429 réponses à ce sujet

[nelly21]

ME 1 was great for being Bioware's trial run. The problems became apparent at higher difficulties. Since enemies leveled along with you, they were harder to kill. Couple that with immunity and barriers being as resilient as they were at higher levels and combat eventually boiled down to firing at one enemy continuously for two or three minutes. All the while, they were all, regardless of class, charging you in large numbers. This meant the game a.i. was forcing you into a quick kill gameplay style without giving you the tools to succeed.

ME 2 changed ME 1's attrition based combat to faster paced skill combat. Your ability to hit the target depended on your own skill rather than the level system. This meant that you had to focus more. The cover system was improved to allow more dynamic movement i.e. getting in and out of cover quicker. The suicidal charges by enemies were curtailed in favor of a more class based enemy structure. Vanguards try to get in close while rocket launchers stay behind. You could kill more quickly but could also die more quickly resulting in fast paced fire fights that required focus on dealing damage rather than mitigating it.

I hope this is enough reasoning on my part.

[ADLegend21]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

The first Mass Effect didn't really feel like a cover based shooter, or at least it wasn't optimized for it. I think this can be attributed mainly to ME1s much weaker health and shield regeneration, tougher and more mobile enemies and the available cover been so scattered and spread out. Why people would rather have ME2 style of combat I don't know...

Because the powers are better, the guns are better and make you actually have to do work instead of putting some mods on a gun and holding the trigger, plus Biotic classes aren't godlike anymore plus you don't get stuck the random walls just by running against them and getting left out in the open for random merc #5 to get a free kill. It's smoother and incredibly fun, that's why people prefer it.

[AlanC9]

D.Kain wrote...

Noo.. It would be fast and not clunky and fun like ME2 BUT there would be more powers, not shared cooldowns, no ammo clips, inventory, no protection system, etc, etc.

So some hypothetical game might have been more fun than ME2 was, while still keeping some aspects of ME1? Maybe. Personally, I like ammo clips and shared cooldowns, but since I haven't actually played this imaginary combat system of yours I can't really judge it fairly.

But it's off topic anyway. The question is why people prefer ME2's combat, not whether we can imagine a better one.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 janvier 2012 - 06:22 .

[DayusMakhina]

D.Kain wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

ME1 gameplay was slow, boring, clunky, and had so many problems. ME2 gameplay was fast, fun, smooth, and made me constantly think tactically.

.
This.

Which you do not get the point at all. Faster =/= new mechanics. It could be ME1 gameplay with ME2 speed and graphics, that would be the same fun, just would work like ME1.

.
If it was like ME1, it would be slow, boring, clunky and would have a lot of problems. 

Noo.. It would be fast and not clunky and fun like ME2 BUT there would be more powers, not shared cooldowns, no ammo clips, inventory, no protection system, etc, etc.

Which would make it boring again... because no ammo clips, no protection and no shared cooldowns would make it incredibly easy yet again. Easy is not good.

[ADLegend21]

nelly21 wrote...

ME 1 was great for being Bioware's trial run. The problems became apparent at higher difficulties. Since enemies leveled along with you, they were harder to kill. Couple that with immunity and barriers being as resilient as they were at higher levels and combat eventually boiled down to firing at one enemy continuously for two or three minutes. All the while, they were all, regardless of class, charging you in large numbers. This meant the game a.i. was forcing you into a quick kill gameplay style without giving you the tools to succeed.

ME 2 changed ME 1's attrition based combat to faster paced skill combat. Your ability to hit the target depended on your own skill rather than the level system. This meant that you had to focus more. The cover system was improved to allow more dynamic movement i.e. getting in and out of cover quicker. The suicidal charges by enemies were curtailed in favor of a more class based enemy structure. Vanguards try to get in close while rocket launchers stay behind. You could kill more quickly but could also die more quickly resulting in fast paced fire fights that required focus on dealing damage rather than mitigating it.

I hope this is enough reasoning on my part.

Also this. ALL of this.

[D.Kain]

AlanC9 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Noo.. It would be fast and not clunky and fun like ME2 BUT there would be more powers, not shared cooldowns, no ammo clips, inventory, no protection system, etc, etc.

So some hypothetical game might have been more fun than ME2 was, while still keeping some aspects of ME1? Maybe. Personally, I like ammo clips and shared cooldowns, but since I haven't actually played this imaginary combat system of yours I can't really judge it fairly.

But it's off topic anyway. The question is why people like ME2's combat, not whether we can imagine a better one.

I do not imagine a better one. I say that I like ME1 combat better. 

Basically rip out ME1 combat, paste it into new graphics and faster gameplay and you have what I am talking about. 

[D.Kain]

DayusMakhina wrote...

Which would make it boring again... because no ammo clips, no protection and no shared cooldowns would make it incredibly easy yet again. Easy is not good.

There are better ways to make it more difficult. It is not about challange. 

Modifié par D.Kain, 27 janvier 2012 - 06:24 .

