I quoted you to chastise your post then saw your edit... no worries.ShadowsofHope said:
I'm still laughing in my head at the mental image of a teeny tiny reaper though
Bioware are getting really lazy as of late. (Possible Mass Effect 2 spoilers)
- Thread starter Daedalus1942
- Start date
I'm still laughing in my head at the mental image of a teeny tiny reaper though
Well i liked mass effect 2 :]
Alot.
You said "Why the hell did they take out roaming the planets on the Mako? I know people bitched about it (I certainly wasn't one of them), but scanning was not a good alternative, it was boring and tedious and just lazy in my opinion. You scan a planet, find a mission and then can NEVER go back to it when you've completed it".
Why would you want to go back to an empty planet again if there's absoloutely nothing to do?
(If you're talking about looking for weapons and and shit surely you should just look harder for it the first time you touchdown on a planet?)
And if you didn't mean that i apologize.
Alot.
You said "Why the hell did they take out roaming the planets on the Mako? I know people bitched about it (I certainly wasn't one of them), but scanning was not a good alternative, it was boring and tedious and just lazy in my opinion. You scan a planet, find a mission and then can NEVER go back to it when you've completed it".
Why would you want to go back to an empty planet again if there's absoloutely nothing to do?
(If you're talking about looking for weapons and and shit surely you should just look harder for it the first time you touchdown on a planet?)
And if you didn't mean that i apologize.
True, it would definately have made more sense that the compressed mass of 10 000nds of humans was stuffed into something the size of -one- human's body. And really, why'd they have made him look like Shepherd? They admire the fact that he managed to surivive so far and possibly view him as the pinnacle of humanity, but that doesn't mean they'll put his face on their prime weapon of mass destruction.Daedalus1942 said:
Furthermore, the thing wasn't done, even if they did intend to put his face on it I think it's more likely that they'd prioritate his lower body before facial structure.
Just bein' realistic.
That would be rather hilarious, I agree.MiracleOfSound said:I quoted you to chastise your post then saw your edit... no worries.ShadowsofHope said:
I'm still laughing in my head at the mental image of a teeny tiny reaper though
Not sure how thousands of pounds of human genetic paste would fit into a singular human sized Reaper, but.. still gets some laughs.
I have perfectly valid reasons why I didn't like the game.Psychosocial said:
And wow, I'm the biggest shithead? You just flat out flamed me. I'll bet you don't even get prohibited either. The mods are more than happy to suspend me at the drop of a hat but when someone swears at me, they don't even get given a warning.
And how do I "suck 2 much" (also, in b4 learn to spell properly) to finish fallout 3 in 7 hours?
I finished it 100% in roughly 72 hours. It's physically impossible to finish it 100% in 17.
Maybe he's got a different definition to me of what 100% is, but still that doesn't give you a right to call me the biggest shithead on the site. I'd say I've contributed to alot more threads than you ever have.
I didn't like Mass effect II. The writing wasn't good, they gutted all the good things about one and destroyed what I thought would be game of the year.
Still doesn't give you the right to flame me.
I do agree that probably they wouldn't have needed 10,000 to make a "reaper Shephard" but my idea was they could recreate their version of Shepherd, trying to kill the real, to replace him/her and then use her clout and influence (with the military and the human race as well as every other race to secretly indoctrinate everyone. I thought it would have been a better plot point that what Karpyshyn came up with...Unguarded Toast said:
But yes logically 10,000 humans wouldn't be needed for a shepherd clone.
I agree with some of the things you listed while I like Mass Effect 2, the game felt really short and the universe felt less big than the first, in Mass Effect 1 the side-quests were large in abundance, quite fun, imaginative and made the overall game feel bigger and longer. In Mass Effect 2 the side-quests weren't all that great, the game felt more linear than the first, while in the loyalty missions I liked the things like the stalking on the citadel, survival on Tuchanka etc...
I wish there was more variety in the mechanics of the side-quests, I hope in the 3rd there is more things like assassination missions, information-collecting missions, stake outs, hostage situations like in ME1 etc...
ME3 has so much potential and BIOWARE YOU BETTER BE READING MY SUGGESTIONS! READ THEM NOW!!!
