258 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

I weep for my poor forums. It used to be worth it to read posts. Now... just look at this garbage.

[Chained_Creator]

Reading the forums, I'm not sure if I should be excited or downcast when I finally get to play the game.

[Dellingr]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Dellingr wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Seriously the combat in ME1 was horrible, it took no skill, no tactics and no brains. Combat was decided by stats rather than skills, the person who had the highest stats won, no contest. The guns and armours all looked and felt pretty much the same only with higher stats.

not quite, you needed both stats and skill, high stats didn't compensate for low skill (although there was an aim-assist option on the 360 version) and even the most skilled player could always get the reticle over an enemy and still do horribly unless they'd put points into the weapon's skill.

really, I think that combat should work based either entirely on "dice
rolls" or entirely based on skill, it's just a little silly to try
stacking them so that you need skill even when your stats are maxed out
or so that you need stats even when you've got mad skillz

So, IMO, complaining that the aiming is skill based now is nonsensical-you ALWAYS needed skill, hitting stuff in ME2 doesn't require any greater skill at aiming than it did in the first game, it's just that now you can't be let down by a bad invisible dice roll, even when your aim's perfect

Umm Aiming isnt the only skill involved in most FPS games but it is the only skill involved in Mass Effect, but even in Mass Effect I wouldnt really call aiming skill because there is the target assist and no locational damage. You really dont need much skill to aim in Mass Effect. 

You do have a point there, thinking about it,  perhaps there'll be slightly more skill needed in lining up a headshot, but my point was that when you do manage to line up that shot you' can be sure it'll hit rather than relying on a dice roll that might entirely invalidate your effort and concentration. In DA:O it's different because you're not personally controlling the attacks-just designating the target and activating abilities and changing tactics as appropriate-so having the normal attacks be stat-based is sound in that case.

[Arrtis]

I feel like i need negative to counter the overly positive adds everywhere.That seem to have the solution for everything.

[Major Alenko]

its quite funny really, the took everything good about ME1 and destoryed it for ME2 trying to appeal to shooter audience. None of my friends who are hardcore shooter fans will never touch mass effect 2. Bioware spent so much time appealing to a audience that really dont give a damn, and forgetting about there loyal fan base.



For ages bioware keept saying how ME2 itself its a stand alone adventure, but the basically every review so far has stated ME2 is only effective tho whom have played ME1.



I wonder exactly just how many of the "shooter" "call of duty" fanbase did this game actually draw in?

[Arrtis]

I dislike the use of reviewers in arguements.As though they are the only ones who know what they are talking about.

[sinosleep]

Critical consensus usually means something. Sorry.

[Wolverfrog]

If you want a pure RPG, get the next Fallout, or Final Fantasy, or wait even longer and get the new Elder Scrolls.



Mass Effect didn't seem like much of an RPG to me. Indeed, I didn't even realise I could level up until after leaving the Citadel. Throughout my first playthrough, I didn't even realise you could buy and upgrade equipment.



Mass Effect 2 seems just like Mass Effect 1 in the RPG regard, if not a little simpler.

[Arrtis]

sinosleep wrote...

Critical consensus usually means something. Sorry.

I disagree.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Commodore Q wrote...

its quite funny really, the took everything good about ME1 and destoryed it for ME2 trying to appeal to shooter audience. None of my friends who are hardcore shooter fans will never touch mass effect 2. Bioware spent so much time appealing to a audience that really dont give a damn, and forgetting about there loyal fan base.

For ages bioware keept saying how ME2 itself its a stand alone adventure, but the basically every review so far has stated ME2 is only effective tho whom have played ME1.

I wonder exactly just how many of the "shooter" "call of duty" fanbase did this game actually draw in?

Ok so what are you upset about? Are you upset that Bioware put more focus on combat than NPC interactions and story or are you upset because Bioware decided to make the combat play more like a shooter that takes skill instead of a shooter that takes no skill and the winner is decided by stats?

[Chained_Creator]

sinosleep wrote...

Critical consensus usually means something. Sorry.

