143 réponses à ce sujet

[LoweGear]

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

That experience was similar to mine on Normal difficulty, where I never got outflanked by enemies. On Hardcore however, I let my experience on Normal guide my combat strategy... and got outflanked and roasted by

- an Eclipse Salarian who blasted me with a shotgun... and pushed me straight into the path of an oncoming Warp (Miranda Loyalty Mission)
- a Blue Suns Krogan who charged at me from behind (Purgatory)
- Both Collector Praetorians in Horizon and the Collector vessel, who will actually slowly flank you from any cover you might use (not to mention its wide range attack that will flush you out and kill you even from behind cover when it lands). Try using the raised covered platforms with staircases on them... they become pretty useless soon enough
- Varren that swarmed me until I became mincemeat (Grunt's Loyalty Mission)

And this is from a playthough just yesterday and today. While I'll let you believe whatever you want to believe about the combat system at this point (since nothing will change your mind it seems), don't go spouting that enemies don't outflank you, as I've experienced multiple instances of dying from enemies that have crept up beside or behind me.

[mscotch]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Combat not improved?

Yes, the combat is much less sophisticated than in ME1 where I just ran out in the open and chain activated Immunity and ignored all dangers to kill everything around me without a single thought of my safety. Uh oh! Immunity is on cooldown! Better get behind cover for 8 seconds until it cools down! All those fools who think complex combat is paying attention to your environment, using cover to your advantage, and using the right weapons/powers to take down opponents are fools. Real tactics mean Ramboing it up.

Yes, Mass Effect 2 combat sure does suck compared to the first game.

Nice

[artiss68w]

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

No one is convinced because most of your points aren't true. ME1 was stupidly simple even in the beginning. I remember my first play through, as a soldier, I would run up and shotgun then rinse and repeat. Yes, that tactic worked in the beginning. Also, ME2 doesn't have to be sit and gun. My first playthrough, as a vanguard on normal, I was able to charge and gun. in fact, I rarely used the cover mechanic. However, my experiences are wrong and I should just believe your "lame shooting range" rage.

Yes, we will be playing "something else already" Which is a direct slam to ME2 right? I mean, no one played AC1, Bioshock, COD4, Halo 3, etc. when the holy ME1 came out. Lol. Crap, I guess when I get to play Bioshock 2 I'm going to prove your point(whatever that is) in general about ME2. Wrong again.

[Starbiter]

Hey OP stop playing on normal like some noob, then go play on Insanity and see how invincible you are when harbinger is knocking you out of cover. L2P shooters.

[TuringPoint]

bjdbwea wrote...

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). 

You didn't have any ablities to use at the beginning of ME1, one of the things that made it fairly hard.  And yet, that is the only point of ME1 where the combat is balanced.  When there is very little to do in the way of combat abilities.

Besides, you could run up and hit geth with a shotgun or your teammates' biotics and consider the battle done.  And you didn't even have to aim all that precisely if you didn't want to.  I remember a long stretch on eden prime (on insanity) where my sentinel with shotgun as the extra skill could, to my chagrin, kill enemies fast enough using Kaidan's overload and the shotgun to never have to use cover.  A rocket could kill you in one hit, at any level, unless you had immunity - which was basically god mode. 

To be honest I miss not having to aim, a little.  The new aiming assistance needs a little bit of fine-tuning.

Also, while it's too bad insta-kill rockets don't exist anymore, there's something else that's become a ton more lethal in the sequel: Bullets.  

Anyway, sorry this doesn't match up to your experience.  Maybe you have a very efficient pattern of playing that I don't have, and few others have.  You would certainly have to to get through most of the game in 12 hours.  Skipping all cutscenes would also help.  A-and, it doesn't help your case that you start the thread by saying that anyone who likes this game is stupid.

Modifié par Alocormin, 10 février 2010 - 08:51 .

[MPaBkaTa123]

I prefer having 5 or 6 skills that do things instead of 15 that only passively improve my ability to shoot people.Shepard is a combat veteran why the hell should i have to teach him how to shoot a robot in the face .

[LoweGear]

So it seems I may have been wrong in one aspect: For certain classes, cover seems to be a rarity. I looked up the name that one of the posters in this very thread mentioned and found this video of Vanguard playing on Insanity difficulty.

www.youtube.com/watch 

My combat experience of taking cover alot seems to have been shaped by my preference of the Soldier and Infiltrator classes in ME2. Seeing a Vanguard in action however... damn, that's awesome in-your-face action.

