185 réponses à ce sujet

[TekFanX]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I fail to see how the powers in the first game had any real importance. I know most people used the ability they had for their weapon, barrier, immunity, and sometimes shield boost. Other than the you need electronics and decryption to open things, and then you had to put points into Charm and Intimidate to get by certain dialog options.

I certainly used my abilities in Mass Effect 2 more than I did in Mass Effect. Because the weapons had endless ammo and I could modify my shotgun and pistol to never overheat I could spam shots in ME 1 way more than I can in ME 2.

Sure, I don't say that weapons wheren't spammable in ME1, I just say: Powers where too.
Now powers get a big cooldown, while everything else is fast-paced:
Reload, Shield-recharge, health-recharge, weapon-reload, ammunition-powers cool down/regen in a short moment, while powers take a long recharge to be aviable again.

Import a ME2-Soldier and with the points spent on the ammo-powers you can take anything down much more easily than with the power-based classes without their upgrades.
If your skilled enough for head-shots, even more so.

Also powers where a lot more epic in ME1. The best example is the singularity. Using it on it's highest level meant to throw arround chairs, crates and enemies in a slow orbit while it now just stuns most enemies and has a dot-function.

Also the push-power which threw arround nearly the whole group of enemies close to you.

While those powerfull and epic events keep existing in the cut-scenes, you can't do them as a player.
It would be easy to balance a game to be challenging even with such powerfull abilities for the player(Jedi Knight is a good example).

[Water Dumple]

Many shooters' communities don't do much to inspire love for the genre. I
am a fan of some first person shooters myself, such as Call of Duty 4,
Team Fortress 2, and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Yet somehow, time and
time again I'm amazed by just how arrogant and foolish the other people
can be. I'll join a server and finding whole teams crying about this or
that, and it's usually about something so useless it's not worth even
mentioning. There is just about no obligation to keep playing on a
dedicated server, so if everyone on the other team is using overpowered
items, you can just leave. Yet they continue to whine and mindlessly
swear at each other...usually I leave before they do.

And then there is the other "leet" caste, who think they're amazing and
should be worshiped because of their "skill," or in other words, their
ability to M1 better than other people. This is the most vocal group of
shooter fans, and they give the genre a bad name. Sometimes I have to
just leave the server and go play a singleplayer game to keep from
venting the tension back at them. While other genres are certainly not perfect and first person shooter communities aren't all bad, they have earned most of their stereotypes. I do enjoy the shooters that take teamwork, communication, and thought to succeed, such as the earlier part of the Battlefield series (1942, Vietnam, BF2, and 2142). Nothing like a coordinated and well-timed attack on a flag with your squad in Battlefield 2142, especially when everyone is using a mic.

Unfortunately, I've found through a great deal of experience that shooters are extremely hit-and-miss, primarily multiplayer ones. When you join a server, you're flying completely blind and could come in to find a hacker, a stupid clan causing trouble, and all manner of problems. When everything is working right, it's a great experience. But hardly ever does everything work out right, and it's much safer to just go to a singleplayer game.

Mass Effect 2 seems to be a mix of both a third-person shooter and an RPG. I prefer its direction to the first game; it's like they took all the fat off but left the expertly-prepared steak. The combat feels like it holds its own end up, but then when I go back to the Normandy and get all the backstory for characters like Legion, Garrus, Tali, and Thane, the game hits a new level of epic.

Modifié par Water Dumple, 26 juillet 2010 - 01:34 .

[EtTuBrute]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...


BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

I have no complaints from MP since I don't really play MP games since they are all generally moronic in the sense that most people tend to just "run and gun" and B!tch about "campers". I'm waiting for a MP experience that requires strategy and tactics. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. 

Ever played a match in any Battlefield game where strategy and tactics are used?
It's guddamn orgasmic.

[Splinter Cell 108]

I don't think all shooters are mindless. For example Rainbow Six used to be a difficult game where teamwork was essential, however that changed. Shooters today are made for mindless fools IMO, the most I'll ever play on MP today are coop modes like horde or games like Left 4 Dead but even in those modes there's morons who think they're better than everyone and feel teamwork is unnecessary. Besides their communities are terrible IMO, GOW, COD and Halo have terrible communities, GOW having the worst of them all.



