10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

*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. <_<

elitist! i don't want no turn-based isometric rpg in my mass effect....


(but you did want weapon "skill" affecting your aim/accuracy in me2).<_<

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 09 juin 2010 - 03:05 .

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

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. <_<

You say that as if everyone who likes ME2 hated ME1 so much that they bought it just to spite BioWare or Microsoft.

Defending any BioWare game on a BioWare fan forum is an automatic label for fanboy/fangirl-ism, as well as being attracted to or defending a specific BioWare character construct. I don't see why people throw that word around to single out people - who, just like them - are either playing or talking about Mass Effect every day.

That's why we're here.



I wasn't much of a fan of Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights (I preferred MMORPGs and JRPGs before), but Mass Effect 1 solidified my loyalty for BioWare games. And it's not like that's the only RPG that BioWare is currently working on after their rapid EA-funded expansion into four different sectors.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

.

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.

If shepardt is a biotic or tech, you could also expect that he is one of the best human biotic or combat engineer that the alliance has.

So why shepardt has to learn tech or biotic abilites?

The answer is easy.Because the game is an rpg.

But now,shepardt is even to dumb to use different ammo types with points in them.

Does this make sense then the weapon skills in the first game?

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 04:11 .

[AlanC9]

ShakeZoohla wrote...
No, i have no data, but just from reading these forums, the place I would think people with strong opinions about either game would gather, it seems clear there is a divide among fans.  A 200 page thread so heated on both sides about whether the changes implented were good or bad will probably never see a winning side emerge, but i think it does evidence that these changes implented were drastic, and drastic to the people that actually matter: the fans. 

Drastic, yeah. But "drastic" doesn't mean "bad."

Maybe the minority of people were disapointed, and maybe not, either way there is a good chunk of fans who were fans of ME1 and are not of ME2.

Yep, and there seem to be even more ME1 fans who like ME2 better. 

How should a game company weigh these interests? Should they avoid trying to displease any of the fans of the first game? Or should they just make the best game they think they can make even if they displease a minority of the fans of the first game

Again, I must point out that when Bio made BG2 -- arguably the greatest success they ever had -- they changed major aspects of the first game. Most notably, they abandoned open-world exploration for the quest-related area system they still use to this day (ME1 UNC worlds excepted). A minority of BG1 fans thought this was a terrible, terrible decision, and still do.

I'm not quite sure the two cases are equivalent, since I don't know how many fans ended up not liking BG2 at all because of these changes.

[Wiggs Magee]

I personnaly believed ME2 better game of course there were flaws but i found many more in ME1.

i believe combat. Veiws and charcter dialouge were much better in ME2

[AlanC9]

Ecael wrote...
You say that as if everyone who likes ME2 hated ME1 so much that they bought it just to spite BioWare or Microsoft. 

Which makes me realize something. I really don't have as much skin in this game as, say, Kalfear does. Despite its lame combat and stupid inventory system, I liked ME1 just fine. I would have liked ME2 just fine even if it hadn't been a better game than ME1.

In a utilitarian sense, it's plain that the utility lost by Kalfear, and Terror_K, and similar, is more per capita than the utility that folks like me gained. More of us, of course, so it's still a "better" design.

Unless you want to go deontological, and say that ME1 fans had an interest in the existing design that couldn't be abrogated even if it would produce more utility.

[Rejoy Skinler]

I really hate it when people talk about which game is better looking at the metacritic aggregates.

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews
DA score 1.3 less in user reviews.

This tells me is that Bioware games are genuinely over rated by western critics, which is fair enough because you cannot not like your Bioware games as they produce the top notch stuff but I would be hard pressed to propose that a game which scores 8.9 is better than one which scores 8.7 for the majority.


From my experience and the few people I know that have played the game, they mostly loved it because it was technically really good but were either disappointed at the lack of RPG elements or story to speak of.

Modifié par Rejoy Skinler, 09 juin 2010 - 05:54 .

[Mister Mida]

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

I really hate it when people talk about which game is better looking at the metacrtic aggregate.

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than with critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews
DA score 1.3 less in user reviews.

This tells me is that Bioware games are genuinely over rated by western critics, which is fair enough because you cannot not like your Bioware games as they produce the top notch stuff but I would be hard pressed to propose that a game which scores 8.9 is better than one which scores 8.7 for the majority.


From my experience and the few people I know that have played the game, they mostly loved it because it was technically really good but were eiher disappointed at the lack of RPG elements or story to speak of.

