124 réponses à ce sujet

[Destroy Raiden_]

I hope story wise it will be more like one, I'd also like the improv cover system back having crates and chest high walls where no crate/walls should be is annoying. I really liked MEs more movie style and art directed scripting and events rather then ME2s novel like style, scripting, and art direction.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 22 février 2011 - 02:08 .

[Icinix]

Initially there was a good amount of fire from numbers of fans about the lack of traditional RPG depth, so there was a statement about ME3 returning slightly more to that..

..however with the monster amount of awards, and the apparent good sales...I don't know...

..quite frankly. I don't care anymore. All I care is that it doesn't end up being;

'..one last mission to take back the Earth..'



..Because that to me would just take everything epic it has been building up too and flush it down a filthy toilet.

[kregano]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JoeClose wrote...

I didn't care, all I cared about was the actual ROLE-PLAYING.

That's all I care about, too, but with that awful dialogue system and no stat-driven aiming, ME2 doesn't really have any.

I've never understood why stats driven aiming is in any way roleplaying. It seems like a pointless feature that hampers the players combat abilities by essentially giving them guns that can't hit anything and wastes skill points that could be used for other skills. Besides, it makes no sense in the context of the Mass Effect universe because Shepard obviously knows how to use a gun, considering that he/she has gone through Alliance boot camp and should know how to use the guns already (and the powers too, but for the sake of gameplay I can let that slide).

[Gatt9]

kregano wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JoeClose wrote...

I didn't care, all I cared about was the actual ROLE-PLAYING.

That's all I care about, too, but with that awful dialogue system and no stat-driven aiming, ME2 doesn't really have any.

I've never understood why stats driven aiming is in any way roleplaying. It seems like a pointless feature that hampers the players combat abilities by essentially giving them guns that can't hit anything and wastes skill points that could be used for other skills. Besides, it makes no sense in the context of the Mass Effect universe because Shepard obviously knows how to use a gun, considering that he/she has gone through Alliance boot camp and should know how to use the guns already (and the powers too, but for the sake of gameplay I can let that slide).

It's because in a Roleplaying game you're taking on the Role of your character,  his skills are what matters,  yours do not.  That's what differentiates a RPG from and Adventure game or a Shooter.  It's also why ME2 is not an RPG.
The whole point of an RPG is taking on some other Role which is completely seperate from you. 

People make alot of assumptions on what the military is like.  Going through bootcamp doesn't mean you're a sharp-shooter.  Most people can't shoot for crap even after bootcamp,  the majority of the military will never be in combat.

This is why M16's have adjustable sights,  because they adjust it for how consistently bad you are,  to make you a little more accurate. 

Even special ops doesn't mean you're a sharp shooter.  Medical, Engineering,  Computers,  Demolition,  are all Special Ops jobs that don't revolve around shooting.

Being able to use a gun,  and being able to shoot accurately are two very different things,  and boot camp does not mean you can do the latter,  only the former.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Epic777 wrote...

Having a TPS/FPS combat system with stat driven elements can lead to some quirky results.

So can not having stat-driven aiming.  If the guy playing ME2 is a spaz, suddenly Shepard can't hit anything.  How does that make any sense?  He's an elite marine - he should be really good at shooting things.

That ME's system was poorly done is not evidence that stat-driven aiming is a bad idea.  It's obviously a good idea, as it removes the player skill variable from Shepard's physical performance.

kregano wrote...

I've never understood why stats driven aiming is in any way roleplaying.

I've just explained that above.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 février 2011 - 03:30 .

[Renegade133]

depending on sheps background story it kinda proves that he/she can use a gun effectively enough

[Sylvius the Mad]

Renegade133 wrote...

depending on sheps background story it kinda proves that he/she can use a gun effectively enough

And then the game breaks when the player is a lousy shot, because Shepard will be lousy as well.

That's why stat-driven aiming is important.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gatt9 wrote...
People make alot of assumptions on what the military is like.  Going through bootcamp doesn't mean you're a sharp-shooter.  Most people can't shoot for crap even after bootcamp,  the majority of the military will never be in combat.

Oh wow, are you telling me that SAS operatives, Navy SEALS, Delta Force, and Force Recon people spend HUNDREDS OF HOURS in the firing range for the LOLZ?

