143 réponses à ce sujet

[cerberus1701]

Well, unlike ME there actually IS combat in this game.

[termokanden]

LoweGear wrote...

Yes, the AI my only real gripe with the game. Smarter and better in ME2, but not by much. If I could have squad AI on the level of Left 4 Dead or Resident Evil 5 it'd be truly awesome.

The L4D AI is not very human at all. They have quite inhuman reaction times and make the game waaaay too easy. I hardly ever get to kill any of the special zombies myself when playing alone, because the AI shoots them down within half a second.

As for RE5, I guess the AI it was alright, although the AI constantly messes with your %hit score.

[bjdbwea]

@ LoweGear

I think the realism angle doesn't fly here. Nothing in ME is particularly realistic. If you wanted realism, you'd have to start questioning why neither companions nor enemies need ammo. Answer: It's part of the lazy design. It requires enemies to be able to dump on you endlessly. If I remember correctly, at least enemy weapons overheated too in ME 1. And the enemies tried to cover or retreat during that period.

Of course you have to take cover. But usually it'd be part of a strategy. In ME 2, it's all there is to it. Fight starts, you take cover, then it's just everyone dumping on each other from their positions, with some enemies running around to make it even easier for you. Of course you can apply advanced strategies and be happy that the wave went down even quicker, but what does it matter if you're always in control?

As far as ammo is concerned, I stated in my initial post that this is one of the few occasions where the game becomes more challenging. However, even on Hardcore mode, I rarely find the need to collect new ammo, as usually a wave will be defeated before. Of course I'm not spraying the enemies with bullets, like it may be the case on consoles?

Really can't see where you're coming from with the rockets. One missile hits you in the earlier levels in ME 1, it's game over. Two missiles hit me on Hardcore in ME 2, I just take cover for a few seconds. Not even a precious medi gel wasted. Sometimes the enemies even scream something like "their shields are down!", but they continue sitting where they are.

Flank you? Haven't noticed it. Some enemies, the melee ones, do advance, although exactly as stupidly as in ME 1, which has been criticized for it above. As soon as you are attacked by several Husks, it becomes just a bit unfair, as the controls sometimes don't allow you to target them from your position and you have to leave cover, so enemies can take pot shots at you. BioWare knew well why they didn't employ that scenario more often. It doesn't really work with the rest of their system.

Please note that I was never advocating "run and gun". But as it is, ME 2 is "sit and gun", which is even simpler. The quickly replenishing health bar is really just casual gamer nonsense. Maybe if the enemies dealt a little less damage and would miss sometimes, and on the other hand your health didn't recharge but you'd need to use (limited) medi gel, then the combat could be more challenging.

Anyway. Pretty much everything has been said. Combat is by far not my main concern with the game. So if by chance anyone from BioWare reads this, I repeat: I wouldn't care if combat would be as simple as Pong or as easy as planet scanning, if only the rest of the game (mainly story and presentation, depth, also the whole RPG angle) would be on par with ME 1, which they sadly aren't at all. Everyone who disagrees with me, let's see what you think in a few weeks. I only know I can still replay ME 1 and have fun with it.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 février 2010 - 06:01 .

[Pocketgb]

Standard response when comparing ME1 to ME2's combat: Immunity. Things just became tedious on Insanity when both sides of the fighting could never effing die. Granted you could stack some major KD ammunition, but then you risk blasting them back so hard and so often that they clip through the world and become immortal.

Missles and other projectiles aren't lethal because they deals lots of damage, they're lethal because they stagger you for a moment, a moment where you're completely open to enemy fire. This is one of the most common ways to die on Insanity: get hit by projectile, Shep tries to regain his senses, gets hazed down by bullets from most of the bad guys because he's exposed.

I will say I find your comment about husks being "unfair" to be a bit silly. At first I thought they were bullcrap, that's true, but then I got good at taking them down first and taking them down fast. Husks are easy-sauce when you figure out their strange weakpoint. The instances where there are Husks and Scions are actually probably some of my favorite encounters.

The only thing I wish there were more of was enemies pushing to your cover to blast you in the head. The Geth do this and it's a total pain in the ass, because it's something *I* would do!

