226 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanPWNS]

People make this sound like a bad thing.

GOW is great shooter and ME series is a shooter (You can gasp now RPG elitist) with RPG elements. I can't believe some people even complain about the gameplay. It's like these people want dead gameplay but as long they get to choose choices (some that don't even matter) they are happy.

[Candidate 88766]

Luc0s wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

In the game industry, it doesn't matter who does it first. What matters is who does it best. And the consensus right now is Gears does third-person cover-based shooter gameplay the best by a wide margin. And whether people here like it or not, ME has a third-person perspective, a cover system, and shooter gameplay, so comparisons with Gears are inevitable.

As for the main point, I agree when it comes to combat. Many have complained about the addition of an ammo system, but frankly that's because ME1's combat sucked. It was Bioware's first game where shooting was the primary means of combat, and they tried to distinguish it from other shooters. However, this misguided attempt to be "unique" just resulted in a broken system that encouraged laziness and tediousness . It's no surprise Bioware went back to the drawing board and just implemented an ammo system like in other shooters. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Some people (not naming names, but you probably know who) decried this change, complaining that ME2 had been "shooterized". ME has always been "shooterized", it's just that ME2 did the shooting aspect better. And it makes perfect sense they would look to strictly shooter games for that, since the shooting aspect is the entire point of those games. Obviously, some people can't tolerate seeing their beloved RPG drawing inspiration from a *shudder* shooter game <_<. Bioware tried to distinguish themselves from shooters in the first game, and look what the result was. 

(And before you mention the whole "breaking lore" thing, I actually agree there. I would've preferred Bioware simply claim thermal clips had always been in use by citadel races and retcon the overheating away, rather than trying to directly write the change into the story. But in a video game, fun gameplay trumps consistent lore.)

I like this guy. He understands! 

+1

[Sebbe1337o]

Cole Train could be the new Krogan.

[crimzontearz]

I honestly would have preferred ME to have used a first person perspective for combat and set pieces with some needed third person switches for conversations and stuff

would have allowed for much more physicality and gameplay possibilities...but that's just me. I have zero issues with Nbioware taking gameplay oriented inspirations as long as that does not equal shaving off RPG features for the CoD crowd

[crimzontearz]

I honestly would have preferred ME to have used a first person perspective for combat and set pieces with some needed third person switches for conversations and stuff

would have allowed for much more physicality and gameplay possibilities...but that's just me. I have zero issues with Nbioware taking gameplay oriented inspirations as long as that does not equal shaving off RPG features for the CoD crowd

[Biotic Sage]

crimzontearz wrote...

I honestly would have preferred ME to have used a first person perspective for combat and set pieces with some needed third person switches for conversations and stuff

  To each his own I guess.

In an RPG, I like to see the visual elements of my character level up along with my combat prowess.  I play Skyrim in third person (I wish it had over the shoulder Mass Effect quality third person controls...).  When I get a new piece of armor in Mass Effect I like to see my Shepard stylin while he's kicking arse.  

There are a few games that I think need to be in first person though: Metroid Prime, Halo, and Left 4 Dead are three ones I am quite fond of that come to mind.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 14 janvier 2012 - 12:44 .

[alex90c]

...And Justice For All wrote...

GoW3 was no where near as good as GoW2, and i personally think ME1 was better than 2. but gears is a linear 3rd person shooter, it has NO rpg elements what so ever, so implementing aspects from GoW3 in mass effect, would just make the game a horrible mess.

DECISION MAKING

Gears style:

"Okay, i'll take the right, you take the left"

Marcus move up from the right, Dom takes the left.

Mass effect style:

"Okay, I'll make this massive decision that affects the entire galaxy, species X, you will be destroyed, species Y, you will live"

Decision has zero or minimal effect until the final game of the trilogy.

It's quite funny how Gears bashers fail to realise that, funnily enough it's the shooter (rather than their beautiful ARRRR PEEEE GEEEE) that handles choice and consequence miles better than a freaking role-playing game which advertises tough decisions and the like.

[BatmanPWNS]

alex90c wrote...

...And Justice For All wrote...

GoW3 was no where near as good as GoW2, and i personally think ME1 was better than 2. but gears is a linear 3rd person shooter, it has NO rpg elements what so ever, so implementing aspects from GoW3 in mass effect, would just make the game a horrible mess.

DECISION MAKING

Gears style:

"Okay, i'll take the right, you take the left"

Marcus move up from the right, Dom takes the left.

Mass effect style:

"Okay, I'll make this massive decision that affects the entire galaxy, species X, you will be destroyed, species Y, you will live"

Decision has zero or minimal effect until the final game of the trilogy.

