528 réponses à ce sujet

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

northernninja wrote...

I can't believe that you people actually enjoyed the unlimited ammo in mass effect, clips add a sense of realism to the combat, plus you got more of a challenge and it gives you a reason to switch your guns. rather than keep shooting everbody with an assault rifle. also for those of you who are trying to say unlimited ammo is cool, I can already see who the treky fans are now. you know you should just say the unlimited ammo comes from solar panels on your gun. dur da dur!?!?

Yes, but it was different than the standard, and I personally didn't actually like having to switch my weapons, since I prefer to specalise. The Thermal Clip system screwed up my importing of three different ME1 Vanguards because each was designed to specialise differently, but now they're pretty much all the same. I created different builds in ME1 will all kinds of classes who used different weapons and different powers together, but they're all kind of gone. Not that it matters too much when ME2 combat is so repetitive and dull that I don't feel like playing it as much as I played ME1 anyway, but still. I also found it more tactical in ME1 managing my heat-levels at early-to-mid game than I found ME2's method which is just as tactical as any other shooter and brought nothing new to the table in this respect. It's only "more tactical" because suddenly there's a new restriction on things that's been forced on us that doesn't make sense since the whole universe has decided to change to an infinitely inferior system.

Also, speaking of that, it seems you don't even know anything of the lore given your comments. There is still technically :"unlimited ammo" (which isn't truly unlimited at all lore-wise), but the heating is managed differently, and in a far more backwards and far less logical way, not to mention all the holes in it all. And that's where most of the problems lie: in the lore and canon, and as far as that's concerned the damage is already done. It probably would have been better if BioWare simply ignored it entirely lore-wise and just threw them in there... but no, they had to come up with a lame and contrived explanation. And given that the damage has been done, I'd prefer they focus on fixing other areas of the game than this aspect. That, and I doubt they would. A hyrbrid system would be good, and they could work that into the lore somewhat (though it would also run the risk of being just as ridiculous and contrived as it was the first time around) by simply acknowledging how stupid it was in the first place to limit the weapons so much and have them suddenly depending on a finite resource entirely. They seem to be keen to poke fun at ME1, even undeservingly at times... it'll be interesting to see if they're just as willing to admit and poke fun at ME2 in ME3.

Terror, understand I dont hate me1, I don't think sinosleep hates me1, I prefer me2. I love ther series and each game. Does me2 have flaws? Absolutely!(like all games including KOTOR, baldurs gate etc.) Personally I dont hate so much that would go on the disappointed thread. If there was a proper critique thread I would happily throw my hat into the ring.

Last note be very careful what you wish for, games have a bad habit of be looked at very nostalgically... Suddenly mining is be described as EPIC, with deep exploration..... 

[Terror_K]

Kavadas wrote...

Terror_K, please watch Christina Norman's "Where did my inventory go?" presentation because she directly addresses why they felt thermal clips were a necessary retcon to ME1.

It basically boiled down to ME1'a combat being pretty sucktastic, which it was, and the Bioware team being woefully inexperienced at making decent shooter mechanics and how they planned to address the issue for ME2.

What Bioware realized was that ME1's overheating system made certain weapon concepts either impossible to include or absurdly imbalanced (without even counting abilities and modifications).

It was a constricting system which didn't have room for a lot of weapon variety inside of the individual classes themselves... which makes sense because every single weapon in a single weapon category performed identically with the only deviation coming from three statistics (damage, accuracy, shots before overheat).

But don't take my word for it, watch the presentation and let the devs explain it to you.

Then you can come back here and irrationally QQ some more about it

Uh... I already saw that presentation way back when it first happened. As an ME1 fan I personally found the whole thing a little insulting, found that the presentation just confirmed my suspicions more than anything else and I tend to blame Christina for most of the bad design decisions for ME2 based on both this and her position. I personally think ME3 would be better without her, and despite her claims at being a geek and RPG fan, she seems to support the overall oversimplification and dumbing down of not only Mass Effect, but of the RPG genre and gaming as a whole. ME2 had a lot of factors that are in-line with common gaming trends I simply don't like. I was especially amused by her whole "no sacred cows" stuff and "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler" (seems she ignored that last part with ME2 entirely).

