262 réponses à ce sujet

[Praetor Knight]

tonnactus wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...


Maybe too proud (or broke on Tuchanka... ), otherwise it's most likely for gameplay balancing.

Either way Krogan do not seem to have been justly served in ME2.

They did the same to asari enemies.All asari fighters were described as light armored and agile,cover their weaknesses with biotics(and excactly this was the case in the first game). Now look what we have now. Slow,thick armored dumb warp bots with the excepetion of the asari spectre.
The enemy engineers are also jokes now.Geth hoppers and batarians engineers nearly used all talents shepardt could use too.Now they just spam incinerate and sometimes use a drone.
No enemy use more then one weapon except the ymir.Not even subbosses like asari "commandos" and krogan battlemasters.Snipers are completly gone(but still mentioned/must have stealth) and shepardt is not even killed or seriuosly damaged by a rocket or a krogan melee attack no matter what class.Not even a colossus blast is really damaging.
And  people still think that the combat in Mass Effect 2 is somehow superior.

Not to mention Vanguards not Charging, at least like Vasir, but meh.

I still feel the balance is better in ME2, I just hope enemies are that much better in ME3.
You're only as bada** as the enemies you kick around right?

[tonnactus]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

You're only as bada** as the enemies you kick around right?

Thats right.And the quality of the combat is not only defined by a better cover system and shepardts talents,but also by the quality of the enemies.(for me:the amount of talents and how much success they have with it)

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:41 .

[ColonyFury161]

The first thing that disappointed me about ME2 was that shepperd couldn't even walk when appropriate. You could be in the Normandy & your character was running around constantly. The second thing was the limp that shepperd has. It still hasn't been explained by the devs yet. Some players made excusses for it, but in the end, it was simply the lack of Bioware to keep the good character movements from ME1. The last thing that disappointed me was the fact that Sheppered died for no reason. Perfect way to start a sequal huh "Kill the main character" *sarcasm*. It didn't even feel like I was playing shepperred anymore. Theirs other things that bothered me like the complete loss of RPG elements. Mass Effect 2 was just a attempt to please casual gamers, that couldn't handle a real RPG. It's sad. It seems like the entire gaming industry is falling into this profit driven trap. One of my favorite games "Killzone" will be downgraded into a casual game with Killzone 3. It's just plain sad to see what is happening to these games. I'm just a insignificant internet guy, so I'm sure my opinion & alot of other peoples opinions will go un-noticed. The only persons opinion that realy matters nowadays is the guy that is sitting in the cushy corner office at EA Games.

[Schneidend]

Killzone 2 to Killzone 3 casualized? That's even more made-up than the supposed "downgrade" ME1 received transitioning to ME2.



Adding jet packs, mechsuits, and useful melee attacks is "casualization"? News to me.

[sympathy4saren]

I never read anywhere that Mass Effect was a godsend to the rpg genre, or that Mass Effect was by any means perfect. In fact, the assertion that fans who want more rpg elements and felt Mass Effect had more than ME2, and thought Mass Effect was perfect, is a fabrication. There are clear and defined facets of the rpg elements of the game that could be improved upon that ME2 did not incorporate.



On a different note...why does every game seemingly have to feature coinciding elements of Halo to have full "optimalization". Kind of odd.

[Jaron Oberyn]

In the "Does Bioware listen to fans" thread that got closed down a few days ago, someone was arguing pretty well about the dumbed down system of ME2 in terms of dialogue, customization, exploration, and such. Might want to search it and give it a read. The person's name starts with a "T". Can't remember though.



-Polite

[Googlesaurus]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

In the "Does Bioware listen to fans" thread that got closed down a few days ago, someone was arguing pretty well about the dumbed down system of ME2 in terms of dialogue, customization, exploration, and such. Might want to search it and give it a read. The person's name starts with a "T". Can't remember though.

-Polite

I'd imagine it to be Terror. 

[Turien Rebel]

if they would just add some more skills to the me2 system i think id be OK with it.

Also Give us modular guns with lots of modules or A crap load of different guns. Like borderlands style lots of guns.

Modifié par Turien Rebel, 28 décembre 2010 - 10:51 .

