87 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spamming Troll]

Commander Waha wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Commander Waha wrote...

Yes, I did suggest you kill yourself. It's an option, just reminding you. In case you forgot.

well, your a swell guy arent you!

I've been told as much.

in one ear and out the other id assume.

[Slayer299]

Only 60 minutes to take a thread from a discussion to where a few people are trying to prove they can talk smack with the best of the pre-teens...

[Commander Waha]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Commander Waha wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Commander Waha wrote...

Yes, I did suggest you kill yourself. It's an option, just reminding you. In case you forgot.

well, your a swell guy arent you!

I've been told as much.

in one ear and out the other id assume.

Much like your grammar lessons.

[Il Divo]

And all this has what to do with the RPG experience, exactly?

[Slayer299]

Absolutely nothing Il Divo, the little children are fighting right now and have forgotten the rules of civility their parents taught them.

[The Spamming Troll]

its not easy conversing with someone whod rather see you kill yourself because you disagree with the way a video game plays. does no one else think seeing something written like that is completely messed up?

i mean really, who do you think you are commander waha?

[jbg927]

I agree the whole kill yourself is childish and takes away from whatever credibility he was trying to establish about me2's depth. However, you should ignore rather than engage him.

If me2 would allow you to equip your squad with actual armor and had more customizable options for shep's armor and weapons then it would have been perfect. Bring this into me3 and it will be awesome!

[Bluko]

Commander Waha wrote...

1: ME1 had twice-three times the amount of skills, but most of them were gun skills/healing skills. 
    Since ME1 had regenerating health/shields much as ME2 does, the healing skills are directed at people who are terrible at ME1 (I'll touch on this later, but seriously consider not passing on your genes if you had trouble beating ME1) Gun skills are innaccurate. I'm not asking for all things to be true to life, but guns should not do more damage, or be more accurate because I use them more often. One could argue that YOU the player are becoming more accurate, but then why doesn't AR aiming skill carry over to shotgun aiming skill? God knows they are similar enough. Gun skills are just empty places to put points. Placeholders saying that "if you play longer you do more damage, don't ask questions". And I'm okay with that, but ME2 did it better. ME2 had health/damage skills in one tier, which I found was smoother overall. It's easier, but not in a bad way. 

You mean the First Aid skill? Yeah it's pretty useless, but there are times when you want use Medi-Gel in ME1. And at higher levels you do need to invest in it so you can heal a chunk of your health. Also I believe only Soldier can regenerate health. If you were any other class you pretty much had to equip Health Regeneration into your suit.

Really I don't have a problem with everyone having regenerating health, since you'd be stupid not to use health regeneration items in ME1. Also I really have no qualms with the skill system in ME2. It's a lot more straightforward, which is good in my book. First time I played ME1I had no clue what skills to invest in and had to learn the trial and error way. It's not that ME1 had an overly complicated skill system, it's just the game did a terrible job explaining the importance of such things. ME1's tutorial just was not very good as a tutorial.

Commander Waha wrote...

2: You could put more points into each skill in ME1, but each point meant less. 
     ME2 had half the levels of ME1, and half the skill points, but each level up actually meant something. In ME1 I'd often not level up for 5 or 6 levels, whereas in ME2 you almost always level up immediately every time. It's more fulfilling to level up in ME2. 

I agree leveling was pretty lackluster in ME1. In ME2 when you level up, it actually amounts to something.

Commander Waha wrote...

3: ME1 had a more in depth inventory system, but ME2 accomplished the same ends by using ammo powers. 
    Don't get me wrong, I wish ME2 had more weapons, and it would have been cool to switch armours out for squadmates without appearance packs, but I'm talking more about weapon addons. I certainly don't miss spending twenty minutes of flowbreaking inventory assessment trying to figure out what to equip my guns with. 
 In ME2 it's a much faster, on the fly decision. Synthetics? Disruptor ammo. Armored opponents? Incendiary rounds. Anything? Warp Ammo. It keeps the player in the game, which is what really counts. 

You have a point. Inventory management was kind of extreme in ME1 to the point of mind numbing. Although I don't think they needed to remove it utterly like they did. Really ME1's problem was you always had way to much stuff. If they made it so there were less upgrades and you only got a couple of items from every mission, instead of like 50 it would have been fine.

Again Ammo Powers don't really bother me, though I feel as a skill they are a bit silly and make the classes in ME2 unbalanced. Although it's funny how somethings don't change. Cyro Ammo is still usless, well, unless you're fighting exclusively Husks.

Commander Waha wrote...

