393 réponses à ce sujet

[Khavos]

sedrikhcain wrote...

In ME1, you can choose between various makes/models of guns and choose your ammo. In ME2, you choose which gun you want to use per mission (and have 1 chance to to change it, usually) but also choose which upgrades you want and alter your ammo in mission based on the skills of your crew members. How does the first offer so much more customization? Especially since by the time you are halfway done w/one playthrough of ME1, 90% of the weapons you have to choose from become obsolete AND the differences between many of the different makes are somewhat insignificant?

I just don't get why anyone misses ME1's inventory system. I would love to understand why, I really would. That's why I'm taking the time to read and post here. But at this point, I just don't get it. What did you do in ME1, ditch spectre gear and go back up pick up a Katana VII just for the challenge? What am I missing?

Well, no, you don't get to choose which upgrades to put in weapons - you can choose to research/buy upgrades or not.  The only areas where I've seen ME2 weapon choices actually become even remotely difficult is with the higher-end items; Revenant versus Vindicator, mostly.  If you can use the Widow, you will, as there's absolutely no reason to use the other two.  Same with Tempest.  Same with the shotties.  The Carnifex is massively superior to the heavy pistol, but holds less ammo; I class it with Revenant versus Vindicator. 

People miss ME1's inventory system because a lot of people, myself included, like loot.  Doesn't matter if it's a marginal upgrade or a massive upgrade; loot's cool.  Loot's also been an integral part of most WRPGs for a long time.  That's what people are really getting at.

Does ME2 play better than ME1?  Yeah, it does.  But it sacrified - err, streamlined - a lot of its traditional RPG aspects and became much more of a level-based shooter in the process.  The RPG elements of ME1 oftentimes were clunky and overwrought, not fitting in all that well with the combat style.  Instead of refining them and figuring out a way to integrate into a true hybrid, they just threw them overboard. 

Case in point: you mentioned switching ammo and powers and whatnot based on your squad skills.  I'm playing on Insanity and I don't bother with any of that crap, because you're just as efficient, if not moreso, topping out Tungsten rounds or Warp ammo and just playing it like a standard TPS.  Sure, I could sit there and micromanage squad powers, slinging tech and biotic abilities around, but honestly?  Shooting is much faster and much more efficient.  "Oh, man, he's got Barrier, and then armor, so I need to go to Disruptor and then Incendiary and then..."  No.  Tungsten.  Headshots.  Dead faster with less mucking around with the power wheel. 

The game's a great RPG until you enter combat.

[Azazel005]

etherhonky wrote...

anyone here that acts like its not a huge change going from ME1 to ME2 is full of ****.

What an incredibly arrogant and unfair assessment. Your "bad ass" dune buggy was near universally comdemned as a boring waste of time. I got no thrill of exploration by landing on a geomorphed slab of terrain so I could drive around clear out a generic room or play a button pushing mini-game.

I get a much greater thrill of exploration from this sequel, located resources from orbit means I am not shipping the shore party down to dig and when something that actually requires my attention pops up it's far more exciting then anything that I found on the empty planets of ME1.

Certainly I didn't hate ME 1, but that element of exploration was thin, boring and amounted to pointless busy work.

In general, what the hell is "dumbed down" how many times are we supposed to read this and accept it as true? What because Shephard can aim? Did I need some sort of degree to play ME1? No, you didn't need to be smart you just banged in whatever equipment had the highest numbers. How is it that it required more intelligence? It required more patience perhaps simply due to the vast amount of self organization required to keep on top of your inventory.

This "dumbed down" garbage is quite frankly getting ridiculous.

[jtd00123]

Whats funny is that some people in here are trying to use this article
as an example of someone who hated the game...when if you actually read
it you'll see the guy clear likes the game, he just wishes some
mechanics and aspects of it were different. It's still very much a
positive review of the game. He basically says it just wasn't as good
as HE THOUGHT it was going to be, NOT that the game was a horrible
piece of trash/rubbish that some people in here are trying to say.

