10273 réponses à ce sujet

[ChuckNorris18]

Yeah

[Zulu_DFA]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

I tried to show both of my opinion in that sort of mini post. I tried to not come off as too favorable to either one, but one thing that i do agree with is more stat progression, I mean Borderlands had a more complex stat system than me 2, but I do feel that the shooting ability shouldn't be determined by the stats but rather the players ability. I kind of see myself in the middle I want a game that plays like me1/me2 but with new additions to the game as well.

Oh and @Bioware why the hell can't we crouch in me2 anymore?

In all games shooting ability is determined by both stats and the player's skill.

If you mean that the stats of your Level 1 character and the crappy Lancer I rifle prevent you from hitting the target, I have to agree with you. That's kind of odd. But before you clear the Citadel for the first time, you can level up enough and find accurate enough guns to make it a much less important issue. At a NG+ playthrough it was not an issue at all.

Anyway, if you want an ultimate shooter experience, play Half-Life2, FEAR, Doom3, Chronicles of Riddick, Call of Duty, Battlefield or any other shooter game.

The point of ME1 is not shooting. With that in mind, even Level 1 character with Lancer I rifle is not a problem.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 02 juillet 2010 - 08:42 .

[ChuckNorris18]

I've always been a fan of shooters but the first game that I ever felt compelled to play through and beat was story oriented, and yes I do mean a level 1 character with the Lancer I. I understand that the point of the game isn't shooting but it's just as much apart of the game as the storyline, because for the game to progress you not only have to go through conversation but go through the shooting sequence too, and that's what they pushed in both ME1 and ME2.

Edit: That game I mentioned earlier was Shenmue, it may seem a bit silly but it was an interesting game.

Modifié par ChuckNorris18, 02 juillet 2010 - 08:51 .

[Pocketgb]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The point of ME1 is not shooting. With that in mind, even Level 1 character with Lancer I rifle is not a problem.

And that was part of the conflict with creating ME1 as an RPG/Shooter hybrid from the ground up.

[Orchomene]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
I'm french too and you're right, math or computing has nothing to do with your arguments, it( was just a minor point to clarify an often seen confusion.
But to the point, I don't specifically categorize games. I play games that suit my taste which are somewhere between wargames, adventure games and rpgs. Thus I can enjoy easily what may be called hybrids of those genres. Yet, I don't really appreciate action games. Games like Diablo, Doom or the recents evolutions of such games do not correspond to the kind of games I enjoy. It's not a choice or some snobism, I'd rather like all the different kind of games, that would be easier. That's just that you don't play different kind of games the same ways.
One thing I'm sure, it's that ME2 is not played as an RPG. There is no real way to have stratgies in combat. Some tactic, but no strategy. More than that, the story is not sufficiently coherent and the linearity is too important for me to forget about the combat gameplay. In the end, I've not appreciated at all the game. Some people appreciate this kind of games, yet I would rather have avoid a game like ME2. The big issue I have is that it's been marketed as a game I would appreciate, mainly an RPG (even hybrid with shooting element like ME1 was) with a strong emphasis on story.

Game should be played the way they were meant to be but it's not that simple for the players.

As the games getting more advanced and potentialy more mixed, a same game can give 2 point of view.

The best exemple i have in my mind is Fallout3.
I played this game as an RPG using a FPS fight, and i loved it. One of my friend who is 100% onto FPS told me it was a ****y game... because he though it was a mainly a FPS with some rpg element. He was playing with power armor and machine gun, and it kill all the fun for the fight, unless you like to butcher gouls or mutan for hours.
I told him to try to play only with guns, stealth, lockpicking. He enjoyed the game and played all his add ons.

The same goes for resident evil, when you look at the first games and the last, resident crossed the action shooting and at the begining, people playing resident evil as an action shooting game found it far under good action shooting game. Yeah, may be, BUT, resident evil come from a different kind of games.

You say you don't want to categorise games but you speak about rules.
This rules for you is the reflect of a kind of game you can clearly identify to be sure to purchase your kind of game.

Nobody wants to pay for something they won't like.