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

Terror_K, please watch Christina Norman's "Where did my inventory go?" presentation because she directly addresses why they felt thermal clips were a necessary retcon to ME1.

It basically boiled down to ME1'a combat being pretty sucktastic, which it was, and the Bioware team being woefully inexperienced at making decent shooter mechanics and how they planned to address the issue for ME2.

What Bioware realized was that ME1's overheating system made certain weapon concepts either impossible to include or absurdly imbalanced (without even counting abilities and modifications).

It was a constricting system which didn't have room for a lot of weapon variety inside of the individual classes themselves... which makes sense because every single weapon in a single weapon category performed identically with the only deviation coming from three statistics (damage, accuracy, shots before overheat).

But don't take my word for it, watch the presentation and let the devs explain it to you.

Then you can come back here and irrationally QQ some more about it

Uh... I already saw that presentation way back when it first happened. As an ME1 fan I personally found the whole thing a little insulting, found that the presentation just confirmed my suspicions more than anything else and I tend to blame Christina for most of the bad design decisions for ME2 based on both this and her position. I personally think ME3 would be better without her, and despite her claims at being a geek and RPG fan, she seems to support the overall oversimplification and dumbing down of not only Mass Effect, but of the RPG genre and gaming as a whole. ME2 had a lot of factors that are in-line with common gaming trends I simply don't like. I was especially amused by her whole "no sacred cows" stuff and "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler" (seems she ignored that last part with ME2 entirely).

Why does can RPG have to be complex?Torment wasn't. The thing I find is the bigger more complex an RPG is, the harder it is to learn but the easier it is too master, its like playing BG2 when you realize your fighter could overlevel some attributes by draining the other attributes. strength and dex were all the attributes your fighter ever needed.

[Terror_K]

Epic777 wrote...

Why does can RPG have to be complex?Torment wasn't. The thing I find is the bigger more complex an RPG is, the harder it is to learn but the easier it is too master, its like playing BG2 when you realize your fighter could overlevel some attributes by draining the other attributes. strength and dex were all the attributes your fighter ever needed.

An RPG needs complexity to be satisfying and deep and make the mechanics work and be varied, but what an RPG doesn't need to be is complicated. The idea is to make complexity simple, but ME2 fails to do that and intead just made things simple full-stop. For one example, there's absolutely no satisfaction and customisation and depth in an upgrade system that's completely linear, basically does the work for the player and has no trade-offs or forces the player to pick and choose whatsoever. A good RPG shouldn't need to require the player to be a member of Mensa, but nor should it be so overly simple that anybody can just succeed fully by randomly pressing buttons without paying attention.

ME1 was needlessly complicated for what was there, but ME2 was horribly oversimple in response and took what was admittedly essentually the right idea too damn far. It's like the gameplay went from being something to suit intelligent gamers to something more designed so that toddlers could use it by removing any semblance of complexity or depth. And it's giant, pre-schooler book interfaces don't help either. I know some say ME1 had "the illusion of depth" but what ME2 should have given us was actual depth, and not simply jumping out there to proudly strip itself naked of anything remotely complex to scream "I'm simple! And I'm friggin proud out it!!!"

The game is supposed to be an RPG, but Christina admits that they stripped that away and designed the game as a shooter first and foremost, then "turned the RPG back on" afterwards. The problem is they didn't seem to bring back enough of it... as if they decided to only bring back the bare minimum RPG aspects for the game to be considered as such in their simplest form and leave it at that. They also failed in a number of things they were trying to achieve, like meaningful progression and increased immersion. I don't find progression meaningful when I'm limited to purely combat based skills, when I only find a small selection of linear weapons with a linear upgrade system, when your thermal clip system makes half of my Shepards from ME1 completely meaningless and when XP is dolled out in lame, jarring "Mission Complete" screens with an abtritrary number thrown at me that has no connection or meaning for me compared to what I did.

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...
 It's like the gameplay went from being something to suit intelligent gamers to something more designed so that toddlers could use it by removing any semblance of complexity or depth.

Get off of your high horse, please.  Or was that satire?

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

Why does can RPG have to be complex?Torment wasn't. The thing I find is the bigger more complex an RPG is, the harder it is to learn but the easier it is too master, its like playing BG2 when you realize your fighter could overlevel some attributes by draining the other attributes. strength and dex were all the attributes your fighter ever needed.

