3223 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote..
Without DLC, you mean? (I'm still hoping for a GOTY edition.)

Yes. I never bought the DLC weapons, just the story-based DLC.

I'd like that, but I'm not sure I'd want to see it more than once in the game.

I agree. I just meant that there's a difference between robbing graves and 'exploring' in a setting and story consistent way.

sbvera13 wrote...
Ok forumites, time for the gravy.  I hear
this a lot- that ME2 improved the shooter portion. How? I don't see it;
I've mentioned this many times.  It's monotonous, has little/no ai, no
variation, no tactical options, just and endless series of
hallways/bridges/trails with waist height boxes to hide behind.   The
control interface is smoother, but thats about all I could find that
actualyl improved.

ME1 had no AI (enemies just rushed at you), no variation (there was even less of an emphasis on anything other than immunity and/or barrier) and the level design was equally constrained.

You're wrong about ME2, btw. The suicide mission is just the same sort of broken up series of epic events like the Citadel in ME1. As an example, the plague on Omega has many separate segments - finding the batarian, scrounging for files on how the victims died, saving the human family, meeting with Mordin, saving his assistant; the same with Garrus's recruitment mission: you first storm to save him, then turn around to repel the mercenaries, go back and fight to lock down the underground and lastly take on a hellicopter in close combat.

If you say ME1 had "variety" then ME2 certainly did.

More importantly, the control interface being smoother is a really big deal. It's like saying that boats are an "improvement" over swimming in terms of how much it underemphasizes the impact.

So heres the challenge: What about combat improved? What mechanics,
level design, weapon design, enemy AI/encounter, made it better? 
I personally can find very little, so here's your chance to convince
me.  My mind is open.

The weapons functioned differently. Unlike ME1, where "good" meant enoough heat-reducing mods to just tape RMB on, ME2 had multiple functionality in the limited weapon selection (e.g. the sniper rifle upgrade line). Vanguard combat was a great change-up - it made the whole game play differently. The infiltrator cloak changed how you could get around the battlefield and deal damage.

Just some examples.

Modifié par In Exile, 03 juillet 2011 - 04:36 .

[AlanC9]

sbvera13 wrote...
ME1 was not so amazing either, but it broke it up and added gameplay variety to compensate.  Like finding those salarians on virmire, unveiling Vigil right in the middle of an otherwise tense moment, or tying your progress into an epic cutscene as you storm the citadel.  All of these broke up the monotony and took the focus away from the combat, which while flawed, is forgivable because it's obviously not and never was the main point of the game.  ME2 has no such fallback- it's combat, combat, combat, dialogues, back to Normandy, appx 30 times repeated.

I'm just plain confused by this. I found ME2 to have more variety in its mission designs than ME1.

So heres the challenge: What about combat improved? What mechanics, level design, weapon design, enemy AI/encounter, made it better?  I personally can find very little, so here's your chance to convince me.  My mind is open.

Going to player control over shooting accuracy was a big change in mechanics, no? Whether it's a positive change... mileages vary. But really, if I found ME2's combat more fun and you did not, what do we have to say to each other?

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
if I found ME2's combat more fun and you did not, what do we have to say to each other?

It's the shooter fan effect. People who were accustomed to playing shooters found the stat interference infuriating. As much as I love RPGs, I also am a fan of shooters and play them regularly. Variety is the spice of life.

[littlezack]

I'm not accustomed to playing shooters at all (seriously, watch me play Halo 3 sometime. You'd think I had the screen stuck on a gag reel) and I still found the stats infuriating. So.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
if I found ME2's combat more fun and you did not, what do we have to say to each other?

It's the shooter fan effect. People who were accustomed to playing shooters found the stat interference infuriating. As much as I love RPGs, I also am a fan of shooters and play them regularly. Variety is the spice of life.

What do shooter fans have to do with me liking ME2's combat better? That "I" you quoted was meant literally.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:47 .

[sbvera13]

A couple of valid points were brought up to answer my question. Firstly, the side missions were all the same environment. I agree. I suppose I should have mentioned this to start, as I noticed it in my very first playthrough. However, they are all optional, and on an average playthrough I'll skip them. IMO however, the main plot missions were pretty good and feature a lot more variety then 90% (ie: anything that's not the suicide mission) of ME2.

Second, UI improvement. I accept this point. It did improve.

