161 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

There's no way in any game to know until you get there and you've tried it out. But the descriptions given of each skill, what's required for them and what fuels them is all there, and you don't need guides to do well, you just need to put some thought into things and plan your class out ahead of time. The point is, you can't just spend points anywhere and spread them around too much without being punished, and you certainly can't max almost every skill, even in the massively high levels.

Example:
Zeal Sorc
Strength:Enough for your gear. I chose to use a
Dusk Shroud for my armor for the relatively high defence and low strength requirement so the total amount of strength I required was 91 for the Sandstorm Treks.

Strength Points Required (with perfect gear): 29

Dexterity:Enough to use gear. The only piece of gear that requires high dexterity is the Phase Blade, which requires 136 dexterity.

Dexterity Points Required (with perfect gear): 61

Vitality:Nothing.You will recieve enough from the gear and this sorceress uses energy shield.

Vitality Points Required (with perfect gear): 0

Energy:Everything you have left. Mana is your life!

Energy Points Required (with perfect gear): 400

Cold Spells:
Frozen Armor - 1 Point

Lightning Spells:
Lightning Mastery - 20 Points
*Energy Shield -7 Points
*Telekinesis -20 Points
Teleport - 1 Point
Chain Lightning - 1 Point
Lightning - 1 Point
Charged Bolt - 1 Point
Static Field - 1 Point

Fire Spells:
* Fire Mastery - 15 points
Enchant - 20 Points
Warmth - 20 Points
Fire Ball - 1 Point
Fire Bolt - 1 Point

"Oh sorry you put 5 points in Fire Bolt when leveling and now your build sucks."

Edit: That wasn't as good an example as I had hoped. In some RPGs you need certain amount of strength or dexterity to wear certain armor and in those you can really mess up if you don't know what to aim for. Either you read character building guides or you'll likely end up with a gimp or non-optimal character.

It's pretty much the same with ME1 and DA:O too. It's impossible to "screw up" your character.

No it's not. With ME1 you can miss out on dialogue by not choosing to invest in your persuasion skills, or can't hack or decrypt without either having a tech or investing in those skills. If you spend too many points on powers early and don't invest in your weapons you'll feel the pinch, and not all your skills will be used at all let alone maxed, even at Level 60, let alone Level 30. It's not until the high 40's that the different class builds start to blend; something ME2 doesn't even avoid before Level 20 is reached. You can't totally screw your character completely in ME1, but you can make them less than ideal, and put them into situations that make you feel the pinch early on in the game.

Eh. In ME2 you can miss out on dialogue if you don't have enough paragon/renegade points so I don't get that point. And as you can see from Ecael's picture you can max pretty much every skill if you want to.

DAO is easy to screw up. Make a Rogue that's dual-wielding, archery and sword+shield and you'll either be half-assed at all of them or you'll have no non-weapon skills, and on harder difficulties that'll be nasty. I actually screwed up building Allister on the first playthrough I did because I tried to change him from a defensive tank into a double-handed sword wielding DPS'er, and he turned out horribly for it. One can't just simply upgrade any base stat without thought in DAO either (i.e. make a rogue and spend their points all over the place instead of mostly in Dex and Cunning).

Harder difficulties will be hard  without optimized characters/teams but that's true for all RPGs. Not putting all your points on strength when you play a mage is basic knowledge though.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 22 mai 2010 - 01:42 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Ecael wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Now then look ME1 side of picture and you see weapons and some other stuff. How ever in ME2 they where moved in research upgrades side. You know those 1/5 add shotgun damage and so on. That's why it's really hard to compare character power and skill selection, because now they are done different ways.

Compare this picture:


Hole idea behind ME2 was that you don't manipulate so much in personal level, expect characters personal powers. Everyting else is more like you advances as research in general level. Like how far you have become technology level on the game. Affects every squad members powers, weapons armors. In some way this is good idea, but not to everyting.

Example if I have more powerfull version of same weapon, no point to make it personal choise, everyone will use best weapon possible. How ever, I may want to select what weapon, armor and ammos someone is using. I also like to develop everyones personal powers and skills. I think there is differences when something need to be personal choise and just general affect.

There is skill selection in both games, but they result in the same builds by the end.

Even comparing inventory to upgrades, by the end of the game there will only be one powerful set of armors and weapons worth using (this is almost always the case in RPGs anyway) as there is with powerful sets of upgrades.