In general, ME2 has been the first Bioware game where I've had to reload numerous times at frequent spots in the story - meaning, I'm actually being challenged. Been awhile since a Bioware game has been able to do that, so kudos.

Oh, and squad AI could use a boost.If they have less than %50 health, they need to not go out of cover until they're full.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 février 2010 - 06:20 .

[EvilChani]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

Exactly, and I'm sick of seeing these little jackoffs (the ones who call us "RPG nerds" and prompted the devs to change the game to suit them with all of their whining about ME1 then just want us to STFU and accept things the way they want them when they refused to do the same thing) coming in here and saying otherwise. I don't think any of us are asking ME to become the typical turn-based RPG, but we do expect Shepard's abilities to hit a target to depend upon his/her skills rather than the player's ability to aim with a freaking keyboard or controller.

Take, for example, the use of the sniper rifle in ME1. When you first start using it, your pinhairs are huge, the weapon moves around, and it's difficult to hit the broad side of a barn because Shepard is not yet trained to use it. As you put points into the skill, it becomes easier to snipe, and by the end of the game (if you throw points into the sniper rifle skill) you can pick off just about anyone with it. Hell, I stood on a hill and shot rachni that were pouring out of those holes in the ground and they never even saw me and, therefore, never came after me. That's what sniping is supposed to be!

To actually be considered a RPG, then combat depends on character stats, not player ability, so ME2 is not a RPG. It's a shooter with a story and you get to have some input in how that story progresses.

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

True, but I do like the interrupt system. It isn't there for every single scenario, which is good. I've always thought, while playing various games, that my character would either kill a particular NPC or, at least, sock them in the jaw instead of standing there listening to a never-ending bunch of tripe. It's nice to actually be able to do that.

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. 

Yep.

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.

The leveling just pisses me off. You end up with at least one wasted point by the time you reach level 30. Unless you're a sentinel, there are simply too few powers to be truly useful on higher difficulty levels, despite the quicker cooling time.

Also, I don't know if you feel this way as well, the "mission" screen at the end of a mission makes it feel even more like a shooter than it already feels. If you forget to go open a wall safe or scan some weapon that you failed to see while you were running around trying to keep from getting your head blown off, then you're just going to have to do without that upgrade. Why you are able to keep walking around in some missions after they're over (with that annoying "press b to end the mission") while other missions kick you out without pause is beyond me. And I find it annoying. My heavy pistol holds 18 shots and no more because I couldn't find the damned upgrades for it. I found all the upgrades to the SMG, which sucks donkey balls and is more useful as a blunt melee weapon than as a gun.

So yeah, it's a shooter, pure and simple. It just happens to have a pretty good story and some really cool NPCs that follow you around. Oh, and you get to decide whether your character is a likeable person or a jerk. And even those choices don't always fit since you get random renegade points that make no sense at all.

[Pocketgb]

Er, I thought this was about the combat?

[addiction21]

Pocketgb wrote...

Er, I thought this was about the combat?

Seems like it switched gears to being loose and fast with the definition of what a RPG is.

[Jaysonie]

EvilChani wrote...


Exactly, and I'm sick of seeing these little jackoffs........

Works both ways, your just as imature.

[JrayM16]

The OP is wrong in some points for several reasons. You can't be invinceable behind cover because there is no blind fire, you ahve to poke out of cover to shoot your enemy. Also, I feel the combat is actually more tactical in ME2 than ME1. Why? Because of the more diverse powers and the necessary means to take down enemies.



For instance, if I'm an Adept, my powers can't get through an enemy shield. So I have Miranda overload their shields while I throw a singulairty to trap the enemy before he runs for cover.



Also, the ability to place squaddies anywhere is hugely tactical, allows me to approach encounters how I want.



There's more, but I'll save it.

[artiss68w]

bjdbwea wrote...

[Everyone complaining about ME 1 seems to have played on lower difficulty settings. One enemy rocket, one sniper could take you out, at least in the beginning. In ME 2 it doesn't even matter at the beginning.

Are you saying that in ME2 you can not die in one shot on insanity?

[artiss68w]

Palora wrote...

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.

Yes, everyone who doesn't agree with you is ....a mindless rabble!!

Thank you, thank you! Thank you so much for figuring out the truth for me! You are truely part of a superior fanbase.

[Schneidend]

At least combat is improved. Really? Yes.

