158 réponses à ce sujet

[Xeranx]

I'm sorry. Are you complaining that you chose not to invest in martial arts skill and found a situation where having invested in such a skill would have paid off? Are you basing that the tagline is wrong based on my question posed and that you (again) chose to give yourself a challenge by setting the game to hard? One more question: did you succeed in defeating those guys and then getting your gear and progressing through the level since it's almost impossible to cheat in that game?

If you did get passed it then all I can say is you're moving the goal posts just so you can make yourself seem right. You chose a harder setting and then complain about it when you decide not to invest in a skill. That's the height of silliness. Do you knowingly apply for a difficult job knowing that your boss will expect strong work ethic, get accepted, and then complain when you aren't able to meet the requirements of the job you applied for? Own up to your shortcomings and stop blaming the game for them. You don't need to be good at everything.

There are many people who are capable of playing the game on hard and succeeding. A lot of people relish the challenge that you had with Marburg's men on the setting you chose. Complaining that you weren't able to best it is not the fault of the game. You just can't do it and that's not a bad thing. Honestly, if developers listened to people like you we would get bland difficulty levels and pseudo-challenges that do nothing for us. I'm of the opinion that games used to be harder in the past and now they're just getting easier and easier. The fact that people say insanity isn't a problem in ME2 is a hell of a tell-tale sign.

Fact of the matter is: you wanted a challenge and you didn't like it when you actually were challenged. That is on you. Completely.

[Kaiser Shepard]

vader da slayer wrote...

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.

It was marketed as such, and there's absolutely no reason some of the bigger choices couldn't come back at us earlier; the Rachni could've come to help (or kill) us on Ilos, during the battle with Sovereign, on Horizon, any number of places... same goes for most of the other big ones. So far we've made some decisions, and that's pretty much it. Now, from an in-universe perspective - which is how I enjoy tackling these - this leads me to many exciting moral dilemma's, but looking at it as a product I can't help but feel somewhat unsatified.

As I see it, there currently are two outcomes: either an unspecified amount of decisions actually influence ME3 (or more probably just its endgame) in an impressive way, or we get nothing while BioWare walks away with our cash...

[Lunatic LK47]

Xeranx wrote...

I'm sorry. Are you complaining that you chose not to invest in martial arts skill and found a situation where having invested in such a skill would have paid off? Are you basing that the tagline is wrong based on my question posed and that you (again) chose to give yourself a challenge by setting the game to hard? One more question: did you succeed in defeating those guys and then getting your gear and progressing through the level since it's almost impossible to cheat in that game?

Beaten in ONE OF MY SEVEN PLAYTHROUGHS. It still doesn't explain bad design by saying, "Sure, you can pick whatever playstyle, but certain levels only encourage certain builds." I'm more of the opinion that each mission should make every path legitimate instead of "C.I.A. Embassy is best for stealth." "Russia Train yard is meant for Rambo Thorton." or my personal favorite "Marburg's Villa is best for any Thorton with melee skills."

If you did get passed it then all I can say is you're moving the goal posts just so you can make yourself seem right. You chose a harder setting and then complain about it when you decide not to invest in a skill. That's the height of silliness. Do you knowingly apply for a difficult job knowing that your boss will expect strong work ethic, get accepted, and then complain when you aren't able to meet the requirements of the job you applied for? Own up to your shortcomings and stop blaming the game for them. You don't need to be good at everything.

Uh, no. Hard mode should be legitimately hard, not "Oh, it's just artificially hard just because."

There are many people who are capable of playing the game on hard and succeeding. A lot of people relish the challenge that you had with Marburg's men on the setting you chose. Complaining that you weren't able to best it is not the fault of the game. You just can't do it and that's not a bad thing. Honestly, if developers listened to people like you we would get bland difficulty levels and pseudo-challenges that do nothing for us. I'm of the opinion that games used to be harder in the past and now they're just getting easier and easier. The fact that people say insanity isn't a problem in ME2 is a hell of a tell-tale sign.

