887 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

The skill system in ME1 was bloated. I like actually being able to use all the equipment I'm forced to carry. However, if they wanted to add a greater variety of skills, that actually impacted your playstyle in a meaningful way, I would certainly stand up and cheer. For example, if your soldier could specialize between gunplay and being a grunt meleer, I think that would be a worth addition.



Kasen13, I agree completely. I think the new mechanics can actually work to everyone's satisfaction, even those in love with ME1 mechanics. They simply have to exploit them in a meaningful way. RPG isn't about any one mechanic but there are principals: customization, personalization, and choice are a huge part of it. If there were a greater choice of weapons (and weapon addons) and armor, even if it was limited to the armor lockers, I think everyone would be happier, both ME1 and ME2 fanbois.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

you and terror_k: it doesn't matter because you can't see that it has no effect without "cheating." as long as the game is balanced in terms of damage it makes no difference baseline 0 or 50 or 100%. is that so hard a concept to understand?

Understand, no. Accept, yes.

When the game is supposed to be largely an RPG and in the first game the armour actually acted like it was supposed to it's just so damn shallow and meaningless to have it not acting like armour in the second game at all. The armour is almost purely cosmetic here, and while it does have bonuses there's no common factor to link them all making the whole thing lack identity and common ground. It's ironic how people complained about armour in the first game all appearing to be the same and lacking variety and options, but they're okay with armour that looks different but is completely lacking in substance beyond that. It's also ironic that the people who support the change are likely those who complained about ME1 giving you an illusion of depth.

Don't get me wrong... ME1's system wasn't perfect, and I do like the customisation and individual armour pieces in ME2. But armour was actually at least armour in ME1 instead of being a custom outfit in armour's clothing... ah... so to speak. When I go into a game and equip armour I expect it to provide defense against damage. For it to fail doing so is about as logical as making shields shoot arrows and bows protect you from damage.

Thinking about it more, I realise I was wrong when I thought ME2 got rid of armour modding and mods. It didn't. What it got rid of instead was armour itself, and it simply warped the armour mods into these separate pieces of stuff you slapped on your Shepard that resembled pieces of armour.

So armour doesn't exist in Mass Effect 2 at all. You've just got mods attached to you that provide as much protection as a t-shirt. Which makes about as much sense as slapping a weapon sight on your arm, putting a magazine of bullets up your butt and saying "bang bang bang" at an enemy then calling yourself a weapon.

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...
 It's ironic how people complained about armour in the first game all appearing to be the same and lacking variety and options, but they're okay with armour that looks different but is completely lacking in substance beyond that. It's also ironic that the people who support the change are likely those who complained about ME1 giving you an illusion of depth.

Unless you're going to dig up proof of who complained about what and when, you cannot accurately make statements like these.  "People" are always going to complain.  Whether or not they're the same people complaining about something else can't easily be proven.

[JKoopman]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Well clearly this is an intelligent individual. You are a smart amicable person.



When the complaints are valid, as they are in the case of ME2 and the changes being made to DA, then complaints should be made.

Except that they're only valid in your little mind.

Except that they're only invalid in your little mind. Like my mother used to say, what works for the goose also works for the gander.

1. You people are more like a broken record, you keep repeating the same things over and over again ad nauseum. If anyone cares about your opinion they know it by now. Repeating it until ME3 is released will not change a thing.

Maybe if people like you would stop posting to tell us that our opinions and views are invalid and wrong and asking us to explain how we could possibly fail to see the brilliance that is ME2 over the piece of turd that was ME1, we wouldn't feel compelled to constantly repeat ourselves and regurgitate the same arguments. Believe me, we're as tired of constantly having to explain and defend ourselves as you apparently are of hearing us.

2. If you take a close look at what was changed in ME2, you'll notice that those are all things that virtually everyone including professional reviewers complained about. The combat, the terrible inventory, the horrible Mako exploration, those were things you could see pointed out in almost every review. What you complain about? Not so much.

Yes, reviewers complained about them. Hell, most of us that are against the changes made in ME2 actually complained about them as well. The point is, the changes that were made were neither expected nor needed.

Show me one reviewer who said "You know what would fix ME1's broken end-game combat? If instead of overhauling the overheat and weapon mod mechanics, they just tacked on a cruddy ammo system in complete defiance of the established mechanics of the universe so people can now run out of ammunition mid-mission and then invented a hackneyed excuse for why it's being used that makes no logical sense."

I also don't recall anyone saying "Geez, the Mako sure does suck trying to get over all this random, jagged terrain. I wish rather than fixing the handling and controls or improving the uncharted worlds so we actually have some decent landscapes to traverse they'd just scrap the exploration system entirely and give us a crappy hovertank with cardboard armor and horribly innacruate self-guiding rockets as DLC in ME2 so we can play frogger across lava rivers and go on data node scavenger hunts!"

