10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


I cant ever recall an instance where I failed in ME1 and thought "if only I had those awesome upgrades!"

Oh,really not? What classes did you play? On places like ferros the medical upgrades that reduces poison damage were really helpfull for all classes to survive the thorian fight.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Er, what?
"Slightness" or "significance" with upgrades aside - either in ME1 or ME2 - the sequel provides for a much broader range of customization. In ME1 you're only given two slots with a modest choice of upgrades, some that are simply not worth wasting the slot over (toxin resistance).

If you only played as a soldier or infiltrator and have master immunity on ferros,then its right that toxic resistance maybee wasnt worth it...
At least on lower difficulties where the shiala clon wouldnt use warp that often and the creepers finish you off with their poison.

[SkullandBonesmember]

cachx wrote...

I tend to agree, while I did finish it once and had moderate fun with it, the gameplay was so broken and it was technically so poor (and by that I mean bugs, I don't really mind the Dreamcast-esque graphics) that I don't think i'll ever replay it. This game suffers for trying to be too much at once and not succeding in every separate aspect.

Keep in mind there are those, EXCLUDING fans of the originals that were disappointed, who hated Fallout 3's combat system as well. It has guns, so it must play like a shooter. Sound familiar?

Now I haven't played Alpha Protocol just yet, but I'm not opposed to saying the combat sucks if the combat does indeed suck. But that's not the case by default if a game with guns doesn't play like a classic stereotypical TPS or FPS. ME1 didn't but there was nothing wrong with that despite how most feel otherwise.

[tonnactus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...
Who the hell uses melee attacks in ME1, for example?

Geth were very easy to beat down even when the player wasnt a vanguard or a soldier.And this really helps to take out the rocket trooper and the sniper in the therum bossfight. It also helped to deal with creepers.

[Orchomene]

bjdbwea wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

People think that AP is bad because they need an assisted game. They say the mini games are broken because they can't solve those games (and there are ways to bypass the minigames via EMP grenades). They say the combat is broken because they are used to easy cover-shoot fights in recent shooters that allow them to win every combat without issue.

The more I see people who praise ME 2 bash AP, and people who are critical about ME 2 praise AP, the more I think I should AP give a choice despite the things I already know would disappoint me.

The GB review is one of the most objectives if you want some input :
http://www.gamebansh...a-protocol.html

[smudboy]

Orchomene wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

People think that AP is bad because they need an assisted game. They say the mini games are broken because they can't solve those games (and there are ways to bypass the minigames via EMP grenades). They say the combat is broken because they are used to easy cover-shoot fights in recent shooters that allow them to win every combat without issue.

The more I see people who praise ME 2 bash AP, and people who are critical about ME 2 praise AP, the more I think I should AP give a choice despite the things I already know would disappoint me.

The GB review is one of the most objectives if you want some input :
http://www.gamebansh...a-protocol.html

"And that's where I feel Alpha Protocol shines more than any game before it. It is a game with a lot of different consequences to a massive amount of choices, and those consequences are always logical but not always obvious."

Manly tears.  Of literary joy.

Modifié par smudboy, 20 juin 2010 - 07:51 .

[smudboy]

That review was great.  I think the last few sentences sum it up nicely.

"No one can pretend the flaws don't exist, but it's also a mistake to focus on them alone. I can't guarantee they won't turn you off the game completely, but I can say that even with its flaws Alpha Protocol was one of the more satisfying RPG experiences I've had in years. It doesn't play it safe with the predictable blandness that has become the industry standard, instead daring to throw more choices your way than any game in recent memory. Actually challenging the player, rather than
insulting his intelligence. If this sounds like something you can identify with, I would give it a shot to try and get past the game's flaws, it's definitely worth it."

[bjdbwea]

I don't understand what the review says about the mini games in AP. Seems he doesn't like that they're actually challenging, and there's a downside to failing them? Sounds like a plus to me. The mini games in ME 2 are the most simple and most unchallenging I've seen in any game so far. Definitely worse than in ME 1.