Uh, no. I don't consider games of the 80s and most of the early 90s to have good design whatsoever and found it more "cheap" than challenging, Especially if beating a certain game requires more luck than skill. Last time I checked, Mega Man 1 had worst amount of glitches when it came to basic level platforming (i.e. "Oops, I know you're standing on a platform, but getting hit by enemy fire will make you fall THROUGH the platform.") I'll even call Earthbound to have bad design in certain parts of the game, making it tedious to play legitimately.

And no, I don't consider Ninja Gaiden 1 challenging. I found it frustrating because of BAD CAMERA DESIGN.

[RussianSpy27]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

vader da slayer wrote...

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.

It was marketed as such, and there's absolutely no reason some of the bigger choices couldn't come back at us earlier; the Rachni could've come to help (or kill) us on Ilos, during the battle with Sovereign, on Horizon, any number of places... same goes for most of the other big ones. So far we've made some decisions, and that's pretty much it. Now, from an in-universe perspective - which is how I enjoy tackling these - this leads me to many exciting moral dilemma's, but looking at it as a product I can't help but feel somewhat unsatified.

As I see it, there currently are two outcomes: either an unspecified amount of decisions actually influence ME3 (or more probably just its endgame) in an impressive way, or we get nothing while BioWare walks away with our cash...

Kaiser, you make an excellent point!

Essentially, while Dragon Age: Origins had good missions where choice had a significant direct consequence (Save a village or not, kill the important blood mage or not, destroy sacred ashes, get captured or not etc), Mass Effect 1 and 2 just had differences in dialogue and death or life of a super duper shmuper minor-episodic character who then writes you an email if you saved him (nice touch but excuse me, I paid to see more consequences). 

Modifié par RussianSpy27, 24 août 2011 - 02:47 .

[breakdown71289]

Hmmm.....i wonder if i should get Deus Ex 3 now lol.

[Xeranx]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

I'm sorry. Are you complaining that you chose not to invest in martial arts skill and found a situation where having invested in such a skill would have paid off? Are you basing that the tagline is wrong based on my question posed and that you (again) chose to give yourself a challenge by setting the game to hard? One more question: did you succeed in defeating those guys and then getting your gear and progressing through the level since it's almost impossible to cheat in that game?

Beaten in ONE OF MY SEVEN PLAYTHROUGHS. It still doesn't explain bad design by saying, "Sure, you can pick whatever playstyle, but certain levels only encourage certain builds." I'm more of the opinion that each mission should make every path legitimate instead of "C.I.A. Embassy is best for stealth." "Russia Train yard is meant for Rambo Thorton." or my personal favorite "Marburg's Villa is best for any Thorton with melee skills."

If you don't know how to throw a punch then your chances of succeeding in a fight are significantly smaller than if you did.  You chose hard difficulty, you chose to not know how to throw a punch or throw a punch well and you got your behind handed to you.  I don't see where the bad design is.

If you had a significant investment in melee combat and were getting the same treatment then there's a problem.  I reiterate the bold section.

If you did get passed it then all I can say is you're moving the goal posts just so you can make yourself seem right. You chose a harder setting and then complain about it when you decide not to invest in a skill. That's the height of silliness. Do you knowingly apply for a difficult job knowing that your boss will expect strong work ethic, get accepted, and then complain when you aren't able to meet the requirements of the job you applied for? Own up to your shortcomings and stop blaming the game for them. You don't need to be good at everything.

Uh, no. Hard mode should be legitimately hard, not "Oh, it's just artificially hard just because."

I draw your attention to my reponse above for the bulk of my reply to this.  

You chose a harder difficulty.  Normal implies regular.  Hard implies that things will be increased artificially to make things more difficult.  You chose this and chose a handicap.  As I said in my last post: That's on you.

There are many people who are capable of playing the game on hard and succeeding. A lot of people relish the challenge that you had with Marburg's men on the setting you chose. Complaining that you weren't able to best it is not the fault of the game. You just can't do it and that's not a bad thing. Honestly, if developers listened to people like you we would get bland difficulty levels and pseudo-challenges that do nothing for us. I'm of the opinion that games used to be harder in the past and now they're just getting easier and easier. The fact that people say insanity isn't a problem in ME2 is a hell of a tell-tale sign.