It's quite funny how Gears bashers fail to realise that, funnily enough it's the shooter (rather than their beautiful ARRRR PEEEE GEEEE) that handles choice and consequence miles better than a freaking role-playing game which advertises tough decisions and the like.

Even though I agree with you, the RPG elitist will be pissed off now.

[crimzontearz]

that's what customization menues are for Sage...and I play skyrim in 1st person. still my core points remains. As long as Bioware does not streamline everything to the lowest common denominator for the drooling masses they are more than wecome to use some other franchise as inspiration for what they do best (like cover shooting)

[tetrisblock4x1]

The "Is ME an RPG" debate is ****ing retarded, because at the end of the day everyone will have very similar stories, and it's played as a third person shooter. It is what it whether you think of it as an RPG or a GoW clone, and what it is begins at the barrel of a gun and ends with everyones Shepards stepping down the same corridors over the same piles of dead bodies. As for the potential consequences of our decisions, well we didn't get a lot of that in ME2 either. Maybe ME3 will give it some validation, but as a standalone game ME2s story is not very malleable at all.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 14 janvier 2012 - 01:13 .

[Darth_Trethon]

I have never played or seen a worse game than GoW.....the second or third I did not buy but have seen enough of to be convinced they are no better. In short: shooter, worthless garbage ready for the dumpster. ME3 has a great, branching storyline that is actually good as opposed to garbage pretense of a hour long story, completely different gameplay mechanics and an art style that is actually good.....in other words GoW has nothing in common with anything even remotely worthy of being considered better than unacceptable.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Because that's why we play games, to get through a story? If Gears is the worst game you've played then you're either very lucky or you are a gaming noob. You want to know the worst games ever? Search youtube for ET on the atari gaming system, and then search for Superman 64. Then think about what you said about Gears just now.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 14 janvier 2012 - 01:23 .

[SNascimento]

I agree.
.
Gears of War (especially 3) is the Roman Empire of TPS, of course Mass Effect should have looked to it to see how things are done. However, it didn't do only that. Mass Effect 2 combat has very unique elements which make it combat very distinguished.

[RKB28]

alex90c wrote...


No it was not as good as any Gears game with its TPS elements. The ME2 AI was braindead, there was practically no room for movement in the battlefields, it was far too obvious whenever there was encounters (when comparing the two, Gears' maps actually hide it so much better, and it's a freaking shooter) and the melee sucked.

I also have no idea what RPG elements ME2 stripped out of ME1 at all.

Just so people don´t think that I´m criticizing Gears, I´m the guy that owns all of them except 3( the lack of a confirmation that there will only be a season pass made not buy the game until now), and I love them. But then again it´s not for the game mechanics but for the tone of the game...

Having played GoW1 and GoW2 on all dificulties, I find your claims without base.

ME2´s AI is as good as the AI in any Gears game. If anything the AI in the Gears game is simplistic.

Movement in battlefield in Gears? Only on the diverging path moments. We aren´t talking about Halo or BF where the maps acomodate multiple angles of attack.

And the cover doesn´t stick that much. On the Gears games, when you are indoors or in on human areas cover sticks like a sore thumb.

Melee is more enjoyable in the Gears games, that I will give you.


As to the rpg aspect, it´s a bit tricky. They decided to cut some stuff, but then tied it into other areas, and finally even added some others aspects. Like I said, they camouflaged it.
They tied ammo types to the character leveling scheme. They decid to cut the multiple number of omni-tools and bio-amps, but used multiple upgrades to the funcionalities of those items. Less weapon an d armor models but multiple upgrades( also an effect of the age of dlc).
That being said the upgrade system to the ship was a really nice touch.

[someguy1231]

Don't judge GoW inferior to ME solely because it's "just a shooter". A game shouldn't be judged by what it tries to be but by how well it does what it's supposed to do. GoW never tries to be anything but a shooter and it does that very well.

[Gaunty01]

So good to finally see a forum thread in which I can agree with everyones posts.

Have to admit it is worrying that some of the threads give of the distinct impression that the story has suffered as a result. I remind myself though that all of these people are just doing their utmost to ruin everyone elses enjoyment of the game when it finally comes out by pointing out spoilers (stop with the f@&£%!g spoilers in non spoiler threads) which help their argument of 'no brainer gameplay with minimal immersion' in some way.

[alex90c]

ME2´s AI is as good as the AI in any Gears game

No, it really isn't. At the beginning of every encounter, enemies go to predetermined points, don't move from them and just their avengers for a bit, duck in to cover, fire their AR a bit, duck in to cover and it's all extremely predictable. The only enemies that ever move are either animals or enemies with shotguns, and the only reason they do is so that they can get in to effective rang. In moving they don't utilise cover in any way, by say hiding for a little while and then moving up, they just run after you in the open and are easily mowed down.

