Don't be such a sperg, it's just a label at the end of the day.
It would save a lot of resources and time, energy to just make a story instead of a video game.
I've played games since the arcade days it doesn't make me any more attached to them, per se.
I watched the Paragon anime thing, I was pretty satisfied.
Why are you doing something you don't enjoy? Seriously, If you don't like them do something else. That's what I do, sometimes for years on end.
Why are you doing something you don't enjoy? Seriously, If you don't like them do something else. That's what I do, sometimes for years on end.
You realize games are more game based than ever? Huge, mammoth.... open worlds, etc, thousands of hours of gameplay, if anything they've lost their story component.
You realize games are more game based than ever? Huge, mammoth.... open worlds, etc, thousands of hours of gameplay, if anything they've lost their story component.
TW3.
TW3.
I take it you never played the likes of Battle for Midway, Bubble Bobble, Pac Man Adventures, Phantasmagoria, and many others... I found the story expression stronger and more articulate than in the modern games.
TW3 could have been released as a an artfully done storybook thing and it probably would of sold just as much.
I take it you never played the likes of Battle for Midway, Bubble Bobble, Pac Man Adventures, Phantasmagoria, and many others... I found the story expression stronger and more articulate than in the modern games.
TW3 could have been released as a an artfully done storybook thing and it probably would of sold just as much.
I play games for what they offer me, if it's just an arena shooter I glory in the game mechanics. If its a bioware game, I revel the companioni nteractions. If I play TW3, I revel in meaningful decisions and story. I've played all sorts of games with my daughter as she grows including dress up games and dance games.
In the space of 2 posts, your opinion went from You realize games are more game based than ever? to TW3 could have been released as a an artfully done storybook. Two completely opposite points of view. If you enjoy debate just for debates sake, why don't you do it somewhere where it might be appreciated.
I'm not replying anymore, because you POV always changes.
I play games for what they offer me, if it's just an arena shooter or glory in the game mechanics. If its a bioware game, I revel the companioni nteractions. If I play TW3, I revel in meaningful decisions and story. I've played all sorts of games with my daughter as she grows including dress up games and dance games.
In the space of 2 posts, your opinion went from You realize games are more game based than ever? to TW3 could have been released as a an artfully done storybook. Two completely opposite points of view. If you enjoy debate just for debates sake, why don't you do it somewhere where it might be appreciated.
I'm not replying anymore, because you POV always changes.
Those two opinions are not opposite points of view, they are completely consistent.
But if you don't want to reply, feel free. If you don't like it, do something else. It's something I've done, sometimes for years on end.
I get that the game is designed to require us to swap weapons based on the situation. I just don't understand why. RPGs don't typically require us to tackle obstacles in a specific way chosen by the devlopers, and I certainly didn't expect that in ME2.
It doesn't require you to do anything except use some sort of cohesive strategy for your weapons, powers and squadmates.
As for generalities about RPGs, in reality most games have a limited number of options that actually are conducive to victory for any given scenario.
I mean hypothetically I could slap a 2H weapon on a dex pumped rogue in DAO, but I shouldn't complain about Bioware's weapon balance and the way attributes work when this combination is horrible for Nightmare. Especially if I already know that 2H gain nothing (except half a point of attack) from dex.
It wasn't enemies doing it. It was the walls.
I get that the game is designed to require us to swap weapons based on the situation. I just don't understand why. RPGs don't typically require us to tackle obstacles in a specific way chosen by the devlopers, and I certainly didn't expect that in ME2.
This also just highlighted how dumb the addition of the ammo mechanic was. ME1 didn't have ammo, and ME1's weapons would have been more effective in ME2 than ME2's weapons were. Given the gameplay, the lore-based explanation for the mechanic didn't make any sense.
I was predisposed to dislike it because I didn't think it added anything good to the game, so the extra frustration was incredibly irritating. There was no benefit, and significant cost.
ME2 was explicitly designed as a shooter first (Christina Norman said so during development), and it showed. Badly.
The game not asking you to tackle obstacles in 1 specific way... it's giving you a range of choices... just, apparently, not the range of choices you'd like... even though you claim that you're prepared to role play within the range of limitations of the game. After running out of thermal clips... you have several options (not just one). You can switch weapons or you can use powers or you can melee or you can retreat or you can locate more ammo.
