10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Sauronvoldemort]

I like the combat improvement

[Terror_K]

AP's minigames are far superior, as was ME1's PC minigame. At least there was a chance of failing it... ME2's ones are so pathetically easy they're nearly pointless. Even moreso if you get the upgrades to give you more time. At least both ME1 and AP's ones were also effected by tech skills on top of that.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

At least both ME1 and AP's ones were also effected by tech skills on top of that.

Yes, that's another plus I forgot to mention.

[AlanC9]

Darth Drago wrote...
-At least in ME1 you could use brute force (using omni gel) to open things.

Not exactly a point in ME1's favor, though that's more because of the broken economy than anything inherently wrong with bypassing a minigame at a cost.

[Orchomene]

You shouldn't pay attention to SithLordExarKun, it leads to nowhere to feed a troll.
The possibility to bypass a mini game is more or less a necessity when the mini games are hard. Nobody is skilled enough to solve the most difficult one and being blocked in a game because of a difficult mini game is frustrating. Of course, the bypass need to have a cost so that solving the mini game with player skills offer an advantage. This is fair.

Modifié par Orchomene, 21 juin 2010 - 06:42 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Orchomene wrote...

You shouldn't pay attention to SithLordExarKun, it leads to nowhere to feed a troll.
.

Aren't you the communist constantly paying attention to me to tell others to not pay attention? Hypocrite.

[AlanC9]

Orchomene wrote...
The possibility to bypass a mini game is more or less a necessity when the mini games are hard. Nobody is skilled enough to solve the most difficult one and being blocked in a game because of a difficult mini game is frustrating.

Why is that true for the minigames but not true for combat?

[Darth Drago]

AlanC9 wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
The possibility to bypass a mini game is more or less a necessity when the mini games are hard. Nobody is skilled enough to solve the most difficult one and being blocked in a game because of a difficult mini game is frustrating.

Why is that true for the minigames but not true for combat?

-For combat it would changeable with the games difficulty. If its to hard then you can make it easier that way. I don’t know if any mini games like opening locks or hacking is affected by changing the games difficulty for any game.

[Vena_86]

The solution would be to always have a plan B, such as bringing a tech expert with you to solve the decryption, like it is in any good party based RPG (except for ME/ME2). Atleast they could help, even if its just passive and badly explained within the game, like in ME1. It would be very much appreciated anyway if the choice of which team members to take is not only based on how cool they look and how juicy their ass and cleavage are.

[Terror_K]

Vena_86 wrote...

It would be very much appreciated anyway if the choice of which team members to take is not only based on how cool they look and how juicy their ass and cleavage are.

Bu-but... Grunt's ass is so delectable...

[Orchomene]

Darth Drago wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
The possibility to bypass a mini game is more or less a necessity when the mini games are hard. Nobody is skilled enough to solve the most difficult one and being blocked in a game because of a difficult mini game is frustrating.

Why is that true for the minigames but not true for combat?

-For combat it would changeable with the games difficulty. If its to hard then you can make it easier that way. I don’t know if any mini games like opening locks or hacking is affected by changing the games difficulty for any game.

Some difficulty level may change the difficulties of the mini games (like it's for AP), but it's not that common.
About combat, I like when games allow different approach to solving a situation besides combat. RPG that can be ended without any fight are fun as a kind of playthrough. But it requires a lot of design work to achieve that. Combat is more part of the game direct mechanic whereas mini games are more an aside part. It's maybe an arbitrary distinction, but removing mini games do not generally change a lot in a RPG but removing combat may imply a lot of changes. I don't really understand this approach of last decade games with so many mini games. Internet gives already a lot of flash mini games so I don't feel it adds a lot in a RPG. But I won't ask for a removal of it since some players seem to enjoy those mini games. I just feel it's a good idea to have a way to bypass this aspect of a game.

[CroGamer002]

My opinion of this thread.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Mesina2 wrote...

My opinion of this thread.

