616 réponses à ce sujet

[Jestina]

SSV Enterprise wrote...
Damage or weapons force of a rifle being dependent on the player's stats doesn't work for a shooter, when you think about it. It works for medieval RPGs and such, where strength directly ties into how much damage you do with a sword, but your skill has no bearing on how much damage a bullet does if it hits.

It's more of a reflection that a skilled shooter has a better chance of hitting vital locations.

[SSV Enterprise]

Jestina wrote...

ME2 equals less for your money than ME1, that's what it comes down to.

So vastly improved graphics, cinematic direction, and characterization is worth nothing now?  As is the fact that ME2 required two discs, thus having quantifiably more material than ME1?

Edit:  Shooter skill  at hitting vital areas can be determined by the actual shooter playing.  It's frustrating to line up a perfect headshot and *miss*.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 01 juin 2010 - 02:46 .

[Jestina]

If I just want pretty pictures i'll watch a movie. I expect to get content with games and ME2's content comes nowhere close to the content you got with ME.

[Mayson02]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

here, instead of going way shooter, how about BIoware does something a bit more productive than just shock and awe and make teams of 4 people.....would be awesome tot ake Tali garrus and future krogan at once.....just awesome.

Isometric, turn-based (or real-time with pausing) combat with 5-6 people in your squad. Can I get a 'Yay' vote?

I think you'll be hard pressed to find people that agree with this.  

Turn based combat just seems so weird now.  Don't get me wrong, I loved it in Fallout 1/2 and Xcom and older games , but I've been spoiled by some of the advancements that have been made. 

KOTOR spoiled me with their semi-choreographed combat so that standing next to your enemy and taking turns hitting each other just seems odd.

Shooters have spoiled me so that standing 10 feet away from your enemies and taking turns shooting at them just seems odd and no one likes having a shot lined up and just missing for no reason.

I've said it before, but I'd be happy with the shooter mechanic being the same as it is now, with better melee added.  I picture it being something like KOTOR where you run up to them and press attack and then you get locked into a choreographed melee fight with the enemy that can resut in you killing him, him killing you, or you both retreating (maybe disarmed or "lamed" in some way).  That way you can have a team mate start grappling with an enemy and you can just walk up and shoot them in the head, or you could even sneak up on someone and slit their throat, or you could just save some ammo by finishing a guy off by using your "plasma sword" (light saber) to dismember him.

Modifié par Mayson02, 01 juin 2010 - 04:11 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Mayson02 wrote...

I think you'll be hard pressed to find people that agree with this.  

Turn based combat just seems so weird now.  Don't get me wrong, I loved it in Fallout 1/2 and Xcom and older games , but I've been spoiled by some of the advancements that have been made. 

I know. I'm a relic and I accept that.

[Sigma Tauri]

Jestina wrote...

If I just want pretty pictures i'll watch a movie. I expect to get content with games and ME2's content comes nowhere close to the content you got with ME.

Have you ever thought that if you can reduce a UNC mission without the fluff, it's basically land on a planet, go to a base, kill people, and click at objective? UNC planets aren't as substantial as you might think. It's worse when you realize the layout of all bases, mines, and bunkers are so awfully similar.

A lot of exploration is a timesink. I couldn't understand what the **** the point was in finding League of One medallions or Turian Insignias except for credits and experience. Modern RPGs shouldn't have you waste time in collection quests. You don't even get varied loot in ME unlike past Bioware games.

[Jestina]

At least it wasn't linear or contrived loyalty missions. Loyalty missions are just silly. Oh, you get new squad members and each one just happens to come with an assignment for you to do. Minus loyalty missions there isn't much side questing for you to do at all. Compare the citadel in ME to ME2 for example.



With equipment gone, stores are now useless and what few items there are, it's just junk like fish and toys.



I get the feeling they've realized Mass Effect can be a cash cow so they don't need to put as much effort into the game now, the title will sell it. Its meeting the same fate as many other popular game series have, though at a much earlier point.

[SSV Enterprise]

Jestina wrote...

At least it wasn't linear or contrived loyalty missions. Loyalty missions are just silly. Oh, you get new squad members and each one just happens to come with an assignment for you to do. Minus loyalty missions there isn't much side questing for you to do at all. Compare the citadel in ME to ME2 for example..

You must not have done very much planet scanning.

