92 réponses à ce sujet

[capn233]

I am with brad on this one. Overall ME2 is more difficult.

You can argue about the AI in the two games if you want. I will concede that in some ways ME3 has "smarter" AI. They do have somewhat improved tactics. They more commonly use tools to flush from cover. But those aren't the only things that make for difficulty.

Keeping with the units, ME2 enemies were more accurate on Insanity overall compared to ME3. There isn't any sort of dodging (with built in DR) to reduce damage as you move from cover to cover. And while they didn't quite have as many instances where they would bust your cover, there were a few anti-cover tricks they imployed. Mechs (mainly Loki and Fenris), combat drones, husks, Scion's shockwave, and Harbinger's attack were all supposed to somewhat counter cover.

The heart of the matter though was player abilities and weapons and the ability to inflict damage. In ME2 all the vanilla game weapons were balanced fairly well, some were good if used properly, but none were game breaking. There were no vanilla game powers that were terribly powerful either. The easiest to abuse probably being Assault Armor, but even if it was possible to play some of the game on automatic with it, it was near useless against mid-high tier units (except as a defense or squad power reset). Importantly though, there were not synergies stacked upon synergies in the class designs. While something like Charge was a good power, Vanguard would punish mistakes moreso than in ME3, especially early, as there was no magic stagger power that ran without cooldowns that also gives like 1.5s of immunity frames. There was only one power combo, and it required stripping protections before it could even be utilized, unlike the combos in ME3.

There were a few DLC abilities and guns that made the game a lot easier in ME2. Specifically the Mattock under time compression, Stasis, and Flashbang. The power of the latter two was the result of bugs with the way they were implemented, while the Mattock was supposed to be balanced by capacity.

Basically every DLC weapon for ME3 will kill things very rapidly. But there were already vanilla game weapons that were great, even if a couple ME2 guns got neutered when they were implemented in ME3. Porting MP balance changes into SP pushed some of them even further (Black Widow, Wraith, Saber).

There were also no simply unprotected enemies in ME2 insanity which meant that at minimum you had a two step process to kill every unit in the game. With ME3, there are plenty of unprotected basics, and you can combo on protecteds if you want anyway. There is a shieldgate, which didn't exist in ME2, but there were very few setups that could one-shot most protected enemies anyway.

The melee shenanigans for ME3 also make the game easier. Shepard's elbow of doom was ok in the previous game, but you didn't have a magic one-hit kill like in ME3 (aka the grab).

[AustereLemur799]

ME3 really was a cakewalk - the only difficult bits were the animated bits (against the Reaper on Rannoch and then Marauder Shields on the last Earth mission).

ME1 insanity was, by far, the hardest due to the patience needed. The toughest bit in ME2 was the collector ship after Horizon.

But basically the series has just gotten easier and easier.

[WillieStyle]

With all due respect, the folks arguing against me are somewhat proving my point. If you're an experienced player, you define easy as getting through a level quickly. You've min/maxed your Shepard and her squad to do ridiculous damage, and you know how to use dodge and right-hand-advantage to minimize enemy fire while maximizing your own. These are good things. In essence, ME3 rewards skill more than ME2 so the more experienced you are, the easier it will seem.

Now try to imagine the first time you played ME2; try to imagine playing ME3 with the same level of experience and playstyle. Would you really have been dodging from cover to cover, using soft cover, and popping power combos as you burst down banshees and phantoms in seconds? Perhaps. But if you're a typical player, when you first started, you'd probably define easy as getting through a level with a low risk of death rather than getting through a level quickly. This is why the vast majority of players would consider the ME2 Soldier much easier to play than the ME2 Vanguard even though, in the hands of an experienced player, they could both get through levels with comparable speed.

Other than stopping spawns by running to a spawn point (which is terrible design by the way) ME2 was just a brute force slug fest. For an experienced player, it is harder than ME3 because you did less dps and the enemies had layers of rock/paper/scissors protections. But that isn't really "hard". Did the fact that you had to take a few seconds to strip shields or armor from every single mook on the screen increase your odds of failure? No. It was just a tedious increase in the amount of time I had to spend unloading my bullet hose into what were, for the most part, dumb enemies.

