87 réponses à ce sujet

[supakillaii]

Actually I liked the combat in ME.

[Daiyus]

I personally of the opinionthat ME2 feels very stripped down. Don't get me wrong, I love the main ideas that BioWare has had with ME2, but it's extremely lacking in some areas that made ME1 great for me. I take my hat off to BioWare for making the combat a lot smoother and more fun. Having that aspect play more like a Third Person Shooter is an abvious choice, and decent upgrade. I don't think anyone can deny that.



The main things for me are the 'lack' of skills, armour, and weapons. I spent hours in ME1 thinking about what skills to upgrade, which bonus talent to use, etc. I've recently started a new Infiltrator in ME1 that I will progress into ME2 with, and I have multiple tech abilities which my ME2 character won't have access to. In ME1 I have at least 6 abilities to work with, plus my weapons, plus whatever my squad mates have. In ME2 I feel very restricted after having all those options (and no global cooldown). Having said that I do like the unique abilities each class has (I wish I could take the Tactical Cloak into ME1). Maybe for ME3 they need to strike kind of a halfway compromise. Have the 'short' tree with four upgrades and a choice at the end, but allow to have the full compliment of abilities.



In terms of weapons I like the current system to a point. Being able to have everyone equip a weapon once owned is useful, but theres just too few. I was honestly expecting to see at least one of each weapon type from each manufacturer each with stats (accuracy, clip size, recoil, etc) and nuances. The upgrade system is OK, but I still preffered mods. Again it's the choice. Do I up my accuracy? Or do I improve the heat sink so I can get more rounds down range? In ME2 I can have everything at once, which just feels a bit too perfect. Maybe a combination of the two. The upgrades could be for specific mods, rather than the weapon class itself. When you select a weapon you can apply mod(s) to your preference.



I have a similar view on armour. When I started playing ME2 I thought that 'Type' was Wieght class, thus choosing between mobility/protection. Alas it is not so, and on top of that the selctions are very limited. Again I was expecting pieces from every manufacturer, possibly in every weight class. I love the fact that we can change individual parts of armour now, it's nice to have that freedom, but it's not that much freedom if we don't have the options. And agin, the mods were good. A similar setup to my weapons idea could be used, upgrades to mod types, which can then be applied.



Overall I love ME2 for what it has improved. But I think BioWare does need to look at what made fans love ME1, and it's clear that many people found the RPG aspect of it just as enthralling as the action. Many would agree it was too complicated in ME1, but now it's too simple. A blend of the two in ME3 would surely make veryone happy?

[black.ironman91]

i find this funny because the salarian in the game store on the citadel complained about how these new rpg games are nothing like old rpg's (or something along those lines). i say keep mass effect like it is, as long as the story stays fantastic and biotics are playable ill shell out the money for another one.

[IzzQuad]

Bah, the combat is a million times better in 2, but it also threw away all strategy and went in the wrong direction. I stated in another thread a quick point to point rundown, but I'll try to recreate it here.

Regenerative health inevitably leads to more cover for the purposes of...regenning health. Cover inevitably leads to increased damage and lower health. Increased damage and lower health inevitably leads to cover becoming a necessity. Necessary cover leads to poke up head, shoot, hide, combat mechanics which in turn leads inevitably to dead teammates unless the AI can actually keep up with the fast pace (side note: Mass Effect's can NOT). Dead teammates inevitably leads to a broken squad system. A broken squad system inevitably leads to a loss of strategy. A loss of strategy results in Halo and Gears of War..

Not that I have anything against Gears of War. It just seems that the combat changes go against the whole strategy element that most RPG fans enjoy. Also, for a game so focussed on assembling the best team the universe has ever seen, they took alot away in terms of group dynamics.

Why, oh why is everybody so down on health bars these days?  They aren't realistic I suppose, but neither is the (forgive the nerdish term, I'm actually not an X-Men guy) Wolverine style super regeneration.  As I just showed above, regenerating health almost always leads to games like gears of war.  It's simply the way it works within a balanced system.  Regenning health is part of why half the games that come out these days are simply clones of others.

Modifié par IzzQuad, 04 février 2010 - 10:53 .