4: ME1 had a much bigger RPG element, but you could beat the game on insanity without dying without putting a single point into anything. ME1 was pisseasy. RPG elements should make you feel truly more powerful over time. 2% extra damage versus synthetics on wednsdays after 6PM doesn't count as feeling more powerful. I would love to see a non-gibbed playthrough of ME2 without using development points on insanity. It isn't likely to happen. ME2 is a much harder game, and it requires it's RPG elements more than ME1 did. 

LOL have you actually played ME1 on Insanity? Cause I don't think you have. True you could probably beat it without ever leveling up, but still. ME1 as a whole is way more difficult. ME2 on Insanity really only has a few tough parts (mostly Collector missions) and the autosave feature makes dying not a big of a deal. Of course I played ME1 on the 360, which is more prone to lag and other issues I think.

Somehow I get the feeling if you have played ME1 on Insanity you either skipped a lot of stuff or just don't remember. Don't tell me the Geth Armature Ambush on Therum is a cakewalk on Insanity, or that Krogan are any easier to kill.


Anyways like I've said I have no gripe with ME2's skill system. It works and I understood it a lot better the first time I played. I actually hope ME3 is like ME2 in that regard.

My big issues with ME2's RPG elements are:

1) You only get XP for completing Missions
I don't care for this. How come I don't get experience for killing enemies or hacking? Players who go out of their way to do more stuff should get more XP. Also the lack of XP is I think one of the reasons why ME2's levels are so incredibly linear. You pretty much have to kill a set number of enemies unless you push ahead past certain spawn points.

2) Lack of inventory/armor
I don't understand why they needed to remove this. The Armory System isn't bad in ME2, but it only let's you chose weapons. I really would like to be able to modify weapons, amps, and omni-tools to a certain degree. Most people like customization just as long as isn't overly complex. If people didn't like weapon customization, then why is CoD so popular?

While Shepard has a good selection of armor, the fact that squadmates have none or no customization is just disappointing. I don't it expect it to be as in-depth as Shepard's armor customization. But being able to choose between 2-3 suits and or modify a few parts would have been nice.

Also I hate the fact that a large majority of squadmates wear little more then clothes. These characters are suppose to be combatants, not a bunch of people going to the 2185 Galactic modeling covention.

3) Linear upgrade system
I'm sorry but the upgrade system in ME2 is stupid and pointless. Pretty much everything works in a linear progession where you can only get "x" before "y". Really it's sole purpose seems to be to make you scan planets for teh elements! Yeah you can choose what things you upgrade first, but why not just tie that stuff in with the levels?

I really hope ME3 gives us a bit more room. For Example: Do I choose to make my Pistols more accurate or more damaging? And you can only choose one option, not both. This would give the game a lot more depth and help it compete with other TPS shooters that offer these sorts of things. Resident Evil and Dead Space come to mind, and both those games have done pretty well for it.


Really those are my only tue complaints in regards to the "RPG Experience".

Of course I'm not fan of Thermal Clips either, namely cause it breaks continuity. But it's been talked about to death here already and really isn't RPG specific. Plus I doubt Bioware is going to change it, cause apparently most gamers are apparently too stupid to play a shooter that doesn't use ammo. You may say there are other reasons, but that was pretty much Bioware's whole intent.

Modifié par Bluko, 08 mars 2011 - 05:30 .

[Slayer299]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

its not easy conversing with someone whod rather see you kill yourself because you disagree with the way a video game plays. does no one else think seeing something written like that is completely messed up?

i mean really, who do you think you are commander waha?

I"m not disagreeing with you, nor specifically calling you a child, if such meaning was taken.

[jbg927]

Well said bluko sums up my feelings about me2 rpg elements perfectly

[The Spamming Troll]

bluko,

its funny you brought up not knowing what each skill did. i looked at my first character(of 50) in ME1 and i didnt put a single point in singularity. SINGULARITY! what an idiot right!

i think the only reason i liked leveling up in ME1 was because i could see my eanred XP on screen after i killed an enemy or completed a mission. not to mention that little swirly sound the game makes when you levelup is friggin awesome. everytime i hear that im like YYEEESSSSSSS. im completely clueless if ive leveled up in ME2.

about the challenges of each game id say ME1 is more difficult. i remember when ME1 came out there were tons of people complaining on how hard it was to beat the game. from killing those 2 turian assasins at choras den in early game to killing the krogan on therum. im not saying ME2 is easy, i still have a sentinel stuck on the collector platforms, but ME1 was much more difficult to beat them ME2 is.

id also like to know why i have to invest in pull to unlock throw. whats the point in having prerequisites? i dont like investing 5 points in armor training to unlock pistols as a ME1 adept, and i dont like wasting 3 points in shockwave for my vanguard. it doesnt create anything other then everyone wastes the same amount of points.

