925 réponses à ce sujet

[ErichHartmann]

Mass Effect's buildings are utilitarian.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Mass Effect's buildings are utilitarian.

And boring.

I recognise that much of the problem is a result of levels that need to provide convenient cover.

People say how ME2 has much more detailed environments, but I bet they have a lower polygon count.  Plus, ME doesn't need to accomodate nearly as much combat animation.

[Lusitanum]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Except those differences don't actually require a different approach.  Hide behind cover.  Shoot with sniper rifle.  This is pretty much how I approach every encounter in ME2.

You forgot "run out of bullets because I only have 10 shots and then have to engage with weaponry with a shorter range".

That's what the ammo system is there for: to prevent you from headshotting everything in your path. But then you complain about that too. So...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shields just mean I have to shoot them more times.  I can bring Thane and Garrus to shoot them faster, or I can bring Jack and Samara to immobilise them while I shoot them over a longer period.

*Buzz*

Wrong!

Jack and Samara (and even Thane) aren't going to replace Garrus against shielded enemies because shields protect against biotics. They might work in conjunction with Garrus (deplete Shield with Overload followed by Pull and then maybe a Concusive Shot to throw the enemy into a environmental hazard to finish him off) but they won't replace him. Again, unlike Dragon Age where all the synergy you get in your party is on a handful of arbitrary spell combinations that mostly require you to have two mages in your team (which probably won't be the best of ideas).

Knowing what the hell you're talking about would help.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The only time I ever have to do anything different is when I run out of ammo, but that's not fun - that's just annoying because the whole ammo mechanic is so idiotic.

So first you complaing about the fact that you can kill everyone from afar and then you complain that you can't always do that?

Can you at least make up your mind on what you're going to complain about?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Doesn't feel like one.

It still was.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I agree that when you find a winning tactic for your party in DAO it works on pretty much every enemy.  There were only a few boss battles where that wasn't the case (Broodmother, Jarvia, Spider Queen), but radically different party constructions did thrive with different tactics.

Again, even on Nightmare all those enemies still died with the same old tactics, just like everybody else during the whole damned game. And again, that was unlike ME2, where bringing the wrong team on Hardcore/Insanity is a freaking death sentence.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I haven't played ME2 more than once (and I can't imagine why I would want to - at least ME's gameplay gave me those fun Mako excursions), so maybe the game would play significantly differently if I didn't use a sniper rifle.

Oh, "those fun Mako excursions"? Yeah, that said it all...

Tirigon wrote...

You have apparently NEVER been in a
Loghain Defense thread, or whatever.

I have posted in so many
threads debating every single unimportant decision in origins my "Your
posts" list is spammed with it....

On the other hand, Mass Effect
ALWAYS tells you what´s right and what´s wrong. Paragon = Right, 
Renegade = EVIL

First off, Paragon and Renegade aren't Good and Evil, unlike most of Dragon Age decisions, which were mostly just black and white situations over and over. Just because you don't have an alignment meter doesn't make the decisions any less two-dimensional.

And secondly, Dragon Age never had a moral choice of this caliber, that actually made you qestion your own beliefs. Does that even compare to your Loghain Defence threads, regardless of how long the might have gone on?

Maybe you should actually play the games you're criticizing before you talk crap about them.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I didn't like ME2's art direction
at all.  Its level design was dull and repetitive.

Don't say that while I'm still digesting all the constant corridors and Darkspawn killing of Dragon Age...

I still have a bad taste in my mouth from playing Witch Hunt.

GOD! there's so much recycling in this game!

Sylvius
the Mad wrote...

One thing DAO did I really liked was having
floors that weren't flat and smoother and level.  Whereas everything in
ME (save outdoor environments, which were uncommon) had square edges. 
And even outdoor environments had random square crates lying about.

IThe
world isn't that square.  The game environments shouldn't be,
either.

I'll agree with that at least: there were a lot of times where the cover was so artificial, I just had to shake my head at it, especially in places like Jack's prison (why would you have raisable chest-high walls in the ground and why would you raise them for your enemies to take cover on?) and the planet Joab, in that Archeological Dig Site mission, where there were just tons of (square) rocks between the landing pad and the entrance.

