10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Funny... considering everyone apparently wanted something different, I sure didn't.

Yeah, some people wanted the same. Some didn't. Some were satisfied as long as it was still a tasty pie.

I'm not saying that there were more people wanted something different, rather that there was never any unanimous agreement on where the game should go. This goes straight to the blueberry vs. cherry pie conflict.

I'd personally say they're both blueberry pies, but while the first one had a good balance of pasty and filling, the second one had very little filling and a lot of pasty... which to my tastes made it a bit dry and lacking.

ME2 was surprisingly well-done on the terms of being an over-the-shoulder shooter. Things are highly funcitonal, and this is what needed to be accomplished first above all else.

Add in all the powers and other attributes that can affect the combat and it's one of the more entertaining and intriguing systems out there, zounds above what any other third person shooter has reached. Still a bit rough, especially considering this is only the second time they've really branched out this far (first being Jade Empire), but I would not be disappointed to see them increase the depth with what they've reached in ME2.

To be honest, it's pretty poor even on the TPS side of things. Actually... "poor" isn't the right word exactly, perhaps "average" or "generic" would suit better. Gears of War, for instance, does it far better. Essentially they're both the same, but GoW manages to at least change things up now and then, integrate some decent puzzles and situations that aren't just straight-up shooting within the mechanics and provides some interesting boss fights and scenarios. ME2's combat really is pretty much just "run, see waist high cover ahead, get ambushed, fight off enemies, run until you get to the next cutscene or waist high cover zone" repeated over and over. Even ME1 was better in this regard... heck, even Alpha Protocol did better here. As far as combat goes, ME2 does very little beyond the standard fare with pretty much nothing that could be considered an X-Factor at all. It does the job well, I'll admit that, but that's all it does: the job. You mention the powers, but then those were already there in the original game, so that's hardly a point in ME2's favour.

Above all else it's a technical mess. I'm still trying to get it to work on my PC. It just needed a bit more polish is all, and this'll probably happen with later patches. I remember when NWN2 was crap to play. I come back a few months later and it feels entirely different: felt much smoother to play and ran at least three times better.

I got it going with no problems. The only issues I've had are some menu-related bugs, bad loading decisions and some questionable A.I., inconsistencies and points where the game seems to blatantly cheat (e.g. spawning enemies that were never there before just because you were spotted). The combat is admittedly frustrating, but that's just as true regarding Mass Effect when it comes to the RPG elements being so shallow and linear.

[SSV Enterprise]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Don't bother telling kalfear yous disagree with him, he will just call you an ME2 fanboy or a troll.

Well, I managed to get a relatively mature resolution of a discussion out of him in another thread, so hopefully I can do the same thing here, rather than his usual insults and condescension.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 09 juin 2010 - 05:56 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I'd personally say they're both blueberry pies, but while the first one had a good balance of pasty and filling, the second one had very little filling and a lot of pasty... which to my tastes made it a bit dry and lacking.

And someone will come along saying that it was delicious with the right amount of sugar and baked to a tasty crust.

We could go on and on and on with this already exhausted analogy but that's not the point. My point isn't what you think, it's not what I think. It's that we'll think differently.

Prime example:

To be honest, it's pretty poor even on the TPS side of things.

Nothing but tastebuds.

This isn't to say that there's not room for improvement (ex: enemies that have sight of your head but shoot the cover anyways, more room for more controls) but ME2 has been a pretty great start.

ME1 was better in this regards? Hit your defensive power, win the game.

Terror_K wrote...

You mention the powers, but then those were already there in the original game, so that's hardly a point in ME2's favour.

The abilities, squad combinations, and itemization in addition to the way combat is designed is what sets it apart.

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...
I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat .

Then you need to read more reviews.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat .

Then you need to read more reviews.

Meaning...?

[Orchomene]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...


I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat despite almost all its RPG systems being far more solid than ME2's simply because it has flawed combat, yet ME2 gets an average of about 9 or so for having combat that works, but weak RPG systems. Seems reviewers put more emphasis on combat when grading a game these days. Also, I can't help but wonder whether most of them were playing AP as if it were Gears of War, Army of Two or ME2 in combat and that's why they thought it failed in this respect, because playing it properly as a stealth game and not as a standard shooter works rather well for the most part.

Above all else it's a technical mess. I'm still trying to get it to work on my PC. It just needed a bit more polish is all, and this'll probably happen with later patches. I remember when NWN2 was crap to play. I come back a few months later and it feels entirely different: felt much smoother to play and ran at least three times better.

I had more technical issues to run properly ME1/2 than AP that run without issues at all.
The only issues that can are seen are linked to the UE and are present in bothe ME games (flying characters, texture load).