[Slayer299]

Bluko wrote...
Anyways like I've said I have no gripe with ME2's skill system. It works and I understood it a lot better the first time I played. I actually hope ME3 is like ME2 in that regard.

Personally I found ME2's to feel too simplified (not dumbed down), it was just distilled down to 4 or 5 skills and each one had only two important rankings 1 and 4. 1 was where you have that skill/power and 4 was where you moved it to a very powerful and useful ranking. Inbetween I never saw a real difference on any of the skills themselves in game between ranking 1 - 3.

And some of the skills they should have kept like Charm/Intimidate were wiped out entirely. The weapons skills needed some tweaking and I wasn't heartbroken with it being gone, but with that said I do miss some of the bonuses you got such as Marksman for Pistols and Carnage for Shotguns and Assassination for SR's. I found all three to be highly useful (and fun) all over ME.

But with C/I being removed and the Para/Ren being revamped you no longer have the option to play your shepard somewhere inbetween 100% Para or Ren in ME2, because if you do you tend to miss out on Para/Ren dialogue options because your Para/Ren scores are not high enough. In my present playthrough with Faith Shepard, I'm at the Derelict Reaper mission and I have neither Para nor Ren high enough either will be maxed out by the SM's end and yet I know there are plenty of dialogues I'm missing precisely because of that.

1) You only get XP for completing Missions

2) Lack of inventory/armor

Agreed totally on those 2.

3) Linear upgrade system
I'm sorry but the upgrade system in ME2 is stupid and pointless. Pretty much everything works in a linear progession where you can only get "x" before "y". Really it's sole purpose seems to be to make you scan planets for teh elements! Yeah you can choose what things you upgrade first, but why not just tie that stuff in with the levels?

Actually to take that a step futher the upgrad system not only was pointless there was no purpose for it as it was implemented. All of the armor/weapons had "bonuses" to them, only you have no idea what they add to the base. So upgrade X improves AR weapons by 10%, well, 10% of what? You can't have an upgrade if you don't know what you're upgrading it from, whether that be armor/weapons or whatever else.

How about BW telling us why Shotgun B is better than Shotgun A other than a brief window that tells us its an upgrade. Because how exactly is it upgraded? Ammo, fire rate, wpn dmg? Don't make us go out of the game to find this info out, because I only found out what damage/firing rate/ a Locust does was when I downloaded  the ME2 checklist.

[Whatever42]

Slayer299 wrote...
How about BW telling us why Shotgun B is better than Shotgun A other than a brief window that tells us its an upgrade. Because how exactly is it upgraded? Ammo, fire rate, wpn dmg? Don't make us go out of the game to find this info out, because I only found out what damage/firing rate/ a Locust does was when I downloaded  the ME2 checklist.

From what I've seen CN tweet, I think you'll be pleased in ME3.  It's can be a little hard to do this, however.

For example, tempest does more damage than locust. However, locust is better than tempest because of its great accuracy. However, tempest is a better weapon for the squad because they don't miss. Even if they put numbers on the gun, someone is still going to test them and do the analysis and we'll still come to the forums to find out what they learned.

[Slayer299]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...
How about BW telling us why Shotgun B is better than Shotgun A other than a brief window that tells us its an upgrade. Because how exactly is it upgraded? Ammo, fire rate, wpn dmg? Don't make us go out of the game to find this info out, because I only found out what damage/firing rate/ a Locust does was when I downloaded  the ME2 checklist.

From what I've seen CN tweet, I think you'll be pleased in ME3.  It's can be a little hard to do this, however.

For example, tempest does more damage than locust. However, locust is better than tempest because of its great accuracy. However, tempest is a better weapon for the squad because they don't miss. Even if they put numbers on the gun, someone is still going to test them and do the analysis and we'll still come to the forums to find out what they learned.

Even if they don't put everything up in-game, *something* more needs to be done and if what CN has tweeted correct than I will be happy.

[jbg927]

What exactly did CN tweet?

[Bloggers99]

As far as only getting exp for completing missions is concerned: Streamlining and keeping the focus on the action. When I run an action heavy PnP campaign, I set an exp cap on missions and don't use the 'enemy compendiums' to value out xp. They get exp for completing that night's objectives. Floating xp counters are just a way to stroke your epeen and are completely unnecessary in a game where action is the main focus.

There is a pretty substantial inventory in ME2. I have over 16 pieces of armor which provide a tangible bonus, rather than 200 suits of armor that are the same damn thing with a different coat of paint. I'd rather have bonus' without a giant bar tracking just how big the bonus is on my hud. Min/maxing never enhances gameplay, it only enhances the ego of the person doing it.

