10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

There are of course shooters that aren't dumb. OFP for example, Fallout 3 with mods provides quite challenging fights as well. Plus, the RPG system makes everything more interesting, and adds much replayability. ME 2 on the other hand has pretty much been turned into the typical easy mainstream pew-pew. Even worse through the absolute focus on cover. This might be state of the art on consoles with their somewhat clunky controllers, but at least on PC it's really not very unique or interesting. The biotics can add some more diversity, but like the rest they were too simplified and were also made redundant.

[SithLordExarKun]

javierabegazo wrote...

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.

Why don't you just shut this thread down? ****

Really, as much as everyone has the right to voice their opinion, its incredibly annoying to see the OP purposely bumping the thread with the same old argument everytime this thread gets buried in the other pages, its like he has a vendetta or he is simply losing sleep over this game seeing its 5 months, coming to 6 already.

Modifié par javierabegazo, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:51 .

[bjdbwea]

I for one hope that civil criticism will continue to be allowed on the BioWare forums. You disagree with someone, present your own opinion. Can't or don't want to do that, just ignore the thread. But calling for a thread to be closed just because it contains differing opinions? Please.

By the way, "clown" could be considered an insult. I don't think the mods appreciate that.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:50 .

[javierabegazo]

This thread is here to stay, because there's always a live debate of what is or is not a flaw of ME2. As long as it remains somewhat civil, and there isn't any spam or hate, it won't get locked. that's the forum rules. If hypothetically I personally wanted to shut this thread down just because I don't agree with some posters and how they present their arguments, I will not because it's not in violation of the rules.



The important thing to remember is that if a certain thread is pissing you off, just stay out of the thread. This isn't a thread where new information is presented so as such, you do not need to stay 'updated' as it were.

[Siansonea]

Just thought I'd drop in to say that overall I'm really not terribly disappointed by ME2. I've played through it six times already, and I'm on my seventh playthrough, so obviously the game is good enough for me and has considerable replay value. For the most part I like all the new characters (even Grunt, Jack and Legion, which was unexpected), but I wish there was more depth in the interactions with them and with the ME1 characters. Not a dealbreaker for me though. The game gets two thumbs up from me, at least a thumb and three-quarters. :happy:

I hope ME3 has a lot more social interaction in general, and deeper discussions (not just romance-related) with key people in the story, especially people on the ship. I also hope the game is less "static". For instance, I'd like to run into my squad mates when they are off-duty, i.e. not 'at their post'. I'd also like to sometimes speak with them in small groups, rather than always one-on-one. I'd also like to run into NPCs on Mission and Assignment worlds in somewhat randomized locations, rather than seeing them in the same place reciting the same lines every time I pass by.

Also, I hope that the Hammerhead is put out to pasture for future DLC and ME3. I am not a fan of driving a Frisbee. I didn't mind the Mako, but I think Shepard's armored personnel carrier should be a) armored and able to FLY. Hovercraft and glorified Hummers ain't exactly cutting-edge tech. When the flying cars on Illium are better than your shuttle, you seriously need an upgrade.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:53 .

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

I for one hope that civil criticism will continue to be allowed on the BioWare forums. You disagree with someone, present your own opinion. Can't or don't want to do that, just ignore the thread. But calling for a thread to be closed just because it contains differing opinions? Please.

By the way, "clown" could be considered an insult. I don't think the mods appreciate that.

Yes, this coming from someone who implys that anybody that likes ME2 or shooters is a no brainer and an absolute idiot, very hypocritical.

And i simply said to close this thread because i don't see the point in maintaining a thread where the same old people(that includes you) rehash the same old argument and the fact that this thread greatly endorses hatred between ME1(minority) and ME2 fans.

By the way, look up the dictionary, nowhere does it say "clown" is an insult.

[Lumikki]

javierabegazo wrote...

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

Basicly sayed, some of people here are traditional RPG fans, so they want Bioware to makes RPG's for THEM and nothing else for others. Little hard way to say, but that's the basic. What's they major problem with combat? Nothing at all. This isn't about combat or is combat better or not. It's about lack of other stuff in ME2.

