10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

'encircling from enemies' - you mean being flanked? personally i loved the more open (if sometimes arbitrarily stamped with convenient cover) battlefields in #2 - it also meant you could do the flanking.



i much preferred me1's circular corsshairs and sniper scope than #2s, but the minimalistic HUD is fine when you get used to it.

[Iakus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

iakus wrote...


You're right, there's nothing wrong having seperate stories within a greater whole. However, hetween the lack of investigation into the Collectors and the their general lack of presence, the Collectors may have been the main plot of the game, but "lame and undeveloped" is putting it mildly  As I've said before, the game would have made more sense if the major villains had been a coalition of indoctrinated mercenaries.

the tradgedy of the downfall of the protheans was a lot more horrifying and moving than a random band of mercs would have been.

I didn't say better, I said it would have made more sense.  I liked the idea of the Collectors.  I just wish it had been explored more in depth. I've said more than once the Collectors were an opportunity wasted.  You said their fate was horrifying and moving.  I say it could have been more horrifying and moving if they had been more three dimensional (an odd request for a computer game I know)

Jebel Krong wrote...

iakus wrote...

That said, I still agree that it would have been cooler if the squadmates' loyalty missions were somehow connected to the Collectors and they actually had a personal grudge against them to add to their otherwise somewhat murky motivation to "follow Shepard into hell itself." True enough.

Common ground!

so you make the game better by reducing the size of the universe - i.e. everything being connected to *your* mission. nuh-uh, no way would that have been better. beside the whole point of recruiting the individuals in me2 is that they are extremely disparate, baddest-of-the-bad, types - not likely tohave common motivations for anything (until you give them one in following you). the collectors were alos supposed to be almost mythically rare - what are the chances one or more of your team would have even seen them (samara did tangle with them, albeit ship to ship, btw)?

Not how I'd put it.  I'd say I was taking a piece of the universe and exploring it further.  And squadmates that you pick up could be while you're exploring this part of the universe. (and yeah I forgot about Samara's run-in.  I stil like my connection better though)

Recruiting the baddes-of-the-bad is a reason I can understand.  I don't really like it, but I can understand it.  But to have "follow me" as the only unifying motivation just rings hollow.  Shouldn't Shepard want a squad that will fight to save the galaxcy, even if he should fall? Shouldn't he want a squad that fights for a common goal, not just because they've all sworn personal fealty to the Commander?  A unifying theme, a common enemy would make a team more effective.  Garrus is loyal to Shepard. Is Garrus loyal to Thane?  Is Thane loyal to Jack?  Is Jack loyal to Legion?  How can they be an effective team otherwise?

Jebel Krong wrote...

iakus wrote...
Fair enough.  And I do think many of the characters in ME 2 are interesting.  I just noticed that te squadmates in ME 1 are "extraordinary, but mere-mortal" while in ME 2 they tend more towards "super-duper".  Maybe the reason Jacob's the least popular character is because he's the "vanilla human" compared to the others

yep and this is on purpose because you are going on a suicide mission against a near mythical, unknown foe. me1 you kinda just stumbled ino the mystery and picked odd people up along the way as you found out the threat and the universe was intriduced to you - in both games it's a natural progression, given the situations.

Hmm, and the next step up is going to be the Reapers themselves.  Is Darth Vader gonna loan Shepard the Death Star for that? 

Modifié par iakus, 05 juin 2010 - 09:21 .

[Jebel Krong]

well, iakus, we don't know how #3 is gonna turn out yet. how do you stop an almost-ageless enemy that has been doing the same thing for at least a few million years? i almost feel sorry for BW for painting themselves into that corner, but it'll be fun to find out (and eventually succeed). it's a bit like the matrix revolutions: "we've been doing this for a long time, and we've gotten very good at it...". i am worried about the reaper ret-con in me2 to being bio-synthetics rather than proper AIs though.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Shooter side of combat was much better in ME2.

For my adept? Not so much. I have a choice between playing on a lower difficultly where enemies are too easy to kill, or playing on something like insanity, where against the rock, paper, scissors defence system the biotics are turned into nothing more than overkill finishing moves after wearing down defences, because someone thought it would be a good idea for "armour" or "shields" to block out the effects of throw or singularity.

Add in to the fact that, just as if the adept is the same class as the soldier, all this has to be played while taking cover because of the shooter health regen system added.