And you simply can't compare the extent of "cover flushing" in both games. I may have a unique perspective here because I stepped away from both games for over a year before coming back to them, but between grenades, smoke (god I hate smoke), flanking, and multiple spawn locations, ME3 punishes the conservative player far more than ME2. I mean seriously, compare the collector ship to Grissom academy. Or Horizon to the Thannix missile gauntlet. The ME3 fights are much harder if you define "hard" as increased probability of failure. If you define "hard" as time to complete, then sure ME2 is "harder"; no amount of skill is going to remove the armor from mooks. But to me, that isn't hard, it's tedious.

tldr:
you think the series has gotten easier and easier because you've gotten better at playing the game and the community has gotten better at min/maxing and datamining. This is a classic issue in RPGs of all kinds. There are WoW players who will (delusionally) claim that Vanilla WoW raids were "harder" than current ones.

[WillieStyle]

Also, re: game breaking abilities, if ME2 Adrenaline rush wasn't game breaking then that term has no meaning.

[brad2240]

You make some good points, Willie, but I can't say that I much agree.

WillieStyle wrote...

With all due respect, the folks arguing against me are somewhat proving my point. If you're an experienced player, you define easy as getting through a level quickly. You've min/maxed your Shepard and her squad to do ridiculous damage, and you know how to use dodge and right-hand-advantage to minimize enemy fire while maximizing your own. These are good things. In essence, ME3 rewards skill more than ME2 so the more experienced you are, the easier it will seem.

Now try to imagine the first time you played ME2; try to imagine playing ME3 with the same level of experience and playstyle. Would you really have been dodging from cover to cover, using soft cover, and popping power combos as you burst down banshees and phantoms in seconds? Perhaps. But if you're a typical player, when you first started, you'd probably define easy as getting through a level with a low risk of death rather than getting through a level quickly. This is why the vast majority of players would consider the ME2 Soldier much easier to play than the ME2 Vanguard even though, in the hands of an experienced player, they could both get through levels with comparable speed.

 
I consider myself experienced, in that I've done many play-throughs of the trilogy, but I'm a conservative player by nature. I do define easy as having a low chance of death, speed runs don't interest me and I have more fun moving through the game at a comfortable pace rather than risking a re-load by playing too aggressively. I had a very hard time coming to grips with an aggressive style in ME2 and still don't care for it much. That's also why I don't care much for Vanguards or shotguns in general in that game. That probably means I'm not a typical player by this board's standards.
 
I started ME3 the same way I started 2: as a Soldier, with an assault rifle, with a preference for fighting from mid-field. I can't discount that my experience from ME2 was a factor, but ME3 was just noticeably easier. Relatively stronger weapons (in some cases) and much stronger powers (in almost all cases) combined with a lot of unprotected enemies had me moving through this game at a much faster pace for my first time out than the previous game.

I think the stronger weapons and, especially, the stronger powers are some something you're glossing over in your statements. The team has a lot more crowd control at it's disposal and enemies are more susceptible to that CC regardless of protections. Look at power damage and combos. Almost everything you do as a caster results in some kind of combo that rips apart entire spawns. How is this not flat-out easier than what we had to work with in ME2?

All classes except Soldier enjoyed a massive boost in 3, and enemies are more vulnerable to our powers. I believe this to be the primary reason 3 is considered easier, more so than experience with ME2.

Other than stopping spawns by running to a spawn point (which is terrible design by the way) ME2 was just a brute force slug fest. For an experienced player, it is harder than ME3 because you did less dps and the enemies had layers of rock/paper/scissors protections. But that isn't really "hard". Did the fact that you had to take a few seconds to strip shields or armor from every single mook on the screen increase your odds of failure? No. It was just a tedious increase in the amount of time I had to spend unloading my bullet hose into what were, for the most part, dumb enemies.

 
Do you consider ME3 to NOT be a brute force slugfest?

I believe the enemy protections did, in fact, increase your odds of failure. Given the insane accuracy and damage output of enemies, every extra second you spent trying to kill one pushed you closer to death. And it's not just the extra HP you're dealing with but the fact that almost all your CC powers don't work on them. By comparison, ME1 Insanity was tedious to me, but ME2 actually made the enemies more of a challenge. ME3 does neither, IMO.

