71 réponses à ce sujet

[TSMUK]

My view point is if new game was to much like an old game people would complain aswell



Whilst people are entitled to moan and groan over what is and what is not Mass Effect 2 is out there is no changing it.

[Ecael]

TJSolo wrote...

My response about ME3 was only in regards to this:
"Upgrades you get from planet-scanning won't carry over in ME3 (they don't even carry over in ME2!)"
Your statement is a bit to fortune-telly.

Well, not if upgrades don't even carry over to a New Game+.

You have to consider why only certain things carry over - can the bonuses be scaled back or should it just be ignored entirely? Level 60 carried over to Level 5, which is not a huge advantage. One could argue about the credits, paragon/renegade points and resources having a dramatic advantage or not, but the point is, there wasn't much past your level and plot choices that carried over to ME2.

ME3 will have the problem of incorporating plot choices from both games, so I doubt they can really focus on giving bonuses based on miniscule things you did in ME2, including upgrades. A lot of those upgrades also become useless to the characters they were meant for because of the final mission.

Like I said some of your facts are wrong; there are more unique weapons in ME1
Not even counting the I-X iterations.

From http://social.biowar...index/1655022/5
ME1
- 10 Pistols
- 12 Assault Rifles
- 10 Shotguns
- 10 Sniper Rifles
Total = 42 unique weapons

ME2
- 2 Heavy Pistols
- 5 Assault Rifles
- 4 Shotguns
- 4 Sniper Rifles
- 2 Submachine Guns
Total = 17 Unique Weapons

I really am not feeling like getting into this. All I have to say is for those that think ME2 is missing substance that was in ME1 have a point.

You can't honestly say that each weapon in ME1 behaved differently. A pistol was the same as any other, and the only way you could compare the two was their accuracy rating and overheat rating. The weapons in ME2 (especially the Heavy Weapons) behave differently in how they take down targets (and which), and the ret-conned heatsink system -- although lame -- affected how and where you came out of cover, and when you were able to use your other abilities.

You can talk about missing substance, but at the same time, BioWare HAS to cater not just to the shooter crowd, but the crowd who has to use controllers with the XBox 360 to play the game. They already damaged the open-endedness of ME2 by splitting the content into two parts to fit on the XBox 360. If there is anything that makes the game tedious or difficult to play on the controller, they will take that part out entirely. That includes the inventory system of ME1.

We won't see things like as complex as the inventory system of ME1 as long as the game is made for the XBox 360 controller and not the PC keyboard and mouse.

Modifié par Ecael, 23 mars 2010 - 01:02 .

[EternalWolfe]

TJSolo wrote...

From http://social.biowar...index/1655022/5
ME1
- 10 Pistols
- 12 Assault Rifles
- 10 Shotguns
- 10 Sniper Rifles
Total = 42 unique weapons

ME2
- 2 Heavy Pistols
- 5 Assault Rifles
- 4 Shotguns
- 4 Sniper Rifles
- 2 Submachine Guns
Total = 17 Unique Weapons

Information isn't complete there.

At level 6 and below, there are 3 manufactuers that blow everything else out of the water - Haliat Armory, Araike Technologies, Devlon Industries.  Everything else is completly inferior to these guns.
At level 7 and above, there are 3 new manufactuers that blow everything else out of the water - Armax Arsenal, Kassa Fabrications, and Rosenkov Materials.  Also, Assault Rifles have the Geth Pulse Rifle.  Then you had Spectre weapons, which were a cut above all the rest.

So, at any one level of weapons, there were 12(13 at VII+) weapons with use, the others were compeltly inferior.  17 if you throw in Spectre weapons on top of that.

Would you be satisfied if they added in 2 copies of each weapon, having exactly the same stats except for Damage, Accuracy, and clip size, which all three would be lower?  Would that sastify your need for 'unique' weapons?

Not saying they couldn't do with more weapons, but the number of unique weapons in ME1 is inflated with weapons that have no use.  Some can't even stay in the game two levels ahead of other manufacturers.

