340 réponses à ce sujet

[Shady314]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...
The combat system in ME was fine. Did it need improving? Sure, but why ditch the whole thing?

Fine =/= Good It means tolerable. Wow what a ringing endorsement. ME combat sucked balls when compared to nearly any shooter out there. It was embarrassing. Please tell me how you think it could have been improved?

I'm sorry but DITCH the WHOLE thing? Are you trolling? Wonderful use of hyperbole. They still have TPS shooter gameplay so obviously the whole thing was not ditched. If ME suddenly had DA:O combat then you could say ME2 had ditched the WHOLE thing. lmao

As for copying, how exactly is it a good thing to have the combat system in all games exactly the same?

ALL games EXACTLY the same? There's that lovely hyperbole again. I think you meant to say how is it a good thing to have games within the same genre share basic gameplay similarities? Which is after all, you know, how they end up the same genre.

Well the answer to that is there are tried and true mechanics that have been discovered and tweaked over the years to deliver solid and FUN gameplay. Since ME wants to be a TPS it needs to draw inspiration from TPS games that have come before it and have managed to create fun combat.

ME attempted this. It FAILED abysmally. So for ME2 they set out to improve it and shockingly they ended up with a combat system that bears similarities to other TPSes that have had fun combat. If you can't figure out why this might be then you're just lost. 

Innovation is good. It may not work out 100% right the first time you try it, but that's what tweaking and improvement is for. Who's to say that had Bioware improved the old system instead of ditching it, that it wouldn't be better that the Gears system?

Again every word you speak makes no logical sense. They added location based damage, improved interactions with cover, I believe you can no longer use certain weapons based on your class (big deal you never used a weapon in ME1 without training anyways since you would just embarrass yourself), and replaced the cooldown mechanic with ammo...... How is this DITCHING anything? Cooldown was an unfun and stupid replacement of ammo in ME1 in the first place.  That they hoped would be innovative and fun. It turned out to suck. Lesson learned. Innovation CAN be good but sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's just a gimmick.

But please I would love to hear the brilliant ideas I'm sure you must have. Tell me how would you have liked Bioware to improve their combat system without "ditching" a single part of it?

Modifié par Shady314, 18 janvier 2010 - 09:25 .

[deimosmasque]

Shady314 you are my new hero.

[Terror_K]

I love how the definition of "troll" lately at the ME forums seems to now be "anybody who disagrees with the status quo" or "anybody who suggests the game may not be super awesome!!1"



The cooldown system "sucking" is a matter of opinion. I personally thought it was better than what is essentially now just an ammo system. BioWare said it was there in the first place so players didn't have to worry about ammo, and now they've basically flip-flopped on that entirely.



The fact was the old combat system was one that RPG fans could easily tolerate and ignore for the most part. To many the combat stuff was just filler between story and dialogue and doing missions. Now it's a factor that's not as easy to ignore because it really is just a standard TPS shooter system now. BioWare devs used to be proud of the fact that the original game was one that different people could enjoy on different levels, but ME2 seems mostly catered to the shooter fan audience now.

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

The fact was the old combat system was one that RPG fans could easily tolerate and ignore for the most part. To many the combat stuff was just filler between story and dialogue and doing missions. Now it's a factor that's not as easy to ignore because it really is just a standard TPS shooter system now. BioWare devs used to be proud of the fact that the original game was one that different people could enjoy on different levels, but ME2 seems mostly catered to the shooter fan audience now.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this. Your idea of a combat system that works, is apparently one that's easy to tolerate, and possibly ignore? 

SANDAL, WHEREFORE ART THOU?!?! 

Basically, instead of being a standard TPS shooter with rpg elements, ME is now taking the route of "standard TPS shooter" with rpg elements

...oh wait

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 18 janvier 2010 - 09:53 .

[Terror_K]

Actually the original Mass Effect was more of an Action RPG with Shooter elements. ME2 seems more like a Shooter with RPG elements now.

[sinosleep]

Well since it's come up, it's block of text time.





