3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You claim, simultaneously, that actions outside the game do and do not affect roleplaying.

Ahh.  That's not what I said (or if I did, that's not what I meant - I don't really want to go back to check my exact wording).

Actions outside the game affect roleplaying in that they inform roleplaying, but they do not affect the capacity to roleplay.

The capacity to roleplay is what matters.  Can the player play his character?  If the game itself denies him control over his character, then the answer is no.  JRPGs do this quite a bit.  ME does this incessantly.

By my reckoning, the ME games are effectively JRPGs.  I don't see any meaningful difference that sets ME outside the JRPG genre.

Specifically, you claim that back story has no effect but that epilogue does.

The timelines matters.  Cause must precede effect.

The relation between these and the events within the gameplay is that all of them involve actions that you cannot control.

The question asserts that the aquifers and the Rio Grande (both important water sources) are delicate.

It does nothing of the sort.  It simply asked me to consider them delicate for the purposes of answering the question.  They established context.

Do you think that you would have been lying to me if you'd known that the aquifers were not delicate, or would you have just been asking a hypothetical question?  And how would those two differ semantically?

If they don't have a necessary difference, then you weren't making an explicit assertion with the question in the first place.

In terms of rhetoric, those assertions could be made so as to draw your attention to a certain point that you had perhaps been ignoring. Say for example, someone insists that despite the drought it is alright to water a lawn daily.

As an aside, why not just price the water to discourage overuse?

[the_one_54321]

Ironically, I never eat pizza that has toppings I don't like. It's total BS that picking them off makes it as though they weren't there. The pizza was cooked with them on top. They leave flavor on the pizza even if you pick them off.

[Tony Gunslinger]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Yes, I was sarcastic because you refused to aknowledge the ecistence of other systems than an inherently flawed one, and took up that specific system as if it was the only alternative. The only thing you have 'repeatedly stated' is that you refuse to admit that the GCD system is inherently flawed too. And your' something else' is not something else. It's just other aspects of the game that has nothing to do with the mechanic of power usage by itself. During gameplay it intreacts with how you play the game, but it has no impact on the mechanic itself, and it falls entirely on its face as an argument when you hold it up against the fact that you have missions in ME2 where you cannot rely on this 'something else'.

I want the current GCD system gone because it's inherently flawed. It limits creativity and diversity in gameplay and puts people on a track of using only whatever ability is optimal at a given time. In other words, it's a 'one solution to a given problem' scheme.

What the hell.

To summarize our last conversation:

You: why do you like GCD
Me: it promotes a balance play of guns and powers, and makes squadmates relevant
You: GCD sucks because I'm just waiting behind cover after I've used a power
Me: Use squadmates
You: Squadmates are useless
Me: Only if you don't use them
You: GCD is uncreative and promotes one button spamming.
Me: You are restricting yourself
You: (craps on GCD)
Me: Why do you care so much about using multiple powers? (explains how GCD works, explains what happens with ICD in gameplay)
You: You lack imagination (craps on GCD, squadmates)

I don’t care about GCD, or ICD, what I care about is a balanced squad-based tactical combat with RPG elements. If ICD helps with making that happen, that’s great. If GCD does it, that’s great too. But if something isn’t working toward building a better squad-based tactical combat with RPG elements, and you've used all options to fix it, then you ditch it.

So let's make this clear again on why powers have everything to do with 'the other stuff' that doesn't matter to you:

On side A:
- Cloak/ARush/TA do nothing to enemies.
- Drone/Singularity/Charge do minimal damage to the target.
- Incinerate, Warp, Overload, ED, Reave, they don’t have enough damage to kill.
- CC powers NS, Throw, Pull, Slam, CB, AI Hack, Dominate deals no damage.

On side B:
- Except for point-blank range and sniper rifles, all guns cannot one-shot enemies.
- Pistols and SRs deal bonus dmg to armor
- SMGs and Shotguns deal bonus dmg shields/barriers
- ARs deal balanced bonuses to all defenses
- No gun deal bonus damage to health

These are the puzzle pieces given to you. Use your imagination on how to use them. To quote someone:

Terror_K wrote...
If you don't use your imagination you can't truly interact and picture the universe, locates, objects and other players and NPCs in the campaign. And imagination comes too in the form of the players using their own imagination and ideas to try and solve problems, which is more restricted in a cRPG where you only have options A, B and C.

