351 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spamming Troll]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i dont preffer to spam infinte ammo either.

if only you had choosen not to mod your weapon that way!

Why should one mod it in a different way? It's clearly better than just twiddling your thumbs as the overheat meter tries to go down.

because your modding your weapons to do less damage, but shoot longer, while i modded mine to do more damage but over heat faster. lets not kid ourselves and try to say ME1s combat was so easy you actually needed a weapon that never overheated. id love to see how many of the players that hated playing insanity because "it took forever" to kill enemies, who also modded dual frictionless materials.

Aradace wrote...

I didnt.  I use controlled bursts.  I
know a concept like that may be lost on you but even using controlled
bursts, you still essentially have infinite ammo.  And infinite ammo, Im
sorry, is for n00bs IMO who probably shouldnt be playing a
shooter/hybrid style game to begin with?  Just saying.

if your not complaining abut hte lack of ammo, then you wouldnt have a problem with infinite ammo anyways. ME2 offers essentially infinite ammo, its just not in your face as much as ME1. its not even a discusion about infinite VS finite ammo to me anyways. its more about the feeling an overheat mechanic gaves to ME1s overall gameplay.

[Someone With Mass]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

because your modding your weapons to do less damage, but shoot longer, while i modded mine to do more damage but over heat faster. lets not kid ourselves and try to say ME1s combat was so easy you actually needed a weapon that never overheated. id love to see how many of the players that hated playing insanity because "it took forever" to kill enemies, who also modded dual frictionless materials.

That's because the second you stopped shooting at them, they started regenerating.

Also, I can just pulse fire to keep it from overheating even without having dual frictionless materials installed, which in itself is not exactly a challenge either.

Especially when you have one of the modifications that knocks people to the ground and keeps them there, which is something the game pretty much promotes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Whatever gets rid of the snorefest that was ME1's combat.

I completely disagree.  ME2's combat is designed such that you need to focus on just the combat, ignoring the lore or roleplaying or sommon sense and just get through an arbitrary and contrived video-game event.

If combat isn't fun in and of itself (and I don't think it is), then ME2's combat becomes a chore.  ME1's combat allows the player to approach it in different ways for different reasons, and produce a differernt gameplay experience as a result.

ME2's combat is only better if the combat is tthe core gameplay.  And if the combat is the core gameplay, then I don't want to play the game.

[111987]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Whatever gets rid of the snorefest that was ME1's combat.

I completely disagree.  ME2's combat is designed such that you need to focus on just the combat, ignoring the lore or roleplaying or sommon sense and just get through an arbitrary and contrived video-game event.

If combat isn't fun in and of itself (and I don't think it is), then ME2's combat becomes a chore.  ME1's combat allows the player to approach it in different ways for different reasons, and produce a differernt gameplay experience as a result.

ME2's combat is only better if the combat is tthe core gameplay.  And if the combat is the core gameplay, then I don't want to play the game.

Wait, what?

How exactly does ME1's combat allow a deeper immesion into lore and role-playing? It's the same as ME2's; you're just shooting/blasting a bunch of random mooks.

[littlezack]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Whatever gets rid of the snorefest that was ME1's combat.

I completely disagree.  ME2's combat is designed such that you need to focus on just the combat, ignoring the lore or roleplaying or sommon sense and just get through an arbitrary and contrived video-game event.

If combat isn't fun in and of itself (and I don't think it is), then ME2's combat becomes a chore.  ME1's combat allows the player to approach it in different ways for different reasons, and produce a differernt gameplay experience as a result.

ME2's combat is only better if the combat is tthe core gameplay.  And if the combat is the core gameplay, then I don't want to play the game.

Shooting was always the core gameplay of ME. It's what drives every major event in the story. Just about everything that happens of any real signifigance revolves around.. The stats and upgrades allow different styles of combat, but everything that happens in both games centers around going places and shooting thing. There is no other gameplay mechanic.

[Someone With Mass]

Then don't play the game if you don't like it. Simple.

Also, people who are seriously complaining about there being too much combat in ME3 are idiots.

There's an interstellar war going on, people. Battles are usually waged in those.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 17 septembre 2011 - 10:33 .

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

Wait, what?

How exactly does ME1's combat allow a deeper immesion into lore and role-playing? It's the same as ME2's; you're just shooting/blasting a bunch of random mooks.

