10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Kronner wrote...


Possible, yes. But investing your points does make a big difference. ME1 had very few RPG elements too, if you remove the weapon and armor "skills"  from ME1 how much is left, really?

But explain why weapon and armor skills should be removed from the comparison. Weapon skills only give minor imrpovements between basic,adcanced and master,thats right. But things like carnage shot or assasinate were valuable skills. Like shieldsboost.

Investing points in Mass Effect maybee make a difference for the vanguard at best. But you could play the soldier without ever spending any points.Adrenaline rush  at level 1 offers a 100 percent weapon damage increase.Engineers drone has a 3 s cooldown right from the start.

[tonnactus]

lazuli wrote...


Assault rifles don't have as many ammo problems as, say, sniper rifles.  Another disadvantage to ammo powers is that they usually require a significant point investment from Commander Shepard specifically.  You can't rely on Garrus's aim as much as you can on his Overload.

Thats why you evolve ammo powers of teammates to a squad version...

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

You're right, 6 seconds is much too long to wait. Not like it might've forced you to be strategic and choose which ability was most beneficial at the time.

Thats why most people never use defense talents. A great strategy forced on the player by the brilliant global cooldown system for sure.

And at last, we hit the true problem with your argument. "If someone played on insanity". In order to access insanity, the game must be completed twice: once on any difficult and once on hardcore as a result. Warp and sabotage are useless on normal, as you've finally conceded.

Not needed isnt the same as useless.And on low difficulties like normal on Mass Effect the player also dont need any ability beyond shooting. Troopers dont even have shields.

Here's the problem: no gamer should have to play on the hardest difficulty (and requiring to prior completions) to finally have to use these "squad-based , tactical mechanics". Was there a disclaimer on the box? "If you wish to play tactical combat, you must beat the game twice and then play on insanity".

Completly right. Tactical combat is only needed on high difficulties in most games maybee except some like Ninja Gaiden. Most games today arent challenging at normal difficulty.

If I play Mass Effect 2, I see the point of Concussive Shot and it remains useful. I

On normal??

[Kronner]

tonnactus wrote...

I can only speak for myself.
For me, starting at level one insanity in the first game was harder then in second game.Easy to explain why.
In the second game,your shooting abilities are good right from the start. Cooldowns are very short right from the start.Health and shields regenerate after some seconds in cover.

Mass Effect 2 is easy on every difficulty right from start where insanity in Mass Effect is at least challenging at the beginning where some turian headhunters could kill your whole squad including shepardt very fast and easy.

I dont even start to talk how laughable easy krogans are now.

ME1 was even easier, if you had Immunity and/or Singularity, you could not lose unless you really wanted to.No godlike power like that in ME2.

It was only matter of how fast can you hit the hotkeys for
Singularity,Lift,Warp,Throw and the Adrenaline Rush and repeat. You
could cast 8 abilities in like 4 seconds very easily and make every
encounter in the game a freaking joke.

tonnactus wrote...

But explain why weapon and armor
skills should be removed from the comparison. Weapon skills only give
minor imrpovements between basic,adcanced and master,thats right. But
things like carnage shot or assasinate were valuable skills. Like
shieldsboost.

Investing points in Mass Effect maybee make a
difference for the vanguard at best. But you could play the soldier
without ever spending any points.Adrenaline rush  at level 1 offers a
100 percent weapon damage increase.Engineers drone has a 3 s cooldown
right from the start.

Because it is ridiculous that guy who went through N7 training and is basically elite soldier cannot fire any weapon at all. Armor as a power? Makes no sense to me.

Yes, you could, of course, it is not an ideal situation, but far better than in ME1. You have to see the difference between Soldier with one point in AR and Soldier with heightened/hardened AR and all ammo powers.
Yes, drone is good from start, but since Engineer is power caster class, your points will make big difference.

I mean I could beat Gothic 2 without ever spending a point too, but it was still a hell of a game.

Modifié par Kronner, 19 juillet 2010 - 04:28 .

[catabuca]

I'm cross-posting from another thread. For context, I'd just watched some youtube videos of various moments in ME1:



"Watching back some of those videos of the ME1 romances reminds me of why I preferred ME1 to ME2: I never got 'lump-in-my-throat' moments in ME2. And in the lead up to the final missions (Ilos, and on to the Citadel) they managed to ramp up the emotional tension so much that I had knots in my stomach. In ME2 all I felt was, "Oh, well I upgraded my ship so hopefully no one will die. Time for the big fight.""



