10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Orchomene]

The ME2 gameplay is not superior as the first one for everybody. I don't like the ME2 gameplay at all. In fights, you had two kind of situations : fights with static ennemies and fights with moving enemies. In the first case, the fight was boring with cover/shoot/cover/shoot... In the second case, if the flow of the enemies was illimited or massive, it was just too quick and I didn't enjoy it.

Let's face it, in ME2, you have no tactical option since you have to remain under cover everytime or suffer death penalty quickly. The power were so much dumbed down that there was no real way to solve a combat but to cover and shoot or retreat if too many enemies are moving to you (husks).



So maybe ME2 is well balanced, but there is no fun. Who said that balance was fun ? I love war games that are unbalanced because it feels more real. It's the same in a RPG, some powers/armors/weapons need to be better or worse than others. That way, you could use in first playthrough the easy way and alternate after, when you are better in the game, with different combinations that are weaker but play differently.

Balance is only required in multiplayer with PvP. That's all.

[VanTesla]

I feel ME1 is more memorable than ME2 in the final endings and that the love scenes where better done.

Also the weapon and armor dlc is just disturbing for it being priced and that ME2 does not have that much by it self in the first place.

Harbinger talks too much, my import of ME1 seems to make ME2 team AI dumb and bugged, citadel residents seem more robotic than in ME1 and no face movements, helmets in the way of emotional dialogue, most missions seem even more hollow and less memorable than in ME1 like Captain Kohoku or Father Kyle, wanted more Anderson in the story and punching some one, kill Balak if you did not in ME1, more detail on the 2 years past, and more love story.

Most can be in new dlc but I wish it was in the  game in the first place instead of buying it later.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

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. <_<

The only point of the progression was to keep you on par with the opposition's progression. ME2's system is akin to ME1's if you never had to loot manually and you automatically equipped the best gear at all times.

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

See: Guild Wars.
An enormous amount of skills leads to a huge amount of possibilities, a wide array of customization, and a big degree of personalization.

It also leads to massive imbalance, a lot of filler in terms of choice, and a huge amount of poor builds.

It depends on what you want as a player.

Orchomene wrote...

Let's face it, in ME2, you have no
tactical option since you have to remain under cover everytime or suffer death penalty quickly. The power were so much dumbed down that there was no real way to solve a combat but to cover and shoot or retreat if too many enemies are moving to you (husks).

ME2: Wonky cover
ME1: Stupid abilities (Immunity)

Win some, lose some.

Orchomene wrote...

Who said that balance was fun ?

People who appreciate it.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 juillet 2010 - 10:59 .

[Darth Vengeant]

Things is did not like in ME2:



1 - Planet Scanning

2 - Paying for fuel/probes and having no way to earn more money after completing the game. It is self defeating. You cannot just go flying around once you run out of money.

3 - No female to female romance or continuance of romance from ME1.

4 - Less ability to customize weapons and armor compared to ME1.

5 - End of game was too picky and precise about keeping everyone alive.

6 - Romance was too picky and did not feel fun.

7 - DLC being lackluster. It simply feels like they left things out of the game in order to charge more for it later. What, 70 (for CE) bucks wasn't enough for Bioware already? Everything seems leftover and rehashed and should have been in the retail game. I really don't care about having new guns and armor after I already completed the game two times. New guns an armor is of zero interest to me. I want new missions and places to go, people to meet, and ways to earn money anytime I want all in one expansion for one fee.Not cut up in several pieces for even more money.

8 - DLC characters not having spoken dialogue on ship or ability to romance.

9 - Graphics for things at a distance were horrid. You could tell it was just a bitmap with no depth. I have seen far better in many games and think they could have done far better.

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

The only point of the progression was to keep you on par with the opposition's progression. ME2's system is akin to ME1's if you never had to loot manually and you automatically equipped the best gear at all times.

Yeah, it was dumbed down. I get that on consoles, inventories are not common because of the clunky controls. But on a PC, where (with a proper inventory system) that's not an issue, it adds an additional fun factor.

