342 réponses à ce sujet

[ScooterPie88]

Zulu not to be rude but if you hate ME2 so much why do you insist on talking about it. Everyone on the forums knows you hate it by now so why do you continue to repeat yourself? If something makes me angry, upset, disappointed I don't jump at the chance to talk about it I just ignore it.



As to one one of your points about the nuke launcher being "fanasty" they've had tactical nuclear weapons that weigh just over 100 pounds and can be fired from a recoiless rifle since the 1960s. Who is to say that they won't be made even smaller in 170 years. How is ME2 fantasy in space? That's Star Wars with the force and stuff. Most of ME2 weapons and powers are Sci-Fi. Some I'll admit are slightly questionable but it was more balance purposes than anything.



Back to my original point. Constructive criticsm is fine and helps things grow. But saying something is "retarded" doesn't help anyone at all. Frankly I think labeling something as "retarded" because of a few minor complaints is in itself "retarded." Again this is with all due respect.



I would be fine with ME3 if they kept everything mostly the same mechanically. Maybe change the type of missions being executed and continue the story. I suffered through ME1's sub par mechanics (good for its day but now a little dated). With ME2 I was able to enjoy the story more rather than be hampered by ackward combat and a rediculous inventory system.



I know ME and ME2 both have their share of inconsistances. However none are really game breakers (for me at least). If one looks at other "epic" tales (Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings) all of those have inconsistances. When you get to a certain size in a created universe mistakes are bound to happen, especially when it's worked on by hundreds of individuals all of whom are human. How many Star Wars or Star Trek novels contradict something previously stated? It doesn't make them bad so long as the inconsistances are minor and mostly unimportant.

[Zulu_DFA]

Only the "Nuke Gun" ain't actually a nuke gun.

[ScooterPie88]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Only the "Nuke Gun" ain't actually a nuke gun.

True it is using the technology set up in the universe to create the effect.  How is that fantasy?  If a ship can do it in the universe why can't a minaturized version be used by infantry?  You only hurt your own arguement.

[Zulu_DFA]

Because it flies even slower than the pistol bullets, which it turn fly slower than modern bullets propelled by gunpowder.



And the only reason the "Nuke Gun" is there is not because it has something to do with Mass Effect, but because Christina Norman wanted to give players some top-level spell to cast.



So is the "paper-rock-scissors" spell-resistance system.



So is Legion's being revived by the same unity spell, fueled by medigel.

[ScooterPie88]

Certain things have to be allowed for to make the game work. You can call all biotics spells if you wish. Would you rather have to pick up "repair kits" to fix Legion and have to "cast" that separatly. That's just stupid. Call them whatever you wish abilities, powers, spells, skills. Every RPG has them. Whether it's force POWERS, biotic ABILITES, magical SPELLS, or tech SKILLS any RPG that has leveling has its own equavilent (including ME1 which you always seem to praise as superior). So your arguement is non-sensical at least and at the most indecipherable jibberish. Again one wonders why you even bother to post if you have nothing postive or at least constructive to say.

[Jebel Krong]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Dude, I'm here not saying that wireless charging is magic. I'm here saying that the "Arc Projector" in the game called ME2 feels a lot more like magic from a game set in a typical "elves&dragons" fantasy universe, than wireless charging or science from a science-fiction game.

not if you actually know how electricity works, it doesn't. 

[Zulu_DFA]

@ScooterPie88



You're right. Things have to be allowed.



In a sci-fi game it have to be sci-fi things. And if the things allowed don't look sci-fi, than the game is not sci-fi.







@Jebel Krong



Oddly enough, I know, how the electricity works. And it makes me raise my left eyebrow at the chain lightning effect of the "ionizing lazer" gun.

[Predi1988]

It's a game. Real life rules don't apply to games. There are some things that I too didn't like in it - such as no squadmate armor - , but that's all. ME2 is still my favourite game so far.

[ScooterPie88]

You're idea of what is and isn't sci-fi is a rather narrow one. Not to mention confusing a gameplay mechanic created for practicality with the sci-fi worthiness of the whole product.  That's like saying a bad corn kernal of a cob of corn makes the whole thing something besides a cob of corn.

