10273 réponses à ce sujet

[spacehamsterZH]

bjdbwea wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

that's the most retarded thing i've ever read. any game boils down to clicking buttons when you reduce it like that - does it then matter what's happening on the screen?

Many things can look retarded if you don't read the argument carefully and completely. So - read again?

Way I see it, he understood your post perfectly well. It's retarded.

See, I don't have a problem with people not knowing anything about shooters, but throwing around half knowledge and stuff that's just flat-out false and then basing an argument about ME2 around it... that's retarded. If you don't know anything about the genre, just leave it at that.

[Jebel Krong]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

that's the most retarded thing i've ever read. any game boils down to clicking buttons when you reduce it like that - does it then matter what's happening on the screen?

Many things can look retarded if you don't read the argument carefully and completely. So - read again?

Way I see it, he understood your post perfectly well. It's retarded.

See, I don't have a problem with people not knowing anything about shooters, but throwing around half knowledge and stuff that's just flat-out false and then basing an argument about ME2 around it... that's retarded. If you don't know anything about the genre, just leave it at that.

yup.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 10 juin 2010 - 03:01 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...

Seriously... you're only saying what dozens upon dozens of others have said before. Weapon "feel" is purely a shooter thing though. When you're playing an RPG you don't determine how good a weapon is by "feel" you determine how good it is by statistical comparison. Also, again, if ME1 had only one of each type of weapon it would be the exact same thing, just with a slightly smaller selection. They're only "unique" and "feel different" because there are so few of them and because they're so limited. An RPG where you essentially have only one of each item is pointless and boring, especially when they're always in the same place every time and there's no customisation. Every game just ends up the same, there's no thrill of the hunt or randomness or anything. Its horribly linear, predictable and simple. How in any way is this system any more deep and meaningful than playing through Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you come across them? Seriously... I want an answer to this, because nobody has even given one, let alone given one remotely satisfactory.

But surely even in an RPG there needs to more than picking the weapon with the best stats?  Take AP, pistols are a stealthy character's best friend since you can equip it with a silencer and gain a skill that allows you to line up a crit shot without popping out of cover, while assault rifles are perfect for going in through the front door and range.  In ME1 there wasn't really anything like that, you just loaded up with your best gun and let rip except for the sniper rifles. 

Also, in AP even when you have access to all the top weapons it's still not clear which is the 'best' gun: the one with balanced stats, the one that has the most damage and won't hit the broad side of a barn, or the one with a huge clip?  In ME1, once you got Spectre gear there was no reason to use anything else, that to me is bad for an RPG, there should be variations that are best for different types of characters.  Imagine if in DAO there was a weapon that, regardless of what class you were playing or what skills you specialised in, was the best for your character no matter what, would that be a good thing or bad thing?

People seem to mistake RPGs with grinding for collectibles, that's no what RPGs were about in the old days.  In Baldur's Gate you didn't have ten levels of the same item, and grinding for gear isn't something I feel is a benefit to RPGs, though I understand it appeals to collector-types (never could get into cardgaming either).  Now, if you were arguing that instead of finding them lying around we should have missions where the goal is to break into research facilities to gain access to the blueprints of a new SMG or shotgun before we can build them on the Normandy, then I would be right with you, but I have never been a fan of random drops (which is a MMO convention that should stay the **** away from my single-player RPGs!). 

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Really? Why the massive walls of text to try to tell someone he is wrong then? The fact that you must win evey debate in this thread not because winning is everything, but because its the only thing?

Okay... sure. Whatever, pal... What I do and write in these threads is no different than what you or anybody else does. Except that I can enter a debate without having to attack people all the time in a petty attempt to try and get my points across. I don't try to use bullying or insulting or put words in others mouths to  try and "win" the arguments, I just stick to the points. Sure... I'll attack when provoked, but only when provoked.

