158 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunatic LK47]

Nashiktal wrote...

You can play any missions in any order... EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT COMPLETED ALL THE MSSONS IN ONE AREA. Stuck in russia? Then go somewhere else and gain some experience.

Already beaten the game seven times.

Stealth annoying during combat? I will grant you that, built myself up as stealth and had to fight brayko.... Was hell, got him in the end though. ALSO THERE IS MORE THAN ONE BOSS FIGHT YOU CAN AVOID BY TALIKING.

Uh, care to elaborate? Last time I checked, it was only SIE, Surkov, and Parker, while everyone else is mandatory.

Gadgets are useful against bosses, hell a flash grenade makes brayko cake.

Oh, oops, Pardon ****ing me, I was busy hoofing EMP grenades to bypass some of the safes that suddenly made it harder for me to pick locks with, not to mention I only brought 5 flashbangs at a time, at most.

Alpha protocol still trying to off you? THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAHEED. Pay attention to the story. I won't tell you why it is because its a huge spoiler, but man saheed has nothing to do with why you are a roge agent.

I've already beaten the game SEVEN ****ING TIMES. I'm aware of the entire plot.

Sparing or killing AL-jibari does more than affect reputation with marburg, there are more factors that depend on earlier missions. HINT HINT HINT  

Uh, I'm already aware that Marburg is supposed to frame the Al-Samad organization for Rome, but even then, what's the point of sparing Al-Jibari exactly if he's going to die anyway?

Dude, i'm sorry to say but most of your choice complaints is just  you not playing enough. There is a serious amount of depth in the choices and changes if you dig into them. I've played three times, and have found my playthroughs are almsot completely different, especially with the endings.

Let me say this again. BEATEN THE GAME SEVEN ****ING TIMES. I TRIED ALL OF THE ALTERNATE PATHS AND USED THE WIKI SINCE 2010.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 23 août 2011 - 04:18 .

[Lunatic LK47]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...


Because they're bosses. They wouldn't be "bosses" unless they were more powerful, thus more resistant, than your average mook.

Except it makes the gameplay outright inconsistent. All it's telling me is "LOL, We decided to make boss fights mandatory and difficult just because it's the video game status quo." Why should I have bothered max-leveling Martial Arts if it's more of a hassle than its worth even WITH Fury?

[Lunatic LK47]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Honestly, you could probably come up with a relatively legitimate reason for them to be more powerful. How did they get to the top? they got to the top because they were smarter, tougher, stronger, than the rest. That flows over into the fights with Mike. And, at the end of the day, it will be a game. No matter how revolutionary or evolutionary a game is, it will never be fully what we want it to be. I mean we spend countless man-hours arguing that on these forums.

However, I think this thread is getting majorly derailed (from Deus Ex discussion, sorry OP), so I'll stop debating this.

At least the devs behind Human Revolution are upfront about the boss fights, unlike Obsidian having misleading marketing strategies (i.e. Choice is your weapon when the actual product is "Choice is a hindrance no matter what path you take.")

[Xeranx]

Sepewrath wrote...

Xeranx wrote...
There are quite a few people who don't think that because Mass Effect is a trilogy means that every...single...choice needs to be reflected in the sequel.  The choice of saving the council is perfect for that and it barely gets a nod.  Spectre reinstatement as long as you're out of the Council's sight. <_<  That's unacceptable.  If nothing else, the consequences of such a choice should have played out in ME2 and become a major factor in ME3. 

And like I said, you do realize how drastically that would change the story right? Meaning going into ME3, me and you, our stories can be on completely different wavelenghts, then toss in the other 3 million people who played the series. Accounting for all of that, we wouldn't be playing ME3, until 2015 as some of these choices would make for completely different games as they ripple through and branch off.

Oh, I know the story would be different and it really should be to be a proper sequel and not Mass Effect Too.  Still the council decision has at most two paths?  So in what way does that have any bearing on my choice, your choice, or the choices of 3 million other people who either chose as you or I did?

[2Hard2C]

I sure hope that they at least make the combat as adaptable as it appears to be in DEHR. I think it is too late for it to change the way they do combat in ME3, but in future titles? Would love to see it happen.

[lazuli]

As a community, we need to start using the word "branching" when referring to choices. It seems what people really want as far as choices go are mutually exclusive options.

[Kasai666]

Xeranx wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

I've played AP with 4 completely different builds now and there is absolutely no mandatory abilities needed - hell my favorite build didn't have a single weapon ability but instead relied on martial arts and stealth which worked just fine.

