning for what you do need and what you can buy. Not their fault people KEEP scanning then complain its boring and they can't do anything with the resources.
SLPr0 wrote...
I am a master of all weapons and arms:
Honestly, not even sure what this section is ranting about, but it is definitely a rant. Different classes play differently, some have access to more weapons. ME1 players could use "everything" but basically couldn't hit anything unless they used the right weapons. Now its simply restricted to the appropriate weapons, you ARE specialized in the weapons you are carrying, you can learn a new one or upgrade one half way through the game. Its a non choice they removed from ME1, you always specialized to use a weapon, then you were stuck using it, now you can use them all if they're available to you, its honestly MORE choices.
SLPr0 wrote...
[b]Restricting Myself to the Terminus Systems:
Development time yo, there are limits, exponential game growth, feature creep, delays delays delays. Empty systems are boring, you really want more planets with resources to scan, really? Oh wait no you want more meaningful content to explore, right, sorry they had to cut somewhere and ship the game.
If it helps think of it this way, you shouldn't be wasting your time in the "time line." You're trying to stop the reapers and the collectors, not killing time jazzing around in your space lambo, you've got critical missions, and emergency distress beacons that pop up while you're collecting resources to fight the collectors, thats it.
SLPr0 wrote...
[b]Overall Though
Fantastic game, fantastic adaptation of the original to a new format presenting a familiar story.
This IS a fantastic game, it tells a good story as part of a trilogy. The combat is fun and engaging, and many of the choices combat wise and inventory wise are MORE meaningful than before. Bioware made a really tough design decision, and honestly I admire them for taking the harder way which is to risk improvement and of course get the angry fan griping because its not the game they would have made if they could wave a magic wand.
BTW you're right about DLC, you bought a complete game, anything else they give you is a big ol f******* cherry on that sundae, be happy they care enough about their fans to give it.
Glad that guy chewed you out several posts above, made me interested enough to read your novel and honestly he was more right than you were.
Modifié par Cyadina, 02 mars 2010 - 12:12 .
#28
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 12:03
Mallissin
-
- Members
- 2 040 messages
Multi-Linear Story Meets Linear Level Design
1. Citadel was large in ME1 to make you feel attached to it, since the plot leads you to defend it. It's intentional that you get half your team there as well. The Citadel wasn't a part of ME2, therefore was downplayed.
2, The C-Cec area in ME1 was the headquarters while the one in ME2 was only a security checkpoint, pretty big difference between the two.
3. ME2 follows the same formulas as ME1 but increased the content in the formula. It just seems like less because ME1 relied heavily on the Mako transitions that slowed you down. If you add up all the unique missions in ME2, it far outweighs ME1 which had many missions inside cookie cutter areas.
4. There is still exploration, they just shifted it from the Mako to the Normandy. Instead of spending time roving around a planet surface, you're flying between stars and doing manual scans. Some of us are thankful for this, since it was rather tedious and some still complain that the less tedious exploration is still too tedious.
(Im)Moral Choices - Every action will have an immaterial non-reaction
1. There's a pretty big difference between Wrex and his brother, even if they look and sound alike.
2. There's a fairly big difference between saving the Council and letting it die, or picking Anderson/Udina. If you didn't save the Council and pick Anderson, you don't get to speak to the Council. This could play a big part in ME3.
3. Khalisah bin Al-Jilani is your voice directly to the people. How you treat her pretty much decides how people view you. Since ME3 will most likely involve uniting people together, this could also play a bigger role than you realize.
4. Paragon and Renegade choices always go to the same outcome because they lead to the "best" outcome. Try playing a neutral character without getting many points in either and see how depressing the game plays out.
People Hate Gear and Weapons
1. ME2 was all about desperation. You died, you're working for the enemy, your friends won't help you. This shines through with the weapons and armor. You don't have a choice of hundreds like the first game , you have a dozen. You need more power? Find an upgrade and make it yourself. Even the "thermal clips" was meant to add to this, making your scrounge for ammo during or after battles. Game design decisions that all add to the "we're alone and desperate"
feel to ME2, not the evil EA telling them to "simplify" things.
