59 réponses à ce sujet

[ZodiakZen]

Nah the game wasn't that easy. I mean in the Elmo's Letter Adventure type of way that's what I see as easy lol.

Modifié par ZodiakZen, 14 février 2010 - 01:26 .

[Veex]

gr00grams wrote...

Play a game where this would actually apply first.
BioWare games are not the micro-management games.

I
agree yes, that it doesn't really suit the BioWare games, but please,
the above stuff is what most refer to when talking like that, and it is
by no means simple or as ridiculously stupid as you make it
sound.

I'll disagree that the majority of complaints
stem from the games you listed, as many tout the "complexity" of Mass
Effect and BioWare's previous titles being much higher than Mass Effect
2. Specifically the poster I quoted is obviously talking about BioWare games when mentioning the "new target audience."

There are more difficult and complex games than BioWare games out there, absolutely, but BioWare doesn't make them.

[DaeJi]

I died a few times on normal setting, I wouldn't say it was too easy.

[gr00grams]

I'll disagree that the majority of complaints

stem from the games you listed, as many tout the "complexity" of Mass

Effect and BioWare's previous titles being much higher than Mass Effect

2. Specifically the poster I quoted is obviously talking about BioWare games when mentioning the "new target audience."



There are more difficult and complex games than BioWare games out there, absolutely, but BioWare doesn't make them.

I think we are in general agreement.

However, I like the new system, and dislike it at the same time.



The old one at least required me to playthrough a few times to get the best of the best items etc, as Collosus armors didn't appear till you were past like level 35 or so I think it was, and the true specter weapons (X models) as well.



This ones approach is a better ground design, but it leaves the re playability very lacking. Like all upgrades are handled by pushing a button, no choice etc. It definitely needs to be addressed in the next installment.



Regardless of new upgrade/inventory to old, the RPG player wants choice. That is the main thing. This is not here in this one. It's still a Mass Effect game though, so I freakin love it.

[JadeGL]

I died but I feel like I had a harder and more frustrating time in the first game. I remember there was an encounter in Mass Effect that was nigh impossible for me, and I was playing on Normal I believe. I think it was in the mission where you save Liara. So either I have gotten better at games in general, the game is easier or the game just plays better and is therefore less frustrating. I think it's the last option frankly. Plus my team seems to be much more effective and my character seems much more effective with her biotics etc.



I still died in the second game, mind you, but I always felt like it was completely my fault (using charge at the wrong time etc).

[GodWood]

I find insanity quite hard.

[Guaritor]

Since this is a no-spoilers forum, ill at least put tags here.

I Agree with the OP, the gameplay on insanity was pretty hard (especially if you did ng+), but...

*Spoilers*



... I dunno, I felt loyalty was too straightforward. I expected to have to do more then just each persons mission, kinda like DA:O, where decisions I made during any mission could upset a squadmate. Maybe Tali would get really upset if i didnt blow up the geth base for legion's loyalty mission, or maybe I would need to keep interacting with them after their loyalty mission to keep up the relationship. A more in depth and complex loyalty system would have been cool.  Something that was harder to get right, as I and all my friends saved everyone on our first playthrough without any guides or prior knowledge.



*End Spoilers*

Modifié par Guaritor, 14 février 2010 - 02:21 .

[skan5]

Veex wrote...

I appreciate the apology and the apparent sincerity behind it. As I've said many times on this forum I think Mass Effect 2 has gone too far in terms of reducing the available options for armor and weapon customization. I really enjoyed the weapon updgrade system for example, and having a few more piece meal items for armor and a wider weapon selection would be nice. That said, I also think that the inventory in Mass Effect was quite bloated and tedious to manage.

I just think it is unfortunate that many people do consider anyone who prefers a more streamlined inventory to quite literally be a "stupid fps gamer" when it simply isn't the case.

I'm actually in complete agreeance with you in this one. Mass Effect 1's inventory management was horrible and love the way ME2 handles it now. I just wish they didn't strip off all the choices. The whole "Lancer I, Lancer II, Lancer III, etc." was stupid beyond belief, but it still was nice to see the differences in stats the various corps offered, and I oh so miss the Upgrade system 

Still, I thoroughly enjoy ME2 

[Doc Bacon]

RighteousRage wrote...

