340 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth_Shizz]

Xaeldaren wrote...

Just remember, if you like shooters you're a intellectually deficient fool, if you like RPGs, especially ones with unnecessarily complex systems, filled with superfluous junk you are of course, the master race.

This is pretty true.

Where do the people that lay in the middle fit in though? What sort of hideous freak am I to be labelled?

...It's like being of mixed-ethnicity all over again man 

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Wait... so you're saying that they shouldn't go with a six year old system and instead should go for one that basically harkens back to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom?

Wait.. Doom was a TPS with cover mechanics? Wow.. I must be losing my mind.

To me simplifying things into basic and modern shooter elements is not a step forward...

That's all ME1 was once you stripped out the stat based aiming. It was even a poorer copy/implementation of even the most basic TPS found at the time. ME2 is the same system of ME1, but with out the stat based aiming, and performs as a functional non clunky TPS.
Maybe you have not played enough TPS's before ME to know that ME's combat system just was a really poorly copied TPS.
There is nothing different or anything that stands out about ME's combat system, other then it was lacking in every single aspect people have came to expect from a TPS. And it's stat based aiming was nothing to write home about as a positive feature, it just exasperated the problem.

Modifié par Murmillos, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:34 .

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...
Sorry, but I don't recall many people complaining about the overheat system.

Maybe because those people complained and never came back. People like you and I were obviously far more invested and stuck around and those people were obviously far more likely to to be able to tolerate it.

In fact, I recall lots of people thanking it and commenting how they liked that they didn't have to worry about ammo and deal with that aspect.

Yeah and those people stuck around. But they're the minority. Step outside these forums once in awhile and you'll see.

I also recall a few reviewers and members of the gaming media expressing some concern and disappointment about first learning of the new "ammo" system too.

Really? Where? I don't think a sentence like "We'll have to see if this new system improves on the old one" is truly an "expression of concern.

Yeah, well... there are some of us who are not just fans of the game but also of the Mass Effect universe beyond that.

Yeah people LIKE ME!
But if I have to choose between enjoying the HOURS worth of time I hope to invest in ME2 or not enjoying it so the combat meshes with a paragraph from ME1 then I'm choosing the sane option.

Many people felt that the original game's shortcomings were easily overlooked because of the great Mass Effect universe BioWare had created in fact. So there are some of us out there who definitely think that lore and canon are more than a tad important, and without it the game is rather pointless, no matter how BioWare decides to design it.

See above. I AM those people. Pretty much anyone on a ****ing ME FORUM are those people. But it's not my life. Some things are more important. Enjoying the gameplay in a massive Single Player game is one of them.

[Terror_K]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I feel ME2 is a radical different game from ME1. And that is odd, because it should be the second part of a trilogy. That not only means that the story should be a continuation, but the gameplay shouldn't be totally alien. I don't have high expectations for both the story part and the gameplay part, but I will give it a shot one last time. I doubt it, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

^ This. Particuarly what I bolded. That's a major factor for me too: that this game isn't a sequel so much as it is the second part of what is essentially the same game. But so much has changed that it's become alien it seems.

Murmillos wrote...

So why do you think something has to complained about or there is no reason for it to change.

Maybe the devs didn't like the system, maybe they realized that they couldn't balance the game with it still intact, or maybe the system just didn't mesh well in either the shooter or RPG aspect of Mass Effect.

Just because something isn't complained about, and just only tolerable because it gets the job done with out getting in the way of being broken, doesn't mean that the developers can't improve on it with another system which they feel will improve the game experience over all.

I'm all for developers being unique and trying new things, but they also realize and know that having a unique system just to be unique doesn't work in the grand scheme of things isn't always the best way to go either.

I am a full believer in the concept of  "if it's not broken, don't fix it" and as far as I was concerned the overheat system wasn't broken.

Now, BioWare have stated several times that the reason it went was to provide players with a bit more urgency and make the combat more crucial and intense, and force them to make each shot count rather than just being able to continuously shoot  without having to worry about ammo. I understand this concept and perspective, even if I don't agree with it in this case. Particularly when they've introduced super fast charging abilities that aren't limited that one could probably just continually spam now. This seems contradictory to me, particularly when they said they made cooldowns quicker to stop spamming. I fail to see how making the powers almost never unavailable is going to stop spamming exactly.

