82 réponses à ce sujet

[camcon2100]

Shazzie wrote...

I'm worried. I'm very very very worried.

I'm an RPG gamer. Not a shooter gamer (I absolutely hate FPS type games). Not much of an action gamer most of the time, even. I have nothing against others enjoying those forms of games, they're just not what I really enjoy.

So, yes, I'm worried. I want to see how the story plays out. But I had a hard enough time with ME2 feeling like it (to me!) had abandoned a lot of the RPG for more of the shooter. I guess, in my RPG mind, combat is 'for xp and to get cool stuff'. Sadly, you didn't get any 'cool stuff' from ME's combat, so I 'got through' all the shooting to get on with the story. I liked the story, which made it worthwhile in the end, but I have no intention of ever playing it on a harder combat setting. I can do that for some games, but the ME games never interested me that way.

After being unbelievably disappointed with DA2 and its absolutely ridiculous (to me) combat system, I'm incredibly skittish about further changes to the ME series. The DA2 fiasco is probably why I'm very worried. For the first time ever, I was disappointed with a BioWare game... and not only was I disappointed, but I also didn't really like DA2 much, at all. I don't want that to happen to ME3 as well.

So, I'm worried. And, for the first time ever, a BioWare game will not be an automatic pre-order. I'm going to hope for a demo first, before I truly judge anything. But I'm not going to tear my heart out over it. DA2 already did that.

You relized that when you picked up Mass Effect Shepard had a gun not a sword right...You had to expect it to be some sort of shooter

[Cheesy Blue]

Shazzie wrote...

I'm worried. I'm very very very worried.

I'm an RPG gamer. Not a shooter gamer (I absolutely hate FPS type games). Not much of an action gamer most of the time, even. I have nothing against others enjoying those forms of games, they're just not what I really enjoy.

So, yes, I'm worried. I want to see how the story plays out. But I had a hard enough time with ME2 feeling like it (to me!) had abandoned a lot of the RPG for more of the shooter. I guess, in my RPG mind, combat is 'for xp and to get cool stuff'. Sadly, you didn't get any 'cool stuff' from ME's combat, so I 'got through' all the shooting to get on with the story. I liked the story, which made it worthwhile in the end, but I have no intention of ever playing it on a harder combat setting. I can do that for some games, but the ME games never interested me that way.

After being unbelievably disappointed with DA2 and its absolutely ridiculous (to me) combat system, I'm incredibly skittish about further changes to the ME series. The DA2 fiasco is probably why I'm very worried. For the first time ever, I was disappointed with a BioWare game... and not only was I disappointed, but I also didn't really like DA2 much, at all. I don't want that to happen to ME3 as well.

So, I'm worried. And, for the first time ever, a BioWare game will not be an automatic pre-order. I'm going to hope for a demo first, before I truly judge anything. But I'm not going to tear my heart out over it. DA2 already did that.

I'm sorry to tell you this but the RPG you know and love is a dying breed. I suspect within the next ten years the classic RPG is going to be dead, replaced by action RPGs. It's a sad thing, but you either need to get with the times or give up gamming (new games at least). Once again sorry bro.

Modifié par Cheesy Blue, 03 juin 2011 - 03:46 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Ahglock wrote...

xiiz wrote...

ME2's combat was far from perfect, imo. It felt rather clunky and unresponsive, sounds like they're improving in all the right areas for ME3. (Except maybe for those melee weapons, but that's probably just me)

I'm with you on this.  Okay I kind of wish heavy weapons were a soldier exclusive, but I wasn't expecting that change.  

i wonder if im ever going to disagree with you, Ah. soldiers having exlusive heavy weapons would be a good sign for the caster classes. id love to see abilities that arent trumped by weapons, like singularity and the blackstorm. i hope ME3 comes out and soldiers are complaining their weapons arent as effective as biotics, and then bioware has to put out a DLC that adds better heavy weapons. thatd be great.

[Shazzie]

camcon2100 wrote...
You realized that when you picked up Mass Effect Shepard had a gun not a sword right...You had to expect it to be some sort of shooter

Yep, I did. I bought it for the patented BioWare RPG story. I wasn't disappointed. And I don't care if it's a gun or a bow (since sword doesn't compare well to guns), both are ranged weapons... I just tend to dislike 'modern shooter game' mechanics.

