92 réponses à ce sujet

[Andorfiend]

InvaderErl wrote...

I am pointing out that these choices in paths that your exhalting as changing the path of the quest, did no such thing. And they didn't, and those are the only 2 that I can think of.

At the beginning of the game in the Citadel you have two paths to finding Tali. One leads to Wrex, the other to Garrus and in both cases you have the option of recuiting the other one or not thereby altering your options for the whole rest of the game.

On Noveria I know of four different ways to get a garage pass. In the Labs there are two possible paths to the Hot Labs. One involves killing a bunch of NPCs I actually kind of liked and the other let me spare them.

On Feros you save or destroy a human colony, not through dialogue but through action or inaction.

On Virmire and the Citadel you save or damn Saren through your choices. At the end you alter the course of Galactic history forever, not because you choose to agree or disagree with daddy but because a decision needs to be made and everyone looks to you to make it.

[TJSolo]

You are still trying to attack the quality of the paths.
A path is merely an alternate route to a destination. The meaning they hold is just them being available as an option. There isn't a use going over this again if you are unable to discuss that fact ME2 lacks any optional paths with its linear missions.
"See you seem to think its necessary for an area to be large simply for the same of being large. I don't. The Presidium feels stale and dull to me. There's no flow, no movement and no pulse. There's a line about the bar on the Presidium being boring and that's how the entire station feels to me."

No, I put reasonably expansive, as in not large for no reason but reasonably sized.
The Presidium was supposed to have a clinically sterile feeling. There was squad interaction that commented on how creepy it felt.
Foreshadowing for what it really is.
The vehicles in ME2 were used to get me to staging areas for missions. Not an extension of a visitable hub. None of the places a vehicle took you to can be visited again. Lending to the feeling of compactness rather than scale.
There isn't flow or movement in ME2 hubs. Everyone stands around waiting for Shepard to walk by before conversations start.
There isn't much point in arguing feeling.
You prefer the smaller and convenient size of ME2s areas, I do not.

Modifié par TJSolo, 12 mars 2010 - 06:07 .

[Andorfiend]

InvaderErl wrote...

Andorfiend wrote...
And if TIM wasn't controlling me why the hell couldn't I look around this ship I was supposedly the Captain of? If I had actually been on the N2 and EDI really had refused me access to the CARGO BAYS I would have gotten some scuttleing charges and blown the damn AI out of my ship. After shooting Miranda through the head. Then I would have turned all my flight logs over to the Alliance so they could send in a Dreadnought or two to clean up TIMs little base.

Yes, because not being able to enter an empty room is a sign that the Illusive Man rules over you.

If I get given command of a ship, and when I go on that ship I am not allowed to enter half the rooms because the AI thinks I'm not cleared yet, what else could it possibly mean but that TIM still has full control of the ship and is rubbing my nose in it? If someone sold you a car but refused to give you the keys to the trunk because you hadn't earned it yet how would you react? This was on my first play through. I didn't know these areas weren't open becuase I hadn't recruited that party member yet. Once I figured out what was happeneing I thought "Oh. That's stupid." but I understood it and calmed down. I was on the verge of snapping the disk in two before then.

InvaderErl wrote...

As for the Alliance/Citadel, why would they be suddenly ready to breach the Terminus systems when the entire climax of 1 was caused by their unwillingness to enter said space. And do you think Cerberus is going to be sitting by and saying "Drat!"

Huh? Why do you think the Cerberus Main base is in the Terminous systems? And frankly the Council's fear of the Terminous systems was always pathetic. It's like watching a Lion give a mouse a wide berth.

InvaderErl wrote...
Lastly, why would you shoot Miranda. By that point she sides with Shepard over Illusive Man.

Again, I must have been unclear. I'm talking about when you first walk onto the ship.

InvaderErl wrote...

Andorfiend wrote...
In ME 1 I occasionally felt irked that I couldn't make quite the dialogue choice I wanted to make, but I never felt like Shepard wasn't my character because he was never (or very rarely) prevented from doing what I wanted him to do. In ME 2 I was frequently left feeling like I had my control taken away from me. Shepard didn't act like my character, he didn't act like Shepard, he acted like TIMs ****. It was very, very aggravating.

I don't know what you're talking about because I told Illusive Man to tread carefully after the Collector Ship and I told him to go **** himself after the suicide mission.

Other than that Shep is forced to work with him out of necessity. There are plenty of options reinforcing this, and I don't know why you seemed to have not seen them but I certainly did. 

