429 réponses à ce sujet

[Abraham_uk]

Rudy Lis wrote...

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”.

Your wall of text is impressive. I don't think the skill points made the game "realistic" in any way shape or form. But it sure made the game fun. Shepard should always have Elite weapons training regardless of class. Makes no sense. N7 Elite anyone?

[MerinTB]

Some of the adjustments from ME1 to ME2 went too far, IMO, and all but threw the baby out with the bath water...
but, overall, I prefer the gameplay (combat, inventory, abilities, etc.) of ME2. I loved ME1 when I played it (5 times) but after ME2 it's almost impossible for me to enjoy ME1 now.

As in I'm trying to get a PC playthrough ready for ME3 so I can buy the PC and not the 360 version... but it's looking more and more like if I want to play ME3 with saves from a previous play, I'm gonna have to replace my broken 360.

[Aimi]

Xewaka wrote...

If you play it as a straight shooter, yes. However, considering you can turn around with the game paused (albeit very slowly) you could concievably pause the game, aim, unpause, shoot, pause, rinse, repeat. It'd make progress almost unbearably slow, but you'd never miss.

That is in fact precisely what Sylvius does. He does not like the notion of player agency, and wishes to remove anything even remotely resembling twitch from the game. Otherwise, to him, it's not an RPG.

Looking at him post in a topic like this is like watching a Randroid try to have an economics talk at a convention of Marxists.

[KotorEffect3]

Il Divo wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Because it IS better in every way. We can discuss endlessly about which one has the better story or characters, (my vote is ME2) but come on. Standing around like a walking target, waiting for your overheating to die down, strafing like an idiot hoping you party member don't screw up somehow, the whole MAKO thing, the tedious micro skillpoints that barely do anything... the gameplay in ME1 was baaaaaaaad.

That's ok, it was an experimental game. They took the right direction evolving it in ME2. It's rated higher at Metacritic for a good reason.

So instead you hide behind the conviently placed crates,  Wait while the AI cycles through it's endless "fire for 2 seconds,  pause for 2 seconds" routine,  and when it hits it's pause you pop-out of cover and aim about 1" over their head and one shot them with a sniper rilfe,  rinse repeat.

Because ME2's system is that the AI doesn't actually try to kill you,  it moves to it's predetermined location and pretends it wants to kill you.  You can sit behind your box for an hour,  it'll unload 10,000 rounds or biotics into the box despite the fact that it'll never hit you,  and it will not move,  it will not try to find a way to hit you.  It'll never pop it's head out,  decide it can't hit you,  and pop into cover to wait.  It just cycles endlessly. 

The AI's only tactic is to hope you're foolish enough to stand up when it happens to be firing.

There's a reason why you cannot backtrack in combat very far,  the game doesn't want you to know that the AI isn't going to move.

I'd also avoid using Metacritic as a reference,  unless you want to get into a discussion about the integrity of gaming journalists,  and I'll warn you now, I have a folder on my desktop filled with links to give evidence to the fact that they review advertisers,  not games.

Enemy Ai in ME2 is different depending on what you are fighting. Loki mechs will advance relentlessly. They have no sense of self preservation, and are easy to kill but the gradually advancing pressure can easily wear you down to nothing if you aren't careful. Husks will quickly charge in groups, forcing you out of cover so their allies can easily destyroy you. Harbinger will use powers that knock you out of cover constantly.

In ME2, ones ability to play out of cover is directly proportional to ones skill and experience with the game. A novice will always dies out of cover, yet a veteran can survive out of cover with any class on Insanity.

It's also funny because not five minutes ago I had a Geth trooper try to flank me during Tali's Loyalty Mission, which puts a nice, big hole through the "AI does nothing" argument.

Also the blood back will come right at you and since krogan and vorcha both have regenerating health you have to try to take them down quickly before they get close not to mention they will send varren who will come at you quickly and relentlessly.

Eclipse will throw mechs at you and engineers will deploy drones that knock you out of cover.

Also 3 of the DLCs (Kasumi, LoTSB, and Arrival)  enemy AI will use flashbang grenades which can knock you out of cover and disorient you. 

Gameplay has been evolving to the point where while you have to use cover you still have to be on the move on a constant basis because if you stay in one place too long you are just about as dead as you would be standing out in the open.

Modifié par KotorEffect3, 28 janvier 2012 - 12:05 .

[clopin]

As someone who enjoys ME2 gameplay far more than ME1 gameplay, the detractors saying "You can sit behind a box for three days and no one will approach you" have a legitimate point. The only difficult parts in Insanity are the moments where enemies rush you and attempt to flush you out. How often does that happen? Loki's, pyros, husks, dogs, Harbinger, Krogan, and Geth Stalkers. MAYBE someone with a shotgun will rush you, but it's rare if they're not Geth. I'm playing an Adept insanity run right now, and the only times I day is when I get too power aggressive and stick out of cover to long. I never get flanked, I rarely get rushed, and when either of those happens it's a predetermined "Lets put some husks here!" point in the game.

