10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

ME1 was only guilty of it later in the game. I saw many complaining that they had to go into New Game+ before they could succeed all the conversation choices because they didn't want to waste points in the skill and simply got the freebies and repeatedly played the game. The point was that you at least had to spend points in an ability to be persuasive... in ME2 you do not. Except if you include that combat skill that also has the dialogue bonus, but that's still primarily a combat skill. A non-tech class Shepard also couldn't do tech-related things unless he/she had it as a bonus talent. ME2 doesn't restrict this at all.

[Pocketgb]

Reply on previous page if curious, Terror.

[InvaderErl]

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 was only guilty of it later in the game. I saw many complaining that they had to go into New Game+ before they could succeed all the conversation choices because they didn't want to waste points in the skill and simply got the freebies

You know all those people that have trouble passing those ME2 persuade checks and are told it was because they need to put more points into their class skill specialization that increases their persuasive skill?

Sound familiar?

Terror_K wrote...
The point was that you at least had to spend points in an ability to be persuasive... in ME2 you do not. Except if you include that combat skill that also has the dialogue
bonus, but that's still primarily a combat skill.

This is not the mark of a good or bad RPG.

KoTOR a game which many (including myself) hail, had one of the most broken (though fun) persuasive systems I have ever seen. You could circumvent the entire thing!

The point is the function of ONE skill does not make or break the game (generally speaking).

Terror_K wrote...
 A non-tech class Shepard also couldn't do tech-related things unless he/she had it as a bonus talent. ME2 doesn't restrict this at all.

I'm a little unsure what you're saying here. Are you talking about the gun/armor restriction? I already responded to that.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 10:18 .

[Terror_K]

No, I'm referring to the fact that in ME1 Shepard needed to be a tech class or have somebody who was of a tech class to use hacking or decryption, amongst other non combat skills. Now any Joe can just do it without the need of any skill at all. It's like not needing a Thief/Rogue to unlock chests, set traps, disarm traps, etc.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Why shepardt has to learn biotic or tech abilities?

Because the backstory didn't imply that he was a master of either? If he had spent his entire adulthood in a tech job becoming famous for his accomplishments you'd assume he could actually do 'tech stuff'.

What do you want to mention? That the army didnt have special programs for tech and biotics? Biotics receive their training from the beginning of their childhood anyway. A warhero adept for sure held off overhelming forces just with his pistol alone...

And since we were talking about ME1 compare how useful 1 point in Singularity or Sabotage is compared to 1 point in Pistols or Sniper Rifles.

You could get markmen and assanination shot very early in the game.(only three points necessary)
The soldier get overkill at level one.
And you could use most weapons without difficulties right at the start.Even the sniper rifle with some patience and crouch.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 juin 2010 - 10:36 .

[Orchomene]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Look out Orchomene! They're all going to pile in and start calling you an "elitist snob!" etc.

Clearly, calling people uneducated and dumb for not liking or playing his chosen genre isn't elitist in the slightest.

No, uneducated and dumb for not enjoying any intellectual activity. But I fully accept being called elitist or even snob. That's not really an issue.

[Orchomene]

InvaderErl wrote...

WoW is a roleplaying game. Its just not a good roleplaying game.

That's not because there is RPG in MMORPG that it's a RPG. Diablo is called a action-RPG or hack and slash RPG. Yet, it's not an RPG. It's a fun action game (well, for some time, it gets quickly boring), but it's not an RPG.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 was only guilty of it later in the game. I saw many complaining that they had to go into New Game+ before they could succeed all the conversation choices because they didn't want to waste points in the skill and simply got the freebies and repeatedly played the game. The point was that you at least had to spend points in an ability to be persuasive... in ME2 you do not. Except if you include that combat skill that also has the dialogue bonus, but that's still primarily a combat skill. A non-tech class Shepard also couldn't do tech-related things unless he/she had it as a bonus talent. ME2 doesn't restrict this at all.

EXACTLY. Every time there's a dialogue system in a new game I'm playing, all of my first 5 levels or so go to maxing out persuasion.

[Orchomene]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

What about people that play shooters AND real-time strategy AND fighting games AND RPGs? Are they a conundrum in The Tao of Intelligent Gamers?