Well, for a start I never bought the neccessity argument. The whole thing felt very much like the the plot was going the way the writers needed it to go, rather than in a way that might have been vaguely believable. You never do talk to the Alliance for a start, and you do get your Spectre status back. Last time you were made a Spectre the Alliance handed you a ship. Exactly why can't you ask them for another one? You have a whole host of options that the game just ignores. Or worse shows you, but then prevents you from doing them because you're on rails. Hell Cerberus is a terrorist organization. Once you got your Spectre license back you could have have shot Miranda, informed the crew that they were all under arrest but would be set free under the condition that they now work for you and keep doing their jobs, and changed the ships registry. Done. Now TIM can suck it, and I can get on with saving the Galaxy. Because my sole survivor who knows about Corporal Toombs really, really, really hates TIM.

Modifié par Andorfiend, 12 mars 2010 - 06:12 .

[InvaderErl]

TJSolo wrote...

You are still trying to attack the quality of the paths.
A path is merely an alternate route to a destination. The meaning they hold is just them being available as an option. There isn't a use going over this again if you are unable to discuss that fact ME2 lacks any optional paths with its linear missions.

LOL.

When have I ever said ME2 had optional paths, or said that it wasn't linear, or at least less linear than 1? When, because I would love to see where THAT came from.

All I said was that ME1 was not superior than ME2 in this regard. You know why, because there were no optional paths in practice except for 1 that sent you straight to the shooting. They were there conceptually and had they been implemented I would be forced to concede but they weren't.

I can't point to Fable and call it a better game than ME1 because it has all these wonderful ideas that were never implemented.

Here, Dragon Age has paths. They actually do change the way the quests unfold, Mass Effect 1 does not.

Until you're willing to admit that I can't carry this conversation any further with you.

TJSolo wrote...
Everyone stands around waiting for Shepard to walk by before conversations start.

And they didn't do this in 1?

People actually move about and there are more conversations between npcs in the hubs than in 1.

TJSolo wrote...
There isn't much point in arguing feeling.
You prefer the smaller and
convenient size of ME2s areas, I do not.

I prefer that if they make it large, they fill it with content. That is all.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 mars 2010 - 06:33 .

[KotOREffecT]

I never once thought that I was the Illusive Man's ****, flunkie, or errand boy. It was basically the same as with the Council in ME 1, only TIM was a little more indepth with you, and also toys with you a bit when he betrays you, but it was for a reason though. That's the thing, you could rebel against him, or start to see things his way, etc. You always had a choice, even when talking to your sqaud you could tell them that you were in charge and that this was your mission, you could constantly remind them that.



Not to mention the whole blowing up Collectors Base/Telling TIM off or saving it and aligning with TIM. So you had choice and were never forced like some people think. TIM was basically just pointing you in the right direction since he had all the direct info, he was more of a help than anything.

[InvaderErl]

Andorfiend wrote...


If I get given command of a ship, and when I go on that ship I am not allowed to enter half the rooms because the AI thinks I'm not cleared yet, what else could it possibly mean but that TIM still has full control of the ship and is rubbing my nose in it? If someone sold you a car but refused to give you the keys to the trunk because you hadn't earned it yet how would you react? This was on my first play through. I didn't know these areas weren't open becuase I hadn't recruited that party member yet. Once I figured out what was happeneing I thought "Oh. That's stupid." but I understood it and calmed down. I was on the verge of snapping the disk in two before then.

You might want to consider anger management if locked rooms provoked that kind of reaction.

It was a design decision to let you know where new party members had shown up, that is all.

Andorfiend wrote...
Huh? Why do you think the Cerberus Main base is in the Terminous systems? And frankly the Council's fear of the Terminous systems was always pathetic. It's like watching a Lion give a mouse a wide berth.

I never said his base was in the Terminus, but he clearly is not afraid of operating there. And the Council's fear of the Terminus is from 1 so...

Andorfiend wrote...

Again, I must have been unclear. I'm talking about when you first walk onto the ship.

You are not the author of the story. Bioware is, you cannot completely derail everything - there is no company today that could design a game around that kind of freedom.

