342 réponses à ce sujet

[ScooterPie88]

Mallissin wrote...

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.

Console or PC the crouch system of ME1 is terrible.  I play on the console and don't have any problems using a single button.  Once in a while I cover on something I don't want to but it isn't hard to avoid just walk around.  I'll take ME2's cover system over ME1's awkward looking crouch/squat any day.  Seriously it looked like Shep was constipated, had some kind of nerve/muscle problem, or was a robot when he "crouched" in ME1.

[Googlesaurus]

lazuli wrote...

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

Could you elaborate?

When you're in cover, you're pretty much immune to any incoming fire in front of you. Your accuracy with weapons is higher than if you're standing in the open or running. Most enemy AI is too stupid to flank you or use group tactics. And so on...

In short, there's no substantial advantage in abandoning cover in order to kill enemies except in the case of melee enemies and attacks with AOE. The former are limited to slow-ass weak husks that you can run circles around, the latter can be taken care of by moving around while under cover. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 05 novembre 2010 - 05:14 .

[sinosleep]

I'm outta here, you guys are friggen insane. If there has been one consensus from bother user and professional reviews on what ME 2 does better than ME 1 it's the combat. There's plenty of other things that are debatable, the combat isn't one of them. You'll have fun now.

[ScooterPie88]

That is true on higher difficulties but you can take some fire and still be okay on Normal and below. If the cover system wasn't the way it was I can't see insanity even being possible.

[Mallissin]

And here I think the cover system makes Insanity even worse. It limits mobility and exposes you MORE to fire than crouching behind cover like in ME1. Since Insanity has nearly every enemy trained on you, almost ignoring your companions, tiny mistakes accidentally setting off the cover mechanics can lead to major pain as well.



I think the reason most people enjoyed ME2's combat over ME1 was more because the firefights were more concentrated than ME1, not because of the cover system. Think about most of the fighting in ME1, the enemies were generally farther away from you through most of the game. In ME2, the environments were designed to force the fights into smaller spaces.



And I agree with that change somewhat, albeit I think it should be more mixed up between long and short distance fighting.

[Terror_K]

Okay, I've added the following now too on the original post:-

Under PRESENTATION

* Bring back the more sensual yet tasteful love scenes of ME1 rather than the tacky, cheesy dry-humping stylings of ME2. They just make it look like despite winning the battle against Fox on every level that BioWare lost the war by just caving to nothing.
* If you're going to have a 15-minute opening to the game at least make the cinematic stuff skippable. And preferably give us the ability to alter our character before said scene in either case. Which leads to...
* A better character creator. The main thing we need is the ability to view our Shepard from a good three-quarter angle; the limitations to straight-on and mosty-profile on either side just aren't enough to get a good look at your Shepard, especially when the lighting in the creator is iffy too and tends to shadow the face a lot. In ME1 I constantly had to create a character, sit through the opening on The Normandy up until landing on Eden Prime and then go back and constantly tweak while noting down the sliders. In ME2 this would be even worse with its
aforementioned unskippable 15-minute opening (thankfully I always import). Having some better angles would help greatly, as would the ability to get facial codes and tweak import faces instead of them merely resetting in both cases.
* Day/night cycles in some places would be good. Not necessarily proper cycles, but at least the chance for a regular place to perhaps be either night or day, or somewhere between (dusk, sunrise, raining, etc.). Different NPCs could cycle depending on the time of day.

Under COMPANIONS

* I'd like to be able to take my love interest someplace nice. Out to dinner at a fancy resturant or something. Overall there should be a few more "mundane" things to do for Shepard to let down his/her hair more often. One could make things interesting by having things happen during these moments. For example, having dinner with your LI on The Citadel draws the attention of Emily Wong (or another reporter) who begins to not only interview you but ask questions about who your special someone is, putting you on the spot while they're right there.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 novembre 2010 - 08:55 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

Okay, I've added the following now too on the original post:-

Under PRESENTATION
* Day/night cycles in some places would be good. Not necessarily proper cycles, but at least the chance for a regular place to perhaps be either night or day, or somewhere between (dusk, sunrise, raining, etc.). Different NPCs could cycle depending on the time of day.

