Aller au contenu

Photo

Disappointment With Mass Effect 2? An Open Discussion.


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
10273 réponses à ce sujet

#676
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

Darth Drago wrote...



-The AI isn’t all that better in ME2 on your squad mates actions n my experience. I have seen them many times stand up on top of crates to get shots off as well as go right into the enemy group. I have actually lost one more than once because they went so far away from where I was only to find him suddenly standing up after the battle next to the final guy I killed.
 


They dont shoot you in the back anymore.Thats it to sum it up.Jacob like it to storm into a group of more then 2 people in his loyality mission.Garrus still managed it to be killed even when positioning behind a box and let him use a sniper.Its funny that grunt use cover more and in an smarter way then squishy squadmembers...
There are so many examples of stupid ai behavior.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 avril 2010 - 02:40 .


#677
Gatt9

Gatt9
  • Members
  • 1 748 messages

uberdowzen wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

I didn't use the word fan for a very good reason. I didn't want to have the conversation disengrate with such a subjective term. Sort of like how you are trying to abuse the term in your dissection of my post.
I simply used the terms market and audience.
You do not know the strata I belong in and your attempt to shoehorn me into one that makes sense to you is utterly laughable.

The revamping and re-categorization for go after a new audience is not smart and not logical. It introduces new risks and problems, sort of like how the revamping of ME2 introduces a new set of issues that ME1 did not have without addressing the ones there.
Continue to use such subjective terms like hardcore to try and assist your poor reasoning in the matter.
Constant changes in a product to attract a new audience is detrimental to the established base. Doing it over and over, repeats the pattern of gaining some and losing some just to try and get more.
ME3 for me is not a sure buy; you should stop trying to sound like some idiotic EA lackey, me being into the franchise does not guarantee a sale. If ME3 is not a combination of ME2 and ME1, full of improvements, with a proper story I will not be buying.

You are receiving a bad education if you believe the ideology of EA in respect to business(they are horrible at it) or gaming(pretty bad as a whole).


Your argument reminds of the situation that occured with Fallout 3. The fans wanted the exact same game as F1 and F2, but Bethesda decided to make a game that'd appeal to more people. If you don't really change a game in sequels it just stagnates and nothing is gained.

So what Strata do you belong in? And don't give me some rubbish about not wanting to be sorted into a catergory, EA can't individually take each customer and decide what kind of game they want.

I don't want to be too critical here, but your arguing style does seem to involve you implying that anyone elses argument is ludicrous and just dismissing it. My points about different strata of fans was more trying to point out that sometimes developers choose to ****** off the people who really really loved the previous game to try and reach a broader audience. If you are just making games for the people who really liked the game, you're not expanding your audience, of anything it could shrink because you're just making the same game over and over again and people get bored.

How have the issues of ME1 had not been addressed? I can't think of any problems ME1 had that have not been fixed in ME2.

The part about changes are detrimental to the original base. That's true but if you end up with a bigger base than you started with, why wouldn't you do that. EA doesn't care who is giving them their money as long as they have more than before.

And how is EA horrible at business? If having huge amounts of money and making very successful products is bad business then we should be getting more of those bad business men to run the economy, they'd do a much better job then whoever is doing it at the moment.

I'm sorry I shoehorned you into a strata of fan. Please tell me what Mass Effect as a franchise means to you.


I feel I should start with,  you may want to pick a different example other than Fallout 3,  it couldn't sell half of it's initial shipment before it dropped off the charts.  In fact,  when my local Circuit City was going out of buisness,  it pretty much couldn't give the game away.  At 50% off,  the game still sat there,  almost the only game left in the building.

As far as gaining a bigger player base,  the key there is obtaining it.  How many people bought ME2 expecting an RPG since it's supposed to be a sequel and ended up extremely disappointed?  ME3 will have to be released before any statements on "They made the correct choice" can be made,  and it's unlikely that'll be the case considering this is a 28 page thread that's existed for weeks,  and the board was full of complaints.

How is EA bad at buisness?

Starflight, Bard's Tale, Ultima, Wing Commander,  Dungeon Keeper,  Syndicate,  System Shock,  M.U.L.E., Crusader,  Alice...

