160 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Lumikki wrote...

I'm not gonna argue with you because I know it will not lead anywhere. Yes, ME2 did fix a few stuff, like example weapon combat. Just because you don't like direction, doesn't mean it's not fixed.

Just because you didn't like the ME1 combat, it didn't mean it was broken.

Well, it was, actually, but ME2 combat is broken even more. Namelly, it's overly "cover-based" and repetitive in general. Boring and tedious. But there again, there ARE people who like such things, even in the form of planet scanning.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 01:40 .

[Pwener2313]

Haters gonna hate, lol. But really, just because ME2 did not appeal to a certain audience does not mean it was bad. I did not like the scanning mini game, but didn't hate it. I loved the Hammerhead (armor aside, I switched to easy when using it). Combat is better then Gears of War's and not having an inventory did not streamlined it, it simplified it, two different things. ME2 was great, and ME3 will combine what was great about ME1 and ME2 to create the best shooter/RPG the world has ever seen.

[Abstract]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I'm not gonna argue with you because I know it will not lead anywhere. Yes, ME2 did fix a few stuff, like example weapon combat. Just because you don't like direction, doesn't mean it's not fixed.

Just because you didn't like the ME1 combat, it didn't mean it was broken.

Well, it was, actually, but ME2 combat is broken even more. Namelly, it's overly "cover-based" and repetitive in general. Boring and tedious. But there again, there ARE people who like such things, even in the form of planet scanning.

Cover based doesn't mean broken...<_

Modifié par Abstract, 08 mars 2011 - 01:47 .

[Abstract]

Woops double post sorry.

Modifié par Abstract, 08 mars 2011 - 01:43 .

[Pwener2313]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Well, it was, actually, but ME2 combat is broken even more. Namelly, it's overly "cover-based" and repetitive in general. Boring and tedious. But there again, there ARE people who like such things, even in the form of planet scanning.

ME2's combat is the best I've ever seen. You really preffered shooting an enemy for 30 sec. to kill it and run around with barrier/adrenaline rush in god mode? That's not combat, it's called breaking the game.

Zulu, a week ago you were one of the few that really reached out and convinced people. the last couple of days however, you have been a borderline troll. Go back to the old days when you didn't pull one liners to quote people and made your point even more invalid then before you got involved.
 
I miss the old Zulu.

[N7Infernox]

Ignore Zulu: he thinks his vision for Mass Effect is law.
As far as numbers are concerned, ME2's sale, awards, and overall fan approval speaks for itself. Bioware should just keep pushing what works for them.

Modifié par N7Infernox, 08 mars 2011 - 01:45 .

[Pwener2313]

I guess so, sorry Zulu (never too late to refrain from trollism though).

[Terror_K]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Terror, I think your conclusion is mistaken. I've seen other interviews where BW said that ME1 was not as good a shooter as they'd wanted it to be simply because as devs they didn't have much experience at making good shooters. They really worked on that in 2 thus creating a game closer to their original vision in that respect than 1 achieved.

Improving the shooter gameplay doesn't automatically mean dumbing down the RPG stuff to the degree they did though. I actually approved of them taking away stat-based aiming in the end, despite initial scepticism. But that doesn't explain more than halving the skills, eliminating non-combat ones, eliminating item modding and customisation, creating a linear, God-modding research/upgrade system and weapons systems, getting rid of hacking and decryption, getting rid of armour classes, removing all context from XP to make it arbritrary and meaningless, etc. the list goes on. If they had just improved basic combat then fine, but they didn't.

Essentially Christina and the other devs seem to be of the same mentality that education departments often are when they go, "too many children in our schools are failing, so let's lower the bar and make things simpler so that more pass and our country's education system looks good, rather than actually either encouraging them to learn or accepting that not everybody is capable, etc."

If there are people in an advanced physics course who don't get it and start complaining that it's too hard and complex, do they dumb the course down so that everybody can get into it and pass and be happy? Where would science progress if we did that. Similarly if too many gamers brought up on TPS and FPS games and very little else start getting confused, why the hell does it need to be dumbed down so that everybody can enjoy it? Is the reasoning because it's better for the genre and that it's progress, or is the reason simply trying to get as big an audience as possible for the sake of $$$?

