465 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

yoomazir wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

yoomazir wrote...

how so?

Because it's designed for consoles.

That said, it's still much better system than ME1.

I always thought that the "console" accusation was always wrong, there are consoles rpgs that have good inventory mechanics. Don't blame the consoles, blame de developers then.

It is one of those fallacies some people are trying to circulate. 

[Gaelem]

I agree with most of the original post ME2 lost something from ME1 and I think it was the grandeur of the first one. It's on rails for all of the real game.

[Vena_86]

aksoileau wrote...

ME2 >>>>> ME1

Thats oversimplification and doesnt bring the discussion anywhere. A project of that magnitude has many variables to consider and ME1 has aspects which are better, just like ME2 has aspects that are better. The point of the feedback is filtering out the good and the bad.
For example, noone every complains about the smoother, improved combat mechanics of ME2 but alot of complains or rather negative feedback are directed towards the scaled back immersion and character progression, which can not be denied.

Furthermore, BioWare broke the flow within a franchise and directed the series into another direction. That might be to the liking of the casual majority but it feels like a creative sellout. If ME1 had the design of the sequel and vice versa, there would be the same problem. If the sequel would follow the footsteps of the original game and another franchise would open, aimed at a different target audience the problem would be non-existent.

[hex23]

Vena_86 wrote...

Thats oversimplification and doesnt bring the discussion anywhere. A project of that magnitude has many variables to consider and ME1 has aspects which are better, just like ME2 has aspects that are better. The point of the feedback is filtering out the good and the bad.
For example, noone every complains about the smoother, improved combat mechanics of ME2 but alot of complains or rather negative feedback are directed towards the scaled back immersion and character progression, which can not be denied.

Furthermore, BioWare broke the flow within a franchise and directed the series into another direction. That might be to the liking of the casual majority but it feels like a creative sellout. If ME1 had the design of the sequel and vice versa, there would be the same problem. If the sequel would follow the footsteps of the original game and another franchise would open, aimed at a different target audience the problem would be non-existent.

As I said before, "ME1" was a shooter/RPG made for the 360. It was a shooter first and foremost, this is especially obvious given how much Bioware talked about improving the shooter elements for "ME2". People weren't paying attention or something, because they talked about that 90% of the time, not the RPG elements.

So "ME2" is what "ME1" was supposed to be. It's not a matter of "changing the franchise"....the franchise was always meant to be more like "ME2" than "ME1". Could "ME3" use more RPG elements, loot, "stats", etc? Definitely. But this is a "Gears Of War" style console shooter with RPG elements, not the other way around.

[Kalfear]

hex23 wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

Thats oversimplification and doesnt bring the discussion anywhere. A project of that magnitude has many variables to consider and ME1 has aspects which are better, just like ME2 has aspects that are better. The point of the feedback is filtering out the good and the bad.
For example, noone every complains about the smoother, improved combat mechanics of ME2 but alot of complains or rather negative feedback are directed towards the scaled back immersion and character progression, which can not be denied.

Furthermore, BioWare broke the flow within a franchise and directed the series into another direction. That might be to the liking of the casual majority but it feels like a creative sellout. If ME1 had the design of the sequel and vice versa, there would be the same problem. If the sequel would follow the footsteps of the original game and another franchise would open, aimed at a different target audience the problem would be non-existent.

As I said before, "ME1" was a shooter/RPG made for the 360. It was a shooter first and foremost, this is especially obvious given how much Bioware talked about improving the shooter elements for "ME2". People weren't paying attention or something, because they talked about that 90% of the time, not the RPG elements.

So "ME2" is what "ME1" was supposed to be. It's not a matter of "changing the franchise"....the franchise was always meant to be more like "ME2" than "ME1". Could "ME3" use more RPG elements, loot, "stats", etc? Definitely. But this is a "Gears Of War" style console shooter with RPG elements, not the other way around.