The fact is however, said video does completely discredit the assumption that all you can do in ME2 is "hide and shoot". Maybe I'll try being Vanguard next time...

Modifié par LoweGear, 10 février 2010 - 08:58 .

[Parallax Demon]

A lot of people who have posted here don't really understand what the OP is saying.

In almost every thread about the differences between the original game and ME2 (for better or for worse) is stated as a fact that the combat has improved.

In the OP's experience the combat is hardly improved, while the other parts have not improved at all.

He simply stated that in ME2 all you'll be doing is take cover, kill, run to next cover, kill etc. This may be very realistic, but we're not playing Operation Flashpoint, we're playing a RPG (the moment I can use biotic powers in Operation Flashpoint, I'll buy it immediatly).

So any posts about realism, being bad at shooters or difficulty have nothing to do with this post.



I personally play games for the fun of it and I have to admit I'm a noob in shooters. That's probably why I like RPG's. In those games it's not about how I can handle a weapon but how well my character can handle a weapon.



PS: I really do like ME2, but the seeming endless cover, kill. cover, kill combo just to get to the next storyprogression is IMO less fun than figuring new ways to kill an enemy, liked I did in ME.

[newcomplex]

I heard tanking rockets was fun.

I for one, enjoy the realistic combat.    What I don't enjoy is the fact that missions function as 25 minute gauntlets without any feedback or player interactment.    

Finally, you people are deeply underestimating the intellect of the masses.     I mean, their stupid sure, "masses are stupid" cliche, etc.    Its a fact.     80% of Americas think they drive "above average", which is mathematically impossible, but whatever.     The "masses" are just as capable of judging if a game is fun or not as you are (though their tastes are different).     Theirs a reason Modern Warfare, gears of war, etc sold millions, despite its flaws, the underlying multiplayer in cod or the single player in GoW is highly addictive and "fun", in any objective perspective.      

It's in Biowares interests to make the combat "fun", not flashy for the masses.    Contrary to the opinion here, the masses in fact do not exlusively like "flashy", they in fact prefer fun over it.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 10 février 2010 - 10:42 .

[artiss68w]

Parallax Demon wrote...

I personally play games for the fun of it and I have to admit I'm a noob in shooters. That's probably why I like RPG's. In those games it's not about how I can handle a weapon but how well my character can handle a weapon.

PS: I really do like ME2, but the seeming endless cover, kill. cover, kill combo just to get to the next storyprogression is IMO less fun than figuring new ways to kill an enemy, liked I did in ME.

Sounds like you would enjoy Fallout's VATs system or SC:C's mark and execute.

PS: Try playing as a vanguard and you will hardly use the cover mechanic. However, lets face it, with any shooter some type of cover mechanic is necessary.

[artiss68w]

artiss68w wrote...

Parallax Demon wrote...

I personally play games for the fun of it and I have to admit I'm a noob in shooters. That's probably why I like RPG's. In those games it's not about how I can handle a weapon but how well my character can handle a weapon.

PS: I really do like ME2, but the seeming endless cover, kill. cover, kill combo just to get to the next storyprogression is IMO less fun than figuring new ways to kill an enemy, liked I did in ME.

Sounds like you would enjoy Fallout's VATs system or SC:C's mark and execute.

PS: Try playing as a vanguard and you will hardly use the cover mechanic. However, lets face it, with any shooter some type of cover mechanic is necessary.

EDIT: Oh, and have you actually read some of the stuff the OP has written? "Facts" such as: you can sit in cover basically untouched, enemies don't flank, ME1 is hard in the beginning, etc.

[Parallax Demon]

artiss68w wrote...

artiss68w wrote...

Parallax Demon wrote...

I personally play games for the fun of it and I have to admit I'm a noob in shooters. That's probably why I like RPG's. In those games it's not about how I can handle a weapon but how well my character can handle a weapon.

PS: I really do like ME2, but the seeming endless cover, kill. cover, kill combo just to get to the next storyprogression is IMO less fun than figuring new ways to kill an enemy, liked I did in ME.

Sounds like you would enjoy Fallout's VATs system or SC:C's mark and execute.

PS: Try playing as a vanguard and you will hardly use the cover mechanic. However, lets face it, with any shooter some type of cover mechanic is necessary.

