528 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

kalle90 wrote...

2) Who said that? IMO it just made the a bit more unique system into a complete copy of every other shooter. Plus there were other options, with dozens just around these forums. I'd be a ton happier if the overheated thermal clips just cooled down after which you could use them again - basically what you mentioned having infinite ammo but reloading too but that didn't happen so why would it happen now?
.

Is looking at and learning from successful shooters a bad thing when they came out and acknowledged that a) they don't make shooters so that aspect of gameplay isn't the strong suit and  that they knew the shooter mechanics in the original fell below the industry standard? I'm all for innovation, but not innovation simply for innovations sake. The shooter mechanics at play in ME 2 have been in play in all the big shooter franchises that have come out in the last few years. Emulating those games when your goal is to shore up that aspect of your own game is a good thing IMO. Being oft used doesn't make something bad, if anything it kinda supports it being a good pillar to build on. They looked at games like Gears, Call of Duty, Killzone, and Resistance and saw that they all had regenerating health, pin point accuracy on the weapons, ammo and reload mechanics, and location based damage and applied those features to their already strong story telling, dialogue mechanic, and power progression.

Modifié par sinosleep, 27 septembre 2010 - 06:10 .

[kalle90]

Well I've played those generic shooters to death and seeing ME2 turned very similiar, yet weaker, was dissapointing. I simply liked the more unique, complex and fresh combat of ME1 more than this degenerated clone. The only combat change I really liked was the locational damage while the others from regenerating health to basic ammo system were mistakes IMO

The possible good thing is that now that they have their base they can build on it. Bring back crouch, mods, skills, some weapon variety, combine the ammo systems of the 2 games etc. If those things don't happen there isn't big enough facepalm for me

Still, like someone said, gameplay issues are just annoyances. Story is the main drive of this game and if it fails the game will fail no matter how amazing the gameplay is. And that's just it - without the story ME2 would get a 2 out of 5 rating at best from me. Of course that almost demands to start the argument again about how immersion breaking it is to have weapons become worse

Anyways, the trilogy is broken already and nothing will change it. Some people don't like ME1 but more importantly it's not the same people who dislike ME2 so Bioware can't satisfy everyone equally

Modifié par kalle90, 27 septembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[sinosleep]

I guess that's just where we have to agree to disagree. There seems to be this gap between people who view straight shooters as something lesser than what ME was (and if that's not what you're getting at that's fine, but when every description of other shooters has the words bland, generic, tired, etc steadily thrown around it's kind of hard not to think people fall into that category) and those of us that don't consider a game that's lacking the features that were introduced in ME 2 as a hybrid, but simply as an rpg with guns. Just like IMO, Fall Out 3 is an rpg with guns. I like rpgs, I like shooters, neither is the superior genre to me. So when I see something being touted as a hybrid I expect it to incorporate the things that make both genres what they are, and I think ME 2 does a better job of this than ME 1 did precisely because of all the "generic" things they added.

[kalle90]

sinosleep wrote...

I guess that's just where we have to agree to disagree. There seems to be this gap between people who view straight shooters as something lesser than what ME was (and if that's not what you're getting at that's fine, but when every description of other shooters has the words bland, generic, tired, etc steadily thrown around it's kind of hard not to think people fall into that category) and those of us that don't consider a game that's lacking the features that were introduced in ME 2 as a hybrid, but simply as an rpg with guns. Just like IMO, Fall Out 3 is an rpg with guns. I like rpgs, I like shooters, neither is the superior genre to me. So when I see something being touted as a hybrid I expect it to incorporate the things that make both genres what they are, and I think ME 2 does a better job of this than ME 1 did precisely because of all the "generic" things they added.

I wouldn't have a problem if ME2 actually beat Gears and the likes, or if ME1 had similiar combat. But as things are I see ME2 as inferior version of Gears - so why play it? (For story and story only) and/or that they messed up the consistency of the series really good by changing the basic game design this much - why didn't they make ME1 different if they knew it was bad?

But to be honest it's probably also about me viewing straight shooters as lesser. In the end ME1 had more options for everything from skills to weapons to non-universal biotic cooldowns. This thread is about ammo and reload though. They harm the story consistency and didn't/don't do good for weapon customization (heat was a major feat with weapon mods)

Long story short: without story I'd only have ME1 and Gears. ME2 doesn't really bring in anything. A combo between ME1 and ME2 perhaps could.