Please point me to one peice of lititure that says what you are claiming

[TJSolo]

Kalfear wrote...

hex23 wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

Thats oversimplification and doesnt bring the discussion anywhere. A project of that magnitude has many variables to consider and ME1 has aspects which are better, just like ME2 has aspects that are better. The point of the feedback is filtering out the good and the bad.
For example, noone every complains about the smoother, improved combat mechanics of ME2 but alot of complains or rather negative feedback are directed towards the scaled back immersion and character progression, which can not be denied.

Furthermore, BioWare broke the flow within a franchise and directed the series into another direction. That might be to the liking of the casual majority but it feels like a creative sellout. If ME1 had the design of the sequel and vice versa, there would be the same problem. If the sequel would follow the footsteps of the original game and another franchise would open, aimed at a different target audience the problem would be non-existent.

As I said before, "ME1" was a shooter/RPG made for the 360. It was a shooter first and foremost, this is especially obvious given how much Bioware talked about improving the shooter elements for "ME2". People weren't paying attention or something, because they talked about that 90% of the time, not the RPG elements.

So "ME2" is what "ME1" was supposed to be. It's not a matter of "changing the franchise"....the franchise was always meant to be more like "ME2" than "ME1". Could "ME3" use more RPG elements, loot, "stats", etc? Definitely. But this is a "Gears Of War" style console shooter with RPG elements, not the other way around.

Please point me to one peice of lititure that says what you are claiming

Good luck with that. The 360 Shooter  v PC RPG pamphlet one comes printed in crazy ink and only those that are crazy are able to read it. I thought shooters performed better on the PC, just like everything else.

[Keymonk]

DOOOOM!

[hex23]

Kalfear wrote...

Please point me to one peice of lititure that says what you are claiming

Which part? It's a 360 game that was ported to PC 6 months later, by a different dev (Demiurge). So, the franchise is a console game. That simple enough to understand?

Bioware has talked about improving the shooter elements of the sequel nonstop since the "Shepard was KIA" trailer was released. Do me a favor, look for "ME2" interviews talking about beefing up the shooter elements, then look for dev interviews talking about the RPG elements. The "shooter" topic outnumbers the "RPG" one, about 10:1.

Hell if you want to get technical one of the very first dev videos for "ME1" showed off the squad commands that never actually made it to the first game....squad commands exactly like the ones in "ME2".

So, game play-wise it's a console shooter/RPG. It's pretty easy to comprehend, especially given how "ME2" turned out. No, it's not something Bioware wanted to do, it's definitely EA's fault, or those damn "console fans", or some other ridiculous conspiracy theory, despite the fact that dev diaries from a year before "ME1" came out show close to the same shooter elements they later used in "ME2".

Modifié par hex23, 25 mars 2010 - 08:38 .

[Pocketgb]

Gaelem wrote...

I agree with most of the original post ME2 lost something from ME1 and I think it was the grandeur of the first one. It's on rails for all of the real game.

There's one problem that ME2 faces, that exists in many, many games, and the "problem" is simple:
It's not new.
This is not to say "THAT'S THE CAUSE OF ALL YOUR PROBLEMS", rather maybe enlighten some of those who say that ME2 has "lost feeling".

Nothing's gonna be able to replace the feeling you first get when you go through the Citadel seeing all the awesome holographic ads and insane colors, the music when you get when going into C-Sec, that familiar bassy beat when you're on the long bridge in Feros, or the hard as hell decision you make on Virmire.

Nostalgia's pretty cool but a lot of people mistake it for quality. My experience with ME2 is definitely not as paramount as ME1, but it is overall a much more fleshed-out game.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 25 mars 2010 - 07:37 .

[TJSolo]

Pocketgb wrote...

Gaelem wrote...

I agree with most of the original post ME2 lost something from ME1 and I think it was the grandeur of the first one. It's on rails for all of the real game.

