226 réponses à ce sujet

[frostajulie]

I don't play shooters I play games for the story and the amount of emotional connection and cathartic release from the stress of real life I can get from it so I have no idea what gameplay for GoW is like. That being said if they are the reason I have to thank for the improvement to combat in ME2 from ME1 then I thank them. I had much more fun shooting things in ME2 than I did in ME1 even if some points had me cussing the TV when I would die AGAIN! Killing stuff was still more fun in ME2

[Anthropophobic]

If the devs are taking inspiration from Gears of War, I hope they do it better this time. Am I the only one who found the combat in Mass Effect 2 to be kind of boring?

The combat in Gears of War and even Uncharted is just so much more smooth, and there's a bit more to it than taking cover and getting the shields/barriers/armor/health of enemies down. In both games, the enemies are more responsive to the various ways you can inflict damage. In the Gears series, there is actually much more variety in enemies, contrary to what another poster has said. The squadmate AI in the Gears series just seems more reliable; if you don't micro-manage your squadmates in ME2 on Insanity, they get themselves killed really quickly and easily, even though they're supposed to be these amazingly powerful superheroes or something (they'll solo three YMIR mechs in cutscenes but they won't hold their own against random goons during actual gameplay).

Worst of all, in ME1 and ME2, Shepard's movement is just so limited. She can't roll to get behind cover or to escape an enemy, and she can barely run at all (she jogs for about 2 seconds before running out of breath).

[tetrisblock4x1]

Yes, Bioware are still at least 5 years behind the curve game play wise. They only just brought in the rolling from Gears of the year 2007 (was that the year?) And they're only just starting to use things like dynamically evolving environments like "you're going down a corridor and then something changes". I suppose this means we can expect to be going through battlefields and building and have the ground collapse beneath us, and having the walls blown down by reapers, and for each of which to give us optional new directions to move to.

Hopefully this will happen during game play rather than during random cut scenes as a part of Biowares "emotional journey". ME to ME2 was a fairly big improvement, so I think that if ME3 is to 2 what 2 was to 1 that it's a possibility that they'll add the involving environments and objectives while playing the missions.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 15 janvier 2012 - 05:24 .

[Genshie]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Yes, Bioware are still at least 5 years behind the curve game play wise. They only just brought in the rolling from Gears of the year 2007 (was that the year?) And they're only just starting to use things like dynamically evolving environments like "you're going down a corridor and then something changes". I suppose this means we can expect to be going through battlefields and building and have the ground collapse beneath us, and having the walls blown down by reapers, and for each of which to give us optional new directions to move to.

Hopefully this will happen during game play rather than during random cut scenes as a part of Biowares "emotional journey". ME to ME2 was a fairly big improvement, so I think that if ME3 is to 2 what 2 was to 1 that it's a possibility that they'll add the involving environments and objectives while playing the missions.

Am I seeing this? A non-negative post made by tetris holy-@!&^ in a handbasket BATMAN is the sky falling? This was probably the most reasonable post I have seen from you. Anyway, I wish they implement the crouch feature despite what Bioware says it did help in ME1. Also Tetris you are just a bit off about the environment not changing in ME2 during battle in almost all of the dlc Overlord, when you are in the geth station base, Lair of Shadow Broker, when you are on the hotel and SB base, and Arrival, when you are trying to leave the comet/astroid/whatever you are crashing into the relay, all have changing environments. ME1 even had changing environments like when you are climbing up the building with Soveriegn attached to it sending waves of geth at you.

[Helena Tylena]

As long as it doesn't use GOW's story as inspiration, I'm good.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm also really confused why people keep using the word Cinematic as if it's a good thing,  making games more like movies,  and hence less interactive isn't a positive.  We already went down this road with the Full Motion Video debacle in the mid 90's,  and it was boring as heck.

I think you're misunderstanding the goal. Cinematic isn't synonymous with cutscene, in which case you are watching a movie, though there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that. Legacy of Kain consisted of gameplay and cutscenes and I'd say it was one of the best narratives put forth in a game.

Cinematic deals more with camera angles, the perspective from which a scene is shot, and the flow of the scene. Cinematography isn't any less interactive than top down RPGs like Baldur's Gate or Planescape, in which you're always forced to engage in dialogue from a single viewpoint.