EA's got the single largest bankroll of IP's in the industry,  any one of those done well would sell ridiculous numbers.  Most of those are on gamer's "Please god let them make it" lists.  All of those are the foundation on which the industry was built.

They all sit stagnant.

I'm pretty sure the definition of being bad at buisness is sitting on a billion dollars and actively choosing not to make it.

But you know what EA has shown it does well in the last 10 years?  Cheap cash-in games.  Which is exactly what ME2 screams,  "I'm Gears of War too!"

#678
finnithe

finnithe
  • Members
  • 357 messages

Darth Drago wrote...


FlintlockJazz wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

-But seeing their health/shields had no actual use to you since you can no longer use a first aid talent/power on them to heal anyone in ME2 when you see their health drop. All you can do is find a safe spot and wait for them to die to use a resurrect on them. Such advancements in gameplay here… With their questionable AI as well in combat for wandering around to get killed a simple mini-map of your location to at least see where they went or more importantly where you are and need to go, would have been preferable.

Besides I would rather not see my squad mates faces plastered on my ass everywhere I went.

The ME2 HUD is just like a lot of changes made to the game, they went to the other extreme. In ME1 you had one that worked and didn't take up your screen as much as some would think it did. In ME2 its been cut down to as little as it is to the point you have to really ask if it is a actual HUD.

A better view of the battlefield? That is until you set your screen filled with the bloody veins or whatever they are covering your screen. I would rather have a small HUD mini-map to get a better view of a battlefield.


First off, if there's no point to seeing the health of your teammates anymore then why not do away with it altogether then instead of reverting back to the ME1 HUD? In fact, that shows how the ME1 HUD would now be even worse then wouldn't it? Though if you are having problems with healing your teammates then you are not using the medigel upgrades, when they hit red you pull them back or focus on helping them, works fine for me. The questionable AI was worse in ME1 and has no bearing on the HUD. And as for it being plasted on your arse, it keeps it in your view better than in the bottom left of the screen, which when you're using a widescreen monitor like me is a pain.

Second, I was talking from my personal opinion, which I stated in my original post when I mentioned it. All of your complaints are personal preferences, not facts, just the same as my defense of it, I was merely showing that some of us like the new HUD better, if you can't accept that then it is your own problem.

Finally, it's the fecking HUD, as long as it does the job its fine, and it is easy to use unless you are unable to adapt to change for some reason. My HUD comment was one single line in my original post, a post that was intended to move this thread away from the usual flaming, bashing and arguing and to a more constructive discussion, but instead you both just focused on the one single line where I disagree with you in order to continue flaming, bashing and hating, showing that no one here is actually interested in discussing how ME can go from here, but rather want to stroke their epeens. Thanks for clarifying this for me, goodbye.

-Both HUD’s in each game served a purpose for its game. In ME1 you had the ability to monitor your teams health and with a single push of the button heal them. ME2 I honestly don’t know why they even have a bar (or actually what its supposed to mean honestly) I do know that you cant heal them in combat at all. The best you can hope for is that the AI controlling them gives them the sense to get out of the way to heal themselves or die in a spot out of the main firefight so I can resurrect them without them getting killed seconds later.

-The AI isn’t all that better in ME2 on your squad mates actions n my experience. I have seen them many times stand up on top of crates to get shots off as well as go right into the enemy group. I have actually lost one more than once because they went so far away from where I was only to find him suddenly standing up after the battle next to the final guy I killed.

-The mini-map I do miss a lot especially considering you cant access any map on a lot of missions as simple option to have it on or off would have fixed this problem. Other Games have such options. 



-You mean this posting?


I don't see any problems with ME2's or ME1's UI. What exactly is so ugly about ME2's UI, it consists of only two icons representing your squadmates. You aren't really being clear with your problems here, and I'm not about to sift through 27 pages of posts if you have presented them elsewhere.

You can actually heal your squadmates in combat (Unity does actually heal your squaddies in addition to resurrecting knocked out ones) and it's pretty clear that the red quarter-circle indicates that the party member has no no armor/shields/barriers left. The grey bar indicates their cooldown. I don't really see why this is so complicated.

The Ai could be improved, especially since higher difficulties require not running out into the open.

The minimap wasn't really something I missed, but it would probabyl be fine if they added it back in. That would however compromise the minimalistic approach  they took with ME2's UI.



