333 réponses à ce sujet

[Akrylik]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

 They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens... 

Im afraid your arguement is invalid now.

Gears focuses on combat, Mass Effect focuses on story, i don't expect either to shine in what they were not solely created for. That being said ME's combat is not terrible.

If i wanted to play a TPS for the combat, i would play Gears. If i wanted to play a game for the story, it would be ME, the fact that they share a superficially similar combat system is a pointless observation when both games are intended to be played for different reasons.

[111987]

Akrylik wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

 They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens... 

Im afraid your arguement is invalid now.

Gears focuses on combat, Mass Effect focuses on story, i don't expect either to shine in what they were not solely created for. That being said ME's combat is not terrible.

Nor is the story of Gear's of War terrible. But yes, good points, I agree.

[kold213]

I love both GoW and ME, though which is preferable is obvious. They're very different but they ARE similar, whether you like it or not.

It's not just the face-paced tps gameplay that is similar, but also the level design. They both have an over-abundance of cover which is always perfectly placed for your convienence.

[The Spamming Troll]

i hope this topic goes on forever, for the sake of the OP.

[Gatt9]

Akrylik wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

 They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens... 

Im afraid your arguement is invalid now.

Gears focuses on combat, Mass Effect focuses on story, i don't expect either to shine in what they were not solely created for. That being said ME's combat is not terrible.

If i wanted to play a TPS for the combat, i would play Gears. If i wanted to play a game for the story, it would be ME, the fact that they share a superficially similar combat system is a pointless observation when both games are intended to be played for different reasons.

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

I'm trying to think of some primary mission that didn't end up in combat,  and drawing a complete blank.  There was maybe 1 discoverable mission that wasn't complete combat?  Maybe 1 DLC,  and I think that one only had a segment that wasn't combat.  From there,  all we're left with is "I want a fish".

I would seriously argue that ME2's primary focus isn't combat,  simply because everything revolves around it.

[Akrylik]

Gatt9 wrote...


ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

I'm trying to think of some primary mission that didn't end up in combat,  and drawing a complete blank.  There was maybe 1 discoverable mission that wasn't complete combat?  Maybe 1 DLC,  and I think that one only had a segment that wasn't combat.  From there,  all we're left with is "I want a fish".

I would seriously argue that ME2's primary focus isn't combat,  simply because everything revolves around it.

Samara and Thane loyalty missions, a few anomaly missions too, do not involve combat.
But im trying to make a point of priority not prominence, combat is indeed unavoidable and abundant in ME, and as such there needs to be a satisfying combat formula. But Bioware's specialty is, and has always been, storytelling, not combat. As a result a good portion of the game is dialogue and cutscenes, which is where Bio puts their expertise. Combat acts as the necisary filler in between those moments, which isn't skimmed upon but is not refined, not nearly as much as Gears of War, of which the entire game is combat-centric. The priorities of Mass Effect and most RPGs is the story, Bioware hence adheres to this lest it become a TPS with "RPG elements".

[AmstradHero]

Gatt9 wrote...
Ammo was added for no other reason than to be more shootery

Bollocks. It was added because it makes shooting mechanics more interesting and tactical then "I guess I'll just stop firing for a while to let my gun cool down." Worse, that mechanic only mattered at the lower levels, where the character is more fragile, and the player is less likely to have the skills and ability to deal with combat situations. At higher levels you could shoot quite freely (spectre weapon with heat sink, anyone?) rendering the overheating mechanic null and void. Adding the ammo mechanic was a good game design choice, and anyone arguing otherwise either doesn't understand game design, or is merely using it as a grandstanding issue on which to complain.

Gatt9 wrote...
*Experience in ME2 is completely irrelevant.  You can do an incredibly difficult side mission and get 50xps out of it,  do an incredibly easy story mission and it hands you a level pretty much everytime.  It's obvious that the intention was to only give a level or *maybe* two to those who did side missions,  but give everyone skill points for every story mission.  It doesn't care how many critters you kill,  or how you resolve the mission,  everyone gets the same thing no matter what.  At that point,  it ceases to be an Experience system and becomes "Do a story mission,  get points!",  which is very anti-RPG.

The funny thing about RPGs is that side quests aren't generally meant to be mandatory.  It's expected that people will do some, but they're often there to provide an extra advantage to those who do, by giving them some extra weapons, gold or ... ah, maybe a level or two.

Gatt9 wrote...
**Levels are irrelevant.  You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons,  he's about as hard as it gets.  So at that point,  you can kill everything in the game if you could see it.  As such,  the levels perform no real function,  if you can already do everything at the very begining,  then there's no difference between level 2 and level 30.

