616 réponses à ce sujet

[MassEffect762]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

ME2 is a big mess in terms of rpg i´m sorry, its strong in the shooter aspect and i do not like this, combining the ideas will just look like a flawed shooter or a flawed rpg, ME2 had everything to be both pleasing in the story, equipment, customization, character progression, squad management etc, but they chose the quick path and streamlined the game completely.

I still like ME2 but when i wonder about the possibilities wasted i´m a sad panda.

Yeah I think bioware knows that , If I was the buisness type I'd figure ME2 saved me some money.

Dont you think it would be cheaper to keep ME1 gameplay rather than change it?

Good point, but who really knows what they spent to make the change from 1 to 2? I don't.

My point being that they wanted to make the change and they did BUT without spending more time/money on programming in a more robust game.(I.E. Exploration, Team Armor, Toggle Helmet, a more interesting weapon/armor upgrade interface, a beefier main plot arch, etc)

Who knows what coulda, woulda, shoulda been, it's too late this point.

[kraidy1117]

MassEffect762 wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

ME2 is a big mess in terms of rpg i´m sorry, its strong in the shooter aspect and i do not like this, combining the ideas will just look like a flawed shooter or a flawed rpg, ME2 had everything to be both pleasing in the story, equipment, customization, character progression, squad management etc, but they chose the quick path and streamlined the game completely.

I still like ME2 but when i wonder about the possibilities wasted i´m a sad panda.

Yeah I think bioware knows that , If I was the buisness type I'd figure ME2 saved me some money.

Dont you think it would be cheaper to keep ME1 gameplay rather than change it?

Good point, but who really knows what they spent to make the change from 1 to 2? I don't.

My point being that they wanted to make the change and they did BUT without spending more time/money on programming in a more robust game.(I.E. Exploration, Team Armor, Toggle Helmet, a more interesting weapon/armor upgrade interface, a beefier main plot arch, etc)

Who knows what coulda, woulda, shoulda been, it's too late this point.

Alot of people did't like the gameplay. Some of oyu might but alot of people did't so they fixed it up, and only a minorty don't like the changes. Bioware does not care about there fans. They only care about money and the mass.

Also your team does have a shield system.

Jack, Jacob and Samara use barrier
Miri, Legion, Garrus, Thane, Tali, Mordin, Zaeed, Kasumi use shileds
Grunt use's armor

Pay attention pleese and thank you.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 10 juin 2010 - 04:21 .

[SilentOne1]

Honestly, I enjoyed the new streamlined experience in ME2. It gave me an easier time with getting into the flow of the action. I enjoy playing the Gears of War series, and playing ME2 was almost like second nature to me.

However, it is also debatable that the original ME had a MUCH better RPG feel to it, and was much improved. No matter how you put it, more exploration & plot options in ME2 have left many wondering what their actions' repercussions will be...I'm sure if you've paid attention that you'll see that there are some things that can destroy reputations (Early explorations...Tortured Operative Data...Keep it? Who to send it to?). If you've done exploration missions you know what I'm talking about.

Modifié par SilentOne1, 10 juin 2010 - 04:29 .

[AlanC9]

MassEffect762 wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

Dont you think it would be cheaper to keep ME1 gameplay rather than change it?

Good point, but who really knows what they spent to make the change from 1 to 2? I don't.

My point being that they wanted to make the change and they did BUT without spending more time/money on programming in a more robust game.(I.E. Exploration, Team Armor, Toggle Helmet, a more interesting weapon/armor upgrade interface, a beefier main plot arch, etc)

Who knows what coulda, woulda, shoulda been, it's too late this point.

So the argument is that improving the ME1 gameplay took resources away from doing other things that you wish they had done?

[AlanC9]

kraidy1117 wrote...
Alot of people did't like the gameplay. Some of oyu might but alot of people did't so they fixed it up, and only a minorty don't like the changes. Bioware does not care about there fans. They only care about money and the mass.

Wait a minute. Improving gameplay means you don't care about the fans?

