10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Felfenix]

Orchomene wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
All the guns in ME1 were the same. What a joke. Bland linear upgrades.
I'd rather have different weapons and choices that actually matter, rather than just numbers going up.

Yes, all that people want is more choices that also include noticable trade-offs and specially beeing able to see and judge the differences, instead of having to check forums for stat sheets, because the game makes a big secret out of whats going on.
Alpha Protocol is better in that then ME1 and ME2 and so is even the latest Splinter Cell.

This is easily solved though. They should just show the numbers that already exist for the ME2 weapons. "2x damage vs barrier" instead of  "very good against barriers" along with clip size, a more meaningful description of how the gun actually works (instead of JUST fluff text) and all that jazz. The ME2 guns and specializations offer a lot more meaningful tradeoffs. I'd hate to see the weapons system dumbed back down to 4 guns just with a bunch of meaningless tiers. The research system takes care of any tiering and linear upgrades. They should offer more diverse research though, and make it hard to or even impossible to get all types of research for a gun. "Do I want more headshot damage on my rifles, or more armor piercing?"

Choices. Things ME2 lack a lot. Oh yes, there is the choice between having a long range weapon or a shot range, or between having powerful but with slow rate of fire and the reverse. It's pretty small.
There is no customization of weapons, simply a static bonus upgrade, just "numbers" but hidden.
There is no choice between ranged weapons and melee weapons.
There is no choice in a way to do a quest or not : if the quest is a battle heavy quest, you have to fight, if the quest is a talkative one, you have to talk.
There is no choice in maps to go from point A to point B, just follow the corridor.
There is no choice between doing a sidequest that will block another one : you can just do all the quests in the game in one playthrough.
There is no choice in doing a challenging fight to earn some advantage later or only doing small fights and slowly progressing. All the enemies scale so that you are fighting mercenaries at the begining and mercenaries at the end that don't give any sense of evolution of your character.
There is no choice in the progression of the main character besides the choice of the class at the begining. After that, you just have to maximize your skills. More than that, progress in the skill will just add "numbers" that don't have any real and tangible effect since enemy scales.
This game is an action/adventure game lacking in all aspects of the RPGs besides fake choices in dialogues, fake choices in character customization, fake tactical choices, a small weapon choice (like in any shooter). You can end the game without leveling at all (since enemy would then not level). Level has no meaning in this game, it's just an illusion of evolution that doesn't change anything.

That describes most RPG videogames though, including ME1 and some of the games you mentioned earlier. The goal of the ME series, and Bioware games in general though, isn't "to make the most RPGish PnP style RPG ever" but to make a good story and game. I'd certainly take any of Bioware's stories over Elder Scrolls, and when I do feel like that sort of thing, well, that's why a variety of games and developers exist. I can always pop in ME, Elder Scrolls, or whatever when I'm in the mood for at the moment. I don't Bioware games turned into Bethesda games. If I wanna play a Bethesda game... I... play a Bethesda game.

As for someone else's comment about the ME series in general not having any depth of gameplay or uniqueness, I disagree. I fail to see how the gameplay is any more bland than most shooters, like say Halo or Gears of War. Unlike those games though, ME has interesting classes/abilities as well as story-based gameplay and other RPG elements. I like that the series is trying to go beyond genre. There is no reason for a game to trap itself by such outdated standards. What matters is making a quality enjoyable game.

Modifié par Felfenix, 02 juillet 2010 - 10:11 .

[Mohun]

All is wrong.

Modifié par Mohun, 02 juillet 2010 - 11:12 .

[Mohun]

The game is simply butchered. The end of ME1 gave the perfect layout for a new game. Instead we getting nonsense in ME2. Anyone who played ME1 can see it. It is shock to start the game with ridiculous smoking guy and be forced to play with high heals bimbo and pimp in your team. I tried to forced helmet on them but still do not know how to do it. "Wooden" dialogs and movements of this duo is just to painful. I did forced myself to play first level in hope that this is just a joke and the game will return to some story. Instead I was greeted with ME1 character who suddenly start to speak with Russian accent, it was so awful I just could not bring myself to take her on my team. So far I am fighting robots which looks like dolls and flying guns which looks like crows. The story so far is complete nonsense. Why Cerberus? I exterminated them in ME1. Did managers even played ME1 when they gave orders to go Cerberus? I decided to quit this farce after getting to "Archangel". The dialog killed me , my god, complete nonsense. I only deduce that producer decided to make him suicidal. All I did in ME1 is falling apart. I gave humanity a Council and now all is going wrong? Why?