Funny, by that token, Dragon Age is equally anti-RPG, because experience
is largely irrelevant because enemies are scaled and hence your
advances are rendered largely redundant.

Gatt9 wrote...
***You can hear Shepherd say something nice,  or hear him say something mean,  but in almost every instance,  everyone gets the same results,  and no one reacts to the personality you're demonstrating,  even when it conflicts with their own.  Contrast this to earlier Bioware games where the NPC's would conflict with you if you didn't mesh with their personalities.  Now you can do whatever you want without consequence.

In Baldur's Gate 2, you always go to Spellhold, get betrayed by Saemon Havarian, kill Bodhi, and then follow Irencus to Suldanesselar & Hell and then kill him. In KotOR, you always recall your past, Bastila always turns to the dark side and you kill Malak. In Neverwinter Nights, Fenthick is always executed, Aribeth always turns traitor, and you banish the Old Ones forever.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the "consequences were deeper in older games" argument, because it's simply inaccurate.

Gatt9 wrote...
****Just because there's different types of weapons doesn't mean they're relevant.  Since the starter weapons kill what's pretty much the hardest thing you face in the game,  the weapons are essentially irrelevant.  Grab whichever one looks best to you and you'll be perfectly fine.  The armor is even less relevant,  all of the bonuses are completely insignificant.

Mass Effect wasn't any better, as you just upgraded to the new level of weapons whenever you found them, until you could buy Spectre weapons and then didn't bother with anything else. The difference between weapon types in Dragon Age Origins (e.g. longsword vs mace or greatsword vs maul) is also negligible.


The funny thing is that I agree that Mass Effect 3 should incorporate more complex design in terms of inventory, levelling and story consequences. However, many of the "reasons" people provide to say ME2 is shallow or a Gears of War clone are steeped in ignorance or personal preference.

[111987]

Gatt9 wrote...

Akrylik wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

 They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens... 

Im afraid your arguement is invalid now.

Gears focuses on combat, Mass Effect focuses on story, i don't expect either to shine in what they were not solely created for. That being said ME's combat is not terrible.

If i wanted to play a TPS for the combat, i would play Gears. If i wanted to play a game for the story, it would be ME, the fact that they share a superficially similar combat system is a pointless observation when both games are intended to be played for different reasons.

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

I'm trying to think of some primary mission that didn't end up in combat,  and drawing a complete blank.  There was maybe 1 discoverable mission that wasn't complete combat?  Maybe 1 DLC,  and I think that one only had a segment that wasn't combat.  From there,  all we're left with is "I want a fish".

I would seriously argue that ME2's primary focus isn't combat,  simply because everything revolves around it.

Just wanted to point out the following non-combat missions:

3 Assignments (YMIR Mech mission, Solar Flare mission, Crashed Alliance Ship mission)
Thane Loyalty Mission
Samara Loyalty Mission
:happy:

[Tommy6860]

Gatt9 wrote...

Akrylik wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

 They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens... 

Im afraid your arguement is invalid now.

Gears focuses on combat, Mass Effect focuses on story, i don't expect either to shine in what they were not solely created for. That being said ME's combat is not terrible.

If i wanted to play a TPS for the combat, i would play Gears. If i wanted to play a game for the story, it would be ME, the fact that they share a superficially similar combat system is a pointless observation when both games are intended to be played for different reasons.

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

That's not true at all. Thane's LM had no combat at all (unless you count the Renegade interrupt), nor was Samara's LM. Even in Samara's, you could choose who went with you at the end of her LM. Regarding story, I'll admit the first time I played it, I was real unhappy because I thought the same thing, that it lacked story. But the 2nd time, really listened to all of the dialogue and Liara's revelation (even without the LoTSB) is what set it off for me. Now ME2's story wasn't as deep as ME's and I didn't like that, but ME2 still made the story relevant throughout the game. So, tell me where ME2 doesn't involve the ME story.

I'm trying to think of some primary mission that didn't end up in combat,  and drawing a complete blank.  There was maybe 1 discoverable mission that wasn't complete combat?  Maybe 1 DLC,  and I think that one only had a segment that wasn't combat.  From there,  all we're left with is "I want a fish".

I would seriously argue that ME2's primary focus isn't combat,  simply because everything revolves around it.

The focus of ME2's combat is in battling the enemy, which leads to different aspects of the story and the RP elements. There are so few games where the primary missions/quest don't involve combat, that I cannot really think of one that doesn't. DA:O, in every main quest, you have to perform combat. The last RPG I can really think of that involved as little combat as I can possibly avoid was maybe Planescape: Torment (My all time fav RPG). Remember, ME is a futuristic game with futuristic weapons, there are going to be shoout-outs. I guess one thing they could have done is add some cool stealth elements to the missions where you could avoid combat, but would that then make it a better story though?

