163 réponses à ce sujet

[MassAffected]

Qwepir wrote...

Qwepir wrote...
Despite being the "main bad guys", you fight the Collectors on about 3 missions in the whole game, whereas in Mass 1, you fought geth at least once on each story mission.

Could it be that the Reapers who control the Collectors didn't want a bunch of people knowing about what they were trying to acomplish? They didn't want to be seen running around and harvesting entire human settlements? If they were caught then it would only serve to support Shepard's warnings and help unite the galaxy against the Reaper threat.

[bjdbwea]

A better question would be: What's with the positive reviews? I would not say that ME 2 is a bad game, despite my personal disappointment it's certainly still better than 90% of the crap that sells so well.

That said, does anyone honestly believe ME 2 is BioWare's best game yet? Like, honestly? The "professional" reviewers at least seem to suggest nothing less. Which certainly doesn't improve my opinion on the game, but lowers my opinion on the reviewers even further.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 mars 2010 - 11:48 .

[MassAffected]

bjdbwea wrote...

A better question would be: What's with the positive reviews? I would not say that ME 2 is a bad game, despite my personal disappointment it's certainly still better than 90% of the crap that sells so well.

That said, does anyone honestly believe ME 2 is BioWare's best game yet? Like, honestly? The "professional" reviewers at least seem to suggest nothing less. Which certainly doesn't improve my opinion on the game, but lowers my opinion on the reviewers even further.

I do, in fact, its my favorite game TO DATE that I have EVER played.

[bjdbwea]

Good for you. If you actually played all BioWare games and still come to that conclusion, I certainly respect your opinion, even though I strongly disagree with it.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 mars 2010 - 11:53 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

bjdbwea wrote...

A better question would be: What's with the positive reviews? I would not say that ME 2 is a bad game, despite my personal disappointment it's certainly still better than 90% of the crap that sells so well.

That said, does anyone honestly believe ME 2 is BioWare's best game yet? Like, honestly? The "professional" reviewers at least seem to suggest nothing less. Which certainly doesn't improve my opinion on the game, but decreases my opinion on the reviewers even further.

Yes and no.

Yes: What has been accomplished in ME2 as far as character interaction has never been seen in a Bioware RPG before. Every Bioware game before this has you and one other character standing exactly opposite each other, not moving one bit...until you have sex with your LI. In this, I see ME2 being revolutionary. Future Bioware games could be made so much better if your party members would move realistically, just as they talk realistically. So I think it has great potential.

No: This honestly is Bioware's weakest game plot. But I think this is also because we're used to getting a new universe with every Bioware game. Returning to the same one- there will just never as much to learn as the first time.

Baldur's Gate aside, they've never really done a video game sequel. I think they wanted to avoid the same structured story-line that they give in ME1 (and most other games). They just didn't execute it that well.

[DarthCaine]

bjdbwea wrote...

That said, does anyone honestly believe ME 2 is BioWare's best game yet?

Some people do, but IMO it's BioWare's second best game (KOTOR>ME2)
(I never finished BG since I could stand the isometric view and there's almost no voice acting)

[Ragnadaam]

MassAffected wrote...

Qwepir wrote...

Qwepir wrote...
Despite being the "main bad guys", you fight the Collectors on about 3 missions in the whole game, whereas in Mass 1, you fought geth at least once on each story mission.

Could it be that the Reapers who control the Collectors didn't want a bunch of people knowing about what they were trying to acomplish? They didn't want to be seen running around and harvesting entire human settlements? If they were caught then it would only serve to support Shepard's warnings and help unite the galaxy against the Reaper threat.

Nah brah.Apparently they were sloppy once and let one of their swarm bugs get caught,see Mordin's purpose for being on the ship.Even if they were presented as evidence to the Council they'd still dismiss them as being with the Reapes,because last time I checked Collecters weren't Reapers .There's no reason we should'nt have fought them more,it would've added more urgency to our mission of protecting humanity.Besides I've never understood why the Collectors weren't a big threat in me1.You'd think if Soveriegn was gonna storm the Citadel he'd bring along everyone he could but that was probl just one of those bad plot devices <_<,like the Collectors not noticing the escape pods on the Normandy shooting off.

[Ragnarok Ekul]

Ragnadaam wrote...

MassAffected wrote...

Qwepir wrote...

