10273 réponses à ce sujet

[shootist70]

Terror_K wrote...

The problem is, with something like this that's an almost impossible thing to pull off. Most sci-fi geeks love sci-fi not just for what it is, but for what it isn't. Namely, they like it because it's a bit more cerebral than the standard fare and isn't the same mindless, mainstream crap that the masses like. And when you take something that started off as more of a niche, nerdy sci-fi property and start making it more like the mainstream garbage out there, then it starts to lose its appeal for those who don't like that crap. You can't introduce that --not even a little-- without it annoying a good portion of the old fans in some manner. It's like if a movie studio wanted Stanley Kubrick or Ridley Scott to do a collaboration with Michael Bay. Mass Effect went from being a great homage to the great sci-fi epics of the late 1970's to early 1990's era with the first game into being closer to an over-the-top action fest more akin to modern Hollywood with the second. It sacrificed substance for style, and that goes for narrative and gameplay.

You've hit the nail on the head here, but not in a way you would like. Sci-fi isn't often 'cerebral'. 
A common perception of it is that it's genre trash. Pulp-fiction. Sadly, most of it is. The Ben Bovas, Gregory Benfords, Greg Bears and Iain M Banks's are all fairly thin on the ground, unfortunately. People looking for cerebral fiction tend to read literary fiction, not 'genre garbage'. Their perception of sci-fi is often negative because, for the most part, all that detail that sci-fi tends to have doesn't often constitute any literary depth.

And that's the exact problem that ME1 has - lots of detail that ultimately goes absolutely nowhere, and adds nothing other than a timesink and/or an intrinsic reward system. Time spent driving over empty terrain or messing with inventory/gear setups probably counted for more time than most people spent blasting through the story. All that detail did not add any depth other than slightly different ways to kill the bad guys, Big deal.

 When people play RPG's they want roleplay, not a childish version of an RTS, so Bioware knew that in ME2 they had to do what any decent sci-fi writer does: cut back on the detail so that it doesn't obstruct the story (and the roleplay). Roleplaying was more character related, and not gear/skill related, so it was a hell of a lot more 'grown-up' in that respect, and more likely to conform to a universal definition of entertainment, and not a niche hobby.

Modifié par shootist70, 22 septembre 2010 - 01:17 .

[Embrosil]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...



And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Its the same? According to who? You? Oh hell no sir, your unbacked claims are not absolute facts, especially when i noticed the difference between the avenger and the vindicator in a single burst. 

You might as well cry to the military that theres no point in researching and developing new combat rifles when all rifles kill human beings in a single shot. Seriously, you just got demolished and annihilated with statistical data yet to still try to dismiss it and try to prove to the world that you are right and everyones wrong.

No, according to this thread http://social.biowar...1/index/4696232 Especially shotguns are nearly the same (I count only those in game, not DLC ones).

Modifié par Embrosil, 22 septembre 2010 - 01:17 .

[Jebel Krong]

Embrosil wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...



And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Its the same? According to who? You? Oh hell no sir, your unbacked claims are not absolute facts, especially when i noticed the difference between the avenger and the vindicator in a single burst. 

You might as well cry to the military that theres no point in researching and developing new combat rifles when all rifles kill human beings in a single shot. Seriously, you just got demolished and annihilated with statistical data yet to still try to dismiss it and try to prove to the world that you are right and everyones wrong.

No, according to this thread http://social.biowar...1/index/4696232 Especially shotguns are nearly the same (I count only those in game, not DLC ones).

you can't pick and choose which data to accept - like those tools in the femshep thread also do - what is it with people and their "selective" arguments? the differences between weapons are quite clear from use in-game, their descriptions and then, if you really want to go to the trouble, looking through the damn game files.

