184 réponses à ce sujet

[Xeranx]

@Crackseed

The first time I played ME, when I died I started to approach combat carefully. That I didn't know where combat was likely to occur helped keep me on my toes (and let add many save files to my first run ). ME2 combat, I ran out of clips and hugged cover until I could move again. Of course I'm a ways from each scenario, but with ME I became more daring to get out into the open. You were punished in that game. When biotics could make you rag-doll and your concern jumps from "have to kill enemy" to "have to get up before enemy kills me" or "damn tech sabotage eff'er"...I had more fun with the first than with the second.

The minute I became familiar with thermal clips, would take on enemies and take them down. Truth be told, I had more fun sniping than anything else in either game. More so in the first because the reticule would jump after every shot. So it was a challenge to get my sights down quickly and efficiently take out my target. Trying to do that with my brothers playing their fps games it's fun. I need a lot of work, but it's fun. I had the same feeling with the multiplayer aspect in ME3 trying to take down anyone while using a sniper rifle. Better challenge, greater risk, papa johns. Kidding about the papa johns bit. But better challenge, greater risk, greater reward knowing what you could do. In many matches I had the top score. I know it's not about that, but I'm very competitive. ME2 does so very little in that regard for me.

Also, I don't like basing anything that happens in a game on its difficulty level. I feel I should have a challenge just playing regularly. It's not that I can't handle the difficulty. It's that if I have to take it to the limit to get a challenge then the other difficulty levels are pure fluff.

Things getting crazy...it depends. I don't have any examples of what scenarios I've had in any games that were hair-raising and enjoyed. I much prefer a creative approach. In ME2, all the work is done for me with very little input. I could use push to force someone out the side so I can take a shot at them and it'll work every time. In ME, I could attempt the same with a grenade and the caveats to the chances I succeed are at least one out of three (in case I forget others): I could mistime the detonation which results in a wasted grenade. I could time it right, but the blast knocks my target back instead of out. I time everything right and get the opportunity for the shot I want. The variables there that allow for me to feel that I actually tried to do something make me feel as though I'm contributing to something.

This is why I like combat in ME.

[Terror_K]

ME1 combat wasn't bad, IMO. It was just different, and too many people were expecting it to play exactly like a TPS just because it looked like one. So BioWare just caved-in to the masses and turned Mass Effect into another generic TPS combat wise rather than try to make what they had work better. It's like Futurama's Fry said once, "different things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." ME1 was different, and that didn't gel with a generation of gamers in the wake of Gears of War and in the dawn of the Shooter-era.

That said, the transition to more standard TPS styled combat wouldn't have been so bad had they not ended up going too far with it while simultaneously reducing or taking away too many RPG elements. ME2 combat would have been easier to swallow had Mass Effect not become almost entirely about combat from ME2 onwards and still retained omni-tools, biotic amps, armour modding, non-combat skills like Decryption, Electronics, Charm, Intimidate, etc.

[o Ventus]

No.

[elitecom]

Xeranx wrote...

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting. This is not a holier-than-thou remark.

I booted ME up again today for the first time in months and going through everything it made me understand that ME isn't a game I or anyone was supposed to rush through. There's a whole lot of information there that was deemed necessary to know. Isn't it how we are able to call the developers on various points in the subsequent games? Why are we able to say, "no that's wrong", "that makes sense", or "I don't like it, but I see why they did it"? They carefully structured a narrative which went to lengths to explain almost everything. This is why people still argue pro vs anti thermal clips often.

My take on it is, if you're intention is to rush through a game, then ME was not for you. DA:O was also a game that you couldn't rush through. Everything was done to deliver a coherent idea of what was going on. If a developer is going to set a pace like that, then you're not looking at an action/thriller. You're more than likely looking at a drama.

