10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KalosCast]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The AI never said turian SPACE, just a turian prison and that could mean anywhere. It's not like the creator was an actual turian, he was human. Just look at Purgatory. Ran by you know who but not a "that alien" prison and it's not anywhere near his homeworld.

Because it's either story or combat and combat kills immersion.

Turian Prison implies government, government implies turian space (you know, where their government has authority). The Blue Suns are a private mercenary company, founded and run by (get ready to crap your pants here) a human. Their 'prison ship' is just a front for the slave trade, and even then it's not a government prison, governments have to pay them to hold their prisoners.

And how does an ex-military commander fighting break anything established in the universe? If your willing suspension of disbelief can't handle game elements in a game, you might want to just start reading Choose Your Own Adventure books or engaging in Tabletop RPs (or MUDs, or RP through chat/forum mediums) for your interactive storytelling jollies. Video games are clearly not for you.

Modifié par KalosCast, 01 mai 2010 - 05:33 .

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Why would you put time into adding to already resolved stories rather than tell new stories?

Because it's either story or combat and combat kills immersion.

Um that doesn't really answer the question...

[SkullandBonesmember]

KalosCast wrote...

Turian Prison implies government, government implies turian space (you know, where their government has authority). The Blue Suns are a private mercenary company, founded and run by (get ready to crap your pants here) a human. Their 'prison ship' is just a front for the slave trade, and even then it's not a government prison, governments have to pay them to hold their prisoners.

And how does an ex-military commander fighting break anything established in the universe? If your willing suspension of disbelief can't handle game elements in a game, you might want to just start reading Choose Your Own Adventure books or engaging in Tabletop RPs (or MUDs, or RP through chat/forum mediums) for your interactive storytelling jollies. Video games are clearly not for you.

Yes! It could be, and probably IS turian government but that does not imply that it must be in turian space. Just look at CSec. Pallin is the guy in charge.

Let me rephrase my last statment. TOO MUCH combat, as we saw in ME2, or where the ratio of combat and character interaction/cutscenes was perfect in ME1, can make or break a game.

[KalosCast]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Yes! It could be, and probably IS turian government but that does not imply that it must be in turian space. Just look at CSec. Pallin is the guy in charge.

Let me rephrase my last statment. TOO MUCH combat, as we saw in ME2, or where the ratio of combat and character interaction/cutscenes was perfect in ME1, can make or break a game.

If something is run by the Turian Government, then it only has authority in Turian-controlled space, kind of like how Obama can't make laws for Mexico, and Russia can't demand the Chinese hold an election, **** just doesn't work that way.

C-Sec isn't a Turian organization, it's a Council organization, which makes it a multi-national affair. Kind of like UN Peacekeeper forces. If you notice, there's also a fair share of humans on C-Sec, does that magically make it a human organization? No. Asari were the first race to find the Citadel anyway, so if you want to claim a nation has "dibsies" on it, it's the Asari, which very clearly isn't the case. Fist is in charge of Chora's Den, a strip club soley featuring Asari dancers, does that make it an Asari or a Human bar? Curiously, it makes it neither.

As for ME1, it's pretty much on the same vein as ME2. The core worlds (Illium, Tuchanka, Citadel, and Omega) have a healthy mix of exploration, lore-building and chatting. The loyalty missions also balance action and dialogue very well too, your choices affecting your character's entire outlook on things (though Garrus' and Tali's were basically a repeat of their former crises which was kind of dumb). The removal of the exploration aspects (which I've been rather consistently critical of) does allow combat fatigue to settle in too quickly, but  for the most part everything is set up the same way is was in ME1. You get a lead, you explore it, you set off an explosion (sometimes by accident) and Joker snarks. The increase in combat makes sense from a lore perspective in that you're operating in areas of space where neither the Systems Alliance nor Citadel has.

Also, operating in a lawless and almost entirely merc-run area means that things coming into armed conflict, espeically on the essential anarchy of Omega, or the Krogan homeworld makes a ton of sense.

Modifié par KalosCast, 01 mai 2010 - 05:54 .

[Terror_K]

Xpheyel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's not hard to give more depth and balance to the weapons system; the concept is no different than doing the same in a good fantasy RPG. It's all about the attributes of the weapons and giving some high values in one attribute and low values in others, while other weapons have different higher and lower values. This way a player has to decide whether they want more damage or more accuracy, more damage or more shield/armour bypass, more clips/less overheat for less damage, or less clips/faster overheat for more... stuff like that. The problem with ME1's weapons was that they barely did this, and generally when you came across a better gun it was better across the board, with a few exceptions.

That's my whole point, it wasn't deep, because they didn't do that. You keep saying ME2 is shallower, and I mean in this regard in particular, I don't see any basis for that. I've explained why. 

Its shallower because its taken all of that away and thus taken away the potential to have a deep system, replacing it with a bunch of linear stat-devoid weapons with no customisation and limited selection. The potential to do it was there, but the new system completely throws that potential aside in favour of a simpler and easier solution that is no better than the system in any average shooter now. In fact, it pretty much is just a shooter system they've slapped into an RPG. The fact that you can stick with the same weapon in ME2 from Level 1 and get to the end of the game without issues proves this: in the original game sticking with the default weapon or even any of the weapons you get in the first 10 levels would cause many problems by the time you're in your 30's, let alone 50's.

If you mean theres one HEAVY shotgun and one ASSAULT shotgun then that is true. But it is completely irrelevant. The fact that there is a heavy shotgun and an assault shotgun at all, and that I have to pick one, is precisely what ME1 lacks. That makes ME1 shallow.

All that is is adding new types of items, but when you strip away the amount of them and the ability to modify them entirely it also removes the depth. It would be the same if Dragon Age 2 came along and instead of having dozens upon dozens of different longswords to find you just got one at the start of the game, but at certain points could come across a bastard sword and a spear (two weapon types he original game didn't have) in the same place, and that's pretty much all you get for your shield/one-handed weapon fighter to use beyond the single axe you can come across too. Oh, and rune slots are now gone too. Do you really think that this second system is deeper and better just because there's two new weapon types now? Its the same principle here, but for some reason people still support it and think its better.

If you enjoy that, that is fine. It didn't add anything in particular for me when looking for armors or other equipment. I don't see how randomization contributes to depth, however. If anything, it has a strong potential to break it because it creates situations where you just use whatever is statistically best because the RNG generated it, rather than choosing from a range of arguably equally effective but different options.

Which is why weapons need to be balance so there is not one all-powerful item with all the attributes high... at least not unless its incredibly rare and hard to get, and even then there should be alternatives of similar style with different high stats. Having items constantly in the same places makes things linear and boring, and unique items are not unique when there are no common ones. ME2 totally loses the feeling you'd get in ME1 when you'd unlock a crate or kill a geth and that Colossus X armour would be there for you. ME1 didn't do a great job at these factors, but it at least tried to do it, and the rare times when it worked (like in the example above) were great. ME2 doesn't even try, and any sense of randomness, chance or exploration and discovery are lost, because everything is so limited, everything is so linear and everything is always the same every single boring tedious time.

