429 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
I think the problem wasn't so much that the squaddies needed to tie into the main plot with their stories, but they needed to be better tied into actually being necessary for the suicide mission better. Mordin was the only one who was really well done in this regard: he had his own stories and background and loyalty mission seperate from the main one, but he was also key to the main plot as well. The rest of the squad felt largely superfluous until the very end, and even then if you had them all you felt like you could make it through with less than half of them okay. It's not until you literally crash on the Collector base at the end and end up going, "we need somebody to crawl through here and a team leader to do this and a biotic expert to do this, etc." that we even have any clue as to how useful any of these people are, with the exception of Mordin. They didn't need to have the main plot wrap around them and be directly integral to it, but they could have done with being far more connected with it than they were. Usually when you have a Dirty Dozen or Ocean's Eleven style group, you get specialists because you have a plan in mind, and not just a bunch of random badasses to run in near-on completely blind.

I see the point. This would require giving players a large amount of information about the Collector base over the course of the game in order to make such a plan, and actually letting the players execute a plan rather than improvising after some Big Plot Twist.

Offhand I can only think of a couple of RPGs that haven't made players improvise in the endgame. The NWN2 OC comes to mind as about the closest thing, since you really do use the ritual powers in the end battle more or less as they are intended to be used. Same issue as ME2, though, since only one NPC is vital in himself for the endgame, and only two are vital for getting to the endgame. I guess the Morrowind endgame counts too.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 janvier 2012 - 04:58 .

[essarr71]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

They didn't know what to expect, that's why the comparison was made. Movies like Dirty Dozen, Oceans ii and Mission Impossible did the whole planning phase so much better because we could see why each team member was important in those movies. Everyone but Mordin seems rather random. I guess Miranda and Jacob wanted to keep an eye on Shep so I think they deserve a pass for been on the Normandy, but having only 3 out of 12 squad members with a specific non-generic "you are the best of the best" reason to be selected for the omega 4 relay mission is not very good.

Consider tho:
Jacob + Miranda already Cerb personel, so as you said, we'll give them a pass here.  Mordin, too, as he was the brain.

Jack: Most powerful human biotic.
Garrus: A legitimate tactical + weapons expert.
Tali: Your engineer.

Grunt: Wasn't who you were after and you can choose to leave him in the tank.
Legion: Wasn't what you were after, and you can choose to not keep him.
Thane/Samara/Morinth: Are optional to recruit.. But are, effectively, Garrus/Jack alternatives (tho Thane isn't a leader for the SM)
Zaeed + Kasumi are completely optional.  And seeing as they weren't even included in the game, I think they should get a pass.

In light of this, and in combination with the fact that Cerb really has no clue what to expect, I think it's fair that you're given the option to take more than you might guess to need.

Modifié par essarr71, 30 janvier 2012 - 04:57 .

[Slothful Koala]

All-a-Mort wrote...

Slothful Koala wrote...

Mass Effect 2 has such better combat I find it difficult to go back and have fun playing the first. Honestly, just terrible in comparison. Even the things people claimed it did well, such as open areas, weren't fun. Honestly ME2 was just a better game. I cannot enjoy playing through ME anymore after 2.

Just, god. I played ME because it was supposedly an incredible game. I couldn't see it. I beat it as quickly as possible and hated it. When ME2 came out I was just simply not going to get it. A year later I purchased ME2 and it was the greatest thing ever made. I had fun while I played it. I just can't say that about the first one.

Were their things that ME did well? Yes. And personally I believe ME2 to be an incredible improved experience. But would I say I want ME3 to be anything like ME? No. Not at all. Maybe in conversation with people and input your squadmates had, but nothing more.

Then I would have to ask whether you prefer playing FPS games to RPGs. Put simply, FPS gamers prefer ME2 because it was designed to play more like one; RPG gamers (from what I have read and personally think) prefer ME because it had more of a RPG feel to the game with more loot items, customisation of weaponry and levelling up options. Combat in ME2 is better from a pure shooter point of view, but is otherwise seriously repetative and has gone from having enemies spamming immunity on higher levels, to enemies so heavily protected as to make biotics far less useful than just guns. Great for shooter fans, poor for those who liked the ME1 biotics.

Yeah, and that makes sense. I would like to see some, note some, of the features in the first game to return. It had some really cool things. Except anything at all to do with combat and boring item management. I do not want to run through a list of weapon mods that I picked up out of a box to check each one individually and decide whether or not I need it.