Also ME2 didn't have as much of an epic feel IMO when it came to the main-story missions, the speech before going to Saren's base, finding sovereign, picking a team-mate to die, picking whether an entire species lives or dies. Whilst ME2 is basically a bunch of "go here, find this person and recruit them" missions.
I wish there was more variety in the mechanics of the side-quests, I hope in the 3rd there is more things like assassination missions, information-collecting missions, stake outs, hostage situations like in ME1 etc...
ME3 has so much potential and BIOWARE YOU BETTER BE READING MY SUGGESTIONS! READ THEM NOW!!!
Also ME2 didn't have as much of an epic feel IMO when it came to the main-story missions, the speech before going to Saren's base, finding sovereign, picking a team-mate to die, picking whether an entire species lives or dies. Whilst ME2 is basically a bunch of "go here, find this person and recruit them" missions.
yeah this.Normalgamer said:
i dont think they should have gotten rid of the inventory, but it was definitly not fun to mess with, neither was the mako, (im not justifying planet scanning though)
OT:they tried to change some stuff up, more balls than alot of other developers have, and alot of people liked it, alot of the hardcore oldies didn't, gotta deal with it, plus its the 2nd game out of 3..those are usually not the best ones. so im hoping that will follow and the 3rd one will be fucking epicccc
and i didn't experience any of these graphical glitches or mess ups that you had...not once, and my computer isn't the best thing ever and im running it on max, so dont know what your playing but not the same game
Mass Effect was great, epic game, but after ending game several times, it felt too boring - elevators and mostly mako (i always finish all the quest, so i had a lot of driving) destroyed the fun.
Mass Effect 2 was even better, and there were no elevators nor mako. I replayed it many more times, so win for ME2.
ME series seem polished for me.
Dragon Age is other thing - buggy (first time i played it i had a nice walk on Ostagar's battlefield, for some time under terrain, some time walking on the air - no cheats needed), unentertaining for first two days of gameplay (i gave it a lot of credit for ME), unclear gameplay mechanics, voiceless character (can't go badass, Shepard style - without voice, it just don't feels right). Bad.
Mass Effect 2 was even better, and there were no elevators nor mako. I replayed it many more times, so win for ME2.
ME series seem polished for me.
Dragon Age is other thing - buggy (first time i played it i had a nice walk on Ostagar's battlefield, for some time under terrain, some time walking on the air - no cheats needed), unentertaining for first two days of gameplay (i gave it a lot of credit for ME), unclear gameplay mechanics, voiceless character (can't go badass, Shepard style - without voice, it just don't feels right). Bad.
They arent becoming lazy they just made a cheaper game that would appeal to the shooter audience so they wouldent realise how much worse it is than the first, wether or not this is a permanent thing for them is another subject altogether
It combined alot of the elements that I do like in a game and axed the ones I didn't like from the first...like the tedious as hell micromanaging...So in other words I thought it was pretty excellent.
I have to admit. From what I saw in the game Bioware took out some problems from ME1 (Long elevator rides, the Mako, annoying inventory system) and then accidently made some new problems in ME2 (Long loading screens, scanning planets, lack of depth for inventory). Hopefully in ME3 they fix up these problems and make it a little more like ME1 (which I liked a bit more). I don't mind some of the changes in ME2, but I liked the RPG feel of ME1 rather than the RPG/Action hybrid of ME2.
All and all though I like the Mass Effect series for the story and the way that its told. And with Bioware is doing an excellent job.
All and all though I like the Mass Effect series for the story and the way that its told. And with Bioware is doing an excellent job.
These are my responses to the major points, and opinions on the game and the franchises' direction.
1) As concerns the Mako. I understand that driving in the first place is fun, and certainly cruising around on a low gravity planet in a rocket car is fun. However, when every single planet is an emulation of the coldest part of the Rocky Mountains, the joy rapidly fades. Not to mention the fact that the parts of driving around that actually require driving, i.e. mineral collection, are essentially pointless. So all you really have is landing on a planet to drive to objectives, with large amounts of cliff sliding in between those two points.
Yes, driving around gave a tangible sense to the size of each world, but I feel that not having all the missions wrapped up in a single square kilometer, or on the 2 city blocks that previously made up the citadel gives a much better sense of the size of these things, even if it is more subtle.
