10273 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

I am so tempted to reply to this but nah, not on this thread.

Please do. I know the answer is by doing the main missions which is kind of silly. There's absolutely NO (ok, expect for Garrus and Wrex) character progression outside the main quests. At least in ME2 it was mostly based on time, not certain missions.

Well i wanted to troll him for the fun of it.

[Zulu_DFA]

Tempest wrote...

You know what would have made those Dialogue spots better in ME2? If the other squadie gave an opinion about what he activated dialogue squadie said. Like SuZe says, "Blah, blah, omega, blah, blah." While Grunt responds, "If there is a good fight, i'll join you Jack." Something like that would have gone a LONG way.

Too many squaddies - too many combinations of squaddies, so you get less interaction.

Therefore: in ME3: less squaddies, more interaction!

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The future of story driven games, yes. And ME1's combat was not only fun, but not monotonous.

And ME2's combat is more fun. I'm not going to go to the other extreme and say that ME1 had terrible combat like some people do, but it wasn't great. It was acceptable, it got the job done, but it wasn't out of this world good. ME2 combat is much better and the story hasn't suffered for it. And if the combat is as good as ME2's why wouldn't you want more of it?

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Because, put simply, as I've explained in depth in this thread before at least twice, most recently a few days ago, there is hardly any breather from combat. It's monotonous. Even when you're "delving into your squadmates lives/history" it's smack dab in the middle of combat.

I didn't find the combat monotonous. If you want a breather do what I do: stop playing the game and do something else.

[uberdowzen]

Lumikki wrote...

This poll is badly done. Because it force to choose between two games. How ever, there is missing option on it.

Both are equal

Example I did not find one ME1 or ME2 any better. They where both good just little different ways.

Plus it's only asking people who go out of there way to find it.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

Actually, what I expected ME 2 to be was a more X-Files type mystery.  Why are the colonies disappearing?  Is it the geth?  Who are these Collectors?  Are they responsible, or do they know who is?  

I expected to run down clues "Hey, you think the Collectors might be involved?"  "I dunno, but there's an enclave of batarians who have had dealings with them, let's ask them!"

I expected some organizations to show concern for these disappearances, others to care not so much, maybe a couple who see humans disapearing to be a good thing.  Maybe a little political manevering would be required, as well as some head-busting to get the job done.  Apathy I  was not expecting.

I expected to learn more about the Reapers, what alternate plans they had, what other servants they may employ.  I expected somehow this would all work into the Reaper's inevitable return They are, after all, the ultimate villains of the series.

 I expected to recruit squadmates who had a personal stake in uncovering the answers, rather than semirandom mercs I'm keeping on standby for some hypotetical mission tat never even reaches the planning stage.  I expected backstories that tie in at least tangentally to the main story behind ME 2 'Fight for the Lost"

 If I was going to be fighting mercenaries, i expected them to be after me because either A)  I was doing a clear side mission or I was getting close to finding answers and the villains were siccing them on me, not because i have to wade through an ocean of them to give a super-assasin a job offer.

So to answer the question, no I was not expecting a clone of ME 1.  ME 1 was a nice intro to an action rpg.    I figured the 2nd one would be a continuation of that story.  Not the same game, but an extention of what came before. I expected a sequel and got an entirely different game.  More accurately, I got a demo of about a dozen different games, all set in the ME universe.  Some look interesting enough to play, but none were the game I expected to play right now.

I disagree, but whatever.

[Terror_K]

Sorry, but ME2's combat is generally tedious and repetitive. Run forward, take cover in obvious ambush zone filled with waist-high barriers, take out wave of enemies, move on, rise and repeat. What it needs to do is use combat for more than just simple, samey combat. If you're going to take a page out of Gears of War's book at least explore it fully instead of just repeating the first paragraph over and over.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

It's you expecting game to be different what it is, is it?

Now as giving feedback how you feel is fine, example that you feeled that combat was little too big part of gameplay in ME2 and RPG part too little. Then You could say main story was left little weak, because the squad memebers got so much attention. That's feedback.

I do feel the RPG part suffered but RPG means different things to different people. For some, they think an RPG lives and dies by stats and leveling. As my buddy over at the original boards said, that's roleplaying in the most shallow form. Genres evolve over the years, and my definition of an RPG is any type of video game that focuses as much on story and character interaction as on combat, if not more.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...



