Hm, I think I can usually manage to get those endlessly ones done within 1-3 tries, depends... but maybe it's like you said. Thinking too much can cause to press the wrong button. I also had that sometimes. Maybe it's also nerves, who knows!
I knew I was bad at that minigame!
Since my alterations would eliminate the plot-crippling Project Lazarus and "Ah yes, Reapers", among other things introduced in the first hour or two of ME2, it's not really worth getting into the full breadth of what I'd change about the series. That ain't the story BioWare wanted to tell, though, so I'm just along for the ride.
I either press wrong button or I press the right button too slowly. I suspect that I think too much before pressing any buttons. I tried that minigame every time before using medi-gel. There were those minigames where you could try endlessly and usually it took me 10 to 20 times before I could pass it. However I remember that at least once I passed that minigame on my first attempt. But I haven't noticed that my skills have improved much. How about you? How many times it took you to pass those minigames where you could try endlessly?
I guess I'm not the only one who massively fails at that game.
I was very concerned about it through the first several hours of my first ME1 playthrough. I was afraid I would not be able to successfully complete the game, since so much loot, missions, etc., were behind nodes that required the minigame. Using omni-gel to bypass them is a catch-22 - it takes more omni-gel to open most of them than the contents are worth.
When I was given the Thorian gas grenade mod on my first trip to Feros, I was like "Grenades?" I didn't have any, since I hadn't been able to open a lot of the containers - lol.
Discovering the Dr. Michel exploit was a huge relief. I don't usually like to use exploits, but it's otherwise pretty difficult to equip the squad and accumulate a supply of omni-gel if you can't do the minigame. With that exploit, the only thing missing is the XP earned from opening containers.
Many saves & reloads later, I've gotten a little better at it, but still don't find it at all enjoyable.
I don't save before the minigame because I don't want to reload and try again because I don't have patience to wait reloading and if I would have to do that like 10 or 20 times. It's just too much. I believe I might have missed some missions in the beginning of the game because I don't have enough omni-gel to bypass the decryption. However completing missions gives you quite a lot items that can be converted into omni-gel. So I just convert all the items that I don't need into omni-gel and I don't fix my Mako so that I can use the omni-gel to bypass the decryptions. Of course that leads to problems with Mako and I have to save a lot when I use it but I find that easier that completing the minigame.
I just started playing ME1 again and I noticed that I'm still very bad at that minigame 
Instead of Leviathan saying it created the intelligence to preserve life at all costs, I would have it say it created the intelligence to achieve peace. It did find a way and peace was achieved. One of the Leviathans didn't like that and reprogrammed the intelligence to do what its doing now. By the time the Leviathans knew what was going on, it was too late and they were harvested.
Give ME2/ME3 interesting combat.
The generic (and not particularly good) third person shooter is, well... generic and mediocre.
Give ME2/ME3 interesting combat.
The generic (and not particularly good) third person shooter is, well... generic and mediocre.
What exactly about ME2 and ME3 was generic or mediocre? (Related question: Did you play any class other than a Soldier?)
Give ME2/ME3 interesting combat.
The generic (and not particularly good) third person shooter is, well... generic and mediocre.
Curious, since you don't request interesting combat for ME1, I assume you find it "adequate"?
Because ME1 on Insanity is quite boring.
Curious, since you don't request interesting combat for ME1, I assume you find it "adequate"?
Because ME1 on Insanity is quite boring.
Yeah ME1 combat was basically kill everything with the assault rifle and omni-gel anything that isn't specter gear.
I assume he neglected to mention ME1 combat because it wasn't trying to be a third person cover based shooter. Sure, it had some elements of that type of gameplay, but it was still an RPG. ME2 and 3 went all in on the third person shooter aspect, and it was mediocre at best. Gameplay wise. The mechanics are even par at best.
I assume he neglected to mention ME1 combat because it wasn't trying to be a third person cover based shooter. Sure, it had some elements of that type of gameplay, but it was still an RPG. ME2 and 3 went all in on the third person shooter aspect, and it was mediocre at best. Gameplay wise. The mechanics are even par at best.
I think ME1 was trying to be a TPS.
It just wasn't very good at it.
I think ME1 was trying to be a TPS.
It just wasn't very good at it.
Nah. All one needs to do is play the game to see that it's an rpg with tps elements as opposed to the sequels being tps' with rpg elements. It was a straight up flip flop. And while ME1 was a very good RPG, the sequels were mediocre tps' at best.
Nah. All one needs to do is play the game to see that it's an rpg with tps elements as opposed to the sequels being tps' with rpg elements. It was a straight up flip flop. And while ME1 was a very good RPG, the sequels were mediocre tps' at best.
That just seems to be splitting hairs. Considering BioWare's past work, Mass Effect feels like later.
Even then though ME1 doesn't have particularly good RPG mechanics. The economy is shallow, item variance is limited, differences between classes are small, the inventory system, upgrading abilities, etc.
