10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Darth Drago wrote...

The e-mail system in ME2 could have been so much more than it turned out to be. In a game setting where we know you can get voice mail messages (in ME1 Ashley got one from her sister) we get another step backwards in technology to get only text messages.

Meanwhile, in another thread, people are complaining about a game having too much VA! Holy smokes!

But now, the point here is this: Even though they aren't voiced, do the e-mails still retain quality? Do they still deliver? If not, what difference will they be voiced? 'Cinematic presentation'? Uwe Boll's most recent movie had that and it was still crap.

Not only that, but why do I have an inkling that even if they were all voiced, most people here would completely ignore that and insist on the lack of not everyone returning for a cameo?

Darth Drago wrote...

This goes hand in hand with all the cameo appearances we get in ME2 as well. Most of them were given nothing more than the Boba Fett treatment in Star Wars Episode 4 (after Lucas did his directors cut version) except they were given a few lines to say. 

"Damned if you do", eh?
-Upset that Bioware doesn't give cameo appearances
-Upset that they do, or they're of a 'cheap' appearance
-'Cheap' because I've yet to see you comment on what I've said above

Bioware cannot please every single person in their fanbase.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Bioware cannot please every single person in their fanbase.

I doubt that that the majority of players who played Mass Effect and liked it are pleased with the cameos of old squadmembers/romances. Except the one for Wrex maybee.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:26 .

[Pocketgb]

I too would be ticked if I wasn't able to recruit Tali, but that's just being butthurt and biased. Hardly good 'evidence'.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

I too would be ticked if I wasn't able to recruit Tali, but that's just being butthurt and biased. Hardly good 'evidence'.

Not ticked what they made with her skills? Compared with the Mass Effect Tali,a real insult. A combt drone reload time of 30 s,in a system with global cooldown,blocking others,sometimes more usefull skills.

[Il Divo]

Darth Drago wrote...

-Vastly superior my hairy rear. It shows you where its going to pop out of the ground next during the entire fight, its acid spit is diluted and weakened so you can survive getting hit by it (just like the kiddie missiles) and there is no risk in getting killed by getting to close to it since it stays at a constant distance. Its just a typical shooter game boss fight. Oh, I’d like to see that joke of a vehicle the hammerhead take on one of these from ME1. One hit while in it and you’d be dead. It has nothing to do with difficulty or mechanics, just lame game design that is aimed to please the shooter gamer crowd.

I'd rather have Mass Effect 2's "typical shooter gameplay" than the original's. At least the shooter elements don't actually play like crap. Try Pinnacle Station for five minutes to honestly see how terrible/clunky gameplay can be. This is something critics everywhere agreed with; the shooter elements were terrible in Mass Effect 1 where the sequal improved substantially.

Zevvion I totally agree on the lack of weapon selection in ME2. It does feel lacking when everyone in your team will be equipped with the same weapon type that they can use. But hey, lets give us 10 heavy weapons to choose from. I have never played a game in my life that was so unbalanced this way in weapon selections.

If you consider this the most unbalanced game in weapon selection, I recommend you try Modern Warfare 2.

[Xeranx]

Il Divo wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

-Vastly superior my hairy rear. It shows you where its going to pop out of the ground next during the entire fight, its acid spit is diluted and weakened so you can survive getting hit by it (just like the kiddie missiles) and there is no risk in getting killed by getting to close to it since it stays at a constant distance. Its just a typical shooter game boss fight. Oh, I’d like to see that joke of a vehicle the hammerhead take on one of these from ME1. One hit while in it and you’d be dead. It has nothing to do with difficulty or mechanics, just lame game design that is aimed to please the shooter gamer crowd.

I'd rather have Mass Effect 2's "typical shooter gameplay" than the original's. At least the shooter elements don't actually play like crap. Try Pinnacle Station for five minutes to honestly see how terrible/clunky gameplay can be. This is something critics everywhere agreed with; the shooter elements were terrible in Mass Effect 1 where the sequal improved substantially.

The following is not an attempt to belittle you.  Seeing as it's hard to stress intent in text I thought I should add the disclaimer.  You responded incorrectly to a post that doesn't touch what you're response is discussing.  The part I italicized doesn't match up with the bolded part of his post.

This is what people talk about when they say that ME2 supporters can be just like ME1 supporters in that they ignore what's there and interpret what they think they saw.  