This is a solid point but I also believe there is a second reason. Mass Effect 1's combat was an attempt by Bioware to put a third person shooter type of combat into a roleplaying game. And the result is Mass Effect 1's combat, which is a third person shooter adapted for a roleplaying game. I believe a lot of player expected the combat to be more similar to a third person shooter and once they realised that the combat wasn't as fast paced as they expected, it was more of a rpg type of combat than they had expected, and that in turn caused those players to dislike the combat.

So Bioware took the fan reaction into account after the release of Mass Effect 1 and subsequently turned the combat into a pure third person shooter type for Mass Effect 2. As we all know the trend continued into Mass Effect 3.

[Nicksta92]

Leave each of the games exactly how they are.

[Kit-103]

 I would not.

As much as I love the first game, the combat from the first game just wouldn't mesh with ME2 and ME3. You'd have to rework a lot of the game for it to work right. Plus I don't think it aged well at all. During my play-thru of the entire trilogy, I kept asking myself "Is it over yet?"

The combat in ME has a more...tactical/RPGish feeling to it. As pointed out earlier in the thread, if you got hit with a Biotic that put you in statis, it did turn into "Ok, that caster has to go." You were more careful with how you played the game. I can see how people liked that (and still do) and I enjoyed it too when the game was first released.

Two and Three turned into "Do I have enough ammo in my guns to take this guy down?" Not that I have any problem with that sort of game-play. I like simple AND complex things. Does that make me weird?

[Imp of the Perverse]

Xeranx wrote...

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting. This is not a holier-than-thou remark.

ME1 has some strengths in this respect. The fact that it was a relatively early cover based shooter meant that the level design seemed built more around aesthetics and less around providing chest high walls every ten feet. Cover based combat has developed to the point where it only really works in contrived environments, and on a combat mission you can usually tell which portions of the map are going to have enemies, and which you'll just be walking through. ME1 felt a lot more organic in this respect (I'm thinking especially of Virmire, just after leaving Kirrahe's camp.) I really did like the sprawling design of the major story missions of the first game.

Outside of those missions and their hubs, you had side missions in copy pasted dungeons, and piloting the mako around on terrain that felt like it was created entirely via random number generator. It makes me wonder if getting away with those shortcuts led to Bioware thinking they could abuse it to such a heinous extent in Dragon Age 2.

ME2's level designs were each unique and hand crafted, and there were a lot of them, sometimes even introducing temporary new gameplay elements. There were opportunities to explore outside of combat, and nicely crafted combat zones in dozens of unique settings. ME3 mixes it up even more by enabling (and sometimes requiring) more mobile combat strategies.

None of this has any impact on two other weaknesses I mentioned earlier. The weapons were just statistical variations on the same five guns, and the stat system was considerably less interesting than the one in ME3. You had a number of skills, but once unlocked, allocating points consisted entirely of boosting their basic stats (duration, area, damage, etc.) by minute amounts. ME2 was oversimplified, but ME3 gives you more choice within each power, and often the ability to control the way they work beyond ME1's "how long, how big, how much."

[Crackseed]

Xeranx wrote...

@Crackseed

The first time I played ME, when I died I started to approach combat carefully. That I didn't know where combat was likely to occur helped keep me on my toes (and let add many save files to my first run ). ME2 combat, I ran out of clips and hugged cover until I could move again. Of course I'm a ways from each scenario, but with ME I became more daring to get out into the open. You were punished in that game. When biotics could make you rag-doll and your concern jumps from "have to kill enemy" to "have to get up before enemy kills me" or "damn tech sabotage eff'er"...I had more fun with the first than with the second.

The minute I became familiar with thermal clips, would take on enemies and take them down. Truth be told, I had more fun sniping than anything else in either game. More so in the first because the reticule would jump after every shot. So it was a challenge to get my sights down quickly and efficiently take out my target. Trying to do that with my brothers playing their fps games it's fun. I need a lot of work, but it's fun. I had the same feeling with the multiplayer aspect in ME3 trying to take down anyone while using a sniper rifle. Better challenge, greater risk, papa johns. Kidding about the papa johns bit. But better challenge, greater risk, greater reward knowing what you could do. In many matches I had the top score. I know it's not about that, but I'm very competitive. ME2 does so very little in that regard for me.

