129 réponses à ce sujet

[gr00grams]

Guys, it is very, very simple;

They did not remove too many of the RPG elments.
It is just the way they 'streamlined' them.

LISTEN;

RPG fans like to tinker with everything they can.
The armor method in ME2 is great, but you cannot access it anytime, and there is definitely not enough to satisfy an RPG fan. There's not mods, however effective or ineffective they are.

It's not that it is bad in ME2, it just doesn't appeal to RPG fans.

Next, guns;

Same deal. Guns in ME2 are fine really. There just isn't anything to tinker with, compare, stat... mod...
regardless if you thought ME1's presentation of these elements was good or bad, understand that it leaves true RPG fans without anything to tinker with.

Now upgrades/mods etc.
Again, all CONTROL is taken from the player. That just doesn't fly with traditional RPG fans. Again, it's not a bad method at all, but it just doesn't fly. I farm resource, click a button, have upgrade.

That is not fun for an RPG fan. RPG fans like stats. They like comparisons, numbers, OPTIONS.
The like, yes, LIKE massive inventories etc. as hard as that may be to understand.

Those are usually the reasons they play them.

Again, ME2 isn't any less really than ME1 in terms of 'RPG' it's just how it was done. There is sweet ****** all for us to tinker with really. Everything is done for us, streamlined, whatever you want to call it.

It's not that guns are better, or worse, or that mods are better or worse, it's that we have no control. Upgrades, I don't even know what half of them do.
All I know is that I need enough resources to make any of them when they become available.
Seriously, didn't even read descriptions, because there is no need to.
Didn't read, learn etc about any guns. Didn't need to look at them. Game auto-upgrades them as you go. Hell, really I should have just auto-spent my talent points too.

Again, lastly, it's not that any elements are less of an RPG than ME1, it's we have really no control. The only control we have for the most is in the action aspects, and that does not appeal to core RPG fans.

Neither side is right nor wrong, but it is what it is.

It just seems everything aside the shooting is done for us this time around.
All my guns, upgrades, everything is pretty much done for me, and attempts to glorify itself with how it is presented, but really I have almost no control except the few armor parts I can swap in and out. Like what else is there for me to actually decide this time? the color of my helmet? (which is cool, just really is the only other option I can think of).

Modifié par gr00grams, 12 février 2010 - 02:42 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Tom Adama wrote...

ChaoticBroth wrote...

This thread is silly. Why?

Each of the individual classes have different playstyles. Soldiers just waltz in there, guns blazing, but lack CC. Vanguards operate with spike damage, Sentinels specialize in either defense or versatility. Adepts are amazing at CC, Infiltrators are good for picking off enemies one by one, and Engineers are... Well, I haven't played an Engineer, so I can't really comment on that.

If anything, this game teaches you how to play a specialized role, and adjust your team around it. In ME1, thanks to bonus talents, you could just add talents to your character to make yourself a one-man team. Here, I've found myself needing to coordinate my team and where I Charge on my Insanity Vanguard. A big, and considerably better change.

Im sorry but I found it to be quite the opposite. ME1 was more tactical in team selection, ME2 was universal. Nobody was specialized as per situation or player class, they were only different in moves list.

LMAO!!!!!

you can't be serious...... "ME1 was more tactical in team selection" BS, you didn't even NEED a team in ME1, no matter what class I played, I could walk into a room and clear it by myself by just holding down the trigger. All you needed was frictionless materials and you were set. It was even easy on insanity.

In ME2, if you don't pick your team carefully you will have loads of trouble..... especially on hardcore or insanity b/c people with biotics are worthless against shields, so if you want one of them you have to take someone with overload or have it yourself. If you can take down shields, you need to bring someone who can take out armor (aka Mordin).... if you don't bring the right people, you die. You just can't do it alone.

[EternalWolfe]

Tom Adama wrote...

Tleining wrote...

so what is stopping you from using Grunt and Jack to do the same in ME2?

Why? So I can use concussive shot and that shockwave biotic power...

Wrex had throw, barrier,  shotguns (carnage), AR (Overkill), Shield boost, Barrier, Stasis, Fitness, Warp and krogan battlemastery.

Liara had singularity, throw, lift, warp, barrier, stasis, electronics (overload). All of which had multiple effects depending on the level it was progressed to.

I had OPTIONS. I could use a plethora of tactics to overcome the enemy, not just 2 talents with 4 levels of mastery and no subvariations.

This game used shallow action rpg elements only, I dare anyone to say otherwise. The talents only applied to 2 powers in combat which were unique to each squadmate. IE: Samara had throw, Jack did not nor did Miranda or Jacob...

...so basically Im choosing squadmates on what moves they could do, not on the fact they were biotics?

First of all, isn't 'they are biotics' choosing them for what they could do?  And really, ME2 team selection is more tactical.  How?  Because now its not: Oh, hey, I don't have any biotics, I guess I'll grab the ADEPT.  Who has all the skills I don't have.  Now you have to choose what powers your bringing with you, instead of having easy and obvious "THIS ONE HAS ALL YOU NEED" characters.  Choosing between various powers and what would be most useful in the upcoming battles, then USING it is tactics not, 'I'll just build a party with everything and nothing can stop me then."

Not that I'm saying I like it.  I felt like my teammates were tacked on(gameplay wise), I liked ME1 for having teammates feel like TEAMMATES.  I'd prefer if all characters had as many or mostly as many skills as Shepard.  But that doesn't change anything I've said.

