96 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

outlaw1109 wrote...

I wrote...
Personally liked the skills in ME1.

I should have specified that the system wasn't broken, just the use of said system. They could have implemented it much better, but compared to the skill system in ME2, I find it much more realistic to have to hone weapon skills as I go over being completely professional at each weapon I carry from the start. I also enjoyed playing through as different classes as it presented a variety of different skills to try my hand at developing. And, for some reason, despite the obvious design flaws with the ME1 skill system, I still managed to die more on my first playthrough of ME1 than that of my first ME2 playthrough, so Overpowered or not, I still found ME1 to be more challenging than ME2.

I would honestly prefer a system that developed skills based off of how much you use them, but, that, again is merely an opinion.

Yes it makes sense to have stats saying how accurately you can shoot when you can shoot by yourself and improve yourself with actual experience, not points.

[The Spamming Troll]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

outlaw1109 wrote...

I wrote...
Personally liked the skills in ME1.

I should have specified that the system wasn't broken, just the use of said system. They could have implemented it much better, but compared to the skill system in ME2, I find it much more realistic to have to hone weapon skills as I go over being completely professional at each weapon I carry from the start. I also enjoyed playing through as different classes as it presented a variety of different skills to try my hand at developing. And, for some reason, despite the obvious design flaws with the ME1 skill system, I still managed to die more on my first playthrough of ME1 than that of my first ME2 playthrough, so Overpowered or not, I still found ME1 to be more challenging than ME2.

I would honestly prefer a system that developed skills based off of how much you use them, but, that, again is merely an opinion.

Problem with this logic: Shepard is SPECIAL FORCES, and therefore should be competent with the weapons from the get-go (i.e.Today's Navy SEALs have a 10% graduation rate just because of the rigorous physical and psychological training involved.). Weapon control is important, especially for hostage situations. I wouldn't have had a problem with ME1's skills if Shepard's an FNG that just got out of boot camp.

shouldnt adept-shepard also have max biotics as well then? i was born with biotics. i didnt start using throw once i landed on eden prime.

lazuli wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
to
answer the majority of your questions, yes. ME1 wasnt an easy game. i
remember within the first ew months the game came out, tons of people
were comllaining it was way too difficult to beat. ME1 isnt an easy game
untill you have spectre gear, collasal armor and savant amps. but that
should make sense.

your forgetting that every single class in ME1 became a super OP class, its not just adepts and their supreme CC abilities.

if
i didnt invest points into the sniper rifle, i wouldnt expect it to
work to its max functionability. in the same way that if i didnt put
points into throw, throw would prolly suck to now wouldnt it?

mrshallek
is absolutely right on. leveling up in ME2 is a joke. the staleness of
the class/builds forum is directly proportional to the staleness of ME2s
builds/classes. does anyone here rmemeber the crazy amounts of
discusions about builds in the old ME1 forumes? theres prolly more
discusion on one single class from ME1, then there is on all 6 for ME2.
ME2 might as well went with the infamouse route and just handfeeding the
abilites to the player. ME1s classes showed extreme amounts of
progress, while ME2s character is essentially maxed by level 10.

This
is why I'm glad you're in the minority.  You're clamoring for dated
combat mechanics, a game that breaks itself as it goes.  It's a sign of a
poorly balanced game when the beginning is the most challenging part,
even when you're familiar with the controls and combat mechanics.

I
will agree that more powers and build variety would be welcome.  I'd
love to see that in ME3, and it looks like we'll get it.  Maybe we won't
get it from a massive number of skill points to invest in a single
skill for miniscule bonuses.  Rather, it seems like multiple power
evolutions will contribute to the build variety.

i dont think im in the minority at all. mabe in your head i might seem the minority here, but id say its something closer to 50/50. i dont think seeing progress in your characters development is a sign of a game breaking itself. its nothing more then your character becoming exactly what your character should be.  ME1 shepard would completely destroy ME2 shepard, no doubt.  what advancements or improvemenents or new benefits does ME2 bring to the table, when every single vangaurd ever made looks EXACTLY the same? is that a step in the right direction?

[Lunatic LK47]

outlaw1109 wrote...


He doesn't start out as SF, but I can see your point.

Uh, Shepard enlisted in SF after Akuze/Blitz/Torfan. N7 is basically being the equivalent of a Force Recon Marine/Navy SEAL/Army Ranger/Delta Force operative. What did the N7 program do, teach the recruits how to shoot weapons by playing Doom all day?

