429 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

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.

You guys really need to start paying more attention to what is happening.

The Loki mechs are on rails,  you can circle around behind them and they'll keep moving forward to where you're supposed to be.  Same with most of the bosses,  they enter a room and follow a rail.  Bioware did a good job of predicting where the players will stand,  I'll give them that,  but they're just moving to predefined points.

The drones won't knock you out of cover,  they just slide back and forth firing at you. 

Nor do the flashbangs actually do anything meaningful,  just duck back behind your crate and wait.  The enemy is *not* coming to get you.

As far as the Geth trooper "Flanking" you,  replay the mission a few times.  You'll find it always comes out of the same place and goes to the same points,  you just happened to be standing somewhere it would appear to flank you.

If you don't feel like replaying it the whole way to see exactly what I mean,  just start a new game and go do Garrus's recruitment mission.  Stand in the house,  by the stairs,  watch them all come in and run up the stairs,  even as you shoot them in the head.  They won't deviate,  they won't go for cover,  they won't try to pin you down so someone can go up the stairs.

They'll just trot along getting shot in the head the whole way without deviating,  until they fall over.

[tetrisblock4x1]

.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 28 janvier 2012 - 07:19 .

[AlanC9]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I don't care what playstyle he chooses I just disagree with the premise that player skill should not reflect on character performance.

OK, fair enough. But we really shouldn't say "player skill" here. Too broad -- we're only talking about hand-eye coordination and so forth, right? As opposed to analyzing the terrain, figuring out which powers are more effective, and similar "higher" skills -- quotes there because I don't think there's any valid reason to rank skills that way, but a lot of people classify skills in this fashion. If I understand Sylvius' position, he wants the latter set of skills to be used for character performance but not the former.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2012 - 07:33 .

[GoDLiKe 187x]

im going 2 love me3 gameplay and i played it at e3 and eb expo

[Cainne Chapel]

Gatt9 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

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.

You guys really need to start paying more attention to what is happening.

The Loki mechs are on rails,  you can circle around behind them and they'll keep moving forward to where you're supposed to be.  Same with most of the bosses,  they enter a room and follow a rail.  Bioware did a good job of predicting where the players will stand,  I'll give them that,  but they're just moving to predefined points.

The drones won't knock you out of cover,  they just slide back and forth firing at you. 

Nor do the flashbangs actually do anything meaningful,  just duck back behind your crate and wait.  The enemy is *not* coming to get you.

As far as the Geth trooper "Flanking" you,  replay the mission a few times.  You'll find it always comes out of the same place and goes to the same points,  you just happened to be standing somewhere it would appear to flank you.

If you don't feel like replaying it the whole way to see exactly what I mean,  just start a new game and go do Garrus's recruitment mission.  Stand in the house,  by the stairs,  watch them all come in and run up the stairs,  even as you shoot them in the head.  They won't deviate,  they won't go for cover,  they won't try to pin you down so someone can go up the stairs.

They'll just trot along getting shot in the head the whole way without deviating,  until they fall over.

Gatt9....

Its a game brother, its not a virtual realism sim, with an AI as advanced as the human condition.

Its gonna have limitations and draw backs, EVERY game will.

Do we REALLY need to start that argument?  I mean when it comes down to it they're all just colored pixels on a screen.

We're not arguing about AI as advanced an unpredictable as a human here.  I think we all understand that the AI isn't all omnipotent and able to adjust for EVERY single deviation on the players part.

So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.  No one is saying that ME2's AI is godly.  Just better than 1 in some cases. but in either case, ANY game will have limited AI, not like the devs have unlimited resources here

[tetrisblock4x1]

If humanity had that attitude to progress we would still be banging rocks together to build a home and rubbing sticks to start a camp fire. You know how far in game AI has come since the 90's? Not very. I'd expect a game with level design as simple as Mass Effects to make enemies better than what we have now in ME2.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 28 janvier 2012 - 07:44 .

[DxWill10]

Anyone saying ME1's combat was superior to ME2's is in the minority I believe, and does not really understand what makes a shooter a refined, smooth, fluid, [and therefore] entertaining experience.

ME1 was great, and better than ME2 is many ways.

Game play mechanics (shooting based combat) is not one of them.

Edit:  When you post in a thread where the OP's first words in his signature are  "Not a troll"  you know you're probably wasting your time

Modifié par DxWill10, 28 janvier 2012 - 07:46 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

DxWill10 wrote...

Anyone saying ME1's combat was superior to ME2's is in the minority I believe, and does not really understand what makes a shooter a refined, smooth, fluid, [and therefore] entertaining experience.

ME1 was great, and better than ME2 is many ways.

Game play (shooting) is not one of them.

It's a matter of tastes more than quality in my case. ME2 was really a cover shooter, and so was ME1 if you want to get technical, but the way the gameplay was designed made sure that using the cover system in ME1 was not usually the best way of playing the game. ME2 was better for what it was than ME1 for what it was, I'm not arguing that, but they had distinctly different play styles to them.

[Icinix]

DxWill10 wrote...