What I hate the most is that people claim they are skillful in those kinds of games. They are pick up and play, designed to make people good as soon as they start playing. I hate things like MLG and all those morons that think they're actually good when what they're playing isn't even difficult. I don't compare shooters with RPGs but instead compare them to other games such as Starcraft or Splinter Cell Chaos Theory which are the "real" games IMO since they actually take lots of time and dedication to get good at. Although SCCT did have a shooter component within it at least when you played as a mercenary but even so it wasn't the same thing as halo where it was just shooting until the other guy died.

[TekFanX]

Squiddytreat wrote...

I find it's really very "mindless" to classify an entire genre of games over how a couple of games from that genre play out for some people.
Call of Duty was really fun before Modern Warfare (personal opinion, anyways), and Battlefield was always great. I've been playing FPSes most of my life, starting out with good ol' Doom, Quake, and UT99, and even now still playing Crysis and UT3.
Nothing about them can really be classified as "mindless." The only thing that can make a game seem mindless is a boring player. When players start to vegetate and enter into a routine, the game seems boring.

The solution is simple: when you're playing a game, don't let any senses of "underwhelming boredom" overcome you, especially when someone else says it's boring! Formulate your own opinions, and if you can't even excite yourself a little during the average game, maybe it's time to pick up a new hobby for a bit.

In all honesty, any game  is typically only as boring as the person playing it.
And well, I'll definitely have to cede that it also depends on the game developers. Ubisoft, for example...hasn't been turning out many games that deserve the title of "fun game."
Others, like Bioware, Crytek, Blizzard, and others like them, aren't just in the business for the money.

As I mentioned: I didn't classify the whole genre, just the development it took in the past years.
Battlefield was fun, until the console-import of Bad Company 2 to PC. I made my oppinion about that in several hours of gameplay.
I like Crysis, nothing to mention against it except for it's hardware-hunger.
You said it yourself: Call of Duty was fun before modern warfare so I think it's kinda mindless to accuse other players stating the same thing about other series to be mindless or boring players.

Also the argument of choosing another hobby because someone get's bored during gameplay: In my case I like a lot of games and don't get bored by them. If I'm bored of a game, I won't play it but it is my fair right to criticize what I don't like about it.

I respect honesty, but when it get's to judge a player by it's statement of certain games, you should think twice before posting your thoughts, if they are able to hold up to an argumentation.

I like shooters, I won't argue with you on the genre as being mindless in all parts, but I think you can agree to the recent casual/mainstream-development in shooters that contain explosions everywhere(one point that isn't so bad imo), annoying point-counters you can't turn off and general criss/cross-importing between platforms. 

I'll stick with my example of Battlefield:
I really loved BF2142. Everything was balanced and you had still a mixture of fast paced gameplay with enough hp to survive some shots for tactical gameplay.
In BF BC2 a counter runs arround like you didn't know what happened. A sniper landing a headshot doesn't need to have such things. It certainly makes you feel like a little kid that needs to hear things like "well done".
I haven't seen as many snipers as in BC2 in any BF yet.
Many players just run arround and play with the assaulter/engineer to spam splash-damaging rifle-grenades/rockets.
The PK47-Rockets in BF2142 had nearly the same effect as the besaid spamming-splashers but wheren't as annoying as that.

Modifié par TekFanX, 26 juillet 2010 - 01:43 .

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

EtTuBrute wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...


BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

I have no complaints from MP since I don't really play MP games since they are all generally moronic in the sense that most people tend to just "run and gun" and B!tch about "campers". I'm waiting for a MP experience that requires strategy and tactics. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. 

Ever played a match in any Battlefield game where strategy and tactics are used?
It's guddamn orgasmic.

Unfortunately no. BFBC 1 and 2 has an almost perfect mechanic for strategic MP. It has big maps, vehicles and destructible environments. My problems are: No prone, unrealistic vehicle damage/destruction, no prone, a lack of anti vehicle booby traps/mines/IEDs and NO PRONE.

I played BFBC 1 MP some time back and I had a lot of fun with it in spite of my issues.  

[Pocketgb]

Shooters get hated on here because they're generally the farthest you could get from an RPG in terms of preference (NOT in 'skill'. There are RPGs that are insanely easy and there are shooter games that are incredibly tactical).

This was Mass Effect's most dangerous problem: An attempt at bridging the two crowds together. I don't think a middle-ground will ever be reached.