And you simply can't compare the extent of "cover flushing" in both games. I may have a unique perspective here because I stepped away from both games for over a year before coming back to them, but between grenades, smoke (god I hate smoke), flanking, and multiple spawn locations, ME3 punishes the conservative player far more than ME2. I mean seriously, compare the collector ship to Grissom academy. Or Horizon to the Thannix missile gauntlet. The ME3 fights are much harder if you define "hard" as increased probability of failure. If you define "hard" as time to complete, then sure ME2 is "harder"; no amount of skill is going to remove the armor from mooks. But to me, that isn't hard, it's tedious.

 
Smoke is annoying, but easily countered by throwing your own grenades into it or using a combo explosion on an enemy that's not hidden. Grenades are really the only thing that forces me to move if I don't want to. ME2 had husks, fenris and loki mechs, and krogan that were all constantly forcing me to move that were harder to take down as well.

I've rarely, if ever, seen an intelligent flanking move in ME3. What I do see a lot of is enemies rushing at you from different spawn locations, which I don't consider to be "smart tactics."

I never felt particularly punished for playing ME3 conservatively, nor did I ever feel especially rewarded for getting off my butt and moving.  

Apologies for the long-winded reply.

[billpickles]

I gotta go with Brad, here, Willie.

Your argument that ME3 feels easier because I spent so much time on ME2 would make sense if I wasn't still playing all 3 games regularly. When I finish a playthrough, I start all the way back at ME1 and do the whole thing again. If ME3 were only easier due to practice, wouldn't ME2 feel just as easy now? Personally, I don't find that to be the case. Even playing all 3 games on a regular basis, I still find ME2 to be significantly harder than ME3 (though you could potentially argue that neither is THAT hard). In fact, I'd go so far as to say ME2 Hardcore is harder than ME3 Insanity. And I don't even find it to be that close.

I'm also not terribly aggressive in my play style, so I don't think that's the reason either. I'm just now playing my first-ever Vanguard (on ME1 currently), and I've never really been a fan of the shotguns (though I'm forcing myself for this one). So it's not that I'm just bum-rushing the enemy and can't do that on ME2. On most missions, I find I can stay in cover as long as I need to, which sadly isn't very long since everything dies from a couple quick fire explosions and tech bursts.

All the reasons Brad gives are true. More powerful weapons, more powerful powers, more ways to combo, and more combos that can be done regardless of enemy protections.

[EatonTJ]

From the points being made, I can see either ME2 or ME3 being the most difficult for some because of their preferred style of play. And maybe as a complete novice, ME3 would be harder... but I don't think there can be too much debate against ME3 being made much easier once the player has figured out the biotic/tech combo system and how to best utilize the new dodge and cover mechanics. And the weapon balance in ME3 gets a little out of control.

I still prefer ME3s combat system, I certainly don't want anything taken away from the player that improves the gameplay. I think biotic/tech combos blowing up all over the place is pretty exciting, and the shorter cooldowns (if chosen) can make them happen more often. I love dodging, heavy melee, cover-to-cover movement, and most all the other improvements to the game play. I want to keep all the new things but still be challenged.

The Grissom Academy atrium battle is a fun challenge in ME3 even with an over-powered Shepard team. The difficulty seems to derive from enemy variety combined with dynamic terrain from which the enemy can keep the player under constant fire. If Bioware could have more consistently hit that level of challenge throughout the game, I think there would be a few more in the "ME3 is more challenging" camp.

[WillieStyle]

Fair enough. Different strokes and all that. To get better perspective on the views of others: which fights in ME2 are harder than: Grissom Academy, Thannix Missile gauntlet, the final battle of the Omega DLC, the final boss fight of the Citadel DLC?

Also, how do you stay in cover indefinitely for any of the above? Perhaps there's something about my play style that's making ME3 needlessly challenging.

[RedCaesar97]

WillieStyle wrote...

Fair enough. Different strokes and all that. To get better perspective on the views of others: which fights in ME2 are harder than: Grissom Academy, Thannix Missile gauntlet, the final battle of the Omega DLC, the final boss fight of the Citadel DLC?

Also, how do you stay in cover indefinitely for any of the above? Perhaps there's something about my play style that's making ME3 needlessly challenging.

