402 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spamming Troll]

Gatt9 wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

And technically speaking,  you don't create your character,  most especially in ME2.  My Shepherd and the next guy's are almost exactly the same,  except if he uses an SMG.  My choices were meaningless,  my friend's 100% renegade ended indentical to how my 100% paragon did.

...wait what?

Technically speaking, my Shepard looks nothing like yours unless you went with the default character. I agree with the semi-lack of weapon choices but at least there were still some variety.

And holy crap, you're telling me that keeping the Collector Base and destroying the Base is the EXACT same result? How would you know? ME3 hasn't come out yet.

Visual appearance as far as gameplay goes is largely irrelevant.

As far as your question goes,  yes,  I am telling you that.  Because as far as ME2 goes,  there's no difference at all.  The universe,  the gameworld,  is exactly the same at the end of ME2 regardless of which option you took.  Much like saving or damning the council in ME made no real difference.

From there,  we're onto the topic of "Pay another $60-$100 (After the mandatory DLC's EA loves) to see what difference it made".  I cannot count that,  that's a massive design flaw.  To charge me another X amount just to see if there's a difference isn't a good rationalization. 

100% identical? Since when have you gone in for overblown rhetoric like that?

I think that was a complement,  thank you?

But it wasn't rhetoric,  unfortunately,  there's no difference in our save games other than the meter.  Is it possible that there might be some divergence in the third game?  Sure.

But the third game isn't here,  and he and I have the exact same outcome from ME and ME2.  He damned the council,  I saved it,  and the game played exactly the same.  He gave the Illusive man the base,  I destroyed it,  and the game is exactly the same.  Grunt loves me as much as him,  Samara loves both of us too,  despite the fact that he's the kind of person she routinely kills,  the only real difference between our save is Jack talks to me and swears at him. 

There's just no difference.  So I hold to my statement,  the choices were completely meaningless.

i agree, but does creat some variation even tho its very minor. as much as i dont want to stumble randomly in the galaxy into helena blake or fist in ME2, it still makes it somewhat familar. the thing is no matter what my character did or yours didnt do in ME1 and ME2, at the end of ME3 well either have the option to defeat the reapers or we wont. even whatever the shepard-zombie the new ME3 players get will have that option.

[tonnactus]

ExtremeOne wrote...
I am sorry they have to have a shooting mechanic in ME 3 that is on par with games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 . Its that simple .

No,its not.In Fallout games,you have a first person shooting experience.But it still have stat based shooting and sold more copies then Mass Effect and the so called "sequel".Fallout is not even close to good first person shooters(but still fun) and is still a big success.

Modifié par tonnactus, 10 mai 2011 - 09:08 .

[Chromie]

tonnactus wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
I am sorry they have to have a shooting mechanic in ME 3 that is on par with games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 . Its that simple .

No,its not.In Fallout games,you have a first person shooting experience.But it still have stat based shooting and sold more copies then Mass Effect and the so called "sequel".Fallout is not even close to good first person shooters(but still fun) and is still a big success.

CoD is a big success. Crap does sell you know like FO3.

[theSteeeeeels]

tonnactus wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
I am sorry they have to have a shooting mechanic in ME 3 that is on par with games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 . Its that simple .

No,its not.In Fallout games,you have a first person shooting experience.But it still have stat based shooting and sold more copies then Mass Effect and the so called "sequel".Fallout is not even close to good first person shooters(but still fun) and is still a big success.

problem is mass effect 2 had no rpg gameplay to fall back on so youre left with a sub par shooter

[Bozorgmehr]

tonnactus wrote...

No,its not.In Fallout games,you have a first person shooting experience.But it still have stat based shooting and sold more copies then Mass Effect and the so called "sequel".Fallout is not even close to good first person shooters(but still fun) and is still a big success.

Dunno what sales have to do with RPGs and stats.

FO3 has really crappy gameplay and what 'stats' are you talking about anyway? In FO3 stats only determined damage, like upgrades, powers, passives, gear and ammo do in ME2. Furthermore, those stats are almost redundant. Example; you're using a weapon that requires 6 shots to kill an enemy. The only thing that's going to make any difference is when you can reduce those 6 shots to 5. Let's say in FO3 you need Small Arms 60 for 6 shots, and @ SA 75 you'll do enough extra damage to get the job done in 5. This means that every single point spent on SA (anything between 60-74) is worthless coz it doesn't improve anything.

I believe what Christina tried to make clear is that all those useless stats will be removed; only stuff that adds something to gameplay will remain - i.e. nothing changes regarding gameplay, only the pointless, boring and worthless stats-screen will be gone.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, there are:

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

- Mark Twain

[termokanden]

Compare the Vanguard class passives in ME2. One reduces your cooldown by an insignificant amount and the other increases your weapon damage by the same amount. You're not really going to notice this. These are the pointless stats that don't have a clear effect on gameplay.