An RPG needs complexity to be satisfying and deep and make the mechanics work and be varied, but what an RPG doesn't need to be is complicated. The idea is to make complexity simple, but ME2 fails to do that and intead just made things simple full-stop. For one example, there's absolutely no satisfaction and customisation and depth in an upgrade system that's completely linear, basically does the work for the player and has no trade-offs or forces the player to pick and choose whatsoever. A good RPG shouldn't need to require the player to be a member of Mensa, but nor should it be so overly simple that anybody can just succeed fully by randomly pressing buttons without paying attention.

ME1 was needlessly complicated for what was there, but ME2 was horribly oversimple in response and took what was admittedly essentually the right idea too damn far. It's like the gameplay went from being something to suit intelligent gamers to something more designed so that toddlers could use it by removing any semblance of complexity or depth. And it's giant, pre-schooler book interfaces don't help either. I know some say ME1 had "the illusion of depth" but what ME2 should have given us was actual depth, and not simply jumping out there to proudly strip itself naked of anything remotely complex to scream "I'm simple! And I'm friggin proud out it!!!"

The game is supposed to be an RPG, but Christina admits that they stripped that away and designed the game as a shooter first and foremost, then "turned the RPG back on" afterwards. The problem is they didn't seem to bring back enough of it... as if they decided to only bring back the bare minimum RPG aspects for the game to be considered as such in their simplest form and leave it at that. They also failed in a number of things they were trying to achieve, like meaningful progression and increased immersion. I don't find progression meaningful when I'm limited to purely combat based skills, when I only find a small selection of linear weapons with a linear upgrade system, when your thermal clip system makes half of my Shepards from ME1 completely meaningless and when XP is dolled out in lame, jarring "Mission Complete" screens with an abtritrary number thrown at me that has no connection or meaning for me compared to what I did.

Firstly I would agree a big thing in RPGs is to make complexity simple.  My first disagreement is RPG do not need complexity for complexities sake, this is what too make RPGs do.  

BG2 while I love the game is a classic example of this, is the game strategic and tactical? I would say no way. Mages including liches etc were by far your toughest enemies, bar none, so bosses/mages the basic idea was strip them off their protections and smash 'em. The combat was deep in rules however once you learnt a few tricks the challenge dipped hugely. 

I will say it: me1 had a illusion of depth. Spectre  weapons far outclassed any weapon you ever had and were gotten easily. The only reason to equip any other was to gimp yourself. What is the ultimate vanguard weapon? I say the smiticar not the claymore or geth shotgun, I could argue why, it would pointless to argue against anything else in me1.

[Terror_K]

lazuli wrote...

Get off of your high horse, please.  Or was that satire?

Oh please... I'm sick of all this "you're elitist!" bullplop being thrown at those of us that criticise ME2 for being overly simple simply because we want a little depth to our gameplay and the way things are done and presented. It seems these days you can't want things to be any less than their most simple without being an "elitist ******" or something. God forbid one want a game that's actually got some meat on it and isn't completely watered down to the point where it does half the stuff for you.

[Lumikki]

I disagree with You Terror_K.

Mass Effect serie needs more variety and gameplay with interesting story. Game does not need complexity what is based just numbers. Real variety comes when the differences have real purpose to exist, not illusion of complexity based numbers, like many RPG's have.

Yes I agree, ME2 was too simplyfyed and need variety as dept based real differences. But complexity way many RPG does it is last thing what Mass Effect series need. Mostly this is because Mass Effect serie is not some traditional RPG, it's cinematic action adventure roleplaying game. Most important word here is cinematic. Meaning it's based fast gameplay with smooth transactions from cinematic cut scene to gameplay. Basicly sayed Mass Effect serie is more like movie than calc sheet.

Now I repeat, It's not complexity what Mass Effects need, it's variety to it's gameplay what is based on real differences, not illusion of complexity based some RPG numbers. My point is complexity for sake of complexity does not offer anything at all for Mass Effect serie.

When you gonna accept that Mass Effect is NOT just "RPG" the way you think it's, Mass Effect is hybrid with more cinematic way to show the game world than RPG's does. Traditional RPG's are more tactical way to show the game world, even if both of game types are looking roleplaying and game world impression, just little different ways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:02 .

