SithLordExarKun wrote...
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?
You clearly don't know me very well then. All I'm doing is expressing my frustration at both BioWare for dumbing the game down and for the people on this board who are embracing it and encouraging them to do so. The only thing that's going to come of BioWare listening to people who said they made all the right moves is ME3 becoming even
more of s shooter, and then we really will just end up with "Gears of War with Dialogue" in the end: hyperbole about ME2 will become reality for ME3.
I just don't understand why some people embrace oversimplification and don't seem to want depth, choice and variation in Mass Effect.
SithLordExarKun wrote...
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.
Sorry, but I've seen you leap into anti-ME2 threads before like some ME2 avenger and start mocking the claims people make and even the people themselves straight up without any provocation. To me its like your MO is to wait for these type of threads to appear and then strike. You may not directly insult from the get-go, but your general attitude and sarcastically snide comments are enough to bring out the worst in your opponents. You don't try to "win" the argument... you try to irate your opponents into
losing it.
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.
And all I'm saying is that BioWare has pulled the wool over your eyes. Again, if ME1 had only one pistol, one shotgun, one assault rifle and one sniper rifle they would all seem varied and unique. BioWare gave the illusion of more weapons and uniqueness by cutting things down.
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?
Except that this is what I've been saying from
the very start since I first
played ME2. That's exactly what I've been wanting: more variety amongst the variations instead of just one or two of each weapon type. ME1 had too many weapons that were mostly meaningless, while ME2 had too few weapons that were shallow. Give me half a dozen hand cannons, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Give me modding back so I can customise the gun. And don't just have it lying in the same place for me to inevitably scan like every other weapon.
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.
Have you ever insulted me? Nope... I... I can't recall that ever happening... <_<
That aside, you couldn't be more wrong. You do realise you're saying this about the person who has often said "I believe the answer to be somewhere between both games" many times, as well as the person who came up with a mock-up compromise weapons system that got much praise at the board so I sent it to Christina Norman (who sent me a nice reply about it too)? I'm constantly looking for solutions... I'm literally working in a text document at the moment on a thread that evaluates
both games, looking at all their aspects and where they both succeeded and failed in these aspects, in order to find the best solutions and compromises for ME3.
I think I've said more than enough right there. Except for maybe reiterating my point above about how I perceive your tactics here.
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?
Because I don't
want it to be more of a shooter and believe that was a mistake. Again, I thought ME1 had the balance about right. I'll concede that taking away the cone of death was probably a good thing in the end, despite my initial misgivings about it, but many other aspects headed more towards being a shooter than an RPG too. Inventory was gutted, the combat was relegated to pretty much being entirely shooter based (with powers) now, pretty much all the non-combat skills were stripped, customisation was stripped, biotic amps and omni-tools stripped, progression made as linear as possible, health now regenerating instead of stat-influenced, armour no longer stat-influenced, etc. Alpha Protocol and Fallout 3 prove that you can still attribute RPG weapon skills to an RPG/Shooter hybrid and work without resorting to massive nerfing of your ability to shoot (AP in particular only makes slight adjustments to your actual ability to shoot and mostly provides bonus abilities in its weapon trees). As we've both said, there are actually shooters and non-RPGs out there with deeper systems than ME2. If the devs had
only made the combat better and not removed and/or overly streamlined so many other factors then it wouldn't have been a problem. They didn't just focus more on the combat though: they scaled back the RPG elements massively.
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?
Yes. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand. I'd have it more like this:-
RPG====ME1=======l========Shooter
RPG===l===========ME2=====Shooter
Modifié par Terror_K, 11 juin 2010 - 01:37 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
anyways for me, both ware close to the lin, however both games have flaws that stop them from being the best. ME3 could fix this but I doubt it.