The only difference is that your enemies are running around like headless chicken, shouting the same three phrases over and over, while your teammates are shooting up boxes.

[RPGamer13]

Brenon Holmes wrote...

morrie23 wrote...

He probably means having a single large pool of TCs that all weapons draw from, rather than each weapon having it's own small pool which once depleted cannot be refilled by TCs from any of your other guns.

Also, crunching already? I feel for you!

Ah, if that's the case... then no. It's the same as in ME2. Each weapon has its own pool. :happy:

So, you mean, there's Pistol ammo, Assault Rifle ammo, Shotgun ammo, etc?

[Sylvius the Mad]

111987 wrote...

Wait, what?

How exactly does ME1's combat allow a deeper immesion into lore and role-playing? It's the same as ME2's; you're just shooting/blasting a bunch of random mooks.

ME1 allows a wider variety of tactics.

[111987]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

Wait, what?

How exactly does ME1's combat allow a deeper immesion into lore and role-playing? It's the same as ME2's; you're just shooting/blasting a bunch of random mooks.

ME1 allows a wider variety of tactics.

Well that has nothing to do with lore.

As for tactics, ME2 has plenty of tactical options.

Soldier: General TPS cover shooter mechanics

Vanguard: Up close and personal with the shotgun, charge from one enemy to the next. If you play it right, a Vanguard never has to go into cover as they can keep recharging their shields via Charge.

Infiltrator: Invisibility to snipe at long distance, or on the flip side of the coin, invisibility to get in close and attack with a shot gun.

Those three are off the top of my head.

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

Well that has nothing to do with lore.

As for tactics, ME2 has plenty of tactical options.

Soldier: General TPS cover shooter mechanics

Vanguard: Up close and personal with the shotgun, charge from one enemy to the next. If you play it right, a Vanguard never has to go into cover as they can keep recharging their shields via Charge.

Infiltrator: Invisibility to snipe at long distance, or on the flip side of the coin, invisibility to get in close and attack with a shot gun.

Those three are off the top of my head.

Egineer: Distract the enemies with the drone while using your cast powers to disable them.

[LGTX]

ME1 had more skills per squaddie/Shepard, and more flexibility in terms of weapon management and grenades. But that's just mechanics getting spread out and pointlessly chaotic - as far as actual tactical diversity goes, ME2 had it a bit better in terms of balanced gunplay and unique class abilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

111987 wrote...

As for tactics, ME2 has plenty of tactical options.

Soldier: General TPS cover shooter mechanics

Vanguard: Up close and personal with the shotgun, charge from one enemy to the next. If you play it right, a Vanguard never has to go into cover as they can keep recharging their shields via Charge.

Infiltrator: Invisibility to snipe at long distance, or on the flip side of the coin, invisibility to get in close and attack with a shot gun.

Those three are off the top of my head.

ME2's encounters tend to happen in small rooms, and Shepard's squad is forced to approach from one specific direction.

Is there anywhere in ME2 where you can circle around and come at an enemy from behind?  Where you can snipe a dozen enemies at such extreme range that there's nothing they can do about it?

ME1's Uncharted Worlds alone offered more tactical variety than all of ME2.

[111987]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

As for tactics, ME2 has plenty of tactical options.

Soldier: General TPS cover shooter mechanics

Vanguard: Up close and personal with the shotgun, charge from one enemy to the next. If you play it right, a Vanguard never has to go into cover as they can keep recharging their shields via Charge.

Infiltrator: Invisibility to snipe at long distance, or on the flip side of the coin, invisibility to get in close and attack with a shot gun.

Those three are off the top of my head.

ME2's encounters tend to happen in small rooms, and Shepard's squad is forced to approach from one specific direction.

Is there anywhere in ME2 where you can circle around and come at an enemy from behind?  Where you can snipe a dozen enemies at such extreme range that there's nothing they can do about it?

ME1's Uncharted Worlds alone offered more tactical variety than all of ME2.

ME1's uncharted worlds had barely any combat in them though. The vast majority of the combat was in the cave area, a space ship room, a research facility room, or a base. The same four environments, all small and recycled.

As an Infiltrator, you can always sneak up behind your target. And you ignored the tactics myself and others pointed out that exist in ME2 that don't exist in ME1.

[Sylvius the Mad]

111987 wrote...