If anything the AI in the Gears game is simplistic.

The AI where I can lose, reload and they might actually ... wait for it .... do something different? Gears actually has an AI, ME2 barely does.

Movement in battlefield in Gears? Only on the diverging path moments.

How about ... the entire game? Making your way up to the Fenix estate in Gears 1? Well, there's two different points you can move up the steps for that. You can try to stay back, firing from a distance (not very effective mind you) or get close and personal, shotgunning or chainsawing locust. Or there's the Fenix estate itself. When you're defending it from the Locust you have free reign around the entire house. Or there's the Bank vault in RAAM's Shadow where you're getting attacked in a tight area and you have to keep moving or you'll get grenades thrown at you, set on fire with flamethrowers or simply shot with a shotgun. Or going back to Gears 1 again, when moving up to the Fenix estate, there's a point where there's a troika on an elevated point where you can either try to kill the gunner from a distance (doubtful) or you can take advantage of the landscape to move up and outflank the two guys on the elevated point.

Maps aren't BF size, no, but they allow a hell of a lot more movement than ME2's do.

And the cover doesn´t stick that much. On the Gears games, when you are indoors or in on human areas cover sticks like a sore thumb.

Look at all this cover:



Doesn't look like cover does it? Not even the benches look out of place.



Sorry for the suckish screenshot, but God. Boxes everywhere.

[RKB28]

alex90c wrote...

ME2´s AI is as good as the AI in any Gears game

No, it really isn't. At the beginning of every encounter, enemies go to predetermined points, don't move from them and just their avengers for a bit, duck in to cover, fire their AR a bit, duck in to cover and it's all extremely predictable. The only enemies that ever move are either animals or enemies with shotguns, and the only reason they do is so that they can get in to effective rang. In moving they don't utilise cover in any way, by say hiding for a little while and then moving up, they just run after you in the open and are easily mowed down.

If anything the AI in the Gears game is simplistic.

The AI where I can lose, reload and they might actually ... wait for it .... do something different? Gears actually has an AI, ME2 barely does.

Movement in battlefield in Gears? Only on the diverging path moments.

How about ... the entire game? Making your way up to the Fenix estate in Gears 1? Well, there's two different points you can move up the steps for that. You can try to stay back, firing from a distance (not very effective mind you) or get close and personal, shotgunning or chainsawing locust. Or there's the Fenix estate itself. When you're defending it from the Locust you have free reign around the entire house. Or there's the Bank vault in RAAM's Shadow where you're getting attacked in a tight area and you have to keep moving or you'll get grenades thrown at you, set on fire with flamethrowers or simply shot with a shotgun. Or going back to Gears 1 again, when moving up to the Fenix estate, there's a point where there's a troika on an elevated point where you can either try to kill the gunner from a distance (doubtful) or you can take advantage of the landscape to move up and outflank the two guys on the elevated point.

Maps aren't BF size, no, but they allow a hell of a lot more movement than ME2's do.

And the cover doesn´t stick that much. On the Gears games, when you are indoors or in on human areas cover sticks like a sore thumb.

Look at all this cover:



Doesn't look like cover does it? Not even the benches look out of place.



Sorry for the suckish screenshot, but God. Boxes everywhere.

The AI in Gears is highly agressive, but it´s more feral then anything. On ME2 it has a more tactical feel to it.
And if you can´t die on ME2, then damm, you are my hero. That takes some skill that I plain and simply lack.

As to the liberty in action, you actually got the best examples, but those are rare exceptions. In Gears 2 some sections in Hollow gave us liberty too( the "that´s five mofo!" bit is one of it), but those are far and between.
Heck, don´t tell me that on Purgatory you didn´t have multiple combat angles, be it high up or down.

Finally the blending of cover. First of, a mea culpa. I should have written locust areas instead of human areas. 

And I could go on with a "sandbags everywhere", but I don´t because it´s part of the aesthetic...

[alex90c]

he AI in Gears is highly agressive, but it´s more feral then anything. On ME2 it has a more tactical feel to it.
And if you can´t die on ME2, then damm, you are my hero. That takes some skill that I plain and simply lack.

Well if you get the impression it's feral, that's a good thing considering you have to fight savage monsters.

ME2 is not tactical in the slightest, unless "sit back and shoot" is tactical. Gears keeps you on your feet and doesn't allow you to grow complacent.

As to the liberty in action, you actually got the best examples, but those are rare exceptions. In Gears 2 some sections in Hollow gave us liberty too( the "that´s five mofo!" bit is one of it), but those are far and between.
Heck, don´t tell me that on Purgatory you didn´t have multiple combat angles, be it high up or down.

In Gears 2, there is a scene where you can dress up as Therons and evade the Locust, or just go through guns blazing.