We can disagree on our preference for it... I repeat... I PREFER limited ammo vs. infinite ammo and bullet-sponge enemies. I would prefer if we were given an ample, but still finite, supply at the start of a mission to enemies dropping ammo or ammo crates lying about the battlefield. In association with that, I think it's also doable to have the player select an amount of ammo to take on each mission (i.e. so that it involves a little bit of player skill/experience to properly prepare for missions - better role play). Regardless of the initial lore that people like to fall back on in support of wanting infinite ammo... i.e. it really just means that they want a brainless way to engage in battle by just standing around near cover and pumping infinite rounds into enemies. The higher the difficulty, the only thing that changed was how long it took to down the enemies. I had one friend you played through ME1 the first time, reached the end, and still wasn't really aware of what powers and squad orders were because they had only used their AR to take down every enemy in the game. If you think that's a great role play for a "commander," you can... but I think it makes for a better role play if the commander can make some tactical decisions on the battlefield.
So, we better just agree to disagree, Sylvius... I'm not backing down and neither are you so it's rather pointless to keep on going back and forth on this same issue over and over and over again. You have your preferences... AND I HAVE MINE.
Preferably, it returns loot being a thing, while adding crafting, but still keeping all the gameplay overhauls made since after ME1.
I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle?
As indicated, the Predator does little dmg and requires two to three times as many hits as the other pistols. And due to the higher fire rate, one sacrifices cover to fire those extra required shots. For the non-Soldier classes, abilities are a better option than the pop-pop pistol.
The Predator is actually going to mean less time out of cover because you empty the clip much faster than the Carnifex or Phalanx. Unless you enjoy standing out in the open while you reload.
Plus, 2 Predator shots is worth about 1 Carnifex shot and can be fired in the same amount of time.
Caster classes should be using gunfire in between ability use to deal additional damage for maximum effect. You can't sit there and mash the Warp button every half a second, so it's either that or sit there in cover doing nothing.
I get that the game is designed to require us to swap weapons based on the situation. I just don't understand why. RPGs don't typically require us to tackle obstacles in a specific way chosen by the devlopers, and I certainly didn't expect that in ME2.
You weren't required to tackle enemy defenses in a specific way, and if you did so it's only because you choose to do that. You can use abilities(Engineers are great at this, and you can get Mordin early if you aren't playing as one), use the weapon with the higher damage against that defense type, or use any other weapon you wish. If you're feeling particularly crazy, most enemies can be hit with melee attacks too.
It's just that some of those things are less effective than others and since weapons have limited ammo, if you attempt to use a weapon with bad ammo capacity 100% of the time then you might run out.
In Baldur's Gate I've run out of bolts before. Should I blame BioWare for not saturating me with bolts for my crossbow with every fight? I couldn't rely solely on one weapon for the entire game with that character.
We all want it to be good, no discussion there.
Some consider ME1 the better of the ME trilogy as its most RPG. Others swing the other way, including myself because I'll play just about any game as long as it's good. imo ME2 and 3 (bar the ending) were better.
Bioware has it's roots in RPG, but is there room in customers hearts to accept a good game with RPG elements. I would think there is a broader market for bioware making games which aren't just RPG. If this keeps Bioware afloat, isn't that a good thing.
I just want a good game and I want Bioware to not be swallowed up by EA, what do you think?
I don't want it to be good, i want it to be THE BEST instead. :-)
I prefer more RPG elements and RPG gameplay over action oriented game. However the Multiplayer can stay more action oriented.
It doesn't require you to do anything except use some sort of cohesive strategy for your weapons, powers and squadmates.
As for generalities about RPGs, in reality most games have a limited number of options that actually are conducive to victory for any given scenario.
I mean hypothetically I could slap a 2H weapon on a dex pumped rogue in DAO, but I shouldn't complain about Bioware's weapon balance and the way attributes work when this combination is horrible for Nightmare. Especially if I already know that 2H gain nothing (except half a point of attack) from dex.
The game not asking you to tackle obstacles in 1 specific way... it's giving you a range of choices... just, apparently, not the range of choices you'd like... even though you claim that you're prepared to role play within the range of limitations of the game. After running out of thermal clips... you have several options (not just one). You can switch weapons or you can use powers or you can melee or you can retreat or you can locate more ammo.