Pocketgb wrote...

An enormous amount of skills leads to a huge amount of possibilities, a wide array of customization, and a big degree of personalization.

It also leads to massive imbalance, a lot of filler in terms of choice, and a huge amount of poor builds.

It depends on what you want as a player.

I prefer freedom and choices. So what if some build is worse than another? Deal with the additional challenge, lower the difficulty setting, or start anew. Nor has every power to be perfectly balanced with all others. Not in a single player game.

I get that there's a certain kind of audience these days who needs immediate success, but surely a good game developer can provide that, while also providing a challenge for everyone else. What we have right now is a dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. That's not what I expect from BioWare, but already it seems to affect DA 2 too.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 17 juillet 2010 - 11:14 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yeah, it was dumbed down...

I don't consider the 'original' to be much more intelligent

Regarding "fun" factor: Depends on the implementation.

bjdbwea wrote...

I prefer freedom and choices. So what if some build is worse than another? Deal with the additional challenge, lower the difficulty setting, or start anew. Nor has every power to be perfectly balanced with all others. Not in a single player game.

The bolded has zero relavancy.
It doesn't matter whether it's single or multiplayer. Some people just want to be presented an equal and balanced amount of choices. What's so hard to comprehend about this?

Inb4: "People from MMO's need to stop balancing single-player games!!!"

bjdbwea wrote...

What we have right now is a dumbing down to the lowest common denominator...

Oh, like Immunity did.
Like potions in DA:O did.
Like the 'dodge2win' method JE did.
Like the...well, everything KotOR did.

It hasn't been since BG2 where Bioware's actually developed a thoughtful, challenging, and in-depth combat system. However, I don't think that's what's made people play their games.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 juillet 2010 - 11:26 .

[woofie58]

I liked the bigger talent trees and the varied customizations available in ME1 I feel extremely 'locked in' in terms of customization of my character in ME2.



I'm also way less impressed with my companions in the second iteration of the game, I feel like having just 3 active and one passive talent doesn't keep my interest; it doesn't feel like my squad is terribly elite like it did in ME1.



All that said... if you asked me if I think ME2 is as fun and re-playable as the first? Yes, I love it, I love them both. I'll even be the first to admit that my preferences are largely sentimental in nature.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

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. <_< 

This is something that I've noticed happen with every Bioware game. People who played Kotor complained it wasn't Baldur's Gate. People who played Jade Empire said it wasn't Kotor. People who played Mass Effect said it wasn't Jade Empire. And people who played Mass Effect 2 now complain it isn't Mass Effect. I prefer to like them all for different reasons. Except Neverwinter Nights. That one gets no love from me.

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.

Yes, I agree options are what an RPG is all about. But options do not just refer to gameplay. Following this logic WoW is the best RPG because it has the largest number of permutations available. Unfortunately Mass Effect's method of handling the RPG was just terrible (which I still love for some reason). But you are forgetting that this was intended to be squad-based, tactical combat. Nothing about Mass Effect's squad members felt tactical.

Did Mass Effect 2 take a stream-lined approach? Yes. But they made every squad member's abilities useful and unique. There's a reason why I take Garrus with me everywhere I go; his skills allow a unique style of gameplay which complements my own.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:14 .

[Il Divo]

catabuca wrote...

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.

And that's wonderful. I'm glad you had fun playing an Engineer. Unfortuntately Mass Effect was advertised as a squad-based tactical shooter. I had fun with Mass Effect too, but I prefer playing what was supposed to be a squad-based tactical shooter.

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.

You missed my point. My question is not about Engineers or Adapts being broken. You mentioned how you enjoyed using your pistol in combat. That's fine. But why should you even have to? In a squad-based tactical shooter, I want to bring party members with the intention that they are going to be useful. Everyone has preferences for playstyle, but when one playstyle is so clearly superior to another, then problems start. If I play my Shepard as an Engineer, I don't picture him on the front lines taking all the blows. Unfortunately this is where the game forces me to go. Your combat party members are largely useless because the AI is terrible. Ashley and Wrex aren't going to kill Geth for me while I throw overloads from the back.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:15 .