In either case, I suspect the thermal clip system came in more to fit with the more standard TPS style combat more than anything else. I personally think it's just a silly and overly standard gimmick, moreso for canon/lore reasons than anything else.

[DarthReavus]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]DarthReavus wrote...

Look, statistical aiming is great if you've got a pencil and paper and roll a few dice but it's terrible in a video game!  Considering it's cross-genre hybrid nature, ME should never have relied on stat based aiming in the first place.  Removing it is a blessing for ME2 in my opinion.  Stat based aiming is something of a relic in video games.  You cited the KotOR system earlier as something you'd prefer.  That system is six years old, it's antiquated in the modern gaming world. [/quote]

Wait... so you're saying that they shouldn't go with a six year old system and instead should go for one that basically harkens back to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom? That seems a bit backwards.

And then there's the fact I don't agree that everything has to be "with it" and fit into the "modern gaming world" either. A good game is a good game, and KotOR recieved pretty much universal praise, and I don't think I've ever heard anybody put down its system EVER.

To me simplifying things into basic and modern shooter elements is not a step forward, because I don't consider the TPS to be a terribly innovative or deep style of game for the most part. It just happens to be a current popular trend amongst the game-playing crowd these days. And this is coming from somebody whose favourite game of all time is the original Unreal Tournament, and somebody who owns games like Gears of War, the Hitman titles, Call of Duty 4, Team Fortress 2, etc.[/quote]
[/quote]

You'll get no argument from me that KotOR was a great game in it's day, but that day was a long time ago.  The TPS isn't a terribly deep system no, but it sure as hell makes more sense for ME than stat based aiming does.  Stats are important in ME2, they're just not particularly important in the shooting department anymore.  I'll be playing ME2 as an Adept so I'll be relying on stats quite heavily.  I have no problem with stat based RPG gaming, I just think it makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to aiming a gun in a video game.

I'm much happier taking cover and aiming shots myself ala GoW than I am with the KotOR version of gun combat.  I never liked the idea of standing out in the open lining up your shooting actions in a queue, firing off your first action and then the enemies do the same and so on.  Whichever side gets the best computer generated dice rolls wins.  Not to mention the fact that if you moved it broke you out of combat so you couldn't move and fire at the same time which is ridiculously unrealistic.

If Mass Effect has used that system you could bet your backside that it would be a niché game for devoted RPG gamers and not a massively popular game that is already generating tons of excitement and anticipation worldwide.

[AngryFrozenWater]

What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.



Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Xaeldaren wrote...

Just remember, if you like shooters you're a intellectually deficient fool, if you like RPGs, especially ones with unnecessarily complex systems, filled with superfluous junk you are of course, the master race.

I like you!

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

DarthReavus wrote...

Look, statistical aiming is great if you've got a pencil and paper and roll a few dice but it's terrible in a video game!  Considering it's cross-genre hybrid nature, ME should never have relied on stat based aiming in the first place.  Removing it is a blessing for ME2 in my opinion.  Stat based aiming is something of a relic in video games.  You cited the KotOR system earlier as something you'd prefer.  That system is six years old, it's antiquated in the modern gaming world. 

Going back six years is not the answer, the answer is to move forward and in sci-fi shooter RPGs to me that means moving away from stat based shooting and into the realms of TPS shooting.  I love all forms of RPG which includes pencil and paper D&D and Dragon Age.  Stat based combat works in those formats but I don't think it cuts the mustard with ME or the modern sci-fi RPG in general, except when it comes to things like biotic and tech powers or in the case of Star Wars, Force powers.  When it comes to shooting, stats should be kept well away and give the player the ability to directly control what they hit and where they hit by using their own eyes.

It is silly to say that shooter combat is more modern than rpg combat. That is lke saying football is more modern than chess. They are different games entirely.