Also, the weapons are actually different in ME2. Every sniper rifle I have feels unique, as opposed to ME1 where they just painted the gun for you and told you it's new. Eventually buying the DLC made the weapon selection even more unique, though the weapons in the base game were enough for me. Yeah, you have to take the weapons with you to find out just how different they are, though I could say the same of anyone 'finding' a magic/enhanced weapon in a PnP game I'm running. If you don't try it you shouldn't know how it works differently than other weapons.

[Gleym]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

There's a difference between seeing things from another perspective and being condescending to anyone who doesn't see their way. Those few certain persons fit the latter category.

Coming from the guy who cusses out everyone who disagrees with him and calls them pricks to the point of it being your catchphrase practically, and then acts like an internet tough guy jock by offering to buy beers for everyone who does agree, I find that you'd even think of calling others condescending a hilarious notion.

Modifié par Gleym, 08 mars 2011 - 04:41 .

[88mphSlayer]

ME2 mostly streamlined and/or rolled different aspects of the first game into single functions or background functions

the 4 things that actually were changed the most for ME2 that are the real reasons why the game felt shallower:

-taking away roll of the dice accuracy, this meant taking away all the skill point systems for individual weapon classes as well as taking away noticeable upgrades to weapons that increase weapon accuracy, it also took away weapon powers

-taking away the ability to "dress up" your squadmates, while it was rudamentary and simplistic in the first game it was at least some kind of interaction beyond Shepard, giving all squadmates the same customization as Shepard has in ME2 would by itself drastically increase interaction

-taking away inventory management, rather everything is transported to the ship as intel to be researched and built which makes more sense than picking up every crappy gun every enemy drops when you're working for an organization that already builds weapons anyways, regardless tho it gave the player less stuff to manage, sort through, think about or work with

-removing overheating negated a lot of the weapon upgrades which were balanced around higher firepower = more heating or more shots = lower firepower & etc.

...

given that ME3 will be more war-torn with a tighter squeeze on resources, there might be a justification for bringing back physical loot gathering - this might also bring back the need to retrofit guns and thus individual gun upgrades, there would also be a great justification for giving your allies actual armor upgrades, and since there's any number of reasons why you might not be working for Cerberus in the 3rd game an individual exp system could be brought back as well, overheating might be brought back given the tightness on war-time resources as well but in conjunction with the ejectable heat sinks, i think throwing in the ability to customize the normandy and hammerhead would add some additional rpg elements as well

either way, the first game didn't make much sense in its weapons/armor acquiring logic given the setting and the authority the player character had, ME2 changed this as well as retconning some stuff regarding weapons, i think ME3's war-torn theme would give every indication of a possible mix of ME2 and ME1

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 08 mars 2011 - 05:06 .

[AquamanOS]

I don't really understand the inventory complaints. Is having 5 or 6 armors that actually look different and have various effects really worse than 80 pallete swaps of the same armor that only change shields or health?

Likewise having 3 or 4 weapons of each type that each feel different and have their uses and look different vs again palette swaps of the same gun with only minor statistical differences.

Due the hardcore RPG fans really need to be crunching numbers to be happy?

About the only improvement ME3 could make is giving back an equipment screen in the menu where you can freely change weapons and armor instead of only being able to do it on the ship or at specific lockers.

As for the gun skills, I don't know I kind of liked the idea of "if a character can use a gun, they can use it fine, if they can't they can't use the weapon at all" over ME1 having everyone run around with all weapons even if most of them can't be fired straight because they don't have the upgrade skill.

[The Spamming Troll]

i dont think anyone is here saying they want 1 option in terms of a weapon. nobody wants just the avenger. we want more depth in weapons like modding or even color schemes.

personally i hate the fact that the 3 so called caster classes get stuck with sidearms. if theres no advantage of an adepts skills over an infiltrators, then why does the adept get lesser weapons?

[Furtled]

Saying this as someone who played both games back to back.

Aside from the elevators instead of loading screens and the Mako/lack of I found the gameplay in ME2 to be more enjoyable than ME1; the first game felt more 'epic' for want of a better word, but then I suppose the opening of a story always does.

Some elements of the inventory management and weapon/armour choices from 1 were missed (it made customising squadmates gear for playstyle more enjoyable for me personally), but overall not having to remember who could use which weapons when doling the upgrades out and having armour with clear bonus' for the PC was an improvement, the side missions felt less repetitive too.

