244 réponses à ce sujet

[lazuli]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I also like how missions were more varied in structure in ME1.

Now its all-

1. Arrive.

2. Shoot anything that moves.

3. Leave.

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

1. Drive forever.

2. Arrive.

3. Shoot anything that moves.

4. Loot.

5. Leave.

[LPPrince]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

ME1 WASN'T like that.

In ME1, you had driving sequences, ports, whole hubs, shops, minigames, etc etc.

You get none of that in ME2. We land, we run and shoot, we leave. That's it.

[Ralnith]

Actually, the ME2 "inventory replacement" is a good idea, it just needs to be more... like an inventory. I like the fact that choosing weapons and armor that you wear during a mission is an important tactical decision and I'd like to keep it that way, just expanded to squadmates as well.

The heatsinks should be kept too, but as consumables with a limited max. carrying capacity. Imho, weapons should overheat like they did in ME1, but cool down a lot slower and whenever the heat-meter is >0 you should have a choice to wait for it too cool on its own or swap the heatsink. This would make the ammo feel unique and less like boring old bullets we've seen in countless other games and (hopefully) make sure the Collectors, Reapers and other bad guys who don't use that technology don't have a ton of perfectly compatible heatsinks lying around in their bases.

Btw: ME2 has more item choices than ME1:
ME1 has 2 assault rifles (geth pulse rifle and specter rifle), ME2 has 3
ME1 has 1 shotgun (spectre gear), ME2 has 2 +Evicerator from Cerberus network.
ME1 has 1 pistol (spectre gear), ME2 has 2
ME 1 has 1 sniper rifle (again spectre gear), ME2 has 2 +Incisor from some DLC
ME1 has 2 armors (Colossus and maybe Predator if you like a ton of shields), ME2 doesn't have a lot of options here (4 for chest/shoulders/arms/legs, 4 helmets with no DLCs) but the armor is modular and (well, aside from the starting gear) all choices are viable. There are also DLC armors, 1 of which is free.

ME1 still wins in the customization because of the weapon and armor mods, but I don't think they add as much depth to the game as *really* different weapons and ME2 has that. All the crap that clutters the inverntory and mercant selections in ME1 are just palette swaps of the same weapons you already have, and noone uses those things anyway because of the superior spectre gear.


Edit: forgot to count the Death Mask.

Modifié par Ralnith, 25 juillet 2010 - 10:59 .

[Simpfan]

LPPrince wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

ME1 WASN'T like that.

In ME1, you had driving sequences, ports, whole hubs, shops, minigames, etc etc.

You get none of that in ME2. We land, we run and shoot, we leave. That's it.

And ME2 doesnt have ports, hubs, shops and minigames?

[LPPrince]

Simpfan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

ME1 WASN'T like that.

In ME1, you had driving sequences, ports, whole hubs, shops, minigames, etc etc.

You get none of that in ME2. We land, we run and shoot, we leave. That's it.

And ME2 doesnt have ports, hubs, shops and minigames?

Not during missions. Every mission's effectively the same simplistic thing.

[Cris Shepard]

face the facts people instead of hopping on ME2's nuts. No1 wanted the RPG elements gone except for the brainless shooter fans, we wanted them improved. ME2 is a great game, but it has its flaws, one of which is the lack of variety in Armor, Weapons and so on. When your armor has like +10 % shields you barely feel a difference.

[Pocketgb]

LPPrince wrote...

Not during missions. Every mission's effectively the same simplistic thing.

The mission structure between the two games isn't the same, though. ME2 loses the few and large missions in favor of numerous and varied smaller missions. ME2 loses the scale of the Citadel in favor of separating between three different and intriguing hubs.

One word regarding ME1's inventory: Pointless.

Cris Shepard wrote...

ME2 is a great game, but it has its flaws, one of which is the lack of variety in Armor, Weapons and so on.