Controls are completely redesigned, reloading ammo etc. Does it smell like cheep shooter game? All great customization of amour and guns is gone, instead we getting fashion show, change of colors and dresses. ME1 is great game, perfectly executed dialogs with cinematic, easy controls and above all great story, logical, believable, interesting. But I guess when EA gets to business they mean business.

[Felfenix]

hai guyz i pled liek 5 minz of me1 n liek n alien iz tolkin 2 mee how he kno english n liek why tere no akshun in first 5 minz? i kno can ching how i luk n teh gunz werk teh sam. choses dun mttr no matter wut tey send mee 2 eden prim y i no chooz? lineer game wtf

See? I can do it too. That... erm... special way of thinking and doing things can be applied to anything.

If ME2's story is actually too complex (lol) for you, that's not the game's problem.

Modifié par Felfenix, 02 juillet 2010 - 11:22 .

[Orchomene]

Felfenix wrote...

hai guyz i pled liek 5 minz of me1 n liek n alien iz tolkin 2 mee how he kno english n liek why tere no akshun in first 5 minz? i kno can ching how i luk n teh gunz werk teh sam. choses dun mttr no matter wut tey send mee 2 eden prim y i no chooz? lineer game wtf

See? I can do it too. That... erm... special way of thinking and doing things can be applied to anything.

If ME2's story is actually too complex (lol) for you, that's not the game's problem.

Great ! That's all you can find as an answer ? Despising foreigners because they may have issues writing in english is not a sign of intelligence too. Shall I thus infer that you liked the ME2 story because it was enough simple for you to understand or would you find this insulting ? I'm almost sure of the answer.
And to react to your preceeding comment : almost all the real RPG I played did offer choices in ways to solve quests. Even BW one, even recent one. Sure, one need to go and play older game if he wants to find a RPG without this absurd enemy leveling. In the end, I find myself replaying BG1/2, planescape, fallout1/2, arcanum, bloodlines, TW more often than new games.

Modifié par Orchomene, 02 juillet 2010 - 01:49 .

[Xeranx]

Felfenix wrote...

hai guyz i pled liek 5 minz of me1 n liek n alien iz tolkin 2 mee how he kno english n liek why tere no akshun in first 5 minz? i kno can ching how i luk n teh gunz werk teh sam. choses dun mttr no matter wut tey send mee 2 eden prim y i no chooz? lineer game wtf

See? I can do it too. That... erm... special way of thinking and doing things can be applied to anything.

If ME2's story is actually too complex (lol) for you, that's not the game's problem.

Hopefully you don't expect others to take you seriously anymore considering how insulting you are.  Have a good day.

[Zulu_DFA]

Mohun wrote...

The game is simply butchered. The end of ME1 gave the perfect layout for a new game. Instead we getting nonsense in ME2. Anyone who played ME1 can see it.

THIS IS WHAT YOU FACE, SHEPARD.

THIS IS YOUR DESTINY, SHEPARD.

ME2 IS YOUR ASCENTION THROUGH DESTRUCTION...

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 02 juillet 2010 - 03:18 .

[javierabegazo]

Can someone please explain how making combat tighter, and more reactive controls turn a game into "cheep eazy shooter" ?





Anyone who i've seen gripe about ME2 has a 50% chance of including that in their "argument"

[javierabegazo]

Thanks slimgrin,



Sometimes i think people lump the tighter controls of combat in with all the flaws of ME2.

ME2 has ALOT of flaws, but i really don't think combat is one of them. Perhaps it's too intense of a game for the more traditional RPG players, but the Mass Effect series was always intended to be this kind of shooter combat. It's what makes Mass Effect incredibly unique, marrying the RPG style narrative with the action of a shooter game. As much as you may dislike ME2, and despite all the claims of ME2 being a "shooter clone", try and point out to a game that is as dynamically narrative as ME2, and has a combat system exactly like ME2.