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Unfortunately no. BFBC 1 and 2 has an almost perfect mechanic for strategic MP. It has big maps, vehicles and destructible environments. My problems are: No prone, unrealistic vehicle damage/destruction, no prone, a lack of anti vehicle booby traps/mines/IEDs and NO PRONE.

I'm actually surprised at how okay I am with BC2 not having any prone. My biggest issue for the longest time was that the PC had no crouch toggle feature, so my pinky took quite a beating. Now that that's resolved I turn my anger once again to the time it takes to get magnum rounds. It wasn't too bad for me since I played the crap out of it, but it can be a pretty big turn off for newer players.

[Water Dumple]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

EtTuBrute wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...


BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

I have no complaints from MP since I don't really play MP games since they are all generally moronic in the sense that most people tend to just "run and gun" and B!tch about "campers". I'm waiting for a MP experience that requires strategy and tactics. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. 

Ever played a match in any Battlefield game where strategy and tactics are used?
It's guddamn orgasmic.

Unfortunately no. BFBC 1 and 2 has an almost perfect mechanic for strategic MP. It has big maps, vehicles and destructible environments. My problems are: No prone, unrealistic vehicle damage/destruction, no prone, a lack of anti vehicle booby traps/mines/IEDs and NO PRONE.

I played BFBC 1 MP some time back and I had a lot of fun with it in spite of my issues.  

BC2 doesn't really stand up to Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 in terms of teamwork. Those games feature larger maps, more players on each team (32v32), better organization and communication, and more open maps with many objectives allowing for plenty of strategies and tactics. In general, Bad Company 2 is much more like a Call of Duty game than a Battlefield one.

Unfortunately, 2142's community is slowly dribbling away after its ~4 years of existence. Always preferred it to Battlefield 2, but not many others did.

[TheKillerAngel]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I'm going to be straight up honest with you. UT3 is "mindless" and and "stupid".
Even though they have gametypes, it's pretty much just run around and gun people down.

-Polite

You could call UT3 mindless and stupid, but that would be an unfair criticism since the game was never designed to focus on strategy and planning - the game is meant to test your speed and reflexes. You succeed in arena shooters by being faster than your opponent, not smarter.

[mrmike_1949]

This thread demonstrats the reason for RPG player 'disdain' for shooters : it is mainly jealousy that shooters have so many good (shooter type) games to choose from, while there are few good RPGs. DA:O, Fallout 3, Oblivion, ME1, that is about it for AAA type of RPGs for the last 4 years.

So when Bioware turned ME2 into more shooter, less RPG, it REALLY disappointed and p*ssed off all the RPG players, with whom Bioware has an excellent reputaion.

That is why the attitude " go play Call of Duty or something.. and leave ME3 alone!!"

A sentiment which I fully share!

[Stanley Woo]

If you're not going to link the discussion to Mass Effect, please take it elsewhere, such as our Off-Topic forum. thank you.

[Pocketgb]

mrmike_1949 wrote...

So when Bioware turned ME2 into more shooter, less RPG, it REALLY disappointed and p*ssed off all the RPG players, with whom Bioware has an excellent reputaion.

Bioware already ticked off a lot of players when they announced that ME1 would mix shooter with RPG gameplay. In response to the 'dumbing down' of ME1 > ME2 there are already numerous posts in the "disappointment" thread (and a few in this one) stating their belief that there wasn't much depth to ME1 anyways.

[DOYOURLABS]

I think it's mostly a scape goat for the decreasing of mass effect's story in ME2, I personally use Mac Walters as a scapegoat ( Drew Karpyshyn should have wrote ME2, just read any of his Mass Effect novels, they are amazing. Much better than that garbage redemption Mac Walters wrote.)



Also, if you think about it, alot of shooters are just running and gunning, sometimes with a reason why you are killing these people. But not all of them are like that, the terrible ones give the genre the bad reputation. I may be a in very small majority but I bought MW2 because I enjoyed the MW single player, and I wanted to see it expanded. I rarely play either multiplayer modes.

[Darth Drago]

mrmike_1949 wrote...

This thread demonstrats the reason for RPG player 'disdain' for shooters : it is mainly jealousy that shooters have so many good (shooter type) games to choose from, while there are few good RPGs. DA:O, Fallout 3, Oblivion, ME1, that is about it for AAA type of RPGs for the last 4 years.

So when Bioware turned ME2 into more shooter, less RPG, it REALLY disappointed and p*ssed off all the RPG players, with whom Bioware has an excellent reputaion.

