262 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Computron2000 wrote...

I already know you are referring to your squadmates hence my check to see if you played on insanity as a soldier. If so you should already know how powerful ONE of those is and you're asking for all the soldier types Garrus, Grunt, etc to have that level of ability?

The weapon damage of a soldier is only that great with adrenaline rush...
Without that,neither the damage of Zaeed or Thane would be game breaking in any way.But they should fullfill their roles. That means that they made more weapon damage then shepardt when the role is that of the adept or infiltrator.

t

If you want it that much, go to http://masseffect.wi..._(Mass_Effect_2)  edit damagehench for each weapon and upgrade it from 50% damage to 100%.

First, i play on console.Then i always play a game how its meaned to be. And its not a problem regarding any difficulty.
The point is that teammates serve no other role then to provide an additional warp for example or an ammo power.That is not enough.

YOU think people play adepts and engineers for crowd control and what not but thats not what I think. I play adepts for the visual effects

???
Like that where adrenaline rush makes the world yellow.Thats its something soldiers have too.

tonnactus wrote...


What if i think the 15% is great especially for engineers?

On hardcore and insanity,power duration is greatly reduced.Not the cooldown of them.Simple fact.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[sinosleep]

Some people here are impossible to please.



They will complain if enemies have too much health.



They will complain if enemies die while you're waiting for a warp bomb to go off.



They will complain that the squad doesn't do enough damage, even though they've already complained that 1) enemies have too much health 2.) enemies die too quickly for them to set off warp bombs



It's ridiculous. I did this substantially quicker due to squadmates. That's all I need em for.

[MajesticJazz]

sinosleep wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

Yawn........here we go again.

X2

And just to be a dick

why has ME 2 won numerous RPG of the year awards while not even being nominated for any shooter of the year awards? 

Because that is the industry that we're in. Besides, why is it that everyone equates the number of awards you've won with quality?

Titanic was at one time the highest grossing film of all time, but did that mean it was the BEST film of all time? I do not even know if it was the best romantic film of all time. But yet it won more awards then any romance film at the time.

There is a fine line between overall quality, quality of competition, and pure popularity. ME2 in regards to RPGs did not have much competition this yet. We had New Vegas, FF Online, and Alpha Protocol.....all 3 of those games had major technical/gameplay problems. ME2 just happened to be the only clean one out.

I doubt that if Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Star Wars: The Old Republic...or hell, Deus Ex: Human Revolution came out this year.....I doubt ME2 would have still won all the RPG awards if had won. And yes, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, a more of a shooter than RPG game (even though it has RPG elements) will have a more expansive inventory than ME2 and more skill customization than ME2.

Fact is, in Bioware's clear desperate attempt to bring in the "GOW" crowd, they literally dropped the ball on many RPG elements. That is obvious. What is not obvious is whether Bioware did this on purpose because they knew that core shooter fans aren't much interested in deep skill customization, exploration, and deep inventory......or if Bioware just "forgot" about the RPG side of things as they are too deep into the shooter side of things.

Hopefully Bioware has listened to the uproar and will have a more balanced shooter/rpg game. Remember, the ME trilogy was never intended to be a pure RPG but a hybrid action-rpg. ME1 was skewed towards RPG while the shooter was a bit neglected and ME2 was skewed towards shooter while the rpg was neglected. Hopefully ME3 would combined the best of both games.

[ThePatriot101]

As a fan who's enjoyed both games, I prefer ME2's gameplay over ME1's. The gun mechanics were so much better and the cooldown on tech and biotics actually made sense given that in ME1 you could throw five of those abilities at the enemy in only a few seconds. I'd also prefer that they didn't do the gun leveling like they did in ME1. I didn't quite like how I could essentially snipe people from a distance using, of all things, a SHOTGUN! Don't get me wrong it's a handy bit but it just messes with the fact that I'm killing people at a distance with a short-range weapon. It makes me less immersed in the game as a story-telling device.



