150 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Again, Zulu, you feel the need to trash on ME2 as if it ransacked your house and killed your family. True, ME2 didn't exactly bring anything NEW to the table, but it showed that you can still have a great roleplaying experience AND awesome combat. Look, I have cake! And I can eat it, too!

So you happen to hate cake. Fine. Just don't sh*t on my slice.

And really, what was done in ME1 that had never been done before? Evil machine gods? Seen it. Super agent goes rogue? Yawn. Giant-ass inventory? Bleh. Dick/Saint morality system? Bioware standby.

The only things that were innovative were the overheat system, which, while a cool idea, failed in execution, and the universe itself, which is really just the latest assemblage of sci-fi tropes presented in such a way that they seem fresh. Don't get me wrong, I loved it, but it's really not that phenomenal when you just look at the ingredients.

ME1 and 2 are more than the sum of their parts, and I see them as two halves (or thirds) of the same whole.

[tonnactus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Again, Zulu, you feel the need to trash on ME2 as if it ransacked your house and killed your family. True, ME2 didn't exactly bring anything NEW to the table, but it showed that you can still have a great roleplaying experience AND awesome combat

Awesome combat?
What exactly is awesome about the combat?
I mediocre at best compared with other shooters.
The majority on enemies dont even try to flank shepardt and just wait to be shoot to death.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 mars 2011 - 12:40 .

[AdmiralCheez]

tonnactus wrote...

Awesome combat?
What exactly is awesome about the combat?
I mediocre at best compared with other shooters.

Compared to ME1, it is.

Is it ever going to be as good as other shooters?  Probably not.  But it at least proves it can be done.

[tonnactus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Compared to ME1, it is.

Not even compared with Mass Effect 1.Shepart could shoot straight right at the beginning of the game.Thats it.And thats not enough to make it "awesome". Together with the removing of stat based accuracy(a thing i could live with) also abilities like carnage or assasination shot were cutted and replaced with crap called ammo "powers" and bullet time.The only "awesome" about the Mass Effect 2
combat is the vanguard charge if someone play as a vanguard( and still bugged).Thats it.
Also the variation of enemies is joke. No snipers anymore, "Biotics" as warp spammers and engineers as incinerate spammers. No interesting bossfights except those ones in Dlc.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 mars 2011 - 12:52 .

[AdmiralCheez]

I, too, miss the variation in enemies and a few of the powers, but at least it didn't bore me to death.

[Praetor Knight]

tonnactus wrote...

Awesome combat?
What exactly is awesome about the combat?
I mediocre at best compared with other shooters.
The majority on enemies dont even try to flank shepardt and just wait to be shoot to death.

Awesome compared to ME1 yes.

What third person shooters are being compared with?



I'll just give a few points of comparison for now:

Exhibit A: ME1 husks and creepers on Insanity!
Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8prj3M509_o&feature=related, go Wrex!
Exhibit C: , Krogan Commander in ME1
Exhibit D: , ME2 Adept
And this forum in general has great videos throughout many threads: http://social.biowar...egory/261/index

[InvincibleHero]

sigma_draconis wrote...

EssenceEngine wrote...

What could be said, however, is that ME2 is an RPG with a greater range of customisation options in regard to non-aestethic personalisation than ME1.

This I agree with completely. Many people seem to percieve depth as the amount of content given instead of the things you can actually do with them and whether there is a difference between each. And that was my problem with ME1, you were basically given much more guns, armor, skills; but the problem was that each gun in the same class feels and play almost the same, whereas in ME2 switching to another weapon in the same class can warrant a different strategy altogether. Each skill level gain does not give a noticable difference. And in the end even with all the weapon, armor and skills you have access to, you end up using a very select few, and the majority of weapons and armor you gain throughout the game becomes vendor trash. In ME2, almost all weapons, armor pieces, skills have their uses even the ones you get in the beginning.

Also most of the +% to damage for weapons and armor resist was removed and given to all classes via the upgrades. Very little of the passive upgrades/mods were lost.  Everyone can heal instead of only soldier or have heal mod installed. Weapon mods became powers in classes which is love hate for some, but you can squad all it at level 4 so it is a potentially huge benefit. It is also much quicker then modding each rifle each time you face geth and holding multiples of each upgrade in inventory for that situatuation. It is much better the ME2 way.