Clearly, the above has little to do with gameplay mechanics. After all, as a cinematic, story-driven action-rpg, it's not all about how well you can aim now and whether there are adequate crates to provide cover. While those elements are evidently more important to some people than they are to me (and that's fine, before anyone moans!), it's all about story and emotion first, gameplay second for me.

[tonnactus]

Kronner wrote...


ME1 was even easier, if you had Immunity and/or Singularity, you could not lose unless you really wanted to.No godlike power like that in ME2.

First: Not even the soldier had immunity from the start. You have to unlock it. I dont discuss new game plus. But starting from level one on the highest difficulty. It takes some time before the player got master immunity,and even then,without having a good set of armor, a krogan still could beat you to death very fast.
Singularity needed 12 points to affect battlemaster krogans like the one on therum and was a little overrated anyway.

And arent you the one that complain that reave is overpowered? What is with the ridicoulos overpowered melee in Mass Effect 2?

It was only matter of how fast can you hit the hotkeys for
Singularity,Lift,Warp,Throw and the Adrenaline Rush and repeat. You
could cast 8 abilities in like 4 seconds very easily and make every
encounter in the game a freaking joke.

To be honnest,that is the case in most rpgs.That the player get really strong at the end.

Because it is ridiculous that guy who went through N7 training and is basically elite soldier cannot fire any weapon at all. Armor as a power? Makes no sense to me.

Why not? To handle advance armor with shields. And a lot things still didnt make sense: So shepardt could use a shotgun but is to dumb to use different ammo without points in it? Why a vanguard has to learn how to lift people?
Didnt he learnt that in a special biotic training in his army time? Why the engineer still have to learn tech powers.Also something he/she learned in the army.

But a rpg needs some progression. Ammo skills make even less sense then to improve your shooting.

[lazuli]

tonnactus wrote...
 Ammo skills make even less sense then to improve your shooting.

But this is a game, so making sense has to take a back seat to gameplay.  I think you will be hard pressed to find people that actually liked not being able to [effectively] use sniper rifles in ME1 until like 75% through the game.

[tonnactus]

lazuli wrote...


But this is a game, so making sense has to take a back seat to gameplay. 

Right.

I think you will be hard pressed to find people that actually liked not being able to [effectively] use sniper rifles in ME1 until like 75% through the game.

With crouching and stabilize mods this was possible right from the start.
 
And a lot people know complain that they didnt like how the starter sniper rilfe have only a ammo capacity of 10 shots.Especially people who played as a infiltrator.

[catabuca]

Cross-posted from the DA2 forum. It's David Gaider speaking, so not necessarily aimed at the ME crowd, but I think it helps highlight why some of the decisions to aim for the 'mainstream shooter crowd' in ME2 (and, I expect, in ME3) were possibly made:

My fear is that the gaming industry (including BioWare at this point, I'm sad to say) is moving with the rest of the entertainment industry into trying to find this "mythical" mainstream audience. All this does is make mish-mashes of genres and mediocre products that large numbers can go "eh, it was alright" about.

Bottom line, it makes finanacial sense - better to have 2/3rds of the game consumers buying and forgetting your game in a couple months than 1/3rd of the game consumers buying and loving your game to death.

Maybe.

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

It's not a bad article, in terms of explaining some of the realities we face. I don't think it's the entire reason these choices were made, as DAO was quite successful on its own, but it certainly addresses the idea you're expressing.

Modifié par catabuca, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:08 .

[Kronner]

tonnactus wrote...

First: Not even the soldier had immunity from the start. You have to unlock it. I dont discuss new game plus. But starting from level one on the highest difficulty. It takes some time before the player got master immunity,and even then,without having a good set of armor, a krogan still could beat you to death very fast.
Singularity needed 12 points to affect battlemaster krogans like the one on therum and was a little overrated anyway.

You did not even need Master Immunity, and you still could not die unless you walked right to the enemy. Krogan on Therum was one of the harder fights, but by that time you could easily have maxed Singularity and end that fight in seconds (ok maybe a minute).

tonnactus wrote...And arent you the one that complain that reave is overpowered? What is with the ridicoulos overpowered melee in Mass Effect 2?