Base idea here is that some RPG fans think ME1 showed direction of Mass Effect serie and when ME2 redused traditional RPG side, they got angry. Because THEY still thinks Mass Effect is and should be about RPG. So, this isn't about combat at all, it's about lack of the traditional RPG side in ME2. They are angry because in they eyes style got changed between ME1 and ME2. They are right, it got changed. But where they are wrong, is that what is the Mass Effects style in first place. Mass Effects has roleplaying side, but that side isn't necassary traditional RPG. Because Mass Effects are more smooth cinematic action stories, like movies, not number bases traditional RPG's.

So, I say it again, this isn't about combat, it's lack of non-combat stuff.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:11 .

[javierabegazo]

slimgrin wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

There are of course shooters that aren't dumb. OFP for example, Fallout 3 with mods provides quite challenging fights as well. Plus, the RPG system makes everything more interesting, and adds much replayability. ME 2 on the other hand has pretty much been turned into the typical easy mainstream pew-pew. Even worse through the absolute focus on cover. This might be state of the art on consoles with their somewhat clunky controllers, but at least on PC it's really not very unique or interesting. The biotics can add some more diversity, but like the rest they were too simplified and were also made redundant.

The cover system needs work. I'd like the ability to run and gun a bit. But when you mix in the biotics and ammo types, I was still very pleased with the combat. I tried GOW after ME2, and was quite frankly bored with it. Wanted to pull someone into the air, smash them into the ground, pepper them with cryo ammo, and watch them shatter into ice crystals.

Not too many shooters with options like that.

Exactly, Combat has so many ways it can turn out, especially with all the 6 classes. Gameplay wise, ME2 is one of the most fun games I have. 

Sure you could simplify things by saying " all combat is is Debuff and then shoot to death"  but even by that rudundant sentance, it's STILL more complicated than most every shooter.  And that's just a simplification. I could also simply most every single game plot by saying "oh, you're just this special guy who has to save the world"

When arguing something, it's better to avoid over-simplication to not be seen as too overly biased

[javierabegazo]

SithLord, the way you used Clown was obviously in a derogatory manner. Please cease and desist from such inflammatory comments and to every other poster: the best way to deal with an overly offensive post is to NOT quote it. By quoting you're simply keeping it alive.

[Siegdrifa]

javierabegazo wrote...

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"

I wonder why people complain about the shooter part, because it save the whole game.
The story and RPG is lacking and without this good addictive gameplay, the whole game would be ruined.

May be they think Bioware spent much time working on the shooter gameplay rather than RPG part.

Witch is wrong.

Game play are made by game designer.
Story are made most of the time by scenarist.

So, people working on the shooter part made a great job, people working on the RPG part was not effectiv as the other.

[SithLordExarKun]

javierabegazo wrote...

SithLord, the way you used Clown was obviously in a derogatory manner. Please cease and desist from such inflammatory comments and to every other poster: the best way to deal with an overly offensive post is to NOT quote it. By quoting you're simply keeping it alive.

I can do that... provided these fanatical ME1 fans quit bashing people who enjoyed the second game for what it is or imply i'm stupid because i bring up a valid point.

[javierabegazo]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

SithLord, the way you used Clown was obviously in a derogatory manner. Please cease and desist from such inflammatory comments and to every other poster: the best way to deal with an overly offensive post is to NOT quote it. By quoting you're simply keeping it alive.

I can do that... provided these fanatical ME1 fans quit bashing people who enjoyed the second game for what it is or imply i'm stupid because i bring up a valid point.

Good to hear. But it's also a  good point that this thread should be an open place to discuss the flaws of ME2 so that however fanatical or unfanatical a person might be, it's ok to be furious about ME2 changes, so long as they remember to adhere to forum rules, and that outright "Bashing" and slander is generally not accepted on this particular forum.

[SithLordExarKun]

Ill stop the nonsense then.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Basicly sayed, some of people here are traditional RPG fans, so they want Bioware to makes RPG's for THEM and nothing else for others. Little hard way to say, but that's the basic. What's they major problem with combat? Nothing at all. This isn't about combat or is combat better or not. It's about lack of other stuff in ME2.