I think that balances the game better and you lost very little except overpumping some powerful classes like adrenaline soldier. Now everyone could have better shield not the tech guys. Sure it made classes less differentiated but really why wouldn't you have your tech improve everyone's shields to double strength anyway?

[InvincibleHero]

jojon2se wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...
...
This isn't opinion of which game is better which is purely subjective and based on many variables. This is only examining RPG elements or what people lump as RPG elements erroneously in some cases.
...

..and there we have another crux: Just who gets to be the ultimate authority on what is and what isn't RPG?

One could, for instance, say that *every* Bioware title is, as a RPG, what a Fighting Fantasy book is to AD&D.
Is either of those more or less RPG than the other and is your answer objective or subjective?

Quite simple can an inanimate object like a gun make a moral decision. Nope. Only Lirarcor which had a human soul embedded into it as an intelligent sword comes close. You can use a specific weapon such as two hand sword define a facet of your character, but it is no more than a prop. In ME2 it is a gameplay element for shooter type play. Now if you said one of those create your own adventures very shallow RP.


A fighting fantasy book is something like the Drizzt novel i assume. It is totally written and pre-determined by authors. There is no roleplaying. A D&D is a ruleset to facilitate role playing by actual human beings. You can change rules as you see fit to suit your roleplaying style. You are roleplaying a character in a world your Dm creates.

In ME series BW is the DM and we players RP Shepard. We get to make decisions from a menu they choose instead of 100% freedom but that is the nature of the CRPG beast. We still get to make decisions that define Shepard in thousands of ways if it actaully tracked each decision in the game. It is interactive and no way like a novel.
My argument is objective.

[InvincibleHero]

Manic Sheep wrote...

While I agree with allot of your points the problem is there is no standard definition for what makes something a RPG. Despite the “role playing” part that is often not what people see as the main aspects of a RPG. There are allot of different features that are lumped in as being RPG features and certain combinations of these features can make something an RPG. Some "RPGs" really have no role-playing or decision making (in terms of plot) to speak of other than “yes I accept this quest” “no I don’t want to do this quest right now” but they have the number crunching, the looting, the inventory and other things that are part of the RPG umbrella.
Allot of people judge an rpg how it plays. Number crunching. (+1 to dex ect) and feel that it should be the characters skill not yours you're hit/mis ratio is calculated and effected by your stats. Something ME2 did not have. My character was as skilled with a sniper rifle as I could play it. It was not stat based. (somthing I prefer)
I value the decision you can make, the impact you have on your world and the ability to play a role above the most the other features of RPG’s, that is why I play them. TBH I don’t care if ME is labelled an RPG or TPS or if ME1 is considered superior in terms of its RPG elements or not.

I think simple does it best. it's not the system or rules or stats. Those trappings only create the environment to role play. You can role play in games like charades without costumes for instance say Robin Hood was clue. You mime shooting a bow.

Roleplaying is purely acting with your voice and your actions. The PC is your acted persona or avatar. Now if you add a costume and bow it'd give it away, but all you're doing is adding atmosphere to the role playing if you just repeated what you did previously.
 
Yeah poor labelling of games that are not RPG is pure marketing. People do buy it. D2 is not much of an RPG. It is merely a virtual hack/slash D&D module with a story to play through. Your only choices are which loot to equip/sell/buy, which character archetype to play, a name,  and stats to level up. It's a great game I played hundreds of hours.

At one time yes they could only crudely represent RPGs by just giving you a party with stats and dungeons to go play in. We are beyond that now and games truly offer RP opportunities.

Both ME1 and 2 are among my favorite games of all-time. I can't see the hate for ME2 simply because they dropped some trappings.

[tonnactus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I, too, miss the variation in enemies and a few of the powers, but at least it didn't bore me to death.

The variation of enemies is exactly what bores me to death.Not even bosses have more unique,more then two abilities.

There is nothing to look out,barely any strategy except "defense stripping".This isnt good combat.

Look at Gears of war,the fight with the sea monster for exampe. Or,an actual game,bulletstorm.This game nearly burst from different weapon functions and ways to finish of enemies. Mass Effect 2 is at best shallow compared to that.