[sinosleep]

Without story ME 2 still brings classes and their assorted powers to the table. So it still plays plenty different from Gears while providing a FAR more comparable shooter experience than the original did. Yes, it's a cover based shooter, but that doesn't discount all of what the different classes and abilities bring to the table. Every time you play gears it's the same deal, every time you play ME 2 you can do something different up to a point. My shotgun engineer and my smg engineer provided to COMPLETELY different experiences, same goes for my vanguards compared to my infiltrators, compared to my adepts, etc, etc, etc. ME 2 fills the niche that ME 1 couldn't for me. ME 2 plays like a shooter while giving me the classes and powers that are normally reserved for rpgs. It's the hybrid I thought the original was going to be but wasn't.

As for why they didn't make ME 1 more like ME 2, it seems to me they probably thought it was better than the feedback they received post release actually told them it was. I'm not saying ME 1 was a bad game by any stretch of the imagination. It's a great rpg, it's just not much of a shooter (almost everything combat related was produced in an rpg format, skill point controlled accuracy, pause and play being unquestionably superior to pause free gaming, no location based damage, infinite ammo) , and I think by incorporating most of the shooter mechanics that are present in a bevy of great shooters like Uncharted, Halo, Gears, and many others they remedied that.

Modifié par sinosleep, 27 septembre 2010 - 08:59 .

[Atmosfear3]

kalle90 wrote...

I wouldn't have a problem if ME2 actually beat Gears and the likes, or if ME1 had similiar combat. But as things are I see ME2 as inferior version of Gears - so why play it? (For story and story only) and/or that they messed up the consistency of the series really good by changing the basic game design this much - why didn't they make ME1 different if they knew it was bad?

But to be honest it's probably also about me viewing straight shooters as lesser. In the end ME1 had more options for everything from skills to weapons to non-universal biotic cooldowns. This thread is about ammo and reload though. They harm the story consistency and didn't/don't do good for weapon customization (heat was a major feat with weapon mods)

Long story short: without story I'd only have ME1 and Gears. ME2 doesn't really bring in anything. A combo between ME1 and ME2 perhaps could.

What else would you play ME2 for exactly? It has no multiplayer so you know well ahead of time you're playing a singleplayer game.

ME1's shooting combat was not fresh or innovative in any way or form. If anything, it was primative in comparison to other, well-established shooters. Infinite ammo with heat generation/cooldown is not new. Plenty of other shooters out there have had that mechanic in the form of a turret with infinite ammo.

[Kavadas]

kalle90 wrote...

In the end ME1 had more options for everything from skills to weapons...

Actually, ME2 has more unique skills than ME1 had.

Secondly, I do not consider a bunch of weapons with absolutely minor statistical differences as "more".  It's just a ton of the same thing with differences that can only be measured via spreadsheet.

Besides, in ME1 you really only had a single version of any weapon that mattered and those were the Spectre X versions.

And even as far as armor went you had your choice between Predator X and Collossus X.

ME2 truly had more tangible variation in equipment, it just fell a little flat because ripped out the single aspect of ME1's equipment system which was actually done well: item modification.

And to be fair, most of the high item mods were grossly imbalanced and absolutely ruined ME1's gameplay.  Still, the system itself was mechanically sound and entertaining.

[kalle90]

sinosleep wrote...

Without story ME 2 still brings classes and their assorted powers to the table. So it still plays plenty different from Gears while providing a FAR more comparable shooter experience than the original did. Yes, it's a cover based shooter, but that doesn't discount all of what the different classes and abilities bring to the table. Every time you play gears it's the same deal, every time you play ME 2 you can do something different up to a point. My shotgun engineer and my smg engineer provided to COMPLETELY different experiences, same goes for my vanguards compared to my infiltrators, compared to my adepts, etc, etc, etc. ME 2 fills the niche that ME 1 couldn't for me. ME 2 plays like a shooter while giving me the classes and powers that are normally reserved for rpgs. It's the hybrid I thought the original was going to be but wasn't. 

Reply for all the 3 posts quoting me: I could go on explaining but it wouldn't change anyone's view and most of those points are already presented atleast in this thread.

