429 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

Because it is better.

ME1 had a slightly better story than ME2, but the gameplay was significantly improved in the sequel.  The graphics were better, the AI was improved, there were less bugs, the combat was a little more changelling, and consequently, more fun.

I also preferred the inventory system in Mass Effect 2. While I wish there were more options for customization, especially with squadmates, it was still preferable to the micromangement of inventory you had to slog through in ME1. The biggest problem IMO, was that items didn't stack. Going through your inventory to sell 10 Avenger Is was tedious.

[Jozape]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Your ME1 problems are implementation. An inventory system in not a bad thing. But the implementation of it (very finite, no way to quickly get rid of things) is what caused it to be hated.

Indeed. It's one of the worse list inventory systems I've seen implemented in a game, and lists are bad for anything but minimal inventories in the first place.  Although there's something to be said for a game that limits the inventory, either by mass/volume limits, or limiting the amount of items you can find in the world. Logically within the setting, of course. ME2's solution was an over reaction.

A good example of an inventory system imo, from BioWare itself, would be Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights. Though I don't know how well that would work on a controller, being mouse-driven PC games.

[Arppis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Ok the point of playing any game is to challenge yourself as a player so of course the character's performance should be impacted by player skill.

I play these games only to roleplay.  That's literally all I want from them.  I want to implement my character design and see what happens.

If the game requires that I, the player, jump through some hoops in order to implement that design, then the game is limiting player agency.

Not to mention the question of coherence.  If I injurue my wrist, Shepard suddenly becomes a lousy shot.  How does that make any sense within the game's setting?  Why is Shepard suddenly missing all of the time?  Why does Shepard think he's missing?

I think player input with regard to aiming should be limited to target selection.  Let me tell the game which enemy I want Shepard to shoot, and then Shepard will try to do that.  Having Shepard miss because I miss doesn't make any sense at all.

As such, I really like that ME allows the player to aim while paused.  I'd also like it to let me fire while paused.  After all, I can trigger biotic abilities while paused.  In ME1 I could aim and throw tech grenades while paused.  Why are the guns treated so differently?

Why not make the fights play for themselves then and the chats too? Because  you are controlling the way the conversation is going. I don't think player input should be limited to mere target selection. Because sometimes I want to shoot pessific part of the enemy and the automated shots won't do that.

I know you want to simulate the character skill this way, but then again you are making the dialogue choices too and all that. Why not choose how your Shepard fights in the battles too and roleplay that out?

Plus you don't perform the biotic ability WHILE it's paused, you just set the target and then Shepard does it after the pause goes off.

Modifié par Arppis, 29 janvier 2012 - 11:10 .

[Feanor_II]

I agree that ME2 is too cover based, that ME1 offers more variety in that........ but the control is much better in ME2, ME1's control in combat is quite clumsy.

[Jozape]

Arppis wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Ok the point of playing any game is to challenge yourself as a player so of course the character's performance should be impacted by player skill.

I play these games only to roleplay.  That's literally all I want from them.  I want to implement my character design and see what happens.

If the game requires that I, the player, jump through some hoops in order to implement that design, then the game is limiting player agency.

Not to mention the question of coherence.  If I injurue my wrist, Shepard suddenly becomes a lousy shot.  How does that make any sense within the game's setting?  Why is Shepard suddenly missing all of the time?  Why does Shepard think he's missing?

I think player input with regard to aiming should be limited to target selection.  Let me tell the game which enemy I want Shepard to shoot, and then Shepard will try to do that.  Having Shepard miss because I miss doesn't make any sense at all.

As such, I really like that ME allows the player to aim while paused.  I'd also like it to let me fire while paused.  After all, I can trigger biotic abilities while paused.  In ME1 I could aim and throw tech grenades while paused.  Why are the guns treated so differently?

Why not make the fights play for themselves then and the chats too? Because  you are controlling the way the conversation is going. I don't think player input should be limited to mere target selection. Because sometimes I want to shoot pessific part of the enemy and the automated shots won't do that.

You can do that with target selection too. Have you ever played any of the Fallout games? The V.A.T.S. system allows your character to aim for the head, the right arm, the left leg, etc. On enemies of different anatomy, you can aim for their specific parts too.

[Arppis]

Jozape wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Ok the point of playing any game is to challenge yourself as a player so of course the character's performance should be impacted by player skill.

I play these games only to roleplay.  That's literally all I want from them.  I want to implement my character design and see what happens.

If the game requires that I, the player, jump through some hoops in order to implement that design, then the game is limiting player agency.

Not to mention the question of coherence.  If I injurue my wrist, Shepard suddenly becomes a lousy shot.  How does that make any sense within the game's setting?  Why is Shepard suddenly missing all of the time?  Why does Shepard think he's missing?

I think player input with regard to aiming should be limited to target selection.  Let me tell the game which enemy I want Shepard to shoot, and then Shepard will try to do that.  Having Shepard miss because I miss doesn't make any sense at all.

As such, I really like that ME allows the player to aim while paused.  I'd also like it to let me fire while paused.  After all, I can trigger biotic abilities while paused.  In ME1 I could aim and throw tech grenades while paused.  Why are the guns treated so differently?