Terror_K wrote...
I don't recall actually having to get out of combat to switch mods on the PC version at least. Save was disabled but not the inventory screen. That's why I don't think its deep. You don't have to plan. You just have to put up with the inventory screen repeatedly.

As opposed to ME2 where... there's no equivalent at all whatsoever. None.

Again, the potential was there. ME1 had a lot of problems with both its combat and inventory, but they were fixable problems, not broken beyond all repair. But did BioWare fix them? Did BioWare try and make them work? No... they didn't. They threw them out, replaced them either with the simplest solution or didn't replace them at all, and ended up making everything watered down and oversimplified in the end.

A lot of people say that Mass Effect 1 had broken elements and was was clunky, boring and repetitive for it in these areas, and while there may be a certain amount of truth to it at least it managed to avoid being what Mass Effect 2 became for just throwing them out: Generic. Because I'd rather have an original and engaging game with some broken elements than a generic and tedious game with ones that work.

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 mai 2010 - 08:23 .

[Xpheyel]

Terror_K wrote...
Its shallower because its taken all of that away and thus taken away the potential to have a deep system, replacing it with a bunch of linear stat-devoid weapons with no customisation and limited selection. The potential to do it was there, but the new system completely throws that potential aside in favour of a simpler and easier solution that is no better than the system in any average shooter now. In fact, it pretty much is just a shooter system they've slapped into an RPG. The fact that you can stick with the same weapon in ME2 from Level 1 and get to the end of the game without issues proves this: in the original game sticking with the default weapon or even any of the weapons you get in the first 10 levels would cause many problems by the time you're in your 30's, let alone 50's.

So, this particular element, Mass Effect 1 had the potential to be deep. Was it actually deep or did it just have the potential?

And I don't see anything wrong with that you can stick with a gun if you want. It's different but to be honest basically not important to me. At all. Nor does it have anything to do with depth, the way I see it. In fact, if you actually held on to any Mark I weapon in ME1 and opened any weapon locker at level 50 you're basically gauranteed to find a weapon that is better in every aspect.

That's not deep, it is shallow. The decision is to use the gun that is better in every way or not. That kind of system can never be deep to me. No matter the 'potential'.

This is like me saying ME2 is deeper because they COULD HAVE added a weapon mod system in on top of the different guns. It's purely hypothetical. I'm, at least trying to, deal with what is, or is not, the case. If all you're really saying is that ME1 didn't actually have deeper weapons but could have had deeper weapons then there isn't really anything to argue about. Might have beens, irrelevent.

And, of course, Mass Effect 2 weapons are not 'stat devoid'. The base line differences are if anything more variable. You can look them up on the ME wikia any time you like.

All that is is adding new types of items, but when you strip away the amount of them and the ability to modify them entirely it also removes the depth. It would be the same if Dragon Age 2 came along and instead of having dozens upon dozens of different longswords to find you just got one at the start of the game, but at certain points could come across a bastard sword and a spear (two weapon types he original game didn't have) in the same place, and that's pretty much all you get for your shield/one-handed weapon fighter to use beyond the single axe you can come across too. Oh, and rune slots are now gone too. Do you really think that this second system is deeper and better just because there's two new weapon types now? Its the same principle here, but for some reason people still support it and think its better.

No idea how Dragon Age works. But if all the longswords were basically the same, but the spear and axe were different, then yeah. It'd be a deeper system. Because your choice of longsword wouldn't actually matter.

And rune slots sound like they would be customization. I've already agreed that I like customization, and that ME2 is worse at it. I don't know what else you want. I'm happy to critique the game when its actually not good at what the element in question is. And I'm happy to admin that ME1 is better at things, like customization, when it was actually better. The main point to me is the all-emcompassing ME2 bash and swipes at the intelligence of it's players.

ME2 is not shallower for using a shooter/load out weapon system for the base weapons because it they have viability, variability, and you have to pick between them. A choice that you notice and has impact on your play, this qualifies as a deep choice. It is not worse than ME1 at this because ME1's weapons lacked viability, variability, or really picking between them given the case. It doesn't fit my criteria for depth.

And of course, that is my criteria for depth as best I can explain it. If yours is finding them randomly and having an inventory, then we're just going to disagree. Those are periphal and in some cases counter-productive to depth in my view. I still don't even know what you think depth is.

You keep going on about types. Like I said, I don't know what you mean by types. If they are different items that go in the same slot, that's completely different than the way a shotgun is a different type of gun than a sniper rifle... I assume you mean the former but I can't be sure. In the former case, yes it is deeper when you have more types because you have to choose what type you're actually going to use.

Which is why weapons need to be balance so there is not one all-powerful item with all the attributes high... at least not unless its incredibly rare and hard to get, and even then there should be alternatives of similar style with different high stats. Having items constantly in the same places makes things linear and boring, and unique items are not unique when there are no common ones. ME2 totally loses the feeling you'd get in ME1 when you'd unlock a crate or kill a geth and that Colossus X armour would be there for you. ME1 didn't do a great job at these factors, but it at least tried to do it, and the rare times when it worked (like in the example above) were great. ME2 doesn't even try, and any sense of randomness, chance or exploration and discovery are lost, because everything is so limited, everything is so linear and everything is always the same every single boring tedious time.

Missing the point. Even if equipment is balanced in theory the random drop system would have to be equally balanced. Even assuming that weapons are balanced along the same level strata, the RNG can produce a weapon from a higher level strata which is much less likely to be balanced with respect to my existing gear.

I.E. A straight linear upgrade.

It's also possible though less likely for the RNG to produce the same kind of weapon for a given slot/type/category. If it happens to produce only Heavy Shotgun analogs, for example. I can't choose to use Assault Shotguns if I don't find any or only find them at a substantially lower level where their hypothetical gameplay advantages are outweighed by the statistical dominance of the higher level shotguns.

Regarding feelings, like I've said, I guess your mileage is going to vary. ME1's lootomatic was always irritating to me. I'd understand the point if it was an MMO (carrot and a stick) but I always knew I needed Savant amps or Colossus armor. When they didn't turn up, it was annoying. When they did, it was for no virtue of mine. I didn't find it interesting. If they put in some decision making process as to acquiring weapons I'd be more interested but pure random loot systems are not high on my list of priorities. I can live with them but they are certainly do not make or break the game.

And, heh, if we're going to talk about shooters so disparagingly, the way ME1's inventory works is actually in practice closer to a older style of shooter like Half Life or Doom in that you can carry all your stuff around with you and switch to it quickly, except its more annoying than hitting number keys.