[joesk]

Ok I Did not get to experience the 360 version of ME1 but I did play all the way through 3 times the PC version. And I remember being able to use cover extensively. Mater of fact on hard setting in ME1 I had to use cover during most of the bigger battles. So I assume the 360 version had no cover ability? And the PC version did.



As for the RPG elements, like i put in previous posts, the Dialog choices and story are there, but the other aspects that were in ME1 and left out of ME2 I miss. I could equip all my squad mates with their armor changing there look (and qualities). Whereas in ME2 I can't change any of it. Just mine. When I went out on a mission it felt like these were my guys and special. Now it doesn't really mater who I choose, I don't have that same connection.



I am now about a 3rd thru the game and i am just doing the missions now to progress the story. I still think it feels like a FPS (Like Doom or Quake) with some RPG elements (Dialog and minimal skills). I also miss the atv exploration. I know it really sucked(secondhand knowledge) on the 360 system, but it was fun on the PC. Also on the PC the inventory was not that bad, again on the 360 it sucked. Basically other then the story the differences between the 360 and PC version were like night and day. ME2 not so much.



Just wish i could customize my guy a bit more. And hope this is no spoiler, but unless they add skills later, you max out all your skills at 30, couldn't do that in ME1 so there was strategy in how you chose skills. Which is part of Role Playing.

[Alastara]

Why do I keep hearing "MORE action oriented" over and over. Thinking about both games, I don't think I got in more fights in ME2 than in ME1. Seems conversation to action ratio is about the same, at least to me. I think the complaints are really about, "I want the action MORE stat based and LESS player skill based". While I'm a crummy FPS/TPS'er (I don't really play those types of games), I found the combat to be better in every way to the first. I was WAY more nervous and excited during combat than with the first installment.

[bobthomson]

The thing i found most annoying is the fact you no longer have an inventory, nor can you buy new guns / armor /implants etc and you cannot loot enemies, this takes away a huge part of the fun of the game!! ME1 gear system was vastly superior,in  any game that is an RPG or has RPG elements buying a new peice of armor or a new weapon is half the fun of the game, it  makes other bits of the game more fun, like looting dead enemies, because you get to loot them, killing them is more fun! and looking in anything eg- a dead enemy or a box of some type, whatever it is, is always interesting because you may get some new item that is better than what you have,  also i liked in ME1 you could look at different kinds of weapons and get specific stats on them, eg - damage, accuracy,  fire rate, if there were two kinds of weapons that were comparable you could look at the stats and say hmmm i like the one with slightly higher dmg but lower fire rate( or somthing like that)
you could look at different armor and compare them baced on stats eg-one has better stats, in ME2 you get bonuses from different armor but it isnt the same as when you would loot a cool piece of armor in ME1 and immediatly check it out,   getting rid of the the ME1 gear system took so much away from the game and there was no reason to do this if it makes the game less fun for so many people, and i cant see how anyone would object to having it back in ME3 .

ok in conclusion i like alot of the new stuff, but why take the old stuff that makes the game more fun?, i am talking mainly about the gear system, removing that takes away a whole level of depth and interest from the game, like taking somthing from 3D to 2D (best metaphor i can think of)

i look foward to mass effect 3 no matter what it is like but i really hope to see some of the RPG elements come back.

[Youmu]

1

Alastara wrote...

Why do I keep hearing "MORE action oriented" over and over. Thinking about both games, I don't think I got in more fights in ME2 than in ME1. Seems conversation to action ratio is about the same, at least to me.

Lot of the combat in ME1 was an area with bunch of enemies you could see at all times. They didn't constantly appear from a nearby closet, as they do in several sections. 

It gets really dull holding a segment of corridor for 5 minutes while 30 mechs walk in from behind the corner, or fighting 30 enemies in the same room, where more runs in from the closet after one dies. It makes lot of the fights longer than they really should be, which to me is kind of an annoyance, and certainly adds to the 'more action oriented'. 

Instead of "kill everything you see, talk to guy, win quest", you have to "kill everything you see until they stop spawning 15 minutes later, talk to guy, win quest".

bobthomson wrote...

The thing i found most annoying is the fact you no longer have an inventory, nor can you buy new guns / armor /implants etc and you cannot loot enemies, this takes away a huge part of the fun of the game!!