EDIT: Oh, and have you actually read some of the stuff the OP has written? "Facts" such as: you can sit in cover basically untouched, enemies don't flank, ME1 is hard in the beginning, etc.

I did like the VAT system in Fallout 3 (best game of 2008 IMO). As I stated; I'm not good in shooters; sorry

And I did read all the other stuff of the OP. I never said that I was outflanked or killed in seconds. I only stated that all I do is take cover, kill, take cover, kill etc. (playing with an Infiltrator). Running for more than 5 seconds (without being cloaked) is just suicide in ME2.

[TuringPoint]

I had to figure out new ways to kill enemies in ME2. The only problem is the rock-paper-scissors element they've introduced. I'm still not sure if I'm sold on that, even though that presents a certain tactical challenge.

[hitorihanzo]

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! Okay. Maybe for that audience the combat system is indeed great, as they don't know better and wouldn't want a real challenge in the first place. Instant rewards, reloading not wanted. But if we're honest, for experienced players the combat system is in no way better, nor more challenging than in ME 1.

The main problem: BioWare effectively removed the third dimension. This is not a "shooter", however you define that. It's a shooting range. You sit behind cover and are invincible. Forever. You get up, shoot enemies and are shot at (they never miss), and after a few seconds, when your health is nearly depleted, you duck into cover again. Repeat, repeat, repeat. As soon as all enemies are dead, you move on to the next stage. Once you understand that concept, it becomes boring quickly, and no presentation can help that.

The enemies don't charge, they have no strategy, they don't work together. They're cannon fodder. Once you start using biotic abilities, it becomes even easier. While enemies, again unlike ME 1, don't use any abilities. The best thing they come up with are rocket launchers, and the rockets are conveniently slow as to pose little of a threat either.

And that's another thing: Your PC can take too much damage. Even one or two direct hits from a rocket launcher are easily shrugged off. You don't even need to deplenish your medi gel, instead you just duck behind cover for a few seconds. In ME 1, a direct hit from a rocket meant reloading. Realistic and challenging. Letting a single Krogan come into melee range usually meant you did something wrong and were in for a big, big challenge. Now, no more. Cannon fodder, like everyone else. Since this would probably be too easy even for the casual gamers, BioWare artificially increases the difficulty by making all enemies the perfect sharp shooters. They never miss, whether you stand still or move. Effectively enforcing the cover-shoot-cover tactic as the only valid one.

The level design is beautiful, but like in the old Jedi Knight games, just functional. In the sense of being designed as combat areas and arenas. You run from shooting range to shooting range. Wherever you see a lot of crates, you know it's the next round.

There are exceptions, and at least then the game provides a challenge. This is done with a simple trick: Forcing the player to advance. A) through a time limit, because he's out of ammo, or C) because he needs to reach a target while BioWare employs the oldest and most outfashioned trick in the book: Respawning enemies. Not only is it unrealistic, it's also again a lazy way of providing a challenge that's otherwise not there. Still, at least in these rare occasions, combat is more than shooting ducks.

Unfortunately, especially in these cases the controls pose a bigger threat than the enemies. Cover, sprint and jump on the same button? Really? Of course the inevitable happens: When I want to run away, my PC covers against a wall, often dying before I can correct the mistake. Sometimes my PC jumps over a crate, directly into the arms of the enemies.

The very minimum would be to allow the player to bind they keys at leisure. And of course allowing the player to crouch at will would be an absolute matter of course. But the intent is clear: To enforce the "shooting range" gameplay. The enemies don't think and move in three directions. If the player can, it makes the game even more trivial.

Feel free to reply with "cool story, bro". Or not at all. I don't care. I even get that many will enjoy this gameplay. As I said, explosions sell, thinking not so much. The movie industry would know best. To me, the game simply lacks a challenge. Generally I don't care much about action games anyway. I don't buy them. Granted, combat in ME 1 wasn't perfect either (but in my opinion it WAS better than in ME 2 - at least it had three dimensions). But I could overlook that, as the story and presentation was incredible. I don't feel that way in ME 2. But that's another discussion.

I just posted a thread saying the exact opposite of some of your points.  LOL.

Play this game on higher difficulties and you will get raped.  It's damn near unfair, it's so cheap.  Controller throwing cheap.

[Darth Obvious]

Hell yeah, the combat is MUCH better!

[bjdbwea]

hitorihanzo wrote...