The thresher maw fight was arcadey (sp?) in ME2.  There was no real danger.  The rachni-like creatures and whatever Urz is (I forget) provided more danger than the thresher maw did.  Sure if the thresher maw used it's acid attack it became a "oh crap!" moment, but it didn't take long to realize that as soon as you hide by the unbreakable pillars there's no problem.  

The conflict was more visceral in the original even if there were set places for the thresher maw to pop up.  Still you couldn't play it safe until you knew that as soon as you got it out you had it in place as long as it didn't drop.  I probably would have changed that aspect to make it more predatory if I had designed the game, but then it most likely wouldn't have been fun or as engaging as it was.

Bottom line: first time against the thresher maw in ME2 on normal was too easy.  In ME1 I was freaked every time I saw it pop up. It made you want to scramble.

[Il Divo]

Xeranx wrote...

The following is not an attempt to belittle you.  Seeing as it's hard to stress intent in text I thought I should add the disclaimer.  You responded incorrectly to a post that doesn't touch what you're response is discussing.  The part I italicized doesn't match up with the bolded part of his post.

This is what people talk about when they say that ME2 supporters can be just like ME1 supporters in that they ignore what's there and interpret what they think they saw.  

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. But I myself have never said that it is only Mass Effect 1's fans
who are irrational. Stupid people believe stupid things, by nature (not to imply that you nor anyone I am currently speaking to are so).

But regardless, I still felt that his post touched more than just the Thresher Maw combat sequences, particularly with his comment on how it was intended to "please the shooter crowd".

The thresher maw fight was arcadey (sp?) in ME2.  There was no real danger.  The rachni-like creatures and whatever Urz is (I forget) provided more danger than the thresher maw did.  Sure if the thresher maw used it's acid attack it became a "oh crap!" moment, but it didn't take long to realize that as soon as you hide by the unbreakable pillars there's no problem.  

And perhaps the bolded is the point. In ordinary circumstances, Shepard most likely would have been killed by the creature. As it was, he had the advantage in terrain and so was able to successfully take it down. I don't see this as unreasonable and this was an important issue in Darth Drago's post.  

However, I have died exactly twice fighting Thresher Maws in both games. Once I understood the mechanics of the combat, neither instance provided much trouble. I would also say that the psychological effect of fighting a Thresher Maw on foot was greater than that of Mass Effect 1, which provided the false comfort of being in the mako.

The conflict was more visceral in the original even if there were set places for the thresher maw to pop up.  Still you couldn't play it safe until you knew that as soon as you got it out you had it in place as long as it didn't drop.  I probably would have changed that aspect to make it more predatory if I had designed the game, but then it most likely wouldn't have been fun or as engaging as it was.

Bottom line: first time against the thresher maw in ME2 on normal was too easy.  In ME1 I was freaked every time I saw it pop up. It made you want to scramble.

I hardly found the Thresher Maw's tactics in Mass Effect to be fun or engaging on normal. Fighting a Thresher Maw was no different than fighting a Geth Colossus or Geth Armature. Machine gun, use rockets when available, jump over acid/electric attacks. Rinse, repeat. Occasionally use eratic driving to avoid underground attacks, which were still predictable. In Mass Effect, I was not fighting Thresher Maws; I was fighting against the Mako's own clunky controls which is a huge difference. Although they had potential, Mass Effect did not utilize Thresher Maws in a manner which made them terrifying (as opposed to the Rachni).

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 juillet 2010 - 09:53 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

I too would be ticked if I wasn't able to recruit Tali, but that's just being butthurt and biased. Hardly good 'evidence'.

Not ticked what they made with her skills? Compared with the Mass Effect Tali,a real insult. A combt drone reload time of 30 s,in a system with global cooldown,blocking others,sometimes more usefull skills.

I reeeeeeeally wish I could post one of my 'disappointed' .jpegs here...

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...



I'd rather have Mass Effect 2's "typical shooter gameplay" than the original's. At least the shooter elements don't actually play like crap. Try Pinnacle Station for five minutes to honestly see how terrible/clunky gameplay can be. This is something critics everywhere agreed with; the shooter elements were terrible in Mass Effect 1 where the sequal improved substantially.
 

The only problem with pinnacle station was that it was bugged/flawed in some missions where the time limit was to small,like in the hunting missions(only on insanity).And boring too except the last mission.
And it wasnt made by bioware anyway. So this isnt a good example.
The only thing Mass Effect "improved" was that you didnt have to put points in weapon skills.

Modifié par tonnactus, 17 juillet 2010 - 11:29 .

