10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Depense what class you play.
Example I played infiltrator so, I did have tactical cloak, what allowed me to go in and take first shot.
Not sure are drones usefull from enegineer class, but could be. Never played that class.
Just need to be creative, what about heavy weapons as area effect?

Like another poster said,you have to know that where is such an enemy before you can develop such an tactic.If there is more then one vorcha around the corner,and the drone target the wrong one,you are still toast.So i just send grunt forward to take the pain.But such a crap tactic shouldnt be necessary.

[P3G4SU5]

uberdowzen wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

False tactic.I wait for the shocktroopers behind the rock,finish them off and then focus on the sniper.

There wasnt any fight in Mass Effect that was really unfair. Unlike in the second game,for example garrus recruitment mission with the shutters.That one vorcha pyro at the corner...

That is unfair.

Yeah, but because of the unsafe cover in ME1, half the time you get hit by the snipers anyway.

I really can't sympathise with this view of ME1's cover system or snipers being such a menace. There is ample cover (granted, there isn't as much as in ME2) to hide behind and providing you use your squadmates properly for attack or distraction (read: bait) roles, there shouldn't be much call for branding any of the enemies unfair.

I admit the cover system was a little sticky but this isn't an issue if you know that pointing the camera in the opposite direction to your cover and pressing the forward key detaches the player immediately, with a glue-free experience. This can be done easily in a split second before flicking the camera back around to face the enemy.

A good quality in a game is that different combat sequences require different strategies rather than being able to apply the same template to every fight. Making the player think of new ways to be overcome challenges is surely a good thing in a game aiming to immerse the player. Otherwise it risks becoming more a of a generic mindless shooter.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Depense what class you play.
Example I played infiltrator so, I did have tactical cloak, what allowed me to go in and take first shot.
Not sure are drones usefull from enegineer class, but could be. Never played that class.
Just need to be creative, what about heavy weapons as area effect?

Like another poster said,you have to know that where is such an enemy before you can develop such an tactic.If there is more then one vorcha around the corner,and the drone target the wrong one,you are still toast.So i just send grunt forward to take the pain.But such a crap tactic shouldnt be necessary.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Tactics is really needed when the situation is bad. Usually when you are in hard spot and has to think something. If there is no hard spot and choises to make, there is no need of tactics. Or are you meaning that every situation has to have some perfect tactical solution to all classes?

I think those "unfair" like you say, are the good ones in the game. Because they requires that player starts to think, how to I get pass this. Do, I have to use my squad member as bait or what. Okey, there is also real unfair like what ever you do, there is never possibility get pass something. How ever, that doesn't seem to be case here.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 mai 2010 - 11:19 .

[P3G4SU5]

Sajon1 wrote...

Gilead26 wrote...

sirandar wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Then there's blatant trap in the form of the 'disabled Collector ship' and the complete failure of Sheperd's team of blowing it away on sight. I can understand maybe wanting to gather intel on the poorly understood enemy but wouldn't it be  a good idea to be placing explosives as you travel through the ship using your specialists (since its obviously a trap and the objective of the entire game is to STOP THE COLLECTORS). Sheperd is meant to be trained at the highest level of the Alliance military, he's an N7 after all, yet he has no grasp of tactics or contingency whe it comes to venturing into an enemy ship. Right.

Shepardt is a complete idiot in this game. Another example is the order for joker to get close to the collector vessel at the suicide mission.

That is the other problem with the game  ..... too many big decisions are made for you or you have no real choice.

I found the derelict reaper to be a particularly bad case of this. It was pretty much, 

"Holy crap it's an intact reaper! do you think we should maybe tell someone about this? Like the council? I mean they've been doubting us since the begining and this seems like pretty solid proof."  "Nah" *blows up ship and flies away* 

 

Good point about the derelict reaper

To summarise Shepherd from each of the games:

ME1 - Commander Shepherd: Survived against all odds after... (insert player history here), First human Spectre, Instrumental role in the defense of Eden Prime, Liberator of the colonists of Feros, Defeated Saren and Sovereign, Saviour of the Galaxy.

ME2 - Commander Shepherd: A brick, Lapdog of TIM, subject of much [sexual] innuendo from Harbinger.

[P3G4SU5]

Lumikki wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Depense what class you play.
Example I played infiltrator so, I did have tactical cloak, what allowed me to go in and take first shot.
Not sure are drones usefull from enegineer class, but could be. Never played that class.
Just need to be creative, what about heavy weapons as area effect?