FlintlockJazz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
For example, would having some visible stats on the weapons really put out the pro-ME2 group that much? Would having similar stats on our armour? Would bringing back weapon modding on our guns? Would changing the HUD back to something closer to the ME1 one? Would getting rid of those mission complete screens and having your XP appear as you earned it in the bottom corner? Would they really complain about The Mako returning if the worlds you landed on with it were closer to the ones in the N7 missions? These are all really simple things that would together make a huge difference.


I suppose I could be classed as a member of the pro-ME2 group (though really I don't think of it as terms of groups or myself as having a 'side'), and not only would I have no problem with many (not all) of your suggestions but I would love many if not most of those features. They would have to make sure they did it like it was discussed earlier by yourself and others (can't remember if it was this thread or another, but it was the one where you showed a photoshopped image of the proposed screen), as the method used in ME1 was clunky and did indeed need alot of work imho.

Loved the mako, and would like its return in the main story quests as opposed to the dire hammerhead and its optional nature, driving through the collector ship is a must. Modding weapons, I can see them adding this now that they have nailed the weapon system for ME3. Changing the HUD back to ME1 would be wrong though I think, its too clunky and the new one is fine in my opinion, and the mission complete screens would work perfectly if they had optional xp for completing the mission in different ways that they could display the awards for.

ME2 has nailed the gameplay mechanics imho, now they can devote energies to adding things to it.

It’s the only one I found where you mention the HUD.

Maybe no one commented on anything else you said in it because the HUD part is really the only thing you mentioned that apparently people wanted to continue discussing. The Mission End Screen has been mentioned and a lot of people do not like it from what I recall. By the way the screenshot your refer to is from another thread, cant remember what one though.

I didn’t see one person “continue flaming, bashing and hating” on anything in regards to your postings. My comments are just my own opinions based on my game experiences, just like yours.


The weapon modding system, were it implemented similar to ME1's, would break up ME2's fluid combat. For example, if you saw some armored enemies, you would have to pause and switch out your weapon mod if you had say, cryo rounds in your gun. Personally, I prefer ME2's system to make it a power that you can turn on and off as with any regular biotic or tech power. 

That said, I think a modular system, similar to what is being used with the N7 armor. It would be pretty cool if you could switch up the Viper's long-range scope for a shorter one, or if you could add a silencer to your sniper rifle. 

The problem with the Mako worlds were that they tried to put too much focus on the quantity, leading to each world becoming bland and uninteresting. I would be happy if the Hammerhead was put in some open world environments, and I'm thinking some future premium DLC is perfect for that. 

They could probably add the weapon stats, I wouldn't really see any problems with that. We already have armor stats, though. The mission complete screen was a bit jarring, and I think a short dialogue would have been better.

#679
ShakeZoohla

ShakeZoohla
  • Members
  • 88 messages
I don't think anyone can deny that Mass Effect 2's combat feels almost identical to Gears of Wars'.

#680
finnithe

finnithe
  • Members
  • 357 messages
Fallout 3 is a great example. Look at the sales. This is not including DLC sales.



http://www.vgchartz....?name=fallout 3



I know VgChartz isn't exactly the best source, but I really doubt they were off by millions or something. I for some reason still doubt an anecdote someone on the internet tells me.

#681
finnithe

finnithe
  • Members
  • 357 messages

ShakeZoohla wrote...

I don't think anyone can deny that Mass Effect 2's combat feels almost identical to Gears of Wars'.


So would you say that ME2 has managed to match one of the best shooters on the market while keeping it fresh with additions like biotic and tech powers in addition to having some of the best writing in video games? Cause when you start comparing it to GoW, I don't think it's a bad thing. 

#682
ShakeZoohla

ShakeZoohla
  • Members
  • 88 messages

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

I don't think anyone can deny that Mass Effect 2's combat feels almost identical to Gears of Wars'.


So would you say that ME2 has managed to match one of the best shooters on the market while keeping it fresh with additions like biotic and tech powers in addition to having some of the best writing in video games? Cause when you start comparing it to GoW, I don't think it's a bad thing. 