Andorfiend wrote...
Well, for a start I never bought the neccessity argument. The whole thing felt very much like the the plot was going the way the writers needed it to go, rather than in a way that might have been vaguely believable. You never do talk to the Alliance for a start, and you do get your Spectre status back. Last time you were made a Spectre the Alliance handed you a ship. Exactly why can't you ask them for another one? You have a whole host of options that the game just ignores. Or worse shows you, but then prevents you from doing them because you're on rails. Hell Cerberus is a terrorist organization. Once you got your Spectre license back you could have have shot Miranda, informed the crew that they were all under arrest but would be set free under the condition that they now work for you and keep doing their jobs, and changed the ships registry. Done. Now TIM can suck it, and I can get on with saving the Galaxy. Because my sole survivor who knows about Corporal Toombs really, really, really hates TIM.

Its made clear the Alliance and the Council is doing jack all. If you go flying to them their going to send you back out hunting Geth or something equally useless.

To be honest this is consistent. Udina, an Alliance ambassador impounds your ship the second he no longer needs you and the Council has always dragged its feet on everything.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 mars 2010 - 06:24 .

[InvaderErl]

Andorfiend wrote...


At the beginning of the game in the Citadel you have two paths to finding Tali. One leads to Wrex, the other to Garrus and in both cases you have the option of recuiting the other one or not thereby altering your options for the whole rest of the game.

On Noveria I know of four different ways to get a garage pass. In the Labs there are two possible paths to the Hot Labs. One involves killing a bunch of NPCs I actually kind of liked and the other let me spare them.

On Feros you save or destroy a human colony, not through dialogue but through action or inaction.

On Virmire and the Citadel you save or damn Saren through your choices. At the end you alter the course of Galactic history forever, not because you choose to agree or disagree with daddy but because a decision needs to be made and everyone looks to you to make it.

We're already debating Feros or Noveria so I won't address these.

As for Garrus/Wrex.

You can completely not recruit Legion/Grunt, you can I'm sure ignore getting either Thane or Samara or Tali. Really you just need to hit level 20 to get the Collector ship so they're not necessary so in terms of party disposition 2 is actually more open to the player than the first game.

As for the last choice giving the base to Cerberus carries as much implications as saving the Council. It is pretty clear what the Illusive Man's longterm plans for it are.

The major choice on Virmire was Wrex and Ashley/Kaiden dying. The suicide mission outdoes that in terms of deciding who lives and dies.

[TJSolo]

"When have I ever said ME2 had optional paths, or said that it wasn't linear, or at least less linear than 1? When, because I would love to see where THAT came from."



Because in the case of paths you never stated anything in regards to ME2 even when asked.

All you did was argue against the quality of paths ME1 when ME2 has none.



"Here, Dragon Age has paths. They actually do change the way the quests unfold, Mass Effect 1 does not."



Uh wha? Do you even have a clue what you are saying?

Guess not.

I already brought up DAO and ME1 as being games that offer more in the way of exploration and optional paths then ME2.

Your statement that ME1 doesn't have paths but DAO does, is absurd and hopefully a feign at ignorance. As Andorfiend has already posted some split paths the effect how the game unfolds.



"And they didn't do this in 1?"

You're the one that stated that in 2 there was more movement. My counter was the statement that in both games they stand around.



The amount of ambient conversation in ME1 and ME2 are about the same.

It just seems more prevalent in 2 because the NPCs are too close together and to hear them in ME1 you have to walk around more(I know walking in a game is padding).

[InvaderErl]

TJSolo wrote...


Because in the case of paths you never stated anything in regards to ME2 even when asked.

So you decided you'd put words in my mouth. Nice.

TJSolo wrote...
All you did was argue against the quality of paths ME1 when ME2 has none.

My argument from the START was that the quality of those paths were so poor that they had no discernable effect, so please stop trying to twist my argument into one that suits you, the first thing I said was that they didn't change it as much as you were saying that they did, I didn't say that they didn't exist. Please go back and look at what I wrote.

In fact I'll quote it:

"You HAVE to go to Exogeni, you HAVE to come back. You HAVE to go in and
kill the Thorian. What multiple paths are you talking about? The gas
grenade thing. You still HAVE to fight the colonist and hit them with
said grenades, its not that different of a path.

As for the
Noveria, the only other path it allows you to completion is you want to
skip all of that dialogue and game content and just get to the shooting.
Otherwise, its practically the same paths but letting you make
different decisions on how you want to complete the quest."

Notice I never said they weren't there. I said that they sucked as alternate paths.

TJSolo wrote...
"Here, Dragon Age has paths. They actually do change the way the quests unfold, Mass Effect 1 does not."