[Embrosil]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K that last post is so full of **** it's unbelievable. there's the odd mistake/misstep, sure (the ammo clips, jack entirely, not just running around in whatever that is), but as pocketgb rightly said - the stuff that is in mass effect 2 vastly outweighs that of #1 and any negatives - the locations, variety, art design, details etc. is staggering and the gameplay even more engaging than the first (especially the conversations, increased dynamism, scripted sequences etc. even if you don't appreciate the refined combat like everyone else does). you may not like the paragon/renegade appearance thing, either, but i thought it was a nice gameplay touch, rather than a realism touch - it differentiates your shepard a little bit and you can get rid of it pretty damn early if you hate it.

Well you should speak for yourself. I also hate this idiotic hide and seek type of combat. Looks cool at first, but gets pretty boring soon. Morover when you KNOW there will a combat as out of sudden a clear corridor is filled with something to hide behind. Not to mention that your "armor" must be made of paper as you die in a few shots.
Increased dynamism? Like that you do not have to think and it is O.K. if you just shoot everyone on sight? Why can not I talk anyone from trying to kill me or someone else? It worked with Helena Blake, it worked with Corp. Toombs.
Huh, glowing red eyes a nice gameplay touch? Maybe for kids as Terror K mentioned. It must be really supa dupa cool. Look mum, my eyes are glowing!
I have  taken a look at photos of some of the villains in human history. Well I do not see any of them with glowing eyes. Maybe renegade shepard is a Goa'Uld. Oh wait, that is a different universe.
I have just finished my eight playthrough of ME1 and imported the savegame. But I can not play ME2 again. The "screenplay" is just so lame, thay I simply can not.
Jakob: You know, we are working for Cerberus. We made horrendous tests on living people,  we killed innocent ones but in only two years, we are completely different.  Shepard: O.K. Let's go.
Shepard: Why have you not scanned Sovereign's debris. Anderson: Umm, well all that was left was stolen. You know, souvenier hunters, ehh I mean unauthorised salvage. And then Garrus: Yes, I can upgrade Normandy's weapons with the new super duper cannons derived from those used by Sovereign. And we could continue. Just look aroud the forums.
I am really affraid of ME3. I hope I am wrong and that 410 pages long thread up to date will make someone in Bioware to start thinking. But I am also affraid it in not a Bioware's, but EA's decision.

[Iakus]

shootist70 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The problem is, with something like this that's an almost impossible thing to pull off. Most sci-fi geeks love sci-fi not just for what it is, but for what it isn't. Namely, they like it because it's a bit more cerebral than the standard fare and isn't the same mindless, mainstream crap that the masses like. And when you take something that started off as more of a niche, nerdy sci-fi property and start making it more like the mainstream garbage out there, then it starts to lose its appeal for those who don't like that crap. You can't introduce that --not even a little-- without it annoying a good portion of the old fans in some manner. It's like if a movie studio wanted Stanley Kubrick or Ridley Scott to do a collaboration with Michael Bay. Mass Effect went from being a great homage to the great sci-fi epics of the late 1970's to early 1990's era with the first game into being closer to an over-the-top action fest more akin to modern Hollywood with the second. It sacrificed substance for style, and that goes for narrative and gameplay.

You've hit the nail on the head here, but not in a way you would like. Sci-fi isn't often 'cerebral'. 
A common perception of it is that it's genre trash. Pulp-fiction. Sadly, most of it is. The Ben Bovas, Gregory Benfords, Greg Bears and Iain M Banks's are all fairly thin on the ground, unfortunately. People looking for cerebral fiction tend to read literary fiction, not 'genre garbage'. Their perception of sci-fi is often negative because, for the most part, all that detail that sci-fi tends to have doesn't often constitute any literary depth.

And that's the exact problem that ME1 has - lots of detail that ultimately goes absolutely nowhere, and adds nothing other than a timesink and/or an intrinsic reward system. Time spent driving over empty terrain or messing with inventory/gear setups probably counted for more time than most people spent blasting through the story. All that detail did not add any depth other than slightly different ways to kill the bad guys, Big deal.