No thanks. I don't want the day/night cycle to artificially bloat the game as it is, and things will be frustrating if there is no "skip time button." You'll also have to take QA testing into account in making sure that this tiny feature works properly without having a "Galaxy Droid" caliber glitch, randomly disappearing NPCs, or Fallout 3's "system-lock" room on a farily large game as it is. At least you're not suggesting it on the level that was Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal. Otherwise, it would have been a major "**** you" to the gamers that don't play video games 24/7.

Under COMPANIONS

* I'd like to be able to take my love interest someplace nice. Out to dinner at a fancy resturant or something. Overall there should be a few more "mundane" things to do for Shepard to let down his/her hair more often. One could make things interesting by having things happen during these moments. For example, having dinner with your LI on The Citadel draws the attention of Emily Wong (or another reporter) who begins to not only interview you but ask questions about who your special someone is, putting you on the spot while they're right there.

Would like to see that, but the priiiize isn't worth the risk, especially since BioWare's plate is most likely full with tweaking and whatnot.

[Undertone]

When it comes to climate change, night/day change it shouldn't be quest related (some NPC being there during the night while others during the day). While that would be awesome, it would be too hard to implement. However change npc's position during these changes. If it's rainy put the npc under cover from the rain. The worlds we visit are too static, unchangeable. Make npc have a walking route that they cover instead of everyone being in one place. Make the place feel more alive.
 
Which also bring me to the Normandy - have squad mates interact with each other in various ways or the crew talk to each other, walk to each other, have dinner together when coming to Normandy after a mission, have various events happen after each mission to make the ship more alive. Even small things as:

Garrus: Hey Tali I could use an engenieer help in doing some weapon diagnostic and tweaking some stuff. Want to help?
Tali: Sure Garrus, show me what the issue is.
Garrus: It's this part, blabla.
Tali: Well have you tried using Omega lenses to focus the blala etc.
Garrus: Great idea Tali, hey Shepard want to shop in Omega? (possible quest)

Thane walks up to Garrus

Thane: Hey Garrus, what sniper modifications are you using?
Garrus: I prefer this scope personally, best zoom enhancement with thermal capabilities.
Thane: Interesting have you tried this ammunition? (shows him some type of ammunition) Rips shields apart.
Garrus: Interesting, what about combining this (random part) with this ammunition to improve the piercing properties too?
Thane: No, that wouldn't work because of etc...
Garrus: I see your point, how about ...? 

There are countless more examples I could come up.

Modifié par Undertone, 05 novembre 2010 - 10:19 .

[lazuli]

Googlesaurus wrote...
When you're in cover, you're pretty much immune to any incoming fire in front of you. Your accuracy with weapons is higher than if you're standing in the open or running. Most enemy AI is too stupid to flank you or use group tactics. And so on...

In short, there's no substantial advantage in abandoning cover in order to kill enemies except in the case of melee enemies and attacks with AOE. The former are limited to slow-ass weak husks that you can run circles around, the latter can be taken care of by moving around while under cover. 

I would point out that you have to leave cover, or at least pop up from it, to kill enemies.  You're vulnerable while you're doing this, especially on higher difficulty levels.  Additionally, the biggest advantage to leaving cover completely is speed.  If you master close and mobile forms of combat, you can clear encounters much faster than you would by sitting at the back of the field and picking enemies off one by one.

I will agree that not enough enemies rush the player or pressure him or her out of cover.  Geth, husks, mechs, Praetorians, and varren do this reliably.  But the shotgun enemies' AI could use some more testosterone.

[Getorex]

Terror_K wrote...

Okay, I've added the following now too on the original post:-

Under PRESENTATION

* Bring back the more sensual yet tasteful love scenes of ME1 rather than the tacky, cheesy dry-humping stylings of ME2. They just make it look like despite winning the battle against Fox on every level that BioWare lost the war by just caving to nothing.
* If you're going to have a 15-minute opening to the game at least make the cinematic stuff skippable. And preferably give us the ability to alter our character before said scene in either case. Which leads to...
* A better character creator. The main thing we need is the ability to view our Shepard from a good three-quarter angle; the limitations to straight-on and mosty-profile on either side just aren't enough to get a good look at your Shepard, especially when the lighting in the creator is iffy too and tends to shadow the face a lot. In ME1 I constantly had to create a character, sit through the opening on The Normandy up until landing on Eden Prime and then go back and constantly tweak while noting down the sliders. In ME2 this would be even worse with its
aforementioned unskippable 15-minute opening (thankfully I always import). Having some better angles would help greatly, as would the ability to get facial codes and tweak import faces instead of them merely resetting in both cases.
* Day/night cycles in some places would be good. Not necessarily proper cycles, but at least the chance for a regular place to perhaps be either night or day, or somewhere between (dusk, sunrise, raining, etc.). Different NPCs could cycle depending on the time of day.