Puragtory is definitely a good example in ME2, if only the AI wasn't so lacking.

Finally the blending of cover. First of, a mea culpa. I should have written locust areas instead of human areas.

In Gears 2, the Hollow's cover was almost entirely operated by switches, so I find that much more excusable. Same as if they did that in ME2 (did they?) rather than splashing random boxes everywhere.

And I could go on with a "sandbags everywhere", but I don´t because it´s part of the aesthetic...

In Gears, they're fighting a war of annihilation, and you're constantly going through war zones, so of course there's going to be sandbags. But in ME2 that isn't the case, and you just get these generic boxes or those things whatever they are on the Collector Ship/Base that you can hide behind and it just looks extremely contrived.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Gears of War?
Meh...honestly, I found Duke Nukem Forever better.

[El Mito]

alex90c wrote...

ME2´s AI is as good as the AI in any Gears game

No, it really isn't. At the beginning of every encounter, enemies go to predetermined points, don't move from them and just their avengers for a bit, duck in to cover, fire their AR a bit, duck in to cover and it's all extremely predictable. The only enemies that ever move are either animals or enemies with shotguns, and the only reason they do is so that they can get in to effective rang. In moving they don't utilise cover in any way, by say hiding for a little while and then moving up, they just run after you in the open and are easily mowed down.

If anything the AI in the Gears game is simplistic.

The AI where I can lose, reload and they might actually ... wait for it .... do something different? Gears actually has an AI, ME2 barely does.

Movement in battlefield in Gears? Only on the diverging path moments.

How about ... the entire game? Making your way up to the Fenix estate in Gears 1? Well, there's two different points you can move up the steps for that. You can try to stay back, firing from a distance (not very effective mind you) or get close and personal, shotgunning or chainsawing locust. Or there's the Fenix estate itself. When you're defending it from the Locust you have free reign around the entire house. Or there's the Bank vault in RAAM's Shadow where you're getting attacked in a tight area and you have to keep moving or you'll get grenades thrown at you, set on fire with flamethrowers or simply shot with a shotgun. Or going back to Gears 1 again, when moving up to the Fenix estate, there's a point where there's a troika on an elevated point where you can either try to kill the gunner from a distance (doubtful) or you can take advantage of the landscape to move up and outflank the two guys on the elevated point.

Maps aren't BF size, no, but they allow a hell of a lot more movement than ME2's do.

And the cover doesn´t stick that much. On the Gears games, when you are indoors or in on human areas cover sticks like a sore thumb.

Look at all this cover:



Doesn't look like cover does it? Not even the benches look out of place.



Sorry for the suckish screenshot, but God. Boxes everywhere.

This guy gets it.

[Izhalezan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Gears of War?
Meh...honestly, I found Duke Nukem Forever better.

You're a funny guy.

[nitefyre410]

alex90c wrote...

he AI in Gears is highly agressive, but it´s more feral then anything. On ME2 it has a more tactical feel to it.
And if you can´t die on ME2, then damm, you are my hero. That takes some skill that I plain and simply lack.

Well if you get the impression it's feral, that's a good thing considering you have to fight savage monsters.

ME2 is not tactical in the slightest, unless "sit back and shoot" is tactical. Gears keeps you on your feet and doesn't allow you to grow complacent.

As to the liberty in action, you actually got the best examples, but those are rare exceptions. In Gears 2 some sections in Hollow gave us liberty too( the "that´s five mofo!" bit is one of it), but those are far and between.
Heck, don´t tell me that on Purgatory you didn´t have multiple combat angles, be it high up or down.

In Gears 2, there is a scene where you can dress up as Therons and evade the Locust, or just go through guns blazing.

Puragtory is definitely a good example in ME2, if only the AI wasn't so lacking.

Finally the blending of cover. First of, a mea culpa. I should have written locust areas instead of human areas.

In Gears 2, the Hollow's cover was almost entirely operated by switches, so I find that much more excusable. Same as if they did that in ME2 (did they?) rather than splashing random boxes everywhere.

And I could go on with a "sandbags everywhere", but I don´t because it´s part of the aesthetic...

In Gears, they're fighting a war of annihilation, and you're constantly going through war zones, so of course there's going to be sandbags. But in ME2 that isn't the case, and you just get these generic boxes or those things whatever they are on the Collector Ship/Base that you can hide behind and it just looks extremely contrived.
 

 


^ Yep  this guy deffinitely gets it.  



The AI in ME 2 had the be the most frustrating thing for me  i.e  characters not playing there role... Garrus is a sharp shooter he is not a tank.  Why after  I put him in cover with good  view and clears shots is he switching his assualt rifle and charging guns blazing - its just plan aggrivating.  

Modifié par nitefyre410, 14 janvier 2012 - 04:04 .