[Doctalen]

Helena Tylena wrote...

As long as it doesn't use GOW's story as inspiration, I'm good.

I fully agree it shouldn't be required to make it a great story but if you read the novels GoW's story becomes much better or at least you apericate it more. It is not the best if you don't though. 

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

Helena Tylena wrote...

As long as it doesn't use GOW's story as inspiration, I'm good.

What? GOW's story was awesome.

[Helena Tylena]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

As long as it doesn't use GOW's story as inspiration, I'm good.

What? GOW's story was awesome.

I'll be honest, I never played it. However, what I heard from it, the story was terrible. The characters more so.

[Volus Warlord]

Helena Tylena wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

As long as it doesn't use GOW's story as inspiration, I'm good.

What? GOW's story was awesome.

I'll be honest, I never played it. However, what I heard from it, the story was terrible. The characters more so.

GOW was about chainsawing people, not a story.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

Helena Tylena wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

As long as it doesn't use GOW's story as inspiration, I'm good.

What? GOW's story was awesome.

I'll be honest, I never played it. However, what I heard from it, the story was terrible. The characters more so.

The characters were the best part in my opinion........you should really give it a try.

[habitat 67]

I thought the characters were obnoxious and overbeefy until I played the first two games. Then I met the Cole Train.

[Foxtrot 212]

Oh please GoW is one of the worst games in history, when warlord said its about chainsawing people he is correct, the story sucks, the gameplay is ok, the Characters are so cheesy you could fill up a football stadium with instant cheese, AND it stunk of cheap sci fi film, no emotion and get about 2 hours enjoyment out of it. 

But too each is his own.

Modifié par Foxtrot 212, 15 janvier 2012 - 06:19 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm also really confused why people keep using the word Cinematic as if it's a good thing,  making games more like movies,  and hence less interactive isn't a positive.  We already went down this road with the Full Motion Video debacle in the mid 90's,  and it was boring as heck.

I think you're misunderstanding the goal. Cinematic isn't synonymous with cutscene, in which case you are watching a movie, though there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that. Legacy of Kain consisted of gameplay and cutscenes and I'd say it was one of the best narratives put forth in a game.

Cinematic deals more with camera angles, the perspective from which a scene is shot, and the flow of the scene. Cinematography isn't any less interactive than top down RPGs like Baldur's Gate or Planescape, in which you're always forced to engage in dialogue from a single viewpoint.

This. If you've ever wanted to play as the fleet commander of Mass Effect then that game pretty much exists already. It's called Homeworld. It had a very cinematic feeling to it and it was entirely interactive. Game also derives quite a bit of it's story from Battlestar Galactica and Starwars: A New Hope. Homeworld 2 actually looked amazing in the year 2000, and even now it still looks pretty good because it's an RTS with a good art style and you don't usually get a close enough perspective to see how dated the graphics look

[Anthropophobic]

Foxtrot 212 wrote...

Oh please GoW is one of the worst games in history, when warlord said its about chainsawing people he is correct, the story sucks, the gameplay is ok, the Characters are so cheesy you could fill up a football stadium with instant cheese, AND it stunk of cheap sci fi film, no emotion and get about 2 hours enjoyment out of it. 

But too each is his own.

lol

wat

[tetrisblock4x1]

Foxtrot 212 wrote...

Oh please GoW is one of the worst games in history, when warlord said its about chainsawing people he is correct, the story sucks, the gameplay is ok, the Characters are so cheesy you could fill up a football stadium with instant cheese, AND it stunk of cheap sci fi film, no emotion and get about 2 hours enjoyment out of it. 

But too each is his own.

Heres a tip: Superman 64 is the baseline by which "worst game ever" candidates should be judged. Or maybe ET on the Atari. Not opinion, fact. It is objectively one of the laziest, must frustrating and hillariously broken games ever developed.

[Jog0907]

Foxtrot 212 wrote...

Oh please GoW is one of the worst games in history, when warlord said its about chainsawing people he is correct, the story sucks, the gameplay is ok, the Characters are so cheesy you could fill up a football stadium with instant cheese, AND it stunk of cheap sci fi film, no emotion and get about 2 hours enjoyment out of it. 

But too each is his own.

Even if you hate GoW overall setting dont deny that the game is rightfully recognized as an excellent example of good gameplay design and thus a good game.