[Lusitanum]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

Then you make something wrong. This is not the fault of the game. I guess you mean krogans.All dot ammo prevent the krogan rebirth.[/quote]

No, I mean things like facing Matriarch Benezia, getting hit by the blue ball, falling a bit to the side and dying from a 5cm drop. That kind of thing.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

What it means and what not is different for every player.Again,this is your oppinion,not that of all people.[/quote]

I just gave a definition out of a freaking dictionary. That is what it is, it's no longer a matter of opinion wheter you like it or not. You might say that you enjoy unfair and cheap obstacles but that doesn't change the definition of what a challenge is.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]
Again, does anyone have a translation handy? "when they "know" or the player could advise them to do this at different
places"? What verb tense is that?[/quote]

If you use your brain this is easy. They-the game designers.[/quote]

Really? Because you sentence is still confusing as all hell. A word like "they" is used to replace a subject that's already implied and, since you never mention the game designers before, it's completely devoid of the context needed to understand it.

Don't talk to me about using my brain when you're still strugling with this kind of basic stuff.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

And now,at least this was claimed,the ai is better and know when to take cover,right? Why bioware took out the snipers then?[/quote]

Because they don't know how to take cover as well as they could. They still like to pop out of cover to land a few pistol shots on the YMIR mech that's tearing them to pieces and don't seem to be all that aware that the whole point of regenerating health is that you should wait for it to recharge before putting yourself in the line of fire.

The heavy weapon users can still kill some of your squadmates in some pretty stupid ways, so yeah, taking out the snipers was the best call.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

What is the difference know? Every biotic power except reave and warp disable enemys.[/quote]

First off: they work great in combos, boosting each other's efficiency. Second, now some of them can be used in new ways. I don't recall being able to use throw in a curve in ME1.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

Who cares about minor differences that dont even change the gameplay? With or without reave,samara didnt die less. [/quote]

Given that she gained an ability that recovered her health, how could she not die less? It didn't make her immortal, but it did help keeping her alive.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

9 seconds is the duration of pull field. 9 seconds is the recharge time for squadmates.With their class talent and the biotic upgrades the recharge time went down at 5 seconds.So what is possible with heavy pull is possible with pull field too. [/quote]

12 seconds is the duration of Heavy Pull. L2R, plz. And then read my post again.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

Not with a level 60 import.Then this is available after freedoms progress. [/quote]

Still means that you've got a character that is good at just ONE skill and one skill only, and just works as your walking supply of special ammo. Not exactly the best choice.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

Geth hoppers exist in every main mission.2 biotic are bosses in main missions. Saren is a tech enemy at the end.
All listed abilities are used by them.D [/quote]

2 biotic bosses and one final boss in the same breath. What part of "odd encounters" did you manage to not understand?

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

I would search better people for the mission then.When the reapers win,it doesnt matter anyway if mirandas sister got rescued or not. This should be enough motivation to stay concentrated. [/quote]

Then you clearly missed the whole point of Mordin's talk about his nephew. And don't have a clue on how human beings work in general to boot.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

Do you mean snipers? The red laser was
enough warning.Fallout 3 enemy rockets from great distances was an other thing. [/quote]

For you maybe, not for your squadmates who were
apparently oblivious to them and just kept getting killed.
Again, trial and error gameplay. Worse even, trial and error means that at least you can die, memorize the pattern and then act on it. The snipers were just a matter of rolling the die and every encounter and praying that your squadmates wouldn't get killed.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

But why are those specific teammates
are needed? Why in the hell  shepardt needs an assasin? Why he/she needs
samara. This was never told in the game. The player just got a to do
list. In the first game,the player at least investigate what
saren/benezia do in the specific places. Far better then this. [/quote]

Because you're facing an enemy of which you know nothing about? Maybe? Ever thought of that? Especially since, given how dangerous the mission is, many of them could die throughout the mission and you might need as many highly specialized bodies as you can get your hands on.

I mean, this is common sense in its most basic form: more troops + more experience + good leadership = lesser chances of you failling miserably.

Not to mention that this team is bound to play a part on ME3 when you're going to face the Reapers themselves!

Modifié par Lusitanum, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:24 .

[javierabegazo]

@Tonactus and Lusitanum

Please remember to debate in a polite and civil manner and if you find yourself wanting to type something offensive, take a few minutes away from the computer

Modifié par javierabegazo, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:25 .

[fchopin]

javierabegazo wrote...

Can someone please explain how making combat tighter, and more reactive controls turn a game into "cheep eazy shooter" ?
 