I, personally, want about 4-6 per class for ME3, with a mod system.  That would be enough for me.  With a mod system - that's the important part.  To me, anyways.

EDIT: TSMUK, while ME2 may be out, ME3 is not.  Complaints they may be, but its also somewhat useful for customer feedback.  And it may even lead to intresting discussions about new ways to do the systems that compromise both sides(assuming anyone can actually stop argueing over absolutes).
 
I have little faith in such happening atm, though.

Modifié par EternalWolfe, 23 mars 2010 - 01:15 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

TJSolo wrote...

I read you mountain of a reply; it is a bad argument based on hypocrisy and bad understanding in most cases. There isn't a reason for me to reply to each line it has already been done and you still come back with half-truths and biased views. So I am not going to get into a circular debate with you.
Well without there being a ME3 your claims of upgrades not carrying over is inaccurate.

Agreed. A waste of time.

[Ecael]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

I read you mountain of a reply; it is a bad argument based on hypocrisy and bad understanding in most cases. There isn't a reason for me to reply to each line it has already been done and you still come back with half-truths and biased views. So I am not going to get into a circular debate with you.
Well without there being a ME3 your claims of upgrades not carrying over is inaccurate.

Agreed. A waste of time.

You want a shorter argument that will also prove me correct for ME3? Here goes:

1. BioWare was originally developing Mass Effect 1 for the PC, and all its gameplay/menu options were tailored for it.
2. Microsoft, their former publisher, paid them to gain exclusivity for the XBox 360 instead of the PC.
3. Mass Effect 1 is released for XBox 360 in 2007 exclusively at first, but plays like a PC RPG game.
4. Electronic Arts buys BioWare in 2008 and has Demiurge Studios develop Mass Effect for the PC (finally).
5. Mass Effect 2 is released for both XBox and PC, but plays like an XBox 360 shooter game.
6. All gaming companies, including EA, now believe in marketing for console games due to the prevalent piracy issues on PC.
7. Therefore, Mass Effect 3 will be focused on catering to the XBox 360.

Thus,
My arguing = Waste of time
Your arguing = Waste of time

Why?

Mass Effect 3 will be much more like the streamlined shooter Mass Effect 2 (XBox 360 version) regardless of what you or I say, because Microsoft and Electronic Arts said so.

Argument over.

[SithLordExarKun]

Ecael wrote...



1. BioWare was originally developing Mass Effect 1 for the PC, and all its gameplay/menu options were tailored for it.
2. Microsoft, their former publisher, paid them to gain exclusivity for the XBox 360 instead of the PC.

.[/b][/color]

Good god do you have a link to prove this? If this is true it further proves how much ofa douche bag Micro$oft is. This isn't the first time they bribed companies to not develop the game on other platforms... remember GTA4 episodes pack? Alan wake(which was also going to be on pc but Microtard paid the company to halt and scrap the pc version), they then bribed Konami to release the next MGS game on xbox and they bribed SE to release FFXIII on xbox too(though it was a horrible game).

[TJSolo]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Would you be satisfied if they added in 2 copies of each weapon, having exactly the same stats except for Damage, Accuracy, and clip size, which all three would be lower?  Would that sastify your need for 'unique' weapons?

Not saying they couldn't do with more weapons, but the number of unique weapons in ME1 is inflated with weapons that have no use.  Some can't even stay in the game two levels ahead of other manufacturers.

Look I gave the numeric quantity of the unique weapons that exist in the two games, roughly.
You want to talk about use or quality of the ME1 guns saying that there are some better guns vs some worse guns, yarp.
The same thing can be said for ME2 guns while I can count 3 snipers it doesn't mean those 3 snipes are of equal quality.

It is hard to make a strict comparison as ME1 doesn't even have some of the stats ME2 weapons use, like wise ME2 weapons don't  have all of the attributes ME1 weapons have.