Uh wha? Do you even have a clue what you are saying?
Guess not.
I already brought up DAO and ME1 as being games that offer more in the way of exploration and optional paths then ME2.
Your statement that ME1 doesn't have paths but DAO does, is absurd and hopefully a feign at ignorance. As Andorfiend has already posted some split paths the effect how the game unfolds.

Hah. Dude, I said Dragon Age has paths, true paths that change more than what attack button you hit, and are orders more complex than what Mass Effect musters . How that aligns with what you've said I've no idea.

TJSolo wrote...
"And they didn't do this in 1?"
You're the one that stated that in 2 there was more movement. My counter was the statement that in both games they stand around.

And I stand by that statement. I read your remark as a complaint that they stood around in 2 as opposed to 1 which what I was contesting.

TJSolo wrote... As Andorfiend has already posted some split paths
the effect how the game unfolds.

And I addressed that.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 mars 2010 - 07:09 .

[Andorfiend]

InvaderErl wrote...

As for the last choice giving the base to Cerberus carries as much implications as saving the Council. It is pretty clear what the Illusive Man's longterm plans for it are.

Sorry, I'm not being as clear as I could. The difference I perceive between the decision to save the Council or not and the coice of keeping the base or not does not lie in the importance or long term consequences of the choice.

In the Citadel the possibilities are laid out and everyone looks to you to make the hard choice. You're in charge. On the Collector base TIM tells you what he want's you to do and you can either follow orders like a good little boy or finally grow a pair and tell him off.

It's a subtle difference in all honesty. But in ME 1 you're acting, you're making the active choice. In ME 2 you're reacting, TIM makes the calls and the most you can do is obey or disobey. It's the difference between being a grownup facing the day and constrained only by the available options or being a child where your options are limited to being a good boy or a bad boy.

It's not just that ending decision by the way, that's simply a good example. The whole of ME 2 felt that way to me. Like the game designers think you're a child and they need to hold your hand or spank you. And it was an unwelcome change after being treated like an adult in ME 1.

InvaderErl wrote...

The major choice on Virmire was Wrex and Ashley/Kaiden dying.

True. But your conversational choices there also determine whether or not it's possible to talk him into killing himself on the Citadel. That's part of why I loved Saren so much as a villain, you have this actual back and forth with each other as you shape each other destinies. Harbinger was just another bug who told me how unstoppable he was as I vaporized him for the umpteenth time.

[InvaderErl]

Andorfiend wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

As for the last choice giving the base to Cerberus carries as much implications as saving the Council. It is pretty clear what the Illusive Man's longterm plans for it are.

Sorry, I'm not being as clear as I could. The difference I perceive between the decision to save the Council or not and the coice of keeping the base or not does not lie in the importance or long term consequences of the choice.

In the Citadel the possibilities are laid out and everyone looks to you to make the hard choice. You're in charge. On the Collector base TIM tells you what he want's you to do and you can either follow orders like a good little boy or finally grow a pair and tell him off.

It's a subtle difference in all honesty. But in ME 1 you're acting, you're making the active choice. In ME 2 you're reacting, TIM makes the calls and the most you can do is obey or disobey. It's the difference between being a grownup facing the day and constrained only by the available options or being a child where your options are limited to being a good boy or a bad boy.

It's not just that ending decision by the way, that's simply a good example. The whole of ME 2 felt that way to me. Like the game designers think you're a child and they need to hold your hand or spank you. And it was an unwelcome change after being treated like an adult in ME 1.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. I disagree with you personally because I found one of the best aspects of ME2 to be the tension between Shep and his new boss, but I see where you're coming from.

Andorfiend wrote...

True. But your conversational choices there also determine whether or not it's possible to talk him into killing himself on the Citadel. That's part of why I loved Saren so much as a villain, you have this actual back and forth with each other as you shape each other destinies. Harbinger was just another bug who told me how unstoppable he was as I vaporized him for the umpteenth time.

You can get him to kill himself even if you didn't cut away at his resolve on Virmire. The only difference is he mentioned he started having doubts and Sovereign implanted him (which happens even if you don't make him doubtful).

Now while Saren was a deeper villain that Harbinger, I found the latter more threatening. Saren is constantly running away from Shepard, he is constantly leaving bed crumbs for Shep to follow like an idiot.

Harbinger goes on the offensive three times (the beginning, the Collector ship and jumping the Normandy) so while Harbinger is certainly a more straight out-and-out baddie and in that regard is more shallow, he comes off as a more dangerous one.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 mars 2010 - 07:07 .

