Posted August 30, 2012
Article is here
Bigger and better is the usual approach to any sequel. For videogames all you have to do is add a few new features and weapons, make the story more epic and you’ve got yourself a sequel. It’s fairly standard stuff.
Bioware didn’t do this with Mass Effect 2. They did the opposite.
Mass Effect is one of the best games of this generation. That’s not to say it’s perfect, it does have its share of faults, but it has the right idea when it comes to making a great game. It’s clear that these features have potential; they just need the right touch.
That didn’t happen. I don’t know if it was due to the shorter development cycle or a deliberate move by Bioware but it affected the game. Instead, Bioware removed entire features which made the game less in-depth that the features provided. Call it ‘accessibility’ or whatever, but the core of the game changed.
“Always aim for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.”
These consequences are evident throughout Mass Effect 2. The inventory screen is turned into a load-out screen at the beginning of each mission, and the loot? It’s gone. That’s not to say the inventory system in Mass Effect is perfect , it isn’t and is a chore to use, but it gives the game depth by allowing players to modify their equipment with the loot they find.
Still, some elements are improved; the frame-rate is more stable and the shooter mechanics are definitely more competent. It’s just that Mass Effect is never going to be competitive with other 3rd shooters like Gears of War or Uncharted, and it needs those features to add depth and variety that the gunplay will not provide.
Here’s another example of one step forward, two steps back; In Mass Effect 2 you find side-quests by scanning planets – which isn’t fun -, and once you have found a mission you go into a unique environment and you shoot things for about 15 minutes. So what’s the problem?
We all remember the side-quests in Mass Effect. You would be dropped onto an uncharted planet and it would have a base of one of three variants. It was fairly repetitive and tiresome, but it had the right idea. It gave us a first-hand insight into the universe using exploration and stories to keep us interested. What Mass Effect 2 gave us wasn’t any better, because essentially it was just a fancy looking corridor providing us with little more than shoot the bad guy.
Someone at Bioware actually thought this fun.
It’s the same thing with the story and characters. The meatiness of the main story is cut down to something that’s easy to remember, and most of the content is put into gathering your crew and gaining their loyalty. I can understand why Bioware did this; instead of having a 15 hour main quest that requires time and dedication, why not make most of the content into 2-3 hour segments that players can jump into whenever they want?
Getting the balance right between character and story development is vital, but they misjudged it. Most of your time is spent gathering and gaining the loyalty of your team members. It’s really odd because once you have achieved this then you’re at the end game. Bioware should have made the balance more equal, getting rid of the poor characters and using that time to develop the main story.
The problem is that the game develops the idea that you have to get the best team for the mission, but it never feels like that. I always get the impression that most of team don’t really care and you’re there to baby sit them making sure they’re happy. Even then most of your team hate each other and they never interact outside of scripted events.
Shepard, help me kill this giant space-worm, so that I can join my space-clan and become space-happy.
It hides under the pretence that your entire team is important to the suicide mission, but they’re not. In the last mission, you decide what your plan is, then you go out and shoot the collectors; apart from one occasion you never see your other teammates until a cutscene happens. If you were to remove the other teams you wouldn’t lose anything from the experience. You feel like you’re doing all the work.
Maybe in the end this was a deliberate move by Bioware. Mass Effect was known for putting off players because it was a slow-burner. Getting rid of the RPG elements and turning the game into 2-3 hour chunks made it more accessible to a wider audience.
I don’t want to give the impression that Mass Effect 2 is a bad game; it isn’t. It’s just that the choices made by Bioware have taken away things that enhanced the game despite their faults. You may call it streamlining, but that doesn’t justify it. Either way, Bioware decided that they would be more likely to achieve their goals if they made them less ambitious, and they did succeed. Shamefully it made Mass Effect 2 into a weaker game.
---------------------------
My reply was:
I agree, except for the part where you claim it’s still a good game.
Like you said, MEs third person shooting mechanics alone will never be able to compete with games like gears, and so it relies on it’s RPG elements that give the overall game more depth like the first game. The game is hardly an RPG, so why does anyone like this crap? Oh right… the “story”.
About that. The story doesn’t make sense. An agency spends a fortune to bring one man back from the dead so that they can use that guy to recruit a small team of elite soldiers, so that they can go destroy one collector ship that is roaming about the galaxy… what? Why not use your massive amount of funds to build a fleet, rather than waste them on a single elite group? Sure, commandos are useful in real warfare, but they can’t realistically compare to an entire fleet of ships and personnel.
I get it’s supposed to make the player feel important and badass, but it just feels stupid. In the previous game you had to act against orders because command continually underestimated you like they should have.
It would have made more sense if bringing back Shepard completely back from the dead and 100% authentic (not a clone) was the only way that cerberus could ensure that they could perfect a clone army from his DNA or something, you know, something that would have met their investment on shepard and made sense.
On top of that, the whole dialogue choice thing is vastly overrated. Your choices in dialogue don’t often have much of a choice, and often you have to pick between selfrighteous prick and flaming asshole which isn't much of a choice.
Well the ship is cloaked you say? Well they have the power of stasis you say? Your telling me the elite biological scientists of cerberus couldn’t create an as effective way to combat the stasis thingies without Mordin? Say maybe they couldn’t, that doesn’t mean they can’t hire Mordin without bringing Shepard back from the dead.
And then it gets worse. The human-spam-powered superweapon. Yeah, nevermind element 0 and fusion reactors and all that other stuff, we’re going to revert to the primitive chemosynthesis to convey a sort of half assed horror element because the writers couldn’t think of something more original or creative.