Fights in ME2 that i find harder than the ME3 fights you mentioned:
 - Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC: Defend the Hatch segment.
 - Arrival DLC: Object Rho segment (although there are a few safe areas that you can exploit).
 - Horizon, final area.
 - I usually have trouble with Jedore on Grunt's recruitment mission.
 - I sometimes get into a lot of trouble on Garrus's recruitment mission as well.



And to answer your last question:
1) Grissom Academy: Run up the ramp to your right to where the Shield Generator is located. It is out of the line of fire from the Atlas, and all enemies (and turrets) will spawn below you where you can stay out of the line of fire. Only a couple of guardians will exit the door up there, but they are not too much trouble, especially if Liara (Singularity) and/or Javik (pull) is in your squad.

For Part two same thing. Run up to the top (when you get out the door, run up the stairs on your left). Two Guardians will exit a door up there eventually. Enemies (and turrets) will spawn below you and to the right near the door where you will exit. If you keep to these two spots you will not have much trouble.

Fortack wrote a strategy thread about a year ago: The Grissom Academy Atrium Strategy Guide.

2) Thannix missiles. 
The area is essentially in the shape of a cross or Plus sign (+). Directions: Consider the Reaper Destroyer is North. 
You cannot take the same cover and kill everything, but enemy waves spawn at the same locations each time.
Wave 1: North spawn. Cannibals, Marauders, Husks.
Wave 2: West spawn. Banshees, Marauders, Cannibals. You can take cover in view of the spawn (so East is at your back while facing West). You can retreat backwards towards the East if the two Banshees get too close.
Wave 3: Brutes and Harvester. Brutes will spawn East and West. Harvester will eventually drop in the middle. Cover is only needed for the Harvester.
Wave 4: There will always be one or two Banshees at all times on this wave, so it is mostly just trying not to get grabbed. You can hunker down in a few of the open buildings to avoid the Marauders, then run around and over cover to a new spot in another building. There is a Hyrda Missile Launcher in the open building to the South-East (where you came in) if you need it.

3) Cover not really necessary. The Cerberus Troopers are the only real dangerous enemy. 
Step 1: run around to each corner to open and destroy the generators holding Aria. You can keep the Cerberus Shield Generators operational to replenish your own shields. Once that is done, take everything out. Run to a new location if too many enemies congregate in one spot. Nemesis can one-shot your shields, leaving the Troopers to kill you quickly. The Adjutants are only dangerous if they catch you in a corner, otherwise they are not dangerous at all.

4) Citadel DLC boss fight. Depends on your class. I have not played it with all classes yet. There is some cover on the left side where you can hide, but the clone will eventually come after you. If you are a Vanguard, get up in his/her grill with Charge and Nova and the Claymore/Wraith and deal damage.

Modifié par RedCaesar97, 03 juillet 2013 - 06:24 .

[WillieStyle]

Thanks Red. I didn't know about the one spot in Grissom. I'll try it next time. As for the rest, you're basically agreeing that you can't stick in cover indefinitely.

I think my real problem is that I didn't realize how subjective difficulty is. Because I gotta say, the notion that any part of the Horizon, Archangel, or Grunt's loyalty quests are harder than the final fights in either Omega or Citadel DLCs seems outrageous to me.

[billpickles]

Have you played much multiplayer, Willie? I think that's what really makes ME3 SP so easy. Once you advance to a point where Gold MP is comfortable, your perspective on cover use changes completely and SP becomes a cakewalk. I recently did the SP DLCs for the first time and got through both in a single try without much problem.

On the other hand, even after playing the game several times through, I still usually have to make more than one attempt at the final fights on Horizon or Grunt's recruitment.

So, yeah...I guess subjective is right.

[WillieStyle]

I've only been back playing the game for a month or so. So I'm still rocking my Claymore I and Mantis X on silver. So I'm hardly a multiplayer expert. Be that as it may, while I can see a person who solos gold thinking single player is easy, I can't see how that same person would think ME2 Horizon was harder than the final boss fight in the Citadel DLC. You know that moment when you realize that you're the crazy person in the room? I'm having that moment right now.

[brad2240]

WillieStyle wrote...

Fair enough. Different strokes and all that. To get better perspective on the views of others: which fights in ME2 are harder than: Grissom Academy, Thannix Missile gauntlet, the final battle of the Omega DLC, the final boss fight of the Citadel DLC?

