271 réponses à ce sujet

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Terror_K wrote...

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Andy_Haugh wrote...
Actually, I will go ahead and deny that, because it's just not true. Did you ever play ME1?

I could say more, but it appears Terror_K has the situation under control. Carry on.

Actually both side are half right.
In the pure numbers and grind of an RPG ME1 has a lot of weapons. But your decisions hardly provoked thought or discussion. Not to mention that there was a whole lot of useless dribble that completely ****ed up the faulty economy in place together with the ridiculous drop rates. 
In ME2 the weapons are not as numerous, but each weapon has a more distinct functionality and has play-styles attached to them.

The thing is, despite me being down on the ME2 system, what I'd like to see in ME3 is the more unique weapons like in ME2 but to give us more than just one of these types. About half a dozen of each type or so that we can find or buy as we play, but with decent and more varied stats than the ME1 ones and no useless of God-items. Bring back manufacturers and have each of them have their own signature style for their weapons (i.e. some do more damage, but hold less clips and are less accurate, while another brand offers better accuracy and more clips but for less damage, etc.)

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Terror_K wrote...

GeometricLol wrote...

this whole mainstream cliche again?  I agree when you say the elevator rides give the game environment and outside world more life, but how can anyone think the ME2 game environment LACKS a sense of life?  Are you not listening to the ingame advertisements, or news broadcasts, or the random background chatter? All that add up to give each and every hub a very distinct sense of life.  the citadel in ME1 may have been bigger, but that is not true either.  You go to the presidium and citadel tower, sure, but it is all empty and dead.  The one zakera ward in ME2 already blows the original citadel out of the water

Unfortunately very linear levels and things like "Mission Complete" screens kind of pull you out of what succeeds, IMO. ME2 feels too much like you're on a track rather than exploring most of the time and... yeah... those Mission Complete screens are just mood-killing annoyances.

yes, but now I don't have to press start, go to the map, press x, and return to the ship.

Much less work

[A Fhaol Bhig]

slimgrin wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

Considering I'm feeling kinda alienated, I'd kinda like to hear the arguments behind this.

Me too. My guess is she won't share the real reason for over streamlining ME2: profit.

Of course, glad to know you can read minds. Whats next? Idiotic comments based of prejudiced personal opinions of how to make a game?

Oops, too late.

Seraphael wrote...

Nice flamewar we've got going. I'm looking forward to Christina Normans lecture.

Murmillos wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

Good luck trying to determine whoms to judge "the best"..  the shooterist and RPG fans favor different aspects of the game differently.  Some see ME1 as the better game in need of tweaks instead of the featured hack and slash ME2 offered; others see ME2 the better game in every way, 100% - no questions ask no looking back.

Now, to be fair the shooter fans really isn't here to voice their opinion nearly as much as RPG fans. Also, it's not mutually exclusive to like one or the other aspect. Quite a few of ME2's detractors seem to fail understanding that simple fact while also failing to realize that they are merely in a vocal minority. Guess it's easier to make sweeping generalizations to make sense of the universe. It's also human nature to complain, and not as much to show appreciation.

ME2 is clearly the better game by any objective standard. It is (or will be given time) a better commercial success, it has won more critical acclaim, and it is in general better liked by gamers (evident in sales and user ratings).

I'm a roleplaying purist (that rarely buy shooters) and value what furthers actual roleplaying (story, characters, interaction) over being constrained to the entire smorgasbord of traditional RPG-elements (loot, micromanagement). What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

Interesting. I buy games for the experience, if a game changes radically, I don't really care because I just adapt to the new changes. I have never bought a game I didn't like, because I make sure even if its sequel 34354 and it takes place in space with giant planet eating hamsters, that I look at the general overview of a game, not the minor things. (unless I'm asked what I prefer or so forth)

[SithLordExarKun]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Not a fan of world in conflict or company of heroes?

Have not played either. I actually haven't even looked in the general direction of RTS games at all in half a decade. I'm sure there are some great ones out there if I gave them my time, I just have a hard time working up the motivation to actually get into one again

Imo those 2 were great RTS and generally RTS bore me to death. WIC was unique in a way where you don't do the traditional RTS stuff like building bases and isn't just "mass build and eradicate" like most modern RTS.

Theres another great RTS i played and that was conquest frontier wars, an epic Sci fi RTS. Of course this is all my personal opinion.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

slimgrin wrote...

ME2 is a great game, but it wasn't streamlined, it was mainstreamed. I still like it, even if I feel it could use more depth and complexity in some areas (although not in the combat)

As for fomenting behind the keyboard at other peoples opinions, I defer to A Fhaol Bhig.

ah, I thought you were just trolling behind a meaningless opinion.

apologies.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Vena_86 wrote...
What makes a good game for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a great experience.