After you select your class in ME1/ME2, your character develops along the path that BioWare desires. There isn't any choice. If you want choice, that's what we should be campaigning for in ME3 - not saying "Be more liek ME1" or "Be more liek ME2".

in actual truthful words..."Bull****!!!", Neo.


if his character allowed for all of life to exist, then why was is destroyed in the end? why didn't it allow for those who currently questioned it in that particular scene to NOT exist yet explained that very line to them having them to exist? Why would such a thing react to a demand as to those asking/demanding wanting to know stuff, yet claim to demand others of things? 

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 22 mai 2010 - 01:06 .

[Ecael]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

in actual truthful words..."Bull****!!!", Neo.


if his character allowed for all of life to exist, then why was is destroyed in the end? why didn't it allow for those who currently questioned it in that particular to NOT exist yet explained that very line to them having them to exist? Why would such a thing react to a demand as to those asking/demanding wanting to know stuff, yet claim to demand others of things? 

...

...

[Ricinator]

i loved mass effect 1 and its inventory.... i was so disapointed that it wasnt in me2 i want it back for me3

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

No, but I thought it was pretty obvious given the overall style of the sentence in question. Tone is a hard thing to "hear" in text only of course.

And the pro-ME2 group are no better when it comes to hyperbole either.

Only slightly better.

If the pro-ME2 group really hated ME1 that much in the past, then they wouldn't have bought ME2 in the first place. The reverse is much more possible (liking ME1, bought ME2 but hated it). Those people are more likely to voice their discontent on a forum, engage in groupthink, polarize the debate, and then criticize every possible aspect of the game - even though a lot of those aspects were in Mass Effect 1.

Groupthink is difficult for a "pro-ME2" group because it's made up of people who like both games and a minority - that for some reason - decided to play the trilogy backwards and hate ME1 only.

Approximately 97% of game critics gave Mass Effect 2 an A grade or higher. That is not hyperbole speaking, that is fact.

Why can't people admit that both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 are solid shooter-RPGs?

Yes. Yes, they did. They also gave high scores to Halo 3, Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War, etc. as well. Aside from the fact that game critics these days hand out 9's and 10's more than Starbucks hands out coffee, they mostly evaluated it as a standalone game on its own merits. They didn't evaluate it as a sequel, and didn't evaluate it as an RPG. In fact, most reviews I've read even have them commenting that the RPG factors were cut back. Proper fans are always going to be more critical of a product than general reviewers.

Those games you listed have multiplayer. Should Mass Effect lose points because it doesn't have multiplayer instead?

Most of the games with the highest unanimous scores are single-player or have very little multiplayer. They are the ones with scores of 95% or higher - including Mass Effect 2.

And no, EA is not paying them under the table or "encouraging" the critics to hand out 9s or 10s - otherwise, they would have done the same for Command and Conquer Tiberian Twilight:

http://www.gameranki...ight/index.html

That may be so, but ME1 at least doesn't have the builds converging until the mid 40's or so level wise. For most of the game you can play your classes in different ways, and its not until the later part that things start to meld, and by that point you likely still play your class in the same manner as you have been up until then. I've built three different Vanguards that play four different ways in ME1, and sure they ended up with similar points at the end, but for most of the game their builds were structured differently. ME2 starts converging by the time your in your teens level wise.

You can play the class however you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that builds within a class are all too similar to each other. It only feels that way in ME1 because you can't max out your level in one playthrough, especially if you haven't unlocked the Level 50 achievement yet.

[Tlazolteotl]

Ecael wrote...
But you agree that before Blizzard brought down the nerf-hammer, Hammerdins were the most viable build of all, yes?

I don't expect BioWare to do the same with game balance or options until their first true multiplayer game with The Old Republic.

Hammerdins were the most viable build at one point in time, if you were soloing.
The problem with blessed hammer is having to stand still and cast repeatedly, and if you're in a group, they'll just dash off ahead of you.
You end up getting next to no kills, and therefore less XP.

My first main was a nova sorc, which killed stuff so fast I was accused of cheating on numerous occasions.
PvE and PvP.
See, early on, blessed hammer was nothing special ... and the day it got buffed to ridiculousness, they also violated my sorc with a nerfbat the size of alaska.
And ... diablo 2 was a game that did not allow you to respec, so you're stuck with whichever skills you picked regardless of rules changes.

So no.
Hammerdins weren't the most viable build at all ... 'cos by the time it was any good, everyone knew how the game of Diablo 2 gets patched .. and anything overly effective would not remain so for long.