That is quite true indeed. I am quite critical of the combat in ME 2, though of course ME 1 didn't exactly have fantastic combat either. But unlike apparently for many ME 2 defenders here, combat was never the most important thing for me.

My main complaints are about lack of other stuff, as you say. A proper RPG system would be a start, proper customization too. But my biggest disappointment in ME 2 is the lack of a good story. It's not only badly written and should have been very different from the beginning, it also feels to me that the story and story telling were simplified as well, to appeal to that new audience. You just can't do that to this extent without sacrificing quality. Which is what happened.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs.

Not really.

Some traditional RPG's has alot about numbers, but roleplaying it self isn't about numbers. Numbers has allways been just tool for many roleplaying games, to help to have rules. How ever, many roleplayers think best RP happens when there is no rules anymore and all players can play without them. Because then it's about story and adventure, not numbers.

No.Rpgs have to be differrent from other games who could have good stories too.Like halflife. Rpg without character building through talents and stats belong to them isnt a rpg.

Modifié par tonnactus, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:19 .

[Sleepicub09]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Basicly sayed, some of people here are traditional RPG fans, so they want Bioware to makes RPG's for THEM and nothing else for others. Little hard way to say, but that's the basic. What's they major problem with combat? Nothing at all. This isn't about combat or is combat better or not. It's about lack of other stuff in ME2.

That is quite true indeed. I am quite critical of the combat in ME 2, though of course ME 1 didn't exactly have fantastic combat either. But unlike apparently for many ME 2 defenders here, combat was never the most important thing for me.

My main complaints are about lack of other stuff, as you say. A proper RPG system would be a start, proper customization too. But my biggest disappointment in ME 2 is the lack of a good story. It's not only badly written and should have been very different from the beginning, it also feels to me that the story and story telling were simplified as well, to appeal to that new audience. You just can't do that to this extent without sacrificing quality. Which is what happened.

how is the story bad, I can understand that it has it's plotholes, but bad?

[Sleepicub09]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs.

Not really.

Some traditional RPG's has alot about numbers, but roleplaying it self isn't about numbers. Numbers has allways been just tool for many roleplaying games, to help to have rules. How ever, many roleplayers think best RP happens when there is no rules anymore and all players can play without them. Because then it's about story and adventure, not numbers.

No.Rpgs have to be differrent from other games who could have good stories too.Like halflife.Rpg without character building through talents and stats belong to them isnt a rpg.

stats and talents does not make an rpg, by the logic majority of the games we play are rpgs.

[Orchomene]

Siegdrifa wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

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"

I wonder why people complain about the shooter part, because it save the whole game.
The story and RPG is lacking and without this good addictive gameplay, the whole game would be ruined.

May be they think Bioware spent much time working on the shooter gameplay rather than RPG part.

Witch is wrong.

Game play are made by game designer.
Story are made most of the time by scenarist.

So, people working on the shooter part made a great job, people working on the RPG part was not effectiv as the other.

Well, it's fine if you like shooter combat. I don't really like this kind of gameplay and I kind of appreciated ME1 despite the emphasis on shooting. But with ME2, not only the combat is not anymore anything close to an rpg (the player skill is decisive in combat whereas in an rpg, outside of the tactics, it's the character skill that is decisive), but the writing suffered a lot.
Sorry to feel a bit cheeted by the tag of the game stating it's an action-rpg game. It's an action game with some more dialogues than a classic TPS, not really what I can consider a rpg.
So no, I don't specifically feel angry that BW decides to do other games than rpg. I would just have appreciated to know before that the game was not an rpg but an action game with some small rpg aspects.

[tonnactus]

Felfenix wrote...

All the guns in ME1 were the same. What a joke. Bland linear upgrades.

No,this is obviously wrong.There are differences between a crossfire assault rifle and one from rosenkov. And all weapons were moddable. Not bigger or smaller then the ones in Mass Effect 2.