[Orchomene]

Mini games becomes quickly very difficult. Yet, with equipments and skills, the difficulty may decrease. And in the end, when it becomes very hard, you may use EMP grenades to bypass the problem (at the expense of around 1000 bucks). For me, up to half of the game, it was ok, even if a bit difficult. After that, I almost used EMP if I needed to remain stealthy since if you lose at the mini game, this triggers an alarm.

[aries1001]

I've just finished the newly released demo. And even if I played on casual, I had to reload many times to get by. The only grievance, I really have is the hacking mini-game. The speed here is simply too fast for me (but that may just be me). As a consequence of this, I didnt do it at all - hope there isn't any valuable info in the things that need hacking...



I'm not disappointed with ME2; probably because it's the shooter with a background I've longed for Bioware to make. Is it an RPG? Maybe? Is it a shooter? Maybe? Perhaps it is combination genre, much like the game STALKER, I find. This game (stalker) was only heavy on the story, and you used guns and rifles as well.



The game (me2) seems a lot more focused to me as to what the game wants to do, what the story is and how you tell the story using the visuals and the gameplay, than say maybe other games.

[Lumikki]

Mini games has no value or challenge when game can be saved and loaded as many time you want. because if you fail, just reload and do it again as many times required.

Quote from AP review, last sentence:
"If this sounds like something you can identify with, I would give it a shot to try and get past the game's flaws, it's definitely worth it."

Yeah, does this include any game that exist. I mean if You can get pass the flaws, it's definitly worth of it? Meaning if player is conserating all effort just to be negative and finding flaws, it doesn't matter what the game is. Because every game has flaws to found, if you really look them. More you look, more you find. Untill player just starts to create even normal situations as flaws. Because game has to have more flaws to support players dispointment opinion and negative attitude agaist the game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 juin 2010 - 09:51 .

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...

Mini games has no value or challenge when game can be saved and loaded as many time you want. because if you fail, just reload and do it again as many times required.

Isn't that true for the whole game?

[cachx]

Lumikki wrote...
Mini games has no value or challenge when game can be saved and loaded as many time you want. because if you fail, just reload and do it again as many times required.

This wasn't the case with AP thanks to the terrible checkpoint system, you can't save whenever you want, you can only save at certain points.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

cachx wrote...
I
tend to agree, while I did finish it once and had moderate fun with it,
the gameplay was so broken and it was technically so poor (and by that I
mean bugs, I don't really mind the Dreamcast-esque graphics) that I
don't think i'll ever replay it. This game suffers for trying to be too
much at once and not succeding in every separate aspect.

Keep
in mind there are those, EXCLUDING fans of the originals that were
disappointed, who hated Fallout 3's combat system as well. It has guns,
so it must play like a shooter. Sound familiar?
Now I haven't
played Alpha Protocol just yet, but I'm not opposed to saying the combat
sucks if the combat does indeed suck. But that's not the case by
default if a game with guns doesn't play like a classic stereotypical
TPS or FPS. ME1 didn't but there was nothing wrong with that despite how
most feel otherwise.

I'm not a Bethesda fan, only played Fallout 3 for like 10 or so hours before leaving due to boredom (and my graphics card exploding).The shooting was just bad, the slow motion thing got old quickly. The story and characters were meh... I enjoyed the atmosphere and sense of humor though...

My gripes with AP is that it really tries to be a cover-based TPS and fails. Bullets going through cover, stupid enemy AI (wich will stop for no reason and give you their backs, or try to charge into gunfire to get you at melee), the fact that the only useful gun is the AR (wich renders the skills & customization for other gun types meaningless). 
And it also tries to be a MGS-esque stealth game and fails. The enemy AI of awareness is broken (they will see you behind walls or around corners sometimes), enemy positions in the level are wonky, you are forced to walk while crouching, you can only set one skill for use at a time. (of course when you get the invisibility skill, you can pretty much clear a room without anyone noticing, even if all the bad guys are right next to each other).