Very simple, by removing any rpg elements ME1 had so all you do is point and fire.
 
Any 10 year old kid can play the game without any problems as no thinking is required.

[Sleepicub09]

fchopin wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Can someone please explain how making combat tighter, and more reactive controls turn a game into "cheep eazy shooter" ?
 

Very simple, by removing any rpg elements ME1 had so all you do is point and fire.
 
Any 10 year old kid can play the game without any problems as no thinking is required.

how?

[sagefic]

 just dropping off my 2 cents:

ME1 issues:
* mostly gameplay and graphical
* areas felt repetative (esp. side missions)
* Mako - personally hated it
* main missions were great, side missions felt endless and unrelated
* squadmates awesome
* LIs limited, but good dialog enabled a sense of relationship
* squaddie banter (elevators, etc.) created a sense of team

ME2 issues:
* gameplay and graphics stunning
* areas awesome and unique
* squaddies interesting and many of them
* missions all flow well, interesting mix of challenges
* LIs - many choices, but little dialog. often felt rushed
* little squaddie banter made it feel like no one talks to anyone else except for shep
* ME1 LIs were handled...oddly. not a huge fan of it, but can overlook it if ME3 clears up misunderstandings
* Cerberus - HATE THEM <--- for me, this was a big part of why ME2 was a little unsettling. i just hate working for Cerberus. i long for the moment I can steal the Normandy and fly away

[Lusitanum]

javierabegazo wrote...

@Tonactus and Lusitanum

Please remember to debate in a polite and civil manner and if you find yourself wanting to type something offensive, take a few minutes away from the computer

Believe me, I would like to keep this as civil as possible, but when I'm being told how stupid I am for not understanding a sentence that seems right out of Zero Wing... it becomes a bit harder.

[javierabegazo]

fchopin wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Can someone please explain how making combat tighter, and more reactive controls turn a game into "cheep eazy shooter" ?
 

Very simple, by removing any rpg elements ME1 had so all you do is point and fire.
 
Any 10 year old kid can play the game without any problems as no thinking is required.

It's trite comments like this one for which i posed the previous question fChopin. You come to a conclusion that sounds like it's based off fumes and Platform loyalty.

even IF you were to take out all the rpg elements ME1 had, you STILL have an amazing driven storyline, and narrative, everything fully voiced, great CG acting, where you can tell an emotion by how a character is looking

[javierabegazo]

Lusitanum wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

@Tonactus and Lusitanum

Please remember to debate in a polite and civil manner and if you find yourself wanting to type something offensive, take a few minutes away from the computer

Believe me, I would like to keep this as civil as possible, but when I'm being told how stupid I am for not understanding a sentence that seems right out of Zero Wing... it becomes a bit harder.

I understand, just remember that the best thing to do is to pull yourself away from the argument. Sometimes very unpolite things are said that are based on nothing else other than frustration that another person may not share their view and the best thing to do in said case is to just laugh it off.

[fchopin]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

how?

How what?
 
How can a 10 year old play the game or how does making combat tighter make it in to an easy shooter?

[Sleepicub09]

fchopin wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

how?

How what?
 
How can a 10 year old play the game or how does making combat tighter make it in to an easy shooter?

well mass effect was always an easy shooter in my opinion ME1 was an even easier shooter because I didn't even have to utilize the cover system to take out my enemies not even on hardcore and veteran.

[javierabegazo]

The irony is that ME1's 'cover system' more resembles Modern Warfare than ME2 does. The cover system was so slow and laggy, that most people would just crouch behind cover, and take potshots at enemies who couldn't physically hit back. It was broken, and so in ME2 they implemented what they had meant to the entire time

[fchopin]

javierabegazo wrote...

It's trite comments like this one for which i posed the previous question fChopin. You come to a conclusion that sounds like it's based off fumes and Platform loyalty.

even IF you were to take out all the rpg elements ME1 had, you STILL have an amazing driven storyline, and narrative, everything fully voiced, great CG acting, where you can tell an emotion by how a character is looking

I don't know where you get the platform loyalty from as i have a PS3, XBox 360 and a PC. I play any game on any platform that is available if the game is good.
 
I don't consider ME2 to have a good driven story so i don't agree with anything you said. For me the story is one of the worst in any game i have played.