I wouldn't mind some additional customization but NOT a return to the ME1 system. I hated collecting all of those armors and weapons. Every time I play through ME1 I get neurotic about "Which armor am I going to need?" "Should I keep that weapon just in case?" "Should I hold on to that armor?" and so on. And I don't want a return of ME1's inventory system. Otherwise I'm going to go NUTS.



Just gimme what I need to blow up some Reapers.



Given what Bioware's done I'm satisfied with what they're doing in story and plot. If the story and plot is top notch I can deal with minor "faults" in the gameplay. But they're proven that they're well above the standard in storytelling - and the numerous awards that they've gotten for ME2 should be a testament to that. I'm certain they're bringing about something that will be a worthy conclusion to the Shepard Trilogy.

[sympathy4saren]

I think classes are one rpg element, while not essential to an rpg, that is perfect in the series. Any more would run the risk of making each one less significant. However, I agree that the utilization of class powers can be better...Mass Effect the original got it right for me.



I'm beginning to wonder if we made the mistake of not complimented things we like...and if the others were the ones primarily making suggestions for ME2. Almost like it was perceived by many to be a shooter...but "what's all this other stuff?"



Lesson learned.

[Computron2000]

tonnactus wrote...
The weapon damage of a soldier is only that great with adrenaline rush...
Without that,neither the damage of Zaeed or Thane would be game breaking in any way.But they should fullfill their roles. That means that they made more weapon damage then shepardt when the role is that of the adept or infiltrator.

You failed to account for the more powerful weapons that a solider has access too, unless you feel the tempest SMG is as good as a sniper rifle or assault rifle?

tonnactus wrote...
First, i play on console.Then i always play a game how its meaned to be. And its not a problem regarding any difficulty.
The point is that teammates serve no other role then to provide an additional warp for example or an ammo power.That is not enough.

Eh you missed the point. The point is having you experience being a member of a squad that is weak offensively permanently to see how much you enjoy it.

tonnactus wrote...
Like that where adrenaline rush makes the world yellow.Thats its something soldiers have too.

Unfortunately i prefer blue balls that arc around corners. Do soldiers have those too?

tonnactus wrote...
On hardcore and insanity,power duration is greatly reduced.Not the cooldown of them.Simple fact.

Yes duration is reduced to 80% on hardcore compared to 90% on veteran in the ini. Sorry i think you are referring to insanity where its 50%. Simple fact.

Still you have not answered me. Should Bioware listen to you (thinks +15% power duration is worthless vs +10% cooldown) or to me (finds +15% power duration vs 10% cooldown tradeoff reasonable)

[MajesticJazz]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...


Because people here are ungrateful bi""es.
They only think Fallout and Final Fantasy etc... are RPGs because they have more freedom or more missions.
They were asking Bioware to remove elevators, Bioware did and they complain.
They wanted Earth, Bioware delievers it and they complain agian.
When Bioware will deliever the richer RPG elements (since they promised) they will complain agian.

1. We are not ungrateful bi***es, we are concerned consumers who speak our mind.
2. Fallout and Final Fantasy in comparison to ME2 ARE RPGs, not hybrid action-rpgs like ME2 or Deus Ex.
3. No, we asked Bioware to fix certain things, not remove them. We never said to remove the Mako, we just said to give the Mako better driving terrain instead of having to climb 90 degree angles to collect a mineral. Instead, they just removed the Mako all outright.
4. We asked for Earth to be a hub planet in ME3, possibly with a few plot missions. What we did not ask for is for Earth to be the literal center of the game with the main focus being on Earth. We just wanted Earth to play a role in ME3, not play THE role in ME3.

Modifié par MajesticJazz, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:36 .

[sympathy4saren]

@MajesticJazz



Agree

[tonnactus]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

As a fan who's enjoyed both games, I prefer ME2's gameplay over ME1's. The gun mechanics were so much better and the cooldown on tech and biotics actually made sense given that in ME1 you could throw five of those abilities at the enemy in only a few seconds. I'd also prefer that they didn't do the gun leveling like they did in ME1. I didn't quite like how I could essentially snipe people from a distance using, of all things, a SHOTGUN! .