Champion or Destroyer? Who cares, they both work the same way anyway with negligible differences. They should be truly different evolutions that have a real impact, otherwise what is the point of having a choice in the first place?

If you instead had two different evolutions that actually specialized you, that would improve the RPG component of ME2. Now there would be an interesting choice to make.

[Bozorgmehr]

Indeed, it should mean something if you opt ot go Destroyer or Champion Vanguard; Nemesis or Bastion Adept etc. Wearing different sets of armor should have some impact too. They don't in ME2 or their bonuses are too small to notice, let alone make any difference. I think that's what the devs are looking for to change/improve, so those decisions do have an effect.

[tonnactus]

Bozorgmehr wrote...


Dunno what sales have to do with RPGs and stats.

Someone claimed that a game with modern weapons should work like a shooter to be a success,what is wrong.

FO3 has really crappy gameplay

Thats your opinion.

and what 'stats' are you talking about anyway? In FO3 stats only determined damage

Nonsense.How charm and intelligence determine damage?How skills like repair,lockpicking,medicine,survival did.
In fact,some of them even unlock special dialogue options.

Modifié par tonnactus, 10 mai 2011 - 12:24 .

[termokanden]

They didn't all have to do with damage. I would say FO3 had problems, but that wasn't it. For me it was the insane repair micromanagement and having to carry several of each type of weapon just to be able to repair, and this was with a weight limit too. Just the simple Jury Rigging perk and repair kits in FO:NV made me enjoy that game a whole lot more.

[tonnactus]

termokanden wrote...

They didn't all have to do with damage. I would say FO3 had problems, but that wasn't it. For me it was the insane repair micromanagement and having to carry several of each type of weapon just to be able to repair, and this was with a weight limit too. Just the simple Jury Rigging perk and repair kits in FO:NV made me enjoy that game a whole lot more.

Neither weapon nor armor had to be 100 percent repaired all the time to be efficient.And i repaired weapons/armor the moment i got other weapons/armor to repair them with.

[Someone With Mass]

theSteeeeeels wrote...
problem is mass effect 2 had no rpg gameplay to fall back on so youre left with a sub par shooter

ME1 wasn't much better in that field either. 

[Walker White]

termokanden wrote...

They didn't all have to do with damage. I would say FO3 had problems, but that wasn't it. For me it was the insane repair micromanagement and having to carry several of each type of weapon just to be able to repair, and this was with a weight limit too.

FO3 had many problems that stemmed from bad RPG ideas that should have been killed with fire long ago.  Like awarding experience to the person who made the last kill. This encourages you to do without companions (indeed, read some of the walkthroughs).  We learned this was a bad idea two decades ago when support members like clerics could never level properly.

The combat gameplay in FO3 is also beyond bad.  I have done numerous tests and I can count on one hand the number of combats where it was more advantageous to shoot a body part other than the head.  Heck, ME2 handled positional damage better than FO3.  VATS was never enough to cover most combats. There was also a complete lack of controller or other support abilities.  

For all the complaints about ME2 being a straight shooter, I consider FO3 much more a shooter dressed with RPG elements.  In fact, FO3 was the worst of all worlds.  It had extreme micromanagement for trivial issues with simplistic shooter combat.  If this is what a hardcore RPG is about, then I guess I no longer count as an RPG player, despite my experience.

FO3 is exactly opposite direction of where I want the ME series to go.

[termokanden]

Sure you can get by without having your weapons and armor at 100%. I still hated that part of the game though (but I loved the rest, the game has great atmosphere, not sure it gets enough credit for that). Some of the automatic weapons would visibly become more worn while you were firing them. It's equally annoying in Call of Pripyat, except there you can't even repair your weapons without going back to base.

Jagged Alliance 2 had one of the best "weapons systems" I've seen in a game. Weapons can be modded and use different types of ammo. They break over time but it's not super annoying like it is in FO3. I wish that game had a real successor...

By the way, just so we're clear about this. I do not think FO3 was good from a game mechanics point of view. But it's very atmospheric.

Modifié par termokanden, 10 mai 2011 - 12:37 .

[tonnactus]

Walker White wrote...


The combat gameplay in FO3 is also beyond bad.  I have done numerous tests and I can count on one hand the number of combats where it was more advantageous to shoot a body part other than the head. 

Numerious test and or at least played through the game???(Yao bears,deathclaws,enemies with rocketlaunchers(shooting their weapon out of their hands or destroying it,Mutant overlords,in Fallout Vegas cripple Cazador Wings,Fheral ghouls)
Where it make sense in Mass Effect beyond husks? You couldnt cripple a krogan.

