429 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

alex90c wrote...

ME2 doesn't promote aggression at all, you can just sit behind some cover and shoot everything around you from the same spot.

You'll need ammo, eventually.

I vastly prefer ME's ammoless system.

[D.Kain]

nelly21 wrote...

To some extent, they did do this. Weapons did become stronger and depending on which weapons you use, headshots can be instakills. They also made it much easier to kill Shep although this really boiled down to making enemies very accurate.

But making power cooldowns longer means you aren't using them as often. This isn't as fun for adepts, vanguards, engineers and sentinels. If you can only charge once every 60 seconds, then you are really just an adept with a shotgun. If you can only drop singularity every 60 seconds, you're just a man with a pistol. Bioware wants you to use your skills because the want to keep combat fast, with constant input from the player.

Making powers have longer cooldowns means making powers more useful. What I did with biotic throw in ME1 was insta-kill 3 enemies against a wall. What I did with biotic throw in ME2 was knock someone down with minus 1/10 HP, and then shoot them. Making longer cooldowns in ME3 would mean that you again insta-kill 3 people with single power or throw an Atlas mech against a wall knocking half of it's Hp down. All the same for engineer powers, which would have blasts that insta-kill enemies and drones and turrets that reap enemies to shreds. 
Also again if you make weapons stronger, you are not JUST a man with a pistol, and the powers are just there for super awesome moments.

Edit: Here's in other words - in ME2 while playing an Adept I felt like JUST a guy with a pistol that can JUSt trip enemies over when they are almost dead.

Modifié par D.Kain, 27 janvier 2012 - 07:36 .

[nitefyre410]

I't to wait patiently for this thread to degenerate in to... Its an RPG, its not a RPG entitlement whining nonsense.

[Praetor Knight]

Kudos tetrisblock, you know how to start a discussion.


But, I wonder when was the last time many of us played ME1? And ME2?

I'm currently on, like, my 10th run through both games and what I'm seeing does not seem to resonate with a few opinions in this thread.

I mean both games can reward aggression or patience for example. It's just far more tedious in ME1 compared to ME2 on higher difficulties.

[nelly21]

nitefyre410 wrote...

I't to wait patiently for this thread to degenerate in to... Its an RPG, its not a RPG entitlement whining nonsense.

The second it does that, I'm out

[BatmanPWNS]

Because you can actually say ME2 had proper gameplay unlike ME1's buggy fest.

[the almighty moo]

two words for you:

Sniper Rifles.

they were clunky as hell in me1 and were only any good if you maxed them out.

[nelly21]

D.Kain wrote...

Making powers have longer cooldowns means making powers more useful. What I did with biotic throw in ME1 was insta-kill 3 enemies against a wall. What I did with biotic throw in ME2 was knock someone down with minus 1/10 HP, and then shoot them. Making longer cooldowns in ME3 would mean that you again insta-kill 3 people with single power or throw an Atlas mech against a wall knocking half of it's Hp down. All the same for engineer powers, which would have blasts that insta-kill enemies and drones and turrets that reap enemies to shreds. 
Also again if you make weapons stronger, you are not JUST a man with a pistol, and the powers are just there for super awesome moments.

Fair enough, but even if they are awesome, you wouldn't be using them as often. The pistol isn't what makes the adept, biotics are. You chose that class to use biotics. Same with the vanguard. No matter how great you make those abilities, you are spending the majority of you time shooting a weapon.

I don't subscribe to the criticism of biotics in the game. They were no longer god mode like in ME 1 and I can see how that would be frustrating to dedicated biotic users. But they were far from useless. I've run two adepts through insanity (1 new game, 1 new game +) and I found the adept to be satisfying. Adding longer cooldowns to my adepts would have annoyed me tremendously. It was fun because I could continuously use my abilities to fit the situation.

[alex90c]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

alex90c wrote...

ME2 doesn't promote aggression at all, you can just sit behind some cover and shoot everything around you from the same spot.

You'll need ammo, eventually.

I vastly prefer ME's ammoless system.

I never found myself running out of ammo during combat, unless you did?

[KotorEffect3]

People like the ME 2 gameplay better because it is better period. Anyone that can't see that is way too nostalgic about ME 1.

