143 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Yeah, ME1 was great - stand there and spam my pistol - oh, what a challenge that was. *sarcasm* Could they improve level design more in the next game or ME2 DLC? Sure, but ME2 combat is still far better than the completely unchallenging combat of ME1. If I can kill armatures in ME1 on Insanity while on foot, spamming abilities and using only my HMWP, that is no challenge at all (I had Kaidan and could just keep that armature in the air pretty much non-stop alternating Lift, and when it was on CD, I just Pushed).

This again, making statements against ME1 combat based on end game, top gear,  certain powers most of us would agree were over the top anyway, and 20sec or less recharges.
That isn't a problem with the combat, that is a problem with scaling. Being in end gear with top powers trivializes most normal content of any game since at that point the player should be killing the boss or for the player to realize they have progressed out of average play.

I for one find the combat system in ME2 very repetitive. cover, shoot, get shot, cover, repeat.
Using cover isn't an option unlike ME1 where cover was there and you could use it or you could attack more forcibly.
Low health, low shields, and the never miss mechanics of the enemies make every fight cover or die.
Enemies are set to advance or not, melee based, most mechs, krogan, and flamethrowers will always advance while the other enemy types will just sit in their cover.

The "shooting ranges" as the OP calls them are easy to predict by the number of boxes/walls around.

[Chromie]

TJSolo wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Yeah, ME1 was great - stand there and spam my pistol - oh, what a challenge that was. *sarcasm* Could they improve level design more in the next game or ME2 DLC? Sure, but ME2 combat is still far better than the completely unchallenging combat of ME1. If I can kill armatures in ME1 on Insanity while on foot, spamming abilities and using only my HMWP, that is no challenge at all (I had Kaidan and could just keep that armature in the air pretty much non-stop alternating Lift, and when it was on CD, I just Pushed).

This again, making statements against ME1 combat based on end game, top gear,  certain powers most of us would agree were over the top anyway, and 20sec or less recharges.
That isn't a problem with the combat, that is a problem with scaling. Being in end gear with top powers trivializes most normal content of any game since at that point the player should be killing the boss or for the player to realize they have progressed out of average play.

I for one find the combat system in ME2 very repetitive. cover, shoot, get shot, cover, repeat.
Using cover isn't an option unlike ME1 where cover was there and you could use it or you could attack more forcibly.
Low health, low shields, and the never miss mechanics of the enemies make every fight cover or die.
Enemies are set to advance or not, melee based, most mechs, krogan, and flamethrowers will always advance while the other enemy types will just sit in their cover.

The "shooting ranges" as the OP calls them are easy to predict by the number of boxes/walls around.

At level 20 in ME1 combat got really boring and repitive

[TJSolo]

Ringo12 wrote...

At level 20 in ME1 combat got really boring and repitive

At level 1 in ME2 the combat is the same from Freedoms Progress all the way to the end boss.

[Draconis6666]

All y ou have to do in ME 1 is not stand still and 75% or more of the incoming fire will never hit you, i think i died ONCE in all my playthroughs of ME 1 that weren't insanity and it was when i drove the mako off the skybridge. Even on insanity i think i've maybe died 4 times across 5-6 playthroughs and half of them were dying in the mako cus its useless as crap on insanity and your ****ty V or VII armor is more effective.

[Draconis6666]

TJSolo wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

At level 20 in ME1 combat got really boring and repitive

At level 1 in ME2 the combat is the same from Freedoms Progress all the way to the end boss.

ME 1 combat is the same from eden prime to the end boss also whats your point? nothing changes about ME 1 combat any more than anything changes about ME 2 combat.

[TJSolo]

Draconis6666 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

At level 20 in ME1 combat got really boring and repitive

At level 1 in ME2 the combat is the same from Freedoms Progress all the way to the end boss.

ME 1 combat is the same from eden prime to the end boss also whats your point? nothing changes about ME 1 combat any more than anything changes about ME 2 combat.

In ME1 combat I could cover, full attack, or cherry pick depending on what I wanted.

In ME2 cover is the rule, the mandate, the only way. Other than some boss fights like Horizon, it is basically cover and wait.

[Draconis6666]

Well I for one think the cover system falls much more in line with ME's ideals of trying to stay close to reality while still being Sci Fi, the first game made no sense. In a real battle if you stand out in the open and walk sideways you will just die.

ME 1 has Options but that doesnt give it better combat, there is no benefit to using one option over th eother they are all the same so there isnt actualy any point in fighting in cover when you dont have to. The fact that you CAN fight from cover doesnt improve the combat system when its not nessicary and doesnt benefit you in any way.

