10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Vena_86]

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.

That is true for several games these days. Developers (or publishers) limit the moddability of games, or support the aspect as little as possible, so they can make more profit through selling DLC that is often of lesser quantity and even quality then free community made content.
Looking at how many people working in the gaming industry actually started with modding and thus gaining experience and having something practical to show for their applications, this strategy appears very short sighted. The industry is shooting it self in the leg. Furthermore, if it wasnt for Ubisofts rediculous punishment-system for valid customers and making Assassins Creed 1/2 impossible to mod, then i would have considered buying that game, as the biggest flaw of the game (one overpowered weapon which renders everything else obsolete) could have been fixed within a matter of days.
In contrast I am 100% sure that I will buy Star Craft 2. Alone the powerfull map editor and instant streaming over the battlenet will justify the prize as it ensures great content made by thousands of people over the next 10 years and more. Even their own games that have nothing to do with RTS. Its still Beta and there are already many interesting mods out. In comparison Dawn of War 2 with its very limited modding looks like a raindrop on a hot stone, when it comes to long time entertainment.
While not as harsh as AC/AC2 the Mass Effect franchise is clearly going the same route with less moddablity and more DLC.
I prefer to spend money on a game when I feel like I want to give the developers something back for what they have given, instead of feeling like a variable in a marketing setup.

[Pocketgb]

Vena_86 wrote...

That is true for several games these days. Developers (or publishers) limit the moddability of games, or support the aspect as little as possible, so they can make more profit through selling DLC that is often of lesser quantity and even quality then free community made content.

It's a pretty good idea for consoles.
Not so much for PC. I mean hell look at how awesome the housing mods for Oblivion have become:
None of the official mods have come even close to some of them.

Vena_86 wrote...

In comparison Dawn of War 2 with its very limited modding looks like a raindrop on a hot stone, when it comes to long time entertainment.

Aw man, now I'm all sad again...There could've been sooooo many awesome mods in DoW2, especially in the co-op department. All six of my best gamer buds would probably still be playing it right now if we could get six people going in that campaign

Modifié par Pocketgb, 11 juin 2010 - 10:09 .

[bjdbwea]

Vena_86 wrote...

That is true for several games these days. Developers (or publishers) limit the moddability of games, or support the aspect as little as possible, so they can make more profit through selling DLC that is often of lesser quantity and even quality then free community made content.

I know, and I suspect BioWare/EA even deliberately reduced the number of weapons and armor in the main game to push their DLCs. But Bethesda delivered a great tool to mod everything in Fallout 3, and people still bought the 5 DLCs. And for all we know, they did make a nice profit. And let's not forget that the DLCs were much longer and of much higher quality than the BioWare DLCs so far, and of course they were more reasonably priced too. I have to say, that's a business and DLC model I highly appreciate. Whereas my appreciation for BioWare has really dropped lately.

Vena_86 wrote...

Looking at how many people working in the gaming industry actually started with modding and thus gaining experience and having something practical to show for their applications, this strategy appears very short sighted. The industry is shooting it self in the leg. Furthermore, if it wasnt for Ubisofts rediculous punishment-system for valid customers and making Assassins Creed 1/2 impossible to mod, then i would have considered buying that game, as the biggest flaw of the game (one overpowered weapon which renders everything else obsolete) could have been fixed within a matter of days.

Absolutely. I just hope they'll not force such crap on ME 3 and DA 2 too. Or otherwise I for one will have to boycott those games too. Unfortunately, as long as so many people continue to put up with things like that, it will not change.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 juin 2010 - 10:19 .

[ShakeZoohla]

Pocketgb wrote...

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.

Both games definetely have average combat, I personally prefer ME1's, but that's probably just because I am bored of the new Gears of War standard of cover-shooters, the problem is ME2 has such an emphasis on combat that it can't afford to be average.  Taking out inventory, customization, exploration, and ME1's pseudo-open world feel, put a lot of pressure on ME2's combat, which for me just didn't pull it off.  Sure, those systems were had their issues in ME1, but ultimately they served their purpose and helped to make the game feel big, whereas ME2, which is technically longer, feels anemic.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


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.

Maybee it would be better if bioware include this at least in some N7 missions instead of improving pew pew.And it would be better for the sales too.

[tonnactus]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

Both games definetely have average combat, I personally prefer ME1's, but that's probably just because I am bored of the new Gears of War standard of cover-shooters, the problem is ME2 has such an emphasis on combat that it can't afford to be average.  .