[Il Divo]

worm_burner wrote...

Except Kotor wasn't a sequel to Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire wasn't a sequel to Kotor, etc...  

Yet, the comparison remains valid. Every group of gamers have criticize Bioware's newest product, insisting that it's dumbed down in comparison to their previous "favorite". That Mass Effect 1 and 2 both follow this trend should say alot. Pretty much every criticism you see levied at Mass Effect 2 were made of the first installment one time.

But now we have ME2 a clear sequel to ME1.  So people have the right to say that it is not close enough to the first.  Rather than changing minor things (Mako controls, inventory, combat) they either took them out entirely or overemphasized them (combat).  ME2 just doesnt have the same feel that ME1 did, the atmosphere and gameplay don't feel like they are meant for "Mass Effect".  While ME2 has changed combat which is more fluid, it is too predictable, look random crates in the middle of the hallway wonder whats going to happen?  Sure ME2 is a good game but it just doesn't fill in where ME1 left off.

They have the right to say it is not Mass Effect 1, no more, no less. The same way Jade Empire fans had the right to say Mass Effect 1 went in a bad direction. Mass Effect 2 merely took another step down the slippery slope which Mass Effect 1 first began. When Bioware first decided to make a third person squad-based shooter (which they failed at), they were going to alienate certain fans who couldn't appreciate the potential. Mass Effect 2 is yet a continuation as Mass Effect 3 will be. However, I did not find Mass Effect 1's AI to be intelligent at all. It was absolutely terrible as enemies (and squadmates) would often stand out in the open for no reason. It was also fairly obvious when you would enter combat at most points.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2010 - 11:12 .

[bjdbwea]

As for the nostalgia argument: I've just installed ME 1 again, and I love it like I did the very first time. The story, the presentation, the flow, the characters, the believable world, the "realistic" approach to the whole scenario, it's like day and night in comparison to ME 2. No nostalgia about it. So what if the combat part is a bit lacking? It works well enough, and in the beginning it's certainly more challenging than ME 2 ever is. But who cares about such details when there's such a well-crafted universe to immerse in?

[Simpfan]

I have to say people saying ME1 gameplay is better are nuts.

I put in my ME1 today to figure out which of my save files actually saved the council, and decided to play on a file I never finished. I go to a base, and after a million "I WILL DESTROY YOU"s being shouted at me, I go in, the AI just runs back and forth in front of me, occasionally using warp, and as much as I shoot them, they dont die, even on the best weapons and upgrades.

My squadmates spent the time shooting at walls.

The mako was slow.

Load times (real loads, not elevators) were annoying and appeared suddenly.

The worlds felt empty relative to their supposed size.



I appreciate ME1 for introducing the story, but in every way ME2 is superior. Graphics wise, character wise, gameplay wise.



Not to say it doesnt have its flaw: Fuel.

[catabuca]

Il Divo wrote...

catabuca wrote...

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.

And that's wonderful. I'm glad you had fun playing an Engineer. Unfortuntately Mass Effect was advertised as a squad-based tactical shooter. I had fun with Mass Effect too, but I prefer playing what was supposed to be a squad-based tactical shooter.

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.

You missed my point. My question is not about Engineers or Adapts being broken. You mentioned how you enjoyed using your pistol in combat. That's fine. But why should you even have to? In a squad-based tactical shooter, I want to bring party members with the intention that they are going to be useful. Everyone has preferences for playstyle, but when one playstyle is so clearly superior to another, then problems start. If I play my Shepard as an Engineer, I don't picture him on the front lines taking all the blows. Unfortunately this is where the game forces me to go. Your combat party members are largely useless because the AI is terrible. Ashley and Wrex aren't going to kill Geth for me while I throw overloads from the back.

Repeating 'squad-based tactical shooter' over and over won't make a lightbulb suddenly come on over my head and won't make me say, "OMG I've been playing the game wrong all along!!!1!".