Agreed.  I'm thinking that people who say [something] is mandatory are really saying that they couldn't do much without [that thing] being available.  It's like saying that Colossus armor is the only armor anyone needs to use in ME ...because no one thinks about using something else.

I keep hearing about this armor, but I've never even seen it. I have 3 different playthroughs, but not ONCE have I seen it. Where is it?

[Reptillius]

Xeranx wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

Xeranx wrote...
There are quite a few people who don't think that because Mass Effect is a trilogy means that every...single...choice needs to be reflected in the sequel.  The choice of saving the council is perfect for that and it barely gets a nod.  Spectre reinstatement as long as you're out of the Council's sight. <_<  That's unacceptable.  If nothing else, the consequences of such a choice should have played out in ME2 and become a major factor in ME3. 

And like I said, you do realize how drastically that would change the story right? Meaning going into ME3, me and you, our stories can be on completely different wavelenghts, then toss in the other 3 million people who played the series. Accounting for all of that, we wouldn't be playing ME3, until 2015 as some of these choices would make for completely different games as they ripple through and branch off.

Oh, I know the story would be different and it really should be to be a proper sequel and not Mass Effect Too.  Still the council decision has at most two paths?  So in what way does that have any bearing on my choice, your choice, or the choices of 3 million other people who either chose as you or I did?

Somewhat wrong... Realistically the council issue is a matter of at least 2 choices cuasing there to be a minimum of 4 paths.

First Choice, Do or Don't save the existing council.

Second Choice, Anderson or Undina appointed to the council...

this can lead to at the very least slightly different outcomes just in the beginning of ME2... At least one of which can lead to an additional choice that can't really take affect in ME2 because you spend almost all of it in the Traverse. that being whether you accept reinstatement as a spectre or not.

This additional choice alone has many chomping at the bit over all kinds of things wanting to know how that will change things and what the outcomes will be. Let alone the fallout or benefit of saving or replacing the council can have on ME3.

so now suddenly over what your calling only 2 paths over a single choice has become a minimum of 6 over 3 different choices in 2 different games...

[Xeranx]

My mistake. So 6 choices over the course of ME2-ME3 and 4 solely for ME2. And while I did introduce the other option of Cerberus which would probably have another 4 outcomes I didn't say that they had to do both. Those were what I considered to be the pertinent ones. Within the amount of time they developed ME2 they may not have been able to do both, but they could have focused on one seeing as those two had the possibility of either making Shepard's jaunt easier or harder. At the very least it would have satisfied one measure of our choices having consequences and it would have been enough to pacify anyone who would say nothing we did mattered.

I'm not saying that it would be easy (writing or coding), but it would have shown us something. It would have shown us that Bioware was interested in keeping their word about the consequences of our actions meaning something.

At this point we still don't know how we'll stop the Reapers (despite Shepard's words at the end of ME talking about finding a way to stop them and the beginning of ME2 where we're relegated to finding Geth terrorist cells) yet people think Bioware's going to go all out in the last game. I just don't see it happening like some seem to be implying.

[Ieldra]

Xeranx wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

I've played AP with 4 completely different builds now and there is absolutely no mandatory abilities needed - hell my favorite build didn't have a single weapon ability but instead relied on martial arts and stealth which worked just fine.

Agreed.  I'm thinking that people who say [something] is mandatory are really saying that they couldn't do much without [that thing] being available.  It's like saying that Colossus armor is the only armor anyone needs to use in ME ...because no one thinks about using something else.

I disagree. I tried to fight Brayko with melee and an undedeveloped pistol skill and died about a half dozen times - in Easy mode. There are definitely builds that make certain boss fights incredibly difficult. 

Having said that, I loved everything about this game - except the boss fights. I think that Bioware can learn three things from it:

(1) Consequences and morality without a karma meter. Sure, the consequences were incredibly one-sided in that absolutely everyone you spared helped you out in the end, but they were reasonably realistic and you didn't feel constrained by an artificial system.

(2) Persuasion based on information, not a karma meter. Want to bring certain NPCs to react a certain way or to do certain things for you? Then you'd better find some information about them telling you how they'll likely react to different ways you can talk to them. Where do you find that info? Exploration. It's a perfect way of making exploration mean something for the story instead of just for combat.