Third, the idea that ME2 had just as much breakup and variety. In the suicide mission, I will grant that. The rest of the game however, boils down to following one path, hiding behind boxes, and shooting at things. And this time, there is much more of it, and much less breakup. The side options, characters, discoveries and side plots are few and far between. Dantius towers had a few decent breakups; so did Mordin's quest; Samara's was a nice change of pace as well. I can't really think of any others off the top of my head. Contrast this to ME1, which was by no means amazing by any shooter standard, but still comes out ahead IMO compared to ME2. Feros had side wings, a variation of enemies (Thorian Creeper ping pong was quite fun; biotics or explosive rounds FTW), quests to do along the way, and a great encounter at the end of it all. Noveria started slow, and ended up with a semi-branching action area that unfolds up to 3 different ways (that I've counted), although with the same ultimate conclusion, it made for surprises on later playthroughs. Virmire was unremarkable, but delivered an awesome cinematic experience with Saren at the end to cap it off and make it all worth it. Those are some examples; ME2 on the other hand, in the majority of missions (though not all, as I mentioned), just has you shoot things and then make a paragon/renegade choice at the end. And unlike ME1, the majority of main plot missions fall into this category and can't be skipped on later playthroughs (if you count loyalty mish's as main plot, which I do cause I don't like having everyone die).  Gets very boring.


As for the different variety of enemies, color of uniform doesn't count. There really wasn't much other change. I will grant that there was little variety in ME1 as well, but due to the better storytelling I cared much less. Also, I can think of a few key sections that DID mix it up. Thorian creeper ping-pong for example was very fun, as was the effects of low gravity while storming the citadel. ME2 has it's own ups to match, such as the suicide mission. All in all, nothing impressive, so I'll just call this a break even area between the two games. What kills the overall effect in my mind though, is that when you take the storytelling away and focus on the combat as much as ME2 did, the combat had better be amazing. I'm not saying it was terrible, but it certainly didn't hold it's required amount of weight.

Modifié par sbvera13, 03 juillet 2011 - 06:36 .

[sbvera13]

I played ME1 after ME2. The story was superior, but the playing itself was an incredible chore. It actually started to depress me each time I thought about combat. The reason for that? Loot.

Don't ever play KOTOR, or any of the prior BW games then.  Amazing characters, plots that knock any of the official Lucas movies (well, the prequels for sure) and a majority of novels out of the water, and some of the greatest moments in gaming history- but there will be loot, stats, and squad members. Lots of them.  That's were I came from (and probably most of the other ME2 complainers) and the story and characters are what keeps us coming back to BW games.  I play action games as well, and lots of them; it's never been about loot or stats to be sure, and I see no downside to the combat hybrid of the ME franchise.  The problem is ME2 dropped nearly all the side attractions and didn't put anything in it's place.  I can't say how glad I am they've officially recognized they're mistakes with ME2, and am looking forward to the next title.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 At least ME2 made you fight more interesting enemies. I will face Harbinger, Scions, Preatorians and mecha-dogs before those impossibly annoying yet ineffectual Hoppers and Drones any time of the day, and all the infantry enemies were the exact same (not counting Krogans), save that humanoid ones required you to pump each of them full of bullets for 30 seconds because of goddamn Immunity. At least there is some weapon variation between Collectors, Geth and mercs, and each merc has it's own tactics (going up against Blue Suns? hope you got a character with Overload or Distruptor ammo). ME2 definitely has more variety in it's gameplay, and that's not counting the DLC that adds some more (including a little stealth, hope we see more of it in ME3, and enemies countering your cover with grenades or charges, definitely a good idea)

Also, there is imo no need to argue the benefits of loot since the ME games simply does not work with vendor trash, Shepard is an elite warrior, not a Fallout-style scavenger or a DnD adventurer. Being able to steal and customize weapons sounds a lot better than an inventory system to me. Then again, I dislike loot-based games (at least Diablo offered variation in enemies sometimes, Borderlands amounted to shooting either bandits, bandit's dogs, or insects for hours on end while watching bigger numbers come up constantly, boooring) as a whole, and the concept of loot as an incentive doesn't ring well with me, not in a game that take it's story seriously enough at any rate. You should be able to intrigue the player with more than bigger numbers.

[Nashiktal]

sbvera13 wrote...

I played ME1 after ME2. The story was superior, but the playing itself was an incredible chore. It actually started to depress me each time I thought about combat. The reason for that? Loot.