Also, I don't like basing anything that happens in a game on its difficulty level. I feel I should have a challenge just playing regularly. It's not that I can't handle the difficulty. It's that if I have to take it to the limit to get a challenge then the other difficulty levels are pure fluff.

Things getting crazy...it depends. I don't have any examples of what scenarios I've had in any games that were hair-raising and enjoyed. I much prefer a creative approach. In ME2, all the work is done for me with very little input. I could use push to force someone out the side so I can take a shot at them and it'll work every time. In ME, I could attempt the same with a grenade and the caveats to the chances I succeed are at least one out of three (in case I forget others): I could mistime the detonation which results in a wasted grenade. I could time it right, but the blast knocks my target back instead of out. I time everything right and get the opportunity for the shot I want. The variables there that allow for me to feel that I actually tried to do something make me feel as though I'm contributing to something.

This is why I like combat in ME.

A fair point but even without frictionless mods, ME1's combat once you specced up enough and had X weapons was really just a run forward with your finger on the trigger affair, tap a power here and there and generally activate immunity.

Even if you went clipless in ME2, I felt that you could still employ more tactics and advances. Either hammering targets with biotics, tech or even cloaking and pulling off some melee hits while picking up clips. Charing a few more with melee finishes, etc.

But I do get what you're saying. 

[FROST4584]

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 combat wasn't bad, IMO. It was just different, and too many people were expecting it to play exactly like a TPS just because it looked like one. So BioWare just caved-in to the masses and turned Mass Effect into another generic TPS combat wise rather than try to make what they had work better. It's like Futurama's Fry said once, "different things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." ME1 was different, and that didn't gel with a generation of gamers in the wake of Gears of War and in the dawn of the Shooter-era.

That said, the transition to more standard TPS styled combat wouldn't have been so bad had they not ended up going too far with it while simultaneously reducing or taking away too many RPG elements. ME2 combat would have been easier to swallow had Mass Effect not become almost entirely about combat from ME2 onwards and still retained omni-tools, biotic amps, armour modding, non-combat skills like Decryption, Electronics, Charm, Intimidate, etc.

You hit the nail on the head. Mass Effect 1 played like aprevious gen game. Where it tried to be different. Last gen had a ton of variety,even within the same genre. This gen ,Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, play like most cookie cutter shooters of current gen.



Thread topic: Yes, I wished ME2 and ME3, was more like ME1.Your  skill points really mattered,  more side missions with characters to investigate like ME1 instead of ME2 and ME3's linear , empty. kill everything -> mission ends  side missions. I would like to have ME1 game play redefined instead of made
like Gears Of War.

Modifié par FROST4584, 04 août 2012 - 02:07 .

[cremrock]

This is a tough one. Before I would have said no way, Mass Effect 1 is a slog. My previous experience with 1 had been playing through it solely as a soldier, and as a result I more or less bulled through everything. Since I decided to revisit the series, I've been playing through as an adept. I'm enjoying the combat because it's really forced me to play in a different style, and I'm not sure that's as present with the classes in Mass Effect 2 and 3. I still prefer 2 and 3 but it's caused me to look at Mass Effect 1 combat in a new light.

That said, Mass Effect 1 annoys me much more than the other two games in the series, which is why I'm hesitant. "Hey, is that a sniper? I think it is but I'm not sur- *DEAD*" Is way too annoying when I have full health and barrier and just spent fifteen minutes exploring the darn planet. Squadmate control is shaky, and as fun as it is being a biotic god, it feels a little unfair to disable the entire enemy platoon by lifting one side of it, singularity on another side, and throwing the poor SOB that managed to avoid both.

Unfair, but really fun, which contributes to my hesitation.

I would love to see the trilogy re-released as a package deal, but I think I actually like the fact that every game plays differently. I get what I like about sequels (story, character development, etc.) but I get to play a msotly new game, rather than an old game with incremental improvements to its combat engine like I would with a FPS or some TPS.