Maybe not for some I suppose, but there really are enough GOW clones out there already, and personally snapping into cover and hurdling walls irritates me.  It doesn't fit ME for me, constantly being in a firefight popping up and down for hours on end makes me not want to replay.

#683
finnithe

finnithe
  • Members
  • 357 messages

ShakeZoohla wrote...

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

I don't think anyone can deny that Mass Effect 2's combat feels almost identical to Gears of Wars'.


So would you say that ME2 has managed to match one of the best shooters on the market while keeping it fresh with additions like biotic and tech powers in addition to having some of the best writing in video games? Cause when you start comparing it to GoW, I don't think it's a bad thing. 


Maybe not for some I suppose, but there really are enough GOW clones out there already, and personally snapping into cover and hurdling walls irritates me.  It doesn't fit ME for me, constantly being in a firefight popping up and down for hours on end makes me not want to replay.


Don't you think our time would be better served if instead of comparing ME2 to games you dislike you suggested what could be improved in ME2? 

The combat in ME2 for example, in terms of the cover, isn't all that different. Frankly, it doesn't make sense for a regular human being like Shepard to be outside of cover, and the Mass Effect series has always been a cover shooter. What would you rather have?

#684
EAWare_amirite

EAWare_amirite
  • Members
  • 38 messages
So the GOW generation wants to boil all contemporary gun combat down to cover?

Makes sense to be out of cover? Who said that? There are mandatory cover systems like GOW and then there are dynamic cover systems like FO3 and ME, where being behind cover is enough and an extra button press is not needed.



The ME series has gun combat. The cover mechanic is boring and feels like a shooting gallery if it is only single player.

#685
Brako Shepard

Brako Shepard
  • Members
  • 675 messages

ShakeZoohla wrote...

I don't think anyone can deny that Mass Effect 2's combat feels almost identical to Gears of Wars'.


And to be honest matey, I think its a good thing it is. For me Gears of War had great gun play, but the games were just boring as hell.

With Mass Effect 2, we got the better combat system we were asking for since the release of Mass Effect. I have just gone back to Mass Effect, and although the story is still first class. I am missing the excellent combat system from Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect had an amazing story but lacked in combat sections.
Mass Effect 2 has a great story but could have been better. But the combat system is now top notch.

#686
EAWare_amirite

EAWare_amirite
  • Members
  • 38 messages
OH yes. I prefer to have my shooters to have short campaigns and a long multiplayer.

I prefer my RPGs to not confuse their combat mechanic(shooting) with the genre.

#687
ShakeZoohla

ShakeZoohla
  • Members
  • 88 messages

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

I don't think anyone can deny that Mass Effect 2's combat feels almost identical to Gears of Wars'.


So would you say that ME2 has managed to match one of the best shooters on the market while keeping it fresh with additions like biotic and tech powers in addition to having some of the best writing in video games? Cause when you start comparing it to GoW, I don't think it's a bad thing. 


Maybe not for some I suppose, but there really are enough GOW clones out there already, and personally snapping into cover and hurdling walls irritates me.  It doesn't fit ME for me, constantly being in a firefight popping up and down for hours on end makes me not want to replay.


Don't you think our time would be better served if instead of comparing ME2 to games you dislike you suggested what could be improved in ME2? 

The combat in ME2 for example, in terms of the cover, isn't all that different. Frankly, it doesn't make sense for a regular human being like Shepard to be outside of cover, and the Mass Effect series has always been a cover shooter. What would you rather have?


I enjoyed Mass Effects  system more, and if they smoothed it out a little bit it could be awesome.  I have no problem with cover, I just think that snapping into cover and being glued to it feels clunky and slow.  I would much rather have the ability to just crouch behind a wall and have a full range of motion, and just untoggle crouch when shooting.  

Really the Gears of War comment was aimed just as much at the pacing of the combat and not only the mechanics.  There were just too many of the same old firefights that anyone who plays cover based shooters like gears has experienced a million times.  Mass Effect's system may not have been perfect, but it at least was mildly original whether intended to be or not.  And really the specifics of combat never really mattered, because ME1 as a game was much bigger than its combat, whereas Gears was not.  Unfortunately ME2, for me at least, leans more towards the style of the Gears in that regard.

Modifié par ShakeZoohla, 23 avril 2010 - 03:03 .