3-4 minute mark.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Brought up the point before but seriously, just because a game has guns in it does not mean it HAS to play like a shooter. You're not entitled to every single game with guns. Just think of how it would be if the only genre of films directors and screen writers worked on was action movies? There's always going to be a demographic for comedies, drama, family, suspense, western, and sci fi. Same with different types of video games.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

I didn't find the combat monotonous. If you want a breather do what I do: stop playing the game and do something else.

If that solved my problem don't you think I would have done so already? I want an IN GAME break from the combat.

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but ME2's combat is generally tedious and repetitive. Run forward, take cover in obvious ambush zone filled with waist-high barriers, take out wave of enemies, move on, rise and repeat. What it needs to do is use combat for more than just simple, samey combat. If you're going to take a page out of Gears of War's book at least explore it fully instead of just repeating the first paragraph over and over.

Fair enough. That's you opinion but what makes you believe ME1 was any different? I use the same tactic all the time. Snipe when I can, use barrier before making myself visible and crowd control enemies with lift, singularity and throw. So far I haven't used pistol at all.

[Onyx Jaguar]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

I didn't find the combat monotonous. If you want a breather do what I do: stop playing the game and do something else.

If that solved my problem don't you think I would have done so already? I want an IN GAME break from the combat.

The missions are really short, you have some stuff to do on Omega/Illium and Tuchanka.  Not to mention your Ship...

[Terror_K]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but ME2's combat is generally tedious and repetitive. Run forward, take cover in obvious ambush zone filled with waist-high barriers, take out wave of enemies, move on, rise and repeat. What it needs to do is use combat for more than just simple, samey combat. If you're going to take a page out of Gears of War's book at least explore it fully instead of just repeating the first paragraph over and over.

Fair enough. That's you opinion but what makes you believe ME1 was any different? I use the same tactic all the time. Snipe when I can, use barrier before making myself visible and crowd control enemies with lift, singularity and throw. So far I haven't used pistol at all.

Well, aside from the fact I didn't mention ME1 at all, it at least had stat-based weapon skills and wasn't saddled with regenerating health, which differentiates it from a modern TPS. One can argue as to whether the combat is better or not, but at least ME1's combat wasn't generic. And at least one could avoid shooting all together if one wanted to, and make either a pure biotic user or a support tech class: in ME2 you pretty much have to use your guns, as support classes no longer are, tech skills aren't useful enough to really support as well and biotics have been so terribly nerfed and made ineffective against any enemy that has more than simply health on it they're near pointless.

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Actually, what I expected ME 2 to be was a more X-Files type mystery.  Why are the colonies disappearing?  Is it the geth?  Who are these Collectors?  Are they responsible, or do they know who is?  

I expected to run down clues "Hey, you think the Collectors might be involved?"  "I dunno, but there's an enclave of batarians who have had dealings with them, let's ask them!"

I expected some organizations to show concern for these disappearances, others to care not so much, maybe a couple who see humans disapearing to be a good thing.  Maybe a little political manevering would be required, as well as some head-busting to get the job done.  Apathy I  was not expecting.

I expected to learn more about the Reapers, what alternate plans they had, what other servants they may employ.  I expected somehow this would all work into the Reaper's inevitable return They are, after all, the ultimate villains of the series.

 I expected to recruit squadmates who had a personal stake in uncovering the answers, rather than semirandom mercs I'm keeping on standby for some hypotetical mission tat never even reaches the planning stage.  I expected backstories that tie in at least tangentally to the main story behind ME 2 'Fight for the Lost"

 If I was going to be fighting mercenaries, i expected them to be after me because either A)  I was doing a clear side mission or I was getting close to finding answers and the villains were siccing them on me, not because i have to wade through an ocean of them to give a super-assasin a job offer.

So to answer the question, no I was not expecting a clone of ME 1.  ME 1 was a nice intro to an action rpg.    I figured the 2nd one would be a continuation of that story.  Not the same game, but an extention of what came before. I expected a sequel and got an entirely different game.  More accurately, I got a demo of about a dozen different games, all set in the ME universe.  Some look interesting enough to play, but none were the game I expected to play right now.

That's the hole problem here in forum, like you self say it so very well.

People expected....