There's one problem that ME2 faces, that exists in many, many games, and the "problem" is simple:
It's not new.
This is not to say "THAT'S THE CAUSE OF ALL YOUR PROBLEMS", rather maybe enlighten some of those who say that ME2 has "lost feeling".

Nothing's gonna be able to replace the feeling you first get when you go through the Citadel seeing all the awesome holographic ads and insane colors, the music when you get when going into C-Sec, that familiar bassy beat when you're on the long bridge in Feros, or the hard as hell decision you make on Virmire.

Nostalgia's pretty cool but a lot of people mistake it for quality. My experience with ME2 is definitely not as paramount as ME1, but it is overall a much more fleshed-out game.

Replacement? Well if the Citadel in ME2 had more roaming and scale it would have rivaled the feeling in ME1, at the very least supplemented it.
ME2 attempted to replace virmire with the suicide mission...close but no cigar, TIM.

[Dethateer]

Am I really the only one who thinks the Citadel has exactly the same usable area as in 1, only with less elevators?

[TJSolo]

Dethateer wrote...

Am I really the only one who thinks the Citadel has exactly the same usable area as in 1, only with less elevators?

If you add in jaded qualifiers, you would not be the only one.
But if you really add up the areas, even excluding corridors/elevators Cit ME1 still has more.

[hex23]

Dethateer wrote...

Am I really the only one who thinks the Citadel has exactly the same usable area as in 1, only with less elevators?

The Citadel from "ME1" seems bigger because areas like The Presidium and Citadel Tower are wide and/or long open areas.

Over all "ME2" has a lot more areas than "ME1". Aside from the 10,000 "copy and paste" planets you explore on the Mako, obviously.

[Pocketgb]

Dethateer wrote...

Am I really the only one who thinks the Citadel has exactly the same usable area as in 1, only with less elevators?

I felt the same. I only wish you saw more of the "dark" side of the ward you visit in ME2, kinda like how Illium gets nasty real quickly.

[TJSolo]

hex23 wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

Am I really the only one who thinks the Citadel has exactly the same usable area as in 1, only with less elevators?

The Citadel from "ME1" seems bigger because areas like The Presidium and Citadel Tower are wide and/or long open areas.

Over all "ME2" has a lot more areas than "ME1". Aside from the 10,000 "copy and paste" planets you explore on the Mako, obviously.

Funny how ME2 still feels smaller in scale even not taking into account the UNC missions(the only time copy and paste seems to be an issue).
Bioware likes copy and paste, see PLanet scanning as proof. So copy and pasting will be a game staple for a long time to come, not a negative. You say it is obvious to you but it is still a viable means to add content to games.

[ImperialOperative]

TJSolo wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

Am I really the only one who thinks the Citadel has exactly the same usable area as in 1, only with less elevators?

If you add in jaded qualifiers, you would not be the only one.
But if you really add up the areas, even excluding corridors/elevators Cit ME1 still has more.

Maybe, but it was essentially the single city area of the entire game.  ME2 has the citadel wards, Ilos, Tachunka, Omega with city hubs that collectively have much more city area than ME1.

[Pocketgb]

TJSolo wrote...

Funny how ME2 still feels smaller in scale even not taking into account the UNC missions(the only time copy and paste seems to be an issue).

Smaller?

The sense of scale felt much much bigger for me, especially given how many different locales we go to.

[TJSolo]

Pocketgb wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Funny how ME2 still feels smaller in scale even not taking into account the UNC missions(the only time copy and paste seems to be an issue).

Smaller?

The sense of scale felt much much bigger for me, especially given how many different locales we go to.

Locales are variety. The way they were respesented as big convenient rooms ruined the sense of scale for me. Omega and illum have decent scale but the rest made me go "That's it?"

[hex23]

TJSolo wrote...


Funny how ME2 still feels smaller in scale even not taking into account the UNC missions(the only time copy and paste seems to be an issue).
Bioware likes copy and paste, see PLanet scanning as proof. So copy and pasting will be a game staple for a long time to come, not a negative. You say it is obvious to you but it is still a viable means to add content to games.

