It's not merely that they just ripped off the exact same engine as GTA. The gameplay is exactly the same. And without a city to provide distractions, it's painfully obvious how bad the gameplay really is.
How is the gameplay exactly the same? I wish someone would actually try to explain this. Different weapons, different transport, different minigames, different tactics, different approach to gunfights. Or are you seriously telling me that you treat a machine gun battle in a cramped apartment the same way you treat a rifle duel on the plains or storming a fort?
Yosharian said:
You, and every other reviewer of this game, talk so much about the wonderful amazing scenery, but really who gives a shit.
I think you've just answered your own question, buddy. Who really gives a shit? Well, me. Every other reviewer of the game. 99% of the people I've spoken to about the game. Has it not occured to you that the problem is with you?
Yosharian said:
After 10 minutes the scenery is just that - scenery, and you start to want an actual fun game to play. The characters whom you work for, and the meaningless missions you're forced to do despite them being contrary to your character's supposed 'redemption', don't provide this. If I wanted to see beautiful scenery I would go watch a western or something, and be much more entertained - additionally it wouldn't cost £40.
I see. So, in one post you complain about Mass Effect 2 feeling like a "series of corridors" and lacking a large area to explore, and then in another you condemn RDR for having a large, beautiful and deeply atmospheric world to explore. Sounds to me like you're the classic unpleasable fan.
If you hated the characters and the missions that much, I guess nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. All I know is that I liked the characters (for the most part) and felt that the game did a good job in making me care about them. The missions were great fun, with the exception of a few clunkers, and it was all leading up to the finale. The game also did a great job of making me sympathize with Marston's growing frustration at being constantly fucked around, having to perform tasks for people before they'd help him.
Yosharian said:
You can't prove something like this with numbers. It's something any gamer realises after a reasonable period of time - you can't trust gaming rags or the general gaming media to review games honestly. If you think otherwise you're living in a fucking dream world.
Who mentioned the gaming media? I'm talking about gamers. Friends who have opinions I respect have told me that they had great fun with FF13. Why should I doubt them? Because you, some random dude on a forum who seems to be very bitter towards games in general, tell me otherwise? Hell no.
The problem with games reviews is that they're subjective. You seem to have an issue with this; do you think that "reviewing games honestly" means "agreeing with my opinion"?
I dont think there are "perfect" games. Even Starcraft 2 is somewhat flat plotwise and only glorifies graphic effects to hell and back (from my point of view). and yes, I tried it, etc. (stop fanboy complains, please, I got enough of them already)
its just a question of how much you accept the flaws of a game. (like the length of portal, etc.)
- The Illusive Man and the fact you join Cerberus in general is a horrible plot point. If you played the side-missions in the first game most of the time you would be fighting against an evil corporation, with no mention of this Illusive man - giving you the impression Cerebus were clearly evil, and not to be messed with. But that's the thing - there's no explanation regarding the Illusive Man in the game; as though they didn't plan for the sequel properly when designing the first game. As a player I should have been surprised or excited to be meeting such a character - as a whole I didn't know who they were talking about.
- The Collectors; as a race, make little sense. If they're meant have this amazing, advanced technology that can freeze whole areas in place why were they not used to attack or weaken the Citadel first? Their very existence makes the Reapers appear idiotic; what exactly have they been doing with this advanced Alien race they control all this time then? It ruins the very lore they created - with this revelation the Reapers don't seem like the powerful, machine weapons they originally appeared when you spoke to Sovereign in the first game. Thus they loose what made them intimating.
- The ending...actually I can't even be bothered to begin on this one; needless to say it makes little sense and displays how messed up the second games moral choices actually are.
Again, I am confused. Less choice in combat? Being able to tactically place your squad members as per their skills or weapons is less choice?
I was referring more to the RPG elements within the game; there are less points to be gained, and less areas to spend those points on therefore in this second game; however you play it, you don't develop a unique character, you develop the same Shepard; combat-wise; as everyone else. Is that a good thing?
There were even two new classes of weaponry, and while I wasn't enamoured of the heavy weapons - I only really used them for bosses, and felt there could have been more sections where heavy weaponry could take out a whole wave of attackers - I was glad they were there if I needed them. Most of the skills/talents from the first game survived, and I found it far easier to combine squad powers in the second. I had great fun making my biotic use lift and then headshotting them with the 'concussive shot' as they floated.
That shouldn't have been a problem if they had planned the storyline through - see the Illusive man example above. It really didn't feel like they had planned it out properly - particularly the opening.
The first game had a lot of major choices, and those were carried over. The second, while it didn't have as many, still had some big choices to make - remember the Collector station? - which means that the third game will have to take into account the choices from both games. I'm guessing the writers were trying not to end up with an ME3 that had a ridiculous amount of branching storylines to consider, so they limited the 'significant' choices in ME2.
I'm talking more about the quality of those choices too - the example you brought up - The Collector station - displays this fact (you're talking about the ending, correct?).
A lot of people are making the comparison to Gears, and it really boils down to one thing; cover-based combat.