Then, by most accounts, Mass Effect 2 is the smash-hit that's opening up the gaming year.

www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/masseffect2

http://www.gameranki...ct-2/index.html

[sinosleep]

Chained_Creator wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Critical consensus usually means something. Sorry.

Then, by most accounts, Mass Effect 2 is the smash-hit that's opening up the gaming year.

www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/masseffect2

http://www.gameranki...ct-2/index.html

Which is precisely why these forums will turn more and more into a whinefest, because that's what forums do. They present a view that usually runs counter to all real world evidence.

[Major Alenko]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Commodore Q wrote...

its quite funny really, the took everything good about ME1 and destoryed it for ME2 trying to appeal to shooter audience. None of my friends who are hardcore shooter fans will never touch mass effect 2. Bioware spent so much time appealing to a audience that really dont give a damn, and forgetting about there loyal fan base.

For ages bioware keept saying how ME2 itself its a stand alone adventure, but the basically every review so far has stated ME2 is only effective tho whom have played ME1.

I wonder exactly just how many of the "shooter" "call of duty" fanbase did this game actually draw in?

Ok so what are you upset about? Are you upset that Bioware put more focus on combat than NPC interactions and story or are you upset because Bioware decided to make the combat play more like a shooter that takes skill instead of a shooter that takes no skill and the winner is decided by stats?

I'm just annoyed they put so much time into appealing to a different audience that are not interested. Combat improved or not, im sure everyone whom played ME1 would have still brought ME2

[Chained_Creator]

sinosleep wrote...

Chained_Creator wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Critical consensus usually means something. Sorry.

Then, by most accounts, Mass Effect 2 is the smash-hit that's opening up the gaming year.

www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/masseffect2

http://www.gameranki...ct-2/index.html

Which is precisely why these forums will turn more and more into a whinefest, because that's what forums do. They present a view that usually runs counter to all real world evidence.

Huh. I'm sure I could find things to complain about, but "universal acclaim" from Metacritic is usually enough to get me to 'buy' or at least 'try'.

I'm not sure why people are complaining with so many reviews out there explicitly stating what the game is and is not and how good it is at what it does. It's like they lived in fantasy world for the past few weeks and just ignored the reviewers.

[sinosleep]

Commodore Q wrote...
I'm just annoyed they put so much time into appealing to a different audience that are not interested. Combat improved or not, im sure everyone whom played ME1 would have still brought ME2

Have you ever considered the fact that people that only enjoy ONE particular genre of gaming are actually the minority? I LOVE shooters, I also LOVE RPGs, particularly Bioware produced RPGs. Would I have bought ME 2 even if played essentially the exact same way as ME 1? Yeah, but considering I'm a fan of both shooters and rpgs I'm IMMENSELY happy that the gunplay is more inline with a traditional shooter than an rpg. I've never felt that stat based combat and guns mixed very well, and thought the gunplay in ME 1 was atrocious, even if I loved everything else about it.

[Arrtis]

[quote]sinosleep wrote...

[quote]Chained_Creator wrote...

[quote]sinosleep wrote...


Which is precisely why these forums will turn more and more into a whinefest, because that's what forums do. They present a view that usually runs counter to all real world evidence.

[/quote]
real world is people have opinions and due to certain things they can not voice them in public.Not even in america.
:Dbut what do i know?

[Icarus-II]

Am I sad to lose some of the more detailed RPG aspects? Yes.



But I am infinitely more happy to have a shooter mechanic that works. There were combat sequences in the orginal Mass Effect that were downright torturous.



I really do think the new system is going to mean I finish the sequel in a reasonable time, just because there's less frustration and clunky fighting.

[kingoomieiii]

ZilaSkye wrote...

RAWR MY OPINIONS AND PREFERENCES TRUMP ALL, BIOWARE IGNORING ME (DURING THE DEV CYCLE I WAS NOT PRIVY TO) IS A MASSIVE SLAP IN THE FACE

Hey, you know how there's music you don't like?

And you know how some of that music wins tons of awards?

Same thing. Stop ****ing about people not sharing your opinions. Personally, ME1 pissed me off with spending 25 minutes talking to people, culminating in fightin 5 bad guys in 2 rooms.

