528 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

It'll be the number one topic on the ME 3 boards as well I'm sure.

[Terror_K]

sinosleep wrote...

And that's where you and I disagree. Limited ammo and reloading are the same in ME 2 as they are in any other shooter, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

This is true, but at the same time I don't actually fully agree with you. The thing is, I actually found ME1 to be more innovative by scrapping the ammo, because that actually offered something fresh: the fact that we didn't need to bother with it, which I liked, while ME2 has brought back an element that goes even further back than Wolfenstein 3D and Doom for shooters.

The thing is, it was good to not have to deal with the issue, IMO, but then I wasn't playing Mass Effect for it's combat and actually liked that it wasn't as involved and didn't need as much micromanagement as most shooters (kind of ironic since I want more micromanagement for the RPG side of things in ME2 than there is).

As far as I was concerned, the combat was just the stuff between the RPG stuff and the story and narrative, but I actually found it somewhat entertaining in ME1 because it was TPS-Lite, kind of like the RPG stuff was also RPG-Lite. It was TPS combat but with the boring crap taken out basically*. Now with ME2 we've suddenly gone hard-core shooter, and yet I actually find the combat more dull and generic, simply because it is pretty much like any other shooter now combat-wise, so it's harder to ignore and put up with without resorting to dropping the difficulty to Normal or less.

I suppose some will call me a hipocrite for saying this and comdemning ME2 for having slightly more meat in the combat given my views on ME2 in general and saying that I feel it's dumbed down and lacking in meat in the RPG stuff, but I'll admit that this is purely a preference thing and doesn't directly indicate inferior gameplay. But I actually found ME1's combat better because it wasn't the same standard affair and was a little different and it did actually feel like my RPG efforts reflected in it. ME2 just feels like a poor-man's Gears of War or, dare I say, Army of Two. Sure there's a few differences like the powers you have, but it still just feels like you're running around and finding waist-high cover, shooting some guys and then rinsing and repeating, while Gears of War and other pure shooters at least manage to change things up a bit.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to go full-on shooter on us combat-wise, at least put more in than the bare-bones and leave it at that.

* = and since I know how this board operates, ME2 was not an "RPG with all the boring crap taken out" at all. <_<

Modifié par Terror_K, 02 octobre 2010 - 11:02 .

[Icinix]

(shrugs)



Preferred ME1 system to ME2 system for a pile of reasons, but it isn't a deal breaker.



Besides which, the INI file can be modified to revert that relatively easy. So whatever way they go in ME3, there is ways and means.

[sinosleep]

@Terror_K

The ammo is only something fresh if you're looking at things from a shooter perspective, and being as I consider ME 1 to be an RPG with guns (and that's not meant as a bad thing) as opposed to any real kind of hybrid not having it wasn't anything special to me. It just felt like playing KOTOR but having to manually aim at targets instead of simply selecting them.

Modifié par sinosleep, 02 octobre 2010 - 11:11 .

[kalle90]

sinosleep wrote...

And that's where you and I disagree. Limited ammo and reloading are the same in ME 2 as they are in any other shooter, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

It works just fine in most games, but I expected ME2 to improve on what uniqueness ME1 had and that could have been better and more original. IMO they took the easy way out by just copying "what works with every other modern shooter". Now it's just Gears (worse combat mechanics though) with powers and levels (stripped down from ME1 too), which don't do much (there's always 1 correct power to spam) and aren't something any other game couldn't add (Even Batman uses lite-rpg leveling and "powers" in Arkham Asylum).

Like someone said perhaps the biggest blow gameplaywise is that there is no more "1 more powerful shot before overheat vs. 2 a little weaker shots before overheat". Sure, after a while you didn't need to make that decision, but that's the point of improving the system. These ME2 clips are just hard limits you can't customize in any way, well except for using the 10% more ammo upgrades

If ME1 used the same systems as ME2 does I wouldn't care as much because it wouldn't be awkward realism/lorewise (well perhaps it would, like why only some enemies drop clips) and I wouldn't see gameplay having more potential.