2. Mass Effect isn't an MMORPG, so don't compare it to one. In an MMORPG you're making your own character and everyone is comparing themselves to each other, while Mass Effect is single player and you're following a narrative. That's a pretty big difference.
Restricting Myself to the Terminus Systems
1. You died. Your apartment was sold. Tough. Move on.
2. You work for Cerberus which if you don't remember was considered a criminal organization in ME1. You can't wander around Citadel space when they think you're a criminal. The only place safe on the Citadel for you was the poorest ward and the human councilor's office, otherwise you'd get arrested.
3. The Terminus systems is where the Collectors are abducting human colonies. Why would you be wandering around elsewhere while your fellow humans are disappearing.
Overall Though
1. You come off as whiney and pompous. Not a good combination.
2. Try being more concise, it gets the point across better.
3. Buy Drew's books and read them.
1. Citadel was large in ME1 to make you feel attached to it, since the plot leads you to defend it. It's intentional that you get half your team there as well. The Citadel wasn't a part of ME2, therefore was downplayed.
2, The C-Cec area in ME1 was the headquarters while the one in ME2 was only a security checkpoint, pretty big difference between the two.
3. ME2 follows the same formulas as ME1 but increased the content in the formula. It just seems like less because ME1 relied heavily on the Mako transitions that slowed you down. If you add up all the unique missions in ME2, it far outweighs ME1 which had many missions inside cookie cutter areas.
4. There is still exploration, they just shifted it from the Mako to the Normandy. Instead of spending time roving around a planet surface, you're flying between stars and doing manual scans. Some of us are thankful for this, since it was rather tedious and some still complain that the less tedious exploration is still too tedious.
(Im)Moral Choices - Every action will have an immaterial non-reaction
1. There's a pretty big difference between Wrex and his brother, even if they look and sound alike.
2. There's a fairly big difference between saving the Council and letting it die, or picking Anderson/Udina. If you didn't save the Council and pick Anderson, you don't get to speak to the Council. This could play a big part in ME3.
3. Khalisah bin Al-Jilani is your voice directly to the people. How you treat her pretty much decides how people view you. Since ME3 will most likely involve uniting people together, this could also play a bigger role than you realize.
4. Paragon and Renegade choices always go to the same outcome because they lead to the "best" outcome. Try playing a neutral character without getting many points in either and see how depressing the game plays out.
People Hate Gear and Weapons
1. ME2 was all about desperation. You died, you're working for the enemy, your friends won't help you. This shines through with the weapons and armor. You don't have a choice of hundreds like the first game , you have a dozen. You need more power? Find an upgrade and make it yourself. Even the "thermal clips" was meant to add to this, making your scrounge for ammo during or after battles. Game design decisions that all add to the "we're alone and desperate"
feel to ME2, not the evil EA telling them to "simplify" things.
2. Mass Effect isn't an MMORPG, so don't compare it to one. In an MMORPG you're making your own character and everyone is comparing themselves to each other, while Mass Effect is single player and you're following a narrative. That's a pretty big difference.
Restricting Myself to the Terminus Systems
1. You died. Your apartment was sold. Tough. Move on.
2. You work for Cerberus which if you don't remember was considered a criminal organization in ME1. You can't wander around Citadel space when they think you're a criminal. The only place safe on the Citadel for you was the poorest ward and the human councilor's office, otherwise you'd get arrested.
3. The Terminus systems is where the Collectors are abducting human colonies. Why would you be wandering around elsewhere while your fellow humans are disappearing.
Overall Though
1. You come off as whiney and pompous. Not a good combination.
2. Try being more concise, it gets the point across better.
3. Buy Drew's books and read them.
Modifié par Mallissin, 02 mars 2010 - 12:13 .
#29
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 01:02
Estelindis
-
- Members
- 3 699 messages
On the story points, I find myself wondering to what extent it's actually possible for Bioware to fully reflect deep reactions to different player choices without bifurcating the story to the point of unworkability. For instance, who you sacrifice on Virmire *should* be really meaningful, but in ME2 Ash and Kai play exactly the same role... To me, it diminishes the original choice. But does Bioware actually have the time and resources to follow through on all the differences we "should" experience? Especially considering that anyone who didn't play ME1 will have that choice taken away from them.