ME2 is awesome.

[TopDomino]

Moldy Poptarts wrote...

But to actually add to the "discussion". Would you say Deus Ex is a mindless fps? How is improving the rather poor combat a move away from rpg? Clunky combat is not perfect, its clunky. Instead of having a nonsensicle system where an N7 marine has to increase his ability to hold a weapon steady(seriously?? how'd he even get that far to begin with then?) it is based on player skill. Doing that, you remove about 40ish points to spend on leveling up. Same idea applies to armor. He is a marine, combat trained first and thus should be well versed in how to wear any kind of armor present that fits a human. There goes another whole 12 or so points. Now choice in what skills that actually matter are the focus of leveling, you know, legit rpg stuff that isnt a throwback to D&D.

Oh, and lawl at getting pwnt by smooth moving combat.

The whole point of an RPG is to play a role that you otherwise might not get to play in real life. RPG's are not hand/eye dexterity/coordination based games. Determining the result of character actions from player skill is anathema to the RPG genre. It's akin to saying that because I like to play a soldier I should know how to shoot a gun. How about if I like to play a mage, should I know how to cast a spell? 

The contradictions between the story and the basic status of skill points in ME1, true as they were, would not have appeared in this iteration because everyone starts the game with a much more experienced character. So the fix might have been a patch to ME1, but there was no need to go into it in ME2. 

Since the FPS crowd whined for a year about this and got the change they wanted, now we get to whine so they change it back, or at least don't make it worse, for ME3.

[Arrtis]

kingoomieiii wrote...

ZilaSkye wrote...

RAWR MY OPINIONS AND PREFERENCES TRUMP ALL, BIOWARE IGNORING ME (DURING THE DEV CYCLE I WAS NOT PRIVY TO) IS A MASSIVE SLAP IN THE FACE

Hey, you know how there's music you don't like?

And you know how some of that music wins tons of awards?

Same thing. Stop ****ing about people not sharing your opinions. Personally, ME1 pissed me off with spending 25 minutes talking to people, culminating in fightin 5 bad guys in 2 rooms.

ME2 is awesome.

im fine with all music and i do not think any of them deserve an award...what does this mean?

[Chained_Creator]

Commodore Q wrote...
I'm just annoyed they put so much time into appealing to a different audience that are not interested. Combat improved or not, im sure everyone whom played ME1 would have still brought ME2

I'm annoyed that you think BioWare must cater to genre-specific fans simply because that's where they started, so that's where they should stay. A better example of caste-system repression I could not offer.

No.

Not only no, but Hell, no!

You would have BioWare become some sort of archaic dinosaur, unable to change and inevitably dying off, to please RPG fans only so that you could get your game and everybody else would just have to suck it because BioWare does RPGs and that how you think it should be.

BioWare should branch out and make games outside of their comfort zone because the RPG genre is only a small corner of the gaming world, and they should desire to make a profit larger than what they currently make appealing to only that small corner of the market.

This sort of elitist argument that you are employing by demanding that BioWare remain pure is disgusting. It is tantamount to shackling BioWare to a chain out of reach of consumers, except RPG fans, and dictating to them that they have to survive off the sustenance that RPG fans provide them, because BioWare should make only games for RPG fans.

Modifié par Chained_Creator, 27 janvier 2010 - 07:51 .

[TopDomino]

sinosleep wrote...

Critical consensus usually means something. Sorry.

Of course it does. However, even if the critics go wild about Jersey Boys they can't call it an Opera because it's a Musical. It doesn't mean it isn't good.

So, in this case the critics take the mechanics for what they are and evaluate the game based on what it was trying to achieve. They call it a great Shooter with RPG elements. This series fans however evaluate it based on what it should have been trying to achieve, a great RPG with some action elements. 

[TopDomino]

Chained_Creator wrote...

Commodore Q wrote...
I'm just annoyed they put so much time into appealing to a different audience that are not interested. Combat improved or not, im sure everyone whom played ME1 would have still brought ME2

I'm annoyed that you think BioWare must cater to genre-specific fans simply because that's where they started, so that's where they should stay. A better example of caste-system repression I could not offer.