I've liked Fallout3 because you had in most combat many ways to approach it with stealth, heavy weaponry, melee, VATS that could cut a bit of the action. It wasn't much duck and cover. But in ME2, you don't have the choice : it's a shooter experience. You have to hide, you have to aim and shoot. Sorry, but I don't like it. I don't like fast paced action heavy combats. I feel like I am on cocaïn or ecstasy and it's not my taste at all.
That's one of the issue of ME2 : there is no gameplay choice. In FO3 and ME1, you may choose part of the combat gameplay. But people complain a lot saying it's not normal to play a game with gun where you don't have to cover. It's SciFi with barriers and shields, yet people complain about "realism".
I don't think it's normal that because a game has gun, it needs to play as a shooter game combat wise. I love Xcom and Fallout 1/2. There are guns and it's isometric turn based. Yet, combat is far from boring because each shot taken can be very dangerous.

[ChuckNorris18]

^^

Have you tried playing as an infiltrator? you actually had less of a choice on what style to play as in ME1, compared to ME2

[Lusitanum]

Siegdrifa wrote...

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

I agree, an RPG is a Role Playing Game.
Not a character level and stats.

The stats and numbers is NOWHERE mantionned in " Role Playing Game".
The numbers are here to quantify the effectiveness of capacity to introduce a progression.
This effectiveness being part of customisation / attraction for players.

You do realize that genres evolve beyond the names they were given, right? And that with all the ways videogames have evolved in the last decades, going by the letter of the word means absolutely nothing. Especially, given how all the genres keep influencing and merging with each other.

Orchomene wrote...

I've liked Fallout3 because you had in
most combat many ways to approach it with stealth, heavy weaponry,
melee, VATS that could cut a bit of the action. It wasn't much duck and
cover. But in ME2, you don't have the choice : it's a shooter
experience. You have to hide, you have to aim and shoot. Sorry, but
I don't like it. I don't like fast paced action heavy combats. I feel
like I am on cocaïn or ecstasy and it's not my taste at all.

You know, just because they're both RPGs with guns, doesn't make them the same kind of game. Fallout gave all those options because it was an open-ended sandbox game while the Mass Effect series is a much more directed kind of game. You can't really expect them to work in the same way.

Modifié par Lusitanum, 02 juillet 2010 - 09:13 .

[Revan312]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...



To those of you who think that 1 was better than two, I want you to play mass effect 1 again, then come back and tell me what you think. Yesterday i put my mass effect 1 disc on my 360 to do one more playthrough, but I could barely make it through Eden Prime again, why?

Because the gameplay was terrible compared to me 2's, while many of the core elements are the same they are very different games, even graphic wise, look at me 2's graphics then me 1's, the camera angle in me1 bothers me a lot too compared to me 2's, the simple fact is that after playing me 2 it's hard to go back to me1.

ME1 was a great game but ME2 is much greater. The only thing that me1 has that me 2 doesn't is that feeling where you fell compelled to go out and play through it again, ME2 just never gave me that feeling.



I still plan on following through with my me 1 playthrough because I got used to the controls towards the end of eden prime.

I'll come back and add more once I import my me1 playthrough to me2 then I'll tell you how I feel after playing both.



two things that I love about me1 that aren't included in me2 is the more complex skill tree, and grenades, after doing a couple missions I found that grenades are a very good way to take out a group of enemies, and useful in almost any situation.

I just got done playing through ME1 again with a brand new engineer on Insanity and loved it. Yes there are parts that get tedious such as planet exploration but on the whole I enjoyed it much more than my most recent ME2 playthrough.



After playing both games back to back like this, I have to say the atmosphere of both titles is so drastically different it's startling. I felt like I was in a Michael Bay film in ME2 whereas in ME1 it felt more like a Blade Runner or Star Trek. ME1 is much more reserved and clinical which imo worked extremely well. The music, the lighting and the dialogue was all dystopian under the surface but utopian to the naked eye. It was complex and layered, an onion of codex entries and side conversations that revealed how fragmented and aloof the galactic community had become since the discovery of the citadel.



ME2 threw that out the window for quote unquote "grittiness" and lead the player down a very familiar path in media involving bombastic characters and over the top action that just didn't seem to fit with the previous games lore. I really liked the subdued and low-key universe of ME1 and was expecting a pretty direct continuation of that concerning the sequel.



The argument of RPG really doesn't matter to me simply because ME1 was already extremely light on actual dialogue options and choices when all is said and done, but I didn't care because the story was really interesting and well produced. When people talk about the story of ME2 I have to strain to remember any details. It goes by in a blur and most of its trite, convoluted and threadbare. I guess I just didn't understand the need to introduce a new enemy when there was already many established factions of enemies (including the elephant in the room, the reapers) and then have that newly introduced antagonist fail to have any meaningful intellectual significance both in Shepard's personal life and that of the overarching story. The kidnapping human colonies bait rang hollow to me when looking at the first games implications let alone the fact that nobody really cared besides you and your team which only helped to exacerbate my feelings of 'meh'.