Well, quite honestly its based off of the OP's (out of context?) quote. Not everyone feels like reading the entire article, and to me that paragraph just seems inaccurate...

What doesn't get me is the reviewer himself, but the fact that the OP and others seem to raise this writer on a golden pedestal simply because he has a differing opionion and works for a large publication.   In the end, the credibility of the reviewer to an individual is ultimately based off of whether or not the review agrees with his opinion or not (me included).

Modifié par jtd00123, 03 février 2010 - 02:22 .

[Khavos]

spock06 wrote...

I'm beginning to think all these idiots whining about how ME1 was this great, deep RPG and ME2 has been "dumbed down" have not actually played ME2. All your "deep" RPG elements are still there, just in a different form. Instead of putting 1 skill point per skill into useless, +1.5% damage, they have made only important skill advances.

Which has the apparently intended effect of there essentially being no customization at all, aside from which bonus power you pick, if any.

As Shepard goes through the game he gets more skills. The weapon upgrade system is actually much better, more interesting, and much more realistic than the horrendous inventory from the first game.

I'm curious why you believe the upgrade system to be interesting.  I get my +X% damage module, I research it.  Rinse and repeat until the weapon class is maxed out.  Doesn't change the fact that I'm using the best gun in the class the entire game. 

In ME2 they've simply gotten rid of the useless s**t so we can focus on PLAYING THE GAME.

That's very true.  They've shed a lot of the WRPG traditions in order to get you into a fairly derivative TPS much more quickly. 

[Cloaking_Thane]

For comparison read his Gushing, glowing, overtly positive review of Dragon Age: Origins



I think this helps for perspective, and his general stance on "true" RPGs vs a Hybrid



I like both games a lot, but still, I think this will help people gain some perspective of his view.



http://www.nytimes.c...ted=1&sq=Dragon Age Origins&st=cse&scp=1

[Cloaking_Thane]

Also



Per weapon/ammo/ loot argument:



In ME1 all of the Weapons were exactly the same w/ a different color paint. Once you could afford Spectre gear you didnt retroactively use other guns.



In ME2 why would your team mates carry inferior weapons/ Armor to you when they are the elite of the elite just like you? I prefer my squad to look unique instead of cookie cutter Armor X.



At least in ME2 all of the guns do indeed feel different................obviously the point of every RPG experience is to attain the best gear.



For example oblivion.............you enchanted your own Daedra gear or glass gear for the best...........Ill never understand the loot argument for this game



obv this is IMO

[jtd00123]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

For comparison read his Gushing, glowing, overtly positive review of Dragon Age: Origins

I think this helps for perspective, and his general stance on "true" RPGs vs a Hybrid

I like both games a lot, but still, I think this will help people gain some perspective of his view.

http://www.nytimes.c...ted=1&sq=Dragon Age Origins&st=cse&scp=1

The ironic thing is that Dragon Age was pretty dumbed down compared to the older PC RPGs.

I will agree that ME2 probably streamlined the RPG elements a little too far.  However, the problem with the original ME was that I could beat the game (on default difficulty) without any difficulty.  Thus, the expansion of inventory and character management to me seemed useless and simply for show. 

  In addition, the AI was so horrible, the precision so clunky, that the shooter elements were just superficial and the RPG elements took center-stage.   This is fine I guess, but why use shooter elements in the first place? The end product was not something I think Bioware envisioned when creating a shooter/rpg hybrid.  At the time, all I could think about was how Bioware was better off with a traditional RPG combat system.

In the ME2, the shooter elements were improved to where the shooting doesn't seem like just an afterthought.  However, the customization and inventory suffered, and perhaps needlessly.  Most people, like me, like the change.  Some don't.

Modifié par jtd00123, 03 février 2010 - 02:46 .

[Cloaking_Thane]

Agreed mate.



All I'm saying regarding the weapons in ME1 is the very first time I pulled out my sniper rifle I laughed for a good 30 seconds.