(3) The dialogue wheel had *no* paraphrases, just mode descriptions. And yet, you almost never feel badly surprised by what you actually say after you choose an option. The main problem with Bioware's paraphrases is that different players associate different things with the text they read. If you're told that what you're going to say is "professional", "suave" or "dismissive", or that you're "questioning" the other for more information, it's much less likely to that you react with "No, that wasn't what I meant". What you lose are the indicators for what the chosen option will be about. DA2 tried a combination with its icons but it was too limited. A better combination would be to add mode indicators in square brackets and keep the paraphrase, like in the occasional [lie] <paraphrase>.   

[Cimeas]

Having played both Alpha Protocol and Mas Effect 2 on 360, I found ME2 to be way more clunky. I set sensitivity (or whatever it was called) to max, but it still felt like walking, running, and most importantly aiming was very smooth, but very...slow?

[Xeranx]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

I've played AP with 4 completely different builds now and there is absolutely no mandatory abilities needed - hell my favorite build didn't have a single weapon ability but instead relied on martial arts and stealth which worked just fine.

Agreed.  I'm thinking that people who say [something] is mandatory are really saying that they couldn't do much without [that thing] being available.  It's like saying that Colossus armor is the only armor anyone needs to use in ME ...because no one thinks about using something else.

I disagree. I tried to fight Brayko with melee and an undedeveloped pistol skill and died about a half dozen times - in Easy mode. There are definitely builds that make certain boss fights incredibly difficult. 

That may be so, but as I said...it doesn't make it mandatory.  Colossus and Predator X armor makes combat easier.  They're still not mandatory.  Some people think that you need to be physically strong to fight someone bigger than you, but we know that's not the case.  You just have to be smarter.  So fighting someone bigger or more physically imposing doesn't make being stronger a mandatory trait to have.  It only helps as much as it can in that situation.  

Besides, you're talking about fighting a junkie whose drugs actually make him harder to take on in a disco-like ballroom with strobe lights.  What would you expect in a situation like that?

[The Interloper]

I like how this turned into a discussion of AP, not DE:HR.

On topic as people have said, the ending is where they can go nuts in ME. In ME2 they were constrained by both what came before and after and had to make some constants.

[The Spamming Troll]

lunatik,

arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/in-defense-of-the-boss-battles-of-deus-ex-human-revolution.ars

....becasue making a character built around conversation skils should fail at combat, in the same way a combat character fails at hacking.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 23 août 2011 - 05:49 .

[Sailears]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

lunatik,

arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/in-defense-of-the-boss-battles-of-deus-ex-human-revolution.ars

....becasue making a character built around conversation skils should fail at combat, in the same way a combat character fails at hacking.

Hmm, that is a very fair point. You can't always have control over a situation or it's outcome, and it's finding the balance between total freedom and railroading that makes games like this (action rpgs for want of a better word!) work.

[vader da slayer]

what I think a lot of people are dismissing is the fact that ME was designed to take decisisions you made in 1 (or 2) and hold onto it throughout the series. where as these games aren't designed to hold onto the decisions you make and therefore have to resolve them in the single game where some of you decisions in ME are resolved soon or a game or two later.

[Lunatic LK47]

Curunen wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

lunatik,

arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/in-defense-of-the-boss-battles-of-deus-ex-human-revolution.ars

....becasue making a character built around conversation skils should fail at combat, in the same way a combat character fails at hacking.

Hmm, that is a very fair point. You can't always have control over a situation or it's outcome, and it's finding the balance between total freedom and railroading that makes games like this (action rpgs for want of a better word!) work.

Uh, Human Revolution's attempt is at least justified and has actual reasoning behind it (i.e. The plot has a good reason for said boss fights.). Problem I had with Alpha Protocol is Obsidian mislabeled their marketing strategy of "Follow any path and it's valid" when the actual reality is "Your path is invalid no matter what decision you made." That's called "Misrepresenting your product" or "falsified information." .

[Xeranx]

Actually the reality is their marketing was correct. Having issues with the game doesn't mean the game actually has issues. If I'm a ****** poor user of FPS mechanics then my ability to fight in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 will be reflected at me. How often have people made complaints about combat in ME2 and they're told "l2p" (learn to play) the game?

Your issues with what you're able to do in the game does not mean the game has issues. If it does that means any complaint about ME2's combat is valid.

[Lunatic LK47]

Xeranx wrote...

Actually the reality is their marketing was correct. Having issues with the game doesn't mean the game actually has issues. If I'm a ****** poor user of FPS mechanics then my ability to fight in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 will be reflected at me. How often have people made complaints about combat in ME2 and they're told "l2p" (learn to play) the game?