[KitsuneRommel]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Yes but i dunno if that difference is or not substantial, its like if a sniper shot takes 100 damage to you if you had light armor you could die, medium escape barely and heavy... you get the point. Imho they should have improved many things like this and not completely remove it, in a kind of lore perspective its weird too.

Well it's just that Soldiers had Immunity, Infiltrators had Immunity and extra shields, Vanguards and Adepts had Barrier, Sentinel had Barrier and extra shields and even Engineer (weakest of them all) had extra shields. The class with the best armor also had the best skill to deal with incoming damage.

Light armor was ugly and looked like space pyjamas for a female Shepard. I prefer the armor systeim in ME2, it just need ALOT more parts.

Not just female Shepards.

[Alex_SM]

Missunderstood much??



Listen, when you create a character in any RPG, you create something new, with his own abilties, his own background story, his own aligment, his own battle proficiences, actitudes, deciciones, etc, etc, etc.



When you play his role, Its kind of obvious that you become the character... but as you become the character, you have to role play him according to how you create the character.... with HIS abilties, HIS aligment and act on what he will do as a character. This is like an actor job, you put yourself in the role of this imaginary character and you act accordingly to his characteristics. Thats role playing basics, I mean, ultra basics.



If you are mixing you're own personality and abilities when you are role playing the character, you ARE NOT playing this imaginary character; you are using him as an excuse to do what you'll do, given the settings.



I hope its more clear.

And you are playing commander Shepard, the person who killed a reaper in personal combat. Yeah, it doesn't make sense that he could shot with good accuaracy.

[PillarBiter]

Alex_SM wrote...

Missunderstood much??

Listen, when you create a character in any RPG, you create something new, with his own abilties, his own background story, his own aligment, his own battle proficiences, actitudes, deciciones, etc, etc, etc.

When you play his role, Its kind of obvious that you become the character... but as you become the character, you have to role play him according to how you create the character.... with HIS abilties, HIS aligment and act on what he will do as a character. This is like an actor job, you put yourself in the role of this imaginary character and you act accordingly to his characteristics. Thats role playing basics, I mean, ultra basics.

If you are mixing you're own personality and abilities when you are role playing the character, you ARE NOT playing this imaginary character; you are using him as an excuse to do what you'll do, given the settings.

I hope its more clear.

And you are playing commander Shepard, the person who killed a reaper in personal combat. Yeah, it doesn't make sense that he could shot with good accuaracy.

What I want from an RPG... Is a world created, wherein i as player can assume any role I want, and finisht he story in any way i want. Gameplay and RPG elements are different. Wheter you must strategically choose your target, and accuracy is calculated, or you can choose your own target aim and shoot, that is gameplay. RPG is the increasing of your abilities, stats, the repercussions of your world interactions etc.

So I don't really see the problem people have with me2. I thin the most people that have a problem with me2 is people who prefer WoW or dragon age. Although, I am in favor of more customizable and upgradeable skills and weaponry in me3.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Yes but i dunno if that difference is or not substantial, its like if a sniper shot takes 100 damage to you if you had light armor you could die, medium escape barely and heavy... you get the point. Imho they should have improved many things like this and not completely remove it, in a kind of lore perspective its weird too.

Well it's just that Soldiers had Immunity, Infiltrators had Immunity and extra shields, Vanguards and Adepts had Barrier, Sentinel had Barrier and extra shields and even Engineer (weakest of them all) had extra shields. The class with the best armor also had the best skill to deal with incoming damage.

Light armor was ugly and looked like space pyjamas for a female Shepard. I prefer the armor systeim in ME2, it just need ALOT more parts.

Not just female Shepards.

Immunity was too much, scrap that , soldier has no immunity now in ME2, so the heavy armor would make more sense for him only even more. The others as you well said still have shileds or barrier and now tech armor, a sentinel can have the same armor as the soldier and also tech armor, this doesn´t seem right to me, now if a sentinel had light armor and tech armor that would make more sense i dunno.