Don't ever play KOTOR, or any of the prior BW games then.  Amazing characters, plots that knock any of the official Lucas movies (well, the prequels for sure) and a majority of novels out of the water, and some of the greatest moments in gaming history- but there will be loot, stats, and squad members. Lots of them.  That's were I came from (and probably most of the other ME2 complainers) and the story and characters are what keeps us coming back to BW games.  I play action games as well, and lots of them; it's never been about loot or stats to be sure, and I see no downside to the combat hybrid of the ME franchise.  The problem is ME2 dropped nearly all the side attractions and didn't put anything in it's place.  I can't say how glad I am they've officially recognized they're mistakes with ME2, and am looking forward to the next title.

I disagree here. Kotor handled loot MUCH better than ME1 in every aspect. You were not spammed with loot, the loot you got was more aesthetically varied, it had varying uses (depending on class) and stat building actually mattered in Kotor and previous Bioware rpgs.

Seriously don't compare ME1 to previous Bioware RPG,s I find myself agreeing heavily with the guy your telling not to play any of these games, and this is coming from a guy who loves stat based rpg and even JRPG.

ME1 WAS A CHORE as much as I adore the game. It was not fun tweaking the weapons, most of the weapon mods did little to differentiate themselves from each other, guns all looked and felt the same, and to top it all off the same monotony had to be applied to ALL the squadmates.

Unlike say Kotor where you had to tailor different loot for different characters, and said loot was varied and at least looked different.

[AlanC9]

sbvera13 wrote...

A couple of valid points were brought up to answer my question. Firstly, the side missions were all the same environment. I agree. I suppose I should have mentioned this to start, as I noticed it in my very first playthrough. However, they are all optional, and on an average playthrough I'll skip them. IMO however, the main plot missions were pretty good and feature a lot more variety then 90% (ie: anything that's not the suicide mission) of ME2.

But if ME2's optional comtent has superior design to ME1's optional content, that's points for ME2, isn't it? Unless you skip N7 missions in ME2 as well, in which case I guess it's a wash.

Third, the idea that ME2 had just as much breakup and variety. In the suicide mission, I will grant that. The rest of the game however, boils down to following one path, hiding behind boxes, and shooting at things. And this time, there is much more of it, and much less breakup.

As opposed to ME1's going down a path, not hiding behind boxes, and shooting stuff? Unless doing the same stuff in a different order counts as a real change.

I found that ME2 had a serious edge in the routine gameplay; the setups were typically much more interesting, and I had to pay a lot more attention to the terrain than in ME1.

The side options, characters, discoveries and side plots are few and far between. Dantius towers had a few decent breakups; so did Mordin's quest; Samara's was a nice change of pace as well. I can't really think of any others off the top of my head.

Without knowing what counts as a "breakup" for you it's difficult to interpret this.

Garrus' recruitment mission doesn't count? It's full of side options and characters. Zaeed's mission has nice end cinematics and branching paths. Horizon's got new creatures, the Collector ship has discoveries. The bit where you play as Joker has no ME1 equivalent.

I don't mean this as a critique; I just don't understand the criteria being applied. 

[darth_lopez]

Insert anger rage post here -.- T-T sadness...

Modifié par darth_lopez, 03 juillet 2011 - 08:45 .

[whywhywhywhy]

AlanC9 wrote...

But that doesn't mean that it's impossible for RPG players to like having FPS elements added to an RPG. I like the hybrid approach ME2 took. Lots of people liked it. I'm going to like ME3's approach too. So will they.

Lots of people ?  But we can't define how many, my only problem with your view is you attribute the success of me2 to these gamer/fans who like the hybrid fps approach.  Ignoring the many fans of the first game that bought it, the game was absolutely marketed as a RPG.  It is reasonable to conclude that RPG gamers are the majority and not the minority of the fanbase.  I attribute the increase in sales to the many "I just bought a xbox what games shoud I buy" threads and marketing.  

AlanC9 wrote...
You don't like it?

not a matter of likes and dislikes but more of a matter of what played better.  I have likes and dislikes about elements of both methods.  That said I feel that me1's feel was better then me2 which to me started feeling like a poor shooter.

AlanC9 wrote...Well,sucks to be you.

lol, really?  Just calm down, don't go bashing your keyboard or monitor like that german youtube kid.

AlanC9 wrote...
Edit: I guess I missed the post where you declared that fans are segregated into "FPS fans " and "RPG fans." I don't buy this premise.

Fans are seperated by what they like, doesn't mean one can't like the other.  However I was pointing out that gamers, fans of fps for instance like different things and it's a mistake to try to enhance a rpg game by dropping many rpg elements from a the game in favor of fps elements.