[Meistr_Chef]

Andorfiend wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

As for the last choice giving the base to Cerberus carries as much implications as saving the Council. It is pretty clear what the Illusive Man's longterm plans for it are.

Sorry, I'm not being as clear as I could. The difference I perceive between the decision to save the Council or not and the coice of keeping the base or not does not lie in the importance or long term consequences of the choice.

In the Citadel the possibilities are laid out and everyone looks to you to make the hard choice. You're in charge. On the Collector base TIM tells you what he want's you to do and you can either follow orders like a good little boy or finally grow a pair and tell him off.

It's a subtle difference in all honesty. But in ME 1 you're acting, you're making the active choice. In ME 2 you're reacting, TIM makes the calls and the most you can do is obey or disobey. It's the difference between being a grownup facing the day and constrained only by the available options or being a child where your options are limited to being a good boy or a bad boy.

It's not just that ending decision by the way, that's simply a good example. The whole of ME 2 felt that way to me. Like the game designers think you're a child and they need to hold your hand or spank you. And it was an unwelcome change after being treated like an adult in ME 1.

InvaderErl wrote...

The major choice on Virmire was Wrex and Ashley/Kaiden dying.

True. But your conversational choices there also determine whether or not it's possible to talk him into killing himself on the Citadel. That's part of why I loved Saren so much as a villain, you have this actual back and forth with each other as you shape each other destinies. Harbinger was just another bug who told me how unstoppable he was as I vaporized him for the umpteenth time.

About the bolded parts. The choice in chasing down Saren was part of the story, not a conscious choice of your own, just like the annoying need to serve TIM in this game. I think Bioware was trying to flip a few situations in this one (humans rising and blocked in ME1, humans at the center in ME2...etc). I believe (or rather hope) ME2 was about putting you in the
uncomfortable position of not being able to tear off and do your own
thing, and get the chance in ME3.

[Chuvvy]

Tazzmission wrote...

i felt mass effect 2 had a more emotional story to it. for starters you get to recruit your own crew and get to hear storys from them about there pasts. now i loved mass effect one for what it is and was it has a amazing story but i just felt mass 2 was more storied around the human race actually being noticed in the universe... because remember in me1 the council was sketchy on humans

implying there's a council in ME2

[OasisForever1991]

Thanks for posting.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I'll just say this: Many of you seem to fail to realize the blatant fact that both ME1 and ME2 take place in the same universe and are virtually the same one game.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 12 mars 2010 - 08:42 .

[Keithhy]

@FieryPheonix7

Yes, they are set in the same universe, yes they follow the same character, yes, in comparison to something different such as Gears of War, they might as well be one (a better one at that).

However, this topic isn't about the major differences. It's about the little things, the minor stuff. 'The Devil is in the detail', is the purpose of this thread.

The slight difference in graphic styles, the manipulation of our emotions, these are the things that make a game what it is. The story of ME1 could have been bland and uninteresting, even if it had done everything in the same order, with the same characters and the same events. However, it was not. The original Mass Effect was written in such a way that you could not help but be drawn in, you could not help but be enthralled. Upon your ascent to Spectre(hood?), the game makes a moment of it, and you really feel a sense of pride - even barely knowing your characters. During the battle of the Citadel, there's no trace of a timer, and yet most people race ahead as if there is one, as if the game isn't waiting on you to act.

That is the difference between Mass Effect and its sequel. Not the improved game-play elements, not the dubious removal of a perfectly adequate skill system and inventory, not the conversion of the game from an RPG with shooter elements to a shooter with (admittedly large) RPG elements, but the feel of the game, the slight differences in visual styles, the emotion poured into the writing.



ME2 lost this. I wasn't all that concerned with stopping the Collectors, I didn't want to be forced into working with Cerberus, but I was. I couldn't bring myself to care if the Collector base got destroyed, or if Samara started shooting every policeman (policewoman, policealien? I give up.) in sight.

That's not to say that ME2 was entirely devoid of emotion - the loyalty missions of Miranda and Tali were both moving, but emotion should be a part of the main plot, not injected into side quests.

In essence, that's what Mass Effect 2 is missing. They can never recreate the wonder we first felt when we stepped into their entirely unique and wonderful world, but they could have continued with adding emotion into the story, making you feel as if what you were doing actually mattered.

Mass Effect 2 was a spectacular game, and fun to play, but it just didn't have the flair, the feeling and the wonder of its predecessor.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

I agree, I think there was something special about ME1 that ME2 doesnt even come close to retaining.