Quick quiz: Let's combine something from side A and side B

A: Ok, how about Cloak and... Sniper Rifle? Ding! Winner.
A: ARush and... shotgun? Ding! Winner.
A: Singularity and... AR? Ding! Winner.
A: Overload and... pistol? Ding! Winner.
A: SMG and... Slam? Ding! Winner.

Do you get it now? Powers are designed to be used with guns, and vice versa. If you're changing how powers work by being able to cast more than one, then these adjustments have to be made to preserve gameplay balance:

- Longer cooldowns, which interrupts the synergy with guns. Or:
- Make powers less effective, which makes powers less meaningful and less different from each other.

And as to why GCD works:

GCD:

Squad power1 > Shep power > Shep gun > dead >
Shep power > Shep gun > Shep power 2 > dead >
Squad power 1 > Shep gun > dead >
Shep power > squad power 2 > Shep gun > dead >

In this fight, was there power/gun balance? Check. Was there squadmate/Shepard balance? Check. Was there team vs. enemy balance? Check.

In a system which lets you use 2 powers at once, you have the following options:

a) use all two powers against one target or group and take them all out without even drawing your gun. This upsets power/gun balance.
use 2 weapon-power combos at once without using squadmates. This upsets squadmate/shepard balance.
c) use 2 squad-power combos at once and use guns to nuke the entire area. This upsets team vs enemy balance

You may be tactical options in your first strike, but after a few turns, you won’t care about using the right powers, instead you’ll be using whatever powers that will be available. ie, if all you have available is Pull at the moment, you might as well use it to stagger an enemy until your other powers are finished with CD.

If you think ICD can be 'tweaked' or if you want to propose another system, I'm open to to hear it. But if all you're doing is crying about not being able to use two powers because it's no fun, then you don't know how to play the game in the first place, and whatever ideas you have are nothing but half-baked short-sighted wishes potentially breaking the game.

Do you not agree? Am I being close minded? Is there another scenario I'm missing? If so, then post it up instead of saying "Well you're wrong because the game designers should be able to tweak it to make it work" because that's about as valid as "The Cain should have infinite ammo, the designers should be able to tweak it to make it work"

Envision Powers A, B, C and D. They each have an effect in various areas, but also overlap in some areas, like damage.Dependin on circumstance, either of the powers would be deemed as most preferable. (snip)

I'm trying to make you understand why fixed cooldown rates are better than fluctuating ones.

Powers worked in ME1 and 2 because they have constant CD rates. Likewise, ME2 guns have constant firing times before they reload (a constant 1.5 CD). Constant rates produce a rhythm that you can predict, you can use it to combine weapons and powers, you can plan ahead attacks. When CD is constantly changing, you have no rhythm, and you need to rely on visual aides to tell you when it's ready.

Case in point: ME1 weapons had fluctuating shooting/cooldown times. If it takes 5 secs to shoot your AR before it overheats, and you stop at 3.1 secs, you don’t know your remaining firing time because the moment you've stopped shooting it begins to cool down. So you have to to look at the meter while you're shooting. That's bad, you’re not fully paying attention on the battlefield and you can't really plan ahead. Early demos of ME2 with overheating weapons had the meter right in the middle of the screen to try to minimize that distraction.

If power CDs fluctuate, then they will have the same problem as overheating weapons did: you'll be looking at CD meters more than the environment, and if you're looking at meters instead of the enviroment, then you're playing the interface and not the game that took thousands of hours to render. It's just bad design.

Appearantly, the above is unthinkable of to you since you keep using weird notions tied to something you limit yourself to in your imagination. What can I say? Tough cookie? Imagination runs different with different people? Whatever?

Those "weird notions" are the very ideas of what Mass Effect is about. If you don't agree, then tell me your idea of what Mass Effect is, because all I see is a frustrated gamer who can't perform well on the hardest difficulty, so he concludes that it must be because the system is flawed when it's been shown again and again that it's not the game's limitations, but the player's limitations.