This is the thing about people being unable to accept the fact that ME2 is more aimed at the shooter fanbase. The marketing and the devs own words confirm this, even if the proof of simply playing the game doesnt prove it for them. They made cover a necessity with the new health system. They added ammo. They turned the weapons into uncustomisable weapons like those found in any bogstandard shooter.

All of this was the main priority, and then afterwards they tossed in the rpg side of combat. This is all pretty much confirmed by Christina Normans own presentation.

So yeah, the shooter aspect of combat has been greatly improved, and clearly Bioware knew this, as they made it the focal point of almost the entire marketing for ME2, and tailored the rest of the game almost completely around it.

As for suggesting a possible way to fix this - do I really need to? Aside from being pretty self explantatory, I felt ME1 was a much better balance of shooter and RPG anyway (even if both aspects had some pretty glaring flaws), so its not like they dont have experience already or lack a reference to build on.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 05 juin 2010 - 09:28 .

[Some Geth]

What is funny is if you had Liara in the game the gameplay can be crap you will love it anyway lulz.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Some Geth wrote...

What is funny is if you had Liara in the game the gameplay can be crap you will love it anyway lulz.

What is funny is you cant argue without a strawman. lulz.

[Iakus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

well, iakus, we don't know how #3 is gonna turn out yet. how do you stop an almost-ageless enemy that has been doing the same thing for at least a few million years? i almost feel sorry for BW for painting themselves into that corner, but it'll be fun to find out (and eventually succeed). it's a bit like the matrix revolutions: "we've been doing this for a long time, and we've gotten very good at it...". i am worried about the reaper ret-con in me2 to being bio-synthetics rather than proper AIs though.

The techno organic thing bugs me too.  I guess it depends on where they plan on going with it (I believe in Babylon 5, the Shadows used organic beings as their ships' cpus so I guess it's not unprecedented)  Terminator Kong does not leave me encouraged.   

 A big reason why I'm so disappointed in ME 2.  I figured the trilogy would go:

ME 1 Discover the Reaper threat

ME 2 Learn more about the Reapers and their methods, Find possible methods to stop them

ME 3 Gather allies and build weapons.  Throw down with the Reapers.

Instead we got:

ME 1 Learn about the Reaper threat

ME Too:  Confirm Reaper threat. 

ME 3 ???

[Mister Mida]

Jebel Krong wrote...
i am worried about the reaper ret-con in me2 to being bio-synthetics rather than proper AIs though.

Me too. I thought it was really awesome that the Reapers were pure machines and that their origin had nothing to do with organic goo being poured in some framework. But when I saw the human Reaper in the Collector Base I was like: 'crap'. Deep down I'm hoping the human Reaper was just a one time thing and that EDI's speculation on Reaper construction are just what she said they were: speculation.

[Jebel Krong]

the "rpg-side" of combat is the rock/paper/scissors mechanic. can you imagine the complaints if that was taken out, too? i agree it makes no real sense other than another gameplay mechanic to spike difficulty, and like the ammo clips it is an arbitrary solution, but y'know: it adds "depth".

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

It actually goes:



ME1: Learn about and stop the reaper threat.



ME2: Reset - Learn about and stop the collector threat (loosely linked to the reapers for ME1 players).



ME3: Learn about and stop the reaper threat a second time (loosely linked to the ME1 plot for ME1/2 players)



That looks to be the way the "standalone" trilogy is going. Its not one continuous story told across three acts. Its three singular stories told in three seperate games with some loose connections and references between them.

[Some Geth]

Do i care hell I will say now ME2 had a plot that was crap and the gameplay at best was so so but was it fun? yes and ME1 had a plot that was so so and gameplay that was so bad but was it fun? yes.



I know you don't care at all about this all you care about is Liara and I think that is funny oh well I play games for fun oh what a better human I am.

[Mister Mida]

iakus wrote...
 A big reason why I'm so disappointed in ME 2.  I figured the trilogy would go:

ME 1 Discover the Reaper threat

ME 2 Learn more about the Reapers and their methods, Find possible methods to stop them

ME 3 Gather allies and build weapons.  Throw down with the Reapers.

Instead we got:

ME 1 Learn about the Reaper threat

ME Too:  Confirm Reaper threat. 

ME 3 ???