[D.Kain]

nelly21 wrote...

Fair enough, but even if they are awesome, you wouldn't be using them as often. The pistol isn't what makes the adept, biotics are. You chose that class to use biotics. Same with the vanguard. No matter how great you make those abilities, you are spending the majority of you time shooting a weapon.

I don't subscribe to the criticism of biotics in the game. They were no longer god mode like in ME 1 and I can see how that would be frustrating to dedicated biotic users. But they were far from useless. I've run two adepts through insanity (1 new game, 1 new game +) and I found the adept to be satisfying. Adding longer cooldowns to my adepts would have annoyed me tremendously. It was fun because I could continuously use my abilities to fit the situation.

How is being a biotic mean using biotics every 4 sec in ME lore? Biotics are like heavy weapons, they are there for special situations, like limited soldier grenades or limited engeneer equipment. I don't see how using biotics a lot less is frustrating when they would be so much awesome. Instead of triping someone you would kill a group of enemies. 

[nelly21]

D.Kain wrote...

How is being a biotic mean using biotics every 4 sec in ME lore? Biotics are like heavy weapons, they are there for special situations, like limited soldier grenades or limited engeneer equipment. I don't see how using biotics a lot less is frustrating when they would be so much awesome. Instead of triping someone you would kill a group of enemies. 

Lore and gameplay are two very different things. If biotics functioned gameplaywise the way they functioned in lore, after killing that group of enemies, Shep would have to sit down and drink some gatorade. Every. Single. Time.

The first rule of a successful game is to be fun. Lore is great and adds tremendous depth to the experience. But you can't sacrifice gameplay in favor of lore.

[heretica]

^
I agree to some extent. 

Modifié par Catt128, 27 janvier 2012 - 07:54 .

[D.Kain]

nelly21 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

How is being a biotic mean using biotics every 4 sec in ME lore? Biotics are like heavy weapons, they are there for special situations, like limited soldier grenades or limited engeneer equipment. I don't see how using biotics a lot less is frustrating when they would be so much awesome. Instead of triping someone you would kill a group of enemies. 

Lore and gameplay are two very different things. If biotics functioned gameplaywise the way they functioned in lore, after killing that group of enemies, Shep would have to sit down and drink some gatorade. Every. Single. Time.

The first rule of a successful game is to be fun. Lore is great and adds tremendous depth to the experience. But you can't sacrifice gameplay in favor of lore.

Well it depends on how big the biotic feat is. I guess if Shepard lifted 2 geth Collosuses and smashed them against each other, he would have to wait hours before using his biotics again. I guess throwing a couple of people is a lot more easy, so faster cooldowns. 

[AlanC9]

D.Kain wrote...

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

OK, gotcha. Then I simply disagree with you about everything. But I'll let the others handle the discussion, sincew this is getting really boring.

[upsettingshorts]

I like it when guns have different properties and there's a reward for player accuracy in games involving firearms. Eg, a gunshot to the head does more damage than one to the foot.  But that's an oversimplification, let me elaborate:

I respect the RPG convention that the targeting circle of ME1 represents, no question, I just don't believe it makes for a fun game.

That isn't to say I don't enjoy games with firearms that employ RPG mechanics - VATS in modern Fallout, and the action point system that preceded it in FO1-2 were fine too - but a third person firearm based game plays better as more of a shooter to me.

However, that doesn't mean I'm against RPG mechanics in Mass Effect, nothing could be further from the truth, but the meat of the gameplay, pointing a targeting reticule at a hostile, depressing the trigger, having the "feel" of how the gun works, and having to manage ammunition - all conventions that work for me in a way I can appreciate. That Shepard couldn't hit the broadside of a barn early in Mass Effect 1 seriously hampered my immersion and enjoyment, not because I didn't understand what the system was doing, but because it felt so unnatural.

What do I mean? If I'm looking at say, shooting the Geth on Eden Prime in a top-down isometric turn-based game where the third person view and circle has been replaced by a "25%" over the top of the enemy Geth, that's something that feels right to me.

But if I'm looking down the barrel of a gun with the target in my sights and still miss then the perspective of the player towards the situation in the game creates certain expectations - at least for me - that the more detached perspective does not. When the game presents this dichotomy, between how I think the game ought to work versus how it does work, gameplay suffers because I feel like there's a struggle between my instincts and the mechanics.