ME2 was just much more refined. Massive improvements in most areas. I cannot really understand how anyone could think otherwise.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I think the problem wasn't so much that the squaddies needed to tie into the main plot with their stories, but they needed to be better tied into actually being necessary for the suicide mission better. Mordin was the only one who was really well done in this regard: he had his own stories and background and loyalty mission seperate from the main one, but he was also key to the main plot as well. The rest of the squad felt largely superfluous until the very end, and even then if you had them all you felt like you could make it through with less than half of them okay. It's not until you literally crash on the Collector base at the end and end up going, "we need somebody to crawl through here and a team leader to do this and a biotic expert to do this, etc." that we even have any clue as to how useful any of these people are, with the exception of Mordin. They didn't need to have the main plot wrap around them and be directly integral to it, but they could have done with being far more connected with it than they were. Usually when you have a Dirty Dozen or Ocean's Eleven style group, you get specialists because you have a plan in mind, and not just a bunch of random badasses to run in near-on completely blind.

I see the point. This would require giving players a large amount of information about the Collector base over the course of the game in order to make such a plan, and actually letting the players execute a plan rather than improvising after some Big Plot Twist.

That's what they should have done. As it stands, the main plot is actually dwarfed by all the side issues you have to deal with regarding the recruitment and loyalty of your squaddies. Ironically enough, these are actually the best parts of the game, IMO: the bits that don't deal with The Collectors at all. At one point I did five missions in a row just related to squadmates, and then suddenly got a transmission from TIM on the Normandy, making me go, "Oh yeah... that guy! I'd completely forgot about him and the main story!" And I don't think a good story-driven game, particularly the middle chapter of a trilogy, should really make you forget about the main plot by derailing and sidetracking so much. That said, it seems ME3 might have the opposite issue: too much about the Reapers and the war, not enough side-content. But, I digress...

I mean, even if they'd had TIM or EDI show you the schematics from the inside of the Collector Base (the one that that you see at the end around the table with your squadmates) early with him saying something like, "we managed to get this from the database of that not-so-dormant Collector vessel before it powered-up again. This is likely their main stronghold," then you could get squaddies with the idea of being able to form a plan before even entering the Omega relay. Horizon may have provided some data you didn't have before that would give you reason to recruit the post-Horizon squadmates instead of it just being a case of TIM going, "here's a few more, by the way. Find them if you want, just 'cause." Stuff like that.

Offhand I can only think of a couple of RPGs that haven't made players improvise in the endgame. The NWN2 OC comes to mind as about the closest thing, since you really do use the ritual powers in the end battle more or less exactly as they are intended to be used. Same issue as ME2, though, since only one NPC is vital in himself for the endgame, and only two are vital for getting to the endgame. I guess the Morrowind endgame counts too.

It's not so bad when the plot suits squaddies being discovered and offering to join as the story progresses because it suits them at the time though, which most RPGs do. Liara was really the only one you sought out to directly recruit in the original for instance, the rest got pulled in as events unfolded. ME2's big thing was that you were recruiting these guys for this suicide mission. That's the whole point. But aside from Mordin, the rest of your recruits* don't really have a rhyme or reason to their recruiting beyond, "they're badass" until you're already at the point of no return. Why do we need an assassin when there's no direct target? Why do we need a Justicar when there's no big criminal to hunt? Why do we need a thief when there's nothing to steal? etc. Mordin really is the only one with a direct use prior to the mission actually being undertaken.

Miranda and Jacob don't really count since they're not technically recruits. They kind of get a free pass anyway.

[slimgrin]

Jesus, I would have argued over the story bits of both games, but not the gameplay. ME2 wins hands down imo.

[tetrisblock4x1]

I agree that ME2 made massive improvements to the cover based shooter mechanics, but whether that's good or bad depends on how much you like or dislike cover systems. The fact that the cover system was bad and that the level design mad cover less practicable for both you and the enemy gave ME1 a sort of run and gun style of play. Obviously games lke Max Payne did the run and gun action hero thing way better than Mass Effect, but anything is better than just sitting behind cover while you wait until most of the enemy squad has stopped shooting, do some damage, and then wait for shields to recharge.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 30 janvier 2012 - 05:16 .

[essarr71]

Terror_K wrote...

At one point I did five missions in a row just related to squadmates,
and then suddenly got a transmission from TIM on the Normandy, making me
go, "Oh yeah... that guy! I'd completely forgot about him and the main
story!" And I don't think a good story-driven game, particularly the
middle chapter of a trilogy, should really make you forget about the
main plot by derailing and sidetracking so much.

The funny thing is.. and I never see it being brought up.. is that both games pretty much had the same exact number of "main story" missions.