Cheesy Blue wrote...
I'm sorry to tell you this but the RPG you know and love is a dying breed. I suspect within the next ten years the classic RPG is going to be dead, replaced by action RPGs. It's a sad thing, but you either need to get with the times or give up gamming (new games at least). Once again sorry bro.

Yeah, I know. Makes me quite sad. I'll just get my 'new game' gaming fix from indie games, I suppose, since they don't always feel that they have to appeal to the mass market. That and any mass market game that sticks in as much of my RPG style as possible, even if it's got other bits attached that I don't care as much for.
(And it's not 'bro', but I'm not really calling you out on that... it's something that's impossible to tell over the internet!)

Modifié par Shazzie, 03 juin 2011 - 04:01 .

[Cheesy Blue]

Shazzie wrote...


Yeah, I know. Makes me quite sad. I'll just get my 'new game' gaming fix from indie games, I suppose, since they don't always feel that they have to appeal to the mass market. That and any mass market game that sticks in as much of my RPG style as possible, even if it's got other bits attached that I don't care as much for.
(And it's not 'bro', but I'm not really calling you out on that... it's something that's impossible to tell over the internet!)

Um..... I do have to call you bro.

Modifié par Cheesy Blue, 03 juin 2011 - 04:08 .

[Shazzie]

Cheesy Blue wrote...

Um..... I do have to call you bro.

Um...ok then, sis, if you really have to.

Modifié par Shazzie, 03 juin 2011 - 04:18 .

[EliDL]

I prefer the combat style in the second Mass Effect over the first but I enjoyed both and I am not nitpicky about it. I particularly like the lean toward action-shooter and higher difficulty. I only did one playthrough and I thought charge was fun to use and useful not an issue to me. The improvements being incorporated for Mass Effect 3 sound good.

Modifié par EliDL, 03 juin 2011 - 04:27 .

[SilentNukee]

With the way things are said in the article, it seems they've written it for the "COD" audience that will probably only play the game once...Saying stuff this way will most likely grab their interest.

[AlanC9]

Shazzie wrote...
 But I had a hard enough time with ME2 feeling like it (to me!) had abandoned a lot of the RPG for more of the shooter. I guess, in my RPG mind, combat is 'for xp and to get cool stuff'.

Jeez... after reading this I'm embarassed to call myself an RPG player.

[Shazzie]

AlanC9 wrote...

Shazzie wrote...
 But I had a hard enough time with ME2 feeling like it (to me!) had abandoned a lot of the RPG for more of the shooter. I guess, in my RPG mind, combat is 'for xp and to get cool stuff'.

Jeez... after reading this I'm embarassed to call myself an RPG player.

Note: I was (vastly) over-simplifying the whole thing, and also really only speaking of 'generic trash mob combat'. I do like figuring out the harder fights. The ones where that require you to think, and aren't just there to provide you with a delay on the story and/or provide experience for leveling. Didn't mean to embarass you.   

Modifié par Shazzie, 03 juin 2011 - 04:55 .

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

SNascimento wrote...

Don't worry. They are just improving ME2 combat in every conceivable way.

I hope so.  See?  This is what I was hoping to hear.  Some reassuring words from my fellow players.

And like you, Shazzie, I felt disappointed by Dragon Age 2.  I just don't want the same thing to happen with Mass Effect 3.  I'm mostly sure that it won't, but I made this topic because I'm not 100% sure.

lazuli wrote...

The article blew cover out of proportion.
Yes, in ME2, you can basically camp in cover and not ever die. But you
don't have to play that way. Saying you drop dead the instant you pop
out of cover is an exaggeration, just like saying Charge fails as often
as it works well. ME2 rewards aggressive play, though it isn't as easy
as sitting in the back.

I understand that the writer wanted to
hype up ME3 and make it look more appealing than its predecessors. I'm
looking forward to the changes in combat in ME3, but it seems like the
writer and I have been playing different versions of ME2.