[Orchomene]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Non sense, bad faith, insults.

Thanks for your kind attitude. I'd rather avoid to simply consider your posts completly.
And if you want to read something, you can have a look at this.
http://www.amazon.co...76067474&sr=8-1

[SithLordExarKun]

Orchomene wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Non sense, bad faith, insults.

Thanks for your kind attitude. I'd rather avoid to simply consider your posts completly.
And if you want to read something, you can have a look at this.
http://www.amazon.co...76067474&sr=8-1

This is the third time you've told me you were going to ignore me, yet you keep consistently posting. I'll wait for your next reply mr "ill ignore you but im still posting to you".

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat .

Then you need to read more reviews.

Meaning...?

Without going too off topic, it got average to mediocre ratings for more than just it's weak combat.

You can have your RPG elements, (which was it's only saving grace, the conversation system especially) I'd rather play a game that doesn't suck.

[Orchomene]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat .

Then you need to read more reviews.

Meaning...?

Without going too off topic, it got average to mediocre ratings for more than just it's weak combat.

You can have your RPG elements, (which was it's only saving grace, the conversation system especially) I'd rather play a game that doesn't suck.

This is a bit radical. I'm enjoying a lot more AP than ME1/2 for many reasons, not only linked to the RPG elements. But again, it's a matter of taste. No bug, a lot of freedom, an interesting story, ambiguities in choices, choices that change a lot the story and give a lot of replayability.

Modifié par Orchomene, 09 juin 2010 - 10:12 .

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Interesting point, but that has more to do with the control the player has over the course of the mission.

Exactly. An important part of rpgs,right? Choices and options. The nassana dantius mission was a great opportunity to offer something like this in addition to make shepardts actions of the past important in the actual game. Wasted for a cool cutscene.

The point that Mass Effect 2 is no more shooter focused than Mass Effect 1 still stands.

Combat focused is the right word for this. Weapon combat was influenced by stats in Mass Effect,and all weapon have special attacks. This isnt shooter combat.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 10:18 .

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

To be honest, it's pretty poor even on the TPS side of things. Actually... "poor" isn't the right word exactly, perhaps "average" or "generic" would suit better. Gears of War, for instance, does it far better. Essentially they're both the same, but GoW manages to at least change things up now and then, integrate some decent puzzles and situations that aren't just straight-up shooting within the mechanics and provides some interesting boss fights and scenarios. ME2's combat really is pretty much just "run, see waist high cover ahead, get ambushed, fight off enemies, run until you get to the next cutscene or waist high cover zone" repeated over and over. Even ME1 was better in this regard... heck, even Alpha Protocol did better here.

Mass Effect 1 wasn't better at any point with combat. Even the tech demo of Mass Effect 1 in 2006 had more interactive dialogue and RPG-like gameplay.

Mass Effect X06 Demo
Mass Effect 1, E3 2006

• Each skill/ability is further broken down into an actual skill set, unlike Mass Effect 1/2, where it's just "put points into this, make it better".
• Weapons are much more customizable
• You can even control your squadmates (ala Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age).
• More dialogue between combat scenes, with squadmate dialogue interrupts
• NPCs acknowledge not just you, but your squad as well "Two Alliance marines and a Turian C-Sec, you don't see that everyday..."
• The galaxy map is much larger with more nebulae in each system, for maximum exploration
• Interactive environments, collapsible walls for maximum immersion

The real question is - "Why did they dumb Mass Effect 1 down in comparison to its demo"? If that demo was Mass Effect 1, and Mass Effect 1 in 2007 was Mass Effect 2, we'd be hearing the same exact complaints.

The voice acting in those videos is atrocious, though. I'm glad they changed that.

Modifié par Ecael, 09 juin 2010 - 10:26 .

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...


[*]The real question is - "Why did they dumb Mass Effect 1 down in comparison to its demo"?

Guess Bioware's ambitions rose higher than technology would let them. You'd expect that with Mass Effect 2 they would make the game more like the demo's they showed pre-release ME (1). I would love to play that game as well, if you ask me.

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...
The real question is - "Why did they dumb Mass Effect 1 down in comparison to its demo"?

Guess Bioware's ambitions rose higher than technology would let them. You'd expect that with Mass Effect 2 they would make the game more like the demo's they showed pre-release ME (1). I would love to play that game as well, if you ask me.

So would I. Looks like the one thing they did improve while taking out all the RPG elements in Mass Effect 1 was the overall 'sexiness' of their characters, the graphics, and the shooter gameplay.

I wonder what type of gamer they were targeting there...

[FlintlockJazz]

Orchomene wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I also find it interesting that Alpha Protocol gets low reviews averaging around 6 to 7 for having bad combat .

