252 réponses à ce sujet

[Stinkface27]

No.

[Jebel Krong]

no of course not - 96% average scores across the board, and all my firends loved it, as did i - moreso than the first game, even.

[mybudgee]

Only in the opinion of super hard-core r.p.g. fanboys. I agree with 1 up.com; 9.5 out of 10.

[Raphael diSanto]

For me, ME2 was more RPG than ME1. The dialogue was handled better, the voice acting was better, and the choices between Paragon and Renegade were better. The P/R interrupts were a major plus for me, from an RPG standpoint.

ME2 got rid of the inventory system, which is a huge pro-RP plus. Juggling inventory gets in the way of the plot, in the way of the story and in the way of me playing the role, which is what an RPG Is all about.

Most RPG fanboys don't understand that anymore, because so many cRPGs take the shortcut and say "If we have characters that advance with stats, and inventory, we must be an RPG"

I say they're a bunch of bosh'tets. RPGs are about playing the role, playing the character. They have precious little to do with stats or inventory. True roleplaying is improvisational method acting at its most raw, visceral level.

In this medium, the cRPGs like Mass Effect, we're limited to the choices the developers give us when playing our roles.. But the ones in ME2 were far better than the ones in ME1, where it didn't matter which one you picked on the dialogue wheel, a large part of the time, Shepard said the same thing anyway.

So no, ME2 didn't fail, not for me.

Modifié par Raphael diSanto, 16 mars 2010 - 04:28 .

[Rob Sabbaggio]

A resounding no.



I loved ME1, and was worried that ME2 might not live up to it. But I shouldnt have worried, I had an absolute blast with ME2.



1) The combat was better in ME2.

2) I actually really enjoyed the team building/character missions. The variety felt nice, and made more sense with the mission structure. Now, if that team carries over into ME3...

3) I was able to romance Tali

4) The RPG elements that I enjoy most are conversations, multiple choices, the ability to make decisions and customise my character, and character interaction. ME2 had all these in spades. Simple loot-hoarding and EXP allocating dont make an RPG for me, I want to feel like I am the centre of the story, not just on rails.

5) It felt like a continuation of ME1, what with old friends etc. Made me feel like it was one big arc.



There are things I felt could have been a little better, for sure. I would have liked more post game content, more things to do with the characters and LI's, more options for customising appearances, the ability to dance with squadmates etc. But its just icing on the cake, really.

[Raphael diSanto]

4) The RPG elements that I enjoy most are conversations, multiple choices, the ability to make decisions and customise my character, and character interaction. ME2 had all these in spades. Simple loot-hoarding and EXP allocating dont make an RPG for me, I want to feel like I am the centre of the story, not just on rails.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way

[Multifarious Algorithm]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

4) The RPG elements that I enjoy most are conversations, multiple choices, the ability to make decisions and customise my character, and character interaction. ME2 had all these in spades. Simple loot-hoarding and EXP allocating dont make an RPG for me, I want to feel like I am the centre of the story, not just on rails.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way

I would say most sane people feel this way.

[Avissel]

Multifarious Algorithm wrote...
I would say most sane people feel this way.

There is lies the issue. I was always amazed at the people who whine that it's not an rpg cause there is no loot. Do they think Oblivion was the greatest rpg ever?

[Raphael diSanto]

Avissel wrote...

Multifarious Algorithm wrote...
I would say most sane people feel this way.

There is lies the issue. I was always amazed at the people who whine that it's not an rpg cause there is no loot. Do they think Oblivion was the greatest rpg ever?

Exactly. While I agree with you, MA, the sheer number of people that complain that ME2 isn't an RPG because it doesn't have loot or character advancement of a form they're comfortable with (i.e. a stat-system similar to Dragon Age) always made me think I was in the minority here.

[Xandurpein]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Avissel wrote...

Multifarious Algorithm wrote...
I would say most sane people feel this way.