In short:
Quote 1 (this): I don't really feel that. My ME1 characters are much more different. There is more room to play with
Quote 2: For gameplay. The reason why I play so many other games. Plus there are such things as being more original and less original. ME2 is less original than ME1 IMO and I can hardly call ME1 primitive when it had all the stuff it had right down to having crouching improving aim. True it had some flaws but again Bioware changed wrong things IMO
Quote 3: True if you let it go to that. I intentionally give different Shepards different items instead of giving everyone the same overpowered uber gear. Weapon mods allowed me to turn the normal pistols into Carnifex like cannon or into a very SMGlike repeater*

*Oh and finally something on-topic: The fact ME2 has 2-3 variants of each weapon and limited ammo means some Shepards will be using exactly the same weapon (and the same armor only perhaps in different color and marginally different skillset or almost identical skills if they're the same class). That didn't ever happen in ME1

Modifié par kalle90, 27 septembre 2010 - 10:41 .

[Epic777]

kalle90 wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Without story ME 2 still brings classes and their assorted powers to the table. So it still plays plenty different from Gears while providing a FAR more comparable shooter experience than the original did. Yes, it's a cover based shooter, but that doesn't discount all of what the different classes and abilities bring to the table. Every time you play gears it's the same deal, every time you play ME 2 you can do something different up to a point. My shotgun engineer and my smg engineer provided to COMPLETELY different experiences, same goes for my vanguards compared to my infiltrators, compared to my adepts, etc, etc, etc. ME 2 fills the niche that ME 1 couldn't for me. ME 2 plays like a shooter while giving me the classes and powers that are normally reserved for rpgs. It's the hybrid I thought the original was going to be but wasn't. 

Reply for all the 3 posts quoting me: I could go on explaining but it wouldn't change anyone's view and most of those points are already presented atleast in this thread.

In short:
Quote 1 (this): I don't really feel that. My ME1 characters are much more different. There is more room to play with
Quote 2: For gameplay. The reason why I play so many other games. Plus there are such things as being more original and less original. ME2 is less original than ME1 IMO and I can hardly call ME1 primitive when it had all the stuff it had right down to having crouching improving aim. True it had some flaws but again Bioware changed wrong things IMO
Quote 3: True if you let it go to that. I intentionally give different Shepards different items instead of giving everyone the same overpowered uber gear. Weapon mods allowed me to turn the normal pistols into Carnifex like cannon or into a very SMGlike repeater*

*Oh and finally something on-topic: The fact ME2 has 2-3 variants of each weapon and limited ammo means some Shepards will be using exactly the same weapon (and the same armor only perhaps in different color and marginally different skillset or almost identical skills if they're the same class). That didn't ever happen in ME1

Are you sure? In me2 every class has at least one unique skill that no other class had,  Me1 had Spectre weapons which were by far the best weapons in the game and they were easy to get. If the complaint about me2 is Shepards will be using exactly the same weapon then me1 is just as guilty and its a problem with the series, Also going back, in me1 like me2 there was alot of overlap with the classes and skills which was magnified because of the larger skill set. I think its unfair to pin the problem of the whole ME series of me2.

[The Spamming Troll]

kalle90 wrote...
Anyways, the trilogy is broken already and nothing will change it. Some people don't like ME1 but more importantly it's not the same people who dislike ME2 so Bioware can't satisfy everyone equally

this is what i think bioware made a mistake with. gears and halo and COD will never be "the greatest game ever made" dont get me wrong, theyll be memorable just becasue of pure scope, but i dont think it will ever be in a discusion of what the best video games ever made were. but after i played ME1 i knew it was ht best game i had ever played. after playing ME2, im startiong the get the feeling that ME1 will be the best game i EVER played. bioware is pretty awesome, its hard to say they could make something awesome, be complete utter ****, but ME3 will be a definate buy, and hopefully doesnt ruin my opinion of ME1 as much as ME2 did.


honestly if ME3 comes out and its basically the same concept we have with ME2, im going to be really disspointed in bioware. like if my son hooked up with a fat girl. its like, come on!

[Epic777]

MysticMage44 wrote...

