10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

That's hardly surprising from someone who describes the ME 1 shooter mechanics as "complex to the point of being annoying". No disrespect, but I suppose you are only used to (console) shooters? There's nothing actually complex to ME 1. Which is one reason there was never any need in the first place to dumb down the successor.

As I keep saying, it's perfectly fine if someone prefers simple games. That says nothing about their intelligence. Even a rocket scientist might prefer a simple video game sometimes. But the matter of the fact is there are countless simple games, without inventory and all that "complex" stuff. Why not just go and play one of those? Why demand the few "complex" games to be made simple too?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 01 juillet 2010 - 04:11 .

[Zulu_DFA]

bjdbwea wrote...

That's hardly surprising from someone who describes the ME 1 shooter mechanics as "complex to the point of being annoying". No disrespect, but it suppose you are only used to (console) shooters? There's nothing actually complex to ME 1. Which is one reason there was never any need in the first place to dumb down the successor.

Before ME1 I had only played 1st person shooters. And funny thing, it felt easier to adapt to, than ME2 after ME1!

As I keep saying, it's perfectly fine if someone prefers simple games. That says nothing about their intelligence. Even a rocket scientist might prefer a simple video game sometimes.

Rocket scientists all play tetris. And don't you dare say tetris is a bad game!
 

But the matter of the fact is there are countless simple games, without inventory and all that "complex" stuff. Why not just go and play one of those? Why demand the few "complex" game to be made simple too?

That's democracy for you. If the majority votes for it, deal with it.
- Cmdr. Shepard.

[bjdbwea]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Rocket scientists all play tetris. And don't you dare say tetris is a bad game!

Huh? Why would I? It's not a simple game anyway. Easy to learn, hard to master. The correct formula for any game. Also popular with video game designers until a few years ago.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 01 juillet 2010 - 04:21 .

[WilliamShatner]

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

This.

Everyone who wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game with guns needs to be made simple for you.

Funnily enough a "pure shooter" like COD:MW2 has far better and more complex weapon customization than ME2.

[Zulu_DFA]

bjdbwea wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Rocket scientists all play tetris. And don't you dare say tetris is a bad game!

Huh? Why would I? It's not a simple game anyway. Easy to learn, hard to master. The correct formula for any game. Also popular with video game designers until a few years ago.

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame owns both ME2 minigames?

[Zulu_DFA]

WilliamShatner wrote...
Funnily enough a "pure shooter" like COD:MW2 has far better and more complex weapon customization than ME2.

Suppose that's because CoD designers try to put some sense into the game, rather than follow some artificial gameplay formurla.

And the sense is: modern weapons are moddable. You can refit them even when under fire.

[javierabegazo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Rocket scientists all play tetris. And don't you dare say tetris is a bad game!

Huh? Why would I? It's not a simple game anyway. Easy to learn, hard to master. The correct formula for any game. Also popular with video game designers until a few years ago.

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame owns both ME2 minigames?

Really? I'd rather match pieces of code than play Simon Says any day, I had my fill of Simon Says back when i was 7

[bjdbwea]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame owns both ME2 minigames?

Absolutely.

[Zulu_DFA]

javierabegazo wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Rocket scientists all play tetris. And don't you dare say tetris is a bad game!

Huh? Why would I? It's not a simple game anyway. Easy to learn, hard to master. The correct formula for any game. Also popular with video game designers until a few years ago.

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame owns both ME2 minigames?

Really? I'd rather match pieces of code than play Simon Says any day, I had my fill of Simon Says back when i was 7

I managed to lose the "pieces of code" minigame twice in about 5 playthoroughs. "Matching nodes" minigame was a little more challenging at first, especially without the upgrade, but after a while you just mostly remember the pairs.

ME1 minigame had 3 levels of difficulty and the "hard" was really entertaining. And you could always use the omnigel to skip it.

[WilliamShatner]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

onotix wrote...

What really bothered me was the lack of loot and purchases. After i found the battle rifle (and hand cannon) no other rifle (or pistol) stood up to it. What i like about me1 was that there was always a better rifle or gun or pistol. and i hate n7 armor. Scorpion ftw.

On a brighter note i did like me2's story better, the crew appealed to me more, new Normandy is sexy,and Shepard can get drunk. Don't judge me.

ME1's loot system was mostly pointless.  There were only four types of guns, and any "better" gun within the class worked exactly the same as any other gun, it just was more accurate/did more damage/overheated slower.  You found too many of them, and there wasn't really any reason to keep any once you found a better gun.  Looting in RPGs usually works because they are in a fantasy setting, where items often have lore behind them and can have varied buffs.  I'll find a sword, and it'll have this whole background of how it was used by an ancient warrior to fight off an evil invasion, and I'll be like "Cool!  I have to keep this!"  The varied buffs can also mean each sword has its advantages and disadvantages without being better or worse overall than the other.  ME1's loot system completely lacked such motivation.  The only weapons even remotely having this appeal were the HMW Spectre Gear weapons and the Geth pulse rifles.