[krylo]

EternalWolfe wrote...
If they took away the need for Decryption and Electronics to open stuff in ME1, the engineer would still get Sabotage and Overload, which were great powers when used properly.

God yes they were.

There were few things better than sabotaging rocket troopers or geth collossi and then pistol whipping them to death because they couldn't fight back.

Really, on the harder difficulties (unless you were rolling a level 60 or something), that was about the only way to safely kill those enemies on foot, as taking a rocket to the face was auto death.  Well, not pistol whipping, but using sabotage.

And I used overload constantly in ME1.  Not to mention AI hacking.

gr00grams wrote...
RPG fans like to tinker with everything they can.
[...and lots of other truisms...]

As a fan of both styles of game, I can say that you seem to have pretty much hit the nail on the head with the RPG-only fans complaining.  I like the game a lot how it is, and even see it as an improvment over ME1 in many ways, but I can't say I wouldn't love to be able to tinker with things.  Just so long as they found a way to do it without making money completely trivial like it was in the first game after about the halfway point.

Less item drops and more things in stores, maybe?  Kind of like they have it now, but a wider selection and more customization available for weapon upgrades?


I really liked the way armor worked, though, from an RPer perspective.  I saw it as an advancement over ME1's, in that I could pick each singular piece based on both stat bonuses (tinkering, yay!) and aesthetics (narcissism, yay!) and then play with colors and patterns after the fact.

A few more modular options would be damn nice though.  Wish Bioware would release modular armor packs instead of singular full suits.

Modifié par krylo, 12 février 2010 - 02:57 .

[AtreiyaN7]

I'm a Vanguard, and I don't feel shafted. I must rather vehemently disagree about guns being better in ME1. They weren't. They were all basically exactly alike except for extremely negligible stat differences at best.

[krylo]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I'm a Vanguard, and I don't feel shafted. I must rather vehemently disagree about guns being better in ME1. They weren't. They were all basically exactly alike except for extremely negligible stat differences at best.

I also play a vanguard and... I have mixed feelings.  On the other hand it dies MUCH more often than my soldier or adept did.  Much much more often.  Even on normal.

On the other hand, it is so GODDAMN SATISFYING to biotic charge into some dude's face, and then, in the two seconds of time dilation while he is flying away, put a shotgun round into his ragdoll, before spinning around and beating some other dude to death with the butt of my shotgun.

So, like... I feel significantly weaker if I stop and look at it objectively in how often I am dying compared to my soldier/adept, but I also feel significantly more bad ass when I pull things off.

I also tend to fight fewer enemies, because when it works I wipe out everything much faster and usually things stop respawning faster if you've pressed into the room they're spawning from.

[gr00grams]

(tinkering, yay!)

Yeah like my post here, and yours, I think that's all there is to it.

[EternalWolfe]

krylo wrote...

gr00grams wrote...
RPG fans like to tinker with everything they can.
[...and lots of other truisms...]

As a fan of both styles of game, I can say that you seem to have pretty much hit the nail on the head with the RPG-only fans complaining.  I like the game a lot how it is, and even see it as an improvment over ME1 in many ways, but I can't say I wouldn't love to be able to tinker with things.  Just so long as they found a way to do it without making money completely trivial like it was in the first game after about the halfway point.

Less item drops and more things in stores, maybe?  Kind of like they have it now, but a wider selection and more customization available for weapon upgrades?


I really liked the way armor worked, though, from an RPer perspective.  I saw it as an advancement over ME1's, in that I could pick each singular piece based on both stat bonuses (tinkering, yay!) and aesthetics (narcissism, yay!) and then play with colors and patterns after the fact.

A few more modular options would be damn nice though.  Wish Bioware would release modular armor packs instead of singular full suits.

This is mostly how I see it:  ME1 and ME2 are great games.  Both of them.  I think if they took a middle road, kept the simplicity of the systems of ME2 and ramped them up to give the choice style that ME1 had, ME3 could be even better.  For instance:

more armor parts with better bonuses(example: A Vangaurd built for max Shields would feel a bit different then one built for strait on Power)
modular weapon design with multiple parts
Either one with choosable upgrades that boosts one thing but not another(or allows you to increase on all things at the cost of gaing the best in one)
more skills to choose from to help custom build characters(I'd even be willing to have more skills without having enough points for 80% of them to max)
Ect

You get the basic idea.  More options, but with the streamlining that ME2 had to keep them from getting out of hand and feeling tedious.

[shadowc116]

I dont understand u OP. ur sayin me2 is less tactical than me1 what proof do u hav? all uve said is that u fill ur squad space with tha characters that have abilities that u dont hav. me2 is way more tactical than me1 bc 1st of all squadmates are more specialized now so u hav to pic which character to use for what the situation is. lik samara is for CC and miranda is takin out shields and barriers and etc.



and 2nd classes havnt been dumbed down bc they r designed for certain play styles. so from the sounds of it u jus dont kno what play style u r good at.

[Tom Adama]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Tom Adama wrote...

NO! You just need to bring a squadmember that FILLS IN YOUR WEAKNESS'S! I was a Infiltrator in ME1, I used Wrex and Liara to compensate for my weakness in combat.

I didnt bring Tali or Kaiden or Garrus much because I could open locked crates myself and could use the sniper rifle. My short range combat was weak so I brougt Wrex in to compensate and brought Liara to create space with her biotics if I was in trouble.

My goodness... didn't you realize that when you played ME1?

What in the world are you jabbering about?