Once again i completely and respectfully disagree, i just think that the "variety" was simply not one, but two different model weapons slapped on with different textures and different stats with slightly more higher damage and accuracy.

So.. what, it would have been perfectly fine if they'd put different models on the guns rather than just different textures? Does that mean ME2's way would have been auto-fail if it was the same as it is now but each weapon looked identical? Are people so shallow that the physical model a gun uses determines a systems success or failure? And I'm not just aiming this at you, because I've seen this excuse come up dozens of times.

Once again you speak of this like its some universal law of RPG's, then how come great RPG's like fallout 3 with much more powerful RPG mechanics than ME1 only had 1 of each weapon? Does that make the weapons in fallout 3 "pointless and boring" if i apply your logic here? 

Fallout 3's were made interesting in other ways. Aside from stats actually mattering when it came to firing a weapon, you also had to maintain them and could make them better, as well as the fact that there wasn't just one of each weapon in the entire universe and once it was found your work was done. Also, there were more than just one type of weapon, and they didn't all necessary "feel different" either... the pistols pretty much felt the same as each other, as did the assault rifles. It was just some did more damage or used different ammo than others. Fallout 3 may not have had dozens of different weapons, but it at least had other RPG factors going on to keep things interesting. ME2 doesn't. 

And didn't you, like many other pro ME1 extremists keep trying to drill into peoples heads that ME2 tried to play as a shooter rather than a balance between RPG/shooter? So obviously its going to have "less[cluster crap] weapons" because according to you, the end be know all says that ME2 tried to be more of a shooter than an RPG?

So... you're just fully admitting then that this is the case and we're right?

Let me answer for you, the reason why ME2's weapon system ended up the way it was, was because of the fact that ME1's weapon system wasn't that fantastic and like many ME1 extremists, constantly argued that ME2's shooter mechanics were parallel to that of a TPS, with the decs admitting their focus on combat, i don't see why they wouldn't have chose this path.

So, once again, you fully admit we're right: they dumbed the game down to make it more of a shooter.

Really, you said that ME1 leaned more towards the RPG side rather than a perfect blend between RPG/shooter, you also said that ME2 leaned more towards the shooter side rather than a perfect blend between RPG/shooter, so, if its leaning more towards a deep TPS (going by your own words on this thread back over 100 pages), why shouldn't they implement this system?

Actually, I've generally said that I feel ME1 got the balance of RPG/Shooter about right. It wasn't quite there, but it was pretty close to the, as you put it, "perfect blend" between them. ME2 is far too much on the shooter side of things. ME1 is just more on the RPG side of things.

Do you see other shooters like battlefield or call of duty where you find the very same model of an assault rifle but with different stats? No you don't.

No. But these are shooters and not RPGs. I don't expect that. What I at least expect from an RPG is some variety in the inventory, especially when the first game sets it up as such. I don't care or begrudge that ME2 gave us more unique weapons that all "feel differently" and all that crap, its that the amount of guns took a dive. Again, if I played Dragon Age Origins and there was only two longswords in the entire game and the same went for every other weapon, I'd think it was pretty weak, and I'm pretty damn sure other RPG fans would too. But yet in ME2 its perfectly acceptable because its a hybrid. Because when you're a hybrid the expectations of depth suddenly go away. Especially when one considers there are pure shooters out there with deeper systems.

Hey... sorry for being an RPG player who expects to have something beyond the simplest and most linear systems possible in an RPG. Sorry for expecting some depth because... y'know... BioWare have delivered in this respect in the past. Sorry for not being happy that they basically became Epic Games II for Mass Effect.

[bjdbwea]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Also, in AP even when you have access to all the top weapons it's still not clear which is the 'best' gun: the one with balanced stats, the one that has the most damage and won't hit the broad side of a barn, or the one with a huge clip?  In ME1, once you got Spectre gear there was no reason to use anything else, that to me is bad for an RPG, there should be variations that are best for different types of characters.  Imagine if in DAO there was a weapon that, regardless of what class you were playing or what skills you specialised in, was the best for your character no matter what, would that be a good thing or bad thing?