The reasons that I'm personally having a hard time understanding what the anti-shooter crowd are complaing about are 1.) every last thread I've seen on this topic half the people in the thread mention a) 13 year olds ADD c) whatever other stupid cliche there is about people who enjoy shooters and 2.) when taking all the changes into account I really DO have a hard time figuring out why most of the complaints would be anything other than minor.



I mean, why not break it down feature by feature and see what we get?



1. combat

a.) aiming is no longer stat based but point and shoot. 1. for more like a shooter



b.) thermal clips 2. for more like a shooter. Although it comes with this caveat. If you've ever played any amount of shooter games you'd know that you NEVER run out of ammo for your standard weapons unless you can't hit the backside of a barn. If a game features a pistol, sub machine gun, assault rifle, rocket launcher, and plasma canon, the only ones you should ever run out of ammo for are the rocket launcher and plasma canon as they are clearly not standard weapons. Not only that, but PERSONALLY, I'll take limited heat sinks that allow me to actually DO SOMETHING about an overheated weapon than simply allowing it to cool off any day of the week.



c.) Biotics, still entirely stat based. 1. for rpg.



d.) Tech powers are still entirely stat based. 2. for rpg



e.) Weapon mods. Were actually more shooter oriented in ME 1 (you got incendiary ammo from boxes/dead enemies/etc) but are now stat point based. 3. for rpg



That pretty much wraps up combat 3/2 in favor of the rpg.



Exploration



a.) Normandy now has upgradable stats of it's own. 4. for rpgs.



b.) Mineral searches actually involve more than a simple point and click. 5. for rpgs



c.) No Mako, and less planets, but the planets themselves are far larger and more important to the main mission. Kind of a toss up so I'll just leave it up in the air. Rpg purist will site smaller numbers, I'll site the bigger missions on them.



Other



a.) Leveling. It's still here, it's extremely important, and even though there are less skill points to spread around, the skills they boost are actually more varied since each has it's own specialization. 6. for rpgs.



b.) Inventory/Weapon system. The old one was junk, and frankly I don't consider the need for vendor trash to be an essential aspect of an rpg so I don't really see the problem here. Devs have confirmed that there are both weapons specific to Shepard and weapons specific to companions so unique weapons are still in the game, you simply don't have to stock up on and later sell vendor trash in order to access them. It's not much of a change from ME 1 where once you unlocked Spectre gear it made all other weapons irrelevant. All Bioware have done kept the system while getting rid of the vendor trash. I consider this another toss up.





c.) Armor. I essentially feel the same way about armor that I do about the inventory/weapon system. There are obviously less sets of armor, but lets be honest. Who wore more than 2 or 3 different sets of armor in ME 1? Depending on your race they hardly dropped or sold any armor and once you got Colossus it was all irrelevant any way.



d.) Decryption no longer being a skill. This complaint I can see the fuss over as it essentially gets rid of an entire class. On the DA:O forums when people complained about the lack of a bash function I was quick to say that that would make a lot of people simply not bring rogue's along since that is their primary purpose. I thought that it would hurt the game, and feel the same way about it in mass effect. I know some others say the game shouldn't dictate what classes you bring along with you but since it's such a common thing to do I don't think that pushing you into the traditional warrior (soldier)/mage (adpept)/rogue (tech) party is an issue. 3 for shooters.



At this point I've got it 6/3 in favor of major rpg elements while having a few toss ups and explanations why.





Now explain to me how it's more of a shooter than an rpg.

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...
I love how the definition of "troll" lately at the ME forums seems to now be "anybody who disagrees with the status quo" or "anybody who suggests the game may not be super awesome!!1"

Wouldn't the status quo be the cooldown mechanic seeing as how ME 2 is not released yet?
As for my use of the word troll I merely use it when someone says something so shockingly ridiculous I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are being intentionally provocative. It helps me not call them names.

The cooldown system "sucking" is a matter of opinion. I personally thought it was better than what is essentially now just an ammo system. BioWare said it was there in the first place so players didn't have to worry about ammo, and now they've basically flip-flopped on that entirely.