ME1 was at its core a fantastic sci-fi story with a great feeling and an expansive nature (even though that expansiveness became a weakness when sometimes very little occupied it).

ME2 is at its core a bland cover forced (Ive given up saying "based", thats far too generous) TPS. The majority of the story is a simple and boring objective designed for little more than to shepherd you into the combat courses that make up 90% of all the games locations. The squadmates arent anywhere near as fleshed out enough to justify their focus of the game, and their interaction and input on all loyalty missions besides Thane and Samaras takes a backseat to combat. Some missions try to create a balance, like Talis, but the main focus is still clearing the Alarai of Geth.

After ME1s release a few years ago right now I would still be playing the **** out of ME1.

Right now after ME2s release, I cant even bring myself to put the game in the xbox anymore. Im replaying Oblivion over ME2. Thats how bland it is.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 12 mars 2010 - 12:49 .

[KillTheLastRomantic]

In my opinion, ME2 felt like more of a 'product'. Plus it was said that Shepard had no m/m love interest because he's "predefined", only when male, as straight so all through it I felt forced into canon shepards role. So naturally I'm quite biased on the subject.



But then again ME1 had no m/m and I still much preferred it. I think one thing was that the universe felt really vast and enigmatic in 1 and that feeling was lost in the more linear sequel.

[InvaderErl]

Gotta disagree (You're shocked, I'm sure).



Aside from the only truly great bits: Virmire, Eden Prime and the end game, the first game felt very dull. Places like Feros and Artemis Tau felt incomplete and not as creepy or as awe inspiring as they were supposed to be. The whole game constantly seemed to be suffering under a sense of growing pains, without a clear identity about what it wanted to be and insecure about the universe it was trying to portray.



It wasn't until 2 that I actually felt like wow, the ME universe is a vibrant busy place. There was danger mixed with the beauty, and at times it seemed to blend into an incredible mix between Farscape and Star Wars.



And I think the loyalty missions were spot on, I learned more and they developed the squad in 2 better than 1 (save for Wrex). Most people seemed to have absolutely loved them so I think Bioware played their cards right in this regard.

[FutureBoy81]

those mission complete screens sure were cheesy and took away from the emersion..

[InvaderErl]

Meh, I'm not so thin-skinned that a little static image drew me out of the game.

[Andorfiend]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

Andorfiend wrote...

It's not just that ending decision by the way, that's simply a good example. The whole of ME 2 felt that way to me. Like the game designers think you're a child and they need to hold your hand or spank you. And it was an unwelcome change after being treated like an adult in ME 1.

About the bolded parts. The choice in chasing down Saren was part of the story, not a conscious choice of your own, just like the annoying need to serve TIM in this game. I think Bioware was trying to flip a few situations in this one (humans rising and blocked in ME1, humans at the center in ME2...etc). I believe (or rather hope) ME2 was about putting you in the uncomfortable position of not being able to tear off and do your own thing, and get the chance in ME3.

You know, it's perfectly valid to write a story where a character is forced into situations he doesn't like, or where a great man has to deal with constraints he isn't used too. I would have been fine with it, I hope, if it was only the plot.
But I got the same feeling from so many of the game elements, and the metagame construction. The fact that so many of the RPG elements of the first game were pared down, the fact that game is on rails at many points, the feeling that gameplay changes were made that conflicted with the existing lore and common sense.

It's not a single thing, it's ME 2 as a gestalt that makes me feel like Bioware doesn't trust me with the keys to the car anymore and now I'm riding to school on my bicycle.

[sirandar]

Right or wrong ...... this thread has posts from the true connoisseurs of ME1 and 2

Cheers to all

Modifié par sirandar, 12 mars 2010 - 05:13 .

[KotOREffecT]

IMO ME 2 had an excellant vibe to it, great overall music and compelling characters/quests. The recruit and loyalty missions offered a great mix of dialogue and combat, and was fun and unique. As much as I loved ME 1, and I did like the story better, you have to give ME 2 props. I think a lot of these posts are clearly reaking with ME 1 nostaglia.. I put my ME 1 nostalgia aside to realize that ME 2 does a lot of things awesome(like better character interraction/more immersion), continues the epic story of ME 1 and sets up perfectly for ME 3.

[sirandar]

To myself Bioware missed really great opportunities with respect to the EM and the ship. Sniffing out all the EM's spyware and controls on the ship and destroying them could have made for the best minigame ever, and freeing EDI and then convincing her to back you could have made for some interesting dialog.



I hope this happens in ME3