What do mean with that? I just ask you: Do you know what range even the shotguns today have?(and Mass Effect plays in the future)
You would be suprised i guess.
No matter what,an effectice shotgun range of like 5 meters at best(excluding the Dlc shotguns) is laughable and far beyond realism then even the range shotguns have in the first game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:21 .

[ThePatriot101]

@MajesticJazz



Disagree

[sinosleep]

tonnactus wrote...

What do mean with that? I just ask you: Do you know what range even the shotguns today have?(and Mass Effect plays in the future)
You would be suprised i guess.
No matter what,an effectice shotgun range of like 5 meters at best(excluding the Dlc shotguns) is laughable and far beyond realism then even the range shotguns have in the first game.

Do you even know what range shotguns traditionally have in practically every video game to ever feature them? They're practically always shortrange weapons in video games becuase what makes them excellent weapons in the real world makes them horribly over powered in video games.

Shotguns in the real world are some of the easiest weapons to aim (they have spread) while also have pretty damned good range when using tighter grouping shots and having incredibly good range when using slugs. In a video game that would result in shotgun ease of use and assault rifle damage and utility. It's game breaking and why practically no one ever does it. There are things in video games that people have come to accept as gameplay over X (lore, realism, whatever other reason you could think og) decisions, you'd do well to do the same.

Modifié par sinosleep, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:30 .

[ThePatriot101]

tonnactus wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

As a fan who's enjoyed both games, I prefer ME2's gameplay over ME1's. The gun mechanics were so much better and the cooldown on tech and biotics actually made sense given that in ME1 you could throw five of those abilities at the enemy in only a few seconds. I'd also prefer that they didn't do the gun leveling like they did in ME1. I didn't quite like how I could essentially snipe people from a distance using, of all things, a SHOTGUN! .

What do mean with that? I just ask you: Do you know what range even the shotguns today have?(and Mass Effect plays in the future)
You would be suprised i guess.
No matter what,an effectice shotgun range of like 5 meters at best(excluding the Dlc shotguns) is laughable and far beyond realism then even the range shotguns have in the first game.

I am aware that shotguns today have ranges even exceeding 20-30 or even 75-150 meters (solid slug & tear gas canister ammo).  But what annoyed me was that at the start in ME1 shotguns are clearly close quarters: the shot spread is wide and you're lucky to hit something 40 or so meters away.  And after you leveled it up the spread became more focused and powerful over longer ranges.  Contrary to ME2 - which treated guns as, you know, guns - the weapons in ME1 felt less of a real[istic] weapon because of that leveling alteration.  You could not do the same thing on a M1014 or a SPAS-12 without completely switching the ammunition or altering the gun.  And the targeting reticle of the shotgun in ME1 was a little awkward as at that point as long as it was near the center circle I could hit it and, likely, kill it in that one shot.

[tonnactus]

Computron2000 wrote...


You failed to account for the more powerful weapons that a solider has access too, unless you feel the tempest SMG is as good as a sniper rifle or assault rifle?

First,the locust is far better then the avenger and the geth pulse rifle(regarding both:damage and accuracy),and equal with the vindicator.And ,of course,you could "snipe" with heavy pistols.
Not weapons let the soldier deal heavy damage.Its only adrenaline rush that increases damage with any weapon by 100 percent at level one and the ammo powers.(at least early in the game)

tonnactus wrote...

Eh you missed the point. The point is having you experience being a member of a squad that is weak offensively permanently to see how much you enjoy it.

The squad is weak in offense and defense.( and for some unknown reason ,shepardt got shield upgrades his members dont get)
And there are better ways to make insanity challenging then gimping the squad and their roles and make shepardt basicly do all the damage alone even when playing a class that is more meant to be a support class.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:38 .

[MajesticJazz]

sympathy4saren wrote...



Mass Effect 2 is a new species of RPG.



It's evolved form fits into the rpg genre.



For many rpg fans, though, this new species is not welcome.