[Lunatic LK47]

Phaedon wrote...

Yes it makes sense to have stats saying how accurately you can shoot when you can shoot by yourself and improve yourself with actual experience, not points.

This.

[Clonedzero]

outlaw1109 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...


Problem with this logic: Shepard is SPECIAL FORCES, and therefore should be competent with the weapons from the get-go (i.e.Today's Navy SEALs have a 10% graduation rate just because of the rigorous physical and psychological training involved.). Weapon control is important, especially for hostage situations. I wouldn't have had a problem with ME1's skills if Shepard's an FNG that just got out of boot camp.

He doesn't start out as SF, but I can see your point.

Like I said, though, I just prefer ME1's system over ME2's.  Because of the level of detail instead of having 4-6 skills...I also liked being able to stack abilities....(use more than one at a time), but it's just my preference and honestly wasn't the point of my original post....

shepard is absolutely special forces. he just doesnt start as a spectre

[lazuli]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
i dont think im in the minority at all. mabe in your head i might seem the minority here, but id say its something closer to 50/50. i dont think seeing progress in your characters development is a sign of a game breaking itself. its nothing more then your character becoming exactly what your character should be.  ME1 shepard would completely destroy ME2 shepard, no doubt.  what advancements or improvemenents or new benefits does ME2 bring to the table, when every single vangaurd ever made looks EXACTLY the same? is that a step in the right direction?

Seeing progress in your character's development is great.  You can see that progress in ME2 when you have more skills available to you and your passive starts to kick in.  To me, that is a decent amount of progress.  In ME1, you go from being a featherweight to being able to completely ignore the element of cover after a main plot mission or two.  And should you ever import a Shepard for another playthrough all semblance of difficulty goes out the window.

As to ME1 Shepard destroying ME2 Shepard, so what?  It doesn't matter in the slightest as gameplay does not equal canon.  The games are different but the character is the same.

And I've already agreed with you that more build diversity would be welcome.  But to say that every single Vanguard is the same in ME2 is erroneous.  You essentially have two viable routes (on Insanity): Pull or Squad Cryo, and that's not taking into account which gun you choose later on.  Again, I grant that greater diversity would be welcome.  Two viable routes (plus weapons) isn't as much as it could be.  I'm not arguing with you about that.  But I enjoyed the combat in ME2 so much more than ME1, even with ME2's apparent lack of build diversity.  But was the diversity so much better in ME1?  You could choose to get married to a gun or two, I suppose.  But more abilities were shared between classes.  We have unique powers in ME2.  To me, a Vanguard with Charge is always going to be superior to an ME1 Vanguard, even if it's double-casting bootlegged Singularity.  It's just more fun to Charge.

To end, you are in the minority, if the changes from ME1 to ME2 are any indication.  If you aren't in the minority in the customer base (which I doubt), then those that share your views are certainly in the minority on the development team.

[mjh417]

I think Bioware is aware of this issue. In general I didn't mind it in ME2, in fact most of the time I found it advantageous because I could combo multiples of the same power like Overkill or Warp and it would be avery powerful weapon, but I think ME3 will fix this by having the deep er skill trees and multiple evolving powers

[The Spamming Troll]

lazuli wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
i dont think im in the minority at all. mabe in your head i might seem the minority here, but id say its something closer to 50/50. i dont think seeing progress in your characters development is a sign of a game breaking itself. its nothing more then your character becoming exactly what your character should be.  ME1 shepard would completely destroy ME2 shepard, no doubt.  what advancements or improvemenents or new benefits does ME2 bring to the table, when every single vangaurd ever made looks EXACTLY the same? is that a step in the right direction?

Seeing progress in your character's development is great.  You can see that progress in ME2 when you have more skills available to you and your passive starts to kick in.  To me, that is a decent amount of progress.  In ME1, you go from being a featherweight to being able to completely ignore the element of cover after a main plot mission or two.  And should you ever import a Shepard for another playthrough all semblance of difficulty goes out the window.

As to ME1 Shepard destroying ME2 Shepard, so what?  It doesn't matter in the slightest as gameplay does not equal canon.  The games are different but the character is the same.

