10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Vena_86]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I personally didn't see that at all. ME1 was flawed, I'll admit, but it all felt very tight and balanced despite this.

Immunity, defensive powers in general, poor scaling, insignificant modification, unspecialized character progression, imbalanced classes, the works.

Bioware games usually have a lot of variety and choice in regards to the mechanics. The problem with that is that a game is only as in-depth as the balance that holds it all together. They've never been good in this regard, hence why the actual RPG systems have always been remarkably lackluster.

IMO what made ME1 special was exactly that it didn't have a generic focus on some genre and target audience. You have a great story with great characters and presentation, a consistent and appealing art design and gameplay mechanics from different genres brought together. I think those who didn`t even give ME1 a chance are victims to their own lack of diversity and flexibility. Why does a game have to be a shooter or RPG or racing game? Why can't it just be an experience an adventure? This is something what makes ME1 more interesting for me than ME2. ME2 has qualities which I have seen before and I have played many games since before the first shooter ever was released.

[nosidr]

tonnactus wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Where would you hide as a pirat? Those planets are ideal for this.

Planets whose only structures are 4 room bases that automatically show up on the minimap and apparently have all been scouted by the Alliance or random freighters who are only in the area to vent their engines.

Let's face it, the criminals in ME1 were idiots.

Gameplay reason.Mass Effect 2 criminals are even dumber.A possible enemy in in their star system and they dont stop their communication,not even encrypt it.

Actually, the communications are almost always mentioned to be encrypted it's just that Cerberus has either broken the communications of all the major gangs out there or the average encryption system doesn't stand up to an AI. If you listen EDI will say something along the lines of this has been recognized as a standard Blue Suns encryption system, which tends to lend itself to the fact that Cerberus has broken through the system either by hacking it, or more likely simply by bribing a gang member to give them the encryption codes (money, after all, is no object to Cerberus).

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

A few people also think that having items with particular benefits and drawbacks that complement their playstyles is a Good Thing.  ME 1 went way overboard.  ME 2 was afraid to go out into the water.  Alpha Protocol is the way ME 2 should have done it.

But the problem is that so many people have a tendency to blame Mass Effect 2 for the faults of its predecessor. Unfortunately cycling through your endless inventory was a huge part of the first game, one which resulted in lots of time and unneeded omnigel. All Mass Effect 2 did was strip away the illusion of a 'deep' system. People noticed its absence and accused it of dumbing down gameplay.

I personally enjoyed not having to deal with an inventory system at all. I believe it emphasizes the most shallow (albeit also traditional) aspects of RPGs which have allowed products like World of Warcraft to claim they are role-playing games. Mass Effect 2 as a result has more attention placed on player choices and interesting character interactions.

The purpose of inventory in an rpg (imo at least) is to help customize the characters.  you get to choose what kinds of weapons you use, trade off certain benefits for certain penalties, and basically make your character as comfortable a fit as possible.

ME 1 did go way overboard on the inventory thing.  Too many weapons and armor that weren't variable enough.  Mods helped with that, but in the end, yes Shepard and is squad were buried in items.

ME 2 went too far in the other direction.  There are only a few items with no room to tinker with them.  Any upgrades you get are flat bonuses that are squad-wide.  Ammo is a power (a ridiculous change)  The individual guns have some differences, but in the end it doesn't feel like you are making your gun.  You're just taking what ME 2 is giving you. 

For ME 3, least least bring back mods.  Please?

[Iakus]

Vena_86 wrote...

IMO what made ME1 special was exactly that it didn't have a generic focus on some genre and target audience. You have a great story with great characters and presentation, a consistent and appealing art design and gameplay mechanics from different genres brought together. I think those who didn`t even give ME1 a chance are victims to their own lack of diversity and flexibility. Why does a game have to be a shooter or RPG or racing game? Why can't it just be an experience an adventure? This is something what makes ME1 more interesting for me than ME2. ME2 has qualities which I have seen before and I have played many games since before the first shooter ever was released.

I like this.

ME 1 was an experience.

ME 2 was a game.

[Iakus]

nosidr wrote...

Actually, the communications are almost always mentioned to be encrypted it's just that Cerberus has either broken the communications of all the major gangs out there or the average encryption system doesn't stand up to an AI. If you listen EDI will say something along the lines of this has been recognized as a standard Blue Suns encryption system, which tends to lend itself to the fact that Cerberus has broken through the system either by hacking it, or more likely simply by bribing a gang member to give them the encryption codes (money, after all, is no object to Cerberus).