First of all, I fail to see your point.  I've played the game several times with multiple builds/squads.  How about an Engineer, Tali, and Kaiden on Insanity?  Did it just fine, no problem.  Wasn't any harder then Soldier, Ashely, and Wrex.  Where is this 'weakness' your talking about?  So my point about 'lower combat classes' being useful within a party even without the ability to hack crates stands.  There is a reason to use them, because they are useful.  Just because you feel the need to even out your combat/biotics/tech bars doesn't mean thats the only way to play the game.

Second of all, as my first paragraph stated, if the devs feel the need to limit something like hacking crates, just to get you to play or take that class with you, then the class is fail.  If your only big advantage over everyone else is 'I can hack crates', then obviously, your a sub-par character.  That is a lower combat class.  Not being able to open a crate because you don't have the right class isn't smarter or more strategic, its a limitation against actual strategics and using characters that could do better.

Note, however, roleplayers, I do agree that its more 'in-story' to limit the ability to hack and bypass to technical characters.  But that should not make a class sub-par(which Bioware did not), whcih is my point there.

Edit: Ok, I've read over your opening post again, and I have an answer for you.

Each class plays differently.  That was the point of giving them unique skills and of not letting them all be the same.  That was the point of only letting them have certain weapons.  The reason for the other classes is that not everyone wants to just run in guns blazing.  Each class is unique and plays differently.  Just because you can't use the Infiltrator right, doesn't mean its useless.  And that has nothing to do with opening crates.

You need to look at the gameplay of your first ME1 playthrough, not yout second New game + with added skills and weapon usage.

All us Infiltrators had was a pistol and sniper rifle to train with, even though we had the ability to use ALL the weapons, we just didnt get damage bonus's or accuracy.

Because of this, the game discouraged us from having a certain play style aka running and gunning. I had to hang back as an infiltrator (my first playthrough with this class was on Hardcore). Enemies had rpg defenses and weaknesses and I had to pick squads accordingly. I could not go in with an AR and spray rounds with hopes to beat the bad guys.

I had to pick team mates who could do that for me. I spent 70% of my combat time in the power wheel assigning positions and attacks. Isn't that what a squad leader is supposed to do?

In this game, I was the one who won ALL the gun battles. I never saw my team mate kill anybody other than Thane with a Anti material rifle that I told him to use.

Yes, I had to micromanage alot in ME1, but micromanaging means increased combat depth. Just try and play the first game again as a fresh character (level 1) and on veteran or hardcore, youll get why I am so upset with ME2's hardcore.... the classes dont make it any better.

The combat depth shows its ugly colors on higher difficulty settings in ME2.

Modifié par Tom Adama, 12 février 2010 - 03:24 .

[jpetrey123]

its not dragon age its mass effect... /thread. this game is not your classic throw dice RPG's you acctually have to *gasp* AIM!

[luckyirish.dowd]

Here's a view from someone who loves RPG's, but absolutely SUCKS at shooters. I'm serious. I play on Casual and think that some of the battles were nail biters, I'm that bad. But since I love RPG's and their stories, Mass Effect is one of the few shooters that I will play.



While yes, I am ticked that they removed a lot, A LOT of the RPG element from the game and turned it even more into a shooter, even I still have fun playing this game. And even as a novice shooter, I've been able to come up with strategies to play this game.



Since I've always loved wizards and powers in RPG's, I play as an adept. This also perfectly complements my shooter skills because I can launch powers all the time and not worry about my aim. I'll agree, they really did short change a lot of powers in this game, severly limiting my options. On the plus side though, there isn't some rediculously long recharge times. Instead of firing off one power and waiting 40-60secs for it to recharge, I can pop off a power every 3-9sec (even faster when I've upgraded my biotic mastery and bought the recharge upgrade). So yes, I do feel short changed because I don't have all of the powers that I had before, limiting my options, but I love the fact that I can go power happy in this game and just spam the living daylights out of everything.



As far as strategy goes and some classes being "worse" or "useless," ARE YOU KIDING ME!!! I can't play shooters to save my life and even I've been able to successfully formulate strategies for ever battle, and reformulate them on the ocations when I made a stupid mistake. It's all in how you use the class. Soldiers have little crowd control. I have the most with singularity (I love this power SO MUCH). I don't have a lot of killing power through my weapons, but I can trap 4-6 enemies, destroy armor, and carry a heavy weapon. I'm not trying to go out there and mow though everything, I'm the distraction that lets my teammates deal with the rest. That's called strategy. This game is desinged around your ability to use your teammates. That's why they uped the intelligence of them.



So yes, I am mad that I don't have the weapons and armor options of the first one. I'm mad that I don't have the diversity of powers like before. I'm also mad that there's really no true RPG elements outside of the level up systems and the main plot is mostly lacking. But I wouldn't say that any one class is "useless." You just have to figure out how to use it PROPERLY.



I do want to say though, one of my favorite times playing this game was on Miranda's personal quest. There was one firefight were the enemy kept walking across a narrow catwalk to attack me. So, naturally, I just kept throwing out my singularity over and over again, right into their path. I laughed as the only thing that I could hear for three minutes were death screams after death screams. I didn't have to fire a single shot. Now THAT'S strategy for you.

[Tom Adama]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Tom Adama wrote...

ChaoticBroth wrote...

This thread is silly. Why?

Each of the individual classes have different playstyles. Soldiers just waltz in there, guns blazing, but lack CC. Vanguards operate with spike damage, Sentinels specialize in either defense or versatility. Adepts are amazing at CC, Infiltrators are good for picking off enemies one by one, and Engineers are... Well, I haven't played an Engineer, so I can't really comment on that.