No.

Not only no, but Hell, no!

You would have BioWare become some sort of archaic dinosaur, unable to change and inevitably dying off, to please RPG fans only so that you could get your game and everybody else would just have to suck it because BioWare does RPGs and that how you think it should be.

BioWare should branch out and make games outside of their comfort zone because the RPG genre is only a small corner of the gaming world, and they should desire to make a profit larger than what they currently make appealing to only that small corner of the market.

This sort of elitist argument that you are employing by demanding that BioWare remain pure is disgusting. It is tantamount to shackling BioWare to a chain out of reach of consumers, except RPG fans, and dictating to them that they have to survive off the sustenance that RPG fans provide them, because BioWare should make only games for RPG fans.

We's rather they make another IP if they wanted to make a shooter. They can make 10 IP's, just don't turn the only decent space based RPG IP out there into a shooter. Yeah space based RPG's are a slice of gaming but that slice made them a pretty penny with ME1. What they have achieved is a game that only fans of BOTH shooters and RPG's (a subset that is smaller than either category) think is perfect. I happen to love RPG's and despise shooters so I complain just like the ton of shooter fans who bought the original (an RPG) and complained it wasn't a shooter.

[sinosleep]

TopDomino wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Critical consensus usually means something. Sorry.

Of course it does. However, even if the critics go wild about Jersey Boys they can't call it an Opera because it's a Musical. It doesn't mean it isn't good.

So, in this case the critics take the mechanics for what they are and evaluate the game based on what it was trying to achieve. They call it a great Shooter with RPG elements. This series fans however evaluate it based on what it should have been trying to achieve, a great RPG with some action elements. 

1. who are you to determine what Bioware should or shouldn't have been trying to achieve.
2. what reviews have you been reading? Because every review I've read has gone on and on about the RPG elements, while mentioning the shooting only in regards to combat. The game is still and always has been primarily an rpg. I bought Uncharted 2 last Saturday and had already beaten on hard by Sunday afternoon. NOTHING was controlled by stats, and I had no say in what happened in the narrative. THAT was a shooter. ME 2 is an rpg with the gunplay mechanics of a shooter. Everything in the game is stat based other than aiming/decrypting/hacking, you take a vital role in shaping the narrative, and the game is 40+ hours long.

[jroseboom]

TopDomino wrote...

Moldy Poptarts wrote...

But to actually add to the "discussion". Would you say Deus Ex is a mindless fps? How is improving the rather poor combat a move away from rpg? Clunky combat is not perfect, its clunky. Instead of having a nonsensicle system where an N7 marine has to increase his ability to hold a weapon steady(seriously?? how'd he even get that far to begin with then?) it is based on player skill. Doing that, you remove about 40ish points to spend on leveling up. Same idea applies to armor. He is a marine, combat trained first and thus should be well versed in how to wear any kind of armor present that fits a human. There goes another whole 12 or so points. Now choice in what skills that actually matter are the focus of leveling, you know, legit rpg stuff that isnt a throwback to D&D.

Oh, and lawl at getting pwnt by smooth moving combat.

The whole point of an RPG is to play a role that you otherwise might not get to play in real life. RPG's are not hand/eye dexterity/coordination based games. Determining the result of character actions from player skill is anathema to the RPG genre. It's akin to saying that because I like to play a soldier I should know how to shoot a gun. How about if I like to play a mage, should I know how to cast a spell? 

The contradictions between the story and the basic status of skill points in ME1, true as they were, would not have appeared in this iteration because everyone starts the game with a much more experienced character. So the fix might have been a patch to ME1, but there was no need to go into it in ME2. 

Since the FPS crowd whined for a year about this and got the change they wanted, now we get to whine so they change it back, or at least don't make it worse, for ME3.

truth! ^ i'm really afraid to pick up ME2 now after all the negative stuff i've read on these forums yet all the reviews say a different story. though as a hardcore rpg fan i think i'll be disappointed... let's see....