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Get off of your high horse, please.  Or was that satire?

Oh please... I'm sick of all this "you're elitist!" bullplop being thrown at those of us that criticise ME2 for being overly simple simply because we want a little depth to our gameplay and the way things are done and presented. It seems these days you can't want things to be any less than their most simple without being an "elitist ******" or something. God forbid one want a game that's actually got some meat on it and isn't completely watered down to the point where it does half the stuff for you.

And I'm sick of you attacking this game from a supposedly superior stance.  Don't put "elitist ******" in quotes unless you're actually quoting someone.  Regardless of what I think of you, that is certainly not anything I would call you.

You are free to think what you want about this game, but if you're going to continually seek some sort of pseudo-intellectual high ground to base your attacks off of you're going to get called out.  I don't care what your opinion of this game is.  I do care how you phrase that opinion.  If I, as a ME2 fan, feel insulted by the way you phrase your attacks on this game, I'm going to let you know.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I disagree with You Terror_K.

Mass Effect serie needs more variety and gameplay with interesting story. Game does not need complexity what is based just numbers. Real variety comes when the differences have real purpose to exist, not illusion of complexity based numbers, like many RPG's have.

Yes I agree, ME2 was too simplyfyed and need variety as dept based real differences.But complexity way many RPG does it is last thing what Mass Effect series need. Mostly this is because Mass Effect serie is not some traditional RPG, it's cinematic action adventure roleplaying game. Most important word here is cinematic. Meaning it's based fast gameplay with smooth transactions from cinematic cut scene to gameplay. Basicly sayed Mass Effect serie is more like movie than calc sheet.

Now I repeat, It's not complexity what Mass Effects need, it's variety to it's gameplay what is based on real differences, not illusion of complexity based some RPG numbers. My point is complexity for sake of complexity does not offer anything at all for Mass Effect serie.

When you gonna accept that Mass Effect is NOT just "RPG" the way you think it's, Mass Effect is hybrid with more cinematic way to show the game world than RPG's does. Traditional RPG's are more tactical way to show the game world, even if both of game types are looking roleplaying and game world impression, just little different ways.

You seem to miunderstand me. I don't expect or want Mass Effect to be "Baldur's Gate in Space" or anything. It's an Action RPG with a strong cinematic styling, and I get that. But one still needs a certain degree of depth and complexity present. This isn't a case of black and white where you either have AD&D on one side and Gears of War on the other. It's still an RPG, and thus it needs to at least have a good progression system and  varied and meaningful player choices, both statistically and in the narrative.

The way you --and some others-- speak is that because it's not a full-on, pure RPG that the RPG aspects don't matter either. I'm not asking for complexity for the sake of complexity, I'm asking for complexity where it suits the game. ME1 had the right idea, but the wrong execution. ME2 just has the wrong idea. ME2 is so lacking in complexity and depth that it almost renders what few RPG elements that remain as completely irrelevant. The upgrade system is a joke with no customisation, no trade-offs or real choice, complete linearity and is even worse at breaking the game and vanilla God-modding than the much maligned Spectre Weapons everybody points at in ME1 were.

If the Mass Effect series was intended to be as simplified and basic as ME2 was, then it would have been that way in the first place, since it's actually a far simpler and easier model and system. And the fact was, ME1 was originally meant to be even more complex and have even more layers than even it ended up having. The evidence points to the degree of RPG that the Mass Effect series was "supposed to have" changing from game to game, and what some of you need to understand is that BioWare changed their minds with ME2 and purposefully made it more of a shooter and less of an RPG. They didn't just simplify what was there to improve the whole game, they radically shifted the priorities.

[Terror_K]

lazuli wrote...

And I'm sick of you attacking this game from a supposedly superior stance.  Don't put "elitist ******" in quotes unless you're actually quoting someone.  Regardless of what I think of you, that is certainly not anything I would call you.

You are free to think what you want about this game, but if you're going to continually seek some sort of pseudo-intellectual high ground to base your attacks off of you're going to get called out.  I don't care what your opinion of this game is.  I do care how you phrase that opinion.  If I, as a ME2 fan, feel insulted by the way you phrase your attacks on this game, I'm going to let you know.