Modifié par Tommy6860, 04 septembre 2011 - 07:51 .

[Tommy6860]

AmstradHero wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Ammo was added for no other reason than to be more shootery

Bollocks. It was added because it makes shooting mechanics more interesting and tactical then "I guess I'll just stop firing for a while to let my gun cool down." Worse, that mechanic only mattered at the lower levels, where the character is more fragile, and the player is less likely to have the skills and ability to deal with combat situations. At higher levels you could shoot quite freely (spectre weapon with heat sink, anyone?) rendering the overheating mechanic null and void. Adding the ammo mechanic was a good game design choice, and anyone arguing otherwise either doesn't understand game design, or is merely using it as a grandstanding issue on which to complain.

Gatt9 wrote...
*Experience in ME2 is completely irrelevant.  You can do an incredibly difficult side mission and get 50xps out of it,  do an incredibly easy story mission and it hands you a level pretty much everytime.  It's obvious that the intention was to only give a level or *maybe* two to those who did side missions,  but give everyone skill points for every story mission.  It doesn't care how many critters you kill,  or how you resolve the mission,  everyone gets the same thing no matter what.  At that point,  it ceases to be an Experience system and becomes "Do a story mission,  get points!",  which is very anti-RPG.

The funny thing about RPGs is that side quests aren't generally meant to be mandatory.  It's expected that people will do some, but they're often there to provide an extra advantage to those who do, by giving them some extra weapons, gold or ... ah, maybe a level or two.

Gatt9 wrote...
**Levels are irrelevant.  You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons,  he's about as hard as it gets.  So at that point,  you can kill everything in the game if you could see it.  As such,  the levels perform no real function,  if you can already do everything at the very begining,  then there's no difference between level 2 and level 30.

Funny, by that token, Dragon Age is equally anti-RPG, because experience
is largely irrelevant because enemies are scaled and hence your
advances are rendered largely redundant.

Gatt9 wrote...
***You can hear Shepherd say something nice,  or hear him say something mean,  but in almost every instance,  everyone gets the same results,  and no one reacts to the personality you're demonstrating,  even when it conflicts with their own.  Contrast this to earlier Bioware games where the NPC's would conflict with you if you didn't mesh with their personalities.  Now you can do whatever you want without consequence.

In Baldur's Gate 2, you always go to Spellhold, get betrayed by Saemon Havarian, kill Bodhi, and then follow Irencus to Suldanesselar & Hell and then kill him. In KotOR, you always recall your past, Bastila always turns to the dark side and you kill Malak. In Neverwinter Nights, Fenthick is always executed, Aribeth always turns traitor, and you banish the Old Ones forever.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the "consequences were deeper in older games" argument, because it's simply inaccurate.

Gatt9 wrote...
****Just because there's different types of weapons doesn't mean they're relevant.  Since the starter weapons kill what's pretty much the hardest thing you face in the game,  the weapons are essentially irrelevant.  Grab whichever one looks best to you and you'll be perfectly fine.  The armor is even less relevant,  all of the bonuses are completely insignificant.

Mass Effect wasn't any better, as you just upgraded to the new level of weapons whenever you found them, until you could buy Spectre weapons and then didn't bother with anything else. The difference between weapon types in Dragon Age Origins (e.g. longsword vs mace or greatsword vs maul) is also negligible.


The funny thing is that I agree that Mass Effect 3 should incorporate more complex design in terms of inventory, levelling and story consequences. However, many of the "reasons" people provide to say ME2 is shallow or a Gears of War clone are steeped in ignorance or personal preference.

All well said!

[Someone With Mass]

Gatt9 wrote...

*Experience in ME2 is completely irrelevant.  You can do an incredibly difficult side mission and get 50xps out of it,  do an incredibly easy story mission and it hands you a level pretty much everytime.  It's obvious that the intention was to only give a level or *maybe* two to those who did side missions,  but give everyone skill points for every story mission.  It doesn't care how many critters you kill,  or how you resolve the mission,  everyone gets the same thing no matter what.  At that point,  it ceases to be an Experience system and becomes "Do a story mission,  get points!",  which is very anti-RPG.

**Levels are irrelevant.  You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons,  he's about as hard as it gets.  So at that point,  you can kill everything in the game if you could see it.  As such,  the levels perform no real function,  if you can already do everything at the very begining,  then there's no difference between level 2 and level 30.