As opposed to ME2 where... there's no equivalent at all whatsoever. None.

Again, the potential was there. ME1 had a lot of problems with both its combat and inventory, but they were fixable problems, not broken beyond all repair. But did BioWare fix them? Did BioWare try and make them work? No... they didn't. They threw them out, replaced them either with the simplest solution or didn't replace them at all, and ended up making everything watered down and oversimplified in the end.

A lot of people say that Mass Effect 1 had broken elements and was was clunky, boring and repetitive for it in these areas, and while there may be a certain amount of truth to it at least it managed to avoid being what Mass Effect 2 became for just throwing them out: Generic. Because I'd rather have an original and engaging game with some broken elements than a generic and tedious game with ones that work.

To put this in context, we were talking about anti-Organic and anti-Synthetic ammo mods from ME1.

Actually you can always switch your ammo type if you want to and have the ammo skills in ME2. Most of the time I try to avoid it but there isn't anything stopping you from using Disruptor ammo to strip shields and AP/Shredder ammo to take down health if you have the ammo skills. Doing that makes the PC fiddle with his gun for a second and has a 1.5 second global cooldown IIRC. Also, you can trigger it from the combat pause screen or the hotbar. If you do lack ammo skills then you can always take Warp/AP Ammo as your bonus talent or bring a squadmate with a squad ammo power (I.E. on a Geth mission bring Zaeed for the squad evolution of Disruptor ammo).

Not sure what you were driving at there to be honest. There's no question ME2 has the basic types covered even if they're a bit more focused on defenses (shields, barriers, armor) than on Organic/Synthetic. The main point is that switching now has a tactical drawback (takes game/power time) but doesn't require going through multiple inventory screens (waste of real time) to get at. The wonkiness is that the squad is usually insisting on using their own type if they have one.

Of course, maybe you hate ammo types as powers (that hate seems kind of silly to me what with Carnage being a power from ME1) too much to play with the system. For what its worth, I think Bioshock handled it a bit better (you carry completely different types of ammo and 'reload' when you switch to them).

Again regarding feelings, that's your perogative though I'm not sure what makes inventories and anti-X-monster ammo types original in ME1 but load outs and anti-X-defense ammo powers in ME2 unoriginal.

Modifié par Xpheyel, 01 mai 2010 - 07:29 .

[Vena_86]

Xpheyel wrote...
So, this particular element, Mass Effect 1 had the potential to be deep. Was it actually deep or did it just have the potential?

For this and many other elements Mass Effect didnt live up to its potential. But all those elements that are not perfectly represented but atleast are there add up and make for more depth then in the sequel.
ME2 makes better use of its potentential but with its simplified and stripped down elements there is so much less potential to begin with.
Here lies the problem with ME2. As a sequel you would expect it to improve the flawed elements of the series and live up to the potential. Simply reducing the potential is a cheap way out.

"Hey Dr.BioWare, I can't move my arm properly, can you fix it?"
"Sure I can." *removes the arm with a chainsaw* "There, problem solved....next please!"

[Darth Drago]

-Thermal Clips. One of my biggest issues with ME2 because its so messed up on many levels. *Been working on this off and on for a while. Also, long post warning...

Codex Entry:

“It was long thought that personal weapons had plateaued in performance, but the geth proved all theories wrong. Mathematically reviewing their combat logs, the geth found that in an age of kinetic barriers, the weapon with the most rounds down-range the fastest wins. Combatants were forced to deliberately shoot slower to manage waste heat or pause as their weapons vented.

To eliminate this inefficiency, the geth adopted detachable heat sinks known as thermal clips. While organic arms manufacturers were initially doubtful this would produce a net gain, a well-trained soldier can eject and swap thermal clips in under a second. Faced with superior enemy firepower, organic armies soon followed the geth's lead and today's battlefields are littered with these thermal clips.”

Now whats wrong with that little Codex entry?
1. If I understand this right, the Geth developed this technology after ME1 since the Geth have been pretty much in their home turf before then for about 300 years. The only real true combat they encountered during ME1 was fighting Shepard and friends, some Salarians on Virmire and some minor skirmishes by some non-military trained humans here and there.
2. The organic arms manufacturers? Like huh? Wouldn’t this mean that people have fought the Geth a lot since the first game. Since C-Sec has no clue what a Geth looks like this makes no sense at all. Anderson mentions that a few sightings have been reported from time to time but that’s not nearly enough for someone to come up with the idea of adapting Geth tech to new weapons galaxy wide.
3. That last line “..today's battlefields are littered with these thermal clips.” Used ones yes, unused I don’t think so. Yea right, because a soldier will drop or leave something that powers his weapon. That’s like a soldier in today’s armies would leave ammo laying about. Dead soldiers I can understand them having some but since a lot of the time we find them laying about without getting into combat.

Why the thermal clip/heat sink/ammo (whatever its called) is not a technological advance. For starters its on a one to one ratio. You pull the trigger you shoot a round or rounds depending on the gun. When you reload, that thermal clip replaces that one round or what you just used. Its not like a thermal clip gives you 60 or so shots before the gun overheats and then needing to change the clip, which would have been a vastly better system. We went from having weapons that have unlimited ammo to weapons with a very limited ammo system.

For example: The M-8 Avenger Assault rifle holds 40 rounds in a clip with a max capacity of 400 rounds total in reloads. That’s 440 rounds in total. In my experience of play testing this, it takes on average 20 shots to take down a merc. This accounts for a few misses in the firefight as well and my average was 20 shots. So at this rate you can kill about 22 mercs before your out of ammo.

Imagine if your squad was in a holdout situation, where you had to lets say hold a position for any length of time against a large amount of enemies. For a good example look at Pinnacle Station and Ahern’s scenario from his past combat experience in the First Contact War. With the ME2 ammo system you couldn’t do that scenario (in the scenario or the real version its based on) because you would run out of ammo before you got halfway through it. And no, the Turians you fight don’t drop ammo because their weapons are still using the mass accelerator technology that don’t require thermal clips and also there is no conveniently placed thermal clips laying around.

Overheating… I would bet that anyone who served in the Army or Marines in particular was drilled to death to shoot their automatic weapons in short controlled bursts and not hold the trigger down. Why would this basic training change in the Mass Effect universe? So the entire overheating under normal use and no tech attacks of your weapons in ME1 should never be a factor to anyone who is trained in those weapons like every character you have in your group.

The illogical way thermal clips drop or are found in locations they shouldn’t be is just another problem of the bad planning of this new system. Why do the Collectors drop/use them? Even on their own ships they are all over the place. Last I heard Collector weapons are not based on Geth tech. Why do husks drop them? Do husks somehow have pockets now or use weapons? Why dose a shipwreck castaway group have them at all if they have been isolated on that planet for 10 years?