Well, it was Spectre gear. It's supposed to be the best items. But you actually still had the variations, it was in the upgrades. You could still have more damage, or a larger "clip" (longer time until overheat), or stability upgrades. Or whatever combination you wanted. That it was all a bit overpowered in the end, is of course true. But that's how RPGs usually work: You are supposed to be stronger in comparison to the enemies than you were at the beginning. Apart from that, you can of course always decide not to use the strongest gear if you just want an increase of the challenge.

[Terror_K]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Seriously... you're only saying what dozens upon dozens of others have said before. Weapon "feel" is purely a shooter thing though. When you're playing an RPG you don't determine how good a weapon is by "feel" you determine how good it is by statistical comparison. Also, again, if ME1 had only one of each type of weapon it would be the exact same thing, just with a slightly smaller selection. They're only "unique" and "feel different" because there are so few of them and because they're so limited. An RPG where you essentially have only one of each item is pointless and boring, especially when they're always in the same place every time and there's no customisation. Every game just ends up the same, there's no thrill of the hunt or randomness or anything. Its horribly linear, predictable and simple. How in any way is this system any more deep and meaningful than playing through Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you come across them? Seriously... I want an answer to this, because nobody has even given one, let alone given one remotely satisfactory.

But surely even in an RPG there needs to more than picking the weapon with the best stats?  Take AP, pistols are a stealthy character's best friend since you can equip it with a silencer and gain a skill that allows you to line up a crit shot without popping out of cover, while assault rifles are perfect for going in through the front door and range.  In ME1 there wasn't really anything like that, you just loaded up with your best gun and let rip except for the sniper rifles. 

Also, in AP even when you have access to all the top weapons it's still not clear which is the 'best' gun: the one with balanced stats, the one that has the most damage and won't hit the broad side of a barn, or the one with a huge clip?  In ME1, once you got Spectre gear there was no reason to use anything else, that to me is bad for an RPG, there should be variations that are best for different types of characters.  Imagine if in DAO there was a weapon that, regardless of what class you were playing or what skills you specialised in, was the best for your character no matter what, would that be a good thing or bad thing?

People seem to mistake RPGs with grinding for collectibles, that's no what RPGs were about in the old days.  In Baldur's Gate you didn't have ten levels of the same item, and grinding for gear isn't something I feel is a benefit to RPGs, though I understand it appeals to collector-types (never could get into cardgaming either).  Now, if you were arguing that instead of finding them lying around we should have missions where the goal is to break into research facilities to gain access to the blueprints of a new SMG or shotgun before we can build them on the Normandy, then I would be right with you, but I have never been a fan of random drops (which is a MMO convention that should stay the **** away from my single-player RPGs!). 

I agree. I never said ME1's system was perfect (why people keep thinking this just because I feel its better than ME2's one is beyond me!). In fact, Alpha Protocol proves that it can be done. I've already said this before: one needs a good selection of weapons with different strengths and weaknesses and attributes, none of which is overall stronger than the other. There should be no ultimate best item, there should simply be a good range of varied guns, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. That's what I want to see ME3 have.

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...

I agree. I never said ME1's system was perfect (why people keep thinking this just because I feel its better than ME2's one is beyond me!). In fact, Alpha Protocol proves that it can be done. I've already said this before: one needs a good selection of weapons with different strengths and weaknesses and attributes, none of which is overall stronger than the other. There should be no ultimate best item, there should simply be a good range of varied guns, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. That's what I want to see ME3 have.

Cool, we're on the same page then.   I personally prefer ME2's weapons over ME1's, but we both agree that ME3 needs to have it improved, especially since they put half the stuff out as exclusive dlc for buying from different places/Pepper codes that makes weapons appear in your inventory without having to look for it. <_<  May I also add that ME3 needs weapon modding that takes advantage of the whole 'research' thing that ME2 didn't take advantage of as much as I would have liked (though maybe that's just because I'm loving AP's weapon modding system alot).