Bigger and better is the usual approach to any sequel. For videogames all you have to do is add a few new features and weapons, make the story more epic and you’ve got yourself a sequel. It’s fairly standard stuff.
Bioware didn’t do this with Mass Effect 2. They did the opposite.
Mass Effect is one of the best games of this generation. That’s not to say it’s perfect, it does have its share of faults, but it has the right idea when it comes to making a great game. It’s clear that these features have potential; they just need the right touch.
That didn’t happen. I don’t know if it was due to the shorter development cycle or a deliberate move by Bioware but it affected the game. Instead, Bioware removed entire features which made the game less in-depth that the features provided. Call it ‘accessibility’ or whatever, but the core of the game changed.
“Always aim for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.”
These consequences are evident throughout Mass Effect 2. The inventory screen is turned into a load-out screen at the beginning of each mission, and the loot? It’s gone. That’s not to say the inventory system in Mass Effect is perfect , it isn’t and is a chore to use, but it gives the game depth by allowing players to modify their equipment with the loot they find.
Still, some elements are improved; the frame-rate is more stable and the shooter mechanics are definitely more competent. It’s just that Mass Effect is never going to be competitive with other 3rd shooters like Gears of War or Uncharted, and it needs those features to add depth and variety that the gunplay will not provide.
Here’s another example of one step forward, two steps back; In Mass Effect 2 you find side-quests by scanning planets – which isn’t fun -, and once you have found a mission you go into a unique environment and you shoot things for about 15 minutes. So what’s the problem?
We all remember the side-quests in Mass Effect. You would be dropped onto an uncharted planet and it would have a base of one of three variants. It was fairly repetitive and tiresome, but it had the right idea. It gave us a first-hand insight into the universe using exploration and stories to keep us interested. What Mass Effect 2 gave us wasn’t any better, because essentially it was just a fancy looking corridor providing us with little more than shoot the bad guy.
Someone at Bioware actually thought this fun.
It’s the same thing with the story and characters. The meatiness of the main story is cut down to something that’s easy to remember, and most of the content is put into gathering your crew and gaining their loyalty. I can understand why Bioware did this; instead of having a 15 hour main quest that requires time and dedication, why not make most of the content into 2-3 hour segments that players can jump into whenever they want?
Getting the balance right between character and story development is vital, but they misjudged it. Most of your time is spent gathering and gaining the loyalty of your team members. It’s really odd because once you have achieved this then you’re at the end game. Bioware should have made the balance more equal, getting rid of the poor characters and using that time to develop the main story.
The problem is that the game develops the idea that you have to get the best team for the mission, but it never feels like that. I always get the impression that most of team don’t really care and you’re there to baby sit them making sure they’re happy. Even then most of your team hate each other and they never interact outside of scripted events.
Shepard, help me kill this giant space-worm, so that I can join my space-clan and become space-happy.
It hides under the pretence that your entire team is important to the suicide mission, but they’re not. In the last mission, you decide what your plan is, then you go out and shoot the collectors; apart from one occasion you never see your other teammates until a cutscene happens. If you were to remove the other teams you wouldn’t lose anything from the experience. You feel like you’re doing all the work.
Maybe in the end this was a deliberate move by Bioware. Mass Effect was known for putting off players because it was a slow-burner. Getting rid of the RPG elements and turning the game into 2-3 hour chunks made it more accessible to a wider audience.
I don’t want to give the impression that Mass Effect 2 is a bad game; it isn’t. It’s just that the choices made by Bioware have taken away things that enhanced the game despite their faults. You may call it streamlining, but that doesn’t justify it. Either way, Bioware decided that they would be more likely to achieve their goals if they made them less ambitious, and they did succeed. Shamefully it made Mass Effect 2 into a weaker game.
---------------------------
My reply was:
I agree, except for the part where you claim it’s still a good game.
Like you said, MEs third person shooting mechanics alone will never be able to compete with games like gears, and so it relies on it’s RPG elements that give the overall game more depth like the first game. The game is hardly an RPG, so why does anyone like this crap? Oh right… the “story”.
About that. The story doesn’t make sense. An agency spends a fortune to bring one man back from the dead so that they can use that guy to recruit a small team of elite soldiers, so that they can go destroy one collector ship that is roaming about the galaxy… what? Why not use your massive amount of funds to build a fleet, rather than waste them on a single elite group? Sure, commandos are useful in real warfare, but they can’t realistically compare to an entire fleet of ships and personnel.
I get it’s supposed to make the player feel important and badass, but it just feels stupid. In the previous game you had to act against orders because command continually underestimated you like they should have.
It would have made more sense if bringing back Shepard completely back from the dead and 100% authentic (not a clone) was the only way that cerberus could ensure that they could perfect a clone army from his DNA or something, you know, something that would have met their investment on shepard and made sense.
On top of that, the whole dialogue choice thing is vastly overrated. Your choices in dialogue don’t often have much of a choice, and often you have to pick between selfrighteous prick and flaming asshole which isn't much of a choice.
Well the ship is cloaked you say? Well they have the power of stasis you say? Your telling me the elite biological scientists of cerberus couldn’t create an as effective way to combat the stasis thingies without Mordin? Say maybe they couldn’t, that doesn’t mean they can’t hire Mordin without bringing Shepard back from the dead.
And then it gets worse. The human-spam-powered superweapon. Yeah, nevermind element 0 and fusion reactors and all that other stuff, we’re going to revert to the primitive chemosynthesis to convey a sort of half assed horror element because the writers couldn’t think of something more original or creative.
Post edited August 30, 2012 by JCD-Bionicman
