465 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

1Parmenides wrote...

Lot of whiners came to the forums when Oblivion first came out. But now that it's an old game, it's a pleasant crowd.

This forum will settle down after a while.

Pleasant how? meaning just a bunch of loyalists that all agree with each other? Pleasantville, not any town I would want to reside in. Rather have some ideas floating around that run counter to the currently accepted norm.

[javierabegazo]

Kalfear wrote...

hex23 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

The part where Bioware states ME1 was shooter first and RPG second!

Pretty simple, all the shooter fanatics make this claim so just make the link to where Bioware says Shooter dynamics more important then RPG dynamics in Mass Effect 1.

Im waiting

You don't need me to hold your hand, look at any of the interviews for "ME2". What do they talk about? How they perfected the shooter elements....how it's a lot closer to titles like "Gears Of War". I find it hard to believe you didn't see any of this, it was nonstop for about 12 months.

Did you play part 2? The whole entire game is Bioware's statement that it's a shooter first, RPG second. 90% of the reviews comparing it's game play to "Gears Of War" is a huge clue as well. Did they compare the game play to an RPG? Hell no. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

A dev video from 2006 show cased the squad based shooter game play from "ME1"....game play ideas they later perfected in "ME2". So like I said, the second game is how the first game was supposed to play.

http://www.youtube.c...gOcXeas#t=3m05s

What part of MASS EFFECT 1 dont you understand child?
So go hold something else of your own cause you aint getting those hands near my hands!

The statement was made that ME1 was a Shooter first and RPG second so show me the link to Bioware saying that or just admit you and yours full of caw caw and STFU!

Not indoendo that you readinging into and open for discussion. A Link on the Bioware site that says what you claiming!

We both know no link has ever existed

Get it?
Got it?
Good!

Alright Kalfear, I know how passionate you are about your side of the debate here but this kind of a post is not acceptable. I see one more post like this and I'll have to temp ban.

Keep it civil people

[SaranBlade]

-) missions screens,



All this does is provide a little bit more structure to the game.



-) loading screens,



Simply replacing elevators.



-) areas that become unplayable soon after you have finished a mission (some time with sudden "jumps" back to Normandy or the magical "press B" to end mission ),



ME1 had plenty of areas that were either a) unplayable after finishing them (see: Virmire, Thorian Lair, Peak 15) or worthless to return to after playing.



-) No more direct passage between ship and land/planets,



And?



-) Many many super short and super linear level with nothing to do (except shoot...)



Because having to drive the Mako across Presrop to get to the very basic, short, linear biotic cult base was an enriching experience.



-) Space "cut scenes" that are rendered with a different style



Style is a matter of preference. I liked it.



-) The impossbility to talk to your fellows during the missions



Granted.



-) Less inspired design



That is just not true. How is it uninspired? ME2 is a beautiful game.



-) Inferior cinematic-visual appeal (no anti-aliasing & no motion blur & different grain filter).



I didn't notice.



There's nothing "bland" about ME2. It's an excellent improvement. You can't have something both ways and imo ME2 just does things better overall.

[Tes4o]

Totally agree with you on this. ME2 is pretty good, but it falls short when compared to ME1 in terms of depth and story (IMO).

[i66er]

The overprieced GamesOnDemand ME1 running on a "Jasper" 360 is a true masterpiece.

Streamlined, patched and polished. Not flawless but WAY better than when it first came out.



imo ME2 is a long list of bad calls.



Buying ME2, for me was a matter of slaying one HUGE holy-cow.

I don`t buy games from EA.

So the only good thing in ME2 is that there is only a 5-10% chance that i`ll pick up ME3.



My 2 cents.

[Dreadstruck]

SaranBlade wrote...
snip.

Srsly? I don't see any valid counter-arguments in this.
In the end, it all depends on the taste, aye?:innocent:

Modifié par Avalla'ch, 28 mars 2010 - 11:22 .

[aries1001]

Seen from a different angle (and yes, I play adventure/puzzle games as well) imagine what adventure games would to do Frogware's (creator of many good Sherlock Holmes games), if they went and made a Sherlock Holmes that suddenly were a shooter FPS game, and maybe even throw in some action sequences for good measure. Frogwares would be, no not stoned, but flooded with polite letters, I believe.



This is just to say that I support the notion that a sequel should stay true to the original's game lay-out, design decision, game-play as well as art direction etc. From what I've read here on the forums (and elsewhere), people seem to be upset about the shooter aspects of the game being more prominent in ME2 than in ME1. As I remember it, Bioware said this from the start. If they only had said that the rpg element would be toned down a bit, then my best bet is this: We wouldn't discuss this as much as we do right now. And I, for one, would like to see Bioware make a great shooter game with an interesting and deep story...