[Lopake]

I agree. I never said ME1's system was perfect (why people keep thinking this just because I feel its better than ME2's one is beyond me!). In fact, Alpha Protocol proves that it can be done. I've already said this before: one needs a good selection of weapons with different strengths and weaknesses and attributes, none of which is overall stronger than the other. There should be no ultimate best item, there should simply be a good range of varied guns, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. That's what I want to see ME3 have.

As much as I hate this thread....I agree with this

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror, ill respond to that grocery list later. As for your last paragrpah, why do i get the feeling you're just trying to goad me into attacking you?

[GBurnette]

My thoughts on ME 2. I'm enjoying the game so far (I haven't finished it yet) but I can honestly say it's not what I was expecting or hoping for.



I recently finished DA:Origins and Awakening, and I guessing I was really hoping for a sci-fi version of that with just the combat being a different since it was a shooter.



In DA I really enjoyed finding the different equipment and figuring out what was best for my main char and what was best for my various companions. In ME2 there really is no loot and I miss that. The first thing I did in DA when I killed a boss mob was loot the corpse to see if anything cool dropped.

I've been wearing the Inferno Armor on my main character and so far it seems like there's not really a reason to wear anything else. At least in DA the Dragon Armor came in different pieces that I could mix and match if I wanted too and I still had rings and belts etc. I have all these various helmets that will never get worn because they're not as good as the Inferno Armor. Why would they be when they're just a head piece and the armor is an entire set. And of course there's no equipment for your companions at all short of gun selection which is pretty boring since I can't see any stats or anything to tell me if one is better than the other.



I really enjoyed the companion conversations more in DA also and how your companions liked or disliked you more based on your actions and what was said in conversations. In ME2 you apparently have just a single quest and once you go that they're loyal to you. That just really seems less "realistic" to me. Especially the Zaeed misison which I just finished a couple days ago. He didn't even get to kill the dude he was after and he still ended up loyal to me.



Skills and Spells (Powers). In DA I had dozens of skills and spells to choose from. Some were maintained buffs and others were activated. I liked the strategic choices available to me there. In ME2 the biotic and tech powers just don't seem as useful for the most part. I'm playing a Sentinel, so I have a few abilities, but none of them really seem to be game changers. That may be because I'm just not done with the same yet though.



Overall I like the story and I really am enjoying the game. It's just not what I expected. I'm working on my second play through of DA and still enjoying it. Once I know how ME2 ends I doubt I'll want to play through twice.

[bjdbwea]

@ GBurnette

I agree with you, and don't let anyone tell you that you just have the wrong taste or don't understand how much better it is not to have all that "useless" RPG stuff. Did you play ME 1? Because I think you might be more pleased with that one. Don't ignore it just because ME 2 was a disappointment. ME 1 has basically shooter gameplay too, but it does offer things you were missing in the sequel. Plus, the story is even better.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 10 juin 2010 - 04:21 .

[Orchomene]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Seriously... you're only saying what dozens upon dozens of others have said before. Weapon "feel" is purely a shooter thing though. When you're playing an RPG you don't determine how good a weapon is by "feel" you determine how good it is by statistical comparison. Also, again, if ME1 had only one of each type of weapon it would be the exact same thing, just with a slightly smaller selection. They're only "unique" and "feel different" because there are so few of them and because they're so limited. An RPG where you essentially have only one of each item is pointless and boring, especially when they're always in the same place every time and there's no customisation. Every game just ends up the same, there's no thrill of the hunt or randomness or anything. Its horribly linear, predictable and simple. How in any way is this system any more deep and meaningful than playing through Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you come across them? Seriously... I want an answer to this, because nobody has even given one, let alone given one remotely satisfactory.