[Ecael]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Ecael wrote...
But you agree that before Blizzard brought down the nerf-hammer, Hammerdins were the most viable build of all, yes?

I don't expect BioWare to do the same with game balance or options until their first true multiplayer game with The Old Republic.

Hammerdins were the most viable build at one point in time, if you were soloing.
The problem with blessed hammer is having to stand still and cast repeatedly, and if you're in a group, they'll just dash off ahead of you.
You end up getting next to no kills, and therefore less XP.

My first main was a nova sorc, which killed stuff so fast I was accused of cheating on numerous occasions.
PvE and PvP.
See, early on, blessed hammer was nothing special ... and the day it got buffed to ridiculousness, they also violated my sorc with a nerfbat the size of alaska.
And ... diablo 2 was a game that did not allow you to respec, so you're stuck with whichever skills you picked regardless of rules changes.

So no.
Hammerdins weren't the most viable build at all ... 'cos by the time it was any good, everyone knew how the game of Diablo 2 gets patched .. and anything overly effective would not remain so for long.

Oops - I kind of forgot to include "most viable build for Paladins at one time".



Mass Effect's classes are very much different, but I just don't think the builds within each class are.

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

No, but I thought it was pretty obvious given the overall style of the sentence in question. Tone is a hard thing to "hear" in text only of course.

And the pro-ME2 group are no better when it comes to hyperbole either.

Only slightly better.

If the pro-ME2 group really hated ME1 that much in the past, then they wouldn't have bought ME2 in the first place. The reverse is much more possible (liking ME1, bought ME2 but hated it). Those people are more likely to voice their discontent on a forum, engage in groupthink, polarize the debate, and then criticize every possible aspect of the game - even though a lot of those aspects were in Mass Effect 1.

Groupthink is difficult for a "pro-ME2" group because it's made up of people who like both games and a minority - that for some reason - decided to play the trilogy backwards and hate ME1 only.

Well, when I say "pro-ME2" people I mean people who generally prefer ME2 or staunchly defend it. They need not necessarily dislike or hate ME1, just like those who complain about ME2 don't necessarily hate it (I personally don't hate it... I'm just really disappointed by it).

Also, just because a person speaks out against ME2 doesn't mean they think ME1 is perfect either. ME1 and ME2 share very few common faults, even if they both have faults in the same areas. ME2's answer to many of ME1's issues was mostly "scrap and replace (or not)" rather than "repair and/or tweak" which led to many of ME1's problems not being really solved but merely going away, which resulted in completely new problems taking their place. To put it simply, ME1 was a broken game while ME2 was a shallow game. ME1 has a broken inventory, ME2 has a shallow inventory. Both have problems with their inventory, just in different ways.

Those games you listed have multiplayer. Should Mass Effect lose points because it doesn't have multiplayer instead?

Most of the games with the highest unanimous scores are single-player or have very little multiplayer. They are the ones with scores of 95% or higher - including Mass Effect 2.

And no, EA is not paying them under the table or "encouraging" the critics to hand out 9s or 10s - otherwise, they would have done the same for Command and Conquer Tiberian Twilight:

http://www.gameranki...ight/index.html

Games shouldn't automatically get better scores for multiplayer, just like single player games shouldn't be penalised for not having it. All that I'm saying is that they weren't evaluating it as a Mass Effect title or an RPG, but purely on its own merits as a standalone product. As a shooter and if looked at in an isolated manner its a good game, but as an RPG and a sequel to the original game its lacklustre. The fact is the biggest sellers and the biggest scorers these days are shooters. A high score doesn't indicate that a game has a lot of depth to it.

And again, critics these days simply hand out too many high scores. It used to be that 5/10 really was the average score, and rightly so, but its rare to see games get anything less than a 6 these days, and the average score is more likely 7 or 8. And the critics are quite often not suite synced up with the fans. Take Modern Warfare 2, a game that was almost universally praised by game critics, and yet despite selling millions many players ended up finding the single player horribly short and unfulfilling and the multiplayer of it not much better than the original. Then Battlefield Bad Company 2 comes out, and gets decent but unspectacular scores from the professional critics, probably averaging about 8 as opposed to 9 or 10, and yet most players out there find it far superior to Modern Warfare 2 in almost every way.

You can play the class however you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that builds within a class are all too similar to each other. It only feels that way in ME1 because you can't max out your level in one playthrough, especially if you haven't unlocked the Level 50 achievement yet.