True, the Citadel of ME1 had more sidequests than the Citadel in ME2.  However, aside from UNC quests, the Citadel was really the only place with sidequests.  Therum and Virmire had no sidequests whatsoever, Noveria didn't really either, and Feros had the whole "going down into the tunnels" thing that still tied into the main quest.  Whereas ME2 had Omega, Illium and Tuchanka as well as the Citadel, each with a bunch of sidequests you could do.  Sidequests may have been more dispersed in ME2, but overall there were just as many, and they were of higher quality than ME1's.

[Jestina]

What little side questing there is in 2, is very small and always straightforward. I guess some people don't mind shelling out more money for less though, which is what you get with ME2.

[The Mythical Magician]

More role playing? yes please.

[SSV Enterprise]

Jestina wrote...

What little side questing there is in 2, is very small and always straightforward. I guess some people don't mind shelling out more money for less though, which is what you get with ME2.

*Sigh* Another person who thinks that rather than honestly liking Mass Effect 2, those who like it must be somehow less intelligent or have lower standards.

Listen. I loved the first Mass Effect. I also loved Mass Effect 2, and I think that overall Mass Effect 2 was a better game than Mass Effect. That is not a paradox.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 01 juin 2010 - 06:31 .

[Riddley313]

Not enough RPG elements. It's a shooter moonlighting as an RPG now.  Oddly enough I'm reminded of the RTS game Dawn of War...for the sequel, they completely removed base building, a fundamental part of an RTS, and essentially "streamlined" the game far too much in order to appeal to a wider market.

A lot of things that were complained about in the first game just needed some meaningful changes and tweaks - they really didn't have to be gutted from the sequel completely. I'm still enjoying ME2 and I think it's a solid game, but there were certain design decisions that were not justified.

Modifié par Riddley313, 01 juin 2010 - 06:36 .

[Shotokanguy]

This topic seems to not really have gone where I was trying to make it go.

This was discussing how you could strike a balance between the traditional inventory system you see in RPGs that the RPG fans want back for ME3, and ME2's system, which is simpler and more realistic, but too bare bones.

[Jackal904]

Spartas Husky wrote...

But kool. kool. You want a 30 hr combat sim....you can hope nevertheless, and I can hope bioware doesn't take advantage of the MW bubble, and make just another "relatively realistic" money black hole.

You are the pinnacle of a whiny rpg fanatical baby. ME2 isn't even remotely close to a 30 hour "combat sim." You act like because they got rid of the burden that was the inventory system, somehow all the cutscenes and dialogue magically dissappear. People like you make no ****ing sense. BioWare simplifies the inventory system and the skill system, and somehow the game turns into MW2. Just ignore all the dialogue and the cutscenes I guess. Seriously, stfu.

[Riddley313]

Jackal904 wrote...

You act like because they got rid of the burden that was the inventory system, somehow all the cutscenes and dialogue magically dissappear. People like you make no ****ing sense. BioWare simplifies the inventory system and the skill system, and somehow the game turns into MW2. Just ignore all the dialogue and the cutscenes I guess. Seriously, stfu.

It should be noted that not everyone thought the inventory system was a burden. Sure, it had many flaws, but BioWare essentially "simplified" it by removing it from the game instead of designing a better one. The old saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is pretty accurate in relation to some of these design decisions.

[Jestina]

Gutting the game was the lazy route to fixing the inventory system. Laziness or they did indeed decide to strip the game and turn it into a shootfest. To simplify inventory more they could have given storage space on the ship and to allow Shepard to carry a very limited amount of stuff. You should also be able to choose which items to pick up and which to discard...that was another issue. I also wish they would let you choose which weapons to lug around with you...as an infiltrator, there's no point in my character having to tote around an assault rifle and a shotgun...they are just paper weights.

[Sigma Tauri]

Jestina wrote...

At least it wasn't linear or contrived loyalty missions. Loyalty missions are just silly. Oh, you get new squad members and each one just happens to come with an assignment for you to do. Minus loyalty missions there isn't much side questing for you to do at all. Compare the citadel in ME to ME2 for example.

Those loyalty missions are the most fully developed aspect of character-based quests that Bioware has made. Not even Baldur's Gate 2, KoTOR, Torment, or Dragon Age has that much attention added into squad side quest, which have always existed at the periphery. Each character loyalty is given similar treatment as a recruitment or Stop the Collector mission, and engages the player fully into dialogue and combat as well as access to useful upgrades.