Modifié par cremrock, 04 août 2012 - 02:44 .

[Crackseed]

FROST4584 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 combat wasn't bad, IMO. It was just different, and too many people were expecting it to play exactly like a TPS just because it looked like one. So BioWare just caved-in to the masses and turned Mass Effect into another generic TPS combat wise rather than try to make what they had work better. It's like Futurama's Fry said once, "different things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." ME1 was different, and that didn't gel with a generation of gamers in the wake of Gears of War and in the dawn of the Shooter-era.

That said, the transition to more standard TPS styled combat wouldn't have been so bad had they not ended up going too far with it while simultaneously reducing or taking away too many RPG elements. ME2 combat would have been easier to swallow had Mass Effect not become almost entirely about combat from ME2 onwards and still retained omni-tools, biotic amps, armour modding, non-combat skills like Decryption, Electronics, Charm, Intimidate, etc.

You hit the nail on the head. Mass Effect 1 played like aprevious gen game. Where it tried to be different. Last gen had a ton of variety,even within the same genre. This gen ,Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, play like most cookie cutter shooters of current gen.



Thread topic: Yes, I wished ME2 and ME3, was more like ME1.Your  skill points really mattered,  more side missions with characters to investigate like ME1 instead of ME2 and ME3's linear , empty. kill everything -> mission ends  side missions. I would like to have ME1 game play redefined instead of made
like Gears Of War.

This is open to huge debate. ME1's skill points were so far and few between in terms of when they made a difference. You spent a ridiculous amount of them and half the time it was a 1% tick on such and such in a generally generic spread. I'm not saying it was "boring" but I find the notion that ME2/ME3 was a cookie cutter shooter to be rather entertaining.

If I compare the skills and depth between ME1 and ME3's skillsets, it's not even a contest. I will say that I felt ME2 got a BIT shallow on the amount of skills and skill points, but you still had skills like Charge, Cloak, etc which generally blew away the ME1 variety.

As for side missions, while I still would have liked some genuine planet exploration with a good vehicle, ME2's N7 missions blew away ME1's structure. ME3 sadly backpedalled a bit, but given they wanted the fetch quests to be more tied to the war and used bigger set side missions like the Cerberus ones, I can't grumble too much.

I will forever appreciate ME1 for what it did and for what it still represents, but calling it the richer experience in terms of the gameplay is a bit short sighted. The argument on the dialogue is one I'll leave out since that's going to come down to sheer preference per player.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Xeranx wrote...

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting. This is not a holier-than-thou remark.

That actually captures the other main criticism against ME1: exploration had no place in the series with the story they were telling.

My take on it is, if you're intention is to rush through a game, then ME was not for you. DA:O was also a game that you couldn't rush through. Everything was done to deliver a coherent idea of what was going on. If a developer is going to set a pace like that, then you're not looking at an action/thriller. You're more than likely looking at a drama.

I took as much time with ME as I did with DA:O. The combat in the former still feels terrible, especially compared to the latter. Coherent ideas and good ideas are not necessarily related. Aside from that, DA:O's combat wasn't as thoughtful as you're portraying it, in terms of delivering a coherent setting. The game's premise is magic, which basically allows the creators to implement anything they want, which isn't exactly difficult. Most effects you see in DA:O are standard RPG: giant fireballs, drain life spells, heal, etc.

Edit: Also loved Alpha Protocol's gameplay, yet can't stand Mass Effect's.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 août 2012 - 03:35 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

FROST4584 wrote...

Thread topic: Yes, I wished ME2 and ME3, was more like ME1.Your  skill points really mattered,  more side missions with characters to investigate like ME1 instead of ME2 and ME3's linear , empty. kill everything -> mission ends  side missions. I would like to have ME1 game play redefined instead of made
like Gears Of War.

