10273 réponses à ce sujet

[ShepardWrex]

Lumikki wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

And let stupid BW fangirls like you rave over pointless mediocrity like this trite crap?

You do know that saying negative stuff is fine and arguing with other players here. How ever, you have done alot of trolling on this forum. You lucky that moderators don't ban people easyly here. There is fine line between saying opinions and  deliberately trolling on games own forum to hurt it.

We're not allowed to compare ME1 or ME2 to OBVIOUSLY BETTER games now>?

As if BW is the only game company that even exists, everyone's resorted to comparing the suckage between ME1 and ME2?

[ShepardWrex]

Widowlover wrote...

ShepardWrex wrote...

INVAYNED wrote...

all im ganna say is story was a bit weak,the new mini games suckd.i hate the character miranda with a passion and for goddamn good reasons.the finale boss was the freaking terminator really bioware,i understand the human reaper thing.but honestly lame.way too much shooting gears style.no where near the dialog is should have had,and the rpg elements were tuned down.thats my beef.at least there was no F***ing mulitplayer of any kind cause if there would have been i wouldnt even have bought the game at all

Loelz, this guy thinks ME1 wasn't a blatant ripoff of the original GoW.

Describe the ME1 story without spoilers and without sounding so utterly trite. I dare ya.

Widowlover wrote...

Sorry just thought it was odd that they changed that kind of stuff. insanity is hard, but it gets kinda boring shooting from cover the whole time, it was nice to be able charge atleast one or two enemys and survive, not stick your head out to take a shoot and yours shield drop.

Nice to have EZ-mode combat in ME1 instead of BORE-fest combat in ME2? Ok.

Did you you see the iron specter challenge, no powers no weapons just melee, thats nuts. how could you kill the drones in freedom progress let alone the YMIR.  EZ-mod

EXACTLY BRO.

Sheppy doesn't equip brass knuckles when he fights. Iron Specter challenge means nothing.

[Terror_K]

finnithe wrote...

I've actually been wondering about the loading screens. Wouldn't they limit the level design? An elevator is a great way to load in parts of a level because the length can be variable depending on how long its taking to load, and your have no view of the outside. Maybe my imagination's limited, but I can't think of anything that would work as well as an elevator. Can't really use a long tunnel because I don't think you could change the length depending on the loading times, and you can't take away player control in a tunnel, and other ones probably have their own limitations. Loading screens are unfortunately a staple of games (even Oblivion and Fallout 3, possibly the most immersive games to day, have loading screens). It's something that should be ingrained into your suspension of disbelief by now.

This is true. It's not so much that loading screens are bad per say; more that they feel like a step backwards. A lot of games have them, yes, that's true, but the thing was the concept and style of the elevators was actually a really good one. It loaded the next area while keeping you still in the game, as well as providing additional content via news reports and squad banter. Sure... the execution was a bit iffy in ME1, but if they can get things to load that quickly in ME2 now then surely the problems with the ME1 elevators could be fixed and not made quite as long. It just seems like yet another case of something with potential being slightly flawed and then getting completely scrapped in favour of the simplest solution, which is kind of the bane of ME2 overall. And as a result, we've not only lost a more immersive form of transition but had news reports relegated to triggered terminals where one has to stand there and repeatedly click them to hear the news rather than hear it on-the-go and squad banter has pretty much disappeared entirely (they could have at least had several points within the maps whereby crossing them initiated banter, ala DAO).

[tonnactus]

[quote]KitsuneRommel wrote...

[quote]tonnactus

Not really. Oblivion was also a 'hybrid'. If you were familiar with shooter mechanics (movement, obstacles, use of elevation, etc) the game was a lot easier. RPG combat is when you select a target and computer makes an "attack roll" solely based on your characters abilities.
[/quote]

This is turn based combat and was also part of strategy games in the past.That doesnt make them to rpgs.

How an rpg combat,real time based,with modern weapons should work so people couldnt call it a "shooter"??

[ShepardWrex]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]KitsuneRommel wrote...

[quote]tonnactus

Not really. Oblivion was also a 'hybrid'. If you were familiar with shooter mechanics (movement, obstacles, use of elevation, etc) the game was a lot easier. RPG combat is when you select a target and computer makes an "attack roll" solely based on your characters abilities.
[/quote]

This is turn based combat and was also part of strategy games in the past.That doesnt make them to rpgs.