Well that's the main part of it, but there's more to it than that. In the original game the combat didn't feel like Gears - you didn't control the same; had a variety of options (due to unlimited ammo) and the cover system wasn't as similar to Gears as it is now.
Did everyone but me forget that this is how you were meant to play ME1?! There was a cover mechanic, without which combat got damned annoying until you got barrier or a fuckton of shields. All they did in the second was improve the cover mechanics.
There's more to it than that. If you play ME1 and see how the cover system worked, then play ME2 you'll notice the difference. The second game is distinctly more Gears like - sticking the player to the wall whereas the player had more freedom in the first game being one such example. The other being the fact that the combat environments in the sequel are smaller, and more corridor-esque than the original - again similar to Gears.
Personally I found ME2 a far more enjoyable game than Gears. The weapons were more fun (chainsaw guns being the hilarious exception), the biotic and tech powers made for a very different combat experience, the locations were better, and I actually gave a shit about the people I was fighting alongside.
The weapons in the second game lacked the same "punch" the weapons in Gears did; they felt weak, bar the pistols due to bad sound design and lack of impact. The tech powers were reduced from the last game and broken on the highest difficulties as all enemies use shields; and the locations were boring corridors. The same as Gears; but at least Gears had a larger scope that Mass Effect.
In Gears, I was happy to see those macho douchebags die, but in ME2 I wanted to take care of my crew. Unfortunately, most people can't seem to see further than 'cover = gears'.
Because you're making a stupid point? If you really can't see that Mass Effect 2 is trying desperately to copy the Gears of War combat system I'm amazed; and your big point here seems to be "I cared more for my squad in Mass Effect, therefore it has better combat"...great logic...
The 'thing that made the universe seem huge' being the Mako? I'd have said the thing that made the universe feel boring and empty. Landing on a planet which contained nothing but two rocks and a crashed space probe was not a fun experience, especially when you spent half an hour driving over dull terrain in a shoddy craft. To me, the universe felt bigger - probably the addition of extra systems and fuel, which gave the sense that the ship was actually moving rather than the feeling you were just zooming a model ship around a map like in the original.
I say Portal because Yahtzee couldn't think of a bad word about it. But I think many people will buy Halo: Reach no matter what reviewers say about it. Also, I love your avatar pic starocean13.
And there's the problem with recognizing people by their avatars. I thought one of you just did a triple post.
OT:Blizzard sucks at making decent strategy games, so S2 is out of the "critic-proof" category. The only thing I can think of is Portal, although I may just be blind to it's faults. I've never seen anything and I mean anything wrong with it.
- The Illusive Man and the fact you join Cerberus in general is a horrible plot point. If you played the side-missions in the first game most of the time you would be fighting against an evil corporation, with no mention of this Illusive man - giving you the impression Cerebus were clearly evil, and not to be messed with. But that's the thing - there's no explanation regarding the Illusive Man in the game; as though they didn't plan for the sequel properly when designing the first game. As a player I should have been surprised or excited to be meeting such a character - as a whole I didn't know who they were talking about.
Why is it a horrible plot point? Shepherd never joins Cerberus and is given an ID card stating he hates all aliens, he just works with them because their goals align with his. Although if you played the first game as a renegade, it might make sense for him to join them, a friend of mine played a deeply racist character. I did play the side missions of the first game, and those are reflected in the dialogues of your former teammates, but for the time being Cerberus' aims run parallel to Shepherd's. The enemy of my enemy, etc, and they did spend all that money saving his life.
As for the Illusive Man, the whole point is that you haven't heard of him. As Miranda says, he goes to a lot of effort to make sure nobody knows he exists. I felt not only excited but curious; I wanted to know who he was. If they'd made it painfully obvious in the first game, my reaction would have been less "Oooh, shady new character!" and more "Oh, it's that guy". He would have lost all element of mystery.
D_987 said:
- The Collectors; as a race, make little sense. If they're meant have this amazing, advanced technology that can freeze whole areas in place why were they not used to attack or weaken the Citadel first? Their very existence makes the Reapers appear idiotic; what exactly have they been doing with this advanced Alien race they control all this time then? It ruins the very lore they created - with this revelation the Reapers don't seem like the powerful, machine weapons they originally appeared when you spoke to Sovereign in the first game. Thus they loose what made them intimating.
By attack the Citadel, do you mean at the end of the first game? Several possible reasons. We only saw the freezing technology work on one, or maybe two species (I forget). The Citadel houses members of every sentient species, and who can say whether the technology has a blanket effect or is tied to a certain race? The Citadel also has C-Sec, a well-armed military force, which is a lot more of a challenge than picking off small, barely defended human colonies. They would have had to make a ground assault on the Citadel, as their powerful ship weapons could have weakened or destroyed the mass relay, the activation of which was (IIRC) the entire point of the attack.
In addition, it is never stated that the Reapers are working together in the direct sense. Sovereign could have been one avenue of attack - the Geth were, after all, very powerful allies and as unexpected as the Collectors - while the one controlling the Collectors took a different way, namely attempting to build more Reapers. Their overall goal is the same, extermination of sentient life, but their methods differ.