"ME2" doesn't feel smaller in scale. I'm not even sure how it's possible you'd think that. Omega, The Citadel, the two derelict ships, the Collector homeworld, the Cerberus lab at the start, Purgatory, Tuchanka, Illium, and that's not even counting the unique loyaty mission parts of those areas, the increased size of the Normandy, the DLC areas like Firewalker, or the 20ish side missions on totally different looking planets.

"ME1" had the Citadel, Virmire, Feros, Novaria, Ilos, and the Citadel at the end of the game. That's it as far as unique areas goes.

Also there is a huge difference between copy and pasting textures onto a planet I'm moving a scanner around....and copy and pasting whole environments, buildings, etc. 40 times in a row to add "size" to the game.

[Revan312]

I will agree that ME2 has more real-estate area, though, it never feels as alive as ME1 imo. It might be nostalgia, or, it might be that Bioware took a lot more time adding a sense of weight to the universe in ME1.

ME2 feels almost lifeless in the same way a Michael Bay movie does. It's all style and no substance. Every character I met in ME2 seemed like a card board cut out placed there for a specific gameplay reason rather than just a character there to add life and volume to the world (and no I don't count the doomsday Batarian on Omega or the gunnery chief on the Citadel).

I guess what it comes down to is that although ME2 has more dialogue and areas, those aspects are spread out so much more than in the first that the game losses depth. I didn't care about anyone this time around, I mean I still don't even have the paramour achievement simply because the squadies this time are stereotypes within stereotypes, none of whom break out of the mold they were cast in. Now don't get me wrong, the first group was just as stereotypical, but for some reason the amount of dialogue and the connection you make to them, beings there is only 6, means more to me than anyone in ME2, including the favorites, Garrus and Tali.

Plus, I never had to do step and fetch missions for any of my squad members in ME1 (I don't think the mission with Garrus or Wrex count as they didn't ask you to do it for them, they just mentioned it while talking and if you wanted, you could help them out.), there was emotional baggage with the characters sure, but they were willing to put that aside until the galaxy was saved. This time it feels as if nobody really cares about the mission and they only want their own petty wishes catered to, which ended up really breaking me out of the moment.

Finally, as Pocketgb can attest to, I hate the overarching story which was weaker than weak and by the end I had almost forgotten about it as I was so busy blowing up random mercenary bases and acting like a therapist for my crew mates that it just faded away. Even when it kicks back into gear near the end, oop, it's over and wrapped up in a nice bow. The enemy that wasn't in the first game, but in the second, will not be in the third, which is just ridiculous. This isn't a spin off so why does it feel like one to such a great degree.

Bah, I'm rambling. I'll end with, hopefully they leave the damn engine/combat alone for the third installment and just try and concentrate on making a good game from a plot/character aspect. ME2 amounted to Party of Five mixed with the action of a Transformers movie... Please just give us some good sci-fi, that's all I'm asking.

Modifié par Revan312, 25 mars 2010 - 08:31 .

[jkstexas2001]

Mehow_pwn wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

DreDk wrote...

Mass Effect 1 is the TRUE Masterpiece.

No, it's not.  Thanks for trying.

Yes It is. For some of us....

I agree with that.  ME1 was a true, and apparently once in a generation masterpiece.  The things that made it great are missing in ME2.  The technical improvements are peripheral to the overall gaming experience to many.

[baller7345]

jkstexas2001 wrote...

Mehow_pwn wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

DreDk wrote...

Mass Effect 1 is the TRUE Masterpiece.

No, it's not.  Thanks for trying.

Yes It is. For some of us....

I agree with that.  ME1 was a true, and apparently once in a generation masterpiece.  The things that made it great are missing in ME2.  The technical improvements are peripheral to the overall gaming experience to many.