I went as a stealther with a AR, and I don't see me trying anything else, if I ever get around playing it again that is...

[Terminus Echoes]

I missed all the RPG elements of the first game.



I've spent probably around $80 just for new armors, which to me was well worth it, but come on, give us more customization options. Granted it's better than in ME1, where all it did was change colors, but in the advent of armors that play by theme, I say that in ME3, make this stuff buyable. I have no problem with promo DLC, but when most of the armor IS promo DLC, I think that's unfair.



Speaking of buyable, I was also disappointed in the lack of weapons. Picking up a random weapon on a mission isn't really my thing. I remember saving up credits to buy a kickass pistol as an Infiltrator, and I loved it. That element is gone, however.



Biggest problem: Story. The story and form in ME1 was very captivating and awe inspiring. Traveling the galaxy and going to many distant planets to try and stop a rogue Spectre and stop an army of machines was amazing, and then learning about the Reapers... just awesome. In this game, it's all about assembling a team. The Collector's are pretty good, too, but when we throw the original plot out the window for the sake of a team of which we probably don't fully like, I consider it a bit underdone.

However, the plots for the team is very well done. Thane, Garrus, Samara, Miranda, Kasumi, Mordin, all well done. The others are kinda half-assed in my opinion. However, it was way overdone to the point that the game's flow is strapped to recruiting and gaining loyalty. I preferred the more plot-oriented approach, where you had to stop Saren and learn things along the way.

But I'm sure I've made my point on this.



---



That said, Mass Effect 2 is still a very fun game. I've been playing as different classes, learning new things, and I plan on beating it on insane mode, but I'm trying to crack down and learn all I can before I go head to head with Goliath.

[SkullandBonesmember]

cachx wrote...

I'm not a Bethesda fan, only played Fallout 3 for like 10 or so hours before leaving due to boredom (and my graphics card exploding).The shooting was just bad, the slow motion thing got old quickly. The story and characters were meh... I enjoyed the atmosphere and sense of humor though...

My gripes with AP is that it really tries to be a cover-based TPS and fails. Bullets going through cover, stupid enemy AI (wich will stop for no reason and give you their backs, or try to charge into gunfire to get you at melee), the fact that the only useful gun is the AR (wich renders the skills & customization for other gun types meaningless). 
And it also tries to be a MGS-esque stealth game and fails. The enemy AI of awareness is broken (they will see you behind walls or around corners sometimes), enemy positions in the level are wonky, you are forced to walk while crouching, you can only set one skill for use at a time. (of course when you get the invisibility skill, you can pretty much clear a room without anyone noticing, even if all the bad guys are right next to each other).

I went as a stealther with a AR, and I don't see me trying anything else, if I ever get around playing it again that is...

Has it occurred to you that not all games with guns are for you? Who says if you, or anybody else THINKS the gameplay mechanics suck that the developers are obliged to make any and all games with guns play like a TPS or FPS? And what constitutes a game trying to be a TPS? How can one distinguish between an "attempted shooter" and a "true shooter" when the statement a developer tried to make a shooter screams subjective?

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 juin 2010 - 01:55 .

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

. The mini games in ME 2 are the most simple and most unchallenging I've seen in any game so far. Definitely worse than in ME 1.

HAHAHA, just like how ME1's "point and push your arrow to the centre" is so much "complex" and better than the two hacking methods in ME2.

Utter fanboyism at its peak.

[bjdbwea]

You really don't have anything to add to the discussion apart from insulting others? Oh right, you are also quite good at imagining straw mans.