Modifié par ScooterPie88, 04 novembre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Getorex]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

You're idea of what is and isn't sci-fi is a rather narrow one. Not to mention confusing a gameplay mechanic created for practicality with the sci-fi worthiness of the whole product.  That's like saying a bad corn kernal of a cob of corn makes the whole thing something besides a cob of corn.

It's fairly simple. Real science fiction is exclusively SCIENCE fiction. No magic. Things always have some self-consistent sciencey explanation. Hard scifi, the best kind, uses real scientific theory and speculates based upon what is actually allowed under the actual theory (wormholes, time warps, some types of superluminal travel/propulsion, genetic engineering, mega-engineering ala Ring World or even Halo's "halo" worlds are actually in this realm). Soft scifi plays fast and loose with the science but still doesn't wander into magic/fantasy land. Science FANTASY is a different genre where there is a mix of sciencey stuff and FANTASY stuff. It is mealy mouthed to wave hands and leave things that SEEM like magic out there hanging and simply say, "Uh, it's just REALLY high tech!" Because ME goes to SOME extent to try to explain the magic (dark energy, which is real but in reality isn't actually what it is taken to be in the ME universe) it is more soft scifi though things like Reave and Dominate drift into fantasy land.

[SimonTheFrog]

Yeah, categories are nice, aren't they?



BioWare is right in giving a damn about them though. If you stick to science or speculations based on known scientific rules than you are pretty limited in what you can offer for the player to throw at enemies. I mean, even the whole mass effect stuff, eezo and biotics are beyond what our ruleset offers. So, yeah we would be stuck to planet earth or mars, maybe and have no aliens. Great.



No no, i want a game with lots of cool stuff to do and lots of aliens. And as long as the universe doesn't contract itself i don't care too much about scientific rules.

In cases of exposure to hazardous environment the game does break its own rules, though. So, there's a crappy design choice.

But reaving and domination is just a gameplay choice to give the player more interesting things to do. Which is good, because that's what games are about.

[Getorex]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Yeah, categories are nice, aren't they?



BioWare is right in giving a damn about them though. If you stick to science or speculations based on known scientific rules than you are pretty limited in what you can offer for the player to throw at enemies. I mean, even the whole mass effect stuff, eezo and biotics are beyond what our ruleset offers. So, yeah we would be stuck to planet earth or mars, maybe and have no aliens. Great.



No no, i want a game with lots of cool stuff to do and lots of aliens. And as long as the universe doesn't contract itself i don't care too much about scientific rules.

In cases of exposure to hazardous environment the game does break its own rules, though. So, there's a crappy design choice.

But reaving and domination is just a gameplay choice to give the player more interesting things to do. Which is good, because that's what games are about.

I was just commenting on the sci-fi genres and how they DO differ from fantasy. As for the game, I enjoy it myself but would be happier with it personally if it skipped the handwaving fantasy elements and stuck to hard sci-fi which does NOT mean no aliens, no galactic civ, fancy-schmancy weapons, etc. There are all kinds of ways to "legally" travel stellar/intra-galactic distances by sticking within the theoretical rules (again, wormholes, REAL warp drives - look up Alcubierre Warp Drive or check out http://www.nasa.gov/...deachev_prt.htm which lists a host of theoretically allowed means of faster-than-light travel...there are others to that are either theoretically allowed or are things that fall out naturally from current theories). More detail on the Alcubierre Warp Drive are also here: http://en.wikipedia....lcubierre_drive

Just sayin'. Don't get any feathers ruffled or anything.

Modifié par Getorex, 04 novembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[-Skorpious-]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Because it flies even slower than the pistol bullets, which it turn fly slower than modern bullets propelled by gunpowder.

-Skorpious- wrote...
Nitpicking at it's finest. The projectile (or projectiles if you will) fire slower due to gameplay balancing. This mechanic is in literally every videogame in the market.

And the only reason the "Nuke Gun" is there is not because it has something to do with Mass Effect, but because Christina Norman wanted to give players some top-level spell to cast.

