1002 réponses à ce sujet

[lolnoobs]

I guess GTA 4 is now considered a full RPG with some action parts. Thanks, didn't know that.

[Il Divo]

Dionkey wrote...

The skill tree was huge and made small differences because it felt rewarding. The differences is ME2 were hardly rewarding. I felt like I was slowly inching my way to the top in ME1 and it felt awesome. Seeing your skills slowly progress (especially when it defines everything about how your character plays and not just it's powers) is much more gratifying than putting big chunks in and getting very little reward until the final block.

I'd have to disagree with this. I never noticed any effect from the minor skill ranks because they were so minor. 1 % pistol damage does not significantly impact my play style, or my character's abilities. In my opinion, the best RPGs make every level up feel significant, instead of including "throw-aways".

Ex: Dragon Age Origins allows the PC to obtain a new talent/spell every level. Jedi Characters in KotOR gain force powers, etc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2011 - 05:54 .

[Someone With Mass]

I can kill all enemies in ME1 with my starter weapons too. I just choose not to, because it's just a waste of time. Like grinding up to a level where your character doesn't suck balls and you can actually kill things with some efficiency.

I find that to be incredibly boring and it adds nothing but tacking on hours of the game time. That's what I liked about ME2. It still kept the leveling system, but it didn't force the played into tedious grinding all the time and could actually focus more on the story and the universe.

By the way, just because some games set a standard for a genre, doesn't mean that everyone must blindly follow those standards. Because then we'd still be playing side scrolling games and Pong.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 21 août 2011 - 05:53 .

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...
Again, the exploration wasn't really exploration. You just land, drive, arrive, (usually) kill something, then head back. Which is another thing - for all the complaining about ME2 having too much shooting, the VAST majority of side-quests in ME1 have you going someplace to kill some people to get stuff. At least ME2 offers some variety in the environments - how many times did we fight in the exact same space station in ME1? And ME2 had plenty of side quests on planets - what you're complaining about is that most of the hub side quests didn't require you to leave the hub. But, for me, that's a definite improvement - one of the most annoying aspects of ME1 was getting a side quest, then having to leave the hub, then get on the Normandy, then travel to the planet (if you can remember what the planet was called) then landing, then driving to X place, all for a two minute firefight...then getting what you came for, then getting back on the Mako, then leaving on the Normandy, then going back to the hub, then completing the mission. All those unnescessary, annoying steps.

Do not tell me that a departure away from that is a bad thing. I don't buy it.

The environments in ME2 were just corridors with new textures over them and all the objectives were weak. This is something ME1 got right, the story was actually implemented in the exploration rather than used as a tool to define an RPG. What did ME2 missions consist of? Go here, kill this, press button. Go here, open doors, find datapad. ME1 felt realistic. Lots of untouched worlds with crashed probes and hidden stuff on them. Was it repetitive at points? Yes, it was, but ME2 was more of an illusion than ME1 was. They tried to make it seem like the quests were different, when in reality they just scaled everything down and made simplistic quests that are made for filler. I liked finding every trinket and going to every world (no matter how recycled) because it built my character. As I explored, I met Corporal Toombs, the only other survivor of my squad. I found Geth data for Tali and Wrex's family armor. This is why ME1 was unique. They jampacked the worlds with lots of neat stuff. They could have easily continued this in ME2 (especially since they had a bigger budget) while cleaning it up. Instead, they relied too much on the story to define itself as an RPG element.

[Dionkey]

Il Divo wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

The skill tree was huge and made small differences because it felt rewarding. The differences is ME2 were hardly rewarding. I felt like I was slowly inching my way to the top in ME1 and it felt awesome. Seeing your skills slowly progress (especially when it defines everything about how your character plays and not just it's powers) is much more gratifying than putting big chunks in and getting very little reward until the final block.

I'd have to disagree with this. I never noticed any effect from the minor skill ranks because they were so minor. 1 % pistol damage does not significantly impact my play style, or my character's abilities. In my opinion, the best RPGs make every level up feel significant, instead of including "throw-aways".

Ex: Dragon Age Origins allows the PC to obtain a new talent/spell every level. Jedi Characters in KotOR gain force powers, etc.

The fact of the matter was that it built over time. You felt like your character was getting better at using these weapons and abilities rather than simply a damage increase. ME3 is going the right route with this kind of thing, allowing for more points to be distributed and more skills to put them in. 