Anyone saying ME1's combat was superior to ME2's is in the minority I believe, and does not really understand what makes a shooter a refined, smooth, fluid, [and therefore] entertaining experience.

ME1 was great, and better than ME2 is many ways.

Game play mechanics (shooting based combat) is not one of them.

I found ME1 combat a more smooth, fluid and entertaining experience than ME2.

As far as shooters go, I found ME1's shooting mechanics more enjoyable and less boring than a lot of other shooters.

What makes it a superior combat experience comes down to a personal opinon and how you perosnally play the game - not a failed understanding of something.

[Rudy Lis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In ME2, Shepard never misses his target. How credible is that?

What?! Shepard misses a WAY too much in ME2, despite shorter distances. In ME1 projectiles done practically instant hit on any distance up to 400 metres - even if someone moves, it can't dodge bullet (if you choose proper lead, of course). In ME2 even on 50 metres some merc can duck or "strafe" and evade bullet. What the hell is that - "hypervelocity round" or squirt gun?

Aaleel wrote...

I liked the Mako, only problem I had was I refuse to believe that EVERY planet in the universe would me that mountainous lol.

Well, they can't place too many trees or nice looking ponds and cliffs, so they just use some "random landscape generator". They definitely fix it a bit in Overlord/Hammerhead pack. I bet if we had Mako there for our first run, Mako could have much more followers, not haters.

Abraham_uk wrote...

Your wall of text is impressive.

Why, thank you very much.
But there is a long way ahead to achieve Dragoonlordz level.

Abraham_uk wrote...

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?

I don't think it was fun even in terms of "standard RPG character development path", for first time playthrough in lower difficulties. As typical game learning curve - yes, it was useful. But IMHO some Shepard's flashbacks about his boot camp, training days and "background" mission. BTW, I think if we actually had a chance to experience that mission and our playthrough's results affected actual Shepard's background - that could be very immersing. Even if we just were allowed to witness his actions, not to affect them any way. You want to know you character (at least I do), and preferable by some other means than just 3 words. And no, I don't mean "extended universe books and comics".
Of course, 3 words option should remain there for those who doesn't care.

robarcool wrote...

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.

Heh. "Best weapon in reality"? Same way as "Best training in reality" a.k.a. "my scope woobles too much"? Best weapons in reality are Phalanx, GPS, Mattock and Widow.
Of course they can make N7 guns statistics better, but why not make next step and create unique models for them, not recycle existing models of Phalanx, Locust, Eviscerator and Incisor, just slapping new "gunmetal grey" textures to them? They had some "treaty" with BF3 developers, who definitely can show Bioware how to design proper gun and program proper ballistics!
Where is enraged smilie when you need one?
Regarding gameplay - well, I can't say that my experience with Halo or "recent" Medal of Honor was worse just because I wasn't able to distribute some points into Master Chief or SEALs, ranger or Apache's WSO skills. Of course, those games are not RPG, but IMHO that "earn XP and gain some skillpoints to distribute" is not always should be there. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is RPG too - Sareth earns some skillpoints after he completes some mission, practically like Shepard (who earns XP first to gain SP).
And mind you, I don't think that bethesda's "do it - train it" system is any better. I prefer Jagged Alliance 2 system, where even as lvl 1 merc you had significant amount of points to distribute, yet had a long and interesting way to train your team. Unlike all TES series, JA2's training curve never got too tedious (unless you forcefully tried to pump certain skills, like explosive or "wisdom"). So it's not only about gameplay, it's about how it is implemented. Sirtech did that more than decade ago and they did it better.

RogueMumei wrote...

The only thing I didn't like about ME1 was the collection sidequests. They were fine the first 2 playthroughs, but once I got to the third it just got really tedious with having to force the mako over mountains and stuff to get one item out of many.

You don't have to collect every possible mineral deposit, only few of those in "hard to reach places", others could be easily achieved via scans or in "easy to reach places". Medallions, writings, emblems practically not that hard to find. But, IMHO, even if you run for 60 lvl, it was easier to ignore them fully, which is great plus, since you cannot evade ME2 mining because you "require more minerals!" (and vespen gas, dammit!) at least to upgrade Normandy. Firearms and gear upgrades are not mandatory, at least on casual.

RogueMumei wrote...

I honestly don't have anything against the fighting in ME1 or ME2 other than squadmates derpin' out of cover in ME2 and long power cooldowns in ME1 PC version.

Second that! Teammates inability to follow simple "and stay there" command annoying as hell, especially when you rely on their abilities for specific task (and not take them with you just for looks (because few of them are capable to work as bullet magnets)).

Edit: fixed few typos.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 28 janvier 2012 - 09:56 .

[Yakko77]

Game play was improved in ME2 but overall I still like the story much better from ME1. Not that ME2 had a bad story, I just like ME1 storyline better is all.

[Icinix]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

DxWill10 wrote...

Anyone saying ME1's combat was superior to ME2's is in the minority I believe, and does not really understand what makes a shooter a refined, smooth, fluid, [and therefore] entertaining experience.

ME1 was great, and better than ME2 is many ways.

Game play (shooting) is not one of them.