#688
finnithe

finnithe
  • Members
  • 357 messages

EAWare_amirite wrote...

OH yes. I prefer to have my shooters to have short campaigns and a long multiplayer.
I prefer my RPGs to not confuse their combat mechanic(shooting) with the genre.


You seem like the type that wont be convinced but I'll try anyways. What you're suggesting seems like stagnation to me. A lot of games are succeeding by borrowing elements from other genres. Warcraft 3 for example borrowed elements from RPG genres with its heroes, DotA being a great example of this. Even sports games are starting to borrow RPG elements with their Be a Pro modes from NHL/NBA Live/Madden games.

I see no reason why RPG's cant borrow elements from other genres and still not succeed. Bioware is attempting to do something different with Mass Effect and I think they should be respected for it.

I find it ironic that you cited Fallout 3 in your other argument, because it has been described to be just what you are describing ME2 as: a shooter with tame RPG elements when compared to prequels FO1 and FO2.

Now, the change to make going into cover a button press in ME2 was done because it was too easy to accidentally slide into cover in ME1 when you didn't want to. And there was no cover mechanic in FO3, it was just standing facing a rock or some other obstacle. Since ME is third-person, I think this would not look as good..

#689
KotOREffecT

KotOREffecT
  • Members
  • 946 messages
It's funny when some try to say that ME 2 is all cover and shoot, yet for the most part that was what was done in ME 1 as well, maybe not as much, but yea.. ME 1 was just stand around and shoot a lot at times too, where as ME 2 is a bit more tatical.

#690
ShakeZoohla

ShakeZoohla
  • Members
  • 88 messages

KotOREffecT wrote...

It's funny when some try to say that ME 2 is all cover and shoot, yet for the most part that was what was done in ME 1 as well, maybe not as much, but yea.. ME 1 was just stand around and shoot a lot at times too, where as ME 2 is a bit more tatical.

Even on normal difficulty, just standing and shooting in ME1 meant I would be getting my ass kicked.  And personally I dont think ME2 is any more tactical, as the most meaningful tactic is to just pop up from cover and shoot until your health is low, then drop back down and wait for your shields to recharge just to do it all again, every once in a while throwing in powers that, if it weren't for running out of ammo, could be done without.

#691
finnithe

finnithe
  • Members
  • 357 messages

ShakeZoohla wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

It's funny when some try to say that ME 2 is all cover and shoot, yet for the most part that was what was done in ME 1 as well, maybe not as much, but yea.. ME 1 was just stand around and shoot a lot at times too, where as ME 2 is a bit more tatical.

Even on normal difficulty, just standing and shooting in ME1 meant I would be getting my ass kicked.  And personally I dont think ME2 is any more tactical, as the most meaningful tactic is to just pop up from cover and shoot until your health is low, then drop back down and wait for your shields to recharge just to do it all again, every once in a while throwing in powers that, if it weren't for running out of ammo, could be done without.


People have completed ME1 with only a pistol. I don't see anything tactical about that. 

On the other hand, the limits on ammo are there for the very reason you mentioned. They encourage diversified weapon usage (I now use my other weapons depending on their strengths against the enemy I'm facing currently) and they also encourage using your powerful weapons (i.e. shotguns and sniper rifles) sparingly. They also are there to encourage power usage, and I can't think how an Engineer could live without their Drone, the Adept without their Singularities (and Warp Explosions) or Sentinels without their Tech Armor. Your squad is actually really important in ME2, and I actually use more than two of my squadmates (in ME1, due to the trouble of equipping the rest of your squadmates and levelling them up, I only used two select ones in a playthrough. I think others have had similar experiences). 

#692
EAWare_amirite

EAWare_amirite
  • Members
  • 38 messages
"You seem like the type that wont be convinced but I'll try anyways. What you're suggesting seems like stagnation to me."

Every game that has gun combat and the force cover mechanic is stagnation. Some games using forced cover while others use dynamic cover, that would be a world called "diversity".



"I find it ironic that you cited Fallout 3 in your other argument, because it has been described to be just what you are describing ME2 as: a shooter with tame RPG elements when compared to prequels FO1 and FO2."

I was talking about combat mechanics. FO3 feels like Oblivion with guns. Only asinine people would be able to question the RPGness, it is bounds ahead of ME2 in that respect.