Even special ops doesn't mean you're a sharp shooter.  Medical, Engineering,  Computers,  Demolition,  are all Special Ops jobs that don't revolve around shooting.

Uh, Spec-Ops are expected to be as accurate as a sniper because Spec-Ops don't have the luxury of carrying 30 magazines and heavy armor, not to mention there's no "Restart from last checkpoint" if defusing a hostage situation goes bad because one of the soldiers missed a much-needed first shot just because "he didn't shoot properly."

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 22 février 2011 - 03:47 .

[TuringPoint]

There will be people who hate ME3 more than ME2, or just will have so much nostalgia about ME1 as-is that they won't care what changes are made. I also think ME3 will be a better game than either of the previous entries in the series, and a majority will recognize that.

[DxWill10]

X-Frame wrote...

 Considering ME2 was better than ME1 in every single way (except for the story), I hope it's ME2 again but now they add in back more RPG elements such as more powers, passives, etc.

[DxWill10]

It's because in a Roleplaying game you're taking on the Role of your character,  his skills are what matters,  yours do not.  That's what differentiates a RPG from and Adventure game or a Shooter.  It's also why ME2 is not an RPG.
The whole point of an RPG is taking on some other Role which is completely seperate from you. 

People make alot of assumptions on what the military is like.  Going through bootcamp doesn't mean you're a sharp-shooter.  Most people can't shoot for crap even after bootcamp,  the majority of the military will never be in combat.

This is why M16's have adjustable sights,  because they adjust it for how consistently bad you are,  to make you a little more accurate. 

Even special ops doesn't mean you're a sharp shooter.  Medical, Engineering,  Computers,  Demolition,  are all Special Ops jobs that don't revolve around shooting.

Being able to use a gun,  and being able to shoot accurately are two very different things,  and boot camp does not mean you can do the latter,  only the former.

It is common knowledge that shepard has earned the N7 rank before our godly hands ever take him over.  This is proof that shepard is indeed a sharp shooter.  To say otherwise is ridiculous (and blaspehmous)

[Lumikki]

In ME2 there is six classes. Two of them are also sharp shooters with sniper riffle. So, if anyone here assume that class what is design for sharp shooting, are unable to do what they are trained to do, then say so?

Sharp Shooter

A marksman is a person who is skilled in precision shooting, using projectile weapons, such as with a rifle but most commonly with a sniper rifle, to shoot at small long-range targets.

Special Forces

Special forces is a generic term for elite highly-trained military, police or civilian paramilitary tactical teams that conduct specialized operations such as special reconnaissance (SR), surveillance, sniping, guerilla warfare, unconventional warfare (UW), foreign internal defense (FID), direct ...

Who's the idiot here thinking that Shepard isn't highly-trained military sharp shooter?

Shepard was born on April 11, 2154, is a graduate of the N7 special forces program (service no. 5923-AC-2826), and is initially assigned to the SSV Normandy as Executive Officer.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 février 2011 - 03:57 .

[Bluko]

Pretty sure ME3 will have even less in common with ME1. Maybe we'll see some kind of inventory or more customization. Perhaps upgrades will be handled differently along with planet scanning.

Otherwise I expect ME3 will be almost exactly like ME2 in terms of gameplay. There'll probably be a few new fancy powers for specific characters, probably some more weapons and armor as well. But honestly it's going to be the same. The cover system will likely remain as is, you probably still won't be able to crouch even.

From what we've heard from developer interviews it really doesn't sound like they're changing much, other then what people complained about intially at launch. I mean that's alright as ME2 was a good game in it's own right and  if ain't broke don't  fix. Still it's generally nice to see the developers make some new innovations or improvements otherwise it begins to feel they're just doing it to make easy money. Problem is a lot of good game series have been driven into this ground way. But ME3 is the last title in the series so this shouldn't be a problem.

I would like to see them do more of throwback to the ME1 way of things, but I know despite others and my own pleas they probably won't since ME2 won all sorts of GOTY, along with have pretty good reviews.

