105 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

superimposed wrote...

ME:2's engine most certainly was a step in the right direction. The actual telling of the story and characterisation was horrific. The plot was just wrong, basically.

say what now? the UE3.5 upgrades certainly helped stability and you cn't fault the looks - the game is stunning, everywhere. the story may not have been quite as strong as me1 but the rpesentation of said story was much, much better; and the characterisation was leagues ahead of me1.

[superimposed]

No.

[Archereon]

Halmiriliath wrote...

Given that the point about the release date has already been dealt with, I'm curious as to a different part of the original post.

Archereon wrote...

For shovelware shooters (like EAs ideal vision of Mass Effect), that's not much of a problem, all you need is a few new guns and a new campaign to call something a sequel, but for RPGs and frankly nearly any proper game (including any self respecting FPS/TPS), like what Mass Effect 2 still clings to being, you need more to have a worthy sequel.

I took this as meaning that Mass Effect 2 is clinging to being a self-respecting RPG. My apologies if that isn't the case, but if it is, then why do you think this? The plot develops at a similar pace and style to the first Mass Effect - which I'm assuming you believe is a self-respecting RPG - while the improvements in the second instalment were a huge step forward in terms of immersion for me. As I'm currently replaying the original Mass Effect again for the first time since I played the second, what has struck me is how much the huge number of (sometimes irrelevant) side missions, all carried out in identically skinned bases, damages my sense of being immersed in the Mass Effect universe and the story of Commander Shepard. For me, Mass Effect 2 addressed that almost perfectly, and - with the exponential increase in dialogue and what I felt to be a great improvement in voice acting - I felt more involved from the beginning to the end than I did in Mass Effect 1.

Don't get me wrong, I love the first Mass Effect, but I feel that Mass Effect 2 adds, not detracts, from the Mass Effect franchise as an RPG. While the great improvements in combat may have attracted a different kind of gamer, it doesn't alter the fact that Mass Effect 2 is still at heart an RPG. 

By "Self respecting" RPG, I meant a real RPG, not necessarily those turn based crap JRPGs.  A real RPG requires...

-A DECENT STORY 
-To not have immersion breakers like the mission end screen.
-To have a decent story.
-More than 10 items (but not necessarily loot **** levels of equipment.)

[superimposed]

A lot of JRPGs do have a decent story and more than 10 items, and they're not all turn-based either.

Also, again you've added items as a necessity. They're not part of an RPG, they're part of loot collecting and dungeon-crawlers.

[aragfore03]

Everyone is assuming Q1 2011 is ME3. It could be a ME spinoff or something. It'd be a tad shocking for them to rush the end of the trilogy. Give them some credit.

[slackbheep]

Archereon wrote...

By "Self respecting" RPG, I meant a real RPG, not necessarily those turn based crap JRPGs.  A real RPG requires...

-A DECENT STORY 
-To not have immersion breakers like the mission end screen.
-To have a decent story.
-More than 10 items (but not necessarily loot **** levels of equipment.)

Is that supposed to be two decent stories per RPG, or was that supposed to be recursive?
" A real RPG requires a decent story, to have a decent story "

On topic: I'm thinking that Q1 2011 is a tad early for ME3, but it also doesn't strike me as overly rushed, especially when they're using all the same tools they developed for ME2. For now I'll hold my tounge and reserve judgement.  As for the games quality and RPG pedigree, I don't think they're really in question. I enjoyed the storyline, and to me it was unquestionably the core of the game.

Modifié par slackbheep, 19 mars 2010 - 01:33 .

[Archereon]

(Not all JRPGs are crap, I was talking about the shovelware turn based (not that all turn based RPGS are) RPGs that are a dime for a dozen dozens from Japan. And I was referring to the fact that the number of items in ME2 is comparable to the number of guns you can find in a basic shooter)





That was for emphasis partially, and yes, the stories are supposed to mesh together properly. They don't have to be the same thing over and over, but they shouldn't go off on a tangent.



Reapers being revealed to be super borg, combined with Harbingers idiotic combat banter, and the T-800 human Reaper, really killed the ominous feeling from the Reapers in ME1.