Err...  same?

All of the 5 games I listed were amazing experiences... Torment and XCOM UFO Defense might have been life defining, perspective changing experiences (as sad as it is to say that about a video game).

There was no point playing ME2, outside the boring planet scanning and hacking minigames (the former of which I simply save edit away now so it's no longer a point of contention) that I wasn't having an incredible experience. The combat was engaging and kept me thinking and interested, the characters were incredibly well drawn and engagning, the individual loyalty missions carried some very heavy themes, and the environments were really immersive, especially when it came to the random people talking around Illium, Citadel, or Tuchanka. I was actually really touched by the Salarian taking his Asari step daughter in Illium to buy a gift for her mom to remember him by. It's those little touches that just made ME2 a great experience.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 07 mars 2010 - 03:45 .

[slyguy07]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Seraphael wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Seraphael wrote...
What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

*high fives*

Mass Effect 2 is probably going to squeeze in the middle of my top 10 games ever list. The only games I can think of off the top of my head that I do like more are Torment and Baldur's Gate (2 infinity engine RPGs) and XCom UFO Defense and Alpha Centauri (2 turn based micromanage heavy games). Clearly I consider myself more of an RPG/strategy gamer, yet Mass Effect 2 is just so well done and fun that it defies my normal genre preference and places itself high on my favorite games ever list.

If you by strategy don't include most RTS, we certainly like the same genres and pretty much the exact same games.

Heh. I had a phase were I really liked RTS games during the early 2000s. Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Age of Empires 2. Oh and Homeworld. I think Homeworld is in my top 10 too. God I would kill for another Homeworld.

Since then though, the genre really lost its luster. Haven't really loved an RTS since... 2002 maybe?

Sins of a Solar Empire isn't bad.

[javierabegazo]

OP, when you return with what you find from the Lecture, can you post it in your first beginning post of the thread?

[A Fhaol Bhig]

That would be nice.

[Koross]

Getting an insight into the game development process is always great.



I am an ardent fan of Bioware and I like ME1 and ME2. I prefer ME2 if I were to choose since IMHO, they improved ME1 in every way. Is it perfect? Not really. There are a few things that they could have done better but in general, I prefer ME2 in every other way to ME1. Am I in the minority? I don't know but I hope I'm not.

[lukandroll]

Terror_K wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

I don't understand the "linear level" grip about ME2. ME1 had levels just as linear, disregarding Noveria and Mako missions. I believe Noveria is overall considered among the weakest of the missions in ME1 and Mako missions were, to put it nicely, complete nonsense. The only thing good about the Mako missions were the beautiful skyboxes and any sense of exploration was killed by the fact that there wasn't actually anything to explore besides the same copy-paste bunker.

Maybe it's simply a personal thing, but ME2's levels (aside from the hubs like Omega, The Citadel and sort-of-hub Illium) just felt to me like you were running down a long winding corridor and basically being told where to go. In short, they felt like levels in a game rather than a real place a lot of the time. Noveria's Port Hanshan at least felt like a real location, and Peak 15 had several paths and sidequests and/or optional stuff. ME2's admittedly shorter albeit more numerous missions felt in many cases like you had less freedom. The recruitment missions for Jack and Grunt are particularly guilty of this. It's almost like follow the path and just let things happen. Somehow the ME1 main quests despite technically being like this simply felt more real and less forced and gamey, IMO.

Also, I really enjoy the Illusive Man's notes on how each mission ends on the Mission Clear screen.

Which could easily just be added to the Journal entry, or even as an email back on The Normandy when you returned.

While ME1 was linear, if you look closely to the maps, they were much more big and expanded; even on linear missions like Pheros, you had several secondary quest do on the same map, and the world was pasted in a way that didn't feel like a collection of maps like ME2 feels.
I can prove this with images too if any of the poster want it.

The problem here is that most of the people who played ME2 didn't play ME1 after to make a comparison. If you had play ME2 inmediately right after ME1, you notice what I mean with the "confined" feel.

I think the 360 old hardware has a lot to do with this linear small design.

Modifié par lukandroll, 07 mars 2010 - 06:20 .

[Aranha]

Heya first time poster!



I played ME1 and then ME2 right after and i gotta say that too many elements were removed from ME1. Dont get me wrong i love ME2 but where the heck did all the gear go? I played a vanguard with 2 shotguns and 2 assault rifles which i got at the begining of the game and the rest of the upgrades just fell in my lap. I was pretty dissapointed that even though they made this AMASING game with awesome gameplay and gripping story they couldnt add some more guns into the game?



It must have taken months and months for all the recorded audio and then we just got 2-3 guns gainable for each weapon type? I just felt that i reached a point in the game where the was nothing more to gain other that doing the final mission and have it done with. Abnormalities forexable gave pretty much nothing. Like 125 exp, 7500 cred and some Ore.