Modifié par Jog0907, 15 janvier 2012 - 06:35 .

[Foxtrot 212]

Jog0907 wrote...

Foxtrot 212 wrote...

Oh please GoW is one of the worst games in history, when warlord said its about chainsawing people he is correct, the story sucks, the gameplay is ok, the Characters are so cheesy you could fill up a football stadium with instant cheese, AND it stunk of cheap sci fi film, no emotion and get about 2 hours enjoyment out of it. 

But too each is his own.

Even if you hate GoW overall setting dont deny that the game is rightfully recognized as an excellent example of good gameplay design and thus a good game.

No I do not doubt that it is recognized by others but not myself.

[AgitatedLemon]

...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.

You know he's just talking about the inproved gunplay, right?

[Foxtrot 212]

Anthropophobic wrote...

Foxtrot 212 wrote...

Oh please GoW is one of the worst games in history, when warlord said its about chainsawing people he is correct, the story sucks, the gameplay is ok, the Characters are so cheesy you could fill up a football stadium with instant cheese, AND it stunk of cheap sci fi film, no emotion and get about 2 hours enjoyment out of it. 

But too each is his own.

lol

wat

The gameplay is ok for a cover based TPS, the rolling and cover is ok, the shooter aspect is ok, not great, but ok, everything else is pretty crappy in my personal opinion, I dont play games for their shooting elements, if it tells a good story Its a good game.

[AgitatedLemon]

Foxtrot 212 wrote...

Oh please GoW is one of the worst games in history, when warlord said its about chainsawing people he is correct, the story sucks, the gameplay is ok, the Characters are so cheesy you could fill up a football stadium with instant cheese, AND it stunk of cheap sci fi film, no emotion and get about 2 hours enjoyment out of it. 

But too each is his own.

Bold1: What was it I kept hearing about Locust... Lambent... 

Bold2: Dom in Gears of War 2 + 3

Bold3: Coming from a Mass Effect forumgoer.

Bold4: See #2

[Anthropophobic]

Gears of War often gets lumped in by outsiders with Call of Duty and Halo as a generic shooter only enjoyed by brain-dead dudebros, but the series is pretty brilliant for what it is. I don't really know or care much about the story (it isn't particularly memorable), and I dislike most of the characters because I don't really like playing as an over-muscled meathead, and the dialogue is so cheesy that it makes me cringe sometimes, but not every game has to have a deep, sophisticated narrative with complex characters and well-written dialogue, or else Nintendo would be out of business (as would most game devs).

I got GoW3 only recently. I've been playing the campaign with online co-op. It's a blast--particularly with Big Head Mode and Flower Blood on.

Modifié par Anthropophobic, 15 janvier 2012 - 08:30 .

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Heres a tip: Superman 64 is the baseline by which "worst game ever" candidates should be judged. Or maybe ET on the Atari. Not opinion, fact. It is objectively one of the laziest, must frustrating and hillariously broken games ever developed.

Custer's Revenge probably tops ET.  I was around when those games came out but never played them (too young for Custer's... er, subject matter, and ET looked bad then.)

[AgitatedLemon]

Anthropophobic wrote...

Gears of War often gets lumped in by outsiders with Call of Duty and Halo as a generic shooter only enjoyed by brain-dead dudebros, but the series is pretty brilliant for what it is. I don't really know or care much about the story (it isn't particularly memorable), and I dislike most of the characters because I don't really like playing as an over-muscled meathead, and the dialogue is so cheesy that it makes me cringe sometimes, but not every game has to have a deep, sophisticated narrative with complex characters and well-written dialogue, or else Nintendo would be out of business (as would most game devs).

I got GoW3 only recently. I've been playing the campaign with online co-op. It's a blast--particularly with Big Head Mode and Flower Blood on.

I think the characters' personal history is better than the series overarching story. Especially Cole and Dom.

[alex90c]

Helena Tylena wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

As long as it doesn't use GOW's story as inspiration, I'm good.

What? GOW's story was awesome.

I'll be honest, I never played it. However, what I heard from it, the story was terrible. The characters more so.

The story was pretty much two failed DEMs and then a third successful one.

I personally enjoyed the characters, the only I dislike being Jace because of what he does in the RAAM's Shadow DLC.