Also, how do you stay in cover indefinitely for any of the above? Perhaps there's something about my play style that's making ME3 needlessly challenging.

The obvious ones, Horizon and the Collector platforms, were harder than anything in ME3 to me. I also struggled in some parts of Jack's recruitment, Grunt's recruitment, and the Reaper IFF. All of these areas I died quite a few times each, whereas Grissom and London I died maybe 3-4 times each the first time I played them.

As Red said, Grissom became a lot easier when I realized to stay up top. On a related note, I think the atrium is the best-designed encounter in ME3, tough but winnable and on an interesting battlefield. It was probably the hardest fight for me the first time through but I wish there were more like it in the game.

The thannix defense is a different kind of beast. It's just boss spam, and that many banshees make it obvious you can't really use hard cover. It's a one-off fight, IMO, nothing like the rest of the game. You're not really designed to "win" so much as just survive it. I don't particularly enjoy it and I think it's somewhat lame and lazy design. I guess that's neither here nor there, though.

Yes, difficulty is very subjective. Everybody has their own style and their own comfort zone and what pushes one person won't necessarily push another. A lot of people find the ME games to be very easy, even on Insanity. I don't, but I'm not really any great shakes as a gamer nor am I a kid anymore. But hey, that's why there's multiple difficulties in the first place, right?

[capn233]

This thread exploded since yesterday. Red and brad already made most of the good points I think.

I base my claims about difficulty basically all on starting at Level 1 on Insanity (for the most part) for each game. NG+ screws with it substantially, especially for ME1 where it makes it significantly easier, or ME2 where you could argue it makes the beginning more difficult. ME3 it doesn't really matter all that much and which start is most difficult is debatable.

The other thing alluded to above with ME1 is that if you are talking about a "new" player as a reference, than a Level 1 Insanity start in ME1 is the most difficult for about 1/4 to 1/3 of the game by far because in order to not throw your mouse or controller through the TV for a couple of fights, you needed to have invested in the right powers on yourself and the squad, as well as brought the right squad along.

But, since I think it makes the most sense to compare them after you have good working knowledge of the games, I would go with ME2 overall.

As for various fight examples, I don't think that many of them are too terribly difficult in ME3 if you learn a few tricks (which is somewhat analogous to ME2). Grissom has been covered. The Thanix Battery fight isn't bad at all once you figure out how to approach it, and the last part you can basically do absolutely nothing until the button activates. Likewise, the final fight in Omega isn't difficult because you can ignore all the units until you free Aria (for some classes the fight with Nyreen vs the mechs while Aria is messing with the barrier is probably the most difficult part of that DLC). Citadel sort of has its moments, but the clone fight greatly depends on your class and squad loadout.

Modifié par capn233, 03 juillet 2013 - 10:37 .

[WillieStyle]

 Now I'm convinced that this is all a bizzare form of bragging where people insist that difficult ME3 fights aren't hard.  I mean, of course I know how to beat those fights.  I've beaten them all on Insanity multiple times.  I asked the question about cover earlier only because someone insisted that they could stay in cover for as long as they wanted in ME3.  However, just because I know how to beat those fights, it doesn't mean that they aren't difficult.

Here's a guy who's pretty good at ME3 multiplayer commenting on how difficult the final fight in the Citadel DLC is with an Infiltrator.  And he's using a tricked-out Flare/Infiltrator build.  He and I can both admit that these fights are hard despite the fact that we've both beaten them multiple times.  I haven't the foggiest idea why the rest of you insist on pretending they're easy just because there are strategies for beating them.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 03 juillet 2013 - 11:20 .

[WillieStyle]

capn233 wrote...
 Likewise, the final fight in Omega isn't difficult because you can ignore all the units until you free Aria

Sigh!

Note that's a video of a guy who's really good at multiplayer filming the fight after he'd played it several times.  He still gets caught by singularities from the adjutants and ****es about how annoying Nemesis are.  

Or how about this guy?  

Why engage in such hyperbole?  Saying the optimal strategy is to ignore the enemies until Aria is free is not the same thing as saying the fight isn't  difficult because you can ignore the enemies until you release Aria.  And if you're so good at avoiding singularities, and nemesis snipers, and leaping adjutants, and troopers etc., how can you possibly think the moronic collector troops in Horizon are difficult?