[AdmiralCheez]

@tonnactus: Does not change the fact that ME1's combat was not as fun as ME2's for me.  Saying which games were better outside the ME series or ripping on ME2 in general will not change my personal tastes, nor will it remove the hours of enjoyment I extracted from the game.

I had fun, more fun than with ME1, and that's what matters to me.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 15 mars 2011 - 09:02 .

[tonnactus]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

I'll just give a few points of comparison for now:

Exhibit A: ME1 husks and creepers on Insanity!
Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8prj3M509_o&feature=related, go Wrex!
Exhibit C: , Krogan Commander in ME1
Exhibit D: , ME2 Adept
And this forum in general has great videos throughout many threads: http://social.biowar...egory/261/index

Oh,i can post videos too.How about those ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G5Heowx0nA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mt_AYDURfM&feature=related

The second is even similar to that that happened in Noveria...

[tonnactus]

InvincibleHero wrote...


I think simple does it best. it's not the system or rules or stats.

Its exactly this too. Roleplaying not only means decisions,story and behavior,but also the way how a character fight and how many possibilites are there to pick.The more,the better.
A game just with decisions and dialogue is an adventure,not an rpg.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 mars 2011 - 09:06 .

[tonnactus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@tonnactus: Does not change the fact that ME1's combat was not as fun as ME2's for me.

I dont want to change oppinions.I want to know why people like the combat of Mass Effect 2 and why they think its "awesome" compared to the first.

[AdmiralCheez]

@tonnactus: Guns felt and behaved more like guns. Combat flowed faster. Powers were more responsive. Less glitches. Global cooldown.  No "auto-win" button like Lift or Frictionless Materials X.  Less overlap between weapon choices.  Skill tree was less cumbersome and required more thought when it came to spending points.

Could always have more weapons and powers, though, but ME2's system is improved.  Limited, but overall improved.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 15 mars 2011 - 09:09 .

[Tasha vas Nar Rayya]

Combat was hugely improved in ME2, the aiming system was better, the cover aspect was MASSIVELY improved on. Shepard can shoot straight. There is a nice variation of weapons, and different classes can use more weapons (something that annoyed me in ME1.)

And it also has more tactical aspects, the fact that specific abilities applied to various 'armour' levels made combat mre stimulating. And as someone who plays as a vanguard, I only use charge when an enemy is right next to me, and in desperate cicumstances.

[tonnactus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@tonnactus: Guns felt and behaved more like guns.

???
Please explain this further? How an assault rifle in the first game didnt feel like one for example?Shotguns actually could knockdown enemies in first game.This didnt happen in the second.(only with the Mattock that isnt a shotgun)

Combat flowed faster.

When you mean that 2 more powers could be mapped,okay...

Powers were more responsive.

Thats laughable.Really.Some of the actual tech powers could be dodged by enemies(and shepardt could dodge the biotic and tech talents of enemies) where this wasnt possible for a tech mines in the first game,that also had a far wider range then just 3 meters. The only responsive powers are that of the squadmates or when taking their "loyality" talents.

Less glitches.

Frozen enemies not affected by biotics? Shield upgrades that didnt work? Defenseless enemies only glowing blue when getting hit by biotics,but are not crowdcontrolled. Ai-hacked/dominated robots/soldiers that didnt attack the former friends and just stand still.The vanguards cant reach the target when a foe is just one meter away.Squadmates standing or lying in the air or climbing on a box?

All this happen in Mass Effect 2.

Global cooldown.

There is no need for a global cooldown for mapping more then one combat power. I could map 6 powers in Dragon Age and used them without pausing.

  No "auto-win" button like Lift or Frictionless Materials X.

A lot of people would disagree with you on this one. Even those who liked the Mass Effect 2 combat.Cloak,drone and adrenaline rush for example are" i win buttons".

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 mars 2011 - 09:36 .

[AdmiralCheez]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

Please explain this further? How an assault rifle in the first game didnt feel like one for example?Shotguns actually could knockdown enemies in first game.This didnt happen in the second.[/quote]
There was more of a crunch to 'em.  The ME1 guns sort of felt like they were blowing sparkles at people.

[quote]When you mean that 2 more powers could be mapped,okay...[/quote]
No, I mean there was a better atmosphere/sense of tension.  Higher adrenaline factor.