How an rpg combat,real time based,with modern weapons should work so people couldnt call it a "shooter"?"[/quote]
ME1 is an inferior shooter and inferior RPG.
ME2 is an inferior shooter and inferior RPG.

Done.

[ShepardWrex]

Terror_K wrote...

finnithe wrote...

I've actually been wondering about the loading screens. Wouldn't they limit the level design? An elevator is a great way to load in parts of a level because the length can be variable depending on how long its taking to load, and your have no view of the outside. Maybe my imagination's limited, but I can't think of anything that would work as well as an elevator. Can't really use a long tunnel because I don't think you could change the length depending on the loading times, and you can't take away player control in a tunnel, and other ones probably have their own limitations. Loading screens are unfortunately a staple of games (even Oblivion and Fallout 3, possibly the most immersive games to day, have loading screens). It's something that should be ingrained into your suspension of disbelief by now.

This is true. It's not so much that loading screens are bad per say; more that they feel like a step backwards. A lot of games have them, yes, that's true, but the thing was the concept and style of the elevators was actually a really good one. It loaded the next area while keeping you still in the game, as well as providing additional content via news reports and squad banter. Sure... the execution was a bit iffy in ME1, but if they can get things to load that quickly in ME2 now then surely the problems with the ME1 elevators could be fixed and not made quite as long. It just seems like yet another case of something with potential being slightly flawed and then getting completely scrapped in favour of the simplest solution, which is kind of the bane of ME2 overall. And as a result, we've not only lost a more immersive form of transition but had news reports relegated to triggered terminals where one has to stand there and repeatedly click them to hear the news rather than hear it on-the-go and squad banter has pretty much disappeared entirely (they could have at least had several points within the maps whereby crossing them initiated banter, ala DAO).

So dragging your squadies back and forth to get them to talk is better than clicking on boxes?

Get real. At least DAO has the right to be called an RPG.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

RPG combat means character is doing the shooting based character skills and player skill is not involved, player only deside what to shoot. T

Wrong.This is turn based combat.Something that existed in rpgs and strategy games. Or are any real time strategy games shooterish now?

[tonnactus]

....

Modifié par tonnactus, 05 juin 2010 - 02:42 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

RPG combat means character is doing the shooting based character skills and player skill is not involved, player only deside what to shoot. T

Wrong.This is turn based combat.Something that existed in rpgs and strategy games. Or are any real time strategy games shooterish now?

I ques we have now then very strong disagreement here. I ques we then need to wait others to say they opinions.

[FsDxRAGE]

I come bearing gifts

*sits down and starts eating*

[Terror_K]

Anybody else remember Liberation or Hired Guns? Two RPG's that were sci-fi and shootery and yet still fully-fledged RPGs, predating even Deus Ex.

[IoCaster]

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

I think the problem is the attempt to equate quantity to substance and relevance to the plot.

To advance the plot in ME you have to do Citadel, Feros, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos and Citadel final. Other than Ilos and the Citadel you can choose to do these missions in whatever order you prefer.

To progress the plot in ME2 you have FP, Mordin, Garrus, Jack, Grunt, Horizon, any combination of Thane, Samara, Tali or (X) number of Loyalty/N7 quests. That gets you to the Collector Ship. You can do some more Loyalty/N7 missions or get the IFF at this point, but it should already be obvious what the main difference in structure between the two games is.

There's a quantitative difference in the number of required combat missions in ME as compared to ME2. Just doing a raw mission count to compare both games isn't a particularly apt rebuttal to the claim that ME2 places "more emphasis on combat".

A similar case can be made regarding the number of lines of dialogue in each game. Raw numbers don't tell the whole story if you break it down to mission critical as opposed to 'getting to know you' dialogue.

What are you saying here?

Are You saying that raw numbers are less accurate than players personal emotional feelings as opinion?

It has nothing to do with 'feelings' or opinion. It's a matter of relevance. In the case of the number of combat missions that are required to finish each game there is a case to be made that ME2 is more heavily combat focused than ME. In other words, you have to complete more combat missions in ME2 to get to the end game. So there's no real point in totaling all of the combat oriented missions, main plot + sidequests, in both games and saying "eureka!" they're equal.

I personally don't have an ax to grind here because I actually enjoy the combat and it's the primary reason that I'm still playing ME2.

[ShepardWrex]

IoCaster wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

I think the problem is the attempt to equate quantity to substance and relevance to the plot.