Yes, I hate Reave so I do not use it. It is a bonus skill, not core class skill (Immunity, Singularity)
Reave is no match for ME1 Singularity. Not even close.
About melee, makes sense, it should be strong, though maybe it should not affect shileds but directly health. That would make more sense.

To be honnest,that is the case in most rpgs.That the player get really strong at the end.

Which is pretty boring.

Why not? To handle advance armor with shields. And a lot things still didnt make sense: So shepardt could use a shotgun but is to dumb to use different ammo without points in it? Why a vanguard has to learn how to lift people?
Didnt he learnt that in a special biotic training in his army time? Why the engineer still have to learn tech powers.Also something he/she learned in the army.

But a rpg needs some progression. Ammo skills make even less sense then to improve your shooting.

Since N7 training is universal, what makes you think biotic and tech skills are included?
Ammo powers are not the best solution, but needed for balancing the game. RPG needs progression, but why should Shepard be godlike by the end of the game (talking about Insanity, he/she could be godlike on low difficulties)? Makes the game boring. Character progression is far more important imho.

ME2 is not perfect, but compared to ME1, it is far superior in terms of combat. Of course, many things could be improved, but ME2 is overall much better than ME1 imho, I hope ME3 is gonna be even better.

Modifié par Kronner, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:26 .

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

The difference with Mass Effect 2, to me, is that the original Mass Effect set the tone and style, but Mass Effect 2 didn't adhere to or stick to that which was set. Sure, one can say that Mass Effect wasn't particularly deep an RPG from the start, but it set the standard for the type of game it was and garnered fans for it. If Mass Effect 2 had come along as a new IP or was the first in the series then I wouldn't have had as much of an issue with it, but when it follows on from a game I like and just seems so different and eliminates many of the factors I liked about the original it's not a good thing from my perspective. Part of the reason I became a fan of ME1 was not only because what it was but because it wasn't what ME2 ended up being. When an IP  you like starts to become the very thing you dislike then it really grates. It's a bit like the difference between the first 9 or 10 seasons of The Simpsons vs. pretty much everything that came since.

This

If ME 2 had been a standalone title, not related to ME 1, I would have simply chalked it up to a somewhat weak Bioware game and be done with it.  But a sequel should not only stand on its own, but continue what the original started.That  is the big failure of ME 2

[catabuca]

iakus wrote...
But a sequel should not only stand on its own, but continue what the original started.That  is the big failure of ME 2

This is a crucial point. It should do both. Of course it needs to appeal to people who haven't played the first one, and that is something it clearly did very well. On the flip side, quite a lot of fans feel it didn't do enough to feel like a continuation of ME1 for those who had played the first one, to those who had invested a great deal in the trilogy as a trilogy that had 1 story split into 3 episodes.
That's not to say those ME1 fans hate everything about ME2. I'd like to think I've been magnanimous in pointing out areas I feel ME2 did well in, while also explaining those areas that don't quite do it for me. It's possible to be a ME and BW fan and still offer criticisms. There's a particular curry house I've been going to for over a decade that I have very warm feelings towards, and that I recommend to my friends - I'm still first to be up front in saying if the food doesn't meet my expectations during any given meal. A balanced and open-minded approach is a healthy and informed approach.
I'm rambling.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

While they can do this, it isn't really fair, because using that logic could mean that any RPG that's not as complex as the most complex RPG ever could be called "dumbed down" technically. Mass Effect was going for something different than previous BioWare RPGs and to call it "dumbed down" is meaningless without a proper point of reference. Sure... you can say that it's not as deep an RPG as previous BioWare offerings, and that it's a far simpler and less complex game than them, but calling it "dumbed down" when there was nothing really directly preceding it doesn't really fit.

Technically, yes. But then everything is done in the comparative degree. Even if Kotor is a dumbed down version of Baldur's Gate, one could say it's still closer to the game in depth than Mass Effect. The problem is not that Kotor is dumbed down against Baldur's Gate, but that Mass Effect is dumbed down to a much higher degree.

Mass Effect went for something different from previous Bioware games, yes. Mass Effect 2 also went for something different than Mass Effect 1. Having a '2' in the title does not mean it's going to replicate everything the original installment will. It also does not mean the original is immune from criticism because it's a 'new style'.