You may have bought the game because it was supposed to be a 'squad-based tactical shooter'; I bought the game because I'd heard it was an awesome 'action/rpg'. And it fulfilled that role excellently for me.

I don't believe I'm missing your point. Your point is valid in terms of your playing preferences. Your point is not valid in terms of mine. You say, "why should you even have to?" What if I want to? This is a pointless argument, because you're coming from the standpoint that I should want to experience the game how you think it should be experienced. If you want to be disappointed with the way the engineer was balanced in ME1 that's fine, because I recognise that you likely expect different things than I do. So why does it offend you so that I enjoyed it? That it wasn't a problem for me?

Not all tactics are created equal. It can be a completely different game experience to go through the game with no soldier talent represented. In addition, Shepard was not created equal to his/her squad. Shepard is the spectre, Shepard is the one who will save the galaxy. The others are there for support. So to say engineer Shephard must only be able to bring up the rear seems anathema to the way I play the game. My spectre engineer was made a spectre because she was one hell of a killing machine, but one that had a different range of skills at her disposal to do all that killing than someone who knew how to pump rounds into a krogan with an assault rifle.

Having a range of talents that do different things is great, and one way to approach the game tactically is to try to utilise all of them. However, I thoroughly enjoyed being able to appraoch the game using different tactics.

In ME2 it's clear that with the way talents were redesigned to allow some to strip armour, some to get rid of biotic shields, and so on, you had to consider who was coming along with you. However, I still played the game with little or no soldier element present. Adept or Sentinel Shep, with Mordin and Miranda, or Mordin and Jack, and occasionally Mordin and Zaeed (the only reason for bringing Zaeed was his Incendiary Bomb talent).

Tell me, was I doing it wrong?

[Davescarface]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Things is did not like in ME2:

1 - Planet Scanning
2 - Paying for fuel/probes and having no way to earn more money after completing the game. It is self defeating. You cannot just go flying around once you run out of money.
3 - No female to female romance or continuance of romance from ME1.
4 - Less ability to customize weapons and armor compared to ME1.
5 - End of game was too picky and precise about keeping everyone alive.
6 - Romance was too picky and did not feel fun.
7 - DLC being lackluster. It simply feels like they left things out of the game in order to charge more for it later. What, 70 (for CE) bucks wasn't enough for Bioware already? Everything seems leftover and rehashed and should have been in the retail game. I really don't care about having new guns and armor after I already completed the game two times. New guns an armor is of zero interest to me. I want new missions and places to go, people to meet, and ways to earn money anytime I want all in one expansion for one fee.Not cut up in several pieces for even more money.
8 - DLC characters not having spoken dialogue on ship or ability to romance.
9 - Graphics for things at a distance were horrid. You could tell it was just a bitmap with no depth. I have seen far better in many games and think they could have done far better.

1 - Planet Scanning still works out quicker than landing on a planet and driving around in the Mako gathering resources. And once you've completed ME2 you get a long service bonus at the start of every new game. Which gives you 50000 for each resource and a ton of credits. So only the first ME2 playthrough is really a grind.
2 - I only ever had a problem with credits at the start in ME2, not much different to ME1 for me. 
3 - Couldn't be bothered whether old romances carried over from ME2 or not.
4 - Less options to customise weapons and armour yeah, I could not disagree. However ME1 had far too much upgrade options and became very mindless and boring. I liked how upgrading weapons worked in ME2 better, but too little upgrades in ME2.
5 - I thought the end of ME2 was awesome and made up for an otherwise lackluster sequel. I still think the ME1 ending was way better though personally.
6 - Romances were okay.
7 - This could not be further from my own thinking. Whilst some of the DLC's have been a bit disappointing for ME2, there are far more and some of them like Overlord are very good indeed. By comparison ME1 only got BDTS and Pinnacle Station (which was garbage). So the DLC's are definately an improvement over ME1.
8 - True, a bit of lazy programming there from Bioware, but still I enjoyed the new characters and their missions.
9 - Whilst the graphics were a big improvement over ME1, I did'nt like the level design to a lot of places. The Krogan homeworld was really bad I thought! And many other places sucked in ME2 like the Citadel. Nothing even came close in comparison to Noveria, Virmire, Zhu's Hope, Ilos, those were truly epic!