As opposed to what, ME1? Or just in general? If the latter it definitely wouldn't be bad to see more pieces. If the former then I fully disagree. See above statement about inventory.

Cris Shepard wrote...

When your armor has like +10 % shields you barely feel a difference.

Honestly don't know what to say to this since there wasn't much "difference" in ME1 either.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 25 juillet 2010 - 11:46 .

[LPPrince]

Pocketgb wrote...

One word regarding ME1's inventory: Pointless.

That's pretty debatable.

One word regarding ME2's inventory: Nonexistent.

And that's the problem. That's not debatable.

[Jackal904]

LPPrince wrote...

I think we can all agree that an improved ME1(inventory, story, etc etc)+an improved ME2(combat)=ME3(the perfect game)

No we cannot, because I don't, and many other people don't.

LPPrince wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

One word regarding ME1's inventory: Pointless.

That's pretty debatable.

One word regarding ME2's inventory: Nonexistent.

An inventory system in ME2 is nonexistent because it was pointless in ME1.

Modifié par Jackal904, 25 juillet 2010 - 11:50 .

[Epic777]

I will not lie I do not miss the old inventory system and I believe me2 did not need an inventory system, similar to Bioshock. The reason is simple, me2 just like bioshock doesn't have much inventory however I will vouch for the inventory system for me1. The inventory system itself was never broken, contrary to popular belief. The problem was the inventory was too numerous and also redundant. The redundancy was caused by two things:

->The changes between each gun was too small and ultimately each gun felt the same.

->Once the player had Spectre gear then 99% of the guns collected were useless and only fit for omni gel/selling.

Another way too look at it is like this:

Raikou line of Pistols (x) Brawler line of Pistols (x) Stinger line of Pistols (x) Striker line of Pistols...... (x) level 1-10 = a huge number of redundant equipment



I personally prefer me2's approach of having less equipment but having more uniqueness but I would like to see me3 more of the same. An example are shotguns, in me2 there are only 4 shotguns, potentially a player can only have 3(The Eviscerator being a dlc weapon). In me3 lets see 10 different shotguns all with different uniqueness and different vs armor, vs barrier, vs shields. Like If I playing on Tali's or Legion's mission I would probably choose the geth pulse rifle as it does more damage to shields than any other gun. I would choose the Eviscerator as my shotgun of choice playing the soldier because as a player I believe it worked better with adrenaline rush however playing the vanguard I preferred the claymore. These are the kinds of choices I would like to see.

[LPPrince]

Jackal904 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I think we can all agree that an improved ME1(inventory, story, etc etc)+an improved ME2(combat)=ME3(the perfect game)

No we cannot, because I don't, and many other people don't.

LPPrince wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

One word regarding ME1's inventory: Pointless.

That's pretty debatable.

One word regarding ME2's inventory: Nonexistent.

An inventory system in ME2 is nonexistent because it was pointless in ME1.

Two questions for you-

A. What do you want ME3 to be then?

B. So you'd rather they scrap anything that's flawed instead of fix it and make it better?

[MassEffect762]

Good times. This won't go well.



I miss the inventory system.



ME2 was pretty damn soulless in the rpg department(imo).



Mini games, inventory, real full fledged armor/weapon mods and shops with a variety of neat stuff(talking weapons/armor/amps here) to buy would have gone a long way.



That's my opinion.

[LPPrince]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Good times. This won't go well.

I miss the inventory system.

ME2 was pretty damn soulless in the rpg department(imo).

Mini games, inventory, real full fledged armor/weapon mods and shops with a variety of neat stuff(talking weapons/armor/amps here) to buy would have gone a long way.

That's my opinion.

Yeah, I agree.

ME2 was a better game, but ME1 was a MUCH better experience for me. I had more fun with it, and part of that is because of the RPG elements it had that were omitted in ME2, one of which is the inventory system.

[theelementslayer]

LPPrince wrote...

Simpfan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

ME1 WASN'T like that.