Wouldn't you want to, you know, clear those rocks out of the way? Wouldn't that help with the constant loading and unloading of supplies that you have to do on a regular basis to keep your base running in a remote planet?

Still, at least I didn't have to keep bactracking through these places over and over again, getting lost in a confusing map with doors that dumped you all over the place like in the Sloth Demon section. And I still prefer to have my immersion and suspension of disbelief broken from time to time by the odd looking scenario than by the contant dope-eyed look on my character's face.

[Chala]

man I hpoe no, but I'm afraid of that after seeing the dialog menu

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

You forgot "run out of bullets because I only have 10 shots and then have to engage with weaponry with a shorter range".[/quote]
This very rarely happens, and when it does it's awful because it forces me into a playstyle I don't enjoy.
[quote]That's what the ammo system is there for: to prevent you from headshotting everything in your path. But then you complain about that too. So... [/quote]
An arbitrary lore-breaking mechanic designed to make the game less fun.  At least we agree.
[quote]*Buzz*

Wrong!

Jack and Samara (and even Thane) aren't going to replace Garrus against shielded enemies because shields protect against biotics. [/quote]
Right, but I can still remove those shields with my rifle.  If I do that, then the biotics can hold them still while I use my less effective weapons.

Why do I even have less effective weapons?  Wouldn't it make more sense for Shepard to carry 4 sniper rifles?  Or maybe 3 plus the Arc Projector (that's usually what I pull out when I run out of ammo).
[quote]They might work in conjunction with Garrus (deplete Shield with Overload followed by Pull and then maybe a Concusive Shot to throw the enemy into a environmental hazard to finish him off) but they won't replace him.[/quote]
Again, Shepard can replace Garrus.  The biotics then replace Shepard.

Shepard isn't special within the team.  She doesn't have to be the one killing everything.
[quote]Again, unlike Dragon Age where all the synergy you get in your party is on a handful of arbitrary spell combinations that mostly require you to have two mages in your team (which probably won't be the best of ideas).[/quote]
My most effective party in DAO was 3 Mages and a Rogue.  Melee combat isn't something I enjoy.
[quote]So first you complaing about the fact that you can kill everyone from afar and then you complain that you can't always do that?[/quote]
No, I complained about how repetitive killing everything from afar was.

In ME, that wasn't true.  You could generally engage enemies at much greater range if you wanted, and that sometimes took some planning to find the right piece of terrain from which to snipe at them.  Even those mounted heavy guns outside bases could be taken down in this manner.

And I enjoyed that, because it was my preferred tactic.  Sniping from extreme range.  And it worked because I made it work, not because every encounter took place in a room nonsensically designed to keep me safe.
[quote]It still was.[/quote]
ME has more tactical complexity than ME2 does.  It certainly has more tactical choice.
[quote]Again, even on Nightmare all those enemies still died with the same old tactics, just like everybody else during the whole damned game. And again, that was unlike ME2, where bringing the wrong team on Hardcore/Insanity is a freaking death sentence.[/quote]
Is combat difficulty something you want?  I don't care if combat is difficult.  I care if combat is fun.  ME2's combat isn't fun.  It might even be the opposite of fun.  It's a chore.

I have a ton of free time right now, and I could be playing ME2 to get it over with, but apparently I'd rather spend time arguing with you.  Arguing with you is more fun than playing ME2.  I'm actually prcrastinating to avoid ME2's gameplay.
[quote]Oh, "those fun Mako excursions"? Yeah, that said it all...[/quote]
It was fun to drive.  It was fun to navigate over those moutains (there was usually an easy way up, but it took some exploation to find it).  It was overpowered in combat - I found it funny how the game would warn you not to try a frontal assault on Artemis Tau, and yet the Mako made a frontal assault trivial (and yet you still couldn't open the doors from the front, so you needed to go around anyway).  In this, ME managed to recreate the thing I complained about most in NWN2.  I was told there was an option available (but also told it was a bad idea), but if I tried it it turned out not even to exist.
[quote]First off, Paragon and Renegade aren't Good and Evil, unlike most of Dragon Age decisions, which were mostly just black and white situations over and over.[/quote]
First off, Paragon and Renegade aren't ever decisions at all because of the obfuscatory nature of both the dialogue wheel and the interrupt system.