On one side you have rpg fans on the other fps enthusiasts and in the middle casuals, I use this as an umbrella term for the many varied gamers.  Casuals that lean to the fps side will favor the changes as that was the biggest complaint about the first game, it wasn't a good fps.  They changed it in part 2 to grab more fans, fps don't always need a good story and etc.  This is why a lot of stuff in me2 stopped making sense storywise, it was more combat based.  Casuals on the rpg side or that lean in that direction are sitting around wondering why and wanted a game similiar to the first with the problems improved/fixed and the story progressed.

I felt the need to explain this as you think I think fps which we both agree wouldn't buy the game for a fps kick are a meaningful part of the fanbase.  I'd think they're actual rare, too much is missing.

Do they? I'll take your word for it. None of the ones I've played have it, but I haven't bought a new FPS in a while.

Does this mean that you don't think there is any such genre as a TPS, though?

No, because FPS generally had both views in a lot of the games I find it to be a needless label, you define the game by it's gameplay.  The term FPS defines that gameplay thus the need for another is unnecessary.  Lots of varied gameplay can be found under the term FPS.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 03 juillet 2011 - 08:56 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Including loot in a game is not bad, inventing a nice loot system is not quick and easy so most either get it wrong or perfect it over time in sequels. Oh forgot if your bioware you can cut it out and not deal with it.

One questions that comes to mind with the new system , the configuration thing it must be terribly limited, having only a few configurations or they'll have to have a basic component loot system in it. I wonder if that's gonna make it suck or not.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:06 .

[JKoopman]

Time Well Spent wrote...

Who really wants their combat accuracy depend on a stat versus an enemies "agility".
I want to point and shoot, and feel like a hero.

Then I believe there's a genre called "First Person Shooter" that would fit you nicely. Kindly leave RPGs alone.

Honestly, I'll never understand why people who don't enjoy RPGs insist on trying to change them into pre-existing genres rather than simply playing those pre-existing genres. I don't play Prince of Persia and complain about the platforming and puzzles, so why do people play RPGs and then complain about stats and inventory?

Modifié par JKoopman, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:15 .

[Terror_K]

JKoopman wrote...

Then I believe there's a genre called "First Person Shooter" that would fit you nicely. Kindly leave RPGs alone.

Honestly, I'll never understand why people who don't enjoy RPGs insist on trying to change them into pre-existing genres rather than simply playing those pre-existing genres. I don't play Prince of Persia and complain about the platforming and puzzles, so why do people play RPGs and then complain about stats and inventory?

I think in Mass Effect's case what we've got is a bunch of people coming into it who don't really like RPGs as such and aren't big fans of the mechanics, but find the combat alone satisying and like the look of the setting and are getting into the story and characters, etc. but because there are some aspects of the game that don't suit them they're kind of demanding that the game be made to suit them more, because they still want to play it to get the story and experience it, but don't want to put up with the RPG mechanics at the same time.

[Terror_K]

Double post. Disregard.

Modifié par Terror_K, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:32 .

[JKoopman]

Terror_K wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Then I believe there's a genre called "First Person Shooter" that would fit you nicely. Kindly leave RPGs alone.

Honestly, I'll never understand why people who don't enjoy RPGs insist on trying to change them into pre-existing genres rather than simply playing those pre-existing genres. I don't play Prince of Persia and complain about the platforming and puzzles, so why do people play RPGs and then complain about stats and inventory?

I think in Mass Effect's case what we've got is a bunch of people coming into it who don't really like RPGs as such and aren't big fans of the mechanics, but find the combat alone satisying and like the look of the setting and are getting into the story and characters, etc. but because there are some aspects of the game that don't suit them they're kind of demanding that the game be made to suit them more, because they still want to play it to get the story and experience it, but don't want to put up with the RPG mechanics at the same time.

Oh, I fully understand that they like the story and universe. The point is that it says right on the d*mn box "Genre: Role-Playing Game". They know (or should've known) exactly what they were getting into when they bought it.

For example, I love the universe and fiction of the Halo series, a First-Person Shooter. When I pick up a Halo title, it's with the understanding that I'll be playing an FPS and all that that entails (unless stated otherwise). I don't go to Bungie's forums and demand that they add stats and loot to make the game more like an RPG.

[Rogue Unit]

JKoopman wrote...

Time Well Spent wrote...

Who really wants their combat accuracy depend on a stat versus an enemies "agility".
I want to point and shoot, and feel like a hero.

Then I believe there's a genre called "First Person Shooter" that would fit you nicely. Kindly leave RPGs alone.