And I've already agreed with you that more build diversity would be welcome.  But to say that every single Vanguard is the same in ME2 is erroneous.  You essentially have two viable routes (on Insanity): Pull or Squad Cryo, and that's not taking into account which gun you choose later on.  Again, I grant that greater diversity would be welcome.  Two viable routes (plus weapons) isn't as much as it could be.  I'm not arguing with you about that.  But I enjoyed the combat in ME2 so much more than ME1, even with ME2's apparent lack of build diversity.  But was the diversity so much better in ME1?  You could choose to get married to a gun or two, I suppose.  But more abilities were shared between classes.  We have unique powers in ME2.  To me, a Vanguard with Charge is always going to be superior to an ME1 Vanguard, even if it's double-casting bootlegged Singularity.  It's just more fun to Charge.

To end, you are in the minority, if the changes from ME1 to ME2 are any indication.  If you aren't in the minority in the customer base (which I doubt), then those that share your views are certainly in the minority on the development team.

a level 60 character should be exactly what a level 60 character was in ME1. the eas of gameplay from a level 60 shepard is so easy because its a character at its peak. it really shouldnt be any other way. thats like saying micheal jordan or albert einstein shouldnt be scoring 40 points a game or revolutionizing mathemetics, just because "they shouldnt." ...er something, im not good at metaphors. what i mean is you cant compare spectre weapons, savant amps, collosus armor, and maxed
abilities to the stinger 2, light armor, and maybe lift, throw and warp
unlocked. ME2 on the other hand, in a generic way, a level 10 is no different then a level 30 (unless you waited to get the locust last).

take a look at the topic "does anyone hate ME2" and youll see alot of ME2 was good, but ME1 was better. if ME2 came before ME1, mass effects following would be severely deminished.

[lazuli]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
a level 60 character should be exactly what a level 60 character was in ME1. the eas of gameplay from a level 60 shepard is so easy because its a character at its peak. it really shouldnt be any other way. thats like saying micheal jordan or albert einstein shouldnt be scoring 40 points a game or revolutionizing mathemetics, just because "they shouldnt." ...er something, im not good at metaphors. what i mean is you cant compare spectre weapons, savant amps, collosus armor, and maxed
abilities to the stinger 2, light armor, and maybe lift, throw and warp
unlocked. ME2 on the other hand, in a generic way, a level 10 is no different then a level 30 (unless you waited to get the locust last).

take a look at the topic "does anyone hate ME2" and youll see alot of ME2 was good, but ME1 was better. if ME2 came before ME1, mass effects following would be severely deminished.

I'll drop the "minority" talk, as neither of us has the data to prove anything.

We seem to be disagreeing on a fundamental point here.  Do you really want level 60 (or whatever level is max) characters to be able to waltz through the game effortlessly?

ME2 tightened the combat.  Some people say "streamlined," but that's gotten a bit of a bad rap.  When I say "tightened," I mean that the range of numbers has been decreased.  This leads to a lack of build flexibility, but it also leads to easier balancing.  You have shown in other threads that you have some... interesting ideas about what "balancing" is.  I think that ME2 is more balanced because the developers can create a challenging experience more reliably than they could in ME1, as there are less variables (equipment stats, skill ranks, etc) to consider.  In a game as loose as ME1, it's hard to balance the game to retain a challenge when there could very well be a HUGE range of character stats at any given point in the game... except the beginning (barring imports).

Again, I love options.  I like build diversity.  But I am completely and utterly convinced that ME2 was a step, no a stride, in the right direction.  I can't play ME1 time and again.  I can, and do, play ME2 game after game.

[InvincibleHero]

I'd hate to be forced to take a specific character all the time just to get warp. There are obviously some abilities that are so good that they should allow a choice of teamates by the player.

[The Spamming Troll]

lazuli wrote...

We seem to be disagreeing on a fundamental point here.  Do you really want level 60 (or whatever level is max) characters to be able to waltz through the game effortlessly?

hell EFing yeah i want my completely maxxed out character to destroy everything he runs into. isnt that the point in being a level 60? it takes three playthroughs to hit level 60! if ME1 worked in the same way as ME2, im not putting in all that effort for my heavy throw to be blocked by 1 HP of shields. im the peyton manning of the galaxy. NOTHING "should" get in my way.

i am really happy about the option to choose which weapons you carry, weapon modding, and what looks like a potentially good pregresion of eveling abilities for ME3. im just not as intrigued as i should be, becasue i played ME2.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 28 avril 2011 - 03:12 .

[Vez04]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

lazuli wrote...