Qwepir wrote...
Despite being the "main bad guys", you fight the Collectors on about 3 missions in the whole game, whereas in Mass 1, you fought geth at least once on each story mission.

Could it be that the Reapers who control the Collectors didn't want a bunch of people knowing about what they were trying to acomplish? They didn't want to be seen running around and harvesting entire human settlements? If they were caught then it would only serve to support Shepard's warnings and help unite the galaxy against the Reaper threat.

Nah brah.Apparently they were sloppy once and let one of their swarm bugs get caught,see Mordin's purpose for being on the ship.Even if they were presented as evidence to the Council they'd still dismiss them as being with the Reapes,because last time I checked Collecters weren't Reapers .There's no reason we should'nt have fought them more,it would've added more urgency to our mission of protecting humanity.Besides I've never understood why the Collectors weren't a big threat in me1.You'd think if Soveriegn was gonna storm the Citadel he'd bring along everyone he could but that was probl just one of those bad plot devices <_<,like the Collectors not noticing the escape pods on the Normandy shooting off.

dont mess with the Rag, he's my long lost game avatar cousin

[Halmiriliath]

I must admit, I'm a little perplexed as to how some people have decried Mass Effect 2 as a break from the immersive mould the original made and is instead some disgraceful sham that 'panders' to fans of 'shooter' games. It's entirely down to individual interpretation, but I personally feel that the sequel improved on almost every aspect of the first Mass Effect, as JeanLuc761 says. I don't feel that the character of the franchise was in any way negatively altered. Far from it, actually.

On my most recent playthrough of the original I was again struck by just how awesome the end sequence of the game - meaning Virmire, Ilos and the Citadel - was. But what I also noticed was what I thought was a massive immersion hole between commandeering the Normandy when Anderson steps down and your arrival at Virmire. At this point, we are sent to barely inhabited planets where dialogue becomes minimal and most people can't wait to see the back of you. Now I know there is a point to that - what with people fearing Spectres and the trouble they usually bring - but we only really have one hubworld where you can get a chance to immerse yourself in a crowd and really get a sense of the Mass Effect universe without having to consult the codex. Not only that, the side missions take place in identical barren locations where you end up morbidly thinking that the only people that exist in the universe are your squad and the generic enemies that you're pumping lead into. Mass Effect 2 has four main hubs - the Citadel, Ilium, Omega and Tuchanka - each with a plethora of interesting characters that you can interact with and, that for me at least, were really enjoyable. There is also for me very little in the way of a let-up between the start and the end of the game that I felt quite keenly in the original. I might even throw caution to the wind and say that in my opinion there is less emphasis on combat in Mass Effect 2 than in the first instalment, or at least in the way I played them.

I guess what I'm also trying to say - in a convoluted sort of way - is that we're dealing with the legacy of the first Mass Effect and the way it concluded. You could have taken the franchise almost anywhere in the second instalment, so there are bound to be some people that are disgruntled by the direction it actually took and the way some popular characters from the first were side-lined. But bleh, I'm running out of steam here - if you hadn't already guessed - so I'll leave it at that for the moment...

[Ragnadaam]

Ragnarok Ekul wrote...



dont mess with the Rag, he's my long lost game avatar cousin

Why hello thar,nice name .

[javierabegazo]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

A lot of people werent impressed by ME2. That so hard to believe?

Bioware went overboard in many areas, and the game itself is above all else tailored towards shooter fans as an out and out shooter game.

Plus some people were less than impressed by the story and characters and oft touted "impressive carryover" that fell totally flat.

Just because it scored numerous biased and ridiculous 10/10 doesnt mean the game doesnt majorly suck in many respects. It just takes real gamers to pick up on it, not folks whose paychecks are riding on their views.

What's even more silly about this is, practically every ME2 Preview article kept boasting about how Conrad Vernor was back in ME2, and despite him being back, he has a negative reaction to Shepard no matter your actions in ME1, really dropped the ball there

[geekeffect]

I think there are some perspective issues to be considered.

First, you may find some blatant negative reviews on these boards, but there are lots of examples of constructive criticism as well that I hope BioWare is taking note of.