To advance the plot in ME you have to do Citadel, Feros, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos and Citadel final. Other than Ilos and the Citadel you can choose to do these missions in whatever order you prefer.

To progress the plot in ME2 you have FP, Mordin, Garrus, Jack, Grunt, Horizon, any combination of Thane, Samara, Tali or (X) number of Loyalty/N7 quests. That gets you to the Collector Ship. You can do some more Loyalty/N7 missions or get the IFF at this point, but it should already be obvious what the main difference in structure between the two games is.

There's a quantitative difference in the number of required combat missions in ME as compared to ME2. Just doing a raw mission count to compare both games isn't a particularly apt rebuttal to the claim that ME2 places "more emphasis on combat".

A similar case can be made regarding the number of lines of dialogue in each game. Raw numbers don't tell the whole story if you break it down to mission critical as opposed to 'getting to know you' dialogue.

What are you saying here?

Are You saying that raw numbers are less accurate than players personal emotional feelings as opinion?

It has nothing to do with 'feelings' or opinion. It's a matter of relevance. In the case of the number of combat missions that are required to finish each game there is a case to be made that ME2 is more heavily combat focused than ME. In other words, you have to complete more combat missions in ME2 to get to the end game. So there's no real point in totaling all of the combat oriented missions, main plot + sidequests, in both games and saying "eureka!" they're equal.

I personally don't have an ax to grind here because I actually enjoy the combat and it's the primary reason that I'm still playing ME2.

Who said they were both equal?

ME2 has more content, but most of that content is PEW PEW PEW.

ME1 just outright failed in content.

[Lumikki]

IoCaster wrote...

It has nothing to do with 'feelings' or opinion. It's a matter of relevance. In the case of the number of combat missions that are required to finish each game there is a case to be made that ME2 is more heavily combat focused than ME. In other words, you have to complete more combat missions in ME2 to get to the end game. So there's no real point in totaling all of the combat oriented missions, main plot + sidequests, in both games and saying "eureka!" they're equal.

I personally don't have an ax to grind here because I actually enjoy the combat and it's the primary reason that I'm still playing ME2.

Sorry, I have little hard time to follow you, my natural language isn't english. If I did understand you point, it is that when someone is looking only part of the game as selected sample and not hole game as what's related the situation, they can get any result what they want to support they case. Is that what you say, because if it is, then I agree. Like leaving all what doesn't fit the case outside the sample.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2010 - 03:02 .

[tonnactus]

finnithe wrote...

I don't think they handled the resistance as well as they could have either. I would rather have biotics have lessened affects on enemies (much like Singularity does). I would have been fine with some knockdown effects for protected enemies. Still, that's a pretty bad analogy, especially since there aren't really any mages in this game.

Biotics are essentially mages. Adept are pure,vanguards are battle mages. And in fantasy games,mages,player or enemies nor only use staffs but also always at least some daggers.(in oblivion). I addition to their spells,not as a requirement to destroy the armor of an enemy first,what is just incredible stupid. In the first game,the purpose of biotic powers were crowd control,not to be just some fancy finishers. Biotics worked on all enemies(stasis works on drones).
A biotic was a biotic on all difficulties and against all enemies. Now ,on hardcore and insanity and against enemies like the heavy mech and the geth prime, they are just gimped soldiers. Nothing more. This is not balance. Otherwise such enemies should also have attacks that blocks adrenaline rush or cloak...

The rage on this forums would be enourmos.(and it would be right so)

Adepts and engineers not even get something special on the collector ship that improve their core abilities like a special omnitool or a bioamp. Only some lame additional weapon training.

You guys still haven't addressed the balancing issue a weapon cooldown system creates. Specifically that most people will end up using just one weapon, which doesn't really make for challenging gameplay. 

What do you mean with that?? Its challenging to switch to the heavy pistol and inferno ammo if an enemy has armor??? Maybee you mean strategic( in the very limited way of paper,rock,scissors).

Most people use one weapon anyway.(most people play as an soldier and use the revenant/widow)

Modifié par tonnactus, 05 juin 2010 - 03:24 .

[spacehamsterZH]

IoCaster wrote...
There's a quantitative difference in the number of required combat missions in ME as compared to ME2. Just doing a raw mission count to compare both games isn't a particularly apt rebuttal to the claim that ME2 places "more emphasis on combat".