Prologue, Expose Saren, Liara, Feros, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos ~> Finale (7)

Prologue, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector Ship, IFF, Omega 4 ~> Base (6)

The HUGE difference is that the vast majority of filler missions in 2 actually pertained to something important... and not say, Hackett calling you EVERY time you entered a new system with more random work.  Not to mention a nice chunk of game play spent stuck on the side of a mountain in the Mako.

ME2 might feel like it has less story, but I think a better way to say that is that it has too much other story.

Modifié par essarr71, 30 janvier 2012 - 05:19 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

Because groaning everytime an enemy pops Immunity knowing I will have to pump them full of lead for a minute is not fun.
Because sniper rifles sucking until late game is not fun.
Because aiming perfectly and missing is not fun.
Because ENEMIES EVERYWHERE GOGOGO I WILL DESTROY YOU
Because combat with the Mako sucked (bloody thing took ages to regenerate it's shields)
Because squadmates were even dumber in ME1 and just stood in your line of fire like it was the cool thing to do.
Because having to pause the game every 3 or 4 fights to Omni-Gel all the random crap it gave me was beyond tedious.
Because the lack of auto-cover means Shepard does what he is told, and does not hug a crate when I want him to get out of dodge.
Because of those immensely annoying Geth Hoppers.
Because the absolute lack of any balance past level 20 made fights either cakewalks or near-impossible (drones on the Moon anyone). No ''just fair'' challenges, which ME2 had plenty of, at Insanity at any rate.

And that list is just the start. I could go on for at least 25 more items. Bottom line is, more RPG or not, ME2's combat was way more enjoyable and considerably less clunky to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arppis wrote...

Why not make the fights play for themselves then

Once I've selected the tactics, that's basically what I want.  The only shooter I can think of that did such a thing was Splinter Cell with its Mark & Execute feature.

Giving the player moment to moment control over the tactics, though, allows the finiest level of control, which is why I would not suggest the player should not be permitted to respond to new information.

and the chats too?

The conversations are already done like this.  The player doesn't get to decide how well any line is delivered, only that it be delivered.  Any success or failure of that line is either pre-determined or stat-driven.  The player's skill at delivering the line never matters.

Why not choose how your Shepard fights in the battles too and roleplay that out?

That's exactly what I want.  What I don't want is to have to fighter for Shepard.  I want to choose how Shepard fights, and let Shepard's skill determine the effectiveness the approach I chose.

In a traditional shooter, though, me choosing Shepard's tactics wouldn't be good enough.  My skill at implementing those tactics would then matter, and that's unacceptable.

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.

Yes.  Why don't guns work the same way?

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Did you ever get around to playing Storm of Zehir?

It's actually next on my list.

[MerinTB]

slimgrin wrote...
Jesus, I would have argued over the story bits of both games, but not the gameplay. ME2 wins hands down imo.

Ditto.

[Rudy Lis]

AlanC9 wrote...

NWN was first. I just refer to KotOR because people usually get what I'm talking about faster.

I see. Thank you for clarification.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I complained when BG2 was released that it was far more linear and limiting that BG1 was.

That makes two of us.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No it isn't. In terms of what the PC did before the game actually took place, sure, but who the character is as a person is left entirely to the player.

And here another question surfacing itself up - why not allow players to customize character a little bit more? Not in terms of facial appearance, of course.

AlanC9 wrote...

Yep, I remember. I use you as exhibit A whenever someone makes the claim that Bio shouldn't make changes that don't suit all of the existing fans; obviously, this works best on someone who thinks that BG2 was Bioware's crowning moment of awesome.

Can I get place as Alternate exhibit A? Since I think BG1+TotSC still is the best game they ever designed.

AlanC9 wrote...

Did you ever get around to playing Storm of Zehir?

Played it. Like it. To be honest, I enjoyed it much more than NWN2 OC and MotB. AFAIR there were only about five of us on old boards, but still.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 30 janvier 2012 - 08:29 .

[raist747]

Wait, people think combat in either 1 or 2 was challenging? Insanity was a joke on both games. If you've played a high paced shooter before, ME2 should be cake.

My biggest gripe was how 1 goes from big enviorments to ME2 basically herding you through tunnels like a CoD/BF kiddie.

I also did not like how most of the planets had the generic earth skyline. Sloppy.

[DJStarstryker]

Both ME1 and ME2's gameplay, as far as when you were fighting or walking around, were great to me. I don't really prefer one over the other in that regard.