The kicker that I love is that the entire galaxy seems to have fully upgraded to using weapons that use thermal clips. A very limited selection of weapons at that compared to all the various manufacturers we saw in ME1. I mean everyone uses the exact same few weapons. All done in less than two years at that. You cant even convert everyone to use the Blu-ray disc format, switch to the metric system or go PC over Mac on one planet. Yet you expect us to believe everyone switched to thermal clip using weapons and they are so widely accepted galaxy wide by all races?

[KalosCast]

Yes, those are pretty much all the arguments that were brought up within the first week the game came out. What's your point?

[Dudeman315]

Thank you darth for putting that into words--[sarcasm] but it makes combat all tactical and junk to you know have to run a round like a moron to find replacement ammo during a long drawn out firefight with the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy who also apparently use thermal clips after they found out it was better than any technology that the reapers could produce and I mean breaking both story and logic isn't a big deal because they improved every other aspect of ME2 by removing anything that got in the way of the vastly superior combat system because I like to be forced to switch weapons types cause it's all tactical and junk to change my weapon that's out of ammo[/sarcasm]



You forgot one thing--that you could run out of say sniper ammo but still be full on your other guns even though they supposedly all use the same f'n thermal clips.

[KalosCast]

It certainly makes it more tactical than slowly walking forward while constantly firing your impossible to overheat sniper rifle while wearing wearing armor that the enemies will need a heavy tank to punch through.

[uberdowzen]

C'mon, it's there to improve the gameplay, at least they tried to implement it into the lore.

[Terror_K]

[quote]Xpheyel wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Its shallower because its taken all of that away and thus taken away the potential to have a deep system, replacing it with a bunch of linear stat-devoid weapons with no customisation and limited selection. The potential to do it was there, but the new system completely throws that potential aside in favour of a simpler and easier solution that is no better than the system in any average shooter now. In fact, it pretty much is just a shooter system they've slapped into an RPG. The fact that you can stick with the same weapon in ME2 from Level 1 and get to the end of the game without issues proves this: in the original game sticking with the default weapon or even any of the weapons you get in the first 10 levels would cause many problems by the time you're in your 30's, let alone 50's.[/quote]

So, this particular element, Mass Effect 1 had the potential to be deep. Was it actually deep or did it just have the potential?

And I don't see anything wrong with that you can stick with a gun if you want. It's different but to be honest basically not important to me. At all. Nor does it have anything to do with depth, the way I see it. In fact, if you actually held on to any Mark I weapon in ME1 and opened any weapon locker at level 50 you're basically gauranteed to find a weapon that is better in every aspect.

That's not deep, it is shallow. The decision is to use the gun that is better in every way or not. That kind of system can never be deep to me. No matter the 'potential'.

This is like me saying ME2 is deeper because they COULD HAVE added a weapon mod system in on top of the different guns. It's purely hypothetical. I'm, at least trying to, deal with what is, or is not, the case. If all you're really saying is that ME1 didn't actually have deeper weapons but could have had deeper weapons then there isn't really anything to argue about. Might have beens, irrelevent.[/quote]

What I'm saying is that the system in place was deeper, but it was the execution that was at fault. So since the system was there and was deeper, then it inherently is deeper. It just wasn't as deep or well done as it could have been. We saw glimpses of it here and there, but it was never fully realised. ME2 doesn't even have glimpses of depth, and shows no signs of it at all in what's there. ME1 had a fairly good system in place that could have worked well... it was just the items themselves were too borked and it didn't quite work. But having a variety of weapons, even if they were admittedly samey, and being able to customise them is deeper than having only one of each weapon and not being able to customise them.

[quote]
And, of course, Mass Effect 2 weapons are not 'stat devoid'. The base line differences are if anything more variable. You can look them up on the ME wikia any time you like.[/quote]

Yes... I can look them up on the ME wikia. They're not in the game itself, fully visible and comparable though, are they? Technically all weapons in every shooting-related game ever have stats on them beneath that determine their damage, speed, etc. but they're not proper stats in the RPG sense of the word if they're not visible to the player in the game. ME2 has as many stats as Doom, Quake or Unreal Tournament do. I'm talking about a visible number attributed to different attributes of the gun that the player can see in game in order to make a comparison related to other items of a similar type. Like most proper RPG's have. ME1 had them... why doesn't ME2? Is it because the poor shooter fanboys are scared by too many big numbers? Or is it because all you need is the feeling of your grasping your weapon and pumping it until *CENSORED*

[quote]
[quote]
All that is is adding new types of items, but when you strip away the amount of them and the ability to modify them entirely it also removes the depth. It would be the same if Dragon Age 2 came along and instead of having dozens upon dozens of different longswords to find you just got one at the start of the game, but at certain points could come across a bastard sword and a spear (two weapon types he original game didn't have) in the same place, and that's pretty much all you get for your shield/one-handed weapon fighter to use beyond the single axe you can come across too. Oh, and rune slots are now gone too. Do you really think that this second system is deeper and better just because there's two new weapon types now? Its the same principle here, but for some reason people still support it and think its better.[/quote]

No idea how Dragon Age works. But if all the longswords were basically the same, but the spear and axe were different, then yeah. It'd be a deeper system. Because your choice of longsword wouldn't actually matter.[/quote]

I imagine that the Dragon Age fans would throw a fit at this concept and BioWare would get an earful if they ever did this. If there was only one longsword in the entire game it would suck and make a great deal of it entirely pointless. Yet, the concept seems "fine" in ME2 because of its new shooter-oriented approach.

[quote]
I still don't even know what you think depth is.[/quote]

Depth is having more options, more variables, more stats, more customisation and more freedom. Depth is not linear and simple, which Mass Effect 2's systems are.

[quote]
You keep going on about types. Like I said, I don't know what you mean by types. If they are different items that go in the same slot, that's completely different than the way a shotgun is a different type of gun than a sniper rifle... I assume you mean the former but I can't be sure. In the former case, yes it is deeper when you have more types because you have to choose what type you're actually going to use.[/quote]

In Mass Effect 1 there are four types of weapons but almost a dozen of each of them... more if you extend them through their levels (I to X). In Mass Effect 2 there are more types, but less weapons in them, and there are cases where they're so different that one could hesitate to even call them the same type. Each feels unique and different, so essentially there's only one of each weapon. They're so limited, so linear and so devoid of customising.

Simply put: It's not deeper having more types when there's only one of each type. Mass Effect 1 was like a bag of jelly beans, but while Mass Effect 2 was like a lolly scramble mix instead it had only one of each type of candy inside.

[quote]
Missing the point. Even if equipment is balanced in theory the random drop system would have to be equally balanced. Even assuming that weapons are balanced along the same level strata, the RNG can produce a weapon from a higher level strata which is much less likely to be balanced with respect to my existing gear.