ME1's uncharted worlds had barely any combat in them though. The vast majority of the combat was in the cave area, a space ship room, a research facility room, or a base. The same four environments, all small and recycled.

The uncharted worlds often had Geth ambushes scattered about on the planet surface.

ME2 has almost no outdoor combat, and certainly none of that kind of large scale where you can approach from one side, or move a kilometre and approach from another based on what sort of lines of sight are available.

As an Infiltrator, you can always sneak up behind your target.

I actually played an Infiltrator, because I wanted to play an Engineer with a Sniper Rifle like I did in ME1, but ME2 didn't allow that, so I splot the difference and took the Infiltrator.

That might have something to do with why I disliked the game.  I don't enjoy combat, so I tend to select less shooting-intensive classes (I completed ME1 both as an Engineer and as an Adept).

111987 wrote...

Well that has nothing to do with lore.

It has to do with roleplaying.  If there are more tactical options available, then there are more ways to express your character's personality during combat.

And you ignored the tactics myself and others pointed out that exist in ME2 that don't exist in ME1.

I'll admit that I only ever attack anything at range if I can help it (why expose yourself to enemy fire?), and ME2's level design was generally bad at allowing me to do that.

ME2's levels seemed designed to force me to race through them frantically in a specific order, rather than letting me back off to assess the situation, or camp out in one spot to take shots as they make themselves available.

Some people might say that made ME2's combat more exciting.  I think it make ME2's combat more game-y.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 septembre 2011 - 12:47 .

[littlezack]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

As for tactics, ME2 has plenty of tactical options.

Soldier: General TPS cover shooter mechanics

Vanguard: Up close and personal with the shotgun, charge from one enemy to the next. If you play it right, a Vanguard never has to go into cover as they can keep recharging their shields via Charge.

Infiltrator: Invisibility to snipe at long distance, or on the flip side of the coin, invisibility to get in close and attack with a shot gun.

Those three are off the top of my head.

ME2's encounters tend to happen in small rooms, and Shepard's squad is forced to approach from one specific direction.

Is there anywhere in ME2 where you can circle around and come at an enemy from behind?  Where you can snipe a dozen enemies at such extreme range that there's nothing they can do about it?

ME1's Uncharted Worlds alone offered more tactical variety than all of ME2.

Ninety nine times out of hundred, the Uncharted Worlds had you fighting enemies in cookie cutter arena. You open the door, the enemies attack you, you hold your ground and advance when possible, you clear the room. You rarely fought anyone on the actual planet without the Mako, and even when you did, you never had such space and ground that you could find some superior position and snipe them.

[littlezack]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

ME1's uncharted worlds had barely any combat in them though. The vast majority of the combat was in the cave area, a space ship room, a research facility room, or a base. The same four environments, all small and recycled.

The uncharted worlds often had Geth ambushes scattered about on the planet surface.

ME2 has almost no outdoor combat, and certainly none of that kind of large scale where you can approach from one side, or move a kilometre and approach from another based on what sort of lines of sight are available..

Often? That happened only a couple of times, maybe, counting Tali's side mission. And even then, the geth had their little installation surrounded on all sides by rock formations. The planets were not designed with sniping in mind.

[didymos1120]

littlezack wrote...

Often? That happened only a couple of times, maybe, counting Tali's side mission. And even then, the geth had their little installation surrounded on all sides by rock formations. The planets were not designed with sniping in mind.

Twice: on Xawin and as part of the "Distress Call" assignment.  Neither was particularly conducive to sniping either, as both worlds had environmental hazards (one a level 2 heat hazard), and the one on Xawin occurs in a large open area.  All the other geth ambushes were on worlds where you knew already that you were dealing with geth, mostly during the "Geth Incursions" sidequest (and though some of those encounters actually were pretty amenable to sniping because you could get up on the hills, they weren't  among the ambushes: you were attacking fixed positions), and once on the "Lost Module" sidequest, but that one occurs in a very cluttered cave.

[Omega-202]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

Wait, what?

How exactly does ME1's combat allow a deeper immesion into lore and role-playing? It's the same as ME2's; you're just shooting/blasting a bunch of random mooks.

ME1 allows a wider variety of tactics.

ME1 allowed for a greater variety of contrived antics.  

Sure you could approach combat from absurd ways like camping a doorway and using a sniper rifle to plink away 3% of an enemy's health at a time until all enemies are cleared out of the warehouse because they're too stupid NOT to charge you.  Or you could spam all of your biotics then hide til they recharged and never fire your guns.