To come back to adventure games for a moment, in the adventure gaming community, there has been an uproar during the last 2-4 years, because adventure games now (apparently) are being made in 3d more and more, even true 3d. People seem to have calmed down a bit, accepting that this is how adventures games are made - today.

[Patrickblah]

i agree some what i prefer me1 but gameplay wise me2 is better. the 2nd one was fun but the first had a better story rpg elements because i love sniping with explosive rounds

[Cousland001]

jeez people quit arguing. You're making Bioware Mad
Everyone is entitiled to their own opinion
I personally liked ME2 but i respect DreDk's opinion

Modifié par Cousland001, 28 mars 2010 - 10:24 .

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Patrickblah wrote...

i agree some what i prefer me1 but gameplay wise me2 is better. the 2nd one was fun but the first had a better story rpg elements because i love sniping with explosive rounds

Agree, if only Bioware knew how to keep what works and cut what was useless then maybe we would get the game we all hoped for.

[Jaysonie]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Patrickblah wrote...

i agree some what i prefer me1 but gameplay wise me2 is better. the 2nd one was fun but the first had a better story rpg elements because i love sniping with explosive rounds

Agree, if only Bioware knew how to keep what works and cut what was useless then maybe we would get the game we all hoped for.

Dont use we, because quite a few of us got the game we hoped for.

[KotOREffecT]

Jaysonie wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Patrickblah wrote...

i agree some what i prefer me1 but gameplay wise me2 is better. the 2nd one was fun but the first had a better story rpg elements because i love sniping with explosive rounds

Agree, if only Bioware knew how to keep what works and cut what was useless then maybe we would get the game we all hoped for.

Dont use we, because quite a few of us got the game we hoped for.

Exactly.

[implodinggoat]

ME1 and ME2 both have their strengths and weaknesses. ME1 had a better story, more meaningful choices, and better character, squad, armor, and weapon customization. ME2 has a vastly more entertaining combat system, a less clunky inventory (though perhaps oversimplified), and a collection of weapons and powers which provide far more variety than their ME1 counterparts.



Overall I'd say that ME2 is the superior game due to the more entertaining combat; but ME1 (like KOTOR) has a soft spot in my heart that ME2 doesn't. ME1 was the more ambitious game, while ME2 was the better executed game. Somewhere between the two lies perfection.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Jaysonie wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Patrickblah wrote...

i agree some what i prefer me1 but gameplay wise me2 is better. the 2nd one was fun but the first had a better story rpg elements because i love sniping with explosive rounds

Agree, if only Bioware knew how to keep what works and cut what was useless then maybe we would get the game we all hoped for.

Dont use we, because quite a few of us got the game we hoped for.

You can lie to yourself as much as you want but this was not what ME1 fans were expecting. But if you are the kind to have low expectations on Bioware games then i don´t, so there we agree that we disagree.

[PseudoEthnic]

implodinggoat wrote...

ME1 and ME2 both have their strengths and weaknesses. ME1 had a better story, more meaningful choices, and better character, squad, armor, and weapon customization. ME2 has a vastly more entertaining combat system, a less clunky inventory (though perhaps oversimplified), and a collection of weapons and powers which provide far more variety than their ME1 counterparts.

Overall I'd say that ME2 is the superior game due to the more entertaining combat; but ME1 (like KOTOR) has a soft spot in my heart that ME2 doesn't. ME1 was the more ambitious game, while ME2 was the better executed game. Somewhere between the two lies perfection.

This. I'm playing ME1 again right now, and while I think that ME2 is a better game, ME1 has that special something that keeps bringing me back.

[HexHammer]

Imo ME2 is a downgrade in many ways, sure some of the gameplay elements are streamlined and a bit better overall, but the enviroment is a huge downgrade.

[HexHammer]

Skipable cutscenes! It kills me to watch all that trash over each time I try to make a new face.

[KotOREffecT]

HexHammer wrote...

the enviroment is a huge downgrade.

..

[HexHammer]

Imo the Citadel was a downgrade, no huge lush areas, no animated loading screens but static pictures ..etc.



ME2 just feels like a good story without all the little things that ME1 had.

[Radwar]

I've played ME1 5 times now (even played ME1 again after finishing ME2), and I've played ME2 two times and can't get myself to play it again so I can complete it with my renegade character even if I haven't tried the Firewalker DLC.