In short: ME2 is simply more intuitive, therefore rewards for success and punishment for failure seem less arbitrary.

That isn't to say ME2 did everything better than ME1, that's not the point. I'm addressing the primary difference between the two games.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 janvier 2012 - 08:02 .

[nelly21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I like it when guns have different properties and there's a reward for player accuracy in games involving firearms. Eg, a gunshot to the head does more damage than one to the foot.  But that's an oversimplification, let me elaborate:

I respect the RPG convention that the targeting circle of ME1 represents, no question, I just don't believe it makes for a fun game.

That isn't to say I don't enjoy games with firearms that employ RPG mechanics - VATS in modern Fallout, and the action point system that preceded it in FO1-2 were fine too - but a third person firearm based game plays better as more of a shooter to me.

However, that doesn't mean I'm against RPG mechanics in Mass Effect, nothing could be further from the truth, but the meat of the gameplay, pointing a targeting reticule at a hostile, depressing the trigger, having the "feel" of how the gun works, and having to manage ammunition - all conventions that work for me in a way I can appreciate. That Shepard couldn't hit the broadside of a barn early in Mass Effect 1 seriously hampered my immersion and enjoyment, not because I didn't understand what the system was doing, but because it felt so unnatural.

What do I mean? If I'm looking at say, shooting the Geth on Eden Prime in a top-down isometric turn-based game where the third person view and circle has been replaced by a "25%" over the top of the enemy Geth, that's something that feels right to me.

But if I'm looking down the barrel of a gun with the target in my sights and still miss then the perspective of the player towards the situation in the game creates certain expectations - at least for me - that the more detached perspective does not. When the game presents this dichotomy, between how I think the game ought to work versus how it does work, gameplay suffers because I feel like there's a struggle between my instincts and the mechanics.

In short: ME2 is simply more intuitive, therefore rewards for success and punishment for failure seem less arbitrary.

That isn't to say ME2 did everything better than ME1, that's not the point. I'm addressing the primary difference between the two games.

I agree. And the fact that as I read the post, I was hearing Ron Swanson's voice made it even more agreeable.

[Demonhoopa]

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 personally found the "more mobile enemies" to be immersion breaking. Their movements were herkey jerky and silly (sometimes it looks like they're moon walking) like the bad guys in the Mercenaries series. They had no regard for their own personal survival. In ME2, I feel like I'm witnessing a more realistic firefight with enemies actually taking cover and trying not to die.

Also the AI of the follwers in ME1 makes me want to kick a bag of kittens. Other than that, I love ME1 and greatly miss the ability to CROUCH.

Modifié par Demonhoopa, 27 janvier 2012 - 09:39 .

[SirBoomstick]

I'm gonna say it. I'm not afraid to... Because ME 2 was a better game overall.

[Rudy Lis]

Wall of text incoming. (I suppose even Dragoonlordz won't object on that)
Personal feelings may be hurt. Read on your own risk.
 
Edit: add some quotes.