You want to use multiple powers at once, I get it. But before you cry foul, why don't you first try using squadmates and combine powers with guns first, and see how it does?

And for your comments about teammates, I will flat out state that the ME2 interface for controlling teammates is way way way below par. It's minimalistic and lacks serious options for there to be any real usage out of tactics with teammates, not to mention the AI needs to be beefed compared to ME2 for them to be proper usable. ME seems intent to have teammates along, while not really using them proper. They are more along for the ride to deliver comments here and there, than to be actual tactical assets and a deep part of the gameplay. The fact that their damage is HEAVILY nerfed compared to the player is all the indication you need to see that ME series is about the player killing stuff, and not about commanding a team of specialists that perform as a team.

Funny, because squadmates in games like GoW don't do anything except advance the plot, and they are beefed up; the complete opposite of your assessment.

True that there are times the squad AI is funky, but most of the time they are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: assist you and choose the appropriate position relative to yours. My squadmates hardly die because I'm constantly on the move and the moment they have a power to use, I use it to interrupt enemies, and therefore I can move to begin with. My squadmates deal damage and kill just as much as I do, if not more so. Your squadmates die for reasons I can only speculate: not using them when you had the chance, not moving or attack when you could have. I can only say this: If my team is fighting your team, and I see you hiding in the back because you're afraid to pop up without a power to use, I'll tell them to pressure the closest target while I go around and flank your ass. And my team is called the Blue Suns.

And by the way, squadmate's weapons are nerfed, not their powers.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:25 .

[Ace of Dawn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ironically, I never eat pizza that has toppings I don't like. It's total BS that picking them off makes it as though they weren't there. The pizza was cooked with them on top. They leave flavor on the pizza even if you pick them off.

Aye, my sig. I wanted to but an analogy there, and that was the best I could come up with. I do agree with you, I cannot stand the taste of pineapple pizza, and will refuse to eat it even with them removed.

Just a simple analogy to get some measure of a point across.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The timelines matters.  Cause must precede effect.

It objectively does not matter. Where and why is there a differentiation between what you can and cannot control? Why does one instance dictate the applicability of role playing and the other does not? If you mean something other than what I perceived earlier, you are not yet done explaining yourself. There is still no strict reason why it's role playing ignore backstory and also role playing to impose epilogue and also not role playing to take away character control at times during the game. All these things are loss of character control.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It simply asked me to consider them delicate for the purposes of answering the question.  They established context.

Not if you were initially in a position of disagreement or uncertainty. Then the presented "context" may sway your opinion. Thus, an assertion.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As an aside, why not just price the water to discourage overuse?

As it turns out, that's exactly what we do. But the problem of people with more money than sense remains a factor. They just pay the jacked up fees.

[Lumikki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

konfeta wrote...
So, essentially, Silvius's objection is that Bioware is moving away from blank slate PCs and turns them into characters of their own that you can influence rather than exerting 'self-insertion' level of control.

Yes. Furthermore, he is claiming that blank-slate RPGs are truly the only kind of RPGs.

You're extrapolating his implications too far. What he claimed was that it's not an RPG unless you have some strong measure of determining the personality and behavior of your character.

Yes, it's seem very extreme way looking RPG. But everyone can have they own opinions.
I don't agree with it, because what it would require from computer game, like Mass Effect, what isn't even pure RPG.
Requiring that from PnP with DM is totally different.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:26 .

[konfeta]

Imagine if Bioware came out when they were making ME1 and said

"We are making a game. Yes, we are known for our RPGs and that label could be applied to our next game, but don't. This game has a bit more to it, that labeling it anything would wrong, and may even lead to disappointment. Instead, we want you to enjoy the game, don't worry about what it would be defined as, just play it, because we are not trying at all to live to any specific genre convention. Ladies and gentlemen, Mass Effect!"

This thread would be moot...

Nah. People would still try to apply genre labels and dissect this game to find out the exact specific proportion of various genre elements in it.