If an RPG is too complex for you --even an RPG-Lite affair like ME1 was-- then that's just hard cheese as far as I'm concerned. Because the very factors that have to be removed, simplified and automated for those who "don't get it" to be brought aboard are quite often the very same factors that attract RPG fans to the genre in the first place.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

Improving the shooter gameplay doesn't automatically mean dumbing down the RPG stuff to the degree they did though. I actually approved of them taking away stat-based aiming in the end, despite initial scepticism. But that doesn't explain more than halving the skills, eliminating non-combat ones, eliminating item modding and customisation, creating a linear, God-modding research/upgrade system and weapons systems, getting rid of hacking and decryption, getting rid of armour classes, removing all context from XP to make it arbritrary and meaningless, etc. the list goes on. If they had just improved basic combat then fine, but they didn't.

Already posted why I hated the armor classes in your "My idea for a perfect ME3" topic months ago.

Essentially Christina and the other devs seem to be of the same mentality that education departments often are when they go, "too many children in our schools are failing, so let's lower the bar and make things simpler so that more pass and our country's education system looks good, rather than actually either encouraging them to learn or accepting that not everybody is capable, etc."

Uh, there's something called ****ty teachers. I got screwed over in middle and high school because of it. If no one is able to understand the curriculum and requires an outside-of-school tutor just to pass the course that the students are stuck in with NO OTHER OPTIONS, something is seriously wrong with the system. I've been on that boat with the mathematics department involving algebra and above and avoided science and math-related careers because of it.

If there are people in an advanced physics course who don't get it and start complaining that it's too hard and complex, do they dumb the course down so that everybody can get into it and pass and be happy?

Except not everyone has a luxury of a choice. There's something called "You're forced to take the class for the sake of taking them." If no one is going to pass the class, it's not going to blame solely on laziness. 

If an RPG is too complex for you --even an RPG-Lite affair like ME1 was-- then that's just hard cheese as far as I'm concerned. Because the very factors that have to be removed, simplified and automated for those who "don't get it" to be brought aboard are quite often the very same factors that attract RPG fans to the genre in the first place.

Uh, ME1 had the crappiest interface known to mankind, and the stat-based aiming was outright non-sensical for a Special Forces Marine (something which you acknowledged, and conveniently kept forgetting.) KOTOR 1's inventory was miles better above ME1, and that's for a game 4 years older than ME1.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 08 mars 2011 - 02:26 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

Look if you can't make the simple connection between "I want to be better at shooting my gun" to "Then i better put more skill points in using guns" then you're simply just to dumb to play.

Perhaps Bioware could have allocated some skill points at the beginning of the game to represent your class and experience in the alliance navy, But overall i refuse to believe that a normal sensible gamer couldn't figure out how the game works.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 08 mars 2011 - 02:31 .

[Pwener2313]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Look if you can't make the simple connection between "I want to be better at shooting my gun" to "Then i better put more skillpoints in using guns" then you're simply just to dumb to play.

Perhaps Bioware could have allocated some skill points at the beginning of the game to represent your class and experience in the alliance navy, But overall i refuse to belive that a normal sesible gamer could't figure out how the game works.

A cornered animal (forumite) results to weak excuses.

[AdmiralCheez]

Overly cover-based, you say?

Sorry, but that vid was too cool not to share. Anyway, if we're going to b*tch about repetitive combat, Zulu my dear, I'll have you know that I just stopped playing ME1--on Virmire, my favorite level--because I got tired of the hokey peashooting monotony and longed for the bang-bang-pow of ME2.

And, Terror_K, for the last time, ME2 was not "dumbed down." Limited weapon choices with no clear stats and not enough squad points to max everything out meant you actually had to think about what you did with your loadout. It takes more brains to beat ME2--this, I can testify to myself--even if the lack of squad armor is majorly derptastic.