I.E. A straight linear upgrade.

It's also possible though less likely for the RNG to produce the same kind of weapon for a given slot/type/category. If it happens to produce only Heavy Shotgun analogs, for example. I can't choose to use Assault Shotguns if I don't find any or only find them at a substantially lower level where their hypothetical gameplay advantages are outweighed by the statistical dominance of the higher level shotguns.[/quote]

A good system will allocate a good mix of items of each type, dropping them according to your level and their rarity. ME1 didn't really have a problem with this aspect, even if the items were samey and needed balancing. If the items themselves don't have levels, ala ME2's weapons, then all they need do is have a random drop at the right place of any one of the weapons and/or items you have, discounting the ones you've already scanned before (assuming we're going with ME2's scanning system to avoid the issue of clutter).

[quote]
Regarding feelings, like I've said, I guess your mileage is going to vary. ME1's lootomatic was always irritating to me. I'd understand the point if it was an MMO (carrot and a stick) but I always knew I needed Savant amps or Colossus armor. When they didn't turn up, it was annoying. When they did, it was for no virtue of mine. I didn't find it interesting. If they put in some decision making process as to acquiring weapons I'd be more interested but pure random loot systems are not high on my list of priorities. I can live with them but they are certainly do not make or break the game. [/quote]

There should be some degree of randomness to it. It's boring in an RPG to find the same gun in the same place every time. Its supposed to be a game about building your character right and customising them and making them unique for it, but instead we have a completely linear progression system with no variation, so every player ends up with all the same stuff by the end of the game every time. The armour is somewhat of an exception because you actually choose to buy it or not, but the weapons are a linear, boring joke. The closest thing to an exception to this would be on The Collector ship where you come across a choice of three items or additional weapon abilities. If it had been more like this throughout the game every time you can across a weapon to scan, it may have added some depth to things, because the player would be forced to pick and choose (though one would also need a logical in-game reason for this).

I still believe the answer is a system somewhere between the two already in place, since ME1's system was too looty and awkward while ME2's was too linear and lacking in depth. Bringing back weapon modding in some form is a must, IMO. As is increasing the amount of each type of weapon and bringing back visible stats. How they implement this from here I'd still need to think about. There must be some degree of either randomness or limiting choice. I believe clutter problems from ME1 are simply solved by keeping ME2's scanning system. Keep the weapons loadout limited to just the ship, ala ME2 too. How these additional elements are presented is up for debate.

[quote]
And, heh, if we're going to talk about shooters so disparagingly, the way ME1's inventory works is actually in practice closer to a older style of shooter like Half Life or Doom in that you can carry all your stuff around with you and switch to it quickly, except its more annoying than hitting number keys.[/quote]

I'd actually say its closer to any RPG where you can hold as much stuff as you can carry, either by slots or weight. Especially since ME1 did have an item limit. Not too different from Dragon Age or NWN in that regard.

[quote]
To put this in context, we were talking about anti-Organic and anti-Synthetic ammo mods from ME1.

Actually you can always switch your ammo type if you want to and have the ammo skills in ME2. Most of the time I try to avoid it but there isn't anything stopping you from using Disruptor ammo to strip shields and AP/Shredder ammo to take down health if you have the ammo skills. Doing that makes the PC fiddle with his gun for a second and has a 1.5 second global cooldown IIRC. Also, you can trigger it from the combat pause screen or the hotbar. If you do lack ammo skills then you can always take Warp/AP Ammo as your bonus talent or bring a squadmate with a squad ammo power (I.E. on a Geth mission bring Zaeed for the squad evolution of Disruptor ammo).

Not sure what you were driving at there to be honest. There's no question ME2 has the basic types covered even if they're a bit more focused on defenses (shields, barriers, armor) than on Organic/Synthetic. The main point is that switching now has a tactical drawback (takes game/power time) but doesn't require going through multiple inventory screens (waste of real time) to get at. The wonkiness is that the squad is usually insisting on using their own type if they have one.

Of course, maybe you hate ammo types as powers (that hate seems kind of silly to me what with Carnage being a power from ME1) too much to play with the system. For what its worth, I think Bioshock handled it a bit better (you carry completely different types of ammo and 'reload' when you switch to them).

Again regarding feelings, that's your perogative though I'm not sure what makes inventories and anti-X-monster ammo types original in ME1 but load outs and anti-X-defense ammo powers in ME2 unoriginal.
[/quote]

First of all, I don't think it personally makes sense to have ammo powers as skills/powers instead of mods. The whole thing just is a big logical flaw as far as I'm concerned. I mean... why would a skill determine what type of ammo my gun fires? Why can only a Soldier or Vanguard fire certain types now? How come an Engineer or Adept who could mod his weapon in ME1 to use cryo or incendiary rounds can't do the same now? Why can't weapons be modded at all any more? These things just made more sense as mods rather than powers, and I'm not just saying that because I miss mods. The only exception would be warp ammo, since it makes sense that a biotic could use that (though how a non-biotic can also is beyond me). Simply put: I think it was a stupid and illogical move, and probably simply came as a result of the devs needing to give the Soldier something extra power-wise, since the biotic and tech classes are far easier to logically give powers to.

Secondly, I believe that if mods do come back they should be limited to being only able to be altered in the weapons loadout screen, that you should only need to find (or get... buy... whatever) one and scan it (rather than keep finding them repeatedly) and that instead of having levels to them they should be upgraded using the research upgrade system. This combines the systems already in place in ME2 that stopped the inventory becoming a clutter with the depth and customisation weapons modding brings. If one puts an anti-synthetic mod in their weapon, they should realise that they're stuck with it until they get back or at least find another weapons loadout station. Overall, bring back modding. And bring back a proper radar and the mods that went with it too while we're at it. Bring back the best of the old mods, and think up some new ones, including weapon-type specific ones even (extra levels of zoom for sniper rifles, stabilisation mods for assault rifles, double-triggers for shotguns, etc.)

[SithLordExarKun]

KalosCast wrote...

Yes, those are pretty much all the arguments that were brought up within the first week the game came out. What's your point?

He probably hates the game that much.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 02 mai 2010 - 12:11 .

[Xpheyel]

Terror_K wrote...

What I'm saying is that the system in place was deeper, but it was the execution that was at fault. So since the system was there and was deeper, then it inherently is deeper. It just wasn't as deep or well done as it could have been. We saw glimpses of it here and there, but it was never fully realised. ME2 doesn't even have glimpses of depth, and shows no signs of it at all in what's there. ME1 had a fairly good system in place that could have worked well... it was just the items themselves were too borked and it didn't quite work. But having a variety of weapons, even if they were admittedly samey, and being able to customise them is deeper than having only one of each weapon and not being able to customise them.