Modifié par Draconis6666, 09 février 2010 - 10:49 .

[Wuxia]

I really don't understand these people that say the RPG elements took a backseat to the combat. For the duration of the game YOU make the choices, YOU interact with the characters, YOU decide how your character progresses - YOU are roleplaying Commander Shepard.

The fact that tedium such as omnigelling 100 spare and useless weapons and desolate, identical worlds to explore have been removed in no way changes the roleplaying elements of the game.

Combat has been improved vastly. There is more strategy (albeit very basic strategy) involved, Hardcore and Insanity are actually hard, squad AI has been improved, it's much easier to directly control your squad, combat can take place completely in real time - the list goes on.

I think the problem is that alot of people are seeing ME1 through the haze of time - good things often seem better than they actually were. What Bioware has done with ME2 is filter and refine the combat of ME1 into a much more streamlined and simpler form.

Cover IS a defining point of combat is ME2 but it ISN'T the only option available. You clearly haven't played a Vanguard yet - if you want to be right up in the faces of people then the vanguard facilitates that kind of play. With the Vanguard cover is completely unnecessary, even on higher difficulties. You want to snipe people from afar? There's the infiltrator. You want to control the enemy and let your squad mates do the damage? There's the adpet.

You're trying to make a cube into a square and it just doesn't work.

Modifié par Banon Loire, 09 février 2010 - 10:48 .

[Gatt9]

Banon Loire wrote...

I really don't understand these people that say the RPG elements took a backseat to the combat. For the duration of the game YOU make the choices, YOU interact with the characters, YOU decide how your character progresses - YOU are roleplaying Commander Shepard.

Well,  the problem is,  the word roleplaying refers to the gameplay being character based skill,  not player based skill.  If all that decides a hit or miss is how well you aim,  it's player based skill,  and you're playing a Shooter.  If the Character's stats decide,  it's an RPG.

Simply put,  the word Roleplaying refers to the fact that you are taking on a role you know nothing about,  and cannot do in real life,  and so are dependent upon the skills and qualities of the person you're playing.

ME2 has none of that.  Even moral decisions amount to the twitch of a trigger.

Additionally,  it's important to note,  Dialogue doesn't make a game a roleplayer.  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue nearly 20 years ago,  and choices,  and it was still a arcade space-sim.  No one would've dared call it a RPG,  because it was pretty obvious it wasn't,  much like Mass Effect 2 is not a RPG.  Except today,  it's "Cool" to be a Roleplayer,  despite the fact that most who claim the title today apparently hate Roleplaying games,  as this forum gives ample evidence.

You also don't decide "How your character progresses" because pretty much all of it is pointless,  you don't need anything in the level screen.  It's a shooter,  just shoot,  there aren't even loot weapons,  just pick a gun and shoot.

[Akimb0]

bjdbwea wrote...
Lots of stuff from OP.

I read half of it, but it seems I didn't need to read it all. I agree and can only hope ME3 is an actual improvement on ME1. ME2 certainly wasn't.

Modifié par Akimb0, 09 février 2010 - 11:00 .

[bjdbwea]

Draconis6666 wrote...

ME 1 combat is the same from eden prime to the end boss also whats your point? nothing changes about ME 1 combat any more than anything changes about ME 2 combat.

Are you even serious? At least in ME 1 you had the skill system, where in the beginning you wouldn't be as accurate nor do as much damage as later, when indeed you became very powerful, as it should be at the end of an RPG. At least you could see a significant improve in your abilities, which allowed you to employ new, more aggressive tactics and gave you the satisfaction of more easily beating enemies (Krogans for example) who at the beginning were much harder. All that is missing in ME 2, and much more.

[TJSolo]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Well I for one think the cover system falls much more in line with ME's ideals of trying to stay close to reality while still being Sci Fi, the first game made no sense. In a real battle if you stand out in the open and walk sideways you will just die.

ME 1 has Options but that doesnt give it better combat, there is no benefit to using one option over th eother they are all the same so there isnt actualy any point in fighting in cover when you dont have to. The fact that you CAN fight from cover doesnt improve the combat system when its not nessicary and doesnt benefit you in any way.

Choices > No Choices. Me having the option to charge in, cover, pick off doesn't effect another person that only wants to use cover, yet the person that only wants cover wants to reduce everyones  options to only cover.
Actually that seems to be the problem I have with ME2 and all the arguments about it. ME1 presented choices in playstyles; people could play it simply with autoleveling and gear up whenever OR they could opt to be as tedious as they wanted about points and stats. 