I think I can safely say most people agree that ME1s villains were vastly superior to ME2's villain. (Saren was actually an interesting character to listen to, and Sovereign's speech was perfect, Harbinger never stops talking, and most of his writing is just awful, I could probably do better than "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.")



Hopefully the development cycle for ME3 is longer than the one year many reviews put it as (citing the big ME release in Q1 2011), but as it is, i don't think Bioware has enough time to create a proper sequel, and barely enough to create a glorified expansion pack.

[Sturmwulfe]

I quite enjoyed the plot, my only complaint about it's presentation was how the loyalty missions seemed kind of tacked on to some degree... the story telling and the missions themselves were usually great ways of developing characters and were quite a bit of fun, but just the fact that every squad mate just seemed to get recruited and decided to as Shepard to do something for them. I think if BioWare did something along the lines of some squad members trying to take matters into their own hands to deal with their problems and Shepard coming to find them, or something along those lines, would have made it seem a lot more fluid. For example, while you're doing a mission, you come back to find that Tali left to the Flotilla for her trial and you need to track the Flotilla down, or at one of the 'hub' planets, Grunt lashes out violently in one of the 'safe' zones and you need to confront him and find out what the heck's going on with him, or something along those lines. I'm not saying that's what should have happened over what did, but it's just a thought to make the game a bit more immersive instead of it seeming like Doctor Shepard is visiting patients to cure their ailments while they wait their turn, so to speak. Forcing the missions periodically would make the world seem much more alive, kind of like how Horizon and the Collector Ship were unavoidable. It made them seem much more urgent.



Some of the squad member related missions really took me out of the story because they weren't given any sense of urgency. Apparently, Thane's going to assassinate someone but he'll take months doing it while you go help Jack blow up her cell. Better go check up on the Hugo Gernsback's beacon while Miranda's family is being relocated. Garrus is fighting for his life solo against three mercenary groups, I'm sure his heat sinks and body will hold out while we go talk to Okeer about picking up Grunt... ad cetera, you get the point. Some things were a lot more time sensitive than others.



It was kind of like how in Mass Effect 1, Virgil decided to block you off for a chat while Saren wandered off unhindered to the Conduit. That's great and all, but maybe we could have caught up to him before he left Ilos if some Prothean AI didn't decide right then and there to have a chat with Shepard and gang.



It's really a minor criticism, but in terms of making the series seem more RPG like, I wouldn't mind seeing the urgent missions forced along with numerous times where you can still explore the galaxy and take on missions at your own whim and leisure.



Let's put it this way, say in ME3 the Reapers show up and start harvesting a world and you have some super weapon that kills Reapers almost instantly (just bear with me, please), do you REALLY think it's a good time to go check out that uncharted world for some supply cache or to go to the Citadel for some weapons upgrades?



As for the game play, ME2 improved a lot over ME I find. Especially when it came to combat, I did not find Insane in ME1 hard at all, other than a view minor encounters, because a lot of the powers were very similar and very easy to spam, and as mentioned, there were several armour upgrades and powers to make you neigh untouchable. In ME2, I enjoyed there being no inventory (it let me focus on the game instead of checking every nook and cranny for some item I probably won't use), and the powers being more distinct. Unlike 90% of the world, I actually love AI Hacking, especially on Insane in ME2 for the geth and the security mechs. Hack a Geth Hunter or Destroyer, or the heavy mech, and only pop out to reuse the power when it expires, and volla, the majority of your enemies will be at the least distracted, or at best, wiped out by a stronger synthetic. Makes the game a lot easier at parts.

[superimposed]

aragfore03 wrote...

Everyone is assuming Q1 2011 is ME3. It could be a ME spinoff or something. It'd be a tad shocking for them to rush the end of the trilogy. Give them some credit.

You don't read, do you?

ME:3

Announcement: 2011

[Sturmwulfe]

Archereon wrote...

I think I can safely say most people agree that ME1s villains were vastly superior to ME2's villain. (Saren was actually an interesting character to listen to, and Sovereign's speech was perfect, Harbinger never stops talking, and most of his writing is just awful, I could probably do better than "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.")