Did I ever claim the ME 1 mini games to be complex? No, I did not. Are they more challenging than the mini games in ME 2? Certainly. The hardest level can even be unfair sometimes. The easiest level is of course just as unchallenging as ME 2. But even there ME 1 has at least the advantage that the mini game is done much quicker. Now, I'm all for a longer gameplay time. But not an artificially increased one, like with the mini game where you can't do anything but wait until the correct code piece appears. If only the pieces would move faster or anything, but of course it had to be easy enough so that the casual gamer won't be annoyed. And adding several difficulty settings was obviously too much asked for.

See, that's called "presenting arguments". And I did it without insulting you. Might want to try it, it's not that hard.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 juin 2010 - 03:54 .

[Iakus]

bjdbwea wrote...

You really don't have anything to add to the discussion apart from insulting others? Oh right, you are also quite good at imagining straw mans.

Did I ever claim the ME 1 mini games to be complex? No, I did not. Are they more challenging than the mini games in ME 2? Certainly. The hardest level can even be unfair sometimes. The easiest level is of course just as unchallenging as ME 2. But even there ME 1 has at least the advantage that the mini game is done much quicker. Now, I'm all for a longer game time. But not an artificially increased one, like with the mini game where you can't do anything but wait until the correct code piece appears. If only the pieces would move faster or anything, but of course it had to be easy enough so that the casual gamer won't be annoyed. And adding several difficulty settings was obviously too much asked for.

See, that's called "presenting arguments". And I did it without insulting you. Might want to try it, it's not that hard.

Personally, I actually like the minigames better in ME 2 (see, everyone, I don't think the game is all bad )  They aren't very challenging, but i found the spinning circles in ME 1 to be really boring after a while.  Eventually I'd just brute-force them with omnigel just to be done with them.

The minigames in AP are even better though.  They actually require you to be observant.and are much more challenging.  I even fail them sometimes.

[Orchomene]

cachx wrote...

My gripes with AP is that it really tries to be a cover-based TPS and fails. Bullets going through cover, stupid enemy AI (wich will stop for no reason and give you their backs, or try to charge into gunfire to get you at melee), the fact that the only useful gun is the AR (wich renders the skills & customization for other gun types meaningless). 
And it also tries to be a MGS-esque stealth game and fails. The enemy AI of awareness is broken (they will see you behind walls or around corners sometimes), enemy positions in the level are wonky, you are forced to walk while crouching, you can only set one skill for use at a time. (of course when you get the invisibility skill, you can pretty much clear a room without anyone noticing, even if all the bad guys are right next to each other).

I went as a stealther with a AR, and I don't see me trying anything else, if I ever get around playing it again that is...

It doesn't try to be a real cover-based TPS. You may think so, but not. It does only with the AR. Each weapon has a playstyle : pistol is a stealth weapon needing aiming for 2 sec and a range of 10 to 20 meters, AR is a more common long range weapon on burst mode and precise, SMGs are dual weapon used for stopping effect at short range as a kind of crowd control, shotgun is a close range weapon and more useful combined with martial art.
AI is not worse than !deus Ex one or ME2 one, not perfect but still passable. They don't "see' you behind corners but they can hear you. Skills are really potent and not always balanced, stealth and pistol being a bit overpowered in many situations. The UI is far from being perfect but you can get used to it. Some mini games can be very difficult, like the hacking one for the first times, a good training can be necessary. Generally you feel like you should be in good terms with everyone (having high reputation score), yet having bad relations with someone can open new paths of the story.

[bjdbwea]

iakus wrote...

Personally, I actually like the minigames better in ME 2 (see, everyone, I don't think the game is all bad )  They aren't very challenging, but i found the spinning circles in ME 1 to be really boring after a while.  Eventually I'd just brute-force them with omnigel just to be done with them.

Yeah, of course they were boring after a while. But with their short length and, as you said, the ability to bypass them, I found them much less annoying than in ME 2. The ideas behind the ME 2 mini games are actually better, they're just too easy. Except planet scanning of course, that's the dumbest idea of a mini "game" ever.