You never knew what you were choosing.
[quote]Just because you don't have an alignment meter doesn't make the decisions any less two-dimensional.[/quote]
Really?  Did you save Redcliffe?  Why?
[quote]And secondly, Dragon Age never had a moral choice of this caliber, that actually made you qestion your own beliefs.[/quote]
That video doesn't appear to work, so I don't know what it is you're referring to, but maybe I'll know it when I find it.

But really, where do my beliefs ever enter into the discussion?  It's my character's beliefs that matter.  At least, that's true if I'm playing an RPG.  Shepard isn't me.  Shepard is not my avatar.  Shepard is a person entirely distinct from me.

I'd really love to know what that moral choice is, because it's rare that I see one that isn't simply algorithmic.
[quote]I still have a bad taste in my mouth from playing Witch Hunt.

GOD! there's so much recycling in this game![/quote]
Perhaps because the environments don't consist entirely of placeables that reappear in every single location.
[quote]And I still prefer to have my immersion and suspension of disbelief broken from time to time by the odd looking scenario than by the contant dope-eyed look on my character's face. [/quote]
When you find a game that lets you control your character's facial expressions, you let me know.

Until then, you've just made a compelling argument against cinematic presentation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  There hasn't been a graphical advancement that has improved gameplay in an RPG since NWN.

[0x30A88]

Why can't RPG players play RPGs and those who wants to play action third-player-shooters have theri games without expecting all the games to "change" into their tastes.



There's people with different preferrences. That is the reasson there is not only one little genre of games/music/... existing.

[Vaeliorin]

Lusitanum wrote...
Again, even on Nightmare all those enemies still died with the same old tactics, just like everybody else during the whole damned game. And again, that was unlike ME2, where bringing the wrong team on Hardcore/Insanity is a freaking death sentence.

That's patently untrue.  I can take any party I feel like in ME2, and finish any section fairly easily on insanity.  The abilities you have in your team in ME2 are largely irrelevant, because cover plus the ability to aim worth a darn is more than enough to defeat every encounter in the game.  I'm currently doing an engineer with Grunt and Jack, only using shotguns, on insanity, and it's not really any more difficult or different than any other playthrough I've done on insanity (with the possible exception of when I played a vanguard).

While there are strategies in DA that are effective against virtually everything, what are the most effective strategies are largely dictated by your party makeup, which simply isn't true in ME2.  The most effective strategy in ME2 is always cover and guns, regardless of who you have with you.

[Tirigon]

Lusitanum wrote...

Again, even on Nightmare all those enemies still died with the same old tactics, just like everybody else during the whole damned game. And again, that was unlike ME2, where bringing the wrong team on Hardcore/Insanity is a freaking death sentence.

You just admitted you suck at the game. You don´t need  ANY allies at all; in theory you could solo ME2 on Insanity without problem; the allies are only there to speed the killing up. ME2 on Insanity is enormously annoying, because killing stuff takes rather long unless you use sniperheadshots (and most enemies survive even this, what annoys me to no end), but very easy.

First off, Paragon and Renegade aren't Good and Evil,

Wrong.

unlike most of Dragon Age decisions, which were mostly just black and white situations over and over.

Wrong again.

Just because you don't have an alignment meter doesn't make the decisions any less two-dimensional.

Not much, yes, but at least a bit.

And secondly, Dragon Age never had a moral choice of this caliber, that actually made you qestion your own beliefs. Does that even compare to your Loghain Defence threads, regardless of how long the might have gone on?

ME doesn´t have one either, the video is bullsh!t and the choice whether to rewrite or to destroy the heretics was not difficult at all, nor morally ambiguous.

[Bullets McDeath]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...
Again, even on Nightmare all those enemies still died with the same old tactics, just like everybody else during the whole damned game. And again, that was unlike ME2, where bringing the wrong team on Hardcore/Insanity is a freaking death sentence.