There is lies the issue. I was always amazed at the people who whine that it's not an rpg cause there is no loot. Do they think Oblivion was the greatest rpg ever?

Exactly. While I agree with you, MA, the sheer number of people that complain that ME2 isn't an RPG because it doesn't have loot or character advancement of a form they're comfortable with (i.e. a stat-system similar to Dragon Age) always made me think I was in the minority here.

I sometime felt that too. You would think that the definition of the term should have something to do with etymological roots, like what in the term 'Roleplaying' says it has to do with stats and invetories. It's about playing a role.

ME2 is absolutly NOT a failure, it's one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences I ever had. I can't wait for ME3.

[ResidentNoob]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"...

That's great and quite so true, but why was ME1 lore trashed?

What happened to companions' powered armor? What happened to guns with unlimited hypervelocity ammo? Why tech, biotic and ammo "powers" work like magic now? Why are we mining gas giants for heavy metals? What happened to Normandy's airlock? Where are desolate planets? Why are we able to scrog anything that moves now? What's that with drinking Tupari through helmet's windshield? What's that with "Thank you" e-mail crap? What's that with saving everyone on the "suicide" mission?

• Good point, my dear sir. Look, Grunt/Thane/Jack/Miranda/Samara/Morinth, if we're going into a potentially toxic atmosphere, could you PLEASE at least cover up that bare skin? But to be fair, Jack would have looked freakin' stupid wearing armor.
• According to the Codex, the Geth had been using the 'ammo' system the whole time. After the Battle of the Citadel, techies analysed the Geth's weaponry and found that it was way more efficient than our 'shoot bullets forever, but the gun's gonna freeze up on you occasionally' weaponry.
• No idea. Can someone please explain how we can use biotics to control minds?
• I assume that it just flies through the gas and mines it (very carefully, I might add) straight from he planet's mantle/core.
• Explain.
• The SR-2's probably just better at finding stuff on any planet.
• Fanservice(even though I am a proud Talimancer:D). Assuming that's what you mean...
• Serves you right for getting a drink while wearing a helmet.:lol:What were you expecting?
• I guess it's more efficient than recording lines of dialogue for everyone you could have saved/dealt with.
• Like Shepard says to Thane, he intends to prove wrong the belief thatr it's a suicide mission.

[Hardehare]

(For all the Grammer ****'s going to comment over my post I am not a English native speaker.)

Sorry all the posting in this topic after the initial posting looks to me like alot of people prateling on to somehow justify their purchase. To wit a RPG is in its essence about cutomization (to counter the argument above I am PLAYING MY ROLE as a good commander by upgrading everyones armour and guns for my team it seems more realistic to me [now for all those people that are going to point out this is a scifi game its not real...yes fine and I hope being pedantic saves your life one day]).

Now the Inventory system didnt work so well in ME 1 but that does not mean it needs to be scrapped. Just fix it.

Being able to customize your entire team is the point I think and in that regard no matter the counter arguments ME2 Fails dismally. I liked the option of cycling my spectre gear down to my team mates so they continually get improved equipment a la ME1 or buying them improved gear after earning the cash(it brings a nice sense of accomplishment getting everyone the best gear you can. Show me where this is possble in ME2. Alot of teammate upgrades seem to me a thin veiled attempt to provide a similar end result ,yet not quite succeeding.

Let next examine the economy... or shall I say lack off said economy I cannot sell superflous minerals, guns[ ok thats covered up by not being able to get any additional from the 300000 people you kill :)]? Really excuse me how is that not stupid? My ship uses minerals to travel; excuse me I thought it was fusion based with a advanced ME core?

Dumbed down seems to be the mantra for ME2. This does not mean my first playthru was not a blast. Just that to play through again feels like a bit of a slog because you do not acctually seem to be able to change much.

Finnaly I understand anyone's need for more money ;so that is why their dumbing down certain aspects for the console based/attention deficit people. But please dont try covering up or plastering over some of the games glaring problems and ommisions.

