10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

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).

excuse me?  combat in me1 consisted of shooting in the same 3 rooms of boxes, without an adequate cover system, or the odd random encounters on UNC worlds, or shooting down linear corridors in the main missions. in mass effect 2 they implemented the gears cover system to give you much more flexibility and control over combat. admittedly this does force an arbitrary sort of level design with cover having to be available, but there were no more rooms of boxes in #2, than #1. and the combat areas in me2 were much better designed to allow you to explore different tactics, and the enemy too, if you weren't careful. the only thing enemies did in me1 was krogans charging you, or soldiers spamming immunity. the only thing me2 could do much better for me3 is make it less obvious when you're in a combat zone, than an exploration one, and fix some of the still-glitchy combat mechanics like over-sensitive movement in cover. the lack of crouch, which was only useful outside on UNC worlds to snipe distant enemies outside of their ranges - inspiring combat btw - in me1, isn't an issue because it's a TPS cover-shooter in respect of combat - you crouch automatically, where appropriate. seriously if you did that out in the open in me2 you'd die in a hail of convergent gunfire before you did anything.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

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).

Good lord are you serious? ME1's combat was unbelivably horrible, seriously with that logic i guess ME1's combat far outclasses that of COD, battlefield or gears.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

Except in ignoring Immunity you are missing out on the bar-none best skill in the game. No need to take cover, only thing you need to be weary of are rockets. And that's about it. Why wouldn't you want that?

During one of my Soldier playthroughs in ME1 I realized I was able to do nothing but pop immunity, stand in front of a guy, and hold the right trigger. Ammo wasn't a problem, damage wasn't a problem, health wasn't a problem.

There should not be an end-all-be-all best anything in a game. As hard as balance is to maintain there's trying hard and hardly trying. Both games are victims of this.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


Except in ignoring Immunity you are missing out on the bar-none best skill in the game. No need to take cover, only thing you need to be weary of are rockets. And that's about it. Why wouldn't you want that?

You yourself gave the answer. The game isnt challenging anymore if you spam it.If this is the case, i just ask you why you bother with it??
Why you use it despite the fact that the combat is less enjoyable with that skill?
Dont put points in it,or use it only in emergency situations like three krogans charge you at once.
Or just play a class that doesnt have it.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

You yourself gave the answer. The game isnt challenging anymore if you spam it.

The game isn't challenging if you're allowed to spam it. It's not that I'm not using it rather that I could be: "you don't have to use it" is not a good reason to allow a button on the controller that simply kills all enemies on the screen.

The reason something like immunity shouldn't exist is the same for advocating for balance and multiple difficulties. As is, there's really no point to it.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 juin 2010 - 12:26 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Sounds like ME1 had overpowered abilities and ME2 had underpowered abilities then from what is being discussed. Usual balancing issues you get with all RPGs.

[exxxed]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...


Except in ignoring Immunity you are missing out on the bar-none best skill in the game. No need to take cover, only thing you need to be weary of are rockets. And that's about it. Why wouldn't you want that?

You yourself gave the answer. The game isnt challenging anymore if you spam it.If this is the case, i just ask you why you bother with it??
Why you use it despite the fact that the combat is less enjoyable with that skill?
Dont put points in it,or use it only in emergency situations like three krogans charge you at once.
Or just play a class that doesnt have it.

 In my every playthrough (ME1 12 and a half times ME2 2 times barely able to make myself play the third time) i used the Infiltrator class... believe me or don't, but i have no idea what immunity is hm, is it that ability to turn your health bar white and the HP goes down much slower?

 Of course you can find flaws in any game which includes combat, flaws that you can spam or abuse that is,so it will make the game easier, that happens with mini-maxing players, the ones who usually play shooters and should stay away from RPGs , key words ROLE PLAYING.

 Cheers!

[Pocketgb]

exxxed wrote...

 Of course you can find flaws in any game which includes combat, flaws that you can spam or abuse that is,so it will make the game easier, that happens with mini-maxing players, the ones who usually play shooters and should stay away from RPGs , key words ROLE PLAYING.

Ha haaa! I shall play what I please, good sir. Regardless, why can't a good role-playing game also have good and well-balanced combat?