I honestly think the best bioware can do at this point is take what's good about me1 and whats good about me2, throw out what sucked in me1 and what sucked in me2. There are some things that sucked in both games (i.e. mineral collection) that they will have to create something new for however. But other then that that should be it. I don;t want bioware to try something too new. Save that for the next series of games. Just take the best from the first two and put it into the 3rd.

There lies the problem, there is not alot of agreement on whats right or wrong in me1 or me2

[The Spamming Troll]

in my opinion it wouldnt be hard to make ME3 given what we have from ME1 and ME2. alot of my opinion lies within ME1. ME1 gave us awesome and unique things that in my opinion need to be in ME3. ME2 didnt add a single memorable thing to the franchise other then a shooter.



ME3 in my opinion should have th best of what was offered in both games. i think its safe to assume bioware is happy with what they have i na game in ME2 som im going to assume ME2 is a better representation of waht well get in ME3 then ME1 is. so taking what i have in ME2 the few things i would add are overheating weapons, crouching, a STORY, improved abilities, and even better cooncsole controller button mapping.



alot of what i think ME3 will be is ME1s story with ME2s gameplay, which would make me happy enough all in all.

[sinosleep]

Epic777 wrote...

There lies the problem, there is not alot of agreement on whats right or wrong in me1 or me2

Among us there's not, but all you have to do is look at what they set out to do with ME 2 to see that ME 3 will on the whole play far more like  than like the sequel than the original. With 2 Bioware set out to make the shooter portion of the game behave more like the popular shooters of the era, by doing that they would attract more of those fans to the franchise. Clearly it worked on both levels, the game outsold the first one by a wide margin, and practically every review of the game talks up the vastly improved shooter portions of the game. They aren't going to turn around and and change things much on the shooter side of things and risk losing the fanbase they just earned by making all the changes that attracted them in the first place. If there are going to be any major changes I'd think they would be on the rpg side of things.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 septembre 2010 - 03:53 .

[Embrosil]

Am I the only one who wonders how come, that when you pick up heavy weapon ammo it also replenishes all other ammo? Should not it be a completely different one?
And am I the only one who barely uses heavy guns or do not use them at all? I simply find it easier to kill heavy things like scions and heavy mechs with a sniper riflre. I even sniped the tresher maw 4 times now.

Modifié par Embrosil, 28 septembre 2010 - 07:39 .

[Jebel Krong]

it's easier to kill the thresher maw with the widow than any heavy weapon. the only good use for the AoE heavy weapons is against large numbers of low-level enemies (husks usually).

[sinosleep]

Embrosil wrote...

Am I the only one who wonders how come, that when you pick up heavy weapon ammo it also replenishes all other ammo? Should not it be a completely different one?
And am I the only one who barely uses heavy guns or do not use them at all? I simply find it easier to kill heavy things like scions and heavy mechs with a sniper riflre. I even sniped the tresher maw 4 times now.

I always just figured that considering heavy weapon ammo is found in big a crates that there's other kinds of ammo stuffed in there as well. Plus once you figure it out it helps with ammo management. Memorize where the heavy weapon crates are and you know what sections of the game you can go trigger happy in with no repercussions.

As for heavy weapon use, I don't use them particularly often either, I primarily just use the cain twice on the end boss, and sometimes during the 20 crate mission, thresher maul, preatorean fights, Garrus' recruitment, and Kasumi's dlc. Especially if I'm playing a class like an engineer or adept or something considering I usually do Kasumi's misison ASAP just to get the locust and at that point YMIR mechs and gunships are kind of a pain for those classes. It'll save you some ammo if nothing else.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 septembre 2010 - 08:04 .

[kalle90]

sinosleep wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

There lies the problem, there is not alot of agreement on whats right or wrong in me1 or me2

Among us there's not, but all you have to do is look at what they set out to do with ME 2 to see that ME 3 will on the whole play far more like  than like the sequel than the original. With 2 Bioware set out to make the shooter portion of the game behave more like the popular shooters of the era, by doing that they would attract more of those fans to the franchise. Clearly it worked on both levels, the game outsold the first one by a wide margin, and practically every review of the game talks up the vastly improved shooter portions of the game. They aren't going to turn around and and change things much on the shooter side of things and risk losing the fanbase they just earned by making all the changes that attracted them in the first place. If there are going to be any major changes I'd think they would be on the rpg side of things.