RPG play is about the character. The stats/skills of the character are what should matter, not how twitchy the player controlling the character is. Shooters are about the twitchyness of the player. ME2 decided to go to twitch combat. Yes, the RPG aspect of ME 2 was dumbed down, at least as far as the combat system goes.

Oh, I like both rpgs and shooters, by the way. Though I mostly play shooters as a change of pace.

[Mundus6]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Their making the game more acessiable. While shunning some of the original fan-base, they are attracting many new prospective gamers.

IMO they've made alot of sideways steps, instead of striaght forward. OK, you add armor customization for shep, but the squad is now reduced to outfits?

You get rid of medi-gel, and heath auto regens, but you add ammo?

Ok now weapons are upgradable, but the ENTIRE inventosy system is gone.

No more Mako mountain climbing, but now it completely removed?

Armor is now cosmetically customizable, yet upgrades are gone?

Ammo powers are now player powers, but there are only 4 kinds?

I can't judge the game, as it could still be great. But it just seems like BW made alot fo drastic, uncessary design choices.

Adding ammo and removing medi gel is a good thing imo. You got unity to heal party members instead. The new armor system is definitely better than the old, ok you cant equip your squadmates which is a bummer. But apart from that, its much improved.

Ammo powers are cool, lets you switch ammo on the fly and they actually have different effects. In ME1 you just used 2 types of ammo + damage vs organics and + damage vs syntetics.

As for the powers they aren't gone, most classes have 1 or 2 powers less than in the last game at the most. And im pretty sure that there will be things that adds more abilites later in the game.

So play the game before you judge, the only thing which i guess we can complain about is the removal of the mako, sure the uncharted worlds sucked for the most parts. But some parts like Feros or Ilos would had been great, if the mako had decent controlls.

[SurfaceBeneath]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.

Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. First of which that ME2 is going to be a wildly different game, second that all of us people who are excited about ME2 are only conerned about combat.

Most of us complained about the combat aspect because it was a sore point in an otherwise very excellent game. We stayed because of the excellent game that was around the sub-par combat.

[Shady314]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.

Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

1) The story, dialogue and characters. I have made no secret of that. If ME had to stand on it's own based solely on it's combat though it would have been one of the worst games I've ever played.

2) REALLY?! The ****ing overheating mechanic is a core part of ME's identity now? Here I thought it's identity was the universe, characters and dialogue system. Color me confused.

[Shady314]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

DarthReavus wrote...

Look, statistical aiming is great if you've got a pencil and paper and roll a few dice but it's terrible in a video game!  Considering it's cross-genre hybrid nature, ME should never have relied on stat based aiming in the first place.  Removing it is a blessing for ME2 in my opinion.  Stat based aiming is something of a relic in video games.  You cited the KotOR system earlier as something you'd prefer.  That system is six years old, it's antiquated in the modern gaming world. 

Going back six years is not the answer, the answer is to move forward and in sci-fi shooter RPGs to me that means moving away from stat based shooting and into the realms of TPS shooting.  I love all forms of RPG which includes pencil and paper D&D and Dragon Age.  Stat based combat works in those formats but I don't think it cuts the mustard with ME or the modern sci-fi RPG in general, except when it comes to things like biotic and tech powers or in the case of Star Wars, Force powers.  When it comes to shooting, stats should be kept well away and give the player the ability to directly control what they hit and where they hit by using their own eyes.

It is silly to say that shooter combat is more modern than rpg combat. That is lke saying football is more modern than chess. They are different games entirely.

RPG play is about the character. The stats/skills of the character are what should matter, not how twitchy the player controlling the character is. Shooters are about the twitchyness of the player. ME2 decided to go to twitch combat. Yes, the RPG aspect of ME 2 was dumbed down, at least as far as the combat system goes.

Oh, I like both rpgs and shooters, by the way. Though I mostly play shooters as a change of pace.

You know "twitchiness" was used to denote a game that was a clickfest. Something like Diablo where how fast you could twitch your finger on the mousebutton actually equated to how well you performed in game. IE a "buttonmasher" but for PC games. When did we start using it to mean hand/eye coordination? Has it really just turned into a meaningless buzzword that's supposed to mean real time is bad and people that like it are idiots that can't handle a real game? Some RPG players make me embarrassed to be an RPG geek.