When people get disapointed, because they expected something different, they become bitter and hostile. How ever, it was they own fault to build expetitions what wasn't fullfilled. Interesting will be, does people make same mistake with ME3, expecting and making assumptions or just take the game as what it is and play it. I my self like both ME1 and ME2. Both has positive stuff and negative. How ever, it's more like everyones personal taste, do they like these ME serie games.

In my opinion as feedback:

ME1 combat did not work well, the weapons where too same kind feeling, I used pistol like some machine gun in missions. Sometimes I just run trough enemies gun blazing, because my armor and weapons where so good. ME1 did great with story and npcs interactions. There was small random interaction to keep the spirit of the livign world alive.  Also I liked Mako gameplay even if some other here doesn't seem to. Vechile created variety in gameplay. Those beautiful landscapes in mako exploration where great, but the buildings design should need little more variety.

In ME2 combat was well done and weapons had different feeling. How ever, ME2 had way too many squad members and mission related to them. It leaved the main story weak and full of small plot holes. Also the character development got from personal to too generic and simplifyed. Like I could not anymore customize my squad members at all, what was possible in ME1. I like to customise and make choises.

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

And at least one could avoid shooting all together if one wanted to, and make either a pure biotic user or a support tech class: in ME2 you pretty much have to use your guns, as support classes no longer are, tech skills aren't useful enough to really support as well and biotics have been so terribly nerfed and made ineffective against any enemy that has more than simply health on it they're near pointless.

Adept Insanity No Guns


I don't see why Sentinel or Engineer couldn't do the same.

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...
Translation: Terror_K has never played Gears of War.

Good to know k thx.

Ummm... I own Gears of War. So... yeah....

And you actually don't notice that the combat in the two games has almost nothing in common except for "press A to take cover"?

I, uh... wow.

[Terror_K]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...
Translation: Terror_K has never played Gears of War.

Good to know k thx.

Ummm... I own Gears of War. So... yeah....

And you actually don't notice that the combat in the two games has almost nothing in common except for "press A to take cover"?

I, uh... wow.

Seems pretty much the same to me. Aside from GoW having far better cover mechanics and controls (I've never found myself tapping cover too much and vaulting over it directly into harms way in GoW), and better melee too. Both games generally involve taking cover in areas with waist-high cover, killing a wave of enemies and then moving on... rinse and repeat. But GoW manages to change things up now and then and integrate puzzles within its combat, while the closest thing ME2 came to that was Haelstrom and two foggy N7 missions.

[Notrufnot]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but ME2's combat is generally tedious and repetitive. Run forward, take cover in obvious ambush zone filled with waist-high barriers, take out wave of enemies, move on, rise and repeat. What it needs to do is use combat for more than just simple, samey combat. If you're going to take a page out of Gears of War's book at least explore it fully instead of just repeating the first paragraph over and over.

thanks, that is exactly my opinion.

I think ME2 is not much more RPG than return to castle Wolfenstein. That is what disappoints me apart from some other things. It is kind of like Diablo 2, but not that customizable and no xp for kills.

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

Both games generally involve taking cover in areas with waist-high cover, killing a wave of enemies and then moving on... rinse and repeat..

Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2? I thought that was the whole point of combat. Unless you use armor mods to make you or your squad nearly invincible (which is kind of cheap) or disregard and abuse the cover mechanic and instead standing or crouching in places that let you fire back without retaliation (also cheap).

Modifié par Ecael, 23 mai 2010 - 12:05 .

[Grammarye]

Ok, I'll bite and give my two cents, even if I'm late to the thread; it's not like anyone from Bioware reads these anyway.

ME2 is a good game. That said, I've logged over 250 hours in ME1, and I don't see ME2 holding that level of interest. There are just key poor design decisions that make me think 'oh I have to go through that crap again?'.