On the character customization front, I wouldn't mind seeing a homage to "Logan's Run" included at the Citadel. This homage would be in the form of a body shop where you can spend credits to nip/tuck your Shepard at will whenever you wish. The appearance of the shop could be directly taken from "Logan's Run" and even include a nurse/aid (human or Asari would work here) modeled on the young Farrah Fawcett who played that precise role in "Logan's Run".

Upon exiting the shop your companions could then offer ribbing or comments: "Hubba hubba Shepard!" or "Yeah, that flaw was driving ME nuts too. I'd have had to take care of it long ago. You're clearly a stronger man than I Shep to have tolerated it as long as you did."

Other than that, let's minimize the Sims or Secondlife in developing this game with too much touchy-feely stuff. Only the minimum necessary to HELP the story, not enough to almost be another story. Yeeeech.

Modifié par Getorex, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:08 .

[curly haired boy]

i'd like them to build on ME2's advances, where ME2 was better than ME1. at the same time, where ME1 was better than ME2, they should build on the example of the earlier game.



for instance: combat in ME2 is worlds better than combat in ME1. don't look to ME1 for improvements, instead, look forward and build upon the speed and fluidity of ME2's combat for ME3.



on the other hand, environments are much smaller in ME2 than in ME1. for ME3, they should look to improve on the scale of ME1's environments, not continue the smaller trend seen in ME2.

[lazuli]

curly haired boy wrote...
on the other hand, environments are much smaller in ME2 than in ME1. for ME3, they should look to improve on the scale of ME1's environments, not continue the smaller trend seen in ME2.

Remember that it has to be functional on xbox, too, not just on PC.  The larger areas in ME1 led to terrible framerate on the 360.  The Citadel was a beast.

[Getorex]

lazuli wrote...

curly haired boy wrote...
on the other hand, environments are much smaller in ME2 than in ME1. for ME3, they should look to improve on the scale of ME1's environments, not continue the smaller trend seen in ME2.

Remember that it has to be functional on xbox, too, not just on PC.  The larger areas in ME1 led to terrible framerate on the 360.  The Citadel was a beast.

Well THAT sucks. Another area that drives the weakening of the game to the lowest common denominator. It would be real nice if they designed it with a PC in mind at the start and used THAT as the skeleton upon which to build a softer console version. For instance, you build areas huge like they are for Far Cry, Crysis, GRAW, etc. That is the game skeleton and is what the PC gets. Rather than totally rebuilding everything, however, for the console, they simply compile then make a skeleton console version from the PC version by chopping down the environments to fit with the capabilities of consoles.

PC players get a game that is fully in line with their system capabilities while the console players get a version FROM the PC skeleton that is within the capabilities of their console - a trimmed down PC version.

Those with the powerful systems get a game with a huge environment while those without the power get the same CORE game with small environments.

This is clearly where the console makers have dropped the ball bigtime. They clearly need to beef up the CPU, RAM, and graphics (and make the graphics user-upgradeable). Core hardware should (probably) be at least a dual core (quad is better), at least 4 gig of ram. The limitation you mention is the big reason I don't (and probably wont) go console.

Modifié par Getorex, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[lazuli]

Getorex wrote...

Well THAT sucks. Another area that drives the weakening of the game to the lowest common denominator. It would be real nice if they designed it with a PC in mind at the start and used THAT as the skeleton upon which to build a softer console version. For instance, you build areas huge like they are for Far Cry, Crysis, GRAW, etc. That is the game skeleton and is what the PC gets. Rather than totally rebuilding everything, however, for the console, they simply compile then make a skeleton console version from the PC version by chopping down the environments to fit with the capabilities of consoles.

PC players get a game that is fully in line with their system capabilities while the console players get a version FROM the PC skeleton that is within the capabilities of their console - a trimmed down PC version.