Given what EDI does in ME 2, she is almost literally a Deus ex Machina.  I suppose hacking mercenary encryption (even the most technologically savvy of them like the Blue Suns) is child's play compared to other stunts are pulled in the game.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


But the problem is that so many people have a tendency to blame Mass Effect 2 for the faults of its predecessor. Unfortunately cycling through your endless inventory was a huge part of the first game, one which resulted in lots of time and unneeded omnigel. 

The player got really good armor and weapons very fast in the first game.After that,there is just no need to open lockers anyway and the loot from enemies were not that big y.
So i dont understand why so many people "cycling through endless inventory".
So all thing bioware has to change was to remove the forced loot from enemies and that the player didnt automatically take all the loot from lockers,only the choosen items. Something that work in fallout 3 and oblivion.

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 juillet 2010 - 10:21 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

The player got really good armor and weapons very fast in the first game.After that,there is just no need to open lockers anyway and the loot from enemies were not that big y.
So i dont understand why so many people "cycling through endless inventory".
So all thing bioware has to change was to remove the forced loot from enemies and that the player didnt automatically take all the loot from lockers,only the choosen items. Something that work in fallout 3 and oblivion.

I find it hard to believe that you didn't open a single locker or container in the game, regardless of how useful your armor/weapons may have been. This also doesn't take into account your 6 man squad's gear or the fact that most players do not even know how to obtain the best armor (let alone on subsequent playthroughs). The game also forces you to break down your inventory once you reach the item limit, wasting even more unnecessary time. The argument that you don't have to open containers is a weak one at best.

Edit: I'm also curious as to which armor you are even referring to. I personally do not load my character on subsequent playthroughs, so I begin at square one each time without level advantage.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 juillet 2010 - 10:27 .

[tonnactus]

nosidr wrote...




Actually, the communications are almost always mentioned to be encrypted it's just that Cerberus has either broken the communications of all the major gangs out there or the average encryption system doesn't stand up to an AI. If you listen EDI will say something along the lines of this has been recognized as a standard Blue Suns encryption system, which tends to lend itself to the fact that Cerberus has broken through the system either by hacking it, or more likely simply by bribing a gang member to give them the encryption codes (money, after all, is no object to Cerberus).

But they still communicate.You would expect that they shut down not even their communication system,but all electronics to make it hard or even impossible to detect them.Like i wrote,gameplay reasons.

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 juillet 2010 - 10:27 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...



Given what EDI does in ME 2, she is almost literally a Deus ex Machina.  I suppose hacking mercenary encryption (even the most technologically savvy of them like the Blue Suns) is child's play compared to other stunts are pulled in the game.

That edi could control collector technology reminds me of indepenence day, where aliens where defeated with an apple computer.Even if the ai is made with reaper tech,the reaper/collectors would know how to prevent a takeover.(they could hack the normandy,right?)

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


I find it hard to believe that you didn't open a single locker or container in the game, regardless of how useful your armor/weapons may have been.

Why i should open lockers when i found/bought colossus armor,spectre weapons and savant x omnitools?
Just to get a minor advantage if i found colossus x instead of using colossus VII?
If you did such things,your problem,not mine.

[nosidr]

tonnactus wrote...

nosidr wrote...




Actually, the communications are almost always mentioned to be encrypted it's just that Cerberus has either broken the communications of all the major gangs out there or the average encryption system doesn't stand up to an AI. If you listen EDI will say something along the lines of this has been recognized as a standard Blue Suns encryption system, which tends to lend itself to the fact that Cerberus has broken through the system either by hacking it, or more likely simply by bribing a gang member to give them the encryption codes (money, after all, is no object to Cerberus).

But they still communicate.You would expect that they shut down not even their communication system,but all electronics to make it hard or even impossible to detect them.Like i wrote,gameplay reasons.

As the codex says, sensors, unlike communications and travel, are limited to the speed of light. Therefore, if the Relay is 5 light-minutes away they will have sent 5 minutes worth of messages before they recognize that there is an intruder. If the communication is needed for whatever reason this would make for an easy way to detect them. In many situations they have no reason to fear space commandos dropping out of the sky to kill them and as such have no reason to hide their communications. After all, the majority of these criminals are fought in the Terminus systems where they don't have to worry about the Council and they can hardly afford the delay in operations that cutting off communications every time some ship enters the system would cause, and actually would make their spot much more suspicious to the average person.