The positive thing is that most of the options aren't either or. Bioware could add more skills, weapons, armor, mods, bring back crouch, make us able to use weapons we aren't trained with and do something little about the health so we don't have to be in cover all the time (I'd hope they make regenerating health a mod again but that's a fat chance) plus do some combat-releated changes like less obvious level design. Topicwise a problem is that finite and infinite ammo can't really exist together. My hope is that Bioware finds some sort of compromise (like clips that aren't in weapon cool down or that cool clips are better than heated ones), but whether it pleases everyone is unclear

Epic777: Like I said I gave everyone different weapons/armor/mods, atleast intentionally. That means ME1 has hundreds or thousands of possible variables while ME2 only has 1-3 without DLC; and when you count in the squadmates who don't have many options but to use exactly the same weapons as you it just gets worse. Even though most of the base ME1 guns were reskins with slightly different stats, even they added value by giving me a sense of progress and by being randomized.
Though I've said I wouldn't mourn if ME3 only had unique weapons (IE. single shot Banshee, burst fire Vindicator and fully automatic Avenger rifle brands instead of 15 brands that are the same) with 3 or 5 stages (I, II, III, IV, V) as that would be the same base with a lot less clutter - including the mods there would be dozens of unique choices. In the end more people create a dozen characters instead of a hundred so the system would be all sufficient

[Epic777]

I agree vanilla me2 had too few a weapons, my problem in me1 it was worse. Even in vanilla me2 you could make the argument for using the Widow + Vindicator over the Viper + Revenant same with using the scmitar over the claymore. Spectre weapons were by far the best weapons in me1 and there was no sense in getting any other weapon, no argument.



me1 has hundreds of variables in theory. After a certain point did the player use Anti-Personnel Rounds? or Armor Piercing Rounds?. In me1 you had many weapons that were either the exact weapon with better or worse stats or a reskin. Any sense of progression is undermined by the weapons appering to frequently, with a weapon series thats too large(I-X). The spectre weapons

also undermine any progression since they can be gotten very easily.

[mundus66]

This has probably been said 20 times already in this thread, but i say it anyway. First of all the weapons in ME2 as far as codex goes is actually more advanced than ME1 weapons. Since in ME2 the codex said that the weapons have changeable heat sinks which makes the weapons more effective.

This was just a lame excuse to add ammo of course, but seriously is that a bad thing? In ME1 you just stand back wait for your ammo to charge and then shoot some if your weapon got overheated, it just sucked some of the fun out of the game.

A well made character in ME1 was to powerful, this was not just because of the ammo system, but also thanks to the powers. But making ammo limited contributed to that this game feels more challenging and rewarding. Still very easy on Insanity though, but at least harder than other RPGs which all get to easy when your character is built the right way.

[kalle90]

Epic777 wrote...
I agree vanilla me2 had too few a weapons, my problem in me1 it was worse. Even in vanilla me2 you could make the argument for using the Widow + Vindicator over the Viper + Revenant same with using the scmitar over the claymore. Spectre weapons were by far the best weapons in me1 and there was no sense in getting any other weapon, no argument.

And I think ME2 was worse, though ME1 wasn't perfect either, so this goes nowhere. By the time I used the 3rd ME2 Shepard some weapons had to be exactly same than my 1st or 2nd Shepard had and powers/skills didn't have much room to play with either. In ME1 It might not have made sense to use other items but I did and do

[The Spamming Troll]

Epic777 wrote...

I agree vanilla me2 had too few a weapons, my problem in me1 it was worse. Even in vanilla me2 you could make the argument for using the Widow + Vindicator over the Viper + Revenant same with using the scmitar over the claymore. Spectre weapons were by far the best weapons in me1 and there was no sense in getting any other weapon, no argument.

me1 has hundreds of variables in theory. After a certain point did the player use Anti-Personnel Rounds? or Armor Piercing Rounds?. In me1 you had many weapons that were either the exact weapon with better or worse stats or a reskin. Any sense of progression is undermined by the weapons appering to frequently, with a weapon series thats too large(I-X). The spectre weapons
also undermine any progression since they can be gotten very easily.

do you think bioware wouldnt or couldnt improve upon what they had in ME1? bioware wouldnt come out with the exact same method of weapon progresion that DIDNT work in ME1. your logic behind that assumption is the exact reason why ME2 failed for many ME1 players. ME1 should have been improved, not completely changed.