See, the real problem comes from the fact that games are composite creations built from a variety of gameplay mechanics. Ideally, this means you that you can classify various mechanics as being of certain types and set up a universally agreed upon standard of what are the required mechanic type to gameplay content ratios to be legally allowed to apply a certain genre label. Practically, no such standard exists, nor it will exist until a group of serious people will dedicate effort to apply various serious methods of inquiry/analysis/classification/et cetera towards studying the nature of games and gameplay mechanics and reach a sufficiently large and/or influential consensus.

But the nonexistence of such a standard doesn't and won't stop people. No sir. Enter people, enter opinions, enter people who get offended by the opinions of other people. An obvious solution would be to stop treating genre labels, i.e. opinions, as holy edicts slash facts slash scientific theory slash whatever and to consider them as very loose phrases that inform you as to what kind of elements you are likely to encounter (but not guaranteed nor entitled to). But then we would lose a valuable topic of the most pointless type of controversy - "do you like apples or orange?"

TLDR - this was an overly verbose statement to say that genre labels are opinions until people supply a competent metric by which genre labels are determined. No, you, the super smart internet poster are not qualified to make that metric. Don't even try, you will be contradicted by the first super smart internet poster with a little bit of spare time.

Modifié par konfeta, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:49 .

[Gatt9]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
Yes, I was sarcastic because you refused to aknowledge the ecistence of other systems than an inherently flawed one, and took up that specific system as if it was the only alternative. The only thing you have 'repeatedly stated' is that you refuse to admit that the GCD system is inherently flawed too. And your' something else' is not something else. It's just other aspects of the game that has nothing to do with the mechanic of power usage by itself. During gameplay it intreacts with how you play the game, but it has no impact on the mechanic itself, and it falls entirely on its face as an argument when you hold it up against the fact that you have missions in ME2 where you cannot rely on this 'something else'.

I want the current GCD system gone because it's inherently flawed. It limits creativity and diversity in gameplay and puts people on a track of using only whatever ability is optimal at a given time. In other words, it's a 'one solution to a given problem' scheme.

What the hell.

To summarize our last conversation:

...

I'm going to have to go with Sales.  Your arguement,  from what I've read,  sounds like your stance is that there's some degree of tactics and skill needed to play this game,  when there really isn't. 

The AI's braindead.  It *always* goes to it's pedefined spot,  always hides every X seconds on the dot,  always pops back out of cover upwards and if you hit it and don't kill it,  it always pops out the side next.  If it's actually going to move,  it only moves between two nearby pieces of cover,  once again in a extremely predictable pattern.

It will not flank you,  it will not try to flush you out,  it will not try to pin you down.  It shoots for X seconds,  pauses for X seconds.

If you actually hit one of the very few spots where they have a long scripted walk,  you can shot them in the head the entire path and they won't respond or deviate from the predefined path.

The AI is so ridiculously predictable that if you do die,  the units will all follow the exact same path every single time,  so just remember their predefined path into the room and which cover they're all going to.  Because they do not deviate.

There's really no reason to bother with any kind of complicated tactics,  it's whack-a-mole,  wait for the pause-in-unison and line up your mole,  wait for it to stick it's head out.  Once you realize that the AI has only a single pattern it doesn't deviate from,  everything's cake,  because you know in advance how it's all playing out.

So can you use tactics?  Sure,  but why bother planning out this grand strategy to kill something that's so predictable,  hide,  wait for pause,  take aim.  The AI's not going anywhere,  no pressing need to defend yourself,  he's not going to use tactics to kill you.

[littlezack]

Okay, I'm betting this topic peters out for good in the 60-70 range. Putting down ten bucks, anyone want in on this action?

[konfeta]

Pfft, the real bet is which moderator locks it and which posters will cause the flamewar to motivate the lock.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm going to have to go with Sales.  Your arguement,  from what I've read,  sounds like your stance is that there's some degree of tactics and skill needed to play this game,  when there really isn't. 

The AI's braindead.  It *always* goes to it's pedefined spot,  always hides every X seconds on the dot,  always pops back out of cover upwards and if you hit it and don't kill it,  it always pops out the side next.  If it's actually going to move,  it only moves between two nearby pieces of cover,  once again in a extremely predictable pattern.