The main place I have a preference is item management. And specifically the rather low inventory maximum in ME1. It was very tedious to constantly run into the limit and have to go through your stuff all the time so you could pick things up. I've also never been a fan of random item drops. Sometimes you get amazing stuff, but most of the time you get the same old boring crap that you have 10 copies of already.

If I had to choose between ME1 and ME2 for item reasons, I'd take ME2 any day. There may be less you can do with the guns, but armor is much more customizable with the pieces and color/pattern choices. I liked that I could have my Shepard walking around in cool looking armor, rather than pink and white or insert other equally ugly armor options here like ME1 had.

Modifié par DJStarstryker, 30 janvier 2012 - 09:33 .

[Sasie]

essarr71 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

At one point I did five missions in a row just related to squadmates,
and then suddenly got a transmission from TIM on the Normandy, making me
go, "Oh yeah... that guy! I'd completely forgot about him and the main
story!" And I don't think a good story-driven game, particularly the
middle chapter of a trilogy, should really make you forget about the
main plot by derailing and sidetracking so much.

The funny thing is.. and I never see it being brought up.. is that both games pretty much had the same exact number of "main story" missions.

Prologue, Expose Saren, Liara, Feros, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos ~> Finale (7)

Prologue, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector Ship, IFF, Omega 4 ~> Base (6)

The HUGE difference is that the vast majority of filler missions in 2 actually pertained to something important... and not say, Hackett calling you EVERY time you entered a new system with more random work.  Not to mention a nice chunk of game play spent stuck on the side of a mountain in the Mako.

ME2 might feel like it has less story, but I think a better way to say that is that it has too much other story.

This is a bit off-topic but I still just have to point out how what is said above is not an accurate comparison at all.

Counting numbers of missions while ignoring what they where like is somwhat misleading don't you think? Pretty much all of the ME1 missions you mentioned are far longer then the one you compared it to in ME2. I imagine if we could just do the main quests in ME2 without doing Companion recruiting in between ME2 would be completed in less then a day and only last a few hours. Most of those mission you mentioned involved both Mako part, ground combat and quest hub in ME1 while the ME2 was a short combat mission only.

Most glaring example of where you went wrong, in my opinion, is say 
Noveria against the Collector Ship. Noveria got several side quests, a main quest that can be solved in a few different ways, many NPC's to talk to, a Mako part where you drive out to the research station and then finally a ground combat mission in the end. The collector ship is just... one ship.

[Rudy Lis]

raist747 wrote...

Wait, people think combat in either 1 or 2 was challenging?

There are different types of challenges. Jump across skyscrapers' roofs is one type of challenge, unload dump truck full of cement and carry all that cement to skyscraper's roof by stairs in your backback is another type of challenge and load foocking piano on your back and try to deliver it to skyscraper's penthouse by that narrow "emergency" stair, while piano constantly stucks into something is third type of challenge.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Well I'm a PC gamer, so I have to put up with Origin. "At EA, we like to make things challenging".

[Someone With Mass]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

Because groaning everytime an enemy pops Immunity knowing I will have to pump them full of lead for a minute is not fun.
Because sniper rifles sucking until late game is not fun.
Because aiming perfectly and missing is not fun.
Because ENEMIES EVERYWHERE GOGOGO I WILL DESTROY YOU
Because combat with the Mako sucked (bloody thing took ages to regenerate it's shields)
Because squadmates were even dumber in ME1 and just stood in your line of fire like it was the cool thing to do.
Because having to pause the game every 3 or 4 fights to Omni-Gel all the random crap it gave me was beyond tedious.
Because the lack of auto-cover means Shepard does what he is told, and does not hug a crate when I want him to get out of dodge.
Because of those immensely annoying Geth Hoppers.
Because the absolute lack of any balance past level 20 made fights either cakewalks or near-impossible (drones on the Moon anyone). No ''just fair'' challenges, which ME2 had plenty of, at Insanity at any rate.

And that list is just the start. I could go on for at least 25 more items. Bottom line is, more RPG or not, ME2's combat was way more enjoyable and considerably less clunky to me.

Pretty much this.

[Rudy Lis]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Well I'm a PC gamer, so I have to put up with Origin. "At EA, we like to make things challenging".

It's not that bad.

[tetrisblock4x1]

2 hours between opening the battlefield box and playing the damn game. something like 4 gigabytes to patch, and that's a big deal for me. Lots of peoples high speed internet have a cut off point, and when you exceed that download limit you're stuck with a **** connection until the reset. And then I to download origin, patch origin, fill in all of the paper work, and then I had to do some trouble shooting to get around battlefields black screen problem. Then I had to spend half an hour tweaking the game to be just the way I like it.