 When people play RPG's they want roleplay, not a childish version of an RTS, so Bioware knew that in ME2 they had to do what any decent sci-fi writer does: cut back on the detail so that it doesn't obstruct the story (and the roleplay). Roleplaying was more character related, and not gear/skill related, so it was a hell of a lot more 'grown-up' in that respect, and more likely to conform to a universal definition of entertainment, and not a niche hobby.

So how is swapping out the ability to carry dozens of suits of armor for the ability to wander about in toxic enviroments unprotected a good thing?  Did Bioware go "Most people see sf as trash/pulp, so we might as well run with it"?  I do't buy the "character related" roleplay.  No banter and only limited opportunities for character development=limited roleplay.

ME 1 had it's flaws, do't get me wrong.  It needed tweaking.  But there's pruning, then there's chopping off at the base.

[Terror_K]

And the thing is, when it comes to presentation, style and tone ME1 was fine. Gameplay wise, yes... ME1 was a flawed game. But there was nothing in the presentation and style of it that I would call farcical or mind-numbingly stupid like the things I listed above. There was nothing that screamed that it was trying too hard to be cool. ME1 set up a great, believable universe that came across as mature and well thought out. ME2 came along and made a mockery of it.



Now don't get me wrong... 95% of ME2 is fine in this regard. But that remaining 5% of really dumb things that turn it into a joke are just so niggling and stupid that they're hard to ignore. It's a bit like cutting off one of your thumbs: it's only a small part of you, but you sure as hell notice how annoying it is not to have the thing any more. It's hard not to think about it, even when you're not dealing with it directly. Once you've lost the credibility of a universe, it's hard to get it back. It's like when midi-chlorians were introduced into Star Wars and suddenly The Force became The Farce.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

So how is swapping out the ability to carry dozens of suits of armor for the ability to wander about in toxic enviroments unprotected a good thing? 

I wouldn't say its necessarily a good thing, but I think his point is that most people tend to home in on some of the more shallow aspects of RPGs (leveling, gear, etc). They require these elements in order to become involved. If they can't level or get shiny new lootz, then they stop caring, which is a sentiment I can agree with shootist on. Why can't we set aside the gear, stats, etc, and just focus on being the character and experiencing the world?

Neither option you listed is realistic. Mass Effect being the former case of your two examples. You say that Mass Effect 2's approach to armor is unrealistic, but then so have been previous Bioware games. I would hardly call what Dawn Star, Silk Fox, and Sky wear to be 'realistic' and I would say the same for Kotor. However, despite this, each outfit was unique and suited the particular character well. This is actually why I kept my Kotor party wearing their original outfits. It may have been weaker for gameplay/non-sensical, but it looked like something the character would wear.

Mass Effect (if anything) ruins this formula with its terrible-looking armor pieces. Yes, each party member is now 'realistic' because they wear armor. But, it also makes them look idiotic. Mass Effect 2 reverts to the previous Bioware formula where outfits may be 'impractical' but also better-fitting. I personally consider it to be a good trade off. Obviously the best solution is to create 'realistic but fitting' armor pieces. But if I'm given a choice between the two, I'll take fitting over realistic.

 Did Bioware go "Most people see sf as trash/pulp, so we might as well run with it"?  I do't buy the "character related" roleplay.  No banter and only limited opportunities for character development=limited roleplay.

Depends on what you considered limited. You clearly place a very high emphasis on squad banter. I don't. I view it as a nice extra and it's great when employed well (Dragon Age), but I don't consider it to be integral. Wrex asking Kaidan whether he could take Shepard in a fight does not provide anywhere near the level of depth which the loyalty missions had done for me. Or even the fact that characters now actually move when I talk to them instead of standing in one spot like a robot.

ME 1 had it's flaws, do't get me wrong.  It needed tweaking.  But there's pruning, then there's chopping off at the base.

True, but then if one dislikes the base to begin with, it may as well be chopped off.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 septembre 2010 - 04:17 .

