10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

kraidy1117 wrote...

ME a perfecft balance? HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it were a prefect balance the 'E' in ME1 would be in the middle, dummy.

[Tempest]

2 things bothered me about ME2 and just realized until recently that I can post it here.



2. Biotics completely ineffective when NPC's have shields. This is not a bother in Medium to lower difficulty. But when you increase the difficulty even higher you have to put in alot of dmg into the enemy to make them vulnerable to biotics. I REALLY hated it when I would waste ammo on an enemy that conveniently hides behind a wall and recharges their shield/armor. Let me put it this way, if you think of Shield, Armor and health as 1 bar of health, you have to bring the enemy to 20%+/- health before biotics work for nearly half the enemies.



1. Shepard's running model. The 1st time I saw shepard run in the Normandy, I swear that he either thought he was a boxer, or he was running away from a problem depressed. Like a small child.

[Iakus]

Tempest wrote...


1. Shepard's running model. The 1st time I saw shepard run in the Normandy, I swear that he either thought he was a boxer, or he was running away from a problem depressed. Like a small child.

Plus you'll notice Shepard keeps having to twist or rotate his right arm.  Wonder if Cerberus didn't quite fit it in correctly when they were putting him back together?

[spacehamsterZH]

Maleshep's running isn't THAT bad, the fact that there's no separate animations for Femshep is a lot worse.

[Xeranx]

Also doesn't help that in dialog Shepard turns toward the right a little. It's noticeable everytime you talk to Joker.

[Tempest]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Maleshep's running isn't THAT bad, the fact that there's no separate animations for Femshep is a lot worse.

Here is the interesting thing.  I see on clips how Shepard is "supposed to run".  When I see him run in my copy of the game, his head is nearly in level with this shoulders (like he is depressed) and the head sways back and forth (like seeing a child running with a tempertantrum kind of thing).

It nearly killed my entire experience with the game because I couldn't really respect Shepard when he ran like that....

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
.....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)?

If you're going to refer to something like that, why no link?

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.

Agreed ... I'd go even further and say that weapon choice and inventory aren't even important for an RPG. But that just takes us back to the old "what is an RPG argument," which I don't think is answerable.

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).

Could someone someone give me the Cliff's Notes version of how these work in relevant part? I haven't got around to AP yet and after Morrowind I'm through with Bethesda games.

[tonnactus]

Tempest wrote...

2 things bothered me about ME2 and just realized until recently that I can post it here.

2. Biotics completely ineffective when NPC's have shields.

Not only biotics. A lot of tech attacks too like ai-hacking,cyro freeze and neural shock.
The so called "protection system" is plain idiotic. Just imagine a wizard have to use his dagger(smg) to destroy the armor of a warrior and only then could use his spells.That is the case in Mass Effect 2 "improved" combat system.

Modifié par tonnactus, 11 juin 2010 - 06:35 .

[Pocketgb]

AlanC9 wrote...

Could someone someone give me the Cliff's Notes version of how these work in relevant part? I haven't got around to AP yet and after Morrowind I'm through with Bethesda games.

I can't speak for AP, but Fallout 3's shooting mechanics are incredibly dodgy and not entirely enjoyable. I tried making gun-focused characters but it was too annoying, so I just went melee all the time instead.

[sirandar]

tonnactus wrote...

Tempest wrote...

2 things bothered me about ME2 and just realized until recently that I can post it here.

2. Biotics completely ineffective when NPC's have shields.

Not only biotics. A lot of tech attacks too like ai-hacking,cyro freeze and neural shock.
The so called "protection system" is plain idiotic. Just imagine a wizard have to use his dagger(smg) to destroy the armor of a warrior and only then could use his spells.That is the case in Mass Effect 2 "improved" combat system.

Yes this was a annoying feature of ME2 designed to "balance" the biotic powers so they weren't too strong.  A little too much in my opnion ... but how else could bioware balance biotics?  I would say allow shields OR armour to block biotics not both or make them marginally effective

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

I can't speak for AP, but Fallout 3's shooting mechanics are incredibly dodgy and not entirely enjoyable. I tried making gun-focused characters but it was too annoying, so I just went melee all the time instead.