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


However, I have died exactly twice fighting Thresher Maws in both games. Once I understood the mechanics of the combat, neither instance provided much trouble. I would also say that the psychological effect of fighting a Thresher Maw on foot was greater than that of Mass Effect 1, which provided the false comfort of being in the mako.

How that? Never fought threshers on foot in the first game? Its funny enough that the thresher in the second game was out of melee range,what was a one hit kill in the first game.(in and outside the mako)

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...
The only problem with pinnacle station was that it was bugged/flawed in some missions where the time limit was to small,like in the hunting missions(only on insanity).And boring too except the last mission.
And it wasnt made by bioware anyway. So this isnt a good example.
The only thing Mass Effect "improved" was that you didnt have to put points in weapon skills.

Well, I'm afraid you're in the minority here. Mass Effect 2's combat is fluid, well-paced, coordinated, and much more tactical. Everyone may possess fewer skills, but they are actually useful this time around. My party members also don't stand in front of me when I'm trying to shoot, thank God.

That was also not Pinnacle Station's only problem and the fact that it was made by a different team has absolutely no relevance. Pinnacle Station relies on Mass Effect's gameplay, ergo Pinnacle Station suffers from Mass Effect's combat system. This is something you never fully realize during the plot because combat is broken up into much smaller portions. Prolonged combat such as time trial and capture where the player must work fast demonstrate Mass Effect's atrocious movement. That you mention how boring the gameplay could be is a clear indication of Mass Effect's flaws.

How that? Never fought threshers on foot in the first game? Its funny enough that the thresher in the second game was out of melee range,what was a one hit kill in the first game.(in and outside the mako)
 

If you've honestly been killed while in the mako, then you have my sympathies. But why would I fight a Thresher Maw on foot in Mass Effect 1? The only reason why Shepard does so in Mass Effect 2 is because he is forced to. Hence the psychological factor. Whether or not the creature could get close, the idea of surviving for 5 minutes against something with the ability to 1-shot is far more thrilling.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 juillet 2010 - 12:31 .

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

Well, I'm afraid you're in the minority here. Mass Effect 2's combat is fluid, well-paced, coordinated, and much more tactical.

 
As tactical and boring a rock, scissors, paper is,that every 3 year old child could do.Thats right. In the first game,the player had far more options. Damping against biotics and techs, sabotage(still in the second game included in overload,but never notice that effect), ai-hacking(without remove protections). Still warp and overload to remove or weaken enemy protections.

Biotics work on nearly all enemies despite "protections".(with bastion stasis all enemies affected)

Some people misunderstood the reduced options as something that make the second game more tactical,what is completly wrong.
Also there was a choice with weapon and armor upgrades.

If the player want a never overheating assault rifle or a weapon that overheats fast but make more damage.Energize plating or medical exoskleletons.

Everyone may possess fewer skills, but they are actually useful this time around.

This is your oppinion.

My party members also don't stand in front of me when I'm trying to shoot, thank God.

But run into your crossfire and call you to be blind like zaeed...

That you mention how boring the gameplay could be is a clear indication of Mass Effect's flaws.

I call it boring because combat alone is boring no matter how good it is. In my oppinion of course.
So i only liked the first contact war simulation at the end,because there was some story behind. The other thing are just slaughtering mercs and geth...

If you've honestly been killed while in the mako, then you have my sympathies. But why would I fight a Thresher Maw on foot in Mass Effect 1? 

Bigger challenge. More experience points. Amazing to have the option to freeze and damage it with stasis. Thrilling.

A game doesnt force me to it to make it thrilling,but i could decide to make it so with my choices...

Modifié par tonnactus, 17 juillet 2010 - 01:01 .

[catabuca]

For me, both games have their flaws, and both games have elements I prefer over the other. The reason I prefer ME1 is more to do with the overall feeling the game gives me, the way the story flows, and the way the universe seemed more real.



There is no doubt that shooter mechanics were overhauled largely for the better in ME2, but that one mechanic does not make the entire game. I prefer the cover system and the aiming mechanics in ME2, they are superior to ME1. Also, once I'd gotten used to it, I preferred the aiming capabilities when using powers in ME2 as well.



However, it wasn't without its drawbacks, namely the global cooldown, the lack of more diverse powers, the sparse talent point upgrade system, the preponderance of 'look, crates - there be combat up ahead' moments, the end of level screens (breaking immersion for me), the linearity of combat levels once you were in them.