We seem to be disagreeing on a fundamental point here.  Do you really want level 60 (or whatever level is max) characters to be able to waltz through the game effortlessly?

hell EFing yeah i want my completely maxxed out character to destroy everything he runs into. isnt that the point in being a level 60? it takes three playthroughs to hit level 60! if ME1 worked in the same way as ME2, im not putting in all that effort for my heavy throw to be blocked by 1 HP of shields. im the peyton manning of the galaxy. NOTHING "should" get in my way.

i am really happy about the option to choose which weapons you carry, weapon modding, and what looks like a potentially good pregresion of eveling abilities for ME3. im just not as intrigued as i should be, becasue i played ME2.

That also means Facerolling is entertaining to do when rolfstomping everything? There needs to be a good difficulty balance between Frustration/Facerolling always in a video game if there isent that balance, you feel like you get burned out eventually<_<

Modifié par Vez04, 28 avril 2011 - 03:15 .

[Aumata]

That is one of my problems with ME2. I am really hoping that we get 6 people in our squad instead of 12 or anything higher. I want to have full squad mate skills. I think it should have been done like ME1. Though I do hope we get more diversity in skills for classes. I hate the system as it is. I don't like the way the caster classes was set up. They play like a copy paste class, especially when you play for covering their weaknesses. Diversifying the classes would be a good thing.

ME2 isn't balance at all actually. It is set for the casters to not take out a room with in minutes. But a combative class can do that with relative ease. I stated in other threads. Combative classes were left the same with out the ability to tank. Talk about balancing the game.

[Aumata]

It takes three playthroughs to reach lvl 60? Took me on my second playthrough. I reach lvl 50 on a playthrough in ME1. That is funny.

[lazuli]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
hell EFing yeah i want my completely maxxed out character to destroy everything he runs into. isnt that the point in being a level 60? it takes three playthroughs to hit level 60! if ME1 worked in the same way as ME2, im not putting in all that effort for my heavy throw to be blocked by 1 HP of shields. im the peyton manning of the galaxy. NOTHING "should" get in my way.

i am really happy about the option to choose which weapons you carry, weapon modding, and what looks like a potentially good pregresion of eveling abilities for ME3. im just not as intrigued as i should be, becasue i played ME2.

Then our desires are irreconcilable.  Thanks for clarifying your stance.  In all honesty, I foresee ME3 disappointing you if you want to faceroll the game at max level.  Of course neither of us can know for sure just yet.  In any event, I guess you'll always have ME1.

[Firesteel]

outlaw1109 wrote...

I wrote...
Personally liked the skills in ME1.

I should have specified that the system wasn't broken, just the use of said system. They could have implemented it much better, but compared to the skill system in ME2, I find it much more realistic to have to hone weapon skills as I go over being completely professional at each weapon I carry from the start. I also enjoyed playing through as different classes as it presented a variety of different skills to try my hand at developing. And, for some reason, despite the obvious design flaws with the ME1 skill system, I still managed to die more on my first playthrough of ME1 than that of my first ME2 playthrough, so Overpowered or not, I still found ME1 to be more challenging than ME2.

I would honestly prefer a system that developed skills based off of how much you use them, but, that, again is merely an opinion.

outlaw, what you seem to want has actually been implemented in Borderlands, you had to kill with a weapon class to improve your skills, it worked well, but I don't see it working well in ME because Borderlands' main focus was guns, not story.

[The Spamming Troll]

Aumata wrote...

It takes three playthroughs to reach lvl 60? Took me on my second playthrough. I reach lvl 50 on a playthrough in ME1. That is funny.

2 completetionist runs with all the DLC, or just 3 casual runs. i usually say 3 becasue thats the only way youll truely have a "maxxed" character becasue of the 24 free charm/intim points you net.

either way its comparativly a lot longer investment then ME2s.

[AlanC9]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

take a look at the topic "does anyone hate ME2" and youll see alot of ME2 was good, but ME1 was better. 

Really? All I see in that topic is that a few people are fools who don't understand how much better ME2 is.

Edit: doesn't mean I'm right about that, of course. But you shouldn't just assume that someone who looks at an argument will agree with your side of it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 avril 2011 - 04:27 .

[The Spamming Troll]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

take a look at the topic "does anyone hate ME2" and youll see alot of ME2 was good, but ME1 was better. 

Really? All I see in that topic is that a few people are fools who don't understand how much better ME2 is.

i really wouldnt expect a different response from someone who happens to be in the ME2 camp., unfortunately.

[Aumata]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Aumata wrote...