It will not flank you,  it will not try to flush you out,  it will not try to pin you down.  It shoots for X seconds,  pauses for X seconds.

If you actually hit one of the very few spots where they have a long scripted walk,  you can shot them in the head the entire path and they won't respond or deviate from the predefined path.

The AI is so ridiculously predictable that if you do die,  the units will all follow the exact same path every single time,  so just remember their predefined path into the room and which cover they're all going to.  Because they do not deviate.

There's really no reason to bother with any kind of complicated tactics,  it's whack-a-mole,  wait for the pause-in-unison and line up your mole,  wait for it to stick it's head out.  Once you realize that the AI has only a single pattern it doesn't deviate from,  everything's cake,  because you know in advance how it's all playing out.

So can you use tactics?  Sure,  but why bother planning out this grand strategy to kill something that's so predictable,  hide,  wait for pause,  take aim.  The AI's not going anywhere,  no pressing need to defend yourself,  he's not going to use tactics to kill you.

That is true... on normal and below. With your Mattock Soldier.

[littlezack]

Yeah, I don't think we played the same game as Gatt. I'm playing ME2 on Hardcore now, and I'm routinely plagued by enemies like Krogan and Husks that come right up to me and knock me out of cover, or enemies like Scion that can shoot me through it. Not to mention Harbinger and his stupid missle that knocks me straight out of cover if I'm anywhere near it. The enemies try to flank you quite often.

Oh, wait, I get it now! He's confusing ME2 with ME1. Simple mistake.

[The Spamming Troll]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm going to have to go with Sales.  Your arguement,  from what I've read,  sounds like your stance is that there's some degree of tactics and skill needed to play this game,  when there really isn't. 

The AI's braindead.  It *always* goes to it's pedefined spot,  always hides every X seconds on the dot,  always pops back out of cover upwards and if you hit it and don't kill it,  it always pops out the side next.  If it's actually going to move,  it only moves between two nearby pieces of cover,  once again in a extremely predictable pattern.

It will not flank you,  it will not try to flush you out,  it will not try to pin you down.  It shoots for X seconds,  pauses for X seconds.

If you actually hit one of the very few spots where they have a long scripted walk,  you can shot them in the head the entire path and they won't respond or deviate from the predefined path.

The AI is so ridiculously predictable that if you do die,  the units will all follow the exact same path every single time,  so just remember their predefined path into the room and which cover they're all going to.  Because they do not deviate.

There's really no reason to bother with any kind of complicated tactics,  it's whack-a-mole,  wait for the pause-in-unison and line up your mole,  wait for it to stick it's head out.  Once you realize that the AI has only a single pattern it doesn't deviate from,  everything's cake,  because you know in advance how it's all playing out.

So can you use tactics?  Sure,  but why bother planning out this grand strategy to kill something that's so predictable,  hide,  wait for pause,  take aim.  The AI's not going anywhere,  no pressing need to defend yourself,  he's not going to use tactics to kill you.

i agree. im extremely happy for my adepts gameplay that enemies are drawn to singularity like moths to a flame. its like they dont even notice there about to walk directcly into my singularity?!?!?

its all far to predictable and ME2s gameplay however rich it may be compared to ME1, didnt last more then a handfull of playthroughs for me, while ME1s did by a long margin. but that has alot to do with me being GOD when i play ME1.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:14 .

[Ace of Dawn]

konfeta wrote...

Nah. People would still try to apply genre labels and dissect this game to find out the exact specific proportion of various genre elements in it.

See, the real problem comes from the fact that games are composite creations built from a variety of gameplay mechanics. Ideally, this means you that you can classify various mechanics as being of certain types and set up a universally agreed upon standard of what are the required mechanic type to gameplay content ratios to be legally allowed to apply a certain genre label. Practically, no such standard exists, nor it will exist until a group of serious people will dedicate effort to apply various serious methods of inquiry/analysis/classification/et cetera towards studying the nature of games and gameplay mechanics and reach a sufficiently large and/or influential consensus.