Any replies that can actively refute my claims please provide some justification and examples please. But at this moment I feel RPG should be removed as part of this action games discription.

I wont be surprised if ME3 becomes a fps. I enjoy them as well.Team fortress 2 for the win.

Thats my rambling for tonight.

Modifié par Hardehare, 16 mars 2010 - 05:32 .

[Orange Face_]

Personally I think its laughable calling people haters or trolls for voicing their displeasure with certain aspects of the game... ME2 has much better game play and graphics than ME1 because many people voiced their displeasure with these aspects of ME1, should we go back and call them trolls or haters? Or should we say thank you to them for giving response and thank you to BioWare for listening?



Honestly I think ME2 is a great game but fails to live up to it's predecessor in story telling... after I finished ME1 I was convinced that video games were finally going to take over the entertainment industry, ME 1 is a game written better than 90% of the crap hollywood gives us, AND I MADE THE CHOICES IN IT... In fact I enjoyed Mass Effect so much that for ME2 I broke my "I will never pay more than $30 for a video game" rule (Mass Effect cost me $12, great buy!)... ME2 fell short of that flip the entertainment industry on its head mark, but I'm willing to look at the franchise as a trilogy, that is why "hate threads" about the game are so important, how else will BioWare get feedback. (If you have a friend who only tells you good things about your self beware!, you don't have a friend you have a hanger on).



Finally I cringe every time I hear about a Game spot review or sales numbers, please these things don't indicate success or failure. Game Spot fired Jeff Gerstmann for giving a 6 to a terrible game that most likely deserved a 3 (Kane and Lynch: Dead Men) The fact that ME2 rates high according to Game Spot should be about as exciting as Wal Mart giving good reviews to Hannah Montana. Great sales don't mean nothing either, that's EA's job, this is the company that makes a boatload of money selling the same game year after year (Madden, NBA Live, Tiger Woods ETC.) how do they pull the wool over so many peoples eyes? Marketing. In fact EA is so heartless the year the NFL 2K series beat Madden EA went to the NFL to secure exclusive rights, not make a better game, just sign a back alley deal cutting out the competition.



I do trust that BioWare will make the best possible ME3 and I feel that the standard of flip the entertainment industry on its head should be at the forefront of the design teams minds, Mass Effect 3 should be seen as the opportunity to do something great not just an opportunity to rake in great amounts of money.

[TyDurden13]

ResidentNoob wrote...
No idea. Can someone please explain how we can use biotics to control minds?

I think this is an asari trait, not a biotic trait.  The asari have some kind of mind-meld ability separate from the mass effect field based biotic abilities other species can have.

[Azorgamer]

I really enjoyed the game. It was very fun, the characters were great, the length of the game was good - it wasn't short but on the other hand, I didn't age significantly while playing it...which was good.

One of the negative things for me and also, from what I've read, from other people, is the way Ashley, Kaidan and Liara were handled. I was a huge ME1 fan, one of my favorite games of all time. I really got attached to these characters and was looking forward to playing them again. Having Ashley/Kaidan in there for one scene and Liara portrayed for such a short time and also doing such silly quests for her was disappointing.

My second and final disappointment was the whole Reaper situation. No one believed in the Reapers at the start of ME1, and suddenly no one believes in Reapers in ME2. And at the end of the game, it isn't clear if Shepard finally has the evidence necessary to prove to the Council that the Reapers exist. It felt like the Reaper main plot sort of stayed the same. Which was not something I was expecting in ME2.

I mention this not as a disappointment but more as an annoyance - mining for minerals..."Probe away"..."Probe away"..."Probe away". *shudder* Why Bioware why?! lol

So those are my main gripes - Ashley, Kaidan, Liara and Reapers (weird to be combining those 4 in a sentence). But, does that mean the game was not awesome...of course not. The game was great.