On the other hand, ME1 had fiddly Mako controls (which didn't bother me, if I'm honest), which when coupled with such repetitive expansive uncharted worlds to explore made that part of the game tedious after the first playthrough. While the shooter mechanics didn't bother me at the time, I can see how ME2's are an improvement (I'm not a typical shooter gamer though, so that kind of thing is less important to me than, say, someone who is familiar with CoD or MW).



Mechanics aside, the biggest issue for me, indeed the biggest difference that I perceive between the 2 games, is the flow and feel of the story/universe. Dammit, I actually cared in ME1. I really didn't in ME2. Despite that there was more dialogue in ME2, it didn't feel as interactive or engaging as ME1.



I've said it before, I'll say it again: in ME1 I felt like I was in the Mass Effect Universe; in ME2 I felt like I was playing a Mass Effect video game. What causes that 'feeling' is largely unquantifiable, and in fact I suspect it is the sum of myriad elements: completely overhauled gameplay; levels being more identifiable as discrete levels; the lighting (the blue tones in ME1 felt more cinematic, moody, intense, than the stark brightness of ME2); the enemy who doesn't really feel like an immediate threat because the majority of the game consists of beating up Blue Suns et al.; and the weird writing involved in dialogue with squad mates. Taken separately, those don't seem like a big deal, but they all added up for me, and meant the game just didn't deliver what I expected from ME.



So to conclude, it is possible to laud the improvements made in combat mechanics etc., while still being disappointed in the story/character driven aspects of the game.



I hope that in ME3 they manage to merge these things better so everyone is happy.

[catabuca]

Ah, I forgot one thing: when playing ME1 I obviously didn't have the hindsight of playing ME2, and so I honestly believed my choices would have consequences. Proper consequences, not just 'oh hai, I'm emailing you to say you made this choice in the first game, well done you! Kthnxbai'. In ME2 those earlier choices were shown up as being largely window dressing and pretty pointless, but also there seemed to be a lack of choices to make in ME2. Yeah, there's a couple of big ones at the end, but any that happened throughout the rest of the game felt less important, and less integrated, than when making similar ones in ME1.

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...
As tactical and boring a rock, scissors, paper is,that every 3 year old child could do.Thats right. In the first game,the player had far more options. Damping against biotics and techs, sabotage(still in the second game included in overload,but never notice that effect), ai-hacking(without remove protections). Still warp and overload to remove or weaken enemy protections.

Some people misunderstood the reduced options as something that make the second game more tactical,what is completly wrong.
Also there was a choice with weapon and armor upgrades.

If the player want a never overheating assault rifle or a weapon that overheats fast but make more damage.Energize plating or medical exoskleletons.

Options only make a game better when you actually have to consider them. That you were relying on tech skills like Sabotage and Damping says alot. Enemies are rarely standing long enough to make using those abilities practical. Overload was practically the only useful tech ability. There's a reason why Engineer is considered to be underpowered. I'd rather have a character with 2 useful abilities instead of 10 useless abilities.

This is your oppinion.

These are all our opinions. Pointing it out as such doesn't change anything. Explain why you disagree, that is all.

But run into your crossfire and call you to be blind like zaeed...

Rarely happens, if at all. Very different from Mass Effect 1 where I could count on both hands how many times my squad members got in my way each encounter.

I call it boring because combat alone is boring no matter how good it is. In my oppinion of course.
So i only liked the first contact war simulation at the end,because there was some story behind. The other thing are just slaughtering mercs and geth...

There is no story in gameplay. Gameplay is gameplay. You might say the circumstances surrounding the encounter are interesting. But don't pretend that makes the combat mechanics better; the two are completely separate areas. First Contact War scenario relies on the same crappy movement mechanics as time trial.

Bigger challenge. More experience points. Amazing to have the option to freeze and damage it with stasis. Thrilling.

A second ago you called "just gameplay" boring. Where is the story in your giant thresher maw?

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 juillet 2010 - 04:09 .

[catabuca]

Engineer underpowered? My favourite ME1 play throughs were as an adept and an engineer. I hated Vanguard, I know others loved it. This is one area where you need to take a step back and recognise people see greatness is different places, and your experience does not equal the sum total of everyone else's experience. Nor should it.

[Il Divo]

catabuca wrote...

Engineer underpowered? My favourite ME1 play throughs were as an adept and an engineer. I hated Vanguard, I know others loved it. This is one area where you need to take a step back and recognise people see greatness is different places, and your experience does not equal the sum total of everyone else's experience. Nor should it.