I won't deny that. But it stills allows more variation than ME2 does, even if only slightly. What ME2 really needed was the same amount of powers as ME1, but still with the Level 30 cap. If ME1 had the same amount as it did but the level cap was 30,  or even 40, it would have been far better. The problem is that the ME2 devs halved the cap, but also more than halved the power sets, thus largely achieving nothing.

Modifié par Terror_K, 23 mai 2010 - 05:17 .

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

Well, when I say "pro-ME2" people I mean people who generally prefer ME2 or staunchly defend it. They need not necessarily dislike or hate ME1, just like those who complain about ME2 don't necessarily hate it (I personally don't hate it... I'm just really disappointed by it).

Also, just because a person speaks out against ME2 doesn't mean they think ME1 is perfect either. ME1 and ME2 share very few common faults, even if they both have faults in the same areas. ME2's answer to many of ME1's issues was mostly "scrap and replace (or not)" rather than "repair and/or tweak" which led to many of ME1's problems not being really solved but merely going away, which resulted in completely new problems taking their place. To put it simply, ME1 was a broken game while ME2 was a shallow game. ME1 has a broken inventory, ME2 has a shallow inventory. Both have problems with their inventory, just in different ways.

Yet other people seem to praise or criticize one or the other, but not both. The picture you posted a few pages back was a good start to a combination of the two, though.

Also, it's hard to display disappointment for ME1 and then go on to buy ME2. One can still like ME1 and become disappointed in ME2. As I said, the latter is much more likely, as the people who were disappointed by ME1 (or both ME1/ME2) probably wouldn't spend their time of these forums going on about how both games are terrible - or even how ME1 is terrible so they threaten not to buy ME2 even when it's already out.

They'd simply be called trolls and eventually ignored.

Games shouldn't automatically get better scores for multiplayer, just like single player games shouldn't be penalised for not having it. All that I'm saying is that they weren't evaluating it as a Mass Effect title or an RPG, but purely on its own merits as a standalone product. As a shooter and if looked at in an isolated manner its a good game, but as an RPG and a sequel to the original game its lacklustre. The fact is the biggest sellers and the biggest scorers these days are shooters. A high score doesn't indicate that a game has a lot of depth to it.

And again, critics these days simply hand out too many high scores. It used to be that 5/10 really was the average score, and rightly so, but its rare to see games get anything less than a 6 these days, and the average score is more likely 7 or 8. And the critics are quite often not suite synced up with the fans. Take Modern Warfare 2, a game that was almost universally praised by game critics, and yet despite selling millions many players ended up finding the single player horribly short and unfulfilling and the multiplayer of it not much better than the original. Then Battlefield Bad Company 2 comes out, and gets decent but unspectacular scores from the professional critics, probably averaging about 8 as opposed to 9 or 10, and yet most players out there find it far superior to Modern Warfare 2 in almost every way.

However, you'd have to ask each critic if they played Mass Effect 1 first before you can say that they treated as "just another game". I'm sure many of them are familiar with Mass Effect 1. There are still plenty of recent games that can't exactly be classified as pure shooters (Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Metroid, Fallout, BioShock, Metal Gear Solid) but have shooting as a core part of the gameplay. The ones I listed are also single-player focused - and get very high scores as well.

Mass Effect 1/2 are just RPGs with shooting as a core part of the gameplay.

And while it's definitely true that scores are very much inflated in recent years with multiplayer games, there are still many games out there with a solid single-player experience (the games I mentioned above, but I'll include Half-Life 1/2 in this one). If we were to compare the scores of MW2 and Battlefield 2, yes, there's reason to be suspect - but the discussion right now is more like comparing MW1 and MW2 or Battlefield 1 and 2.

I won't deny that. But it stills allows more variation than ME2 does, even if only slightly. What ME2 really needed was the same amount of powers as ME1, but still with the Level 30 cap. If ME1 had the same amount as it did but the level cap was 30,  or even 40, it would have been far better. The problem is that the ME2 devs halved the cap, but also more than halved the power sets, thus largely achieving nothing.

That was more because they took out the power sets for weapon skill as well as Charm/Intimidate. Yes, they decided to put in ammo as a skill, but even for a Soldier (who has every type of ammo) the gameplay doesn't feel all that different as you're still using a single weapon ability over and over again. In addition, each power set does give you the choice between evolving a power at the end.