2) THANK ALL OF HOLY HELL AND HEAVEN FOR THE ABSENCE OF THAT ORIGINAL INVENTORY SYSTEM. I was unaware that anyone liked that at all. You should also scarcely complain that the weapons selection is lazier, when in the first game all the weapons were essentially the same. All that changed were minor improvements in the 3 attributes, a choice between 1 of two models and about 4 colours. The new weapons at least have different advantages and disadvantages. Burst fire as opposed to single shot, bolt action v. auto sniper, etc. And the upgrading system is sensible rather than eye scratchingly tedious.
3) I had almost no glitches at all in the game, but then I played the PC version. I also did not notice grammatical or spelling errors at all. But then I am a bad judge of that since I generally just let my mind auto-correct that kind of mistake.
4) There were plenty of new characters in the game, and the old characters react rather like I would expect. In fairness much of what explains their action is wrapped up in the Redemption series (in the case of Liara anyway). I was glad to see the tie ins, and was not really let down at all.
5) The game would hardly be fun if they said "HEY! You played Mass Effect 1. Therefore, you have master skills, are unbeatable, and get to watch Mass Effect 2" They give a bonus for playing ME1, and without having set up your playthrough to be imported you are stuck with the story that ME2 decided happened.
6) If you foul it up bad enough, no one survives the suicide mission. The idea is to reward players for getting the right upgrades, knowing how to delegate and for forming a cohesive and loyal team. If you do it right you live, yay! If you do it wrong you die, boo! As the concept of a game that you can complete and still die completing is fairly unique these days, so I at least like the concept. Also the boss in ME1 was not really any more difficult to defeat. As for the specifics of the boss and why it is the way it is, try to follow the story better.
That was the love, now for the hate.
I am inclined to agree on the side missions and the minor ties ins from ME1.
In ME1 I often found myself...well frankly giving a shit about the side quests and the choices I had to make in them. However, in ME2 I rarely feel a shred of remorse for making a renegade decision that, lets say, blows up a bunch of orphanages. The sub stories fall face first into a big pile of spunk.
For the cities that implied sense of bigness works wonders, but on the side mission planets, we are given NO context of the planet outside of the bittie little map that we are thrust onto.
My major problem is the lack of development in the side missions, as well as the fact that the sole difference in effect from some of the choices you make in ME1 is whether or not you get a letter from them, or run into them standing about on a space station looking bored.
In fairness, I understand why. They game is very big as is. But then why bother.
What I would ideally like to see is either the augmentation of the tie ins, or scrapping them altogether. I would like to see some emotional investment going into the side quests, so that I actually care about the data I grab from some merc base.
Also since the Steam version comes with a Key for the Cerberus Network, I got to play the firewalker DLC. THAT IS A GOOD VEHICLE FOR DRIVING SECTIONS.
In summary, I feel that ME2 is an improvement over ME1, and I loved/love ME1. However, some of the things they tried, or more precisely didn't, fell flat. The current direction still isn't quite it. But the ?it? that I am describing nears perfection whereas for other game franchises "it" refers to not being awful.
The problem is that ME1 set up an endless well of possibilities. And while BioWare tapped that well for some ideas, they seem to have misses a few, and scrapped some good ones to make room. It is natural to feel let down by this, and to be concerned, because if modern trilogies are anything they are soul crushing on the third iteration. Still, for a franchise this enjoyable I hold out hope that BioWare will find a way to remedy their flaws, and to fit all their ideas into 1 cohesive game. Yes it has problems, and no it isn't wrong to expect a game to be perfect, but yes it is wrong to say that BioWare isn't trying.
Not everyone can be Valve. <3 Portal
1) As concerns the Mako. I understand that driving in the first place is fun, and certainly cruising around on a low gravity planet in a rocket car is fun. However, when every single planet is an emulation of the coldest part of the Rocky Mountains, the joy rapidly fades. Not to mention the fact that the parts of driving around that actually require driving, i.e. mineral collection, are essentially pointless. So all you really have is landing on a planet to drive to objectives, with large amounts of cliff sliding in between those two points.
Yes, driving around gave a tangible sense to the size of each world, but I feel that not having all the missions wrapped up in a single square kilometer, or on the 2 city blocks that previously made up the citadel gives a much better sense of the size of these things, even if it is more subtle.