1) An opinion shared almost universally by reviewers. It was also a VERY common complaint on the ME boards after release. I certainly never meant to say the cooldown aspect sucked as a fact so that's a strawman but you also cannot argue it did not suck just because you were ok with it.
2) Flip flopping is what you're supposed to do when you realize you're wrong. Bioware realized they were wrong.

The fact was the old combat system was one that RPG fans could easily tolerate

And YOU would be the decider of this I suppose? Because as an RPG fan I disagree with you and you do not speak for any fan RPG or otherwise.

and ignore for the most part.

Well that's certainly fantastic! for something that was supposed to be an integral part of the game and an innovative new system.

To many the combat stuff was just filler between story and dialogue and doing missions.

Gameplay is what makes a game a GAME and not a movie. Where do you live? You can come watch me play ME2. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I feel most gamers like to enjoy their gameplay in between the dialogue and doing missions. Though isn't doing a mission heavily dependent on the gameplay? You are making me seriously confused.

Now it's a factor that's not as easy to ignore

And you failed to convince Bioware with this argument? Shocking. How Bio you know that combat you've spent 50% of your time, money and effort on. How come I can't just completely ignore it like I did in the first game. That was super cool.

because it really is just a standard TPS shooter system now.

FINALLY some truth. Could you people just admit you don't like TPS games! That would at least make sense. I could understand that and get behind you. I understand you probably love Bioware but that doesn't mean you HAVE to buy every game they make or that every game they make must cater to you. If you hate TPS gameplay then a TPS even one made by Bioware is not for you. Your complaint is that ME2 has improved the TPS aspects and you don't like that. BOO HOO. ME trilogy was always an RPG TPS since it was first announced. That the TPS portion SUCKED was never meant to be a selling point.

BioWare devs used to be proud of the fact that the original game was one that different people could enjoy on different levels, but ME2 seems mostly catered to the shooter fan audience now.

See how can I read something like this and not think troll? I'll repeat myself. ME was always a TPS. It was always supposed to be a GOOD TPS. I don't think Bioware was ever proud of the fact they failed in that regard. ME without the story, dialogue and characters would be an F. Bioware are not idiots/sellouts/ashamed or any other ridiculous term you want to use because they would like their gameplay to be as good as their story.

The funny part is we still have NO idea if ME2 combat is even going to be better. Maybe it WILL suck as much as before or even worse. Maybe you will have the last laugh and enjoy playing an incredibly poor TPS while the rest of us fume impotently on message boards.

[sinosleep]

IMO ME was never a TPS, it was an rpg that allowed you to use guns. That does NOT make it a shooter. Stats affected accuracy, playing in real time was counter productive, there was no location based damage, you could literally pause the game, line up your shot, upause the game, and then fire. No decent TPS or FPS that I can think of lacked the features I mentioned ME lacking and no decent TPS or FPS I can think of had any of the features I mentioned there. So in my opinion, ME 1 was a straight up RPG, they just swapped swords and bows for guns.

[Darth_Shizz]

sinosleep wrote...

IMO ME was never a TPS, it was an rpg that allowed you to use guns. That does NOT make it a shooter. Stats affected accuracy, playing in real time was counter productive, there was no location based damage, you could literally pause the game, line up your shot, upause the game, and then fire. No decent TPS or FPS that I can think of lacked the features I mentioned ME lacking and no decent TPS or FPS I can think of had any of the features I mentioned there. So in my opinion, ME 1 was a straight up RPG, they just swapped swords and bows for guns.

Borderlands 

[Murmillos]

sinosleep wrote...

IMO ME was never a TPS, it was an rpg that allowed you to use guns. That does NOT make it a shooter. Stats affected accuracy, playing in real time was counter productive, there was no location based damage, you could literally pause the game, line up your shot, upause the game, and then fire. No decent TPS or FPS that I can think of lacked the features I mentioned ME lacking and no decent TPS or FPS I can think of had any of the features I mentioned there. So in my opinion, ME 1 was a straight up RPG, they just swapped swords and bows for guns.