Why not make the fights play for themselves then and the chats too? Because  you are controlling the way the conversation is going. I don't think player input should be limited to mere target selection. Because sometimes I want to shoot pessific part of the enemy and the automated shots won't do that.

You can do that with target selection too. Have you ever played any of the Fallout games? The V.A.T.S. system allows your character to aim for the head, the right arm, the left leg, etc. On enemies of different anatomy, you can aim for their specific parts too.

I know, but it's not the same. I rather trust my own aim than a dice in a game where it's possible (because if I don't hit, it's my own screw up, not because of some dice). But that wouldn't be a bad choice to do it like in Fallout 2. I also happen to like turn-based combat a lot. I just don't like the hybrid of turn based and realtime like in Baldur's Gate.

It's just the worst possible idea.

Modifié par Arppis, 29 janvier 2012 - 11:17 .

[Raizo]

Why do I prefer ME2's gameplay to ME1's, I just do, it's hard to explain why but I'll try.

For starters I prefer ME2's engine, not only do the main characters ( Shepard, his squad, TIm, etc ) look better in ME2 than the character models in ME1 but I find the game moves alot smoother in ME2. I have/had the misfortune to play ME1 on the 360 ( I don't play PC games at all ) and that particular version of the game is almost un-playable, jerky movements, lot's of screen tearing and in many cases you walking from one side of a room to another would caus ethe game to pause and a now loading symbol would appear in the corner while the screen and your charters remain frozen.

Then there is ME1's inventory, I HATE ME1's inventory. ME2 has come under alot of of criticism for getting rid of the concept of loot and while I do agree that Bioware's solution to the ME1 inventory may have been a bit severe I am more or less happy with ME2's weapons, armour pieces for Shepard and upgrades in general.

Then there's the combat. To be honest there are times when I do miss ME1's combat, taking the fight to the enemy and having them do the same to you instead of hiding behind cover while the bad guys do the same, waiting for someone to stick the head out of cover and slowly chipping away at thier health. Overall however I do prefer ME2's combat, not is the cover mechanic more realistic but combat feels visceral in ME2, not only do I feel that the weapons feel like they have more weight but so do the Biotics/Techs.

I also prefer how the story is told ( not the story itself, ME1's story mops the floor with ME2's ****** poor story ) and how the gameplay unfolds in ME2. I prefer the way subquests and side missions are done. Even though I dislike ME2's Hacking and Bypassing mini games I would gladly take them other what we had in ME1 ( and while I'm on the subject I hated the I constantly had to have a specialist in my party in ME1 if I wanted to Hack/Decrypt anything, so much for picking the squad I want, instead teh game forces me to take certain characters along in order to get any loot ).

Last but not least I prefer ME2's squadmates. I enjoy ME2's ( ****** poor ) story more than I do Me1's because I prefer the company that Shepard is keeping in that game.

[v0rt3x22]

Because it doesn't have Origin :-P

[Tortugueta]

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

I agree. I would add that leveling up was also more thrilling in ME1.

[curly haired boy]

ME2's gameplay is better than ME1 because it relies much more on player skill rather than character skill.

i don't have to put points into a skill to have my gun hit what i'm aiming at.

[LegionMan]

ME1:  Enjoyed the varied weapons and related abilities.  Combat movement not so much.
ME2:  Combat movement was much improved.  Do wish there were more ME1-style powers.

Oh my god, I'm one of those BSN posters who has a balanced view of the two games!  Alert the internet!

[Il Divo]

LegionMan wrote...

Oh my god, I'm one of those BSN posters who has a balanced view of the two games!  Alert the internet!

You don't belong here, peasant!

[Rudy Lis]

Il Divo wrote...

You don't belong here, peasant!

Don't you think "burn the heretic!" and "alert the Inquisition" would be appropriate as well?

P.S. Just kidding, no offense meant.

[Il Divo]

Rudy Lis wrote...

Don't you think "burn the heretic!" and "alert the Inquisition" would be appropriate as well?

P.S. Just kidding, no offense meant.

I'm getting Monty Python flashbacks in my head.

[Hillbillyshep]

ME1´s combat was static, buggy and boring.

[Jozape]

curly haired boy wrote...

ME2's gameplay is better than ME1 because it relies much more on player skill rather than character skill.

i don't have to put points into a skill to have my gun hit what i'm aiming at.

I don't think that character skill would be percieved as a problem, if the player character wasn't forced to start with such a low accuracy in Mass Effect. BioWare should have allowed the accuracy to be set much higher at character creation, closer to what the player could achieve in the second half of the game level wise. I was almost sniping geth hoppers with my shotgun at level 50.

[Rudy Lis]

Il Divo wrote...

I'm getting Monty Python flashbacks in my head.

Unfortunately my experience with... ehm... "their experience"  is minimal.

[curly haired boy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Ok the point of playing any game is to challenge yourself as a player so of course the character's performance should be impacted by player skill.

I play these games only to roleplay.  That's literally all I want from them.  I want to implement my character design and see what happens.