Modifié par Davescarface, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:42 .

[Il Divo]

catabuca wrote...

Repeating 'squad-based tactical shooter' over and over won't make a lightbulb suddenly come on over my head and won't make me say, "OMG I've been playing the game wrong all along!!!1!".

You may have bought the game because it was supposed to be a 'squad-based tactical shooter'; I bought the game because I'd heard it was an awesome 'action/rpg'. And it fulfilled that role excellently for me.

Squad-based tactical shooter and action-RPG are not mutually exclusive. You seem to using "fun factor" to illustrate your point when it is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. If I bought what was intended to be a racing game and discovered it's an FPS, I really don't care how fun it is; it's not what I was looking to buy. Everyone plays video games to have fun. People also buy specific genres of games because they want to play a certain style. Mass Effect did not provide what was advertised in terms of gameplay. You're not playing the game wrong; Bioware simply didn't make it right.

I don't believe I'm missing your point. Your point is valid in terms of your playing preferences. Your point is not valid in terms of mine. You say, "why should you even have to?" What if I want to? This is a pointless argument, because you're coming from the standpoint that I should want to experience the game how you think it should be experienced. If you want to be disappointed with the way the engineer was balanced in ME1 that's fine, because I recognise that you likely expect different things than I do. So why does it offend you so that I enjoyed it? That it wasn't a problem for me?

Wrong. Reread my post. My point is that you couldn't play it any other way even if you wanted to. Again, if you want to shoot Geth up as an Engineer, ignoring your team-mates, then go for it. That is your right. But you (or rather, I) don't even have the option to use your party members effectively in combat if you wanted to. Once more: squad-based tactical shooter. I'm not going to judge this according to simply 'fun factor' which is far too open. I will judge it based on what Bioware intended (and failed) to create. If Mass Effect was created with Jade Empire-style combat, your argument would say I couldn't knock it simply because it's 'fun'.

Not all tactics are created equal. It can be a completely different game experience to go through the game with no soldier talent represented. In addition, Shepard was not created equal to his/her squad. Shepard is the spectre, Shepard is the one who will save the galaxy. The others are there for support. So to say engineer Shephard must only be able to bring up the rear seems anathema to the way I play the game. My spectre engineer was made a spectre because she was one hell of a killing machine, but one that had a different range of skills at her disposal to do all that killing than someone who knew how to pump rounds into a krogan with an assault rifle.

Shepard is shown to be unique through his charisma and natural leadership. This is something that's drilled into our heads between both games. Everyone speaks to Shepard, everyone takes orders from Shepard, everyone looks to Shepard. In other words, he's already shown to be unique regardless of his kill count. I would say that's a rather shallow way of measuring how special/important a character is.  

In ME2 it's clear that with the way talents were redesigned to allow some to strip armour, some to get rid of biotic shields, and so on, you had to consider who was coming along with you. However, I still played the game with little or no soldier element present. Adept or Sentinel Shep, with Mordin and Miranda, or Mordin and Jack, and occasionally Mordin and Zaeed (the only reason for bringing Zaeed was his Incendiary Bomb talent).
Tell me, was I doing it wrong?

You're still missing the question. It's not did you do it wrong but rather, "Did Bioware do it right?" Ignoring squad-mates is your right as a player. But if I want to play a game and use my squad-mates, Mass Effect (unlike its sequel) didn't deliver in this regard. I feel like I'm doing all the work. By the time I hit level 30, there wasn't even a point to using squad talents; enemies either died too fast or squad members wouldn't respond properly.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:58 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

As for the nostalgia argument: I've just installed ME 1 again, and I love it like I did the very first time. The story, the presentation, the flow, the characters, the believable world, the "realistic" approach to the whole scenario, it's like day and night in comparison to ME 2. No nostalgia about it. So what if the combat part is a bit lacking? It works well enough, and in the beginning it's certainly more challenging than ME 2 ever is. But who cares about such details when there's such a well-crafted universe to immerse in?