I did try to love you.. and now you've gone off to confuse and hurt me.

[Akimb0]

I was shocked when I read about everything they took out in the most recent PCGamer magazine. With the dissapointment of DA, it seems that after being bought by EA, Biowares games are just being dumbed down; and ME2 definitely seems to be following this trend. Will I buy it? probably not now.

Lack of choice = lack of replay = poor value for money.

Modifié par Akimb0, 18 janvier 2010 - 10:19 .

[Murmillos]

Akimb0 wrote...
*snip* Lack of choice = lack of replay = poor value for money.

Lack of what choice? I can't even phantom how you came to this concussion. What choices are you referring to that would be "lacking"?

Lack of replay?... uh... really? How... did we... you.. how.. WHAT?!?

Modifié par Murmillos, 18 janvier 2010 - 10:20 .

[Terror_K]

I'd personally say it would be fair to cite leveling as being a toss up rather than another point for RPG's. Yes, it's present, but because it now only comes into play with class skills and no longer effects shooting, armour, decryption, etc. I know this crosses into other categories you have listed, but I still feel that while leveling is very much present and is still an RPG factor, it's not as varied as it once was. The branching of of skills is the exception to this, but not enough in my books to make it a complete RPG win. The fact is, stats effect less than they used to. That's not an opinion, it's fact.



Secondly, many of the problems you mention with the old systems come down to the items themselves being broken rather than the system itself. The problem with the weapons in armour in the original game is that they weren't quite balanced well enough, weren't truly unique and weren't as varied or gave much true choice, as well as the fact there was only one obvious King Of All for every item rather than a series of great items that were strong in some areas and weak in others. If the items themselves hadn't been so broken and had been better thought out and designed, the original systems would have been fine. To a certain degree every RPG has this problem; there's always the best uber-gear at the top. But the best RPG's have different uber gear that serves different classes and playstyles better than others, and has certain factors that give the player choices and force them to have an item with either high this or high that rather than a single item that's best for all no matter what. Since we don't know the specifics of the items in ME2 yet, we don't even know what the case here is either. ME2 very well could end up suffering the same Colossus X and Master Spectre Gear type problems that ME1 did. We don't know.



Finally, one can't divide up attributes into sections like that and automatically treat them all as equal parts of the game. For instance, with the possible exception of some biotic classes combat is going to mostly be made up of shooting with your guns, and thus because the item listed as Number 1, Combat, is actually a feature that effects far more of the gameplay than any other, the shooting aspect effects far more of the game than any other. This is why the move from stats-based shooter combat to twitch-based shooter combat is such a big deal: it's the main factor of the game's combat side. Simply put, you list 9 different items above, but the shooter side of the game is by no means a mere one ninth or 11% of ME2, it actually factors out to make up almost half of the game.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

I love how the definition of "troll" lately at the ME forums seems to now be "anybody who disagrees with the status quo" or "anybody who suggests the game may not be super awesome!!1"

Actually, the trolls are those who insist the game is worse when they haven't even played it, and then when citing their reasons why the game is going to suck, don't actually use any kind of logical reasons for why the changes that are being made are worse besides uber vague statements like "less complex!" and "dumbed down!"

By the way, ME1's combat equated to either "use immunity and run in the middle of enemies invincible mowing them down" or "activate your CCs and kill the enemy while they can't attack you". So if you want to talk about really ass-retarded combat, you need look no further than ME1 to find it.

[Shady314]

sinosleep wrote...

IMO ME was never a TPS, it was an rpg that allowed you to use guns. That does NOT make it a shooter. Stats affected accuracy, playing in real time was counter productive, there was no location based damage, you could literally pause the game, line up your shot, upause the game, and then fire. No decent TPS or FPS that I can think of lacked the features I mentioned ME lacking and no decent TPS or FPS I can think of had any of the features I mentioned there. So in my opinion, ME 1 was a straight up RPG, they just swapped swords and bows for guns.