Honestly, I'll never understand why people who don't enjoy RPGs insist on trying to change them into pre-existing genres rather than simply playing those pre-existing genres. I don't play Prince of Persia and complain about the platforming and puzzles, so why do people play RPGs and then complain about stats and inventory?

Because stats and inventory aren't the defining factors of an RPG, and when you have an inventory as clunky and tedious and Mas Effect's, I think they were right to get rid of it. (I haven't sen anyone complain about stats, btw. Inventory? Yes. Stats? Not yet.)

Modifié par Rogue Unit, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:42 .

[rt604]

Loot is not the most important component of an rpg, there is gameplay as well as story, however, loot is a significant mechanic within the game. In some cases loot inadvertently becomes a huge driving force, like in Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft, where people go questing to farm for very rare and powerful items, I don't think that is detrimental at all, whether people enjoy that facet of the game or not is an opinion based subjectively from person to person.

Mass Effect 2 had a more streamlined system, which was a good thing, because ME1 inventory system was terrible. But what I liked from ME1 was that every weapon, however redundant, had quantitative properties (Damage, Shots before overheat and Accuracy). Armor also had similar properties (Direct Damage protection, Shields, and Resistance to Tech and Biotic Powers). Now in ME1 they had tons of weapons and armor, but the true variance was very little, in terms of stats, until you get the best equipment, but especially in terms of feel and look. They improved upon the look and feel of the guns in ME2 at the cost of reducing the number of weapons and that is fine, but I would like some numbers so I can compare weapons to one another. Same thing goes with armor components, percent increases are useless without base numbers. I don't know, but maybe I'm used to such things from old games like FFVI, and FFVII, plus it's just the engineer in me.

All that said, the thing I like about these kind of games is progression, as you move forward to meet the ever increasing challenges during the game the player develops their power and acquires better equipment to meet those hurdles. As you fight your way through the Reaper Armada, the difficulties will only increase in frequency and severity, so the powers and tools you acquire will help you overcome those tests. If you want to use the same weapon in the beginning of the story as the end, that is other people's cup of tea, not mine necessarily, but at least upgrade the gear throughout the game, and show the upgrades in a clear quantitative manner.

[Hulk Hsieh]

I really don't think we need everything in number to help us do the thinking and comparison.
Actually, sometimes numbers kill the necessary of thinking. You don't need to use your brain to know a rifle +3 is better than rifle +2.

The ME2 way makes people really experience the weapons before comparison.
I think that make it a better "thinking" game.

[Lunatic LK47]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

I really don't think we need everything in number to help us do the thinking and comparison.
Actually, sometimes numbers kill the necessary of thinking. You don't need to use your brain to know a rifle +3 is better than rifle +2.

The ME2 way makes people really experience the weapons before comparison.
I think that make it a better "thinking" game.

Another person added to the "You get free beer" list.

[Terror_K]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

I really don't think we need everything in number to help us do the thinking and comparison.
Actually, sometimes numbers kill the necessary of thinking. You don't need to use your brain to know a rifle +3 is better than rifle +2.

But a good RPG won't simply up a weapon or item from just +2 to +3. It'll have that, but also one weapon will have effect A and another will have effect B, or one will have two minor bonus effects and the other one slightly better effect. Then the player has to decide which one is actually better, because it's not as clear cut when you have things like that. Sometimes the +3 weapon is not always better than the +2 one when the +2 one has better effects or merely effects that better suit your character and/or playstyle or simply what the situation your in dictates.

For example, you could have a weapon that's technically stronger than another in Mass Effect, but the slightly weaker weapon does bonus damage to synthetic enemies and you know you're going to be fighting a bunch of geth or mechs in the current or next section. That changes things, and the "better on paper" weapon overall is not the better weapon at the moment.

The ME2 way makes people really experience the weapons before comparison.
I think that make it a better "thinking" game.

Please. ME2 requires next to no thinking. It's "Fisher Price: My First RPG" for crying out loud. It either babies you with everything, tells you what to do or does all the work for you. That was the problem with most of what was left of its RPG systems. It felt like a big brother was coming along to wrestle control from you and saying, "you're doing it wrong!" and then it just setting things on autopilot half the time.

Admittedly ME1 wasn't rocket science either, but at least you could make mistakes there. You could bork your characters and make bad builds, choose poor weapons and mods, etc. ME2 is mindless.

[Babli]

Terror_K wrote...
Admittedly ME1 wasn't rocket science either, but at least you could make mistakes there. You could bork your characters and make bad builds, choose poor weapons and mods, etc. ME2 is mindless.

You mean...streamlined.