But surely even in an RPG there needs to more than picking the weapon with the best stats?  Take AP, pistols are a stealthy character's best friend since you can equip it with a silencer and gain a skill that allows you to line up a crit shot without popping out of cover, while assault rifles are perfect for going in through the front door and range.  In ME1 there wasn't really anything like that, you just loaded up with your best gun and let rip except for the sniper rifles. 

Also, in AP even when you have access to all the top weapons it's still not clear which is the 'best' gun: the one with balanced stats, the one that has the most damage and won't hit the broad side of a barn, or the one with a huge clip?  In ME1, once you got Spectre gear there was no reason to use anything else, that to me is bad for an RPG, there should be variations that are best for different types of characters.  Imagine if in DAO there was a weapon that, regardless of what class you were playing or what skills you specialised in, was the best for your character no matter what, would that be a good thing or bad thing?

People seem to mistake RPGs with grinding for collectibles, that's no what RPGs were about in the old days.  In Baldur's Gate you didn't have ten levels of the same item, and grinding for gear isn't something I feel is a benefit to RPGs, though I understand it appeals to collector-types (never could get into cardgaming either).  Now, if you were arguing that instead of finding them lying around we should have missions where the goal is to break into research facilities to gain access to the blueprints of a new SMG or shotgun before we can build them on the Normandy, then I would be right with you, but I have never been a fan of random drops (which is a MMO convention that should stay the **** away from my single-player RPGs!). 

I agree that spectre gear and weapons were broken. But in the beginning of the game, there are choices between weapons doing many damages and a lot of overheat and some more balanced. What is sad is that the level system for weapons/armor/mods is too much (they could have done variety with simply using the different corporates). This would have given a lot of variety. Then, with a good balance, you could have real choices. This would have also solved at the same time the issue with the inventory : less quantity.
I truly think that more is not always better. It's the same, to my taste, than the companions in ME2 : too many and then too much dilution. Having the possibility to have only two companions among ten or twelve gives a proportion of participation between 15% and 20% of your companions. I think a good balance is around a third. You have enough variety yet are closer to each one.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...


Attacks develop faster then protection against attacks. There is nothing idiotic about this.
Are You kiding?

Sabotase cause weapon to overheat. Because overheat on weapon is termal energy cause by friction and ammo exlosions. How to hell you create overheat from distance to someones weapon. If you actually could do it, then why use it agaist weapon, why not just blow up the head of it's user with  that heat energy.

Because it requires less energy to overheat an enemy weapon(the weapons work like railguns). Sabotage also did burn damage to enemies,synthetic and organic.

Modifié par tonnactus, 10 juin 2010 - 04:50 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...
Okay... sure. Whatever, pal... What I do and write in these threads is no different than what you or anybody else does. Except that I can enter a debate without having to attack people all the time in a petty attempt to try and get my points across. I don't try to use bullying or insulting or put words in others mouths to  try and "win" the arguments, I just stick to the points. Sure... I'll attack when provoked, but only when provoked.

  Except that these attacks were 90% of the time justified as i got attacked first, do you remember the old douche bag that goes by the name of kalfear?

Secondly, nobody ever said you attacked others unprovoked, i attack, because i was provoked, i do admit that there are times i DO attack people, but other than that russian guy(i assume), the rest was simple retaliation after constantly being provoked.

Thirdly, i don't aim to "win" the argument unlike you, i just try to get my point across, i, unlike you, don't try to convince people otherwise, i don't dictate what people like nor do i tell them to "believe in what i believe" unlike you.

Forth, have i ever insulted you before? Last i recall, no, so don't jump to rash conclusions that i bash every single person to get a point across.

Terror_K wrote...
So.. what, it would have been perfectly fine if they'd put different models on the guns rather than just different textures? Does that mean ME2's way would have been auto-fail if it was the same as it is now but each weapon looked identical? Are people so shallow that the physical model a gun uses determines a systems success or failure? And I'm not just aiming this at you, because I've seen this excuse come up dozens of times.