[AtreiyaN7]

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.

Yeah, I cited the high-end gear as an extreme example. The fact remains that even at lower levels and even with lesser gear (and without my abilities maxed out), I could achieve basically the same thing. You're not in any danger at lower difficulties for all intents and purposes. Please, don't try to make out as if ME1 had massively superior/challenging combat or a better system just because you could "attack more forcibly." That only means that you could basically stand in the open with impunity.

If your abilities are down in ME1, you take cover. If you're hurt in ME1, you take cover. You need to heal in ME1? You hide and take cover. You want to kill something in ME1? You take cover, OR because it's so easy, you stand in the open. Woohoo - challenging (not). I could still get through Eden Prime pretty easily with a Lancer I and whatever crappy armor I had back then starting out from level 1 (even without powers maxed). I started a Sentinel from level 1 (edit: this Sentinel was one I created a few months ago  ), and it was not challenging at all really to get off Eden Prime.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 10 février 2010 - 09:06 .

[artiss68w]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

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.

Yeah, I cited the high-end gear as an extreme example. The fact remains that even at lower levels and even with lesser gear (and without my abilities maxed out), I could achieve basically the same thing. You're not in any danger at lower difficulties for all intents and purposes. Please, don't try to make out as if ME1 had massively superior/challenging combat or a better system just because you could "attack more forcibly." That only means that you could basically stand in the open with impunity.

If your abilities are down in ME1, you take cover. If you're hurt in ME1, you take cover. You need to heal in ME1? You hide and take cover. You want to kill something in ME1? You take cover, OR because it's so easy, you stand in the open. Woohoo - challenging (not). I could still get through Eden Prime pretty easily with a Lancer I and whatever crappy armor I had back then starting out from level 1 (even without powers maxed). I started a Sentinel from level 1, and it was not challenging at all really to get off Eden Prime.

Just don't even... Look, I know what you're trying to do....and it is a good thing. However, the myth that ME1 has superior combat will never be debunked.

[TuringPoint]

 I didn't like that biotics and tech abilities couldn't be used on you as long as you were behind cover.  But enemies repeatedly tried to flank me and my squad, and if I wasn't careful where I placed my squad they would die.

Also, video games are repetitive.  It's the fact that they don't have true AI yet, and have to depend on programming.  

A run straight ahead shooting range doesn't seem much better to me, that's what ME 1 was.  If you want to be that arrogant.

I would not like to be Bioware with the Mass Effect project.  Change too much and people complain, and you can bet your hairy ass people would be complaining - maybe the same people would be complaining - if they changed too little, or if they changed it to any degree it all, or if they kept the game mechanics exactly the same.

Modifié par Alocormin, 10 février 2010 - 09:22 .

[AtreiyaN7]

artiss68w wrote...

Just don't even... Look, I know what you're trying to do....and it is a good thing. However, the myth that ME1 has superior combat will never be debunked.

You need simplication? Here it is: in ME1, you use cover when necessary, just like you do in ME2. ME1 was in no way superior, and it was not challenging, regardless of your level. Now the other guy was whinging because I used my high-end character and abilities as an example of just how easy it could be. Once you did hit the higher levels, you were basically in god-mode. In ME2, you don't have a god-mode no matter how high you go, which I find far preferable to ME1.

I pointed out my lowbie ME1 Sentinel to counter his argument that the reason I said it was easy was solely because of my high-level character. Even without any maxed powers on my level 1 Sentinel (powers that were a totally different mix from my 60 Vanguard) and with crappy gear, getting off Eden Prime itself was not challenging in any way, shape or form, nor was it particularly exciting. To say that ME1 combat was magically better is not true, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I certainly never played ME1 because the combat was good - I did it for the story. If  I wanted "good" FPS/TPS combat, I could play anything else (even Half-Life 2 did it better, and that was years ago). I love ME1, but even I would never hold it up as a shining example of quality combat.