ME2 is far from perfect, and there are things from ME1 that I most certainly wish hadn't been cut, but you need to stop acting like less numbers = dumber game.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 08 mars 2011 - 02:33 .

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Overly cover-based, you say?

Shooter, you say?

But you've got a point, and I have to admit, I forgot: ME2 is an overly cover-based shooter with Super Mario elements.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 02:40 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Shooter, you say?

It'd be a crime if it weren't.  What good's a gun if you can't shoot it?

But you've got a point, and I have to admit, I forgot: ME2 is an overly cover-based shooter with Super Mario elements.

What the f*ck are you even talking about?  Pwener's right--you're a lost cause.

Pity.  Fiery Phoenix enjoys it when you and I go at it.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 08 mars 2011 - 02:43 .

[Pwener2313]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Overly cover-based, you say?

Shooter, you say?

Zulu has definitly lost he's flair. This post is no different of that of a common spammer.

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

Improving the shooter gameplay doesn't automatically mean dumbing down the RPG stuff to the degree they did though. I actually approved of them taking away stat-based aiming in the end, despite initial scepticism. But that doesn't explain more than halving the skills, eliminating non-combat ones, eliminating item modding and customisation, creating a linear, God-modding research/upgrade system and weapons systems, getting rid of hacking and decryption, getting rid of armour classes, removing all context from XP to make it arbritrary and meaningless, etc. the list goes on. If they had just improved basic combat then fine, but they didn't.

Yeah but the non-combat skills didn't actually do anything. It allowed you to try and play a quick twitch game of simon. That and what FO3/NV also use the same appraoch. I'd rather have the DAO system where my player character skills are all that matters - not how well I the player can maneuver a bobby pin around a lock. I'd rather have all or nothing the hybrid system just sucks because even thought I (the PC) should be able to do soemthing all too often I the player can't.

Modding and anything that stinks of inventory is better off sent back to the Sygian Depths from whence it came.

You bleat on about XP but for the love of god, it is always arbitrary and ME is less so because if you do X you get Y points. In DAO, by contrast, you do X and get Y-Z points where Z is the number of pointless trash mobs enemies you didn't waste time hunting down in some genocidal frenzy and the XP for those guys is basically 100% arbitary.

[Gatt9]

Why is this woman working for Bioware?  Seriously.  All I took away from that was...

"A bunch of people who hate RPGs played our RPG and didn't like it,  so we decided to make it into a Shooter so that people who hate RPGs will buy our game!"

At least she admits they had no intention to make an RPG.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Uh, there's something called ****ty teachers. I got screwed over in middle and high school because of it. If no one is able to understand the curriculum and requires an outside-of-school tutor just to pass the course that the students are stuck in with NO OTHER OPTIONS, something is seriously wrong with the system. I've been on that boat with the mathematics department involving algebra and above and avoided science and math-related careers because of it.

That explains quite a bit.

Except not everyone has a luxury of a choice. There's something called "You're forced to take the class for the sake of taking them." If no one is going to pass the class, it's not going to blame solely on laziness.

This explains quite a bit more.  No class existss "For the sake of making you take it".  There's a reason for every class.  

It's quite possible to blame the whole class.  If it's filled with people like you,  who refuse to understand the purpose of the class,  then it's not the teachers fault you're all slacking.  

Notice,  this is a common theme with you.  "I refuse to understand X because I don't want to!",  whether X is a class or X is the entire design behind RPGs. 

Uh, ME1 had the crappiest interface known to mankind, and the stat-based aiming was outright non-sensical for a Special Forces Marine (something which you acknowledged, and conveniently kept forgetting.) KOTOR 1's inventory was miles better above ME1, and that's for a game 4 years older than ME1.

Go download and install Magic the Gathering Online.  That is the crappiest interface known to mankind.

Please don't make me have to tell you for the 11th time that Special Forces != Sniper.  Please don't make me explain yet again that there are many people in Special Forces for technical skills.  Please please please don't make me explain to you yet again that Hollywood is not reality.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gatt9 wrote...


This explains quite a bit more.  No class existss "For the sake of making you take it".  There's a reason for every class.