[quote]Thats laughable.Really.Some of the actual tech powers could be dodged by enemies(and shepardt could dodge the biotic and tech talents of enemies) where this wasnt possible for tech mines in the first game,that also had a far wider range then just 3 meters. The only responsive powers are that of the squadmates or when taking their "loyality" talents.[/quote]
Being able to dodge powers is a pretty cool feature, I think.  That and I could see/hear the damage I did instead of just, "oh, look, sparkles."

[quote]Frozen enemies not affected by biotics?[/quote]
I use biotics on frozen enemies all the time.

[quote]Shield upgrades that didnt work?[/quote]
Never had this problem.

[quote]Defenseless enemies only glowing blue when getting hit by biotics,but are not crowdcontrolled.[/quote]
Never seen/heard of this, either.

[quote]Ai-hacked/dominated robots/soldiers that didnt attack the former friends and just stand still.[/quote]
Never noticed.

[quote]The vanguards cant reach the target when a foe is just one meter away.[/quote]
This was annoying, but I just usually had to hit the button again.  Or cast while paused.  Minor.

[quote]Squadmates standing or lying in the air?[/quote]
Happened to me a few times, but it was more the rule rather than the exception in ME1.

[quote]There is no need for a global cooldown for mapping more then one combat power. I could map 6 powers in Dragon Age and used them without pausing.[/quote]
???

Global cooldown made the game feel much more balanced.  Instead of SPAMEVERYTHING-okaywaitfiveminutes-SPAMEVERTHING, it was combo-shoot-combo-cast-shoot-shoot-cover-awesomeclassspecificmove.  The flow was much more improved, and you could use each power as the battlefield changed, but still had to be smart about it.

[quote]A lot of people would disagree with you on this one. Even those who liked the Mass Effect 2 combat.Cloak,drone and adrenaline rush for example are" i win buttons".[/quote]
Really?  I do not feel that way at all, and I use all three.  Perhaps because it requires a little tactical forethought to use each, instead of "lol, hold down fire button," or "hey look that cluster of minibosses is now completely helpless!"

[Moiaussi]

UKStory135 wrote...

Actually I don't.  I love that game and all of the TW Golf games before it.  I was trying to make a point that inventories, leveling systems, and variety don't make a game a role-playing game.

Other than the lack of press interiviews, I'd argue it is an RPG. You play through the circuit, endorse products, and grow as a golfer.

One of the main arguments against ME2 was that it wasn't hardcore RPG enough.  I really don't know what that means, but I assume that it has something to do with the changes in inventory and leveling up.  The inventory didn't go away, it was just divied up into several neater parts instead of one big clusterfornication.  The leveling is streamlined, but it is not dumbed down.  All of the passive classes were lumped together and first aid / weapons classes were removed and put into research.  Those changes worked and now the points that you put into your powers are clearer and more powerful. 

Your assumption is incorrect. The decisions you make seem to have relatively little impact on your success or your environment. Yes people can die on your watch, but their deaths don't really affect the success of your mission. Hence you have people metagaming to kill off characters they don't like rather than actually RP'ing.

The other argument is that ME1 had a much better story than ME2.  As far as the main plot goes, I agree.  But the main plot isn't the point of ME2, ME2 is under the premise of preparation.  Thus, character development is much more important and the side content is much more fufilling.  IMO, the quality of ME2's story can't fully be judged until ME3 comes out because ME2 was preparing for the final final battle while ME3 is fighting it.

As well written as the recruitment/loyalty missions were, they didn't really seem to lead to that much growth. Part of that is that because there were so many and because they were completely indepenant of each other, there wasn't any real room to show that growth. In contrast, in ME1 there is significant growth on the parts of Ashley and Garrus, and some on the part of Wrex. Everything done with Ash and Garrus is tossed out the window in ME2 though. It is particularly glaring in the case of Garrus, where he is just as hard to talk down regardless if you guided him towards paragon or renegade in ME1. If you convinced him to follow the paragon path in ME1, shouldn't he be easier to talk down in ME2? If the renegade, shouldn't he be a LOT harder to talk down? He should be calling Shep out for going soft! Possibly even simply taking the shot, though Shepard if need be.

In ME1 they had a smaller squad and didn't try to develop all the characters at once. Tali, for example, ends up without the same attention as Ash or Garrus. Tali does get much better attention in ME2.... one of the game's high points. That meant they could do a good job where they did, instead of a lacking job with everyone.