No, they really didn't. 1% pistol damage didn't radically change your approach to combat. It's not even noticeable. Individual skills ranks were worthless in Mass Effect. It was only the power level ups which displayed dramatic increases in combat.

Essentially, the leveling systems are the same, it's simply that the ME2 ranks are concentrated. Instead of 12 ranks with 1% pistol damage, you now have 4 ranks with 10% damage, in addition to some kind of power evolution attached.

[Terror_K]

I always felt ME1 was trying to be more of an experience than a game, and that ME2 and ME3 were concentrated more on being games than being an experience, and thus became a little too gamey, which tended to ruin immersion, IMO. ME1 seems to be like BioWare were saying, "here's this great new sci-fi universe... lose yourselves in it." ME2 and ME3 seemed too concerned about getting game mechanics down-pat, and too often seemed to care too much about what modern trends and other games were doing. This, to me, made ME2 and ME3 not feel like natural evolutions, because it seemed BioWare weren't asking, "what's best for the Mass Effect series and where should this naturally go?" but instead were asking, "what do the mainstream gamers today like and what factors from other popular games are making those games sell well?"

ME1 wasn't afraid to be different, try new things and put basic gameplay aside for the sake of immersion and freedom, and even go against the grain a little. ME2 and ME3 wanted to follow the pack. ME1 was art first, business second. ME2 and ME3 were business first, art second.

[DukeOfNukes]

I have a theory that you can tell a lot about a gamer based on which ME game they prefer. ME1 players care about story and a unique experience. ME2 fans prefer a shooter first and story second, they still care about the story, but gameplay is more important. ME3 fans have just given up on having a good story, and care more about the big blockbuster set pieces than having a coherent narrative.

If they remade ME2 and ME3 to have a better story and exploration, then yes, I would re-purchase them. But if you're talking about gameplay and inventory management, then no.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

You folks realise that this thread just exists to mock my serious thread about whether you'd buy ME1 with ME2/3 gameplay, right?

[mauro2222]

Let's see, a ME2/3 that tries to follow the lore instead of butchering it, doesn't have stupid retcons, interesting story, and planet exploration with synth music...

Hell ****ing yeah!

On the combat, I still enjoy it, maybe because I play on PC. I saw some people play with consoles and I can't figure how they can play with those clumsy controls, everything is so slow and limited.

Hearing the Rachni sing across Luna was the best moment in gaming for me.

Modifié par mauro2222, 05 août 2012 - 06:31 .

[Gruntburner]

By "like ME1" do you mean combat-wise, because that would be a resounding NOOOOOOO! The combat was sticky, unintuitive, and the actual rpg elements are a mess. Oh how I curse that terrible inventory system.

Do you mean in terms of conversations? I would also say no as they were often flow breaking, static to the degree that characters are little more than talking heads, weren't immersive in the slightest. Call me crazy but I like the new cinematic direction.

Do you mean in terms of exploration? Yes and no. While I appreciate being able to explore, all the maps in ME1 were basically the same terrain with different colors, all leading to a cave, underground base, or above ground base. Between those bases the only variation was where the boxes are. So basically I want more exploration, but each location should feel unique.

Do you mean in terms of story? If that were the case, then we wouldn't be playing ME2 or ME3. We would be playing some hypothetical game that could could be nothing or everything like what we have today. Basically, there can't really be any real answer to that without some weapons-grade speculation.

Modifié par Gruntburner, 05 août 2012 - 06:45 .

[Gruntburner]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

You folks realise that this thread just exists to mock my serious thread about whether you'd buy ME1 with ME2/3 gameplay, right?

So that is why you have your name.  But seriously, when I saw this thread my first thought was "Where have I seen this before?"

[Father_Jerusalem]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I have a theory that you can tell a lot about a gamer based on which ME game they prefer. ME1 players care about story and a unique experience. ME2 fans prefer a shooter first and story second, they still care about the story, but gameplay is more important. ME3 fans have just given up on having a good story, and care more about the big blockbuster set pieces than having a coherent narrative.