We got Miranda, Jack, Thane, Grunt, Mordin, Samara, Zaeed, and Legion as new characters which made the story very interesting. And we got to hang out with old characters like Garrus, Tali, Joker and Dr. Chakwas. We got to stop the weird Collectors from slaughtering humans. So, in the end, ME2 was an incredible game...it just had a few hiccups but what doesn't.

[superimposed]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

*absolute crap here*

Couldn't be that it's just not as good as you claim it is, could it? Only the most fanatical of fanboys say everyone has to think it's the best.

And their most successful game, critically, was the first Baldur's Gate. That's what established Bioware's reputation.

[Raphael diSanto]

Hardehare wrote...

(For all the Grammer ****'s going to comment over my post I am not a English native speaker.)

Sorry all the posting in this topic after the initial posting looks to me like alot of people prateling on to somehow justify their purchase. To wit a RPG is in its essence about cutomization (to counter the argument above I am PLAYING MY ROLE as a good commander by upgrading everyones armour and guns for my team it seems more realistic to me [now for all those people that are going to point out this is a scifi game its not real...yes fine and I hope being pedantic saves your life one day]).

Roleplaying has absolutely nothing to do with upgrading everyone's armor and guns, lol.

Armor and guns are merely a game mechanic. Dialogue choices, moral dilemmas and the -personality- of your character when interacting with other people is roleplaying. Now if you're talking about purely cosmetic changes to the armor, then I'm all for that. Roleplaying -is- all about how you want your character to look. But he or she (or the squad) should be able to look how you want them to look, with zero effect on their stats.

I fully support more cosmetic customization armor choices.

Hardehare wrote...
Now the Inventory system didnt work so well in ME 1 but that does not mean it needs to be scrapped. Just fix it.

Being able to customize your entire team is the point I think and in that regard no matter the counter arguments ME2 Fails dismally. I liked the option of cycling my spectre gear down to my team mates so they continually get improved equipment a la ME1 or buying them improved gear after earning the cash(it brings a nice sense of accomplishment getting everyone the best gear you can. Show me where this is possble in ME2. Alot of teammate upgrades seem to me a thin veiled attempt to provide a similar end result ,yet not quite succeeding.

Inventory systems have no real place in any RPG. I'm glad they're not in ME2. The removal of the inventory system makes the game -more- of an RPG, not less.

Hardehare wrote...
Let next examine the economy... or shall I say lack off said economy I cannot sell superflous minerals, guns[ ok thats covered up by not being able to get any additional from the 300000 people you kill :)]? Really excuse me how is that not stupid? My ship uses minerals to travel; excuse me I thought it was fusion based with a advanced ME core?

Who cares? This isn't an MMO. This isn't single-player Eve. And I would never want it to be. Money, once again, should not be in a roleplaying game. I hope they remove it from ME3. A roleplaying game should be all about the story - And in any story the only time the protagonist cannot purchase something he or she needs is because the PLOT demands that he or she cannot purchase it.

Plot trumps everything. Otherwise it's just a resource management game. Not a roleplaying game.

Hardehare wrote...
Dumbed down seems to be the mantra for ME2. This does not mean my first playthru was not a blast. Just that to play through again feels like a bit of a slog because you do not acctually seem to be able to change much.

Finnaly I understand anyone's need for more money ;so that is why their dumbing down certain aspects for the console based/attention deficit people. But please dont try covering up or plastering over some of the games glaring problems and ommisions.

I'm no console player, but even I think it's very unnecessarily rude to state that the game was dumbed down for console players.

Hardehare wrote...
Any replies that can actively refute my claims please provide some justification and examples please. But at this moment I feel RPG should be removed as part of this action games discription.

I wont be surprised if ME3 becomes a fps. I enjoy them as well.Team fortress 2 for the win.

Thats my rambling for tonight.

I don't know. You haven't really provided much justification or examples either. You said - Roleplaying's about stats and armor and upgrades. No. Stat-based games are about stats and armor and upgrades. Roleplaying games are about (gasp) playing a role. Inventory and gear and stats are completely separate and disparate from that, except that you have fallen into the trap so many gamers do today.