** Edit: might as well add the story about my friend, Chris. He visited me last year, and I invited him over to try ME1 in order to convince him that he might like the series (since I raved to him about how cool it was). He started a fresh level 1 character and got through Eden Prime quite quickly. He had minimal trouble and stuck with using a sniper rifle (he seemed rather attached to it, although I pointed out that he might want to use something else). I definitely tried to get him to use Kaidan's abilities, but my friend wasn't really down with the biotics. I believe he only died twice, maybe three times. One death was attributable to me because I forgot to warn him about a husk attack being imminent. At any rate, it was that easy for a new, inexperienced guy on normal - a person who was totally unfamiliar with the game or abilities. That should say something about the complexity of ME1 combat (rather, the lack of complexity since my friend breezed through it).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 10 février 2010 - 10:06 .

[MPaBkaTa123]

I think that people are free to their own opinion and mostly find these debates to be utterly pointless, however what annoys me is one thing: people saying that ME1 had more weapons. It did not, it had 4 weapons and every new one besides the hordes of crap you got, was instantly superior. The only difference between weapons was damage and overheat rate. In ME2 except possibly the widow and the revenant being superior to other assault rifles/snipers every wep is still useful for different reasons and does different things. Same with armor really, there were two armors in the first game Predator H/M/L for shields and the much more overused Collosus for damage reduction that's it really. In ME2 you can customize armor much more.
On a different note i agree with the shooting range comment, only a vanguard and rarely soldier can actually do things beside hide behind a box.

Modifié par MPaBkaTa123, 10 février 2010 - 09:57 .

[TuringPoint]

bjdbwea wrote...
@ LoweGear
I think the realism angle doesn't fly here. Nothing in ME is particularly realistic. If you wanted realism, you'd have to start questioning why neither companions nor enemies need ammo. Answer: It's part of the lazy design. It requires enemies to be able to dump on you endlessly. If I remember correctly, at least enemy weapons overheated too in ME 1. And the enemies tried to cover or retreat during that period.

Enemies have to reload, and they are forced to take cover or retreat because of that.  They don't have limited ammo like you, but the limited ammo is more of a tension-release mechanic.  You said it yourself about the ammo - lazy design in ME 1. But so many people just loved it.  Why?  Because it was easy.  It was casual.

Of course you have to take cover. But usually it'd be part of a strategy. In ME 2, it's all there is to it. Fight starts, you take cover, then it's just everyone dumping on each other from their positions, with some enemies running around to make it even easier for you. Of course you can apply advanced strategies and be happy that the wave went down even quicker, but what does it matter if you're always in control?

The result of making combat more lethal and fast paced is that you have to use cover more, as a basic survival tactic.  Lethal combat means you need to use your skills to take down enemies before they flank you or knock you out of cover.  The reason enemies run around is so they can flank you and get an angle on you.  Yes, even mercenaries, or Collectors.  
Let's talk about what enemies would just rush you, making your job quite sufficiently easy, in ME1. Actually, that was just about all of them, except for the occasion that they would circle strafe in random mayhem.  Excellent strategy.  I remember when that was all the rage in team fortress days.  Yeah. "Let's keep the same exact gameplay mechanics active for the next 20 years at least."  You're welcome to that opinion, but I disagree with it.
You have a point about how much cover was demanded.  Or how effectively cover blocked enemy biotics and tech.  I can easily justify these decisions, though, or point out how cover isn't an invulnerability tool in every battle in the game where your enemies flank you or fire back when you come out of cover to fire at them

Really can't see where you're coming from with the rockets. One missile hits you in the earlier levels in ME 1, it's game over. Two missiles hit me on Hardcore in ME 2, I just take cover for a few seconds. Not even a precious medi gel wasted. Sometimes the enemies even scream something like "their shields are down!", but they continue sitting where they are.

I agree with your judgement on the rockets.  I was disappointed that rockets were now as effective as they were in every other game - which is to say, they aren't.

Flank you? Haven't noticed it. Some enemies, the melee ones, do advance, although exactly as stupidly as in ME 1, which has been criticized for it above. As soon as you are attacked by several Husks, it becomes just a bit unfair, as the controls sometimes don't allow you to target them from your position and you have to leave cover, so enemies can take pot shots at you. BioWare knew well why they didn't employ that scenario more often. It doesn't really work with the rest of their system.

All enemies advance on you.  That's what they're doing when they're moving around, from point of cover to point of cover.  Also, it's plenty possible to snipe or hit an enemy if it stays in one spot long enough.  If it moves around you at least are given the task of trying to keep track of all your enemies and where they are.