[Someone With Mass]

Dionkey wrote...
The environments in ME2 were just corridors with new textures over them and all the objectives were weak. This is something ME1 got right, the story was actually implemented in the exploration rather than used as a tool to define an RPG. What did ME2 missions consist of? Go here, kill this, press button. Go here, open doors, find datapad. ME1 felt realistic. Lots of untouched worlds with crashed probes and hidden stuff on them. Was it repetitive at points? Yes, it was, but ME2 was more of an illusion than ME1 was. They tried to make it seem like the quests were different, when in reality they just scaled everything down and made simplistic quests that are made for filler. I liked finding every trinket and going to every world (no matter how recycled) because it built my character. As I explored, I met Corporal Toombs, the only other survivor of my squad. I found Geth data for Tali and Wrex's family armor. This is why ME1 was unique. They jampacked the worlds with lots of neat stuff. They could have easily continued this in ME2 (especially since they had a bigger budget) while cleaning it up. Instead, they relied too much on the story to define itself as an RPG element.

I stopped reading there. Why? Weapon modificatiosn and high tech armor in Russian satellites that are a couple of hundred years old.

Tell me, which missions in ME1 didn't involve traveling to a certain place and pick something up or kill/save everyone?

At least ME2 had some missions where you didn't have to fire a single bullet.

[Dionkey]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
The environments in ME2 were just corridors with new textures over them and all the objectives were weak. This is something ME1 got right, the story was actually implemented in the exploration rather than used as a tool to define an RPG. What did ME2 missions consist of? Go here, kill this, press button. Go here, open doors, find datapad. ME1 felt realistic. Lots of untouched worlds with crashed probes and hidden stuff on them. Was it repetitive at points? Yes, it was, but ME2 was more of an illusion than ME1 was. They tried to make it seem like the quests were different, when in reality they just scaled everything down and made simplistic quests that are made for filler. I liked finding every trinket and going to every world (no matter how recycled) because it built my character. As I explored, I met Corporal Toombs, the only other survivor of my squad. I found Geth data for Tali and Wrex's family armor. This is why ME1 was unique. They jampacked the worlds with lots of neat stuff. They could have easily continued this in ME2 (especially since they had a bigger budget) while cleaning it up. Instead, they relied too much on the story to define itself as an RPG element.

I stopped reading there. Why? Weapon modificatiosn and high tech armor in Russian satellites that are a couple of hundred years old.

Tell me, which missions in ME1 didn't involve traveling to a certain place and pick something up or kill/save everyone?

At least ME2 had some missions where you didn't have to fire a single bullet.

And those missions were extremely easy. Talking to someone and having it instantly resolved or opening some doors and pressing a button is not a mission. If you care so much about the weapons mods in  satellites and such, why don't we complain about Thermal Clips again? It is a gameplay element, can't do nothing about it.

[Il Divo]

Dionkey wrote...

The environments in ME2 were just corridors with new textures over them and all the objectives were weak. This is something ME1 got right, the story was actually implemented in the exploration rather than used as a tool to define an RPG. What did ME2 missions consist of? Go here, kill this, press button. Go here, open doors, find datapad. ME1 felt realistic. Lots of untouched worlds with crashed probes and hidden stuff on them. Was it repetitive at points? Yes, it was, but ME2 was more of an illusion than ME1 was. They tried to make it seem like the quests were different, when in reality they just scaled everything down and made simplistic quests that are made for filler.

 
Realistic is not always a good thing, however. I doubt you'd want to play a game where you had to watch Commander Shepard sleep for a significant amount of time on the Normandy.

The crashed probes had nothing of value. Asari writings, Salarian Medallions, etc, were worthless and the player obtained more than enough generic items over the main/side missions alone that the probes were pointless.

Having said that, Mass Effect 2's side missions (not Loyalty Missions) did suck pretty hard. I'd rather Mass Effect 3 didn't include side quests for the final chapter.

I liked finding every trinket and going to every world (no matter how recycled) because it built my character. As I explored, I met Corporal Toombs, the only other survivor of my squad. I found Geth data for Tali and Wrex's family armor. This is why ME1 was unique. They jampacked the worlds with lots of neat stuff. They could have easily continued this in ME2 (especially since they had a bigger budget) while cleaning it up. Instead, they relied too much on the story to define itself as an RPG element.