"I see no reason why RPG's cant borrow elements from other genres and still not succeed. Bioware is attempting to do something different with Mass Effect and I think they should be respected for it."

Taking and copying the mechanics from top selling shooters like GOW or COD, is not being different. That would be conforming to the established or accepted norm.



"Now, the change to make going into cover a button press in ME2 was done because it was too easy to accidentally slide into cover in ME1 when you didn't want to. And there was no cover mechanic in FO3, it was just standing facing a rock or some other obstacle. Since ME is third-person, I think this would not look as good."



Bull, complete bull. Sliding in and out of cover in ME1 is plain easy. Even if you accidently get in cover you can leave it quickly and easily by stepping away. ME2 and the button press cover is worse being that the cover button is mapped to 3 functions. Hopping over cover or getting stuck to it is worse in ME2.

#693
EAWare_amirite

EAWare_amirite
  • Members
  • 38 messages
"You seem like the type that wont be convinced but I'll try anyways. What you're suggesting seems like stagnation to me."

Every game that has gun combat and the force cover mechanic is stagnation. Some games using forced cover while others use dynamic cover, that would be a world called "diversity".



"I find it ironic that you cited Fallout 3 in your other argument, because it has been described to be just what you are describing ME2 as: a shooter with tame RPG elements when compared to prequels FO1 and FO2."

I was talking about combat mechanics. FO3 feels like Oblivion with guns. Only asinine people would be able to question the RPGness, it is bounds ahead of ME2 in that respect.



"I see no reason why RPG's cant borrow elements from other genres and still not succeed. Bioware is attempting to do something different with Mass Effect and I think they should be respected for it."

Taking and copying the mechanics from top selling shooters like GOW or COD, is not being different. That would be conforming to the established or accepted norm.



"Now, the change to make going into cover a button press in ME2 was done because it was too easy to accidentally slide into cover in ME1 when you didn't want to. And there was no cover mechanic in FO3, it was just standing facing a rock or some other obstacle. Since ME is third-person, I think this would not look as good."



Bull, complete bull. Sliding in and out of cover in ME1 is plain easy. Even if you accidently get in cover you can leave it quickly and easily by stepping away. ME2 and the button press cover is worse being that the cover button is mapped to 3 functions. Hopping over cover or getting stuck to it is worse in ME2.

#694
ShakeZoohla

ShakeZoohla
  • Members
  • 88 messages

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

It's funny when some try to say that ME 2 is all cover and shoot, yet for the most part that was what was done in ME 1 as well, maybe not as much, but yea.. ME 1 was just stand around and shoot a lot at times too, where as ME 2 is a bit more tatical.

Even on normal difficulty, just standing and shooting in ME1 meant I would be getting my ass kicked.  And personally I dont think ME2 is any more tactical, as the most meaningful tactic is to just pop up from cover and shoot until your health is low, then drop back down and wait for your shields to recharge just to do it all again, every once in a while throwing in powers that, if it weren't for running out of ammo, could be done without.


People have completed ME1 with only a pistol. I don't see anything tactical about that. 

On the other hand, the limits on ammo are there for the very reason you mentioned. They encourage diversified weapon usage (I now use my other weapons depending on their strengths against the enemy I'm facing currently) and they also encourage using your powerful weapons (i.e. shotguns and sniper rifles) sparingly. They also are there to encourage power usage, and I can't think how an Engineer could live without their Drone, the Adept without their Singularities (and Warp Explosions) or Sentinels without their Tech Armor. Your squad is actually really important in ME2, and I actually use more than two of my squadmates (in ME1, due to the trouble of equipping the rest of your squadmates and levelling them up, I only used two select ones in a playthrough. I think others have had similar experiences). 

\\
I am assuming the pistol comment means using no powers, and if that's the case then maybe on easy, but on the harder difficulties one would have to be pretty extreme to pull that off.  

Anyways, the point of this thread is not to decide which game has better combat, as combat, to me, is really not that important of a component to either game.  For me the only combat related point worth mentioning in relation to the purpose of this thread is this:  how did the combat add to the game as a whole?  Me1 had the correct approach for combat, as in only implementing it to better the artistic value of the game.  Whereas Me2 has such a focus on combat, and so much of it, that it really becomes the game.  And whether pop-into-cover combat cover is effective or not, in Me2's case it cracks under the pressure of trying to pretty much support the game by itself.