With ME2 it does because its predecessor is the first Mass Effect. Calling the original game "dumbed down" compared to Baldur's Gate, NWN or KotOR doesn't really make sense since their styles are quite different, and beyond the fact that they're all RPGs and they're made by BioWare they share very little in common. A weaker RPG Mass Effect may be (I always preferred the term "RPG-Lite" here), but then it was always intended to be a hybrid and not a pure-class RPG. On top of that it was also trying to be an interactive cinematic experience, which BioWare first touched on with KotOR and continued through further with Jade Empire, but ME1 was the first game of theirs to truly explore this aspect.

And Mass Effect 2 is somehow not a hybrid or interactive cinematic experience?

By this logic you could just strip out the RPG elements entirely and just have Mass Effect 3 as "Gears of War with dialogue" then and everything would be fine and dandy. Where does one draw the line? I say BioWare already crossed it with ME2, but you (and quite a few others) still think that line hasn't been reached. What does it take for Mass Effect to no longer be Mass Effect?

To answer your first question, you didn't seem to mind drawing the line after Mass Effect. But suddenly you decided that Mass Effect 2 crossed some threshold of RPG gaming. Others felt that Mass Effect 1 had already crossed the line. You're asking when Mass Effect is no longer Mass Effect? Every Bioware game since Neverwinter Nights has become progressively more main-stream. Kotor featured a more fast-paced dnd system. Jade Empire took out turn-based combat completely. Mass Effect began the "Hollywood effect" by featuring a fully-voiced main character and dumbed down the dialogue system. And actually introduced shooter mechanics to an RPG. And now Mass Effect 2 has an increased emphasis on those shooter mechanics.

So to your question, I ask another: when are Bioware games no longer RPG's? Because from where I stand, it certainly didn't start with Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:23 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

Thats why most people never use defense talents. A great strategy forced on the player by the brilliant global cooldown system for sure.

Mass Effect 1 forced me to put points in weapon skills. It forced me to equip weapons and armor. It forced me to bring a squad. Again, it's called strategy. Learn to adapt with it. If  you can't, not my problem just like you told me with the inventory system, remember?

Not needed isnt the same as useless.And on low difficulties like normal on Mass Effect the player also dont need any ability beyond shooting. Troopers dont even have shields.

No, it's useless. When using an ability results in combat lasting longer than necessary,  it's useless.
I mean, if it had some cool effect (like lift), it might make it more worthwhile. As it stands, Sabotage doesn't appear interesting and doesn't help me kill enemies faster.

Completly right. Tactical combat is only needed on high difficulties in most games maybee except some like Ninja Gaiden. Most games today arent challenging at normal difficulty.

Yet, for your combat to be fun and tactical I need to first put 40 hours into the game and unlock the content. If I want to have fun in Mass Effect 2, I just tell Garrus to use Concussive Shot.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:18 .

[nov_pl]

I think that Mako and uncharted worlds in ME1 gave the better space feeling, I really felt like I was traveling Milky Way.

[tonnactus]

Kronner wrote...


You did not even need Master Immunity, and you still could not die unless you walked right to the enemy. Krogan on Therum was one of the harder fights, but by that time you could easily have maxed Singularity and end that fight in seconds (ok maybe a minute).

Did you played as a soldier with singularity or what? A thing i would never do.

About melee, makes sense, it should be strong, though maybe it should not affect shileds but directly health. That would make more sense.

125 points damage even without the shoulder pads and the muscle upgrade is ridicoulos overpowered.And melee didnt have any cooldown.You could basicly charge a blue sun commander on insanity and could just beat him to death.And because melee also stagger him,he didnt shoot back.

Which is pretty boring.

All classes except the vanguard are not challenging in Mass Effect 2.Not even from the start. And not even on insanity.

Since N7 training is universal, what makes you think biotic and tech skills are included?

Do you really thing the army wouldnt train the rare and valuable biotics they have? Even before N7? Of course, biotics start to train right at the beginning of their childhood according to the books. Someone would expect that their expand this if they become members of the system Alliance. Also the army have and train their techs.

ME2 is not perfect, but compared to ME1, it is far superior in terms of combat. Of course, many things could be improved, but ME2 is overall much better than ME1 imho, I hope ME3 is gonna be even better.

Not my oppinion. The only new good thing is charge and thats it basicly. And it is really bugged.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


Mass Effect 1 forced me to put points in weapon skills. It forced me to equip weapons and armor. It forced me to bring a squad. Again, it's called strategy. Learn to adapt with it. If  you can't, not my problem just like you told me with the inventory system, remember?