Unless the enemies move like 3 times faster and 3 times smarter, any changes to the "difficulty" would probably be insignificant as people would just mine the game longer for resources or spend more time in the tactical menu and so forth, like older, harder Bioware games.

Insanity is "pretty hard" for me, or at least was before Illium, but certainly not the hardest game I've ever played. ME 2 is way way more difficult than the first one though, as far as I can tell.

I disagree. ME1 was hard on insane until you got till level 15-20 and got some decent moves. ME2 is just easy all around. Honestly one of the easiest hardest difficulties since Halo 3 Legendary. Its dissapointing how easy games are getting....

[Console Cowboy]

that's the thing i liked most about the DLC character. he was the only one whose loyalty i didn't have at the end (though he still survived). it'd have been nice if more of the loyalty missions had such twists. another thing that would've helped would be more arguments between the crew that you could mediate or take sides on.

but i hope this isn't something that gets improved in ME3. the Suicide Mission/recruitment was the central theme of this game. i don't want the next game to fall into the same formula.

Modifié par Console Cowboy, 14 février 2010 - 03:25 .

[KentGoldings]

I think the game should be pretty easy to anyone used to hard-core shooters like Gears. I had a rough time with Gears on the higher difficultly settings because I'm a controller retard. I think once you've played through on the default difficulty settings, finishing on the higher setting will just take a little persistence and time. Does that make it easy, maybe. It's not Lego Star Wars or anything. But, I think the game is not meant to be a heavy shooter anyway. I think they would but off too many potential players that way. My wife, you plays DA:O constantly won't go near Mass Effect becuase it's too much of a shooter. Bioware doesn't want to eject it's core audience.


BTW, I've nver failed to get Zaeed's full loyatly.   Just put his mission off to the very end. You just need enough paragon points.

Modifié par KentGoldings, 14 février 2010 - 03:31 .

[blink33]

I would really like more puzzles and such for hacking, they are too simple. I also agree that the loyalty missions are really easy, they feel like anomaly missions with more story. This game is really simple in terms of complexity.

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

@console cowboy



I agree that it would be strange if they had you search for a team again in ME3, BUT I could see something like being provided with a team in ME3 from the very beginning(which would be different from 1 and 2). I think that would be an interesting new twist. And you got me thinking again: Not only would you have to earn your teams trust in the next one, but they have to earn yours. Imagine if you were forced to have a character on your team that wasn't the best of the best and kept causing your team issues, but they play a vital part in the story. Maybe ignoring this character and not supporting them in any way because of your lack of trust causes them to leave the team altogether and eventually work against you. Maybe you choose to try to help them out and in the end they save Shepard's ass. It's things like this that I feel are completely necessary to ending this trilogy. People MUST die, Teammates should betray you and eachother, and fixing a problem will hopefully be more difficult than just choosing the blue or red option. I'm excited at the possibilities and Bioware is doing things that make me excited for the Video Game industry as a whole, but I hope the end to this epic trilogy won't make it as simple to choose the best option for success.

[Soruyao]

skan5 wrote...

@Soruyao (don't want to chain quote )

Your argument on needing an spreadsheet: In any game I've ever played with a visible stat system, there have always been those that make their decisions by simply looking at the numbers and deciding on the fly which is better for them, and there have always been those that have resorted to calculating everything to min/max and create the best possible outcome. I've seen people do this in games like FF7 where the stats were for the most part static. Some people enjoy number crunching to that level, I'd wager many more do not. Does that mean that they would not enjoy making the decision?

At the specific numbers: It was just something off the top of my head. The point wasn't the actual numbers. He used an example showing a very straightforward progression. My point was trying to say that you can have more than one stat on a piece with varying levels of progression, and deciding which suits your play style more. I hope that makes sense.

It makes sense, but when it comes down to it, numbered stats have this weird disconnect from actual gameplay in most games.   In real life, we don't measure thinks like a kevlar jacket by saying "This jacket has 5 bullet resistance, 4 weight points, and 3 melee resistance."  and then choose between that and a kevlar jacket with 3 melee resistance and 2 weight points.   We either wear a kevlar jacket or we wear body armor.   We either wear a swat helmet or a secret service ear piece.   A rifle or a riot shield with a nightstick.