Please note that I was never advocating "run and gun". But as it is, ME 2 is "sit and gun", which is even simpler. The quickly replenishing health bar is really just casual gamer nonsense. Maybe if the enemies dealt a little less damage and would miss sometimes, and on the other hand your health didn't recharge but you'd need to use (limited) medi gel, then the combat could be more challenging.

If I had a nickel for every time I had to move from cover and frantically run somewhere else to take a more advantageous position, or retreat a little so that I didn't get surrounded and completely obliterated within seconds, yeah... I'd have Mass Effect 2 for free, and then some to buy copies for all my friends.

Anyway. Pretty much everything has been said. Combat is by far not my main concern with the game. So if by chance anyone from BioWare reads this, I repeat: I wouldn't care if combat would be as simple as Pong or as easy as planet scanning, if only the rest of the game (mainly story and presentation, depth, also the whole RPG angle) would be on par with ME 1, which they sadly aren't at all. Everyone who disagrees with me, let's see what you think in a few weeks. I only know I can still replay ME 1 and have fun with it.

I agree that there is something missing in on-ship conversations, but I disagree in every other way.  I loved the characters X20 more than ME1 characters, even the ones who were in ME 1 originally.  This is because I bonded with them, they were made relevant to the plotline, because Shepard wasn't the center of everything.  Conversations in ME 1 were basically shooting the breeze between missions.  Presentation was better in every way I can think of, but since you don't express specifics, I won't talk about that.  Squad skills in ME2 were more tactically effective.  I don't think ME 2 is perfect, but I will come back and enjoy this game time and time again, far more than I enjoyed my subsequent playthrough's of ME 1.  It's arrogant and foolish to think I would do anything else.  You haven't even met me, and I haven't spoken in this thread until now - and there's the little matter that you can't actually enforce your opinion on me, anyway.

[Akimb0]

Schneidend wrote...

At least combat is improved. Really? Yes.

It has, with the hit locations. Everything else? The same or inferior.

[artiss68w]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

artiss68w wrote...

Just don't even... Look, I know what you're trying to do....and it is a good thing. However, the myth that ME1 has superior combat will never be debunked.

You need simplication? Here it is: in ME1, you use cover when necessary, just like you do in ME2. ME1 was in no way superior, and it was not challenging, regardless of your level. Now the other guy was whinging because I used my high-end character and abilities as an example of just how easy it could be. Once you did hit the higher levels, you were basically in god-mode. In ME2, you don't have a god-mode no matter how high you go, which I find far preferable to ME1.

I pointed out my lowbie ME1 Sentinel to counter his argument that the reason I said it was easy was solely because of my high-level character. Even without any maxed powers on my level 1 Sentinel (powers that were a totally different mix from my 60 Vanguard) and with crappy gear, getting off Eden Prime itself was not challenging in any way, shape or form, nor was it particularly exciting. To say that ME1 was magically better is not true, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I certainly never played ME1 because the combat was good - I did it for the story. If  I wanted "good" FPS/TPS combat, I could play anything else (even Half-Life 2 did it better, and that was years ago). I love ME1, but even I would never hold it up as a shining example of quality combat.

** Edit: might as well add the story about my  friend, Chris. He visited me last year. and I invited him over to try ME1 in order to convince him that he might like the series (since I raved to him about how cool it was). He started a fresh level 1 character and got through Eden Prime quite quickly. He had minimal trouble and stuck with using a sniper rifle (he seemed rather attached to it, although I pointed out he might want to use something else). I definitely tried to get him to use Kaidan's abilities, but my friend wasn't really down with the biotics. I believe he only died twice, maybe three times. One death was attributable to me because I forgot to warn him about a husk attack being imminent. At any rate, it was that easy for a new, inexperienced guy on normal - a person who was totally unfamiliar with the game or abilities! That should say something about the complexity of ME1 combat (rahter, the lack of complexity since my friend breezed through it).

Sorry, I was just trying to be funny. I agree with you a 100%. Actually, it amuses me that people think ME1 had a deep combat system.