Shouldn't play the game on consoles. With the right mods it's not "dodgy" at all, and definitely more challenging than combat in ME 2. Also shows how to combine skill-based shooting and RPG elements. 

But the fact that the game was also a success on consoles proves that there's an RPG audience there too. So why didn't BioWare just try to target that audience?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 juin 2010 - 07:42 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Shouldn't play the game on consoles. With the right mods it's not "dodgy" at all...

First, why the hell did you assume I was playng it on a console?
Two, the fact that you need "mods" to make the combat less crap is essentially proving my point.

bjdbwea wrote...

But the fact that the game was also a success on consoles proves that there's an RPG audience there too. So why didn't BioWare just try to target that audience?

Tons of people were asking that when we were hinted years ago that Mass Effect 1 was going to be an over-the-shoulder game. From the get-go ME has always been hinted towards a shooter playstyle.

[Jebel Krong]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Shouldn't play the game on consoles. With the right mods it's not "dodgy" at all...

First, why the hell did you assume I was playng it on a console?
Two, the fact that you need "mods" to make the combat less crap is essentially proving my point.

bjdbwea wrote...

But the fact that the game was also a success on consoles proves that there's an RPG audience there too. So why didn't BioWare just try to target that audience?

Tons of people were asking that when we were hinted years ago that Mass Effect 1 was going to be an over-the-shoulder game. From the get-go ME has always been hinted towards a shooter playstyle.

this pretty much sums up the entire thread...

i'm with pocketgb: a game that needs custom "mods" to make it "acceptable" to play isn't a great start, or shows that you can't accept it for what it is and want to change it like you want to change mass effect.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 11 juin 2010 - 08:10 .

[tonnactus]

sirandar wrote...


Yes this was a annoying feature of ME2 designed to "balance" the biotic powers so they weren't too strong.  A little too much in my opnion ... but how else could bioware balance biotics?

Are you serious? I am not a game designer and still could name some possibilites to do it better.

First what the first game have but what wasnt enough. Physics resistence. Someone maybee noticed that you couldnt lift a geth colossus as long as a krogan warrior. They just need to increase this at least for bosses/subbosses. Biotics/Techs could have a shorter duration but wouldnt be completly useless. (dont annoy me with the 1s stun(at best) all biotics except singularity do on "protected" enemies)

Cooldown increase after you use a biotic power on an enemy that is "protected".

Strenght decrease for powers like throw when it is used on "protected" enemies.

A lot of possibilities, that could even be combined with each other. Bioware just take the most easy way out to "fix" a problem like with the inventory or the mako. (Pc players who were dissapointed about that had only to change one line in the coalesced ini from true to false/ just to show how cheap biowares "solution" is)
Biotics should still work, just with some penalties, thats all.

Modifié par tonnactus, 11 juin 2010 - 08:33 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

First, why the hell did you assume I was playng it on a console?
Two, the fact that you need "mods" to make the combat less crap is essentially proving my point.

What is prooved? Fallout 3 sold 3 million copies on the xbox alone and 2 million on the ps3. If the combat is so awfull that wouldnt be the case.
http://www.vgchartz....s=50&sort=Total

[AlanC9]

bjdbwea wrote...
So why didn't BioWare just try to target that audience?

Because they didn't want to?

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...
What is prooved? Fallout 3 sold 3 million copies on the xbox alone and 2 million on the ps3. If the combat is so awfull that wouldnt be the case.

 Plenty of games with sucky combat have sold millions. Hell, I can't think of a Bethesda game with good combat.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 juin 2010 - 08:40 .

[Pocketgb]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Maleshep's running isn't THAT bad, the fact that there's no separate animations for Femshep is a lot worse.

It's actually a bit more immersive for me. Walks much more like a soldier.

tonnactus wrote...

What is prooved? Fallout 3 sold 3
million copies on the xbox alone and 2 million on the ps3. If the
combat is so awfull that wouldnt be the case.
http://www.vgchartz....s=50&sort=Total

There was a lot, LOT more to enjoy in Fallout 3 besides the combat.