If anything, this game teaches you how to play a specialized role, and adjust your team around it. In ME1, thanks to bonus talents, you could just add talents to your character to make yourself a one-man team. Here, I've found myself needing to coordinate my team and where I Charge on my Insanity Vanguard. A big, and considerably better change.

Im sorry but I found it to be quite the opposite. ME1 was more tactical in team selection, ME2 was universal. Nobody was specialized as per situation or player class, they were only different in moves list.

LMAO!!!!!

you can't be serious...... "ME1 was more tactical in team selection" BS, you didn't even NEED a team in ME1, no matter what class I played, I could walk into a room and clear it by myself by just holding down the trigger. All you needed was frictionless materials and you were set. It was even easy on insanity.

In ME2, if you don't pick your team carefully you will have loads of trouble..... especially on hardcore or insanity b/c people with biotics are worthless against shields, so if you want one of them you have to take someone with overload or have it yourself. If you can take down shields, you need to bring someone who can take out armor (aka Mordin).... if you don't bring the right people, you die. You just can't do it alone.

Really??? You had frictionless materials for the WHOLE game? Oh wait, I forgot, those weapon mods made your gun better at later levels. I also recall them being very expensive and requiring liscences to purchase. Ooops, I mentioned another RPG element that created noticable progression in your character... isn't that what, gasp, an RPG is supposed to do?

And to answer your question, yes I played on hardcore and insanity. Enemies DID NOT HAVE IMMUNITIES, they were just harder to KILL. I recall ME1 the enemies had IMMUNITIES against certain attacks.

How can you say the second game had deeper combat? There is NO WAY.

[Tom Adama]

luckyirish.dowd wrote...

Here's a view from someone who loves RPG's, but absolutely SUCKS at shooters. I'm serious. I play on Casual and think that some of the battles were nail biters, I'm that bad. But since I love RPG's and their stories, Mass Effect is one of the few shooters that I will play.

While yes, I am ticked that they removed a lot, A LOT of the RPG element from the game and turned it even more into a shooter, even I still have fun playing this game. And even as a novice shooter, I've been able to come up with strategies to play this game.

Since I've always loved wizards and powers in RPG's, I play as an adept. This also perfectly complements my shooter skills because I can launch powers all the time and not worry about my aim. I'll agree, they really did short change a lot of powers in this game, severly limiting my options. On the plus side though, there isn't some rediculously long recharge times. Instead of firing off one power and waiting 40-60secs for it to recharge, I can pop off a power every 3-9sec (even faster when I've upgraded my biotic mastery and bought the recharge upgrade). So yes, I do feel short changed because I don't have all of the powers that I had before, limiting my options, but I love the fact that I can go power happy in this game and just spam the living daylights out of everything.

As far as strategy goes and some classes being "worse" or "useless," ARE YOU KIDING ME!!! I can't play shooters to save my life and even I've been able to successfully formulate strategies for ever battle, and reformulate them on the ocations when I made a stupid mistake. It's all in how you use the class. Soldiers have little crowd control. I have the most with singularity (I love this power SO MUCH). I don't have a lot of killing power through my weapons, but I can trap 4-6 enemies, destroy armor, and carry a heavy weapon. I'm not trying to go out there and mow though everything, I'm the distraction that lets my teammates deal with the rest. That's called strategy. This game is desinged around your ability to use your teammates. That's why they uped the intelligence of them.

So yes, I am mad that I don't have the weapons and armor options of the first one. I'm mad that I don't have the diversity of powers like before. I'm also mad that there's really no true RPG elements outside of the level up systems and the main plot is mostly lacking. But I wouldn't say that any one class is "useless." You just have to figure out how to use it PROPERLY.

I do want to say though, one of my favorite times playing this game was on Miranda's personal quest. There was one firefight were the enemy kept walking across a narrow catwalk to attack me. So, naturally, I just kept throwing out my singularity over and over again, right into their path. I laughed as the only thing that I could hear for three minutes were death screams after death screams. I didn't have to fire a single shot. Now THAT'S strategy for you.

No, I didn't say any one class was useless; just that the specializations of being a particular class have become moot. The differences between the playable classes is negligable, none have any real advantages or specialities to be a significantly different playstyle.

I used the soldier as an example of how Bioware has created a game that is heavy on shooter mechanics and weak on powers. AND, soldiers could hack and open everything just like an Infiltrator. They could NOT do that in Mass 1. You had to choose a balanced squad not only based on combat, but on passive skills also.

[Tom Adama]

shadowc116 wrote...

I dont understand u OP. ur sayin me2 is less tactical than me1 what proof do u hav? all uve said is that u fill ur squad space with tha characters that have abilities that u dont hav. me2 is way more tactical than me1 bc 1st of all squadmates are more specialized now so u hav to pic which character to use for what the situation is. lik samara is for CC and miranda is takin out shields and barriers and etc.

and 2nd classes havnt been dumbed down bc they r designed for certain play styles. so from the sounds of it u jus dont kno what play style u r good at.

Intereseting... so from my 8 playthroughs in Mass effect one the class I chose to carry over in ME2 was wrong?

What changed between my playstyle in ME1 and ME2?

[Omega-202]

Tom Adama wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Tom Adama wrote...

NO! You just need to bring a squadmember that FILLS IN YOUR WEAKNESS'S! I was a Infiltrator in ME1, I used Wrex and Liara to compensate for my weakness in combat.