I think my biggest issues with ME2 could be summed up as (in priority order):

• Lack of proper PC porting (compare Demiurge's effort with Bioware's) - just as one example, even Demiurge managed a J key for loading the Journal...
• Combat environments were almost all identical. Lots of cover, to the extent you could spot a combat area; enemies appearing from around corners; it's all pretty much identical. Fun, but lacks imagination compared to ME1.
• The story lacked a lot in comparison to ME1. I won't write any spoilers, but compared to the genuine heroics of ME1 the buildup and resolution of ME2 left more questions than answers, more plot holes and lines to tie up in ME3, and just wasn't as well executed.
• Lack of open spaces. The entire world in ME2 seems cramped and claustrophobic. Even the mighty Citadel is reduced to a small set of rooms. Illium restored a tiny portion of this.
• Over-reliance on Paragon vs Renegade (ME1 had this too, but it got amplified dramatically in ME2). An incredibly large number of P vs R decisions aren't about hero vs jerk, and to extrapolate NPC behaviour on that one meter just doesn't work. I had responses from NPCs where I thought 'my character isn't like that at all' - particularly Samara. Neither does limiting key choices based on that counter work well. My character's past behaviour is not a measure of their ability to resolve a situation. You end up feeling like you're forced to be a jerk or hero to gain points, instead of playing the game your way.
• Ammo & lack of armour variation (none for NPCs!). I know, it's a contentious topic, but for me, ME1 was innovative in ways the gaming industry hadn't really seen before. We could have had a compromise system that was far easier to use and less cluttered whilst keeping what worked, and without the mindnumbing stupidity that is 'running out of ammo on a heat-based weapon'.
• Loading screens, especially for moving from area to area that I can... actually walk to?! Surely we can do something better in a modern age of gaming? It really breaks immersion.
• Railroading. Out of the hundreds if not thousands of decision points in ME1, only once did I really feel railroaded and it made logical sense. ME2 I felt this quite a bit more.
• Health & shields only regenerating in cover. Really? Crouching behind something makes my body heal wounds now, as opposed to just not getting shot for a while? ME1 at least followed some semblance of physics & medicine; I applauded the attempts to inject some real science into the game; a shame they got dumbed down.
• Relationships seemed weird. Some you have to work at; others it seems like you just throw yourself at the NPC unexpectedly. How Tali & female Shepard was handled was incredibly obvious as a cut at the last minute.
  Bioware's biggest asset is their good storytelling & dialogue - trying to change such things at the last minute shows, ignoring the whole 'stop pandering to prudes' thing.
• Not a single hanar in game!

This is of course opinion. However, clearly I failed to express my opinion about all the good things in ME1, because half of them got cut for ME2.

Thus things Bioware did well:

• A reasonable number of (perhaps even too many) squadmates to choose from, with some actual fleshed out plot to them.
• Great environments, background dialogue, and other immersive sensations, from the gritty Omega & Afterlife, to the vistas of Illium.
• As always, good characters, dialogue, and storytelling; even if ME2 lacked oomph compared to ME1, it's a relative comparison.
• Upgrades & captain's cabin. Base building has always appealed to me.
• Keeping old characters from ME1 and not killing them off or ignoring them (even if Ashley/Kaidan really didn't get much airtime).
• Mordin, the engineers, and of course Joker & EDI brought some much-needed lighter humour to an otherwise quite dark game.
• Great music (though I still think Faunts is superior end credits music, but that's a very personal thing, and Suicide Mission is still very good).
• More streamlined powers, weapons & armour. They did need reducing in clutter - I just think it went too far.

I'd like to repeat: ME2 is a good game. It's well worth the money, and as a sequel it's not bad. It most definitely needs polish to bring ME3 back up to the same utter classic status ME1 occupies. ME1 gave me a sense of a huge galaxy of possibilities, mostly yet unseen. ME2 tried to reveal bits and managed to make the place feel cramped (and sometimes confusing); it made me yearn for more; to spend more time on Omega delving into the gangs and what Aria is doing; to spend more time helping Liara; to understand what the hell the ending was about...

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but ME2's combat is generally tedious and repetitive. Run forward, take cover in obvious ambush zone filled with waist-high barriers, take out wave of enemies, move on, rise and repeat. What it needs to do is use combat for more than just simple, samey combat.

Well said. I miss games that actually gave me multiple options to resolve combat, from stealth to all guns blazing, and forced me to think a little instead of just handing me convenient cover at every available moment. We're ten years on from Deus Ex, after all.

Modifié par Grammarye, 23 mai 2010 - 01:56 .

[The Mythical Magician]

Yes I am disappointed with ME2. I felt it lack a deep story compared to ME1, your partner's AI is terrible, no point playing a neutral Shepard, Squad stories takes too much focus away from the Main story of the series, never did felt a dark story. I do like alot of the Dialogue (especially the humor), the new ship (even though I want the darn Cerberus logos gone), the combat to a degree, and the squad/characters but ME2 just doesn't bring me the amazing awesomeness I experience with ME1.