I'm also just tired of playing the "same" games over and over. Back when Gears1 and ME1 were released they were both great and unique, but now they along many other games are becoming more and more similiar. Sure, it doesn't bother the people who buy every COD, Halo, Guitar Hero, yearly sports games, openworld game etc. but for someone like me searching for originality it just blows.

[sinosleep]

kalle90 wrote...



It works just fine in most games, but I expected ME2 to improve on what uniqueness ME1 had and that could have been better and more original. IMO they took the easy way out by just copying "what works with every other modern shooter". Now it's just Gears (worse combat mechanics though) with powers and levels (stripped down from ME1 too), which don't do much (there's always 1 correct power to spam) and aren't something any other game couldn't add (Even Batman uses lite-rpg leveling and "powers" in Arkham Asylum).

Now that's just ridiculous. If powers "don't do much" why is a level 30 adept so much more proficient than at level 5? Or an engineer? Or a sentinel? The weapons classes plateau early, but the power heavy classes most certainly don't. And the 1 correct power to spam theory doesn't apply to enemies on health, where environment (better to throw a lone mook off a bridge than to waste the time and CD on setting up a warp explosion), CD, and playstyle (cqc or ranged) play much larger roles.

Batman has some rpg-lite to it, but it's no where near what ME 2's classes and powers provide.

And as far as I'm concerned originality is over rated any way, especially considering the fact that practically nothing is wholly original these days. People talk about gears like it did something revolutionary when the fact of the matter is that Gears did a lot o things a lot of other games had done before, it just put them together better than most. Cover based shooters had been around since long before Gears (remember Winback on n64), the grenade throws (following an arc when aiming) were nothing new, games had already started using shaky cam, etc, etc, etc. On the multi-player front there was some innovation with game modes like horde mode (which everyone and their mother is aping now, and for good reason), but for the most part Gears did a lot of things that had done before, but managed put it all together extremely well.

And on that note I think it's time for me to bow out of this thread. At this point we're just kinda going around in circles and the point about ammo vs unlimited is almost peripheral.

You'll have a tropic lightning day.

Modifié par sinosleep, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:16 .

[kalle90]

sinosleep wrote...

@Terror_K

The ammo is only something fresh if you're looking at things from a shooter perspective, and being as I consider ME 1 to be an RPG with guns (and that's not meant as a bad thing) as opposed to any real kind of hybrid not having it wasn't anything special to me. It just felt like playing KOTOR but having to manually aim at targets instead of simply selecting them.

Hit the nail there. I loved KOTORs except for the fully-automatic dice-rolling combat. ME1 brought the basic TPS mechanics of free aiming and moving while still being very much like KOTOR, which made it very much perfect (With the AI, enemy dialogue, texture popups, cluttered inventory and such bringing it down a notch)

For KOTOR there isn't any sort of replacement on Xbox as far as I know.
For ME2 there are many replacements gameplaywise. Gears is better covershooter while GTA has more freedom and livelyness. The only thing ME2 really has going for it is the story (Even with all the annoyances it's far better and more interactive than most games, but if it wasn't for ME1 I probably wouldn't care that much about story either). And that's just it. I played ME2 only for the dialogue and story while ME1 managed to have some gameplay fun too (as simple as useful crouch, throwing biotics at fast rate, noticing how the mods/better items affect, Mako, exploring at times)

I'm sure about 95 out of 100 shooter games have ammo, so it's not fresh when looking from the scale of all games.

I know these are all opinions though, just putting it out there

sinosleep wrote...

kalle90 wrote...
It works just fine in most games, but I expected ME2 to improve on what uniqueness ME1 had and that could have been better and more original. IMO they took the easy way out by just copying "what works with every other modern shooter". Now it's just Gears (worse combat mechanics though) with powers and levels (stripped down from ME1 too), which don't do much (there's always 1 correct power to spam) and aren't something any other game couldn't add (Even Batman uses lite-rpg leveling and "powers" in Arkham Asylum).