It's all about the phat lewtz, dude!

No. An RPG is all about the story. Everything else is secondary.

And I tell you this - Han Solo didn't get any new gear and he didn't level up at all throughout all 3 Star Wars movies. But it made for a damn good story. A Star Wars RPG, where you (here's that phrase again) play the role of Han would involve zero stats, zero new gear, zero need for credits or an in-game economy or anything like that.

And it would still be an RPG, and a damn good game.

[JeanLuc761]

superimposed wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

*absolute crap here*

Couldn't be that it's just not as good as you claim it is, could it? Only the most fanatical of fanboys say everyone has to think it's the best.

And their most successful game, critically, was the first Baldur's Gate. That's what established Bioware's reputation.

He's right.  By definition, Mass Effect 2 being a massive critical and commercial success means that the game was a success; there's literally no way to avoid that.  There are people who love it, and there are people who don't; that's the same in any medium.  Everything boils down to subjective personal opinion. 

For example, Lord of the Rings is one of the most successful films of all time on both commercial and critical levels.  Yet, I have friends who can't stand the movie; does that mean it's not as good as I think it is?  Of course not!  It just means they have different taste in movies.

[superimposed]

A success does not mean that it's good.

Dan Brown is a successful Author, but he's a **** writer.

So no, he's not right.

[kaskouka]

I enjoyed de game very much and I can't wait to see the "Grand Finale" with ME3!

Let us hope the dev's will fill this long wait with nice DLCs or expensions =)

[Raphael diSanto]

superimposed wrote...

A success does not mean that it's good.
Dan Brown is a successful Author, but he's a **** writer.
So no, he's not right.

That is why art is in the eye of the beholder. A failure does also not mean something is bad. Or vice versa.

Only -you- can decide whether or not ME failed as a sequel, and the only person you can decide it for is you. Opinions are only valid when applied to their originator.

Eleventy-billion screaming teenage-girl Britney Spears fans might say otherwise, but they're wrong, too

[JeanLuc761]

superimposed wrote...

A success does not mean that it's good.
Dan Brown is a successful Author, but he's a **** writer.
So no, he's not right.

Oddly enough, yes it does.  Just not for everyone. 

I think Twilight is one of the worst things ever to happen, especially the movies.  That doesn't change the fact that it's a huge success with a very strong fanbase.  It means that it's good to the people it appeals to. 

You can't measure how "good" something is on an objective level; that's where sales figures come in.  If you make a lot of money and deliver something that a lot of people enjoy, then you were successful, period.  There will never be a game that appeals to everyone.

A lot of people are mad that Mass Effect 2 removed the inventory system; I think it was one of their best decisions.  I'm here to play a role, not get stuck organizing my equipment for 15 minutes.

Also, I know he's not a great writer but Dan Brown is one of my favorite authors.

Modifié par JeanLuc761, 16 mars 2010 - 06:42 .

[superimposed]

I never said the game was a failure and everybody had to think it was. If you actually looked at what I was responding to, it was the idea that it being either a critical or commercial success equates it to being a good game, or as the poster was implying, Bioware's best game.

[Raphael diSanto]

Indeed. You cannot really apply "good" or "bad" to a piece of art. You can only apply differing definitions of success or fail. Critical success or failure? Financial success or failure? etc etc.



Even the worst finger-painted drawing made by a 2-year old will be "better" to that two-year old's mother than the finest thing Rembrandt ever painted.

[JeanLuc761]

superimposed wrote...

I never said the game was a failure and everybody had to think it was. If you actually looked at what I was responding to, it was the idea that it being either a critical or commercial success equates it to being a good game, or as the poster was implying, Bioware's best game.

Nor am I saying you feel that way.  I'm simply saying that, by definition: If a game succeeded critically and commercially, then it's a success.

Whether or not it's good is up to you to decide; I think Mass Effect 2 is the gaming equivalent of the second coming of Jesus, others are disappointed.  Neither side is wrong.