-Skorpious- wrote...
Ok, I agree with you there. Instead of heavy weapons, each class should have had access to unique, powerful "uber talents". I know this may sound strange, but here me out before you judge. Biotics could get access to an improved singularity capable of swallowing entire rooms, tech classes gain an ability to disable enemy shields/weapons in a x (insert unit of measurment here) wide radius, and combat classes should have the expertise required to effectively wield and use a small selection of a combination of some of the heavy weapons already present in the game.

These are only ideas, but it certainly would have made the gameplay more unique.

So is the "paper-rock-scissors" spell-resistance system.

-Skorpious- wrote...
I don't have anything specific to say about this topic, but anything is preferable compared to ME's lackluster combat.

So is Legion's being revived by the same unity spell, fueled by medigel.

You have to keep in mind that Legion is an optional squadmate. Being forced to carry around an item a player may never find a use for is redundant.

[Zulu_DFA]

-Skorpious- wrote...

The projectile (or projectiles if you will) fire slower due to gameplay balancing. This mechanic is in literally every videogame in the market.

Projectiles do not fire. They travel. And they travel instanteneously in most shooters in the market (due to negligible distances combat occurs in most games) or at realistic speeds if long range sniper shots are featured.

-Skorpious- wrote...

I don't have anything specific to say about this topic, but anything is preferable compared to ME's lackluster combat.

ME1 combat > ME2 combat. ME1 has crouch and enemy snipers. It's more "shootery".

-Skorpious- wrote...

Being forced to carry around an item a player may never find a use for is redundant.

This item in ME1 and ME lore is called omnigel. In ME1 it had a lot of use besides repairing the Mako, and added to the sci-fi feeling of the gameplay.

[-Skorpious-]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...
The projectile (or projectiles if you will) fire slower due to gameplay balancing. This mechanic is in literally every videogame in the market.

Projectiles do not fire. They travel. And they travel instanteneously in most shooters in the market (due to negligible distances combat occurs in most games) or at realistic speeds if long range sniper shots are featured.

I guess I never really noticed this as being a problem then (despite playing many shooters besides ME).

Zulu_DFA wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...
I don't have anything specific to say about this topic, but anything is preferable compared to ME's lackluster combat.

ME1 combat > ME2 combat. ME1 has crouch and enemy snipers. It's more "shootery".

Fine. Anything is preferable over ME's lackluster gameplay (although I do miss the snipers).

Zulu_DFA wrote..

-Skorpious- wrote...
Being forced to carry around an item a player may never find a use for is redundant.

This item in ME1 and ME lore is called omnigel. In ME1 it had a lot of use besides repairing the Mako, and added to the sci-fi feeling of the gameplay.

Yes, but since the Mako, inventory system, and the original hacking mini-game were cut, Omni-Gel would serve little purpose in ME2. Although I'll admit that I would like to see it make a return in ME3.

[sinosleep]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
ME1 combat > ME2 combat. ME1 has crouch and enemy snipers. It's more "shootery".

You've just lost any credibility you had.

[lazuli]

sinosleep wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
ME1 combat > ME2 combat. ME1 has crouch and enemy snipers. It's more "shootery".

You've just lost any credibility you had.

Seconded.  Awkwarldy implemented crouching and one-hit-kills don't contribute to better combat.

[Mallissin]

sinosleep wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
ME1 combat > ME2 combat. ME1 has crouch and enemy snipers. It's more "shootery".

You've just lost any credibility you had.

Ad hominen attack aside, I agree with Zulu because the cover system in ME2 is annoying as hell. I seem to remember a certain designer saying they removed crouch in order to force people to use cover because play testers would rather crouch behind things than use the cover system.

So, they remove the system people prefer to force people to use the system they didn't like. This is the kind of thing you do to criminals, not to customers.

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...

* Keep universal cooldowns, but limit them to whatever type they are. i.e. a biotic attack affects only biotic powers, a tech ability affects only tech abilities, etc. Cooldowns need to be a little slower too; as it stands, it's barely offline long enough to make a difference.