I just posted a thread saying the exact opposite of some of your points.  LOL.

Play this game on higher difficulties and you will get raped.  It's damn near unfair, it's so cheap.  Controller throwing cheap.

Huh, really? Maybe on consoles? Not on the PC. As I said, all my observations were made on Hardcore difficulty. No problems whatsoever once you see through the simple combat system. Only when an enemy irresistably knocks you out of cover, or when you are swarmed by melee enemies (namely Husks). In that case, the lazy system with never-missing enemies can become a problem, up to the point of being unfair at times indeed. That's why BioWare didn't employ such scenarios often and mostly sticks with the flashy looking shooting ranges.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 février 2010 - 09:18 .

[Kroniker81]

Ok, I tire of these stupid claims so I took the freedom and picked out one random stupid post

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.

And I am sick of all the fanboys falling down on their knees shoving 90%-100% ratings into Bioware's/EA's butt and attacking everyone with a sense of criticism.

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.

Biggest and most idiotic fallacy I ever heard. For one especially at start and higher levels you are well advised to use cover or even combat drones shoot you down in 2-3 shots.
Enemy Snipers could 1 shot you until you got either Immunity or you got at least something like 500 shield points. Geht Armature and Collosi could one shot you. Fighting multiple of  them openly was tantamount to suicide. Thresher Maws could one shot you ignoring shields.
So stop claiming that you can walk freely in open space at your leisure it is a big fat lie. Also Strafing imposed hit penalties so unless you were able to really imrpove your hit chance by a large margin you missed signifcantly more shots so it was still preferable to stay behind cover and pop around a corner and shot and go back to cover again.
One has to wonder who played on higher than normal difficulty in ME 1.

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.

Wow, you can brag how awesome you are over the internet, now that holds some true merit and even better you are able to judge other players whom you have never seen playing! Terrific. Not.
Funny that all the stuff you describe for ME 2 you could do in ME 1 as well.

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.

Yeah it is incredibly difficult to hide behind cover. You really need korean starcraft like skills with at least 300 APM to accomplish that. Not.

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.

From my experience it is the standard avarage gamer who thinks too much of himself who opens up his mouth trap on the forums when he has nothing to loose.
/golfclap

[GUNSTAR H3R0]

lol @ OP thinking there's more dimension in me1. Although he does make some valid points, in me1 once leveled up and equipped good stuff, i could literally run into the open and just spray with my pistol and take everyone out. I wouldn't use shield boost immunity barrier medi gel nothing. I would just go out there with my infiltrator and ashley or garrus and start shooting the place up and move on.

[hitorihanzo]

bjdbwea wrote...

hitorihanzo wrote...

I just posted a thread saying the exact opposite of some of your points.  LOL.

Play this game on higher difficulties and you will get raped.  It's damn near unfair, it's so cheap.  Controller throwing cheap.

Huh, really? Maybe on consoles? Not on the PC. As I said, all my observations were made on Hardcore difficulty. No problems whatsoever once you see through the simple combat system. Only when an enemy irresistably knocks you out of cover, or when you are swarmed by melee enemies (namely Husks). In that case, the lazy system with never-missing enemies can become a problem, up to the point of being unfair at times indeed. That's why BioWare didn't employ such scenarios often and mostly sticks with the flashy looking shooting ranges.

I'm playing (and replaying because I can't beat it), the Recruit Tali mission on Hardcore.  It was fun for a little bit, but now there's too many Geth, not enough bullets, and my companion A.I. is nonexistant.  Garrus' stupid ass gets himself killed unless I babysit him.  All of this while I'm trying to play hide & see with a Colossus that never misses (homing shots are such a great idea!) with inadequate cover for the difficulty that I'm playing on because almost all of the geth come equipped with shields, and my guns take too long to lower them.  And since my companions really have only two available powers, they are on constant cooldown cycles.  So you HAVE to use your gun.  I'm honestly frustrated right now, and cursing the mother of the person that thought this was a good idea.

And there are way too many animations that take me out of cover for a valuable couple of seconds.  One's that I have no control over.  Like the STUPID "Shepard Freaks Out Because Of Fire" animation.  Ugh.  Kills you every time.

Modifié par hitorihanzo, 11 février 2010 - 09:45 .

[Kroniker81]

artiss68w wrote...
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.

Both are relatively simple. ME 2 didn't add much and in some cases even cut out some.