It's as if Bioware is insanely ambitious about roleplaying choice, but then has to reign back their ambition because it's impractical. I dunno...
It's as if Bioware is insanely ambitious about roleplaying choice, but then has to reign back their ambition because it's impractical. I dunno...
#30
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 01:24
Ryltaar
-
- Members
- 8 messages
About the Ashley/kaidan death, the thing is : what kinda difference could it make ?
If I take some tv shows and think about main character deaths, the only difference is there not here anymore. You talk about them a bit, remember the good 'ol times (like with Dr Chakwas) but that's about it.
As for the Council, I wished it had a bigger impact, true. But they still reinstated my Spectre status and since I think being a Specter is pretty awesome (and could come handy in ME3?) it's fine by me \\o/
If I take some tv shows and think about main character deaths, the only difference is there not here anymore. You talk about them a bit, remember the good 'ol times (like with Dr Chakwas) but that's about it.
As for the Council, I wished it had a bigger impact, true. But they still reinstated my Spectre status and since I think being a Specter is pretty awesome (and could come handy in ME3?) it's fine by me \\o/
#31
Posté 03 mars 2010 - 12:03
Heimdall
-
- Members
- 13 223 messages
Cyadina wrote...
Your post is way too long to quote, even in sections.SLPr0 wrote...
Multi-Linear Story Meets Linear Level Design:
Not being able to fully explore the citadel is in my mind a combination of several factors. First off, its repetative to visit the same area of the game, especially if its necessary to put the presidium in ME3. They'd have to update many things, and frankly they've got an entire game full of new stuff, revisiting the old stuff is simply wasted development time. For every person complaining they couldn't go back and revisit everything, there'd be 2 more complaining that there wasn't enough new stuff. Now think of that in terms of a real choice, revist old stuff with even less new stuff, or keep the game as it is, you don't get both this is the real world.
Secondly, parashep is laying low on the citadel because that's what he told the council he'd do. Reneshep is person non grata on the citadel, which means he also needs to lay low. The story line supports you not wanting to go hit all the old places. Those people who cared do contact you, if any complaint its valid, its just that's there's no way to make those feel like real communications because its just a text email. And that's not c-sec's headquarters its more like a precinct of c-sec, or even a security check point specifically for that section of that ward.
Some people liked the Mako, I didn't mind it occasionally, travelling around on the Mako through that crap awful terrain looking for resources was miserable, doing that makes planet scanning a breeze, jumping out to randomly scan something that contains more crap gear or some random bit of lore things was just a time sink. Basically the point was to drive to some in door place to shoot things anyway, ME2 just skips the driving time sink.
As to your shooting gallery comment, ME is simply a different flavor of RPG. Its more of a guided story, its linear because its a story, but you have some interactive parts, like whether your shepard is a bad ass or a "paladin" as you put it. Traditional RPG's tend to let you tell more of the story, ME stories are not like that. Its pretty obvious Bioware spent some series time upgrading combat in a lot of ways, some of which I'll mention farther on, but most of the changes they made were to make that part of the game more interactive and interesting.SLPr0 wrote...
(Im)Moral Choices - Every action will have an immaterial non-reaction:
Ok, this part is simply you saying over and over you want your choices to have universe shattering outcomes. First off, you can't shaft ME2 players who never played ME1, which means you can't have insanely different outcomes when they can only play the default.
Second, you're asking for explonential development here with choices making differences so radically. Ask yourself why DAO took so long to get out the door and it probably has a lot to do with accounting for all those freaking options and story lines. Personally don't want to wait 7 years for ME3 because they have to tie up an exponential progression of lose ends.