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Sounds like ME1 had overpowered
abilities and ME2 had underpowered abilities then from what is being
discussed. Usual balancing issues you get with all RPGs.

Infiltrator
in ME2 is also pretty Godtier. Both games are pretty imba, just on different - and sometimes less drastic - degrees.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


The game isn't challenging if you're allowed to spam it.

You are an adult and have a free will,right?

The reason something like immunity shouldn't exist is the same for advocating for balance and multiple difficulties. As is, there's really no point to it.

Its ok that immunity exists when enemies could use this too.This was the case in the game.On insanity enemies have all master immunity . So this was balanced.You couldnt kill  them without use at least some warp.

But look what is the case now. Bosses like krogan battlemasters with barrier and armor,and fast regenerating health.Is this balanced? Not that they are difficult to kill, but they dont have to take cover and could  take a crapload of damage,even most heavy weapons didnt harm them much.

The player doesnt have this option even with tech armor. This isnt balanced and its cheap, right?

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 12:44 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

You are an adult and have a free will,right?

Missed the point.

tonnactus wrote...

Its ok that immunity exists when enemies could use this too.

No it's not, actually, since it just drew out combat for little to no reason. ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!

Not only that but it sounds like you'd be all for a "kill everyone onscreen" button for the player if the enemies could do the exact same thing

(Don't take that too seriously, btw)

tonnactus wrote...

The player doesnt have this option even with tech armor. This isnt balanced and its cheap, right?

1.An enemy in a video game is always going to be at an unfair advantage because they're not us. For now, until developers are able to create a super artificial intelligence, these handicaps will suffice to even the playing field.
2. Couldn't the fact that you're always outnumbered also be cosidered "imbalanced"?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 juin 2010 - 12:56 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Pocketgb wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Sounds like ME1 had overpowered
abilities and ME2 had underpowered abilities then from what is being
discussed. Usual balancing issues you get with all RPGs.

Infiltrator
in ME2 is also pretty Godtier. Both games are pretty imba, just on different - and sometimes less drastic - degrees.

Exactly.  The problem I had with ME1 was not the balancing (since they never get that right in any game) but rather that I felt they had taken all the bad parts of shooter gameplay and all the bad parts of stat-based gameplay and stuck them together.  IMHO the combat in ME2 is more representative of the style of fighting that is in the ME lore as I have read it, but that is my personal opinion. 

Either way, ME1 is pretty much a shoot everything game and so getting the combat right is pretty much the biggest issue.  If it had been more a mix of gameplay like Deus Ex or VTM:Bloodlines then it would have suited going more towards stat-based gameplay, but ME1's answer to most things was 'shoot it' or 'Lift it' or some other variation of attacking it, and so taking the route it did was the best choice IMHO.

[Pocketgb]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Sounds like ME1 had overpowered
abilities and ME2 had underpowered abilities then from what is being
discussed. Usual balancing issues you get with all RPGs.

Infiltrator
in ME2 is also pretty Godtier. Both games are pretty imba, just on different - and sometimes less drastic - degrees.

Exactly.  The problem I had with ME1 was not the balancing (since they never get that right in any game) but rather that I felt they had taken all the bad parts of shooter gameplay and all the bad parts of stat-based gameplay and stuck them together.  IMHO the combat in ME2 is more representative of the style of fighting that is in the ME lore as I have read it, but that is my personal opinion. 

Either way, ME1 is pretty much a shoot everything game and so getting the combat right is pretty much the biggest issue.  If it had been more a mix of gameplay like Deus Ex or VTM:Bloodlines then it would have suited going more towards stat-based gameplay, but ME1's answer to most things was 'shoot it' or 'Lift it' or some other variation of attacking it, and so taking the route it did was the best choice IMHO.

I think at this point I wouldn't mind seeing one of two things:
1. A whole lot more choice and variety, or
2. A bit more variety but a lot of refining.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone able to pull off adding a lot more choices while doing a lot of fixing

[Lumikki]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]Ecael wrote...

Mass Effect 1 wasn't better at any point with combat.[/quote]

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).[/quote][/quote]
You have to be kiding here, right?

Sure, ME2 still has problems, like clips lying on the ground and too many obvious covers on missions. How ever, the combat is self is alot of better. More detailed and weapons feels more right.