[Mister Mida]

Il Divo wrote...
Mass Effect (if anything) ruins this formula with its terrible-looking armor pieces. Yes, each party member is now 'realistic' because they wear armor. But, it also makes them look idiotic. Mass Effect 2 reverts to the previous Bioware formula where outfits may be 'impractical' but also better-fitting. I personally consider it to be a good trade off. Obviously the best solution is to create 'realistic but fitting' armor pieces. But if I'm given a choice between the two, I'll take fitting over realistic. 

I personally never had a problem with the armour in ME (1). It was also that when it wasn't needed, like on the Normandy, all the characters would switch to their casual outfit. If they wore armour on the ship, I would have switch them all to casual myself, like I did with KotOR. But when people march into combat with high heels and an almost uncoverd torso, that looks more weirder to me than 'terrible-looking armor pieces'.

[haberman13]

Terror_K wrote...

And the thing is, when it comes to presentation, style and tone ME1 was fine. Gameplay wise, yes... ME1 was a flawed game. But there was nothing in the presentation and style of it that I would call farcical or mind-numbingly stupid like the things I listed above. There was nothing that screamed that it was trying too hard to be cool. ME1 set up a great, believable universe that came across as mature and well thought out. ME2 came along and made a mockery of it.

Now don't get me wrong... 95% of ME2 is fine in this regard. But that remaining 5% of really dumb things that turn it into a joke are just so niggling and stupid that they're hard to ignore. It's a bit like cutting off one of your thumbs: it's only a small part of you, but you sure as hell notice how annoying it is not to have the thing any more. It's hard not to think about it, even when you're not dealing with it directly. Once you've lost the credibility of a universe, it's hard to get it back. It's like when midi-chlorians were introduced into Star Wars and suddenly The Force became The Farce.

Unfortunately I think you are right, ME is now a farce.  ME1 was far from perfect, but ME2 ruined the immersion and my interest in the story/universe.

Stinks, but oh well, worst things have happened (the new SW movies for example).

[Jebel Krong]

Embrosil wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K that last post is so full of **** it's unbelievable. there's the odd mistake/misstep, sure (the ammo clips, jack entirely, not just running around in whatever that is), but as pocketgb rightly said - the stuff that is in mass effect 2 vastly outweighs that of #1 and any negatives - the locations, variety, art design, details etc. is staggering and the gameplay even more engaging than the first (especially the conversations, increased dynamism, scripted sequences etc. even if you don't appreciate the refined combat like everyone else does). you may not like the paragon/renegade appearance thing, either, but i thought it was a nice gameplay touch, rather than a realism touch - it differentiates your shepard a little bit and you can get rid of it pretty damn early if you hate it.

Well you should speak for yourself. I also hate this idiotic hide and seek type of combat. Looks cool at first, but gets pretty boring soon. Morover when you KNOW there will a combat as out of sudden a clear corridor is filled with something to hide behind. Not to mention that your "armor" must be made of paper as you die in a few shots.

really? as opposed to standing in the open holding down the trigger finger - as in me1? at least in me2 you can play far more tactically due to the cover system and better environments - if you have the imagination, that is. sure the plethora of waist-high cover is the bane of gear-like UE3 games, but LoSB shows how much further BW has come in better integrating cover naturally into the environments. oh and: like me1, you start off weak and get better, only the improved enemies are more lethal so if you try and play it like me1 you will obviously die. a lot. but i guess you don't like to work your little brain during combat, huh?

Embrosil wrote...
Increased dynamism? Like that you do not have to think and it is O.K. if you just shoot everyone on sight? Why can not I talk anyone from trying to kill me or someone else? It worked with Helena Blake, it worked with Corp. Toombs.

.. and harkin, okeer (though he died anyway), anderson (again), TIM, Aria, the quarian on omega, the salrian info broker on omega etc etc in me2? not every quest/sidequest involved killing everyone, though i liked the fact that you could kill a whole lotta people as a renegade.