Those with the powerful systems get a game with a huge environment while those without the power get the same CORE game with small environments.

This is clearly where the console makers have dropped the ball bigtime. They clearly need to beef up the CPU, RAM, and graphics (and make the graphics user-upgradeable). Core hardware should (probably) be at least a dual core (quad is better), at least 4 gig of ram. The limitation you mention is the big reason I don't (and probably wont) go console.

 I can't agree.  Mass Effect was originally an xbox 360 exclusive title, I'm sure you recall.

[Getorex]

lazuli wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Well THAT sucks. Another area that drives the weakening of the game to the lowest common denominator. It would be real nice if they designed it with a PC in mind at the start and used THAT as the skeleton upon which to build a softer console version. For instance, you build areas huge like they are for Far Cry, Crysis, GRAW, etc. That is the game skeleton and is what the PC gets. Rather than totally rebuilding everything, however, for the console, they simply compile then make a skeleton console version from the PC version by chopping down the environments to fit with the capabilities of consoles.

PC players get a game that is fully in line with their system capabilities while the console players get a version FROM the PC skeleton that is within the capabilities of their console - a trimmed down PC version.

Those with the powerful systems get a game with a huge environment while those without the power get the same CORE game with small environments.

This is clearly where the console makers have dropped the ball bigtime. They clearly need to beef up the CPU, RAM, and graphics (and make the graphics user-upgradeable). Core hardware should (probably) be at least a dual core (quad is better), at least 4 gig of ram. The limitation you mention is the big reason I don't (and probably wont) go console.

 I can't agree.  Mass Effect was originally an xbox 360 exclusive title, I'm sure you recall.

How can you object to them building a full-bodied version for PCs and then cutting off various items here and there so it is compatible with consoles? You get the same game you only ever could but others not restricted by console limitations get something more in tune with what their hardware can support.

You don't buy an S-10 pickup truck and then complain that you can't haul a horse trailer or other heavy loads that a full F-250 or F-350 can handle. Different hardware. If you want to haul the big trailer you buy the big(ger) truck. You don't demand that all trailer or attachment manufacturers stick to ONLY making their things so that a small pickup can handle it. You accept that your prefered tool is limited and must be restricted to a certain type of add-on without begrudging extra stuff that the bigger, more powerful trucks can handle.

Your console is an S-10. PCs are F-250s or F-350s. You CAN build a trailer for the big trucks and then using the same frame/basic design pare it down so that there is a version, just scaled down, for the console. You get only that which you can handle while the same goes for the others with the bigger truck. Where does this harm you?

[curly haired boy]

let's not make this devolve into a consoles vs. PCs thing, that's not what this thread's about.



and i guess after 5 years without improvements in console hardware, we're not going to see any expansion of what bioware has to work with in terms of maximum resources. still, ME2 did things a lot better, so we'll see if they can work that magic some more.

[Getorex]

curly haired boy wrote...

let's not make this devolve into a consoles vs. PCs thing, that's not what this thread's about.



and i guess after 5 years without improvements in console hardware, we're not going to see any expansion of what bioware has to work with in terms of maximum resources. still, ME2 did things a lot better, so we'll see if they can work that magic some more.

Wasn't intending to make it a PC vs console war or anything. Just providing a wish that they build a core game and then pare and tailer it to the platform on a case-by-case basis rather than going down the list of target platforms and deciding to base the core on the weakest hardware in the batch.

And...really? Seriously? There hasn't been an improvement in console hardware in 5 years? The Xbox and others aren't a touch better or more powerful (graphics and/or CPU) with each year (or whatever)? I am seriously curious, not taking a dig or being sarcastic.

[lazuli]

Getorex wrote...
And...really? Seriously? There hasn't been an improvement in console hardware in 5 years? The Xbox and others aren't a touch better or more powerful (graphics and/or CPU) with each year (or whatever)? I am seriously curious, not taking a dig or being sarcastic.

That's how consoles work.  Every now and then there will be an update, but the hardware doesn't really change until a new generation rolls out.  There are exceptions, though, if you count peripherals as hardware upgrades.

[Googlesaurus]

lazuli wrote...

I would point out that you have to leave cover, or at least pop up from it, to kill enemies.  You're vulnerable while you're doing this, especially on higher difficulty levels.  Additionally, the biggest advantage to leaving cover completely is speed.  If you master close and mobile forms of combat, you can clear encounters much faster than you would by sitting at the back of the field and picking enemies off one by one.