***You can hear Shepherd say something nice,  or hear him say something mean,  but in almost every instance,  everyone gets the same results,  and no one reacts to the personality you're demonstrating,  even when it conflicts with their own.  Contrast this to earlier Bioware games where the NPC's would conflict with you if you didn't mesh with their personalities.  Now you can do whatever you want without consequence.

****Just because there's different types of weapons doesn't mean they're relevant.  Since the starter weapons kill what's pretty much the hardest thing you face in the game,  the weapons are essentially irrelevant.  Grab whichever one looks best to you and you'll be perfectly fine.  The armor is even less relevant,  all of the bonuses are completely insignificant.

Typical "Oh noes, ME2 did this. That means ME3 will do it too, even if we have absolutely no solid indication of it" BS.

By the way, you can kill anything in ME1 with the starter weapons too. It doesn't make the experience/level system irrelevant, as they're making it more efficient to dispatch your enemies. Just like ME1. What? You can't open those lockers with low level powers? Well, it's not like you need that crap, anyway. The majority of them are usually low level stuff you don't want nor need.

Also, when you have Colossus armor, your "customization" time in ME1 is pretty much over. That's not the case in ME2, since ME2 plays on preference.

ME2 didn't have the situations where Shepard said the exact same thing regardless of your dialogue choice and then gave you Paragon/Renegade points if it happened to be one of the corner options, either.

Just to top it off, I don't like grinding and backtracking, which I had to do a lot in ME1, just because I didn't have enough Electronics in some places, because I wanted to actually be able to kill things without spending fifteen minutes shooting them in the face at point blank range.

ME3 seems to improve a lot on both experience (since I don't need to upgrade one power to unlock another, which is a huge improvement if you ask me) and combat, since there are weapon mods that are actually doing more than just upgrading the accuracy, time for overheat and damage.

Also, the enemies aren't running around like headless chickens.

Yeah, it was so hard and complicated to keep track of those three bars  in ME1, right?

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 04 septembre 2011 - 08:30 .

[Someone With Mass]

Gatt9 wrote...

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

I'm trying to think of some primary mission that didn't end up in combat,  and drawing a complete blank.  There was maybe 1 discoverable mission that wasn't complete combat?  Maybe 1 DLC,  and I think that one only had a segment that wasn't combat.  From there,  all we're left with is "I want a fish".

I would seriously argue that ME2's primary focus isn't combat,  simply because everything revolves around it.

Let me help you.

http://masseffect.wi...Found_Forged_ID

http://masseffect.wi...ackages_for_Ish

http://masseffect.wi...:_FBA_Couplings

http://masseffect.wi...rice_Ice_Brandy

http://masseffect.wi...ial_Ingredients

http://masseffect.wi...:_The_Patriarch

http://masseffect.wi...tapad_Recovered

http://masseffect.wi...uggling_Quarian

http://masseffect.wi...ime_in_Progress

http://masseffect.wi...ustion_Manifold

http://masseffect.wi..._Rose_of_Illium

http://masseffect.wi...:_Conrad_Verner

http://masseffect.wi...entured_Service

http://masseffect.wi...:_Medical_Scans

http://masseffect.wi...ian_Family_Data

http://masseffect.wi...ggling_Evidence

http://masseffect.wi...st_Locket_Found

http://masseffect.wi...esearch_Station

http://masseffect.wi..._MSV_Estevanico

http://masseffect.wi...l:_Krogan_Sushi

http://masseffect.wi...arian_Bartender

None of these assignments involved any combat whatsoever.

Admit it, you're just sore in the rear because ME2 didn't have enough of your precious RPG elements or did something trivial wrong.

[Tommy6860]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

I'm trying to think of some primary mission that didn't end up in combat,  and drawing a complete blank.  There was maybe 1 discoverable mission that wasn't complete combat?  Maybe 1 DLC,  and I think that one only had a segment that wasn't combat.  From there,  all we're left with is "I want a fish".

I would seriously argue that ME2's primary focus isn't combat,  simply because everything revolves around it.

Let me help you.

http://masseffect.wi...Found_Forged_ID

http://masseffect.wi...ackages_for_Ish

http://masseffect.wi...:_FBA_Couplings

http://masseffect.wi...rice_Ice_Brandy

http://masseffect.wi...ial_Ingredients

http://masseffect.wi...:_The_Patriarch

http://masseffect.wi...tapad_Recovered

http://masseffect.wi...uggling_Quarian

http://masseffect.wi...ime_in_Progress

http://masseffect.wi...ustion_Manifold

http://masseffect.wi..._Rose_of_Illium

http://masseffect.wi...:_Conrad_Verner

http://masseffect.wi...entured_Service

http://masseffect.wi...:_Medical_Scans

http://masseffect.wi...ian_Family_Data

http://masseffect.wi...ggling_Evidence

http://masseffect.wi...st_Locket_Found

http://masseffect.wi...esearch_Station

http://masseffect.wi..._MSV_Estevanico

http://masseffect.wi...l:_Krogan_Sushi

http://masseffect.wi...arian_Bartender

None of these assignments involved any combat whatsoever.