In ME1, you had driving sequences, ports, whole hubs, shops, minigames, etc etc.

You get none of that in ME2. We land, we run and shoot, we leave. That's it.

And ME2 doesnt have ports, hubs, shops and minigames?

Not during missions. Every mission's effectively the same simplistic thing.

Um Ill have to disagree, politely of course, that ME2 had a few more non  shooting side missions then ME1. The VI contrlled ship, that was creepy. All the little runarounds with random people. Like the krogan and the fish-loved that one. Two loyalty missions had no shooting in it. Samaras and Thanes-Loved both of those. Kasumis mission  was half of it in the party, again very fun and no shooting-except to people in the security room. THere were alot of greatly thought out non shooting missions in ME2

EDIT: Oh and inventory no leave it as the same as ME2. Much more realistic and I know youll say this is an RPG but ME1 had one weapon that I could get about halfway through the game and thats all Id use. Spectre gear. Sell the rest make 10 million credits, and then convert the rest to omni gel, max out easily before the last mission.

ME2's weapons while fewer had more choice. Go with the low ammo high damge of the Vindicator, or go with the high ammo low damage of the Geth pulse or go with the mix and use the avenger. I constantly switched them up to suit my combat needs. 

Modifié par theelementslayer, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:12 .

[LPPrince]

I heard people complaining about ME2's non-shooting missions.



And remember, missions ≠ assignments.



Compare Feros, Noveria, Therum, Virmire, and Ilos to all the main recruitment/loyalty missions in ME2.



The missions in ME1 were better built. Especially Noveria, apparently. I constantly hear people bring up Noveria in other boards and in real life when referring to how a game's level should be built.

[Pocketgb]

LPPrince wrote...

That's pretty debatable...

There's only two types of gear in ME1: Gear that was worse than what you were wearing, and gear that was better than what you were wearing. If the gear was better you had no reason to not wear it. If the gear was worse you had no reason to keep it, sans for the aesthetics.

LPPrince wrote...

The missions in ME1 were better built. Especially Noveria, apparently. I constantly hear people bring up Noveria in other boards and in real life when referring to how a game's level should be built.

Noveria was indeed awesome. None of ME2 lives up to it, but neither does the rest of ME1.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:39 .

[Il Divo]

Pocketgb wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

That's pretty debatable...

There's only two types of gear in ME1: Gear that was worse than what you were wearing, and gear that was better than what you were wearing. If the gear was better you had no reason to not wear. If the gear was worse you had no reason to keep it, sans for the aesthetics.

I think this sums up the Mass Effect 1 inventory quite nicely.

I'll also point out that since weapon variety never changed our playstyle at all, the bloated inventory felt even more pointless. I used a 172 damage assault rifle the same was as a 60 damage assault rifle, as an example.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:35 .

[lazuli]

Il Divo wrote...

I'll also point out that since weapon variety never changed our playstyle at all, the bloated inventory felt even more pointless. I used a 172 damage assault rifle the same was as a 60 damage assault rifle, as an example.

This isn't entirely true.  Some weapon mods changed the way you used guns, largely by manipulating the overheat system.  I rarely dug deeper than +% damage vs. organics/synthetics, though.

[mopotter]

LPPrince wrote...

Simpfan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

ME1 WASN'T like that.

In ME1, you had driving sequences, ports, whole hubs, shops, minigames, etc etc.

You get none of that in ME2. We land, we run and shoot, we leave. That's it.

And ME2 doesnt have ports, hubs, shops and minigames?

Not during missions. Every mission's effectively the same simplistic thing.

I remember a lot of people complaining in ME1 that every mission was the same two types of buildings just on different planets and that each planet was pretty much the same, snow, wet, toxic,   They wanted city missions and missions on planets that had trees or looked more developed.

Personally I like both games,  and there are things in both games I didn't care for.  I liked the way the classes were in ME1 and I liked the way you leveled up.  But I also liked being able to change my specialized skills in the middle of the game in ME2.  Might not be realistic, but I enjoyed it.  