[Orogenic]

kiyyto wrote...


Why did you come to this thread.
Are you stupid?

Do you think that your opinion is more valuable than anyone else’s?
Or, is Mass Effect 2 so important to you that you have to go to critical threads to defend shep’s honor?

I for one am not bothering people in the Mass Effect 2 is awesome threads and telling them how crazy they are. I couldn’t care less what they think. I already know i disagree. I already know they like the game tons and don’t care.

In summary, you’re a douche.

Yours wins "funny clueless post of the day" because:

1) You are attacking someone who agrees with you without (apparently) any awareness of this fact.

2) You accuse people of self importance after spewing your own drivel for 6 posts in a row.

Have a nice day.

[TheConfidenceMan]

The best review out there, as it was the only one that adequately framed the changes that were made.

[BiowareAZ]

Great review, couldn't agree more - I love the game, but you cannot ignore some of the misses, and bad design decisions, along with the pc version feeling very "console'ish".

[Khavos]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Also

Per weapon/ammo/ loot argument:

In ME1 all of the Weapons were exactly the same w/ a different color paint. Once you could afford Spectre gear you didnt retroactively use other guns.

Which is an argument that seems to be entirely based on repeated playthroughs.  Loot lacked in those; the first time I played through, I didn't know there was Spectre gear until I got it.  Loot progression.  

In ME2 why would your team mates carry inferior weapons/ Armor to you when they are the elite of the elite just like you? I prefer my squad to look unique instead of cookie cutter Armor X.

I'm fine with looking unique.  I do have superficial issues with the fact that only two of them appear to be wearing actual combat gear.  I'd argue their armor already is inferior to mine, since Shep at least goes into combat missions wearing, you know, body armor.  I'd dearly love to be able to put my squad mates in some as well, rather than having them look like they're auditioning for a bad WB sci-fi series.

At least in ME2 all of the guns do indeed feel different................obviously the point of every RPG experience is to attain the best gear.

They do feel different; trouble is, there's still a very clear best/worst hierarchy at play for most of the weapon classes.  As I said, Assault Rifles and Pistols are somewhat exempt from this.  In ME1, you had guns that all felt the same but were progressively - if marginally - better up until the best.  In ME2, you have guns that feel different but are progressively better up until the best.  It's a lateral improvement at best.

For example oblivion.............you enchanted your own Daedra gear or glass gear for the best...........Ill never understand the loot argument for this game

Why not?  A lot of people, perhaps even the majority, who play RPGs like loot.  It might not be their top priority, but they like it.  And the game does, after all, bill itself as an RPG, at least in part.  It's much less of one than it claims, but it still has pretensions to the title.  

[Cloaking_Thane]

This isnt a pure RPG game mate. And you could afford the spectre gear pretty early on if I recall.



For this game why cant we assume Cerberus's Billions bought you the best weaponary available?

[Orogenic]

spock06 wrote...

I'm beginning to think all these idiots whining about how ME1 was this great, deep RPG and ME2 has been "dumbed down" have not actually played ME2. All your "deep" RPG elements are still there, just in a different form. Instead of putting 1 skill point per skill into useless, +1.5% damage, they have made only important skill advances. As Shepard goes through the game he gets more skills. The weapon upgrade system is actually much better, more interesting, and much more realistic than the horrendous inventory from the first game. And how is it any different? In ME1 you had 100 million guns, 1 of which you used. In ME2 they've simply gotten rid of the useless s**t so we can focus on PLAYING THE GAME.

The review makes some good points, however, I wouldn't call the NY Times a respectable publication where games are concerned.

Thanks for calling anyone with a different opinion an idiot.

I have played through ME 2 and I will confirm that the game, while quite good in many ways, is extremely linear, the storyline is thin, and YES... the game has been dumbed down for people with short attention spans.  Sorry if the truth hurts. (I shouldn't have to say this, but this is MY opinion and I do not fault anyone for not sharing it)

For the record I couldn't care less what "genre" a game falls into.  ME 1 was simply more fun and engrossing than ME 2 for me.  Interestingly, I also find zero desire to replay ME 2... as many have stated in this forum, the first game was still fun after 10 playthroughs. I know many of you love the new combat mechanics, but every fight ends up being pretty much the same.