[Lumikki]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

how is the story bad, I can understand that it has it's plotholes, but bad?

Story it self isn't bad. It's just weak to compared to amount of all the other missions. So, it's not story been bad, it's about lack of main story missions.  Just to remember even in ME1 the main story was very short and side missions had too big role in the game.

Problem is that under 20% of the games missions are main story related and rest of them are side missions. When it should be allmost other way around. I would want 50% main missions and 50% side missions. Why?

Because too much main mission makes game linear and too much side missions makes game story weak.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:31 .

[Zulu_DFA]

javierabegazo wrote...

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

First of all, it's the very fact of the "shooterization" of Mass Effect 2, which many people get dissapointed with. And it feels like it came the expense of other things, such as good writing (such as believable characters, coherent plot and consistency with establiched lore), and RPG elements (character customization, progression, inventory, etc.). I, for one, am not the fan of the RPGs but ME1 had nothing of it that I felt "over -the-top", it just needed little fixes.

As for the combat itself, yes is does feel a little tighter, mostly because there is no open space locations anymore. But it also feels far more monotonous now. There is no enemy snipers, and enemy biotic and tech support support troops are nothing special. In ME1 enemy biotic would incapacitate you instanteneously and the enemy engineer would switch off your weapon. Also there were baddies with very stingy shield penetrating attacks like the rachni and thorian creepers, you had to mod your armor and be more careful. No such surprizes wait for you in ME2. The combat is completely predictable.

It's definitely not easy on Insanity, though. You have to stay sharp for a very long time scampering around each room, trying not to get caught in a crossfire or cornered by a sub-boss. And here we go again: it's a plothole. Most of the time Shepard is supposed to be attacking, but most of the combat is defensive. Sometimes level designers try to correct that by creating multiple waves of respawning enemies that you have to stop by reaching a certain point (like on Haestrom), but those are few, and a real pain in the butt for people who have no experince with shooters, even on easier difficulties.

So, ME2 is not an easy shooter, but a simple one. Shooter elements in ME1 were more complex, although there were some easy ways out (like double heat sinks).

Personally, I had some difficulties in adapting to the 3rd person perspective both in ME1 and ME2 (as I had to readapt to the more "fluent" version of it), but in the end ME2 shooting galleries became more annoying and tedious, rather than challenging.

There are things a monkey can learn to do by simple trial and error method. ME2 looks a lot more like it than ME1, even as far as shooting the geth goes.

javierabegazo wrote...

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

So, instead of having a choice whether to "sticky" to a crate or CoD-style crouch behind it, we have no more of this choice. How is this supposed to be a "fix"?




Here is the conclusion: the changes made in the gameplay to make ME2 more shooter-like were quite successful, but not without certain questions, and in any case it only harmed the game as a whole.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 02 juillet 2010 - 07:51 .

[Felfenix]

The fact a lot of you defend and think someone's "criticisms" of a game based on the first 5 minutes of gameplay are valid, because they decided to jump on the forum hater bandwagon before even playing it, speaks volumes of the credibility of your own criticisms. Even if I cleaned up Mohun's post, it's still nothing but an ignorant rant that ME1 is the pinnacle of perfection in every way, and ME2 is the worst game ever in every way - and she would know because she played it for like 5 whole minutes. Is that really the kind of garbage you want representing the problems with ME2?

It just makes most of you look like irrational and ignorant internet hate-mongers, especially with ME2 being praised for it's changes by most gamers, voted as NOT a disappointment by even most of the people on this forum (lets be honest, for the most part only habitual whiners troll game forums), and considered one of the best games of the year by reviewers. Agreeing with someone's ignorant hatemonging just because they are one more person "fighting the good fight" is a shame because it makes any valid criticisms (and there are many) more likely to be ignored and written off as typical change-paranoia.

What's ironic is if they'd said the exact same thing, but about ME1, because he decided after 5 minutes of playing that it's a "cheep shooter" instead of a "reel RPG" like Dragon Age or (lol) Final Fantasy you'd have thought it ridiculous as well.

Modifié par Felfenix, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:57 .