Modifié par Shady314, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:45 .

[Murmillos]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...



What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.



Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

The only thing that would cause ME to lose its identity, would be the writing style of the game shifting. A "Warrior Within" shift.



Improving the combat mechanics from something that worked (not broken, not the best.. but just "worked") will not cause the game to lose your identity. The game is not shifting from a classic RPG to a straight up shooter (as its always been a blend of the two, they are just fixing combat this round).

[Darth_Shizz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.

Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

Claiming that a bunch of stats are what make up even PART of the identity of Mass Effect, is actually incredibly demeaning to what is otherwise a brilliantly crafted game.

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:46 .

[Murmillos]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

RPG play is about the character. The stats/skills of the character are what should matter, not how twitchy the player controlling the character is. Shooters are about the twitchyness of the player. ME2 decided to go to twitch combat. Yes, the RPG aspect of ME 2 was dumbed down, at least as far as the combat system goes.

ME1 was twitch combat (abit wonky and broken in some aspects) but ME1..
was still, shooter based.  You still had to aim your weapon at a moving
target in real time and fire.  If that "twitch" combat.. then so be
it.. ME1 was twitchy, ME2 will just be a better "twitch"

Modifié par Murmillos, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:48 .

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

Wait.. Doom was a TPS with cover mechanics? Wow.. I must be losing my mind.

No, but essentially what the shooting aspect of the combat comes down to is aiming and shooting. After all, it's not like stats determined the cover system in the original Mass Effect either. If we're comparing the base combat system between games when it comes to what determines shooting, ME2 is no different from DOOM.

Even if we do become a bit more fussy, the original Gears of War is barely younger than KotOR anyway. It's hardly a new and innovative game.

That's all ME1 was once you stripped out the stat based aiming.

Translation: That's all ME1 was once your stripped out the single factor that most defined it combat wise.

Shady314 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Sorry, but I don't recall many people complaining about the overheat system.

Maybe because those people complained and never came back. People like you and I were obviously far more invested and stuck around and those people were obviously far more likely to to be able to tolerate it.

In fact, I recall lots of people thanking it and commenting how they liked that they didn't have to worry about ammo and deal with that aspect.

Yeah and those people stuck around. But they're the minority. Step outside these forums once in awhile and you'll see.

Oh, you mean if one were to go to a Gears of War or Halo forum? Or to any generic gaming forum? Because you're probably right that there were loads of players out there who expected ME to be a shooter who were disappointed in the mechanic. Rather than those at the official ME boards who were primarily RPG fans back in those days, since they mostly consisted of people who were already there and had lists of several colourful BioWare RPG names listed beneath their own. Because we all know that the minority is always wrong and that the masses of potential players are more important than the fans.

[DarthReavus]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

DarthReavus wrote...

Look, statistical aiming is great if you've got a pencil and paper and roll a few dice but it's terrible in a video game!  Considering it's cross-genre hybrid nature, ME should never have relied on stat based aiming in the first place.  Removing it is a blessing for ME2 in my opinion.  Stat based aiming is something of a relic in video games.  You cited the KotOR system earlier as something you'd prefer.  That system is six years old, it's antiquated in the modern gaming world. 

Going back six years is not the answer, the answer is to move forward and in sci-fi shooter RPGs to me that means moving away from stat based shooting and into the realms of TPS shooting.  I love all forms of RPG which includes pencil and paper D&D and Dragon Age.  Stat based combat works in those formats but I don't think it cuts the mustard with ME or the modern sci-fi RPG in general, except when it comes to things like biotic and tech powers or in the case of Star Wars, Force powers.  When it comes to shooting, stats should be kept well away and give the player the ability to directly control what they hit and where they hit by using their own eyes.

It is silly to say that shooter combat is more modern than rpg combat. That is lke saying football is more modern than chess. They are different games entirely.

RPG play is about the character. The stats/skills of the character are what should matter, not how twitchy the player controlling the character is. Shooters are about the twitchyness of the player. ME2 decided to go to twitch combat. Yes, the RPG aspect of ME 2 was dumbed down, at least as far as the combat system goes.