Admit it, you're just sore in the rear because ME2 didn't have enough of your precious RPG elements or did something trivial wrong.

In fairness though, most of those are parts of missions where combat is involved. And the other that are not, are jsut mini-quest that really have nothing to do with the story.

[Someone With Mass]

Tommy6860 wrote...

In fairness though, most of those are parts of missions where combat is involved. And the other that are not, are jsut mini-quest that really have nothing to do with the story.

Neither did the majority of ME1's side quests, except the ones that involved mopping up geth, rachni, husks or thorian creepers.

[Nashiktal]

Well gears is just seen as the standard for TPS cover based shooting. Even games that are not cover based get compared to gears at times. (The most recent being the upcoming game Space Marine, looking forward to that game actually) Even when gears wasn't the first to implements cover based shooting.

Its not a bad thing per se, being compared to such a popular game is a good thing. Although it will cause trouble when the similarities overshadow the differences. In Mass Effects case cover is overtly focused on, in Space Marine the chainsword causes the comparison. In one, Mass Effect borrows elements from others games to hopefully improve their gameplay, Space Marine is using elements from its fluff that has existed before Gears, hell before starcraft/warcraft was even a concept.

It just happens. Instead of discouraging discussion of the similarities, dialogue should be encouraged to clear up misunderstandings, and to perhaps ascertain what each game could learn from the other.

[Tommy6860]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

In fairness though, most of those are parts of missions where combat is involved. And the other that are not, are jsut mini-quest that really have nothing to do with the story.

Neither did the majority of ME1's side quests, except the ones that involved mopping up geth, rachni, husks or thorian creepers.

But that doesn't make your previous list of mini-quests valid when the missions were the primary focus, and they involved combat while doing those mini-quests.

[marshalleck]

Nashiktal wrote...

Mass Effect borrows elements from others games to hopefully improve their gameplay,

but that's just it. They didn't improve Mass Effect's gameplay; they scrapped it entirely and lifted the new model from Gears of War in its entirety. Improving would be tweaking or excising what didn't work, while leaving the core intact. What they did was they deleted everything and copied Gears. This is hardly an imaginative solution and I will never understand why the game and Christina Norman received the accolades they did*; it's not new, creative, or innovative. They just copied the most popular cover-based Unreal engine third person shooter out there. 

*rhetorical statement--I do understand that the game released in a severe gaming drought which is why it was received as well as it was

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 septembre 2011 - 08:25 .

[Someone With Mass]

Tommy6860 wrote...

But that doesn't make your previous list of mini-quests valid when the missions were the primary focus, and they involved combat while doing those mini-quests.

Sure, but discussing something like political ramfications for the majority of the quest is just boring.

Especially when it's a no-brainer.

[Tommy6860]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

*Experience in ME2 is completely irrelevant.  You can do an incredibly difficult side mission and get 50xps out of it,  do an incredibly easy story mission and it hands you a level pretty much everytime.  It's obvious that the intention was to only give a level or *maybe* two to those who did side missions,  but give everyone skill points for every story mission.  It doesn't care how many critters you kill,  or how you resolve the mission,  everyone gets the same thing no matter what.  At that point,  it ceases to be an Experience system and becomes "Do a story mission,  get points!",  which is very anti-RPG.

**Levels are irrelevant.  You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons,  he's about as hard as it gets.  So at that point,  you can kill everything in the game if you could see it.  As such,  the levels perform no real function,  if you can already do everything at the very begining,  then there's no difference between level 2 and level 30.

***You can hear Shepherd say something nice,  or hear him say something mean,  but in almost every instance,  everyone gets the same results,  and no one reacts to the personality you're demonstrating,  even when it conflicts with their own.  Contrast this to earlier Bioware games where the NPC's would conflict with you if you didn't mesh with their personalities.  Now you can do whatever you want without consequence.

****Just because there's different types of weapons doesn't mean they're relevant.  Since the starter weapons kill what's pretty much the hardest thing you face in the game,  the weapons are essentially irrelevant.  Grab whichever one looks best to you and you'll be perfectly fine.  The armor is even less relevant,  all of the bonuses are completely insignificant.