I am not going to get into a realism debate on combat that is completely fictional. Maybe if this was MW2 then sure.
When you want to talk about shields, barriers, armor, biotics, and the ME reality then please reply.

[TJSolo]

dbl post bah

Modifié par TJSolo, 09 février 2010 - 11:15 .

[Jonathan_Strange]

bjdbwea wrote...

I get that BioWare and EA wanted to make the game more appealing to the mainstream / casual gamer crowd. Nothing new. It always means that story and "complicated" (RPG) elements have to take the back seat. Action! Flashy graphics! Explosions!

I'm sick of computer RPG nerds giving ME2 the high hat.

They improved the graphics.  But this isn't a zero sum game.  Forcing the player to intelligently select cover, rather than allowing players to stand out in the open and strafe around LASERS by slowly moving back and forth, a la ME1, seems like an improvement to me.  If nothing else, it forces the player to consider at least a tiny bit of tactical strategy and to make use of the protection afforded by the environment.  It's too bad the cover system is as obvious and simple as it is, but it's no less complicated, really, than in Gears of War 2, which is more or less state of the art w/r/t TPS cover.

Unlike yourself, I actually play and excel at TPS/FPS games, as well as RPGs.  And I think the combat in ME2 is terrifically entertaining.  I like that I have to order my team into cover.  I like that I can let them draw a bit of fire and flank the enemy, if I want.  I like the fact that I can string together 2 and 3-hit combinations of biotic/tech powers and watch the results in real-time.  That's extremely satisfying, and it's something I haven't seen in any other game -- TPS/FPS or RPG.

Frankly, if you have a problem with using cover and find yourself getting hit too often (which you also complain about), maybe you're playing on a difficulty setting (e.g., Normal) that's too intense for you.  If you ramp the difficulty down to easy, the enemies will miss more often and your video-game-y strafing technique will be much more effective.

Although the thought initially disgusted me, I sort of hope they add multiplayer functionality to ME2.  This would allow me to show you how strategic the combat can be in ME2, and then to teabag your face.

Good day, sir.

[Revid Emit]

What are you guys smoking?



Combat is NOT improved when compared to the first?



Oh boy, I'm glad you guys are not in charge!

[Colinissile]

My main complaint is the damn A button doing everything! Yesterday I was running backwards, away from the enemy, sprinting, and then I went into cover, but I was facing them, so they just killed me before I could get out. Damn.

[Selvec_Darkon]

Wah? Sit behind cover and your invinciable...errrr...okay. In the process, you do no damage, your team mates die, then you pop you head up and die yourself. Play on a harder difficulty level if the game seem's to easy. It honestly can get pretty bloody insane.



Only complaints about the combat system are:

-Feels like you go forward, thats it. No flanking from opponents, yourself or anything. Just one real direction.



-Cover system still sucks. Still can't take cover in corners. You constantly get stuck to wrong area's. Can't crouch, and you constantly get pulled out of cover by the game for no reason.



-More ways to take cover would be nice. The standard "Crouch behind box" is kinda boring. Lying beneath pipes/tunnels. Peering through holes. Possibly the ability to pick up objects and use them as cover with Biotics would be cool, would also make biotics more useful since the new armor system makes them pretty boring.



-Biotics need more oomph.

[Jonathan_Strange]

Gatt9 wrote...

Banon Loire wrote...

I really don't understand these people that say the RPG elements took a backseat to the combat. For the duration of the game YOU make the choices, YOU interact with the characters, YOU decide how your character progresses - YOU are roleplaying Commander Shepard.

Well,  the problem is,  the word roleplaying refers to the gameplay being character based skill,  not player based skill.  If all that decides a hit or miss is how well you aim,  it's player based skill,  and you're playing a Shooter.  If the Character's stats decide,  it's an RPG.

Simply put,  the word Roleplaying refers to the fact that you are taking on a role you know nothing about,  and cannot do in real life,  and so are dependent upon the skills and qualities of the person you're playing.

ME2 has none of that.  Even moral decisions amount to the twitch of a trigger.

Additionally,  it's important to note,  Dialogue doesn't make a game a roleplayer.  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue nearly 20 years ago,  and choices,  and it was still a arcade space-sim.  No one would've dared call it a RPG,  because it was pretty obvious it wasn't,  much like Mass Effect 2 is not a RPG.  Except today,  it's "Cool" to be a Roleplayer,  despite the fact that most who claim the title today apparently hate Roleplaying games,  as this forum gives ample evidence.