I didnt bring Tali or Kaiden or Garrus much because I could open locked crates myself and could use the sniper rifle. My short range combat was weak so I brougt Wrex in to compensate and brought Liara to create space with her biotics if I was in trouble.

My goodness... didn't you realize that when you played ME1?

What in the world are you jabbering about?

First of all, I fail to see your point.  I've played the game several times with multiple builds/squads.  How about an Engineer, Tali, and Kaiden on Insanity?  Did it just fine, no problem.  Wasn't any harder then Soldier, Ashely, and Wrex.  Where is this 'weakness' your talking about?  So my point about 'lower combat classes' being useful within a party even without the ability to hack crates stands.  There is a reason to use them, because they are useful.  Just because you feel the need to even out your combat/biotics/tech bars doesn't mean thats the only way to play the game.

Second of all, as my first paragraph stated, if the devs feel the need to limit something like hacking crates, just to get you to play or take that class with you, then the class is fail.  If your only big advantage over everyone else is 'I can hack crates', then obviously, your a sub-par character.  That is a lower combat class.  Not being able to open a crate because you don't have the right class isn't smarter or more strategic, its a limitation against actual strategics and using characters that could do better.

Note, however, roleplayers, I do agree that its more 'in-story' to limit the ability to hack and bypass to technical characters.  But that should not make a class sub-par(which Bioware did not), whcih is my point there.

Edit: Ok, I've read over your opening post again, and I have an answer for you.

Each class plays differently.  That was the point of giving them unique skills and of not letting them all be the same.  That was the point of only letting them have certain weapons.  The reason for the other classes is that not everyone wants to just run in guns blazing.  Each class is unique and plays differently.  Just because you can't use the Infiltrator right, doesn't mean its useless.  And that has nothing to do with opening crates.

You need to look at the gameplay of your first ME1 playthrough, not yout second New game + with added skills and weapon usage.

All us Infiltrators had was a pistol and sniper rifle to train with, even though we had the ability to use ALL the weapons, we just didnt get damage bonus's or accuracy.

Because of this, the game discouraged us from having a certain play style aka running and gunning. I had to hang back as an infiltrator (my first playthrough with this class was on Hardcore). Enemies had rpg defenses and weaknesses and I had to pick squads accordingly. I could not go in with an AR and spray rounds with hopes to beat the bad guys.

I had to pick team mates who could do that for me. I spent 70% of my combat time in the power wheel assigning positions and attacks. Isn't that what a squad leader is supposed to do?

In this game, I was the one who won ALL the gun battles. I never saw my team mate kill anybody other than Thane with a Anti material rifle that I told him to use.

Yes, I had to micromanage alot in ME1, but micromanaging means increased combat depth. Just try and play the first game again as a fresh character (level 1) and on veteran or hardcore, youll get why I am so upset with ME2's hardcore.... the classes dont make it any better.

The combat depth shows its ugly colors on higher difficulty settings in ME2.

If you had to sit back with your Infiltrator in ME1, even on Insanity for a non-NewGame+ for much longer than your first story planet or so, then I'd have to agree with the earlier sentiment: You suck at these games.

You can't compare difficulty in ME1 with anything in ME2.  Especially if you played an Infiltrator.  By level 40 you never need to use ANY tactics.  Pop Immunity, Marksman, hold R Trigger until everything is dead, no matter what difficulty level.  If you were sitting back and doing anything else then you were fooling yourself into thinking you were in more danger than you were.  

Speaking from experience, as someone who just a month ago did exactly as you proposed (start a new character on Vet or higher) with multiple classes, the entire thing was a cake walk.  The classes weren't all that different.  The Vanguard and Adept played nearly identical.  Spam Singularity and Lift, replenish health with Barrier, unload with Shotgun/Marksman Pistol or Assault Rifle after using Warp on anything that popped Immunity.  Infiltrator was a joke.  Pop Immunity, run in, Overload things that used their own Immunity, use a squad mate's Warp and other biotics and just unload pistol at all ranges.  Sentinel played closer to the Adept using Stasis but with less damage.  

Squadmates in ME1 were always the same if I needed pure effectiveness: Garrus and Wrex for the biotic classes, Liara and Wrex for the tech classes.  There's no arguing that.  They were simply, mathematically the most effective.  

ME2 has more diversity with its team choices.  If you knew you were going up against Blue Suns, you took Miranda and Garrus.  If you knew you were going up against Collectors, you picked Miranda, Grunt or Thane.  If you were going against Geth or Mechs, you picked Tali, Garrus, Zaeed, Legion or Miranda.  

There was NO diversity for ME1 teams.  You didn't change your team based on the mission.  That's not an RPG.  ME2 team picks were RPG like.  You picked based on their class strengths and weaknesses and what you were going up against.  

[Tom Adama]

jpetrey123 wrote...

its not dragon age its mass effect... /thread. this game is not your classic throw dice RPG's you acctually have to *gasp* AIM!

*Gasp* you mean I expected an RPG but got a 3rd person shooter? But it says RPG on the box... and the first one was definetly an RPG.

[AtreiyaN7]

krylo wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I'm a Vanguard, and I don't feel shafted. I must rather vehemently disagree about guns being better in ME1. They weren't. They were all basically exactly alike except for extremely negligible stat differences at best.

I also play a vanguard and... I have mixed feelings.  On the other hand it dies MUCH more often than my soldier or adept did.  Much much more often.  Even on normal.

On the other hand, it is so GODDAMN SATISFYING to biotic charge into some dude's face, and then, in the two seconds of time dilation while he is flying away, put a shotgun round into his ragdoll, before spinning around and beating some other dude to death with the butt of my shotgun.