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...

Seems pretty much the same to me. Aside from GoW having far better cover mechanics and controls (I've never found myself tapping cover too much and vaulting over it directly into harms way in GoW), and better melee too. Both games generally involve taking cover in areas with waist-high cover, killing a wave of enemies and then moving on... rinse and repeat. But GoW manages to change things up now and then and integrate puzzles within its combat, while the closest thing ME2 came to that was Haelstrom and two foggy N7 missions.

Time slowdown because of powers or storming, pausing, powers wheel, completely different and vastly superior squad commands, different weapon setup, no weapon pickups from enemies, radar... we've dismissed these claims.

I don't think I can talk to you. You seem to be on a different plane of existence.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 23 mai 2010 - 12:46 .

[Grammarye]

Ecael wrote...
Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2? I thought that was the whole point of combat. Unless you use armor mods to make you or your squad nearly invincible (which is kind of cheap) or disregard and abuse the cover mechanic and instead standing or crouching in places that let you fire back without retaliation (also cheap).

Whilst I'll try not to put words in Terror K's mouth, I think you're missing the point. It's not that cover is bad. It's that ME2 took a specific game mechanic and used it everywhere. Need to avoid that mech? Take cover! Need to regen? Take cover! Need to not get shot? Take cover! Want to know if combat is coming up? Take cover!

Cover is fine. Taking one cover mechanism and copy-pasting that across the entire game as the primary means of proceeding with combat, with few if any alternatives, is the bone of contention, I believe. People should be competent enough with shooters these days to find their own cover (or, in an ideal world, make their own) that we shouldn't be able to spot combat a mile away because of all these handy bits & pieces to hide behind. If you look at how ME1 handled cover, sure, you could take cover, but there were also plenty of wide open spaces where you just had to run and hope, or get caught in an open cross-fire. It felt more life-like that there were points where you could just do something stupid like run across an open room and die because you'd missed the two snipers lining up on you.

[Terror_K]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Seems pretty much the same to me. Aside from GoW having far better cover mechanics and controls (I've never found myself tapping cover too much and vaulting over it directly into harms way in GoW), and better melee too. Both games generally involve taking cover in areas with waist-high cover, killing a wave of enemies and then moving on... rinse and repeat. But GoW manages to change things up now and then and integrate puzzles within its combat, while the closest thing ME2 came to that was Haelstrom and two foggy N7 missions.

Time slowdown because of powers or storming, pausing, powers wheel, completely different and vastly superior squad commands, different weapon setup, no weapon pickups from enemies, radar... we've dismissed these claims.

I don't think I can talk to you. You seem to be on a different plane of existence.

Well of course if you get into the nitty gritty specifics things are different; aside from direct sequels few games are completely identical. What I was referring to is if you distil the combat down to its base elements, i.e. what it generally consists of and how it plays and is presented.

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...

Well of course if you get into the nitty gritty specifics things are different; aside from direct sequels few games are completely identical. What I was referring to is if you distil the combat down to its base elements, i.e. what it generally consists of and how it plays and is presented.

If that's your idea of distilling things down to their base elements, then basically every videogame where you have a gun is the same. If that's the argument you're making, fine. But then don't argue that there's any meaningful difference between ME1 and ME2's combat - in both games you take cover, you lean out and you shoot. Same thing, right?

[Vena_86]

Lumikki wrote...

People expected....

When people get disapointed, because they expected something different, they become bitter and hostile. How ever, it was they own fault to build expetitions what wasn't fullfilled. Interesting will be, does people make same mistake with ME3, expecting and making assumptions or just take the game as what it is and play it. I my self like both ME1 and ME2. Both has positive stuff and negative. How ever, it's more like everyones personal taste, do they like these ME serie games.

That would be true for Mass Effect 1 or Dragon Age:Origins or Baldurs Gate 1 or KotoR 1....
Mass Effect 2 is a S E Q U E L. Ofcourse people have expectations. The most common expectation is that it continues the same type of game, with more content and improvements. Ofcourse people are disappointed when so many core elements are removed and the whole focus of the game is directed elsewhere.
Hey, my favourite pizza place now only sells tofu. Thats sucks, but then again its my own fault to have expectations...