Yeah, I think he was trying to hype ME3, especially for the more casual players. I hope. And of course, with the argument about cover, I'd like to see him try to sit and camp behind cover when there are swarms of husks all over him.

ramnozack wrote...

Kronner wrote...

They
said they were building, not rebuilding this time around. I think the
core of ME2's combat is amazing, and if they add better movement,
weapons, combos etc, it will be that much better.

And
other biotic powers for Vanguard other then charge......Throw a
vanguard a warp or throw or something for god's sake!

It would be ideal if you could choose your own powers.  I'd take Charge, Barrier, and Throw, personally.  If I couldn't have Barrier, than I'd take Shockwave.

Modifié par Neverwinter_Knight77, 03 juin 2011 - 06:20 .

[Chuvvy]

Me2s combat was far from perfect. It was okay.

[CajNatalie]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

xiiz wrote...

ME2's combat was far from perfect, imo. It felt rather clunky and unresponsive, sounds like they're improving in all the right areas for ME3. (Except maybe for those melee weapons, but that's probably just me)

I'm with you on this.  Okay I kind of wish heavy weapons were a soldier exclusive, but I wasn't expecting that change.  

i wonder if im ever going to disagree with you, Ah. soldiers having exlusive heavy weapons would be a good sign for the caster classes. id love to see abilities that arent trumped by weapons, like singularity and the blackstorm. i hope ME3 comes out and soldiers are complaining their weapons arent as effective as biotics, and then bioware has to put out a DLC that adds better heavy weapons. thatd be great.

I would be so happy if weapons ended up trumped by powers. XD

I'd also like to see Heavy Weapons be soldier exclusive to allow powers to be more useful and balance out in that way.


Anyway, as for the mention of picking powers... well as long as I get to carry over the same powers for each class I'll be happy. I mean... I like what they gave the Vanguard, and have already given my argument earlier in this thread. So I don't want powers forcibly changed... just give us the option to pick to satisfy anyone who doesn't seem to be able to make use of what they have.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 03 juin 2011 - 12:28 .

[Black Raptor]

An improvement on ME2 which in turn was an improvement on ME1. What is there to be worried about?

[lazuli]

Gatt9 wrote...
Agreed.

ME2's combat is essentially:  Move for 10 seconds,  see crates/wall pop up,  hide behind it,  wait for enemy's routine predictable pause in firing,  aim above them and wait,  pull trigger,  rinse,  repeat.  At end of level,  repeat the above except it's with either a mech or a gunship in 90% of the missions.  If you're really lucky,  it'll be two mechs.

If you move out of cover,  you'll be dead in seconds.  All ME2 combat is "Press A,  wait,  hold left trigger,  pull right trigger".  Every single fight is exactly that.

ME2's combat can be many things.  If you play defensively, battles take longer but you are safer.  If you read the battlefield and get out of cover when it makes sense to do so, you can speed through the combat with grim efficiency.  This is true even on Insanity.  It takes practice.  If you think you die too fast when out of cover on a lower difficulty level, maybe you're just not into shooter combat.

It seems a lot of players feel that defensive play is the most rewarding option in ME2, or simply never bothered to learn how to fight aggressively after being punished for doing so during their first few attempts.  I would wager that the Brawler achievement remains uncompleted in many people's games, for instance.  So I have to say I approve of Bioware making some changes to get more people into close combat.  While I think it is perfectly viable and rewarding to wade into close combat in ME2, it also might be too difficult for many players.  And yes, the elbow of death needs work, though it is certainly deadly in ME2.

I just think the IGN article made liberal use of hyperbole when describing ME2's combat, much like you.

With so many people complaining about how difficult close combat in ME2 is, I wonder just how dramatic the changes are going to have to be.  Or perhaps they won't be dramatic enough, and the increased tendency for enemy AI to pressure players will result in more complaints from people that would rather keep their distance.

By the end of the first mission,  you've played every mission in the game except they'll just have different textures.

I was going to make a list of the missions that don't follow Freedom's Progress' structure, but then I realized I'd have to type up the name of every mission in the game.  Oddly enough, Freedom's Progress features more dynamic combat than a lot of the later missions, as enemies flank you through scripting.