So, like... I feel significantly weaker if I stop and look at it objectively in how often I am dying compared to my soldier/adept, but I also feel significantly more bad ass when I pull things off.

I also tend to fight fewer enemies, because when it works I wipe out everything much faster and usually things stop respawning faster if you've pressed into the room they're spawning from.

Well of course we die a lot - it's practically part of the class description (or should be *chuckle*). I believe Christina Norman at one point said that we'd die a lot as Vanguards. It's high-risk, high-reward as I like to say. I do love knocking enemies of ledges by slamming into them - mmm, satisfying.

[Tom Adama]

Omega-202 wrote...

Tom Adama wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Tom Adama wrote...

NO! You just need to bring a squadmember that FILLS IN YOUR WEAKNESS'S! I was a Infiltrator in ME1, I used Wrex and Liara to compensate for my weakness in combat.

I didnt bring Tali or Kaiden or Garrus much because I could open locked crates myself and could use the sniper rifle. My short range combat was weak so I brougt Wrex in to compensate and brought Liara to create space with her biotics if I was in trouble.

My goodness... didn't you realize that when you played ME1?

What in the world are you jabbering about?

First of all, I fail to see your point.  I've played the game several times with multiple builds/squads.  How about an Engineer, Tali, and Kaiden on Insanity?  Did it just fine, no problem.  Wasn't any harder then Soldier, Ashely, and Wrex.  Where is this 'weakness' your talking about?  So my point about 'lower combat classes' being useful within a party even without the ability to hack crates stands.  There is a reason to use them, because they are useful.  Just because you feel the need to even out your combat/biotics/tech bars doesn't mean thats the only way to play the game.

Second of all, as my first paragraph stated, if the devs feel the need to limit something like hacking crates, just to get you to play or take that class with you, then the class is fail.  If your only big advantage over everyone else is 'I can hack crates', then obviously, your a sub-par character.  That is a lower combat class.  Not being able to open a crate because you don't have the right class isn't smarter or more strategic, its a limitation against actual strategics and using characters that could do better.

Note, however, roleplayers, I do agree that its more 'in-story' to limit the ability to hack and bypass to technical characters.  But that should not make a class sub-par(which Bioware did not), whcih is my point there.

Edit: Ok, I've read over your opening post again, and I have an answer for you.

Each class plays differently.  That was the point of giving them unique skills and of not letting them all be the same.  That was the point of only letting them have certain weapons.  The reason for the other classes is that not everyone wants to just run in guns blazing.  Each class is unique and plays differently.  Just because you can't use the Infiltrator right, doesn't mean its useless.  And that has nothing to do with opening crates.

You need to look at the gameplay of your first ME1 playthrough, not yout second New game + with added skills and weapon usage.

All us Infiltrators had was a pistol and sniper rifle to train with, even though we had the ability to use ALL the weapons, we just didnt get damage bonus's or accuracy.

Because of this, the game discouraged us from having a certain play style aka running and gunning. I had to hang back as an infiltrator (my first playthrough with this class was on Hardcore). Enemies had rpg defenses and weaknesses and I had to pick squads accordingly. I could not go in with an AR and spray rounds with hopes to beat the bad guys.

I had to pick team mates who could do that for me. I spent 70% of my combat time in the power wheel assigning positions and attacks. Isn't that what a squad leader is supposed to do?

In this game, I was the one who won ALL the gun battles. I never saw my team mate kill anybody other than Thane with a Anti material rifle that I told him to use.

Yes, I had to micromanage alot in ME1, but micromanaging means increased combat depth. Just try and play the first game again as a fresh character (level 1) and on veteran or hardcore, youll get why I am so upset with ME2's hardcore.... the classes dont make it any better.

The combat depth shows its ugly colors on higher difficulty settings in ME2.

If you had to sit back with your Infiltrator in ME1, even on Insanity for a non-NewGame+ for much longer than your first story planet or so, then I'd have to agree with the earlier sentiment: You suck at these games.

You can't compare difficulty in ME1 with anything in ME2.  Especially if you played an Infiltrator.  By level 40 you never need to use ANY tactics.  Pop Immunity, Marksman, hold R Trigger until everything is dead, no matter what difficulty level.  If you were sitting back and doing anything else then you were fooling yourself into thinking you were in more danger than you were.  

Speaking from experience, as someone who just a month ago did exactly as you proposed (start a new character on Vet or higher) with multiple classes, the entire thing was a cake walk.  The classes weren't all that different.  The Vanguard and Adept played nearly identical.  Spam Singularity and Lift, replenish health with Barrier, unload with Shotgun/Marksman Pistol or Assault Rifle after using Warp on anything that popped Immunity.  Infiltrator was a joke.  Pop Immunity, run in, Overload things that used their own Immunity, use a squad mate's Warp and other biotics and just unload pistol at all ranges.  Sentinel played closer to the Adept using Stasis but with less damage.  

Squadmates in ME1 were always the same if I needed pure effectiveness: Garrus and Wrex for the biotic classes, Liara and Wrex for the tech classes.  There's no arguing that.  They were simply, mathematically the most effective.  

ME2 has more diversity with its team choices.  If you knew you were going up against Blue Suns, you took Miranda and Garrus.  If you knew you were going up against Collectors, you picked Miranda, Grunt or Thane.  If you were going against Geth or Mechs, you picked Tali, Garrus, Zaeed, Legion or Miranda.  