No, no, no. My apologies. That came out wrong. I wasn't implying that you're just being nostalgic. That comment was meant in regards to your point about Mass Effect versus Baldur's Gate inventory system. I meant to say I agree with you; Bioware often radically alters their gameplay (often, for the worse) with each game in response to comments from their players.

To respond to your post: I personally love Mass Effect. I also love Mass Effect 2. I could never like Mass Effect 2 without first having liked Mass Effect. But I feel that alot of people don't give Mass Effect 2 its due. I've always viewed it as a foil to everything Mass Effect 1 is about.

Mass Effect 1: Focus is entirely on the large scale. Everyone knows Shepard's name, the plot is the main focus, you operate in the heart of galactic civilization. Characters are somewhat bland. You become a Spectre, track down Saren. To a degree, it's all rather light-hearted at its heart.

Mass Effect 2: It's all gone to hell for Shepard. He's dead and coms back to a galaxy very different from the one you left. You're forced to work with terrorists/fringe groups the entire time. Shepard is no longer in the spot-light, more intense focus is placed on characters and the small scale. You're no longer a Spectre and have lost your previous squad-mates. Plot is less deep, but loyalty missions provide a great amount of depth and expand the universe substantially. Hell, even Miranda is shown to be a foil to Ashley's very existence.

I see some preferring Mass Effect 1, others prefer Mass Effect 2. No real right or wrong answer. I do feel that Mass Effect 1's focus made the shift to Mass Effect 2 that much more enjoyable for me. Sorry for the long post. I like typing.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:59 .

[catabuca]

il divo - like I said, I understand your point. I'm saying it doesn't apply to me. You're saying it doesn't matter if it applies to me or not.



I understand why you weren't happy with squad mechanics in ME1. I'm not trying to take that away from you.



I take your point about ME1 not doing what BW intended it to do. What I'm trying to emphasise is that I bought that game having read the back of the box, understanding what BW was telling me about what to expect from the game, and FOR ME it delivered. So it didn't deliver what you thought BW were saying it should deliver. That's fine. Because, guess what? Expectations are subjective.



I'm not participating on this thread, or on any other, trying to tell others what they should get out of the game. I'm participating in order to give my impressions. I do not expect to be told my expectations are faulty, that I am not allowed to judge a game by the level of fun it provided, that I am only to judge a game by what you or anyone else says the game should or shouldn't be. I'm not telling you that your impressions of the game are wrong. Your impressions are entirely correct. So are mine. Because we are not the same person and we do not have the same expectations. Nor should we.



You can repeat your previous posts in their entirety, or paraphrase them - it won't change the fact that I do not deny your point of view at all, but I do take issue with you trying to say I should come to the same conclusions as you.

[Il Divo]

catabuca wrote...

I take your point about ME1 not doing what BW intended it to do. What I'm trying to emphasise is that I bought that game having read the back of the box, understanding what BW was telling me about what to expect from the game, and FOR ME it delivered. So it didn't deliver what you thought BW were saying it should deliver. That's fine. Because, guess what? Expectations are subjective.

But I'm not certain what you're saying Bioware delivered. This all depends on our question. Are you saying Bioware delivered a fun experience? I personally thought so. Or are you saying Bioware delivered a squad-based tactical shooter? I would say we should be evaluating it based on the elements of a squad-based tactical shooter first and foremost.

I'm not participating on this thread, or on any other, trying to tell others what they should get out of the game. I'm participating in order to give my impressions. I do not expect to be told my expectations are faulty, that I am not allowed to judge a game by the level of fun it provided, that I am only to judge a game by what you or anyone else says the game should or shouldn't be. I'm not telling you that your impressions of the game are wrong. Your impressions are entirely correct. So are mine. Because we are not the same person and we do not have the same expectations. Nor should we.