Saren, love him or hate him, was at least an antagonist you could sink your teeth into but Harbinger? A completely flat and faceless enemy that only served to sling insults at you during a fight like a school yard bully. It just all felt so spin off to me and really if you look at the full story progression you could completely cut out this sequel and the plot would still make complete sense. ME1 moves directly into ME3 minus some squad mate and employment issues. You could simply preface ME3 with some short text segments about this game and you'd never need to play it. *shrug*



Gameplay wise I prefer ME1 but that's just my preference, I really don't play these games for the shooting aspects and I didn't have a problem with ME2 in that respect particularly. Though I will say I hope they don't revamp yet again and will instead concentrate on a coherent story and characters...

[ChuckNorris18]

I agree that the characters and story structure of part 1 were more fulfilling. ME3 is going to be the Mass Effect game that pulls all the stops, and combines everything we liked about both ME1 and ME2 I guarantee it.

[tonnactus]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

ME1 was a great game but ME2 is much greater. The only thing that me1 has that me 2 doesn't is that feeling where you fell compelled to go out and play through it again, ME2 just never gave me that feeling.

How Mass Effect 2 is better when the first game encourage you to play it again and the second couldnt accomplish that? That doesnt make any sense.

[ChuckNorris18]

I mean overall ME2 is a better experience when compared to ME1 even though there is quite a large list of things that I see wrong with it.

[tonnactus]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

^^
Have you tried playing as an infiltrator? you actually had less of a choice on what style to play as in ME1, compared to ME2

If  only cloak would allow it to pass some combat completly it would be great.I guess most people use cloak as an emergency skill and damage enhancer anyway.Would be interesting to know how many play as a Cqc infiltrator.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

How Mass Effect 2 is better when the first game encourage you to play it again and the second couldnt accomplish that?

I played ME1 about 8-9 times through all as a Soldier and once as a Vanguard. It was the only game I had at the time because I just bought a 360, it was the only game I had for it, and my computer was down.

With my PC fixed and with a ton of other great and awesome games at my disposal I played ME2 about 5-6 times.

[tonnactus]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

I mean overall ME2 is a better experience when compared to ME1 even though there is quite a large list of things that I see wrong with it.

But if Mass Effect 2 is the better experience, how the first game could encourage you to play it again and the game with the better experience fail to do that?

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

How Mass Effect 2 is better when the first game encourage you to play it again and the second couldnt accomplish that?

I played ME1 about 8-9 times through all as a Soldier and once as a Vanguard. It was the only game I had at the time because I just bought a 360, it was the only game I had for it, and my computer was down.

With my PC fixed and with a ton of other great and awesome games at my disposal I played ME2 about 5-6 times.

That are your reasons.A technical reason.But he clearly wrote that the first game was more compelling to play it again then the second.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

That are your reasons.

98% of the thread summed up in four words.

tonnactus wrote...

But if Mass Effect 2 is the better experience, how the
first game could encourage you to play it again and the game with the
better experience fail to do that?

Maybe because Mass Effect, as a whole, isn't new anymore?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 02 juillet 2010 - 09:52 .

[Orchomene]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

^^
Have you tried playing as an infiltrator? you actually had less of a choice on what style to play as in ME1, compared to ME2

No, I didn't. But finishing the first playthrough was so tedious I don't feel going on with another build just to test.

[Darth Drago]

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"

-The only things I cant stand about the combat is the added ammo system, removal of crouching and the AI is still dumb as a rock. The rest of the combat system seems ok but it still could use some tweeking here and there.

-Thermal Clips are nothing more than an ammo system just look at the ammo count in your weapon and compare it to any shooter game. Instead of actually developing it into something that could have made actual sense or even a unique system in the game it is what it is I guess just another ammo system.

A simple solution to it would have been to have a thermal clip give you 100 rounds of usage in each weapon. Just like the med pack in ME1 you will be able to carry a certain amount of spare thermal clips. The default start would be 3 for example. You then would upgrade to being able to carry more spare thermal clips to a max of 10 as well as increasing the number of rounds you could shoot by 10% as well for each upgrade. This would solve the problem of finding thermal clips in areas (like Jacob’s loyalty mission) where they shouldn’t be found at all. In addition you would be able to restock your thermal clips on the Normandy 2 just like you were able to replenish med packs in ME1 on the Normandy (funny how you cant do that in ME2).