The combat is boring for me.I like powers, especially crowd control powers, and the developers downgraded most of them to toys, just some fancy finishers at best.

The most important powers are the defense stripping powers in this game(paper,rock scissors way,extremly boring).

And even they lost in comparison with ammo powers who are much more effective to their tech/biotic counterparts.(no cooldown,activate them once and use them the whole mission)

Modifié par tonnactus, 11 juin 2010 - 10:51 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

I know, and I suspect BioWare/EA even
deliberately reduced the number of weapons and armor in the main game
to push their DLCs. But Bethesda delivered a great tool to mod everything
in Fallout 3, and people still bought the 5 DLCs. And for all we know,
they did make a nice profit. And let's not forget that the DLCs were
much longer and of much higher quality than the BioWare DLCs so far,
and of course they were more reasonably priced too. I have to say,
that's a business and DLC model I highly appreciate. Whereas my
appreciation for BioWare has really dropped lately.

Bethesda started with crappy DLC ala Oblivion. They finally got a hold of things with Fallout 3 (Pitt = AMAZING). Plus I heard that Kasumi's DLC was wicked sick so maybe Bioware might actually be getting somewhere.

But yeah, so far it seems that Bethesda have been the only ones to actually do DLC right.

ShakeZoohla wrote...

Both games definetely have average combat, I personally prefer ME1's, but that's probably just because I am bored of the new Gears of War standard of cover-shooters, the problem is ME2 has such an emphasis on combat that it can't afford to be average.  Taking out inventory, customization, exploration, and ME1's pseudo-open world feel, put a lot of pressure on ME2's combat, which for me just didn't pull it off.  Sure, those systems were had their issues in ME1, but ultimately they served their purpose and helped to make the game feel big, whereas ME2, which is technically longer, feels anemic.

See the idea, can't agree fully. The only thing I truly enjoyed about the explorable worlds were the skyboxes. The lack-of-variety in all side-missions really killed a lot of the openness, as well (even though BDTS tried to break the mold by different lighting and new structures it still didn't change much).

Regarding one big hub (the Citadel) vs. the numerous hubs in ME2 (Omega, Illium, Citadel wards)? Hard to say. Personally I'd like to see us go back to one big hub, even though there was nothing wrong with ME2's presentation in them: ME1 had a sense of "big" with the Citadel, ME2 had a scope of "variety" because that one big hub was spread across a few.

Even though it was fun mixing up armor pieces, I'd definitely like to see weapons recieve the same treatment for ME3. A bit understandable considering that they're doing something that's really out of their comfort zone, but still.

This has probably been the best conversation I've had in this thread, by the way: Nothing but differeing tastes as opposed to saying "NAW MAN ME1/2 SUCKED'. Kudos, Master Shake!

tonnactus wrote...

Maybee it would be better if bioware
include this at least in some N7 missions instead of improving pew
pew.And it would be better for the sales too.

A best of Bethesda and Bioware game would indeed be pretty sweet to see.

[The BS Police]

My main criticisms of Mass Effect 2 come from either the story or the mini-games. Storywise I dislike how the majority of the main characters from the first game ( Liara, Ash/Kaiden, Wrex, the Council, Anderson, Udina, admiral hackett, etc.) are only guest spots. As for the mini games, I dislike having to be forced to buy fuel and the resource mini-game was boring and tediously slow.

[The BS Police]

worm_burner wrote...

The BS Police wrote...

My main criticisms of Mass Effect 2 come from either the story or the mini-games. Storywise I dislike how the majority of the main characters from the first game ( Liara, Ash/Kaiden, Wrex, the Council, Anderson, Udina, admiral hackett, etc.) are only guest spots. As for the mini games, I dislike having to be forced to buy fuel and the resource mini-game was boring and tediously slow.

I completely agree.  I hated how those characters got very minor role in ME2 especially Anderson, Hacket, and the Council.  That was one of the major letdowns for me in ME2.  One breif scene with the council and Anderson, is that really all they could include?  They could have had such a great impact on the game and I was completely expecting them to make a great return in the sequal.  Well hopefully Bioware puts them back into major roles in ME3.

You raised another good point that I dislike about this game, why do my decisions from the first game not really matter? I want Our decisions should play a much bigger part in ME3.

[tonnactus]

worm_burner wrote...