Still undecided on not being able to spread points in charm and intimidate, would probably need to play through both again and consider how that impacts freedom in defining the PC's character the way I want it.

Planet scanning however, I grew to loathe, mainly because logically I couldn't get my head around why a ship with automated systems and yeomen aplenty wasn't capable of running an autoscan and sending out probes on it's own; let alone why a multi-billion credit asset was being wasted scanning planets when they really did have better things to do - role play wise that and the loading screens were the biggest immersion breakers for me in ME2.

Both games have their own merits and issues, but what those are are bound to vary depending on the type of RPG player you are - ME1 and 2 draw about even in my eyes.

Modifié par Furtled, 08 mars 2011 - 08:05 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Gleym wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

There's a difference between seeing things from another perspective and being condescending to anyone who doesn't see their way. Those few certain persons fit the latter category.

Coming from the guy who cusses out everyone who disagrees with him and calls them pricks to the point of it being your catchphrase practically, and then acts like an internet tough guy jock by offering to buy beers for everyone who does agree, I find that you'd even think of calling others condescending a hilarious notion.

Coming from a guy who is condescending who wants to impose his definition of an RPG and calls them idiots to the point it being your catchprhase practically, and then acts like an elitist snob by saying it's "his way or the highway" and acting innocent for being righteously butt-hurt, I find that hilarious.

[AlanC9]

Furtled wrote...
Still undecided on not being able to spread points in charm and intimidate, would probably need to play through both again and consider how that impacts freedom in defining the PC's character the way I want it.

Well, you've got the same freedom to define character that you ever did. It's just that characters who aren't going all-out P or R won't be very good at Charm or Intimidate. It's not great design, but I wasn't super-bothered by it because I don't really worry about min-maxing too much.

Planet scanning however, I grew to loathe, mainly because logically I couldn't get my head around why a ship with automated systems and yeomen aplenty wasn't capable of running an autoscan and sending out probes on it's own; let alone why a multi-billion credit asset was being wasted scanning planets when they really did have better things to do - role play wise that and the loading screens were the biggest immersion breakers for me in ME2.

I can see why they went wrong here. Exploration in ME1 didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Planet scanning was an attempt to integrate this into the main story rather than just having it there because it's supposed to be there. Would just giving you the resources the moment you orbit have been any better? My bet is it would have just made it look even sillier. (Being silly didn't matter in ME1 because credits were pretty much worthless in the game, so you could just skip the whole business)

[JoeClose]

You know what I'd like to see return in Mass Effect 3? Pinnacle Station.

After you beat all the quests in ME 1, you can still go into the simulator and engage in combat. I guess you could start a new playthrough of the game, but sometimes in any game you play it's nice to just jump in and just play. In GTA you can steal and kill at will, in Batman: Arkham Asylum you can enter challenge mode, in Splinter Cell: Conviction you can play Deniable Ops, and in Mass Effect you can go Pinnacle Station and use the VR trainer,

I'd really love to see this return, or some feature like it. Sometimes all I wanna do in ME2 is jump in and kill things.

[88mphSlayer]

AlanC9 wrote...

Furtled wrote...
Still undecided on not being able to spread points in charm and intimidate, would probably need to play through both again and consider how that impacts freedom in defining the PC's character the way I want it.

Well, you've got the same freedom to define character that you ever did. It's just that characters who aren't going all-out P or R won't be very good at Charm or Intimidate. It's not great design, but I wasn't super-bothered by it because I don't really worry about min-maxing too much.

Planet scanning however, I grew to loathe, mainly because logically I couldn't get my head around why a ship with automated systems and yeomen aplenty wasn't capable of running an autoscan and sending out probes on it's own; let alone why a multi-billion credit asset was being wasted scanning planets when they really did have better things to do - role play wise that and the loading screens were the biggest immersion breakers for me in ME2.

I can see why they went wrong here. Exploration in ME1 didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Planet scanning was an attempt to integrate this into the main story rather than just having it there because it's supposed to be there. Would just giving you the resources the moment you orbit have been any better? My bet is it would have just made it look even sillier. (Being silly didn't matter in ME1 because credits were pretty much worthless in the game, so you could just skip the whole business)

should've had a "shoot and retrieve" method, the ship automatically scans and finds the resource hotspots, then you drop retrieval drones who automatically goto those hotspots and then work in the background while you go do missions, then you receive a notification the resources are ready to pick up and you go back to retrieve the drones and resources, maybe have an upgrade system where the drones can pick up more resources, mine faster, or automatically ship the resources to your ship so you never have to go back to the planet, also give the player the ability to do this to more than 1 planet at a time, have some drones break after awhile so you're getting new ones at the supply depots