Here's the reason you don't get differences between paragon and renegade. Its a guided story, Shepard gets from point A to point B, he eithers stomps people in the ground or supports them to the end, but regardless you're going to point B, you just get some flavor on the way there. You read a book the characters are always the same, the choices are always the same. We live our lives wishing we'd made different choices or said different things. Here's the reality, you still go to point B and those dramatic differences you expected, they'd probably get you to practically the same place anyway. Bioware made a conscious choice to tell a story but let the player add their own flavor, regardless its their story and it is going to progress along the same path. See above on exponential development just so it sinks in.
The choices you make with your team are fairly neutral responses, they agree with you equally whether you're a bad ass or a saint, you can interpret that how you want. It either means that their personality is reflecting yours, or they're their own person and you aren't quite the center of the universe you wish you were. Think about it this way, most of them are there to save the universe from being harvested whether they like you or not, even if they frequently say they're there for you.SLPr0 wrote...
[b]"People Hate Gear and Weapons"
Ok this part I disagree with you almost entirely on. All that "stuff" that made you think ME had depth or whatever boils down to, if it was an upgrade you equipped it, and you were lucky if you noticed the slightest difference in the game. That's not an RPG that's a shallow system, and hey what do you know they got rid of it and replaced it with something streamlined and more meaningful, but I would argue that it wasn't necessarily meaningful enough, right track, not quite the finish line.
Look in ME1 if you wanted your guns performing the best you frequently had to stop, swap out mods and keep playing. That's a tedious time sink that serves no real purpose, so what did Bioware do? They made guns and abilities have specific uses. They did the exact same thing with squad mates. ME1 had achievements for you to use specific squad members through the entire game, that was a choice allowing you to play with the characters you wanted. They got rid of that in 2, why? because they want you to execute some strategy and pick the right people for the right missions. Now the game is easy enough that you can play with whatever gun you want, and with whatever team you want, even through most of insanity. The theory is sound, stream line the stuff, focus on what makes combat fun, dodging fire and shooting down enemies with guns and abilities. The choices isn't going into your inventory and swapping 5 mods, its pull out the pistol because that mob has armor. Each weapon plays different even in their sub categories, just not differently enough. Many weapons had clearly superior weapons and that reduced the choices too far, needed some better balance is all. Still at least the weapons ARE different as opposed to that pistol you never overheat being exactly the same from start to finish.
The reason the armor bonuses are trivial are two things. First you can't shaft people who didn't buy the collectors or don't want DLC. You end up with stuff too powerful and the game is a joke making armor a non choice, and those people without that DLC get angry that its not available to them. Secondly, trivial bonuses let you make a decision based on looks, it goes back to that guided story. You think that armor looks bad ass, great wear it those bonuses are so small its like nothing anyway, if you don't care, great min max what you can.
Now if you want to make a complaint that there's not enough customization making it a non issue, then I might agree with you there, but its all about development cycles again. I'd rather have a few pieces of good looking armor then tons of crappy looking armor.
Oh right resources, here's the trick, hit the big spots, don't scan every planet to death, and don't go harvesting more resources than you need. You burn credits on fuel and probes you could be using to buy stuff. I tend to agree that I wish there was more to research though, but I didn't feel overly shafted either considering most people seemed to find the scanning boring. They made a decent balance between scanning for what you do need and what you can buy. Not their fault people KEEP scanning then complain its boring and they can't do anything with the resources.SLPr0 wrote...
I am a master of all weapons and arms:
Honestly, not even sure what this section is ranting about, but it is definitely a rant. Different classes play differently, some have access to more weapons. ME1 players could use "everything" but basically couldn't hit anything unless they used the right weapons. Now its simply restricted to the appropriate weapons, you ARE specialized in the weapons you are carrying, you can learn a new one or upgrade one half way through the game. Its a non choice they removed from ME1, you always specialized to use a weapon, then you were stuck using it, now you can use them all if they're available to you, its honestly MORE choices.SLPr0 wrote...
[b]Restricting Myself to the Terminus Systems:
Development time yo, there are limits, exponential game growth, feature creep, delays delays delays. Empty systems are boring, you really want more planets with resources to scan, really? Oh wait no you want more meaningful content to explore, right, sorry they had to cut somewhere and ship the game.