[mkk316]

ADLegend21 wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

The first Mass Effect didn't really feel like a cover based shooter, or at least it wasn't optimized for it. I think this can be attributed mainly to ME1s much weaker health and shield regeneration, tougher and more mobile enemies and the available cover been so scattered and spread out. Why people would rather have ME2 style of combat I don't know...

Because the powers are better, the guns are better and make you actually have to do work instead of putting some mods on a gun and holding the trigger, plus Biotic classes aren't godlike anymore plus you don't get stuck the random walls just by running against them and getting left out in the open for random merc #5 to get a free kill. It's smoother and incredibly fun, that's why people prefer it.

I like the mods though, but the rest you are correct about.

[RyuujinZERO]

nelly21 wrote...

ME 1 was great for being Bioware's trial run. The problems became apparent at higher difficulties. Since enemies leveled along with you, they were harder to kill. Couple that with immunity and barriers being as resilient as they were at higher levels and combat eventually boiled down to firing at one enemy continuously for two or three minutes. All the while, they were all, regardless of class, charging you in large numbers. This meant the game a.i. was forcing you into a quick kill gameplay style without giving you the tools to succeed.

ME 2 changed ME 1's attrition based combat to faster paced skill combat. Your ability to hit the target depended on your own skill rather than the level system. This meant that you had to focus more. The cover system was improved to allow more dynamic movement i.e. getting in and out of cover quicker. The suicidal charges by enemies were curtailed in favor of a more class based enemy structure. Vanguards try to get in close while rocket launchers stay behind. You could kill more quickly but could also die more quickly resulting in fast paced fire fights that required focus on dealing damage rather than mitigating it.

I hope this is enough reasoning on my part.

Well said.

I know in ME1 i spent a lot more time performing tactical retreats against hordes of enemies, whereas in ME2, there was a far higher reward/risk payoff (especially as a vanguard) for pushing back against the enemy. 

There was a big temptation - especially on your first playthrough, to just hide behind cover all the time and play it safe which may explain the dislike from many players. but if you have the brass balls to get out from behind cover and come over there and make the enemy scream for mommy things could get very exciting

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

It's a matter of taste.
Personally I prefered ME1 gameplay.

[Alamar2078]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

The first Mass Effect didn't really feel like a cover based shooter, or at least it wasn't optimized for it. I think this can be attributed mainly to ME1s much weaker health and shield regeneration, tougher and more mobile enemies and the available cover been so scattered and spread out. Why people would rather have ME2 style of combat I don't know...

I imagine that a lot of folks prefer a cover based shooter.  ME2 was closer to that .. .ME1 wasn't much of a cover shooter IMHO.  Therefore folks that like needing to take cover, manage cover, etc. would like ME2's shooting gameplay better.

I happen to like the shooter aspects of ME2 better but I find that I liked the story / RPG elements of ME1 better.   YMMV.

Edit:  I would be happy with a mixture of gameplay.  The only thing I didn't like as much about ME2 was that cover was TOO effective and most enemies didn't have the ability to either rush cover, flank, send in drones to bypass cover, etc. so that seemed unrealistic to me.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 27 janvier 2012 - 06:32 .

[nelly21]

D.Kain wrote...

Basically rip out ME1 combat, paste it into new graphics and faster gameplay and you have what I am talking about. 

That wouldn't work. The problem wasn't that the gameplay wasn't fast enough. After all, enemies moved with relative speed throughout the battlefield. It was that the combat at higher levels forced you to focus on staying alive instead of killing your enemy. Enemies didn't go down fast enough to warrant the suicidal charges they ALL performed.

For example, in the Luna mission, the once you made contact with the first few combat drones, the entire room charged forward. By doing this, cover was rendered useless and even firing off your most helpful skills couldn't deal enough damage quickly enough to deal with the whole group. Essentially, you were forced to focus on keeping your squad alive while dealing small amounts of damage. Because of this, fights dragged on. Couple that with minimal input on actual targeting and the result was that combat wasn't very entertaining to most people.

If you prefer it though, I can't fault you. Personal preference and all that.

Modifié par nelly21, 27 janvier 2012 - 06:35 .

[aksoileau]

ME1 combat was pretty mindless. Running around with infinite ammo and hardly the need for cover was kind of repetitive.

[D.Kain]

D.Kain wrote... 

AlanC9 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Basically rip out ME1 combat, paste it into new graphics and faster gameplay and you have what I am talking about. 

That wouldn't work. The problem wasn't that the gameplay wasn't fast enough. After all, enemies moved with relative speed throughout the battlefield. It was that the combat at higher levels forced you to focus on staying alive instead of killing your enemy. Enemies didn't go down fast enough to warrant the suicidal charges they ALL performed.

For example, in the Luna mission, the once you made contact with the first few combat drones, the entire room charged forward. By doing this, cover was rendered useless and even firing off your most helpful skills couldn't deal enough damage quickly enough to deal with the whole group. Essentially, you were forced to focus on keeping your squad alive while dealing small amounts of damage. Because of this, fights dragged on. Couple that with minimal input on actual targeting and the result was that combat wasn't very entertaining to most people.