I like the lack of inventory. 95% of the stuff in ME1 shop fodder you ended up selling anyways, and stil you were stuck shifting through all that junk if there'd be an item that has a slightly bigger number than the previous one. I'd like to see a bit more variety, maybe more swappable armor pieces, or entirely new armor (or two) with pros/cons (customizable similar to the existing armor, none of this preorder/collector trash). And maybe some nods at the old upgrade system in ME1, as you could pick few upgrades to your guns, instead of getting ALL upgrades to guns. Ability to pick a pro AND a con to your gun at the same time, instead of researching bunch of pros with no cons attached.

Modifié par Youmu, 04 février 2010 - 12:43 .

[kraze07]

Seems like most people on these forums want ME3 to be Gears of War gameplay with dialogue options. Please Bioware take your long time, die-hard rpg fans into consideration when looking at feedback for the next game.

Modifié par kraze07, 04 février 2010 - 01:24 .

[Schurge]

I was coming into this thread expecting another purist rant...

I actually like your ideas, its a good compromise, keeping the action, keeping the roleplay focusing on interactions with other characters, but also adds some more customization without turning into a micromanaging stat type thing, which IMO, was never what Mass Effect was intended to be. I like my stat micromanaging in my MMOs. Note: I am referring to the extremes a small percentage of vocal fans seem to want.

Would be cool if those armor upgrades appeared on the armor. Extra ammo? Adds an ammo pack to your left calf. More damage absorbtion? Add a black armor weave to the armor. Extended shield duration? A generator on your forearm (that one is bad, couldn't think of anything)... etc. And more casual clothing heh heh.

EDIT: I was perfectly fine with the limited number of weapons... the idea was that each weapon preformed differently. The basic sniper rifle could one shot, but had limited ammo. The repeater was weaker but had a quickfire feature and more ammo. However... I didn't like the limited armor and the lack of slots... they had made it seem pre-release that you would be crafting and making custom armor.

Modifié par Schurge, 04 février 2010 - 01:39 .

[FlintlockJazz]

kraze07 wrote...

Seems like most people on these forums want ME3 to be Gears of War gameplay with dialogue options. Please Bioware take your long time, die-hard rpg fans into consideration when looking at feedback for the next game.

I've been a fan of Bioware's work since Baldur's Gate and consider myself a rpg fan, and I like the direction ME2 went in.  I don't think the lines are as clear cut as many people believe as to the differences between those who like and those who don't...

[Darth Obvious]

ME2 is no less of an RPG than ME1.



Sorry, but playing inventory tetris has nothing to do with role-playing. If you ever played a pen-and-paper RPG you would know that.

[The Siff Lord]

Alastara wrote...

Why do I keep hearing "MORE action oriented" over and over. ....  I think the complaints are really about, "I want the action MORE stat based and LESS player skill based". ......

This really highlights my main problem with the new system. I loved KOTOR, and then when Mass Effect came out, it followed similar game mechanics. Kind of an alternate Star Wars universe, lacking light sabers but still having Jedi powers (biotics). Success in combat was effected in large part by how you advanced your character at level-up and managed your talents in battle, and you built your character to suit your prefered tactics.

I pre-ordered Mass Effect 2 expecting it to have similar game mechanics. It's not that I don't like ME2 or think that it's not a good game, because it IS good. It seriously improved some things and the new dialogue/interupts and visuals are great. But the new combat system completely changed the feel of the game. Now your success in the game is dependent mostly on your reaction time and hand/eye coordination, just like in all your other typical shooters.

So my problem isn't that ME2 is bad, it just isn't the game I was expecting or looking for. And based on this experience, I sure won't be pre-ordering ME3.

Modifié par The Siff Lord, 04 février 2010 - 03:34 .

[Jackal904]

No. ME2 has been widely praised for not doing exactly what the OP wants. We don't need 50 different attributes that we have to worry about spending points into. It's a waste of time.

[Fallout_IX]

ME 2 is fine, probly the best rpg/game ive ever played. i dont get how RPG = Loads of useless skill trees and 100s of random items you wont use (which is what ME1 was like)

[EternalWolfe]

Jackal904 wrote...

No. ME2 has been widely praised for not doing exactly what the OP wants. We don't need 50 different attributes that we have to worry about spending points into. It's a waste of time.