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

why does there need to be an inventory just because the game is also an rpg? stop defining games by certain features that have to be checked off and you'll enjoy them a lot more.

Translation: stop liking the factors you enjoy in a game and you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Sorry, but as much as I enjoy a good shooter, when I play an RPG I expect it to at least have some depth to it and a decent amount of items. To me telling me to just enjoy an RPG without an inventory would be like telling me to enjoy a shooter without any weapons or a beat-em up with no special moves whatsoever.

[ME_fanx100]

im commander shepard, and this is the best game in the universe.

[AlanC9]

Darth Drago wrote...

-For combat it would changeable with the games difficulty. If its to hard then you can make it easier that way. I don’t know if any mini games like opening locks or hacking is affected by changing the games difficulty for any game.

You'd probably want a separate slider for that anyway, since by definition a minigame is a different kind of gameplay from the rest of the game.

[Freakaz0idx]

Now that it's been 6 months since release. I feel like this game would be better if it was named a side arc to Mass effect instead of a direct sequel. They overshadowed the story with new combat mechanics. So little was answered in this game, it was just a bunch of ifs, maybes and mights. ME3 will have to be gigantic to thoroughly cover everything and I already know that won't be happening. OR there might be something after the ME trilogy. From the pace ME2 went, I don't see how they can fit the doomage of the universe in one more game, I just can't figure where they're going with this.

The Alliance, The Council, Cerberus, Earth, the Citadel, Shadow broker, Turian/Asari homeworlds, Rachni/Krogan/Salarians, Quarian/Geth, past actions/friendships from ME1/ME2, New aliens, Reapers. Where the hell is Bioware going with this.

Modifié par Freakaz0idx, 21 juin 2010 - 07:03 .

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

My opinion of this thread.

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

why does there need to be an inventory just because the game is also an rpg? stop defining games by certain features that have to be checked off and you'll enjoy them a lot more.

Translation: stop liking the factors you enjoy in a game and you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Sorry, but as much as I enjoy a good shooter, when I play an RPG I expect it to at least have some depth to it and a decent amount of items. To me telling me to just enjoy an RPG without an inventory would be like telling me to enjoy a shooter without any weapons or a beat-em up with no special moves whatsoever.

One can enjoy a good game regardless, can they not?

[awpdevil]

When you require a certain skill, or certain character to just open something, your taking away from the player the option to use who he/she wants to take on a mission. In me1 you had to be an engineer, or have tali, or garrus in the party through out the entire game. I hated that, and I am super glad they didn't make it that way for me2. Shepard is a super badass, why shouldn't he be able to hack a lock with his omni tool, no matter what he is?



On another note, if they made the locks harder to do, it would make them incredibly tedious if they didn't lower the amount of them on levels. Could you imagine going through an area with as many locks as there is right now, with a higher difficulty of getting the unlock? People would conjure up a flame leviathan of ****ing.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

One can enjoy a good game regardless, can they not?

Depending on where one's priorities lie and if they think shooters are teh best pwning game evar. However, for those that are fed up with the excessive amount of shooters and not enough RPGs and/or story driven games, no. Plus the fact the sequel is a 180 from the original so it's hardly a continuation let alone the same game. For the record, I'm not looking for a copy-paste ME1 version 2.0, just for ME2 to have stayed true to its predecessor, which it didn't. But you've made it quite clear you think the changes were phenomenal and in comparison ME1 sucked.

[kram0789]

I am playing on a PC. Did not play the first ME. I bought ME2 on-line, so no operating instructions. The worst thing about this game is figuring out how to control it. Example, I found an anomaly. I started a search mission. Now I cannot get out. I cannot find any information on how to get out. It is apparently a big secret. Very frustrated with this game.

[bjdbwea]

awpdevil wrote...

When you require a certain skill, or certain character to just open something, your taking away from the player the option to use who he/she wants to take on a mission. In me1 you had to be an engineer, or have tali, or garrus in the party through out the entire game.