Embrosil wrote...
Huh, glowing red eyes a nice gameplay touch? Maybe for kids as Terror K mentioned. It must be really supa dupa cool. Look mum, my eyes are glowing!
I have  taken a look at photos of some of the villains in human history. Well I do not see any of them with glowing eyes. Maybe renegade shepard is a Goa'Uld. Oh wait, that is a different universe.

i already said it wasn't realistic, but it was a nice differentiator - albeit only a cosmetic one. and it was also explained plausible - ever heard of pyschosomatic effects? perhaps you could try looking it up in a dictionary, kid. i didn't like it much at first, but it grew on me, and the option to remove it is available very early on, too.

Embrosil wrote...
I have just finished my eight playthrough of ME1 and imported the savegame. But I can not play ME2 again. The "screenplay" is just so lame, thay I simply can not.
Jakob: You know, we are working for Cerberus. We made horrendous tests on living people,  we killed innocent ones but in only two years, we are completely different.  Shepard: O.K. Let's go.
Shepard: Why have you not scanned Sovereign's debris. Anderson: Umm, well all that was left was stolen. You know, souvenier hunters, ehh I mean unauthorised salvage. And then Garrus: Yes, I can upgrade Normandy's weapons with the new super duper cannons derived from those used by Sovereign. And we could continue. Just look aroud the forums.

yet mass effect 1 - which is 95% similar, according to even Terror_k, is so much better? there are logic holes in both games - and both are flawed - in different ways - but overlooking the coherence/similarities of everything is retarded, but i guess you're in a special school for that.

Embrosil wrote...
I am really affraid of ME3. I hope I am wrong and that 410 pages long thread up to date will make someone in Bioware to start thinking. But I am also affraid it in not a Bioware's, but EA's decision.

oh: of course - it's all EA's nefarious doings. really at least try and come up with something original/plausible.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 22 septembre 2010 - 05:29 .

[kalle90]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K that last post is so full of **** it's unbelievable. there's the odd mistake/misstep, sure (the ammo clips, jack entirely, not just running around in whatever that is), but as pocketgb rightly said - the stuff that is in mass effect 2 vastly outweighs that of #1 and any negatives - the locations, variety, art design, details etc. is staggering and the gameplay even more engaging than the first (especially the conversations, increased dynamism, scripted sequences etc. even if you don't appreciate the refined combat like everyone else does). you may not like the paragon/renegade appearance thing, either, but i thought it was a nice gameplay touch, rather than a realism touch - it differentiates your shepard a little bit and you can get rid of it pretty damn early if you hate it.

Well you should speak for yourself. I also hate this idiotic hide and seek type of combat. Looks cool at first, but gets pretty boring soon. Morover when you KNOW there will a combat as out of sudden a clear corridor is filled with something to hide behind. Not to mention that your "armor" must be made of paper as you die in a few shots.

really? as opposed to standing in the open holding down the trigger finger - as in me1? at least in me2 you can play far more tactically due to the cover system and better environments - if you have the imagination, that is. sure the plethora of waist-high cover is the bane of gear-like UE3 games, but LoSB shows how much further BW has come in better integrating cover naturally into the environments. oh and: like me1, you start off weak and get better, only the improved enemies are more lethal so if you try and play it like me1 you will obviously die. a lot. but i guess you don't like to work your little brain during combat, huh?

How tactically exactly? It still comes down to hiding behind boxes, popping up to shoot every now and then, and spamming powers whenever possible. ME2 improved on environmental dangers, seperate teammate waypoints and locational damage, all of which could easily be added on top of the ME1 combat system.

ME1 wasn't perfect either, but atleast it allowed me to stand in open although it wasn't usually smart, crouch to use improvised cover and make myself smaller target plus improve aim, the huge number of skill steps allowed you to made every character clearly different (unless you wanted to make every Shepard "perfect").

Sure, ME2 has some unique tacticality, but Gears offers much better "Gears gameplay" than ME2 does. I liked how ME1 had original combat that supported multiple playstyles.