Now that's just ridiculous. If powers "don't do much" why is a level 30 adept so much more proficient than at level 5? Or an engineer? Or a sentinel? The weapons classes plateau early, but the power heavy classes most certainly don't. And the 1 correct power to spam theory doesn't apply to enemies on health, where environment (better to throw a lone mook off a bridge than to waste the time and CD on setting up a warp explosion), CD, and playstyle (cqc or ranged) play much larger roles.

And as far as I'm concerned originality is over rated any way, especially considering the fact that practically nothing is wholly original these days. People talk about gears like it did something revolutionary when the fact of the matter is that Gears did a lot o things a lot of other games had done before, it just put them together better than most. Cover based shooters had been around since long before Gears (remember Winback on n64), the grenade throws (following an arc when aiming) were nothing new, games had already started using shaky cam, etc, etc, etc. Gears just put it all together extremely well.

It still feels the same. I'm sitting behind cover shooting and waiting for the powers to recharge. Then it takes like a second to judge the situation and use the power tailored for it or wait for later. On higher difficulties I'm compelled to use the same warps and overloads and on lower difficulties I don't really even need powers, but I do have to use guns. My conclusion is that the powers feel a bit like the equipment or armor abilities of Halos - usually unnecessary

Originality really can't be overrated when there are so many sequels of the very few genres around coming out. I haven't played Winback and most games that have features from Gears have been awful. You're right Gears took it all and put it together well - now I don't have urges to get worse or marginally better versions of it. Thing is that IMO ME2 could be quite easily improved on.

/This has nothing to do with unlimited ammo again. And so I agree with your last point

Modifié par kalle90, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:21 .

[Sidney]

kalle90 wrote...

Hit the nail there. I loved KOTORs except for the fully-automatic dice-rolling combat. ME1 brought the basic TPS mechanics of free aiming and moving while still being very much like KOTOR, which made it very much perfect (With the AI, enemy dialogue, texture popups, cluttered inventory and such bringing it down a notch)

For ME2 there are many replacements gameplaywise. Gears is better covershooter while GTA has more freedom and livelyness.

...but ME1 was a dice-rolling combat the only thing not automtaic about it was pointing at a target which didn't change it up much over KoTOR and just annoyed the fire outta me. They could have stuck the auto-aim feature from GTA or RDR onto ME1 and that would have actually helped the situation rather than the betwixt and between mess that ME1's combat was. FO3's attempt to hybridize combat with the standard shooter controls and the VATS alongside it actuually worked a lot better than the ME1 combat.

[kalle90]

Sidney wrote...

kalle90 wrote...
Hit the nail there. I loved KOTORs except for the fully-automatic dice-rolling combat. ME1 brought the basic TPS mechanics of free aiming and moving while still being very much like KOTOR, which made it very much perfect (With the AI, enemy dialogue, texture popups, cluttered inventory and such bringing it down a notch)

...but ME1 was a dice-rolling combat the only thing not automtaic about it was pointing at a target which didn't change it up much over KoTOR and just annoyed the fire outta me.

There were no random variables. Character skill and weapon determined the base and after that you only had the bloom. Crouching and shooting in short bursts caused less bloom. I still had to do every shot and move every step myself.

It's obvious majority hates the system, but I preferred it over what ME2 had. IMO the only combat things that ME2 really improved were things that don't affect me: enemy and ally AI, locational damage and dialogue. Clips and finite ammo especially were something that just damage the experience for me

To conclude my views(not my ideas):
Solution 1. Make clips regenerate/cool slowly, faster when they're not in the weapon. In theory you can end up with 0 bullets but it's not permanent. 2-3 clips per weapon sounds enough to switch between
Solution 2. Make weapons lose power&accuracy&rate of fire as they heat up. Switching clip at the right time is important for efficient combat. If the weapon overheats the clip may (or will) be broken. For this it'd probably be best if players could buy the clips to suit their combat style (Powerful assault rifle with High explosive rounds will need more clips than a pistol with all cooldown mods)
Solution 3. Turn the heat bar from ME1 into a clip. With weapon mods you can affect how many shots you can fire before needing to change clips.