If you prefer it though, I can't fault you. Personal preference and all that.

I just think that you can fix thos things without revamping the WHOLE thing into something completely different. You can change enemy tactics and number of hp they have and the damage of powers. I just liked other things about ME1 that I have listed, which could stay. 

Modifié par D.Kain, 27 janvier 2012 - 06:37 .

[robarcool]

@OP Maybe because the combat was tighter and more fluid? Because you didn't have to shoot a 10000 bullets at a guy to bring him down?

[deadshame]

Well, its fluid and not clunky like ME1 was. I've played through each game probably 5 or 6 times on the xbox. I'm now playing through them on PC, getting some saves to carry over to ME 3 on my computer. I had a hard time getting through the first Mass Effect, it just felt clunky and old and ME 2 is a breath of fresh air. Its so fluid and smooth when moving (mostly at least), That's why I prefer ME 2's combat.

[D.Kain]

And people still talking about fluid combat.... when that is not the difference between ME1 and ME2 gameplay...

[aksoileau]

D.Kain wrote...

And people still talking about fluid combat.... when that is not the difference between ME1 and ME2 gameplay...

You're kidding right?

[wizardryforever]

D.Kain wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...

Which would make it boring again... because no ammo clips, no protection and no shared cooldowns would make it incredibly easy yet again. Easy is not good.

There are better ways to make it more difficult. It is not about challange. 

Then what is it about?  Please enlighten us.

Of course it is about challenge.  Challenge is a huge part of what makes a game fun.  A game that's too easy gets boring, while a game that's too difficult gets frustrating.  ME1 somehow manages to flip from frustrating to boring, without ever really hitting that sweet spot that is challenge.  ME2, while not perfect, does a much better job at this.  It restricts your access to power and weapon spam, makes the enemies smarter (no running around like headless chickens), removes access to your "bag of holding" inventory, and better allows you to use the environment to your advantage.

On a side note, I'd like to point out that the inventory is still there in ME2, it just isn't accessible everywhere.  It consists of schematics on your omni-tool, armor in your locker on the Normandy, and whatever weapons are on your back.  Still there, just not as clunky.

[ScaryJeff]

ME1 was a more of a mix between RPG and TPS, for me it kinda failed in both ways. The RPG part wasnt that tactical and as a TPS it was to unspectacular. With the combat in ME2 Bioware went more to the shooter side. I would have frefered a focus on the RPG aspects but atleast they did what they did right. Thats why I like ME2s gameplay more.

[D.Kain]

aksoileau wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

And people still talking about fluid combat.... when that is not the difference between ME1 and ME2 gameplay...

You're kidding right?

No I am not kidding. Different graphics and fluid movement system =/= different gameplay. 

You could keep all ME1 powers and skills, and inventory and how everything WORKS, and at the same time implent faster movement, better cover and better graphics. 

[SovereignWillReturn]

ME2 is almost like ME1, it was just a LOT more fluid and easier to survive.

[D.Kain]

wizardryforever wrote...

Then what is it about?  Please enlighten us.

Of course it is about challenge.  Challenge is a huge part of what makes a game fun.  A game that's too easy gets boring, while a game that's too difficult gets frustrating.  ME1 somehow manages to flip from frustrating to boring, without ever really hitting that sweet spot that is challenge.  ME2, while not perfect, does a much better job at this.  It restricts your access to power and weapon spam, makes the enemies smarter (no running around like headless chickens), removes access to your "bag of holding" inventory, and better allows you to use the environment to your advantage.

On a side note, I'd like to point out that the inventory is still there in ME2, it just isn't accessible everywhere.  It consists of schematics on your omni-tool, armor in your locker on the Normandy, and whatever weapons are on your back.  Still there, just not as clunky.

You can make chalange in various different ways. You can optimize any system, changing the gameplay so drastically was not called for, but that is my opinion. ME2 is also a lot further away from the original lore than ME1. 

[nelly21]

D.Kain wrote...

I just think that you can fix thos things without revamping the WHOLE thing into something completely different. You can change enemy tactics and number of hp they have and the damage of powers. I just liked other things about ME1 that I have listed, which could stay. 

Maybe. That may have been something they looked at. I don't know. I think the ME 2 system was an effort to make combat as fun as possible rather than just better. They could have added a few tweaks here and there and most (if not all) of us would still have bought the game. I don't think that was their goal. I think they wanted to make the combat in ME 2 as good as any dedicated tps on the market. And it worked to some extent. I mostly play rpgs but am a big fan of Gears of War. In my opinion, other than GOW, there isn't tps on the market I find more fun than ME 2.  

[packardbell]

Combat was just broken, I had a setup where I would never overheat my weapons and with the overpowered biotic powers.. it was not fun at all. Storywise though ME still remains the best game for me. I just hope ME3 improves upon both aspects.