As games take those faltering steps from PnP games to systems that can model realistic situations more and more realistically, I think they will start transitioning from abstract number based systems to systems with large choices based more on function and feel than on numbers, because when it comes down to it, that's how it works in real life.  (And it's easier for a non-gamer to play a game that has gameplay based on things they already understand.  Most non-gamers know what firing a gun would be like, and maybe the difference between a rifle and a pistol, but they might not be interested in learning how to differentiate a rifle with +5 crit from one with +5 bullet penetration.)

The system we have makes a little more sense.  The difference between a chestpiece that has 5% health and 10% faster shield generation is more like the difference between a kevlar jacket and full body armor.    I think the best way to add a little bit of complexity to this would be to just have some ability to modify the pieces we have and add a secondary stat or two.  (Maybe we could attach a shield modulator to either chestpiece which would give it 5% extra shields, or instead add some sort of injection interface which supplies us with some sort of liquid that increases our health regeneration speed slightly.)

This would add some complexity without resorting to tiny upgrades with needless number crunching. (It's much easier to eyeball large differences like 5% extra health vs 10% extra storm speed and the results are much more satisfying and immediate than small abstract changes like 15 health and 5 armor.)

At your last paragraph: You wouldn't do that anyway, irregardless of it having no stats or not. Would you pick up something from someone you just killed and wear it willy-nilly? I think looting is a different subject all together in RPGs =D

Exactly why I like the idea that we're scanning technology and recreating it on the normandy.  It's a little bit less morbid, and it makes a lot more sense than carrying around an entire armory in our magical bag of holding.

And lastly, at your first point of it being an illusion: Yes, an illusion. Illusion of choice is better than having none. I learned that very quickly in my first sociology class.

I disagree with this and I disagree with this very strongly.  Illusory choice is a highly detrimental thing in video games.  Nothing grated on me more than finding out that no matter how I responded in most of the conversations with the council in ME1, none of my conversation choices on the wheel actually changed what my character was saying.  Why even ask me for input on how to respond if they're just going to say the same thing anyway?

It amounts to lying to the player, and when it happens to me I feel like my intelligence has been insulted.  Illusory choice wastes the time of the player by forcing them to input something into the game, and when they realize they were just prompted for input on something to trick them to think they're participating and actually aren't, they will tend to resent it and want to just move on to a point where their input actually matters.

As a psych major, I feel pretty strongly that this is how a lot of people react to situations like that.

[Realmjumper]

You make a good point in regards to the loyalty missions being somewhat easy. Perhaps this can be rectified in Mass Effect 3. However I am quite experienced and I died plenty of times in Hardcore mode till I got the hang out it and upgraded my guys. Even then the occasional death was somewhat uncommon.



Currently I am on insane and enjoying it. I would say some parts of Mass Effect 2 are easy and some parts not so much.

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

I just thought of a great example of what I mean exactly:

Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler

The Garrus Loyalty Mission:
I've made multiple choices in this mission and every time I succeeded in gaining Garrus's loyalty.
This background makes me like him a LOT more than I did in the first one, BUT there were several spots that I feel your decisions should make you fail this mission:

1. Letting Harkin get shot: While shooting Sidonis where no one could see so that there were no witnesses was smart, let's say when you let garrus shoot harkin in the leg, harkin bleeds out and dies. He is caught on camera in the control room and is arrested and completely removed from your team.

2. Getting in Garrus's way: While picking the blue option convinces Garrus from shooting Sidonis, he is still extremely pissed off at you for getting in his way and he is not loyal.

3. Garrus makes comments about keeping Sidonis talking: I felt that even though he says this it wasn't really true. You should have been forced to get a reason for what Sidonis did out of him and only at an exact moment should you have been able to choose whether or not to move, moving any earlier should've caused Sidonis to realize what was happening and escape, causing the player to fail the mission.

This is what I'm talking about. There were so many potential possibilities in this mission for you to fail, but in actuality you have to try really hard to do so. The cause and effect of the decision to let Garrus kill Sidonis or save Sidonis and not gain his loyalty could have been much more apparent.

Modifié par PoppaDiddyPuff, 14 février 2010 - 04:47 .

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

I was reading through this again and I like how a lot of people were still commenting on the action sections of gameplay even towards the bottom. Maybe you should actually read my comments before commenting!

[pillz here]

I think the game is balanced right between the easy barrier and the hard-to-play barrier. I never felt it was too easy but I never felt it was too hard either. But coming from my perspective I never play games on Hard difficulties. I always play on Normal or Easy. Mainly Normal though.