Did they offer different play-styles? Yes. But this discussion is about effective gameplay versus options/customization. Options are only better if we have good reason to consider them. Mass Effect committed several fundamental mistakes. This is much like how people mistake Mass Effect's weapon system to be good because it had a nigh infinite number of weapons. Options are only good if there are checks and balances between them. It was clear in almost every instance which assualt rifle/shotgun/whatever to choose.

I put it to you like this, as an Engineer, did you find yourself or your squad mates killing most of your enemies? If the latter, then I may not be giving due credit to the Engineer's situational gameplay. If the former (which was my experience), then Engineer was clearly underpowered. Your role is not intended for combat, yet you find yourself filling that role anyway. That alone should speak to its place.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 juillet 2010 - 05:39 .

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

I doubt that that the majority of players who played Mass Effect and liked it are pleased with the cameos of old squadmembers/romances. Except the one for Wrex maybee.

That's for sure. Especially the roles of the ME 1 LIs were so badly written and with so little consideration and care for the characters, it was very untypical for a BioWare game. At least to that point, maybe that's their new standard now, who knows. Though to be precise, it is Shepard's (non-) reaction  that is the biggest problem with the scenes.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 17 juillet 2010 - 05:44 .

[catabuca]

Il Divo wrote...

catabuca wrote...

Engineer underpowered? My favourite ME1 play throughs were as an adept and an engineer. I hated Vanguard, I know others loved it. This is one area where you need to take a step back and recognise people see greatness is different places, and your experience does not equal the sum total of everyone else's experience. Nor should it.

Did they offer different play-styles? Yes. But this discussion is about effective gameplay versus options/customization. Options are only better if we have good reason to consider them. Mass Effect committed several fundamental mistakes. This is much like how people mistake Mass Effect's weapon system to be good because it had a nigh infinite number of weapons. Options are only good if there are checks and balances between them. It was clear in almost every instance which assualt rifle/shotgun/whatever to choose.

I put it to you like this, as an Engineer, did you find yourself or your squad mates killing most of your enemies? If the latter, then I may not be giving due credit to the Engineer's situational gameplay. If the former (which was my experience), then Engineer was clearly underpowered. Your role is not intended for combat, yet you find yourself filling that role anyway. That alone should speak to its place.

As I thought I explained earlier, what you expect of gameplay is not to be mistaken for what is universally expected of gameplay. There isn't a rule book that says I have to play in a certain way, in accordance with how you or anyone else likes to, or expects to be able to, play.

I had tremendous fun playing as an engineer. The reason I play games is to have fun. Ergo, mission accomplished.

But, to rise to your bait, if BW hadn't intended engineers to kill enemies, they would not have made it possible for them to carry guns or for their talents to kill. I didn't tend to have any soldier skills represented in my squad. My ideal squad was invariably Shep Adept, with Kaidan and Tali. Or, if I was playing as Shep Engineer, I had Kaidan and Liara. There is no law that says 'only those with soldier training may be badass killing machines'. There was plenty of room to play tactically, but that does not preclude the option construct a squad where an engineer heads up the killing.

Now, I'm aware of the arguments that engineers or adepts were broken, in that they were too powerful because you could use a squad that had no soldier representation. Me, I don't call that broken, I call it more choice. You could remain 'balanced' with a soldier, and adept and an engineer, or any combination to add up to that equivalent, or you could play the game in different ways. I don't begrudge those who choose to play as a soldier in every playthrough, even though I can think of little worse. It's their choice, and if they enjoy that, more power to their elbow. Me, that's not how I roll.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


Options only make a game better when you actually have to consider them. That you were relying on tech skills like Sabotage and Damping says alot. Enemies are rarely standing long enough to make using those abilities practical. Overload was practically the only useful tech ability. There's a reason why Engineer is considered to be underpowered. I'd rather have a character with 2 useful abilities instead of 10 useless abilities.

On what difficulty did you play Mass Effect? Because overload was the worst tech ability on insanity and hardcore. To stop enemies shooting at you improves the surviability of shepardt and his squad especially on early levels.
I play all classes by the way and didnt found the engineer underpowered.The only problem the engineer had was a multiple krogan encounter.Thats it.But for that kaidan,liara and wrex provide some good solutions.

Rarely happens, if at all. Very different from Mass Effect 1 where I could count on both hands how many times my squad members got in my way each encounter.