GUNSTAR H3R0 wrote...

lol @ OP thinking there's more
dimension in me1. Although he does make some valid points, in me1 once
leveled up and equipped good stuff, i could literally run into the open
and just spray with my pistol and take everyone out. I wouldn't use
shield boost immunity barrier medi gel nothing. I would just go out
there with my infiltrator and ashley or garrus and start shooting the
place up and move on.

This is true for most unmodded RPGs. Nothing new here. BG 1 and 2, PS:T, Deus Ex 1, System Shock 2, Morrowind, Fallout, they all become easy once you achieved a certain level and gear status.

Modifié par Kroniker81, 11 février 2010 - 09:41 .

[WillieStyle]

bjdbwea wrote...

hitorihanzo wrote...

I just posted a thread saying the exact opposite of some of your points.  LOL.

Play this game on higher difficulties and you will get raped.  It's damn near unfair, it's so cheap.  Controller throwing cheap.

Huh, really? Maybe on consoles? Not on the PC. As I said, all my observations were made on Hardcore difficulty. No problems whatsoever once you see through the simple combat system. Only when an enemy irresistably knocks you out of cover, or when you are swarmed by melee enemies (namely Husks). In that case, the lazy system with never-missing enemies can become a problem, up to the point of being unfair at times indeed. That's why BioWare didn't employ such scenarios often and mostly sticks with the flashy looking shooting ranges.

Or Harbinger, Geth Destroyers/Hunters, Heavy Mechs charge your position,
Or Collector Snipers, Rocket Troopers, Shotgun wielding Mercs flank you
Or you run out of ammo because you're not advancing towards the enemy to pick up the thermal clips they drop.
Or you're playing a timed/infinite-respawn mission
etc.

The game is easy except when it isn't. 
All games become easy when you play them long enough (even Ninja Gaiden).  ME2 is more challenging and engaging than most.  ME1 was trivial halfway through my first play through.

[bjdbwea]

hitorihanzo wrote...

I'm playing (and replaying because I can't beat it), the Recruit Tali mission on Hardcore.

Yes, that mission is perhaps the biggest challenge in the whole game. But as I said earlier, that's because BioWare employs the outdated concept of spamming you with ever-respawning enemies. At the same times forcing you to advance and therefore out of cover. But at least for once you get a little freedom in choosing your path. And for once your team mates can make a difference.

[WillieStyle]

Also you originally said:

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.

Which is patently untrue.Most enemies will try to flank or charge you the moment you engage in combat no matter how far back you camp yourself.

[Kroniker81]

WillieStyle wrote...

Also you originally said:

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.

Which is patently untrue.Most enemies will try to flank or charge you the moment you engage in combat no matter how far back you camp yourself.

Same goes for ME 1.

[WillieStyle]

hitorihanzo wrote...

I'm playing (and replaying because I can't beat it), the Recruit Tali mission on Hardcore.  It was fun for a little bit, but now there's too many Geth, not enough bullets, and my companion A.I. is nonexistant.  Garrus' stupid ass gets himself killed unless I babysit him.  All of this while I'm trying to play hide & see with a Colossus that never misses (homing shots are such a great idea!) with inadequate cover for the difficulty that I'm playing on because almost all of the geth come equipped with shields, and my guns take too long to lower them.  And since my companions really have only two available powers, they are on constant cooldown cycles.  So you HAVE to use your gun.  I'm honestly frustrated right now, and cursing the mother of the person that thought this was a good idea.

What class are you playing as?
I'd suggest bringing companions with overload (Miranda and Garrus work great) or squad disruptor ammo (Zaeed).
If you're finding yourself overwhelmed with the number of enemies, go up the right side.  It has the fewest enemies.  However, there is less shade on that side so your shields will drop quickly.
Don't worry about the Colossuss.  Its attacks won't hit you behind cover.  Take out the Geth on the right while ducking behind cover whenever the Col fires at you.  Run up to the end of the right bride. Now the hard part is done. You're in the shade so your shields won't run out. You can take cover behind the railing to block the colossus and only 2 or 3 Geth remain to kill. Finish them off then go round to the right side of the Colussuss. It won't repair itself any longer.  Nor will any more Geth come at you.  From here, just attack it from cover till it dies.

Don't worry if your squad mates die while crossing the bridge.  Ignore them till you get to the other side, then res them with Unity and rally them to your position.