Other ones I can think off now (ME1 system, ME2 system, infinite ammo but switching clips) don't sound as good. Heavy weapons should still use power cells 

[SithLordExarKun]

marshalleck wrote...

I can't believe people are still hashing out this argument after all these months. FFS.

What do you seriously expect honestly? After the last thread was closed, a few of the "frequent" posters pretty much toned down, expect for a couple that can't seem to move on after ME2 which is kinda disturbing if you think about it.

[Nerevar-as]

Don´t know if it has been asked before, but can the ME1 system work in EVA? I think heat can only be radiated in vacuum, don´t know if the weapon cooling system lore accounted for that.

[Pocketgb]

kalle90 wrote...
Hit the nail there. I loved KOTORs except for the fully-automatic dice-rolling combat. ME1 brought the basic TPS mechanics of free aiming and moving while still being very much like KOTOR, which made it very much perfect (With the AI, enemy dialogue, texture popups, cluttered inventory and such bringing it down a notch)

You gotta keep this in perspective, though. For me as a shooter player it was aggrevating when my aim wasn't properly rewarded - and as an RPG player I felt the shooting mechanics were completely forced. ME1 hit the nail for a number of fans, but you need to keep in mind that the Mass Effect series is attempting to bridge two nearly polar genres: Shooters and RPGs.

kalle90 wrote...
For ME2 there are many replacements gameplaywise...

The same can be said for nearly every Bioware game - but only when you nitpick certain features.

Both ME1 and ME2 are flawed on numerous levels, but it's the sum of their strengths that makes me love the series

And god DAMN I love this avatar! Almost makes me want to resubscribe...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 03 octobre 2010 - 12:44 .

[shadow king 3]

Hell yes, this is exactly what i am thinking and is the one reason i barely played me2

[Lumikki]

When I played ME1 combat side it feeled unbalances and extreme simple. It was like lacking player skill part. As for Kotor combat, for simple RPG it was okey, but far from good. It depense about what kind of game the combat is. In Kotor, some kind simple RPG combat is fine, but in cinematic sci-fi like ME serie it would not fit well. It would break the impression of faster cinematic action, when you drop into this simple RPG combat.

[Schneidend]

I'd rather they didn't take away the satisfying palm strike to the side of an assault rifle or the pumping of a shotgun. I love the way they handled thermal clips both mechanically and aesthetically.

Modifié par Schneidend, 03 octobre 2010 - 03:35 .

[Pocketgb]

I've gotta agree with that. Bioware's always been pretty awesome with the aesthetics (if you ignore their helmets, of course...) and they nailed ME2 pretty well in this regard.



In fact, the animations are so likable you could inject them into ME1 and I'd like it a ton more.

[Sidney]

kalle90 wrote...

There were no random variables. Character skill and weapon determined the base and after that you only had the bloom. Crouching and shooting in short bursts caused less bloom. I still had to do every shot and move every step myself.

It's obvious majority hates the system, but I preferred it over what ME2 had. IMO the only combat things that ME2 really improved were things that don't affect me: enemy and ally AI, locational damage and dialogue. Clips and finite ammo especially were something that just damage the experience for me

You are trying to fix that which isn't broken with the heat sinks. They work despite the fact that you are correct that heat sinks should cool off after some period of time but then again the missions in ME2 aren't that long. They're a much shorter and violent affair than something that drags on forvere like Deep Roads in DAO. It is quite possible the explanation is that they do cool off but just not in the time frame of your missions.

If you have an issue with the fact that ME2 doesn't have RPG gun combat then that's fine. I'm not a fan of shooters and I'd rather have a KoTOR type of RPG based combat - well a good version of that-  over what ME2 offers me in gun combat BUT if I have a choice of ME1 or ME2 I take the latter because the mix of RPG/TPS elements in ME1 never felt right and I'd rather have good shooter controls than a bad hybrid. Really I've not found a real satisfying RPG-ish take on firearm combat unless you go to something not really an RPG like Jagged Alliance or XCOM and those systems would be 100% DOA in today's market.