We can disagree on our preference for it... I repeat... I PREFER limited ammo vs. infinite ammo and bullet-sponge enemies. I would prefer if we were given an ample, but still finite, supply at the start of a mission to enemies dropping ammo or ammo crates lying about the battlefield. In association with that, I think it's also doable to have the player select an amount of ammo to take on each mission (i.e. so that it involves a little bit of player skill/experience to properly prepare for missions - better role play). Regardless of the initial lore that people like to fall back on in support of wanting infinite ammo... i.e. it really just means that they want a brainless way to engage in battle by just standing around near cover and pumping infinite rounds into enemies. The higher the difficulty, the only thing that changed was how long it took to down the enemies. I had one friend you played through ME1 the first time, reached the end, and still wasn't really aware of what powers and squad orders were because they had only used their AR to take down every enemy in the game. If you think that's a great role play for a "commander," you can... but I think it makes for a better role play if the commander can make some tactical decisions on the battlefield.
So, we better just agree to disagree, Sylvius... I'm not backing down and neither are you so it's rather pointless to keep on going back and forth on this same issue over and over and over again. You have your preferences... AND I HAVE MINE.
While I do not know Sylvius well, I have known him a long time, and I believe both he and I would be OK with that, as the Player has the freedom to test builds of choice. Now while I did not play with a 2H Rogue, I know those that did, and were rather satisfied of their designs.
You still have most of the same freedom in ME2, even if it is largely counter-productive. I can't even go straight Dex for 2H since I need Str to even equip certain swords / mauls in the first place as I don't get to cheat like AW to equip gear.
Other DAO examples; I oft utilize STR based Rogues that wear Heavy armor, grant 20-30+ WILL to most characters, grant 20+ DEX to Mages, and other changes from the one or two Ability builds that frequent the forums. Thing is, not all of my builds were terrific, but these designs thrive in the game. Player freedom to design is key.
Sure but Str rogue is probably more like an ME2 Adept with Energy Drain than it is an Adept who just uses a single weapon. My bigger point was about rebelling against the mechanics of the game. If a player is inadvertantly rebelling because they haven't learned them yet that is one thing. If somebody is rebelling after being familiar with the game and mechanics, they are just gimping themselves. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to complain at that point that the game is more challenging.
As far as analogies go, the better analogy for ME2 weapons to DAO than I made before is that the different classes of weapons are akin to the elemental / primal spells. So say I want to only go the fire line, and don't take anything else. When I essentially can't damage the various fire enemies like Rage demons on Nightmare would it make sense to complain about resistances on the highest mode?
In ME2, the Player is limited to four ranks, and is unable to complete all of these.
This is sort of a red-herring though. ME1 only had 3 ranks for every power, and there was no actual change in the way abilities worked as you leveled them. They only did one thing.
In many cases ME2 powers at Rank 4 are superior to ME3 versions at Rank 6. Incinerate is a prime example. I can go Area Incinerate and actually hit a decent amount of enemies in ME2. ME3 version is lucky to hit multiple enemies. The other evolutions are just moderate bonuses (unless you are glitching IA in MP). The freeze combo evolution doesn't add anything to Engineer since he needs to Cryo Blast first, and even then it doesn't make as much sense to do that as to spam fire explosions or just use Sabotage with TV. You don't actually have more compelling choice, there are just more evolutions to slog through.
And on the subject of player choice, ME1 is a whole lot more punishing for setups than any of the other games with respect to starting a new character on Insanity. Assume fighting Battlemaster at Level 15, what are the actual viable options available then to beat him? There are only two powers that really do anything to him at all. You could just say "I don't feel like fighting him with NS or Advanced Lift" and good luck with that. Of course it can be done but it is drastically more difficult such that it almost doesn't make sense to do it.
Weapon restrictions limit player design.
Of course. There has to be some limits on player design for the sake of balance.
ME1's untrained weapon use doesn't affect balance because it is largely a fake choice. You don't really increase effectiveness using the untrained weapons. It gives you something else to do, sure, but it isn't any more effective. For the record I am completely fine with bringing back the concept of untrained weapons for various classes, implying that some classes are trained. But that is because I absolutely disagree with the notion that every class should be proficient with every weapon type, at the very least without giving up something. Lack of real penalty is indeed partially responsible for the mess that is ME3's balance.
Auto-dialogue removes Player choice. The min/max Paragon/ Renegade system penalized Player freedom to remain middle ground. If one had DLC to acquire Zaeed, he cannot simply be ignored. Etc.