I'm sorry I can't bring myself to believe this.  It may be different on the pc but on the 360 (the console it was originally designed for) it is a good game but has a massive amount of flaws.  The texture pop up is horrible and in some cut scenes you don't even get to see a character's true face.  Watching the textures of an entire planet load isn't very fun either.  The mini games that are associated with hacking were horribly boring in that they were simply a game of simon says with 4 buttons.

The sidequests were extremely bland and very repetitive and after you did about 5 of them they started to become a chore.  The planets themselves (uncharted) were pretty enough if you just looked at the sky but the terrain around them was very bland with hardly anything to look at.  Also the horrible design of the terrain made the Mako an attrocity to drive since the physics behind the buggy were very strange and the terrain had sections that where simply jagged edges that were nigh on impossible to drive on.  You could avoid most of this but you still had to delve into it to get some minerals and some of the anomolies.

While the leveling system was perfectly fine in my opinion the inventory was a mess and all of the useless equipment I got made it a pain.  This was mostly due to the poor design of the menu and the frequency of the drops.

Some of these issues may have been addressed when it was ported over to the pc but it was hardly the masterpiece everyone is making it out to be on the 360.  It was still a really fun game but could have used a lot of major improvements.  While ME2 also has flaws I've found that in my experiences with the game I actually enjoy it more.

Modifié par baller7345, 25 mars 2010 - 11:08 .

[Kalfear]

hex23 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

Please point me to one peice of lititure that says what you are claiming

Which part? It's a 360 game that was ported to PC 6 months later, by a different dev (Demiurge). So, the franchise is a console game. That simple enough to understand?

Bioware has talked about improving the shooter elements of the sequel nonstop since the "Shepard was KIA" trailer was released. Do me a favor, look for "ME2" interviews talking about beefing up the shooter elements, then look for dev interviews talking about the RPG elements. The "shooter" topic outnumbers the "RPG" one, about 10:1.

Hell if you want to get technical one of the very first dev videos for "ME1" showed off the squad commands that never actually made it to the first game....squad commands exactly like the ones in "ME2".

So, game play-wise it's a console shooter/RPG. It's pretty easy to comprehend, especially given how "ME2" turned out. No, it's not something Bioware wanted to do, it's definitely EA's fault, or those damn "console fans", or some other ridiculous conspiracy theory, despite the fact that dev diaries from a year before "ME1" came out show close to the same shooter elements they later used in "ME2".

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

[Nozybidaj]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Is it impossible for us to predict what you as an individual will and won't enjoy,

I think it would have been fairly easy for a half brain dead baboon to figure out folks weren't going to enjoy having the ME1 LI's removed and hitting the reset button on the story in the middle of the trilogy.

If we're all being honest here its okay for BW to admit that the story took a back seat to the "suicide mission" gimmick someone came up with because that is what the game really is.

ME1 was set as an epic space opera.  ME2 is a summer blockbuster movie with big explosions and pricey special effects made to rake in cash.  It was a gimmick.  Did it work?  I suppose so, ME1 was a strong enough and popular enough game to carry ME2 no matter what you guys did.  Was ME2 strong enough to carry ME3?  We'll see.

As for enjoying your future products, to me personally, you guys have a lot to prove now.  Before ME2 I basically pre-ordered anything with the BW name on it.  You guys were, to me, the standard by which the rest of the industry should have been measured.  If you notice, I don't have the Awakening game registered.  That never would have been the case if not for ME2.  

To a portion of the fanbase, even if you do write us off as a small and insignificant number, you have something to prove to us now that you can still make games with a great story and emotionally engaging characters.  ME2 failed in this area and for folks like myself it is do the complete disregard you showed to the previous installment and its characters.  If you can show that much disrespect for your previous work and the fans of that work it makes me wonder what the future holds for BW and its products.

[MassEffect762]

ME1 was an awesome experience to me.



ME2 was an okay game imo.