I completely agree.  I hated how those characters got very minor role in ME2 especially Anderson, Hacket, and the Council.  That was one of the major letdowns for me in ME2.  One breif scene with the council and Anderson, is that really all they could include?  They could have had such a great impact on the game and I was completely expecting them to make a great return in the sequal.  Well hopefully Bioware puts them back into major roles in ME3.

Renegade players not even get to see the all human council...

[tonnactus]

The BS Police wrote...



you raised another good point that I dislike about this game, why do my decisions from the first game not really matter? I want Our decisions should play a much bigger part in ME3.

I doubt that.They not even made the effort to offer an alternative recruitment mission for thane if you do Nassana Dantious a favor in the first game.This could be a great possiblity to offer an alternative,not just another mission where shepardt had to kill billions of mercs. Wasted for a "badass" cutscene.

Modifié par tonnactus, 11 juin 2010 - 11:55 .

[ShakeZoohla]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I know, and I suspect BioWare/EA even
deliberately reduced the number of weapons and armor in the main game
to push their DLCs. But Bethesda delivered a great tool to mod everything
in Fallout 3, and people still bought the 5 DLCs. And for all we know,
they did make a nice profit. And let's not forget that the DLCs were
much longer and of much higher quality than the BioWare DLCs so far,
and of course they were more reasonably priced too. I have to say,
that's a business and DLC model I highly appreciate. Whereas my
appreciation for BioWare has really dropped lately.

Bethesda started with crappy DLC ala Oblivion. They finally got a hold of things with Fallout 3 (Pitt = AMAZING). Plus I heard that Kasumi's DLC was wicked sick so maybe Bioware might actually be getting somewhere.

But yeah, so far it seems that Bethesda have been the only ones to actually do DLC right.

ShakeZoohla wrote...

Both games definetely have average combat, I personally prefer ME1's, but that's probably just because I am bored of the new Gears of War standard of cover-shooters, the problem is ME2 has such an emphasis on combat that it can't afford to be average.  Taking out inventory, customization, exploration, and ME1's pseudo-open world feel, put a lot of pressure on ME2's combat, which for me just didn't pull it off.  Sure, those systems were had their issues in ME1, but ultimately they served their purpose and helped to make the game feel big, whereas ME2, which is technically longer, feels anemic.

See the idea, can't agree fully. The only thing I truly enjoyed about the explorable worlds were the skyboxes. The lack-of-variety in all side-missions really killed a lot of the openness, as well (even though BDTS tried to break the mold by different lighting and new structures it still didn't change much).

Regarding one big hub (the Citadel) vs. the numerous hubs in ME2 (Omega, Illium, Citadel wards)? Hard to say. Personally I'd like to see us go back to one big hub, even though there was nothing wrong with ME2's presentation in them: ME1 had a sense of "big" with the Citadel, ME2 had a scope of "variety" because that one big hub was spread across a few.

Even though it was fun mixing up armor pieces, I'd definitely like to see weapons recieve the same treatment for ME3. A bit understandable considering that they're doing something that's really out of their comfort zone, but still.

This has probably been the best conversation I've had in this thread, by the way: Nothing but differeing tastes as opposed to saying "NAW MAN ME1/2 SUCKED'. Kudos, Master Shake!

Yeah the openness of ME1 didn't quite work, but I still enjoyed it and figured ME2 would probably make it better. That's what really disappointed me about ME2:  they didn't fix ME1 and continue its story, they just changed things.

And yeah there is a lot of unnecessary BS in this thread coming from both sides.  It really just boils down to taste.

Modifié par ShakeZoohla, 12 juin 2010 - 12:10 .

[Iakus]

The BS Police wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

The BS Police wrote...

My main criticisms of Mass Effect 2 come from either the story or the mini-games. Storywise I dislike how the majority of the main characters from the first game ( Liara, Ash/Kaiden, Wrex, the Council, Anderson, Udina, admiral hackett, etc.) are only guest spots. As for the mini games, I dislike having to be forced to buy fuel and the resource mini-game was boring and tediously slow.

I completely agree.  I hated how those characters got very minor role in ME2 especially Anderson, Hacket, and the Council.  That was one of the major letdowns for me in ME2.  One breif scene with the council and Anderson, is that really all they could include?  They could have had such a great impact on the game and I was completely expecting them to make a great return in the sequal.  Well hopefully Bioware puts them back into major roles in ME3.

You raised another good point that I dislike about this game, why do my decisions from the first game not really matter? I want Our decisions should play a much bigger part in ME3.