[Nerevar-as]

I didn´t even realize of ME1 system before I read about it. Just assumed it was recoil making my shooting go wide, as it happens in ME2 with half the guns.



What about getting back the old crosshair? Liked the design more, and soing blue to orange was definetely better than orange to red, especially with so many ME2 backgrounds colour.

[kalle90]

Sidney wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

There were no random variables. Character skill and weapon determined the base and after that you only had the bloom. Crouching and shooting in short bursts caused less bloom. I still had to do every shot and move every step myself.

It's obvious majority hates the system, but I preferred it over what ME2 had. IMO the only combat things that ME2 really improved were things that don't affect me: enemy and ally AI, locational damage and dialogue. Clips and finite ammo especially were something that just damage the experience for me

You are trying to fix that which isn't broken with the heat sinks.

Never been a fan of that saying. "Improving" isn't the same as "fixing". ME2 "fixed" many things wrong in ME1 by scrapping them. I would have preferred actually improving them. I know I'd prefer any of the solutions I mentioned for ammo, don't know how many others would prefer them or not care.

Then again; the important part about ME3 is the story and making our past choices count (More than ME2's "Hey you saved me, here's a mission for you, okthxbye"). Gameplay is secondary.

[sim2er]

end result:

the OP is correct that by the games lore the ME1 system is better for immersion in the setting. however, there are serious flaws with the ME1 system. so, we got the ME2 system which has its own problems but increased the tactical nature of the game.

correct?

[Embrosil]

It seems the main problem we have is not to have or not to have the ammo, but that someone wants to play an RPG and someone wants to play a shooter.
Mass Effect 1 was presented as an RPG with a TPS addition. It was not perfect, but it was unique. Good weapon modifications, no ammunition. I was naive to think that an RPG company instead of improving the system would scrap it completely and change it to a pure TPS.

The only downside in ME1 was that we had way too many weapons which either ended sold or changed to omnigel. Which is the thing ME2 has done right. To select weapons prior missions is good. But it still have flaws. First is the terribly limited variety. It is the exact opposite of ME1. The scond is the non existant modification (and no, adding +10 - +50% damage is not a modification). And the third is, how come, when you find one weapon, miraculously every team member in the mission has it too? It would be better if you could choose who will use the new weapon during the rest of the mission. Not to mention the idea we have to find weapons, which even are not unique in most cases instead of go to a shop and simply buy them.

Someone also complains about Specter Gear. I have not found it so easy to get as some mentioned. And even when I got it, I always gave it to my companions first and after all have their prefered weapon I equipped myself. And there also are better wepons than VII Specter, mostly from Rozenkov Materials (e.g. Kovalyov). But the best issue in ME1 was that everyone had weapons overload. And as the game progressed, everyone got better equipment and could shoot nearly indefinitely. Now in ME2 everyone has endless ammo, only I have to run around the battlefield like an idiot to collect ammo. How come enemies have only one weapon and do not run out of ammo? I also want to use one or two guns (eg. pistol and sniper rifle) without having to scrap the sniper rifle after 10 shots because I am a damned sniper and I really do not want to use SMGs to the same range as sniper rifle. Moreover how come, there are not ANY enemies using sniper rifles in ME2? How come not a single enemy uses immunity? Where are Korgans, who, when I was expecting them to be dead after they fell down, rise and regenerate their health? Where are biotics, who even at the end of the game, could knock me down and all I could do was to hope that my armor and shilelds d will hold. Maybe it is because we would see how flawed the ammo system is after spending all rounds on a immune enemy or a true Krogan with immunity and regenration and then having nothing to kill them with. So it is not only about the lore behind ammo/no ammo, but also about lore regarding skills and abilities. In ME1 on insanity I was really affraid of snipers, krogans and biotics even with unlimited ammo. In ME2 I only laugh how easy can not a perfect system be made even worse. And there is a still the basic question which military in the entire universe would willingly change unlimited ammo for a limited one (now I am thinking about those poor Alliance marines on a remote planet fighting the Rachni for 5 minutes instead of 26 hours as they run out of ammo. I really doubt Rachni would drop thermal clips when they die. This really made me laugh). The answer to that question is none, but it seems Bioware thinks otherwise.

