344 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Mr.House wrote...

Gears has active reload, huge levels amd more open, turent and other veachle(sp) combat, ick up weapons during the game, grenades, blind fire, rolling and jumpng to cover from cover.

ME2 had none of that.

Bolded = Already shown in the trailers released of yet
Underlined = Promised to be in-game

[Kaiser Shepard]

As much as I love this community, I can't help but laugh at the stupidity of holding Mass Effect in such a high regard that Gears of War is merely a "hurr durr dumb shootah". What makes this all the more ironic is that there is a group of hardcore Gears fans that looks at 'our' series the exact same way 'we' do at theirs, some of the moderate ones going as far as actually enjoying the games for what they are but saying that the novels suck compared to the Gears ones.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 25 septembre 2011 - 02:32 .

[Mr.House]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Gears has active reload, huge levels amd more open, turent and other veachle(sp) combat, ick up weapons during the game, grenades, blind fire, rolling and jumpng to cover from cover.

ME2 had none of that.

Bolded = Already shown in the trailers released of yet
Underlined = Promised to be in-game

That's ME3, not ME2.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Mr.House wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Gears has active reload, huge levels amd more open, turent and other veachle(sp) combat, ick up weapons during the game, grenades, blind fire, rolling and jumpng to cover from cover.

ME2 had none of that.

Bolded = Already shown in the trailers released of yet
Underlined = Promised to be in-game

That's ME3, not ME2.

Point stands.

[RAF1940]

I understand what he's saying. Squadmates made so little of a difference that who you took didn't matter.

[Il Divo]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

As much as I love this community, I can't help but laugh at the stupidity of holding Mass Effect in such a high regard that Gears of War is merely a "hurr durr dumb shootah". What makes this all the more ironic is that there is a group of hardcore Gears fans that looks at 'our' series the exact same way 'we' do at theirs, some of the moderate ones going as far as actually enjoying the games for what they are but saying that the novels suck compared to the Gears ones.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Gears a dumb shooter. But despite possessing many gameplay similarities to Mass Effect, I find the Gears experience to be far less enjoyable. There actually aren't many games I play where the gameplay alone can hold the experience together.

[Arkitekt]

Solution: buy both games, none of them, just ME3 or just GOW3, depending on your moods.

Hey problem solved!!

[KingDan97]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Gears has active reload, huge levels amd more open, turent and other veachle(sp) combat, ick up weapons during the game, grenades, blind fire, rolling and jumpng to cover from cover.

ME2 had none of that.

Bolded = Already shown in the trailers released of yet
Underlined = Promised to be in-game

Italicized =Unknown to what extent the implementation exists.
Regarding turrets they were a tactical staple in Gears, whereas at least so far they are only being used to display the rule of cool of a ground reaper.
And when exactly was blind fire "promised"?

[LadyJaneGrey]

Arkitekt wrote...

Solution: buy both games, none of them, just ME3 or just GOW3, depending on your moods.

Hey problem solved!!

Entirely too reasonable. 

[Iron Waffle]

I finished the Gears 3 campaign just last night, and it truly blew me away. I used to scoff off the series as a stupidly gory shooter with a half-assed story, but the emotional depth of it was surprising.And yes, the AI was brilliant.

BioWare has told us it's reworking the AI, so I don't think we have too much to worry about.

[The Spamming Troll]

squadmates in ME serve very little more then an extension to shepards powers. i dont bring along squadmates because ones better at rushing cover busters, or ones better at sitting and sniping from afar, i take which ever ones have better debuffs, period. i dont think so much effort should be put into the squad either. even putting the squad on the Dpad is something id want removed. the squad just isnt really worth my time. their damage is halved, their power cooldowns are trippled, and their AI is pretty elementary. nah, im not doing much with my squaddies except fr using their abilities.

[JimiShep]

Wow.. I came into this convo late! Ok here is what I have to say about Gears of War.

1. I actually enjoy the multiplayer and they have many different modes
2. Cover to cover = Great!
3. Squad AI was much more interesting in GOW3 polished well.
4. Graphics were good
5. Such a short story...
6. Gears is still pretty cut and dry when it comes to combat (Shoot, move, flank, etc...)
7. No powers (I know a lot of ME players use the Soilder class but ME has powers... that alone makes ME more interesting to me.

The Spamming Troll sumed it up pretty much for me when I take Squadies into combat. I use their debuffing powers mostly.


I believe in the end for me ME3 will outlast GOW3!

Modifié par JimiShep, 25 septembre 2011 - 04:29 .