If they remade ME2 and ME3 to have a better story and exploration, then yes, I would re-purchase them. But if you're talking about gameplay and inventory management, then no.

I have a theory that your theory is judgemental crap.

[Terror_K]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

You folks realise that this thread just exists to mock my serious thread about whether you'd buy ME1 with ME2/3 gameplay, right?

Re-releasing ME1 in the style of ME3 would be too much like when George Lucas redid the original Star Wars trilogy and altered things to fit in with his prequels.

It's already bad enough that it's hard for me to want to play ME1 again because now I know it only leads to the same bad final third no matter what choices I make in it, we don't need an ME1 that's only about combat, forces you to do the main planets in a certain order, gives you only two dialogue options most of the time and has buckets of autodialogue.

[Fraevar]

No. As much as I liked the new gameplay in ME3 I'd be too worried BioWare would alter the tone of ME1 to suit it better. And the loss of tone from ME1 to the other games is the series greatest flaw. Let ME1 stand as an example of the actual ambition of an interactive space-opera, not a sci-fi third person shooter designed to fit a publisher's preconceived notions of what makes a "good game".

[elitecom]

crackseed wrote...This is open to huge debate.

You said it all right. 

crackseed wrote...
If I compare the skills and depth between ME1 and ME3's skillsets, it's not even a contest. I will say that I felt ME2 got a BIT shallow on the amount of skills and skill points, but you still had skills like Charge, Cloak, etc which generally blew away the ME1 variety.

That depends entirely upon how you look at the skillsets. While it is true that ME2 & ME3 have more combat related powers than in ME1, some of them consist of two ME1 powers fused together(e.g. Pull = Lift+Throw), but ME2 & ME3 lack non-combat based powers. There is just so much greater variety with the skills in ME1 because in ME1 you have both combat related skillsets and non-combat related skill-sets. And this is not some random fluke, because this reflects the games. ME1 is roleplaying game where you could craft your character with much greater freedom and you also had non-combat situations which could be influenced by your skills, such as discount in stores if you had a high intimade or charm.

In ME2 & ME3 combat became the main focus which allowed Bioware to curb the skillsets to be overly combat focused. This makes for a greater variation in combat powers but less variety in the overall skillsets since they are now almost solely combat focused, thus reflecting the TPS nature of both ME2 & ME3.

Changing Mass Effect 1 to fit more in line with Mass Effect 3 is probably one my greatest fears at the moment. Sure, what are the odds you may ask, but George Lucas did it to Star Wars.
 

Modifié par elitecom, 05 août 2012 - 07:49 .

[Imp of the Perverse]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I have a theory that you can tell a lot about a gamer based on which ME game they prefer. ME1 players care about story and a unique experience. ME2 fans prefer a shooter first and story second, they still care about the story, but gameplay is more important. ME3 fans have just given up on having a good story, and care more about the big blockbuster set pieces than having a coherent narrative.

If they remade ME2 and ME3 to have a better story and exploration, then yes, I would re-purchase them. But if you're talking about gameplay and inventory management, then no.

ME2 had literally a dozen squadmates for you to interact with, in addition to the rest of the Normandy's crew. ME3's Rannoch and Tuchanka storylines were awesome. Feros and Noveria were very cool concepts for locations, but their individual story arcs were not particularly impressive. I'd say the confrontation with Mordin stands up pretty well next to the one with Benezia, and the final moments on Rannoch were more gripping than the conversation with the thorian.

[Newnation]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I have a theory that you can tell a lot about a gamer based on which ME game they prefer. ME1 players care about story and a unique experience. ME2 fans prefer a shooter first and story second, they still care about the story, but gameplay is more important. ME3 fans have just given up on having a good story, and care more about the big blockbuster set pieces than having a coherent narrative.

If they remade ME2 and ME3 to have a better story and exploration, then yes, I would re-purchase them. But if you're talking about gameplay and inventory management, then no.

I have a theory that your theory is judgemental crap.

I second that.