If it helps think of it this way, you shouldn't be wasting your time in the "time line." You're trying to stop the reapers and the collectors, not killing time jazzing around in your space lambo, you've got critical missions, and emergency distress beacons that pop up while you're collecting resources to fight the collectors, thats it.SLPr0 wrote...
[b]Overall Though
Fantastic game, fantastic adaptation of the original to a new format presenting a familiar story.
This IS a fantastic game, it tells a good story as part of a trilogy. The combat is fun and engaging, and many of the choices combat wise and inventory wise are MORE meaningful than before. Bioware made a really tough design decision, and honestly I admire them for taking the harder way which is to risk improvement and of course get the angry fan griping because its not the game they would have made if they could wave a magic wand.
BTW you're right about DLC, you bought a complete game, anything else they give you is a big ol f******* cherry on that sundae, be happy they care enough about their fans to give it.
Glad that guy chewed you out several posts above, made me interested enough to read your novel and honestly he was more right than you were.
^
100% agreement
#32
Posté 03 mars 2010 - 12:35
Mondo_
-
- Members
- 190 messages
I read it and agree. I feel bad for people that can't read a few paragraphs talking about a video game they love.
#33
Posté 03 mars 2010 - 04:42
SLPr0
-
- Members
- 1 396 messages
I long ago stopped being amazed that having a critical opinion of something illicits hostility.
So largely to the people that agree with what I've presented, thank you, to those that disagree, you may wish to couch your debates more in facts and personal viewpoints and less in some weird, omnidirectional anger that is thrown in the face of anyone you personally disagree with on the internet.
It may help you, somewhat, in peoples ability to take you seriously. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my assessments nor do I have a problem with people thinking I'm wrong. But I think it pretty much negates the entire platform of the contending debate against my analysis when said debate is couched in insults and grave assumptions about the personality of someone you don't even know.
The point of a forum is a free and full exchange of differing opinions, dating back as far as Ancient Greece, I suppose back then people used to throw fruit or rocks at people the disagreed with, and I can only surmise that the acidity and insults some have engaged in, in their disagreement with my analysis is the internet equivalent of such.
Anyways, I stand behind my assessments. I agree on some points presented such as development time, resources, I'm a developer myself, I know how that goes, I'm just saying that there was a lot of Mass Effect that got terribly butchered to usher in the NG+ experience of Mass Effect 2, which has its good points...and its bad points.
Oh and in closing I never referred to Mass Effect as an MMORPG, I referred to it as an FPSRPG and one of the best of all time, Mass Effect 2 leans more towards FPS with a story which is a departure that I'm not terribly happy with, but I'll live with it because its not like I can call up buddies at BioWare and tell them to do things differently, they'd just tell me "like I could do anything about it." and they'd be right, most of the guys I know there, this stuff is above their paygrade.
So largely to the people that agree with what I've presented, thank you, to those that disagree, you may wish to couch your debates more in facts and personal viewpoints and less in some weird, omnidirectional anger that is thrown in the face of anyone you personally disagree with on the internet.
It may help you, somewhat, in peoples ability to take you seriously. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my assessments nor do I have a problem with people thinking I'm wrong. But I think it pretty much negates the entire platform of the contending debate against my analysis when said debate is couched in insults and grave assumptions about the personality of someone you don't even know.
The point of a forum is a free and full exchange of differing opinions, dating back as far as Ancient Greece, I suppose back then people used to throw fruit or rocks at people the disagreed with, and I can only surmise that the acidity and insults some have engaged in, in their disagreement with my analysis is the internet equivalent of such.
Anyways, I stand behind my assessments. I agree on some points presented such as development time, resources, I'm a developer myself, I know how that goes, I'm just saying that there was a lot of Mass Effect that got terribly butchered to usher in the NG+ experience of Mass Effect 2, which has its good points...and its bad points.
Oh and in closing I never referred to Mass Effect as an MMORPG, I referred to it as an FPSRPG and one of the best of all time, Mass Effect 2 leans more towards FPS with a story which is a departure that I'm not terribly happy with, but I'll live with it because its not like I can call up buddies at BioWare and tell them to do things differently, they'd just tell me "like I could do anything about it." and they'd be right, most of the guys I know there, this stuff is above their paygrade.