#695
Dudeman315

Dudeman315
  • Members
  • 240 messages

finnithe wrote...



You seem like the type that wont be convinced but I'll try anyways. What you're suggesting seems like stagnation to me. A lot of games are succeeding by borrowing elements from other genres. Warcraft 3 for example borrowed elements from RPG genres with its heroes, DotA being a great example of this. Even sports games are starting to borrow RPG elements with their Be a Pro modes from NHL/NBA Live/Madden games.

I see no reason why RPG's cant borrow elements from other genres and still not succeed. Bioware is attempting to do something different with Mass Effect and I think they should be respected for it.

Right so when does ME become a shooter with rpg elements instead of an rpg with shooter combat? Is it when the design focus is shifted so that the rpg elements don't interfer with the shooter combat?(which Christina Norman shows in her slides)

I find it ironic that you cited Fallout 3 in your other argument, because it has been described to be just what you are describing ME2 as: a shooter with tame RPG elements when compared to prequels FO1 and FO2.

Fallout 3 has character stat based(rpg) combat, Looting, Inventory, Buying and selling items, XP based on actual acomplishments(kills, missions, exploration) instead of a level up when you complete the stage system(ME2), Exploration, multiple ways to accomplish tasks, Stats on items, etc.

So FO3 is way more RPG element heavy than ME2

#696
Dudeman315

Dudeman315
  • Members
  • 240 messages

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

It's funny when some try to say that ME 2 is all cover and shoot, yet for the most part that was what was done in ME 1 as well, maybe not as much, but yea.. ME 1 was just stand around and shoot a lot at times too, where as ME 2 is a bit more tatical.

Even on normal difficulty, just standing and shooting in ME1 meant I would be getting my ass kicked.  And personally I dont think ME2 is any more tactical, as the most meaningful tactic is to just pop up from cover and shoot until your health is low, then drop back down and wait for your shields to recharge just to do it all again, every once in a while throwing in powers that, if it weren't for running out of ammo, could be done without.


People have completed ME1 with only a pistol. I don't see anything tactical about that. 

On the other hand, the limits on ammo are there for the very reason you mentioned. They encourage diversified weapon usage (I now use my other weapons depending on their strengths against the enemy I'm facing currently) and they also encourage using your powerful weapons (i.e. shotguns and sniper rifles) sparingly. They also are there to encourage power usage, and I can't think how an Engineer could live without their Drone, the Adept without their Singularities (and Warp Explosions) or Sentinels without their Tech Armor. Your squad is actually really important in ME2, and I actually use more than two of my squadmates (in ME1, due to the trouble of equipping the rest of your squadmates and levelling them up, I only used two select ones in a playthrough. I think others have had similar experiences). 

I completed ME2 using only Incinerate so I fail to see how the hand gun is less tactical than incinerate. . .unless it's the modding of the handgun that makes it less tactical(and probably faster)

#697
finnithe

finnithe
  • Members
  • 357 messages
I'm not going to quote every last one of you cause that would take too long



@Dudeman



I was referring to how when you mod weapons in ME1 they inevitably broke the combat. It was possible to keep your AR on autofire with the right mods. But just like ShakeZombie said, it's pointless to compare the two.



And note that when I mentioned FO3, I said people hated it because it was too different from prior games in the franchise, not ME1 or ME2. The comparison was made because people hated the changes, just as some do with ME2.



Mass Effect 2 still has most of those elements that you mentioned FO3 has. The stat based combat is still there, as you certainly can have different levels in your abilities, and even outside of combat, your paragon/renegade stat affects your appearance and your conversations,.



Looting was somewhat downgraded (given that ME1 had a torrent of ammo, guns and armor coming out of every orifice) but you still loot weapons from certain places, money from terminals/PDAs, and ammo from random enemies. Personally, I like ME2's looting system especially from the "realistic" standpoint. Would it make sense to carry so many guns? Where are they all stored? Even in FO3, it doesn't make sense that the Lone Wanderer is able to carry all that stuff. This is why the inventory system in ME2 makes a bit more sense to me. As a result, selling items is defunct, as you no longer have a massive amount of them, though buying upgrades and vanity items still exists.