Then you need to read more reviews.

Meaning...?

Without going too off topic, it got average to mediocre ratings for more than just it's weak combat.

You can have your RPG elements, (which was it's only saving grace, the conversation system especially) I'd rather play a game that doesn't suck.

This is a bit radical. I'm enjoying a lot more AP than ME1/2 for many reasons, not only linked to the RPG elements. But again, it's a matter of taste. No bug, a lot of freedom, an interesting story, ambiguities in choices, choices that change a lot the story and give a lot of replayability.

I agree, I'm loving AP alot too, moreso than ME1, since the style fits it better and the abilities chosen actually alters the way you play the game, as opposed to ME1 wherein most abilities just helped in combat ("I hit it with tech blast" "I hit it with biotic blast").  As Shepard is a marine it fitted that the skills were all combat orientated, it was just the combat system didn't work as a result.  ME2's combat system suits the game better imho, and while having more options is always good (the weapon modding in AP would be awesome in ME2), it is an overall improvement for ME imho.

I think the problem with the reviewers for AP is that they are reviewing it as a shooter, and yet it is far less of a shooter than ME1 was, in fact I'd argue it is a straight stat-based RPG played in third person view, hell its even got RPG in it's title!  Then again, maybe I'm just as crazy as Heck...

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

ME1 was better in this regards?

Yes.At least at higher difficulties.Abilities like damping,sabotage and crowd control powers that work despite of shields on every enemy.

[Ecael]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I agree, I'm loving AP alot too, moreso than ME1, since the style fits it better and the abilities chosen actually alters the way you play the game, as opposed to ME1 wherein most abilities just helped in combat ("I hit it with tech blast" "I hit it with biotic blast").  As Shepard is a marine it fitted that the skills were all combat orientated, it was just the combat system didn't work as a result.  ME2's combat system suits the game better imho, and while having more options is always good (the weapon modding in AP would be awesome in ME2), it is an overall improvement for ME imho.

I think the problem with the reviewers for AP is that they are reviewing it as a shooter, and yet it is far less of a shooter than ME1 was, in fact I'd argue it is a straight stat-based RPG played in third person view, hell its even got RPG in it's title!  Then again, maybe I'm just as crazy as Heck...

Reviewers probably load it up and see that they can't customize their main character beyond hair and accessories and don't have any squadmates with customizable powers.

That might tip them off into thinking it's a shooter.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Yes.At least at higher
difficulties.Abilities like damping,sabotage and crowd control powers
that work despite of shields on every enemy.

That doesn't make anything "better". Besides, ME1 had Immunity. That was my point: Skill required decreased dramatically when you boosted a defensive skill.

And WB Ecael.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 juin 2010 - 10:53 .

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...
The real question is - "Why did they dumb Mass Effect 1 down in comparison to its demo"?

Guess Bioware's ambitions rose higher than technology would let them. You'd expect that with Mass Effect 2 they would make the game more like the demo's they showed pre-release ME (1). I would love to play that game as well, if you ask me.

So would I. Looks like the one thing they did improve while taking out all the RPG elements in Mass Effect 1 was the overall 'sexiness' of their characters, the graphics, and the shooter gameplay.

I wonder what type of gamer they were targeting there...

My inner nerd kept shouting 'Why?!?!?' when I saw that footage again. The ME games are good as they are now, but I honestly think they would be better if they were more like Bioware presented them before ME (1)'s release.

[Pocketgb]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...
The real question is - "Why did they dumb Mass Effect 1 down in comparison to its demo"?

Guess Bioware's ambitions rose higher than technology would let them. You'd expect that with Mass Effect 2 they would make the game more like the demo's they showed pre-release ME (1). I would love to play that game as well, if you ask me.

So would I. Looks like the one thing they did improve while taking out all the RPG elements in Mass Effect 1 was the overall 'sexiness' of their characters, the graphics, and the shooter gameplay.

I wonder what type of gamer they were targeting there...

My inner nerd kept shouting 'Why?!?!?' when I saw that footage again. The ME games are good as they are now, but I honestly think they would be better if they were more like Bioware presented them before ME (1)'s release.

I'm always upset whenever I see them controlling the squaddies  Would've loved to do that...

It would also solve them dying all the time on insanity >

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 juin 2010 - 10:56 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


That doesn't make anything "better".

It does,because in the first game you have crowd control in the sense of the word.
Just look what powers really matter in Mass Effect 2.Defense stripping powers.The other ones are not really needed or could influence combat in a way they did it in the first game.

Besides, ME1 had Immunity. That was my point: Skill required decreased dramatically when you boosted a defensive skill.