#34
Posté 03 mars 2010 - 06:24
tertium organum
-
- Members
- 59 messages
I disagree with the morality choices: it's just too much to ask right now. Your example, however, does show some problems with the story - the council being complete and utter morons. It is sloppy and people have had to think themselves a reason to make the game treatment itself plausible. " Oh, politicians are all this way." " Shepard really doesn't have any evidence. " They don't want to create a panic." All of it nonsense - Shepard has more than enough evidence in ME2 itself to make the council aware. Derelict Reaper anyone? ME1 anyone? The notion, in game, that because Vigil shutdown, they simply assumed Shepard was crazy is implausible and ridiculous. Really? He spent the last game chasing down Saren, and his visions were confirmed and explained yet the part about Reaper is dismissed? Why? These aliens live for thousands of years and are this freaking stupid and dense? Come on Bioware. It is a good explanation that they don't want a panic but this is not evident or suggested in the game at all - it is something fans have come up with to make the ridiculous seem plausible.
At the very least, the council, in game, should have said, " Look Shepard. We believe you but we're not going to start a war with the terminus systems or create a panic when we don't know how to stop The Reapers. Do what you can in the Terminus systems. Stop the collectors and then let's see what we have,where we go from here." Boom done. Plausible, respectable and the difference between renegade and paragon would be that the paragon path gets a " Stop being a fool Shepard. You have no idea how to stop the Reapers. You want us to tell everyone of an ancient machine race ready to destroy all organic life and we have no idea out to stop it. Good luck!" Will that be our statement? Obviously, we can't publicly acknowledge the threat - do what you need to in the Terminus systems and get as much as you can working with Cerberus. If you survive, we can go from there. " Something like that. Alas, that is not the case. It's entirely ludicrous how they chose to handle this. And I swear if Bioware tries to explain away their poor writing here by saying they were indoctrinated by the citadel, I will ****ing lose it.
At the very least, the council, in game, should have said, " Look Shepard. We believe you but we're not going to start a war with the terminus systems or create a panic when we don't know how to stop The Reapers. Do what you can in the Terminus systems. Stop the collectors and then let's see what we have,where we go from here." Boom done. Plausible, respectable and the difference between renegade and paragon would be that the paragon path gets a " Stop being a fool Shepard. You have no idea how to stop the Reapers. You want us to tell everyone of an ancient machine race ready to destroy all organic life and we have no idea out to stop it. Good luck!" Will that be our statement? Obviously, we can't publicly acknowledge the threat - do what you need to in the Terminus systems and get as much as you can working with Cerberus. If you survive, we can go from there. " Something like that. Alas, that is not the case. It's entirely ludicrous how they chose to handle this. And I swear if Bioware tries to explain away their poor writing here by saying they were indoctrinated by the citadel, I will ****ing lose it.
#35
Posté 03 mars 2010 - 06:49
XWAU_Forceflow
-
- Members
- 68 messages
Kudos to the OP. Well written post and I for one agree to almost all of what was said.
I also do not get why people get so hostile when criticising the game. Just because I like it does not mean I can not point out the things were it fell short. If nobody ever complains about anything than all you will get is games getting less and less fun. Making an awesome game cost a whole lot of money! Making a less awesome game costs less. If nobody complains about the later nobody will every try to make it better.
One thing that always bothered me is the MAKO discussion. Did people really tell Bioware to take out the MAKO? Wasn’t it more that people told Bioware that the way they used the MAKO was mostly pointless and annoying? I loved the story missions where the MAKO was an essential part! It was obvious that the level design there was made so that it was fairly easy and fun to use it. In my opinion people complained about the other ‘missions’ where all you did was drive around a desolate planet with hills that were near impossible to climb. Those sucked, and it was good that they took them out! But the rest? Who really wanted the story missions with the MAKO gone?