Tempest wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Maleshep's running isn't THAT bad, the fact that there's no separate animations for Femshep is a lot worse.

Here
is the interesting thing.  I see on clips how Shepard is "supposed to
run".  When I see him run in my copy of the game, his head is nearly in
level with this shoulders (like he is depressed) and the head sways
back and forth (like seeing a child running with a tempertantrum kind
of thing).

It nearly killed my entire experience with the game because I couldn't really respect Shepard when he ran like that....

Oh, that was a glitch that happened occasionally in the first game is well. It's annoying, definitely, but just stop moving for a moment and it'll reset.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 11 juin 2010 - 09:01 .

[tonnactus]

AlanC9 wrote...


 Plenty of games with sucky combat have sold millions.

On consoles without the possibility to mod them? I doubt it. Bethesda show how to make things more interesting even in the combat. More vulnerable parts when you shoot enemies for example, not only the head in most cases(and legs on loki and husks)

Modifié par tonnactus, 11 juin 2010 - 09:13 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

Two, the fact that you need "mods" to make the combat less crap is essentially proving my point.

Wrong. Combat in the vanilla PC version of Fallout 3 is "crap" because the game was designed with consoles in mind, and because it was "streamlined", just like ME 2. But unlike BioWare/EA, Bethesda programmed the game from the beginning to be easy to mod, and they even delivered the tools for free. That way, the mainstream, even the casual gamers, could enjoy the game out-of-the-box, whereas anyone who wanted a better and more challenging experience could easily get that too. A win-win situation. As I keep saying, each and every of the many flaws and shortcomings that ME 2 has could be forgiven if the game could properly be modded.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

On
consoles without the possibility to mod them? I doubt it. Bethesda show
how to make things more interesting even in the combat. More vulnerable
parts when you shoot enemies for example, not only the head in most
cases(and legs on loki and husks)

Bethesda's popularity has never been with the combat, rather the large amount of freedom, the amount of exploration, essentially there's a whole lot you can do in their games. How do you think the game would be if it was nothing but the 'bang-bang?' What about GTA: what if it wasn't a whole city that you could explore and with a lot to do but instead had nothing but the shooter sections?

Even though ME2's combat has been a bit more refined - or at least it feels like it - it's not the reason I play it. Same for all of Bioware's games.

bjdbwea wrote...

Wrong. Combat in the vanilla PC version of Fallout 3 is "crap" because the game was designed with consoles in mind, and because it was "streamlined", just like ME 2.

The mechanics felt wonky, shooting felt awkward, and it all felt overall unsatisfying. Aesthetics have a role to play in this as well - something that Bethesda needs a lot of work on still - but I can't say that the actual combat of the game was terribly enjoyable. No biggie based on what I said above, of course, since the combat is just one part of the game, as it is in all of Bioware's games as well.

bjdbwea wrote...

As I keep saying, each and every of the many flaws and shortcomings that ME 2 has could be forgiven if the game could properly be modded.

Dunno how to respond to this since you could say that to every single game in existence.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 11 juin 2010 - 09:48 .

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...

On consoles without the possibility to mod them?I doubt it.

You may have a different definition of sucky combat from me. Then again, I tend to think that a lot of console games suck.

[ShakeZoohla]

Pocketgb wrote...

Tons of people were asking that when we were hinted years ago that Mass Effect 1 was going to be an over-the-shoulder game. From the get-go ME has always been hinted towards a shooter playstyle.

Agreed:  ME has always had a bit of shooter style, it's what made it unique.  ME2, however, is almost all shooter style, and very standard for it.

[AlanC9]

Which leads me to this...

bjdbwea wrote...
Combat in the vanilla PC version of Fallout 3 is "crap" because the game was designed with consoles in mind, and because it was "streamlined", just like ME 2. 

So how bad is FO3 combat on the consoles?

[Pocketgb]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

Agreed:  ME has always had a bit of shooter style, it's what made it unique.  ME2, however, is almost all shooter style, and very standard for it.

Except that you take all the different class abilities, talent choices, and squad choices into play and that's what makes ME2 unique. Both are pretty average but Bioware's pretty average in the department, so no biggie.