Examples:

1. Pistol feels like pistol. In ME1 it feeled like submachine gun, because marksman skill.
2. You can shoot enemy parts, what increase combat impression. In ME1 it was just general hit to enemy.
3. Weapons shooting distance works better. In ME1 I could shoot with pistol beyond my ability see the enemy.

Compare this that some weapons, like sniper rifle is totally useless from begin of ME1. Shepard the best elite trained N7 soldier in human alliance can't even hit barn with it on starting level. Other hand pistol can be only weapon you need, because "marksman" skill makes in most heavy damage "submachine gun". With ability modify it's overheat reduction, it NEVER overheat. It's one of most damaging weapon in game and can be used on any distance. You call that good combat system, where player run directly on battle guns blazing and kills everyting on site with this super weapon and has even super good specter armor for protections. Give me break, ME1's combat did the job, but it was never really good combat system.

ME2's weapon combat is better balances trough all levels.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]Ecael wrote...

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

*SNIPPED*
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
It shows something what you haven't accept yet. That Bioware started to dumb rpg side from the beging. Meaning Bioware doesn't want traditional rpg design for Mass Effect series.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 juin 2010 - 01:38 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...
]

No it's not, actually, since it just drew out combat for little to no reason. ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!

Like the endless loki spam in a N7 sidemission or the drones on haestrom?? Immunity is just an protection ability the enemy also use. Dont understand me wrong,eating rockings with colossus armor

tonnactus wrote...

The player doesnt have this option even with tech armor. This isnt balanced and its cheap, right?

1.An enemy in a video game is always going to be at an unfair advantage because they're not us. For now, until developers are able to create a super artificial intelligence, these handicaps will suffice to even the playing field.

But this advantage should be more then just to be a brickwall of armor and shields.Batarian engineers were subbosses without having immunity in the first game. But they have their own drones,fast reload time for tech talents and they used all the talents an engineer shepardt could have.This is the way to go without the need of an outstanding artificial intelligence.More talents instead of more armor and health.

2. Couldn't the fact that you're always outnumbered also be cosidered "imbalanced"?

If the enemies would use their size advantage and flank and overrun the player,then yes.But this isnt the case in Mass Effect 2 anyway.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 03:57 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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).

You have to be kiding here, right?

Sure, ME2 still has problems, like clips lying on the ground and too many obvious covers on missions. How ever, the combat is self is alot of better. More detailed and weapons feel more right.

Examples:

1. Pistol feels like pistol. In ME1 it feeled like submachine gun, because marksman skill.
2. You can shoot enemy parts, what increase combat impression. In ME1 it was just general hit to enemy.
3. Weapons shooting distance works better. In ME1 I could shoot with pistol beyond my ability see the enemy.

Compare this that some weapons, like sniper rifle is totally useless from begin of ME1. Shepard the best elite trained N7 soldier in human alliance can't even hit barn with it on starting level. Other hand pistol can be only weapon you need, because "marksman" skill makes in most heavy damage "submachine gun". With ability modify it's overheat reduction, it NEVER overheat. It's one of most damaging weapon in game and can be used on any distance. You call that good combat system, where player run directly on battle guns blazing and kills everyting on site with this super weapon and has even super good specter armor for protections. Give me break, ME1's combat did the job, but it was never really good combat system.

ME2's weapon combat is better balances trough all levels.

*sigh* You (and the others who have responded to my response) have missed the point and jumped to extremes. I never said ME1 did everything better than ME2 and that ME2 was awful combat-wise. Ecael said that ME1 was inferior to ME2 combat wise in every way... I just pointed out some aspects I felt were done a little better in ME1 than ME2. That doesn't necessarily mean that ME1 was better overall combat wise... just that not all the changes made in ME2 were better ones. Combat in ME2 is far more narrow than it was in ME1.

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

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.

It shows something what you haven't accept yet. That Bioware started to dumb rpg side from the beging. Meaning Bioware doesn't want traditional rpg design for Mass Effect series.

If they didn't want those aspects in the Mass Effect series, then those early videos wouldn't have had those aspects in them in the first place. They wouldn't waste time, money and resources developing a game in a manner they didn't intend. I remember them stating when people wondered about these missing attributes that most of them were cut for time, cut because it didn't work quite as well as they hoped, or cut because it would take too much effort and resources to fully develop or because it hindered performance... not that they were cut because they didn't want it in there.