First, let’s specify what part of gameplay we talking about. For a start I list some things which may not be part of gameplay, but surely are parts of the game.
Interface. Since I own PC version I’d like to have PCfied interface, not “consolidated”. I understand that my keyboard have more keys than, I don’t know, eight gamepads, but why not create proper interface. Yes,  ME’s “multiplatformness” is better than Resident Evil 4, but still. Moreover, why not let me name my savegames? Have score saves named like “Normandy command center” is a bit confusing, especially when you create row of saves for ME3 import.
Loading time. Yes, I know, ME1 is older, but when ME1 loads almost instantly, ME2 loads took up to minute. Usually 20-40 seconds. Combined with Insanity, stucks in geometry, stupid teammates, "one button does it all" and you got yourself idear recepy "how to raise blood pressure".
Cutscenes, especially those you cannot fast-forward? Annoying in both games. I mean really annoying.
Same key for skipping dialogues AND for confirmation of chosen dialogue option? Especially if we talk about “storyline-important” dialogue AFTER “non-skipable” cutscene.
Dialogue choices that actually doesn’t matter, no matter which one you choose?
These parts of games are pretty equal in both games. And not ideal, if you ask me.
Space travels. ME2 type could be ideal, if it had “point and click” type of travel, other than “hold mouse button” type of travel. Why you should calculate best routes “on the go”, especially of you already been there? Isn’t that navigator’s job? Yes, I know, Pressley is dead, but what, Cerberus has no navigators?
Shopping. Annoying as hell. In both games. In ME1 you usually shop for medi-gel and grenades upgrades, since loot is generally better (and much cheaper:) than anything you can find in stores), and, sometimes, for high-end class/race specific armor or weapons, like HWMA. Unless you know where to find them, you have to search through all available stores after every mission (unless you know what triggers traders’ inventory reset). In ME2 you usually shop in each store just once and empty their stock entirely (even though there just 2-3 positions and those stores placed relatively near each other). But in first place, why you do all the shopping personally? Isn’t that supply officer duty? Why don’t give that lazy pile of meat your shopping list and send him doing his job, not just stand there on lower deck? Yes, in ME2 you don’t have designated supply officer, but why can’t your XO (he-he:)) send someone shopping? Or that Yeoman – stop checking my mail, go check local stores instead and tell me of your findings!
Long walks – annoying for same reason. Yes, rapid transport, but still. And before you ask, yes I know about walk/run toggle mode. I tell you even more, I use run mode:)
People interacting/communicating part. Same in both games. Sometimes it’s hard to figure how Shepard will come up with next phrase. Exaggerated example – you choose “noodles” in dialogue wheel, while Shepard asks something about rocket science. But that’s minor, comparing to the rest.
Minigames. Well, ME2 games looks more “realistic”, but word “balance” and those minigames are definitely never met. Plus, they time-consuming. ME1 games looks completely idiotic, but most widespread variant was easy to beat, usually much less than in 15 seconds. Other type of game was rare (2 instances – Therum mining laser and that gambling AI?), little bit more challenging to beat, but without any chance to fail.
“Crowd life simulation”. Same people, in same poses, in same places at any given time. Yes, I can understand why that is done with traders (at least in ME1, ME2 has kiosks), but with remaining part of crowd? C’mon ,there is Witcher, there are Gothic Series, your very own Baldurd’s gate, where some people had some “schedule”. That asari in yellow dress in presidium near Embassies reception is “best” example of “placeholder”. I understand that all that crowd are “18th row pikemen”, but still, they all look like mannequins.
Gear. Billiardillion of barely distinctive variations in ME1 and 2-3 samples of each category in ME2. Don’t really know which one I like more. From uniformity and unification point of view ME2 system is better – hard to be lost in 8 types of guns and one armor suit. Overcrowdness of inventory in ME1 was really annoying, especially when you try to figure, what gun is better: 101/26/31 or 105/23/29? From what I got from previews, ME3 will have it right – uniformity and unification with little bit variety added by mods.
Space. I mean open terrain plus three types of cloned “buildings” interiors versus cramped corridors (even if they represent “nature” exteriors), one after another. Open terrain all the way. Why add sniper rifles to game with combat distances less than 100 metres? Gee, shotgun with slugs will do better. Maybe not as stylishly, though.
Guns. All that Codex “blah-blah” about projectiles hypervelocity was thrown under bus. Or out of the window, hard to say. Boo to ME2 style, projectiles are too slow. Plus there are thermal clips “universal”, yet with fixed supply to each weapon type. Folks, you not Leliana, be consistent. Personally (yeah, I know, “nobody cares”) I’d prefer hybrid between overheat system from ME1 and thermal clips from ME2. Every weapon has built-In heatsinks (BTW, how ME2 “shotgun heatsink upgrade” makes you CARRY twice as much spare ammo, but not FIRE twice as much shots from weapon (a.k.a. "increase magazine capacity")? We upgrade weapon's heatsinks, not Shepard’s pouches.) with limited capacity of shots to overheat. When weapon is overheated, or prior to that in any given moment, you can forcefully “vent” weapon (see Warhammer: Space Marine plasma guns for reference), sacrificing several seconds with your inability to fire, but nothing else, or you can insert thermal clip and cool gun instantly. Plus, what I really hate in ME2 (and ME1 to lesser degree) weapons – is “built-in inaccuracy”. WTH? What kind of “advanced” weaponry this is if even first shot flies anywhere, but not to target? For first shot (either in fast sequence, or in burst) point of aim should be point of impact. For next shots – fine, add your “spread”. So far only Mattock was created as realistically implemented gun.