Same goes for the weapons. I agree that having 20 plus assault rifles that were pretty much all the same was not needed. But that doesn’t mean you have to take out the customization of the weapons. I for one would have been mostly fine with the number of available guns if I still had the two slots for customizations on them. (Bringing the number of available weapons up a lot again!)
Make it a total of maybe 8 weapons per class, add two slots with 5 customizable options and keep the way it was done in ME2.
Do the same with the armor, have maybe 5-10 base classes and then have the customizations available that they have now.
Voila, you have a streamlined inventory instead of a dumbed down inventory. Thing is, they have all the technology for that already included in the game! All that was needed was to add a tiny little bit of content! (And seeing how there are thousands of mods out there for other games that often have extremely high quality items, armors, and weapons done by amateurs it should not be hard for professionals to whip out a couple of those!)
Yes, the game was fun, but it certainly fell short of ME1 in the feeling of grandeur. I just hope that in ME3 (or better yet in a couple of DLCs for ME2) this will be fixed!
I also do not get why people get so hostile when criticising the game. Just because I like it does not mean I can not point out the things were it fell short. If nobody ever complains about anything than all you will get is games getting less and less fun. Making an awesome game cost a whole lot of money! Making a less awesome game costs less. If nobody complains about the later nobody will every try to make it better.
One thing that always bothered me is the MAKO discussion. Did people really tell Bioware to take out the MAKO? Wasn’t it more that people told Bioware that the way they used the MAKO was mostly pointless and annoying? I loved the story missions where the MAKO was an essential part! It was obvious that the level design there was made so that it was fairly easy and fun to use it. In my opinion people complained about the other ‘missions’ where all you did was drive around a desolate planet with hills that were near impossible to climb. Those sucked, and it was good that they took them out! But the rest? Who really wanted the story missions with the MAKO gone?
Same goes for the weapons. I agree that having 20 plus assault rifles that were pretty much all the same was not needed. But that doesn’t mean you have to take out the customization of the weapons. I for one would have been mostly fine with the number of available guns if I still had the two slots for customizations on them. (Bringing the number of available weapons up a lot again!)
Make it a total of maybe 8 weapons per class, add two slots with 5 customizable options and keep the way it was done in ME2.
Do the same with the armor, have maybe 5-10 base classes and then have the customizations available that they have now.
Voila, you have a streamlined inventory instead of a dumbed down inventory. Thing is, they have all the technology for that already included in the game! All that was needed was to add a tiny little bit of content! (And seeing how there are thousands of mods out there for other games that often have extremely high quality items, armors, and weapons done by amateurs it should not be hard for professionals to whip out a couple of those!)
Yes, the game was fun, but it certainly fell short of ME1 in the feeling of grandeur. I just hope that in ME3 (or better yet in a couple of DLCs for ME2) this will be fixed!
Modifié par XWAU_Forceflow, 03 mars 2010 - 06:51 .
#36
Posté 03 mars 2010 - 07:09
jamoau
-
- Members
- 41 messages
Nice to read your reasoned post OP. I agree with most of what you said. Driving a toy space ship around the navigation map was another example of the different market the devs wanted to appeal to. Brain dead perhaps? /joke LOL, you know, state of the art warship and you navigate like so.
Don't see the devs changing much as they're probably still patting themselves on the back with their Metacritic score.
Don't see the devs changing much as they're probably still patting themselves on the back with their Metacritic score.
#37
Posté 03 mars 2010 - 12:22
Cerbx104
-
- Members
- 32 messages
good read.. i agree with a lot of those.
the developers are clever on the level design to loop the maps in U's and verticals. what i notice in a lot of games.
and it would be a cool thing if you're able to revisit all the passed missions you did in ME1 and talk to the colonist etc. but yea they did streamline it by having those little side missions you did in the first game.
i also wish you were able to change out your squad armor instead of just change the color scheme.
the developers are clever on the level design to loop the maps in U's and verticals. what i notice in a lot of games.
and it would be a cool thing if you're able to revisit all the passed missions you did in ME1 and talk to the colonist etc. but yea they did streamline it by having those little side missions you did in the first game.
i also wish you were able to change out your squad armor instead of just change the color scheme.