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 juin 2010 - 01:48 .

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

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

*sigh* You (and the others who have responded to my response) have missed the point and jumped to extremes. I never said ME1 did everything better than ME2 and that ME2 was awful combat-wise. Ecael said that ME1 was inferior to ME2 combat wise in every way... I just pointed out some aspects I felt were done a little better in ME1 than ME2. That doesn't necessarily mean that ME1 was better overall combat wise... just that not all the changes made in ME2 were better ones. Combat in ME2 is far more narrow than it was in ME1.

Looks like you also jumped to extremes - I never said Mass Effect 1 was any worse either.

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

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.

It shows something what you haven't accept yet. That Bioware started to dumb rpg side from the beging. Meaning Bioware doesn't want traditional rpg design for Mass Effect series.

And that Mass Effect 1 has also drifted well beyond the concept.

You'll notice that weapons in that demo didn't even overheat either - which makes more sense than weapons overheating or heat sinks.

I've already acecpted that Mass Effect is a "dumbed down" version of an RPG. Look here:

http://social.biowar...5/index/2791290

You, on the other hand, have yet to accept that Mass Effect was - by definition of the people on this forum - "dumbed down" from the very beginning. The current generation of Pokémon is far more complex and requires more strategy than both games combined.

If they didn't want those aspects in the Mass Effect series, then those early videos wouldn't have had those aspects in them in the first place. They wouldn't waste time, money and resources developing a game in a manner they didn't intend. I remember them stating when people wondered about these missing attributes that most of them were cut for time, cut because it didn't work quite as well as they hoped, or cut because it would take too much effort and resources to fully develop or because it hindered performance... not that they were cut because they didn't want it in there.

So you'll only believe what BioWare says if it fits your point of view?

There are several things the developers have said that have been completely dismissed after the release of Mass Effect 2. Why do you only listen to them when trying to make up excuses for Mass Effect 1?

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Lumikki wrote...

It shows something what you haven't accept yet. That Bioware started to dumb rpg side from the beging. Meaning Bioware doesn't want traditional rpg design for Mass Effect series.

Do you honestly think everyone here expects this game to be a straight up hardcore RPG like Dragon Age just because we object to the dumbing down of ME2 and its shooter oriented nature?

I always knew it wasnt going to be a full on RPG. What I didnt know was that by the second game, it would have very little left to mark it as an RPG.

Even the plot, dialogue and characters bowed to the "streamlined" shooter mechanics of ME2. You no longer "roleplay" you "rolechoose" due to the restrictive and idiotic dumbing down of the paragon/renegade persuade system. Huge amounts of character development get skimped on because they now have "loyalty mission" that centre on each character, that not only almost entirely get dominated by combat, but also have very little impact in what little of the games plot that there is. And that links nicely to the final part, of having 80% of the game filled with stand alone side missions for characters who recieve no real fanfare whether they live or die, and dont look to be able to hold down a significant role in the remainder of this trilogy due to the fact that they might be dead.

Yeah, they improved the shooter combat in ME2 by making it more in line with typical third person shooters. Unfortunately, they didnt appear to bother doing much else. Not even to try and at least tell a good story that moves along the overall plot of this trilogy. Instead we get a big waste of time thats nowhere near as "epic" as the first game, and simply leaves us exactly where the first game did, with the added fact that ME2 ruined ME1s ending with its opening sequence.

[chzr]

Lumikki wrote...
You have to be kiding here, right?

Sure, ME2 still has problems, like clips lying on the ground and too many obvious covers on missions. How ever, the combat is self is alot of better. More detailed and weapons feel more right.

Examples:

1. Pistol feels like pistol. In ME1 it feeled like submachine gun, because marksman skill.
2. You can shoot enemy parts, what increase combat impression. In ME1 it was just general hit to enemy.
3. Weapons shooting distance works better. In ME1 I could shoot with pistol beyond my ability see the enemy.