[femio18]

i bought the ME1 cuz it was an rpg game made by bioware (that's what bioware do rpg games) now they turn the game in to a shooter... thank you shooter fans and EA

[Jacen987]

Ok,just read Norman so called,justification for "redesigning" the gameplay,and all ive read are pointless excuses for striping down already existing features,or "streamlining" them,as you'd say.Honestly i'll be the first to say ME1 combat was sloppy,unbalanced and needed a major overhaul.But there was just nothing added to replace the cut off features,you cant just chop stuff of left and right and expect the game to retain any kind of depth.


Ironically enough,she even states that there goal was to create a shooter.Bioware?Shooter?

So waht the game doing winning RPG of the year?Game of the Year,sure......but RPG come on:?

A hybrid is fine and dandy,but whats with goal to create games that people can sleep through?Especially LoL at the Eden Prime video,of some noob,standing 45 feet away from the target,no cover and spinning the cursor around like a maniac,as a prime justification for the redisign.How did people play this game??

Just looking at the ME1 skill tree seems to be inducing confusion?Seriously is that suppose to be funny?That makes just as much sense as Mining,encouraging exploration.. .. .. ..<_<

Modifié par Jacen987, 29 décembre 2010 - 01:06 .

[Epic777]

femio18 wrote...

i bought the ME1 cuz it was an rpg game made by bioware (that's what bioware do rpg games) now they turn the game in to a shooter... thank you shooter fans and EA

But the ME series was always a hybrid RPG- TPS

[aeetos21]

hooray, this thread again...

[Schneidend]

sympathy4saren wrote...

I never read anywhere that Mass Effect was a godsend to the rpg genre, or that Mass Effect was by any means perfect. In fact, the assertion that fans who want more rpg elements and felt Mass Effect had more than ME2, and thought Mass Effect was perfect, is a fabrication. There are clear and defined facets of the rpg elements of the game that could be improved upon that ME2 did not incorporate.

On a different note...why does every game seemingly have to feature coinciding elements of Halo to have full "optimalization". Kind of odd.

1. I don't think anybody is suggesting ME2's RPG elements could not improve. Check my thread "The Inventory And How It's Evolving" and you'll see I've compiled a list of fan suggestions I endorse and have seen throughout the forum.

2. Halo is a sub-par shooter at best. It's just extremely popular. Nobody who wanted Mass Effect's shooter elements improved necessarily wanted anything akin to Halo, of that I can assure you.

[PSUHammer]

Epic777 wrote...

femio18 wrote...

i bought the ME1 cuz it was an rpg game made by bioware (that's what bioware do rpg games) now they turn the game in to a shooter... thank you shooter fans and EA

But the ME series was always a hybrid RPG- TPS

And they have always said as much in interviews.  I am not sure why people are going nuts over this.  It's a hybrid game...they are trying different things.  I love big useful inventories but ME1's inventory system was stupid...sorry.  IT was all the same parts just numbered for power.  The only major thing they changed there was to remove ammo and make it a skill.  That eliminated like 50% of your need for an inventory.  I guess you could argue that they should have just added new items with more meaning or variety.  Possibly, but again they said they were not going for pure RPG.

Why so serious, everyone?  Wasn't it 30+ hours of more fun than you had with most games last year?

[timj2011]

This, what the dude above me said

Modifié par timj2011, 29 décembre 2010 - 04:56 .

[colossus50000]

I love ME1 and ME2 and til this day I still prefer Mostly everything from ME1 more then ME2. RPG elements was the first thing that i got pissed off when i first played the game, I just looked at it for a good minute saying to myself what the hell happened here. Bioware really needs to bring the feel of ME1 back to ME3.

[Devos]

Personally I would rank ME2 as being one of the closest games to my experience of table top RPG, with perhaps only Heavy Rain edging in ahead. The way I've played table top is with role playing as the main focus and the mechanics and combat as just a tool to resolve that stuff. Plugging QTE or TPS gameplay in the place of a fist full of dice isn't that big a deal to me.

With that said my personal experience is just that; my personal experience. Table top has a long history of "crunch lust". D&D spun out of war games which were entirely about simulation and not role play at all. Looking at D&D's arc it grew more complicated, dipped slightly more towards streamlining of the dice elements. 4E feels to me more about trying to cannibalise computer RPG action. So I think it is fair to refer to the "Crunch" of RPGs as what makes a computer RPG an RPG.

Before ME2 came out I was fairly active on the old ME1 forum as a character build monkey. I am pretty familiar with ME1's mechanics. I think ME2 is objectively a much better game on the strength of it's gameplay being superior (ME1 was a terrible shooter) but I never really like what was done with it's RPG like mechanics.