That is why the attitude " go play Call of Duty or something.. and leave ME3 alone!!"

A sentiment which I fully share!

-This pretty much sums it up for me and probably a lot of people here where Mass Effect 2 is concerned.

Mass Effect 1 was supposed to be a hybrid of RPG and Shooter and for me I think the got it pretty close to right with some obvious fixing needed for a sequel. With an RPG set in modern or futuristic settings where using guns to fight instead of swords your obviously going to border on the shooter genre in gameplay and comparisons. With Mass Effect 2, it does fit in more for a shooter than anything since I see to many shooter elements in it.

With all the changes done to make Mass Effect 2 its painfully obvious the developers focused more on the shooter aspect. Instead of fixing what was wrong in Mass Effect 1 they messed up the RPG/Shooter hybrid formula. To me at least, it was like they were trying to make a hybrid Shooter game using elements from various shooter games mixed in with just a bit of cinematic episodic story. We got shield regeneration from the Halo games, the cover system from Gears of War or similar games, ammo system from any shooter game and levels that look like they would fit in on any multiplayer map. All that is missing is a few multiplayer features and a first person view option. Funny enough how there are people who want to see multiplayer features in ME2/ME3. Wonder how many of these are shooter or RPG fans.

Every year several shooter games get released, some good some not so much. I’ve personally lost interest in this genre since they all look alike to me now. With the RPG market we are lucky to get a good one (on all systems) each year, let alone a sci-fi RPG. I honestly cant think of a recent sci-fi one from the time before Mass Effect 1 was released up through now. Can you?

As a fan of a lot of genres of games I get games that meet my standards of what I’m in a hunger for. For my shooter game fix I can go with mindless fun with a game like Halo (I have been recently playing the original Doom), something different like Jericho or something more thought provoking like the original Rainbow Six. The more unique the game is that separates it from other shooter games the better.

For the RPG selection I get what, fantasy game “A” or fantasy game “B”? If there is a second one or more to choose from that looks good.

When people here constantly compare Mass Effect 2 to other shooter games for better or worse, there is something wrong. I have rarely seen anyone compare Mass Effect 2 to another RPG of any kind. This automatically tells me the RPG/Shooter hybrid balance is gone. This is probably why the shooter fan base gets a lot of heat here in the Mass Effect forums. We saw a great potential in Mass Effect 1 to become something to rival Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and now with Mass Effect 2 its more of like a Gears of War clone just with a few dialog options to be considered as a RPG.

[SithLordExarKun]

Darth Drago wrote...



Mass Effect 1 was supposed to be a hybrid of RPG and Shooter and for me I think the got it pretty close to right with some obvious fixing needed for a sequel.

I personally think ME1 was a ****** poor attempt at trying to mash RPG with Shooter. I felt that they got both aspects wrong, while i thought ME1 was a great game, i thought that the RPG and shooting mechanics were mediocore, i just enjoyed the immersin, the interaction, the choices and the cinematics. Didn't really like the other mechanics. While ME2 did become more shootery, it at least got one thing right : shooting.

Hence why DAO is my favourite RPG.

[s0meguy6665]

JaegerBane wrote...

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

the hate for shooters here stems from the fear that the mass effect series will turn more into a shooter, to cater to console players who are apparently less appreciative of a complex storyline and just want to get to the part where you start killing stuff.

[Sparda Stonerule]

s0meguy6665 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

the hate for shooters here stems from the fear that the mass effect series will turn more into a shooter, to cater to console players who are apparently less appreciative of a complex storyline and just want to get to the part where you start killing stuff.

Honestly I'm just hoping that Mass Effect 3 will keep your level 30, and then you can get to level 60 in the third game. I hope they make a more extensive skill tree but keep the shooting elements. I don't know if it'll happen, but if it did it could turn out to be the best shooter/RPG hybrid ever. Well in my opinion it would. I obviously can't speak for everyone.

I like traditional RPG's (like Lost Odyssey), I like newer "real time" RPG's (like Oblivion/Fallout 3), and I like shooters (FPS's like Bioshock, and TPS's like Gears). I happen to think the Mass Effect series is the best combo of TPS and RPG out there. However there do need to be a bit more RPG elements. I would love to have a wide open battle arena where enemies try to flank and enemies can drop in behind you. I would love to have the disguised loading screens back. I would love more customization on the Normandy, Armor, and Weapons.