Oh, I like both rpgs and shooters, by the way. Though I mostly play shooters as a change of pace.

Again with the word twitchyness for describing shooters.  Most people who play a shooter and are twitchy on the trigger more often than not miss what they're trying to shoot and waste ammo.  It's not about being twitchy, it's about getting the shot right and making them count.  ME1 was and is a great game but you could be as twitchy as you wanted and not have to worry about wasting ammunition or missing because you could just keep spraying and praying.  That sort of twitchy spray and pray mentality will get you killed in a shooter, and in a real life combat scenario.  You need to be patient in cover and line up your shots, not waste them.  Being twitchy wastes shots.  Being patient and skillful with your timing and eyes on target is what it's really all about.

I play GoW2 on Horde with a couple of friends every so often and they're both better than I am.  Why?  Because I'm more twitchy than they are.  They're patient when they need to be and have a good eye for lining up the best shots for the least ammunition expended where as I tend to spray quite a bit and die as a result.

I think the overall gameplay of ME2 is very much an RPG in my opinion, just not when it comes to firearms.  I also think this is a good thing as relying on arcane mechanics for firearms is in my opinion outmoded and irrelevant in the present gaming age.  Statistical mechanics need to be in place for biotic and tech powers however, and so it still is.  When it comes to firearms combat then I honestly believe that TPS is the way to go.

[akintu]

 Ok, I think I finally get this whole debate.

It seems to boil down to turn-based vs realtime rpg mechanics.

Kotor was decidedly turn-based.  ME1 was an evolution.  Truthfully, it bore more resemblance to Kotor style combat than to shooter style combat.  You could play it as a shooter, but it was not designed so.  It was designed to be frequently paused, allowing "turns," where you either aimed or selected a power to use.  Unlimited ammo fit directly with this dynamic.

ME2 is a further evolution of the Kotor turn-based system.  It has been designed to be played primarily in realtime, with fewer pauses in the combat.  Limited ammo fits better with this dynamic.

Basically, this thread has brought up memories of how I felt when I first learned of the ME1 combat system.  I was extremely worried.  Kotor is one of the greatest games ever, and I was worried about the evolution of the combat system.  I worried that it wouldn't be fun, that it would be difficult, or not the sort of game I expected from Bioware.  Fortunately, those fears turned out to be ungrounded.

I feel ME2 will be similar.  The combat system is an evolution.  It is different from Kotor, and different from ME1.  But it is still an evolution, and I'm confident most of us will thoroughly enjoy the game when we play it.  It might take same adjustment, just as ME1 did coming from Kotor, but when we get used to it, it'll be great.

Unlike someone else, I do think turn-based RPG mechanics still have a place in today's gaming world.  I personally prefer them.  My favorite pastime is to find some fine smokables and kick back to relax and play a game.  Turn-based action is far far more enjoyable when my reflexes are, ahem, reduced.  That said, ME2 will have the ability to pause at any time.  It will be perfectly possible to pause and play turn-base it.  But I do understand the concern that ME2 is moving away from a dynamic that many of us find preferable to realtime action.  I also think it hasn't moved as far away from turn-based action as some may think

[AngryFrozenWater]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.

Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. First of which that ME2 is going to be a wildly different game, second that all of us people who are excited about ME2 are only conerned about combat.

Most of us complained about the combat aspect because it was a sore point in an otherwise very excellent game. We stayed because of the excellent game that was around the sub-par combat.

To me the game's changes are radically different. I can only compare what I know and what has been confirmed so far. Those changes range from party members to game mechaniscs. Those are not assumptions. Those are fact.

You obviously didn't like the combat system. I really enjoyed it. That doesn't mean it cannot be improved, but to me it sure was not sub-par. I cannot state that I don't like the new changes, because I haven't played it (and otherwise I would make assumptions), but you haven't played it either and can make the assumption that it is better. You sir, make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Wait.. Doom was a TPS with cover mechanics? Wow.. I must be losing my mind.

No, but essentially what the shooting aspect of the combat comes down to is aiming and shooting. After all, it's not like stats determined the cover system in the original Mass Effect either. If we're comparing the base combat system between games when it comes to what determines shooting, ME2 is no different from DOOM.