Uh, no. I don't consider games of the 80s and most of the early 90s to have good design whatsoever and found it more "cheap" than challenging, Especially if beating a certain game requires more luck than skill. Last time I checked, Mega Man 1 had worst amount of glitches when it came to basic level platforming (i.e. "Oops, I know you're standing on a platform, but getting hit by enemy fire will make you fall THROUGH the platform.") I'll even call Earthbound to have bad design in certain parts of the game, making it tedious to play legitimately.

And no, I don't consider Ninja Gaiden 1 challenging. I found it frustrating because of BAD CAMERA DESIGN.

Not that I was much of a gamer during the 80s and 90s (no money for what was essentially regarded as kid's stuff), but some of the games I played offered difficulty that infuriated me.  Many people might say were cakewalks.  They weren't to me, but then I either decided they weren't for me or I tried harder.  Most of my experience with gaming ended up being in fighting games which I was horrendous at when facing another human.  DIdn't stop me.  I kept trying.  To this day I've lost more than I've won, but I don't complain because that wasn't my forte.  

Still, games nowadays are incredibly boring because for all the challenge they seem to offer.  The many comments I've seen about ME2's insanity difficulty indicates the former heavily.

[Lunatic LK47]

Xeranx wrote...


Beaten in ONE OF MY SEVEN PLAYTHROUGHS. It still doesn't explain bad design by saying, "Sure, you can pick whatever playstyle, but certain levels only encourage certain builds." I'm more of the opinion that each mission should make every path legitimate instead of "C.I.A. Embassy is best for stealth." "Russia Train yard is meant for Rambo Thorton." or my personal favorite "Marburg's Villa is best for any Thorton with melee skills."

If you don't know how to throw a punch then your chances of succeeding in a fight are significantly smaller than if you did.  You chose hard difficulty, you chose to not know how to throw a punch or throw a punch well and you got your behind handed to you.  I don't see where the bad design is.

Uh, plot-dictated stupidity where you're stuck with the worst disadvantage unless you decided to do a "Field Agent" archetype? Comprehension that difficult? Let me bold my problem with the entire game design: I'm more of the opinion that each mission should make every path
legitimate instead of "C.I.A. Embassy is best for stealth." "Russia
Train yard is meant for Rambo Thorton." or my personal favorite
"Marburg's Villa is best for any Thorton with melee skills." The final product as it's design is just stupid up to the point I ended up using Field Agent or Veteran (all specializing with Stealth/MA/Pistol) on my last three of my seven playthroughs just because I found Soldier and Tech Specialist's skills to be worthless

If you had a significant investment in melee combat and were getting the same treatment then there's a problem.  I reiterate the bold section.

Uh, those problems existed with boss fights just because "Oh, LOLZ. Boss fights must have a million more HP just because every game convention says so."

You chose a harder difficulty.  Normal implies regular.  Hard implies that things will be increased artificially to make things more difficult.  You chose this and chose a handicap.  As I said in my last post: That's on you.

Riiiiight. I actually had more fun with the shooter games on hard because I know for sure that deaths were my own damn fault. Alpha Protocol's Hard mode. "LOLZ, don't bother experimenting with builds. U mu5t know every nuance of teh 1337 skilllz LOLOLOL."

There are many people who are capable of playing the game on hard and succeeding. A lot of people relish the challenge that you had with Marburg's men on the setting you chose. Complaining that you weren't able to best it is not the fault of the game. You just can't do it and that's not a bad thing. Honestly, if developers listened to people like you we would get bland difficulty levels and pseudo-challenges that do nothing for us. I'm of the opinion that games used to be harder in the past and now they're just getting easier and easier. The fact that people say insanity isn't a problem in ME2 is a hell of a tell-tale sign.

Not that I was much of a gamer during the 80s and 90s (no money for what was essentially regarded as kid's stuff), but some of the games I played offered difficulty that infuriated me.  Many people might say were cakewalks.  They weren't to me, but then I either decided they weren't for me or I tried harder.  Most of my experience with gaming ended up being in fighting games which I was horrendous at when facing another human.  DIdn't stop me.  I kept trying.  To this day I've lost more than I've won, but I don't complain because that wasn't my forte. 