I disagree. When every environment feels generic, it doesn't matter what pretense the game includes for those side quests. Wrex's family armor quest felt generic because I'd been to that same exact room a dozen times before.

Every Mass Effect side quest (for exploration) follows this pattern:

1) Obtain quest, typically from Hackett or a hacked terminal.
2) Travel to relevant star cluster.
3) Scour the entire system, then locate a single planet which Shepard is able to land on.
4) Land in Mako and travel to the single facility marked on the map.
5) Eliminate a single room of enemies.
5) Return to ship.

There are small variations (Ex: Major Kyle), but the format itself makes completing multiple side quests quite tiresome, especially when you are watching the same Mako animations ad infinitum.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2011 - 06:10 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dionkey wrote...
And those missions were extremely easy. Talking to someone and having it instantly resolved or opening some doors and pressing a button is not a mission. If you care so much about the weapons mods in  satellites and such, why don't we complain about Thermal Clips again? It is a gameplay element, can't do nothing about it.

And there goes like 2/3 of ME1's side missions down the toilet. 

[Dionkey]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
And those missions were extremely easy. Talking to someone and having it instantly resolved or opening some doors and pressing a button is not a mission. If you care so much about the weapons mods in  satellites and such, why don't we complain about Thermal Clips again? It is a gameplay element, can't do nothing about it.

And there goes like 2/3 of ME1's side missions down the toilet. 

Actually, no. Many of ME1's side-quests were finding a place, killing the enemies there, getting something, and linking it back to someone else. It had you go all over to get things. Literally all the quests on the Citadel in ME2 can be done within 5 minutes, same goes for Omega.

[Il Divo]

Dionkey wrote...

The fact of the matter was that it built over time. You felt like your character was getting better at using these weapons and abilities rather than simply a damage increase.

I did not feel this when selecting minor stat bonuses. As I said, 1 % pistol damage did not change my playstyle. Origins, for example, gives the player a different ability at every level up, which allows a diverse number of tactics. Cone of Cold altered my plastyle. As did Crushing Prison and the Arcane Warrior's Combat Magic. Mass Effect's approach did not.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2011 - 06:11 .

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...
I did not feel this when selecting minor stat bonuses. As I said, 1 % pistol damage did not change my playstyle. Origins, for example, gives the player a different ability at every level up, which allows a diverse number of tactics. Cone of Cold altered my plastyle. As did Crushing Prison and the Arcane Warrior's Combat Magic. Mass Effect's approach did not.

ME3 will, though. Lets you actually pick which path you want your powers to go.

[Dionkey]

Il Divo wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

The fact of the matter was that it built over time. You felt like your character was getting better at using these weapons and abilities rather than simply a damage increase.

I did not feel this when selecting minor stat bonuses. As I said, 1 % pistol damage did not change my playstyle. Origins, for example, gives the player a different ability at every level up, which allows a diverse number of tactics. Cone of Cold altered my plastyle. As did Crushing Prison and the Arcane Warrior's Combat Magic. Mass Effect's approach did not.

I suppose we just have different tastes. I agree DA:O's system was great, but I do not feel in the slightest that ME2's system compared to either ME1 or DA:O.

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
The environments in ME2 were just corridors with new textures over them and all the objectives were weak. This is something ME1 got right, the story was actually implemented in the exploration rather than used as a tool to define an RPG. What did ME2 missions consist of? Go here, kill this, press button. Go here, open doors, find datapad. ME1 felt realistic. Lots of untouched worlds with crashed probes and hidden stuff on them. Was it repetitive at points? Yes, it was, but ME2 was more of an illusion than ME1 was. They tried to make it seem like the quests were different, when in reality they just scaled everything down and made simplistic quests that are made for filler. I liked finding every trinket and going to every world (no matter how recycled) because it built my character. As I explored, I met Corporal Toombs, the only other survivor of my squad. I found Geth data for Tali and Wrex's family armor. This is why ME1 was unique. They jampacked the worlds with lots of neat stuff. They could have easily continued this in ME2 (especially since they had a bigger budget) while cleaning it up. Instead, they relied too much on the story to define itself as an RPG element.

I stopped reading there. Why? Weapon modificatiosn and high tech armor in Russian satellites that are a couple of hundred years old.

Maybe smugglers where hiding equipment in it, it's basicly the same as Mechs and thermal clips on Aeia, or the fact that there were generic safes on haestrom with earth-like chips. 