As for what they did with the actual weapon damage progression - they put that into ME2's upgrade system rather than putting it for each character. So instead of using up points, you're using up resources (and the time to get those resources, of course).

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...

Yet other people seem to praise or criticize one or the other, but not both. The picture you posted a few pages back was a good start to a combination of the two, though.

Also, it's hard to display disappointment for ME1 and then go on to buy ME2. One can still like ME1 and become disappointed in ME2. As I said, the latter is much more likely, as the people who were disappointed by ME1 (or both ME1/ME2) probably wouldn't spend their time of these forums going on about how both games are terrible - or even how ME1 is terrible so they threaten not to buy ME2 even when it's already out.

They'd simply be called trolls and eventually ignored.

I can't speak for everybody, but the reason that I am personally so vocal in criticising ME2 is because I feel its been given more than enough praise already, and praising it further, especially regarding elements that I feel don't deserve praise, doesn't accomplish anything. Games aren't made better by people praising and lauding them for what they did right, they're made better with constructive criticism on what they did wrong. And I think the more BioWare hears about what they did wrong with ME2 the better, especially with all this praise they're getting from official channels.

The problem is that there are those who liked the changes made to ME2 and are afraid that if BioWare listen to those who didn't that the game will revert back to being ME1 again, despite the fact that many of us feel that the answer to many issues lies somewhere between both games, and that BioWare did make a few right decisions here and there, but simply took things too far.

Again, I can't speak for others, but the reason I complain so vocally is not because I want to kick Mass Effect 2 repeatedly but because I care about the IP and want ME3 to be the best game that it can, and I feel BioWare made some bad choices when developing the sequel. I fully acknowledge that the original game had flaws, but I'm still a firm believer in the notion that ME1's flaws were born out of good decisions that were just not quite pulled off. What annoys me the most about ME2 is that almost all of its flaws are born more out of bad decisions and choices to take things too far, or choices to scrap things entirely and either replace them or oversimplify them. These aren't solutions, they're avoiding the issues.

On top of it all, I don't like the overall style and feel of ME2: as if its embarrassed to be an RPG and that it tries to hide it at every turn it can without making it too obvious. Call me a cynic, but ME2 to me screams of the devs being more concerned with branching out and making $$$ than it does about making a truly quality game for established fans. Don't misinterpret that, I'm not saying BioWare have totally sold out, but more that they tried to please both parties with ME2, but were more concerned about bringing in the new than they were with keeping the old, or at least pleasing them, resulting in ME2 feeling rather schizophrenic.

However, you'd have to ask each critic if they played Mass Effect 1 first before you can say that they treated as "just another game". I'm sure many of them are familiar with Mass Effect 1. There are still plenty of recent games that can't exactly be classified as pure shooters (Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Metroid, Fallout, BioShock, Metal Gear Solid) but have shooting as a core part of the gameplay. The ones I listed are also single-player focused - and get very high scores as well.

Mass Effect 1/2 are just RPGs with shooting as a core part of the gameplay.

The thing is, these are game critics. They play all kinds of games all the time. But how many of them moved Mass Effect from just being another one of the crowd into a special place in their hearts like most of the forumites here have? Essentially all they are are casual gamers. Professional casual gamers. Now, I myself have been playing games as long as I remember, and enjoy many genres over many platforms and have for a long time. But its rare when something like Mass Effect comes along, and suddenly becomes more than just a game to you. For that reason I am more concerned about Mass Effect sticking to its roots rather than just being another game. And I can't help but get the feeling that if the original game came along and was in the style of ME2 design and gameplay wise then it would never have become anything more than just another game to me. I wouldn't have cared so much, read the novels, bought the art book, soundtrack, baseball cap and lithographs, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that to these game critics Mass Effect 2 is largely just another game. To me, its so much more, and thus I feel it should have been so much more than it was.

[Tlazolteotl]

Eh, critics are crap.

Not 'cos they don't know what they're talking about, but 5 hours of playing a game simply isn't enough time to assess it properly.

Having to jump to conclusions = susceptible to everything from hype to erroreneous first impressions.

[KitsuneRommel]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Eh, critics are crap.
Not 'cos they don't know what they're talking about, but 5 hours of playing a game simply isn't enough time to assess it properly.
Having to jump to conclusions = susceptible to everything from hype to erroreneous first impressions.

People should really try their local gaming magazines. Not everyone is like some UK magazines that made 3-4 page stories based on few screenshots.