You also don't decide "How your character progresses" because pretty much all of it is pointless,  you don't need anything in the level screen.  It's a shooter,  just shoot,  there aren't even loot weapons,  just pick a gun and shoot.

Absolute bunk.  Short-sighted hogwash.  This *WAS* the definition of an RPG because of technological limitations when they were first conceived.  Back then, a pen, paper and dice were state of the art.  There simply wasn't a way to capture more of the player's "skill" in combat.  Today, there is.  Modern consoles and PCs allow RPGs to incorporate player skill as well as stats and strategy.  This, IMO, is a good thing.  

To RPG nerds: The definitions of things aren't written in stone.  The dictionary is both prescriptive AND descriptive.  It describes how terms are actually used, in other words, and not only how they ought to be used.  People use the term RPG to refer to ME2 because it incorporates many if not all of the elements of traditional RPGs.  So, ME2 = an RPG.  Deal with it.  Let the nerd rage shake loose.

[Wuxia]

Gatt9 wrote...

Banon Loire wrote...

I really don't understand these people that say the RPG elements took a backseat to the combat. For the duration of the game YOU make the choices, YOU interact with the characters, YOU decide how your character progresses - YOU are roleplaying Commander Shepard.

Well,  the problem is,  the word roleplaying refers to the gameplay being character based skill,  not player based skill.  If all that decides a hit or miss is how well you aim,  it's player based skill,  and you're playing a Shooter.  If the Character's stats decide,  it's an RPG.

Simply put,  the word Roleplaying refers to the fact that you are taking on a role you know nothing about,  and cannot do in real life,  and so are dependent upon the skills and qualities of the person you're playing.

ME2 has none of that.  Even moral decisions amount to the twitch of a trigger.

Additionally,  it's important to note,  Dialogue doesn't make a game a roleplayer.  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue nearly 20 years ago,  and choices,  and it was still a arcade space-sim.  No one would've dared call it a RPG,  because it was pretty obvious it wasn't,  much like Mass Effect 2 is not a RPG.  Except today,  it's "Cool" to be a Roleplayer,  despite the fact that most who claim the title today apparently hate Roleplaying games,  as this forum gives ample evidence.

You also don't decide "How your character progresses" because pretty much all of it is pointless,  you don't need anything in the level screen.  It's a shooter,  just shoot,  there aren't even loot weapons,  just pick a gun and shoot.

 I disagree with what you've said. RPG's are about exactly what they say - roleplaying. Roleplaying is what you do in theatre and drama, you assume the role of another person, fictional or otherwise.

 Stats and the like are simply a mechanic to facilitate the development of a character throughout the progression of the story. Because it is purely a gameplay mechanic that means it isn't necessary for a game to have stats etc. to be an RPG. With ME2, Bioware has superceded this 'traditional' system with a system that isn't identical but works to the same end - to facilitate the growth of a character in a roleplaying envrionment.

 Edit: Jonathan_Strange beat me to it, albeit a little more brusquely.

Modifié par Banon Loire, 09 février 2010 - 11:29 .

[TJSolo]

Jonathan_Strange wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I get that BioWare and EA wanted to make the game more appealing to the mainstream / casual gamer crowd. Nothing new. It always means that story and "complicated" (RPG) elements have to take the back seat. Action! Flashy graphics! Explosions!

I'm sick of computer RPG nerds giving ME2 the high hat.

They improved the graphics.  But this isn't a zero sum game.  Forcing the player to intelligently select cover, rather than allowing players to stand out in the open and strafe around LASERS by slowly moving back and forth, a la ME1, seems like an improvement to me.  If nothing else, it forces the player to consider at least a tiny bit of tactical strategy and to make use of the protection afforded by the environment.  It's too bad the cover system is as obvious and simple as it is, but it's no less complicated, really, than in Gears of War 2, which is more or less state of the art w/r/t TPS cover.

Unlike yourself, I actually play and excel at TPS/FPS games, as well as RPGs.  And I think the combat in ME2 is terrifically entertaining.  I like that I have to order my team into cover.  I like that I can let them draw a bit of fire and flank the enemy, if I want.  I like the fact that I can string together 2 and 3-hit combinations of biotic/tech powers and watch the results in real-time.  That's extremely satisfying, and it's something I haven't seen in any other game -- TPS/FPS or RPG.