There was NO diversity for ME1 teams.  You didn't change your team based on the mission.  That's not an RPG.  ME2 team picks were RPG like.  You picked based on their class strengths and weaknesses and what you were going up against.  

Actually my pistol with marksmanship were 90% of my kills, and NO I only sniped down long corriders because the rifle was wobbly and I was rather discouraged from using it even though it was a cannon.

I was always in the thick of it, unlike in ME2. All the semi's SUCKED.

The damn game forced me to hang back and hide behind cover because shields were garbage and everyone always seemed to get killed by the enemy during heavy gunfights. I had NO way of surviving 20 man gunbattles in the open unlike in ME1, where shields were actually useful and could be boosted in heated fights.
 
The pistol in ME1 could take out platoons, the pistols in ME2 couldnt fire more that 15 shots before becoming useless and that would force me to either leave cover to find a damn thermal clip or switch to my underwhelming SMG.

Modifié par Tom Adama, 12 février 2010 - 03:49 .

[Mlow44]

really? you're gonna complain that the game sucks because you're not as good as your little brother? well, goodbye, then. have fun being pathetic at some other game

[Tom Adama]

Before anybody else counters my points, start a new ME2 game on hardcore with an Infiltrator class character and try out Archangel dossier when the blood pack starts infiltrating the garages and you have to close the doors. If anybody beats that section without dying more than 5 times, I will admit I suck.



BTW, I had Miranda and Mordin as squadmates.

[AoiDreamer]

Tom Adama wrote...

AdamTaylor wrote...

If you're dying a lot... that means you suck at shooters.
It's nothing to be ashamed of. Several of my friends have given up on ME2 because they simply cannot play shooters. They can't hit the broad side of a barn. And after dying several times during the intro mission on the Cerberus station... they just gave up.

I've admittedly tried to help them... but they're not happy with the lack of pretty much all the RPG elements from the first game either. So, they're just walking away.

Shooters aren't for everyone.
Of course, maybe you could play with a friend? Have them do all the combat. And you make choices? Not that choices (character ones) really matter. Every character is designed for combat, and combat only.

It sucks that you can't be a support or diplomacy character anymore. But, that's just how the game is.
You can keep trying and hope you get better.

Ya, if you claim to not have died alot during the garage infiltration with Garrus's recruitment on hardcore, you are the biggest liar. Try playing on Infiltrator before you claim I suck at shooters, considering I beat Gears of war 1 and 2 without dying (which is a damn similar game to ME2).

It's funny that you complain about the infiltrator, when everyone here will tell you that it's the most overpowered class on that game that can oneshot things on insanity, or so they say.

And actually. If you bring in a level 30 character the game is alot harder than if you're just level one. Have you even played the game? Because it sounds like you're just trolling to me. Why don't you register your copy and then talk ****. People will be more likely to believe you then.

If the game's too hard, turn down the difficulty. I suck at shooters but even I can beat this game on insanity with an adept.

[MassEffect762]

gr00grams wrote...

Guys, it is very, very simple;

They did not remove too many of the RPG elments.
It is just the way they 'streamlined' them.

LISTEN;

RPG fans like to tinker with everything they can.
The armor method in ME2 is great, but you cannot access it anytime, and there is definitely not enough to satisfy an RPG fan. There's not mods, however effective or ineffective they are.

It's not that it is bad in ME2, it just doesn't appeal to RPG fans.

Next, guns;

Same deal. Guns in ME2 are fine really. There just isn't anything to tinker with, compare, stat... mod...
regardless if you thought ME1's presentation of these elements was good or bad, understand that it leaves true RPG fans without anything to tinker with.

Now upgrades/mods etc.
Again, all CONTROL is taken from the player. That just doesn't fly with traditional RPG fans. Again, it's not a bad method at all, but it just doesn't fly. I farm resource, click a button, have upgrade.

That is not fun for an RPG fan. RPG fans like stats. They like comparisons, numbers, OPTIONS.
The like, yes, LIKE massive inventories etc. as hard as that may be to understand.

Those are usually the reasons they play them.

Again, ME2 isn't any less really than ME1 in terms of 'RPG' it's just how it was done. There is sweet ****** all for us to tinker with really. Everything is done for us, streamlined, whatever you want to call it.

It's not that guns are better, or worse, or that mods are better or worse, it's that we have no control. Upgrades, I don't even know what half of them do.
All I know is that I need enough resources to make any of them when they become available.
Seriously, didn't even read descriptions, because there is no need to.
Didn't read, learn etc about any guns. Didn't need to look at them. Game auto-upgrades them as you go. Hell, really I should have just auto-spent my talent points too.

Again, lastly, it's not that any elements are less of an RPG than ME1, it's we have really no control. The only control we have for the most is in the action aspects, and that does not appeal to core RPG fans.

Neither side is right nor wrong, but it is what it is.

It just seems everything aside the shooting is done for us this time around.
All my guns, upgrades, everything is pretty much done for me, and attempts to glorify itself with how it is presented, but really I have almost no control except the few armor parts I can swap in and out. Like what else is there for me to actually decide this time? the color of my helmet? (which is cool, just really is the only other option I can think of).

You put a smile on my face, I'm glad you understand the frustration of this Mass Effect fan.

[gr00grams]

Squadmates in ME1 were always the same if I needed pure effectiveness: Garrus and Wrex for the biotic classes, Liara and Wrex for the tech classes. There's no arguing that. They were simply, mathematically the most effective.

Just an fyi:



Garrus had no biotic abilities in ME1.

Wrex had warp, throw and barrier...