I do agree with you on your points, but armor looks is also subjective, again some like others don´t, you show light armor as being bad i could show you colectors armor from ME2 too .

The armor parts was indeed a cool idea, but we need many more so we can have both the desired mod and prefered armor toghether, its obvious some armors favor one class or another but for that to satisfy every class gamer we need many more parts.

Bioware could have gone a bit further here by doing what they did with the parts, and upgrades to be placed by the player, so easy, instead of only upgrading the chest with mods like in ME1 we could place one mod we liked on each part, simple no? that would also increase the customization a bit more too.

[incinerator950]

MassEffect762 wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

ME2 is a big mess in terms of rpg i´m sorry, its strong in the shooter aspect and i do not like this, combining the ideas will just look like a flawed shooter or a flawed rpg, ME2 had everything to be both pleasing in the story, equipment, customization, character progression, squad management etc, but they chose the quick path and streamlined the game completely.

I still like ME2 but when i wonder about the possibilities wasted i´m a sad panda.

Yeah I think bioware knows that , If I was the buisness type I'd figure ME2 saved me some money.

Dont you think it would be cheaper to keep ME1 gameplay rather than change it?

Good point, but who really knows what they spent to make the change from 1 to 2? I don't.

My point being that they wanted to make the change and they did BUT without spending more time/money on programming in a more robust game.(I.E. Exploration, Team Armor, Toggle Helmet, a more interesting weapon/armor upgrade interface, a beefier main plot arch, etc)

Who knows what coulda, woulda, shoulda been, it's too late this point.

Yes, lets have more useless weapons and gear like the first, or like Borderlands, where we had 11 million guns, yet only 20 of them were worth using.  

As for exploration and Team Armor, I miss having uniform Armor sets and my Mako, but after playing ME1 from not playing since ME2 came out, I don't miss the first game.  It went from an interactive movie to somewhat of a video game now.

[KitsuneRommel]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Bioware could have gone a bit further here by doing what they did with the parts, and upgrades to be placed by the player, so easy, instead of only upgrading the chest with mods like in ME1 we could place one mod we liked on each part, simple no? that would also increase the customization a bit more too.

Of course. ME2 needed more customization. They could also bring back the heavy/medium/light by limiting what kind of upgrades (or their strength) you could add.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Bioware could have gone a bit further here by doing what they did with the parts, and upgrades to be placed by the player, so easy, instead of only upgrading the chest with mods like in ME1 we could place one mod we liked on each part, simple no? that would also increase the customization a bit more too.

Of course. ME2 needed more customization. They could also bring back the heavy/medium/light by limiting what kind of upgrades (or their strength) you could add.

Exactely, ammo boost for example would make sense for soldier while a stabilization mod would make sense for an Infiltrator.

[incinerator950]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Bioware could have gone a bit further here by doing what they did with the parts, and upgrades to be placed by the player, so easy, instead of only upgrading the chest with mods like in ME1 we could place one mod we liked on each part, simple no? that would also increase the customization a bit more too.

Of course. ME2 needed more customization. They could also bring back the heavy/medium/light by limiting what kind of upgrades (or their strength) you could add.

Without going back to overpowering upgrades in ME1, I wouldn't mind seeing more customization.

[finnithe]

MrCry0 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Missunderstood much??

Listen, when you create a character in any RPG, you create something new, with his own abilties, his own background story, his own aligment, his own battle proficiences, actitudes, deciciones, etc, etc, etc.

When you play his role, Its kind of obvious that you become the character... but as you become the character, you have to role play him according to how you create the character.... with HIS abilties, HIS aligment and act on what he will do as a character. This is like an actor job, you put yourself in the role of this imaginary character and you act accordingly to his characteristics. Thats role playing basics, I mean, ultra basics.

If you are mixing you're own personality and abilities when you are role playing the character, you ARE NOT playing this imaginary character; you are using him as an excuse to do what you'll do, given the settings.

I hope its more clear.

And you are playing commander Shepard, the person who killed a reaper in personal combat. Yeah, it doesn't make sense that he could shot with good accuaracy.