Is the overall gameplay better? Yeah, the shooting is solid, Warp bombs make me giggle, and Charge cures cancer.

Can you get through a huge chunk of the game by hiding behind the same stupid box for every fight? Yeah, as much fun as the gameplay is, it's not flawless.

Modifié par clopin, 28 janvier 2012 - 12:07 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

That might apply to biotics, but it does NOT apply to manual weapons. YOU are the one responsible for actually targeting the enemy, and it's still quite possible to miss enemies or not hit them in the heat of battle. Furthermore, assuming that you had the sense to put a decent amount of points into your weapon of choice in ME1, it effectively makes your accuracy just as good as it is in ME2 (in that there is pretty much zero shaking, etc.). Are you going to claim that with effectively the same accuracy, an overpowered ME1 weapon with unlimited ammo is somehow MORE challenging than ME2 in terms of combat? Please don't make me laugh.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 28 janvier 2012 - 12:21 .

[Yuoaman]

What's so bad about having accuracy depend on the player's skill and not on arbitrary points?

[Roosterred68]

When ME1 first came out, it was revolutionary to me. I enjoyed everything about it.
BUT...
when ME2 debuted, ME1 paled in comparison. There is no going back for me, especially NOT having to use the Mako to search all the planets. Yeah, it was fun at first, but Man, did it get tedious.
Yes, the planet search from the ship is still tedious, but way better than the Mako. Waaaaay better.

[robarcool]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Rudy Lis wrote...

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”.

Your wall of text is impressive. I don't think the skill points made the game "realistic" in any way shape or form. But it sure made the game fun. Shepard should always have Elite weapons training regardless of class. Makes no sense. N7 Elite anyone?

While we are at it, it should also not matter if you have collector's edition of ME3 or not, Shepard should have the best weapons for reality (N7), but it is not that way. So Rudy Lis, it is more about gameplay than realism.

[AntiChri5]

Yuoaman wrote...

What's so bad about having accuracy depend on the player's skill and not on arbitrary points?

Some people suck at aiming, and find blaming the system easier then admitting they are at fault and trying to improve.

[Darth Death]

I see you like to make a lot of threads, eh tetris?

[SykoWolf]

Mass effect 2 had excellant gameplay but it seemed as if everything was too linear

[Abraham_uk]

Mako would be awesome if I could just control the damn vehicle. Thank goodness it doesn't have Satelite Navigation. An annoying voice to add to the frustration.

SatNav: Turn left!
Shepard: I'm trying but it's not responding.
SatNav: Turn right!
Shepard: Uh, I just turned right.
SatNav: Please do not drive on that mountain. Please turn back.
Tali: Shepard, perhaps I should drive.
(Shepard parks Mako on Mountain)
SatNav: It is inadvisable to park Mako on non level terrain.
(Shepard gets out of Mako and smashes SatNav against a rock. Turns back and watches the Mako roll backwards. Tali takes control of the vehicle and drives off).
Shepard: Tali! You stole my Mako! Damn you! It was a stupid vehicle anyway. No Mako and no SatNav. Now how do I get to that Platinum deposit? Which way should I go? I don't have any electronic or decription skills, becuase I'm just a soldier. Damn you Tali!!!

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 28 janvier 2012 - 12:23 .

[Abraham_uk]

Darth Death wrote...

I see you like to make a lot of threads, eh tetris?

I like to make a lot of polls. Your point?

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 28 janvier 2012 - 12:24 .

[crimzontearz]

it flowed a lot better

tho I'd have liked more state based imput

[Darth Death]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

I see you like to make a lot of threads, eh tetris?

I like to make a lot of polls. Your point?

My point is that he makes a lot of threads. What's exactly your point?

[tetrisblock4x1]

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?

Absolutely not. Most of my deaths in ME2 resulted in the inability to just crouch without cover and squad mates vaulting over walls. If I could stay crouched while moving from cover to cover, if my squad mates weren't dumb, then maybe it would be more fluid. But no, instead I just end up getting killed when I try to move to the opposite side of a room.

[Redcoat]

clopin wrote...

As someone who enjoys ME2 gameplay far more than ME1 gameplay, the detractors saying "You can sit behind a box for three days and no one will approach you" have a legitimate point. The only difficult parts in Insanity are the moments where enemies rush you and attempt to flush you out. How often does that happen? Loki's, pyros, husks, dogs, Harbinger, Krogan, and Geth Stalkers. MAYBE someone with a shotgun will rush you, but it's rare if they're not Geth. I'm playing an Adept insanity run right now, and the only times I day is when I get too power aggressive and stick out of cover to long. I never get flanked, I rarely get rushed, and when either of those happens it's a predetermined "Lets put some husks here!" point in the game.