Well, sorry... but that's just how I feel about the game overall: it was oversimplified and dumbed down to appeal more to the maintream masses. That isn't to say that everybody who likes it is part of that audience, but that doesn't detract away from what I feel BioWare tried to do with the game. And I can't really say how I feel about the direction they took without saying how I feel about the direction they took now, can I? My problem with the direction ME2 took the series is basically that it seems like a less intelligent game made more for mass appeal. ME2 just feels like "Fisher Price: My First RPG" all the time, and as much as you may be insulted by me saying as much, I feel insulted by how low ME2 seems to want to drop the bar for fear of confusing people or getting in the way of them killing things. RPGs and Shooters are almost polar opposite genres, and they've designed ME2 to be more like the latter at the expense of what makes the former appeal to me. And worst of all, they didn't have to.

[Lumikki]

Yes, but deep LINEAR progression system doesn't fit in Mass Effect series. Mass Effect serie is more parallel progression type of game, because its story. I mean in Mass Effect serie you are "bad ass" from day one, you don't have this linear progression where you become stronger. More like you gameplay start get more variety when you progress so that there is more choises for player, but not necassary stronger the way RPG does it usually. I do agree ME2 was too simplifyed, but we needs to do the depth with style of Mass Effect series, not trying to bring it to some standard RPG style.Yes, I also would like to have something more in character skills and progression, but it has to be done of style of game serie.

Complexity what many RPG has, is very often based numbers and similarity by adding alot of JUNK items and stats. It's not real complexity, it's illusion of compexity. Real variety comes when every stuff exist for purpose and are different enough to create real variety to gameplay it self.

ME1 did not have right idea, it was based idea trying to combinate TPS and traditional RPG to be as one, it did not work well at all. ME2 seperated them, what was better choise, but what ME2 did wrong, was over simplifying to everyting else too. Meaning developers steamlined everyting too much and lost the variety of choises and customation for players.

Yes, we already agree that ME3 need more variety, but we seem to disagree how it should be done. The sifting priority or better way to say different balance did happen and not necassary right way, but it did not change what Mass Effect serie is. You want ME series to follow sertain gameplay style, but the problem is that, it's not what Mass Effect serie is or should be. My point is try to find better way to make it happen what you want without trying to turn Mass Effect serie to RPG the way you seem to want. Keep in mind that you need RPG what fits the style what present Mass Effect serie. So, sertain RPG "stuff" just doesn't fit in that.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Terror_K]

I fail to see how a tech-class being needed for decryption/hacking, weapons being moddable and having stats, armour that actually acts like armour, squaddies that actually wear armour in combat, omni-tools and biotic amps, earning XP properly rather than just being thrown a random number, etc. don't fit in with the way the Mass Effect universe was designed or the gameplay though. Pretty much everything in ME1 I believe could have been made to work with the game and the universe and still worked and fit... it just needed better or slightly different implementation.

[Pocketgb]

Disappointment thread is this way, ya'll.

[Lumikki]

Moved off topic stuff talking to other thread as suggested... here

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 05:21 .

[asaiasai]

I hate the ammo system for ME2 and ME2 is completely un-playable unless i have a modifyied coalesced.ini. It works like heat shinks in that i can finre every round in the clip and reload if i need to. Or i can fire most of the rounds in the clip wait for it to cool/recharge back to max and never eject the clip if i do not want to. Plus as an extra bonus, i never have to spend 5 minutes searching for clips after the fight was over.



I would have no problem if the heat sinks were in fact universal. If in fact there was no clips assigned to a weapon that was not in use at the time. No weapon would tie up the heat sinks until that weapon was pulled out for use, i would be fine with the system. But as the weapons that are not in use, and the weapons i feel are useless (shotguns) tie up clips whether you EVER use them is assinine. That is not tactics, tactics is forcing the enemy to fight on your terms, so because i am forced to fight on the developers terms can i assume that we are enemies? A better idea would be to have all clips go into a common pool where the player can pull from to reload thier weapon of choice, any clips scrounged up would go into the pool.