[Mr_Steph]

JerkyJohnny14 wrote...

This has nothin to do with ur post sry. But i am attempting insanity stuck defending against gas barge, any tips?

Grenades, Longshots and a Retro Lancer is all you need...and the one were you are flying one...use the grenade launchers like there is no tommorow.

And I agree. The squadmate AI in GoW3 was great. Only annoying thing was that they often ran right in front of you when you were firing unless you were already in cover of course. That happens in ME2 as well and I hate it. The only other thing I hate about the ME2 AI is that they take cover, fire and then even while under heavy fire, they don't go back to cover, they keep shooting and take a ****ton of bullets right in the face.

[Xeranx]

Mr.House wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Again though, it is if all you're going to do is copy'n'paste the gameplay mechanics across without properly adapting them to suit the style of game you're making. You can't just rip pure TPS combat mechanics and jam them into a non-pure TPS game and just have everything work and remain properly functional. It may solve some of the issues your game had before, but it just ends up causing new ones instead as well. That's one of the problems ME2 had with its combat: it just went "monkey see, monkey do" instead of properly moulding the mechanics to suit the RPG nature of itself.

Just wanted to say that this post is representative of what I understand when people make statements that ME2 is a GoW clone.  While some people may dislike/hate GoW others don't and actively play it as well.  But the idea Bioware just took something instead of adapting it to their game is the thought behind calling it a Gears of War clone.

Let's see....

Gears has active reload, huge levels amd more open, turent and other veachle(sp) combat, ick up weapons during the game, grenades, blind fire, rolling and jumpng to cover from cover.

ME2 had none of that.

As others have stated, all of what you've stated will be in ME3 (except maybe the active reload and blind fire).  

My point about my interpretation of people making the comparison to Gears of War can't be debated however.  Most people attack the comparison because it's the easiest one to force conflict on.  You can force the focus into being the person making the comparison hates Gears of War rather than either ask what they mean if you're unsure of where they're coming from or actually acknowledge that you know what they're trying to say.  

However you can't attack the idea that what was present in ME2 was lifted from Gears of War and mostly left unchanged.  From battlefield design to red veins of death.  The way sprinting was done wasn't better at all.  ME actually allowed Shepard to run for cover.  You could steer Shepard any way you wanted and it was effective.  Steering Shepard during storm (sprinting) was a chore.  Bending around a curve so you could get to cover was impossible. 

Apart from all that the only thing not lifted from GoW was members of your squad being able to heal you before death.

Modifié par Xeranx, 25 septembre 2011 - 04:57 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

KingDan97 wrote...

(...)

And when exactly was blind fire "promised"?

It wasn't. Sorry for the misinformation.

Some magazine said there was a feature similar to blindfire, but that's all.

[meiwow2]

Mr.House wrote...

Don't bother with terror. He would rather have a game that plays like crap with horrible AI and unfun gameplay.

Terror K has done a very good job at explaining his point of view on how just copying other games mechanics without properly implementing them to the style of gameplay of the other game in question is not a good thing.

And you are making it sound like anything that is not like or borrowed from gow is "crap and not fun" not all of us deem dumb simple minded shooting as "fun" that's a fact your gonna have to deal with.

Me is one hell of a game and a lot of people agree, if it doesn't suit you then that's your issues you have to work out. Maybe you treat videogames as an accesible amusement park ride instead of a deep experience.

Modifié par meiwow2, 25 septembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[Soul Cool]

I must admit, whoever said that Mass Effect weapons sound like "modern military weapons" made me laugh. That's so terribly wrong that it's funny. I congratulate you, sir or madam.

[Haventh]

This is hilarious. I bet many of you think you can run towards gunfire from all direction without any protection. There are covers, use them, and there are squadmates that are just horrible in some sitautions. To sum it up, it's not the game, it's you if your squadmate die like flies.

Modifié par Haventh, 25 septembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[Nashiktal]

slimgrin wrote...
I always relied on my team's abilities in insane mode. I never did anything alone. The whole point was to combine their attacks with mine. 

Maybe I played a different game...

Yeah, you brought your teammates along for the powers they had. However...

1. Most of the time the teammates cheat. If you are not looking at them, and you activiate a power... It does not matter where they are, what they are doing, or what is in front of them. The power is insta cast.

2. aside from the abilities they bring, your teammates are nearly useless. Unless you are bringing along a tank character (which is counter to the combat of ME2, where you want the enemy to die as fast as they, you can't outlast them) you will be dumping all of your medigel in them, and if your not it is because you are not wasting it on them.