That's patently untrue.  I can take any party I feel like in ME2, and finish any section fairly easily on insanity.  The abilities you have in your team in ME2 are largely irrelevant, because cover plus the ability to aim worth a darn is more than enough to defeat every encounter in the game.  I'm currently doing an engineer with Grunt and Jack, only using shotguns, on insanity, and it's not really any more difficult or different than any other playthrough I've done on insanity (with the possible exception of when I played a vanguard).

While there are strategies in DA that are effective against virtually everything, what are the most effective strategies are largely dictated by your party makeup, which simply isn't true in ME2.  The most effective strategy in ME2 is always cover and guns, regardless of who you have with you.

Thank you. Both games are easy as **** if you know anything about the rules. Mass Effect 2, in particular, is so strategy-free that bragging about beating it is just silly.

[AlanC9]

Lusitanum wrote...
Again, unlike Dragon Age where all the synergy you get in your party is on a handful of arbitrary spell combinations that mostly require you to have two mages in your team (which probably won't be the best of ideas).

Why wouldn't two mages be a good idea? Suddenly I'm not sure you're any good at DA, either.

[Bullets McDeath]

Not to mention that many of these "arbitrary combos" work just fine with a single mage... Sleep/Horror, Sleep/Waking Nightmare, Vulnerability Hex/Life Drain, Winter's Grasp/Stonefist... these and many more all work just fine with one mage. Really, Storm of the Century is the only one where you MIGHT need two mages, because one mage is unlikely to have all the prereqs unless you built them with that combo in mind.

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This very rarely happens, and when it does it's awful because it forces me into a playstyle I don't enjoy.[/quote]

It "rarely happens"? WIth a 10-shot rifle? That's great.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Right, but I can still remove those shields with my rifle.  If I do that, then the biotics can hold them still while I use my less effective weapons.[/quote]

Try doing that on harder difficulty settings and then tell me how it went.

Normal difficulty mode is supposed to go relatively easy on you, not force you to pay dearly for every mistake. After all, I managed to beat KotOR without knowing a thing about D&D, that doesn't mean that the game was bad because of it.

Now when you go for something like Nightmare difficulty, which tells you that it's meant for "tactical geniuses" and all you get is slightly longer fights without an iota of tactics, then something is very, very wrong.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why do I even have less effective weapons?  Wouldn't it make more sense for Shepard to carry 4 sniper rifles?  Or maybe 3 plus the Arc Projector (that's usually what I pull out when I run out of ammo).[/quote]

It's called "balance".

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Again, Shepard can replace Garrus.  The biotics then replace Shepard.

Shepard isn't special within the team.  She doesn't have to be the one killing everything.[/quote]

Who said anything about Shepard? Seriously, we're talking about what party members replace who and then you bring up Shepard? What the hell?

Also, don't remind me of "the PC isn't special within the team" when playing a different class in DA just means that I'm replacing Alistair/Leliana/Wynn/Ogren with my guy, completely destroying the point of playing the game with a different class.

Hell, at least Shepard has unique builds that no other character in the game has, unlike my Warden which (apart from the two Powers of Blood abilites that you have to get on a piece of DLC) doesn't have a single skill that separates him from any other member of my party.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My most effective party in DAO was 3 Mages and a Rogue.  Melee combat isn't something I enjoy.[/quote]

Good for you.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, I complained about how repetitive killing everything from afar was.

In ME, that wasn't true.  You could generally engage enemies at much greater range if you wanted, and that sometimes took some planning to find the right piece of terrain from which to snipe at them.  Even those mounted heavy guns outside bases could be taken down in this manner.

And I enjoyed that, because it was my preferred tactic.  Sniping from extreme range.  And it worked because I made it work, not because every encounter took place in a room nonsensically designed to keep me safe.[/quote]

Ah, so that's what you call a "tactic": use the long range weapon from a long distance. And then feel good about yourself because, lo and behold, it worked.