By that logic, it's the equivalent of saying "Eat this new mushroom, it's not poisonous!" only to find out that the new mushroom actually IS poisonous.

[Xeranx]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Actually the reality is their marketing was correct. Having issues with the game doesn't mean the game actually has issues. If I'm a ****** poor user of FPS mechanics then my ability to fight in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 will be reflected at me. How often have people made complaints about combat in ME2 and they're told "l2p" (learn to play) the game?

By that logic, it's the equivalent of saying "Eat this new mushroom, it's not poisonous!" only to find out that the new mushroom actually IS poisonous.

By what logic?  You're still making a statement that doesn't apply to everyone yet steadfastly implying that your stance is fact.  It isn't.  You mushroom example is invalid.

[Lunatic LK47]

Xeranx wrote...


By what logic?  You're still making a statement that doesn't apply to everyone yet steadfastly implying that your stance is fact.  It isn't.  You mushroom example is invalid.

Uh, the fact that for a game that preaches "Choice is your weapon" the gameplay is railroaded to "This mission is only meant for one character build?" I'm also going to say that YOUR stance isn't valid either.

[Varen Spectre]

I don"t know guys... 

Deus Ex is probably my alltime favorite game and I relatively enjoyed Alpha Protocol, but IMO Mass Effect, especially the 2nd one did such a good job of being an intense action-packed and fast paced game that I am affraid that implementation of completely stealth and / or other non-combat approaches could seriously impede the action part of the game at this stage.

I mean, the stealth gameplay requires different layout and composition of enemies, level design, A.I. requirements, hinders the use of some scripts (explosions, changes of environment, etc.) or at least makes it much more difficult, etc.. And the gameplay which allows player to use multiple paths - e.g. the use of environment to procede is even more demanding. 

So to me, in comparison to AP / DE, it seems like ME team has decided to tweak the level design and gameplay completely in favor of action and I don't mean it as a bad thing. It's just different approach that tries to satisfy different needs. Don't get me wrong, like I said, I love Deus Ex and like AP, but none of these games have been praised for good quality of combat IRC. Mass Effect 2's action part on the other hand, was complimented in many reviews.

So, I wouldn't mind few missions which could be solved in more non-combat ways (either exclusively or in addition to combat) and / or some features which could change the odds of some encounters (hacking sentry guns / bots, convincing NPCs not to fight / join Shepard's side), but I would probably not like ME 3 to turn into "choose your own playstyle" type of game. It's just too late IMO :-/

As for more story choices and consequences though, I would love that.  

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 23 août 2011 - 11:00 .

[Xeranx]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Xeranx wrote...


By what logic?  You're still making a statement that doesn't apply to everyone yet steadfastly implying that your stance is fact.  It isn't.  You mushroom example is invalid.

Uh, the fact that for a game that preaches "Choice is your weapon" the gameplay is railroaded to "This mission is only meant for one character build?" I'm also going to say that YOUR stance isn't valid either.

"That's not fair.  If mine isn't good yours isn't either".  If you say so.  I'm not looking at this as a competition. 

Gameplay is railroaded?  You can stealth past or blast your way through.  The training part of the game has you applying stealth and you can still disregard stealth and fire on anyone with your tranq gun if you want.  Yet you're claiming "Choice is your weapon" is false?  You can say it one hundred times and it still won't make it right or a fact.  

Claiming that you needing a particular build or skill(s) is mandatory is factual only for you (and anyone else it applies to) because you're unable to get what you want without a certain build.  That's not a problem with the game it's just the way things are.  I won't fault you for not being able to go through the game without a particular build, but I will fault you for saying that anything is mandatory to beat any section of the game because it's not the case.  

[Lunatic LK47]

Xeranx wrote...


Gameplay is railroaded?  You can stealth past or blast your way through.  The training part of the game has you applying stealth and you can still disregard stealth and fire on anyone with your tranq gun if you want.  Yet you're claiming "Choice is your weapon" is false?  You can say it one hundred times and it still won't make it right or a fact.

Forgot to post a mission in question last night. Marburg's Villa. Oops, you're screwed if you decided to play on Hard and not invest in martial arts skills. Fun, fun <_<. So much for "Choice is your weapon" if it required a certain build just to pass a simple ten-second fight before you're allowed to bother working on the break-out(i.e. Took literally ten minutes just to "tap melee, run, tap melee, run")

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 24 août 2011 - 01:10 .