Although they made a few improvements over ME1, for me, they made so many bad changes that I consider ME2 a stepback overall.

[SymbolicGamer]

Radwar wrote...

I've played ME1 5 times now (even played ME1 again after finishing ME2), and I've played ME2 two times and can't get myself to play it again so I can complete it with my renegade character even if I haven't tried the Firewalker DLC.
Although they made a few improvements over ME1, for me, they made so many bad changes that I consider ME2 a stepback overall.

lol "Bad changes". I haven't checked your games page, but I bet you bought the game for the PC. I'll edit this message after I do.

Edit

Games Registered to Radwar

../../../../images/icons/bw_games/masseffect2_16.png
Mass Effect 2 - PC

What a surprise.

Why is it that so many PC gamers hate any kind of change?

Bioware is only making the game better for you.

Modifié par SymbolicGamer, 31 mars 2010 - 03:03 .

[KotOREffecT]

HexHammer wrote...

Imo the Citadel was a downgrade, no huge lush areas, no animated loading screens but static pictures ..etc.

ME2 just feels like a good story without all the little things that ME1 had.

ME 2 actually had a ton of very nicely detailed environments, esp the N7 Missions. And as far as hubs go, Omega for example, was very atmospheric, and def spot on as far as attention to detail goes. Illium was as well, and the Citadel felt more personal, like it wasn't as big, but it was nicley populated and very cramp in a homey way.

[TJSolo]

KotOREffecT wrote...

HexHammer wrote...

Imo the Citadel was a downgrade, no huge lush areas, no animated loading screens but static pictures ..etc.

ME2 just feels like a good story without all the little things that ME1 had.

ME 2 actually had a ton of very nicely detailed environments, esp the N7 Missions. And as far as hubs go, Omega for example, was very atmospheric, and def spot on as far as attention to detail goes. Illium was as well, and the Citadel felt more personal, like it wasn't as big, but it was nicley populated and very cramp in a homey way.

Explaining that ME2 has some detailed areas in noway answers HexHammer since his comment was about huge lush areas. The Citadel in ME2 is not a huge area. It appears size > convenience for some people.
ME1 areas are just as detailed as ME2, ME2 is just condensed and concentrated in smaller areas.

[KotOREffecT]

TJSolo wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

HexHammer wrote...

Imo the Citadel was a downgrade, no huge lush areas, no animated loading screens but static pictures ..etc.

ME2 just feels like a good story without all the little things that ME1 had.

ME 2 actually had a ton of very nicely detailed environments, esp the N7 Missions. And as far as hubs go, Omega for example, was very atmospheric, and def spot on as far as attention to detail goes. Illium was as well, and the Citadel felt more personal, like it wasn't as big, but it was nicley populated and very cramp in a homey way.

Explaining that ME2 has some detailed areas in noway answers HexHammer since his comment was about huge lush areas. The Citadel in ME2 is not a huge area. It appears size > convenience for some people.
ME1 areas are just as detailed as ME2, ME2 is just condensed and concentrated in smaller areas.

Yea they weren't as big, I think it had a lot to do with them using a lot of the hubs areas for the recuit/loyalty missions, which is why they did not "appear" as big as the Citadel. But they weren't that small, and they got the job done. Like Omega, I like how you can go below it and end up in the club for example. In general though, the hubs were still pretty in-depth esp during missions and had as much soul as the Citadel did dispite not being "lush". This was a darker game too. Plus the Citadel in ME 2 had a far more colorful futuristic vibe going for it, esp with the large vids with movie trailers and advertisments.

The hubs were just as good as ME 1, just not as big. But hey, if we could somehow get 4 huge hubs in ME 3, then thats even better!

[TJSolo]

KotOREffecT wrote...

Yea they weren't as big, I think it had a lot to do with them using a lot of the hubs areas for the recuit/loyalty missions, which is why they did not "appear" as big as the Citadel. But they weren't that small, and they got the job done. Like Omega, I like how you can go below it and end up in the club for example. In general though, the hubs were still pretty in-depth esp during missions and had as much soul as the Citadel did dispite not being "lush". This was a darker game too. Plus the Citadel in ME 2 had a far more colorful futuristic vibe going for it, esp with the large vids with movie trailers and advertisments.

The hubs were just as good as ME 1, just not as big. But hey, if we could somehow get 4 huge hubs in ME 3, then thats even better!

Without getting into this further basically,
Larger hubs that better represent the scale of the universe and area are better than seemingly small hubs only to convenience the player.