Don't get me wrong I think ME2 is a great game, but at the same time there was plenty of stuff in ME2 I wasn't exactly pleased with. It just irks me that so many people, even the Developers themselves, seem to disregard ME1. Really ME1 was a pretty good game, it's just that it's many technical flaws ruined the game for a lot of people. Honestly if texture pop-in and the frame-rate issues weren't so prevalent in ME1 I'd gladly take it over ME2 anyday.

Anyways others' and my own criticisms of ME2 seems to have fallen on deaf ears. So I'm expecting that ME3 will essentially be ME2 again. Well if anything I'm hoping it will have a better main plot. If not ME3 will likely end up be the biggest gaming disappointment for me ever. It'd also be the end of Bioware for me since frankly KOTOR and Dragon Age aren't all that great in my books. I just feel like Bioware has been waning since Baldur's Gate, and more so them now with them being shackled up with EA. Mass Effect did a lot to reassure me Bioware could still make truly great RPGs. However with ME2 I get the feeling they're trying more to branch out into the shooter genre, mostly so they can make easy big bucks with the likes of GoW, Halo, CoD, etc. I don't want to see Bioware go that route where they start releasing the same shooter game every year simply so that they can profit. That's not quality game development in my eyes, even if millions of people still buy the games. Frankly that's what I'm worried the Mass Effect series will end up as someday given current trends.

[Ghost Warrior]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Personally, I'd like it to take the best of both games (ME1's "bigness" and plot-centered storyline with ME2's emotional impact and whupass combat). However, if ME3 handles more like ME2 than ME1, I won't be too upset about it, since I enjoyed ME2 a helluva lot.

So long as ME3 isn't just ME2 (OR ME1 for that matter) all over again, it's cool.

Agreed

[Sandbox47]

ME3 will be a lot like that other game, what is it called... oh yeah, ME3. You know, because they're all like snowflakes.

[Gatt9]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
People make alot of assumptions on what the military is like.  Going through bootcamp doesn't mean you're a sharp-shooter.  Most people can't shoot for crap even after bootcamp,  the majority of the military will never be in combat.

Oh wow, are you telling me that SAS operatives, Navy SEALS, Delta Force, and Force Recon people spend HUNDREDS OF HOURS in the firing range for the LOLZ?

Even special ops doesn't mean you're a sharp shooter.  Medical, Engineering,  Computers,  Demolition,  are all Special Ops jobs that don't revolve around shooting.

Uh, Spec-Ops are expected to be as accurate as a sniper because Spec-Ops don't have the luxury of carrying 30 magazines and heavy armor, not to mention there's no "Restart from last checkpoint" if defusing a hostage situation goes bad because one of the soldiers missed a much-needed first shot just because "he didn't shoot properly."

Seriously man,  learn what you're talking about before you post.  This is the last time I'm trying to explain it to you,  from here out I'm just copy & pasting this until you get it.

Not all Spec Ops are in it to shoot.  Not all of their jobs are to kill.  You seem to think that every single one of them is James Bond,  they aren't,  I'm sorry,  the movies lied to you.  Alot.  In fact,  most of the jobs you send Spec Ops in on are the ones you don't want people shooting guns during,  because if you wanted people shooting guns you'd send in the hundred thousand people in the army instead of 6 guys.  Your target isn't to shoot people,  it's either to aquire something or destroy something with the very least amount of fanfare possible,  which means you don't shoot guns. 

You may also want to go take a moment and learn that silencers don't work the way you think either,  they don't really do much.  Because I already know your Hollywood soaked mind just pulled up a vision of Tom Cruise running around with a silenced gun.

It's also suddenly pretty apparent you have no idea how accurate a Sniper is supposed to be.  I will guarantee you that almost no one in Special Ops is as accurate as a Sniper.  These guys are very,  very,  very rare. 

Now might also be a really good time for you to figure out that Special Ops doesn't handle hostage situations.  That would be the SWAT team.  Special Ops is who you call in when you need to demolish a high value target,  hold the lasers on the target while the bomber demolishes it,  infiltrate a target and obtain information.  You do not send them out with the combat troops to lead it like Rambo,  I'm sorry,  that's not their purpose.

I understand you absolutely refuse to make any effort to learn anything,  you made that abundantly clear in the other thread that you feel you shouldn't have to learn things.  But I hate to have to tell you,  this is the real world,  either learn what you're talking about,  or no one's going to listen to you.  The regurgitating of Hollywood illusions is getting really old.