Yes, though, there is a tendency to drop YMIR's and other bosses at the end of missions.  But do you really find that surprising?  That's been standard game structure for years.  I am satisfied with the enemy diversity in ME2.  I would certainly welcome more, but the game was already on two discs for the xbox.  I don't feel entitled to more bosses and enemies, but I would never say no to their inclusion.

[Darkhour]

xI extremist Ix wrote...

I think we have different definitions of bravery. I didn't like the combat system in ME1 mainly because it was too easy. An adept NG with Assault Rifle bonus power was unstoppable for me.

An adept starting from lvl 1 with a pistol was a badass in ME1.

By the end of the game guns weren't even necessary.

They really dropped the ball with ME2.

[AlanC9]

lazuli wrote...
ME2's combat can be many things.  If you play defensively, battles take longer but you are safer.  If you read the battlefield and get out of cover when it makes sense to do so, you can speed through the combat with grim efficiency.  This is true even on Insanity.  It takes practice.  If you think you die too fast when out of cover on a lower difficulty level, maybe you're just not into shooter combat.

Or you respond rationally to the incentives the game gives you. I like shooters fine, but if the game gives me an opportunity to take out opponents with low risk I take it. Learning to speed through a game isn't much of an incentive -- if I like playing a game taking longer isn't a problem, and if I don't like playing a game I just stop.

Sure, this means that I've missed some fun that others have found. I didn't enjoy playing a Vanguard much.

[TheOtherTheoG]

SilentNukee wrote...

With the way things are said in the article, it seems they've written it for the "COD" audience that will probably only play the game once...Saying stuff this way will most likely grab their interest.

It's IGN, I think I've yet to find an article or review written by them that doesnt sound like it's been written by a pre-pubescent 11 year old.

[CajNatalie]

AlanC9 wrote...

Or you respond rationally to the incentives the game gives you. I like shooters fine, but if the game gives me an opportunity to take out opponents with low risk I take it. Learning to speed through a game isn't much of an incentive -- if I like playing a game taking longer isn't a problem, and if I don't like playing a game I just stop.

Sure, this means that I've missed some fun that others have found. I didn't enjoy playing a Vanguard much.

Being rational and having fun are two different things.
Often they contradict each-other.

If it gets me on my toes in this game, it's generally fun. So I mix it up when I can. To each their own.
Hopefully you'll feel less restricted to just hiding back in ME3 and be able to enjoy a more varied style of aggression.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 03 juin 2011 - 07:43 .

[ianmcdonald]

I really cannot understand how anyone can be worried. If you decide that you don't want the game, you don't have to buy it. That's $60 that stays in your pocket.

If it turns out that you do want it, you can buy it and most likely enjoy the hell out of it.

Win-win.

[JamieCOTC]

My canon Shep is a vanguard, so she gets up close and personal as much as she can.  That said, I hardly ever used melee mostly because it was so clunky.  I did it just enough to get the brawler achievement and then said, the heck w/ it.  So, in that sense, I'm very excited about the new melee powers, (especially eager to see what they have in store for vanguard). 

As for the other stuff, I'm not a fan of pure shooters either. Just as long as it's not ME:CoD, I'm fine. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 03 juin 2011 - 09:39 .

[Ahglock]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

xiiz wrote...

ME2's combat was far from perfect, imo. It felt rather clunky and unresponsive, sounds like they're improving in all the right areas for ME3. (Except maybe for those melee weapons, but that's probably just me)

I'm with you on this.  Okay I kind of wish heavy weapons were a soldier exclusive, but I wasn't expecting that change.  

i wonder if im ever going to disagree with you, Ah. soldiers having exlusive heavy weapons would be a good sign for the caster classes. id love to see abilities that arent trumped by weapons, like singularity and the blackstorm. i hope ME3 comes out and soldiers are complaining their weapons arent as effective as biotics, and then bioware has to put out a DLC that adds better heavy weapons. thatd be great.

Exactly, I want to see some sweet power awesomeness.  You know a shcokwave that looks like what your biotic shield monkey does during the suicide mission.   Crap put it on a 10 minute cooldown, I don;t care.  Just give a heavy weapon equivelant for powers.  Or just generally increase the effect of powers overall so no heavy weapons is fine and dandy.  