If the game requires that I, the player, jump through some hoops in order to implement that design, then the game is limiting player agency.

Not to mention the question of coherence.  If I injurue my wrist, Shepard suddenly becomes a lousy shot.  How does that make any sense within the game's setting?  Why is Shepard suddenly missing all of the time?  Why does Shepard think he's missing?

I think player input with regard to aiming should be limited to target selection.  Let me tell the game which enemy I want Shepard to shoot, and then Shepard will try to do that.  Having Shepard miss because I miss doesn't make any sense at all.

As such, I really like that ME allows the player to aim while paused.  I'd also like it to let me fire while paused.  After all, I can trigger biotic abilities while paused.  In ME1 I could aim and throw tech grenades while paused.  Why are the guns treated so differently?

i guess it's the difference between directing shepard and becoming shepard.  when i play a game, if it's immersive, then i'm not guiding or directing or roleplaying as the character. i'm melding with the character. i'm not hovering over the game making decisions. it's not "shepard chose this, because I wanted him to" it's "I/shepard chose this".

my motives and the character's motives start to blend together until i'm feeling what the character is feeling. i don't have this little voice at the back of my head saying "how should i react to this so i stay in character?"

that's why it makes sense that my performance is shepard's performance. that's also why Insanity feels like the only truly immersive difficulty to me, because it keeps that melding especially strong. the enemies can kill me/shepard incredibly fast. it transmits the danger shepard is feeling to me, and the more we share, the more immersive the game is.

[tetrisblock4x1]

the cover mechanic more realistic

I have never seen a third person cover system do cover right. The way Shepard does it you'd think he was a raw recruit. Makes so many rookie mistakes like

Pushing his back against the wall and swinging out in a wide sweeping motion which exposes half of his body. You should be facing the general direction of where you think you need to aim, put your right foot at the corner for right side lean, left for left side and check out whats around the corner. This way you only expose your forehead and gun.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 29 janvier 2012 - 04:44 .

[hawat333]

Oh, I loved some aspects of ME1's combat.
Your aim improving with the imporevement of weapon skills, the non-regenerative health, the use of grenades, those were really much for my taste.
But there was one thing that killed it - navigating between covers was extremely clumsy. I usually avoid using cover if I can for that very reason and on higher difficulties, it's not exactly healthy.

[dreman9999]

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

ME1 was pretty linear, too. And how is being too character -mapped a bad thing? BG2 is  nearly 90% character mapped and no one had a problem with it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 janvier 2012 - 05:17 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

dreman9999 wrote...

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

ME1 was pretty linear, too. And how is being too character -mapped a bad thing? BG2 is  nearly 90% character mapped and no one had a problem with it.

Er, what? Does character mapped mean what I think it means? You spend most of BGII proactively hunting the mage (and getting beaten half the time. the villains of today aren't nearly as competant as good old Irenicus) down... you have companions and they want things, but BGII was all about what your character wants...

[dreman9999]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

ME1 was pretty linear, too. And how is being too character -mapped a bad thing? BG2 is  nearly 90% character mapped and no one had a problem with it.

Er, what? Does character mapped mean what I think it means? You spend most of BGII proactively hunting the mage (and getting beaten half the time. the villains of today aren't nearly as competant as good old Irenicus) down... you have companions and they want things, but BGII was all about what your character wants...

Half the time hunting Jon Irenicus?
Ha? the first thing the game tells you to do as soon as you get out of the first duogon is
"DO SIDE QUESTTO MOVE FORWARD!"
The afterthat you go after that you chase Irenicus for a while...
and then it's"DO MORE SIDE QUEST TO MOVE FORWARD!"
After that it's get the vampire.
And then it's end game.
The massive chunck that BG2  is side quest.

And No the villians today are deeper then him.
He has a fantactic intro, then you find out what he really wants andwant drives him and at that point he becomes nothing but a whiny emo kid who can't understand why he's atfualt for his own mistake.
Saren isa way better villian then Irenicus.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 janvier 2012 - 05:49 .

[AlanC9]

dreman9999 wrote...

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

ME1 was pretty linear, too. And how is being too character -mapped a bad thing? BG2 is  nearly 90% character mapped and no one had a problem with it.

Maybe if you released BG2 now it wouldn't be thought of as having a good plot. In thirteen years gamers' tastes can change.

I get the feeling that a lot of people don't remember what actually happened in BG2 (like that last post you replied to). I've seen people complain that modern RPGS don't give you as much freedom to choose your background as BG did, which is just idiotic.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 janvier 2012 - 05:48 .

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

ME1 was pretty linear, too. And how is being too character -mapped a bad thing? BG2 is  nearly 90% character mapped and no one had a problem with it.

Maybe if you released BG2 now it wouldn't be thought of as having a good plot. In thirteen years gamers' tastes can change.

I played bg2 after ME1, ME2, DA:O, kOTOR and JE......Only 2 game combine in BW cataloge of games made after BG2 are even equal to it and that ME1 and ME2. BG2 is that good a game that it can standthe test of time.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 janvier 2012 - 05:55 .