Modifié par Embrosil, 04 octobre 2010 - 08:57 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sidney wrote...
Really I've not found a real satisfying RPG-ish take on firearm combat unless you go to something not really an RPG like Jagged Alliance or XCOM and those systems would be 100% DOA in today's market.

It's like I've said a million times.  ME series should have had JA style combat.  Here's hoping for a JA style spin-off franchise after ME3.

[Mutantcadet14]

sinosleep wrote...

And as far as I'm concerned originality is over rated any way, especially considering the fact that practically nothing is wholly original these days. People talk about gears like it did something revolutionary when the fact of the matter is that Gears did a lot o things a lot of other games had done before, it just put them together better than most. Cover based shooters had been around since long before Gears (remember Winback on n64), the grenade throws (following an arc when aiming) were nothing new, games had already started using shaky cam, etc, etc, etc. On the multi-player front there was some innovation with game modes like horde mode (which everyone and their mother is aping now, and for good reason), but for the most part Gears did a lot of things that had done before, but managed put it all together extremely well.

And we come to the heart of the discussion. While i can't buy into the statement that creativity is overrated i see what you mean. I agree that games should be comended for what they do well not how much of what they do is new nessecarily.

This is where i feel that everybody that is fighting for a pure ME1 system is either too bothered by the break in lore to let it go or too blinded by a distrust for shooter mechanics/love of what is "new" to see that, and this is coming from somebody that played and loved both games, from a game building/playing stand point the ME2 system is simply a more solid system despite its shortcomings.

[Kaylord]

I don´t care so much (a little, yes) about the logical break between ME1 and ME2. The logical break occured for me when I discovered that you could eject a heat sink after partial use and *still retain* the remaining possible shots in your ammo total score! Now, how is that possible? This breach of logic could be removed by providing for endless automated supply of heat sinks. Like ammunition, ejecting some cooling matter, shouldn´t be a problem.

Game-mechanic-wise, the goal of avoiding endless fire spam would have been achieved. And the annoying looting of heatsinks (every weapon of Geth, Collector and so on use the same type? yeah sure!) would be history, too.



I wonder why ME2 managed to get away with this system, while Deus Ex: IW got totally pounded because of it, and here it is worse because of the said breach of logic. Seems unjust, regardless of the fact that a unified-ammo-system is a bad idea in general.

[sinosleep]

Kaylord wrote...

I don´t care so much (a little, yes) about the logical break between ME1 and ME2. The logical break occured for me when I discovered that you could eject a heat sink after partial use and *still retain* the remaining possible shots in your ammo total score! Now, how is that possible? This breach of logic could be removed by providing for endless automated supply of heat sinks. Like ammunition, ejecting some cooling matter, shouldn´t be a problem.
Game-mechanic-wise, the goal of avoiding endless fire spam would have been achieved. And the annoying looting of heatsinks (every weapon of Geth, Collector and so on use the same type? yeah sure!) would be history, too.

I wonder why ME2 managed to get away with this system, while Deus Ex: IW got totally pounded because of it, and here it is worse because of the said breach of logic. Seems unjust, regardless of the fact that a unified-ammo-system is a bad idea in general.

I know I said I was bowing out of this thread but this is a very simple question to answer and I'm online so to hell with it I'm answering it. The reason you still retain your total ammo score is for the same reason you don't lose any rounds in any other tps/fps game when you replace a half empty clip with a brand new one. It'd would be an overly harsh punishment to the player for simply wanting to remain "topped off" at all times. It's a gameplay over lore issue that most shooters have been using for ages.