Yeah, people complained about the mis-managed inventory in ME1, but I don't believe anyone ever advocated stripping it entirely and replacing it with a linear "upgrade" system that barely has any noticeable effect.

You see, people like you seem to be stuck in this mindset that it's either the way it was in ME1 or it's the way it is in ME2 and there's no middle ground or any other possible options. It's either a broken inventory or no inventory. It's either broken combat or thermal clips. The point I and most everyone else complaining are trying to make is that BioWare could've easily fixed the combat, fixed the Mako, fixed the inventory and everything else that was broken in ME1 without stripping and replacing it with entirely different and radically oversimplified systems and mechanics like they did in ME2. That's why people like me complain.

3. The complains by people like you simply have little validity, because you are still stuck in that silly mind set that CRPGs should be computerized versions of Pen&Paper RPGs.  Bioware has luckily starting to move away from that silly notion, CRPGs are entirely different beasts and shouldn't be held back by age old P&P conventions.

Yes, clearly becoming generic action-shooters with slightly better dialog is the future of computer RPGs and it's not at all a sign that developers are becoming increasingly lazy and scared of taking risks by homogenizing every game into the same "play it safe" mass-market-appealing crud. We're just a bunch of troglodytes stuck in the past with our neanderthal way of thinking. Who needs things like stats and inventories and strategic planning when you can just blast your way through levels all day pew pew'ing everything that moves? Thanks for opening my eyes to this brave new age of gaming.

Modifié par JKoopman, 11 août 2010 - 08:46 .

[Wonderllama4]

Who cares about inventory? As long as they keep the hot girl on girl action, I'm in!

[Thompson family]

Wonderllama4 wrote...

Who cares about inventory? As long as they keep the hot girl on girl action, I'm in!

That may be ... no, wait ... that IS the best comment I've ever seen in all the pages and pages of the countless threads on the "inventory" topic.

Thank you, Wonderllama4. Sure is better than watching a dead horse get beaten again, isn't it?

[tonnactus]

Max Legend wrote...



My main complaint about the sentinel in ME1 was the similarity of some of his skills(overload and sabotage dont make quite a difference) and some pointless ones(damn you neural shock,stasis is better).

??
One skill just strip shields.The other stop enemies to shot at you.And this isnt a difference??

[tonnactus]

Burdokva wrote...

Thanks, Terror_K.

ME2 armor is nothing but 3d model and textures with bonuses that stack on top of a preset, unmodifiable (except via research) level stats. It's not an armor, per sé, it's more of a handy visual accessory.

Shields batterie and enchantments.Thats it basicly.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
When the game is supposed to be largely an RPG...

Who are you to say what the game is "supposed" to be?

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
When the game is supposed to be largely an RPG...

Who are you to say what the game is "supposed" to be?

He's Terror_K.

I'm CatatonicMan.

You're Pocketgb.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 11 août 2010 - 11:52 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
When the game is supposed to be largely an RPG...

Who are you to say what the game is "supposed" to be?

Well... when BioWare referring to the (original) game as being an RPG countless times. Of course, that was the original game. Forgive me for thinking that the sequel and second part of a supposed trilogy should be largely the same genre.

That said, not even BioWare are that reliable on this front. After all, the ME series is supposed to be a trilogy but barely adheres to the definition. They also said that ME2 was going to be just as strong an RPG as it was a shooter and that definitely wasn't the case. They said choices such as saving the Council or not and choosing who represented humanity was going to have major consequences, which was also completely false (with the latter being undone entirely in the recent novel).

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
Well... when BioWare referring to the (original) game as being an RPG countless times. Of course, that was the original game. Forgive me for thinking that the sequel and second part of a supposed trilogy should be largely the same genre.

How does one define "RPG-lite"? For ME2, some people got what they were expecting or hoping for, some were disappointed, others felt nothing changed. The fanbase for ME is a heavily varied bunch of people, each putting emphasis on different things.

I personally wouldn't advocate for the 'herping' and 'derping' of ME2's mechanics since I've advocated heavily the depth is still the same - and that's *my* disappointment: Nothing's changed. This is what should change with ME3, keyword being "should": I still don't have much faith in Bioware developing in-depth mechanics so I won't be too terribly surprised if they miss the mark again.

Terror_K wrote...
They said choices such as saving the Council or not and choosing who represented humanity was going to have major consequences, which was also completely false.