I agree that it'll be hard to top Saren for an antagonist in the series, but I think the main problem with Harbinger was he repeated quotes too often (BioWare missed out on a golden opportunity to have him say "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, now you must die!" repeatedly). A lot of what he says actually was fairly interesting, but it was so rare it was buried under the 'ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL." "THIS HURTS YOU." "PRESERVE SHEPARD'S BODY IF POSSIBLE." "YOU FEEL THIS."  When it came to that conversation with Sovereign, I think the main thing there was it was a one time encounter and it was such a huge plot revealation that you really felt like you were dealing with something very, very sinister and hard to comprehend. Harbinger never felt like a huge menace, it was just some jerk who took control of an average enemy and made it a pain in the ass to kill, not a proactive force to be reckoned with that you saw with your own eyes and the damage it could cause. It made the rest of the Reapers terrifying thinking of what would happen if hundreds if not thousands of them showed up.

Harbinger would have been a lot more freaky if ALL of the drones you fought at once turned into the Harbinger controlled ones. Terrible for gameplay, but at least he may seem like he's capible of multi-tasking and a terrible overlord and not the cop who screwed up on the job so now is in charge of sitting behind a desk while everyone else goes out on patrol while he deals with paper work and occasionally calls out a dispatch if he's been good.

[Archereon]

Srumwulfe: Its "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!" not "now you must die."

[nelly21]

Harbinger was terrible. The quotes would have been fine once in a while, but the constant repetition killed it.



Also, his "possession" (only term I can come up with) of the individual Collectors didn't have nearly the "OH ****!!!!!!" impact that Sovereign's possession of Saren did. If they wanted to make it epic, Harbinger should have possessed the Praetorians.

[Driving Ghost]

Team is going to add more RPG elements.



GoW lacks RPG elements.

I fail to see the reasons of the OP. ME2 was obviously more GoW.

[Archereon]

Driving: ...You do realize I was referring to the very real possibility that mass effect 3, with a development window of 1 year, might end up more a glorified $60 expansion pack than a sequel (like Gears of War "2" was to GoW1)

[nelly21]

Archereon wrote...

Driving: ...You do realize I was referring to the very real possibility that mass effect 3, with a development window of 1 year, might end up more a glorified $60 expansion pack than a sequel (like Gears of War "2" was to GoW1)

Not really. Bioware have said in a few interviews that they're not going to mess with game engine too much and that the story was pretty much set. The two year period between game came because they were figuring out the game engine, fixing the graphics, changing the combat system, etc. All the basics are already in place.

[Too Few Names]

"As such, I won't be purchasing a copy of Mass Effect 3, or Dragon Age 2 for that matter, as it has a rather tight development window as well, without some assurance that it is not "A glorified expansion pack"



I love statements like this. So certain, so cut-and-dried. How do you get stuck in this kind of thought process where some assumptions you have mean lead to the only possible logical conclusion? What kind of assurance are you looking for? Do you expect them to say 'sorry, we're cutting corners on this and you may be disappointed' or would you prefer 'we've been working hard to improve this and feel we've created a strong product'?



I just think that no game is going to turn out exactly as we plan in our heads - nor is it going to play exactly the way we want it. We don't know the full story and we don't know what improvements Bioware wants to make. In the end, it is their story and their game and they make it as they see fit. Sure, they'll take feedback into account - but have you seen the amount of feedback there is?

[smudboy]

Archereon wrote...
By "Self respecting" RPG, I meant a real RPG, not necessarily those turn based crap JRPGs.  A real RPG requires...

-A DECENT STORY 
-To not have immersion breakers like the mission end screen.
-To have a decent story.
-More than 10 items (but not necessarily loot **** levels of equipment.)

After my own heart.

Story is #1 to any RPG (I would say any game, but hardcore Carmack'ers would disagree.)  The work of art in video games, Planescape Torment, used the Infinity Engine, and whose graphics these days would be barely accepting.  But it was the most beautiful thing ever to grace the video game title.

ME2 barely stands as its own independent story, and retcons ME1 to death as a sequel.

[superimposed]

Driving Ghost wrote...

Team is going to add more RPG elements.

GoW lacks RPG elements.
I fail to see the reasons of the OP. ME2 was obviously more GoW.

How?