Also, when you have Colossus armor, your "customization" time in ME1 is pretty much over. That's not the case in ME2, since ME2 plays on preference.

Huh?? Care to elaborate? ME is by far more customizeable than ME2 and not only that, restrictions are in place so that the customization isn't any type fits all in armor. I didn't like that ME2 took away that aspect, and forced the player to find elements (like planet scanning was a near deal breaker for me) to be able to get upgrades, and it never changed.

ME2 didn't have the situations where Shepard said the exact same thing regardless of your dialogue choice and then gave you Paragon/Renegade points if it happened to be one of the corner options, either.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, Shep did no such thing in ME. Both games paraphrase the choice and answer combos. I will say that the P/R system with Charm and Intimidate was the better system in ME though, because it actually made a difference. But I still didn't like it, because if I choose to have a mean answer, it doesn't reflect on me in the game, everything to pans out the same. Both ME and ME2 were faulty in this aspect, IMO.

Just to top it off, I don't like grinding and backtracking, which I had to do a lot in ME1, just because I didn't have enough Electronics in some places, because I wanted to actually be able to kill things with spending fifteen minutes shooting them in the face at point blank range.

So? That was how the game played out in the missions, it isn't like you had to backtrack, unless you really wanted it. Since the game focused on multiple playthroughs like ME2, you build up your talents would allow for this aspect, otherwise, you bring a squadie along that has that ability. Seems to me you want just combat, and that's fine, ME2 did that and that is what disappointed me about it.

ME3 seems to improve a lot on both experience (since I don't need to upgrade one power to unlock another, which is a huge improvement if you ask me) and combat, since there are weapon mods that are actually doing more than just upgrading the accuracy, time for overheat and damage.

How do you know how ME3 plays already ?

Modifié par Tommy6860, 04 septembre 2011 - 08:41 .

[111987]

marshalleck wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Mass Effect borrows elements from others games to hopefully improve their gameplay,

but that's just it. They didn't improve Mass Effect's gameplay; they scrapped it entirely and lifted the new model from Gears of War in its entirety. Improving would be tweaking or excising what didn't work, while leaving the core intact. What they did was they deleted everything and copied Gears. This is hardly an imaginative solution and I will never understand why the game and Christina Norman received the accolades they did*; it's not new, creative, or innovative. They just copied the most popular cover-based Unreal engine third person shooter out there. 

*rhetorical statement--I do understand that the game released in a severe gaming drought which is why it was received as well as it was

What's wrong with copying the most popular, and arguably the best cover-shooter? Not only is it good for bioware, as it brings in new fans, but it's good for us, because it improves the game play considerably.

[marshalleck]

111987 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Mass Effect borrows elements from others games to hopefully improve their gameplay,

but that's just it. They didn't improve Mass Effect's gameplay; they scrapped it entirely and lifted the new model from Gears of War in its entirety. Improving would be tweaking or excising what didn't work, while leaving the core intact. What they did was they deleted everything and copied Gears. This is hardly an imaginative solution and I will never understand why the game and Christina Norman received the accolades they did*; it's not new, creative, or innovative. They just copied the most popular cover-based Unreal engine third person shooter out there. 

*rhetorical statement--I do understand that the game released in a severe gaming drought which is why it was received as well as it was

 

What's wrong with copying the most popular, and arguably the best cover-shooter? Not only is it good for bioware, as it brings in new fans, but it's good for us, because it improves the game play considerably.

 I never said anything about it being wrong to do so. I'm saying that it's wrong to say they improved ME1's gameplay--they did not. They deleted it and copied an entirely different design. Someone else will have to discuss with you whether that was the right or wrong thing to do; the topic doesn't appeal to me. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 septembre 2011 - 08:44 .

[111987]

marshalleck wrote...

111987 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Mass Effect borrows elements from others games to hopefully improve their gameplay,

but that's just it. They didn't improve Mass Effect's gameplay; they scrapped it entirely and lifted the new model from Gears of War in its entirety. Improving would be tweaking or excising what didn't work, while leaving the core intact. What they did was they deleted everything and copied Gears. This is hardly an imaginative solution and I will never understand why the game and Christina Norman received the accolades they did*; it's not new, creative, or innovative. They just copied the most popular cover-based Unreal engine third person shooter out there. 

*rhetorical statement--I do understand that the game released in a severe gaming drought which is why it was received as well as it was

 

What's wrong with copying the most popular, and arguably the best cover-shooter? Not only is it good for bioware, as it brings in new fans, but it's good for us, because it improves the game play considerably.

 I never said anything about it being wrong to do so. I'm saying that it's wrong to say they improved ME1's gameplay--they did not. They deleted it and copied an entirely different design. Someone else will have to discuss with you whether that was the right or wrong thing to do; the topic doesn't appeal to me. 