But the nonexistence of such a standard doesn't and won't stop people. No sir. Enter people, enter opinions, enter people who get offended by the opinions of other people. An obvious solution would be to stop treating genre labels, i.e. opinions, as holy edicts slash facts slash scientific theory slash whatever and to consider them as very loose phrases that inform you as to what kind of elements you are likely to encounter (but not guaranteed nor entitled to). But then we would lose a valuable topic of the most pointless type of controversy - "do you like apples or orange?"

TLDR - this was an overly verbose statement to say that genre labels are opinions until people supply a competent metric by which genre labels are determined. No, you, the super smart internet poster are not qualified to make that metric. Don't even try, you will be contradicted by the first super smart internet poster with a little bit of spare time.

I... I think I love you.

That is a very nice thought on it though. I did always take genre labels as "law" rather than simply someone's interpretation of what they saw. Never ran into a situation where an issue arose. But many games are blurring the lines.

[Terror_K]

Even I think people are putting too much emphasis on labels, despite the fact that I'm one of those strongly wanting "more RPG" for ME3 and thought ME2 went too far cutting it out. But whether these gameplay elements I want back are RPG elements or not isn't the issue: the fact that I miss them and feel they should return (again, albeit NOT always in the exact form presented in ME1) is the point. What kind of element it is isn't the real issue here.

[sbvera13]

Labels, schmabels. I discuss the mechanics to show how I think ME2 dropped the ball. The details of loot this, stat that, are really irrelevant compared to the fact that ME2 combat just isn't exciting, and I don't want to see ME3 go the same way.

Modifié par sbvera13, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:01 .

[sympathy4saren]

sbvera13 wrote...

Labels, schmabels. I discuss the mechanics to show how I think ME2 dropped the ball. The details of loot this, stat that, are really irrelevant compared to the fact that ME2 combat just isn't exciting, and I don't want to see ME3 go the same way.

[sympathy4saren]

Looks like more and more fellow fans are beginning to see what road ME is going down and beginning to speak up.

This is good. Very good.

I hope BioWare shows more of what they are cooking up in the inventory/modification/looting department soon.

And gets rid of guitars in trailers. And the omni-blade blasphemy.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well it could really go both ways Sympathy

I DO want more item customization/modification.
Guitars in trailers dont bother me in the slightest.
Omni blade likewise is a moot point for me. No different than a biotic covering their first in glowy energy and pulping someones head (Samara i'm looking at you.)

As for the combat, I can side, by a wide margin, I preferred ME2's combat. and really both ME1 AND ME2 have flaws in their combat models, but i vastly preferred ME2s style and hope it gets enhanced and tightened up and allows for more variety in tactics and playstyles.

But never the less, people would speak up either way on what they'd prefer the ME series direction to take. Positive or Negative its not going to please everyone no matter what road it goes down.

[Nashiktal]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Looks like more and more fellow fans are beginning to see what road ME is going down and beginning to speak up.

This is good. Very good.

I hope BioWare shows more of what they are cooking up in the inventory/modification/looting department soon.

And gets rid of guitars in trailers. And the omni-blade blasphemy.

Blade blasphemy? Whats wrong with it? Hell it follows lore more closely than biotics do.

[Brenon Holmes]

konfeta wrote...

Pfft, the real bet is which moderator locks it and which posters will cause the flamewar to motivate the lock.

No reason to lock the thread, civil (mostly) discussion... which I think should be encouraged. :happy:

[sbvera13]

Ok, so been playing some ME1 (and other shooters on my hard disk, but I'll limit comparisons to ME1 or this will get VERY long) recently to try and narrow down the "boring combat" issues.  I think I can nail it down to a few key points.

1. Very Few Options
-In ME1, as flawed as the combat system was, you were free to do many things.  Run and gun, cover and snipe at range, shotgun someone's face in.  Combine biotics and special ammo to great effect, or disable with tech skills then rush in and work them over, etc.  Whatever approach you wanted, you could gear/customize for it.  Notable to this is the amount of health; while ME1 still uses a cover system, with the right build you're not forced to all the time.  Because of the more traditional level design, you could also use good old fashioned LOS-cover instead of the boneheaded click-on-a-box system.  To top it all off, ME2 kills you if you stand up for more then a few seconds.  That kind of limits the number of playstyles you can use.