I hate the ME2 ammo system and when word about ME3 starts to trickle out the very first question i will ask will be concerning the ammo system. If as i suspect the current system remains in place i will not be buying ME3 until a) the mod community fixes this broken part of the game design, and it hits the bargin bin at my local retailer. That is not a threat, that is a promise and one i am sure plenty of other folks will be willing to make. Fix it or **** it i will go play/buy something else.



Asai

[Funker Shepard]

Quite like the ME2 ammo system, though most of ME1 memories are from high-tier spectre master gear where I could hold the button down until kingdom come.



The retcon for the ammo is more than a little crude, though (the regenerating health was codexplained a lot better)

[TheBlackBaron]

Actually, I thought the explanation for heats sinks was quite well explained in the codex. Much like how the Treaty of Farixen is the Washington Naval Treaty IN SPACE, the introduction of heat sinks has parallels to the evolution from battle rifles to assault rifles in real life.



To make a long story short, Germany realized sometime during WWII that giving the average infantryman a rifle that could shoot over 800m, firing large heavy bullets, was in large part a waste since most combat took place at much shorter ranges and that soldiers tended to expend a very large amount of ammunition to kill a single target. On top of that, the weight of the ammo also limited how much they could carry, an issue consider the point I just made about ammo expenditure. Post-WWII and Korea studies by the US Army led them to the same conclusion. The Wehrmacht ended up developing the Stg-44, the US Army the M-14 (still a battle rifle, but less so than the Garand) and eventually the M-16.



The point is, the switch was made because it made soldiers more combat effective, chiefly by allowing them to put more lead on the target in a short amount of time.



In the interval between ME1 and ME2, the geth came to a similar conclusion, in this case that "in an age of regenerative kinetic barriers, the weapon with the most rounds down-range the fastest wins. Combatants were forced to deliberately shoot slower to manage waste heat or pause as their weapons vented."



Switching to thermal clips allows trained soldiers to manage that heat at a much faster pace, while also eliminating some vulnerabilities in the old system that powers like Sabotage could exploit (which is an in-universe explanation for why Sabotage was changed and rolled into Overload). Are there issues with how it was implemented? Yeah. It is odd how suddenly every single damn weapon in the Terminus System is now using them, or why the ten-year old mechs Jacob's dad has are using them. But for them most part, that's a gameplay mechanic out of necessity. Just recite the MST3K mantra.



Really, the only complaint I have about them is Shepard somehow knowing that convenient pistol in the med-lab needed a thermal clip if these are brand new introductions in the past two year. Which he spent in a coma. But that's so astronomically insignificant in the grand scheme of things that I'm willing to overlook it.

[Embrosil]

Jebel Krong wrote...

ah, Terror_k banging his opinionated drum again...  and for the last time: both game are (and were designed to be) hybrid TPS/RPGs, only the sequel does it (mostly) better.

@ Embrosil: except that, even including mods, the weapon variety in ME2 is greater than ME1, and in the first game there is only 1 uber set - Spectre X, which you didn't mention. once you get that there's no point in collecting any other weapons. the same applies in ME2 of course, but you don't have only one choice of maximum tier weapon.

i totally agree that the ammo system is complete crap, but krogans do regenerate, the reason they don't use immunity/whatever is that they already have either/or barrier/shields/armour/health and regeneration, so anything else would be a bit overkill. Biotics don't knock you down but warp etc can cause quite a bit of damage and knock you out of cover (personally i hated being on the floor for 5 minutes during a fight in me1 on the occasion i got hit by one).

Umm, no, the sequel goes from TPS/RPG to a TPS. You can easily finish ME2 withou even putting a single point to any skill.

Yes, but that was the point :-) You are a spectre, the best of the best. You are supposed to have the best equipment available and not the same everyone else uses. I fully agree, that once you got X Spectre, the rest weapons were useless. And as I said ME2 is better in this way we just should have more weapons (yes, with an with unlimited ammo) and more possibilities of upgrading them. Take a look at Stalker games. A pure FPS with a great possibility to upgrade weapons and armor.

And no, I do not see the variety. 2 pieces from each is not a variery. In ME1 you could have a strong, yet overheating monster or you could have lighter, but heat managable weapon. Not to mention that weapons in ME1 had different statistics and that you could use ANY ammo type you wanted (I would really like to see that genius who decided that ammo type will be a skill. How is it activated? By will? AP ammo, AP ammo and boom, my gun fires AP??).