It is not me trying to bend the numbers. ME1 has more unique weapons, following its respective mechanics then ME2 has with that games respective mechanics.

Sigh, but  I guess some people will still need to nitpick and make it seem less valid.

[Ecael]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Ecael wrote...



1. BioWare was originally developing Mass Effect 1 for the PC, and all its gameplay/menu options were tailored for it.
2. Microsoft, their former publisher, paid them to gain exclusivity for the XBox 360 instead of the PC.

.[/b][/color]

Good god do you have a link to prove this? If this is true it further proves how much ofa douche bag Micro$oft is. This isn't the first time they bribed companies to not develop the game on other platforms... remember GTA4 episodes pack? Alan wake(which was also going to be on pc but Microtard paid the company to halt and scrap the pc version), they then bribed Konami to release the next MGS game on xbox and they bribed SE to release FFXIII on xbox too(though it was a horrible game).

Microsoft doesn't exactly have press releases for paying other companies to do things, but exclusivity is a marketing tactic for many publishers (especially one that has a console to keep afloat).

The old description of Mass Effect on the X-Box website still advertises Mass Effect as "exclusively for the XBox 360:

http://www.xbox.com/...s/m/masseffect/

On an added note, their old description of Mass Effect 2 describes the release version as having 12 squadmates. So Kasumi and Zaeed were not originally planned as DLC.

[EternalWolfe]

TJSolo wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Would you be satisfied if they added in 2 copies of each weapon, having exactly the same stats except for Damage, Accuracy, and clip size, which all three would be lower?  Would that sastify your need for 'unique' weapons?

Not saying they couldn't do with more weapons, but the number of unique weapons in ME1 is inflated with weapons that have no use.  Some can't even stay in the game two levels ahead of other manufacturers.

Look I gave the numeric quantity of the unique weapons that exist in the two games, roughly.
You want to talk about use or quality of the ME1 guns saying that there are some better guns vs some worse guns, yarp.
The same thing can be said for ME2 guns while I can count 3 snipers it doesn't mean those 3 snipes are of equal quality.

It is hard to make a strict comparison as ME1 doesn't even have some of the stats ME2 weapons use, like wise ME2 weapons don't  have all of the attributes ME1 weapons have.

It is not me trying to bend the numbers. ME1 has more unique weapons, following its respective mechanics then ME2 has with that games respective mechanics.

Sigh, but  I guess some people will still need to nitpick and make it seem less valid.

Actually those questions I asked were serious - I want to know if that would sastify those who desire more unique weapons.  Since many like to point out in ME1 you had 42 unique weapons, if they were to do as I said(make 2 copies of each weapon), you'd have 51 unique weapons in ME2, whether they were useful or not.

And, I know not all weapons in Me2 are equal - I was rather dissapointed that the Widow was a direct upgrade to the Mantis.  Mantis should have had 2-3 shots per clip(with slightly lower damage to stabalize DPS) and 13 ammo, while the Widow should have had maybe 7 or so.  My own opinion though.

I wasn't saying you were trying to bend to numbers(if I came off implying that, I apologize).  But I doubt many people actually sat there and went through all the numbers to see the exact best manufacturers, and I was merely noting the numbers myself - 12 to 17 notable weapons per level.  And to me, it is less valid - having more weapons, but all but 3 of them completly inferior, does not introduce any sort of variety or uniqueness on the part of the weak ones.  That's my personal opinon, just how I see it.

A couple more questions to add to those two - how many unique weapons would it take to sastify you?  4?  6? 10? 20? Per type that is.
Would you have been more accepting of the number of guns in the game had they had a fairly robust modification system?

[lastpawn]

Ecael wrote...
Planet scanning is optional. You don't need it.

Ecael, you have my utmost respect as a poster on these forums, so much so that I actually read your entirely-too-long reply to an entirely-too-long post... but this need argument is nonsense. See here...

Claim: The armor system in Mass Effect 2 is cumbersome. Armor should be equipped at the start of every mission.
Retort: Yes, but you don't need it. Equipping different armor pieces is optional. You can beat the game just fine even on Insanity without ever messing with your armor.