That is pretty standard for cover-based shooters. But the vulnerability of popping out to fire is greatly reduced by the "invincibility frames" (using a term from my SSBB vocabulary, no idea how accurate it is) of your shield breaking. Unless you have absurdly slow reflexes or tunnel vision, you will never be caught with your pants down. 

I don't see how it matters when it's restricted to "close and mobile forms of combat". Such a strategy applies to all FPS games. Additionally the cover system works at all positions in the field. I can be shooting an enemy from 50 meters or 5 meters, yet the advantages are the same across the board. The AI won't punish me for making a choice that goes against my style of play and class. 

lazuli wrote...

I will agree that not enough enemies rush the player or pressure him or her out of cover.  Geth, husks, mechs, Praetorians, and varren do this reliably.  But the shotgun enemies' AI could use some more testosterone.

Do you mean "I don't agree"?

[lazuli]

Googlesaurus wrote...

That is pretty standard for cover-based shooters. But the vulnerability of popping out to fire is greatly reduced by the "invincibility frames" (using a term from my SSBB vocabulary, no idea how accurate it is) of your shield breaking. Unless you have absurdly slow reflexes or tunnel vision, you will never be caught with your pants down. 

This is certainly true on Normal difficulty, the baseline ME2 experience.

lazuli wrote...

I will agree that not enough enemies rush the player or pressure him or her out of cover.  Geth, husks, mechs, Praetorians, and varren do this reliably.  But the shotgun enemies' AI could use some more testosterone.

Do you mean "I don't agree"?

No, I mean that I wish more enemies rushed us.  I listed the ones that tend to rush, but there should be more.  Enemies with shotguns and flamethrowers should do a better job of closing with the player.  As it is, the pyros tend to strafe back and forth just out of range (except that one on the Archangel mission).  More enemies rushing the player would help balance the cover system.

[Googlesaurus]

lazuli wrote...

This is certainly true on Normal difficulty, the baseline ME2 experience.

It's pretty exploitable on Insanity as well. 

lazuli wrote...

No, I mean that I wish more enemies rushed us.  I listed the ones that tend to rush, but there should be more.  Enemies with shotguns and flamethrowers should do a better job of closing with the player.  As it is, the pyros tend to strafe back and forth just out of range (except that one on the Archangel mission).  More enemies rushing the player would help balance the cover system.

Agreed. Maybe bring back a modified Geth Hopper  with a randomized movement pattern. 

[nov_pl]

A lil offtop. but only a little.

Aren't you a lil' worried that ME3 haven't been announced yet?

I was expecting to hear something about it on EA Showcase in London, but there's nothing. This probably means that the game won't be relised 'till 2012...

[Fiery Phoenix]

nov_pl wrote...

A lil offtop. but only a little.
Aren't you a lil' worried that ME3 haven't been announced yet?
I was expecting to hear something about it on EA Showcase in London, but there's nothing. This probably means that the game won't be relised 'till 2012...

The thing is BioWare isn't nearly done with ME2 just yet. They're working on the PS3 version at the moment, and will most likely continue to work on more DLC afterwards. Also remember that Dragon Age 2 will be released sometime in early March; they're probably waiting for that to be out of the picture as well. I, for one, am not expecting an announcement until perhaps April, May or June (at E3, in this case). As to when it will be released, I'm going to say early 2012. I really don't expect them to release ME3 late 2011.

[nov_pl]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

The thing is BioWare isn't nearly done with ME2 just yet. They're working on the PS3 version at the moment, and will most likely continue to work on more DLC afterwards. Also remember that Dragon Age 2 will be released sometime in early March; they're probably waiting for that to be out of the picture as well. I, for one, am not expecting an announcement until perhaps April, May or June (at E3, in this case). As to when it will be released, I'm going to say early 2012. I really don't expect them to release ME3 late 2011.

Yes, early 2012 is most likely scenario, it also goes for E3 announcment.
I was actually expecting Mass 3 in late 2011, but then PS3 ver came up. 
And yeah, we still havn't DLC that'd make hudge impact on ME3, maybe apart from LotSB, but that doesn't affect the whole reaper situation that much.