Uh, multiplayer fighting games=/= **** analogy. What's the point of "Trying harder" if a game is badly designed by default? Seriously, anyone actually beat ET for the Atari back in the 80's? Did anyone actually beat any CRAPPY movie-licensed games that ever existed during the 90's?

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 24 août 2011 - 05:06 .

[Xeranx]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...


Beaten in ONE OF MY SEVEN PLAYTHROUGHS. It still doesn't explain bad design by saying, "Sure, you can pick whatever playstyle, but certain levels only encourage certain builds." I'm more of the opinion that each mission should make every path legitimate instead of "C.I.A. Embassy is best for stealth." "Russia Train yard is meant for Rambo Thorton." or my personal favorite "Marburg's Villa is best for any Thorton with melee skills."

Xeranx wrote...
If you don't know how to throw a punch then your chances of succeeding in a fight are significantly smaller than if you did.  You chose hard difficulty, you chose to not know how to throw a punch or throw a punch well and you got your behind handed to you.  I don't see where the bad design is.

Uh, plot-dictated stupidity where you're stuck with the worst disadvantage unless you decided to do a "Field Agent" archetype? Comprehension that difficult? Let me bold my problem with the entire game design: I'm more of the opinion that each mission should make every path
legitimate instead of "C.I.A. Embassy is best for stealth." "Russia
Train yard is meant for Rambo Thorton." or my personal favorite
"Marburg's Villa is best for any Thorton with melee skills." The final product as it's design is just stupid up to the point I ended up using Field Agent or Veteran (all specializing with Stealth/MA/Pistol) on my last three of my seven playthroughs just because I found Soldier and Tech Specialist's skills to be worthless

I think your overall problem is that you couldn't be James Bond.  You had to be someone who could be flawed and since you're human (and thereby flawed) you MADE CHOICES that didn't help you in certain situations.  If you're asking if my ability to comprehend you is difficult my answer is: yes and no.  

Yes because you brought up the tagline and then proceed to make statements that detail choices you made but were unhappy with.  You found Soldier and Tech Specialist skills to be worthless...that leads me to believe you chose not to use them.  But now you're not happy that you made a choice because you weren't up to or capable of handling the game any way you wanted to take it.  Again, that's not the game's fault.  It's not Obsidian's fault, and it really isn't you're fault that you weren't able to handle it.  But you're trying to make it seem like it was bad design because you couldn't take advantage of it.  That's similar to a kid not liking the rules of a game that everyone else is able to handle, but he can't.  If the design of the game doesn't render itself useless to everyone there's no way that the game design is bad or as bad as you say.  There are plenty of people who can handle what AP throws at them.  You can't and rather than admitting that you're poo-pooing the game and making yourself look like a fool in the process.  So yes, I find it hard to comprehend because what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever.

My second part of that answer is no (you're not hard to comprehend) because you want to be able to hit it and quit it.  You're not interested in a challenge.  You chose hard difficulty, but still expected to steamroll Marburg's men in a hand-to-hand scenario despite your choice to not focus on hand-to-hand as you've already stated.  Again, you wanted to be James Bond who has boundless luck and a crazy assortment of gadgets that apply to any and every situation.  That's not reasonable and it's funny that Pierce Brosnan wanted to steer the Bond movies away from that because it was too fantastical.  You want a pure fantasy and Obsidian didn't give it to you.  So you whine that it's unfair.  

Quick point: I made Tech skills work for me.  Brilliance is a beautiful skill to have if you actually think about which avenue you want Mike to grow.  If you're not the least bit concerned about that and just want something to pick up and play for 5 minutes before you go out with your friends then this isn't the game for you and it's about time you realize that.

The game is designed in such a way that you will have difficult challenges to overcome if you don't think about what you want to optomize.  Do you want to be a better hacker?  Do you want to be able to handle your weapons better?  Do you want to be more resilient so you don't take as bad a beating?  Do you want to be better in melee combat?  Do you want to optomize your peripheral items?  You have to make a choice and work accordingly.  You have to decide what you want to pursue and deal with anything that comes your way bearing in mind that making a selection of a skill or skills will not give you an "i win" button.  I'm sure if there was a language skill and you ended up needing to know a language to better help you on a mission you'd be whining about that as well if you didn't beef up said skill but still had a translator available to help you.  