Alright. Obviously, I disagree. It doesn't matter how deep the system 'could be' in my opinion, if someone had done something completely different. Only how deep my choices actually are. ME1 doesn't have a deep choice when it comes to weapon selection.

Being able to customize them is deeper, or can be, but I was never talking about that myself.

Yes... I can look them up on the ME wikia. They're not in the game itself, fully visible and comparable though, are they? Technically all weapons in every shooting-related game ever have stats on them beneath that determine their damage, speed, etc. but they're not proper stats in the RPG sense of the word if they're not visible to the player in the game. ME2 has as many stats as Doom, Quake or Unreal Tournament do. I'm talking about a visible number attributed to different attributes of the gun that the player can see in game in order to make a comparison related to other items of a similar type. Like most proper RPG's have. ME1 had them... why doesn't ME2? Is it because the poor shooter fanboys are scared by too many big numbers? Or is it because all you need is the feeling of your grasping your weapon and pumping it until *CENSORED*

I don't know. I look gun stats up in those kind of games too. Plenty of shooters have put in visible stats too. I'm not a developer. Obviously you put a lot of weight on this feature.

Depth is having more options, more variables, more stats, more customisation and more freedom. Depth is not linear and simple, which Mass Effect 2's systems are.

And I think ME1's weapon selection has fewer variables, options, and stats. Not 'as a system' possibly but as the weapons were designed? No question.

Customization seems like a seperate issue to me entirely. Though I agree that it can add a lot to depth if well implemented. That was never in question from my perspective. Which is why I am focused on the weapons themselves.

In Mass Effect 1 there are four types of weapons but almost a dozen of each of them... more if you extend them through their levels (I to X). In Mass Effect 2 there are more types, but less weapons in them, and there are cases where they're so different that one could hesitate to even call them the same type. Each feels unique and different, so essentially there's only one of each weapon. They're so limited, so linear and so devoid of customising.

Simply put: It's not deeper having more types when there's only one of each type. Mass Effect 1 was like a bag of jelly beans, but while Mass Effect 2 was like a lolly scramble mix instead it had only one of each type of candy inside.

Ok, hold it.
ME2 has 6 types of weapons, excluding special DLC:
Heavy Pistols (Predator, Carnifax)
SMGs (Shurikan, Tempest)
Shotguns (Claymore, Eviscerator [Cerberus DLC], Katana, Scimitar)
Assault Rifles (Revenant, Vindicator, Avenger, Geth Pulse Rifle)
Sniper Rifles (Widow, Viper, Mantis)
Heavy Weapons (Many)

To be clear, I was never, at all talking about the addition of SMGs and Heavy Weapons. That is not even remotely what I meant. I don't know how to make this any clearer: Weapon Type Is Not What I Was Referring To. Weapon type is only relevant to determining exactly which choice I am talking about. I am talking about comparing guns within the same type.

ME2 has two pistols. There are reasons for using either.

If ME1 has ten pistols. There are reasons for using perhaps 3 (the other 7 are worse in every way), within those three, the play will basically use them the same way. One pistols will have a bit more damage and one will have a few more shots before overheat. Functionally, this is basically irrelevant. Take any of them, if the RNG has produced it.

ME2 has 4 shotguns for Vanguards. A Vanguard can use any of those shotguns effectively. Even the Katana for some people. At least the Scimitar, Claymore, and Eviscerator play differently. I went into Vanguard thinking I'd use the Scimitar, and then the Claymore, but in practice the Eviscerator was my favorite. That doesn't stop Scimitar or Claymore Vanguards from working, it was just that my playstyle was best suited for the Eviscerator's balance of RPM, damage, and ammo capacity. The highest variation between them is losing 230+ damage for 7 additional shots per clip, 6 additional shots (12 when upgraded) for total capacity, and higher RPM (hard to measure because the slowest shotgun fires once per clip forcing a reload every time).

ME1 at Mark X has, if I'm counting correctly, 9 Shotguns, not counting the Spectre weapons for being imbalanced. Of those nine, 6 at worse at everything. The highest variation is losing about 50 damage for 1.7 shots. It has one additional shotgun in between them.

So, which choice do you think is deeper? The one with differentiated and at least partially balanced weapons or the one with imbalanced or samey weapons?

A good system will allocate a good mix of items of each type, dropping them according to your level and their rarity. ME1 didn't really have a problem with this aspect, even if the items were samey and needed balancing. If the items themselves don't have levels, ala ME2's weapons, then all they need do is have a random drop at the right place of any one of the weapons and/or items you have, discounting the ones you've already scanned before (assuming we're going with ME2's scanning system to avoid the issue of clutter).

Ok to be precise it had MARKS and it generated higher MARKS as your character level progressed. I'm not making the situation up either, it happened to create a Mark IV weapon when I was mostly finding Mark I and Mark II weapons. Obviously, the Mark IV was a lot better than anything I'd found til that point. 

Even if the item design HAD BEEN BETTER, which it was not, the RNG would've effectively destroyed it in that case until my character level was high enough for the RNG to reliably produce more Mark IV weapons.

I'd actually say its closer to any RPG where you can hold as much stuff as you can carry, either by slots or weight. Especially since ME1 did have an item limit. Not too different from Dragon Age or NWN in that regard.

You can say that if you like. The item limit was far too high to matter, except for loot. And you could instantly switch guns of the same type. So yeah.

First of all, I don't think it personally makes sense to have ammo powers as skills/powers instead of mods. The whole thing just is a big logical flaw as far as I'm concerned. I mean... why would a skill determine what type of ammo my gun fires? Why can only a Soldier or Vanguard fire certain types now? How come an Engineer or Adept who could mod his weapon in ME1 to use cryo or incendiary rounds can't do the same now? Why can't weapons be modded at all any more? These things just made more sense as mods rather than powers, and I'm not just saying that because I miss mods. The only exception would be warp ammo, since it makes sense that a biotic could use that (though how a non-biotic can also is beyond me). Simply put: I think it was a stupid and illogical move, and probably simply came as a result of the devs needing to give the Soldier something extra power-wise, since the biotic and tech classes are far easier to logically give powers to.

But Carnage was ok I guess? Or the fact that Marksman and Overkill generate less heat? How, for that matter, did Assassination work? ME2 doesn't exactly lick illogical "Gun Powers" off the grass.

Frankly I think this is just another example of unevenly applied
sniping at ME2. Mass Effect's transgressions are always glossed over
because it 'has potential' for one reason or another when it's absolutely unforgivable in ME2.