I can concede however the ME2's side quests weren't that well-developed along with its hub worlds. Side quests encourage exploration and replayability, and ME1 delivered that. But, quantity doesn't mean quality. Scan the Keepers was a collection quest. Click a button and you get your prize. Helping someone make a cheating machine by playing a poor version of pazaak, or a fetch quest for General Septimus. Many of them aren't even deep choices with varying tangible consequences. It's either +8 paragon or +9 renegade when you choose a charm or intimidate option. I dunno what kind of profound experience you got from that, but maybe I'm just spoiled getting a ****ing castle when I became guardian of the d'Arnise stronghold.

Jestina wrote...
With equipment gone, stores are now
useless and what few items there are, it's just junk like fish and toys.

Stores were useless anyway, and Mass Effect (in fact, RPGs in general) never were known for having well-adjusted economies. (It's a trope to consider the hero as the upsetting figure to the local economy by inundating their inventories with cheap weaponry.) Upgrading your equpiment resulted only increased numbers, and you eventually stopped buying once Spectre-class weapons were available. This added by the fact you amass huge sums of credits from fighting enemies and rarer equipment from UNC missions than any store.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 01 juin 2010 - 07:10 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Jestina wrote...

Gutting the game was the lazy route to fixing the inventory system. Laziness or they did indeed decide to strip the game and turn it into a shootfest. To simplify inventory more they could have given storage space on the ship and to allow Shepard to carry a very limited amount of stuff. You should also be able to choose which items to pick up and which to discard...that was another issue. I also wish they would let you choose which weapons to lug around with you...as an infiltrator, there's no point in my character having to tote around an assault rifle and a shotgun...they are just paper weights.

I find your last sentence odd, as the Infiltrator did not carry assault rifles or shotguns in Mass Effect 2. It did, however, carry them in the first game.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 01 juin 2010 - 07:02 .

[spacehamsterZH]

The correct answer is more cowbell.

[bjdbwea]

monkeycamoran wrote...

Have you ever thought that if you can reduce a UNC mission without the fluff, it's basically land on a planet, go to a base, kill people, and click at objective?

But why do that? The "fluff" is exactly what made those missions interesting. Much more interesting than the side missions in ME 2, that's for sure.

monkeycamoran wrote...

A lot of exploration is a timesink. I couldn't understand what the **** the point was in finding League of One medallions or Turian Insignias except for credits and experience. Modern RPGs shouldn't have you waste time in collection quests. You don't even get varied loot in ME unlike past Bioware games.

It was all optional. And there goes your "argument". You want to concentrate on shooting stuff, just ignore the side missions. Or - buy one of the countless shooters out there.

[AlanC9]

Jestina wrote...

What little side questing there is in 2, is very small and always straightforward. I guess some people don't mind shelling out more money for less though, which is what you get with ME2.

Less what? Silly sidequests? My understanding is that playing time is about the same for both games.

[Kalfear]

LOL, come back from a nice sleep and what you know, same to or 3 people argueing with everyone else but I bet those 2 or 3 people still say they the majority and shooter is popular!



Still waiting for SSV to even remotely answer any of my questions (not surprised he didnt and instead attacked on personal level).

[AlanC9]

bjdbwea wrote...

It was all optional. And there goes your "argument". You want to concentrate on shooting stuff, just ignore the side missions. Or - buy one of the countless shooters out there.

Every minute of developer time put into a sidequest is a minute that didn't go into the main plot. You can't dodge the question by saying that the sidequests are optional -- if someone doesn't like sidequests he can skip them, but a game with sidequests has less of what he does want.

[SSV Enterprise]

Kalfear wrote...

LOL, come back from a nice sleep and what you know, same to or 3 people argueing with everyone else but I bet those 2 or 3 people still say they the majority and shooter is popular!

Still waiting for SSV to even remotely answer any of my questions (not surprised he didnt and instead attacked on personal level).

I'm still waiting for you to come up with evidence for your argument- you have posted none whatsoever- and for a response to my argument, which you conveniently ignored.

I find it ironic that you're complaining about "personal attacks" when you first called me illiterate and told me to read a book (which has no bearing whatsoever on how ME1 compares to ME2).

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 01 juin 2010 - 07:23 .

[Jestina]

There is no natural progression with loyalty in 2. It just feels completely contrived and stupid. I could see someone like Tali being loyal as she was on the first Normandy. On the other hand, I can't see Shepard gaining loyalty with Miranda so easily...considering Cerberus incidents in ME and how much Cerberus love Miranda was spouting in 2. Instead of any kind of loyalty progression through conversations, training, missions, etc....we get boom, dumb loyalty missions. If you want to elaborate on a characters background there are way better methods of going about it than that.