Who would have thought?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ME has more tactical complexity than ME2 does.  It certainly has more tactical choice.[/quote]

Is that why that game could also be beaten by just using Immunity and charging headlong into a swarm of enemies with your shotgun? In what was another example of a Bioware game where the most basic and brainless option was the fastest and most effective of them all?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Is combat difficulty something you want?  I don't care if combat is difficult.  I care if combat is fun.  ME2's combat isn't fun.  It might even be the opposite of fun.  It's a chore.[/quote]

Again, you bring up the word "chore" while praising DA? Are you serious? The game where the appearance of more enemies often made me give audible grunts of exasperation? I even felt the slightest bit of a connection with my character when she said "Great, more darkspwan." when the damned things appeared, because not only did that give her some semblance of humanity, it actually sounded like she was as tired as I was of killing the same monsters over and over again.

And no, I don't want combat to be especially difficult, otherwise I would have kind of enjoyed Golems of Amgaraak (if it wasn't the kind of BS difficulty of just giving you a crappy party against overpowered monsters). I just want something that keeps me awake during a fight, something that makes me pay attentiont to what I'm doing, and most imporatantly, something that doesn't feel like I could just turn on an auto-pilot function and go do something else while I wait for the same fight I've fought 10.425 times to be over.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I have a ton of free time right now, and I could be playing ME2 to get it over with, but apparently I'd rather spend time arguing with you.  Arguing with you is more fun than playing ME2.  I'm actually prcrastinating to avoid ME2's gameplay.[/quote]

Funny, I've had a similar experience: I had free time and I could be playing the Witch Hunt DLC (which I bought on day 1) but it took me a whole week to muster the courage to play something that I knew would only take about 2 hours to beat.

Why? Because I knew that it was just going to be more of the same: the same places I've already been to with the same enemies I've already killed countless times with the "tactic" I've used from the very first day I started playing this game. Oh, and after the Harvester in GoA, I really didn't felt like playing it.

And I did lots of things with that time. I installed  and played other games that would actually exercise my mind (loved Chime btw, quite demanding and yet relaxing at the same time), I browsed the web aimlessly, and there was even a time where I preferred to continue working instead of taking some time off. Just because I really didn't felt like playing that thing

When a form of entertainment is so boring that you'd rather keep working instead of enjoying it, then something is beyond wrong with it.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Really?  Did you save Redcliffe?  Why?[/quote]

Because the other choice just felt too forced. I mean, a Demon? Are you sure you don't want to give me something even more unquestionably evil than that? Why not just throw something even worse than that my way? Why not just give me Satan while we're at it? Or the Archdemon himself?

I mean, there was already that stupid, spoiled son of the arl from the City Elf origin that I could never take seriously (mostly because of his cartoonish "evil" laugh at the end of every sentence), but then you try to make him sound really mean by just throwing "RAPE" in my face, so... why not go all the way with the Demon too?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That video doesn't appear to work, so I don't know what it is you're referring to, but maybe I'll know it when I find it.

But really, where do my beliefs ever enter into the discussion?  It's my character's beliefs that matter.  At least, that's true if I'm playing an RPG.  Shepard isn't me.  Shepard is not my avatar.  Shepard is a person entirely distinct from me.

I'd really love to know what that moral choice is, because it's rare that I see one that isn't simply algorithmic[/quote]

Again, first RP was about creating your own character and it's your own damned fault if you just made a character that was just like you (the primary recipe for boredom: just make a character you know was well as you know yourself) but then you have a problem with Shepard because he's not you?

So now character creation went out the window in favor of going for the boring "me" character?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Perhaps because the environments don't consist entirely of placeables that reappear in every single location.[/quote]

No, they don't, they just consist of places I've already seen before with not one - single - screen with a stone out of place from how I remembered it.

Compare that with, say, Lair of the Shadow Broker that had a completely original level design, hazards, enemies and even presented a new race, a boss fight with an extra twist, along with some extra goodies like aditional info on your squad mates, videos that give you insight (and a bit of foreshadowing) into other characters in the game, the ability to retrain your squad mates powers... and you can see why I'm anxious for more DLC for ME2 and fearful for any further extra content for DA.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

When you find a game that lets you control your character's facial expressions, you let me know.

Until then, you've just made a compelling argument against cinematic presentation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  There hasn't been a graphical advancement that has improved gameplay in an RPG since NWN.
[/quote]

Well, there it is: if you can't control your character's facial expressions then stop giving us characters with no personality of their own.

You've just made a compelling argument against emotionless mutes.

