198 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Lol, 'I realise I'm at a disadvantage because I played ME1 first.'



SHOCK HORROR; playing the first game in a trilogy is a bad thing to do!



I did that same mistake too

[Nightwriter]

I know, it seems like people who played game 2 first were just delighted with it. It makes me really envious sometimes.

[Arijharn]

You know what shocked me the first from going straight from one to its sequel?



The over-emphasis of cover. In the first one shephard could survive for a bit outside it, but in this game you get obliterated so quickly it's depressing.

[Nightwriter]

I find it makes combat kind of annoying. Sometimes I don't know what I'd do if not for fortification.

[abstractwhiz]

Arijharn wrote...

You know what shocked me the first from going straight from one to its sequel?

The over-emphasis of cover. In the first one shephard could survive for a bit outside it, but in this game you get obliterated so quickly it's depressing.

That strikes me as pretty realistic. I always thought being able to stand in the open was one of ME1s biggest combat fails. The whole purpose of shields and armor, IMO, is to prevent you from getting accidentally killed by a stray shot - rather like body armor in real warfare. Outside of Hollywood movies, nobody stands out in the open with guns blazing. <_<

The existence of shields in the ME universe does open up some additional combat mechanics that you can't do in real life. For example, trained combatants can use their shields skilfully enough to pop out and get a few shots off, even when faced with a volume of fire that no sane person would expose themselves to otherwise. But it's ridiculous to imagine having shields powerful enough to handle sustained firepower - if such a shield were ever developed, a weapon to counter it would follow within months. 

I generally play my Soldier Shepards with this in mind. Losing shields is considered the equivalent of getting Shepard kicked in the nuts - he can survive it, but he'll avoid it like the plague anyway. 

[Nightwriter]

I like Shand's idea. I would have really enjoyed that. I'm aware constant cover is realistic, but it didn't make for fun gameplaying to me, so I didn't care for it. And what's really annoying is when Harbinger hits you with a blast that knocks you out of cover and exposes you to fire.



But that's getting a little off topic. Basically, playing ME1 first makes ME2 a "wtf" experience for me plot-wise.

[fongiel24]

I liked ME2's combat system a lot better, but I wish some of the cover was a lot more realistic. I never got over the fact a glass handrail could stop rockets but Shepard's combat hardsuit can't.

Nightwriter wrote...

But that's getting a little off topic. Basically, playing ME1 first makes ME2 a "wtf" experience for me plot-wise.

If the Collectors are really gone for good in ME3 and nobody mentions them again, I'm going to be more than a little annoyed. ME2's ending was just so anticlimatic. I spent the whole game preparing for a hyped up suicide mission that in the end kind of fizzled out.

[Nightwriter]

I know it's probably not a shared opinion, but I consider revealing the end of the story to be a taboo. You know, where it's going to be, what's going to happen, what it's going to be about. You spend the whole game knowing the suicide mission is coming, so it's kind of a flash in the pan moment when it finally comes. In ME1 you have no idea where the final battle is going to take you.

[Randy1012]

Nightwriter wrote...

I know it's probably not a shared opinion, but I consider revealing the end of the story to be a taboo. You know, where it's going to be, what's going to happen, what it's going to be about. You spend the whole game knowing the suicide mission is coming, so it's kind of a flash in the pan moment when it finally comes. In ME1 you have no idea where the final battle is going to take you.

Agreed. We knew we would have to travel to the galactic core ahead of time. We knew that no matter where we were going, the Collectors were going to be waiting for us. In ME1, we had no idea where the Conduit was, let alone what it was. When Vigil told Shepard the truth about the Conduit, and where it lead, and I realized where Saren was going and what he was planning, that was a real "oh ****" moment. Traveling through the Omega-4 Relay lacked that suspense, because it was always sitting right there, waiting for us.

[abstractwhiz]

fongiel24 wrote...
I liked ME2's combat system a lot better, but I wish some of the cover was a lot more realistic. I never got over the fact a glass handrail could stop rockets but Shepard's combat hardsuit can't.

Hah, I actually remember playing the Horizon mission and having the following thoughts: "WTF - how is that flimsy crate stopping assault rifles and a particle beam? Why can't I get armor made out of this crate? Oh that's right - because they probably can't CUT it! But then how'd they make a crate out of it? Is there a planet out there where invincible crates just naturally occur? Is the Normandy's new upgraded armor just a bunch of super-crates stuck to the hull?"

My inner voice is a bit snarky at times. 

[Nightwriter]

Randy1083 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I know it's probably not a shared opinion, but I consider revealing the end of the story to be a taboo. You know, where it's going to be, what's going to happen, what it's going to be about. You spend the whole game knowing the suicide mission is coming, so it's kind of a flash in the pan moment when it finally comes. In ME1 you have no idea where the final battle is going to take you.

Agreed. We knew we would have to travel to the galactic core ahead of time. We knew that no matter where we were going, the Collectors were going to be waiting for us. In ME1, we had no idea where the Conduit was, let alone what it was. When Vigil told Shepard the truth about the Conduit, and where it lead, and I realized where Saren was going and what he was planning, that was a real "oh ****" moment. Traveling through the Omega-4 Relay lacked that suspense, because it was always sitting right there, waiting for us.

When you put it like that, it really reminds me how much of a journey the ME1 experience was.

It was a journey and a mystery right up until the end. You didn't know what was going to happen or what was around the corner. I miss that.