I get what you're saying (I think) and I agree. If I may attempt to clarify. ME is an RPG first and foremost. All TPS elements are secondary. Therefore it's more accurately classified as an Action RPG. It just happens to be played the exact way a TPS is.

Well I'm not going to discuss genre conventions or bother debating the naming conventions we gamers have. They're too subjective and like I said for the most part I agree with you.

You actually make a good argument that ME is an INNOVATIVE TPS.

[Shady314]

Bionic Weapon wrote...

Well I'll wait and see, but I sill have little doubt that the game will be amazing. It will just give it a chance.

My one little thing that I don't dislike but am a little saddened by is whether or not the side mission/explorable planets will be limited to N7 missions only. I liked getting a mission to clear a base of crime lords or derelict vessels and even ones that turned into ambushes.

Not saying I wont like these N& ones but I hope we can still visit derelict vessels, and bases that people want cleared out or people that need dealing with.

I can guarantee you that we will visit derelict vessels. Guaranteed.

[sinosleep]

Murmillos wrote...
I did try to love you.. and now you've gone off to confuse and hurt me.

There are things that I consider to be at the core of what shooters are. Hitting where you aim is one of those things. Mass Effect didn't have that, you had to dump stats into weapon traits or spectre traits to improve accuracy. Playing in real time is something else I consider core to what shooters are. Even your stealth based shooters like Splinter Cell and Metal Gear playout in real time and you aren't hampered by it. In Mass Effect playing in real time was counter productive, not only that, but the game actually allowed to pause, aim, unpause, shoot from target to target if you wanted to. The closest a true TPS or FPS comes to that is bullet time, which is limited by some kind of meter.

Because of these things, I think Mass Effect falls squarely into RPG territory. An rpg that allows you to use guns, but quite clearly an rpg.

Someone mentioned Borderlands. I haven't played it, but from what I hear you hit where you aim and it is actually a shooter, with branching rpg like skill trees and loot.

[Shady314]

sinosleep wrote...

Murmillos wrote...
I did try to love you.. and now you've gone off to confuse and hurt me.

There are things that I consider to be at the core of what shooters are. Hitting where you aim is one of those things. Mass Effect didn't have that, you had to dump stats into weapon traits or spectre traits to improve accuracy. Playing in real time is something else I consider core to what shooters are. Even your stealth based shooters like Splinter Cell and Metal Gear playout in real time and you aren't hampered by it. In Mass Effect playing in real time was counter productive, not only that, but the game actually allowed to pause, aim, unpause, shoot from target to target if you wanted to. The closest a true TPS or FPS comes to that is bullet time, which is limited by some kind of meter.

Because of these things, I think Mass Effect falls squarely into RPG territory. An rpg that allows you to use guns, but quite clearly an rpg.

Someone mentioned Borderlands. I haven't played it, but from what I hear you hit where you aim and it is actually a shooter, with branching rpg like skill trees and loot.

Just MAYBE a game can fall into more than one genre at once. 

[Terror_K]

Well, Casey said at one point that "every mission ties into the main story" and I actually hope he didn't mean that quite as literally as it sounded. I like the idea that some would, but the whole point of sidequests is to do something off the beaten track and tackle some things that are a bit different and unique. It makes it sound like with ME2 you have the main quest and a bunch of optional main mini quests but no real sidequests. Again, I hope there's at least some stuff to do that doesn't have to tie into the main plot and your companions. The universe won't seem quite as real and alive if there isn't some random unrelated stuff in there too.

[Darth_Shizz]

Akimb0 wrote...
Lack of choice = lack of replay = poor value for money.

The only way I could agree with you here, is if we were talking about a lack of meaningful choices, as opposed to choices that were superseded and ultimately made redundant due to x  or y 

Trimming dead game mechanics and dumbing down are not exactly the same thing now, are they? From what I've seen in terms of combat, it's been improved by, oddly enough, actually making it feel as if it's combat (better cover system, better damage system, better animations). As for reducing the level cap, and in turn, reducing the amount of available skills. Is this really a bad thing? So instead of having to stick 12 points into a skill and improving it by 2% each time, there are more accentuated improvements. There are more streamlined skills, and from what I can tell, more defined classes.