I dunno, it depends on how its done.  I liked how the armors worked(various pieces giving different bonuses rather then all armors having three stats that made it so one piece was far better then any other).  What it needed was more parts, and maybe some with better bonuses, but drawbacks, like say 'Heavy Ammo Pack', which increases ammo cap. by 20%, but lowers your storm speed by 10%.

Same with weapons,  Rather then resarching static mods(or alongside static mods), research various different mods and then have various parts of your guns replacable to custom build a weapon to fit your style.  Could work with Biotic Amps and Omni-tools as well, if done right.

As far as the OP's suggestions go, it would work, but I'd rather mod/choose my armor rather then just upgrade as it makes it feel your actually building something, rather then just statically upgrading your abilities.  I would like more in-depth skill trees.  It started well, with being able to change how your skill upgrades at the end, but it could go further then that . . .

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

mindless inventory and item collecting are not the purview of role playing-

they are the purview of a jrpg or cag (cinematic adventure game).

check your definitions.

with me2 offering conversation interrupts and some more detailed choices the character can make, me2 is MORE an rpg than me1 was with the exception of the romance options which were downgraded.

so the ONLY rpg aspect that was downgraded was the removal of girl girl relationships- if they never included it it wouldn't be a downgrade, but since youve already got a type of char from me1, it limits your role playing since it forces you to act a certain way with respect to personal relationships that an already developed char would not otherwise do.

Modifié par Bluto Blutarskyx, 04 février 2010 - 04:00 .

[Daiyus]

Fallout_IX wrote...

ME 2 is fine, probly the best rpg/game ive ever played. i dont get how RPG = Loads of useless skill trees and 100s of random items you wont use (which is what ME1 was like)

It doesn't. Technically RPGmeans exactly what it says. A game where you play a role. However, industry standard has come to a point where that term describes a particular type of game, one with an emphasis on story, and in depth character development. ME2 does that first part well. But many people who enjoyed the first game in part due to the skill trees and inventory management feel a bit short changed with, well, lets be honest, the complete eradication of any depth. You'll find that most people on this forum will agree that ME1 didn't have a perfect system, and will in fact concede that some of the ideas BioWare had with ME2 were good in theory. It's just that it's not as expanded as it should have been. Sure there's no inventory, that is a good thing to make life simpler, but the main complaint is the lack of weapons and armours, and the stat modification of them. Also, after playing ME1 again, the amount of abilities available to characters is extremely reduced. This actually reduces the tactical element of the game that made the first so popular, hence all the quotes about 'ME2 being like Gears of War'.

If BioWare had included more weapons, more armour perms, and maybe kept mods (upgradeable) instead of general weapon upgrades, and a little more depth in the skills then more people would be happier.

For me personally I don't mind the 4 Tier Skill Trees, I just think there aren't enough of them to fully flesh out the classes. In terms of actual gameplay ME2 plays a lot smoother than ME1, and in general the combat is much improved (obviously global cooldown is a matter of debate, I've only played a Soldier in ME2 so I cannot comment on this).

[EternalWolfe]

Bluto Blutarskyx wrote...

mindless inventory and item collecting are not the purview of role playing-

they are the purview of a jrpg or cag (cinematic adventure game).

check your definitions.

with me2 offering conversation interrupts and some more detailed choices the character can make, me2 is MORE an rpg than me1 was with the exception of the romance options which were downgraded.

so the ONLY rpg aspect that was downgraded was the removal of girl girl relationships- if they never included it it wouldn't be a downgrade, but since youve already got a type of char from me1, it limits your role playing since it forces you to act a certain way with respect to personal relationships that an already developed char would not otherwise do.

No offense, but while your technically correct, not everybody played real RPGs.  Most of them learned the term RPG in connection to games, as you mention, JRPGs and others.  In the video game industry, a game labeled RPG is done so because it has character devolopment(gameplay wise, not role-playing wise).  Hell, even when I hear the term RPG in terms of games, I think of it that way, because most of people I talk games with think that way, and its easier to talk to them if I understand what they're talking about.

That being said, I don't think it really matters.  Whether or not they're using the proper word, they still are talking about a speicific type of game element, and arguing that they're wrong about what an RPG is doesn't negate their own thoughts on the subject of the element.