Modifié par WillieStyle, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:21 .

[WillieStyle]

billpickles wrote...

Have you played much multiplayer, Willie? I think that's what really makes ME3 SP so easy. Once you advance to a point where Gold MP is comfortable, your perspective on cover use changes completely and SP becomes a cakewalk. I recently did the SP DLCs for the first time and got through both in a single try without much problem.

I missed this previously, but are you saying you one-shot every fight in both DLC the first time you played them?!  If so, then you sir are a god amongst men.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:33 .

[capn233]

WillieStyle wrote...

Why engage in such hyperbole? 

It isn't hyperbole.  The fact of the matter is that it is not that bad to avoid them and free Aria.  Here it is with a suboptimal character with a run of the mill weapon.  Adjutants overall aren't that bad of an enemy anyway.  Scions in ME2 are worse to screw with unless you can engage at range.

edit: I have played every class at least once on Insanity for every game.  I do not particularly care what some guy with a flare infiltrator says about the comparison of the different games.  I am talking about my experience, which also jives with basically everyone else that I would trust for any advice for all three games.

Modifié par capn233, 04 juillet 2013 - 01:45 .

[WillieStyle]

I didn't want to post your video because that seemed too "personal". But you don't exactly make it look easy either.
[Edit]
To elaborate a bit more:
You're an experienced ME3 player, and yet seconds into your video, you're down to no barriers and a small fraction of one bar of health before you duck into cover and pop a medigel.  A player with just slightly slower reflexes than you would have died right there.  And that's doing the fight the "easy way?!"
[End Edit]

Consider this for example.

Note no near-death experiences in that video.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:24 .

[capn233]

This is exasporating, so it will be my last reply on this topic.

For the ME2 example, the video is cut (actually with extraneous cuts), so I have no idea if he was ever close to dying or not. Secondly, it is an infiltrator, and he can abuse a very specific detail of the ME2 AI, namely how they lose Shepard completely under cloak.  But I don't really know what this proves, besides that some guy did Horizon with an infiltrator and no squad.  Sure, that is an achievement, but the same is absolutely possible in ME3.  Indeed, ME3 it is even less important since every class can combo by themselves, protections are essentially meaningless, and you have more effective weapons.

As for the No Charge Novaguard, I have to say "big deal" about getting shield-gated by a Nemesis.  That's what they do.  I hit a medigel because I figured I might as well.  Being shield gated is not nearly the same thing as being near death when you have health gate.  I could have run to the next one and got shields from the pylon.  The fact of the matter is that you can simply avoid the enemies until you get one of the most powerful squad mates in the game at your side.  One that is much more powerful than any squadmate in ME2 that you would have by Horizon.  But the key thing is there isn't some big fight.  All you have to do is activate the pylons and free Aria, and it isn't like I take some time consuming way in between the buttons, I just run straight there.  It isn't particularly demanding.  If anything is impressive whatsoever, it is the simplicity of the tactic that works there.  The shield pylons are also important because it allows you to be inattentive and still pull it off with little thinking (as in the last bit of my ME1 Infiltrator version where I just screw around at the last button and it doesn't matter).

There are better examples of difficult fights in ME3, and I even said in my first comment on Omega that I think the fight against the horde of Ramparts is actually worse than the final battle with the buttons for a variety of different characters.  Grissom Atrium is harder than the final Omega fight, the three Primes is harder than that.  I think the Kai Leng fight is actually more difficult as well unless you totally cheese the Phantoms.  Mirror match at Armax is harder, especially when you ratchet up the difficulty modifiers (makes the hardest actual fight in ME3 on full bonus).  Mirror match full bonus may by itself even be more difficult than any of the fights in ME2, but that doesn't mean that on the whole the game isn't easier than ME2.

It is moot anyway though because the crux of your argument is that ME3 is somehow harder for inexperienced players, and even if that were true, it is a dubious or specious argument.  "If I play the game wrong, which one is harder?"  Does that make any sense?