Most of all, the main reason why many fans of ME1 are reacting with such intense sensitivity regarding gameplay changes has to do, quite simply, with the fact that it was such a successful game in the first place. Lots of people got very passionate about the wonderful ideas that came together in Mass Effect. And inevitably, as they played Mass Effect 2, they confronted it with their own ideas and expectations towards the game. I confess I did the same thing as I played ME2 for the first time. And there were things I thought didn't quite match that vision.

But I also believe that if you accept the game for what it is and take time to appreciate the many wonderful things, details, storylines being presented, you have to recognise this is a wonderful game that, in many ways, actually surpasses ME1. Having said that, I also think BioWare streamlined the game too much, but on the other hand, ME2 is a more focused game, most of its missions serve the main narrative, and in that regard, it's much bigger than ME1. So where ME2 seems to be inferior is because it doesn't feel so open, the universe as wide, because most of the time in ME1 you were wondering around in secondary planets doing secondary stuff that had no real impact on the main storyline.

In conclusion, I think most of the fans that are disappointed are allowing their perceptions and expectations get in the way of appreciating ME2 for what it is. I'm not saying it doesn't have its flaws. Yes many levels are too linear, there is an emphasis on action and less on exploration. And when did the Citadel became a mall? The Citadel is one of the great examples of what ME2 seems to be doing wrong. It's what conquered us all in ME1. We wanted to see more of it, and we don't get the same feeling from Omega or Illium. They seem huge but it feels like the game doesn't quite lets us go too far. The fact that the game is constructed in sections reinforces that sense of limitation, which gives the player a contrived feeling that is unnatural to a certain rpg essence that is to be expected. And if you get too attached to that you may disregard the wonderful details and stories present in ME2.

Basically, we all expected ME2 to be perfect, and we all had different ideas of what that would be. And ME2 isn't perfect, but it evolves in many ways and hopefully BioWare will go the extra mile in ME3. This trilogy deserves it. And, still, for reasons I can't quite explain rationally yet, ME1+2 are my favorite games ever and the ones I always seem to be able to go back without loosing interest. I've played many games that I consider great but these are the ones I don't seem to get tired of playing.

[lastpawn]

bjdbwea wrote...

A better question would be: What's with the positive reviews? I would not say that ME 2 is a bad game, despite my personal disappointment it's certainly still better than 90% of the crap that sells so well.

That said, does anyone honestly believe ME 2 is BioWare's best game yet? Like, honestly? The "professional" reviewers at least seem to suggest nothing less. Which certainly doesn't improve my opinion on the game, but lowers my opinion on the reviewers even further.

Hmm, did BW make Planescape: Torment? Because if they didn't, yes.

[Xephyr829]

geekeffect wrote...

I think there are some perspective issues to be considered.
First, you may find some blatant negative reviews on these boards, but there are lots of examples of constructive criticism as well that I hope BioWare is taking note of.
Most of all, the main reason why many fans of ME1 are reacting with such intense sensitivity regarding gameplay changes has to do, quite simply, with the fact that it was such a successful game in the first place. Lots of people got very passionate about the wonderful ideas that came together in Mass Effect. And inevitably, as they played Mass Effect 2, they confronted it with their own ideas and expectations towards the game. I confess I did the same thing as I played ME2 for the first time. And there were things I thought didn't quite match that vision.
But I also believe that if you accept the game for what it is and take time to appreciate the many wonderful things, details, storylines being presented, you have to recognise this is a wonderful game that, in many ways, actually surpasses ME1. Having said that, I also think BioWare streamlined the game too much, but on the other hand, ME2 is a more focused game, most of its missions serve the main narrative, and in that regard, it's much bigger than ME1. So where ME2 seems to be inferior is because it doesn't feel so open, the universe as wide, because most of the time in ME1 you were wondering around in secondary planets doing secondary stuff that had no real impact on the main storyline.
In conclusion, I think most of the fans that are disappointed are allowing their perceptions and expectations get in the way of appreciating ME2 for what it is. I'm not saying it doesn't have its flaws. Yes many levels are too linear, there is an emphasis on action and less on exploration. And when did the Citadel became a mall? The Citadel is one of the great examples of what ME2 seems to be doing wrong. It's what conquered us all in ME1. We wanted to see more of it, and we don't get the same feeling from Omega or Illium. They seem huge but it feels like the game doesn't quite lets us go too far. The fact that the game is constructed in sections reinforces that sense of limitation, which gives the player a contrived feeling that is unnatural to a certain rpg essence that is to be expected. And if you get too attached to that you may disregard the wonderful details and stories present in ME2.
Basically, we all expected ME2 to be perfect, and we all had different ideas of what that would be. And ME2 isn't perfect, but it evolves in many ways and hopefully BioWare will go the extra mile in ME3. This trilogy deserves it. And, still, for reasons I can't quite explain rationally yet, ME1+2 are my favorite games ever and the ones I always seem to be able to go back without loosing interest. I've played many games that I consider great but these are the ones I don't seem to get tired of playing.