Tell me, which missions in ME1 didn't involve traveling to a certain place and pick something up or kill/save everyone?

Citadel: Signal Tracking - Doesn't require you to board a ship or to land on a planet nor do you have to shoot anybody, it's a neat little mission of tracking a signal throught the Citadel, leading up to a rather interesting conclusion.

At least ME2 had some missions where you didn't have to fire a single bullet.

So were certain missions in Mass Effect 1.

Mass Effect 1 is a game build around a universe, it's truly a game about the Mass Effect universe , Mass Effect 2 on the other is just game set in the Mass Effect Universe.

[Il Divo]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I did not feel this when selecting minor stat bonuses. As I said, 1 % pistol damage did not change my playstyle. Origins, for example, gives the player a different ability at every level up, which allows a diverse number of tactics. Cone of Cold altered my plastyle. As did Crushing Prison and the Arcane Warrior's Combat Magic. Mass Effect's approach did not.

ME3 will, though. Lets you actually pick which path you want your powers to go.

Yeah, I saw that. And I'm definitely excited. With ME3, it seems that they've relied on Mass Effect 2's gameplay foundations, but have upped the # of skills/upgrades a decent amount.

[Fixers0]

Il Divo wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

The skill tree was huge and made small differences because it felt rewarding. The differences is ME2 were hardly rewarding. I felt like I was slowly inching my way to the top in ME1 and it felt awesome. Seeing your skills slowly progress (especially when it defines everything about how your character plays and not just it's powers) is much more gratifying than putting big chunks in and getting very little reward until the final block.

I'd have to disagree with this. I never noticed any effect from the minor skill ranks because they were so minor. 1 % pistol damage does not significantly impact my play style, or my character's abilities. In my opinion, the best RPGs make every level up feel significant, instead of including "throw-aways".

It's called Natural evolution, a characters slowly get's more experiance in his military training, not achieved status 17-C to upgrade his flame powers.

Ex: Dragon Age Origins allows the PC to obtain a new talent/spell every level. Jedi Characters in KotOR gain force powers, etc.

Sure, but i don't see how a soldier can suddenly learn how to fire different ammunition with his gun.

And now that i'm  talking about it would't be a good idea to have the player improve with certain talents after the player is succesfully using them, like improving the Vanguard charge ability by succesfully killing 20 enemies right after you exit the Charge.

Modifié par Fixers0, 21 août 2011 - 06:17 .

[Dionkey]

Il Divo wrote...
 
Realistic is not always a good thing, however. I doubt you'd want to play a game where you had to watch Commander Shepard sleep for a significant amount of time on the Normandy.

The crashed probes had nothing of value. Asari writings, Salarian Medallions, etc, were worthless and the player obtained more than enough generic items over the main/side missions alone that the probes were pointless.

Having said that, Mass Effect 2's side missions (not Loyalty Missions) did suck pretty hard. I'd rather Mass Effect 3 didn't include side quests for the final chapter.

The crashed probes and such were nothing but filler. In fact, I think the Asari Writings and such are just a step under  ME2's side-quests. That's how bad they are in my mind. I agree, I believe ME3 should keep side-quests to the minimal.

Il Divo wrote...
I disagree. When every environment feels generic, it doesn't matter what pretense the game includes for those side quests. Wrex's family armor quest felt generic because I'd been to that same exact room a dozen times before.

Every Mass Effect side quest (for exploration) follows this pattern:

1) Obtain quest, typically from Hackett or a hacked terminal.
2) Travel to relevant star cluster.
3) Scour the entire system, then locate a single planet which Shepard is able to land on.
4) Land in Mako and travel to the single facility marked on the map.
5) Eliminate a single room of enemies.
5) Return to ship.

There are small variations (Ex: Major Kyle), but the format itself makes completing multiple side quests quite tiresome, especially when you are watching the same Mako animations ad infinitum.

But the ME2 environments were a charade. It was simple corridors with textures over top of them. I played that same concept throughout the entire game, the textures were simply eye-candy. At least in ME1, I realized from the beginning the environments were repeated. The content within all of these planets made going through these worth it. ME2's side-quests didn't reward you in the slightest.

Modifié par Dionkey, 21 août 2011 - 06:19 .

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

Mass Effect 1 is a game build around a universe, it's truly a game about the Mass Effect universe , Mass Effect 2 on the other is just game set in the Mass Effect Universe.