2) THANK ALL OF HOLY HELL AND HEAVEN FOR THE ABSENCE OF THAT ORIGINAL INVENTORY SYSTEM. I was unaware that anyone liked that at all. You should also scarcely complain that the weapons selection is lazier, when in the first game all the weapons were essentially the same. All that changed were minor improvements in the 3 attributes, a choice between 1 of two models and about 4 colours. The new weapons at least have different advantages and disadvantages. Burst fire as opposed to single shot, bolt action v. auto sniper, etc. And the upgrading system is sensible rather than eye scratchingly tedious.
3) I had almost no glitches at all in the game, but then I played the PC version. I also did not notice grammatical or spelling errors at all. But then I am a bad judge of that since I generally just let my mind auto-correct that kind of mistake.
4) There were plenty of new characters in the game, and the old characters react rather like I would expect. In fairness much of what explains their action is wrapped up in the Redemption series (in the case of Liara anyway). I was glad to see the tie ins, and was not really let down at all.
5) The game would hardly be fun if they said "HEY! You played Mass Effect 1. Therefore, you have master skills, are unbeatable, and get to watch Mass Effect 2" They give a bonus for playing ME1, and without having set up your playthrough to be imported you are stuck with the story that ME2 decided happened.
6) If you foul it up bad enough, no one survives the suicide mission. The idea is to reward players for getting the right upgrades, knowing how to delegate and for forming a cohesive and loyal team. If you do it right you live, yay! If you do it wrong you die, boo! As the concept of a game that you can complete and still die completing is fairly unique these days, so I at least like the concept. Also the boss in ME1 was not really any more difficult to defeat. As for the specifics of the boss and why it is the way it is, try to follow the story better.
That was the love, now for the hate.
I am inclined to agree on the side missions and the minor ties ins from ME1.
In ME1 I often found myself...well frankly giving a shit about the side quests and the choices I had to make in them. However, in ME2 I rarely feel a shred of remorse for making a renegade decision that, lets say, blows up a bunch of orphanages. The sub stories fall face first into a big pile of spunk.
For the cities that implied sense of bigness works wonders, but on the side mission planets, we are given NO context of the planet outside of the bittie little map that we are thrust onto.
My major problem is the lack of development in the side missions, as well as the fact that the sole difference in effect from some of the choices you make in ME1 is whether or not you get a letter from them, or run into them standing about on a space station looking bored.
In fairness, I understand why. They game is very big as is. But then why bother.
What I would ideally like to see is either the augmentation of the tie ins, or scrapping them altogether. I would like to see some emotional investment going into the side quests, so that I actually care about the data I grab from some merc base.
Also since the Steam version comes with a Key for the Cerberus Network, I got to play the firewalker DLC. THAT IS A GOOD VEHICLE FOR DRIVING SECTIONS.
In summary, I feel that ME2 is an improvement over ME1, and I loved/love ME1. However, some of the things they tried, or more precisely didn't, fell flat. The current direction still isn't quite it. But the ?it? that I am describing nears perfection whereas for other game franchises "it" refers to not being awful.
The problem is that ME1 set up an endless well of possibilities. And while BioWare tapped that well for some ideas, they seem to have misses a few, and scrapped some good ones to make room. It is natural to feel let down by this, and to be concerned, because if modern trilogies are anything they are soul crushing on the third iteration. Still, for a franchise this enjoyable I hold out hope that BioWare will find a way to remedy their flaws, and to fit all their ideas into 1 cohesive game. Yes it has problems, and no it isn't wrong to expect a game to be perfect, but yes it is wrong to say that BioWare isn't trying.
Not everyone can be Valve. <3 Portal
subsequent playthroughs you have to do a lot less scanning - you know what upgrades you need, approximately how much resources you need, and know the best ways to get them, plus you start with 50000 of every resource, putting a huge dent in your requirements, especially E-zo, which is the only tedious resource to harvest. The Mako Levels were largely cut for being boring. At best they were boring, at worst they were tedious garbage. The only half-passable Mako missions were the story missions.. The others were a boring drive to the same small base that you have cleared out 100 times before. I played ME1 through 100% about 10 times.[/quote]Daedalus1942 said:
The ONLY difference between the MANY MANY MANY weapons in ME1 was how much damage they did, and how quickly they overheated. In ME2 every weapon has a tactical use. If you choose not to "upgrade" your pistol when Mordin gives you the Carnifex, that's really your choice.. do you want a Glock or a heavy Magnum. Every Weapon in the game can be used depending on your playstyle, and every weapon feels different. 12 variety weapons is much better then 400 different weapons.