[spacehamsterZH]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Renegade133 wrote...

depending on sheps background story it kinda proves that he/she can use a gun effectively enough

And then the game breaks when the player is a lousy shot, because Shepard will be lousy as well.

Yeah, because ME2 combat is rilly rilly hard. Larf.

Also, you do realize that this is roughly the 2453046834507234536th iteration of the "my definiton of RPGs can beat up your definition of RPGs" debate, right? Just checkin'.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gatt9 wrote...

Not all Spec Ops are in it to shoot.  Not all of their jobs are to kill.  You seem to think that every single one of them is James Bond,  they aren't,  I'm sorry,  the movies lied to you.  Alot.  In fact,  most of the jobs you send Spec Ops in on are the ones you don't want people shooting guns during,  because if you wanted people shooting guns you'd send in the hundred thousand people in the army instead of 6 guys.  Your target isn't to shoot people,  it's either to aquire something or destroy something with the very least amount of fanfare possible,  which means you don't shoot guns.

Do you have poor reading comprehension skills? Spec-Ops has a very *HARDCORE* training regimen, and they spend as much time on the firing range as the other skills you're talking about, and BTW, Conventional Armies are not ideal for regular anti-terrorism operations like hostage situations.

It's also suddenly pretty apparent you have no idea how accurate a Sniper is supposed to be.  I will guarantee you that almost no one in Special Ops is as accurate as a Sniper.  These guys are very,  very,  very rare.

And you apparently have no idea how Special Operations people operate as well. They're expected to be the *BEST OF THE BEST*. The Navy SEALs only have a 10% graduation rate just because it's that damn hard, and the same goes for S.A.S. personnel.

Now might also be a really good time for you to figure out that
Special Ops doesn't handle hostage situations.  That would be the SWAT
team.  Special Ops is who you call in when you need to demolish a high
value target,  hold the lasers on the target while the bomber demolishes
it,  infiltrate a target and obtain information.  You do not send them
out with the combat troops to lead it like Rambo,  I'm sorry,  that's
not their purpose.

Words from Wikipedia's Navy SEAL article:

Navy SEALs are trained and have been deployed in a wide variety of missions, including direct action and special reconnaissance operations, unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, hostage rescue, counter-terrorism[/i], [i]and other missions.

See the bold? If not, I don't see the point in debating with you.

Is your brain covered by an idiot ball? There are situations Spec-Ops *ARE* deployed for hostage situations

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_Siege (S.A.S. deployed for Iran Embassy hostage situation)

abcnews.go.com/International/story (Navy SEALs responsible for rescue of a Captain from Somali Pirates)

http://en.wikipedia....jstands_Eenheid (Dutch Military Special Forces responsible for neutralizing two hostage situations in 1977 in the same operation.)

http://en.wikipedia....ansa_Flight_181 (German GS-9 joint operation with S.A.S. operatives in 1977 airplane hi-jacking.)

Learn to research, dumb-ass.

Documentaries covering Special Forces training

www.youtube.com/watch (S.A.S.: The True Story documentary)

www.youtube.com/watch (Navy SEAL MOUT training documentary)

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 07 mars 2011 - 12:03 .

[Pwener2313]

I prefer ME like it is now. It is it's own game now, taking almost nothing from any other RPG (inventory).

But is does seem a lot like GoW though. Ignore it, but the combat and Hammerhead levels are too similar....

EDIT: SPEC OPS only have a 10% pass rate? That's damn impressive. But Shepard isn't an OPS, he is (was) special forces (N), ranked at best (7). Or are they the same thing?


 

Modifié par Pwener2313, 23 février 2011 - 01:21 .

[Whatever42]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Renegade133 wrote...

depending on sheps background story it kinda proves that he/she can use a gun effectively enough

And then the game breaks when the player is a lousy shot, because Shepard will be lousy as well.

That's why stat-driven aiming is important.

Well, you have to be pretty awful not to be able to play ME2 well as a shooter. I suck at shooters. I have friends who suck at shooters who embarrass me. And I have zero problem with ME2 on insanity. ME2 is more about being careful with cover, manuevering, laying down cc, setting up attacks with squadmates, positioning squadmates, picking the right ammo powers, etc.