Lets be honest, a lot of ME1's mechanics were clunky. You got a lot of equipment but in any given tier only a few bits were ever worth equiping. Everything else was junk that just clogged up your inventory. While in principle weapon/ammo/armor upgrades gave you a lot of customisation there were only ever a few good set ups worth considering. A particular bug bear for me was the shops and random drops in general, your luck with both could make a huge difference. I had spent literally over an hour more than once reloading to refresh a shop's stock to get a single useful item. Inventory management was for the most part pointless busy work and even without going for completionism it was quite possible to max out credits well before the end of the game.

These were all problems that needed fixed. The answer in ME2? Remove or streamline these elements out of existence.

With the exception of how all this stuff is wiped out in NG+ I actually think ME2's way is better but I think there is probably a happier medium between clunky inventory and almost no inventory. More transparency on the statistics of guns would be a really easy one to start with.

The simplifications to character progression are something I have a great deal of ambivalence about. I seen a lot of really bad builds for ME1, in fact I played a lot of really bad builds until I knew better. Good builds in ME1 could make a big difference and among possible point distributions were sparse. While there was some variety within each class of fairly distinct optimal set ups for most classes you could count those builds on one hand. ME2 it's much harder to go drastically wrong and the option of respecing everything bar your bonus weapon was nice. The cost of this is that ME2 builds are more or less trivial. Pick bonus, Pick Weapon Bonus, Identify some dump stats and you're done.

ME2 is the better game, it's hard to argue otherwise, but a lot of people enjoy the crunch of an RPG on its own merit. While many of ME1's RPG aspects were clunky, awkward and sometimes got in the way stripping them out removed the fun of learning and understanding your options. Having written all that I think the safest and most time efficient way to build on ME2 to give ME3 better gameplay is to improve as a shooter. I think I would enjoy some more in depth RPG mechanics I don't really feel that ME2 is missing them. I more often feel that is slightly lacking in its shooter mechanics.

[haberman13]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...
On a side note, what happened Polite? You weren't a Bioware Fanboy but you at least used to give them a fair shot, instead of bunkering down and throwing what is largely considered to be one of their best works back in their faces. You used to seem to like ME2 and now it "sucks"? Now it's not even an RPG? It's a shift I really didn't see coming.

Playing ME1 again... really changed my expectations for ME2... Don't get me wrong, I love the combat improvements of ME2. But why did it have to come at the cost of customization, dialogue, and exploration? That's my issue. If they'd have kept those three elements in ME2 along with the ME2 combat Mass Effect would have been flawless. I'm not exactly shoving the game back up bioware's rear, but playing ME1 again made me realize what we've lost in ME2. I may have gone a little too far saying it's not an RPG, but the combination isn't balanced. It's more of a shooter than an RPG. I just don't want them to reduce the little RPG elements they have now even further in the third game. Hopefully Christina Norman can live up to her "Where did my inventory go" prezi in regards to "richer rpg features"

-Polite

Excellent summary.  ME2 is nothing but disappointment, only an optimist could love it.  (or the devs/mother)

For the min/maxers ME2 is an abomination of gimped features and squandered immersion.  Bioware knows it, as evidenced by their statements about ME3.

All ME2 did was prove that you can't trust the masses or reviewers.  (as if I needed that proof after Oblivion)

[Schneidend]

"I didn't like ME2, so everybody who does is stupid, misguided, and lying to themselves."

[sympathy4saren]

Why get upset at the "minority"?



haberman13...yeah Oblivion was overrated for me, too. First-person, a dreamy third person and stiff movement equals I don't like.



They had oodles of elements I liked though. Lots of things to collect...a deep inventory system. Like DAO.



For ME3 inventory, I'm looking for something in the middle between ME1 and DAO.

[haberman13]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Why get upset at the "minority"?

haberman13...yeah Oblivion was overrated for me, too. First-person, a dreamy third person and stiff movement equals I don't like.

They had oodles of elements I liked though. Lots of things to collect...a deep inventory system. Like DAO.

For ME3 inventory, I'm looking for something in the middle between ME1 and DAO.

Same here.  In fact ME1 was RPG-lite as it was, I'm fine with them just reintroducing the ME1 philosophy combined with the better gun-feel and cutscenes of ME2.

Oblivion as a standalone game is OK, but compared to a hardcore Morrowind PC gamer decked with mods it was definitely a step down on the "required IQ" meter. 