I know I'm not getting through to you here because you think you're 100% right and I'm done trying.  Be fed up with a game that actually asks you to think ahead or just think about what you're likely to need.  I'm sure another game like AP will come along and gift you all the weapons and skills you need so you can be just like James Bond with his wonderful gadgets and incredible luck.

If you had a significant investment in melee combat and were getting the same treatment then there's a problem.  I reiterate the bold section.

Uh, those problems existed with boss fights just because "Oh, LOLZ. Boss fights must have a million more HP just because every game convention says so."

You chose a harder difficulty.  Normal implies regular.  Hard implies that things will be increased artificially to make things more difficult.  You chose this and chose a handicap.  As I said in my last post: That's on you.

Riiiiight. I actually had more fun with the shooter games on hard because I know for sure that deaths were my own damn fault. Alpha Protocol's Hard mode. "LOLZ, don't bother experimenting with builds. U mu5t know every nuance of teh 1337 skilllz LOLOLOL."

There are many people who are capable of playing the game on hard and succeeding. A lot of people relish the challenge that you had with Marburg's men on the setting you chose. Complaining that you weren't able to best it is not the fault of the game. You just can't do it and that's not a bad thing. Honestly, if developers listened to people like you we would get bland difficulty levels and pseudo-challenges that do nothing for us. I'm of the opinion that games used to be harder in the past and now they're just getting easier and easier. The fact that people say insanity isn't a problem in ME2 is a hell of a tell-tale sign.

Not that I was much of a gamer during the 80s and 90s (no money for what was essentially regarded as kid's stuff), but some of the games I played offered difficulty that infuriated me.  Many people might say were cakewalks.  They weren't to me, but then I either decided they weren't for me or I tried harder.  Most of my experience with gaming ended up being in fighting games which I was horrendous at when facing another human.  DIdn't stop me.  I kept trying.  To this day I've lost more than I've won, but I don't complain because that wasn't my forte. 

Uh, multiplayer fighting games=/= **** analogy. What's the point of "Trying harder" if a game is badly designed by default? Seriously, anyone actually beat ET for the Atari back in the 80's? Did anyone actually beat any movie-licensed games that ever existed during the 90's?

I said most of my experience was fighting games.  That doesn't mean I only played fighting games seeing as I did say most which does not mean all.  And you were talking to me about comprehension.  You didn't even read.  And just for the record: I think you're comment on analogies after your "uh" statement should read equals and not "=/=" (as in does not equal).

I still made the point that I tried and ultimately found that I couldn't compete.  I lacked the ability to do what I expected.  That corresponds with you being unable to tackle the game the way you wanted.  I could have made it more clear, but I didn't think I needed to spell it out.  If I get into another discussion with you (condescending insult match on your part) I'll remember to go slow.

[MrFob]

First of all, thumps up for all the AP love in this thread. That game was very underrated IMO.

Now, I haven't played DX:HR yet (really looking forward to it) but I hope that ME3 will give more emphasis on choices and consequences, going beyond what the previous games did. I understand that they couldn't go too crazy yet but now is the time to go all out and show us some real divergence.

Modifié par MrFob, 24 août 2011 - 06:21 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Xeranx wrote...
Yes because you brought up the tagline and then proceed to make statements that detail choices you made but were unhappy with.  You found Soldier and Tech Specialist skills to be worthless...that leads me to believe you chose not to use them.

Let me get the record straight. I HAVE 7 COMPLETE PLAYTHROUGHS (I.E. BEATEN THE GAME 7 TIMES) experimenting with all of the builds. As it was, at least three skills were better off not existing (i.e. Toughness, Sabotage, and either Shotgun or Assault Rifle) due to questionable implementation (seriously, an assault rifle only gets a crappy auto-aim as a "special skill?", or a shotgun's "AA-12 mania" being worthless against bosses?), and yes, I did play those two builds ONE TIME EACH AND COMPLETED THOSE PLAYTHROUGHS BOTH SESSIONS.