[Incognito_Panda]

I loved a lot of RPG stuff in ME2, but it is on the verge of feeling like a regular action game alas Ninja Gaiden or Darksiders, like "you've reached 50% of the story, now your gun is upgraded" and so on. Its almost like Zelda, there is little to none modding, or choosing what to have. The customization except from the colored armor is useless, since you've got to choices mostly: "upgrade to this better suit, or don't upgrade at all." Where is the choice? Where do you sit down and think about what you are gonna carry and wear? You don't..

[Besetment]

I think one of the things players like is to see their character improving. Theres a whole psychology to it thats worth elaborating on but there need not be any changes to ME2's mechanics. Its more to do with the way information about your character is relayed to the player than anything else. At least thats my humble opinion. Lemmie explain.

One of the things I seem to be doing as I play is to probe planets to desolation and rack up tonnes of resources. Then I just buy upgrades as and when they become available but I've forgotten what most of them do. Once you research an upgrade it then get transferred into a separate list where you can see the upgrades you have researched.

Now if you rearrange this screen so it shows your base weapon damage + bonus damage from upgrades + bonus damage from powers + passives then you start to buy into this psychology I mentioned because over the course of the game you flick back to research screen and you see numbers getting bigger and bars filling up. Giving the player constant access to the squad screen ('u' I think is what it was in ME1) allows the player to constantly size their dude up.

The same psychology works to some extent with the accumulation of experience. '650 experience to go to level 17' doesn't have the same effect as saying 'level 16 - 5600 experience' Even though these 2 statements convey the same information, one of them just looks bigger. Ideally you can have both statements so one gives you something to look forward to, the other tells you how much better you have become and you can make the biggest number physically bigger to emphasise 'bigness'. Once again, it doesn't make a difference to the way the game is played but if you organize the information in a certain way it can make it compulsive to return to the stats screens and then share screenshots to compare with other players with different builds to see who can crunch the biggest numbers. I still play Diablo II and most of this is an observation lifted out of this game.

Diablo II taps partly into the obsessive compulsion of players to see real progress and advancement even when its not happening. It almost trick the player into thinking the accumulation of exp has more effect than it really has by tacking on lots of zeros. For instance you can get hundreds of thousands of exp for a Baal kill but at level 95 it won't even move your exp bar a 1/10th of a millimetre.

In DII, there is definitely an almost unreasonable obsession with stats. The mechanics of how certain skills work and how much damage they deal are so well known that you can find the equations posted online and crunch the numbers yourself. For instance I still know that:

Smite Damage = [(Shield damage) + (Damage +x%) + (Holy Shield Bonus)] x [1 + (Strength Bonus) + (% Enhanced Damage from Smite) + (% Enhanced Damage from Fanaticism)]

Its all a big numbers game that people on the forums play. It is important NOT to make this kind of thing visible to the player in the game as it can really alienate people that don't want to see math on their off time. However, there are ways in which the calculation is done via online Smite calculators which produce big numbers and there are seriously arguements over which ratio of smite relative to fist of the heavens produces the highest smite damage build. Even though the difference in most cases is so small it effectively doesn't matter.

Structuring and presenting information about the player's character in any game is almost a psychological study in itself. You can convince the player of a sense that things are adding up, that you are gaining power and making progress even when you are not.

Modifié par Besetment, 04 février 2010 - 05:01 .

[Incognito_Panda]

Besetment wrote...

I think one of the things players like is to see their character improving. Theres a whole psychology to it thats worth elaborating on but there need not be any changes to ME2's mechanics. Its more to do with the way information about your character is relayed to the player than anything else. At least thats my humble opinion. Lemmie explain.

One of the things I seem to be doing as I play is to probe planets to desolation and rack up tonnes of resources. Then I just buy upgrades as and when they become available but I've forgotten what most of them do. Once you research an upgrade it then get transferred into a separate list where you can see the upgrades you have researched.

Now if you rearrange this screen so it shows your base weapon damage + bonus damage from upgrades + bonus damage from powers + passives then you start to buy into this psychology I mentioned because over the course of the game you flick back to research screen and you see numbers getting bigger and bars filling up. Giving the player constant access to the squad screen ('u' I think is what it was in ME1) allows the player to constantly size their dude up.