Understood, thank you for the clarification.

[AnAccountWithNoName]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

 They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens, Third person view, and cover based on the A button. One could say that in both games players rely on cover in order to shoot aliens from a third person perspective. That would be a true statement. 

What that true statement doesn't account for are the differences between the two games. Lets go through the list, shall we?

• Player Influenced conversations
• Player influenced character progression
• Player influenced character definition
• Player controlled squadmates
• Side quests
• A story worth absorbing
• Hacking and bypassing minigames
• Character quests
• Health bars
• Defenses 

And last but certainly NOT least, Powers and the necessity to USE them on higher difficulty settings. I would be very curious to know how many people comparing the ME series to GoW play exclusively as a soldier. The reason being that of the 6, count em 6, possible classes the soldier plays the most like GoW in a strictly combat perspective.

I truly fail to understand how ANYONE could compare ME2 as a Vanguard to GoW. The same goes for Infiltrator, Sentinel, Engineer, and Adept. These classes play absolutely nothing like GoW due to, in three of the five cases, a complete lack of any weapon other than a pistol, SMG, and heavy weapon for at least half the game. 

Three of these classes rely heavily on their powers and those of their squadmates to complete the game. And the powers themselves are a tanginble, player controlled weapon as well. They aren't point and shoot which is not paralleled at all in the GoW franchise. In nearly all cases the powers bend to follow or track to their target and it can be a fun game to try and bend powers around cover.

In closing, Gears of War is comparable to the ME franchise only in theory based on the words "Third person cover shooter". In reality, the games play nothing alike. I challenge those claiming they are similar to play ME2 on Insanity using nothing but guns. Do not level up player or squadmate powers ever. We'll see just how similar the two games are then.
 

Hey buddy....if you actually played Gears of War, you would know that there are NO ALIENS in the game, Monsters yes, no aliens.  The locusts are native just like humanity is.  Two self-aware species that share the same planet.  Their not some ET threat that attacked Sera (the planet Gears takes place, and homeworld to mankind), they ARE from Sera....just underground.

[Someone With Mass]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

*Experience in ME2 is completely irrelevant.  You can do an incredibly difficult side mission and get 50xps out of it,  do an incredibly easy story mission and it hands you a level pretty much everytime.  It's obvious that the intention was to only give a level or *maybe* two to those who did side missions,  but give everyone skill points for every story mission.  It doesn't care how many critters you kill,  or how you resolve the mission,  everyone gets the same thing no matter what.  At that point,  it ceases to be an Experience system and becomes "Do a story mission,  get points!",  which is very anti-RPG.

**Levels are irrelevant.  You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons,  he's about as hard as it gets.  So at that point,  you can kill everything in the game if you could see it.  As such,  the levels perform no real function,  if you can already do everything at the very begining,  then there's no difference between level 2 and level 30.

***You can hear Shepherd say something nice,  or hear him say something mean,  but in almost every instance,  everyone gets the same results,  and no one reacts to the personality you're demonstrating,  even when it conflicts with their own.  Contrast this to earlier Bioware games where the NPC's would conflict with you if you didn't mesh with their personalities.  Now you can do whatever you want without consequence.

****Just because there's different types of weapons doesn't mean they're relevant.  Since the starter weapons kill what's pretty much the hardest thing you face in the game,  the weapons are essentially irrelevant.  Grab whichever one looks best to you and you'll be perfectly fine.  The armor is even less relevant,  all of the bonuses are completely insignificant.

Also, when you have Colossus armor, your "customization" time in ME1 is pretty much over. That's not the case in ME2, since ME2 plays on preference.

Huh?? Care to elaborate? ME is by far more customizeable than ME2 and not only that, restrictions are in place so that the customization isn't any type fits all in armor. I didn't like that ME2 took away that aspect, and forced the player to find elements (like planet scanning was a near deal breaker for me) to be able to get upgrades, and it never changed.

ME2 didn't have the situations where Shepard said the exact same thing regardless of your dialogue choice and then gave you Paragon/Renegade points if it happened to be one of the corner options, either.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, Shep did no such thing in ME. Both games paraphrase the choice and answer combos. I will say that the P/R system with Charm and Intimidate was the better system in ME though, because it actually made a difference. But I still didn't like it, because if I choose to have a mean answer, it doesn't reflect on me in the game, everything to pans out the same. Both ME and ME2 were faulty in this aspect, IMO.

Just to top it off, I don't like grinding and backtracking, which I had to do a lot in ME1, just because I didn't have enough Electronics in some places, because I wanted to actually be able to kill things with spending fifteen minutes shooting them in the face at point blank range.