[Damian Magecraft]

when I first read the thread title I thought "great another 'elitist-hardcore-gamer' whine".

after reading through the posts I do have to agree that the loyalty missions were a bit "ham" handed...

Heck the only squad mates loyalty I did not get was Zaheed's (and I felt there should have been someway to get his loyalty even if i did choose the paragon route.) Yeah loyalty shoulod have been a bit more difficult to obtain but please not like DAs (i was truely disgusted by that system). The missions should have have had more opportunities to fail but not to the point that one cannot hope to get everyones loyalty without jumping through 30+ hoops per character.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

I agree that getting people loyal was a BIT too easy. I would also have liked multiple levels of loyalty. And perhaps some real, hard choices. Right now you have Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion, but to resolve that you just need high Par/Ren, something most players have by then. What if you had to choose, and 2 people would die no matter what? I think the option to have everyone survive, while good for the Disney fans, is too convenient. The fact that you had to let Kaidan or Ashley die in the first game added a hard edge I kinda like. In this game, if someone dies, it's just your own damn fault for not doing all the missions or picking the wrong guy for the wrong job.



Insanity itself, on the other hand, is just right - a rough challenge through most of the game, which requires full attention (unlike in ME1 where I just kinda goofed around) but incredibly painful in some parts. Like that goddamn droid factory with the neverending polite 3CPO robots.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Damian Magecraft wrote...

when I first read the thread title I thought "great another 'elitist-hardcore-gamer' whine".
after reading through the posts I do have to agree that the loyalty missions were a bit "ham" handed...
Heck the only squad mates loyalty I did not get was Zaheed's (and I felt there should have been someway to get his loyalty even if i did choose the paragon route.)

There is. If you have enough Par, you can talk him into becoming loyal after Vido flies off.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Doc Bacon wrote...

I disagree. ME1 was hard on insane until you got till level 15-20 and got some decent moves. ME2 is just easy all around. Honestly one of the easiest hardest difficulties since Halo 3 Legendary. Its dissapointing how easy games are getting....

ME1 Insanity was hard, but that was only because the gameplay system was broken beyond belief. Two word: Immunity Spam. I did not consider it fun.

And ME2 is not easy on Insanity. Stop being such a goddamn snob.

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Damian Magecraft wrote...

when I first read the thread title I thought "great another 'elitist-hardcore-gamer' whine".
after reading through the posts I do have to agree that the loyalty missions were a bit "ham" handed...
Heck the only squad mates loyalty I did not get was Zaheed's (and I felt there should have been someway to get his loyalty even if i did choose the paragon route.)

There is. If you have enough Par, you can talk him into becoming loyal after Vido flies off.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, there is no weight to having to choose to rescue the civilians because you can just pick the blue option later.  I think it would have been much more interesting if there was a secondary mission to chase that guy down, instead of just going oh get over it Zaeed, we have bigger fish to fry.  Also, I'm not saying they should make you jump through hoops to get their loyalty, I just think it shouldn't be so obvious to figure out what the right choice is. You don't even have to read the option, you just know blue/red means you win. 

[GeometricLol]

bjdbwea wrote...

That wouldn't go well with the new target audience of casual gamers. Depth and thinking are out in video games.

because we all know you're way ahead of the curve compared to the casual gamer crowd

[RighteousRage]

Doc Bacon wrote...

RighteousRage wrote...

Unless the enemies move like 3 times faster and 3 times smarter, any changes to the "difficulty" would probably be insignificant as people would just mine the game longer for resources or spend more time in the tactical menu and so forth, like older, harder Bioware games.

Insanity is "pretty hard" for me, or at least was before Illium, but certainly not the hardest game I've ever played. ME 2 is way way more difficult than the first one though, as far as I can tell.

I disagree. ME1 was hard on insane until you got till level 15-20 and got some decent moves. ME2 is just easy all around. Honestly one of the easiest hardest difficulties since Halo 3 Legendary. Its dissapointing how easy games are getting....

Oh yeh, I never started insanity on ME 1 as a new character. Just try playing insanity with a level 30 character that's something besides a sentinel or an infiltrator in ME 2 and tell me that the beginning doesn't make you want to shoot yourself in the face

For example, the shutter part of the Archangel mission on level 30 on insanity (assuming you go into it after the Mordin mission) as a soldier will make you want to die

Modifié par RighteousRage, 14 février 2010 - 06:43 .