Like another poster said,you have to know that where is such an enemy before you can develop such an tactic.If there is more then one vorcha around the corner,and the drone target the wrong one,you are still toast.So i just send grunt forward to take the pain.But such a crap tactic shouldnt be necessary.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Tactics is really needed when the situation is bad. Usually when you are in hard spot and has to think something. If there is no hard spot and choises to make, there is no need of tactics. Or are you meaning that every situation has to have some perfect tactical solution to all classes?

I think those "unfair" like you say, are the good ones in the game. Because they requires that player starts to think, how to I get pass this. Do, I have to use my squad member as bait or what. Okey, there is also real unfair like what ever you do, there is never possibility get pass something. How ever, that doesn't seem to be case here.

Unfair in this context is the apparent expectation of the devs that the player knows what is ahead and can therefore avoid it. This is unreasonable for the player in the scenario described as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the player to know about the placement of the enemy on a first-time playthrough, and upon discovering its location, the player is highly likely to be killed in the firey flailing that ensues. This means that the vast majority of players are required to die once before they are able to overcome the obstacle.

This is bad gamplay design.

[Zulu_DFA]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Unfair in this context is the apparent expectation of the devs that the player knows what is ahead and can therefore avoid it. This is unreasonable for the player in the scenario described as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the player to know about the placement of the enemy on a first-time playthrough, and upon discovering its location, the player is highly likely to be killed in the firey flailing that ensues. This means that the vast majority of players are required to die once before they are able to overcome the obstacle.

This is bad gamplay design.

Very true.

Completing levels by trial and error is not tactics. At all.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 juin 2010 - 12:01 .

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

Not in my playthroughs.But it happen more then one time for me that the rockets of the heavy mech seems to ignore cover sometimes...

Really? Interesting...

[tonnactus]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Unfair in this context is the apparent expectation of the devs that the player knows what is ahead and can therefore avoid it. This is unreasonable for the player in the scenario described as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the player to know about the placement of the enemy on a first-time playthrough, and upon discovering its location, the player is highly likely to be killed in the firey flailing that ensues. This means that the vast majority of players are required to die once before they are able to overcome the obstacle.

This is bad gamplay design.

An other example for bad gamedesign, a not deadly but annoying experience is the endless wave of drones in talis recruitment missions.And it only ends when the player advance to an specific point.

[Lumikki]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Unfair in this context is the apparent expectation of the devs that the player knows what is ahead and can therefore avoid it. This is unreasonable for the player in the scenario described as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the player to know about the placement of the enemy on a first-time playthrough, and upon discovering its location, the player is highly likely to be killed in the firey flailing that ensues. This means that the vast majority of players are required to die once before they are able to overcome the obstacle.

This is bad gamplay design.

But I did not die the first time I did it. I expected someone to be behind corner and was ready for it.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Unfair in this context is the apparent expectation of the devs that the player knows what is ahead and can therefore avoid it. This is unreasonable for the player in the scenario described as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the player to know about the placement of the enemy on a first-time playthrough, and upon discovering its location, the player is highly likely to be killed in the firey flailing that ensues. This means that the vast majority of players are required to die once before they are able to overcome the obstacle.

This is bad gamplay design.

But I did not die the first time I did it. I expected someone to be behind corner and was ready for it.

Not all people play as the infiltrator.

[P3G4SU5]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

Unfair in this context is the apparent expectation of the devs that the player knows what is ahead and can therefore avoid it. This is unreasonable for the player in the scenario described as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the player to know about the placement of the enemy on a first-time playthrough, and upon discovering its location, the player is highly likely to be killed in the firey flailing that ensues. This means that the vast majority of players are required to die once before they are able to overcome the obstacle.

This is bad gamplay design.

But I did not die the first time I did it. I expected someone to be behind corner and was ready for it.

Not all people play as the infiltrator.

As tonnactus points out, not everyone plays as the infiltrator, and like I said, "the vast majority of players are required to die once".

[uberdowzen]

P3G4SU5 wrote...

I really can't sympathise with this view of ME1's cover system or snipers being such a menace. There is ample cover (granted, there isn't as much as in ME2) to hide behind and providing you use your squadmates properly for attack or distraction (read: bait) roles, there shouldn't be much call for branding any of the enemies unfair.

I admit the cover system was a little sticky but this isn't an issue if you know that pointing the camera in the opposite direction to your cover and pressing the forward key detaches the player immediately, with a glue-free experience. This can be done easily in a split second before flicking the camera back around to face the enemy.

A good quality in a game is that different combat sequences require different strategies rather than being able to apply the same template to every fight. Making the player think of new ways to be overcome challenges is surely a good thing in a game aiming to immerse the player. Otherwise it risks becoming more a of a generic mindless shooter.