As mentioned before, wait until ME3.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

How does one define "RPG-lite"? For ME2, some people got what they were expecting or hoping for, some were disappointed, others felt nothing changed. The fanbase for ME is a heavily varied bunch of people, each putting emphasis on different things.

I personally wouldn't advocate for the 'herping' and 'derping' of ME2's mechanics since I've advocated heavily the depth is still the same - and that's *my* disappointment: Nothing's changed. This is what should change with ME3, keyword being "should": I still don't have much faith in Bioware developing in-depth mechanics so I won't be too terribly surprised if they miss the mark again.

There are plenty of good solutions and suggestions out there from fans on this board, most of which also have a lot of support from the people on this board. All BioWare needs to do is adopt them. They're essentially getting free ideas thrown at them from the people they're supposedly making this game for. It's up to them whether they actually take the suggestions aboard or simply keep thinking their game is practically perfect in every way and snob us all (which, unfortunately, seems to be their style lately).

As mentioned before, wait until ME3.

That's all very well to say, but forgive me if I'm not overly confident given what they said about ME2 import stuff and what it actually turned out to be. This whole "we need to make each one independent" BS just doesn't help, IMO. And regardless of both these factors and of what happens in ME3, the galaxy should have been already shaped in ME2 with a decision as big as the fate of the Citadel Council. For it to make almost no difference in part 2 but suddenly change everything in part 3 would be jarring and inconsistent, especially given that over two years have already passed since ME1's ending.

Saying "wait until ME3" with The Council choice is kind of like saying "wait until Return of the Jedi" if A New Hope had a version where The Emperor was killed because he was on the Death Star at the time and it barely affecting Empire by simply cutting out references to him and not having his communication with Vader. If The Emperor had really died it would have had a massive affect on the Empire in reality, and the same should go for the galaxy in ME2. They've essentially taken what should have been a mountain and turned it into a mole hill.

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...

As mentioned before, wait until ME3.

Ah, the ultimate cop-out. The writers really should be ashamed about that one.

[Throw_this_away]

Mike2640 wrote...

Throw_this_away wrote...

The problem with all of the complaining on the forums is that bioware listened after me1 and made changes. Now everyone thinks that their individual opinion counts. The thing is... Bioware now has gameplay stats to model me3 after. Kills the vocal minority. Plus, a lot of people assume bioware listens to the issues of the common gamer. In reality they care about what reviewers think, since so many gamers are influenced by reviews.

You're exactly right. They're trying to make the most money they can. I dont begrudge them that, they're a business, but I do wish they'd return to a more traditional RPG format as ME2 had less RPG elements than Modern Warfare 2. Since the chance of that happening increases (albeit infinitesimally) when I and other like-minded individuals vocalize,  we do so.

Plus it makes us feel better.

I am happy MW2 gives you some element of a RPG fix.    I guess our defiinition of RPG is not the same.  I found ME2 to be the most involving RPG I have ever played (as far as immersion and me feeling like an extension of the character goes.  I truly felt like I was playing a role.  Inventory and SDCIWC type stats aside.).  I am happy ME2 was not a shoot and loot game.  Falout 3 was tiring in that way (but a great game in it's own right). 

I 100% respect the need to vocalize.  But in reality the places that will get attention are the "suggestions for ME3" type threads.  Anyone can look back and pick something apart.  It takes work to suggest a good fix (and many here do that).  People who approach the topic with a chip on their shoulder and just complain without suggestions will get less respect as they get the "vocal minority" label.  I am sure you have made plenty of suggestions in the appropriate threads, but some just cry to anyone who will listen. 

And we both agree that they are trying to make money.  The strategy is to make a critically excellent game according to "professional gamers" and hope that translates into sales.   People like you and I do have minor influence... but sadly we all know that Bioware will not read every thread.  They know that forum types are not the average ME gamer... and thus the gamplay stats will trump forumites (or which our individual contribution exists, but is one of almost 2 million).  Bioware needs to work with statistically relevant data.  Forums are biased heavily. 

Modifié par Throw_this_away, 12 août 2010 - 05:01 .

[catabuca]

Just a quick c&p from another thread for those fretting about the introduction of multi-player to ME3:

Chris Priestly wrote...



While you make a well thought out post, Mass Effect is a single player game. Hard to be a horde of only 1 person.

[Jebel Krong]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

As mentioned before, wait until ME3.

Ah, the ultimate cop-out. The writers really should be ashamed about that one.

not yet it isn't - wait until me3 before you start judging it (it's a lot easier to tie things up at the end than the beginning or middle).

[bjdbwea]

catabuca wrote...

Just a quick c&p from another thread for those fretting about the introduction of multi-player to ME3:

Chris Priestly wrote...