At the end of the day, I like ME2 better than ME1 for one major reason:
I HATE THE MAKO!  Video games are supposed to be fun, but the Mako is anti-fun.  It is the Jar Jar Binks in the Mass Effect series to me.

Lol please don't try to make the case that is an RP element though  I liked the Mako conceptually, but whoever modeled the physics engine for it should be repeatedly tossed down few steep slopes until they repent, lol.

[Zulu_DFA]

Think like a general. Fight like a spartan. Press a button and something awesome happens.

Ooops, sorry, wrong forum.

Or is it?

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Think like a general. Fight like a spartan. Press a button and something awesome happens.

Ooops, sorry, wrong forum.

Or is it?

The buttons do a lot less when they command hoplites and catapults, though.....  I think I would rather fight like a Spectre.

[Moiaussi]

tonnactus wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...


I think simple does it best. it's not the system or rules or stats.

Its exactly this too. Roleplaying not only means decisions,story and behavior,but also the way how a character fight and how many possibilites are there to pick.The more,the better.
A game just with decisions and dialogue is an adventure,not an rpg.

To be more precise, it is making decisions that feel like they mean something rather than feel like they are there for the sake of making a decision. For example, saving the Council, or not, in ME1 felt important but in ME2 any importance seemed tossed aside.

The decision in Legion's loyalty mission felt too arbitrary with neglible information to guide you, so again it felt empty.

Becoming a spectre was forced on you in ME1, but it was a goal from the beginning and something that was being denied you in spite of you, so forced or not, getting it felt like an accomplishment, even if you wanted to shove it back in the Council's faces. In ME2, working for TIM is something you just sort of go along with, sometimes inexplicably. It may be something some Sheps wanted, but it wasn't something worked towards. It just 'happened.'

Tali's missions in ME2 felt like exceptions, like high points. Other than that though I can't think of much in the way of decisions that felt meaningful.

[tonnactus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Being able to dodge powers is a pretty cool feature, I think.  That and I could see/hear the damage I did instead of just, "oh, look, sparkles."

I never look at biotics as damage dealers anyway.I was fine with their function as crowdcontrol and debuff.And the sounds of biotics in the second game annoy me.The sound of warp sounds like someone is farting...

I use biotics on frozen enemies all the time.

You either lie or have a special version of the game...
A lot of people noticed in the strategy forums that lift and throw do nothing to frozen enemies.

Never had this problem.

So you never noticed that the shield strenght of for example garrus stayed at 250 the whole game....

Global cooldown made the game feel much more balanced.  Instead of SPAMEVERYTHING-okaywaitfiveminutes-SPAMEVERTHING, it was combo-shoot-combo-cast-shoot-shoot-cover-awesomeclassspecificmove. 

Now only class powers get spammed on higher difficulties.Or,and warp explosions.

Really?  I do not feel that way at all, and I use all three.  Perhaps because it requires a little tactical forethought to use each, instead of "lol, hold down fire button," or "hey look that cluster of minibosses is now completely helpless!"

Cast a drone on boss.Shoot .When he/she/it destroyed the drone repeat until the job is done.

[Phaedon]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
(Don't get me wrong, I'm being sarcasic, but that's actually a great game for what it is - the whole game is about the size of the "Shadow Broker" DLC, in terms of disk space. And it's less magical in terms of sci-fi, which is a huge source of my bias towards it!)

No, what it is, is someone thinking:

"Hey, Dungeon Siege in spess is going to be awesum"

It was not.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 mars 2011 - 09:15 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Phaedon wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
(Don't get me wrong, I'm being sarcasic, but that's actually a great game for what it is - the whole game is about the size of the "Shadow Broker" DLC, in terms of disk space. And it's less magical in terms of sci-fi, which is a huge source of my bias towards it!)

No, what it is, is someone thinking:

"Hey, Dungeon Siege in spess is going to be awesum"
It was not.

1. What's "Dungeon Siege"?

2. Blasting aliens and robo-zombies in space is awesome by definition. But you can detract from it by:
  - having a chick version of the hero.
  - having stupid classes that can't use guns
  - having stupid aliens as "squadmates"
  - having too much stupid dialogue
  - having too much stupid filler minigames