I practically had the same idea:

ME (1): Discover Reaper threat and stall the invasion.
ME 2: The Council sends you out to find more about the Reapers. You discover the Reapers intention and find some way to stop them. Maybe even fight another Reaper on a smaller scale compared to with Sovereign.
ME 3: Big showdown between the united Milky Way and the Reapers. Big space battle Star Wars style .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Jebel Krong wrote...

the "rpg-side" of combat is the rock/paper/scissors mechanic. can you imagine the complaints if that was taken out, too? i agree it makes no real sense other than another gameplay mechanic to spike difficulty, and like the ammo clips it is an arbitrary solution, but y'know: it adds "depth".

It doesnt add depth, its a tacked on afterthought. If they actually focus some serious attention on the RPG side of combat in ME3, then it might add some depth. One of the common complaints among users outside of these boards in particular is that what little "RPG" there was in ME2 singularly lacked depth.

Take the N7 modular armour. I thought it was a fair idea in principal, but with not enough pieces. It also highlights the insanely crappy game "economy", with shops mostly being filled with trash for your cabin, or static "upgrades" (barely noticeable increases in the nigh invisible "stats").

Add to that you have to return to the cabin almost every single time you want to change it.

[KitsuneRommel]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Shooter side of combat was much better in ME2.

For my adept? Not so much. I have a choice between playing on a lower difficultly where enemies are too easy to kill, or playing on something like insanity, where against the rock, paper, scissors defence system the biotics are turned into nothing more than overkill finishing moves after wearing down defences, because someone thought it would be a good idea for "armour" or "shields" to block out the effects of throw or singularity.

I agree that Adept gets a shorter stick in ME2. I guess they wanted to avoid making them overpowered like in ME1. You could Lift, Throw and Singularity the whole game (including the end boss) without any challenge.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Some Geth wrote...

Do i care hell I will say now ME2 had a plot that was crap and the gameplay at best was so so but was it fun? yes and ME1 had a plot that was so so and gameplay that was so bad but was it fun? yes.

I know you don't care at all about this all you care about is Liara and I think that is funny oh well I play games for fun oh what a better human I am.

What the hell is your problem? When did DL say Liara only mattered?

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I agree that Adept gets a shorter stick in ME2. I guess they wanted to avoid making them overpowered like in ME1. You could Lift, Throw and Singularity the whole game (including the end boss) without any challenge.

Yeah, which is what I end up doing on ME2 unless Im playing on insanity really. Of course, then on insanity, my powers are forced to take a backseat, especially once I get the battle rifle.

If it wasnt for unfair enemy spam, Id have breezed through Mass Effect 2 even easier than ME1 as an adept using a battle rifle. As it is, the game resorts quite often to cheaply throwing as many enemies at you as possible.

Its kind of like how I felt when playing COD4 on veteran, asking myself if spamming the player was the best they could manage.

[Some Geth]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Do i care hell I will say now ME2 had a plot that was crap and the gameplay at best was so so but was it fun? yes and ME1 had a plot that was so so and gameplay that was so bad but was it fun? yes.

I know you don't care at all about this all you care about is Liara and I think that is funny oh well I play games for fun oh what a better human I am.

What the hell is your problem? When did DL say Liara only mattered?

Look at him you don't see he is a crazy fanboy no fandom needs them at all .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

What the hell is your problem? When did DL say Liara only mattered?

Not once. But since hes a troll, and like so many lacks a decent rebuttal, they resort to reading my sigs (Im surprised they even manage to do that) and looking at my avatar, and doing the intarwebz ****** calculation - "he thinks ME2 suxxorz cos Shep cant bone Liara".

[Jebel Krong]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

the "rpg-side" of combat is the rock/paper/scissors mechanic. can you imagine the complaints if that was taken out, too? i agree it makes no real sense other than another gameplay mechanic to spike difficulty, and like the ammo clips it is an arbitrary solution, but y'know: it adds "depth".

It doesnt add depth, its a tacked on afterthought. If they actually focus some serious attention on the RPG side of combat in ME3, then it might add some depth. One of the common complaints among users outside of these boards in particular is that what little "RPG" there was in ME2 singularly lacked depth.

Take the N7 modular armour. I thought it was a fair idea in principal, but with not enough pieces. It also highlights the insanely crappy game "economy", with shops mostly being filled with trash for your cabin, or static "upgrades" (barely noticeable increases in the nigh invisible "stats").

Add to that you have to return to the cabin almost every single time you want to change it.

yeah there's always things to improve. i don't think rpg factors add anything to the combat (stat-based aiming was ridiculous in me1 for example) - combat works well enough now that it could be awesome with a few tweaks - extraneous mechanics should be left out where they don't work, but rpg mechanics are perfectly relevant and acceptable where they do fit in other areas of the game.