I'm glad you like ME 2 better than ME 1 honestly.  I have to ask though, is there a reason that all of the "new" ME 2 fans have to be so rude and insulting to those with different opinions? Is it an age thing? Hard to understand.

[BiowareAZ]

Re: Loot - I think the feeling or need for loot is to feel like my character is progressing in power, in any RPG you start out with a pistol/rusty sword, then eventually you build your character into gleaming engine of destruction.

[Orogenic]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

This isnt a pure RPG game mate. And you could afford the spectre gear pretty early on if I recall.

For this game why cant we assume Cerberus's Billions bought you the best weaponary available?

By this logic, why couldn't we assume that Cerberus with all of its resources had already beaten the reapers?  Then Shep could just hang out and watch his fishtank with a harem of hotties in his cabin : )

[Cloaking_Thane]

Orogenic wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

This isnt a pure RPG game mate. And you could afford the spectre gear pretty early on if I recall.

For this game why cant we assume Cerberus's Billions bought you the best weaponary available?

By this logic, why couldn't we assume that Cerberus with all of its resources had already beaten the reapers?  Then Shep could just hang out and watch his fishtank with a harem of hotties in his cabin : )

There is a massive difference in my logic and the "logic" you posed as mine.

[Cloaking_Thane]

In the first game Shep, the best human soldier in the galaxy couldnt aim a sniper rifle or hit anything else 2/3rds of the time.

I love progression and char dev as much as the next person, but for a game involving guns where a soldier is already the Elite of the Elite it makes little sense to progress Accuracy or Stability

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 03 février 2010 - 03:15 .

[Orogenic]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

This isnt a pure RPG game mate. And you could afford the spectre gear pretty early on if I recall.

For this game why cant we assume Cerberus's Billions bought you the best weaponary available?

By this logic, why couldn't we assume that Cerberus with all of its resources had already beaten the reapers?  Then Shep could just hang out and watch his fishtank with a harem of hotties in his cabin : )

There is a massive difference in my logic and the "logic" you posed as mine.

Obviously I was kidding.. but the thought process is identical in both cases.  I have only taken your logic to its ultimate conclusion.  I welcome an intelligent rebuttal, but my recent experince on this forum indicates that this is (sadly) unlikely.

[Orogenic]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

In the first game Shep, the best human soldier in the galaxy couldnt aim a sniper rifle or hit anything else 2/3rds of the time.

I love progression and char dev as much as the next person, but for a game involving guns where a soldier is already the Elite of the Elite it makes little sense to progress Accuacy of Stability

So once again, by your logic all combat soldiers are snipers?  I thought it added a bit of realisim that your character had to "develop" familiarity with different weapon types to be skilled with them... and that spending points on these skills would take away other potential benefits.  For instance, I liked the fact that you couldn't have an expert marksman who was also a master of conversation with maxed out charm.

To each his own.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Fair enough I would direct you to my post above. I've yet to get a satisfactory answer that I could see if not agree w/ other than the typical "because RPG says so".


They took massive liberty in the first game, in terms of sniping.


Yes an N7 soldier which would be Navy Seal/ Green Beret caliber, should be profiecient in all areas of gun/ Combat

Including aiming

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 03 février 2010 - 03:20 .

[Mezinger]

BiowareAZ wrote...

Re: Loot - I think the feeling or need for loot is to feel like my character is progressing in power, in any RPG you start out with a pistol/rusty sword, then eventually you build your character into gleaming engine of destruction.

Absolutely it's a core piece of character progression along with skills, attributes, levels and they've all been brutally down sized in one way or another in ME2.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Please stop refering to "by my logic". Its rather pedantic. Like youre putting on airs.