[OniGanon]

I haven't played the ME3 DLCs so I can't comment on those fights, but I can say that ME2 was way, way, waaaaaaay harder than the vanilla ME3 campaign. And I've played enough ME2 that it's a bit of a cakewalk for me now.

ME2 enemies all had a defense layer protecting them from crowd control and they were far more relentless and accurate with their guns. With good use of terrain, squad choice, squad positioning, weapon choice, short cooldown staggers and defense stripping abilities, ME2 could be overcome comfortably enough.

But ME3? My Infiltrator with a Valiant V was OHKing undefended infantry and 2HKing shielded infantry. WITHOUT CLOAK. Yeah. Didn't need my OP signature power or any sort of strategy to completely trivialise this game. Since the game is made up almost entirely of infantry units, most of them without a defense layer, I could just headshot my way to victory. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[WillieStyle]

capn233 wrote...

For the ME2 example, the video is cut (actually with extraneous cuts), so I have no idea if he was ever close to dying or not.

Well I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt that he didn't edit out near death experiences (and only editted to fit all of Horizon into a reasonable length video).  But if you insist, I can find another video.

Secondly, it is an infiltrator, and he can abuse a very specific detail of the ME2 AI, namely how they loose Shepard completely under cloak. 

Heh!  This is rather ironic for two reasons:  I picked an infiltrator video in part because you've said previously that the ME2 infiltrator was overrated and perhaps one of the weaker classes in the game; you stated previously in this thread, that ME2 suffered from fewer game-breaking powers than ME3.

But I don't really know what this proves, besides that some guy did Horizon with an infiltrator and no squad.  Sure, that is an achievement, but the same is absolutely possible in ME3.  Indeed, ME3 it is even less important since every class can combo by themselves, protections are essentially meaningless, and you have more effective weapons.

As for the No Charge Novaguard, I have to say "big deal" about getting shield-gated by a Nemesis.  That's what they do.  I hit a medigel because I figured I might as well.  Being shield gated is not nearly the same thing as being near death when you have health gate.  ...

The point is that - given how I define "difficult" (a higher probability of failure/death) - the fact that you were literarily ~0.2 secs from dying (health and shield gate on insanity last for 0.1 secs each) while he never was, suggests that you had a much higher probability of failure/death than he did.  Given those two videos, which of you was more likely to die if they had played just a little worse, reacted just a little more slowly, had just one more random mook shooting at them at any given time?  I think the clear answer is you; meaning that - based on those two videos - the Omega fight appears significantly harder than Horizon's.

It is moot anyway though because the crux of your argument is that ME3 is somehow harder for inexperienced players, and even if that were true, it is a dubious or specious argument.  "If I play the game wrong, which one is harder?"  Does that make any sense?

Right.  Rather than judge a game's difficulty based on the perspective of a player when they first buy and play the game, let's base estimations of the games difficulty on the perspective of a player after they've played the game for over a year, beaten it at least 6 times, and absorbed a year's worth of community theorycraft and datamining.  That makes perfect sense...

 Actually no, it makes no sense at all.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 04 juillet 2013 - 11:20 .

[WillieStyle]

billpickles wrote...
Your argument that ME3 feels easier because I spent so much time on ME2 would make sense if I wasn't still playing all 3 games regularly. When I finish a playthrough, I start all the way back at ME1 and do the whole thing again. If ME3 were only easier due to practice, wouldn't ME2 feel just as easy now?

Here's something else I missed previously that is relevant to one of the points I'm trying to make.  The answer to your question is no.  

One argument I'm trying to make in this thread is that ME3's gameplay is "richer" than ME2's.  There are more ways for the player to actively mitigate enemy damage.  There are more real differences between weapons.  There are more ways for the player to synergize her skills/powers to the idiosyncracies of a given gun.  There are more ways to symbiotically combine the player and squadmates' powers for dramatic effect.  Given this richer gameplay, I posit that ME3 will have a steeper learning curve (ie.  it will take longer for a player that has experienced neither game to master ME3's gameplay).  However, the difference in effectiveness between a novice player and one who has mastered the gameplay is greater in ME3 than it is in ME2 (again because of the "richer" gameplay).  

Therefore, when first experiencing both games, ME3 will appear harder.  However, after both games have been mastered, it is possible that ME2 will appear more difficult.