Yes, they regenerate, but not as fast enough as in ME1. As I said, in ME1 on lower levels and on higher on instanity I was really affraid of these enemies. In ME2 I do not see ANY difference between normal and insanity (played 4th times 1x normal 1xveteran 2x insanity). And yes, I also hated being on gorund after biotics attack (5 minutes you mentioned is an exaggeration :-) ), but that is what biotics should do. Now they push you out of cover and what? You press button and everything is ok. And they slightly damage you? Again, so what? You press button and wait a bit longer in cover. Not dangerous, but annoying and stupid.

But this is a bit off topic. I stay with my previous statement. If we had enemies as dangerous as in ME1, we would clearly see how flawed this ammo system is.

Modifié par Embrosil, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:21 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Embrosil wrote...
And no, I do not see the variety. 2 pieces from each is not a variery. In ME1 you could have a strong, yet overheating monster or you could have lighter, but heat managable weapon.

Let's be honest here - at an given tier, was there really all that much difference between any two given weapons? At most, the stats were a couple integers different in one direction with negligible gameplay effect. Now, a Model II weapon from Hahne-Keldar and, say, Elkoss Combine actually did have some differences, but only in that the Elkoss Combine one had superior numbers across the board, in significant enough chunks to make a gameplay difference.

What you had was a situation where Spectre X, and to a lesser extent the weapons from manufacturers like Armax (since those were inferior to the Spectre weapons), dominated everything else by leading in every damn category.

Frankly, especially with the release of the Firepower Pack and other DLC, ME2 has done a much, much better job at differentiating the weapons. Now there are significant trade-offs between, saw, a Predator and a Carnifex, or a Tempest and a Locust, or a Katana and a Scimitar, or a Revenant and a Mattock.

Yes, they regenerate, but not as fast enough as in ME1. As I said, in ME1 on lower levels and on higher on instanity I was really affraid of these enemies. In ME2 I do not see ANY difference between normal and insanity (played 4th times 1x normal 1xveteran 2x insanity). And yes, I also hated being on gorund after biotics attack (5 minutes you mentioned is an exaggeration :-) ), but that is what biotics should do. Now they push you out of cover and what? You press button and everything is ok. And they slightly damage you? Again, so what? You press button and wait a bit longer in cover. Not dangerous, but annoying and stupid.

Play on higher difficulties. Trust me, getting knocked out of cover for a couple of seconds is extremely dangerous when your shields are down and you've got six Collectors plus Harbinger pouring fire on your position.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:31 .

[kalle90]

Kavadas wrote...

Terror_K, please watch Christina Norman's "Where did my inventory go?" presentation because she directly addresses why they felt thermal clips were a necessary retcon to ME1.

It basically boiled down to ME1'a combat being pretty sucktastic, which it was, and the Bioware team being woefully inexperienced at making decent shooter mechanics and how they planned to address the issue for ME2.

Again, this comes down to "ME1 system sucks" and "Bioware said so" arguments. This thread alone has a dozen ideas on how the system could be changed from what it is in ME1 or ME2 and usually for the better. You can still have reload and ammo systems in some forms, but they could have more depth, originality and not break lore so much.

Terror_K also summed up my feeling about playing the same class. In ME1 I could do completely different kinds of Vanguards or Sentinels, which puts the number of atleast somewhat unique playthoughs in dozens. ME2 on the other hand makes me want to play it 6 times tops - once with each class. Sure I can use the other of the 2 completely different weapon sets and max different skills for 2 Soldiers, but it still doesn't feel fresh enough (I switched weapons even with the 1st soldier and all skills were quite high).

And that's a damn shame no matter what ME3 does. Now in ME2 all but 6 characters feel redutant and I don't want to play the others. So even if ME3 adds more skills and items I still probably stick with the 6, perhaps create a few new ones for ME3 alone.

[Embrosil]

northernninja wrote...

I can't believe that you people actually enjoyed the unlimited ammo in mass effect, clips add a sense of realism to the combat, plus you got more of a challenge and it gives you a reason to switch your guns. rather than keep shooting everbody with an assault rifle. also for those of you who are trying to say unlimited ammo is cool, I can already see who the treky fans are now. you know you should just say the unlimited ammo comes from solar panels on your gun. dur da dur!?!?