Seems somewhat logical that user reviews give more critic on games than proffesional critics. Users can actually take the time to play through it multiple times to see all the angles while pro's usually play like 6 to 24 hours or something. I for one found the multiple 10/10 ratings ME2 to be a bit exaggerated.

[Ecael]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ecael wrote...
You say that as if everyone who likes ME2 hated ME1 so much that they bought it just to spite BioWare or Microsoft. 

Which makes me realize something. I really don't have as much skin in this game as, say, Kalfear does. Despite its lame combat and stupid inventory system, I liked ME1 just fine. I would have liked ME2 just fine even if it hadn't been a better game than ME1.

In a utilitarian sense, it's plain that the utility lost by Kalfear, and Terror_K, and similar, is more per capita than the utility that folks like me gained. More of us, of course, so it's still a "better" design.

Unless you want to go deontological, and say that ME1 fans had an interest in the existing design that couldn't be abrogated even if it would produce more utility.

The existing design for Mass Effect is shooting, dialogue and characters. BioWare is free to revamp anything and everything they wish as long as there's good development in those three. Usefulness is not defined by how many flaws someone can point out, but how many they know how to fix. BioWare considers serious criticism to come from actual game critics - many of whom pointed out the control problems with the Mako, elevator loading times and inventory clutter. Just because some 'fans' had the same opinion back then doesn't mean they listened to those people - they listened to the critics instead.

If you want a problem shot, ask a turian.
If you want a problem talked to death, ask an asari.
If you want a new problem, ask a salarian.
If you want a problem fixed, ask a human.

Conclusion? This forum needs more humans.

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

I really hate it when people talk about which game is better looking at the metacrtic aggregate.

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than with critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews
DA score 1.3 less in user reviews.

This tells me is that Bioware games are genuinely over rated by western critics, which is fair enough because you cannot not like your Bioware games as they produce the top notch stuff but I would be hard pressed to propose that a game which scores 8.9 is better than one which scores 8.7 for the majority.

Dragon Age is highly overrated?

[Rejoy Skinler]

Ecael wrote...


Dragon Age is highly overrated?

I don't know, you tell me:blink:
Loved it. But then again I also liked Alpha Protocol. Clearly I'm not a relevant part of the target audience.

[Lumikki]

After playing RPG's pass 15 years, I don't much care anymore about rpg combat systems. They are some what more tactical way to play, but also very primitive.

Modern combat is about long range and cover.

ME1's combat was fine and it did serve the purpose in ME1. How ever, I don't know single thing in ME1 combat what was better than on ME2.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 juin 2010 - 06:32 .

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

6. in me2 balances better with the character you play. you don't start as a green recruit, and even in me1 where you didn't, in essence you were because of the traditional rpg mechanics that were stuck to, despite being completely immersion-breaking and universe-unrealistic (what soldier is given a gun that cannot hit a target, even now?)..

Someone has to really explain why this comlain is and was only made concerning weapons.

Why shepardt has to learn biotics? You would expect,shepardt would be trained to use biotics beginning in his childhood  and evolved them in the army?

Why shepardt has to learn tech attacks? Didnt he learn that in his military training?

If shepardt could use all things perfectly fine from the start, how this game could persists to be an Rpg.

Its impossible.

Yes. The premise of ME1 was idiotic. If the character is a newbie then make the background fit!

[KitsuneRommel]

Mister Mida wrote...

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.

This times 1000. The first time I felt disappointed with ME1 was when I saw that video the first time.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...


ME1's combat was fine and it did serve the purpose in ME1. How ever, I don't know single thing in ME1 combat what was better than on ME2.

The possibilites. Real crowd control. The range for lift was like 8 m compared to pull fields 3m.
And you could lift enemies  up to a geth colossi.
It works despite of shields and immunity (in addition to the "protection system" the duration of powers in insanity is reduced). Damping helps to block enemy techs and biotics. Sabotage overheat their weapons.

The most important powers in Mass Effect 2 are defense stripping powers.Lame.
All other powers are more funny toys that you use when you get bored from only shooting enemies.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 06:47 .

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Yes. The premise of ME1 was idiotic. If the character is a newbie then make the background fit!

Then you have to exclude a lot of possibilities.
Take alpha protocol. An agent that couldnt shoot?
Or superhero rpgs.
It doesnt matter anyway that shepard has to learn weapon usage and powers because enemies scale with him/her.

And do ammo powers make more sense??

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juin 2010 - 06:54 .

[Elvis_Mazur]

Yes. The premise of ME1 was idiotic. If the character is a newbie then make the background fit!

Plot hole!

[KitsuneRommel]

Orchomene wrote...