So? That was how the game played out in the missions, it isn't like you had to backtrack, unless you really wanted it. Since the game focused on multiple playthroughs like ME2, you build up your talents would allow for this aspect, otherwise, you bring a squadie along that has that ability. Seems to me you want just combat, and that's fine, ME2 did that and that is what disappointed me about it.

ME3 seems to improve a lot on both experience (since I don't need to upgrade one power to unlock another, which is a huge improvement if you ask me) and combat, since there are weapon mods that are actually doing more than just upgrading the accuracy, time for overheat and damage.

How do you know how ME3 plays already?

Since I don't feel like messing around with the quote system, I'm just going to do a list.

1. The only armor worth a damn in ME1 is Colossus. The rest is pretty much there for show. While you could add different things, it was pretty much always optimal to go with the health regeneration instead of something like the melee damage boosters, since engaging enemies in melee is just clunky and not smooth at all.

I had no problem with the planet scanning. Beat the hell out of driving the Mako for fifteen minutes only to get Incendiary Ammo II or some crap like that.

ME2 also gave the player upgrades instead of new weapons that were a slightly better version than the one you're currently using, like HMWA IX instead of HMWA VIII while they also upgraded all weapons in that category.

2. I'm pretty sure the conversation with Sovereign ends with "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken" (Ugh) regardless of your dialogue choice. I might be wrong.

3. Skipping that one, since I have nothing to add.

4. I've seen tweets and gameplay of ME3 which showed these improvements.

https://twitter.com/...156013835001857

The powers are also unlocked via level requirement this time.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 04 septembre 2011 - 09:06 .

[azerSheppard]

"They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens, Third person view, and cover based on the A button. One could say that in both games players rely on cover in order to shoot aliens from a third person perspective. That would be a true statement. 

What that true statement doesn't account for are the differences between the two games. Lets go through the list, shall we?

• Player Influenced conversations
• Player influenced character progression
• Player influenced character definition
• Player controlled squadmates
• Side quests
• A story worth absorbing
• Character quests
• Health bars
• ?Defenses? 

And last but certainly NOT least, Powers and the necessity to USE them on higher difficulty settings. I would be very curious to know how many people comparing the ME series to GoW play exclusively as a soldier. The reason being that of the 6, count em 6, possible classes the soldier plays the most like GoW in a strictly combat perspective.

I truly fail to understand how ANYONE could compare ME2 as a Vanguard to GoW. The same goes for Infiltrator, Sentinel, Engineer, and Adept. These classes play absolutely nothing like GoW due to, in three of the five cases, a complete lack of any weapon other than a pistol, SMG, and heavy weapon for at least half the game. 

Three of these classes rely heavily on their powers and those of their squadmates to complete the game. And the powers themselves are a tanginble, player controlled weapon as well. They aren't point and shoot which is not paralleled at all in the GoW franchise. In nearly all cases the powers bend to follow or track to their target and it can be a fun game to try and bend powers around cover.

In closing, Gears of War is comparable to the ME franchise only in theory based on the words "Third person cover shooter". In reality, the games play nothing alike. I challenge those claiming they are similar to play ME2 on Insanity using nothing but guns. Do not level up player or squadmate powers ever. We'll see just how similar the two games are then."


What you mention there is nothing but the difference in genre. Gears is not an rpg, it's a tps. Mass effect is hybrid of rpg and tps, meaning that only 50% of the game contains combat, the rest is filled with conversations.

This part is simply wrong. I find the gears of war ip far more interesting than the ME ip. As a side note, you mention "story worth absorbing" after stating that the similarities end at shooting aliens. Perhaps you have little to no knowledge about GOW?

I advice you to play the mass effect 3 demo, or watch it. Now play some gears2. You will notice how similarly the shooting aspect is handled. The combat roll, upclose cinematic melee, cover swats, optional cinematic points of interest.
We know ME3 will have improved RPG features, but the shooting part, that's coming straight out of gears.

No matter how you look at it, powers are not nearly as important as shooting in ME2. 50% of the players play as soldier. Each and every class does most of their dmg with weaponsfire. I can do a weapon only play without upgrading my char, i have done so already with an infiltrator equiped with AR. The combat remains effective and fluint, but try doing one with only powers, don't shoot, don't let your squadmates shoot. Your dps will be so low it'll make you go mad from all the wating for the cooldown. And again, the power difference is due to genre difference.

Maybe actually play GOW before you dismiss the similarities.<_<

Modifié par azerSheppard, 04 septembre 2011 - 09:13 .