Even if we do become a bit more fussy, the original Gears of War is barely younger than KotOR anyway. It's hardly a new and innovative game.

That's all ME1 was once you stripped out the stat based aiming.

Translation: That's all ME1 was once your stripped out the single factor that most defined it combat wise.

Shady314 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Sorry, but I don't recall many people complaining about the overheat system.

Maybe because those people complained and never came back. People like you and I were obviously far more invested and stuck around and those people were obviously far more likely to to be able to tolerate it.

In fact, I recall lots of people thanking it and commenting how they liked that they didn't have to worry about ammo and deal with that aspect.

Yeah and those people stuck around. But they're the minority. Step outside these forums once in awhile and you'll see.

Oh, you mean if one were to go to a Gears of War or Halo forum? Or to any generic gaming forum? Because you're probably right that there were loads of players out there who expected ME to be a shooter who were disappointed in the mechanic. Rather than those at the official ME boards who were primarily RPG fans back in those days, since they mostly consisted of people who were already there and had lists of several colourful BioWare RPG names listed beneath their own. Because we all know that the minority is always wrong and that the masses of potential players are more important than the fans.

sounds like elitism rearing it's ugly head again...

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...
Oh, you mean if one were to go to a Gears of War or Halo forum? Or to any generic gaming forum? Because you're probably right that there were loads of players out there who expected ME to be a shooter who were disappointed in the mechanic. Rather than those at the official ME boards who were primarily RPG fans back in those days, since they mostly consisted of people who were already there and had lists of several colourful BioWare RPG names listed beneath their own. Because we all know that the minority is always wrong and that the masses of potential players are more important than the fans.

No you're right of course. All that matters are the old fans. Anyone that hasn't seen the light by now is a filthy heathen that should be burned at the stake. Never mind that those dirty casual fans are crucial to the continued existence of Bioware. You think the forum posters constitute a large enough sole consumer base to finance the multimillion dollar investment games have become?

Please just listen to yourself.

[SurfaceBeneath]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
To me the game's changes are radically different. I can only compare what I know and what has been confirmed so far. Those changes range from party members to game mechaniscs. Those are not assumptions. Those are fact.

You obviously didn't like the combat system. I really enjoyed it. That doesn't mean it cannot be improved, but to me it sure was not sub-par. I cannot state that I don't like the new changes, because I haven't played it (and otherwise I would make assumptions), but you haven't played it either and can make the assumption that it is better. You sir, make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

First off, I'll ignore your last statement that I was making assumptions because I feel in a particularly not-trolly mood.

Second off at the core of Mass Effect's combat, is being changed for the worse? Phrase your response as specifically and objectively as you possibly can. I want to see you say exactly what changes are made, and how those changes are going to make the gameplay worse or less complex?

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:55 .

[Terror_K]

DarthReavus wrote...

If Mass Effect has used that system you could bet your backside that it would be a niché game for devoted RPG gamers and not a massively popular game that is already generating tons of excitement and anticipation worldwide.

Umm... I'd actually prefer it that way, to be honest. Niche games tend to get made more for their fans and not so much retooled to suit and appeal more to the mainstream.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.

Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

I know! The way some people talk you'd think Mass Effect was one of the biggest flops and worst designed games in history.

[Shady314]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
To me the game's changes are radically different. I can only compare what I know and what has been confirmed so far. Those changes range from party members to game mechaniscs. Those are not assumptions. Those are fact.

I would say you have an unusual definition of radical. 

You obviously didn't like the combat system. I really enjoyed it. That doesn't mean it cannot be improved, but to me it sure was not sub-par. I cannot state that I don't like the new changes, because I haven't played it (and otherwise I would make assumptions), but you haven't played it either and can make the assumption that it is better. You sir, make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Wow way to repeat exactly what I said in one of my first posts. That this entire conversation was funny because for all we know some of you will get your wish and ME2 combat will end up sucking again. Then you'll really get the last laugh....

But hey why should you have to bother reading anything before jumping in and embarrassing yourself am I right? Please continue.