2. No Variation in Environment
-ME1 was not exactly a king in this department either, but at least it HAD variation.  Not in any of the side quests; those were all the same formula map.  The main quests though had a little, and tried to break up the pacing a bit.  ME2 locks you into the "hallway treatment" for 100% of the game.  Not a very interesting choice to begin with, and you get lots of it.

3. Little Variation in Enemies
-ME1 actually gets some credit here in my book.  Not as much as a pure action hybrid like say Borderlands, but pretty respectable.  Fighting rachni was very different from fighting humans was was different from fighting Geth was very different from fighting thorian creepers, etc.  ME2, as was described pricelessly by Gatt9 above, has the same basic enemy types with mind-numbingly predictable AI.  There's only a few variations; the Husk (aka zombie horde) missions, and a boss here and there.  Otherwise, it's just Duck, Shoot, Repeat. Yuck.

In hindsight, after 45 odd pages of arguing, I'd say that the RPG mechanics are actually the least of the worries.  We lost customizeability, but really we lost freedom of gameplay.  Now, theres ways that RPG mechanics can tie into the above; gear customization is the obvious one, hacking/biotics giving access to new battlefield functions or even new battlefields; etc.  There's definate possibility for hybridizing there.  At the root of it all though, the combat design sucked.  I don't think that having serious RPG mechanics in ME2 would have fixed that.

Future discussion, if giving feedback into ME3 development is our goal, should focus on the combat system IMO.

EDIT: That's because the core RPG elements -environment, storytelling, characters- we're all great in ME2.  It's the 85% of the game stuffed between all that that needs work.

Modifié par sbvera13, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:46 .

[sympathy4saren]

Nashiktal wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Looks like more and more fellow fans are beginning to see what road ME is going down and beginning to speak up.

This is good. Very good.

I hope BioWare shows more of what they are cooking up in the inventory/modification/looting department soon.

And gets rid of guitars in trailers. And the omni-blade blasphemy.

Blade blasphemy? Whats wrong with it? Hell it follows lore more closely than biotics do.

It degrades the Mass Effect IP because IMO its stupid and a cater to shooter fans. It has nothing to do with lore.

Additionally, its a rip from the festering turd of a game known as Halo.

[Nashiktal]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Looks like more and more fellow fans are beginning to see what road ME is going down and beginning to speak up.

This is good. Very good.

I hope BioWare shows more of what they are cooking up in the inventory/modification/looting department soon.

And gets rid of guitars in trailers. And the omni-blade blasphemy.

Blade blasphemy? Whats wrong with it? Hell it follows lore more closely than biotics do.

It degrades the Mass Effect IP because IMO its stupid and a cater to shooter fans. It has nothing to do with lore.

Additionally, its a rip from the festering turd of a game known as Halo.

I fail to see how its connected to Halo. Look ME rips a lot of things from shooters, thats not secret, but sometimes I have to gawk at what people think is ripping off.

I disagree that the blade is stupid. I disagree that its catering to shooter fans. In fact, I think it will enrich gameplay, The attack is an instant kill, but have you seen the attack? You are vulnerable while doing it. Risk VS reward mate.

The comparison to Halo is just... Where are you getting this? Because the blade is holographic? (Halo blade is not holographic) The only resemblance to the halo blade... IS that its a blade. 

I just don't understand the problem. I don't see how it will degrade anything, I don't see why people think its stupid outside of taste.

[Someone With Mass]

sympathy4saren wrote...

It degrades the Mass Effect IP because IMO its stupid and a cater to shooter fans. It has nothing to do with lore.

Additionally, its a rip from the festering turd of a game known as Halo.

Uh-huh. Because God forbids that we have some variety with the melee system.

Also, I can just laugh when people are whining about the omni-blade of all things in Mass Effect. 

Never mind that we have biotic powers that can control people's minds, drain the life out of them or allows the user to phase through solid objects, nope, the omni-blade is what pisses people off.