Secondly, I believe that if mods do come back they should be limited to being only able to be altered in the weapons loadout screen, that you should only need to find (or get... buy... whatever) one and scan it (rather than keep finding them repeatedly) and that instead of having levels to them they should be upgraded using the research upgrade system. This combines the systems already in place in ME2 that stopped the inventory becoming a clutter with the depth and customisation weapons modding brings. If one puts an anti-synthetic mod in their weapon, they should realise that they're stuck with it until they get back or at least find another weapons loadout station. Overall, bring back modding. And bring back a proper radar and the mods that went with it too while we're at it. Bring back the best of the old mods, and think up some new ones, including weapon-type specific ones even (extra levels of zoom for sniper rifles, stabilisation mods for assault rifles, double-triggers for shotguns, etc.)

Alrighty but I thought the point was that ME2 didn't have any kind of analogy to Shredder/Tungsten ammo? You say you had to plan to use the anti-Organic or anti-Synthetic ammo, which you didn't at all because as soon as you decided to shoot at an organic you could give the entire squad the anti-organic ammo. But that you didn't with anti-defense ammo in ME2 because...?

Modifié par Xpheyel, 02 mai 2010 - 03:25 .

[Throw_this_away]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Yes, those are pretty much all the arguments that were brought up within the first week the game came out. What's your point?

He probably hates the game that much.

Hates the game enough to buy it, play it through... read all the lore... pick the lore apart, join a forum for the game, write huge posts about the game, follow those posts.... etc. 

Translation: He loves the game, as do most people ****ing around here.  If these people truly did not like the game they would not be posting in the first place.  They would be playing splinter cell or god of war 3.  

Modifié par Throw_this_away, 02 mai 2010 - 01:46 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Throw_this_away wrote...


Hates the game enough to buy it, play it through... read all the lore... pick the lore apart, join a forum for the game, write huge posts about the game, follow those posts.... etc. 

Translation: He loves the game, as do most people ****ing around here.  If these people truly did not like the game they would not be posting in the first place.  They would be playing splinter cell or god of war 3.  

Horrible analogy. You wouldn't know if you hated the game unless you bought it to begin with. And joining a forum doesn't mean you love the game. Constantly repeating the same points over and over again and reinforcing the fact that you hate this game doesn't mean you love it.

And for your information there are a number of people who admitted to hating the game and insulting anybody that likes it but wait, by your logic they love the game even more than those that didn't list its flaws. You don't relentlessly bash a game or something/someone if you "love it".

Let me ask you a question, if you love your husband or wife, do you constantly tell him/her is a piece of ****, beat him/her every single day, constantly stalk and keep tabs on her? With your rationale, the answer is yes.

Hell with that same analogy of yours any atheist that constantly reads the bible or koran to pick it apart means they MUST love god and the bible.(when ironically they don't even believe in the existence of any deity). 

Do you get my point?

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 02 mai 2010 - 01:55 .

[Throw_this_away]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Throw_this_away wrote...


Hates the game enough to buy it, play it through... read all the lore... pick the lore apart, join a forum for the game, write huge posts about the game, follow those posts.... etc. 

Translation: He loves the game, as do most people ****ing around here.  If these people truly did not like the game they would not be posting in the first place.  They would be playing splinter cell or god of war 3.  

Horrible analogy. You wouldn't know if you hated the game unless you bought it to begin with. And joining a forum doesn't mean you love the game. Constantly repeating the same points over and over again and reinforcing the fact that you hate this game doesn't mean you love it.

I call that a troll.  Simple really.   A true deep seeded hatred is possible... but that would imply some other deep dark messed up mental pathology.   A normal person would get over it.  Games I don't like get thrown in a drawer after a few hours.  They might get a second chance on some rany day. 

SithLordExarKun wrote...
And for your information there are a number of people who admitted to hating the game and insulting anybody that likes it but wait, by your logic they love the game even more than those that didn't list its flaws. You don't relentlessly bash a game or something/someone if you "love it".

No you don't.  THAT IS MY POINT.  Sounds like trolls again.  "Insulting anybody that likes it" sounds like they are trying to have fun by getting under people's skin.  It is fun to do really.  Maybe I am doing it to you right now?

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Let me ask you a question, if you love your husband or wife, do you constantly tell him/her is a piece of ****, beat him/her every single day, constantly stalk and keep tabs on her? With your rationale, the answer is yes.

No, but if you love a game enough, you may love it enough to want it to be better, and to thus pubically criticise it in the forum in hopes that the developers will take notice and improve things for ME3.  That is the intention of most "normal", non trolling, forum members complaining about the game.  For those that are not trolls, and truly hate it... good luck in life... you need it. 

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Hell with that same analogy of yours any atheist that constantly reads the bible or koran to pick it apart means they MUST love god and the bible.(when ironically they don't even believe in the existence of any deity).

My point was a half truth, I think that if people are passonate enough to want a game to be better by publically pointing out flaws in the game, than they probably care enough about the game to have enjoyed it (this does not mean everyone thinks it is perfect).  The other side of my post was to be a bit extreme in how I made my point... to lure posters/trolls into a heated argument.  Arguments are fun.  

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Do you get my point?

I see your point, but I think it is poorly crafted.  You got too emotional and fell into my trap.  

[SithLordExarKun]

Throw_this_away wrote...



I call that a troll.  Simple really.   A true deep seeded hatred is possible... but that would imply some other deep dark messed up mental pathology.   A normal person would get over it.  Games I don't like get thrown in a drawer after a few hours.  They might get a second chance on some rany day. 

You probably just answered my initial thoughts. Just who spends months relentlessly insulting a video game unless they must have some deep dark messed up mental pathology?(I just wonder if the OP hates the game that much, but once you know me i am referring to other members and not him though i suspected something at first).

I too throw games i absolutely despise into the drawer, but that doesn't mean everybody does it, some go to the creepy extent of bashing it for months.

Throw_this_away wrote...
No you don't.  THAT IS MY POINT.  Sounds like trolls again.  "Insulting anybody that likes it" sounds like they are trying to have fun by getting under people's skin.  It is fun to do really.  Maybe I am doing it to you right now?

Sorry to dissapoint, but i wouldn't say you're trolling and i would agree they are indeed trolling. But yes, you don't "bash a game" to love it, you "advice on what you think should be improved" and many of the people crying here aren't really doing it but bashing the people who do enjoy it or prefer it to the first game.(read some of their signatures)

Throw_this_away wrote...
No, but if you love a game enough, you may love it enough to want it to be better, and to thus pubically criticise it in the forum in hopes that the developers will take notice and improve things for ME3.  That is the intention of most "normal", non trolling, forum members complaining about the game.  For those that are not trolls, and truly hate it... good luck in life... you need it. 

Exactly, so you don't constantly try to rip the game apart(the developers worked very hard) and imply that the people who do like it are idiots with no brains(not referring to the OP but several other members) because that becomes unnecessary trolling and not constructive criticism.