Also, to whoever mentioned EDI as a Deus Ex machina, I wasn't really trying to say that although it is possible. I was really trying to point out how it said standard encryption which would mean Cerberus simply had hacked their systems once, or much more likely bought the codes from an agent in each of the three big mercenary groups. 

[tonnactus]

nosidr wrote...




As the codex says, sensors, unlike communications and travel, are limited to the speed of light. Therefore, if the Relay is 5 light-minutes away they will have sent 5 minutes worth of messages before they recognize that there is an intruder.

Yes,but you hear the commanders to give ordes for an protocol against "invasions".So this didnt fit really.
And another question comes up: Why the normandy didnt use stealth to avoid the detection and give shepardts team an egde? (suprise attack) Because i doubt that even eclipse engineers have the tech to detect the normandy then.

Really,the enemies in Mass Effect are often enough warned. Not a good thing for shepardt and his team.

In many situations they have no reason to fear space commandos dropping out of the sky to kill them and as such have no reason to hide their communications.

If they could detect the normandy,they would understand that this ship is a little different from their normal encounters.

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 juillet 2010 - 10:49 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

Why i should open lockers when i found/bought colossus armor,spectre weapons and savant x omnitools?
Just to get a minor advantage if i found colossus x instead of using colossus VII?
If you did such things,your problem,not mine.

Uh-uh. So your argument for why the inventory doesn't suck is because you somehow managed to randomly pick up one of the best armors in the game on a single playthrough. You also haven't explained why you left your party members wearing absolute crap or how you managed to successfully obtain the Colossus Armor at the start of the game considering you need to be level 36 for the license. Yes, you've certainly done an excellent job of defending Mass Effect 1's pathetic inventory system.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 juillet 2010 - 11:07 .

[nosidr]

tonnactus wrote...

nosidr wrote...




As the codex says, sensors, unlike communications and travel, are limited to the speed of light. Therefore, if the Relay is 5 light-minutes away they will have sent 5 minutes worth of messages before they recognize that there is an intruder.

Yes,but you hear the commanders to give ordes for an protocol against "invasions".So this didnt fit really.
And another question comes up: Why the normandy didnt use stealth to avoid the detection and give shepardts team an egde? (suprise attack) Because i doubt that even eclipse engineers have the tech to detect the normandy then.

Really,the enemies in Mass Effect are often enough warned. Not a good thing for shepardt and his team.


This comes back to the sensor speed. Yes sensors are limited by FTL, but light is still fast especially when used on a planet. Also, for all we know the Normandy is stealthed and that's why we are being attacked by fifty commanders at once. Most likely, if it really isn't for gameplay purpose, they simply detect the shuttle that has to be sent down to the planet instead of the stealth systems, and being the paranoid criminals they are (by all rights), they assume it's an attack force, so they no longer care if their communications are overheard as speed is more important than security at that point, which is how we get notice of their warning of an invasion, with EDI patching it through as soon as she decrypts it.

In many situations they have no reason to fear space commandos dropping out of the sky to kill them and as such have no reason to hide their communications.

If they could detect the normandy,they would understand that this ship is a little different from their normal encounters.

Perhaps, but perhaps not so much at the Terminus Systems, where unless you are a pirate the rule seems to be ignore and be ignored. Since it is the Terminus Systems chances are more ships are packing weaponry than in Council Space so a simple Frigate with standard weapons wouldn't be too unusual.

[Pocketgb]

Vena_86 wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I personally didn't see that at all. ME1 was flawed, I'll admit, but it all felt very tight and balanced despite this.

Immunity, defensive powers in general, poor scaling, insignificant modification, unspecialized character progression, imbalanced classes, the works.

Bioware games usually have a lot of variety and choice in regards to the mechanics. The problem with that is that a game is only as in-depth as the balance that holds it all together. They've never been good in this regard, hence why the actual RPG systems have always been remarkably lackluster.

IMO what made ME1 special was exactly that it didn't have a generic focus on some genre and target audience. You have a great story with great characters and presentation, a consistent and appealing art design and gameplay mechanics from different genres brought together. I think those who didn`t even give ME1 a chance are victims to their own lack of diversity and flexibility. Why does a game have to be a shooter or RPG or racing game? Why can't it just be an experience an adventure? This is something what makes ME1 more interesting for me than ME2. ME2 has qualities which I have seen before and I have played many games since before the first shooter ever was released.

ME1 had qualities that I've seen before as well, they were just done poorly.