Sure I am with you on this, I don't like auto-dialogue and that was a bad trend through the trilogy with ME3 as the worst.
I don't care for the generic rep system of ME3 since it seems like it is watered down such that there aren't any real consequences for previous conversation choices. Just alternate back and forth and somehow you still are charming and intimidating. Perhaps they need to return to outright charm / intimidate talents? Some people would be annoyed, some might be happy. Can't make everyone happy.
The Predator is actually going to mean less time out of cover because you empty the clip much faster than the Carnifex or Phalanx. Unless you enjoy standing out in the open while you reload.
Plus, 2 Predator shots is worth about 1 Carnifex shot and can be fired in the same amount of time.
Caster classes should be using gunfire in between ability use to deal additional damage for maximum effect. You can't sit there and mash the Warp button every half a second, so it's either that or sit there in cover doing nothing.
You weren't required to tackle enemy defenses in a specific way, and if you did so it's only because you choose to do that. You can use abilities(Engineers are great at this, and you can get Mordin early if you aren't playing as one), use the weapon with the higher damage against that defense type, or use any other weapon you wish. If you're feeling particularly crazy, most enemies can be hit with melee attacks too.
It's just that some of those things are less effective than others and since weapons have limited ammo, if you attempt to use a weapon with bad ammo capacity 100% of the time then you might run out.
In Baldur's Gate I've run out of bolts before. Should I blame Bioware for not saturating me with bolts for my crossbow with every fight? I couldn't rely solely on one weapon for the entire game with that character.
Bioware has all but given up on making RPGs at this point. Every game they make from this point on will be action/shooter with some RPG element thrown in. This is just something everyone has to either accept or move on.
I'm not looking for a challenge. I don't think it's even possible for RPGs to be challenging for the player, since the player's skill shouldn't matter.The game not asking you to tackle obstacles in 1 specific way... it's giving you a range of choices... just, apparently, not the range of choices you'd like... even though you claim that you're prepared to role play within the range of limitations of the game. After running out of thermal clips... you have several options (not just one). You can switch weapons or you can use powers or you can melee or you can retreat or you can locate more ammo.
We can disagree on our preference for it... I repeat... I PREFER limited ammo vs. infinite ammo and bullet-sponge enemies. I would prefer if we were given an ample, but still finite, supply at the start of a mission to enemies dropping ammo or ammo crates lying about the battlefield. In association with that, I think it's also doable to have the player select an amount of ammo to take on each mission (i.e. so that it involves a little bit of player skill/experience to properly prepare for missions - better role play). Regardless of the initial lore that people like to fall back on in support of wanting infinite ammo... i.e. it really just means that they want a brainless way to engage in battle by just standing around near cover and pumping infinite rounds into enemies. The higher the difficulty, the only thing that changed was how long it took to down the enemies. I had one friend you played through ME1 the first time, reached the end, and still wasn't really aware of what powers and squad orders were because they had only used their AR to take down every enemy in the game. If you think that's a great role play for a "commander," you can... but I think it makes for a better role play if the commander can make some tactical decisions on the battlefield.
So, we better just agree to disagree, Sylvius... I'm not backing down and neither are you so it's rather pointless to keep on going back and forth on this same issue over and over and over again. You have your preferences... AND I HAVE MINE.
DAI was a terrific RPG.Bioware has all but given up on making RPGs at this point. Every game they make from this point on will be action/shooter with some RPG element thrown in. This is just something everyone has to either accept or move on.
er... Not in my game. As I use Pause & Play, I remain behind cover to re-load rather than perform Action mode heroics. And without Ammo powers, I prefer to have a single shot doing twice or thrice the impact as the pop gun. And if my Powers are in cooldown, I then have the option to use weapons, or utilize a Follower, if available.
One was coerced into gameplay choices, be it Paragon/ Renegade options, or clip hunts. And having to pick up litter after battles is dull, esp when being informed that one should hurry.
The claim was that the Predator is useless though, not that you prefer weapons with a higher damage per shot. It would be more accurate to say that the Predator just isn't your style of weapon. Kind of like how I don't care for the Talon in ME3 MP despite it easily being one of the best weapons in the game.
All the games had the stupid Paragon/Renegade thing. ME1 made it even worse by forcing you to spend skill points on top of the fact that how many ranks you could get in Charm/Intimidate was dependent on how full your Paragon/Renegade meters were. It's one of the things I think needs an overhaul in ME:A.