Fallout 3/Fallout New Vegas are miles better in this regard then Mass Effect 2 where it was a gimmick at best.

And for sure Fallout has controller weapons like the dartgun or mines.

And even Perks like "Stay back".

Modifié par tonnactus, 10 mai 2011 - 12:54 .

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

theSteeeeeels wrote...
problem is mass effect 2 had no rpg gameplay to fall back on so youre left with a sub par shooter

ME1 wasn't much better in that field either. 

But ME1 didn't try and use traditional TPS mechanics. It tried to do something a bit different by having the RPG element tie more into the combat, but many didn't like it.

I don't get when people say, "ME2's combat was what ME1's combat was supposed to be" because that just doesn't make sense. Had ME1 tried to use traditional TPS combat, then it would have. It's easier to make standard TPS combat than it is to tie an (admittedly) needlessly complicated RPG system into it like they did with ME1.

[tonnactus]

termokanden wrote...

By the way, just so we're clear about this. I do not think FO3 was good from a game mechanics point of view. But it's very atmospheric.

It wasnt outstanding,but decent and fun enough for me.

[Ahglock]

termokanden wrote...

They didn't all have to do with damage. I would say FO3 had problems, but that wasn't it. For me it was the insane repair micromanagement and having to carry several of each type of weapon just to be able to repair, and this was with a weight limit too. Just the simple Jury Rigging perk and repair kits in FO:NV made me enjoy that game a whole lot more.

In most games I'd agree, but in a appocolyptic future setting it works really well IMO.  It really helps reinforce the seting.

[Kilshrek]

Wait, so this is irrelevant?

[Vez04]

Kilshrek wrote...

Wait, so this is irrelevant?

win win win WIN!

Modifié par Vez04, 10 mai 2011 - 03:14 .

[termokanden]

Ahglock wrote...

termokanden wrote...

They didn't all have to do with damage. I would say FO3 had problems, but that wasn't it. For me it was the insane repair micromanagement and having to carry several of each type of weapon just to be able to repair, and this was with a weight limit too. Just the simple Jury Rigging perk and repair kits in FO:NV made me enjoy that game a whole lot more.

In most games I'd agree, but in a appocolyptic future setting it works really well IMO.  It really helps reinforce the seting.

It does. I think the idea is fine, but they take it too far. NV offers repair kits and Jury Rigging so it becomes much more reasonable.

Some things in NV do not make so much sense though. The Holorifle doesn't break at all, for example, if you have the right upgrades. Everything else does. That's just plain weird.

Again I would like to mention Jagged Alliance 2. That system was great. You'd have your mechanics do maintenance on your weapons between fights. You had repair kits, and you never had to manually click each weapon to repair. It gave the game some realism and didn't overburden the player with chores.

Modifié par termokanden, 10 mai 2011 - 04:27 .

[Da Mecca]

Never felt particularly burdened by it, but oh well.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Kilshrek wrote...

Wait, so this is irrelevant?

Very good. This is EXACTLY what I would like to do to all those pathetic ''boo hoo we want more RPG'' losers.

Go Shepard.

[theSteeeeeels]

Someone With Mass wrote...

theSteeeeeels wrote...
problem is mass effect 2 had no rpg gameplay to fall back on so youre left with a sub par shooter

ME1 wasn't much better in that field either. 

it was actually. the exploration, hub worlds, and most importantly the story all kept me grasped

and even though me1's combat was bad, it was used effectively. spend some time in citadel, go do mission etc. explore, find some cool combart scenario. in me1 when combat engaged i was thinking, "oh **** im about to fight these dudes" but even with me2's more fluid combat i felt "oh, more combat"

[ExtremeOne]

tonnactus wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
I am sorry they have to have a shooting mechanic in ME 3 that is on par with games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 . Its that simple .

No,its not.In Fallout games,you have a first person shooting experience.But it still have stat based shooting and sold more copies then Mass Effect and the so called "sequel".Fallout is not even close to good first person shooters(but still fun) and is still a big success.

   



I understand what you are saying .

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

theSteeeeeels wrote...
problem is mass effect 2 had no rpg gameplay to fall back on so youre left with a sub par shooter

ME1 wasn't much better in that field either. 

But ME1 didn't try and use traditional TPS mechanics. It tried to do something a bit different by having the RPG element tie more into the combat, but many didn't like it.

I don't get when people say, "ME2's combat was what ME1's combat was supposed to be" because that just doesn't make sense. Had ME1 tried to use traditional TPS combat, then it would have. It's easier to make standard TPS combat than it is to tie an (admittedly) needlessly complicated RPG system into it like they did with ME1.

Cover says hello