Is the overall gameplay better? Yeah, the shooting is solid, Warp bombs make me giggle, and Charge cures cancer.

Can you get through a huge chunk of the game by hiding behind the same stupid box for every fight? Yeah, as much fun as the gameplay is, it's not flawless.

That the player can, in many encounters, avoid taking damage entirely simply by hiding the entire time is a rather damning indictment of ME2's gameplay. I mean, if I were to hide behind cover while playing Doom, eventually the enemies would come try to kill me. That the enemies in a game released in 1993 make more of an effort to kill me than a game released in 2010 is pathetic.

Even when the enemies advance on your position, it's usually along an entirely pre-programmed path, based on where the developers anticipated the player would be (which likely wasn't hard, given that ME2's levels are so linear).

Really, the closest experience I can think of to ME2 would be Time Crisis.

[KotorEffect3]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

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?

Absolutely not. Most of my deaths in ME2 resulted in the inability to just crouch without cover and squad mates vaulting over walls. If I could stay crouched while moving from cover to cover, if my squad mates weren't dumb, then maybe it would be more fluid. But no, instead I just end up getting killed when I try to move to the opposite side of a room.

Well maybe you getting yourself killed says more about you than it does the gameplay?

[AlexXIV]

Combat in ME1 was like it was done by someone who did it first time. Many of the things that still didn't work in ME2 like squadmate AI etc. was even more terrible. Just saying people standing behind walls, shooting at walls. It was next to impossible to have one fight without your squadmates getting themselves shot. Mind you ME2 is doing the same at times, but it was still worse in ME1. It's a squad based shooter in which the squad is useless. Only thing that worked were the biotics which were incredibly overpowered. So ... what I don't get is people who actually think the combat in ME1 was good. It was more like an annoyance between the story.

[Durgon Ironfist]

Redcoat wrote...

clopin wrote...

As someone who enjoys ME2 gameplay far more than ME1 gameplay, the detractors saying "You can sit behind a box for three days and no one will approach you" have a legitimate point. The only difficult parts in Insanity are the moments where enemies rush you and attempt to flush you out. How often does that happen? Loki's, pyros, husks, dogs, Harbinger, Krogan, and Geth Stalkers. MAYBE someone with a shotgun will rush you, but it's rare if they're not Geth. I'm playing an Adept insanity run right now, and the only times I day is when I get too power aggressive and stick out of cover to long. I never get flanked, I rarely get rushed, and when either of those happens it's a predetermined "Lets put some husks here!" point in the game.

Is the overall gameplay better? Yeah, the shooting is solid, Warp bombs make me giggle, and Charge cures cancer.

Can you get through a huge chunk of the game by hiding behind the same stupid box for every fight? Yeah, as much fun as the gameplay is, it's not flawless.

That the player can, in many encounters, avoid taking damage entirely simply by hiding the entire time is a rather damning indictment of ME2's gameplay. I mean, if I were to hide behind cover while playing Doom, eventually the enemies would come try to kill me. That the enemies in a game released in 1993 make more of an effort to kill me than a game released in 2010 is pathetic.

Even when the enemies advance on your position, it's usually along an entirely pre-programmed path, based on where the developers anticipated the player would be (which likely wasn't hard, given that ME2's levels are so linear).

Really, the closest experience I can think of to ME2 would be Time Crisis.

Pardon but what game are you playing? I can recall specific encounters when I was flanked to death. For example: Arrival when you spring the doctor, Horizion, Suicide mission, and one of the blue suns side missions, mind you theses are just a few of many. The AI is very aggressive unless you play on lower difficulty levels.

As to answer OP's question: The gameplay is much better. Hate to make this comparison but it is like gears of war but I honestly believe it is much smoother. GoW is very rough, but that's the point. Insanity made me have to think tactically, and use new approches to each situation. Mind you the Mattock helps.

[someguy1231]

AlexXIV wrote...

Combat in ME1 was like it was done by someone who did it first time.

Well, it was. ME1 was Bioware's first shooter-RPG hybrid, after all.

[AlexXIV]

someguy1231 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Combat in ME1 was like it was done by someone who did it first time.

Well, it was. ME1 was Bioware's first shooter-RPG hybrid, after all.

Yeah, not disputing this. Sad thing is that it was so obvious.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 janvier 2012 - 01:04 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

People are suckers for high end graphic so it = better game. Personally I liked lots of things from MEs gameplay I got annoyed more with things from 2 then ME.

[tetrisblock4x1]

double

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 28 janvier 2012 - 01:30 .