The point is that you can't wish a problem away by claiming it's not needed. We should be discussing the overall experience rather than what we technically define as "needed to finish the game."

[TJSolo]

EternalWolfe wrote...
   ~snip~

@EternalWolfe
Well if you are serious. Some people would be satisfied with just an extra copy reskined or having color customization to like Shep can do with N7 gear. That would just work within the functional limits ME2 places on the guns and not change the balance. Me on the other hand want more attention given to pistols, SMGs, and snipers not just copies or recoloring.

The bending numbers was directed at all the comments that followed, yours did come across that way but not the sole one. I just wasn't going to do multiple quotes. I understand you stance with the views of inferior weapons but for me thinking that way reduces the number of usefull ME2 weapons even more.

I think each weapon class excluding heavies should be as fleshed out as the AR tree. ARs being innately the least used upon among all the classes but having the most selection seems unfitting. It is understandable given the limitations and the goal to make each weapon unique but not better than the rest.
If there was a robust modification system of sorts sure that would have cushioned the current selection of weapons and given me(maybe others as well) a better sense of choice.

[Ecael]

lastpawn wrote...

Ecael wrote...
Planet scanning is optional. You don't need it.

Ecael, you have my utmost respect as a poster on these forums, so much so that I actually read your entirely-too-long reply to an entirely-too-long post... but this need argument is nonsense. See here...

Claim: The armor system in Mass Effect 2 is cumbersome. Armor should be equipped at the start of every mission.
Retort: Yes, but you don't need it. Equipping different armor pieces is optional. You can beat the game just fine even on Insanity without ever messing with your armor.

The point is that you can't wish a problem away by claiming it's not needed. We should be discussing the overall experience rather than what we technically define as "needed to finish the game."

True. I'll at least admit that you can skip some of the timesinks from Mass Effect 1 simply by not doing them (and I'm sure some people didn't even realize that you can equip armor/weapon mods until halfway through the game).

However, I will say that there is a much bigger difference between going from no upgrades to all upgrades in Mass Effect 2 than there is in going from, say, the starting armor (no mods) to Colossus X with double Energized Plating (or 1 Medical Exo) for your entire team.

The latter makes you nearly invincible and trivializes the game. The former does not.

[KPnuts123]

Just one thing that people need to remember. Most of the changes made for ME2 from ME1 were made due to the community as a whole moaning about those aspects of the game. So due to Bioware listening to the people who actually play the game we got a streamlined version of the game. So as a whole we only have ourselves to blame as part of the community for all the changes that were made.

[Marilynn-22]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

FYI there are a million of these threads already.

[TJSolo]

KPnuts123 wrote...

Just one thing that people need to remember. Most of the changes made for ME2 from ME1 were made due to the community as a whole moaning about those aspects of the game. So due to Bioware listening to the people who actually play the game we got a streamlined version of the game. So as a whole we only have ourselves to blame as part of the community for all the changes that were made.

I was not a part of that community, I had ME1 new but just wasn't a forum user at the time.
Now I would like to Falcon Punch anyone from that era that moaned about ME1.

Modifié par TJSolo, 23 mars 2010 - 06:28 .

[KPnuts123]

TJSolo wrote...

KPnuts123 wrote...

Just one thing that people need to remember. Most of the changes made for ME2 from ME1 were made due to the community as a whole moaning about those aspects of the game. So due to Bioware listening to the people who actually play the game we got a streamlined version of the game. So as a whole we only have ourselves to blame as part of the community for all the changes that were made.

I was not a part of that community, I had ME1 new but just wasn't a forum user at the time.
Now I would like to Falcon Punch anyone from that era that moaned about ME1.

I wasn't around then but I agree about the falcon punch on a moaner.  I like the loot system in ME1 it just needed trimming down a bit and not as much as it was.

[Vexia2070]

Ok, new poster here.