[asaiasai]

You can defend the combat in ME2 till you are blue in the face but it is still lame. The most important aspect of combat is realizing that once you cross an invisible line on the floor the enemies stop spawning. Rush the room find cover clean up what did manage to spawn before you crossed that line, done deal, this is not much different from ME. The major pain in the ass is now on top of the hacks and bypasses i now have to scrounge around looking for ammo clips, and this is supposed to speed up game play. Some how a few chowder heads seem to believe that counting bullets makes combat more intense, but managing heat does not. I liked the older heat system because it kept combat fluid, now i have to stop and spend 10 minutes scrounging heat sinks before i move on, total ass.



Give the player a choice in a game setting up front, treat it like character customization in that once the setting has been selected it can not change. The worst thing they can do is to spend time and resources developing yet a third system that will not make everybody happy. Why bother you have 2 already workable systems in place, give the player the choice and call it a done deal. Spend that time developing more missions, or content, it will be more appreciated in the long run.



Asai

[AtreiyaN7]

Ah, sorry - thought you were one of those other guys. I'm a little on edge after trying to deal with a dingbat author's edits earlier (the woman ranks as one of the largest banes of my existence whenever I get more edits to insert from her). Oops! On the other hand, it was probably a good ideal to distill that down even further anyway.

[Tamcia]

ME2 combat is far better, but too much like "gears of war" (at least I felt like that).

I remember me standing in one place, shield boosting and gunning everyone down. Now at least I have to think what I'm doing, not go in Rambo style. There is work to be done in improving combat, but I think the direction it took from ME1 is good. Just need to add something like "crowd control" like flashbang, smoke grenade, some visual distraction - more flexible for all classes, some stuff maybe class specific.

In the upcoming splinter cell, they have this system where the enemy thinks your in one position, but you're not - last seen position, so they are firing there, while you pop up elsewhere and gun them down.



What I'm getting at is more options in combat, that are perhaps gear related (we had grenades in ME1 with different mods, why not have stun, flash, or some visual device where it shows your hologram and enemy fires at it etc (just some ideas). With difficulty level this would be also friendly fire possible etc.

[bjdbwea]

Alocormin wrote...

If I had a nickel for every time I had to move from cover and frantically run somewhere else to take a more advantageous position, or retreat a little so that I didn't get surrounded and completely obliterated within seconds, yeah... I'd have Mass Effect 2 for free, and then some to buy copies for all my friends.

Maybe you just think so? Most enemies will never advance beyond a certain point. If you don't rush and end up within their range, they'll let you forever be behind your cover. Just try it. The game is creating an illusion there, once you see through it, the appeal is quickly gone. At least that was my experience, hence this thread.

Apart from that, the defense "but ME 1 was, like, worse" has come up repeatedly. Again I have to say: In the beginning you were weak, you DIDN'T have the abilities people bring up as "prove" how easy it all was, you DIDN'T have the armor, you DIDN'T have the weapons. The sniper scope was swinging so much, it made hitting anything a real challenge, even with a mouse (given that Shepard already was a soldier, it shouldn't have, but that's another issue). Of course you became stronger, and in the end you could become nearly invincible. That's how a good RPG progresses. Even repetitive combat feels different then. An even better RPG would try to provide a challenge even for higher level characters, but that's not a trivial task to implement. In any case, if you take all that out, you end up with ME 2's lame shooting range. Where even at the beginning you shrug off missiles and are the perfect sharp shooter with your sniper rifle. The lack of ammo doesn't really make up for that.

There, now I wrote again much more than I intended, even though of course no one will be convinced. As I said, would be interesting to see what y'all say in a few weeks. Many will be playing something else already, and that kind of proves my point in general about ME 2.

[sideswipe79]

I miss the old overheating system for guns, it felt more futuristic and early on in ME2 I had problems with running out of ammo and running around after a battle looking for clips is almost as timewasting as having to medigel a bunch of stuff because there wasn't a big enough inventory in ME1. I'd still use that system given the choice but that said I have to say I prefer the new guns which feel different to each other and will agree combat is better, I like the peeling off layers of shielding and combining powers and that the AI isn't quite so inept.

Come to think of it though, it's only better if comparing to planets where you couldn't kill half the enemies with a tank! I know the mako was rendered useless on higher difficulties but there was something satisfying about blasting geth into oblivion with the main gun. I'm too big a fan of the A-Team, tanks > everything except tanks made out of used cars