Oblivion with FCOM is pretty much fixed.

[Praetor Knight]

haberman13 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...
On a side note, what happened Polite? You weren't a Bioware Fanboy but you at least used to give them a fair shot, instead of bunkering down and throwing what is largely considered to be one of their best works back in their faces. You used to seem to like ME2 and now it "sucks"? Now it's not even an RPG? It's a shift I really didn't see coming.

Playing ME1 again... really changed my expectations for ME2... Don't get me wrong, I love the combat improvements of ME2. But why did it have to come at the cost of customization, dialogue, and exploration? That's my issue. If they'd have kept those three elements in ME2 along with the ME2 combat Mass Effect would have been flawless. I'm not exactly shoving the game back up bioware's rear, but playing ME1 again made me realize what we've lost in ME2. I may have gone a little too far saying it's not an RPG, but the combination isn't balanced. It's more of a shooter than an RPG. I just don't want them to reduce the little RPG elements they have now even further in the third game. Hopefully Christina Norman can live up to her "Where did my inventory go" prezi in regards to "richer rpg features"

-Polite

Excellent summary.  ME2 is nothing but disappointment, only an optimist could love it.  (or the devs/mother)

For the min/maxers ME2 is an abomination of gimped features and squandered immersion.  Bioware knows it, as evidenced by their statements about ME3.

All ME2 did was prove that you can't trust the masses or reviewers.  (as if I needed that proof after Oblivion)

I agree to disagree, and wonder what you mean about Oblivion.

[sympathy4saren]

Yeah right on...ME1 wasn't by any means perfect but it is more combat oriented...thought they would add, not subtract, in me2. ME2 had some nice additions...but where was everything else!!! Lol. It evaporated.

[haberman13]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...
On a side note, what happened Polite? You weren't a Bioware Fanboy but you at least used to give them a fair shot, instead of bunkering down and throwing what is largely considered to be one of their best works back in their faces. You used to seem to like ME2 and now it "sucks"? Now it's not even an RPG? It's a shift I really didn't see coming.

Playing ME1 again... really changed my expectations for ME2... Don't get me wrong, I love the combat improvements of ME2. But why did it have to come at the cost of customization, dialogue, and exploration? That's my issue. If they'd have kept those three elements in ME2 along with the ME2 combat Mass Effect would have been flawless. I'm not exactly shoving the game back up bioware's rear, but playing ME1 again made me realize what we've lost in ME2. I may have gone a little too far saying it's not an RPG, but the combination isn't balanced. It's more of a shooter than an RPG. I just don't want them to reduce the little RPG elements they have now even further in the third game. Hopefully Christina Norman can live up to her "Where did my inventory go" prezi in regards to "richer rpg features"

-Polite

Excellent summary.  ME2 is nothing but disappointment, only an optimist could love it.  (or the devs/mother)

For the min/maxers ME2 is an abomination of gimped features and squandered immersion.  Bioware knows it, as evidenced by their statements about ME3.

All ME2 did was prove that you can't trust the masses or reviewers.  (as if I needed that proof after Oblivion)

I agree to disagree, and wonder what you mean about Oblivion.

Oblivion, in some circles, is considered the first "truly dumbed down game".

Why?

They combined armor slots, removed weapons, scaled the ENTIRE world to your level, generated the land via algorithm, dumbed down the story to accomodate voice acting.

It actually HURTS you to level in Oblivion, at lvl 29 you are less powerful than you were at 25 because the scaling makes "mountain lion lvl 29 x 2 more powerful".

You never actually get more powerful in Oblivion, the world scales to you.

They fixed it in Fallout 3.

Also, the Oblivion world, being "designed" by their landscape algorithm is incrediblly homogenized.

They added "fast travel"

The list goes on and on of removed features and awful design decisions.

But ... with FCOM and a host of other mods those complaints are resolved.  Doesn't change Oblivion from being a complete and utter failure for fans of the series (Arena/Dagger/Morrow) on release day.

Now ... if you are a console gamer, Oblivion is heralded as "the best", because honestly on console it is pretty good compared to other choices (CoD 1-5000)

Modifié par haberman13, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:04 .

[Praetor Knight]

haberman13 wrote...

^ see above post... *snip*

Ah, thank you, I happen to have experienced the game on 360, so I wasn't sure how it related to the discussion, but I think I do now.

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:06 .