I'll give you this one, but I experienced just as many bugs in ME1 as in ME2. .. Alright, not exactly, but ME1 isn't "bug free".
This is a matter of taste, but having less powers that had better utility and a shared cooldown (which with proper upgrades could be dropped significantly) is a lot more interesting.
I never noticed any of those issues.
Okay... why all of a sudden has this thread been necroed? It died ages ago.
The issue was resolved. I agreed to disagree. There's no reason why this should have been resurrected from months ago.
The issue was resolved. I agreed to disagree. There's no reason why this should have been resurrected from months ago.
I don't think they got lazy, it's just they took things way to far. I didn't like the Mako sections, it drop like a brick with a rocket strapped to it's bottom. But instead of taking them out they could have just fixed the driving sections. Sure I enjoy being able to bounce around, but maybe not bounce 30 feet in the air, and die falling off a cliff. I felt like the scanning for resources was alright, but it gets boring after a while. Scan around a dozen planets, and it starts to get repetitive. I don't think the first one had much exploration value though, because other then findind the gas on the planet surface, all you could really do is head to an anomoly or race around the surface doing nothing.
I didn't find any glitchs or spelling errors btw, but I didn't read too carefully so I might have missed them. I too felt like the entire game was about the final suicide mission, and everything else was just taking a back seat. I think Mass Effect 2 suffers from Middle Game Syndrome. The first one established the main story and Shepard, the final one will finish it all off, so the second one dosen't have a lot of room to move around in. I also didn't like many of the characters in this game. I liked how Tali became a lot more important, Legion was cool, and Mordin had some funny lines. But I felt like none of the characters had any sort of development. All they did was have one side mission where you learn a bit about their history, then they pretty much stop there.
So no, Bioware did not get lazy. They made a full blown game, it had a lot of deatil, it's just that I prefered the story in ME1, or at least the story telling part of it. I felt like the plot in ME2 was told to us at the beginning, then we spent the next few missions getting teammates, then making them loyal. None of it really advanced the story, other then hinting at possible ways to take down the Reapers. The first one had this way of telling the story as you went to each world. The one thing I did wish was that you collected more characters on each world in ME1, because I felt like getting almost all of them on your first time in the Citadel is to quick.
I didn't find any glitchs or spelling errors btw, but I didn't read too carefully so I might have missed them. I too felt like the entire game was about the final suicide mission, and everything else was just taking a back seat. I think Mass Effect 2 suffers from Middle Game Syndrome. The first one established the main story and Shepard, the final one will finish it all off, so the second one dosen't have a lot of room to move around in. I also didn't like many of the characters in this game. I liked how Tali became a lot more important, Legion was cool, and Mordin had some funny lines. But I felt like none of the characters had any sort of development. All they did was have one side mission where you learn a bit about their history, then they pretty much stop there.
So no, Bioware did not get lazy. They made a full blown game, it had a lot of deatil, it's just that I prefered the story in ME1, or at least the story telling part of it. I felt like the plot in ME2 was told to us at the beginning, then we spent the next few missions getting teammates, then making them loyal. None of it really advanced the story, other then hinting at possible ways to take down the Reapers. The first one had this way of telling the story as you went to each world. The one thing I did wish was that you collected more characters on each world in ME1, because I felt like getting almost all of them on your first time in the Citadel is to quick.
After analyzing your post like you did the game I have to complain about a few things as well.Daedalus1942 said:
1) You have a TON of spelling and grammar mistakes.
2) This is nothing new about the game.
3) They tried something new with the game.
4) Don't you effectively DIE so it would make sense that you would get shot back to a much lower level.
5) You use your save files mostly for your choices because EVERY choice is going to be used from the first two games and come back in the third. (You remember that alien you either saved or killed that said they would repay you somehow from the first one?)
6) Wouldn't it make the game too easy if you started at level 60 and were able to effectively beat everyone in like 1 to 2 shots from the most powerful gun from the previous game?
Almost every single reviewer and a couple million people would like to disagree with you...joe102 said:
Regardless, why does this thread still exist? It was resolved months ago!