What I want from an RPG... Is a world created, wherein i as player can assume any role I want, and finisht he story in any way i want. Gameplay and RPG elements are different. Wheter you must strategically choose your target, and accuracy is calculated, or you can choose your own target aim and shoot, that is gameplay. RPG is the increasing of your abilities, stats, the repercussions of your world interactions etc.

So I don't really see the problem people have with me2. I thin the most people that have a problem with me2 is people who prefer WoW or dragon age. Although, I am in favor of more customizable and upgradeable skills and weaponry in me3.

Mass Effect is not like that though. The three origin stories for Shepard (Sole Survivor, War Hero, Ruthless) all paint him as a veteran soldier, so the game play should reflect that. Sometimes I think Alpha Protocol's system of letting you be a recruit is a better system, but since the first thing you find out in ME1 is that you are a candidate for the best special-ops group in the galaxy, so it wouldn't really work out if you were a raw recruit or anything less than a veteran. 

Mass Effect is a bit more restricted than an RPG like Dragon Age. You get to define Shepard's character (mostly his moral compass), but not much else. Making the characters a bit restricted makes it easier to tell a good story though, so I'm good with that. 

[TMZuk]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

The fact that an engineer can hit a headshot with a pistol at 500 meters
of distance proves this

I'm sorry but that's just too retarded.

I served in the military in a damn fire control and yet I scored NEAR PERFECT score on the shooting range wtih an ASSAULT RIFLE. Do you REALLY think ME1 is realistic in that sense? REALLY? I wasn't a grunt, I wasn't a sniper, I didn't get special training, yet I could shoot a damn rifle.

Edit: Just in case you misunderstood. Fire control meaning giving targets to ARTILLERY.

That is actually quite interesting.

It is something typical of so many games, wether it be guns and glory, or sword and sorcery. I've practiced and studied swords and swordfighting for years now, and I've yet to come across a game where the swordfighting is even remotely realistic.

I guess the same is true for shooter-games... when I served my conscription in the Danish military, we were still issued the old H&K G3, and I can say for sure that if you tried to fire that on full auto, you'd be spreading bullets all over Creation... Even if you are commander Shepard. So perhaps the basic ME1 Storm assaultrifle, is an H&K G3 with unlimited ammo...

[KitsuneRommel]

TMZuk wrote...

I guess the same is true for shooter-games... when I served my conscription in the Danish military, we were still issued the old H&K G3, and I can say for sure that if you tried to fire that on full auto, you'd be spreading bullets all over Creation... Even if you are commander Shepard. So perhaps the basic ME1 Storm assaultrifle, is an H&K G3 with unlimited ammo...

I don't think G3 was THAT bad though my shooting experience with it was rather limited. It was ugly as hell though but military loves blocky things.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

When i was in the army i too used the H&K G3 and i can say its a damn lethal rifle, its pretty accurate in single shot and of course auto is a spray lol, not to mention the clip is gone in seconds.

Modifié par MoonChildTheUnholy, 10 juin 2010 - 09:58 .

[MassEffect762]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

Dont you think it would be cheaper to keep ME1 gameplay rather than change it?

Good point, but who really knows what they spent to make the change from 1 to 2? I don't.

My point being that they wanted to make the change and they did BUT without spending more time/money on programming in a more robust game.(I.E. Exploration, Team Armor, Toggle Helmet, a more interesting weapon/armor upgrade interface, a beefier main plot arch, etc)

Who knows what coulda, woulda, shoulda been, it's too late this point.

So the argument is that improving the ME1 gameplay took resources away from doing other things that you wish they had done?

Look, I don't know what bioware had to work with in regards to time/money. What is obvious to me(my opinion) is that ME2 is not as robust/interesting as it could've been. I seriously doubt anyone at bioware could honestly tell me that  ME2 was thier best effort and they could not possibly improve/expand upon it.

Comprende?

Modifié par MassEffect762, 10 juin 2010 - 10:35 .