I personally like the non-idiot version of the game. M2 is pretty yes, but lacking in depth of worlds and complexity. ... ok, just this Grandmothers 2 cents.



MY REAL QUESTION, which I admit is likely due to the fact I am am tech deficent and new at all this IS How in the H--L do I purchase the new DLC???????????

The Bio/Ea/Ceb websites are a maze I cannot seem to unravel.

All this old gal wants to do is buy-beg-or redeem my messed up code WHICH was and is a screw up on bio-wares part. I will gladly spend a few bucks More to get the DLC - which means buying some kind of freaking points and I cannot even find that option on this website mess. Someone please take mercy and explain this to me so I can finally get on my fem-shep in stlye.

This is an SOS .

please someone help me.

Thank you kindly.

Vex

[Nolenthar]

[quote]Ecael wrote...

Open terrain is only useful if there's stuff on it. A herd of Shifty Looking Cows and a (fixed) base here and there shouldn't be the only thing sitting on a planet. The missions in Mass Effect 2, while linear, all have unique level designs and every main mission has its own dynamic soundtrack (the OST has a song for every non-DLC character). Even the N7 missions, albeit having no dialogue, are not pregenerated bases.

"Exploring" in Mass Effect 1 was like reading a blank piece of paper with only the page number on it.[/quote]

It's a damn lack of imagination, I assume. Do you mean there is no other way doing it than how they did in ME1 ? True, planet exploration had to be improved. Map generator can be sometimes good (RTS/Diablo 2/Sacred 2 use map generator), it's not so difficult to generate several different maps far better than what we found in ME1. By the way, I prefer a game company that takes risk, to one who just create something that already works.


[quote]Ecael wrote...
I wasn't referring to being outside with the Mako. Every time you clear out a base inside for a side quest, you have to run back. With Feros and Noveria, you have to drive back with the Mako or run back to the transit station. Even when you return to the Normandy from the Mako or from outside, you get a loading screen, just like you would in ME2. Why doesn't anyone complain about how immersion breaking that loading screen was?[/quote]

I really do prefer getting back to the place I come from than having to see a "Mission Completed" screen, be back on the Normandy, and having to land again if I wanted to do something else. BTW, on some loyalty missions, you have to get back by yourself (Tuchanka for example). 


[quote]Ecael wrote..."
-Ridiculously slow elevators"
Judging by how fast loading screens go by ME2 on my budget Dell Inspiron (and the fact that there's still a 'Loading' sign in the elevators in ME1), I'd take ME2's loading screens any day. Not to mention there are still other loading screens in ME1 (see pictures from my last post).[/quote]

And have you ever thought they could have improved the loading as they did in ME2, and keeping elevators anyway ? Don't you remember a mission where you travel through an elevator ? don't you think they were loading something during this time (even in ME2).


[quote]Ecael wrote...

http://www.youtube.c...od4uzKE#t=4m10s[/quote]

I honestly had this bug twice or three times during 120 hours playing ME1. But you're right, that bug existed. I know another one who exists in ME2, and who is far worse. Don't get me wrong, any bug is a pain, but when you notice where a bug might occur, it's a lot better than when it can pops anywhere. The flying 20 feet high bug in ME2 was more painful to me than the one you listed for ME1.
Once again, don't you think they could have solved this bug ? or, for instance, generating autosave when you open an elevator ? 
Loading screen is an easy way to solve the problem, is it a smart one, or does it show that they did an effort ?


[quote]Getting stuck in the air in ME2 was also annoying as hell, but if it happened in a safe area you can still manuever your way down.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but this one shows how biased your arguments are. How the hell can you say "if it happened in a safe area" talking about ME2 while this bug occurs randomly. At least the one in ME1 occured in a "safe area" and you knew it could happen anytime you took an elevator.