Frankly, if you have a problem with using cover and find yourself getting hit too often (which you also complain about), maybe you're playing on a difficulty setting (e.g., Normal) that's too intense for you.  If you ramp the difficulty down to easy, the enemies will miss more often and your video-game-y strafing technique will be much more effective.

Although the thought initially disgusted me, I sort of hope they add multiplayer functionality to ME2.  This would allow me to show you how strategic the combat can be in ME2, and then to teabag your face.

Good day, sir.

Wow all that just to attack the OP with your made up accusations.
The OP didn't say anything about him not being able to effectively use the ME2 combat system. Which seems to be the bulk of your comment, so re-read the topic so you actually understand.

The only valid comparison is to ME1. ME2 isn't Halo, ODST, GoWs, or whatever TPS you want to say you excel at.
The cover system in ME2 is very simplistic and not too tactical. Are you in combat?Yes Are you in cover?No. Get in cover. The position of you cover is clear given all the boxes to hide behind and the constant waves of enemies from one direction

Also tell me what lasers you are dodging in ME1, the only one I can think of is the sniper scope and well there is no dodging that.

[bjdbwea]

For the record, I was playing a soldier on hardcore difficulty. Maybe you aren't all that great as you like to think if you find that challenging. Or maybe it makes a difference if you're playing on a console and don't have a mouse to aim.



The main difference in difficulty is the amount of time that you can stand and shoot until the never-missing enemies have depleted your health and you need to take cover again. As I said, it only gets more difficult once the game forces you out of cover, and then only because the sheer number of enemies never miss. You don't need any tactics, you don't need to "intelligently select cover" (what does that even mean - all those crates are standing there just for you), and you certainly don't need your team mates. All these things make it even easier, sure, but is in no way required. Compare that to DA, where you're simply lost without proper party management. I don't propose to change the ME combat into DA style, but you get the idea.

[Palora]

Yes by your definition every game is a an rpg, with maybe the exception of Chess and similar games. I'm to tired to add my voice with a long statement to the minority of people who are smart fans rather then mindless rabbles who would enjoy bricks if they had the Mass Effect labeled on it. The combat in ME 2 is better then ME 1 (mostly because of the guns), it was a lot more fun in ME 1, and ME 1 was better then ME 2.

Here's the feature list of ME 2 with added explinations:

* Prepare for a suicide mission to save humanity (not really, not so urgent, save it again, this time from a weaker enemy)
* Choose between 19 different weapons (if your a soldier, if not, well tough luck, hope you like running out of cover after every 20 shots to get pistol clips)
* Devastating heavy weapons (that) can end a battle in seconds (there's only one that can do that, and it shoots once every mission, if your lucky, and you won't use it because there may be a bigger enemy when you get to the next arena, and you won't use it then either)
* Recruit a team of the galaxy's most dangerous operatives (Team, yes, most dangerous, not so much, or at least we don't get to see that)
* Explore the galaxy — scan planets to uncover unique secret missions (Watch planets on the map --- Boring scans to find unique linear with no choice missions, for a tiny amount of XP and creds)
* Train and equip your team to survive insurmountable odds (limited training, not much to equip them with, good betting odds really)
* Control your conversation with physical moments of intense action (quick time events, to cut short the good dialogue so you can start shooting sooner, and you will shoot, you will shoot a lot ... and then some more)

Modifié par Palora, 09 février 2010 - 11:53 .

[ToJKa1]

Banon Loire wrote...
I think the problem is that alot of people are seeing ME1 through the haze of time - good things often seem better than they actually were. What Bioware has done with ME2 is filter and refine the combat of ME1 into a much more streamlined and simpler form.

This i have to agree with. I've been playing some my characters
trough ME1 and continuing them straight to ME2, and in my personal
opinion EVERYTHING feels clumsier in ME1. Not only combat, but
animations, voice acting, graphics, music and sound effects, and to top it off, ME2 runs better on my computer than ME1 does

Playing ME1
gives me the feeling it's an older game than it really is, ME2 is
improvement in every aspect (expect replacing planet exploration with
scanning ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png). Also the MQ of ME1 feels more meaningful than the ME2 one, but the ME2 is much more pleasant to play. I do hate the fact that ME2 has been broken down into "missions", and that there's a clear line between combat and non-combat parts, but overall i feel the game has improved more than been "dumbed down". And i say that as a PC player.

[Jonathan_Strange]

TJSolo wrote...