You're saying that treating these deep, fleshed out characters as cannon fodder is a good tactic?

[uberdowzen]

I watched the first ME2 plot analysis video and have to say there are some serious flaws in his logic. For starters, he says that ME2 has the worst game plot ever and then goes on to state several game plots which are worse.



Secondly, his entire argument hinges on the fact that he's critisicing the unlikely events that drive the plot forward, which is fine. However he also says that ME1 had a very good plot despite obviously not being as critical towards it as he is towards ME2. Let's take a short look at the plot holes:



Why does Saren need the Conduit? He's a Spectre, he can walk right into the Citadel Presidium. Why does he not simply go to the Citadel, call the attack and in the ensuing chaos activate the citadel relay?



The only reason he needs to is because he's now on the run (having made an important speech in front of a Geth which Tali just happens to be able to salvage) for attacking Eden Prime. Why on earth did he attack Eden Prime? If he wanted to take a look at the Prothean Beacon, who's going to stop a Spectre? Launching a full scale attack like he did is just stupid. It could be argued that that's not Saren's style, but then Saren must be an idiot. (This is actually another double standard of the video, as he says that the attack on the Cerberus station is just so there can be a violent tutorial level, forgetting that ME1 did this on Eden Prime).



And then there's the Beacon itself. Why would Saren not personally destroy it so that no one else could use it before leaving? Doing so seems to just be a pointless risk.



Finally, returning to the video for a minute, how come when someone makes a funny youtube video (which, hilariously, when he says vacuum shows some stock footage of a kid who collects vacuum cleaners) his opinion suddenly becomes more valid than anyone elses?

[uberdowzen]

Oh yeah, the "plot hole" with Wilson can be somewhat explained by assuming that Wilson was insane. The video assumes that Wilson was sane, when he's clearly not. It should have been explained better, but it's not unexplainable.

[Zulu_DFA]

uberdowzen wrote...

Oh yeah, the "plot hole" with Wilson can be somewhat explained by assuming that Wilson was insane. The video assumes that Wilson was sane, when he's clearly not. It should have been explained better, but it's not unexplainable.

Wilson was not insane.

[Lumikki]

You mean this video what starts like why did Shepard die?

Yeah, it was fun, but not really good one. It showed how someone can look the game, if they hate it or take negative attitude agaist it. Basicly it even make false assumption, example assuming that Shepards body did drop to planet. In the ME2 they only talked about body been affected by space, so it's alot better assumption to make that Shepards body was found from space.

How ever one thing there is right. There was alot of plot holes in ME2. As plot hole I mean something what was not explained by games story, but was left for players imagination.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 01:21 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Lumikki wrote...

You mean this video what starts like why did Shepard die?

Yeah, it was fun, but not really good one. It showed how someone can look the game, if they hate it or take negative attitude agaist it. Basicly it even make false assumption, example assuming that Shepards body did drop to planet. In the ME2 they only talked about body been affected by space, so it's alot better assumption to make that Shepards body was found from space.

How ever one thing there is right. There was alot of plot holes in ME2. As plot hole I mean something what was not explained by games story, but was left for players imagination.

HOW SHEPARD SURVIVED THE CRASH

[P3G4SU5]

uberdowzen wrote...

P3G4SU5 wrote...

I really can't sympathise with this view of ME1's cover system or snipers being such a menace. There is ample cover (granted, there isn't as much as in ME2) to hide behind and providing you use your squadmates properly for attack or distraction (read: bait) roles, there shouldn't be much call for branding any of the enemies unfair.

I admit the cover system was a little sticky but this isn't an issue if you know that pointing the camera in the opposite direction to your cover and pressing the forward key detaches the player immediately, with a glue-free experience. This can be done easily in a split second before flicking the camera back around to face the enemy.

A good quality in a game is that different combat sequences require different strategies rather than being able to apply the same template to every fight. Making the player think of new ways to be overcome challenges is surely a good thing in a game aiming to immerse the player. Otherwise it risks becoming more a of a generic mindless shooter.

You're saying that treating these deep, fleshed out characters as cannon fodder is a good tactic?

Using soldiers as diversions in a battle is a common tactic that has been used throughout history my friend, so yes, using your beloved team members occasionally as diversions (not cannon fodder as you misinterpret) is a good tactic as in our game it means you survive, and if you survive, they survive.

[Lumikki]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

HOW SHEPARD SURVIVED THE CRASH

Hehe, funny story. I think I will keep my assumption that trajectory of Shepards body was not directed to planet, but pass it. You know same ways that if satelites are on sertain distance from planets gravity, it's can with very slow speed to stay there in orbit. Planets gravity gets very low very fast when there is enough distance.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juin 2010 - 01:44 .