[thq95]

Arijharn wrote...

You know what shocked me the first from going straight from one to its sequel?

The over-emphasis of cover. In the first one shephard could survive for a bit outside it, but in this game you get obliterated so quickly it's depressing.

Agreed, in ME2 going into cover while your health regens gets pretty lame after a while.  I really did like the way it was in ME1 better, you could actually engage the enemy and you didn't have to spend 90% of the game hiding.

[fongiel24]

abstractwhiz wrote...

Hah, I actually remember playing the Horizon mission and having the following thoughts: "WTF - how is that flimsy crate stopping assault rifles and a particle beam? Why can't I get armor made out of this crate? Oh that's right - because they probably can't CUT it! But then how'd they make a crate out of it? Is there a planet out there where invincible crates just naturally occur? Is the Normandy's new upgraded armor just a bunch of super-crates stuck to the hull?"

My inner voice is a bit snarky at times. 

LMAO! I like how your inner voice thinks. Makes you wonder if Cerberus should have just saved the expense of building the SR-2 and just put engines, weapons, and a mass effect core on one of those indestructible crates. Mass Effect 3 badly needs destructible environments. Seeing the Cain hitting a flimsy catwalk without even leaving scorchmarks is a bit much.

[Ieldra]

Shandepared wrote...
That said, a shield power like the one the geth/collectors and/or the Shadow Broker use would be nice to change things up. If you had the shields the geth and collectors used then you could drop one in a place where there isn't natural cover. The nice thing is that those shields can be shot through some your side but not the enemy side. Could be useful in certain situations and would open up new directions for attack with any class that had access to the ability.

I like this idea. These shields can also be damaged by weapons, unlike the 100% impervious-to-damage chest-high walls we get everywhere in ME2. Has this made it into the ME3 wishlist yet?

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

There certainly are quite a lot of really oddly placed chest-high walls in ME2. It's a little weird. Like outside one of the Blue Suns bases where there are all these really convenient rock-walls placed for some reason...

ME1 provided cover in outside locations by placing crates and ACTUAL COMBAT WALLS, you know, fortifications that you could hide behind. Stuff that looked like it was "natural" part of the landscape. By natural I mean it had a REASON for being there beyond gameplay.

I remember being on Purgatory and thinking, "Oh how nice they have these seemingly purposeless flappy wall things that flip up when I draw near so I can get into cover."

[Fiery Phoenix]

Shandepared wrote...

There certainly are quite a lot of really oddly placed chest-high walls in ME2. It's a little weird. Like outside one of the Blue Suns bases where there are all these really convenient rock-walls placed for some reason...

ME1 provided cover in outside locations by placing crates and ACTUAL COMBAT WALLS, you know, fortifications that you could hide behind. Stuff that looked like it was "natural" part of the landscape. By natural I mean it had a REASON for being there beyond gameplay.

Funny... I thought I was the only one who noticed that. Yes, it's quite remarkable. Not that it's a bad thing, but of course!

[Arijharn]

That's what I mean when I said 'over-emphasis.'



I do not dispute that the game was more tense by the addition of cover, but it slowed the game down to me and not necessarily for the right reasons.

[Ieldra]

Arijharn wrote...
That's what I mean when I said 'over-emphasis.'

I do not dispute that the game was more tense by the addition of cover, but it slowed the game down to me and not necessarily for the right reasons.

I'm more concerned about the already-mentioned fact that the cover seems artificial and contrived. ME1 was much better in that regard, as it was overall much better in creating a sense of location for the player. With a few exceptions, ME1 had locations while ME2 had levels. I count that as one of its most important flaws.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 septembre 2010 - 08:20 .

[Nightwriter]

It makes sense, I suppose, that in a game where you'll need cover more often, more cover must be given, and cover can't always look natural. Unless you're always fighting through cargo yards or something.



This is why I like Shand's idea of being able to drop your own shield/covers like the geth and Collectors do.

[Arijharn]

I have a problem with the 'unnatural' cover though. Like you being in a warehouse with conveniently placed boxes placed there for no real reason. I don't mind so much when you're on the Collector ship because you know, they're alien, they're allowed to hand wave a bit.

[Nightwriter]

Well they kind of did this to themselves by deciding to force us into cover so often. If they had made that decision but not given us an appropriate amount of cover we'd call it unfair, and rightly so.



I didn't think it was too bad, for the most part. When the cover is a conveniently shaped outcropping of rock, however, as was mentioned, it does look very weird.

[fongiel24]

I'm not a huge fan of 'sticky' cover, tbh. I'll never forgive Gears of War for introducing that. I've always felt that the run-and-gun Call of Duty style of shooter games felt more natural.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Arijharn wrote...
That's what I mean when I said 'over-emphasis.'

I do not dispute that the game was more tense by the addition of cover, but it slowed the game down to me and not necessarily for the right reasons.

I'm more concerned about the already-mentioned fact that the cover seems artificial and contrived. ME1 was much better in that regard, as it was overall much better in creating a sense of location for the player. With a few exceptions, ME1 had locations while ME2 had levels. I count that as one of its most important flaws.

I thought ME1 looked terrible in regards to location design. Other than the 'main' locations (Noveria, Feros, Citadel, etc.) every location looked exactly the same and the cover was scattered about and even more artificial looking than ME2.

[Mister Mida]

Guys, you're going off-topic.