It takes three playthroughs to reach lvl 60? Took me on my second playthrough. I reach lvl 50 on a playthrough in ME1. That is funny.

2 completetionist runs with all the DLC, or just 3 casual runs. i usually say 3 becasue thats the only way youll truely have a "maxxed" character becasue of the 24 free charm/intim points you net.

either way its comparativly a lot longer investment then ME2s.

You have a point there.  I do a complete run through. Then move on to another character.

[AlanC9]

"Unfortunately?" Well, I guess it's unfortunate that not everybody has the exact same tastes as you. Unfortunate for you, that is.

[Paula Deen]

The title could use a bit of revision. Something like "Making powers more unique" or something.

But yeah, I support this. ME1 was great in that every squadmate was unique and had a ton of powers to choose from. In ME2, it feels like there's not much differentiation between squadmates; for some, like Legion, you only get to use him in one mission before the finale anyway.

[Ahglock]

lazuli wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
a level 60 character should be exactly what a level 60 character was in ME1. the eas of gameplay from a level 60 shepard is so easy because its a character at its peak. it really shouldnt be any other way. thats like saying micheal jordan or albert einstein shouldnt be scoring 40 points a game or revolutionizing mathemetics, just because "they shouldnt." ...er something, im not good at metaphors. what i mean is you cant compare spectre weapons, savant amps, collosus armor, and maxed
abilities to the stinger 2, light armor, and maybe lift, throw and warp
unlocked. ME2 on the other hand, in a generic way, a level 10 is no different then a level 30 (unless you waited to get the locust last).

take a look at the topic "does anyone hate ME2" and youll see alot of ME2 was good, but ME1 was better. if ME2 came before ME1, mass effects following would be severely deminished.

I'll drop the "minority" talk, as neither of us has the data to prove anything.

We seem to be disagreeing on a fundamental point here.  Do you really want level 60 (or whatever level is max) characters to be able to waltz through the game effortlessly?

Question, do you expect the person to hit 60 on a single playthrough?  ME2, got you to max level on the first playtrhough and it wasn't hard to get there, so it doesn't fit as well to steamroll things.  But in ME1 you had to play the same shepard 3+ times in order to hit 60, so letting people steam roll the opposition seems fine to me.  For people who want to keep it real, just start new shepards, don't do NG+.  For people who want shepard to go beyond what he initially was capapable of there is NG+.  Basically ME2 only allowed one style of shepard in that regard, ME1 kept both sides happy there.  Nothing forced you to NG+ is and get the maxed out monster, but it was available to the people who liked it.  ME2 just did not have that option.  Did effectively rmeoving NG+ add something to the game or did it just remove the options?  To me it just seems like a removal of options.  

Anyways, I prefer character skill vs player skill based RPGs, but FPS and 3rd person shooter style RPGs don't belnd well with that, whcih is why they end up hybrids.  If you aim at the target and shoot and miss because of a die roll people seem to get irritated.  Now if they went with more of a GTA style shooting where you lock onto targets I think people would have beem more accepting of a die roll mehcanics.  Cover would still be important, because cover would give AC bonuses.  But hey I have fun playing ME2, but its just a shooter with cool powers, a fun story, and a dialogue tree to me.  Nothing wrong with that, but if you want an RPG sometimes you also want the RPG mechanics.  

Modifié par Ahglock, 28 avril 2011 - 06:12 .

[ItsFreakinJesus]

Having to level up in order to shoot accurately doesn't need to come back. The amount of points needed to be put into powers in order for them to be useful doesn't need to come back. The weapon powers, like Markspan and Carnage, should come back, however. Have something like Overkill cause your weapon to fire in overload for a period of time with infinite ammo, and have shotguns go back to launching Hadoukens at enemies instead of ammo powers.

Soldiers would get all of the weapon powers from ME1, while other classes get the powers specific to their default weapon carry out (IE, Vanguards getting shotgun powers at default) and keep them from getting powers for other weapons if they change loadouts to provide more variation for each class.

[Kaedan94]

I really don't see the point of this.

If you took weapon skills out of ME1, it's almost no different than ME2. In fact, the only difference at that point is that you get more return on your investment for skills in ME2 than you did for skills in ME1.

I'm sorry to say, but there wasn't significantly more variety in ME1 than there was in ME2 once you took weapons out of the equation.

And you should take into account that they've already stated that the skill trees will branch more in ME3, so I think people are worrying about nothing.