The best mini games I've seen so far are in Fallout 3. The lockpick game is of course very easy too, but also short. The hacking mini game is really well done, it actually requires you to think.

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

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

You really don't have anything to add to the discussion apart from insulting others? Oh right, you are also quite good at imagining straw mans.

Did I ever claim the ME 1 mini games to be complex? No, I did not. Are they more challenging than the mini games in ME 2? Certainly. The hardest level can even be unfair sometimes. The easiest level is of course just as unchallenging as ME 2. But even there ME 1 has at least the advantage that the mini game is done much quicker. Now, I'm all for a longer gameplay time. But not an artificially increased one, like with the mini game where you can't do anything but wait until the correct code piece appears. If only the pieces would move faster or anything, but of course it had to be easy enough so that the casual gamer won't be annoyed. And adding several difficulty settings was obviously too much asked for.

See, that's called "presenting arguments". And I did it without insulting you. Might want to try it, it's not that hard.

Since when calling you a fanboy meant that i insulted you? How is trying to push an arrow into the center more challenging than trying to match different key segments without the risk of selecting the wrong icon and then sabotaging the bypass sequence?  The answer is simple, you hate the second game so much(which you blatantly admitted to, considering you prefer copy + paste pirate bases to N7's) that you prefer even the most broken aspects of the first game over anything the second game offers.

The pathetic "mini games" in the first game was horrifically easy, you obviously prefer that and state your opinions as facts due to your manianical evangalical hatred of the sequel.

[bjdbwea]

Okay, it was less an insult and more another case of throwing baseless accusations at everyone who dares to criticize your favourite game. I wonder what you think you can accomplish with that. For your information, I don't "hate" any video game, it's not nearly important enough for that.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

Okay, it was less an insult and more another case of throwing baseless accusations at everyone who dares to criticize your favourite game. I wonder what you think you can accomplish with that. For your information, I don't "hate" any video game, it's not nearly important enough for that.

Yes, you accuse me of baseless accusations when you yourself come up with baseless assumptions that ME2 is my "favourite game", when its clearly not. I smell a great deal of hypocrisy in you. And you DO "hate" over games, aka shooters and nerd raging over the internet over a game that doesn't please you.

[SkullandBonesmember]

iakus wrote...

Personally, I actually like the minigames better in ME 2 (see, everyone, I don't think the game is all bad )  They aren't very challenging, but i found the spinning circles in ME 1 to be really boring after a while.  Eventually I'd just brute-force them with omnigel just to be done with them.

The minigames in AP are even better though.  They actually require you to be observant.and are much more challenging.  I even fail them sometimes.

I think the minigames in ME1 and 2 are about on the same level. Even scanning. It may get repetitively dull, but not horrible by any stretch..

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 juin 2010 - 04:43 .

[Darth Drago]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

iakus wrote...

Personally, I actually like the minigames better in ME 2 (see, everyone, I don't think the game is all bad )  They aren't very challenging, but i found the spinning circles in ME 1 to be really boring after a while.  Eventually I'd just brute-force them with omnigel just to be done with them.

The minigames in AP are even better though.  They actually require you to be observant.and are much more challenging.  I even fail them sometimes.

I think the minigames in ME1 and 2 are about on the same level. Even scanning. It may get repetitively dull, but not horrible by any stretch..

-At least in ME1 you could use brute force (using omni gel) to open things. The Simon Says system wasn’t bad but it was very inconsistent with you having a lot of buttons to press for easy ones and a few buttons for hard ones. You also need a specialist who had the hacking or electronics skill if you didn’t have them for your Shepard.

The mini games hacking and security bypass wasn’t ground breaking in the least and with the security one was overly simplistic. They should have added a few dummy symbols in with the matched sets. In an attempt to simplify the game more, now Shepard is a jack-of-all-trades and now is able to do all hacking and security bypassing.

Planet scanning is whole different can of worms on the mini game thing.