Liara had one tech ability, electronics.

Wrex had none.



There is no arguing it, it is simply, mathematically, the truth.



Liara was the best biotic squad mate, tali tech, ashley soldier. Kaiden is a sentinel, wrex a vanguard, garrus infiltrator.



I play ME1 daily with ME2. Trust me



I am beside your guys argument here, but you did make me chuckle.

I've already stated what's missing in ME2 in this thread, neither game is better or worse, there is just nothing to tinker with really.

[EternalWolfe]

Tom Adama wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Tom Adama wrote...

NO! You just need to bring a squadmember that FILLS IN YOUR WEAKNESS'S! I was a Infiltrator in ME1, I used Wrex and Liara to compensate for my weakness in combat.

I didnt bring Tali or Kaiden or Garrus much because I could open locked crates myself and could use the sniper rifle. My short range combat was weak so I brougt Wrex in to compensate and brought Liara to create space with her biotics if I was in trouble.

My goodness... didn't you realize that when you played ME1?

What in the world are you jabbering about?

First of all, I fail to see your point.  I've played the game several times with multiple builds/squads.  How about an Engineer, Tali, and Kaiden on Insanity?  Did it just fine, no problem.  Wasn't any harder then Soldier, Ashely, and Wrex.  Where is this 'weakness' your talking about?  So my point about 'lower combat classes' being useful within a party even without the ability to hack crates stands.  There is a reason to use them, because they are useful.  Just because you feel the need to even out your combat/biotics/tech bars doesn't mean thats the only way to play the game.

Second of all, as my first paragraph stated, if the devs feel the need to limit something like hacking crates, just to get you to play or take that class with you, then the class is fail.  If your only big advantage over everyone else is 'I can hack crates', then obviously, your a sub-par character.  That is a lower combat class.  Not being able to open a crate because you don't have the right class isn't smarter or more strategic, its a limitation against actual strategics and using characters that could do better.

Note, however, roleplayers, I do agree that its more 'in-story' to limit the ability to hack and bypass to technical characters.  But that should not make a class sub-par(which Bioware did not), whcih is my point there.

Edit: Ok, I've read over your opening post again, and I have an answer for you.

Each class plays differently.  That was the point of giving them unique skills and of not letting them all be the same.  That was the point of only letting them have certain weapons.  The reason for the other classes is that not everyone wants to just run in guns blazing.  Each class is unique and plays differently.  Just because you can't use the Infiltrator right, doesn't mean its useless.  And that has nothing to do with opening crates.

You need to look at the gameplay of your first ME1 playthrough, not yout second New game + with added skills and weapon usage.

All us Infiltrators had was a pistol and sniper rifle to train with, even though we had the ability to use ALL the weapons, we just didnt get damage bonus's or accuracy.

Because of this, the game discouraged us from having a certain play style aka running and gunning. I had to hang back as an infiltrator (my first playthrough with this class was on Hardcore). Enemies had rpg defenses and weaknesses and I had to pick squads accordingly. I could not go in with an AR and spray rounds with hopes to beat the bad guys.

I had to pick team mates who could do that for me. I spent 70% of my combat time in the power wheel assigning positions and attacks. Isn't that what a squad leader is supposed to do?

In this game, I was the one who won ALL the gun battles. I never saw my team mate kill anybody other than Thane with a Anti material rifle that I told him to use.

Yes, I had to micromanage alot in ME1, but micromanaging means increased combat depth. Just try and play the first game again as a fresh character (level 1) and on veteran or hardcore, youll get why I am so upset with ME2's hardcore.... the classes dont make it any better.

The combat depth shows its ugly colors on higher difficulty settings in ME2.

First of all, I was talking about fresh runs.  You never played a fresh run on Insanity with an odd team just to feel the different strategies you have to learn?  I beat it on Insanity, from level 1, using Tali and Kaiden with my engineer, using Ashley and Wrex with my Soldier.  The game didn't make you pick squadmates to fill out your strength and weakness.  And that has nothing to do with what I said.

Follow along this time.  You have yet to make a case that 'lower combat classes' were useless without hacking(which you stated in the original quote i posted).  Engineers were useful, and the game didn't make you pick them because they could hack, because they had extra 'bonuses(which you stated in your OP).  That has nothing to do with picking squadmates to match your weakness and strengths. 

It also has nothing to do with going in and spraying AR ammo all over the place.  That's why I played the odd teams - to have a different feel in combat.  Unique playstyle.  See?  The game didn't punish me for not having 'the perfect group'.  Really.

The second thing I said was that all classes have a unique playstyle.  And they do.  You don't even make a point at that, you just say how in ME1 you had choose party members based on your weakness.  Same in ME2.  Fighting enemies with Barriers and have no weapon against them?  Better bring somebody who does.  In ME1, it was just more obvious, hell they even gave you a set of bars to measure your biotics/tech/combat against each other.

Note, if your squadmates aren't being useful, maybe your using them wrong.  Or maybe your expecting too much from an AI.  Mine were immensly useful.  Also useful for finishing off an enemy without wasting my limited ammo, while I began working on the next set of enemies(by using both my powers and theirs and assigning them positions and attack targets).

Another thing I pointed out was that if a classes main advantage was 'I can hack crates' then the class was sub-par, and is a fail.  Again, you make no point to that, only tell me how you had to play ME1 is this way or that way, that you had to choose characters based on your 'weakness', which again, has nothing to do with what I said.  It has nothing do with ME specifically, but its still a valid point.  And ties into what you said in your original post I quoted AND what you said at the start.