Vehicles. Mako beats Hammerhead. Period. Yes, I’m probably one of two people here who thinks this way, but that’s me. Yet even I would like to have front/rear and sides thrusters on Mako.
Research. I don’t get ME2 research and upgrade system. First, 50% damage increase is overkill. If those weapons have THAT upgrade potential, why no organization or state invested serious sums of money and resources to upgrade them all? Second, those ridiculous amount of minerals (gee, feel like Starcraft “we need more minerals”, dammit!) – 220k, 250k and 170k – how great or small amount is that? Will it fit matchbox or dump truck? Plus that planet scanning… Why not do Space Rangers’ way – send probe onto planet’s orbit and leave it there for some time. After probe finishes its search, it sends signal with report and you decide where is planet worthy of mining or not (seeing that “Depleted/Poor/Rich” planet status is rather funny – if you know it, what the hell I’m doing there with all that scanning?) and if you consider planet worthy of your time, you just fly there, send more probes which automatically and either instantly or with similar to recon drone delay gather resources and send them to you. As result you spent just few second at every planet, without spending that ridiculous amount of time for useless and repetitive actions which should be relayed to automatons. C’mon, it’s 2012, Hears of Iron 3 already taken some burden from gamer’s shoulder, relaying minor duties to AI, and you can do that too. More than that – you have EDI, she is more than capable to do that. On the contrary, ME1 research… Wait, what “ME1 research”? Found mod, installed until found one better. Rinse, repeat.
Combat.
Well, ME2 definitely more dynamic and cover oriented. ME1 in many aspects remind me OFP/ArmA gameplay – delightful at long ranges, but completely sucks in “close quarter bottle”. Plus that muzzle flash for “zoomed” aim with, say, rifle… Even if you have that infamous “chaingun mod”, you can’t see **** through that muzzle blast so you have to stop fire just to see what you aiming at. So, for close quarters ME2 looks better. Can’t say anything for ranged, since, well, there is no range in ME2.
Regeneration speed. I don’t know, is it just me, or not, but for me in ME2 Shepards shield and health are stripped away very fast. Yes, they regenerate fast as well, but gameplay moved into “post-Halo” regenerative shooters style – with highly intensive, but very short series of shots while out of cover mixed with time behind cover to let your health regenerate. That’s why I don’t know how people beat Insanity with classes other than soldier. I mean I suppose it should be possible, but my comparison showed me that this will be very time consuming. On the contrary, ME1 shields and health stripped down at slower rate, high powered shots, like rockets, carnage, plasma balls (or whatever those armature/colossus fire) or assassination excluded. Shield regeneration, without using abilities also goes slower than in ME2. Health regeneration is very slow, until specific armor mods are installed.
On the other hand, there are few enemies in ME2 who have regeneration. If memory serves, these are Vorcha, Krogans and all biotics, who occasionally restore their barriers. Plus, of course, two Praetorians and Colossus. So, in theory it should be possible to stay in cover long enough and exchange your “gifts” with enemies while stripping their defenses with your abilities. In ME1, you had to kill every fleeing enemy; otherwise he will regenerate and return with full health and shields. Giving the little bit more sluggish close combat in ME1, it is practically made crowded fights very difficult and lengthy.
Melee sucks. Period.
Ammo powers. Why In ME2 they are character dependant, not weapon dependant? Well, maybe Jack is that powerful so she could wrap rounds with her biotics powers, maybe she even can teach non-biotic Shepard to do that trick, but what about other ammo types?
Skills. Even I agree that weapons skills part in ME1 was stupid. N7 commando who cannot use sniper rifle with soldier profile and especially war hero background? What kind of enemies he fought – blind, deaf, paralyzed, with broken weapon? Other abilities, on the other hand, were a little bit more logical and useful, though their excessive use by both sides made combat on higher difficulties really lengthy and annoying.
Honestly, maybe no one will support me here, but seeing Shepard (with his profile and background), “earning” experience and distributing skillpoints looks completely out of place for me. Person like Shepard should have most of his skills if not maxed out, but trained at very high level. Imagine importing 60/30 lvl Shepard into new game without any points distributed, but all earned – you just adjust his skills as you see fit and play with this “build”. For me RPG is not about distributing skill and ability points (because if it was, than the Diablo would be RPG (don’t tell me “but it’s hack&slash RPG!”)), it’s about playing role. Same “experience” thing was one of few things I really disliked in Dawn of War 2 – space marines with hundreds years of experience who earn experience by killing some gretchin? They should do that in sleep, in pitch black darkness, upside down, under water, with dead fish in their mouth. Same goes for Shepard.
Abilities/squadmates. I don’t know, but outside of few specific situations in ME2 I really didn’t care who was on mission with my Shepard. Mordin and someone with pull/throw field were useful to deal with hordes of husks, Tali/Legion were useful on last mission to draw collectors attention with their drones. On lower difficulties par Jacob/Miranda was very useful – Jacob Pulls, Miranda Warps: Ka-boom, rinse, repeat. In current moment cannot remember anything more specific – NWN2 style, barbarian with two-handed sword beats all. In ME1, however, the biotics usefulness grows with combat difficulty level, dealing with many enemies while they flying was much easier, so most part of my Hardcore/Insanity playthrough I used Liara and/or Kaidan.
Summary. ME2 is better or equal to ME1 in some aspects and worse in some others. Fix those “broken” parts and ME2 (ME3?) will be very good. Maybe not “ideal” or “best”, but “just right”.