Nah. All one needs to do is play the game to see that it's an rpg with tps elements as opposed to the sequels being tps' with rpg elements. It was a straight up flip flop. And while ME1 was a very good RPG, the sequels were mediocre tps' at best.
First of all "mediocre tps' at best?" You can whatever opinions you want, but ME2-3 are regarded as some of the better TPSs of the last generation by nearly everyone. Hell, ME3 MP wouldn't have been successful if that weren't true.
Second, ME1 was a game in the third person where the main method of dispatching enemies is shooting. Again, feel free to like whatever parts of a game you want, but ME1 is definitely a TPS.
Thirdly, ME1 isn't even that fantastic of an RPG. Sure it's good, great even, but ME1 is mostly regarded as a good proof of concept. The inventory was an absolute mess, the upgrades weren't all that amazing, the leveling system was bland, powers aren't very distinctive or interesting, etc. In fact, ME1's only saving grace was its blending of RPG and TPS elements (that, and the story of course). Many gave it slack because they knew BioWare had to make sacrifices to fit everything together.
First of all "mediocre tps' at best?" You can whatever opinions you want, but ME2-3 are regarded as some of the better TPSs of the last generation by nearly everyone. Hell, ME3 MP wouldn't have been successful if that weren't true.
Do people really say this? I thought ME2 and ME3 were pretty good as TPS games, but nothing outstanding in that genre (which I think isn't inherently that great and has lots of terrible games to lower the bar).
First of all "mediocre tps' at best?" You can whatever opinions you want, but ME2-3 are regarded as some of the better TPSs of the last generation by nearly everyone. Hell, ME3 MP wouldn't have been successful if that weren't true.
Second, ME1 was a game in the third person where the main method of dispatching enemies is shooting. Again, feel free to like whatever parts of a game you want, but ME1 is definitely a TPS.
Thirdly, ME1 isn't even that fantastic of an RPG. Sure it's good, great even, but ME1 is mostly regarded as a good proof of concept. The inventory was an absolute mess, the upgrades weren't all that amazing, the leveling system was bland, powers aren't very distinctive or interesting, etc. In fact, ME1's only saving grace was its blending of RPG and TPS elements (that, and the story of course). Many gave it slack because they knew BioWare had to make sacrifices to fit everything together.
First of all you can have whatever opinions you want regarding their mediocre tps gameplay mechanics, they were actually regarded as some of the better "games" of last generation by nearly everyone. Their TPS mechanics were considered clunky at best. ME3 multiplayer was successful because of the exceptionally implemented rpg skill/leveling system that complimented the tps action gameplay. If it were not for that it would be considered utter garbage in the realm of shooters.
ME2's inventory was non-existent. The upgrades were the very definition of linear. The leveling system was butchered. Don't get me started on the story.
Do people really say this? I thought ME2 and ME3 were pretty good as TPS games, but nothing outstanding in that genre (which I think isn't inherently that great and has lots of terrible games to lower the bar).
The people I know at least, as well as a fair number of reviews. I must admit that I don't know too many TPSs (Dead Space and Gears of War are the good ones that immediately come to mind), but ME2-3 can hold their own. They're certainly the only TPSs I know that have squad control and extensive power usage. While the squad controls might not be particularly robust nor all the powers exceptionally diverse, the imperfect parts add up to a higher tier TPS.
If nothing else, ME3 MP's popularity should prove how well ME3's combat stands on its own. I knew plenty of players who almost exclusively played CoD who were impressed by it.
Mass Effect isn't and has never been praised for its shooting mechanics amongst the shooter community. It has been praised as a great game series amongst the gaming community.
First of all you can have whatever opinions you want regarding their mediocre tps gameplay mechanics, they were actually regarded as some of the better "games" of last generation by nearly everyone. Their TPS mechanics were clunky at best. ME3 multiplayer was successful because of the exceptionally implemented rpg skill system implemented within the tps action gameplay. If it were not cor the skill system it would be considered utter garbage in the realm of shooters.
ME2's inventory was non-existent. The upgrades were the very definition of linear. The leveling system was butchered. Don't get me started on the story.
RPG leveling mechanics don't sell an MP game, and they can't sustain an MP community as long as ME3's MP did. You may like skill trees, but most just want the shooting to be good, and it was. Yes, compared to all shooters ME2-3 aren't that amazing, but among other TPSs in their generation they're pretty good. No, not the best, but hardly mediocre.
Nonexistent is better than clunky, that's just streamlining. That's what happened with ME2, and it was better for it. The upgrades may have been linear, but at least they made a noticeable difference. Same can be said about the leveling system; yes, there were fewer ranks, but each rank did more. I could hardly tell my character was progressing with ME1's +3-6% per rank. Yes, ME2 has less RPG stuff in its gameplay. However, many still think it's great fun.