It's a matter of tastes more than quality in my case. ME2 was really a cover shooter, and so was ME1 if you want to get technical, but the way the gameplay was designed made sure that using the cover system in ME1 was not usually the best way of playing the game. ME2 was better for what it was than ME1 for what it was, I'm not arguing that, but they had distinctly different play styles to them.

Yeah this too.

Almost all shooters are different styles of shooters.

The FPS and TPS arena has so many variables in it now - its probably getting pretty close to no longer being apples to apples comparisons.

[StephanieBengal]

Common sense

[G3rman]

ME2 brought better combat but dumbed down important RPG features from the original, mainly inventory/loot/customization of character.

ME1 made great strides in customization and a thrilling adventure through a new sci-fi world, but its combat had its share of bugs and lack of fluidity.

As ME3 has been stated to be bringing up the slack on the customization front as well as returning to level 60 characters and skill trees, I think they learned at least some from their mistakes. The setting and dialogue is also going to make the last game of the trilogy thrilling and intense to the very end.

I do dislike the direction the combat went in regards to it being a little too focused on cover and similar to something like Gears, but that is very minor and I can deal with.

[AlanC9]

G3rman wrote...

ME2 brought better combat but dumbed down important RPG features from the original, mainly inventory/loot/customization of character.

"Dumbed down" assumes ME1's versions of those features were smart in the first place.

[G3rman]

No, it assumes by comparison.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Yeah, they weren't smart. Converting obsolete junk that you're carrying around involuntarily is not good. Having to delete each of them, one by one? No excuse for that. It's better the ME2 way. You have upgrades, you have inventory, it's all there available to be researched or purchased if you're interested. And the inventory was moved to the storage locker

[Icinix]

AlanC9 wrote...

G3rman wrote...

ME2 brought better combat but dumbed down important RPG features from the original, mainly inventory/loot/customization of character.

"Dumbed down" assumes ME1's versions of those features were smart in the first place.

How about "Reduced complexity", "Limited expansion", "Shrunken Scope", "Simplified Elements", "Streamlined into Submission", "Manius Skillus be Removedus", "Dumbed laterally", "Freckle removal via amputation", "Surgical Precision with Rusty Chainsaw"?

[G3rman]

There were mistakes in organization but I much prefer ME1 to ME2's sorely lacking inventory and armor styles and customization.

[RiouHotaru]

G3rman wrote...

There were mistakes in organization but I much prefer ME1 to ME2's sorely lacking inventory and armor styles and customization.

At least in ME2 your weapons had meaningful differences and there weren't clearly superior options, all the weapons had pros and cons.

Half the weapons in ME1's were palette swaps with minor statistical differences, the ones that weren't were utterly OP and the only weapons worth using.

[JeffZero]

Because that's what humans do.

[Icinix]

RiouHotaru wrote...

G3rman wrote...

There were mistakes in organization but I much prefer ME1 to ME2's sorely lacking inventory and armor styles and customization.

At least in ME2 your weapons had meaningful differences and there weren't clearly superior options, all the weapons had pros and cons.

Half the weapons in ME1's were palette swaps with minor statistical differences, the ones that weren't were utterly OP and the only weapons worth using.

The issue I have, is that ME1 was a system that was far from perfect, but instead of tweaking and improving, trying something different - they cut it all out. Everything. Gone.

ME2 to me was as bad as ME1. They both missed the mark. ME3 though - looks to straddle the middle ground very well.

[G3rman]

RiouHotaru wrote...

G3rman wrote...

There were mistakes in organization but I much prefer ME1 to ME2's sorely lacking inventory and armor styles and customization.

At least in ME2 your weapons had meaningful differences and there weren't clearly superior options, all the weapons had pros and cons.

Half the weapons in ME1's were palette swaps with minor statistical differences, the ones that weren't were utterly OP and the only weapons worth using.

Part of the fun was customizing your gun with upgrades.  It is a shame that there ended up being the perfect model by reaching level 60, but I still found it quite fun if nothing else for feeling overpowered.  I think just having the wide choice, at least in the beginning levels, made it superior to the sorely lacking variety in ME2.

Its my preference as you have yours.

[RiouHotaru]

G3rman wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

G3rman wrote...

There were mistakes in organization but I much prefer ME1 to ME2's sorely lacking inventory and armor styles and customization.

At least in ME2 your weapons had meaningful differences and there weren't clearly superior options, all the weapons had pros and cons.

Half the weapons in ME1's were palette swaps with minor statistical differences, the ones that weren't were utterly OP and the only weapons worth using.

Part of the fun was customizing your gun with upgrades.  It is a shame that there ended up being the perfect model by reaching level 60, but I still found it quite fun if nothing else for feeling overpowered.  I think just having the wide choice, at least in the beginning levels, made it superior to the sorely lacking variety in ME2.

Its my preference as you have yours.

I admit that weapons were lacking in 'variety' in that you only had 2 or 3 options, but at least those options had meaningful, clear differences, without one being a strict upgrade of the other.

[shepard1038]

mass effect 2 combat was better than mass effect,but mass effect was more rpg, now it seems mass effect 3 combat is better than mass effect 2 will having the same rpg stuff that mass effect fans love