You clearly haven't been reading my post, even if they DID change the models in the first game, there would still be hardly any difference between each weapon when fired and each weapon, despite different physical models would still feel exactly the same as the previous/next weapon.


I repeat, i never said ME2's system was perfect. I made it clear several times that there should had been more variety in both weapons and armor,thats all i think they need for ME3, i am simply disagreeing with your claims that ME1's systems are "deep" which i personally think they are not and how i personally think that ME2 has more varied weapons, thats all i am trying to get across.

You are taking it the wrong way, not me, you are taking it in a way where you think im saying ME2's weapon system is so much better than ME1's. ME1 had the variety, ME2 had the variations, why not combine these two in the next game?

The thing that seperates me from you is i at the least try to reach an agreement,  you on the other hand argue like a stubborn donkey that refuses to come to an agreement but argue your points the same way an imperial japanese soldier would fight to his death.

Terror_K wrote...
Fallout 3's were made interesting in other ways. Aside from stats actually mattering when it came to firing a weapon, you also had to maintain them and could make them better, as well as the fact that there wasn't just one of each weapon in the entire universe and once it was found your work was done. Also, there were more than just one type of weapon, and they didn't all necessary "feel different" either... the pistols pretty much felt the same as each other, as did the assault rifles. It was just some did more damage or used different ammo than others. Fallout 3 may not have had dozens of different weapons, but it at least had other RPG factors going on to keep things interesting. ME2 doesn't.

Conceded.

Terror_K wrote...
So... you're just fully admitting then that this is the case and we're right?



So, once again, you fully admit we're right: they dumbed the game down to make it more of a shooter.

  You aren't 100% right, so technically i agree to a certain extent.  Heres the case with ME2.
They obviously focused alot more on the combat, removed the inventory system, and limited the weapon and armor choices.

The keyword is "more of a shooter", not a complete shooter seeing it still DOES have RPG elements, because an RPG isn't just based on the amount of weapon choices or an inventory system.

With that being said, why are you expecting heavier RPG elements in a game, that by your own words, leans more towards a shooter, than having a balance?

Thats like going to a  bodybuilding contest where you expected to see sexy models but instead you saw gargantuan bodybuilders over 250lbs. Does that make sense? No it doesn't, you're obviously going to get dissappointed.

Terror_K wrote...
Actually, I've generally said that I feel ME1 got the balance of RPG/Shooter about right. It wasn't quite there, but it was pretty close to the, as you put it, "perfect blend" between them. ME2 is far too much on the shooter side of things. ME1 is just more on the RPG side of things.

With ME1's shooter mechancis being awful, heres what i think.

RPG====ME1=====l==========Shooter
RPG=========l=====ME2=====Shooter

^ Do you understand this list?

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Most ME1 fans liked ME2 better.

I'm sorry to insist on this point, but what make you believe that this point is true ?
Is it based on the people on the forum ? Is it based on gamer reviews ?
As far as I know, it's pretty difficult to know if "most ME1 fans liked ME2 better" or not.
I've seen a lot of people having one or the other position to the point where I think that the division is around half and half.

Indeed. I'll fully accept that most players preferred ME2, and most gamers out there preferred it, and most critics preferred it. Existing fans... I'm not so sure. It seems pretty divided, and one also has to keep in mind there are also many who while preferring ME2 fully admit that it has problems and did remove a few too many elements.

Gamer reviews. Specifically Gamespot's. The ME2 review pattern looks like 60% saw improvement over ME1, 20% mixed or neutral, 20% worse than ME1.

Of course, the distinction between ME1 "player" and ME1 "fan" isn't one that I can draw in any principled fashion. I cut anyone who didn't think that ME1 was a good game -- though not surprisingly, there were very few people reviewing ME2 who didn't think that ME1 was a good game. Draw this line someplace else and you'd get different percentages. (Edited for clarity)

The impression I took away is that it's ME1 that brought over a lot of shooter players, not ME2. Bio's serving the existing fanbase by emphasizing the shooter aspects.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 juin 2010 - 10:04 .