The OP has some valid criticisms but look into it a little deeper and i saw alot of unnecessary nit picking.

Throw_this_away wrote...
My point was a half truth, I think that if people are passonate enough to want a game to be better by publically pointing out flaws in the game, than they probably care enough about the game to have enjoyed it (this does not mean everyone thinks it is perfect).  The other side of my post was to be a bit extreme in how I made my point... to lure posters/trolls into a heated argument.  Arguments are fun.  

This is far from a heated argument, in fact i wouldn't call it an argument or even a debate. I was applying your logic to other things as i felt your analogy made very little sense.

Bashing and hating on a game is very different from constantly giving constructive criticism. A lot of the posts i see lean more towards bashing and just take a look at some of these posters signatures.

Throw_this_away wrote...
I see your point, but I think it is poorly crafted.  You got too emotional and fell into my trap.  

Haha, believe me when i say i have yet to even get emotional, i didn't insult you or anything, you yourself said its fun to try to start an argument and i just wanted to mess around twisting that logic of yours. Now that was fun.

[Throw_this_away]

Throw_this_away wrote...
if you love a game enough, you may love it enough to want it to be better, and to thus pubically criticise it in the forum in hopes that the developers will take notice and improve things for ME3.  That is the intention of most "normal", non trolling, forum members complaining about the game. 

This is people who like the game.  Even if they think it is not perfect. 

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Bashing and hating on a game is very different from constantly giving constructive criticism.

Agreed. The bashers and haters (as opposed to the constructive criticisers) are 99% trolls.  Why invest so much energy in something you don't enjoy?  Everyone does something for a reason, for a gain.  To use your previous example, even abusers abuse others because it makes them feel better and covers up their own insecurities.  They abuse because they get a reward out of it.  Trolls are kind of like a watered down abuser.  They get kicks from pissing people off. 

But what brought the Troll here to the ME2 forum, and not the "game of the month" forum that would probably get better yeild for effort?  Probably because they bought the game, and enjoyed it.  (again, using your example, just like how an abuser usually gets into a relationship for reasons of friendship/love/sex.. enjoyable reasons). 

Back to the OP... and back to my original point... he has a lot of criticisms of the game, and as you say, some are nit-picking.  To put that much thought into the game, he bought and played through ME1 and 2, must have read a lot of ME codexes, and played the game a lot to get the facts straight... so that he could criticise them.  To care enough to take that time, means that he probably enjoyed the game.    I bet he is a constructive criticiser that likes the game. 

SithLordExarKun wrote...And for your information there are a
number of people who admitted to
hating the game and insulting anybody that likes it

SithLordExarKun wrote...[b]I too throw games i absolutely despise into the drawer, but that doesn't
mean everybody does it, [b]some go to the creepy extent of bashing it for
months.

Forum members that signed up and just constantly bash the game and anyone who enjoys it... is more of an exaggeration in my mind.  I think very few actually exist.  Most truly don't hate the game, they are just trolls.  We see a lot of folks around here complaining... so we think everyone hates the game.  We see a few ****** erotic art in the Tali thread, and a blow-up tali sex doll, and we think all Tali fans are crazy.  Most people are pretty moderate however. 

forest through the trees. 

Modifié par Throw_this_away, 02 mai 2010 - 03:44 .

[tonnactus]

KalosCast wrote...

It certainly makes it more tactical than slowly walking forward while constantly firing your impossible to overheat sniper rifle while wearing wearing armor that the enemies will need a heavy tank to punch through.

Wrong.Immunity made that,not heavy armor.It was okay they remove that.
And there are still enemies that survive more then two shots from a heavy weapon like double protected bosses...
And they still not explain,why shields and barriers protect from melee attacks now...
Asari commandos only had light armor in the previuos game(codex:Didnt do well in conventionel firefights like other races)
but now they are walking armor brickwalls.That could do only warp.
There is so much nonsense in this game,someone could write a book about it.
And my favorite:Krogans forget how to use assault rifles and use crappy shotguns at all ranges.

Modifié par tonnactus, 02 mai 2010 - 05:12 .

[Throw_this_away]

tonnactus wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

It certainly makes it more tactical than slowly walking forward while constantly firing your impossible to overheat sniper rifle while wearing wearing armor that the enemies will need a heavy tank to punch through.

Wrong.Immunity made that,not heavy armor.It was okay they remove that.
And there are still enemies that survive more then two shots from a heavy weapon like double protected bosses...
And they still not explain,why shields and barriers protect from melee attacks now...
Asari commandos only had light armor in the previuos game(codex:Didnt do well in conventionel firefights like other races)
but now they are walking armor brickwalls.That could do only warp.
There is so much nonsense in this game,someone could write a book about it.
And my favorite:Krogans forget how to use assault rifles and use crappy shotguns at all ranges.

Gameplay/combat/balance vs: codex accuracy.  Take your pick which you prefer for ME2.  Bioware obviously picked gameplay... and thank god.  

Krogans using shotguns at range?  Stupid?  Maybe... but that does not beat the idea of dinosaurs running around with lazers shooting at blue squids with huminoid bodies who can use their minds to flail a human with arms the thickness of a twig that makes a spaceship that travels faster than the speed of light, and lazers that travel slower than the speed of light. 

Lets also remember that you can ask the same question twice and the character will repeat the same answer with the same tone of voice, pace, and gestures.  You can even do it a third and 4th time.  No difference.  And what is with the pixilated characters who aren't even truly speaking.  Instead we have "voice actors" with timed dialigue that runs with the digital mouth movements.  So unrealistic.  Immersion is lost.  

Oh wait... this is a game... I almost forgot.    

Modifié par Throw_this_away, 02 mai 2010 - 11:26 .

[Terror_K]

There's a difference between a gameplay element and a universe element, though they do intersect.



I personally believe that if you set something up in the lore, codex and rules then you should stick with it unless you can come up with a sensible and logical alternative. When you've made your bed you have to lie in it, IMO. I know its a game first and a property second, but still... the thermal clip system alone is a massive fubar that's just unforgivable.



And then there's the fact that I'm also not entirely convinced the gameplay in ME2 is better for it either.

[AshleyLover]

The only thing that i didnt like with the game was that the game makers focused on the combat more than stuff like exploration the game is great. even though it has some flaws its not bad.there were some personal things that I didnt like when your character runs into your love intrest on Horizon and your love intrest basically say I dont want anything to do with you. I guess I got really attached to my first crew. but anyway the game is amazing and I cant wait for #3

[Sago_mulch]

ME2 IS PRETTY BAD, I HAET EVERYONE WHO LIKES IT. I PRETTY MUCH HAET ANY BIOWARE GAMES DESPITE BUYING DRAGONAGE:ORIGINS AND IT'S EXPANSION WITH MASS EFFECT 2.

LOL