I don't really see what you're saying here. The main plot missions in ME1 were pretty much all combat too. At the end of the day, all you did gameplay-wise was go to one of the planets, talk to a few people and then kill everything and everyone you met. They had boss fights like action games too. Thane's loyalty mission is what I would call an actual non-combat quest.

I think what ME1 did better, and this may be the source of the feeling that ME2 emphasizes combat more, is break things up in a less transparent way. The main story missions were longer, consisted of several combat and non-combat chunks, and the combat maps were less linear. The premise of the ME2 main story missions is actually typically the same as in ME1 - go to location X and investigate, leading to some kind of discovery that furthers the plot. But with the exception of Horizon, the discoveries were typically limited to Shepard and squad coming across some kind of evidence like the Collector carcass that reveals the Collectors are genetically modified Protheans, the squad reacting, followed by more shooting that was largely unaffected by the discovery. In contrast, discoveries during, say, the Noveria part of ME1 tended to come from interaction with NPCs you met and the way the mission continued was affected by these interactions. Gameplay wise, there's little significant difference, it's both talk-shoot-talk-shoot, but what ME1 did in its main missions was more engaging storytelling and felt less like an action game that occasionally interrupts the shooting with a cutscene.

Hence why even as a member of Camp Both Games Rule, I've never denied that the main missions in ME1 were better.

[ShepardWrex]

tonnactus wrote...

finnithe wrote...

I don't think they handled the resistance as well as they could have either. I would rather have biotics have lessened affects on enemies (much like Singularity does). I would have been fine with some knockdown effects for protected enemies. Still, that's a pretty bad analogy, especially since there aren't really any mages in this game.

Biotics are essentially mages.Adept are pure,vanguards are battle mages.And in fantasy games,mages,player or enemies nor only use staffs but also always at least some daggers.(in oblivion). I addition to their spells,not as a requirement to destroy the armor of an enemy first,what is just incredible stupid. In the first game,the purpose of biotic powers were crowd control,not to be just some fancy finishers. Biotics worked on all enemies(stasis works on drones).
A biotic was a biotic on all difficulties and against all enemies. No ,on hardcore and insanity and against enemies like the heavy mech and the geth prime, they are just gimped soldiers. Nothing more. This is not balance. Otherwise such enemies should also have attacks that blocks adrenaline rush or cloak...

The rage on this forums would be enourmos.(and it would be right so)

Adepts and engineers not even get something special on the collector ship that improve their core abilities like a special omnitool or a bioamp. Only some lame additional weapon training.

You guys still haven't addressed the balancing issue a weapon cooldown system creates. Specifically that most people will end up using just one weapon, which doesn't really make for challenging gameplay. 

What do you mean with that?? Its challenging to switch to the heavy pistol and inferno ammo if an enemy has armor??? Maybee you mean strategic( in the very limited way of paper,rock,scissors).

Most people use one weapon anyway.(most people play as an soldier and use the revenant/widow)

About as challenging as switching weapon mods every freakin' time you pick up a better one. On you and both squadies.

I didn't know the Revenant-Widow was one weapon. Not much skill needed with that kind of weapon anyway.

[IoCaster]

Lumikki wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

It has nothing to do with 'feelings' or opinion. It's a matter of relevance. In the case of the number of combat missions that are required to finish each game there is a case to be made that ME2 is more heavily combat focused than ME. In other words, you have to complete more combat missions in ME2 to get to the end game. So there's no real point in totaling all of the combat oriented missions, main plot + sidequests, in both games and saying "eureka!" they're equal.

I personally don't have an ax to grind here because I actually enjoy the combat and it's the primary reason that I'm still playing ME2.

Sorry, I have little hard time to follow you, my natural language isn't english. If I did understand you point, it is that when someone is looking only part of the game and not hole game, they can get any result what they want to support they case. Is that what you say, because if it is, then I agree.

I mean the parts of the game that are actually important to the plot. You can't progress the plot in either game without doing certain missions. The number of missions that are required in ME differ from the number of required missions in ME2. By counting all of the missions (required + optional) in both games and declaring that it means that there's no substantive difference between the two games is not an accurate assessment.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

finnithe wrote...

You guys still haven't addressed the balancing issue a weapon cooldown system creates. Specifically that most people will end up using just one weapon, which doesn't really make for challenging gameplay. 