[tonnactus]

Foolsfolly wrote...


There was no choice. Those were 100% the best items you could get.

You mean like the revenant is the best assault rifle you can get?
Or the widow is the best sniper rifle.

Before people come with different firing modes,all what matters is damage and maybee in addition to that the clipsize.

[AlanC9]

Expanding on that a bit, I imagine that the ME1 fanbase incorporates all sorts of different groups. You've got players like me, who play both shooters and RPGs, and so don't have any problems with either approach. (I'm something of an outlier, since though I'm an RPG fan I'd like to do away with CRPG inventory conventions even in pure RPGs -- I wanted Bio to dump inventory in KotOR, for instance). Then there are pure RPG fans. And then there are shooter fans, who liked ME1 for the cinematic experience but never liked CRPG conventions like big inventory and stat-based combat in the first place.

Edit: and then there are other folks whose preferences I flat-out don't understand.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 juin 2010 - 05:34 .

[darth_lopez]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


Attacks develop faster then protection against attacks. There is nothing idiotic about this.
Are You kiding?

Sabotase cause weapon to overheat. Because overheat on weapon is termal energy cause by friction and ammo exlosions. How to hell you create overheat from distance to someones weapon. If you actually could do it, then why use it agaist weapon, why not just blow up the head of it's user with  that heat energy.

Because it requires less energy to overheat an enemy weapon(the weapons work like railguns). Sabotage also did burn damage to enemies,synthetic and organic.

 
It all comes down to the science fiction of Mass Effect that's used as a base for everything. If they made mass accelerators, then the rest is child's play, thus acceptable.

i find mass excelaraters to be the first semi-logical way of describing how ships can travel at FTL speeds. i give them kudos for that. 

in refrence to the overheat thing did you ever notice in both ME 1 and ME 2 they throw a tech grenade? presumably an incidiary tech grenade. i'd think you would have more problems with Mass Accelarated Projectiles( traveling at what? Mach 7 or higher?) not killing organics on impact than weapon overheat if you were actually applying science.

[darth_lopez]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Most ME1 fans liked ME2 better.

I'm sorry to insist on this point, but what make you believe that this point is true ?
Is it based on the people on the forum ? Is it based on gamer reviews ?
As far as I know, it's pretty difficult to know if "most ME1 fans liked ME2 better" or not.
I've seen a lot of people having one or the other position to the point where I think that the division is around half and half.

Indeed. I'll fully accept that most players preferred ME2, and most gamers out there preferred it, and most critics preferred it. Existing fans... I'm not so sure. It seems pretty divided, and one also has to keep in mind there are also many who while preferring ME2 fully admit that it has problems and did remove a few too many elements.

Gamer reviews. Specifically Gamespot's. The ME2 review pattern looks like 60% saw improvement over ME1, 20% mixed or neutral, 20% worse than ME1.

Of course, the distinction between ME1 "player" and ME1 "fan" isn't one that I can draw in any principled fashion. I cut anyone who didn't think that ME1 was a good game -- though not surprisingly, there were very few people reviewing ME2 who didn't think that. Draw this line someplace else and you'd get different percentages.

The impression I took away is that it's ME1 that brought over a lot of shooter players, not ME2. Bio's serving the existing fanbase by emphasizing the shooter aspects.

agreeing with alecs last post here and while i will say their are noticeable improvements in ME 2 i would also say bioware oversimplified it for to grab more population. and the mission end screen while a great idea for the 90s is something that never belonged in Mass Effect. took away from it's cinematics significantly.  their were certaintly areas they could've done better

my opinion on ME 1 Vs ME 2
and overall in story i'm a fan who feels ME 1 told it's story a little better than ME 2. I prefer ME 2s game play while i prefer ME 1s customization and lack of a mission select screen and great story telling. ME 2 was just right for a sequel but i'm not sure if i'd call it overall better than ME 1 though

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

That may be true, but one sometimes has to separate gameplay elements from narrative ones. Otherwise one could get really picky and start saying, "why would Shepard be worrying about gaining XP and leveling up, etc." as well.

