154 réponses à ce sujet

[AntiChri5]

No, it isnt.



Stop trying to excuse your own lack of skill by saying it's impossible.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Stop pretending your Dick Cheney on a hunting trip and it will be easier for you.

[Destroy Raiden_]

casual is easy unless I do something really stupid I'm fine it's not really challenging to me on that difficulty. I think 1 was more challenging then 2 was.

[Sylvius the Mad]

lazuli wrote...

What?  Player skill has to be a factor if any interactive elements are to be retained.  You're describing Mass Effect: The Movie.

The interactiveness is the decision-making.  That would include target selection.  Welcome to RPGs.

I, for one, am thankful that ME2 moved away from character skill based accuracy.  Waiting until around halfway through the game before my sniper rifle was even usable wasn't very fun at all.

That ME's stat-driven aiming was poorly implemented (and it was) is not evidence that stat-driven aiming is a bad idea.

javierabegazo wrote...

Oh come on Sylvius, don't bring such a semantic argument to the table. Obviously the OP's joystick/mouse skills are in question if he can't hit anything with the, for all intensive purposes, accurate weapons of ME2.

Exactly.  That's the problem.  His mouse skills shouldn't matter.

That's how Ubisoft ruined the Sam Fisher Splinter Cell games, with that rubbish "WIN" feature, what garbage

Amazing how they even try to pass it off as "something cool and new and exciting" instead of acknowledging that it takes control from the player, which is OPPOSITE of the intended function of a video game.

From the video, that looks like a terrific feature.  They've reduced player input to target selection and strategic and tactical planning.  That's classic RPG combat.  I'd love to see a feature like that in Mass Effect.

You're obviously a shooter fan.  I'm not.

[Ryuukishi]

Insanity on ME2 is much more about having an intimate understanding of your character's powers and limitations, and being able to make the correct tactical decisions, than pure shooter skills. I can't beat Call of Duty games on anything higher than easy but I found ME2 Insanity very doable.

[Siegdrifa]

Sylvius, your point of view is just your point of view, it can be respected as much as other point of view is defendable.

You appear to have strong ideas about what an RPG should be and i think you are stuborne with the old fashionne RPG that was limited by tech.

I'm not saying that those games weren't great at that time but they are what they are because the dev was limited by tech more than today.


Most of the dev wanted to put the player into more action on those game while in combat phase, the "selection skill to use" menu was needed because usualy, you had to tell your team mate everything you had to do, so as a result, you were cut off from the action but gain more skill to use:

The use of AI for the team mate allow the player to get more into action, because he spend more time to control his character than the other.


And there is nothing wrong with a game that involve gun fight to use them freely with your skill.
And Bioware for people with less skill give some very low difficulty in this game that doesn't require the good use of power.

In any games, when you play poorly, you can't succeed. The problem is located between the chair and the keyboard, not in the software, especialy in this case.

If you want ALL the RPG to be restricted by "desicion making" in every aspect and NOT "skill using", then let's cut it hear "THIS IS NOT AN RPG (for you)" and find something else to play that suite your taste better.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 01 septembre 2010 - 07:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Siegdrifa wrote...

You appear to have strong ideas about what an RPG should be and i think you are stuborne with the old fashionne RPG that was limited by tech.

They were not limited by tech.  They were computer reproductions of a tabletop game form that didn't use tech.  Using the computer to create a simulation where the character is just an avatar for the player (rather than a character in his own right) completely breaks roleplaying games.

[TheShadowWolf911]

.........hard on casual?

'rolls on the floor laughing.

[Siegdrifa]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

You appear to have strong ideas about what an RPG should be and i think you are stuborne with the old fashionne RPG that was limited by tech.

They were not limited by tech.  They were computer reproductions of a tabletop game form that didn't use tech.  Using the computer to create a simulation where the character is just an avatar for the player (rather than a character in his own right) completely breaks roleplaying games.

Let me reexplain what i meant :

You can't display 320 color when the tech can display only 256
You can't make game 15 mega size file when you can store 5 mega
etc etc.

As exemple, 15 years ago, 3D game was more low poly not because the CG were lazy, but because it was consuming too much ressources.

Tech limite everything you can do, from display, to fx, to render, to storage, to coding.
With all this limitation taken in account, you try to do the best you can.
The further tech limitation are pushed, the larger possibility you get.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 01 septembre 2010 - 07:47 .

[Burdokva]

Playing on Insanity (for the achievement, as I lost my saves), and I've also played on Hardcore and Insanity+ (twice). Easily the most entertaining and rewarding experience is in on Hardcore. It's hard enough to pose a challenge, yet it's not frustratingly boring and tedious as Insanity. I get overwhelmed on Insanity just because after 5+ minutes in a heavy firefight I get bored, throw any tactics and planning and rush towards the enemy, praying to get to the next dialogue/cutscene. And generally I like challenge in shooters - beating "Ghost Recon:Advanced Warfighter" on the highest difficulty was a thrill.



ME2 simply lacks that constant adrenaline rush when you know just a single shot and you're dead. It's a flawed shooter, and I honestly preferred the more laid back, stats/levels based combat in the first. Perfect tactics mean zilch when a Krogan boss can take a minute of steady fire to die.



At least with the joys of modding I've found a way to make squad members useful - while AI can make up to 6 attempts to lean from cover and fire up to 4 burst in a given time period, squad members have only 2/2. Bringing this to at least 4/3 (setting for Casual) makes squad members actually useful, without making weapons overpowered, as they no longer have the nasty habit of leaving an enemy on a spit of health so that he can flank and kill you.



Once get back my achievement, though, strictly back to Hardcore.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Let me reexplain what i meant :

You can't display 320 color when the tech can display only 256
You can't make game 15 mega size file when you can store 5 mega
etc etc.

As exemple, 15 years ago, 3D game was more low poly not because the CG were lazy, but because it was consuming too much ressources.

Tech limite everything you can do, from display, to fx, to render, to storage, to coding.
With all this limitation taken in account, you try to do the best you can.
The further tech limitation are pushed, the larger possibility you get.

But letting the player's physical skil determine combat outcomes is different in kind from what CRPGs were trying to do.  Yes, a lush graphical environment and a longer quest are potentially good developments, but letting the player's physical skill control combat directly is something that was never limited by tech because it was never a desirable outcome.

[Nab20]

I'm playing an Infiltrator on insanity and it's REALLY easy..

I'm gonna try the NG+ to see if it's better because now it's ridiculous. I just can't die.

Modifié par Nab20, 01 septembre 2010 - 08:20 .

[Dave of Canada]

In Mass Effect 1, my soldier can beat Insanity without taking health damage.



In Mass Effect 2. death isn't what happens when I forgot to accidentally put on Immunity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't even know what Immunity is. Because I don't play Soldiers.

[Siegdrifa]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Let me reexplain what i meant :

You can't display 320 color when the tech can display only 256
You can't make game 15 mega size file when you can store 5 mega
etc etc.

As exemple, 15 years ago, 3D game was more low poly not because the CG were lazy, but because it was consuming too much ressources.

Tech limite everything you can do, from display, to fx, to render, to storage, to coding.
With all this limitation taken in account, you try to do the best you can.
The further tech limitation are pushed, the larger possibility you get.

But letting the player's physical skil determine combat outcomes is different in kind from what CRPGs were trying to do.  Yes, a lush graphical environment and a longer quest are potentially good developments, but letting the player's physical skill control combat directly is something that was never limited by tech because it was never a desirable outcome.

Tech don't defin only graphic or longer quest, in the end, it influence the game design.
BECAUSE you can't display character more than that, you have to make a world for this chararters like this.
BECAUSE the world of the character is like you, you can do that and can't do that
BECAUSE you can do that and can't do that, the game designe is like this.
(i'm simplyfing but it's linked, when game designer find new ideas they want to creat for the new games, they have to work with the R&D or coding departement to be sure if it's will be possible, and sometimes they say " this yes, that no, or we can manage to do something near but not like this, and then the game designers go back to work with new info defined by the tech limitation that must be taken in account.)

And if you think using directly the player skill to controle the action of the character was never a desirable outcome, it's YOUR point of view.
I'm a big fan of japanese rpg since the snes era, and from those great japanese dev you find attemp of RPG using more skill of the player for the combat phase.

As exemple, the Seiken Densetsu serie, you controle the hero, the AI (or other player) controle the 2 other and you fight like in Zelda.
Or you can take the "Tales of" serie; same display as other "classic" RPG but in combat phase, AI control your team mate and let you focus on High, Middle, Low strike, making combat combining those possibility and executing some spcial move, jump added with skill selected on certein button.
You can also take the Star Ocean serie that let you direct more action control in the combat phase.

So please, when you say it was never a desirable outcome, don't forget that you are expressing your point of view, but some game designer of rpg don't share it.

ME2 univers require guns, it imply aiming, it's a logical outcome to let the player aim by it self.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 01 septembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Burdokva]

Siegdrifa wrote...

ME2 univers require guns, it imply aiming, it's a logical outcome to let the player aim by it self.

Your logic also implies I should feel the weight, recoil and heat of the weapon through the controller...

[Siegdrifa]

Burdokva wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

ME2 univers require guns, it imply aiming, it's a logical outcome to let the player aim by it self.

Your logic also implies I should feel the weight, recoil and heat of the weapon through the controller...

Nope, my logic try to describ something obvious , not ALL the aspect and phenomenon related to the process of "shooting with a gun". And even if "aiming by yourself" sound "logical" it doenst' mean I see it as the ONLY solution to "aim" in a virtual world, it's just A mean.

If it's in game, the recoil is shown by an animation for the character.
In ME2 the shot gun recoil move the arme and other part of the body, the gun influence the hand and the arm only.
If you mean "feel" in real life, their is advanced accessory for shooter that give you great recoil depending of the weapon you are using, and in the end, can interfer with your aiming capability since the recoil can move your hand.

Recoil (as cover) in shooter was "wanted" in some games, like time crisis, it was one of the first to use recoil i think.

Now aiming is the most basic aspect of how to use a gun.
Recoil is a second intresting aspect to give, but heat, it's not that needed sensation i guess.

But making game doesn't mean using ALL aspect, with virtuality, you synthetise, you fake, and usualy they keep what they need to most. Some times and for good reason, they don't bother take the wind or other human factor when you use a snipe.
When you snipe IRL at long range, sinpers synchronise the "pull of the trigger" with their heartbeat to avoid smal move that could make you miss the target. I don't think video game need to go that far for "entertainement".

EDIT:
Okay, after some search, here is an intresting game controller for shooter :
www.youtube.com/watch
Look around 4min20 they show different kind of recoil. Of cause it's not as hard as it would be IRL but it can improve your gaming experience.
edit2: okay 245$ ... i will still think about it as my christmass gift

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 01 septembre 2010 - 10:10 .

[Vaeliorin]

Siegdrifa wrote...
ME2 univers require guns, it imply aiming, it's a logical outcome to let the player aim by it self.

Tell that to Jagged Alliance and X-Com (the real X-Com, not the POS FPS they're working on.)

[tonnactus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

In Mass Effect 1, my soldier can beat Insanity without taking health damage.
.

Right,with a level 60 import.But not one that starts from the first level.Then even the assasins prior choras den could
give some trouble.
Mass Effect 2 insanity is easy right from the start.

[Kronner]

tonnactus wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

In Mass Effect 1, my soldier can beat Insanity without taking health damage.
.

Right,with a level 60 import.But not one that starts from the first level.Then even the assasins prior choras den could
give some trouble.
Mass Effect 2 insanity is easy right from the start.

...but definitely harder than ME1 later on.
Unfortunately Insanity in ME2 is still very easy, but not as easy as ME1 Insanity. You can still die in a few seconds on Insanity in ME2, this never happened in ME1 once you hit level 20 or so. What I do not like about ME2 Insanity is the pathetic and harmless krogans, rockets that just stun you and do no real damage and lack of snipers and tech and biotic attacks (ok the ****** poor warp attack does not count). That and poor AI in general and the fact that I have to take 2 squadmates with me all the time..how I wish I could just dump them (without modding the game).

Modifié par Kronner, 01 septembre 2010 - 11:14 .

[Burdokva]

Siegdrifa wrote...

But making game doesn't mean using ALL aspect, with virtuality, you synthetise, you fake, and usualy they keep what they need to most. Some times and for good reason, they don't bother take the wind or other human factor when you use a snipe.

Exactly, and that's why aiming a gun is a variable mechanic, be it stats based, or simply via the mouse (or whatever controller you use). 

Quite simply, the stat based principle required more tactics and strategic thinking exactly to overcome something that was a handicap to the player. 

I'm not buying the vaunted "player skill" teen FPS players like to parade around. I've played tens of shooters over 15 years, including multi-player, and there's no skill in shooters at all. Every person who's not disabled mentally or physically can learn to use a controller and become skilled with it in no time.

Now, competitive multiplayer and actual tactical shooters are a different breed, but Mass Effect isn't one.  I would ave preferred a comfortable and relaxing gameplay after work rather than lighting reflexes and a dumb AI.

Modifié par Burdokva, 01 septembre 2010 - 01:59 .

[lazuli]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The interactiveness is the decision-making.  That would include target selection.  Welcome to RPGs.

Don't patronize me.  Like it or not, RPG's do incorporate player skill.  It might not always be physical skill like aiming or button presses a la Gladius or Legend of Dragoon, but if you lack the brains to make proper decisions or build your character correctly in Baldur's Gate, you will not be as successful.  What I'm arguing here is that decision making also requires skill, and sometimes even incorporates limited physical skill if you count the interrupt system in ME2.

[leeboi2]

Is this a joke? If people can complete it on insanity I'm sure it's not too hard on casual...

[sinosleep]

This is clearly a joke post, he mentions basic enemies having shields when they don't get them unless playing on at least hardcore.

[xHazySpyx]

I found ME1 harder than ME2. Mainly because the cover system was awful compared to the second games I think.