On normal,Mass Effect 2 force you to something?? Overload wasnt needed.Most enemies dont have shields.Warp is useless.Most enemies dont have barriers. Incinerate is useless.Most enemies dont have armor. Well,thats the case,if i regarding things like you did with different abilities in Mass Effect.

No, it's useless. When using an ability results in combat lasting longer than necessary,  it's useless.
I mean, if it had some cool effect (like lift), it might make it more worthwhile.

Then sabotage was really usefull especially on normal because you could kill geth squads just with this skill fast without even use a weapon. Remember,150 points damage in addition to 4 point burn damage per second.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 juillet 2010 - 07:57 .

[bjdbwea]

nov_pl wrote...

I think that Mako and uncharted worlds in ME1 gave the better space feeling, I really felt like I was traveling Milky Way.

I agree. This feeling of exploring this huge and beautiful galaxy - an old dream of humanity - is almost completely gone in ME 2. Streamlined away. <_<

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 juillet 2010 - 07:59 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...
On normal,Mass Effect 2 force you to something?? Overload wasnt needed.Most enemies dont have shields.Warp is useless.Most enemies dont have barriers. Incinerate is useless.Most enemies dont have armor. Well,thats the case,if i regarding things like you did with different abilities in Mass Effect.

Then I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world, my friend. Even on normal most enemies have some form of shields and armor; you're in the minority. Hell, I'd even say the same about your views on Mass Effect 1 are distorted. On Normal, most enemies have some form of shields.

Then sabotage was really usefull especially on normal because you could kill geth squads just with this skill fast without even use a weapon. Remember,150 points damage in addition to 4 point burn damage per second.

Please, at a 40 second cooldown you're not "killing Geth squads" with this thing any more than you're killing yourself. If I want my enemies to die, throw on Overkill have someone use lift/singularity (doesn't matter, since they're basically the same thing) and just plow through them. That's all it took. That is, assuming the response time from squad-mates didn't kill you first.

[Khavos]

Kronner wrote...

Khavos wrote...


I'll chime in here and say that playing on Insanity without ever spending a skill point is entirely doable, and simply makes tedious combat more tedious, rather than more difficult.  That, to me, indicates a completely failed RPG system.  It's a third-person shooter with a razor-thin and extraordinarily shallow RPG facade. 

Possible, yes. But investing your points does make a big difference. ME1 had very few RPG elements too, if you remove the weapon and armor "skills"  from ME1 how much is left, really?

Khavos wrote...
That all applies to ME2 as well. 

Not really, enemies on Insanity are easy to kill, they do not just spam Immunity like in ME1 Insanity. AI is stupid and game is easy, but combat is still much better than ME1.

Not putting points into skills doesn't make any difficulty difference, it simply makes everything take a little longer.  It makes a boring combat system more boring, not more difficult, and certainly not impossible.  And let's think about that for a moment: absolutely ignoring the skill system on the game's hardest difficulty setting.  SHOULD that be possible?  Of course not.  It's an absolute failure as an RPG system.  It's not an RPG.  It's a shooter.

And it's a boring shooter.  Find cover for the fight that's telegraphed to you miles before you reach it, stay in cover, win.  The only time that formula is ever mixed up is with husks, which you can just outrun.  

[Kronner]

tonnactus wrote...

Did you played as a soldier with singularity or what? A thing i would never do.

No, Vanguard with Singularity. That was my second game, first was Soldier with no bonus talent.

125 points damage even without the shoulder pads and the muscle upgrade is ridicoulos overpowered.And melee didnt have any cooldown.You could basicly charge a blue sun commander on insanity and could just beat him to death.And because melee also stagger him,he didnt shoot back.

Well, first you have to get in melee range, your example would work against single enemy, but you have no chance with just melee against a group of enemies.

All classes except the vanguard are not challenging in Mass Effect 2.Not even from the start. And not even on insanity.

It all comes down to how you wanna play. Sure, being in cover all the time is boring as hell and not challenging, but if you play aggressively, then at the very least Vanguard, Soldier, Sentinel and Infiltrator can be fun.

Do you really thing the army wouldnt train the rare and valuable biotics they have? Even before N7? Of course, biotics start to train right at the beginning of their childhood according to the books. Someone would expect that their expand this if they become members of the system Alliance. Also the army have and train their techs.