ME2's weapons system was better because it was more suited for a shooter game.  Each weapon you can find has a distinctly different funtion, and none is specifically better than the other (the Vindicator has a lower rate of fire than other assault rifles(and SMGs), the hand cannon fires slower and can deal less total damage per clip than the regular pistol, due to smaller clips).  Now you may say "But it's supposed to be an RPG"!  No, it's supposed to be a shooter/RPG hybrid.  If the shooter elements are going to suffer because of the RPG combat elements, why add shooter combat elements at all?  The RPG elements are still there to a lesser extent, in the form of weapons upgrades.

Borderlands' weapon system is very similar to Mass Effect's and has even more ridiculous levels of "the same gun but slightly better stats" and I've heard no one complain about that or call it broken.  In fact most people I know call it the most addictive part of the game.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame owns both ME2 minigames?

Absolutely.

I disagree. Both games had bad minigames. In ME1 it was annoying as hell and in ME2 it was way too easy. Also many times those minigames was used wrongly to just delay players ability loot junk. Only few time they where actually used for security breaking, like they should have been.

[bjdbwea]

The ME 1 minigame was even a bit unfair sometimes at the hardest level. But I'll take that over the slooooowly moving code pieces in ME 2 every day. Plus, it was shorter and in effect at least less annoying.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 01 juillet 2010 - 04:59 .

[javierabegazo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...


I managed to lose the "pieces of code" minigame twice in about 5 playthoroughs. "Matching nodes" minigame was a little more challenging at first, especially without the upgrade, but after a while you just mostly remember the pairs.

ME1 minigame had 3 levels of difficulty and the "hard" was really entertaining. And you could always use the omnigel to skip it.

But why exactly do you think ME1's "owned" ME2's though? Other than the fact that it was simpler.

I liked ME2's because my brain was simply more active. I was scanning the codes myself. As for the matching nodes mini game, that one was neat, because if you looked hard enough, you could tell which ones matched without having to preview them.

As I understand it, this particular game's controls were much slower on the PC, so that could also detract from entertainment. The XBOX's curser speed in this game was quite decent

I'm all for being able to skip mini games if you have to expend other resources, but I'm against having one mini game (especially one as simple as Simon Says) cover every single mini game in a title. The tower of Hanoi puzzle however, was great, as well as the option to skip it with omni gel. I'm glad that Overlord brought more puzzles into the mix

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

ME2's weapons system was better because it was more suited for a shooter game.  Each weapon you can find has a distinctly different funtion, and none is specifically better than the other (the Vindicator has a lower rate of fire than other assault rifles(and SMGs).

The only thing that matters is damage.In this case,who would use the mantis instead of the widow?  What is the distinctly different function of the mantis? In the avenger distinct or the vindicator? No. In this game,there are clearly superior versions of weapons like the specter rifles in the first game. At least the first game has weapon mods to make even spectre weapons different.

[javierabegazo]

Lumikki wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame owns both ME2 minigames?

Absolutely.

I disagree. Both games had bad minigames. In ME1 it was annoying as hell and in ME2 it was way too easy. Also many times those minigames was used wrongly to just delay players ability loot junk. Only few time they where actually used for security breaking, like they should have been.

Agreed, I think more mini games should have more relativity with what's actually being done in the game world. That's why especially COSMETICALLY, I think ME2's is infinitely superior

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...


Versions I, II, III, IV and so on, needed to be fixed because they has allmost no difference. Steps was so small that player did not even notice the difference and it just created alot of junk items.

That is funny.How this different from damage upgrades that only adds 10 percent to a weapon category?

[javierabegazo]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


Versions I, II, III, IV and so on, needed to be fixed because they has allmost no difference. Steps was so small that player did not even notice the difference and it just created alot of junk items.

That is funny.How this different from damage upgrades that only adds 10 percent to a weapon category?

This was added because it was necessary to fit with their vision of No Inventory. I had really high hopes that we could mod our weapons and actually see the physical changes in our guns, via longer shorter barrels, scopes, attachments, whatever. Having only 13 guns, but being able to mod them would have been great.  

I don't know if you've been keeping up with Fallout New Vegas, but it looks like they're going to be doing this

[Zulu_DFA]

javierabegazo wrote...

I liked ME2's because my brain was simply more active. I was scanning the codes myself.

And I found it mildly annoying at times, when I had to sit still and patiently wait for the next (last) code piece to appear.

As for the matching nodes mini game, that one was neat, because if you looked hard enough, you could tell which ones matched without having to preview them.

As I understand it, this particular game's controls were much slower on the PC, so that could also detract from entertainment. The XBOX's curser speed in this game was quite decent

And when I realised that the cirquit configuration was always the same the element of challenge faded away very quickly.

I'm all for being able to skip mini games if you have to expend other resources, but I'm against having one mini game (especially one as simple as Simon Says) cover every single mini game in a title. The tower of Hanoi puzzle however, was great, as well as the option to skip it with omni gel. I'm glad that Overlord brought more puzzles into the mix.