Not my experience. Either those idiots cross my line of fire and complain about it, want to stop rockets with their head,charge with their smg if i dont micromanage them.Or run away 100 meters forward in the fog mission or the reaper iff.I have to place them carefully in each fight to reduce the possibility of them to bite the dust. In every ****ing mission.At least Mass Effect squadmates have good protections like barrier and immunity,so even when they behave like idiots,they at least could survive it.

A second ago you called "just gameplay" boring. Where is the story in your giant thresher maw?

Coperal toombs men. The killed geth who killed some humans.There are still little pieces of story even at the place where the thresher comes out.

A thresher wasnt a regular enemy like a merc what made things a little more exiting.

Oh,when i compare the "crappy combat" of Mass Effect with that of the sequel,i think the enemies and the combat is far  more interesting.

Biotic enemies werent just silly warp bots. Krogans actually used assault rifles and not only shotguns at all ranges. Tech enemies used to be more then just incinerate spammers.

And snipers existed.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...
It was clear in almost every instance which assualt rifle/shotgun/whatever to choose.

Its also clear in the sequel.The revenant is the best assault rifle in the game like the spectre rifle in Mass Effect.The widow is better then the mantis. And the krogan shotgun is the best shotgun in the game. Where is the difference?

I put it to you like this, as an Engineer, did you find yourself or your squad mates killing most of your enemies? If the latter, then I may not be giving due credit to the Engineer's situational gameplay. If the former (which was my experience), then Engineer was clearly underpowered. Your role is not intended for combat, yet you find yourself filling that role anyway. That alone should speak to its place.

What is wrong with support classes? What is wrong with the fact that squadmates in Mass Effect were nearly equal compared with shepardt,when it came to weapon damage and cooldown times? It isnt wrong when the engineer didnt kill most enemies on his own or even less enemies then his squadmates.
To be clear,engineer shepardt could kill as much enemies as his squadmates or even more if the player want that.

But it was also possible to play this class as a support class.Try this with Mass Effect squadmates who deal 50 percent less weapon damage then shepardt no matter what his class is.

I really had to do most of the work alone, but not because i want too, because the game force me to do it this way.

And this is wrong,because rpgs with squadmates shoudl have the option to play a support class.

[Pocketgb]

Il Divo wrote...

Options only make a game better when you actually have to consider them. That you were relying on tech skills like Sabotage and Damping says alot. Enemies are rarely standing long enough to make using those abilities practical. Overload was practically the only useful tech ability. There's a reason why Engineer is considered to be underpowered. I'd rather have a character with 2 useful abilities instead of 10 useless abilities.

Good synopsis of Bioware's systems. Conceptually and at-first-glance the systems possess depth, but Bioware is not good at making well balanced, well developed systems, and why I'm not disappointed in ME2's direction.

[bjdbwea]

Who are you to decide which abilities are "useless"? Just because you can pew-pew all enemies away - and you certainly can - doesn't mean you have to.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

Who are you to decide which abilities are "useless"? Just because you can pew-pew all enemies away - and you certainly can - doesn't mean you have to.

Then if we're going down this line of reasoning Mass Effect is a dumbed down version of Kotor which is a dumbed down version of Baldur's Gate. Each game mentioned has far more options available than the last. But again, more options does not always make a game better. Mass Effect's inventory speaks for itself.

Good synopsis of Bioware's systems. Conceptually and at-first-glance the systems possess depth, but Bioware is not good at making well balanced, well developed systems, and why I'm not disappointed in ME2's direction.

Exactly. I haven't played Mass Effect 2 in 4 months and I still remember Garrus' abilities were Concussive Shot and Overload. Each was unique and served a purpose. I beat Mass Effect again just last week and I don't remember any of his abilities besides Assassination and Overload. That says tons about the gameplay mechanics.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 juillet 2010 - 10:09 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Then if we're going down this line of reasoning Mass Effect is a dumbed down version of Kotor which is a dumbed down version of Baldur's Gate. Each game mentioned has far more options available than the last. But again, more options does not always make a game better. Mass Effect's inventory speaks for itself.

Actually, the inventory in BG 2 worked much better than the inventory in ME. It was more "complicated", but in effect much simpler to use. A perfect example of dumbing down leading into a completely wrong direction. Now people complained about the (dumbed down) inventory of ME being too cluttered, and as a result it was dumbed down even more, in effect removed. Great. <_<

Apart from that, more options usually does make a game better. The developers should just not forget some automatic options and settings for those who just want to watch a movie and/or pew-pew enemies.

Besides, you can easily ignore the "useless" abilities in ME 1, whereas someone else might enjoy them and ignore the abilities you find useful.