So I don't hate Mass Effect 2 for being more of a shooter, I just wish it was also more of an RPG.

[Thompson family]

I find it ironic, in a Schadenfreude sort of way, that old-time RPGer's moaned about the lack of loot. Now there's lots of loot -- you just have to pay for it in DLC.



Anyway, mark me down as somebody who never accused shooter players of being unintelligent. Playing a "real" RPG game where you're balancing some sort of Excel spreadsheet of weapons and characteristics? That's not dumb either, but it's not any sign of greater intelligence.

[Viper-sfm]

I guess, like always, it's a matter of personal preference. I don't understand the hate, but I certainly get why someone would not want to play a FPS. IMO, Quake III Arena still is the best FPS I've ever played. But then, I like games where personal skill is involved like Shooters, Racing, Strategy and so on.



I love RPGs, but a big problem I always have is that your own skill is generally sidelined in preference of the skill of your character. Mass Effect was a great step in rectifying that but the mechanics to include character skill were a bit weird. ME2 solved those problems for me. Maybe they didn't for the hardcore RPG crowd, which I certainly understand.



BTW, those that say Mass Effect 2 was catered to consoles...I can't see why. I absolutely can't imagine playing that game with anything other than a Keyboard and Mouse.

[KotOREffecT]

There are good shooters with great stories, BioShock for example being one of them. Now that was an awesome game, nothing mindless about it.



I don't get some of the hate either, shooting can be fun, esp when you throw in a engaging story, great music, deep characters, deep universe, etc that just makes things better. And that is what the Mass Effects have.

[mrmike_1949]

Viper-sfm wrote...

........

BTW, those that say Mass Effect 2 was catered to consoles...I can't see why. I absolutely can't imagine playing that game with anything other than a Keyboard and Mouse.

Just look at how the HUD and key bindings were changed to make it easier for consoles, while eliminating several (important) quick keys for PCs.

[bjdbwea]

There's nothing wrong with the shooter genre, and nothing wrong with liking it.

But not every game has to be turned into a shooter, especially not an RPG.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 juillet 2010 - 09:19 .

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

KotOREffecT wrote...

There are good shooters with great stories, BioShock for example being one of them. Now that was an awesome game, nothing mindless about it.

I don't get some of the hate either, shooting can be fun, esp when you throw in a engaging story, great music, deep characters, deep universe, etc that just makes things better. And that is what the Mass Effects have.

I don't find myself wanting to play Bioshock over and over again. Mass Effect is an RPG, that's what makes it so replayable. Bioshock plays the exact same every time, Mass Effect doesn't.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

EtTuBrute wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...


BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

I have no complaints from MP since I don't really play MP games since they are all generally moronic in the sense that most people tend to just "run and gun" and B!tch about "campers". I'm waiting for a MP experience that requires strategy and tactics. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. 

Ever played a match in any Battlefield game where strategy and tactics are used?
It's guddamn orgasmic.

Unfortunately no. BFBC 1 and 2 has an almost perfect mechanic for strategic MP. It has big maps, vehicles and destructible environments. My problems are: No prone, unrealistic vehicle damage/destruction, no prone, a lack of anti vehicle booby traps/mines/IEDs and NO PRONE.

I played BFBC 1 MP some time back and I had a lot of fun with it in spite of my issues.  

There are anti-tank mines and C4. The game is just better without prone, too easily abused

[mrmike_1949]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

There are good shooters with great stories, BioShock for example being one of them. Now that was an awesome game, nothing mindless about it.

I don't get some of the hate either, shooting can be fun, esp when you throw in a engaging story, great music, deep characters, deep universe, etc that just makes things better. And that is what the Mass Effects have.

I don't find myself wanting to play Bioshock over and over again. Mass Effect is an RPG, that's what makes it so replayable. Bioshock plays the exact same every time, Mass Effect doesn't.

Actually, once I finish ME2, I'm gonna go replay Bioshock (1). It really was a great game, the story was better than ME1 or ME2. The problem being that the story was SO GOOD, and such an important part of the game, that I need time to forget (at least some) the story and plot twists. It's like re-reading a really good book - you don;t do it right away

Actually, story wise, I rate Bioshock 1 as better even than DA:O; more compelling story, with more great plot twists and surprises

Modifié par mrmike_1949, 27 juillet 2010 - 07:02 .