[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...

That's patently untrue.  I can take any
party I feel like in ME2, and finish any section fairly easily on
insanity.  The abilities you have in your team in ME2 are largely
irrelevant, because cover plus the ability to aim worth a darn is more
than enough to defeat every encounter in the game.  I'm currently doing
an engineer with Grunt and Jack, only using shotguns, on insanity, and
it's not really any more difficult or different than any other
playthrough I've done on insanity (with the possible exception of when I
played a vanguard).[/quote]

Yeah, I don't buy that one, thank you.

[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...

While
there are strategies in DA that are effective against virtually
everything, what are the most effective strategies are largely dictated
by your party makeup, which simply isn't true in ME2.  The most
effective strategy in ME2 is always cover and guns, regardless of who
you have with you.[/quote]

And the most effective strategy in DA is swords and spells, regardless of who you have with you.

See? I can make basic generalizations too, it's not hard.

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

You just admitted you suck at the game.
You don´t need  ANY allies at all; in theory you could solo ME2 on
Insanity without problem; the allies are only there to speed the killing
up. ME2 on Insanity is enormously annoying, because killing stuff takes
rather long unless you use sniperheadshots (and most enemies survive
even this, what annoys me to no end), but very easy.[/quote]

When your experience comes from more than just assuming that ME2's Insanity mode is the same as ME1's, then you can join in the discussion.

Until then, I'll say it again: play the game before you talk crap about it.

[quote]Tirigon
wrote...

Wrong.

[...]

Wrong again.

[...]

Not
much, yes, but at least a bit.[/quote]

Also, when you actually have more arguments than just saying "no" over and over again, then maybe you'll be worth replying to.

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

ME
doesn´t have one either, the video is bullsh!t and the choice whether
to rewrite or to destroy the heretics was not difficult at all, nor
morally ambiguous.[/quote]

Aw, the Inquisition would be so proud of you.

[quote]outlaworacle wrote...

Not to mention that many of these
"arbitrary combos" work just fine with a single mage... Sleep/Horror,
Sleep/Waking Nightmare, Vulnerability Hex/Life Drain, Winter's
Grasp/Stonefist... these and many more all work just fine with one mage.
Really, Storm of the Century is the only one where you MIGHT need two
mages, because one mage is unlikely to have all the prereqs unless you
built them with that combo in mind.[/quote]

Yes, they all work with one mage, but guess what: only a couple of them will actually be usable, unless you center your whole build around those combos.

Yes, I also had a Cone of Cold (not Winter's Grasp, get your facts right) and Stonefist combo but guess what: that was all I had for my mage because that's what my skill tree allowed. Unlike in ME where even non-casters can contribute to a combo, making the synergy in your party a lot more natural and a lot less repetitive.

[Bullets McDeath]

I'm not going to quote that pathetic mess of a post, but Stonefist works with Winter's Grasp just fine, as long as they don't resist it. And yes, combos do require you to have the abilities in the combo... crazy, I know. What were they thinking!

In conclusion: Jesus, you suck at this game.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:02 .

[Monica83]

Mass Effect and Dragon age are two different games.. And "MUST" be different..

[718bc]

Mass Effect 2 was a boring, brainless, tactics-free game even on the hardest settings, with no interesting skill or item choices to make at all. Just a glorified shooter. If DA2 is anything at all like the worthless travesty that was ME2 i am officially done with Bioware. Speaking as someone who has played every Bioware game since BG1.



Screw console gamers, ruining the one company that makes any good video games anymore.

[Werewolf2010]

 Well, I did like it when my character actually spoke...but I really don't mid ether way, so long as the other characters talk back.

[John Epler]

Let's cut the hostility out here, folks. You don't have to agree, but please refrain from attacking other posters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

It "rarely happens"? WIth a 10-shot rifle? That's great.[/quote]
Given that almost every shot is a one-shot kill, and that there are two other guys in the squad, I would only consistently run out of ammo if we routinely faced 20+ opponents at a time.

And we don't.
[quote]Normal difficulty mode is supposed to go relatively easy on you, not force you to pay dearly for every mistake.[/quote]Normal difficulty mode is supposed to be the one with a level playing field where enemies' abilities work just like yours do.