I really still don't understand this misconception that "Mass Effect 2 is catering to fps fans now", when in essence, ME2 is likely to be just as much of a shooter as ME1 was...just with smoother, less awkward shooting 0_o

[Murmillos]

The fact is, stats effect less than they used to.

But the impact that they have is bigger this time around. Plus, when you level up to the 4th tier and evolve the skill, you can change the skill that better matches your play style. Instead of just having 1 single prestige class that you can select at lv 20+, each skill basically has its own prestige within it.



This is why the move from stats-based shooter combat to twitch-based shooter combat is such a big deal: it's the main factor of the game's combat side. But once you leveled up your seasoned and combat trained Shepard to finally use a weapon correctly, your "stat-based" shooter still turned into twitched-based shooter combat. No.. wait... ME1 was still always twitch-based combat, just with a huge annoying part of missing for no god damn reason in the first half the game. You keep on trying to bring up that stats are so important for ME to remain ME. But you are in the minority who don't seem to realize that some of those stat based designs just did not work with in the game structure. The reason so many things "had to be scrapped" is because it didn't work.



If ME1 shooter combat was only one ninth of the game, then we wouldn't have this issue. But ME1 combat was well over half of the game - and it appears it will be the same for ME2. That's why it needs such the big change that it does.



If a game you were playing, and speech tree's were only one ninth of the game, I'm sure you wouldn't have an issue with a few bad glitches or bad grammar and writing. But if speech tree's were well half of the game structure and design, then I'm sure you would want that part of the game polished to a shine.

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...

Well, Casey said at one point that "every mission ties into the main story" and I actually hope he didn't mean that quite as literally as it sounded. I like the idea that some would, but the whole point of sidequests is to do something off the beaten track and tackle some things that are a bit different and unique. It makes it sound like with ME2 you have the main quest and a bunch of optional main mini quests but no real sidequests. Again, I hope there's at least some stuff to do that doesn't have to tie into the main plot and your companions. The universe won't seem quite as real and alive if there isn't some random unrelated stuff in there too.

I'm certain he didn't mean that literally.

I feel it makes the universe more real when you are trying to save the world/galaxy and you can do side missions without feeling like your metagaming. I've never played a Shepard that I thought should be wasting time on half those UNC missions. But of course I did them because of course new content!

A sidequest is any quest you don't have to do to reach the end of the game. I hope they are ALL optional mini main missions.

[Kalfear]

Terror_K wrote...

Actually the original Mass Effect was more of an Action RPG with Shooter elements. ME2 seems more like a Shooter with RPG elements now.

It does seem that way and thats going to bite BW in the arse when on the 26th the bulk of their RPG fans get game expecting ME1 balance and they get Halo with a more complete story.

This just one of many threads commenting on changes and addressing their concerns and the same people that bashing OP here doing so in those threads as well. ALOT of people have concerns but willing to try game cause its Bioware. Im one of them.

But BW, your rep only gets us to try game, not like game.

In the end, your audeince is still majority RPG and minority (huge minority) shooter. It kinda looks like you forgot that this time around to be honest.

Lets hope not.

[Shady314]

Kalfear wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Actually the original Mass Effect was more of an Action RPG with Shooter elements. ME2 seems more like a Shooter with RPG elements now.

It does seem that way and thats going to bite BW in the arse when on the 26th the bulk of their RPG fans get game expecting ME1 balance and they get Halo with a more complete story.

This just one of many threads commenting on changes and addressing their concerns and the same people that bashing OP here doing so in those threads as well. ALOT of people have concerns but willing to try game cause its Bioware. Im one of them.

But BW, your rep only gets us to try game, not like game.

In the end, your audeince is still majority RPG and minority (huge minority) shooter. It kinda looks like you forgot that this time around to be honest.

Lets hope not.

God I cannot wait till you discover that you do not speak for every RPG fan in the world.