WOW.......well said ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Damn good post, Geek.

[MassAffected]

Thanks for that post geek!

[JamieCOTC]

I don't consider loot, inventory, etc to be a big element of "rpgs." For my money, Mass Effect 2, wonderful as it is, is a TPS at its core. I would have liked more actual character and role playing in the game and side missions that mattered. Then again I'm an old school, pen and paper D&D player.

[PseudoEthnic]

I love both ME1 and ME2 immensely. Both got their positives and negatives. I wonder why every person who has a negative opinion on ME2 has an attitude of "If you like this game, then you're dumb." Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong, but that's what I get from them. Mainly because a lot of you don't even mention the positives of the second game, and focus heavily on the negative. I will agree that the second game focuses a lot more on action than story.



Personally, I have no problem with this from a gameplay POV. Story-wise, it's a meh. I have no problem with simple stories, and it's not that ME2's story is terrible. It's just that it felt like BioWare tried too hard to get the whole 'Dirty Dozen' feel when the end result was half the crew having less depth the first game. Garrus barely had anything to say, and he felt like he was a carbon copy of himself from the first game. Not to mention that I was disappointed that my Paragon Shepard didn't persuade Garrus away from being a renegade in the second game, when in the first game, he thanks you for helping him go down a better path.



I'm glad that my favorite character Tali was improved in the second game, but much like the first game, you almost can't avoid being in a romance with her( or any other female for that matter) without cutting yourself from ever having a conversation with them again. Now, I have no problem with being with Tali (always wanted to), but it would have been nice to just have a nice conversation with my crew without somehow leading them down the path that my Shepard wants to bump uglies.



I didn't like how Ashely or Kaidan were handled in this game. Why is it that Garrus and Tali trust Shepard enough to join his crew in the game, but not those two? The writers could have thought up a better explanation then what was in the game. I'm in the minority who says that they're fine with how Liara was handled in ME2. I'll explain this in another thread.



Overall, I think both games are fantastic, and I hope that BioWare mixes the best of both, and help make ME3 the best game ever.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

PseudoEthnic wrote...

I didn't like how Ashely or Kaidan were handled in this game. Why is it that Garrus and Tali trust Shepard enough to join his crew in the game, but not those two? The writers could have thought up a better explanation then what was in the game. I'm in the minority who says that they're fine with how Liara was handled in ME2. I'll explain this in another thread.

Overall, I think both games are fantastic, and I hope that BioWare mixes the best of both, and help make ME3 the best game ever.

In regards to this, I don't think it was just a matter of trust. Garrus has always been on the verge of the Vigilante kick. Unlike the other characters who all had other matters to return to, Garrus' main concern always was bringing justice.

The interpretation I got (granted I've only done it with Ashley) is that she had alot of emotions she was keeping bottled up. She had already heard vague rumors about you being alive, after watching you get spaced. As a love interest, that's not easy. When you do come back, she finds you helping Cerberus. Even in the first game, Ashley has always been emotional and taken things personally. This doesn't excuse her lack of integration in the main plot, but I did like the fact that she didn't join up with you again, so your character has to deal with 'temptation' such as Miranda, etc.

[Ecael]

bjdbwea wrote...

A better question would be: What's with the positive reviews? I would not say that ME 2 is a bad game, despite my personal disappointment it's certainly still better than 90% of the crap that sells so well.

That said, does anyone honestly believe ME 2 is BioWare's best game yet? Like, honestly? The "professional" reviewers at least seem to suggest nothing less. Which certainly doesn't improve my opinion on the game, but lowers my opinion on the reviewers even further.

Well, you can accuse them of being paid to give it a higher score, but that wouldn't explain why a publisher like EA can't do that for every game they publish. Plus, a reviewer plays many games as "work", so there's no reason why they wouldn't hate a game even if they were getting a salary to review them.