Anything other than that is just contrived (I recognise that DAO actually had Hard be the level where everything was fair, so there they just mislabelled the levels).
[quote]It's called "balance". [/quote]
So now apparently onle of the objectives of the game is to enforce some standard of difficulty independent of fun?

That's a terrible idea.  Games should never do that.
[quote]Also, don't remind me of "the PC isn't special within the team" when playing a different class in DA just means that I'm replacing Alistair/Leliana/Wynn/Ogren with my guy, completely destroying the point of playing the game with a different class.

Hell, at least Shepard has unique builds that no other character in the game has, unlike my Warden which (apart from the two Powers of Blood abilites that you have to get on a piece of DLC) doesn't have a single skill that separates him from any other member of my party.[/quote]
Newsflash.  DAO is a party-based game.  No one character is supposed to be that important to it.

Replaying DAO (or indeed any RPG) isn't about a new class or new abilities.  It's about a new character.  A different person who has a different point of view and makes different decisions.

I played DAO with (among others) two different Mage PCs who were very different people and the game accommodated them both quite well.

This is one of DAO's gretest strengths.  You can design a detailed persona for the PC and have that drive the narrative, and then you can replay it with a different character and have a completely different experience.

The main difference between DAO and ME (and thus the reason why I object to the "Mass Effectification" of anything is that ME categorically did not allow that.  You couldn't even play it through once like that because the game went out of it's way to prevent you from making detailed decisions based on a personality you devised.
[quote]Ah, so that's what you call a "tactic": use the long range weapon from a long distance. And then feel good about yourself because, lo and behold, it worked.

Who would have thought?[/quote]
Apparently not the ME2 designers who forced every encounter into a cramped room with nonsensically placed obstacles.
[quote]Is that why that game could also be beaten by just using Immunity and charging headlong into a swarm of enemies with your shotgun? In what was another example of a Bioware game where the most basic and
brainless option was the fastest and most effective of them all?[/quote]
I don't even know what Immunity did.  I completed ME only as an Adept and as an Engineer (I preferred the Engineer).
[quote]Again, you bring up the word "chore" while praising DA?[/quote]Because there was more to it than the combat.  What is there in ME2 aside from the combat?  Point me to a compelling aspect of non-combat gameplay in ME2.

And I enjoyed DAO's combat because it was an expression of my character's personality.  Because he had one of which I was aware, entirely unlike Shepard.
[quote]I just want something that keeps me awake during a fight, something that makes me pay attentiont to what I'm doing, and most imporatantly, something that doesn't feel like I could just turn on an auto-pilot function and go do something else while I wait for the same fight I've fought 10.425 times to be over.[/quote]If the success or failure of that auto-pilot function is based on how I built the party, then I'd probably quite enjoy that.  In fact, I did.  It was called Dungeon Siege.
[quote]Funny, I've had a similar experience: I had free time and I could be playing the Witch Hunt DLC (which I bought on day 1) but it took me a whole week to muster the courage to play something that I knew would only take about 2 hours to beat.

Why? Because I knew that it was just going to be more of the same: the same places I've already been to with the same enemies I've already killed countless times with the "tactic" I've used from the very first day I started playing this game.[/quote]
Well, yes, I can see why, if the combat was all that you were paying attention to, you might find DAO (or any non-Wizardry RPG) monotonous.

Those DAO expansions are an opportunity for you to take that character you designed and play him through new situations.  That's the fun.  Because it's a role-playing game.
[quote]Because the other choice just felt too forced. I mean, a Demon? Are you sure you don't want to give me something even more unquestionably evil than that?[/quote]
That's as deep as your analysis went?  It's a demon, therefore it's evil (is what something's called that indicative of its nature, to you?), therefore you must kill it.
[quote]Why not just throw something even worse than that my way? Why not just give me Satan while we're at it? Or the Archdemon himself?[/quote]
Why not?  How does your character feel about those?  You get to decide that.