In traditional stats based RPGs, the game is about positioning your party, setting up their attacks, setting up your own spells and attacks, laying down cc, setting up heals, quaffing a potion at the right time, etc.

In both games, I've had my party/squad wiped out because I didn't pay enough attention to them. In both games, I've had to kite enemies. Other than having to put the crosshairs on the enemy, combat is pretty similar. I do agree that the powers in ME2 are simpler, allowing for less pausing and more dynamic combat. And in a traditional RPG, you have more tactical view of the battlefield but its not night and day difference.

Now, if you do have some sort of physical disability that prevents you from the very simple aiming in ME2 then I'm sorry, it must be frustrating.

[Pwener2313]

The real world IS about tactics. Shooting well only gets you so far. Look at famous cowboys. Aweasome shots, yet dead as a possum crossing the street.

[Lumikki]

I have to get Gatt9 one point how ever. Not everyone in special force are sharp shooters, even if they may need to be good at shooting too. Meaning while everyone gets "same" base training, they can also have they addional own speciality. How ever, everyone has to pass the requirements in Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). Meaning just because you have medic or shap shooter skills, doesn't mean you can even get in the Special Forces. The scores you need to get are very high.

Army Special Force requiements: Green Berets, SEAL

Point is that these special training, is more like advance training after the base stuff. But getting pass even the base stuff gonna be hard like hell.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 février 2011 - 06:22 .

[ubermensch007]

Okay, this may sound kind of strange... even though i have played through Mass Effect 2 nearly six complete times now: and Mass Effect, only twice.The first game is still my favorite of the two.It is in my opinion a Sci-fi Masterpiece!! From the pacing of the story to the action and supspense.It kept me on the edge of my seat. I`m not very fond of cinema and i almost hate to use such a cliched line but, 'It was like watching a movie!' I use this line on account of how well the 'editing department' did in the game.As well as the score and other aspects.The music that plays when the Normandy first docks at the Citadel, along with Ashley's and the others childlike wonder of it all, was just 'pitch-perfect'...



Now i will agree with most of what 'Thompson Family' said about ME2 story being so much more complex now, indeed; the Mass Effect Universe now has as many divergent paths as a 'traffic roundabout'... except i would not say that ME1 was a simple story of a good guy (Shepard) vs. a bad guy (Saren). They both were way more complex than that.I still find Mr. Arterius compelling.And his true motivations a mystery.



Did he over-reach himself? Yes.



Did he exceed his authority as a Spectre? Hell yes!



He was a complicated, intriguing individual...What i found so lacking in ME2 (besides true exploration) was an adversary on Saren's level. What Saren was doing and why he was doing it, was a mystery for most of ME1.In ME2 the player discovers who is abducting human colonist very early on.Even though you don't know what they are doing with them, you know it can't be anything good.The reveal during The Suicide Mission, was very shocking though.But even though Harbinger seems kind of interesting, you didn't get to engage him in conversation or conflict like you got to do with Saren Areterius...



They say that, "A hero is only as good as his or her villian." ME1 Delivered Magnificently in this department.ME2, not so much so.But Shepards task was extreme...

[Lunatic LK47]

Lumikki wrote...

I have to get Gatt9 one point how ever. Not everyone in special force are sharp shooters, even if they may need to be good at shooting too. Meaning while everyone gets "same" base training, they can also have they addional own speciality. How ever, everyone has to pass the requirements in Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). Meaning just because you have medic or shap shooter skills, doesn't mean you can even get in the Special Forces. The scores you need to get are very high.

Army Special Force requiements: Green Berets, SEAL

Point is that these special training, is more like advance training after the base stuff. But getting pass even the base stuff gonna be hard like hell.

Lumikki, first off, I agree with you. What I've been trying to tell Gatt is that the weapons skills are just as *EQUALLY* important as whatever they are specializing in. Considering how SEALs are *CONSTANTLY* training for potential deployment in hostage-rescue situations, they need to be just as sharp in shooting while specializing with their other skills and staying in shape. The combat training happens right during and after passing their respective tests.