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.

Jagged Alliance and Mass Effect combined. Oh, yes.

Then you have to exclude a lot of possibilities.
Take alpha
protocol. An agent that couldnt shoot?
Or superhero rpgs.
It
doesnt matter anyway that shepard has to learn weapon usage and powers
because enemies scale with him/her.

*shrug*
I never let people make up backgrounds that don't fit the characters powers in pen and paper either. That's just basic GMing.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


ME1's combat was fine and it did serve the purpose in ME1. How ever, I don't know single thing in ME1 combat what was better than on ME2.

The possibilites. Real crowd control. The range for lift was like 8 m compared to pull fields 3m.
And you could lift enemies  up to a geth colossi.
It works despite of shields and immunity (in addition to the "protection system" the duration of powers in insanity is reduced). Damping helps to block enemy techs and biotics. Sabotage overheat their weapons.

The most important powers in Mass Effect 2 are defense stripping powers.Lame.
All other powers are more funny toys that you use when you get bored from only shooting enemies.

I did not like so much bionic powers.

Also I did find consept of sabotage skill totally idiotic. No army would use  weapons what enemy can sabotase from remote. That's just plain stupid design. Same goes little bit for tech stuff. Bionic I can some what understand as other bionic agaist other.  Only damm growd there was in some off world mako mission bases. Other ways there was hardly any enemies at all.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I never let people make up backgrounds that don't fit the characters powers in pen and paper either. That's just basic GMing.

Like i wrote,you exclude a lot of possibilities in that way.Just an example: Marvel Ultimate Alliance.

Even superheroes have to level up...

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...


Also I did find consept of sabotage skill totally idiotic. No army would use  weapons what enemy can sabotase from remote.

Attacks develop faster then protection against attacks. There is nothing idiotic about this.

[CroGamer002]

Lumikki wrote...

After playing RPG's pass 15 years, I don't much care anymore about rpg combat systems. They are some what more tactical way to play, but also very primitive.

Modern combat is about long range and cover.

ME1's combat was fine and it did serve the purpose in ME1. How ever, I don't know single thing in ME1 combat what was better than on ME2.

Well you had more powers and every power had individual cooldown.
Those are only minuses that I can agree on.

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

Like i wrote,you exclude a lot of possibilities in that way.Just an example: Marvel Ultimate Alliance.

Even superheroes have to level up...

I had to Google that one. My only real experience with superhero games comes from playing Marvel Superheroes back in the day. The system had a lot of problems with how the adventures could be either practically impossible or too easy (balancing for example telepathic abilities).

The difference is that Mass Effect is trying to be realistic, not cartoony.

[Orchomene]

tonnactus wrote...

Then you have to exclude a lot of possibilities.
Take alpha protocol. An agent that couldnt shoot?

Alpha Protocol is not the best example because you have three main possibilities at the beginning :
- play an agent having 30 points to put in skills and that may know how to shoot (or hide, or techno, sabotage, depending of its former profession)
- play a recruit that has no skill at all. There are then specific dialogues during training about that.
- play a veteran that has 120 skill points and thus know many things (unlocked after a successful playthrough as a recruit). Then, there are also specific dialogues in the training reflecting this.
So in AP, the BG is pretty consistent with the skill of the character.

Edit : the guy goes a bit to far for my taste, yet I can understand many of the points raised in his editorial
pc.gamezone.com/editorials/item/why_im_bored_with_bioware/

Modifié par Orchomene, 09 juin 2010 - 08:35 .

[finnithe]

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

I really hate it when people talk about which game is better looking at the metacritic aggregates.

Mass Effect 2 scores .7 less in user reviews than critics
Mass Effect scores .4 less in user reviews
DA score 1.3 less in user reviews.

This tells me is that Bioware games are genuinely over rated by western critics, which is fair enough because you cannot not like your Bioware games as they produce the top notch stuff but I would be hard pressed to propose that a game which scores 8.9 is better than one which scores 8.7 for the majority.


From my experience and the few people I know that have played the game, they mostly loved it because it was technically really good but were either disappointed at the lack of RPG elements or story to speak of.

Can we really tell the different between 8.7 and 8.9 though? Is there any materiality to 0.2 when it comes to scores? 

[tonnactus]

[quote]KitsuneRommel wrote...

[quote]tonnactus w

The difference is that Mass Effect is trying to be realistic, not cartoony.
[/quote]


Essentially realistic would mean that you start at a recruit/newbie in every roleplaying game.

This would become boring really fast i guess.

As long the enemies scale with the player i dont bother with it.