Exactly. Everyone's going to have a different outlook.

Terror_K wrote...

And how is this different from standard RPG models? That's pretty much how the systems work in general...

It's based off of what's been discussed above: How well does it actually fit in with the backstory? What's going to have more of an impact to solidify the feeling of really being Commander Shepard? There could be actual tangible reasons for some of the changes, you know, and of course not everyone will agree with me. NEVER will 'everyone' agree on the direction of a game, especially one as hyped and critically acclaimed as the ME series.

It's also different because in the Mass Effect series scales everything based off of your level. I don't need to go into why this could be nasty for RP'ers I personally find it an enjoyable feature, but after playing through Morrowind one last time I can see it's immersive value, and especially when considering gear progression.

Terror_K wrote...

That's exactly what I thought, which is why I said it. 

Seriously though... the pro-ME2 group need to actually read what's being said instead of constantly coming up with the same inane claims and putting words in peoples' mouths and jumping to conclusions regarding the faults being brought up with ME2, because this whole thing keeps going in circles because no matter how many times things are said they're always taken the wrong way and the same silly claims keep getting thrown at those of us who are unhappy. And yet you expect us to respect your opinions and see you as smart people and not mindless shooter fans or whatever despite this. It's not helping.

Sweet! Now you know how the hell I've been feeling in this thread!
Ecael's posts have been ignored on numerous ocassions.
My posts have been ignored on numerous occassions
Both sides have serious cases of the herp-derp, so don't try to paint a picture of "awesomeness" for one here - because if that was the case this thread would've died months ago.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 juin 2010 - 05:43 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


It's based off of what's been discussed above: How well does it actually fit in with the backstory? What's going to have more of an impact to solidify the feeling of really being Commander Shepard?

I can only speakfor myself.But the first 20-30 levels with bad gear on insanity in Mass Effect 1 are far more enjoyable for me because i win the battles despite of that.With using the right power at the right time.(and the powers have long cooldown times then) That really solidify the feeling of beeing a commander.

Modifié par tonnactus, 10 juin 2010 - 06:44 .

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

You mean like the revenant is the best assault rifle you can get?
Or the widow is the best sniper rifle.

Bad example. My infiltrator prefers Viper to Widow. They offer entirely different playstyles.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

You mean like the revenant is the best assault rifle you can get?
Or the widow is the best sniper rifle.

Bad example. My infiltrator prefers Viper to Widow. They offer entirely different playstyles.

And when i ignore spectre weapons in Mass Effect i could prefer the geth pulse rifle for its precision.Or the crossfire assault rifle for the most shots before it gets overheated. It doesnt matter.The widow is still the best sniper rifle in Mass Effect 2 like the spectre weapons are the best you could get in the first game.

[SSV Enterprise]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


Attacks develop faster then protection against attacks. There is nothing idiotic about this.
Are You kiding?

Sabotase cause weapon to overheat. Because overheat on weapon is termal energy cause by friction and ammo exlosions. How to hell you create overheat from distance to someones weapon. If you actually could do it, then why use it agaist weapon, why not just blow up the head of it's user with  that heat energy.

Because it requires less energy to overheat an enemy weapon(the weapons work like railguns). Sabotage also did burn damage to enemies,synthetic and organic.

No no no.  Sabotage doesn't actually cause weapons to overheat.  It tricks the heat monitoring system to think that the weapon is overheated, thus preventing the gun from firing.  However, as shown in Mass Effect: Ascension, the weapons have an override button in case they are sabotaged like that.