But now you're not happy that you made a choice because you weren't up to or capable of handling the game any way you wanted to take it.  Again, that's not the game's fault.  It's not Obsidian's fault, and it really isn't you're fault that you weren't able to handle it.  But you're trying to make it seem like it was bad design because you couldn't take advantage of it.  That's similar to a kid not liking the rules of a game that everyone else is able to handle, but he can't.  If the design of the game doesn't render itself useless to everyone there's no way that the game design is bad or as bad as you say.  There are plenty of people who can handle what AP throws at them.  You can't and rather than admitting that you're poo-pooing the game and making yourself look like a fool in the process.  So yes, I find it hard to comprehend because what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever.

Beaten the game 7 ****ing times and played through all of the alternate paths. Something you conveniently are ignoring. For the record, I found Alpha Protocol to be ****** poor because Obsidian half-assed it, not to mention being under Sega's **** management added more insult to injury. Oops, I just experienced KOTOR 2 2.0 again, not to mention the negative reviews the game got were well-justified after playing the game 7th time. 

You chose hard difficulty, but still expected to steamroll Marburg's men in a hand-to-hand scenario despite your choice to not focus on hand-to-hand as you've already stated

Still doesn't explain that any n00b player playing this game blind won't know any better. What if this was someone else's playthrough and found AP to be their first RPG? Finding gameplay design flaws like something like this is stupid. Might as well create a DMV test where your evaluator riding shotgun will go far out of his way to create an accident for you while you're behind the wheel just because "It makes a challenge."

Again, you wanted to be James Bond who has boundless luck and a crazy assortment of gadgets that apply to any and every situation.  That's not reasonable and it's funny that Pierce Brosnan wanted to steer the Bond movies away from that because it was too fantastical.  You want a pure fantasy and Obsidian didn't give it to you.  So you whine that it's unfair.

Uh, know. I want consistency with Obsidian's marketing campaign. "Choice is your weapon" is supposed to be one definition, "You can level up any skills you want, and it will be valid for the entire game." That's the interpretation I have of that statement. All I got is "It's only valid for 1/3rd of the game, while the other 2/3rds will go far out of it's way to make your choice invalid."  I expected something like, "I can focus on leveling up my weapons skills max without problem without having to rely on martial arts" or the polar opposite. Not "Mandatory plot-dictated capture where only one character build can remotely let you pass a mandatory fist-fight with a mook unless you want to spend 20 minutes stabbing him with a toothpick." 

Uh, if you bothered reading my earlier post, I already mentioned combining Brilliance with Chainshot. Check the previous pages. 

The game is designed in such a way that you will have difficult challenges to overcome if you don't think about what you want to optomize.  Do you want to be a better hacker?  Do you want to be able to handle your weapons better?  Do you want to be more resilient so you don't take as bad a beating?  Do you want to be better in melee combat?  Do you want to optomize your peripheral items?  You have to make a choice and work accordingly.  You have to decide what you want to pursue and deal with anything that comes your way bearing in mind that making a selection of a skill or skills will not give you an "i win" button.  I'm sure if there was a language skill and you ended up needing to know a language to better help you on a mission you'd be whining about that as well if you didn't beef up said skill but still had a translator available to help you.

Let me say this, since this apparently is not sinking in for you. SEVEN ****ING PLAYTHROUGHS, AND I HAVE PLAYED EVERY CHARACTER BUILD. I FOUND ALL OF THEM TO BE BADLY DESIGNED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Soldier: ****ty combat controls made it the least desirable, not to mention the occasional stealth objective makes it undesirable if you want to get that special gun or extra XP.

Tech Specialist: Carrying capacity of gadgets is limited, not to mention by the time you hit a boss, you're either empty or only have two grenades left. All you have left is a **** Shotgun, unless of course you decide to go against the grain and invest in pistol. You're more or less discouraged from doing combat with the way the Tech Specialist is supposed to play. All  you have left going for it is hacking computers and picking locks with a lenient time limit, which is not saying much.

All that's left is either Field Agent, Recruit, or Veteran, which is more or less "Pick Stealth, MA, and Martial Arts. Everything else can rot in hell."