[Epic777]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

I agree vanilla me2 had too few a weapons, my problem in me1 it was worse. Even in vanilla me2 you could make the argument for using the Widow + Vindicator over the Viper + Revenant same with using the scmitar over the claymore. Spectre weapons were by far the best weapons in me1 and there was no sense in getting any other weapon, no argument.

me1 has hundreds of variables in theory. After a certain point did the player use Anti-Personnel Rounds? or Armor Piercing Rounds?. In me1 you had many weapons that were either the exact weapon with better or worse stats or a reskin. Any sense of progression is undermined by the weapons appering to frequently, with a weapon series thats too large(I-X). The spectre weapons
also undermine any progression since they can be gotten very easily.

do you think bioware wouldnt or couldnt improve upon what they had in ME1? bioware wouldnt come out with the exact same method of weapon progresion that DIDNT work in ME1. your logic behind that assumption is the exact reason why ME2 failed for many ME1 players. ME1 should have been improved, not completely changed.

Understand me, there are two different weapon progression systems between me1 and me2, they are NOT the same but the effects maybe similar (ie -could be improved).  Me1 had too many weapons, in me2 outside of promotions and dlc, I feel had too few. I like the idea that me2 had but it needed more. Me1 had the opposite problem far too many and appear too frequently. Now the point I tried to make was at least in me2 there was a reason to choose a different weapon setup,you could argue about weapons for different classes, combat styles (scmitar vs claymore). In me1 there was no argument, it was buy as much spectre weapons you needed because no weapon came close. 

Again I prefer me2 weapon system but I would have liked them to expand on it. 

[sinosleep]

Epic777 wrote...

Understand me, there are two different weapon progression systems between me1 and me2, they are NOT the same but the effects maybe similar (ie -could be improved).  Me1 had too many weapons, in me2 outside of promotions and dlc, I feel had too few. I like the idea that me2 had but it needed more. Me1 had the opposite problem far too many and appear too frequently. Now the point I tried to make was at least in me2 there was a reason to choose a different weapon setup,you could argue about weapons for different classes, combat styles (scmitar vs claymore). In me1 there was no argument, it was buy as much spectre weapons you needed because no weapon came close. 

Again I prefer me2 weapon system but I would have liked them to expand on it. 

Spot on, the weapons in ME 2  are few they are as least DISTINCTLY different. The scimitar, katana, evicerator, gps, and claymore all handle in VERY different ways while managing to get similar kill times on your standard mooks resulting in far more varied choice of weapon without purposely gimping yourself. ME 1 was strictly spectre gear or you were gimping yourself. Which was made all the worse if you were on any playthrough other than your first. Once the game has been beaten at least once spectre gear is automatically for sale the instant you start another character.

Both systems had room for improvement but I like the ME 2 system at it's core far more than the ME 1 system at it's core.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 septembre 2010 - 10:29 .

[Epic777]

sinosleep wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

Understand me, there are two different weapon progression systems between me1 and me2, they are NOT the same but the effects maybe similar (ie -could be improved).  Me1 had too many weapons, in me2 outside of promotions and dlc, I feel had too few. I like the idea that me2 had but it needed more. Me1 had the opposite problem far too many and appear too frequently. Now the point I tried to make was at least in me2 there was a reason to choose a different weapon setup,you could argue about weapons for different classes, combat styles (scmitar vs claymore). In me1 there was no argument, it was buy as much spectre weapons you needed because no weapon came close. 

Again I prefer me2 weapon system but I would have liked them to expand on it. 

Spot on, the weapons in ME 2  are few they are as least DISTINCTLY different. The scimitar, katana, evicerator, gps, and claymore all handle in VERY different ways while managing to get similar kill times on your standard mooks resulting in far more varied choice of weapon without purposely gimping yourself. ME 2 was strictly spectre gear or you were gimping yourself. Which was made all the worse if you were on any playthrough other than your first. Once the game has been beaten at least once spectre gear is automatically for sale the instant you start another character.

Both systems had room for improvement but I like the ME 2 system at it's core far more than the ME 1 system at it's core.

You mean me1?

Modifié par Epic777, 28 septembre 2010 - 09:15 .