But in the end, those "options" were uninteresting.  And don't say that's a matter of choice.  They were.  Those are bad gameplay elements.  

What you're asking for is an acting simulator.  You want to choreograph combat as you see fit.  You're not interested in the challenge of combat or taking all of the tools given to you and trying to find a way to make them all fit in a time sensitive manner.  You're just looking for a fantasy fulfillment engine when it comes to the "combat".  

ME1 gave that to you.  You could turn the game down to Casual and play out the combat as if you were playing with action figures.  

ME2's combat was actually interesting on the other hand.  It made you think.  You didn't dictate the events.  You were given situations and you had to cope to overcome them.  That's what combat should be.

If you disagree with that, then go download some mods to fix it.  If not that, then don't buy the game.  

[capn233]

Put me in the camp that is skeptical ME1 offered significantly more ways to approach a fight than ME2.

Yeah the levels were bigger. You had the occasional Mercs or Biotic terrorists or Cerberus lackeys standing around outside a building that you could snipe from mountain 1 or mountain 2, but everything else was at least as linear as ME2. Honestly probably more so because there were few core missions, which were where the variety actually was. The bulk of the fighting on side missions were in the same handful of canned structures that were very linear. In most cases go through an anteroom and then another door led to a big room with a bunch of people... maybe with some other rooms in the back.

Any ambushes occurred in the same environments that the other fights occurred in and the only real choice is Mako or fight 'em on foot.

The story missions were very linear. There was never anything like, "oh if I come in on foot from the North I can use stealth to get past the sentries, then enter the ventilation system and make it into the structure undetected." Single highway to Peak 15, then inside there were a few ways to proceed that were more or less the same. Single skyway to ExoGeni. Single path into the dig site on Therum. Single path to the STG camp on Virmire... with a more or less single path into the base. Single path on Ilos. Single path through the Citadel.

I will agree with the notion above that enemy immunity and regen speed was a big part of why the game was extremely tedious on insanity. That was a damage output v protection problem.

[rt604]

111987 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

Wait, what?

How exactly does ME1's combat allow a deeper immesion into lore and role-playing? It's the same as ME2's; you're just shooting/blasting a bunch of random mooks.

ME1 allows a wider variety of tactics.

Well that has nothing to do with lore.

As for tactics, ME2 has plenty of tactical options.

Soldier: General TPS cover shooter mechanics

Vanguard: Up close and personal with the shotgun, charge from one enemy to the next. If you play it right, a Vanguard never has to go into cover as they can keep recharging their shields via Charge.

Infiltrator: Invisibility to snipe at long distance, or on the flip side of the coin, invisibility to get in close and attack with a shot gun.

Those three are off the top of my head.

11197 I think what Sylvius meant by  tactical options is that for the same class you had more strategic options in ME1 as opposed to your example of having different strategic options based on your player type.  For instance in ME1 you could rush or lie back when fighting enemies when you are playing a soldier, or based on your situation.

Modifié par rt604, 18 septembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

littlezack wrote...

You rarely fought anyone on the
actual planet without the Mako, and even when you did, you never had
such space and ground that you could find some superior position and
snipe them.

That's nonsense.  You could get out of the Mako
to fight nearly everything, and in those cases you certainly could find
a superior position and snipe.

In fact, it was usually advantageous.  It was much easier to avoid being hit by the mounted cannons when on foot.

Omega-202 wrote...

You're not interested in the challenge of combat or taking all of the tools given to you and trying to find a way to make them all fit in a time sensitive manner.

That's certainly true, and ME1 did a far better job of accommodating me.

However, making decisions in a time-sensitive manner wasn't necessary in either game, as both employed BioWare's typical real-time-with-pause combat system.  I even argue that ME2 made pausing more effective than it had been in ME1 by making it impossible for Shepard to miss when using guns.

ME1 Shepard could miss.  ME2 Shepard cannot, under any circumstances, miss (unless you intentionally gimp yourself by aiming in real-time).

If you want to use the tools you are given to solve combat problems, then aiming while paused is one of those tools. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

rt604 wrote...

Sylvius I think by tactical options he meant for the same class you had more strategic options in ME1 as opposed to your example of having different strategic options based on your player type.

Obviously I think the latter is vastly more important.