I know I'm not getting through to you here because you think you're 100% right and I'm done trying.  Be fed up with a game that actually asks you to think ahead or just think about what you're likely to need.  I'm sure another game like AP will come along and gift you all the weapons and skills you need so you can be just like James Bond with his wonderful gadgets and incredible luck.

Uh, I could handle KOTOR 1, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect 1 perfectly fine (though I still consider the weakest parts of ME1 to scream mediocre or poorly designed), so no, Alpha Protocol does not require "using my head." Alpha Protocol a mediocre game covered with false advertising that only half-asses the hype it built up.

I'm ****ing done here, and am not interested in continuing this pissing contest with you.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 24 août 2011 - 07:13 .

[Dionkey]

I am very impressed by DE: HR so far. I love how every single character you meet (and there are hundreds, if not thousands of NPCs) each has their own unique dialogue and responds to you differently depending on where they come from. The world is very much alive in that sense.

[Rockworm503]

hmm HR sounds like a game that belongs on my try out list. With so many other games that I am 100% excited for its gonna have to wait. (Plus I'm way too poor to even think about buying games I like let alone ones I don't know much about)

[Varen Spectre]

"Feels good to be immersed in the #DeusEx universe again, especially when they played the UNATCO theme near the beginning. #DXHR".

from: http://twitter.com/#...400850922053632

Well, at least Casey Hudson seems so enjoy it, so maybe if there is something particularly well done (I haven't played HR yet), then ME team may take some inspiration...:innocent:

[The Spamming Troll]

you guys need to get deus EX. i havent been on this site in 2 days, which is crazy for me. im getting the same feelings i got from ME1 while im playing deus EX. its wonderfull. see you guys in a few more days!

im glad some RPG developers still knows how to make a good role playing game.

[Jaron Oberyn]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys need to get deus EX. i havent been on this site in 2 days, which is crazy for me. im getting the same feelings i got from ME1 while im playing deus EX. its wonderfull. see you guys in a few more days!

im glad some RPG developers still knows how to make a good role playing game.

Exactly. This is going to satisfy my RPG needs. Tons of exploration, the leveling system, real choices with consequences... I could go on....


-Polite

[SalsaDMA]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Even me with my abysmal combat skills only really "needed" Chain shot for Mr. B, even though I'm a stealthy player by habit. Like eighty percent of my kills were sneaking up behind and "Splinter Cell-"ing them. Martial arts is a nice skill to have, especially for right before the assassination (in S, boss fight). It's fairly powerful, and good for if you have two or three mooks in a room: Toss a grenade, then rush in seconds later and take out the last two guys with several well-placed kicks and punches.

Except I found Grenades to be unreliable except as overglorified "Proximity mines." Even then, the limited carrying capacity made it less desirable to use at all. It still doesn't explain why Martial Arts against bosses do very moderate damage compared to knocking out mooks with relative ease.

Well what do you know. 2 different people could play the game in different ways?

*gaswp*


On a related note, I liked AP alot and really hope that future rpg titles take a look at that game to get some ideas about choice and effect as well as the ability to play the game in multiple ways allowing players to use different styles and approaches to scenarios. I've completed the game 3 times so far with different builds and approaches, which made for alot more variance than completing the ME games 3 times...

[SalsaDMA]

Nashiktal wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Even me with my abysmal combat skills only really "needed" Chain shot for Mr. B, even though I'm a stealthy player by habit. Like eighty percent of my kills were sneaking up behind and "Splinter Cell-"ing them. Martial arts is a nice skill to have, especially for right before the assassination (in S, boss fight). It's fairly powerful, and good for if you have two or three mooks in a room: Toss a grenade, then rush in seconds later and take out the last two guys with several well-placed kicks and punches.

Except I found Grenades to be unreliable except as overglorified "Proximity mines." Even then, the limited carrying capacity made it less desirable to use at all. It still doesn't explain why Martial Arts against bosses do very moderate damage compared to knocking out mooks with relative ease.

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

I have to admit though, I love this game to death, and I am defending it. But I will concede that actual gameplay can be frustrating and annoying depending on your style. Enemy guns hurt, and are accurate, your own aim is clunky at best, stealth is godlike, but hindrace against some bosses, and shotguns are near useless except versus brakyko.