[Black Raptor]

Heavy weapons were annoying because they always ended up clipping into femshep's back and guns.

[Gatt9]

Cheesy Blue wrote...
I'm sorry to tell you this but the RPG you know and love is a dying breed. I suspect within the next ten years the classic RPG is going to be dead, replaced by action RPGs. It's a sad thing, but you either need to get with the times or give up gamming (new games at least). Once again sorry bro.

People said the exact same thing 13 years ago about Turn Based games,  then it was ...

"I'm sorry to tell you,  Turn Based games are dead.  Real Time is the only game to make,  so if you like turn based,  give up gaming".

Today we have...

Pokemon,  which has sold more games than any other series ever.
Civilization,  which still sells incredibly well.
Hybrids like Valykria Chronicles,  or Total War,  as well as several Turn Based RPGs in development.

Of course,  many of the studios that made that claim are long gone.  Westwood,  Ion Storm,  and the many who died after their 2nd or 3rd crappy RTS.

This isn't any different.  It's a current fad,  just like RTS,  and like full motion video,  and before that it was copying Super Mario,  people will get tired of playing the same game over and over,  they'll move on to the next fad,  and the studios chanting "classic RPGs are dead!!!",  will be bankrupt.

It's history,  it's been very consistent.  This won't be any different.  Especially since it's pretty obvious at this point that the "Bad players" are significantly larger in number than they had been in any previous fad,  DA2's debacle was a pretty clear message.

ME2's combat can be many things. If you play defensively, battles take longer but you are safer. If you read the battlefield and get out of cover when it makes sense to do so, you can speed through the combat with grim efficiency. This is true even on Insanity. It takes practice. If you think you die too fast when out of cover on a lower difficulty level, maybe you're just not into shooter combat

1.  I've played just about every major shooter ever made,  and beat most of them.

2.  I pop my head up when the game institutes it's mandator pause on all of the AI,  you jump out and charge them.  Same end effect,  stay behind cover,  wait for the mandatory pause,  then implement kill plan.  Doesn't change the fact that shields last about 2 seconds when the AI is in it's firing timeslice.

I was going to make a list of the missions that don't follow Freedom's Progress' structure, but then I realized I'd have to type up the name of every mission in the game. Oddly enough, Freedom's Progress features more dynamic combat than a lot of the later missions, as enemies flank you through scripting.

Bull.  Nearly every mission ends the same way.  Almost all of them involve the linear corridor walk as well.

Yes, though, there is a tendency to drop YMIR's and other bosses at the end of missions. But do you really find that surprising? That's been standard game structure for years. I am satisfied with the enemy diversity in ME2. I would certainly welcome more, but the game was already on two discs for the xbox. I don't feel entitled to more bosses and enemies, but I would never say no to their inclusion.

Bull.

Unless you're talking about standard Shooter structure,  which is true,  but the problem is that ME2's billed as an RPG.  Having a grand total of about 6-7 different enemies for the whole game,  and ending everything in pretty much the same way is,  and has been for nearly 20 years,  extremely bad design. 

6-7 enemies for an entire RPG is just pathetic.  Heck,  even for a shooter it's pathetic.  Wolfenstein 3D had nearly as many enemies on a 386sx16,  and Doom eclisped that on a 486.

The disc defense doesn't work either.  It's just swapping things in and out of memory,  an event that's taking place already when you get the load screen.  It's not like we're talking hi-resolution,  or even high quality here.  The vid card's the equivalent of a GeForce 6 or 7,  this stuff isn't space or processor intensive.  I mean seriously,  the aliasing is so bad in the game I often feel like I'm looking at a mid-90's quality game.  Space is not an issue.

[Ahglock]

Another thing about the IGN article. He talked about the guns having more impact this time. And I wonder what he means, sound, feel, actual damage what? Because in ME2 guns disintegrated people and fast. Guns if anything had too much impact in ME2. Yeah it is a shooter/rpg but the guns obliterated enemies in a couple bursts/shots in insanity. If guns are even stronger, why use powers?