What more RPG elements do you need? They had choices and consequences, they had character decisions, they had you playing the role of Commander Shepard. That's pretty RPG right there. They can't make it "more RPG" they can only expand.

[Driving Ghost]

superimposed wrote...

Driving Ghost wrote...

Team is going to add more RPG elements.

GoW lacks RPG elements.
I fail to see the reasons of the OP. ME2 was obviously more GoW.

How?

What more RPG elements do you need? They had choices and consequences, they had character decisions, they had you playing the role of Commander Shepard. That's pretty RPG right there. They can't make it "more RPG" they can only expand.

Bioware said so...

[nelly21]

Here we go.

[superimposed]

Driving Ghost wrote...

superimposed wrote...

Driving Ghost wrote...

Team is going to add more RPG elements.

GoW lacks RPG elements.
I fail to see the reasons of the OP. ME2 was obviously more GoW.

How?

What more RPG elements do you need? They had choices and consequences, they had character decisions, they had you playing the role of Commander Shepard. That's pretty RPG right there. They can't make it "more RPG" they can only expand.

Bioware said so...

Again, how? Please tell me.

[Halmiriliath]

Archereon wrote...

By "Self respecting" RPG, I meant a real RPG, not necessarily those turn based crap JRPGs.  A real RPG requires...
-A DECENT STORY 
-To not have immersion breakers like the mission end screen.
-To have a decent story.
-More than 10 items (but not necessarily loot **** levels of equipment.)

It's interesting that you think that the mission end screen is an immersion breaker. I thought it was quite a nice way of showing that the Illusive Man is keeping tabs on his investment, as it were, while giving some insights into his opinion regarding what you're doing. But this is subjective, as is your point about needing a 'decent story'. I personally enjoyed the plot of Mass Effect 2, while others are only too happy to note the inevitable flaws in such an overarching galaxy-wide story. Sure, the human Reaper may look like a T-800, but how could you make a humanoid synthetic look otherwise if you're aleady certain that this is what they based it on? I do agree however, with your point in your next post that Sovereign had better dialogue than Harbinger, and Sturmwulfe's point about the lack of urgency sometimes. Overall, however, I think that Mass Effect 2 has a greater number of compelling characters and less unnecessary side missions than the first instalment, which gives me a greater sense of being in Shepard's world. But that's just me...   

Modifié par Halmiriliath, 19 mars 2010 - 03:29 .

[nelly21]

Halmiriliath wrote...

Archereon wrote...

By "Self respecting" RPG, I meant a real RPG, not necessarily those turn based crap JRPGs.  A real RPG requires...
-A DECENT STORY 
-To not have immersion breakers like the mission end screen.
-To have a decent story.
-More than 10 items (but not necessarily loot **** levels of equipment.)

It's interesting that you think that the mission end screen is an immersion breaker. I thought it was quite a nice way of showing that the Illusive Man is keeping tabs on his investment, as it were, while giving some insights into his opinion regarding what you're doing. But this is subjective, as is your point about needing a 'decent story'. I personally enjoyed the plot of Mass Effect 2, while others are only too happy to note the inevitable flaws in such an overarching galaxy-wide story. Sure, the human Reaper may look like a T-800, but how could you make a humanoid synthetic look otherwise if you're aleady certain that this is what they based it on? I do agree however, with your point in your next post that Sovereign had better dialogue than Harbinger, and Sturmwulfe's point about the lack of urgency sometimes. Overall, however, I think that Mass Effect 2 has a greater number of compelling characters and less unnecessary side missions than the first instalment, which gives me a greater sense of being in Shepard's world. But that's just me...   

I agree with you.

[superimposed]

The problem is that the Characters are not explored. It's just jumps and leaps and bounds, and certain background information is only available by bonking them.

[Driving Ghost]

superimposed wrote...

Driving Ghost wrote...

superimposed wrote...

Driving Ghost wrote...

Team is going to add more RPG elements.

GoW lacks RPG elements.
I fail to see the reasons of the OP. ME2 was obviously more GoW.

How?

What more RPG elements do you need? They had choices and consequences, they had character decisions, they had you playing the role of Commander Shepard. That's pretty RPG right there. They can't make it "more RPG" they can only expand.

Bioware said so...

Again, how? Please tell me.

Link.