I see what you mean, you are right, it probably makes no sense but as you said some progression is needed and imho it is better to improve tech/biotics instead of weapon skill.

Not my oppinion. The only new good thing is charge and thats it basicly. And it is really bugged.

Charge is the most awesome power I have ever seen, I still love it. It works pretty good for me, it has problems on some platforms, but it is easy to avoid charge fail there.

Khavos wrote...

Not
putting points into skills doesn't make any difficulty difference, it
simply makes everything take a little longer.  It makes a boring combat
system more boring, not more difficult, and certainly not impossible.
 And let's think about that for a moment: absolutely ignoring the skill
system on the game's hardest difficulty setting.  SHOULD that be
possible?  Of course not.  It's an absolute failure as an RPG system. 
It's not an RPG.  It's a shooter.

And it's a boring shooter. 
Find cover for the fight that's telegraphed to you miles before you
reach it, stay in cover, win.  The only time that formula is ever mixed
up is with husks, which you can just outrun.  

As I said, if all you do is stay in cover, shoot for 2 seconds, Warp something and take cover until your shields recharge, then you are right. But Mass Effect 2 can be fun too. It is up to the player to play the game.

It is not traditional RPG, so what? Still a great game. It has some role-playing features, and while I would love to see some more, combat is just fine imho.

[bjdbwea]

Kronner wrote...

As I said, if all you do is stay in cover, shoot for 2 seconds, Warp something and take cover until your shields recharge, then you are right. But Mass Effect 2 can be fun too. It is up to the player to play the game.

That however is true for ME 1 as well. You don't have to purchase the best armor and weapons and you don't have to use the best powers. But the possibility to defeat most enemies easily has repeatedly been cited as supposed "prove" for the "broken" combat.

[LyletheBloody]

Arguing over the genre is not really helpful. I don't think BioWare set out to make a great RPG or shooter; they set out to make an epic cinematic Mass Effect sequel that set up ME 3. They recognized the problems that ME had that people complained about, iterated on ME's design and decided to implement more shooter elements in ME 2. When you argue about the genre, it is difficult to find a consistent definition of "RPG". Some people have to have bags/inventory and item management or whatever their personal requirements are. If people want to be elitist then of course they can pick and choose whatever games they like/dislike to meet/fall short of their standard for RPG-ness.



For me, Mass Effect 2 was a RPG, and my favorite game ever. It also had huge shooter elements in it. The point is, RPG is not a mutually exclusive genre. Just because a game has shooting doesn't mean it cannot be an RPG. If a game had platforming, that would not preclude it from also being an RPG (if the game was crafted right). I think the combat in the sequel was a step in the right direction from ME and I hope to see further refinements in ME 3.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


Then I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world, my friend. Even on normal most enemies have some form of shields and armor; you're in the minority. Hell, I'd even say the same about your views on Mass Effect 1 are distorted. On Normal, most enemies have some form of shields.

Troopers are the most common enemies in every difficulty. And on normal they dont have something else then a health bar. Even bosses dont have so big protections that it really makes a difference if someone use overload or not.

Please, at a 40 second cooldown you're not "killing Geth squads" with this thing any more than you're killing yourself. 

It did with a radius of ten meters.On normal for sure.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 juillet 2010 - 09:25 .

[tonnactus]

Kronner wrote...


No, Vanguard with Singularity. That was my second game, first was Soldier with no bonus talent.

Vanguards never had immunity.

Well, first you have to get in melee range, your example would work against single enemy, but you have no chance with just melee against a group of enemies.

There are enough "isolated" enemies.But even when not playing a vanguard and dont using squadmates:

He basicly spam energy drain and melee enemies to death.

It all comes down to how you wanna play. Sure, being in cover all the time is boring as hell and not challenging, but if you play aggressively, then at the very least Vanguard, Soldier, Sentinel and Infiltrator can be fun.

Is this really different from the first game?



At least,barrier and shields never protected against melee attacks and poison like its the case in the second game.

I see what you mean, you are right, it probably makes no sense but as you said some progression is needed and imho it is better to improve tech/biotics instead of weapon skill.

Why? The stabilize problems with sniper rifles at the beginning were frustrating,but things like carnage and assasination could easily be used in the second game too.(level one to four carnage without needed accuracy improvement)

Weapon special powers make more sense then ammo powers anyway.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 juillet 2010 - 09:41 .