Yeah... when somebody has 800 PS3 trophies and it says on his profile that he doesn't play on pc, I don't believe he's played Mass Effect. He just hates it because it isn't on Playstation.The_Blue_Rider said:
Mass Effect 2 - the game of our generation?
- Thread starter MiracleOfSound
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Mass effect was horrible and from the looks of it mass effect 2 isn't going to be much different. Clunky gameplay, pointlessly in-depth character creation, boring easy combat, and lets not forget the insignificant choices in the game where you can decide to make your character a goody two shoes or a grizzled badass, both out to save the universe; either way the final choice in the game is completely open and always the same. So yay you kind of get to feel like your steering the game where you want it but not really ! This game is a mockery of non-linear story. But is it the game of our generation ? Sure why not it's not like it's any different from the rest of the generic painted up crap pumped out these days.
Has given up hope of playing a good next-gen game
- Tetron
Has given up hope of playing a good next-gen game
- Tetron
I am feeling increasingly dubious about the darker and edgier teammate choices. I liked the previous dynamics. I also am not sure I will like having to have ever more complete control over my teams.
I liked that ME was a game that you could play by yourself (with you as Shepard) and that you had some hired guns backing you up. I find games to be more frustrating and much less enjoyable as they become more squad focussed.
I would have enjoyed more interactive environments, some stores that were more available than one on every 16 planets. More useful mods for your weapons and armor. For example: armor mods; if it didn't boost your shields, then typically, I found it to be utterly useless.
That said ME was a totally engrossing games that managed to gloss over the weaknesses by nature of a compelling whole. I hope with ME2 they keep that in mind.
I liked that ME was a game that you could play by yourself (with you as Shepard) and that you had some hired guns backing you up. I find games to be more frustrating and much less enjoyable as they become more squad focussed.
I would have enjoyed more interactive environments, some stores that were more available than one on every 16 planets. More useful mods for your weapons and armor. For example: armor mods; if it didn't boost your shields, then typically, I found it to be utterly useless.
That said ME was a totally engrossing games that managed to gloss over the weaknesses by nature of a compelling whole. I hope with ME2 they keep that in mind.
Mass Effect 2 will cure cancer, end all wars and kill everyone asociated with the Twilight saga.
Also, it will have faster elevators.
Also, it will have faster elevators.
I've got ME2 on pre-order. Meanwhile I'm trying to complete a "perfect" game on ME1 that I can use for ME2.
I'm also hoping that the apparent turn for the "darker and edgier" taken by the sequel doesn't make it as much of a disappointment as Warrior Within was...
I'm also hoping that the apparent turn for the "darker and edgier" taken by the sequel doesn't make it as much of a disappointment as Warrior Within was...
There's nothing wrong with looking forward to a gme but saying that a game will be standout classic of a whole generation before it's even released seems to me to be a bit, well stupid to be honest.miracleofsound said:
As for good RPGs since KOTOR, VtM:B possibly I'm not sure really, this hasn't been a good decade for RPGs.
Finally forcing myself to play ME 1 after all this time of bad mouthing it, but the only thing I want from ME 2 is for me to be able to dive into it. If it does that, I will be happy.
Geo Da Sponge said:
Enemies in Dragon Age: Origins[i/] do level up with you. Anyways, plenty of game shave respawning enemies and are not hindered by it. Just because the player can grind for hours and become incredibly powerful doesn't mean most players will do so. Or they could just put in a level cap if they're worried about the player getting to powerful.
Point is, not having respawning enemies makes the game a lot less fun when you're forced back into areas you've already cleared. It does far more harm to the game than good.
Internet Kraken said:
I did in fact acknowledge that Dragon Age: Origins has enemies that level with you and it's a necessity. However, if you add in respawning enemies then the player no longer has to worry about the value of each purchase, both in terms of loot and experience, and the system of gaining power is rendered pointless as you are always less powerful than you could be. The player would realise that there is no purpose to leveling as you would never be as powerful as you could be, nor would you become more powerful than your enemies. If only one of these facts is true, then there is still purpose to gaining power through loot and experience, but when both are true the system is rendered useless. You could create a level cap but this is a bad solution as anyone who spends a lot of time grinding enemies would be rewarded with not being able to gain levels for the rest of the game.