Uh, why do I have to take physics if I have no intention of going into the science industry? 

Please don't make me have to tell you for the 11th time that Special Forces != Sniper.  Please don't make me explain yet again that there are many people in Special Forces for technical skills.  Please please please don't make me explain to you yet again that Hollywood is not reality.

Let me post here, since you apparently have a reading comprehension of a gnat just because you have your head so far up your ass:

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 that actually created the standard.

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)

www.medalofhonor.com/blog/2010/06/tier-1-interview-series (Interview with Special Forces operatives consulting for Medal of Honor

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 08 mars 2011 - 03:08 .

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Why is this woman working for Bioware?  Seriously.  All I took away from that was...

"A bunch of people who hate RPGs played our RPG and didn't like it,  so we decided to make it into a Shooter so that people who hate RPGs will buy our game!"

At least she admits they had no intention to make an RPG.

If the game was never intended to be a shooter, then don't include tps style gameplay in the first place. Instead, make it turn-based like all those other examples of RPGs that people tend to throw around. Mass Effect chose to include shooter gameplay, which many found lacking. Hence, Mass Effect failed in its task of creating a hybrid. As it stands, Mass Effect 2 brought alot more to the table in terms of shooter gameplay, while removing a terrible inventory system and certain less-than-useful skill trees. I'd say the trade off was well-worth it.

[Il Divo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Uh, why do I have to take physics if I have no intention of going into the science industry? 

For at least a rudimentary understanding of how scientific modes of inquiry work.

I agree with you that teachers often fail in making their students understand the purpose of a class. When I took Geometry in Freshman year of high school, it felt incredibly useless. The course was easy enough, yet no one seemed willing to explain what purpose geometry served  in the grand scheme of things.

But on the whole, most courses do have a purpose. The purpose of required courses is usually either:

1) To provide basic skillsets for use later in life. Algebra, for example, is something you need to take early if you want to be equipped to take higher level science and math courses. Hell, it can be useful even if you never take another math course on its own.

2) To expose students to a diverse range of topics and different methods of thinking. Even if you never take another course like Physics, you at least have a small taste of what it's like to take such a course and the types of techniques employed by a physicist. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is never a burden.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 mars 2011 - 03:10 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I'm not gonna argue with you because I know it will not lead anywhere. Yes, ME2 did fix a few stuff, like example weapon combat. Just because you don't like direction, doesn't mean it's not fixed.

Just because you didn't like the ME1 combat, it didn't mean it was broken.

Well, it was, actually, but ME2 combat is broken even more. Namelly, it's overly "cover-based" and repetitive in general. Boring and tedious. But there again, there ARE people who like such things, even in the form of planet scanning.

Now, that's your uh, nice opinion. I don't think ME1's combat was BROKEN too, but it sure I think for sure is an improvement over ME1. They fixed a lot ME's combat in the second one. This is a fact. The AI was MAJORLY improved, both enemy and friendly. It's much more balanced in general, although the learning curve of the Vanguard at higher difficulties can be cruel. The cover although not perfect was improved, easier to move through. The dumb, stupid crouch function was removed. Every class was given an exclusive combat skill. Major differences when fighting different enemies, as their protection (armor, shields, barriers), behavior, weapons. Ammo made a major difference in the flow of combat contrary to ME1, etc.
I never get bored of ME2's combat. I'm in my 4th play and the combat shines everyplaythrough with class change. There are lots of different enemies even though some of ME1 are missed like snipers and geth hoper. I'm planning another one when ME3 gets close. The problems with ME2's combat are still the biotics (also a problem in ME1 as they were overpowered), the lack of more cover to cover movement, lack of more open areas although we did see those sometimes and on Overlord and LotSB and a little more balance.
But please elaborate more on why ME2's combat is BROKEN.

Edit: lol why did I even take the time to write it. No more relevance to discuss with Zulu again after the response to Admiral Cheez.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 08 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[Pwener2313]

Ignore Zulu. He joined Inception in the dark side. Damn bastard sold us out and became a troll.