Realism? In a science fiction? It is a contradiction. I find it really dumb idea that in 200 years someone will willingly change unlimited ammo for a limited one. Especially when I doubt such an idiot does would even do it today.  Mr. president, we have a new technology. Unlimited ammo. The only drawback is that we have to manage a heat. But imagine our soldiers without a need to be constantly supplied by ammo, imagine how much we save. Good, and what if the weapon overheats? Then the soldier must wait about 5 seconds till the wapon cools down, but we are working on a heatless solu.... Bah, if he can not fire five seconds, he is a useless soldier. I will rather spen millions of bucks on ammo that having my soldiers unable to fire for 5 seconds!

And that is the point. I do not want to change guns. Im an inflltrator sniping enemies from distance. Why the hell would I want to kill them with an SMG at the same range?? I am not a TPS/FPS player, lately I only played Stalker Call of Prypiat. Not only you can upgrade weapons in many many ways, but you are limited on how much you can carry. So I take a sniper rifle and a pistol for example. And I just have to buy enough ammo to remain for a while. In ME2 not only I have to carry tons of guns I do not want to and will never use, but I can not even select ammo for my guns. Having a sniper rifle with 10 rounds is incredibly LAME.

[Embrosil]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Embrosil wrote...
And no, I do not see the variety. 2 pieces from each is not a variery. In ME1 you could have a strong, yet overheating monster or you could have lighter, but heat managable weapon.

Let's be honest here - at an given tier, was there really all that much difference between any two given weapons? At most, the stats were a couple integers different in one direction with negligible gameplay effect. Now, a Model II weapon from Hahne-Keldar and, say, Elkoss Combine actually did have some differences, but only in that the Elkoss Combine one had superior numbers across the board, in significant enough chunks to make a gameplay difference.

What you had was a situation where Spectre X, and to a lesser extent the weapons from manufacturers like Armax (since those were inferior to the Spectre weapons), dominated everything else by leading in every damn category.

Frankly, especially with the release of the Firepower Pack and other DLC, ME2 has done a much, much better job at differentiating the weapons. Now there are significant trade-offs between, saw, a Predator and a Carnifex, or a Tempest and a Locust, or a Katana and a Scimitar, or a Revenant and a Mattock.

Yes, they regenerate, but not as fast enough as in ME1. As I said, in ME1 on lower levels and on higher on instanity I was really affraid of these enemies. In ME2 I do not see ANY difference between normal and insanity (played 4th times 1x normal 1xveteran 2x insanity). And yes, I also hated being on gorund after biotics attack (5 minutes you mentioned is an exaggeration :-) ), but that is what biotics should do. Now they push you out of cover and what? You press button and everything is ok. And they slightly damage you? Again, so what? You press button and wait a bit longer in cover. Not dangerous, but annoying and stupid.

Play on higher difficulties. Trust me, getting knocked out of cover for a couple of seconds is extremely dangerous when your shields are down and you've got six Collectors plus Harbinger pouring fire on your position.

No, there was not. But you could make those weapons different by modifications. Now you have two weapons (I do not take DLC into account, what is not in the game since the beginnng, does not count as ME1 did not have any  weapons DLC). And as I said, the solution to have fewer weapons is better, but fewer does not mean 2

What is higher than insanity??? Have you read my text? I finished ME2 2x on insanity. No problem. You just have to be quick to press the button to get you into cover again, because you are not wearing armor, but a clored paper. And be careful, not to press forward button to jump across it (anothe idiotic thing in ME2).

Modifié par Embrosil, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:45 .

[sinosleep]

Wow, you guy aren't even trying any more, you're just making things up. The skills make no difference and all the classes only play one way.

AverageGatsby's smg engineer



plays so similar to my shotgun engineer



Besetment's sniper infiltrator



plays identical to Kronner's shotgun infiltrator



you guys have fun debating about nothing

Modifié par sinosleep, 06 octobre 2010 - 10:47 .

[Jebel Krong]

er, what? you're using examples of modded shepards to prove what, exactly? engineer is nothing like infiltrator, they barely cross over even in weapon types, and are nothing alike skill-wise.