It's also worth noting that while the enemies level up with you, they are still the same in terms of appearance and special attacks. The reason that enemies leveling with you is successful in DA:O is that as you move from each main quest to the next the enemies are radically different. Therefore you feel as if the enemies are coincidentally stronger as you gain power, even if you know otherwise. This is why the system in Oblivion was alright; as you gained levels the enemies became more impressive and stronger, rather than just increasing their stats. However, if you make enemies respawn then when the player returns to an area they can see that these are the same enemies they were fighting seven levels ago but they are just as challenging.
More importantly, when I was travelling through an area I'd been through before (ie. the Brecillian Forest, always the Brecillian Forest) I just wanted to get through it as quickly as possible. Getting bogged down in combat would not have improved things. Either the newly respawned enemies wouldn't be a challenge, in which case it would be pointless, or they would be a challenge in which you'd want to avoid going back to these areas unless you had some important reason to do so.
Less bugs, for sure.
I can count the number of times I was stuck in a corner or between my squadmates on two hands, and that's too much.
I can count the number of times I was stuck in a corner or between my squadmates on two hands, and that's too much.
Geo Da Sponge said:
I disagree completely. It doesn't matter what the absence of respawning enemies is supposed to fix. Being forced back into old areas feels boring and dull bacause all you are dong is walking. The presence of respawning enemies would easily fix this. If you're going to have almost every single side quest take place in a handful of large areas, at least ensure that it is interesting to go through these areas.
I hope I can finish ME1 before the second one comes out, but I doubt it. The game is just too damn big. Maybe it just isn't my type of game, but playing it literally feels like a second job. Thank God for the cool story, or I wouldn't even bother, and I like the thought of carrying my character over as well.
Internet Kraken said:
Ah, see, I liked the fact there were no respawning enemies. It made me feel like I'd actually managed to clear out the evil minions from the different parts of Ferelden, and brought some stability to the land. This is coming from a person who ended his first playthrough half a bar from the Level 20 achievement, having done all of the DLC quests. Frankly, I'd be happy if they patched it in to let you finish quests you hadn't finished and do the Chanter's Board after you finished the main game.
I'm interested in Mass Effect 2, but more to see how they handle bringing in save data from the first game. If they do well, it'll give me high hopes for Dragon Age : Sequels.
most of the multi discs is reflected in having 1080p and what not it doesnt really translate into alot of gameBlindrooster said:
EG MW2 was 2 discs with a 5 hour campaign and MP theres not really alot there to warrant the 12gb it take up except for the different versions of each texture and what not instead of upscaling everything
it wont be a defining game of our generation
also you should point out what generation you aiming at since the young people will have some awesome tech in 20 yrs time so theyll def have better stuff down the line
maybe game of the year but then theres alot of what should have been 09 releases that ran away from mw2 as well so who knows
Yes, but I don't remember being forced to go back into old areas for a side quest once. The only time I went through them was to sell excess loot so that I could pick up some more. Some of the side missions require you to go new places on the map which are only there for the purpose of the side quest. Most of the others just took place in random encounters on the road. Also, repeating encounters without any reason or context are rarely fun; look at any game where the most frequent enemies are those that spawn or attack randomly (Pokemon, for example). Before long you start seeing combat as a chore with very little reason to complete it when you don't have to.Internet Kraken said:
I don't mean to disrupt your conversation, but I think the designers should do different things to make it interesting if you have to go back to an area, or if you're going to have more enemies, at least let there be a reason for it. I hate it when you eradicated every single enemy, and know they are all gone, then you come back and WHAAAT?!?! they're all there again. It makes no sense. At the least, have some different enemies, or take a small cutscene and explain how the enemies were repopulated after you destroyed every single one. To me, just throwing the same enemies at you but scaled to your level this time around is lazy and boring.Internet Kraken said:
Like, say for instance you have to go to back to a forest in a game that you cleared. Maybe, have the forest burnt down for a different atmosphere, or maybe a development moved in while you were away, or maybe a hole in the earth opens up and enemies you have never seen crawl out of there. There's no reason other than laziness to go down the same road twice.
I'm sure there are better examples, but look at the light/dark world in Link To The Past. They had you traversing the same map, but with different enemies, characters, and backdrops.
When the OP said game of the generation, I doubt he meant it in the way you seem to be interpreting. Whether he meant of this console generation or something else, considering Super Mario is 25 years old and Doom is fast-approaching 20, I don't rightly think they should be considered part of the current generation. At least, not for games as a whole.Eclectic Dreck said: