149 réponses à ce sujet

[JeanLuc761]

theelementslayer wrote...
Hmmmm let me think, repetative.

Samaras loyalty mission-Seduce a ardat yakshi, ever did that in ME1, naw we went to a generic place and shot generic enimies. Noveria=geth

Thanes loyalty- Beat out an answer of a criminal and then find and stop an assassination. Nope lets go and figure out how to kill a Thorian, oh right and there are a billion geth in between.

Kasumis Loyalty-Lets go sneak into a party and then flirt with hock (femshep) and then you know for the hell of it lets have some fun and see the statue of liberty. Nope Id rather go save an asari (which I would) but look... More geth to fight .

Citidel ME1-Its large but oooo look same grey rooms everywhere
Citidel ME2-Small but look now we have
-Tuchunka (rocky)
-Illium (clean)
-Omega (dirty)

Side missions
ME1-lets go to a bland planet and one of three bunkers and shoot mercs that all scream-I will destroy you
ME2-Lets stop a rouge VI by not firing a shot, lets go help a YMIR mech out to find resources, lets start up a mircowave shield. Now lets go to a ship and figure out why it crashed, oops now we get to shoot mechs.

Nope your right there was much more diversity in ME1, how was I so blind.

Oh good, someone says it.

Mass Effect 2 had an immense amount of mission variety.

[TornadoADV]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

Also, funny how modular transporters and pre-fabs all look alike...reminds me of something, like real-life.

So if an organization like Cerberus existed in real life, all of their buildings would consist of one large room and one smaller room connected by a single short hallway? In real life, warehouses are all medium-sized rooms with random assortments of crates scattered hither and thither with exactly two siderooms that are always in exactly the same place? In real life, all mines consist of three small caverns and one large one, connected by a few short tunnels, always coincidentally arranged in exactly the same way? In real life, a civilian spaceship is always the same exact impractical design dominated by a really big cargo hold, whether or not the purpose actually involves cargo at all, with exactly one deck despite that one deck being larger than two of the multi-deck Normandy's decks combined?

Pre-fabricated bunkers and engineering depots along with modular transporters? Pretty much, the only thing that's a stretch is the mines. Anyway, as for your snide remark about the Kowloon class Freighter, it's design is based around the B-29 Super Fortress, crew quarters and cockpit in the tail and front while the main cargo bay is in the middle.

[theelementslayer]

TornadoADV wrote...

Solaris Paradox wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

Also, funny how modular transporters and pre-fabs all look alike...reminds me of something, like real-life.

So if an organization like Cerberus existed in real life, all of their buildings would consist of one large room and one smaller room connected by a single short hallway? In real life, warehouses are all medium-sized rooms with random assortments of crates scattered hither and thither with exactly two siderooms that are always in exactly the same place? In real life, all mines consist of three small caverns and one large one, connected by a few short tunnels, always coincidentally arranged in exactly the same way? In real life, a civilian spaceship is always the same exact impractical design dominated by a really big cargo hold, whether or not the purpose actually involves cargo at all, with exactly one deck despite that one deck being larger than two of the multi-deck Normandy's decks combined?

Pre-fabricated bunkers and engineering depots along with modular transporters? Pretty much, the only thing that's a stretch is the mines. Anyway, as for your snide remark about the Kowloon class Freighter, it's design is based around the B-29 Super Fortress, crew quarters and cockpit in the tail and front while the main cargo bay is in the middle.

I can agree that prefab buildings will look alike, and some do. However the rachni using the same things as the humans, as the asari. I mean there are more then 3 default bunkers in real life:wizard:

Modifié par theelementslayer, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[brfritos]

Wow people, let's calm down a bit, the topic is about what don't work in ME1 as in ME2.

Let's not start to compare both games, there's a lot of threads about the subject, we don't need another one. 

Also, there's a lot of talking about personal preferences, not the bad design of the game.
Regarding squad or NPC interaction, for example.

[sevach]

theelementslayer wrote...

sevach wrote...

Don't you think that the missions in ME2 are painfully simple (and repetitive) by design??? 
I mean it's all, "go to this place, shoot hundreds of mercs, meet guy in the end".

On Noveria for example, you had to work with the people there to get where you wanted, everyone was going about their bussiness and they would only help you in two cases (in return for you helping them or because it suited their agenda), and you had to  figure out what was going on in Peak 15, and make a decision.

On Feros, if you talk to people, you can smell that there's something fishy in the air, you go on with your mission, and you find out what they were hiding something in fact, and you are back to the place you started.

That's downright more complex level design then we see (over and over and over) in ME2.
Feros and Noveria aren't like the hubs we see in KOTOR (except Kashyyk, that is really small as a hub and everything you do is more or less necessary to complete your objective), there isn't anyone who just wants to play cards, fight for sport or race,there's nothing to do just for fun, instead they are just really big and complex missions.

Plus i really miss bosses with personality, that talked and challenged you more than phisically, ME2 has none.

And a lot of people think (myself included) that the ME1 Citadel hub detracts from the ME2 hubs that don't come close to that level.

I agree with what you said regarding combat, combat in ME1 is like a first screwed effort of Bioware in terms of shooters, and ME2 is simply better in this department imo.

Hmmmm let me think, repetative.

Samaras loyalty mission-Seduce a ardat yakshi, ever did that in ME1, naw we went to a generic place and shot generic enimies. Noveria=geth

Thanes loyalty- Beat out an answer of a criminal and then find and stop an assassination. Nope lets go and figure out how to kill a Thorian, oh right and there are a billion geth in between.

Kasumis Loyalty-Lets go sneak into a party and then flirt with hock (femshep) and then you know for the hell of it lets have some fun and see the statue of liberty. Nope Id rather go save an asari (which I would) but look... More geth to fight .

Citidel ME1-Its large but oooo look same grey rooms everywhere
Citidel ME2-Small but look now we have
-Tuchunka (rocky)
-Illium (clean)
-Omega (dirty)

Side missions
ME1-lets go to a bland planet and one of three bunkers and shoot mercs that all scream-I will destroy you
ME2-Lets stop a rouge VI by not firing a shot, lets go help a YMIR mech out to find resources, lets start up a mircowave shield. Now lets go to a ship and figure out why it crashed, oops now we get to shoot mechs.

Nope your right there was much more diversity in ME1, how was I so blind.

You're being awfully picky, sure there are 3 missions that don't play like the others, so what????
Noveria played different from Feros that played different from Virmire that was very different from the Citadel (first visit), in all of them you had to do, investigate, different objectives. Most (pay attention to the most) missions of ME2 have the exact same structure, go in kill everyone mission complete. Ironically "saving an Asari",  ie Therum plays a lot like a ME2  recruitment mission, land kill everything in sight make your way to the girl in the end. Funny isn't it!!! Only there's just one mission like that instead of ...
 
If you want another one to make it four, Tali's loyalty have a nice intro, people using her for their own agendas and an important decision in the end. IE it's not about combat i'm talking about, it's about how the mission is structured.

And btw there's a lot of small sidequests in the citadel that you solve it like Thane's loyalty (a lot smaller true).  

Modifié par sevach, 06 septembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[theelementslayer]

sevach wrote...

You're being awfully picky, sure there are 3 missions that don't play like the others, so what????
Noveria played different from Feros that played different from Virmire that was very different from the Citadel (first visit), in all of them you had to do, investigate, different objectives. Most (pay attention to the most) missions of ME2 have the exact same structure, go in kill everyone mission complete. Ironically "saving an Asari",  ie Therum plays a lot like a ME2  recruitment mission, land kill everything in sight make your way to the girl in the end. Funny isn't it!!! Only there's just one mission like that instead of ...
 
If you want another one to make it four, Tali's loyalty have a nice intro, people using her for their own agendas and an important decision in the end. IE it's not about combat i'm talking about, it's about how the mission is structured.

And btw there's a lot of small sidequests in the citadel that you solve it like Thane's loyalty (a lot smaller true).  

We could go on like this for hours but I will oblige because I like to. Anyways my point is ME2 had much more diversity, you cant say they didnt. From mission structure, as the ones I just labeled, to where the missions took place, to little changes and twists in each mission, You go for Okeer, you get grunt. You try to stop the assassin, look its Nassana. You go and find a good solarian doctor, wait hes the person who killed millions of Krogan.

ME1 was the same everywhere, bar one mission, major kyle. You go in and shoot everything then report back. Admiral Kohaku, all the geth in the attican traverse. They all had the same stucture. The only one that was different was look for the data module in a monkey. Twas annoying at least to me.

But tell me in ME1, where was the diversity in missions. Take the few main ones. Therum, Feros, Noveria. They all had 3 things. Kill everything, a long trip in the Mako, and a talk at the end.

Look at the side missions. Land on a bland planet, shoot bland things, and fly away. With there only being 6-7 main missions this took almost 2/3 of the playtime.

The little inner hub missions I dont count either, because then there would be gianna for both ME1 and 2, Conrad Verner, the quarian and Sythetic Insights, Feros rep, Mr. Thax, the list goes on, for both games too.

My finishing point is that ME1 had less diversity in enemies, mission structures, and missions. Every one of the loyalty missions were unique, changed to the character you had, with unique dialouge, each recruitment mission was different, again tailored to the person you were recruiting bar grunt, kinda.

[PD ORTA]

tonnactus wrote...

PD ORTA wrote...


Agreed. Gameplay is allways the most important factor, .

Then Gears of War is a better game then Mass Effect 2.Fine.

Since you want to be silly, let me put it this way... would you rather play a game with a great story, but horrible gameplay or a game with a bad story but great gameplay?

This is why for me ME2 is such a good game, because it combines shooter mechanic's that compete with the best TPS's out there, with a good lengthy storyline.
For me ME1= Excellent story, with average (maybe slightly below average) shooter elements. 

[sevach]

First, i'll gladly agree to your point on the side missions, they are better overall in ME2 and that's that (there's the Helena Blake one you forgot but whatever lol).

Now let's focus on the argument instead of ME1 vs ME2 ok?
So much that i'll use Tali's mission as a reference.

You arrive at the Flotilla without the faintest idea of what the trial is about, and when the story unfolds it doesn't fail to surprise.

You have living (or not) consequeces of your previous decisions.

There's a lot of people for you to meet, and they all have their own agendas and couldn't care less about Tali's situation, quite frankly great.

Then you start killing Geth, looking for evidence,and you get a revelation that is not exactly what you wanted, specially if you like Tali.

Finally you have to deal with trial and there's many ways to do it (of course, charm/intimidate is the easy "get out of jail free card", but that's an whole other point and both games have this flaw)

Now compare this with most of the recruitments missions, and some loyaltys.
Landing > shooting > done. It's downright simpler, and not as involving, you don't need to talk to anyone, it doesn't surprise you, it's just hit it and quit it.

The same thing happens in ME1 imo, you don't know what's happening on this planet, you have to talk with people that will help you (people that feel real and aren't there just to direct you), you learn what's really going on, and then you make your decision on the issue, sure, you have to kill an army of geth inbetween just like you kill an army of mercs in ME2, but there's more to it than that, Virmire, Feros and Noveria all of them have a different... angle, if you will. And then there's the interesting bosses with personality.
You see my point now?

You do have a point however, they try to add some meaning with the plague, Archangel and the gangs (actually i really like this one aswell), Jack's prison, Nassana... but it's still simpler and not as involved and repeats it's formula a lot.
Imo they put in too many characters and too many missions for those characters, so we end up with quantity over quality/originality and that's never good, i personally prefer fewer, but bigger missions, just my opinion of course.

Modifié par sevach, 06 septembre 2010 - 11:41 .

[cachx]

Oh, what a refreshing thread ! (this may or may not be sarcasm, you decide! )

I'm going to try my best to stay on topic and NOT draw comparisons to ME2, just list my grievances with ME1.

I first played this game shortly after was finally avaliable on PC, I didn't really knew anything about it, because I had dismissed this game as an xbox exclusive. Still, I was aware of some of the complaints through some blogs, newsites or even webcomics (wich is why I'm always suprised with people coming here saying that they loved the mako). I was a big fan of both Kotors and went into ME1 expecting something similar, in short, I was wrong, I played the game until the end of Eden Prime and shelved it.

I eventually started over and played through last year, I would rate it as slightly above average. The new universe that Bioware created was great, the story was good. But the gameplay and some mechanics just drag the whole thing down.

-From a technical standpoint, it's very poorly optimized. Everything feels slow and heavy, probably the fault of whoever did the PC conversion, dunno how it is on the 360.
- We all know that the inventory and the overall User Interface is clunky at best, a crime against humanity at worst. No use elaborating here.

- A lot of the "systems" in the game feel half-assed sometimes, like they didn't know just how to balance the whole RPG/Shooter hybrid:
+ The skill trees are a mess riddled with superflous passive skills
+ The class system is kinda flawed. You're pidgeon holed to a single, specific role. This wouldn't be bad if you could take control of your temmates a la Dragon Age. But you don't. You're stuck doing crowd control for a squad that is not smart enough to stop shooting you in the back. Not exaclty fun. (Also, soldier is supposed to be a tank? really?).
+ The cover/shooting is a little clumsy on execution. I don't really think that overheating weapons are a big issue, the only problem I have against that is that it shouldn't be possible for the player to circumvent it. The aiming system for powers is horrible.

- I really dislike the Mako. Hard to control, very likely to go ape**** / get stuck on you, bad terrain design, bad combat. This along the Galaxy Map and the copy/paste enviroments completely killed exploration for me.
- While overall the soundtrack is great, and sets the mood perfectly. It has 2 problems: 1.Sometimes the mood is dullness (oh citadel!). 2. Sometimes is not used when it should (watch Benezia die while I play inappropriate music).
-The universe, story and characters are great. But maybe it's because that I got late to the party I don't feel attached to ME1, if it wasn't for imports to ME2, I probably would'nt have played more than once.

[Solaris Paradox]

tonnactus wrote...

Solaris Paradox wrote...

You're an idiot.

Idiots use insult as arguments...

Sorry about that one. I'm an insomniac, you see, and was trying desperately to keep myself awake at the time that I wrote that post. It makes me a bit kranky, and prone to hotheaded remarks. Don't usually stoop to calling people idiots.

That said, what set me off was that I specifically mentioned "the moral dillemma of those personally involved" in the genophage, i.e. Salarian scientists who'd had a hand in modifying it to keep it working, and you answered by saying "Oh, that's nothing new, what could be more personal than the confrontation with Wrex?"

...which is completely the other side of the genophage issue. Yes, we get how the krogan feel. Now how do the guys who made it feel? We don't get a direct answer from the ones who originally developed and released it, but Mordin and Maelon are the next best thing.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 07 septembre 2010 - 05:27 .

[Solaris Paradox]

cachx wrote...

-From a technical standpoint, it's very poorly optimized. Everything feels slow and heavy, probably the fault of whoever did the PC conversion, dunno how it is on the 360.

The 360 version is also poorly-optimized. Constant texture pop-in everywhere, stops and starts when it needs to load things, you know. No idea how it compares to the PC version when speaking of specifics, though.

[theelementslayer]

sevach wrote...

First, i'll gladly agree to your point on the side missions, they are better overall in ME2 and that's that (there's the Helena Blake one you forgot but whatever lol).

Now let's focus on the argument instead of ME1 vs ME2 ok?
So much that i'll use Tali's mission as a reference.

You arrive at the Flotilla without the faintest idea of what the trial is about, and when the story unfolds it doesn't fail to surprise.

You have living (or not) consequeces of your previous decisions.

There's a lot of people for you to meet, and they all have their own agendas and couldn't care less about Tali's situation, quite frankly great.

Then you start killing Geth, looking for evidence,and you get a revelation that is not exactly what you wanted, specially if you like Tali.

Finally you have to deal with trial and there's many ways to do it (of course, charm/intimidate is the easy "get out of jail free card", but that's an whole other point and both games have this flaw)

Now compare this with most of the recruitments missions, and some loyaltys.
Landing > shooting > done. It's downright simpler, and not as involving, you don't need to talk to anyone, it doesn't surprise you, it's just hit it and quit it.

The same thing happens in ME1 imo, you don't know what's happening on this planet, you have to talk with people that will help you (people that feel real and aren't there just to direct you), you learn what's really going on, and then you make your decision on the issue, sure, you have to kill an army of geth inbetween just like you kill an army of mercs in ME2, but there's more to it than that, Virmire, Feros and Noveria all of them have a different... angle, if you will. And then there's the interesting bosses with personality.
You see my point now?

You do have a point however, they try to add some meaning with the plague, Archangel and the gangs (actually i really like this one aswell), Jack's prison, Nassana... but it's still simpler and not as involved and repeats it's formula a lot.
Imo they put in too many characters and too many missions for those characters, so we end up with quantity over quality/originality and that's never good, i personally prefer fewer, but bigger missions, just my opinion of course.

Opion, yup I can see that, and I can see your argument, also yup forgot about Helena, though I just shoot her for the XP, and cause shes a b*tch. It does repeat itself, but each  new one has its own angle, just like ME1. Dont get me wrong, I love both games to death, ME2 being my fave, then a couple in between then ME1. However I just seem to think that because it gives it the new angle, the tried and true and tested, and well working formula really doesnt seem to harm it.

[Daeion]

VanguardtoDestruction wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Solaris Paradox wrote...

(in summary: less emphasis on exploration, more focus on episodic character-based sideplots and less on the main plot, greater balance in focus toward action and less toward RPG elements in general, and so on, and so forth).

I'm going to be honest, I stopped reading at this point because this right here tells me that we are not even on the same page.  Most who are dissapointed in ME2 don't feel the there was a need for the game to be turned into a cookie cutter cover based shooter so that it would be more action oriented and focus less on the RPG elements that BW is known for.  Oh look, there's a row of waist high crates in the middle of this warehouse, I wonder if I'm going to get attacked?  Oh look, I found this cool shotgun, I wonder who I should give it....oh wait I don't need to make any decisions because the computer just does it for me...

While ME played like a traditional RPG, which is why many of us bought it, it also incorporated some shooter aspects that made it unique from other RPGs.  ME2 in contrast plays more like a shooter that trys to incorporate some RPG elements.  I say trys because I don't think they did it succesfully.  IMO BioShock does a better job of balancing shooter and RPG then ME2 did.  I understand that by going this direction BW was able to appeal a larger player base and thus increase sales.  Just because I understand it though doesn't mean that I agree with it.

Listen, RPG's are my favorite type of game.  Just because ME2 tries to make it's combat more interesting doesn't mean it suddenly turns into a shooter.  Like I said, I consider interactive dialouge to be as great a part of an RPG system as skills.  I mean, I barely noticed the absence of weapon skills because of the new powers and skills that Bioware implemented.  I know some people (like you) enjoyed the mixing and matching game of ammo and attatchments, but leaving that part out doesn't make the game any less of an RPG.  Mass Effect 2 is an RPG with a highly polished combat system, not a shooter with RPG elements.  

I don't care if they want to make combat more exciting, heck, I like the fact that a headshot is actually a headshot now, but I don't really find that the changes made combat more exciting as everything is now predictable.  Also, I don't really care that we no longer need to spend points to skill up weapons, though I do miss the idea of different weapon based abilities.  I guess the thing that upsets me is that people seem to think that because a game has a good story or allows you to make a few choices that it is automatically a RPG.  To me those are things that we should be demanding from every game regardless of if it's Halo, GoW, or ME and should be genre specific.  My view is that for ME2 BW decided that the main thing they needed to do was bring combat inline with modern day shooters so as to appeal to a larger audience and in doing so cut out some core RPG elements. 

[TornadoADV]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

cachx wrote...

-From a technical standpoint, it's very poorly optimized. Everything feels slow and heavy, probably the fault of whoever did the PC conversion, dunno how it is on the 360.

The 360 version is also poorly-optimized. Constant texture pop-in everywhere, stops and starts when it needs to load things, you know. No idea how it compares to the PC version when speaking of specifics, though.

It wasen't poorly optimized, it was a design decision from the get-go to shorten load times by having the game actively load textures when the player is playing. Of course, this can cause some serious issues when transitioning between two terrain types with no load screen. (UNC Missions.)

- I really dislike the Mako. Hard to control, very likely to go ape**** / get stuck on you, bad terrain design, bad combat. This along the Galaxy Map and the copy/paste enviroments completely killed exploration for me.

Protip : The Mako is fine, don't use anything but a game pad to control it.
Protip 2 : The Mako can go ANYWHERE and will NEVER get stuck, why do you think there is the Mako Mountain Climbing Club T-Shirts? Using the Crab Walk method, you can shimmy up near 90 degree slopes and go anywhere you want on the map.
Protip 3 : Learn to circle strafe while keeping your turret on the foe, use the coax to bead the target then knock'em down with the 155mm. Use Jump-Jets to avoid rocket fire and thresher acid.
Protip 4 : When in doubt, run the SOBs over! Almost always an instant kill on non-armature class foes and for the bigger foes it bowls them over and let's you take pot shots at their exposed arses.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 07 septembre 2010 - 08:54 .

[brfritos]

TornadoADV wrote...

Protip : The Mako is fine, don't use anything but a game pad to control it.
Protip 2 : The Mako can go ANYWHERE and will NEVER get stuck, why do you think there is the Mako Mountain Climbing Club T-Shirts? Using the Crab Walk method, you can shimmy up near 90 degree slopes and go anywhere you want on the map.
Protip 3 : Learn to circle strafe while keeping your turret on the foe, use the coax to bead the target then knock'em down with the 155mm. Use Jump-Jets to avoid rocket fire and thresher acid.
Protip 4 : When in doubt, run the SOBs over! Almost always an instant kill on non-armature class foes and for the bigger foes it bowls them over and let's you take pot shots at their exposed arses.

Ahhh...the good old days of smashing things, it was really fun! 

You can do the same with the Hammerhead, you only have to dodge the bullets, but it's perfect possible to do it.

The problem with the HH is not the driving or the armor, is the wepons.
The Mako can shot in a straigh line if you want, but the HH use guided missiles that most of the time goes to the wrong target.

For example, you have a Geth Prime going in your direction and the damn thing shots the Colossus who is stopped miles away. 

[Solaris Paradox]

TornadoADV wrote...

It wasen't poorly optimized, it was a design decision from the get-go to shorten load times by having the game actively load textures when the player is playing. Of course, this can cause some serious issues when transitioning between two terrain types with no load screen. (UNC Missions.)

It was a bad design decision, then. Character model textures pop in during conversations and then pop-out off-camera so that they have to pop-in again when the camera snaps back to those characters. Textures are constantly poping in everywhere you go. And in some cases I've encountered framerate bugs. Once, I left the mine where you have to eradicate a rachni nest, and the framerate dropped to one frame per one-and-a-half-seconds, even in the menu. The only way to get it back to normal was to save my game, and load it again. Doing that at a framerate of 0.75 frame-per-second is annoying, because you have to machinegun buttons to get them to even do anything.

Protip : The Mako is fine, don't use anything but a game pad to control it.
Protip 2 : The Mako can go ANYWHERE and will NEVER get stuck, why do you think there is the Mako Mountain Climbing Club T-Shirts? Using the Crab Walk method, you can shimmy up near 90 degree slopes and go anywhere you want on the map.
Protip 3 : Learn to circle strafe while keeping your turret on the foe, use the coax to bead the target then knock'em down with the 155mm. Use Jump-Jets to avoid rocket fire and thresher acid.
Protip 4 : When in doubt, run the SOBs over! Almost always an instant kill on non-armature class foes and for the bigger foes it bowls them over and let's you take pot shots at their exposed arses.

The Mako's not bad, but there are aspects of it that just aren't very fun. Like combat. If you run out of kinetic barriers, it takes forever for them to recharge, but your actual armor will run out oh-so-quickly. Sniper rifles wreak havoc on your vehicle for some reason, making combat with certain enemy squads a pain. Fighting enemies like Geth Collossus often winds up being an exercise in jumping over energy balls and firing your cannon at a stationary target that stands no chance but takes forever to kill. And it doesn't help that the environments you drive through are only ever interesting during story missions, but only ever more than a flat, linear path during sidequests.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 07 septembre 2010 - 09:17 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Wow, this thread went almost the way I expected it to go.



That said, writing off Mordin's Loyalty Mission is pretty dumb for anyone. That alone gives a large insight into Salarian culture, so insinuating that it doesn't expand the universe at all is an ignorant thing to do.



I didn't mind most of ME1, otherwise I wouldn't have played it so much. The difficulty is uneven, going from extremely hard just starting out to a complete joke after you've acquired certain powers. My problem with the weapon talents in ME1 is twofold: 1) Even starting out, Shepard is a seasoned war veteran badass who can't shoot straight with a standard issue assault rifle or sidearm if you have zero points invested, and 2) if you DO have one pathetic point invested into something like assault rifles (enough to get Overkill, mind you), simply buying the Spectre AR and slapping a heatsink onto it makes it, when you activate Overkill, a Bullet Hose of Infinity +x, depending on whether or not you also add a rail to it or not. For as long as Overkill is running, it will NEVER overheat and your reticule will never grow larger than its nominal size.



The above is hilariously unbalanced and also makes no more sense than the first complaint. Altogether it implies that the gear is more important than the wielder, and while the equipment you use should make some sort of difference, it shouldn't BE the difference.



I find it funny that while some Mass Effect players who complain loudly now say that there is "no difference between Soldiers and Adepts in ME2" (complete swill, by the way), the complaint of the day on the Dragon Age 2 board is about how classes are being further divided and made distinct from one another.



All this is saying to me is that there is no pleasing anyone.

[sevach]

theelementslayer wrote...


Opion, yup I can see that, and I can see your argument, also yup forgot about Helena, though I just shoot her for the XP, and cause shes a b*tch. It does repeat itself, but each  new one has its own angle, just like ME1. Dont get me wrong, I love both games to death, ME2 being my fave, then a couple in between then ME1. However I just seem to think that because it gives it the new angle, the tried and true and tested, and well working formula really doesnt seem to harm it.

Fair enough, but while they do have their own flavor and story, with the plague, the gangs, killing Nassana... they are a bit too tied down to the formula, for me atleast, i need a bit more freedom, more going back and forth investigating/learning something that affects the mission outlook, non-linear levels, and more dialogue (they seem to be cutting on this for cinematic feel) , this things makes the mission feel a lot more unique, different from one another imo.

[Hathur]

Fugiz wrote...

I hope Bioware makes whatever tool or content for determining the choices in ME1 on the PS3 also available on the Xbox, because playing thru ME1 when you know you could be playing the more entertaining ME2 with your choices available is just torturous.

Yes, I agree those "Prefab buildings" are annoying...

I don't mind playing through ME1 for the umpteenth time (even tho I find the combat system in it now vastly inferior to ME2.. and most aspects of ME2 to be better than ME1)...

However, I only enjoy it for the story elements.. it's like re-watching a great favorite movie again... I just set the game to the easiest, blast through all the battles insanely fast (cus the combat system is so unsatisfying once you've played Me2) and just kick back to enjoy the still truly excellent and epic story of ME1.... so in this regard, I would never say it's not worth replaying ME1... I have still replayed it several times since ME2 came out.. and shall continue to do so.

[Daeion]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
I find it funny that while some Mass Effect players who complain loudly now say that there is "no difference between Soldiers and Adepts in ME2" (complete swill, by the way), 

It's a vaild complaint becuase sure you can through out a warp with the adept but you're still going to spend most of your time playing like a soldier.  If I'm playing a different class I expect to have to change my tactics, not findout that the way I played my soldier is just as effective of a way to play my adept.

[baller7345]

Daeion wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
I find it funny that while some Mass Effect players who complain loudly now say that there is "no difference between Soldiers and Adepts in ME2" (complete swill, by the way), 

It's a vaild complaint becuase sure you can through out a warp with the adept but you're still going to spend most of your time playing like a soldier.  If I'm playing a different class I expect to have to change my tactics, not findout that the way I played my soldier is just as effective of a way to play my adept.

Coming from someone who has played an adept quite a bit that is not true.  Most of the time you are firing off pulls, singularities, and then throwing throws and warps in there to finish people off.

[Daeion]

baller7345 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
I find it funny that while some Mass Effect players who complain loudly now say that there is "no difference between Soldiers and Adepts in ME2" (complete swill, by the way), 

It's a vaild complaint becuase sure you can through out a warp with the adept but you're still going to spend most of your time playing like a soldier.  If I'm playing a different class I expect to have to change my tactics, not findout that the way I played my soldier is just as effective of a way to play my adept.

Coming from someone who has played an adept quite a bit that is not true.  Most of the time you are firing off pulls, singularities, and then throwing throws and warps in there to finish people off.

Playing as someone who has beat the game on HC as a soldier, infiltrator, and adept, my statement still holds true.  I may not be playing the class the way it was designed, but then again ME wasn't designed with the idead that people would go double frictionless and yet that's always brought up as one of the reasons we needed to have an ammo system.

[Sajon1]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Yeah a plot does not make a game.

When judging which is the better game the number one issue to consider is gameplay. Nothing else really matters.

Yes, Mass Effect is a better story then Mass Effect 2. But Mass Effect 2 is a better game then ME 1.

Thats like saying,

When judging a the quality of a movie the number one issue to consider is which movie has more action. Nothing else really matters. Plot does not make a movie.

Depends on what kind of gamer you are. I play RPGs for the stories and character progression. To me what matters is the balance of both story telling and gameplay. Thats what makes game.

[PD ORTA]

Sajon1 wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Yeah a plot does not make a game.

When judging which is the better game the number one issue to consider is gameplay. Nothing else really matters.

Yes, Mass Effect is a better story then Mass Effect 2. But Mass Effect 2 is a better game then ME 1.

Thats like saying,

When judging a the quality of a movie the number one issue to consider is which movie has more action. Nothing else really matters. Plot does not make a movie.

Depends on what kind of gamer you are. I play RPGs for the stories and character progression. To me what matters is the balance of both story telling and gameplay. Thats what makes game.

What he's saying is more like,
When judging the quality of a movie the number one issue to consider is which movie has better dialog, it's more important than the plot.

As both are important it's simply a matter of which you believe is more important.

I play RPG's for the same reason you do. RPG's like the FF series KOTOR, etc and even ME1, the plot is number one... but ME2 I feel is different. As the game isn't just an RPG, but a shooter also. RPG's are the only type of game where I accept story and character over gameplay, but  as a hybrid game ME2 get judged on it's story and it's combat/gameplay for me.

Modifié par PD ORTA, 08 septembre 2010 - 11:03 .

[baller7345]

Daeion wrote...
Playing as someone who has beat the game on HC as a soldier, infiltrator, and adept, my statement still holds true.  I may not be playing the class the way it was designed, but then again ME wasn't designed with the idead that people would go double frictionless and yet that's always brought up as one of the reasons we needed to have an ammo system.

Ok i guess you can play that way I just don't see the reason too.  I find it faster, on insanity, to play while using my abilities than it is to just shoot everything.  As for needing an ammo system I thought that was more to balance the weapons.  I mean double frictionless was powerful but you didn't even need frictionless to make marksman or ...crud whatever the assault rifle equivlent was an absolute beast where you didn't really need anthing else.  I can't say that going with the ammo system was the best Idea beacuse there may have been a better way to balance weapons but with the ammo system at least I'm encouraged to use something other than my pistol when playing as an adept or engineer (I know that if you know what you doing you'd never think about using just your pistol as either class).

I could make an engineer or adept play a lot like a soldier or any other class on ME1 by taking marksman (since every class had it)  and ignoring my powers but that doesn't mean that is the most efficent way to play or that the game is forcing you to play that way.  If you go into the game and play your adept like a soldier then that was your choice and not a flaw with the class.

Modifié par baller7345, 09 septembre 2010 - 12:14 .