D_987 said:
I was referring more to the RPG elements within the game; there are less points to be gained, and less areas to spend those points on therefore in this second game; however you play it, you don't develop a unique character, you develop the same Shepard; combat-wise; as everyone else. Is that a good thing?
Again, I don't see your point. A soldier is a vanguard is an engineer? They use different weapons, tech or biotic powers, but they still all approach combat the same way? I think a soldier character is vastly different from an adept, and this is reflected in play style. When playing a soldier character, I'd take a different team on missions than I would if playing an adept, to compensate for my character's shortcomings.
D_987 said:
That shouldn't have been a problem if they had planned the storyline through - see the Illusive man example above. It really didn't feel like they had planned it out properly - particularly the opening.
What about the opening didn't you like? I thought it was a great start to the game. Breaking the established mould from the first game by, effectively, resetting everything you did. You lose your ship, your team, and your Spectre status. It was a great way to avoid the plot becoming stale. I do hope they don't do it in the third as well, though, because while it had a great emotional impact once, twice would feel contrived.
D_987 said:
I'm talking more about the quality of those choices too - the example you brought up - The Collector station - displays this fact (you're talking about the ending, correct?).
Yes, I am. What about it? I genuinely struggled with that one, attempting to balance potential gain against my worries about Cerberus. In the end, I
didn't blow the station up, because I feel it was the smarter decision in the long run, but I didn't feel good about myself for doing so. A perfect example of a moral choice system properly implemented
D_987 said:
Well that's the main part of it, but there's more to it than that. In the original game the combat didn't feel like Gears - you didn't control the same; had a variety of options (due to unlimited ammo) and the cover system wasn't as similar to Gears as it is now.
Ammo was unlimited, yes, but it's not as if there were no restrictions. My preferred weapon, the assault rifle, tended to overheat quickly without the right upgrades. On balance, I prefer the ammo system to the overheating system, because it makes a firefight more challenging; instead of just ducking into cover and letting the gun cool down, I have to decide whether to run for more ammo or switching to a weapon less suited for the situation or relying solely on tech/biotic powers. I'm not sure what these other options are, that you claim unlimited ammo granted you.
D_987 said:
There's more to it than that. If you play ME1 and see how the cover system worked, then play ME2 you'll notice the difference. The second game is distinctly more Gears like - sticking the player to the wall whereas the player had more freedom in the first game being one such example.
Um...the cover system in ME1 stuck players to the wall too. Approach a wall and click in the left thumbstick and you'll drop into cover the same way you do in ME2. Left trigger to duck out and aim, right trigger to fire. Doesn't seem too different to me, except that the second game's version is more refined, and the AI enemies make use of it too instead of simply ducking around corners.
D_987 said:
-
Because you're making a stupid point? If you really can't see that Mass Effect 2 is trying desperately to copy the Gears of War combat system I'm amazed; and your big point here seems to be "I cared more for my squad in Mass Effect, therefore it has better combat"...great logic...
Whoa there, pickle. Let's try and keep this civil. My opinion is my opinion, and telling me that it's stupid doesn't help your case any. We're discussing a game here, it isn't worth being insulting over.
I own both Mass Effect 2 and Gears of War 2, and despite there being a similarity with the cover systems, I can't with all honesty say that one is a copy of the other. Firstly, as I've pointed out, the original Mass Effect had a cover system which wasn't all that different from Mass Effect 2. Additionally, the Gears system is nothing more than cover-based shooting; that's all there is to it. ME2 gives you the ability to choose your squad's weapons (and for most, if not all (I can't really remember who did and didn't get ammo powers) allow you to select the type of ammunition that was best for the enemy you were fighting) and position them accordingly, not to mention tactical use of tech and biotic powers. At the end of the day this argument boils down to nothing more than the similarity in cover mechanisms. ME2 used tactics, GoW used 'stand behind this rock and keep shooting until everything dies'. I don't see how the two can even concievably be called identical.
D_987 said:
Well you defiantly hold an opinion in the minority based on comments regarding this aspect of the game from a variety of forums and reviews.
I don't see that as a problem. It's my opinion, that's all, and I'm not going to change it because it doesn't agree with what reviewers thought. As for "defiantly" holding it, yes. It was my experience with the game, what do you want me to say?
D_987 said:
You mean the infinitely smaller city with the boring art style and lack of side-quests? I don't agree at all.
Boring art style? I enjoyed it. It was similar to the Citadel, but brighter and more colourful. It felt more alive than the often sterile Citadel, like a place where people actually lived and worked. As for side quests, off the top of my head you had Liara's quests with the Shadow Broker, the undercover cop from...Noveria? Whatever planet she was on in the first game, I don't know. The Asari who had lost her family and was hating on aliens. The Salarian who has lost his family's money. There were probably more, but they've slipped my mind. The point is, when combined with the ME2 Citadel, you've got an area that compares to the ME1 Citadel.
I think games are only critic proof if they have millions of drooling fanboys who happen to be critics as well or the developer(s) have mountains of money that they can shove into the pockets of said critics.
No game is perfect, and it seems I have there are far too many people out there that have forgotten that.
So, if it's not obvious by now, I champion the notion that no game is, or ever will be, "Critic proof."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