You're acting like Mass Effect 2 is the first ever shooter-rpg or rpg-shooter ever released. In fact, you're wrong. The original Deus Ex was the first shooter/rpg hybrid combining FPS elements with rpg elements. It even had interactive dialog with a fully voiced cast, deep exploration, deep inventory, and non-linear missions. FPS gamers played it but unknowingly, was also playing a RPG. RPG gamers played it but was also playing a FPS.



Mass Effect wasn't the first, but rather the most recent.

Lieutenant Flashlight wrote...



Am I the only one here for the story and not the gameplay?



I honestly don't care what Bioware does gameplay wise, I'm just worried about the story.

You're not the only one. I care more about the story than gameplay. However there are a lot of people on this forum who are just passive consumers. They do not care about anything. They have to expectations. ME3 could be a step back in comparison to ME1/ME2 and yet those people will still follow Bioware like lost puppies. Sort of like a female who gets beat by her husband but still "finds reasons" to stay with him with excuses like "He really loves me. He'll never touch me sober, he only gets like that when he gets drunk."

[tonnactus]

ThePatriot101 wrote...


I am aware that shotguns today have ranges even exceeding 20-30 or even 75-150 meters (solid slug & tear gas canister ammo).  But what annoyed me was that at the start in ME1 shotguns are clearly close quarters: the shot spread is wide and you're lucky to hit something 40 or so meters away.  And after you leveled it up the spread became more focused and powerful over longer ranges. 

It depends on the shotgun.The early shotguns have just a horrible accuracy(but decent with crouch).But with a spectre shotgun(or one of the better manufacturers like rosenkov) with 90 percent accuracy rating you dont need any points in the shotgun skill to use it even at long ranges.
The only weapon you couldnt use without points in the skill was the sniper rifle in Mass Effect.

[Jaron Oberyn]

MarchWaltz wrote...

I wouldn't count ME2 as just a TPS, I mean, there ARE classes and each class has a diff style of gameplay (still have not played engineer in depth, but it looks like I will be using my drone as a distractions).

I am guessing that alot of people who play purely shooters (CoD, MoH) will be scared away by the dialogue.

You're joking right? More than half of the dialogue in the game is completely automatic. 

-Polite

[Ahglock]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Because while it was a shooter, there were far better shooters out there. Bioware themselves admitted they have little experience with shooters. If that's the case, don't shift the gameplay heavily upon a mechanic that you aren't well established in. They're good at story telling, and RPG's. Shooters... not so much. I'm not saying ME2's combat was bad or anything, but we have enough shooters out there already. I play Bioware's games to get my RPG fix. If I want to play a shooter, that's what UT3, GoW, Halo, and CoD are for. 

-Polite

And there were better "RPGs" out there as well.

Such as? Fable? Haha... no. Fallout: New Vegas was just F3 with a new pair of shoes. The only real competition ME2 had was Final Fantasy 13. In all honesty, FFXIII should have won. It had great gameplay, cinematics, story, and amazing graphics. I'm a hardcore ME fan, but I felt that more time and effort was put into Square's game than ME2.

-Polite

Wait you liked FF13?  

Gameplay: sucked(you ran down a hallway and killed things with a crappy fighting mechanic)
Story: Sucked (you watched some crappy movies now and then, you were not really invovled in any decisions)
Cinematics and graphics were awesome but that is it.

Do you make any choices really?  The customiation is virtually gone.  You follow a track of where to spend points and you frequently have enough to max everything in your primary 3.  The only thing you can change is your weapon.

It was one of the worst RPGs put out in the last 10 years. 

If that is the kind of crap you want in a RPG, I don't any of your opinions influencing ME3 design at all.

[sympathy4saren]

@ sinosleep



Your description of shotguns in video games was dead on accurate. The way shotguns are altered in games helps to highlight other weapon's significance.



Rare's GoldenEye 007 did one of the best jobs for a shotgun I can think of. The blasts were powerful and concentrated like in reality, but was slow because of the massive kick.

[tonnactus]

sinosleep wrote...