While you make a well thought out post, Mass Effect is a single player game. Hard to be a horde of only 1 person.

Still doesn't answer the question if ME 3 will be a single player game only. There were threads about that, and someone could easily have answered them directly. Wouldn't have taken more words than Mr. Priestly used there.

[Jebel Krong]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
When the game is supposed to be largely an RPG...

Who are you to say what the game is "supposed" to be?

...and again me1 was always a TPS/RPG or RPG/TPS combining elements of BOTH, not primarily one or another (whatever mechanics they included and discarded along the way). Terror_K your "rose-tinted" view of what me1 never was is a little tiresome - you have to accept the games for what they are, not what you want them to be - and that goes for the first as much as it's sequel.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 12 août 2010 - 09:23 .

[catabuca]

bjdbwea wrote...

catabuca wrote...

Just a quick c&p from another thread for those fretting about the introduction of multi-player to ME3:

Chris Priestly wrote...

While you make a well thought out post, Mass Effect is a single player game. Hard to be a horde of only 1 person.

Still doesn't answer the question if ME 3 will be a single player game only. There were threads about that, and someone could easily have answered them directly. Wouldn't have taken more words than Mr. Priestly used there.

I took it in the context of Mass Effect the trilogy, rather than Mass Effect the first part of the trilogy. The OP was talking about the inclusion of a Horde Mode - since they wouldn't go back and include it in ME1, it's safe to assume it was meant for inclusion in ME3 or in a ME three-part set after the trilogy has finished.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Teror-K your "rose-tinted" view of what me1 never was is a little tiresome - you have to accept the games for what they are, not what you want them to be - and that goes for the first as much as it's sequel.

Except that both games are so different, which comes to the heart of the matter again. And I find it hard to believe that ME2 was what they originally intended the series to be. Especially when I look back at the early pre-release ME1 stuff. Next thing you'll be telling me to accept the Star Wars prequels for what they were and telling me they really were Lucas' original vision.

Regarding the matter that was being addressed more directly, I believe that BioWare intended to at least have the armour function in an RPG sense and act like armour, considering they did that in the first game.

Modifié par Terror_K, 12 août 2010 - 09:31 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Teror-K your "rose-tinted" view of what me1 never was is a little tiresome - you have to accept the games for what they are, not what you want them to be - and that goes for the first as much as it's sequel.

Except that both games are so different, which comes to the heart of the matter again. And I find it hard to believe that ME2 was what they originally intended the series to be. Especially when I look back at the early pre-release ME1 stuff. Next thing you'll be telling me to accept the Star Wars prequels for what they were and telling me they really were Lucas' original vision.

Regarding the matter that was being addressed more directly, I believe that BioWare intended to at least have the armour function in an RPG sense and act like armour, considering they did that in the first game.

game development is a very fluid experience, i'm sure neither game (in fact 99% of games for that matter) do not come out as originally intended. the fact that both succeeded and failed but in different ways is evidence enough of this. plus, as with any commercially-focused media (rather than a true art), you have to shift to some degree with the market.

i'm sure a remake in 2050 will be able to give you any experience you desire, and infinite customisation - you will probably even be able to take your D20 with you onto the virtual battlefield...

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Teror-K your "rose-tinted" view of what me1 never was is a little tiresome - you have to accept the games for what they are, not what you want them to be - and that goes for the first as much as it's sequel.

Except that both games are so different, which comes to the heart of the matter again. And I find it hard to believe that ME2 was what they originally intended the series to be. Especially when I look back at the early pre-release ME1 stuff.

This was the original vision of Mass Effect.For people with a short attention span and a bad memory i post the link again:

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

you will probably even be able to take your D20 with you onto the virtual battlefield...

If you actually think that that's what I want from Mass Effect, then you're clearly not even paying attention. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

you will probably even be able to take your D20 with you onto the virtual battlefield...

If you actually think that that's what I want from Mass Effect, then you're clearly not even paying attention. That couldn't be further from the truth.

obviously i was being facetious.

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Teror-K your "rose-tinted" view of what me1 never was is a little tiresome - you have to accept the games for what they are, not what you want them to be - and that goes for the first as much as it's sequel.

Except that both games are so different, which comes to the heart of the matter again. And I find it hard to believe that ME2 was what they originally intended the series to be. Especially when I look back at the early pre-release ME1 stuff. 

This was the original vision of Mass Effect.For people with a short attention span and a bad memory i post the link again:

no, that's called a development build which tests certain features, and is common for a game development, which is why you have alpha, beta and RC phases/builds. to say that is what was intended for release or the "true vision" is ridiculous - otherwise that would have been what was released...

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 12 août 2010 - 10:08 .