Don't tell me that EA are "not that bad", I know exactly how bad they are.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 30 janvier 2012 - 10:58 .

[Rudy Lis]

When I had dialup I hated Steam for being mandatory for game launch. When I had USB-modem with contract similar to one you mention (high speed for limited amount of pre-defined package, when "welcome back to dialup era), I couldn't afford DD just because of that - modern games are too damn big. Now I don't understand why Origin still not running offline on two of my computers, even when they both unplugged from Internet cable. That's an annoyance, yes.
Regarding BF3 itself, I had some unknown issues during multiplayer sessions, but I'm pretty sure they are (hopefully "were") game-related, not Origin related. Though I'm not that much on-line gamer, truth be told. BF single ran smoothly as possible and didn't crashed or freeze even for moment. Even MEs had issues.
P.S. I'm not trying to whitewash Origin or EA, simply stating my experience.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 30 janvier 2012 - 11:16 .

[essarr71]

Sasie wrote...

Counting numbers of missions while ignoring what they where like is somwhat misleading don't you think? Pretty much all of the ME1 missions you mentioned are far longer then the one you compared it to in ME2. I imagine if we could just do the main quests in ME2 without doing Companion recruiting in between ME2 would be completed in less then a day and only last a few hours. Most of those mission you mentioned involved both Mako part, ground combat and quest hub in ME1 while the ME2 was a short combat mission only.

Most glaring example of where you went wrong, in my opinion, is say 
Noveria against the Collector Ship. Noveria got several side quests, a main quest that can be solved in a few different ways, many NPC's to talk to, a Mako part where you drive out to the research station and then finally a ground combat mission in the end. The collector ship is just... one ship.

Oh for sure.  Even if you ignore that a lot of noveria is just running from one side of the map to the other, and back again.  But I wasn't comparing length, just number of instances you moved the story forward.

Even in light of that, I'd still say ME2 wins out.  Remember, I left out all the team building missions - some of which are not optional.  On top of that, as I mentioned before.. theres a recruitment and loyalty mission for every one of the crew members (ex Zaeed and Kasumi - tho Kasumi should get a bonus point for an awesome loyalty mission).  A lot of ME, while amazing the first time you play it, doesn't keep well.  For every Novaria, there's a DOZEN cookie cutter hallways where you fight the same exact fight.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Standard fights aren't unique to Mass Effect. Far from it. Cookie cutter fights are so commonplace in games and considering that ME2 (like most action packed games) was no exception calling it a minus in ME1 is insane. I get what you're saying, but it's better to judge them for the number of non-generic, non-standard fights and game mechanics. For the record I agree that ME2 has the advantage of variety and freshness of enemies and set pieces. But on the other hand ME1 had vehicle sections for a change of pace, more squad power customizations and so on. I think it's a draw overall.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 30 janvier 2012 - 12:18 .

[essarr71]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Standard fights aren't unique to Mass Effect. Far from it. Cookie cutter fights are so commonplace in games and considering that ME2 (like most action packed games) was no exception calling it a minus in ME1 is insane.

I wasn't comparing ME to every game out there.  I thought this thread was about comparing ME1 and ME2.  As much as both games have essentially the exact same scenario dynamics, you'd be insane to say ME1 wasn't far worse at it.

I'll put it to you this way.  If I showed you a screen grab of a bunker fight from ME1, you wouldn't be able to tell me which mission I was on.  Could you say the same from 2?  There is ZERO variety in one game and the exact opposite in another.  This applies to the Mako as well.  Unless you consider changing the color of the same landscapes "variety".

My point, however, was that the "busy" work in 2 is at least much more relevant to the story than in 1.  Building your team and prepping them IS ME2s story... while going around killing gangs for mobsters is NOT ME1s story.  Hell.. you do the majority of the busy work during the "Race Against Time" mission in ME1.. kind of counter to the point, no?

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

 Why do we need an assassin when there's no direct target? Why do we need a Justicar when there's no big criminal to hunt? Why do we need a thief when there's nothing to steal? etc. Mordin really is the only one with a direct use prior to the mission actually being undertaken.

Keep in mind that we need to distinguish between one's profession and all the skills which one employs in that profession. Take Thane, for example. An assassin is useless, since we're not trying to kill an individual target in a public location. All the skills which an Assassin such as Thane might employ are useful, however. Kasumi and Samara are much the same way. A thief can be a hacker, an infiltration specialist, etc, all at the same time. The relevant skills are specifically highlighted in the details of the dossier, rather than the mission title.