Terror_K, most of your ideas seem to have a lot of thought behind them.  This one is the exception.  With the current class layout, cooldowns based on skill type (tech, biotic, combat) wouldn't make any sense.  How would the Adept, for instance, notice any difference from the current system?  Bonus powers?

I agree that universal cooldowns could be improved.  I'm just not convinced grouping cooldowns in this manner is suitable.  Perhaps skills with similar purposes should be grouped, or perhaps the player should be able to choose how to classify his or her cooldowns, within reason.

[sinosleep]

Mallissin wrote...

Ad hominen attack aside, I agree with Zulu because the cover system in ME2 is annoying as hell. I seem to remember a certain designer saying they removed crouch in order to force people to use cover because play testers would rather crouch behind things than use the cover system.

So, they remove the system people prefer to force people to use the system they didn't like. This is the kind of thing you do to criminals, not to customers.

1. The cover system in ME 1 was garbage since as with most cover based shooters lacking a dedicated take cover button it was extremely easy to accidentally take yourself in and out of cover. The cover system in ME 2 works fine.

2. The cover system, crouch, and whether enemies have sniper rifles or not lags WAY behind location based damage and player based as opposed to skill point based aiming. There is no way in hell anyone that's being even remotely objective is going to say ME 1 was more of a shooter than ME 2.

Modifié par sinosleep, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:04 .

[ScooterPie88]

lazuli wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
ME1 combat > ME2 combat. ME1 has crouch and enemy snipers. It's more "shootery".

You've just lost any credibility you had.

Seconded.  Awkwarldy implemented crouching and one-hit-kills don't contribute to better combat.

Agreed.  Neither does a lack of a location specific damage engine.

[Googlesaurus]

sinosleep wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

Ad hominen attack aside, I agree with Zulu because the cover system in ME2 is annoying as hell. I seem to remember a certain designer saying they removed crouch in order to force people to use cover because play testers would rather crouch behind things than use the cover system.

So, they remove the system people prefer to force people to use the system they didn't like. This is the kind of thing you do to criminals, not to customers.

1. The cover system in ME 1 was garbage since as with most cover based shooters lacking a dedicated take cover button it was extremely easy to accidentally take yourself in and out of cover. The cover system in ME 2 works fine.

2. The cover system, crouch, and whether enemies have sniper rifles or not lags WAY behind location based damage and player based as opposed to skill point based aiming. There is no way in hell anyone that's being even remotely objective is going to say ME 1 was more of a shooter than ME 2.

Meh, the risk/reward payoff for the ME2 cover system is too unbalanced IMO.

[ScooterPie88]

Mallissin wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
ME1 combat > ME2 combat. ME1 has crouch and enemy snipers. It's more "shootery".

You've just lost any credibility you had.

Ad hominen attack aside, I agree with Zulu because the cover system in ME2 is annoying as hell. I seem to remember a certain designer saying they removed crouch in order to force people to use cover because play testers would rather crouch behind things than use the cover system.

So, they remove the system people prefer to force people to use the system they didn't like. This is the kind of thing you do to criminals, not to customers.

I hate to disagree but I think most people (including myself) like the cover mechanic over the previously implented system.  Crouch can work; so can prone but only if it actually let's you do something unlike ME1's poorly implemented system.

[lazuli]

Googlesaurus wrote...
Meh, the risk/reward payoff for the ME2 cover system is too unbalanced IMO.

Could you elaborate?

[Mallissin]

I hope you three are kidding. The cover system using the same button as sprint is the most horrible thing you can do in a game.



I got stuck on corners, pillars, etc., while trying to sprint to avoid the enemy. Incredibly frustrating. In fact, when I played the Shadowbroker DLC after several months of not play ME2, I had to take a break after fighting the Shadowbroker on Insanity TWICE. I kept getting caught on the pillars or the rails and dying.



I want to go back to a crouch button (albeit toggled not held down) separate from sprint and NO COVER SYSTEM. The current system is too damn frustrating to use and makes little sense in practice (no soldier in their right mind will put their back to the enemy).



I should not be limited in my playing on a PC based on the confinements of a damn console controller.