And WB Ecael.

Did anyone force you to put points in immunity or use it every second? There were enough people who didnt put points in barrier or immunity in Mass Effect.

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...

Mass Effect 1 wasn't better at any point with combat.

I disagree. ME1 didn't force you down such linear paths or force you into cover all the time, while ME2 almost always does. ME1 had crouch and there were sometimes where this came in handy and you didn't always have cover. ME2's abilities are far more spammy than ME1's because they recharge so damn fast I can just keep spamming the same decent ability every 5 seconds or so, while even if one did spam off all their abilities at the start in ME1 you'd be defenceless power-wise for over a minute beyond that, so you'd better hope that you hit all your targets first up. ME1 also did a better job of making the cover seem more natural and less like obvious ambushes. The fast recharging health in ME2 takes away challenge since you can just duck behind cover and heal up again fully in a few seconds, rather than having a limited resource (ironic considering their apparent logic with the thermal clips).

Even the tech demo of Mass Effect 1 in 2006 had more interactive dialogue and RPG-like gameplay.

*SNIPPED*

What exactly is this supposed to prove? All this does is show how much more dumbed down ME2 is and how much further from the original vision of the game it is. If anything, ME2 should have been more like this early ME1 stuff, but instead, beyond the interrupts making a return, its even further away from it. All you've done is prove that BioWare originally intended to make this a deeper RPG than even the first one was, and that ME2 really has gone away from that concept.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

It does,because in the first game you have crowd control in the sense of the word.
Just look what powers really matter in Mass Effect 2.Defense stripping powers.The other ones are not really needed or could influence combat in a way they did it in the first game.

Like I said, there are plenty of oppurtunities for all the classes to really shape the battlefield.

Are they the same as ME1? No.
Could they use improvement? Yes.

tonnactus wrote...

Did anyone force you to put points in immunity or use it every second?

It doesn't matter if you use it or invest time into it. What matters is that it's there, and that using it - as the developers intended - really makes the game much more of a breeze.

Terror_K wrote...

I disagree. ME1 didn't force you down
such linear paths or force you into cover all the time, while ME2 almost
always does.

ME1 didn't really force you to do anything at all. The difficulty curve rose a bit then did a nosedive into a pool of easysauce.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 juin 2010 - 11:16 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Ecael wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I agree, I'm loving AP alot too, moreso than ME1, since the style fits it better and the abilities chosen actually alters the way you play the game, as opposed to ME1 wherein most abilities just helped in combat ("I hit it with tech blast" "I hit it with biotic blast").  As Shepard is a marine it fitted that the skills were all combat orientated, it was just the combat system didn't work as a result.  ME2's combat system suits the game better imho, and while having more options is always good (the weapon modding in AP would be awesome in ME2), it is an overall improvement for ME imho.

I think the problem with the reviewers for AP is that they are reviewing it as a shooter, and yet it is far less of a shooter than ME1 was, in fact I'd argue it is a straight stat-based RPG played in third person view, hell its even got RPG in it's title!  Then again, maybe I'm just as crazy as Heck...

Reviewers probably load it up and see that they can't customize their main character beyond hair and accessories and don't have any squadmates with customizable powers.

That might tip them off into thinking it's a shooter.

I can understand them seeing it as a shooter because its in third person using the Unreal engine, but the emphasis on stats coupled with the fact that on the box in big letters is written the title "Alpha Protocol: The Espionage RPG" should tip them off some. <_<  I know I have argued that a game can focus on shooter mechanics and still be classed as a RPG, but the lack of mention of shooter being included should have tipped them off some, otherwise they would have put Espionage RPG/Shooter wouldn't they?

Most RPGs other than Bioware and JRPGs don't have squadmates, and you can't alter your character at all in most JRPGs except perhaps the name in older ones.

[tonnactus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...


Like I said, there are plenty of oppurtunities for all the classes to really shape the battlefield.
[/quote]
I have seen all those vids.What should they proove now? Considering all battles throw and shockwave only come in handy at collector platforms for an instant kill.
Otherwise its just singularity and warp spam.
To be honest, squad cyro ammo is a better crowd control ability then all things shown in those vids.What is a shame.



[quote]tonnactus wrote...



It doesn't matter if you use it or invest time into it. What matters is that it's there, and that using it - as the developers intended - really makes the game much more of a breeze.
[/quote]

ME1 didn't really force you to do anything at all. The difficulty curve rose a bit then did a nosedive into a pool of easysauce.

[/quote]

They didnt intend anything.There are not enough points to  maximize all talents so the player has to choose and should do it. Just put points in charm,first aid and spectre training instead of immunity.Max all weapons. Problem solved.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 11:35 .