[IoCaster]

uberdowzen wrote...

I watched the first ME2 plot analysis video and have to say there are some serious flaws in his logic. For starters, he says that ME2 has the worst game plot ever and then goes on to state several game plots which are worse.

He actually said "one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels". It was the very first sentence in the video. Don't misrepresent what was said. That's a slimey and generally despicable tactic.

uberdowzen wrote...

Secondly, his entire argument hinges on the fact that he's critisicing the unlikely events that drive the plot forward, which is fine. However he also says that ME1 had a very good plot despite obviously not being as critical towards it as he is towards ME2. Let's take a short look at the plot holes:

Why does Saren need the Conduit? He's a Spectre, he can walk right into the Citadel Presidium. Why does he not simply go to the Citadel, call the attack and in the ensuing chaos activate the citadel relay?

The only reason he needs to is because he's now on the run (having made an important speech in front of a Geth which Tali just happens to be able to salvage) for attacking Eden Prime. Why on earth did he attack Eden Prime? If he wanted to take a look at the Prothean Beacon, who's going to stop a Spectre? Launching a full scale attack like he did is just stupid. It could be argued that that's not Saren's style, but then Saren must be an idiot. (This is actually another double standard of the video, as he says that the attack on the Cerberus station is just so there can be a violent tutorial level, forgetting that ME1 did this on Eden Prime).

And then there's the Beacon itself. Why would Saren not personally destroy it so that no one else could use it before leaving? Doing so seems to just be a pointless risk.

Finally, returning to the video for a minute, how come when someone makes a funny youtube video (which, hilariously, when he says vacuum shows some stock footage of a kid who collects vacuum cleaners) his opinion suddenly becomes more valid than anyone elses?

What's the problem? Does it truly bother you so much that some people think that the ME2 plot was idiotic, contrived and didn't function very well as a sequel?

If you have such a problem with the plot in ME, then by all means, make your own video analysis of it. Upload it to youtube and post a link.

Personally, I enjoy playing ME2, but I also think that the plot is a bunch of cobbled together nonsense. I can acknowledge that there are some contrived elements in the plot of ME as well, but not near the same level of incomprehensible "wtf?!?" as ME2.

[P3G4SU5]

Lumikki wrote...

You mean this video what starts like why did Shepard die?

Yeah, it was fun, but not really good one. It showed how someone can look the game, if they hate it or take negative attitude agaist it. Basicly it even make false assumption, example assuming that Shepards body did drop to planet. In the ME2 they only talked about body been affected by space, so it's alot better assumption to make that Shepards body was found from space.

How ever one thing there is right. There was alot of plot holes in ME2. As plot hole I mean something what was not explained by games story, but was left for players imagination.

If you watch the intro video Shepherd definitely appears to be plummeting towards the planet and if you look carefully, it appears that Shepherd's body begins to burn as it enters the planet's atmosphere. This does not negate the information we're told about his body being affected by the cold of space. His exposure to space in the compromised suit would have subjected him to incredibly cold temperatures even if he was only exposed for a few minutes.

This means that the N7 armor was unbelievably good at protecting his body through atmospheric entry and the resulting impact. He must have landed in some VERY deep snow to cushion a drop like that and leave any recognisable human form... I'm not familiar with the comics but do they explain anything about how his helmet might have reached the planet? If not then this is the only plausible explanation for how it got from his head to the planet surface, perhaps knocked off on impact?

[uberdowzen]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Oh yeah, the "plot hole" with Wilson can be somewhat explained by assuming that Wilson was insane. The video assumes that Wilson was sane, when he's clearly not. It should have been explained better, but it's not unexplainable.

Wilson was not insane.

That could work.

[Lumikki]

I was assuming that "burns" are more like make the animation looks that shepards body was moving.

Was there even atmosphere in that planet? I think Shepard used helmet when visit it later. As for moving toward, it depense alot of view point where you look situation.

[P3G4SU5]

Lumikki wrote...

I was assuming that "burns" are more like make the animation looks that shepards body was moving.
Was there even atmosphere in that planet? I think Shepard used helmet when visit it later. As for moving toward, it depense alot of view point where you look situation.

The heat light outline around his body closely resembles that of a craft going through re-entry. When exploring the crash site you see there are weather effects (snow falling) which requires cloud formation and gases etc. Hence there was an atmosphere. Also:

Alchera
"...it's large size allows it to retain a thick atmosphere of methane and ammonia..."

[ranger614]

Jack > You.