Do you even know what range shotguns traditionally have in practically every video game to ever feature them? They're practically always shortrange weapons in video games becuase what makes them excellent weapons in the real world makes them horribly over powered in video games.

So the geth shotgun is overpowered then...

[Kronner]

tonnactus wrote...

sinosleep wrote...


Do you even know what range shotguns traditionally have in practically every video game to ever feature them? They're practically always shortrange weapons in video games becuase what makes them excellent weapons in the real world makes them horribly over powered in video games.

So the geth shotgun is overpowered then...

Of course it is.

[femio18]

Sammyb123 wrote...

Am I the only one who preferred the RPG system in Mass Effect 1 to ME2? Though I loved the game and it's improvements to combat, I was a bit disappointed with how they really simplified the RPG elements in ME2.

Does anyone else want a return of the RPG style we had in the first game? 

there is no real rpg elements in ME2 is just a shooter with a dialogue system and yes i want it to be more like the original game that was what made the game what it is now in my opinion

[femio18]

Dr. Heart wrote...

I think they should just go ahead and strip whatever RPG elements are left and just give us Gears of War. That'd be super duper.

lol... funny but ur right....lol

[Jaron Oberyn]

Ahglock wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Because while it was a shooter, there were far better shooters out there. Bioware themselves admitted they have little experience with shooters. If that's the case, don't shift the gameplay heavily upon a mechanic that you aren't well established in. They're good at story telling, and RPG's. Shooters... not so much. I'm not saying ME2's combat was bad or anything, but we have enough shooters out there already. I play Bioware's games to get my RPG fix. If I want to play a shooter, that's what UT3, GoW, Halo, and CoD are for. 

-Polite

And there were better "RPGs" out there as well.

Such as? Fable? Haha... no. Fallout: New Vegas was just F3 with a new pair of shoes. The only real competition ME2 had was Final Fantasy 13. In all honesty, FFXIII should have won. It had great gameplay, cinematics, story, and amazing graphics. I'm a hardcore ME fan, but I felt that more time and effort was put into Square's game than ME2.

-Polite

Wait you liked FF13?  

Gameplay: sucked(you ran down a hallway and killed things with a crappy fighting mechanic)
Story: Sucked (you watched some crappy movies now and then, you were not really invovled in any decisions)
Cinematics and graphics were awesome but that is it.

Do you make any choices really?  The customiation is virtually gone.  You follow a track of where to spend points and you frequently have enough to max everything in your primary 3.  The only thing you can change is your weapon.

It was one of the worst RPGs put out in the last 10 years. 

If that is the kind of crap you want in a RPG, I don't any of your opinions influencing ME3 design at all.

It was a JRPG. The story was being told to the player, the player didn't have a role in the decision making. That's how all of Square's games are no? It had a brilliant leveling system, customization of weapons, it was also open world on large parts of cocoon and pulse. Square stuck with their RPG standards. Bioware (Or I should say Christina Norman) didn't. She's trying to conform to the shooter genre. Compromised the company's standards for RPG's. Square Enix didn't do that. The only thinkg FF13 lacked was choices, but they compensated for that by providing the player with an highly immersive storyline. 

femio18 wrote...

Dr. Heart wrote...

I think they should just go ahead and strip whatever RPG elements are left and just give us Gears of War. That'd be super duper.

lol... funny but ur right....lol

If Norman has her way that just might happen...

-Polite
-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 27 décembre 2010 - 07:19 .

[Bigdoser]

Here we go again can't we just forget about labels and enjoy a game? Is that so hard? Also how can you say that there is no rpg elements in mass effect 2? There was leveling up, buying new upgrdes etc and learning new skills. Meh I don't really care for labels if they game is fun just play it and if you want something to be added put it up on the boards but you don't need to get into a whole debate about what is an rpg or is mass effect a shooter. People these days just need to learn on how to enjoy their dam game.

[marshalleck]

You thought FF13 had a highly immersive storyline? I thought it was nearly incoherent, myself. And the levels being series of long tunnels just made the plot railroading all the more flagrant.