[quote]Ecael wrote...
Like I said, I did quicksave often because of the biotic-death bug and elevator glitch bug. In ME1, that was a pain since it pauses the game to save. ME2 fixed that.[/quote]

You're right, it pauses the game. From my point of view and with my computer, that was really quick, but once again, why complain about that as they solved the problem in ME2. Which means they could have added elevators in ME2, with the efficient autosave/quicksave system, it wouldn't have been so much of a pain.


"-Loading screens, even with the elevators in place (Citadel Rapid Transit and pre-game Load)"

[quote]Ecael wrote...
Ever try doing the Zabaleta quest as a Spacer? Getting to the furthest part of the ME1 Citadel (Wards Access) and back to the Normandy SR-1 was much more time-consuming than getting to the furthest part of the Citadel in ME2 and back to the Normandy SR-2. You can't accurately describe it in a list unless you list everything that slows you down.

ME1, Normandy at Mass Relay -> Citadel -> Wards Access -> Back to Normandy Galaxy Map
1) Mass Relay CGI cutscene
2) Click Citadel, Dock
3A) Undocking cutscene from other city OR
3B) LOADING (Normandy traveling screen)
4) Landing Cutscene, unskippable
5) Run to airlock
6) LOADING (Picture of Mass Relay screen), Select Crew screen
7) Elevator, unskippable
8) Citadel Rapid Transit to Wards Access entrance in Presidium
9) LOADING (Picture of Citadel)
10) Run to Wards Access Elevator
11) Elevator, unskippable
12) Wards Access, at Zabaleta
13) Elevator, unskippable
14) Run to Citadel Rapid Transit back to C-Sec
15) LOADING (Picture of Citadel)
16) Elevator, unskippable
17) Normandy -> Decontamination in progress
18) At Galaxy Map

*Stopwatch Timer: 7 minutes, 23 seconds*

Elevators used: 4 times
Loading screens: 4 times (and does NOT include the 4 short 'LOADING' boxes each time elevator was used)
Pauses to autosave: 4 times

ME2, Normandy at Mass Relay -> Citadel -> Back of Dark Star Lounge -> Back to Normandy Galaxy Map
1) Mass Relay CGI cutscene
2) Hover over to Citadel, Dock
3) Landing Cutscene, skipped
4) LOADING (Normandy schematic screen), Select Crew screen
5) Shuttle Cutscene, skipped
6) Citadel Rapid Transit to Level 28
7) LOADING (Weird spinning lock screen)
8) Run to Dark Star Lounge, back
9) Run to Citadel Rapid Transit
10) Citadel Rapid Transit to Normandy
11) LOADING (Another weird Normandy screen)
12) At Galaxy Map

*Stopwatch Timer: 2 minutes, 55 seconds*

Elevators used: 0
Loading screens: 3 times
Pauses to autosave: 0

Takes more than twice as long to finish up a simple side quest and get back to the Normandy in ME1 as it did in ME2. You say I have a bad memory, but I sure didn't forget the extra loading screens in ME1.

[/quote]

What are we trying to prove ? humm, that the citadel in ME1 was bigger than in ME2 ? Impossible to compare both, sorry.


[quote]Ecael wrote...
Then why is there a loading screen with a picture of a Mass Relay after selecting the crew in the airlock? Or a short "fade to black" sequence when re-entering the Normandy?[/quote]

No fade to black here. Door opens, dock officer saying that I'm on the commanding officer.


[quote]Ecael wrote...
You forgot the fact that Level 51-60 does not unlock until you get the Level 50 achievement. Also, maxing out your level in two playthroughs afterward is actually longer - getting out repeatedly to get the killing blow for more XP, decrypting everything in sight and doing every side quest (and even the extremely tedious mineral/artifact collection quests) made Mass Effect 1 unnecessarily long.[/quote]

You're both right and wrong. Right, because maxing level in ME1 is damn long, if you consider you must do it. I imported a level 50 character and finished ME2 level 28. My second playthrough, with 25% experience bonus, I can reach level 30 easily. So, I can easily say level 60 is not required.
On the other way, for hardcore gamers, the one able to do the games more than twice, it can be interesting to have a cap so hard to reach.