Playing through on Insanity I never once had to clip hunt, not even on caster classes. If you're using the Sylvius approach to combat then you shouldn't ever be missing either in ME2, which means that your accuracy should be surpassing even my own.
Most RPGs have picking up litter after battles. In this case it's looting the spare ammo rather than looting the corpses for money/items. I never found it particularly exciting to go through half a dozen corpses all containing a few gold, some leather armour, and a longsword in Baldur's Gate either just to get the gold.
Thing is, as has been noted, one cannot always fall back to collect ammo; a loss of choice. And between the lack of immersion from having unlimited ammo, or having to police the field for clips because the ammo supply behind has been cut off, I prefer the former. And unlimited ammo does not exist; cooldowns or better access are extant in the other games.
Brainless might better describe overlooking clips to rush forward with lesser stores.
Let's re-compare ME1 (unlimited ammo) and ME2/ME3 (limited ammo). In ME1, you had unlimited ammo and still a break in immersion because you were essentially running around after each battle to unlock a large number of crates to upgrade weapons and armor (in addition to enemies dropping some). What you actually got was random and getting adequate armor, for example, was very difficult if you eschewed unlocking any of the crates... plus you wound up with significantly less XP.
In ME2, you might have to look around a bit for some ammo, but more often than not, you can collect enough to keep yourself stocked while just continuing to move forward. (I don't often run right out - even using the infamous Incisor and I don't often have to go back and "scour" a battlefield for ammo... and themikefest verifies that as well). Even if you do run out and can't go back to get more, you have the other 4 options still available to you in order to advance the battle forward until some enemy does drop more ammo or you run into a power cell. Doing the hacking was more optional since it just yielded money, which you could then use to buy only the upgrades you desired.
So, which system is more immersion breaking? ME1, I think. In addition, the ME2/ME3 systems give more opportunity to role play as a tactically "savvy" commander... one who adapts to things like running low on ammo. ME1 gives absolutely no incentive for players to do anything more than just stand around and shoot their weapon at the enemies for however long it takes to make them fall... boring.
Bioware has all but given up on making RPGs at this point. Every game they make from this point on will be action/shooter with some RPG element thrown in. This is just something everyone has to either accept or move on.
Keep in mind that Mass Effect has always tried to be a RPG/Shooter hybrid.
Some people are bound to hate it and while the RPG aspects could be improved, it's going to make some concessions for the sake of the shooter half of things.
As much as people are praising ME1 RPG aspects in this thread, it was a terrible shooter. ME3 is easily the best game in that regard. It's not even a competition. ME1 and 2 both had weak gunplay in the action combat.
As mentioned, I was using a sniper rifle almost exclusively.You weren't required to tackle enemy defenses in a specific way, and if you did so it's only because you choose to do that. You can use abilities(Engineers are great at this, and you can get Mordin early if you aren't playing as one), use the weapon with the higher damage against that defense type, or use any other weapon you wish. If you're feeling particularly crazy, most enemies can be hit with melee attacks too.
Except you could. I used 2 archers for basically all if BG, and to do that without running out of arrows I devoted nearly all of the inventory on all 6 characters to carrying arrows for just 2 guys. I carried a bare minimum of other gear to maximize my space for arrows.In Baldur's Gate I've run out of bolts before. Should I blame BioWare for not saturating me with bolts for my crossbow with every fight? I couldn't rely solely on one weapon for the entire game with that character.
Let's recompare ME1 (unlimited ammo) and ME2/ME3 (limited ammo). In ME1, you had unlimited ammo and still a break in immersion because you were essentially running around after each battle to unlock a large number of crates to upgrade weapons and armor (in addition to enemies dropping some). In ME2, you might have to look around a bit for some ammo, but more often than not, you can collect enough to keep yourself stocked while just continuing to move forward (I don't often run right out - even using the infamous Incisor and I don't often have to go back and "scour" a battlefield for ammo... and themikefest verifies that as well)... So, which system is more immersion breaking? ME1, I think.
Bioware has all but given up on making RPGs at this point. Every game they make from this point on will be action/shooter with some RPG element thrown in. This is just something everyone has to either accept or move on.
Bioware has all but given up on making RPGs at this point. Every game they make from this point on will be action/shooter with some RPG element thrown in. This is just something everyone has to either accept or move on.
Retour en haut