Let me provide a better example to illustrate my point. Let's say your favorite movie is Batman Begins and you have alot of fun watching it. Now, you decide to buy a copy of the video game Red Dead Redemption. Inside, you find a copy of Batman Begins, your favorite movie, instead. So do you forgive the fact that they did not give you Red Dead Redemption because Batman Begins is fun, or will you say that Batman Begins is not what you paid for. If I ended up having more fun watching Batman Begins than playing Red Dead Redemption, does this mean Batman Begins is a better video game?

Edit: I do think Bioware delivered on most of what they promised. This last element however is problematic.

You can repeat your previous posts in their entirety, or paraphrase them - it won't change the fact that I do not deny your point of view at all, but I do take issue with you trying to say I should come to the same conclusions as you.

Fun factor is the most subjective experience we can deal with. I can never tell you that because I find Mass Effect 2 more enjoyable than Mass Effect 1, therefore you shoud too; that would be ludicrous. However, everything we evaluate has a standard. We evaluate video games based on graphics, gameplay, story (the elements we find in a video game), among other things. Likewise we evaluate tactical video games in a certain manor. Fun factor is how we measure what we enjoy doing it; it however says nothing about standards. I can't take away your playstyle. But  I can express my doubts if you consider Mass Effect to be a tactical game based on the standards of how we evaluate tactics games.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2010 - 03:38 .

[catabuca]

il divo - I'm reading the back of the ME1 case right now. Here's what it says:

"As Commander Shepard, you lead an elite squad on a heroic, action-packed adventure throughout the galaxy. Discover the imminent danger from an ancient threat and battle the traitorous Saren and his deadly army to save civilisation. The fate of all life depends on your actions!

• Customise your character and embark on an epic adventure in an immersive, open-ended storyline

• Interplanetary exploration of an epic proportion

• Incredible, real-time character interaction

• Thrilling, tactical combat as you lead an elite squad of three"

The only mention of tactics here is "Thrilling, tactical combat as you lead an elite squad of three". Nowhere does it tell me what tactics I should deploy. The tactics I use in ME1 are a mixture of tech and biotic attacks. It doesn't break the experience, nor any initial expectations I may have formed by reading the back of the case, and I find the ability to perform kills using tech or biotic attacks equally as valid and strategically useful as performing kills using firepower.

I understand that you wished to have the opportunity to use an engineer as someone bringing up the rear. I recognise your right to be pissed off that you feel you can't do that. My argument is that I didn't feel the need to do that, that I expected my Shepard to be the one doing the most of the killing, and that nowhere did I get the impression that I should be expecting to play a secondary role as an engineer.



Again, FOR ME, Bioware delivered what it told me it would on the game case. I do not begrudge you the right to have expected differently, but you are out of order to suggest I should have expected what you expected.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Oh,sure.
The talent overload he share with Miranda.
Energy drain could be viewed just as an altered version of overload that boost the shields of tali.
Conussive shot is a talent that Zaeed and Grunt have too.

Yes,the Mass Effect 2 talents were so unique. And just because you seem to fail to understand what the purpose of damping and sabotage was and dont used that,it doesnt mean that they are useless.

[tonnactus]

Orchomene wrote...

The ME2 gameplay is not superior as the first one for everybody. I don't like the ME2 gameplay at all.

Mass Effect 2 gameplay=defense stripping in a boring rock,scissor,paper system. After the defenses are down,shot them to dead. Thats it basicly. At least the first game have disabling abilities with good ranges,like sabotage and damping.

[Il Divo]

catabuca wrote...

The only mention of tactics here is "Thrilling, tactical combat as you lead an elite squad of three". Nowhere does it tell me what tactics I should deploy. The tactics I use in ME1 are a mixture of tech and biotic attacks. It doesn't break the experience, nor any initial expectations I may have formed by reading the back of the case, and I find the ability to perform kills using tech or biotic attacks equally as valid and strategically useful as performing kills using firepower.