Compare this that some weapons, like sniper rifle is totally useless from begin of ME1. Shepard the best elite trained N7 soldier in human alliance can't even hit barn with it on starting level. Other hand pistol can be only weapon you need, because "marksman" skill makes in most heavy damage "submachine gun". With ability modify it's overheat reduction, it NEVER overhead. It's one of most damaging weapon in game and can be used on any distance. You call that good combat system, where player run directly on battle guns blazing and kills everyting on site with this super weapon and has even super good specter armor for protections. Give me break, ME1's combat did the job, but it was never really good combat system.

ME2's weapon combat is better balances trough all levels.

1) yup, now it's accurate even without marksman skill. instead of  smg, it feels like a sniper rifle.
2) right.
3) maybe it's because in me2, there isnt a place which could be considered a "long range" or "beyond ability to see".  now about weapon ranges: you can shoot accurately (ie. headshot) on every me2 combat setting with pistol, smg (if you can handle recoil), sniper, ar. you cant with shotgun. in that case, you are probably vanguard with charge -> range doesnt matter. so, in me2, you can shoot actually any enemy in any range with any gun.

so the issue with combat in me1 is that you actually need put skillpoints into weapon to make it worth? and it's fine that in me2 you are awesome shooter with every weapon that comes in your hands even if in me1 you didn't know how to shoot at all, but you know nothing about bio/tech if you were a top tech/bio user in the universe?
so if a pistol (that you didn't have to use) was overpowered, the combat was broken?

now what do you call balance? is worth using b/t powers instead of shooting in me2? no.

im not saying me1 combat couldn't use improvements, i just don't think me2 combat is that perfect or challenging. it's in fact trivial. 1) cover 2) kill enemies with rock-paper-scissors formula 3) if you screwed point 1 or 2, just wait to secs in cover to regen.

Modifié par chzr, 09 juin 2010 - 02:16 .

[Max Legend]

Ecael wrote...

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.

[*]
[*]
[*]I cant believe they stripped away many great gameplay elements,especially the direct control on squad members ala Baldurs gate.
[*]And the customisation of weapons and the skill tree shown in the demo are sick.

Modifié par Max Legend, 09 juin 2010 - 02:19 .

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

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

*sigh* You (and the others who have responded to my response) have missed the point and jumped to extremes. I never said ME1 did everything better than ME2 and that ME2 was awful combat-wise. Ecael said that ME1 was inferior to ME2 combat wise in every way... I just pointed out some aspects I felt were done a little better in ME1 than ME2. That doesn't necessarily mean that ME1 was better overall combat wise... just that not all the changes made in ME2 were better ones. Combat in ME2 is far more narrow than it was in ME1.

Looks like you also jumped to extremes - I never said Mass Effect 1 was any worse either.

Um... okay. But if you claim that ME1 wasn't any better at any point with combat, then the statement automatically implies that it was worse than ME2. The only other conclusion is that they're both exactly equal, but I find that hard to believe that that is your claim.

Ecael wrote...
You, on the other hand, have yet to accept that Mass Effect was - by definition of the people on this forum - "dumbed down" from the very beginning. The current generation of Pokémon is far more complex and requires more strategy than both games combined.

Uh... not really. I've referred to ME1 as being "RPG-Lite" long before the first teaser of ME2 even existed, let alone when ME2 looked to be taking a turn for the worse and the promotional stuff began focusing almost entirely on it being "a better shooter" and the like. I fully acknowledge that ME1 was never a really deep RPG, and I acknowledge that it really shouldn't be given the style its going for. One can go to extremes too far in either direction when making a hybrid game, but I personally feel that the balance was about right in ME1, while it was tipped too far in the shooter side of things in ME2. I'm not even sure, for example, that having additional stats to build up within a skill would be a good idea as shown in one of those earlier videos. I'm a person who fully supported the Star Wars RPG being streamlined for the Saga Edition ruleset where complexity and redundancies were simplified to make the game more accessible and easier to play (e.g. all the Mechanics skills being relegated to a single Mechanics skill rather than having individual and specific mechanics-based ones). The problem is that ME2 doesn't just simplify what was already there, but it removes a lot of it too. That's the difference between streamlining something and dumbing it down.

So you'll only believe what BioWare says if it fits your point of view?

There are several things the developers have said that have been completely dismissed after the release of Mass Effect 2. Why do you only listen to them when trying to make up excuses for Mass Effect 1?