Mass Effect isn't and has never been praised for its shooting mechanics amongst the shooter community. It has been praised as a great game series amongst the gaming community.
Among your social circles maybe not, but it does have solid mechanics. They're not the most innovative, but they are fun.
RPG leveling mechanics don't sell an MP game, and they can't sustain an MP community as long as ME3's MP did. You may like skill trees, but most just want the shooting to be good, and it was. Yes, compared to all shooters ME2-3 aren't that amazing, but among other TPSs in their generation they're pretty good. No, not the best, but hardly mediocre.
Nonexistent is better than clunky, that's just streamlining. That's what happened with ME2, and it was better for it. The upgrades may have been linear, but at least they made a noticeable difference. Same can be said about the leveling system; yes, there were fewer ranks, but each rank did more. I could hardly tell my character was progressing with ME1's +3-6% per rank. Yes, ME2 has less RPG stuff in its gameplay. However, many still think it's great fun.
Among your social circles maybe not, but it does have solid mechanics. They're not the most innovative, but they are fun.
If you honestly think the ME3 MP community has sold so well and lasted so long based on its cover-based shooting mechanics, than you and I will agree to disagree. It is one of its weaker points. And the core community knows it. The casuals only touch it because of the powers and classes. If not for that it'd be considered a sub-par shooter with clunky cover mechanics.
ME2 is only better than 1 if you like shooters and comic books.
Nothing to do with my circles. Simply scroll the gaming community reviews and comments. Shooting mechanics are fine for the game it's trying to be but below average for an average shooter.
Consistent story telling planned from a tru z and not that lame episode thing we make it up as we go along thing.
The upgrades may have been linear, but at least they made a noticeable difference. Same can be said about the leveling system; yes, there were fewer ranks, but each rank did more. I could hardly tell my character was progressing with ME1's +3-6% per rank.
Yes, ME2 has less RPG stuff in its gameplay. However, many still think it's great fun.
If you honestly think the ME3 MP community has sold so well and lasted so long based on its cover-based shooting mechanics, than you and I will agree to disagree. It is one of its weaker points. And the core community knows it. The casuals only touch it because of the powers and classes. If not for that it'd be considered a sub-par shooter with clunky cover mechanics.
Are powers and classes not part of the gameplay? The only reason ME2-3 aren't mediocre TPSs is because they found a great balance between the core shooting mechanics and RPG leveling. These two things aren't totally separate aspects, they're completely intertwined with each other. You're right, without classes and leveling, ME3 MP wouldn't have been nearly as diverse or interesting. However, it would have done just as poorly if the the simple act of shooting wasn't good either.
ME2 is only better than 1 if you like shooters and comic books.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an insult? I find both to be quite stimulating. The former challenges my motor skills and the latter quite often explores scintillating subjects.
I like ME2 more than the first because it is simply a more polished experience. It's a better TPS and its remaining RPG elements aren't clunky and poorly implemented.
Nothing to do with my circles. Simply scroll the gaming community reviews and comments. Shooting mechanics are fine for the game it's trying to be but below average for an average shooter.
I looked at the reviews, even some community input. The ones that didn't praise combat mentioned nothing about mediocrity.
The difference between +3-6% per skill point versus +20-30% for 5 skill points is... what exactly?
ME1's mechanics allow you to invest every skill point as you earn them. In ME2-3, you often have to wait for multiple level-ups to accumulate enough points to buy the next level of anything, and end up with leftover, unused skill points.
The difference is purely feeling, which can mean a lot in games. Imagine I offered someone a choice between receiving a dollar every day for a year or $300 up front. Even though the dollar per day is a better deal, most people will still go for the money up front. Lump sums just feel better.
Yes, leveling is more intermittent, but every level up gives the player more feedback. I can tell the difference that 20-30% makes far more than 3-6%.
Higher point requirements also give ranks a bit more inherent value. Many people find it more satisfying to grab a rank they've had to save up for.
Some people invested in ME for the "RPG stuff". Some are otherwise uninterested in shooters.
And that's fine, but I can speak for many when I say that we'd prefer a more holistically competent game. ME2 stripped out or simplified some systems so that the remaining ones were a bit more polished and engaging. I never said that inventory systems or RPG mechanics were bad. They're not, but ME1's broad scope lead to mediocre combat, a clunky inventory, and a laundry list of other shortcomings.
The difference is purely feeling, which can mean a lot in games.
Imagine I offered someone a choice between receiving a dollar every day for a year or $300 up front. Even though the dollar per day is a better deal, most people will still go for the money up front. Lump sums just feel better.
Yes, leveling is more intermittent, but every level up gives the player more feedback. I can tell the difference that 20-30% makes far more than 3-6%.
And that's fine, but I can speak for many when I say that we'd prefer a more holistically competent game. ME2 stripped out or simplified some systems so that the remaining ones were a bit more polished and engaging.
Retour en haut