The only teammates I saw that was ACTIVELY helping to kill enemies were... Legion (he kills fast, and is durable with his shield. A rare combination), Garrus (kills enemies sometimes, but more often than not dead, very fragile), Thane (man is a killing machine, has an innate bonus against fleshies, so still kinda cheating), and Zaeed. (durable, and power.) Even then, those teammates I listed die pretty damn often. The AI isn't as stupid as ME1 (where I would say, lol wut AI?) but teammates are still useless outside of their powers. 

I want the AI fixed. Not because I want ME to be something it isnt, but because Mass Effect forces me to have them, so make them useful! If all they are good for is their powers, then just give them to shep. >.>

[The Interloper]

As far as I'm concerned, ME2 just needed a stance toggle. Agressive vs defensive (huddles behind cover). That way no running facefirst into a storm of fire because you're too stupid to realize that's not a good idea. So let the player tell them when it's clear to engage and when to focus on staying down.

[Nashiktal]

Haventh wrote...

This is hilarious. I bet many of you think you can run towards gunfire from all direction without any protection. There are covers, use them, and there are squadmates that are just horrible in some sitautions. To sum it up, it's not the game, it's you if your squadmate die like flies.

My squadmates use cover... and they still die like damn flies. I constantly have to bail them out unless I lower the difficulty level.

So to help them survive, I give them a weapon with a lower rate of fire. However that means they are contributing even LESS to the fight, as not only do they still have poor AI, but they now contribute less DPS. I still see the AI firing into walls, running into enemy fire trying to get into cover (that  I set AWAY from the combat), the take cover order is also buggy as I sometimes can't choose the specific cover (Which is bad during combat, I shouldn't be wrestling with my teammates during a fight.)

I love Mass Effect, but it needs to improve, and combat is still not its strong point.

[Someone With Mass]

The Interloper wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, ME2 just needed a stance toggle. Agressive vs defensive (huddles behind cover). That way no running facefirst into a storm of fire because you're too stupid to realize that's not a good idea. So let the player tell them when it's clear to engage and when to focus on staying down.

Shouldn't even be that. Should be:

Are shields down? ---> Yes ---> Stay the **** back, numbnuts.
|
|
|
V
No
|
|
|
V
Attack!

[Haventh]

I have played ME 2 on the hardest difficulty and i had no problems keeping my squad alive. Sure, there were times like boss fights or with those praetorians where it became really challenging. But isn't that what people want? A challenge?

I had no problems assigning squadmates to covers either.

[Embrosil]

Mr.House wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Again though, it is if all you're going to do is copy'n'paste the gameplay mechanics across without properly adapting them to suit the style of game you're making. You can't just rip pure TPS combat mechanics and jam them into a non-pure TPS game and just have everything work and remain properly functional. It may solve some of the issues your game had before, but it just ends up causing new ones instead as well. That's one of the problems ME2 had with its combat: it just went "monkey see, monkey do" instead of properly moulding the mechanics to suit the RPG nature of itself.

Just wanted to say that this post is representative of what I understand when people make statements that ME2 is a GoW clone.  While some people may dislike/hate GoW others don't and actively play it as well.  But the idea Bioware just took something instead of adapting it to their game is the thought behind calling it a Gears of War clone.

Let's see....

Gears has active reload, huge levels amd more open, turent and other veachle(sp) combat, ick up weapons during the game, grenades, blind fire, rolling and jumpng to cover from cover.

ME2 had none of that.

And? Your point being? If I wanted all you described, I would buy GoW. Or I would not, I do not have a console and I do not intend to play another dumb shooter. I want to play an action RPG. Unfortunatelly in ME2 I got ACTION rpg

Terror K is absolutely right. The combat in ME1 was not perfect, but what they did in ME2 is terrible. I really hope they learn and ME3 will get better. And no, by getting better I really do not mean jumping from a cover to a cover like idiot.

[The Interloper]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, ME2 just needed a stance toggle. Agressive vs defensive (huddles behind cover). That way no running facefirst into a storm of fire because you're too stupid to realize that's not a good idea. So let the player tell them when it's clear to engage and when to focus on staying down.

Shouldn't even be that. Should be:

Are shields down? ---> Yes ---> Stay the **** back, numbnuts.
|
|
|
V
No
|
|
|
V
Attack!

Well, I do think you should be able to order your men to take one for the team, if you want them too. Like if your fighting an enemy with regenerating health like the collossus and want fire output over safety.