[JKoopman]

So is it official now that BioWare considers ME2 to be "not broken" and have no intenion of changing the combat system they settled on? If so, that makes me very depressed for ME3.

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Why is this woman working for Bioware?  Seriously.  All I took away from that was...

"A bunch of people who hate RPGs played our RPG and didn't like it,  so we decided to make it into a Shooter so that people who hate RPGs will buy our game!"

At least she admits they had no intention to make an RPG.

If the game was never intended to be a shooter, then don't include tps style gameplay in the first place. Instead, make it turn-based like all those other examples of RPGs that people tend to throw around. Mass Effect chose to include shooter gameplay, which many found lacking. Hence, Mass Effect failed in its task of creating a hybrid. As it stands, Mass Effect 2 brought alot more to the table in terms of shooter gameplay, while removing a terrible inventory system and certain less-than-useful skill trees. I'd say the trade off was well-worth it.

The problem is, most shooter fans' idea of a "hybrid" is a game that's about 90% shooter and 10% RPG (because, ya know, those dastardly inventory and stat systems are just impossible to comprehend, so a dialog tree is enough to satisfy the "RPG" requirement, right?), whereas ME1 was around 60% RPG and 40% shooter. ME1, in my opinion, was far closer to being a "hybrid" than ME2 is; ME2 is, as the cliche goes, "Gears of War with interactive dialog" with virtually every RPG mainstay (like inventory, loot, stat development, party customization, experience, etc) either reduced to the point of nigh-invisibility or eliminated altogether.

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 mars 2011 - 04:08 .

[Lumikki]

Actually what shooter elements ME1 does have?

I would list only three, line of sight, cover possibility and half way done player aiming (meaning it was still half way character skill too, what is RPG based). I have seen these done even in RPG combat, example in mmorpg called Tabula Rasa.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 mars 2011 - 04:27 .

[Il Divo]

JKoopman wrote...

whereas ME1 was around 60% RPG and 40% shooter.

Ah, but you just hit a major issue in what constitutes that 60% RPG. A large part of that was occupied by a terrible inventory system. This is a major contention I have in this argument. People here do not seem angry about how good those RPG elements they dealt with were, only that they were 'there', even if the form itself was abysmal. Often, I notice that we label Mass Effect a 'fine RPG' because it has more numbers than Mass Effect 2 without even considering how that holds up against other, more statistical RPGs out there in either quality or quantity.

Yes, Mass Effect possessed more statistics than Mass Effect 2. Of that 60% RPG, I'd say a third to a half was spent fiddling with a mostly useless inventory screen that ultimately did not contribute much to the RPG experience, hence why I consider its removal a good thing. Instead, some focus on the fact that Bioware took away the inventory without actually considering how much it detracted from the whole experience.
 
For one thing, that 40% shooter gameplay to which you are referring was considered terrible for most tps fans. The goal is not to hit some perfect 50-50 percent medium, but to start with decent mechanics all-around. The shooter gameplay was completely revamped into something enjoyable, while the RPG mechanics themselves remained largely the same.  

Deus Ex is a great example of this; there is very little fiddling with actual numbers. Time spent in the skill screen is minimal. Yes, the game featured an inventory screen, but its inclusion did not detract from the overall experience as Mass Effect does. A game can place more emphasis on actual gameplay and less on statistics and still be labeled a successful RPG if Deus Ex is anything to go by.

ME1, in my opinion, was far closer to being a "hybrid" than ME2 is; ME2 is, as the cliche goes, "Gears of War with interactive dialog" with virtually every RPG mainstay (like inventory, loot, stat development, party customization, experience, etc) either reduced to the point of nigh-invisibility or eliminated altogether.

However, I would contend that Gears of War done right beats Gears of War done wrong any day of the week. Mass Effect plays like a clunky version of Gears of War, without retaining much statistical depth in comparison to games like Dragon Age, or Baldur's Gate. Even against Mass Effect 2, it's not that large a shift. If you take into account that 8 ranks in every skill tree consisted of marginal increases in your abilities, Mass Effect 2 simply concentrated your skill tree.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 mars 2011 - 04:37 .