But the 'game' part isn't why Bioware's been so successful. It's why I loved ME1, it's why I love ME2: It IS an experience.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 07 juillet 2010 - 12:03 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

But the problem is that so many people
have a tendency to blame Mass Effect 2 for the faults of its
predecessor. Unfortunately cycling through your endless inventory was a
huge part of the first game, one which resulted in lots of time and
unneeded omnigel. All Mass Effect 2 did was strip away the illusion of a
'deep' system. People noticed its absence and accused it of dumbing
down gameplay.

Not at all in any way. ME1 and ME2
both had problems regarding their inventory, and they're both quite
different and nearly opposite problems. ME2's inventory has been so
stripped back and simplified that it's been made linear, shallow and
uninteresting, as well as completely lacking. Items are always in the
same places no matter what, there's no modding and just a linear upgrade
system that works across the board with no trade-offs or restrictions,
there are no visible stats on the items, the selection of weapons is
poor  overall (and before people bring up the tired "bu...but the guns
all feel different" argument, it would be the same thing if ME1 had only
one of each of its four guns) and armour doesn't even function like
armour.

ME1's items and inventory may have had issues, but they
weren't the same issues as ME2, and at least ME1's issues
related to too much stuff and at least attempting to do things in an RPG
manner, while ME2's all stem from a completely lack of things and
oversimplification.

Pocketgb wrote...

ME1 had qualities that I've seen before as well, they were just done poorly.

But the 'game' part isn't why Bioware's been so successful. It's why I loved ME1, it's why I love ME2: It IS an experience.

Except that ME2 isn't. As iakus said, ME1 was an experience, ME2 was just a game. Gameplay wise ME2 removed far too much and became too generic with what was left to make it "an experience." I can lose myself in ME1... playing ME2 is just that: playing ME2, while it constantly screams "I'm a game! I'm a game! I'm a game! Mission Complete Screen! I'm a game!"

[Pocketgb]

And what of people who really like ME2 who were also big fans of ME1? Are you telling me that they weren't enjoying themselves?

[Spectre 117]

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

But the problem is that so many people
have a tendency to blame Mass Effect 2 for the faults of its
predecessor. Unfortunately cycling through your endless inventory was a
huge part of the first game, one which resulted in lots of time and
unneeded omnigel. All Mass Effect 2 did was strip away the illusion of a
'deep' system. People noticed its absence and accused it of dumbing
down gameplay.

Not at all in any way. ME1 and ME2
both had problems regarding their inventory, and they're both quite
different and nearly opposite problems. ME2's inventory has been so
stripped back and simplified that it's been made linear, shallow and
uninteresting, as well as completely lacking. Items are always in the
same places no matter what, there's no modding and just a linear upgrade
system that works across the board with no trade-offs or restrictions,
there are no visible stats on the items, the selection of weapons is
poor  overall (and before people bring up the tired "bu...but the guns
all feel different" argument, it would be the same thing if ME1 had only
one of each of its four guns) and armour doesn't even function like
armour.

ME1's items and inventory may have had issues, but they
weren't the same issues as ME2, and at least ME1's issues
related to too much stuff and at least attempting to do things in an RPG
manner, while ME2's all stem from a completely lack of things and
oversimplification.

Pocketgb wrote...

ME1 had qualities that I've seen before as well, they were just done poorly.

But the 'game' part isn't why Bioware's been so successful. It's why I loved ME1, it's why I love ME2: It IS an experience.

Except that ME2 isn't. As iakus said, ME1 was an experience, ME2 was just a game. Gameplay wise ME2 removed far too much and became too generic with what was left to make it "an experience." I can lose myself in ME1... playing ME2 is just that: playing ME2, while it constantly screams "I'm a game! I'm a game! I'm a game! Mission Complete Screen! I'm a game!"

 So let me get this straight,you are saying that ME2 is lees of an experience than ME1 because ME1 had more guns and armor?Everyone can say all they want to about the dumbed down inventory system but the truth is when we play ME 1 and ME2 we dont play it because of how many gunds does it have(Borderlands have more than 10000 weapons and its still a mediocre game) we play it because of the great story that it has, the great universe,conficts and in my opinion the truth rpg experience is stepping into the shoes of Commander Shepard and living that experience like it was pretty much real and ME2 achieves exactly at that goal.

[AlanC9]

Come to think of it, didn't someone upthread call the Borderlands inventory "addictive," and mean it in a good way?