Mass Effect 2 is BioWare's highest rated game ever, with almost all critics giving it a great score.

I think the biggest problem with many who are disapppointed with ME2 is that they don't recognize that the features that make BioWare and Mass Effect great as a whole are still there. However, they've become used to seeing those features and think that any other game can replicate what BioWare does, so they start nitpicking at all the other changes as if they were made to make the game worse.

[Badpie]

Ecael wrote...



I think the biggest problem with many who are disapppointed with ME2 is that they don't recognize that the features that make BioWare and Mass Effect great as a whole are still there. However, they've become used to seeing those features and think that any other game can replicate what BioWare does, so they start nitpicking at all the other changes as if they were made to make the game worse.

Those aspects are definitely still there, but I also recognize that they occasionally take a back seat.  And they do.  And that's a little disappointing in a way considering those aspects are some of Bioware's greatest strengths.

[Halmiriliath]

Ecael wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is BioWare's highest rated game ever, with almost all critics giving it a great score.

And, without wishing to come across as presumptuous or offensive, I think this might also be one of the reasons people are quick to slate Mass Effect 2: because it's been so successful. Commercial success of what some see as a niche market item can, and has, often been interpreted as the producers selling out. The higher someone places something on a pedestal, the quicker people are to try and knock it down. Look at what happened with Avatar...

[Commander_David]

Mass effect 2 is the second coming of well.. yeah anyway its a great game anyone who dont agree can well go.. yeah.

[PseudoEthnic]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

In regards to this, I don't think it was just a matter of trust. Garrus has always been on the verge of the Vigilante kick. Unlike the other characters who all had other matters to return to, Garrus' main concern always was bringing justice.

Okay, I can understand this. It's just that it felt like after ME1, you think he would have a different way of going out and serving justice rather than just shooting the next guy who does something wrong.

The interpretation I got (granted I've only done it with Ashley) is that she had alot of emotions she was keeping bottled up. She had already heard vague rumors about you being alive, after watching you get spaced. As a love interest, that's not easy. When you do come back, she finds you helping Cerberus. Even in the first game, Ashley has always been emotional and taken things personally. This doesn't excuse her lack of integration in the main plot, but I did like the fact that she didn't join up with you again, so your character has to deal with 'temptation' such as Miranda, etc.

I can understand that, and Ashely was my love interest in the first game( I moved on to Tali, though.) However, I can't help but feel that Ashely was being too emotional about it. Plus, her talk about being loyal to the Alliance to the point where she said that it's "in her blood," I can't  but wish that my Shepard had the ability to address her on her so-called "loyality." It would be like, "You do realize that two years ago we betrayed our superiors to not only continue to pursue an intergalatic terrorist, but also did so in an Alliance ship that we've illegally taken? Not only that, but if we stayed loyal back then, we would all be dead from either the geth attacks or the Reaper invasion. I'm just saying."

[GuardianAngel470]

Badpie wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

DrunkenGoon wrote...

Real gamers? I think anyone paid reviewer or not has different opinions on the game.. The fact is reviewers are use to playing all kinds of games.. So they know what makes a great game overall without being bias and saying it "sucks" because it has changed from being focused mainly on RPG elements to shooter elements..

I would say the "real gamers" you are reffering to are the ones who are biased, die hard RPG fans who can't appreciate a good game when it comes out. Now I'm not a super RPG fan or a super Shooter fan.. But ME2 is one of the best games I have ever played.. period. Simply my opinion.. and I'm sure you have yours.. and so will everyone else.

Real gamers pay out of their own pocket. Reviewers who pose as real gamers get money put into their pockets to give their opinions. Id trust someone who pays, not who is paid, to get views on a game any day of the week.

Thats all there is to it. I have absolutely no respect or interest in the opinion of reviewers. Its surprising how much is glorified marketing these days.

I'm with you on this one, Dink.  Even if the reviewers are right and I agree with them (and I do on a lot of things for ME2) they're still getting paid.

They are indeed getting paid, but it is important to note by whom.  They get paid regardless of how they score the game, it is a profession that doesn't work on commission.  Bioware isn't paying them and neither are any of the game developers who submit their games for review.  That means that the reviewers opinion is just that, his opinion. it isn't colored by the fact that he is getting paid, his salary is meaningless.