What are you even talking about? Could you give some examples here, because I seriously have no idea what you're claiming or talking about?

I believe what BioWare says when it makes sense and the pieces fit. I don't believe what they say when there appears to be evidence to the contrary, just like with anybody else.

[Vena_86]

Jeez people...Terror_K says that some things about ME1 combat where better than in ME2 and everyone just reads "ME1 combat is better than ME2 combat". That was not the message!

How is it possible to have a proper discussion with people that dont pay attention, read selected parts only, take them out of context and jump to extreme conclusions.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Great, so now anyone with a problem with ME2s blatant change of direction not only cant see that ""BOTH GAEMS ARE EXAKTLY TEH SAEM!!!!!!!!", but now apparently we were in denial all along, believing Mass Effect was always meant to be a straight up 100% heavy RPG, and that ME1 accomplished this but ME2 didnt.

I could see for myself with ME1 that this was very much different to Biowares usual RPG game style, but I thought to myself "Why the hell not? Whats there is enough for me to work with, even with its flaws, and they are still telling a good story with well integrated characters".

With ME2 and things like removing non-combat character skills that yield non-combat rewards, lessening the amount of powers you and your squadmates have available, no longer allowing weapons and armour to be modded, not allowing you to even upgrade or change your squadmates armour, forcing you into bowing to the shooter staples of ammo, and 5 second cover taking health regen, I was bound to feel differently about it. And thats before I get to all the problems I have about the plot, characters and the disconnected, one off shooting gallery gameworld thats been cut into little pieces.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 09 juin 2010 - 02:31 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Pocketgb wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Sounds like ME1 had overpowered
abilities and ME2 had underpowered abilities then from what is being
discussed. Usual balancing issues you get with all RPGs.

Infiltrator
in ME2 is also pretty Godtier. Both games are pretty imba, just on different - and sometimes less drastic - degrees.

Exactly.  The problem I had with ME1 was not the balancing (since they never get that right in any game) but rather that I felt they had taken all the bad parts of shooter gameplay and all the bad parts of stat-based gameplay and stuck them together.  IMHO the combat in ME2 is more representative of the style of fighting that is in the ME lore as I have read it, but that is my personal opinion. 

Either way, ME1 is pretty much a shoot everything game and so getting the combat right is pretty much the biggest issue.  If it had been more a mix of gameplay like Deus Ex or VTM:Bloodlines then it would have suited going more towards stat-based gameplay, but ME1's answer to most things was 'shoot it' or 'Lift it' or some other variation of attacking it, and so taking the route it did was the best choice IMHO.

I think at this point I wouldn't mind seeing one of two things:
1. A whole lot more choice and variety, or
2. A bit more variety but a lot of refining.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone able to pull off adding a lot more choices while doing a lot of fixing

Aye, I would love to have the ability to add mods to weapons like different sights (that show up), new skills (perhaps like epic skill levels like they did in Throne of Bhaal), etc. though if it comes down to a choice between this or keeping the characters from ME1 and 2 and/or to give the player more choice in their actions I'd choose the latter, but that's just personal preference on my part.  Hopefully now that they don't need to rebuild they'll be able to do both.

A bit of tweaking wouldn't be amiss but they could keep tweaking for an eternity and still not get it perfect so I'd prefer them to focus on other things if needed (plus it's single player so it's not like we'll be worrying about pvp ).

[Terror_K]

Vena_86 wrote...

Jeez people...Terror_K says that some things about ME1 combat where better than in ME2 and everyone just reads "ME1 combat is better than ME2 combat". That was not the message!
How is it possible to have a proper discussion with people that dont pay attention, read selected parts only, take them out of context and jump to extreme conclusions.

*sigh* Tell me about it... its the bane of my existence at these forums.

It's probably only a matter of pages in this thread before another ME2 fanboy reads a comment of mine and starts calling me an "elitist" and claims that I want Mass Effect to be an isometric, turn-based affair filled with 100's of attributes and skills and more rules than the Central Bureaucracy. <_<

[Orchomene]

I would have enjoyed playing an isometric turn-based rpg set in the future. Nowadays, it's pretty original when you see all the action games developed months after months.

Of course, it's certainly not what the majority of players want, but I don't really care about that.