Really? Never mind, I hate the Hammerhead.

[phoenixofthunder]

javierabegazo wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


Versions I, II, III, IV and so on, needed to be fixed because they has allmost no difference. Steps was so small that player did not even notice the difference and it just created alot of junk items.

That is funny.How this different from damage upgrades that only adds 10 percent to a weapon category?

This was added because it was necessary to fit with their vision of No Inventory. I had really high hopes that we could mod our weapons and actually see the physical changes in our guns, via longer shorter barrels, scopes, attachments, whatever. Having only 13 guns, but being able to mod them would have been great.  

I don't know if you've been keeping up with Fallout New Vegas, but it looks like they're going to be doing this

Being able to see our modifications you mean?

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...


Versions I, II, III, IV and so on, needed to be fixed because they has allmost no difference. Steps was so small that player did not even notice the difference and it just created alot of junk items.

That is funny.How this different from damage upgrades that only adds 10 percent to a weapon category?

Because 10% (25%) is bigger difference than 5%. Also hole idea in ME2 was get rid of old items. Meaning if you allready got better version, you don't need anymore old ones. JUNK items.

[javierabegazo]

[quote]phoenixofthunder wrote...


I don't know if you've been keeping up with Fallout New Vegas, but it looks like they're going to be doing this

[/quote]


Being able to see our modifications you mean?
[/quote]

Yup, exactly

http://kotaku.com/55...apon-mods--more

[phoenixofthunder]

[quote]javierabegazo wrote...

[quote]phoenixofthunder wrote...


I don't know if you've been keeping up with Fallout New Vegas, but it looks like they're going to be doing this

[/quote]


Being able to see our modifications you mean?
[/quote]

Yup, exactly

http://kotaku.com/55...apon-mods--more


[/quote]


Off topic:Sweet!
Then I'm going to prepare for my gun modding of F:NW now. Hope I can get a sniper grenade launcher.

On topic: The only parts I feel bad about in ME2 are: The amount of varability, the planet scanning (oye:pinched:) and modding of weapons, and armors.

[SSV Enterprise]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Well, as they say, to each their own... But seriously, wow...

I don't mind that you disagree, but why do you seem surprised?  The majority share my opinion, or at least, don't view ME2 as a step down from ME1.

bjdbwea wrote...

That's hardly surprising from someone who describes the ME 1 shooter
mechanics as "complex to the point of being annoying". No disrespect,
but I suppose you are only used to (console) shooters? There's nothing
actually complex to ME 1. Which is one reason there was never any need
in the first place to dumb down the successor.

As I keep saying,
it's perfectly fine if someone prefers simple games. That says nothing
about their intelligence. Even a rocket scientist might prefer a simple
video game sometimes. But the matter of the fact is there are countless
simple games, without inventory and all that "complex" stuff. Why not
just go and play one of those? Why demand the few "complex" games to be
made simple too?

Perhaps I should clarify.  I didn't mean the shooter mechanics as directly pertains to combat, but how the RPG mechanics were integrated into them.  The shooter experience didn't really benefit from it and the RPG elements ended up being mostly an annoyance.

As I tried to make clear in my previous post, the shooter mechanics is not my #1 priority with Mass Effect.  The story and everything involved is.  That's why I don't go playing simpler games, because they lack those elements.  Shooter and RPG mechanics are a secondary priority to me, but that doesn't mean I will be satisfied in that respect with something mediocre.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame
owns both ME2 minigames?

I don't.  ME1's hacking was an incredibly simplistic button-prompt game that was applied to everything, including surveying rocks.  ME2's minigames had a bit more variation and actually gave the visual sense of hacking into something.  And I had 0 difficulty with ME1's minigame and ME2's minigames- both are not on the hard side.

tonnactus wrote...

The only thing that matters is damage.In this case,who would use the
mantis instead of the widow?  What is the distinctly different function
of the mantis? In the avenger distinct or the vindicator? No. In this
game,there are clearly superior versions of weapons like the specter
rifles in the first game. At least the first game has weapon mods to
make even spectre weapons different.

Ok, for the Widow, it's supposed to be the super sniper rifle you can only get if you're a soldier or infitrator, and it's obviously better than the Mantis.  Still, its function is different than the Viper or the Incisor, which do less damage per shot but have larger clips and rates of fire.  The Avenger is in fact distinct from the Vindicator- the Avenger fires a constant stream of somewhat inaccurate bullets, while the Vindicator fires slower bursts of more accurate and damaging bullets.  Which is better depends on player taste, and is not indisputable.

[bjdbwea]

I'll just wait and see. Fallout 3 was great, and even though it was very different from the old games, it was actually not dumbed down, especially not if you use the right mods of course. I hope that Obsidian will also (refrain from) / (not be forced to) dumb down New Vegas. But if there was one company I would have thought was able to withstand that, it was BioWare. So I'll just wait and see how New Vegas turns out, and hope Obdisian and Bethesda don't go down the same route.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 01 juillet 2010 - 06:30 .