Oh, so that's why we were told practically nothing about the alien races' cultures and civilizations in ME1. Okay.


Of course ME2 is set in the universe. It's a sequel.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

Yeah, I saw that. And I'm definitely excited. With ME3, it seems that they've relied on Mass Effect 2's gameplay foundations, but have upped the # of skills/upgrades a decent amount.

I just hope the upgrades are noticable, so I don't have to spend the majority of the game wasting points to be slightly better at dealing damage with...pistols for example.

Like in ME2, when that new accuracy upgrade for the assault rifles showed up and you could notice a difference immediately in battle after you popped it in.

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, so that's why we were told practically nothing about the alien races' cultures and civilizations in ME1. Okay.

If you talk to squadmates or do some side missions, you get a basic insight on Alien societies, besides, does an Alliance marine really needs to be botherd with quarian lifestyle they are there to protect Humanity's interests.

Someone With Mass wrote...
Of course ME2 is set in the universe. It's a sequel.

Unlike Mass Effect 1 were the game is build around the universe establishing certain elements like politics, characters, technology, Mass Effect 2 is for the most part a generic shooter game, the entire context of what was going on had nothing to do with Mass effect as, show by the numerous inconsistencies, plotholes and retcons, it was just using Mass Effect as a shell to make it distinguishable from other shooter games.

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

At least ME2 had some missions where you didn't have to fire a single bullet.

So did ME1.  In fact, it even had a couple of missions that could end either peacefully or in a gunfight.  The closest ME2 had to that were renegade interrupts where you can start shooting first.

[Fixers0]

jreezy wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, so that's why we were told practically nothing about the alien races' cultures and civilizations in ME1. Okay.

If you talk to squadmates or do some side missions, you get a basic insight on Alien societies, besides, does an Alliance marine really needs to be botherd with quarian lifestyle they are there to protect Humanity's interests.

Someone With Mass wrote...
Of course ME2 is set in the universe. It's a sequel.

Unlike Mass Effect 1 were the game is build around the universe establishing certain elements like politics, characters, technology, Mass Effect 2 is for the most part a generic shooter game, the entire context of what was going on had nothing to do with Mass effect as, show by the numerous inconsistencies, plotholes and retcons, it was just using Mass Effect as a shell to make it distinguishable from other shooter games.

What inconsistencies are you talking about?

Watch this:(and the following videos)

www.youtube.com/watch

I could explain it myself but these videos sum up really well what the biggest problems were with Mass Effect 2.

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...
If you talk to squadmates or do some side missions, you get a basic insight on Alien societies, besides, does an Alliance marine really needs to be botherd with quarian lifestyle they are there to protect Humanity's interests.

Yeah, let's be as ignorant as possible. That's why we have people like Vega who'll reflect the view of new people to the trilogy and he knows nothing about the aliens or anything outside Alliance space. Especially when Shepard became a Spectre. A part of their society.

Fixers0 wrote...
Unlike Mass Effect 1 were the game is build around the universe establishing certain elements like politics, characters, technology, Mass Effect 2 is for the most part a generic shooter game, the entire context of what was going on had nothing to do with Mass effect as, show by the numerous inconsistencies, plotholes and retcons, it was just using Mass Effect as a shell to make it distinguishable from other shooter games.

And ME1 had a lot of plot conveniences. Need evidence against Saren? This quarian just happened to stumble upon one of the recordings that proves that Saren is a traitor. Need to decipher those visions? That asari can do it with ease. Need to go to the Citadel as fast as you can? Well, what a coincidence. The Protheans built a small mass relay that leads directly to the Citadel. Need to netralize the Thorian spores? Well, we have these gas grenades. Want that guy dead? Ask that krogan who's hired to kill him.

By the way. Thermal clips? Not retcon in any way. It's new technology. And before you start whining about the thermal clips on Jacob's loyalty mission, learn about gameplay convenience. And suspense of disbelief, for that matter.

Want to talk about inconsistency? Listen to any squadmate about the decision at the battle of the Citadel.

A plothole? How about those AA towers on Virmire the Normandy couldn't just destroy, despite having a stealth system.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 21 août 2011 - 06:51 .

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

Watch this:(and the following videos)

www.youtube.com/watch

I could explain it myself but these videos sum up really well what the biggest problems were with Mass Effect 2.

Ah, yes, "smudboy". We've dismissed that problem.