[quote]Ecael wrote...
I said to GET THE MOST SKILL POINTS. Getting the max skill points requires several playthroughs because you CANNOT put points in Charm or Intimidate to do so. You gain 1 point in Charm/Intimidate for becoming a Spectre, and then three more for filling up the Paragon or Renegade bar. There are *12* points in each bar to fill up. Your first two playthroughs make it almost impossible to fill up both bars each playthrough (unless you exploit certain bugs), and the next few playthroughs require you to choose extremely carefully in order to fill both up.

Note that this is well before BioWare said that your Paragon/Renegade carries over and not your Charm or Intimidate skill points. If I knew that, I could have just stopped playing upon finishing at Level 60.
[/quote]
Considering getting the most skill points is useful. I actually maxxed my Paragon far before my pistols (for a soldier) for instance. 

Now, talking about ME2, can you max your skill points ? 


[quote]Ecael wrote...
You don't need to compare anything because they made it quite clear which gun or upgrade was better for the situation. That way, you don't spend time deciding to upgrade something to I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, or X just because you found a different armor/ammo mod that seems a little better than the one before.[/quote]

I think it's fool that we should go on mass effect wikia to find weapons stats.


[quote]Ecael wrote...
Better than Shepard carrying 150 weapons, mods and armor in his magic clown-car pockets?[/quote]

Are you able to see grey ? Carrying 150 weapons is fool, but having an armory connected to the Normandy also is. Could we find grey solutions ? I liked the weapons system much in ME2, but I'm missing upgrade slot. 
The armories exist in the game because any weapon you find is the weapon you automatically chose. That should have been done differently.


[quote]Really?) you get just from killing stuff. It's not worth bypassing the mini-games for.[/quote]
Bypassing an hard mini game is 25 units. You hardly have 100 by just killing ennemies. Mean 4 minigames. Far less that you have to bypass. 
But I agree with you, there was far too much loot. We went from white to black again. Remove everything, THE solution ?

[quote]Ecael wrote...
Why do we even need ammo at all? You'd think that with the heat sink system they tried to retcon in Mass Effect 2, they could have assumed the best ammo was being used in each gun in ME1 to begin with - after all, they don't even need to reload.[/quote]
Strategically speaking, ammo is interesting. Now, ammo power is a shame. It just proves Bioware didn't find any skill to give to the characters with their new damn simple combat system.


[quote]Ecael wrote...
Not if you want the best import bonus going into ME2. With that import bonus (and/or Long Service achievement), ME2 takes one playthrough to get the maximum level with your character. After that, you can play the even harder version with New Game+ without any upgrades on Insanity or play another class.[/quote]
+25 %  Bonus is enough to reach level 30, even with a level 50 import players (and I'm sure, even with a all new character).

[quote]Ecael wrote...
To upgrade the Normandy's weapons, armor and guns? I don't think so. You have enough to buy those 3 Normandy upgrades and complete the entire game without ever having to touch the upgrade screen again - unless you want Heavy Weapons, of course. If having no upgrades is hard on Insanity, think of it as Insanity Plus - it's fun that way.[/quote]

So, UNLESS you want heavy weapons and weapons/biotic/tech upgrades, planet scanning is optional. Could you remember why it was not optional to scan for minerals in ME1 ? Isn't a biased view ?


[quote]You suggest that I lack memory or gaming skills, but you seem to have forgotten everything that was wrong about Mass Effect 1 and put on your rose-colored glasses to describe it here. And if you think I'm only capable of writing a troll list, I can write a term paper discussing why people shouldn't complain about all the improvements from ME1 to ME2. I'm quite good at writing term papers (and long lab reports) anyway. [/quote]

I don't think so. ME1 could be improved, no one will say something else. ME2 has to be improved, too. Both games are, and the solution is inside both games. ME1 was not a perfect game, and ME2 isn't either but you seem to put your rose-colored glasses to describe ME2. 