I had a self-aggrandizing mage who saved Redcliffe because it would make him look good.
I had a duty-bound rogue who let Redcliffe fall because he deemed saving it to be reckless.
I had a self-doubting rogue who let Redcliffe fall because Sten bullied him into it.
I had an earnest warrior twho sved Redcliffe because she felt empathy for its residents.

Why are none of your answers that detailed?  Why are none of your characters that detailed?

The answer is, of course, because you're not role-playing.  You're treating the Warden like an avatar of you rather than like a character of his own.
[quote]I mean, there was already that stupid, spoiled son of the arl from the City Elf origin that I could never take seriously (mostly because of his cartoonish "evil" laugh at the end of every sentence), but then you try to make him sound really mean by just throwing "RAPE" in my face, so... why not go all the way with the Demon too?[/quote]
Why does it matter whether you can take him seriously?  Do your characters take him seriously?
[quote]Again, first RP was about creating your own character and it's your own damned fault if you just made a
character that was just like you (the primary recipe for boredom: just make a character you know was well as you know yourself) but then you have a problem with Shepard because he's not you?[/quote]
No.  I'm saying that there's no reason for Shepard's experiences to make me question my beliefs, which is exactly what you'd just said they'd do.
[quote]Well, there it is: if you can't control your character's facial expressions then stop giving us characters with no personality of their own.[/quote]
If they have pre-written personalities then the game cannot reasonably claim to be letting us play them.
[quote]Yeah, I don't buy that one, thank you.[/quote]His claims of ease have as much crediblity as yours about difficulty.
[quote]And the most effective strategy in DA is swords and spells, regardless of who you have with you.[/quote]Not analogous.  Spells are a lot more versatile than guns.
[quote][quote]ME doesn´t have one either, the video is bullsh!t and the choice whether to rewrite or to destroy the heretics was not difficult at all, nor morally ambiguous.[/quote]Aw, the Inquisition would be so proud of you. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie][/quote]
Oh, it was the heretics decision.  I just played that through this morning.

I didn't find that particularly difficult at all.  Either Shepard values self-determination or he doesn't.  Either he sees the heretics as the result of self-determination or he doesn't.  There's no difficulty in that decision at all.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:50 .

[Persephone]

The only decision in ME that trumped DAO was Virmire. That was a heartbreaker. DAO usually offers you a loophole (Redcliffe -> Circle, Archie -> DR) if you know where to look for it. No such thing on Virmire. Otherwise, NO, PLEASE NO ME in DAO. It would be like ME-ing the Baldur's Gate series!

[Talogrungi]

I don't want Bioware to make DA into ME.

I do, however, want DA2 to be an improvement upon DA1 in the same way that ME2 was an improvement upon ME1.

Both the original games were slightly let down (in my opinion) by the combat mechanics. ME2 (again, in my opinion) resolved that problem admirably. I'm hoping (and am generally encouraged by early preview reports) that DA2 will do the same.

[FieryDove]

Talogrungi wrote...

I don't want Bioware to make DA into ME.

I do, however, want DA2 to be an improvement upon DA1 in the same way that ME2 was an improvement upon ME1.

If DA2 is gutted like me2 and the pc version suffers like me2 did I'm done with all of these games.

Maybe me3 will have even more ammo types as skills...in fact take out the couple other skills completely and call it even. After all more steamlined is *better* or  add 6 more mandatory mini-games, one should be just for lvling up...two more added for fuel/planet scanning and the rest for the 6 pieces of gear you can find and 1 just to pick up ammo clips. Yeah now we are talking some seriously cool game-play. The added mini-games alone will add so much re-play value and another 40 hours to each game play, what a deal!

(yes imho) but everyone is allowed an opinion.

[GreenSoda]

I actually wouldn't mind a "ME-ified" DA2.



They only thing I have a real gripe with is the significantly shortened game length. I just don't think a voiced PC is worth that much...or anything for that matter.

[Newnation]

I also wouldn't mind. A more streamlined inventory system would be great and the combat would probably play like Jade Empire.

[abat223]

i would mind a little bit.. the missions were fun, but the replayability is half that of Dragon Age..

it's way too linear, you can't decide to kill/not recruit companions, and you have very little choices compared to Dragon Age..



Mass Effect is a good game.. but Dragon Age should stage Dragon Age-ified