611 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

General Slotts wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect series died with the Lazarus Project as an excuse to work for Cerberus.

You would have preferred some other excuse?

Most people would have preferred a choice like in Witcher 2 or Fallout Vegas...

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 septembre 2013 - 04:09 .

[KaiserShep]

RZIBARA wrote...

While I actually felt ME1 to be clunky, I still think the combat was more than ME2. This may be due to the enemies though mainly. Powers as well.

ME1's enemies tended to run right into melee range to attack you. The rachni soldiers and workers loved to scurry right up to you and spray acid or burst. The krogan charged much faster and more frequently, whereas the ones in 2 only charged when they were already close to you. The battlemaster on Therum was harder than any krogan enemy in ME2, that's for sure. Also, lots of enemies attacked from sniping range, either turrets, geth armature/colossi or merc or geth snipers from towers. ME2 did have that one colossus, but if you brought a Cain with you, it was a pretty short fight.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 14 septembre 2013 - 04:21 .

[tonnactus]

And enemies actually use more then just two powers at best in Mass Effect 2 or three...

[Massa FX]

KaiserShep wrote...

Thing is, even without conscription, there's still the issue of Shepard's exposure to the beacon on Eden Prime. Even if you were able to get someone else to take the job, it would not be possible for anyone else to actually do it. Besides, it's either take the job, or sit on the Normandy docked at the Citadel as its XO, wrapped in political BS preventing any entry into the Terminus systems.

This.

Beacon on Eden Prime
+ Cipher on Feros
+ N7 training
+ Strong will
+ Sheer damn luck
_______________

= Shepard is the best equiped for the job

[SNascimento]

One thing that I will never understand is how people can say ME1's combat is better than ME2's (or ME3's).

[tonnactus]

SNascimento wrote...

One thing that I will never understand is how people can say ME1's combat is better than ME2's (or ME3's).

People who love (crowdcontrol) powers far more then generic third person shooting?
Playing as a biotic is far better in three then in two, but the range and radious of Singularity is a joke(3m and could only affect 3 enemies at once) and only works on enemies with health. Nothing beats the feel of lifting a Geth Colossus what was possible in the first game.
I also liked that squadmates were nearly equal(cooldown and weapon damage) and in some cases even superior then Shepard(Soldier Shepard compared with Wrex).
Now a Soldier like Ashley deals less weapon damage then an Adept Shepard(even with all their passives maxed) which is plain retarded.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 septembre 2013 - 06:04 .

[RZIBARA]

SNascimento wrote...

One thing that I will never understand is how people can say ME1's combat is better than ME2's (or ME3's).

ME3 is better than all. ME1 is funner than ME2, because of better enemies to fight.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I say ME2 is the best.

[rashie]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I say ME2 is the best.

Same, ME3 had more polished combat and more varied enemies to fight but ME2 was a harder game for me on insanity.

[RZIBARA]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I say ME2 is the best.

For combat?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

RZIBARA wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I say ME2 is the best.

For combat?

IMO, yes. Even for combat.

My reasoning:

I actually liked the system for guns and powers. Obviously, it wasn't the same as being able to duck and roll like in ME3, but I liked how each class filled a niche that was different and more serviceable for each class. I liked how only a Soldier could use guns. Things like that. Plus, every single weapon had its own service to fill. You had the Avenger as your automatic rifle for the short and mid-range. The Vindicator for mid-range and controlled, powerful burst fire. The Revenant for heavy, sustained automatic fire. And the Mattock for longer range power shots. That's my example.

[RZIBARA]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

RZIBARA wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I say ME2 is the best.

For combat?

IMO, yes. Even for combat.

My reasoning:

I actually liked the system for guns and powers. Obviously, it wasn't the same as being able to duck and roll like in ME3, but I liked how each class filled a niche that was different and more serviceable for each class. I liked how only a Soldier could use guns. Things like that. Plus, every single weapon had its own service to fill. You had the Avenger as your automatic rifle for the short and mid-range. The Vindicator for mid-range and controlled, powerful burst fire. The Revenant for heavy, sustained automatic fire. And the Mattock for longer range power shots. That's my example.

well, to each their own I guess.

I prefered ME3's combat in every way. The variety of weapons (I find all of the weapons to have a use, maybe the Avenger isn't all that great, but the rest of the weapons are fairly useful).

Movement was smoother, enemies were more varied and more fun to fight, modifications (especially with the ones that came through DLC allowed to personalize more), and I prefer not being resticted to certain weapons on certain classes. Shotgun inflitrators are fun, and they weren't possible in ME2. I prefer being able to use an AR on a caster as well. The weight systm plays in well too.

As for ME2, there were barely any weapons, and no customization to them at all. When I played a soldier, all I used was a Viper sniper, and the vindicator/revenant (Avenger was just as useless then as it is now). 

[TheMyron]

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's an ironic quote, considering the actual theme of the film is ultimately in defiance of it. Batman is 'truly incorruptable.'