Usual disclamer - all above is my pure IMHO and I have no intentions to hurt anyone's feelings. My apologies if that happened.

Praetor Shepard wrote...

But, I wonder when was the last time many of us played ME1? And ME2? 

Ah... 15 minutes ago? Just to check something.
And I agree with rest of your post.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 27 janvier 2012 - 10:00 .

[MasterSamson88]

Been replaying ME1 and I can say that it's weaknesses really do become apparent when you put it next to ME2. Me2 is just much more dynamic and active, AI actually looks for cover instead of standing In the open... Lots of things make current mass effect combat better than the first game really.

[AtreiyaN7]

Maybe it's because they poorly implemented TPS action in the first game and then improved it in the sequel so that it was less clunky, crappy and awkward? Oh, and because they also made it more challenging with ammo management.

[RiouHotaru]

JeffZero wrote...

The beginning of ME1 wasn't 'tough'. It was just annoying. Look, I'm all for realism in certain applications -- I love Bushido Blade and I generally don't even like fighting games. But the 'you get hit once by the right kind of gun and you're dead' issues with early ME1 were just signs of improper balancing.

The game's curve is basically the top of a skyscraper and a fall from its roof. Endgame is absolutely pathetic -- even on Insanity there are enough ways to undermine the utterly-annoying Immunity spam of your foes and they stop hurting you a long time before that.

Compare this to ME2 where the curve actually feels appropriate and I've got all the reason I need to take a deep breath when Shepard gets to Lazarus Station.

This right here.  Couldn't have summed it up better.  The sense of progression in ME1 is borked as hell because you go from being weak and piddling to suddenly rocking about as soon as you hit level 20 and good gear just starts raining from the sky.

And I never played ME1 on Hardcore/Insanity again after doing Hardcore once because enemy Immunity spam was a pain, and Immunity itself as a skill (Infiltrator/Commando perma-Immunity shenangians!) destroyed any semblance of balance.

A game where I can go toe-to-toe with a Thresher Maw in MELEE is a badly balanced.

[Sylvius the Mad]

alex90c wrote...

I never found myself running out of ammo during combat, unless you did?

I was constantly running out of ammo.  I only used sniper rifles, and they didn't hold much.

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Maybe it's because they poorly implemented TPS action in the first game and then improved it in the sequel so that it was less clunky, crappy and awkward? Oh, and because they also made it more challenging with ammo management.

ME2 made it impossible to miss.  You'd centre your reticle over the target, and you'd hit that target. 

The loss of the hit/miss mechanic made the game less challenging, not more.