[quote]Ecael wrote...
BioWare has drastically simplified the game while retaining some RPG elements in Mass Effect 2. There's no reason that it will change back even more when the same gameplay team is going to be working on Mass Effect 3. They did, however, say they will try to make it more RPG than ME2.

BioWare will have to blatantly screw up if Mass Effect 3 is not an improvement from BOTH of the games before it.[/quote]

I agree with you. Even if I'm damn sure they're capable of screwing this up. Look at the hammerhead ! They are blind and more and more only-shooter oriented. That's worrying.


[quote][quote] Whether or not they want to please the majority, all elevators did was add a little more dialogue to the game - not all elevators had dialogue, after all.[/quote]
The elevators without loading screens were completely taken out of Mass Effect 2 both because it extended loading times AND glitched for a lot of people playing the game. [/quote]

Are you sure it extended loading times ? Do you really think it was not just what people were thinking ?
Loading screen is a glitch however. Whatever is the way you show it (elevators/loading screen), it's a glitch. The question is : whether you break immersion or not, whether you do something unique or you don't.
ME1 was unique, ME2 is common.

[quote]Mass Effect is not open-ended. Neither 1 or 2 is, and 3 definitely won't be. Oblivion and Fallout 3 are much more sandbox oriented, causing the actual storyline to suffer. The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series don't even continue the main plot with each game.[/quote]Mass Effect was more open-ended, not definitely as open-ended as Oblivion and Fallout, but definitely more than ME2. I really like ME2 mission even if damn linears, but I would actually like if I could go on a mission driving my hammerhead or mako. 
[quote]Great game includes exploration and immersion. If you're the type of player who always wants to go quicker and quicker in a game, not appreciating any moment of it when you don't have to kill an ennemy, you have to play games like Crysis because they're damn good shooters.[/quote][quote]Ecael wrote...
1. RPG/Shooter hybrid gameplay (yes, ME2 still has this)
2. Dialogue and continuous storyline
3. Character development

All three things are still in ME2. I don't need to roam empty planets with a useless vehicle or watch an slow elevator (Why are elevators slow in the future? This is more story-breaking than heat sinks).[/quote]

What else can I say ? You prefer immersion-breaking loading screen to slow elevators and you prefer no exploration at all to roaming empty planets.
Never you have considered grey in your "essay", as you like to call it. ME2 is a perfect game for you ? damn lucky you are, your demands are far lower than mine.

Modifié par Nolenthar, 23 mars 2010 - 09:14 .

[Nolenthar]

Ecael wrote...
6. All gaming companies, including EA, now believe in marketing for console games due to the prevalent piracy issues on PC.
7. Therefore, Mass Effect 3 will be focused on catering to the XBox 360.

Humm, do you mean there is no piracy on Xbox360 ? I must be living on Tuchanka so ... because I hardly know someone who has an unmodified Xbox 360 right here.

[Dethateer]

No, he meant that EA just uses piracy on the PC as a scapegoat for dumbing down games and cramming DRM into them. Whether piracy does exist or not on the Xbawks is irrelevant to them.

[Ecael]

Nolenthar wrote...

Ecael wrote...
6. All gaming companies, including EA, now believe in marketing for console games due to the prevalent piracy issues on PC.
7. Therefore, Mass Effect 3 will be focused on catering to the XBox 360.

Humm, do you mean there is no piracy on Xbox360 ? I must be living on Tuchanka so ... because I hardly know someone who has an unmodified Xbox 360 right here.

Please don't nitpick my sentences - I added the adjective 'prevalent' for a reason.

EA and most game publishers hate piracy, but they aren't worried at all about pirating on consoles because it's nowhere near as widespread as it is on the PC. That's why almost all efforts are directed toward copy protection/DRM on PC games.

A lot of games are becoming console-only because dealing with piracy is pointless effort for some of these companies, and the solutions to piracy only anger the PC gamers who actually buy the product.

My argument still stands. Mass Effect 3 will be much more like Mass Effect 2.