[MassEffect762]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

When i was in the army i too used the H&K G3 and i can say its a damn lethal rifle, its pretty accurate in single shot and of course auto is a spray lol, not to mention the clip is gone in seconds.

It's not called a clip my friend, it's a magazine.  Didn't care for the rifle myself, I prefer carbines.

[incinerator950]

MassEffect762 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

When i was in the army i too used the H&K G3 and i can say its a damn lethal rifle, its pretty accurate in single shot and of course auto is a spray lol, not to mention the clip is gone in seconds.

It's not called a clip my friend, it's a magazine.  Didn't care for the rifle myself, I prefer carbines.

Thank you ****ing christ.

[UseTheForks]

I see a lot of discussion about RPG depth and gameplay in the forums, and it all seems to get around what I've been thinking about comparisons about ME1 and ME2...



ME2 just did not feel "EPIC", the exact reasons for which I am not sure. That is to say, the overall presentation of ME1 (IMO) was better than ME2. Maybe some of you know what I'm talking about.



For example, in ME1 we are introduced to a brand new world; look at the sequence when you first fly into the Citadel, the music is epic in that 1980's EPCOT retro-future sort of way. Even the opening cinematic of ME1 made me feel like something meaningful was going to unfold.



I felt like the amazing universe created for this series was taken for granted in ME2. What felt like an amazing trip into the future in ME1 seemed more like the ho-hum of everyday life in ME2. For example, the Citadel feels more like a bus station now. Sure it visually looks cool, but no longer aesthetically feels cool; whatever was amazing about it in the first game is gone in the second. Personally, I panned the camera a few times in ME1 just to see how far the Citadel curved off into the distance.



The citadel is just one example, but could be applied to other aspects of the universe in ME2. It seems like in ME1 we were encouraged to look out the window and take in the uniqueness of the Universe that was imagined for this game, and in ME2 we are meant to just keep our heads down and get on with it.



Sooo, for ME3, hopefully I'll have a reason to stop and stare at the universe again... hope that makes sense, just my 2¢

[Lopake]

ME2 was too much rpg

[lukandroll]

Alex_SM wrote...

Missunderstood much??

Listen, when you create a character in any RPG, you create something new, with his own abilties, his own background story, his own aligment, his own battle proficiences, actitudes, deciciones, etc, etc, etc.

When you play his role, Its kind of obvious that you become the character... but as you become the character, you have to role play him according to how you create the character.... with HIS abilties, HIS aligment and act on what he will do as a character. This is like an actor job, you put yourself in the role of this imaginary character and you act accordingly to his characteristics. Thats role playing basics, I mean, ultra basics.

If you are mixing you're own personality and abilities when you are role playing the character, you ARE NOT playing this imaginary character; you are using him as an excuse to do what you'll do, given the settings.

I hope its more clear.

And you are playing commander Shepard, the person who killed a reaper in personal combat. Yeah, it doesn't make sense that he could shot with good accuaracy.

No, you're playing the Shepard YOU created with whatever proficiencies YOUR Shepard  has

When a game doesn't offer this level of character progresion and diversity anymore, it can't really be called a role playing game, as you are playing the same set character that we all were playing, with an universal set of proficiencies on all classes, on all playthroughts on all games....

Modifié par lukandroll, 12 juin 2010 - 02:38 .

[Alex_SM]

UseTheForks wrote...


ME2 just did not feel "EPIC", the exact reasons for which I am not sure.

Well, the whole ME2 ending (from Omega Rele to the end) is the most epic thing i've ever played. And the opening is awesome as well. 

[Alex_SM]

lukandroll wrote...

No, you're playing the Shepard YOU created with whatever proficiencies YOUR Shepard  has

When a game doesn't offer this level of character progresion and diversity anymore, it can't really be called a role playing game, as you are playing the same set character that we all were playing, with an universal set of proficiencies on all classes, on all playthroughts on all games....

Is not the same character. Building a character is not abour numbers or skills, it's abour character's personality. As long as it makes sense with the character conception the rest is accesory.