Batman "died" by the end of the trilogy. What the hell are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure the quote was referring to Dent not Botmun

The quote carries out in one of two ways: You either become an actual villain because you get fed up with people (or something); or you become a villain in the people's eyes (which isn't true, considering people are blind).

Dent becomes the Actual Villain, but Batman becomes the visual/figurative/imaginative villain.

[TheMyron]

TheMyron wrote...

RZIBARA wrote...

DuskWanderer wrote...

No, ME3 had a lot of shining moments. It was the ending that made me upset.

That's not to say ME2 didn't have it's faults. The awful way the VS was treated, and a lack of banter between squadmates (I do understand the lack of logistics, but seriously, a sprinkle here and there)

you forgot that there was barely a plot, Shepard dies (you have no idea how stupid it is) and is FORCED to work with Cerberus.

I think having Cerberus double-cross you and everyone else in the Galaxy was the downfall, I was certain that Cerberus was going to be strong (though untrustworthy) ally when the Reapers showed up.

[Iakus]

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

As long as we're fantasizing, I'd go back to ME1 and come up with a sensible Reaper plan.

Yeah, the lack of planning with regards to the Reapers is why I believe that ME1 is the place where everything "died".  

Though many would disagree because the older games are always flawless and superior to the newer titles which are always "dumbed-down" and "generic". 

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

Oh, sorry, that was such a strawman post I couldn't help but think of th Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz

[Linkenski]

I felt like so many things ME3 did with story was aimed at a lower denominator. No. I couldn't enjoy ME3, but ME2 was very immersive even if it did have some corny moments or cliches.

I'm crossing my fingers ME4 will be better than any of them without looking too similar to one of them... and I honestly want Bioware to stop leaning towards what we want. Greatness should come from ambition and intuition and it's not something you achieve by checking a wish-list.

[TheMyron]

Linkenski wrote...

I felt like so many things ME3 did with story was aimed at a lower denominator. No. I couldn't enjoy ME3, but ME2 was very immersive even if it did have some corny moments or cliches.

I'm crossing my fingers ME4 will be better than any of them without looking too similar to one of them... and I honestly want Bioware to stop leaning towards what we want. Greatness should come from ambition and intuition and it's not something you achieve by checking a wish-list.

So much for the RPG element.

[SNascimento]

I'd say ME2 combat is better than ME3's. And what ME1 has barely meets the definition.

The comparing ME2 and ME3 is not simple, and I on some areas it might be more of a matter of preference. 

In short, and I'll expand this if needed be, combat in ME2 is better balanced. Meaning, the sum of everything that goes in combat, them being enemies, level design, weapons, gunplay, powers, etc, is better than in ME2, even if in some individual parts ME3 clearly has the advantage. 

[SNascimento]

Linkenski wrote...

I felt like so many things ME3 did with story was aimed at a lower denominator. No. I couldn't enjoy ME3, but ME2 was very immersive even if it did have some corny moments or cliches.

I'm crossing my fingers ME4 will be better than any of them without looking too similar to one of them... and I honestly want Bioware to stop leaning towards what we want. Greatness should come from ambition and intuition and it's not something you achieve by checking a wish-list.

Your words sir, they are beautiful. I would add just one thing: hard work. You need to work a  lot to create a truly great game, and also have the time to do this work.

Modifié par SNascimento, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:51 .

[KaiserShep]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

IMO, yes. Even for combat.

My reasoning:

I actually liked the system for guns and powers. Obviously, it wasn't the same as being able to duck and roll like in ME3, but I liked how each class filled a niche that was different and more serviceable for each class. I liked how only a Soldier could use guns. Things like that. Plus, every single weapon had its own service to fill. You had the Avenger as your automatic rifle for the short and mid-range. The Vindicator for mid-range and controlled, powerful burst fire. The Revenant for heavy, sustained automatic fire. And the Mattock for longer range power shots. That's my example.

The Mattock was easily my favorite weapon in ME2. Favoring Vanguard, the only thing I was really missing was the sniper rifle (can't pick it over AR), but having incendiary ammo and my geth shotgun more than made up for it. 

[tonnactus]

rashie wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I say ME2 is the best.

Same, ME3 had more polished combat and more varied enemies to fight but ME2 was a harder game for me on insanity.

Only because Shepard and Squadmates had laughable health and the latter acted like retards. Its easy to make every game hard with this method.

[KaiserShep]

It was also harder in that hardened enemies came very early in the game, and until you scanned the hell out of planets and bought armor, tech and health upgrades even sissy mercs shred your shields.

[andy6915]

Hey, all 4 people that did that several page off-topic argument between David and the rest of you (you know who you are)? You're all pathetic. All of you are on David's level, all 4 of you went totally off topic to try to one up each other with a stupid flame war. Drop it and get over yourselves, David only derails threads because YOU GUYS enable him to.

Modifié par andy69156915, 14 septembre 2013 - 09:38 .