I don't care about the weapons, as long as I can shoot them.  I never understood them anyway.  I pick up a sniper rifle marked X and it would be worse than the one I had marked VII.  I just got to the point I went with whatever had the most fire power.  I did like being able to change the ammo whenever I wanted to.

Mostly I just want more dialog and conversations with my crew and really great endings (multiple endings depending on your choices) for the series.  

[mopotter]

LPPrince wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

Good times. This won't go well.

I miss the inventory system.

ME2 was pretty damn soulless in the rpg department(imo).

Mini games, inventory, real full fledged armor/weapon mods and shops with a variety of neat stuff(talking weapons/armor/amps here) to buy would have gone a long way.

That's my opinion.

Yeah, I agree.

ME2 was a better game, but ME1 was a MUCH better experience for me. I had more fun with it, and part of that is because of the RPG elements it had that were omitted in ME2, one of which is the inventory system.

ME1 left me much more satisfied story wise.  

ME2 is the 2nd part of 3 parts and I've never liked the 2nd part as much as the 1st and 3rd.  

I did liked the background missions and how you picked up your crew, but the story left me wanting something.  Which again, I've always felt that with the 2nd part of a 3 part story, whether it's a book or movie.  This is the first game I've ever played that is in 3 parts and I'm putting a lot of trust into the writers, with just a tiny bit of worry.  But mostly trust.  

[mopotter]

Pocketgb wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

That's pretty debatable...

There's only two types of gear in ME1: Gear that was worse than what you were wearing, and gear that was better than what you were wearing. If the gear was better you had no reason to not wear it. If the gear was worse you had no reason to keep it, sans for the aesthetics.

LPPrince wrote...

The missions in ME1 were better built. Especially Noveria, apparently. I constantly hear people bring up Noveria in other boards and in real life when referring to how a game's level should be built.

Noveria was indeed awesome. None of ME2 lives up to it, but neither does the rest of ME1.

I used all of my gear to buy new stuff, especially the sniper rifle with 85% accuracy rating.  Everyone else got whatever I found.  

I did like all of the main missions.  Feros was my favorite.  Noveria was cool too. 

[mopotter]

LPPrince wrote...

I think we can all agree that an improved ME1(inventory, story, etc etc)+an improved ME2(combat)=ME3(the perfect game)

 your kidding right?  You get a group of  people together and you think they can all agree?  Maybe if you made them stay in the room until they either starved and came to an agreement, but even then, I doubt if everyone would agree.  Someone will decide starving is a better option.

[Il Divo]

lazuli wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I'll also point out that since weapon variety never changed our playstyle at all, the bloated inventory felt even more pointless. I used a 172 damage assault rifle the same was as a 60 damage assault rifle, as an example.

This isn't entirely true.  Some weapon mods changed the way you used guns, largely by manipulating the overheat system.  I rarely dug deeper than +% damage vs. organics/synthetics, though.

True, but I think the overall sentiment remains the same. The amount of time spent cycling through my inventory/creating omnigel is disproportional to the overall effect on my playstyle. Weapons never changed playstyle at all; the rare weapon mod did. But it was still minimal I felt.

[theelementslayer]

Il Divo wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I'll also point out that since weapon variety never changed our playstyle at all, the bloated inventory felt even more pointless. I used a 172 damage assault rifle the same was as a 60 damage assault rifle, as an example.

This isn't entirely true.  Some weapon mods changed the way you used guns, largely by manipulating the overheat system.  I rarely dug deeper than +% damage vs. organics/synthetics, though.

True, but I think the overall sentiment remains the same. The amount of time spent cycling through my inventory/creating omnigel is disproportional to the overall effect on my playstyle. Weapons never changed playstyle at all; the rare weapon mod did. But it was still minimal I felt.

In the way they kept the mods though with the ammo powers. In a much better way IMO