Wrong. There was not a single lock that you had to unlock. You could just ignore the crates, and the XP and money weren't exactly needed. It is however only realistic that you need certain skills in an RPG to perform certain tasks. All players who can not grasp or do not like this concept, should just stick with shooters. But they should not try to take over and force their preferences on other gaming series.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 juin 2010 - 08:12 .

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Depending on where one's priorities lie and if they think shooters are teh best pwning game evar. However, for those that are fed up with the excessive amount of shooters and not enough RPGs and/or story driven games, no. Plus the fact the sequel is a 180 from the original so it's hardly a continuation let alone the same game. For the record, I'm not looking for a copy-paste ME1 version 2.0, just for ME2 to have stayed true to its predecessor, which it didn't. But you've made it quite clear you think the changes were phenomenal and in comparison ME1 sucked.

Replace ME2 with Fallout 3 and Me1 with Fallout 1/2 and you have the exact same argument that people had with FO3.

Still great games regardless, though.

bjdbwea wrote...

Wrong.
There was not a single lock that you had to unlock. You could
just ignore the crates, and the XP and money weren't exactly needed. It
is however only realistic that you need certain skills in an RPG to
perform certain tasks. All players who can not grasp or do not like this
concept, should just stick with shooters. But they should not try to
take over and force their preferences other gaming series.

Why couldn't a combat-focused class bash the crate open, or a biotics-based class use - well, biotics?

I'm not against giving classes unique abilities, but I'm in complete favor of having each class have a different approach to every situation.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 juin 2010 - 08:17 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

Why couldn't a combat-focused class bash the crate open, or a biotics-based class use - well, biotics?

I'm not against giving classes unique abilities, but I'm in complete favor of having each class have a different approach to every situation.

Absolutely. Of course "bashing" such a crate open would be impossible, I think. Biotics might work, and I'm all for being able to use the weapon or maybe explosives (of course there needs to be a chance of destroying the content with that). But unfortunately, the current course of BioWare/EA is less RPG elements, instead of more.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 juin 2010 - 08:21 .

[Darth Drago]

awpdevil wrote...

When you require a certain skill, or certain character to just open something, your taking away from the player the option to use who he/she wants to take on a mission. In me1 you had to be an engineer, or have tali, or garrus in the party through out the entire game. I hated that, and I am super glad they didn't make it that way for me2. Shepard is a super badass, why shouldn't he be able to hack a lock with his omni tool, no matter what he is?

On another note, if they made the locks harder to do, it would make them incredibly tedious if they didn't lower the amount of them on levels. Could you imagine going through an area with as many locks as there is right now, with a higher difficulty of getting the unlock? People would conjure up a flame leviathan of ****ing.

Garrus, Tali and Kaidan have decryption and electronics. That’s half of your squad that has both talents right there.

Also, Liara has electronics. If you give yourself the decryption talent as a bonus talent choice and take Liara, your again covered fully.

By having Shepard a so called specialist in decryption and electronics so you can open locks and hack things defeats the entire purpose of recruiting specialists for your so called suicide mission in the first place. Why should I have to choose Tali, Legion or Kasumi to go into the tube to in the final mission when for all practical purposes Shepard can do it? Its streamlining the game at its worst in my opinion. ME2 centers around getting a team of specialists remember .

As for the difficulty for locks or even the hacking I would rather we did get some that were hard to do now and then instead of them all being set at the lowest difficulty level possible. I would also like to see a brute force way of opening them if you don’t or cant beat them so you can open things up. 
 

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Absolutely. Of course "bashing" such a crate open would be impossible, I think. Biotics might work, and I'm all for being able to use the weapon or maybe explosives (of course there needs to be a chance of destroying the content with that). But unfortunately, the current course of BioWare/EA is less RPG elements, instead of more.

Well then they could use guns, so bang-bang.

Still, I think I'd rather prefer all classes being able to decrypt and hack instead of allowing only tech-focused classes the ability to do so. The more open-ended you can permit a party system, the better.