iakus wrote...
One of my favorite lines from Smudboy's "Mass Effect 2 Plot Analysis":
"When the hero of the galaxy comes back from the dead, that should mean something to everyone who knew them and what they did. For several reasons, not just get discounts at stores."
iakus wrote...
I should also add that conversation choices have time limits. You have only a few seconds to decide how you're going to respond, no little time to ponder over what to say. Almost like they combined conversation choices with an interrupt system. Overall, far more of an RPG than ME2.
Flashbang is combat? I thought it was counted as tech power, well just forget I said that.tonnactus wrote...
RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Singularity was waaaaaaaay overpowered too. Lift if you're nemesis is as good as singularity, throw is a must when facing the awesome cheap krogans, if not, you're dead. Tech powers I didn't find them that good only. Useful, but not as good or fun to use as biotics.
A tech team coul perma sabotage a geth colossus and hacking armatures was also fun.At least in ME2 they got cloak, combat drone and flashbang grenade (if you have Kasumi).
The flashbang grenade is a combat power.Deadly? When in the awesome red veigns, go back to cover for 2 seconds is all it needs.Squadmates continue to shoot und destroy protection with the squad version of an ammo power. Enemies rarely use flanking anyway except the geth.Ammo powers are really good, but to shoot you expose yourself to enemy shooting which could be deadly in hardcore/insanity,
Warp explosions are also nice, I wish we had something like this for tech abilities.
Explosive canisters do double damage to enemies if overload is used.
Pocketgb wrote...
If that's the case it really doesn't tell me anything since ME1 also put an emphasis on the bang-bang. From the get-go that's how it's been hyped: "Check out these guns, the cover system, the abilities, the Mako." For ME1's case it wasn't the amount of story/dialog/interactions/etc. that mattered and more the delivery and impact of those moments. Same goes for ME2.
Kalfear wrote...
ME2 wasnt a RPG, but it was suppose to be in part.
Oh and its NOT my personal assumption, its how it was presented to the public and marketted.
Its you saying your personal assumptions are reality when in fact they are everything but in this case
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Posted this as a reply over at a Tali board, but it seems to me the Social is overrun with shooter fans whereas the original boards RPG fans made up the majority.
AlanC9 wrote...
I don't check you on this. I think it's only more noticeable because folks keep picking fights with the shooter fans here.
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Pocketgb wrote...
If that's the case it really doesn't tell me anything since ME1 also put an emphasis on the bang-bang. From the get-go that's how it's been hyped: "Check out these guns, the cover system, the abilities, the Mako." For ME1's case it wasn't the amount of story/dialog/interactions/etc. that mattered and more the delivery and impact of those moments. Same goes for ME2.
VERY GOOD THERE WAS FREAKING COMBAT IN ME1. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Get it through your head. The combat/interaction ratio was FINE in ME1. That WASN'T the case with ME2.
iakus wrote...
Terror_K wrote...
I have to say, I've been playing Alpha Protocol over the last few days and while it does admittedly have some flaws, there's a lot the Mass Effect team could learn from it too. I actually feel it does a better job at being an RPG than Mass Effect 2 does, even if overall its probably not as good a game. The combat is a bit messy, with shocking AI and some downright awful bits, but it does admittedly have some layers to it ME2 lacks, such as stealth combat, blind-firing, aiming for longer to increase accuracy, etc. and does feel more like real-time RPG combat for it much like Deus Ex and Fallout 3 did. I actually found the mini-games better in AP too, simply because I could actually fail them now and then and doing so had consequences beyond simply locking me out. The levels are less linear and allow multiple routes and methods of accomplishing them, and allow some non-combat alternatives. On the dialogue side of things it also had several really hard choices with direct consequences that were actually pretty tough, and I feel it actually beat both games out here overall (i.e. saving a possible love interest or a group of people, saving rapidly deleting data on either mass riots or an assassination attempt, siding with one evil over another, etc.). On top of it all, it has a more solid RPG backing than ME2, with multiple weapons, decent weapons modding and overall has decent skill upgrades that let you progress visibly without it being too much. Not sure how linear the weapons are and all... haven't done multiple playthroughs yet. Its got a decent influence system too, whereby individual comments even effect people rather than simply defining events (closer to DAO's approval/disapproval system basically). It may not quite pull it all off, but it does a better job than ME2 did in a lot of individual aspects, if not overall.
I've been playing AP to (haven't finished it yet though), and I pretty much agree with what you just said. I should also add that conversation choices have time limits. You have only a few seconds to decide how you're going to respond, no little time to ponder over what to say. Almost like they combined conversation choices with an interrupt system. Overall, far more of an RPG than ME2. I'll have to finish the game and see if they patch out any of the flaws, but overall, yeah it's at least Deus Ex quality.
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
So are you entitled to every game with a gun in it?
joltmajor wrote...
The storytelling was much more fluid and engaging in ME1 than it was in ME2
Modifié par javierabegazo, 06 juin 2010 - 08:45 .
bjdbwea wrote...
joltmajor wrote...
The storytelling was much more fluid and engaging in ME1 than it was in ME2
That's for sure.
Modifié par SuperMedbh, 06 juin 2010 - 08:21 .
Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 juin 2010 - 08:30 .
Christmas Ape wrote...
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Also, you can't deny there were less shooter fans on the original boards. The marketing for ME2 did its job.
bjdbwea wrote...
Well, here's a newsflash: ME 1 is character driven. So your point is?
Of course it is also story driven. Not mutually exclusive, like ME 2 could almost lead you to believe.
SuperMedbh wrote...
bjdbwea wrote...
Well, here's a newsflash: ME 1 is character driven. So your point is?
Of course it is also story driven. Not mutually exclusive, like ME 2 could almost lead you to believe.
No need to be rude. I think we can safely assume that most people who've completed a freshman English class understand that character and plot aren't mutually exclusive. That hardly means that stories don't emphasize one over the other. I think you'd agree that Jane Eyre is character driven and episodic, whereas War of the Worlds is more action driven and linear. It's not a quality judgement, it's simply one of technique.
cachx wrote...
It's refreshing to see good posts like this among the "They changed now it sucks" moans.
Pocketgb wrote...
The whole point of the ME series has been streamlining role-playing. Because of the way Bioware presented the ME series - a distinct voice-over from the main character for every single response in the game - the number of choices and possibilties decreases drastically. Moreso in ME2's case where there are even more variable settings that you have to trek through.
Instead of saying things like "makes no sense" we should write "Can you clarify that?" or "I don't understand"SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Pocketgb wrote...
The whole point of the ME series has been streamlining role-playing. Because of the way Bioware presented the ME series - a distinct voice-over from the main character for every single response in the game - the number of choices and possibilties decreases drastically. Moreso in ME2's case where there are even more variable settings that you have to trek through.
That post makes no sense.....
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