[Spectre 117]

Its the only good thing of the game,everything else is pretty much boring :l

[Spectre 117]

What i would want in the combat improved is that the exclusives of each class should be EXCLUSIVES i mean at first it seems that the assault rifle can only be used by the soldier but the truth is the vanguard with "special training" can gain access to the assault rifle and is not freaking fair also how come the soldier is trained in all weapons and cant use the smg?

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...


Except that ME2 isn't. As iakus said, ME1 was an experience, ME2 was just a game. Gameplay wise ME2 removed far too much and became too generic with what was left to make it "an experience." I can lose myself in ME1... playing ME2 is just that: playing ME2, while it constantly screams "I'm a game! I'm a game! I'm a game! Mission Complete Screen! I'm a game!"

I smell an opinion and not a fact:innocent:

[bjdbwea]

Spectre 117 wrote...

So let me get this straight,you are saying that ME2 is lees of an experience than ME1 because ME1 had more guns and armor?Everyone can say all they want to about the dumbed down inventory system but the truth is when we play ME 1 and ME2 we dont play it because of how many gunds does it have(Borderlands have more than 10000 weapons and its still a mediocre game) we play it because of the great story that it has, the great universe,conficts and in my opinion the truth rpg experience is stepping into the shoes of Commander Shepard and living that experience like it was pretty much real and ME2 achieves exactly at that goal.

You are right, the guns aren't the most important thing, far from it. That's also why there should never have been so much complaining about the combat in ME 1. It wasn't the most important thing back then, and it should never have been such a priority for the developers in the successor. Unfortunately, it was.

And the rest suffered. That's where I disagree with you. Right from the beginning the story in ME 2 never felt as compelling and intriguing to me as it did in ME 1. And too often I had the feeling that I wasn't able to play my Shepard anymore. First because quite often Shepard speaks by himself without options for me to choose from. Second because repeatedly none of  the choices felt right to me (this never happened in ME 1). And third because too often Shepard's reaction and opinion is , even to the most important events, without any choice for me to let him express a different reaction.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 07 juillet 2010 - 03:47 .

[Terror_K]

Spectre 117 wrote...

So let me get this straight,you are saying that ME2 is lees of an experience than ME1 because ME1 had more guns and armor?Everyone can say all they want to about the dumbed down inventory system but the truth is when we play ME 1 and ME2 we dont play it because of how many gunds does it have(Borderlands have more than 10000 weapons and its still a mediocre game) we play it because of the great story that it has, the great universe,conficts and in my opinion the truth rpg experience is stepping into the shoes of Commander Shepard and living that experience like it was pretty much real and ME2 achieves exactly at that goal.

No... you're taking two independent comments of mine and linking them toegther and coming to false conclusions based on it. But I'm used to this at this place.

A few others have responded since then and basically summed up my feelings, but ME2 failed to spark the same greatness with me that the original did because of it's many changes, it's overall oversimplification and reduction of RPG elements, its disconnection from the original game, and the fact that from where I'm sitting it's very much presented as and styled as a game rather than something more. ME1 felt like a cinematic, interactive piece of art that rose above its inadequacies and became more than the sum of its parts. ME2 just feels... generic and is just another game amongst many to me.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except
that ME2 isn't. As iakus said, ME1 was an experience, ME2 was just a
game. Gameplay wise ME2 removed far too much and became too generic with
what was left to make it "an experience." I can lose myself in ME1...
playing ME2 is just that: playing ME2, while it constantly screams "I'm a
game! I'm a game! I'm a game! Mission Complete Screen! I'm a game!"

I smell an opinion and not a fact[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]

Well duh! Everything I say on here is my opinion on things. You're the one who seems to have a problem with this and think that I'm stating things as being a solid fact all the time just because I don't say "I feel" or "In my opinion" or finish every post with ", IMO" etc. I'm not doing that just because of one person on this board who can't tell the difference between a person expressing their views and a person trying to quote facts.

And in a way though, that's the point. How the game or experience feels to me as a player is a very personal thing and it's important that a game try and reach out to the player and attempt to make itself more than what it is. For me, personally, Mass Effect succeeded in doing this, which is the very reason I became such a hardcore fan of not only the game but the IP and the universe. It's why I love immersing myself in the universe at the ME wiki site and in the codex entries, bought and read the books and the comics, got the soundtrack, got the art book, got an N7 cap, got some lithographs, chose to write a fan novel based in the universe, etc. But Mass Effect 2 failed to give me anywhere near the same effect when playing it, and seemed just like another game amongst many. If ME2 had been the first game to come along, I would never have become such a fan of the Mass Effect franchise.

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 juillet 2010 - 04:14 .