What's the point of all this?  Well I'm not here to brag or knock the skills of anyone.  I'm discussing this topic in the off chance that Bioware devs still read these forums so that my input may influence (however slightly) the development of ME4.  

My input to a game developer (if they were asking for it) is:

-Giving the player plenty of active ways to mitigate damage and combine their powers for increased effect is a good thing, despite the fact that it will make the game appear easier to players after they've beaten it several times and read dozens of theorycrafting threads on the forums.

-When attempting to estimate the difficulty of the game, judge it based on the margin of error the player faces (ie. probability of death/failure) not on the length of time it takes an experienced player to defeat each encounter.

-When attempting to estimate the difficulty of the game, use the perspective of the player when they've first purchased the game, on their first few play throughs.  Do not use the perspective of the player after they have a year's worth of experience and theorycraft under their belts.  Supplimental DLC can be used to challenge such players instead.

Of course, it's entirely likely that Bioware doesn't need me to tell them any of that.  But there's my two cents nevertheless.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 04 juillet 2013 - 11:23 .

[brad2240]

This thread was going pretty good, not sure why it had to degenerate to accusations of bragging and hyperbole. Anyway, here's my final thoughts.

WillieStyle wrote...

Therefore, when first experiencing both games, ME3 will appear harder.  

Assuming a brand new player is starting ME2 on Insanity (how many people actually do that?) he's going to find out a few things real quick:

1) The starting weapons are weak. The Avenger might as well be a watergun, the Katana has to be almost point-blank range to be effective, the Shuriken only becomes good with a fair bit of practice. The Mantis hasn't got nearly enough ammo. And you're stuck with most of these for quite a while. In the same vein, armor makes almost no difference and really never will.

2) Powers are tricky. The cooldowns are somewhat long, they lack much real synergy and using the wrong power against a defense type results in little to no effect. Adepts, in particular, will really struggle because so much of their crowd control potential is nullified by even a sliver of protection left on a target. And, as with weapons, upgrades to powers are few and far between.

3) Squadmates die like flies, and are mostly stupid. 

4) Enemies are relentless. They are super accurate and can take you down in no time. Lots of them will rush at you frighteningly quick. And they all have at least two "health" bars you have to chew through. 

The impact of these points is reduced, in some cases significantly, by playing on lower difficulties which a new player "should" be doing, IMO. But even with experience on easier setting these are still problems because the difference between Normal and Insanity (or even Hardcore) is huge in ME2.

Now starting ME3 Insanity fresh, a player sees:

1) Starting weapons are weak. However, new weapons and new mods come frequently and weapons can be upgraded right after the first visit to the Citadel. Likewise, armor is worth more than it's appearance.

2) Powers are awesome. Even if you use the wrong power for the target, you follow it with the right one and you'll likely get a combo that does bonus damage anyway. Caster classes are walking bombs, it's harder to find combinations of powers that don't make some type of explosion than those that do. It doesn't take much experimenting at all to start finding these combos. And players have a lot more control over cooldown times, especially when they start playing with the weight system.

3) Squadmates aren't too bright but most of them can take a little beating. James, especially, is ridiculously hard to kill.

4) Enemies have some tricks, like smoke and grenades, that range from annoying to deadly. They can kill you quick, but the mooks are susceptible to almost everything you do to them and die in droves to combo explosions. Most have only one health bar and none have more than two.
 
Like ME2, these issues are lessened on lower difficulties, but ME3 Insanity is not a huge leap  from Normal so playing on easier settings helps more.

Looking at my wall of text here, I have to believe that ME2 has the steepest learning curve and is more punishing of mistakes. 3 might have some deeper mechanics to it but overall its an easier time getting there.

One final note: one thing about the difficulty of Horizon that hasn't been mentioned here is how early you get to it. When it comes around you don't have many upgrades at all, and only about half your squadmates. Notably, you're missing Thane and Samara which are the best in the game for taking on Collectors. And when TIM says go you go, no choice. The nearest equivalent in ME3 is Grissom, but you've already got access to some decent weapons and equipment and the best squadmates for the job. It's also a side mission, you can save it for a while and come back to it or skip it entirely if you choose.

Again, sorry for the overly wordy reply.

Modifié par brad2240, 04 juillet 2013 - 01:51 .