I'd like to emphasize the underlined. I'd also like to point out that if we must simply rely on the box, nowhere does it call Mass Effect an "action/RPG" yet you evaluated it as such (which it is), so to start what the box says is not entirely correct.

Now, to the arguments at hand. Mass Effect, like Mass Effect 2, was intended to be this squad-based tactical shooter (as per the box). The problem has nothing to do with you choosing to forego a combat team. There are plenty of other issues which most major critics have touched on. Squad AI is a basic problem I have. There is often a huge delay in response time from my squad even when I tell them to use lift/warp/whatever.

Another example is coordination. You would think I should be able to position my squad separately in a squad-based game. When I try to move team members to certain positions, I cannot make Garrus enter a different position from Wrex; they always move together. Mass Effect 2 gives me more variety in my squad tactics.

I understand that you wished to have the opportunity to use an engineer as someone bringing up the rear. I recognise your right to be pissed off that you feel you can't do that. My argument is that I didn't feel the need to do that, that I expected my Shepard to be the one doing the most of the killing, and that nowhere did I get the impression that I should be expecting to play a secondary role as an engineer.

The Engineer is a [/b]tech specialist, able to quickly and easily manipulate the environment with specific talents, and repair or modify technical equipment. Gameplay focus is on shaping the battlefield during combat, healing the party, and debuffing enemies (disabling weapons and lowering shields). Even though they begin the game with only pistols and an omni-tool, Engineers can unlock the ability to hack enemy technology.

This is Mass Effect wiki's description of the Engineer. "Shaping the battlefield". Mass Effect's in-game description is largely similar to this. What precisely led you to believe that an Engineer should play a primary role before a secondary role? If Bioware wants to offer both, then fine. But you've yet to explain why the secondary role is bad, or why Shepard has to perform all the killing. Most Bioware games (Dragon Age, Kotor) have offered players the ability to play a secondary role whether as a stealth character or magic. Most other Bioware games also let you take direct control over your squad-mates. Mass Effect does not do this and does not have intelligent squad AI. Hence in my opinion Mass Effect while fun is not a good tactical game.

Again, FOR ME, Bioware delivered what it told me it would on the game case. I do not begrudge you the right to have expected differently, but you are out of order to suggest I should have expected what you expected.

I don't recall ever telling you to expect what I expect. I merely pointed out that fun factor in this case does not make a good argument. Fun factor only tells us bare facts. "I enjoyed Mass Effect more than Mass Effect 2", therefore I think Mass Effect is a better game than Mass Effect 2. This sound logic.

"I enjoyed Mass Effect more than Mass Effect 2", therefore Mass Effect is a better tactical game than Mass Effect 2. Defending this statement requires you demonstrate fun, tactical elements from Mass Effect 1, which you have started doing. I don't see a problem.

[tonnactus]

woofie58 wrote...

I'm also way less impressed with my companions in the second iteration of the game, I feel like having just 3 active and one passive talent doesn't keep my interest; it doesn't feel like my squad is terribly elite like it did in ME1.

And they not even have the same cooldown times as shepardt,not even when it comes to the "loyality" talents.A soldier shepardt who took reave have a smaller cooldown for that then samara? How stupid is this?

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

Oh,sure.
The talent overload he share with Miranda.
Energy drain could be viewed just as an altered version of overload that boost the shields of tali.
Conussive shot is a talent that Zaeed and Grunt have too.

Yes,the Mass Effect 2 talents were so unique. And just because you seem to fail to understand what the purpose of damping and sabotage was and dont used that,it doesnt mean that they are useless.

Each was unique and served a purpose.

When I use Concussive Shot, it has an entirely different purpose than Throw. When I use Throw, it has an entirely different purpose than Overload. Every ability is unique.

When I use Lift, it's practically equivalent to using Singularity. When I use Marksman, it's equivalent to using Overkill. Not to mention that most Mass Effect characters shared abilities as well.
 
When I bring Garrus, the combination of Concussive Shot and Overload result in a very different play-style than when I bring Miranda (Warp and Overload) because every ability is now unique.