The fact that you don't get exp per kill kind of gives the developers some freedom on how many enemies they want to put in a particular section. What I didn't like about this is that they decided to implement the spawn cabinets where you would face infinite enemies in some parts (with the Geth Drones in Tali's recruitment). While it made sense for Garrus' recruitment mission, I find this practice to be a bit cheap. I'd rather they keep limited enemies, though unlimited enemies does give you some tension.



Exploration I think might be expanded upon with some DLC. But I guess it's a bit limited without the Mako. Still, you are exploring the galaxy when you do N7 missions.



Lastly, i don't see how you've ignored how ME2 gives you different ways to do things. It might not be an open-world game as FO3 is, which I think is why you mentioned this, but you still have different ways to complete something based on your moral intentions.



@Shakezombie



Sorry, I don't really understand your comment. How does ME1's combat further the artistic value of the game?

#698
Andaius20

Andaius20
  • Members
  • 7 415 messages
I didn't like the Ammo system either, I found that it didn't offer "tactical" play it offered more restrictive play. I would get into many situations where I was like Man, my hand cannon would really be useful right now! but because it only had 24 shots I couldn't use it. I was forced to use the SMG for just about every enemy because it not only had the most ammo, it also got the most ammo back per clip pick up.



So I had to stop using my Sniper rifle for most of the enemies because you'd expend more ammo then you picked up if you used it in fights because you only get one shot back per clip for all but the Viper. (but that didn't' matter anyway because you'd have to use 3-5 head shots on most enemies in the first place if they had protections. )



All the rock paper scissors defense scheme they have in ME 2 does if FORCE you to play one way because most of the guns besides the AR and SMG have extremely limited ammo. Thats why I liked how ME 1 did it, it's up to you to find out what weapon you like for a given situation.



I think this is just another situation of the "scrap it don't improve it." they did in Me 2 on the procieved bad elements in Me 1.

#699
GHOST OF FRUITY

GHOST OF FRUITY
  • Members
  • 715 messages
The only aspects of ME2 that didn't really do it for me are small things like the mission complete screens, the loss of the elevator chats and not having the option to travel from the normandy when you dock at the various worlds. It kind of took out some of the immersion, just appearing at the dockside or each world when you dock. Like I said, small things.

Other things like more customisation,stronger emphasis on exploration and RPG elements - sure those are things i'd liked to have seen a bit more of, but I thoroughly enjoyed ME2 reguardless. ME1 and 2 both got different things right, and different things wrong. If Bioware get the mix right for ME3 and the story finishes up strongly, it'll be a fantastic game indeed. A tough job trying to please everyone (impossible probably), but i'm sure Bioware will try their best anyhow.

Modifié par GHOST OF FRUITY, 23 avril 2010 - 07:28 .


#700
lordgeryon

lordgeryon
  • Members
  • 5 messages
To me, ME2 has no feeling of advancement. In RPG's the player is supposed to advance, become better or more powerful. While ME2 has a level system, it feels completely arbitrary. I mean, you could simply take away the levels and give 2 skill points per mission and nothing would change.

Also, I have always been a fan of options. ME2 really lacks in options for a variety of things. Items; guns and armor are so... limited. And they all seem to have very little difference. Missions; they are all shooting gallery cover fights with the exception of Samara's loyalty mission. Where are the options to talk your way to a goal? Or some other method? Exploration; there isn't any. At all.

Squadmates should have had a lot more interaction, both with Shepard and with each other. There are like, 2 unique teammate interactions(Garrus/Tali and Jack/Grunt), 2 confrontation conversations, and 3-4 individual conversations with Shepard(a couple more if you romance them). Their commentary during conversations and events is nice, but too small in effect when you consider the lines are nearly identical, just with different VA's.

There's also the main plot. Railroading is strong with this one. You(the player) seem to have no say at all. You basically have three choices when TIM more or less orders you to work for him; Okay, I'll work for you because I have no choice. Okay, I'll work for you but I hate you. Okay, I'll for you because I agree with you. - Not a lot of choice there. And you never really get the option to make a choice until the end.

In summary, ME2 just feels... shallow.