Some intelligent people can enjoying playing dumb games and intelligent games. You can have physical activities requiring few mental activities too. The problem is not with people playing dumb games (or reading dumb books and watching dumb movies), it's only problematic when people do only play dumb games (read/watch...).

[InvaderErl]

Terror_K wrote...

No, I'm referring to the fact that in ME1 Shepard needed to be a tech class or have somebody who was of a tech class to use hacking or decryption, amongst other non combat skills. Now any Joe can just do it without the need of any skill at all. It's like not needing a Thief/Rogue to unlock chests, set traps, disarm traps, etc.

You're not wrong, but it honestly didn't bother me. All it amounted to was being able to do the simon says game because Garrus was standing next to you.

It wasn't as if he could set/disarm traps or steal or any of those other cool things that bringing a Thief/Rogue enables even while out of combat - it was just being able to open chests. Although funny enough his hacking/decryption was linked to a combat skill (one that was pretty essential in fact).

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 10:50 .

[Pocketgb]

@Terror: Guess not....

Orchomene wrote...

No, uneducated and dumb for not enjoying any intellectual activity.

Uneducated and dumb while being social and awesome?

I'll take it!

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

@Lumikki

So... it's not okay for RPG mechanics to get in the way of the shooter ones, but its perfectly fine for shooter mechanics to get in the way of the RPG ones. Because as we all know... Mass Effect is a shooter first, isn't it... and as such the shooter elements take precedence.

I loved how Christina Norman was going on about "no sacred cows" in her GDC presentation about ME2. It'll be interesting to see when ME3 comes along how many shooter elements are in fact sacred cows. We'll see I guess.

Shooter side is ONLY inside combat and only related combat. So, there is everyting else for RPG. Or are you saying it's not enough?

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2010 - 01:10 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Damm can't really answer, because haven't played bionic in ME2, just on ME1. How ever, I do assume that bionic skills in ME does work fine even with 1 point on them?

No.With level one throw you couldnt stop biotic krogans or asari commandos.Not even geth destroyers.Advanced throw stop those enemies,master throw allowed it to throw an armature. This was a real evolution of skills. No this crap now,where the player could choose between a bigger range or more damage.
So i ask you again.

Why shepardt has to learn biotic or tech abilities?

And why is shepardt to dumb to use different ammo types without points in it?
 
Does this more sense then marksmen?

Don't even try to compare those to marksman, because marksman is beyond stupid in combat system.  Meaning if You have marksman, you don't need any other offensive combat skill at all.

You seem to complain that you have ability learn something, what is what you want?

If You want weapon skill to be in list of learn, I'm fine by it. If You want to remove even that last skills from characters list to learn, I would be very carefull what to ask, because you may get it.

As for ammo types without any point, I feel like it's a bug. At least if you get any benefits. It's like Sentinel on ME1 who can use pistol without pistol skill. How ever, just the base of it, notthing more.

tonnactus wrote...

You could get markmen and assanination shot very early in the game.(only three points necessary)
The soldier get overkill at level one. And you could use most weapons without difficulties right at the start.Even the sniper rifle with some patience and crouch.

You don't get sniper rifle skill with 3 points, you need 8-9 points, because you have to first unlock the skill with other weapon skill. When You put points to pistol skill and get marksman skill with 3 points, the sniper rifle just got obsolite.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2010 - 02:27 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

@Lumikki

So... it's not okay for RPG mechanics to get in the way of the shooter ones, but its perfectly fine for shooter mechanics to get in the way of the RPG ones. Because as we all know... Mass Effect is a shooter first, isn't it... and as such the shooter elements take precedence.

I loved how Christina Norman was going on about "no sacred cows" in her GDC presentation about ME2. It'll be interesting to see when ME3 comes along how many shooter elements are in fact sacred cows. We'll see I guess.

Shooter side is ONLY inside combat and only related combat. So, there is everyting else for RPG. Or are you saying it's not enough?