My problems are numerous, but I suppose at its most basic it can be boiled down to:

ME 1

Anderson to Council: "Shepard's right. Humanity is ready to do its part. United with the rest of the Council, we have the strength to overcome any challenge! When the Reapers come, we must stand side-by-side! We must fight against them as one, and together, we will drive them back into dark space!"


ME 2

Tuian Councilor:  "Ah, yes, 'Reapers'..."

[SkullandBonesmember]

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.

Said it before, but I play on the console and Fallout 3's combat, both real time and VATS, was practically the only thing I enjoyed about the game. That and the whole retro illusion town, name escapes me at the moment.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 12 juin 2010 - 01:03 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...


Tuian Councilor:  "Ah, yes, 'Reapers'..."

The asari coucelor is even more dumber.Saren was charismatic and that is the reason machines accept his command.Yes,sure. What a piece of crap.

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Said it before, but I play on the console and Fallout 3's combat, both real time and VATS, was practically the only thing I enjoyed about the game.

Goodness, it appears our tastes differ!

[bjdbwea]

I like Fallout 3 a lot, and pretty much disagree with people who say it was dumbed down. I for one think it's a successful attempt of transforming a game series to appeal to a broader audience, and "streamlining" it, without dumbing it down and without losing the heart and soul. But of course I am a bit influenced by the fact that the game can be modded so well.



Fallout 3 is probably more combat heavy than ME 2, but combat is much more interesting and diverse, and actually allows (sometimes calls for) strategy. And with its mods and all it has much more replayability. ME 1 for me had a lot of replayability too, just because the story was amazing. Like a really good movie, I can watch that often, even though already knowing everything. ME 2 does not offer that to me.

[Pocketgb]

I've poured in many, many more hours into ME1 than I have in ME2. Less a problem with ME2 and more the fact that despite the difference they're still essentially the same game.



Also my computer was down at the time, so ME1 was really the only game I had to play at the moment.

[Tempest]

sirandar wrote...

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

What could be done in ME3 is that if they DO have shields/armor on to make the NPC recover faster like what you said.  But instead of flying around from a biotic wave/blast have the NPC take a few steps back.  Biotics being a "Defensive/CC" based abilities is pointless when you have to DPS before Support/CC abilities take effect.

[Tempest]

Pocketgb wrote...


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.

Oh, how often I have tried to stand still and let it reset.   Just to have it happen again a few seconds after it resets.  I have done that MULTIPLE times with the same effect.   So now I just see Commander Shepard as an emotional wreck in ME2 because of it.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

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.

What defines and RPG and what makes a substantial and satisfying one for the players are two different things. To me, ME2 fits the definition, but does a poor job of it.

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.

Others have responded about FO3, and I personally don't think its as bad as they say. Basically leveling up your gun skill ups the chance that your gun will hit and improves the range of its effectiveness, etc. with a hidden roll determining how straight the bullets that come out the end of your gun. Damage can be mostly increased by increasing your ability to repair the weapons and then doing so.

AP is similar in this respect, with a hidden roll determining how often the bullet lands where the crosshair is, as well as your range with the weapon and unlocking several abilities down the tree as you progress through it, allowing you to more accurately blind-fire with it, lock on faster and better, lock on at greater distances, etc. (In AP the longer you aim at an enemy the greater the chance of not only hitting but doing more damage). Later on, for example, you can get powers that allow you to slow time with a particular weapon and paint your targets before the result unfolds.

[AlanC9]

Vena_86 wrote...

That is true for several games these days. Developers (or publishers) limit the moddability of games, or support the aspect as little as possible, so they can make more profit through selling DLC that is often of lesser quantity and even quality then free community made content.

There have been a lot of preposterous things said in this thread, but declaring that Bio's refusal to spend hundreds of man-hours on developing an editor for the ME games is part of an eeevil plot to sell DLC.....

@ Terror_K: thanks. That looks pretty good, act

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 juin 2010 - 05:58 .

[Terror_K]

I'd say they didn't make an editor more realistically because of the ramifications such a thing could have on imports between games, considering its a major feature and messing around with things too much could quite easily bork an import. There have already been enough concerns regarding using the console commands in the PC version of the first game and the modding that's already been done as it is, let alone with an editor allowing people to mess with things more directly.

[KitsuneRommel]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

*cough*
GoldenEye 007 and Perfect Dark.