The same psychology works to some extent with the accumulation of experience. '650 experience to go to level 17' doesn't have the same effect as saying 'level 16 - 5600 experience' Even though these 2 statements convey the same information, one of them just looks bigger. Ideally you can have both statements so one gives you something to look forward to, the other tells you how much better you have become and you can make the biggest number physically bigger to emphasise 'bigness'. Once again, it doesn't make a difference to the way the game is played but if you organize the information in a certain way it can make it compulsive to return to the stats screens and then share screenshots to compare with other players with different builds to see who can crunch the biggest numbers. I still play Diablo II and most of this is an observation lifted out of this game.

Diablo II taps partly into the obsessive compulsion of players to see real progress and advancement even when its not happening. It almost trick the player into thinking the accumulation of exp has more effect than it really has by tacking on lots of zeros. For instance you can get hundreds of thousands of exp for a Baal kill but at level 95 it won't even move your exp bar a 1/10th of a millimetre.

In DII, there is definitely an almost unreasonable obsession with stats. The mechanics of how certain skills work and how much damage they deal are so well known that you can find the equations posted online and crunch the numbers yourself. For instance I still know that:

Smite Damage = [(Shield damage) + (Damage +x%) + (Holy Shield Bonus)] x [1 + (Strength Bonus) + (% Enhanced Damage from Smite) + (% Enhanced Damage from Fanaticism)]

Its all a big numbers game that people on the forums play. It is important NOT to make this kind of thing visible to the player in the game as it can really alienate people that don't want to see math on their off time. However, there are ways in which the calculation is done via online Smite calculators which produce big numbers and there are seriously arguements over which ratio of smite relative to fist of the heavens produces the highest smite damage build. Even though the difference in most cases is so small it effectively doesn't matter.

Structuring and presenting information about the player's character in any game is almost a psychological study in itself. You can convince the player of a sense that things are adding up, that you are gaining power and making progress even when you are not.

I totally agree, good observation! Not that I want ME3 to be just about stats, but lets take a look at ME1 compared to ME2, the skillsets. Believe it or not, they are almost identical to each other in the sense of functionality. Ypu may disagree, but remember you put one and one point in ME1, and then sometimes you'd get an upgrade like more damage or so? Exact same functionality as ME2. Does it feel like it? No.

Bring back the old stats screen, where you had a view of how powerful your biotic barriers were, your armour, and your health, displayed by numbers ranging from 1-400 or something. You actually felt great when you found a new suit.

To BioWare: Only being able to change clothes at the Normandy was a good addition I felt, and that you can't use that armor you just found before the mission is over. But when it is overand you take a look at the goods it reads "10% more health", or "5% more ammo"...WHO CARES!? Whole point with new equipment is to see progression!! People give two turds about whether you get a 5% shield boost or not. Why can't you stack it up, gettin 5 then 10 then 20% like ME1?

One thing needs to be redone in ME3 and that's equipment customizing, stats, etc. Show that you make RPGs for a living, even if ME is an action-RPG of some sort!!!.

Modifié par Incognito_Panda, 04 février 2010 - 06:11 .

[newcomplex]

lolololololollolololololollolololololollolololololollolololololollolololololollolololololollolololololollolololololollolololololol

What RPG roots?   What the hell are you talking about?    In ME1, you had

a)Omnigel, instead of regents
b)Medigel, instead of regent based healing
c)A rigid skillset that allowed no personalization
d)The lack of any unique skills
e)Talent table replacing proffesion points
f)immunity.    which is a rare case of a skill doing exactly what it suggests.    making you completely immune to damage.   
g)Items only had numerical stats
h)A single model for each item class except assault rifles (had 2).    
i)Two squadmates had almost no conversations (tali and garrus, which is why those were the two they brought back)

ME1 sucked in every way concievable as a hard RPG.    ME2 just stops pretending, and streamlines the element and turns the game into fully action-rpg.    

[NoBrandOnMe]

Combat is more fun in ME2..not going to lie. But overall Me1 was a better game by a long shot because of the rpgness and the epic feeling you got while playing it.

[fanman72]

No, I completely disagree with the original post. I'm a fan of RPGs, but even I like the direction that ME2 is taking. Much better than ME1 and one of the best games I've played - ever.





The only gripes I have with the game are very little minor (such as not being able to tweak your face when importing a saved game, not being able to toggle helmets)