I'm saying that's not the case, because the combat is such a major part of the game that it links and seeps into the other aspects. For instance, the weapons system now has been reduced to a basic shooter model, while before it was more of an RPG one. It now completely lacks customisation, stats, modding, variety within each type, etc. because of it. The armour system was more of an RPG system in ME1, but has been changed to being more of a bonus thing than anything that acts like armour in a usual RPG model. The introduction of regenerating health has taken away the skills associated with healing. Overall the style of combat now has reduced and eliminated pretty much every non-combat skill. There are less alternatives to missions because everything is about the combat. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

And the thing is this didn't need to be the case. The combat in no way had to suck the depth out of the RPG-aspects, but it has, and almost all the places where it didn't had it sucked out of it anyway for no real apparent reason. The combat changing to a more shooter-oriented approach seems to have shifted the game in the same way when it didn't need to, i.e. shooters are generally very simple and basic and lacking in complexity, so it seems the entire game shifted towards that, including the factors that shouldn't have, i.e. the RPG ones.

I'll even admit that some moves were a good idea, but that they were taken far too far. Streamlining is good as long as it retains the full functionality and complexity of the system in the process. That didn't happen in ME2 simply because the streamlining process went too far, and we ended up losing complexity and depth in the process. And the truth was much wasn't even streamlined at all and was simply removed and replaced with either nothing at all to fill the void or with a system so simple and devoid of depth that a five-year-old could use it. That's why I always say that Mass Effect 2 has the feel of "Fisher Price: My First RPG"

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

The combat in no way had to suck the depth out of the RPG-aspects, but it has, and almost all the places where it didn't had it sucked out of it anyway for no real apparent reason.

Oh there was a reason TK. Cater to the shooter fans. Money money money. It's all about the money. <_<

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 15 juin 2010 - 01:41 .

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The combat in no way had to suck the depth out of the RPG-aspects, but it has, and almost all the places where it didn't had it sucked out of it anyway for no real apparent reason.

Oh there was a reason TK. Cater to the shooter fans. Money money money. It's all about the money. <_<

Swore I head this same thing at least twenty times when ME1 was hinted at being a shooter. *Man* those were fun times...

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

Swore I head this same thing at least twenty times when ME1 was hinted at being a shooter. *Man* those were fun times...

Most RPG fans, whether they were pessimistic about ME1 or not, were pleasantly surprised at the near perfect game Bioware produced so your argument there is null and void.

But hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate hatas gonna hate. We be hatas lulz!!!!

[Terror_K]

I actually recall being concerned about ME1 thinking that it would have too much combat and not enough dialogue and be too much of a shooter, and then it came out and I was pleasantly surprised and loved it.



In other words, I was afraid it was going to be Mass Effect 2.

[Fraevar]

Terror_K wrote...

I actually recall being concerned about ME1 thinking that it would have too much combat and not enough dialogue and be too much of a shooter, and then it came out and I was pleasantly surprised and loved it.

In other words, I was afraid it was going to be Mass Effect 2.

Well as mentioned earlier in the thread, I wasn't really worried it was going to be a "dumb" shooter. The X06 demo was great, and showed a game where you had to switch between party members and utilize their special abilities to beat certain enemies, like the Geth Armature.

In spite of the flaws with the overabundance of items and such in the ME1 inventory, that was still the case. You needed to balance out your team, and having a medic along was crucial.

In ME2, all you need is Shepard, unless you play on Hardcore or Insanity. And more than anything, it's because you will need squadmates to take down the 2 extra layers of protection that each enemy has on those settings.

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Most RPG fans, whether they were pessimistic about ME1 or not, were pleasantly surprised at the near perfect game Bioware produced so your argument there is null and void.

Most RPG fans, whether they were pessimistic about ME1 or not, were terribly displeased by the product Bioware had given so your arguement there is null and void.

Who needs sources when you can have gross generalizations?

[Cloaking_Thane]

Regardless of Genre (which is a mixture of several different gaming types) both games are great.

ME2 is easily the best game in my catalouge, ME is 1b. Everything else I play w/ the wife (lego, fable, fifa, oblivion, fallout, morrwind, etc)

If youre a videogame fanatic its arguable to get an xbox sole for these games. (assuming you dont want it on PC)

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 15 juin 2010 - 02:07 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm saying that's not the case, because the combat is such a major part of the game that it links and seeps into the other aspects. For instance, the weapons system now has been reduced to a basic shooter model, while before it was more of an RPG one. It now completely lacks customisation, stats, modding, variety within each type, etc. because of it. The armour system was more of an RPG system in ME1, but has been changed to being more of a bonus thing than anything that acts like armour in a usual RPG model. The introduction of regenerating health has taken away the skills associated with healing. Overall the style of combat now has reduced and eliminated pretty much every non-combat skill. There are less alternatives to missions because everything is about the combat. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