Still love the hell out of it though.

huh? Shotguns useless?

I had lots of fun with one of my builds as a shotgun rusher. The ability to knock down opponents from range was pretty big, and the aiming time was very small to get this effect. Hell with the special ability of shotguns it was a mad dash blasting mooks left and right to the ground while running over and stomping on them. Certainly made for a very different play style than the aiming and cover game the rest of the weapons bogs down in.

[Lunatic LK47]

SalsaDMA wrote...


On a related note, I liked AP alot and really hope that future rpg titles take a look at that game to get some ideas about choice and effect as well as the ability to play the game in multiple ways allowing players to use different styles and approaches to scenarios. I've completed the game 3 times so far with different builds and approaches, which made for alot more variance than completing the ME games 3 times...

Wait, what? Can you fist-fight SIE if you want to? Last time I checked, no.

Can you fist-fight any boss problem-free if you wanted to? Last time I checked, no.

Can you talk your way out of a fight with Brayko? No.

Will sparing Al-Jibari make much of a difference? Other than Marburg liking you, no.

Will sparing a Gelato shop owner spare you? No. You'll still get profiled either way.

Can you prevent being captured by Marburg? No.

So much for those "different approaches" since it only applies to 1/3rd of the game.

Last time I checked, Special skills for assault rifles and shotguns are poorly implemented (what, Assault Rifle gets a crappy auto-aim while Shotguns' special ability is only good against mooks but worthless against bosses?)

huh? Shotguns useless?

I had lots of fun with one of my
builds as a shotgun rusher. The ability to knock down opponents from
range was pretty big, and the aiming time was very small to get this
effect. Hell with the special ability of shotguns it was a mad dash
blasting mooks left and right to the ground while running over and
stomping on them. Certainly made for a very different play style than
the aiming and cover game the rest of the weapons bogs down in.

Such a damn shame Shotguns' special ability sucks against Bosses, since they JOHN WOO DIVE ROLL OUT OF THE WAY EVERY ****ING TIME.

[littlezack]

While I like what I've played of Deus Ex so far, I really hesitate to call it more of an RPG than even ME2 is. You're very rarely given any choice in what Adam says and does, and while you're given the choice to go with a stealth or a run-and-gun approach most of the time, it's clear the game wants you to be stealthy - shooting everything willy-nilly gets you cut in half fast, even at the best augmentations. The only thing I'd give it over ME2 is the leveling system.

Also, Adam has got to be the most boring protagonist I've ever played as. The man has one tone of voice and one facial expression. For EVERYTHING. Most of the time he sounds like he's bored to be in the game.

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

I am very impressed by DE: HR so far. I love how every single character you meet (and there are hundreds, if not thousands of NPCs) each has their own unique dialogue and responds to you differently depending on where they come from. The world is very much alive in that sense.

Also,..no, they don't all have their own unique dialogue Quite a few people say the same things.

I'm not saying it's a bad game - it's quite fun. It's a well-made game, a very good game, but it is not the role-playing messaiah some people are painting it to be.

[Il Divo]

Well, having just finished Human Revolution, I gotta say: better than the original. And I never thought that would be possible. It's essentially a better designed Alpha Protocol, with a more enjoyable leveling system than the original. It's the prequel that Deus Ex always deserved.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

SWAT turns and stealth are in DEHR, and have already been showcased in ME3. Obviously ME3 will not be a stealth / espionage focused game, but I wouldn't worry about lacking any movement features in ME3.

[jds1bio]

Have we abandoned actually asking the developers about DX features in ME3?

Here's one feature that probably won't make it: having hostages die because someone was too busy eavesdropping on a conversation being held in the ladies' bathroom.

[Changonauta]

For the collectors edition of ME3, please use the same package of the Augmented edition of Deus Ex

[slimgrin]

From what I have played, Deus Ex:Hr has creative level design, an excellent UI ( tool bar and grid inventory ftw ), and some pretty sharp AI. ME2 is very much on the rails by comparison, but I've always been critical of Bioware's level design.

Modifié par slimgrin, 26 août 2011 - 03:06 .