[Some Geth]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

What the hell is your problem? When did DL say Liara only mattered?

Not once. But since hes a troll, and like so many lacks a decent rebuttal, they resort to reading my sigs (Im surprised they even manage to do that) and looking at my avatar, and doing the intarwebz ****** calculation - "he thinks ME2 suxxorz cos Shep cant bone Liara".

You have a sig? I just look at all the posts you make dude 

[KitsuneRommel]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Yeah, which is what I end up doing on ME2 unless Im playing on insanity really. Of course, then on insanity, my powers are forced to take a backseat, especially once I get the battle rifle.

I have no idea how to solve that problem either. Increase the cooldowns and you'll be forced to use your weapons more which some people said adepts shouldn't be doing? Give enemies immunities which feels cheap and is basically what ME2 does? Whatever they do someone will feel disappointed.

[Some Geth]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Yeah, which is what I end up doing on ME2 unless Im playing on insanity really. Of course, then on insanity, my powers are forced to take a backseat, especially once I get the battle rifle.

I have no idea how to solve that problem either. Increase the cooldowns and you'll be forced to use your weapons more which some people said adepts shouldn't be doing? Give enemies immunities which feels cheap and is basically what ME2 does? Whatever they do someone will feel disappointed.

And that is why I feel sorry for BioWare no one will be happy.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Jebel Krong wrote...

yeah there's always things to improve. i don't think rpg factors add anything to the combat (stat-based aiming was ridiculous in me1 for example) - combat works well enough now that it could be awesome with a few tweaks - extraneous mechanics should be left out where they don't work, but rpg mechanics are perfectly relevant and acceptable where they do fit in other areas of the game.

Stat based "shrinking reticles" were right to be removed and replaced with a simple precise aiming system IMO (though they could have added an autoaim system for folks who dont play twitch shooters).

However, I think they seemed to take these things too far. Its not enough that weve now aligned all weapons with that of a standard shooter, we now have to force said weapons into the hands of classes who dont need them. Like someone masterfully pointed out earlier, why not stop being so lazy, and instead add a power upgrade for classes like the adept, sentinel and engineer? Why force a standard shooter weapon in their hands while shooter classes get an upgrade?

Ive said it before, the major diffence for me between ME1 and ME2 is that shooter ceased being an aspect of the game and became a centrepiece of it.  How can I think otherwise when I estimate about close to 60-75% of the gameworld is based in one off levels designed around shooter combat?

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 05 juin 2010 - 09:57 .

[bjdbwea]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

That looks to be the way the "standalone" trilogy is going. Its not one continuous story told across three acts. Its three singular stories told in three seperate games with some loose connections and references between them.

Indeed. ME 1 was a milestone in gaming history, like many BioWare games were. ME 2 is just another game. They had the chance to create a great trilogy, instead they threw it almost all away in their pursuit of the shooter mainstream market.

The curious thing is, it doesn't seem to have brought the sales numbers they probably expected. Even DA apparently sold better, even on consoles, and that's a real proper RPG! My conclusion: It would have been better to build on ME 1: Keep the companions (give or take a few), keep the Normandy, continue the story, tune (!) the mechanics and the Mako... This would not only have saved the developers work and time, it would also certainly at least not have sold worse.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 juin 2010 - 10:06 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

bjdbwea wrote...

Indeed. ME 1 was a mile stone in gaming history, like many BioWare games were. ME 2 is just another game. They had the chance to create a great trilogy, instead they threw it almost all away in their pursuit of the shooter mainstream market.

The curious thing is, it doesn't seem to have brought the sales numbers they probably expected. Even DA apparently sold better, even on consoles, and that's a real proper RPG! My conclusion: It would have been better to build on ME 1: Keep the companions (give or take a few), keep the Normandy, continue the story, tune (!) the mechanics and the Mako... This would not only have saved the developers work and time, it would also certainly at least not have sold worse.

This is the sweetest irony though, when looking at idiots like Some Geth: I have no problem with the concept of cameoing off the ME1 LIs, particularly when a response given by Bioware is flat out "they are saved for ME3" (of course what that actually means remains to be seen until later).

I just dont think relegating them to 10 minute cameos of "tch, Im afraid this is why they cant join you" was the right move.

I predicted an "excuse based cameo" is what we would get, and that is exactly what we got.

Now all thats left is to see exactly what it was "saving them" for in ME3....

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 05 juin 2010 - 10:05 .