What do you mean with that?? Its challenging to switch to the heavy pistol and inferno ammo if an enemy has armor??? Maybee you mean strategic( in the very limited way of paper,rock,scissors).

Most people use one weapon anyway.(most people play as an soldier and use the revenant/widow)

In ME1 my infiltrator use only one weapon that's pistol, because that's all what I need in hole game. I use grenades mission where is was forced to be used. In ME2 my infiltrator use all weapons, because run out of ammos or because situation benefits. Also in ME2 pistol feels like pistol, but in ME1 it's like submachine gun, because the marksman skill. Also in ME1 there is ability remove totally need of cooldown, by using weapon mods. Meaning pistol never overheat at all.

[FsDxRAGE]

Here Jean







*grabs fistful*

[IoCaster]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

IoCaster wrote...
There's a quantitative difference in the number of required combat missions in ME as compared to ME2. Just doing a raw mission count to compare both games isn't a particularly apt rebuttal to the claim that ME2 places "more emphasis on combat".

I don't really see what you're saying here. The main plot missions in ME1 were pretty much all combat too. At the end of the day, all you did gameplay-wise was go to one of the planets, talk to a few people and then kill everything and everyone you met. They had boss fights like action games too. Thane's loyalty mission is what I would call an actual non-combat quest.

I think what ME1 did better, and this may be the source of the feeling that ME2 emphasizes combat more, is break things up in a less transparent way. The main story missions were longer, consisted of several combat and non-combat chunks, and the combat maps were less linear. The premise of the ME2 main story missions is actually typically the same as in ME1 - go to location X and investigate, leading to some kind of discovery that furthers the plot. But with the exception of Horizon, the discoveries were typically limited to Shepard and squad coming across some kind of evidence like the Collector carcass that reveals the Collectors are genetically modified Protheans, the squad reacting, followed by more shooting that was largely unaffected by the discovery. In contrast, discoveries during, say, the Noveria part of ME1 tended to come from interaction with NPCs you met and the way the mission continued was affected by these interactions. Gameplay wise, there's little significant difference, it's both talk-shoot-talk-shoot, but what ME1 did in its main missions was more engaging storytelling and felt less like an action game that occasionally interrupts the shooting with a cutscene.

Hence why even as a member of Camp Both Games Rule, I've never denied that the main missions in ME1 were better.

I'm interested in pursuing this line of discussion, but unfortunately I have some errands to run this morning and some weekend mayhem planned for the rest of the day. I'll follow this up in the evening or tomorrow. In any case, I'll wish everyone a fun weekend and best regards to family and friends.

[finnithe]

tonnactus wrote...

....

A more refined definition would include the fact that a role-playing game system like d20 combines the stats of the player, stats of the ability used, and stats of the item(s) to determines the effects of every action.

Shooters are purely skill based in that you are doing all the aiming with the damage done being based on your weapon and area where the shot goes. 

[Lumikki]

IoCaster wrote...

I mean the parts of the game that are actually important to the plot. You can't progress the plot in either game without doing certain missions. The number of missions that are required in ME differ from the number of required missions in ME2. By counting all of the missions (required + optional) in both games and declaring that it means that there's no substantive difference between the two games is not an accurate assessment.

Not sure, I'm really sorry. If we count only what is needed to complete game, the difference is not big. If we count all mission what exist in game, the difference isn't bigger. ME1 has little more main mission and missions in general.  How ever, the difference is not big.

Forced missions.
ME1: Prologue+EP+Citidel+Ferros+Noveria+Liara+Virmine+(citidel)+Ilos+End mission = 9 missions from total of 74 missions.
ME2: Prologue+(awekening)+FP+Mordin+Garrus+Jack+Grunt+Horisont+recruit+Collector ship+IFF+End mission = 11 missions from total 65

9/11 = delta 20%
65/74 = delta15%

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2010 - 03:32 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

In ME1 my infiltrator use only one weapon that's pistol, because that's all what I need in hole game.

So you play basicly an engineer with immunity.Fine.Whats the point? There were a lot of mission where you could really snipe and it make sense, because enemies couldnt get you. Like the ferros skyway and some merc bases. Situation benefits even there. Good reasons, not mostly artificial ones ,like that snipers are effective against armor but weak against shields and barriers. I still doesnt use heavy weapons a lot, because a pistol with inferno ammo seems to be at least as effective as most other heavy weapons against enemies like thresher maws.

[nightshifter101]

so your saying better aim better kill and every thing dies