Thats what made ME1 so great and ME2 not so great in my opinion.

[CaptainZaysh]

lukandroll wrote...

The problem here is that most of the people who played ME2 didn't play ME1 after to make a comparison. If you had play ME2 inmediately right after ME1, you notice what I mean with the "confined" feel.

I did actually do that (to recreate my first Shepard, whom I lost through a hard drive crash).  I completely disagree with you.  To me, Omega and Illium feel and look much more open than The Citadel and Noveria.

I think the settings in the ME2 levels are light years ahead of those in ME1.  I mean, really, did moving around Feros really feel like moving around the upper levels of a network of ancient skyscrapers to you?

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 07 mars 2010 - 07:30 .

[slyguy07]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

The problem here is that most of the people who played ME2 didn't play ME1 after to make a comparison. If you had play ME2 inmediately right after ME1, you notice what I mean with the "confined" feel.

I did actually do that (to recreate my first Shepard, whom I lost through a hard drive crash).  I completely disagree with you.  To me, Omega and Illium feel and look much more open than The Citadel and Noveria.

I think the settings in the ME2 levels are light years ahead of those in ME1.  I mean, really, did moving around Feros really feel like moving around the upper levels of a network of ancient skyscrapers to you?

It did to me. I guess it's a matter of preference?

[lukandroll]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

The problem here is that most of the people who played ME2 didn't play ME1 after to make a comparison. If you had play ME2 inmediately right after ME1, you notice what I mean with the "confined" feel.

I did actually do that (to recreate my first Shepard, whom I lost through a hard drive crash).  I completely disagree with you.  To me, Omega and Illium feel and look much more open than The Citadel and Noveria.

I think the settings in the ME2 levels are light years ahead of those in ME1.  I mean, really, did moving around Feros really feel like moving around the upper levels of a network of ancient skyscrapers to you?

Don't make post the maps to prove you wrong, you know damn well that Omega is as small as Noveria main hub. And even if it is Noveria and its sidequest were better intruced into the same world, that seamless effect that ME1 had.
If by light years you mean, smaller, confined and cut out from the world, then we agree.

And about Feros, yes, the design of the level was linear indeed, but the maps were bigger and more well designed to make you feel like it was all ONE big world.

Modifié par lukandroll, 07 mars 2010 - 07:40 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

slyguy07 wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

The problem here is that most of the people who played ME2 didn't play ME1 after to make a comparison. If you had play ME2 inmediately right after ME1, you notice what I mean with the "confined" feel.

I did actually do that (to recreate my first Shepard, whom I lost through a hard drive crash).  I completely disagree with you.  To me, Omega and Illium feel and look much more open than The Citadel and Noveria.

I think the settings in the ME2 levels are light years ahead of those in ME1.  I mean, really, did moving around Feros really feel like moving around the upper levels of a network of ancient skyscrapers to you?

It did to me. I guess it's a matter of preference?

It was nice scenery, but beyond that...

[lukandroll]

No, that level was epic, especially when you are traveling with the mako in the ancient streets

[A Fhaol Bhig]

lukandroll wrote...

No, that level was epic, especially when you are traveling with the mako in the ancient streets

I thought it was epic, scenery wise.

Beyond that? Again, no, very linear. Kind of like, you know ME2.

[lukandroll]

Bigger than ME2, not to mention that in the middle you find several Geth outpost, the Exo Geni refugees with several side quest and you fight with the Geth tank things all to the end, when you find the Scientist daughter, the Krogan mercenary dealing with the AI, and more... and then the Thorian and the controlled Colonist...

That level was really awesome

[SithLordExarKun]

lukandroll wrote...


Don't make post the maps to prove you wrong, you know damn well that Omega is as small as Noveria main hub.

Yeah yet omega actually felt alive while noveria was dull and boring.

[Murmillos]

All levels are in the end linear, but at least ME1 gave a good illusion of non-linearity. Even after playing it 20 or so times, I still know where am going, whom I'm going to talk to and nearly what the end result was, but since it was open, large and a few random bits here and there, at least the levels and the world felt non-linear, open and grand.

ME2 takes all that way, for a slightly more "more alive world" and flashier graphics in a much more compressed space.

Modifié par Murmillos, 08 mars 2010 - 02:39 .

[MajesticJazz]

javierabegazo wrote...

OP, when you return with what you find from the Lecture, can you post it in your first beginning post of the thread?

I will do that.

[AlanC9]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Last time Bioware did a decent inventory system, it was Baldur's Gate 2 ten years ago. KOTOR, ME, and Dragon Age all have terrible inventories. 

BG2? The game where each character had so few item slots that managing them became a major gameplay concern? You're serious?