Jonathan_Strange wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I get that BioWare and EA wanted to make the game more appealing to the mainstream / casual gamer crowd. Nothing new. It always means that story and "complicated" (RPG) elements have to take the back seat. Action! Flashy graphics! Explosions!

I'm sick of computer RPG nerds giving ME2 the high hat.

They improved the graphics.  But this isn't a zero sum game.  Forcing the player to intelligently select cover, rather than allowing players to stand out in the open and strafe around LASERS by slowly moving back and forth, a la ME1, seems like an improvement to me.  If nothing else, it forces the player to consider at least a tiny bit of tactical strategy and to make use of the protection afforded by the environment.  It's too bad the cover system is as obvious and simple as it is, but it's no less complicated, really, than in Gears of War 2, which is more or less state of the art w/r/t TPS cover.

Unlike yourself, I actually play and excel at TPS/FPS games, as well as RPGs.  And I think the combat in ME2 is terrifically entertaining.  I like that I have to order my team into cover.  I like that I can let them draw a bit of fire and flank the enemy, if I want.  I like the fact that I can string together 2 and 3-hit combinations of biotic/tech powers and watch the results in real-time.  That's extremely satisfying, and it's something I haven't seen in any other game -- TPS/FPS or RPG.

Frankly, if you have a problem with using cover and find yourself getting hit too often (which you also complain about), maybe you're playing on a difficulty setting (e.g., Normal) that's too intense for you.  If you ramp the difficulty down to easy, the enemies will miss more often and your video-game-y strafing technique will be much more effective.

Although the thought initially disgusted me, I sort of hope they add multiplayer functionality to ME2.  This would allow me to show you how strategic the combat can be in ME2, and then to teabag your face.

Good day, sir.

Wow all that just to attack the OP with your made up accusations.
The OP didn't say anything about him not being able to effectively use the ME2 combat system. Which seems to be the bulk of your comment, so re-read the topic so you actually understand.

The only valid comparison is to ME1. ME2 isn't Halo, ODST, GoWs, or whatever TPS you want to say you excel at.
The cover system in ME2 is very simplistic and not too tactical. Are you in combat?Yes Are you in cover?No. Get in cover. The position of you cover is clear given all the boxes to hide behind and the constant waves of enemies from one direction

Also tell me what lasers you are dodging in ME1, the only one I can think of is the sniper scope and well there is no dodging that.

Love the irony of your suggestion that I read the OP's post.  He complained about getting hit by enemy fire whenever he popped out of cover (whining that the enemies "never miss").  He also complained about the strafing tactic not working in this game.  He also complained, generally, that ME2's combat lacked strategy and was not improved over ME1.  I addressed all of those points.  

Rage on, nerd with jaw-droppingly bad reading comprehension.  I look forward to teabagging you in ME2 multiplayer.

[Jonathan_Strange]

TJSolo wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Yeah, ME1 was great - stand there and spam my pistol - oh, what a challenge that was. *sarcasm* Could they improve level design more in the next game or ME2 DLC? Sure, but ME2 combat is still far better than the completely unchallenging combat of ME1. If I can kill armatures in ME1 on Insanity while on foot, spamming abilities and using only my HMWP, that is no challenge at all (I had Kaidan and could just keep that armature in the air pretty much non-stop alternating Lift, and when it was on CD, I just Pushed).

This again, making statements against ME1 combat based on end game, top gear,  certain powers most of us would agree were over the top anyway, and 20sec or less recharges.
That isn't a problem with the combat, that is a problem with scaling. Being in end gear with top powers trivializes most normal content of any game since at that point the player should be killing the boss or for the player to realize they have progressed out of average play.

I for one find the combat system in ME2 very repetitive. cover, shoot, get shot, cover, repeat.
Using cover isn't an option unlike ME1 where cover was there and you could use it or you could attack more forcibly.
Low health, low shields, and the never miss mechanics of the enemies make every fight cover or die.
Enemies are set to advance or not, melee based, most mechs, krogan, and flamethrowers will always advance while the other enemy types will just sit in their cover.

The "shooting ranges" as the OP calls them are easy to predict by the number of boxes/walls around.

Like the OP, it sounds like you need to turn the difficulty way down.  If you don't want to take cover and you want to "attack more forcibly," which I assume means run around out in the open while people in defended positions (i.e., behind cover) take pot shots at you, you need to be playing on easy.  On easy, the enemies will miss more frequently and you won't need to take cover.  Enemies will also drift out of cover more often, making them easier for you to kill as you march toward them like wayward, 19th century drummer boys.  Enjoy.