-Crouching should have been left in the game since it could have added a lot to combat if done right. See below for details. From what I hear it was removed because someone found an exploit and instead of fixing the problem they removed the cause of it.

-AI for everyone is not much of an improvement over ME1. Instead of being rushed by everyone when you enter a room (mostly seen in the UNC quests) you get enemies that have a single combat program. Not once have I seen any opponent run out of ammo or switch weapons either.

Shooters will stay in about a 10 foot zone from where you see them and just shoot at you while taking cover every few shots. The only move to a spot within that 10’ area zone and move back to their original spot a few moments later. Every now and then you’ll see one jump over a barrier to stand out in the open for no reason than to be a target to shoot.

Rushers do just that, home in on what seems like Shepard all the time. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a rusher seek any cover at all regardless of distance. Krogans and Mechs I could understand. I haven’t noticed myself but some have stated that Krogan chargers only use shotguns no matter the range.

Snipers are about the only ones that are done fairly right. They however are still found in spots that you cant ever get to so it would be interesting to see what they do if you get to close to them. Would they switch weapons or move away (like archers do in DAO)to another spot?

Fixing this would take some additional programming to allow free thinking to react your actions. Other games do this with no problem. It would be nice to see someone try to outflank me or my group, switch weapons when they run out of ammo or actually move to react to my movement to make each battle unique. With the crouch added you could include seeing a few try to sneak from one spot to another to again try to out flank me. By the way what ever happened to Krogans with biotics like Wrex? I’m usually to busy shooting them to notice if they even used a biotic attack.

[Revan312]

slimgrin wrote...

@ Revan312

Nicely put. That's an
accurate comparison. Both games embrace entirely different types of
atmosphere.

I prefer ME2 gameplay, and I don't agree that ME1 was
light on dialog options.

But your assessment overall is very
objective and well thought out. Your post should be mandatory reading
before anyone contributes to this thread.

Thanks and I just meant dialogue options that mattered to any great degree as far as story progression is concerned.  It did have a lot of dialogue flavors I should say, you could role play the personality of your Shepard fairly well.

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

That are your reasons.

98% of the thread summed up in four words.

I will agree that it's all subjective preference except for the story.  That was not done nearly as well as the first game, miniature character vignettes aside, and I'll stand by that objectively.  ME2 was about showcasing the new revamped gameplay which means they created a very dull and listless plot to go along with it.

[ChuckNorris18]

tonnactus wrote...

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

I mean overall ME2 is a better experience when compared to ME1 even though there is quite a large list of things that I see wrong with it.

But if Mass Effect 2 is the better experience, how the first game could encourage you to play it again and the game with the better experience fail to do that?

I did about 2 or 3 mass effect playthroughs.
About 2 ME2 playthroughs.

Replayability isn't a bad thing to have but it also isn't necessary, while I do wish that ME2 had more replayability.

Mass Effect had a better story experience while ME2 had a better gameplay experience, but by no means am I saying that they should contradict story completely for gameplay.  What I mean is that, for me It's easier to get through a game with great gameplay experience and a good story, than to get through a game with great a story experience  and a decent gameplay experience.  But this is all just personal preference.

[Siegdrifa]

Lusitanum wrote...

You do realize that genres evolve beyond the names they were given, right? And that with all the ways videogames have evolved in the last decades, going by the letter of the word means absolutely nothing. Especially, given how all the genres keep influencing and merging with each other.

Yes this is what i wrote... thanks for not reading.

But i don't agree when you say  the letter of the word means absolutely nothing.
Words have meaning (dictionnary is not meant to wipe ass), so now if you don't agree with the meaning of the words because you prefer YOUR interpretation, it's your business.

And again... you define a "truth" by his tech limitation.

The meaning of RPG don't have to evolve, but the way to play it, YES.

When there was lot of japanese RPG, the action was turn by turn, and when they change the way to play it, new definition to fit the game came too, like Action-RPG for games like Seiken Densetsu, Tactical-RPG for Ogre Battle.

There is lot of RPG (based on books) that use Dice and number... most of them.
But there is also a few RPG that doesn't invole dice to determin the effectiveness of your action and choice (unless you consider that making choice and doing your own action isn't part of RPG...)

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 02 juillet 2010 - 10:50 .