I agree with you that they did simplify alot of the customation and they need to bring it back. Just improve ME2's current system as more customation, more variety and able to modify stuff would help alot. Because I don't believe that "inventory" system is only way to have RPG. Also I agree with you that they removed alot non-combat related skills, what was not so good idea, because it did shift the focus on combat side too much. Even Mako driving was non-combat mostly on ME1 and did provide variety to gameplay, even if some players did not like the Mako driving. How ever, it did affect the general feeling. Little like some small imprerssion stuff too, what got simplifyed too.

And the thing is this didn't need to be the case. The combat in no way had to suck the depth out of the RPG-aspects, but it has, and almost all the places where it didn't had it sucked out of it anyway for no real apparent reason. The combat changing to a more shooter-oriented approach seems to have shifted the game in the same way when it didn't need to, i.e. shooters are generally very simple and basic and lacking in complexity, so it seems the entire game shifted towards that, including the factors that shouldn't have, i.e. the RPG ones.

I have played alot of RPG in past and I don't think RPG combat system is any way better than shooter. Sure RPG combat is little more tactical, but shooter can also be tactical if the enviroment and enemies are done right. Other problem is that most important part of Mass Effect is cinematic gameplay and puting RPG type of combat in it, would really break the impression. Sure, it would make better RPG as general, but as game to total, I don't think it would be better game.

I'll even admit that some moves were a good idea, but that they were taken far too far. Streamlining is good as long as it retains the full functionality and complexity of the system in the process. That didn't happen in ME2 simply because the streamlining process went too far, and we ended up losing complexity and depth in the process. And the truth was much wasn't even streamlined at all and was simply removed and replaced with either nothing at all to fill the void or with a system so simple and devoid of depth that a five-year-old could use it. That's why I always say that Mass Effect 2 has the feel of "Fisher Price: My First RPG"

Yes, I agree with you they took some stuff way too far. How ever, I think they have allready noticed they mistake and they are allready bringing more customation back to ME3. How ever, I would also like to see more non-combat stuff in game too. The problem was like they polish the game too much by simplifying everyting, even stuff what doesn't need to be simplifyed. Like customation, variety and RPG impression details and so on..

I don't argue with you here much because you post here is little bit how I also feel.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Most RPG fans, whether they were pessimistic about ME1 or not, were terribly displeased by the product Bioware had given so your arguement there is null and void.

Who needs sources when you can have gross generalizations?

Untrue. ME1 complaints, while existent, were fairly minor on the old forums. Its only since ME2 has come out that ME1 has really been so horribly bashed. Before then it was generally considered excellent, albeit flawed. Funny how there are complaints about ME1 that I only heard for the first time recently, yet they get spoken of as if they were always there.

[Massadonious1]

You're right, it's all about teh monies.







Wait a minute. Their better RPG's made teh monies too? Oh noes! Conundrum.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Untrue. ME1 complaints, while existent, were fairly minor on the old forums. Its only since ME2 has come out that ME1 has really been so horribly bashed. Before then it was generally considered excellent, albeit flawed. Funny how there are complaints about ME1 that I only heard for the first time recently, yet they get spoken of as if they were always there.

I've been there since ME1's first official trailer (with the old Shep!) and saw many of the concerns there float onto the final product. There were many valid complaints in regards to the system.

However, I agree  that the amount of discontent with ME2 is much more than we saw with ME1's release. But this was because ME1 wasn't riding on the reigns of a sequel. It wasn't as anticipated, it wasn't as hyped. Both of those factors, while largely positive in the long haul, are always going to bring about a lot of upset players, regardless of the quality of the game.

This is *not* to say that what's been said in this thread - and this forum - aren't valid complaints, rather that a sequel brings in a lot of expectation of all sorts of varieties. And if the game doesn't meet those precise, specific expectations they're going to be upset.

Here's the question: How sure can we be that we wouldn't see the same amount of complaints if ME2 followed more along ME1's path? Players become upset when the formula changes, players become upset when it doesn't. The problem is that both "sides" are huge fans of ME1.

So what does Bioware do?
Flip a coin.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 02:20 .