More importantly. I hope this time Bioware manages to find a balance and gives us options. I see posts about "Mako/Hammerhead sucks", "Teammates must have armor/They're cooler without", "Mini-games suck/are great"... There's a danger Bioware again chooses just one or the another although all the issues above and more could easily be solved with options. On majority of vehicle based missions we could easily choose whether we want Mako or Hammerhead, our teammates' first costume could be a stylish/casual outfit while the other is an armor and mini-games could be optional (ME1 style you could order your team to mine planets (Plus add abilities to order teammates to hack/survey/bypass/activate) or you could choose to do it all yourself like in ME2)

[Jamin101]

jebel krong no need to be a dick, people can not like the combat that doesnt make them stupid. the guy is right the combat by being better is almost worst. first playthrough i loved how everything was refined. second playthrough with harder difficulty i literally just sit there, widdling down shields, barrier, armour. by the time i can use shockwave or pull its only two bullets to kill someone.



normally im all for cover in shooters but endless hallway fight after hallway fight became lame. seriously why wouldnt eclipse, blue suns and bloodpack team up and capture the citadel, based on the combat they have thousands of troops to just throw away wave after wave. their like russia world war two except instead of the axis its shepard killing all these people

[Whatever42]

Jamin101 wrote...

jebel krong no need to be a dick, people can not like the combat that doesnt make them stupid. the guy is right the combat by being better is almost worst. first playthrough i loved how everything was refined. second playthrough with harder difficulty i literally just sit there, widdling down shields, barrier, armour. by the time i can use shockwave or pull its only two bullets to kill someone.

normally im all for cover in shooters but endless hallway fight after hallway fight became lame. seriously why wouldnt eclipse, blue suns and bloodpack team up and capture the citadel, based on the combat they have thousands of troops to just throw away wave after wave. their like russia world war two except instead of the axis its shepard killing all these people

While I agree the level design is not great in ME2 (better in overlord in LotSB), its not that bad. Yes, you can play it hiding behind crates and whittling down shields with your guns. I did that for a while since I started with a soldier, which is so flippin easy, and I played every class like a gimped soldier with fancy kill moves.

However, now I usually run around setting up warp bombs, slamming opponents, shotgunning them in the face and even meleeing. And you can do that with anything from an adept to a vanguard with great effectiveness and its a lot of fun. Go watch some of the vids in the gameplay forum - I'm not as good as many of those guys and die a bit more often but its not hard, its a lot more fun, and its definitely effective.

[MICHELLE7]

Terror_K wrote...

Branching out. More like selling out, IMO.

I don't think they went the whole way here, btw. I believe that with ME2 instead of trying to make it for the same audience as ME1 they wanted to branch out and pull more people in, namely younger, mainstream gamers. It's like with ME2 their main focus was tapping into that audience more, but they wanted to keep just enough of the old one there at the same time, but because branching out was their main focus they only left what they felt was the bare minimum of old-school Mass Effect behind. They've essentially tried to have their cake and eat it too.

The problem is, with something like this that's an almost impossible thing to pull off. Most sci-fi geeks love sci-fi not just for what it is, but for what it isn't. Namely, they like it because it's a bit more cerebral than the standard fare and isn't the same mindless, mainstream crap that the masses like. And when you take something that started off as more of a niche, nerdy sci-fi property and start making it more like the mainstream garbage out there, then it starts to lose its appeal for those who don't like that crap. You can't introduce that --not even a little-- without it annoying a good portion of the old fans in some manner. It's like if a movie studio wanted Stanley Kubrick or Ridley Scott to do a collaboration with Michael Bay. Mass Effect went from being a great homage to the great sci-fi epics of the late 1970's to early 1990's era with the first game into being closer to an over-the-top action fest more akin to modern Hollywood with the second. It sacrificed substance for style, and that goes for narrative and gameplay.

Terror_K you summed up how I was feeling about it perfectly. 

[Revan312]

Jamin101 wrote...

jebel krong no need to be a dick, people can not like the combat that doesnt make them stupid. the guy is right
the combat by being better is almost worst. first playthrough i loved how everything was refined. second playthrough with harder difficulty i literally just sit there, widdling down shields, barrier, armour. by the time i can use shockwave or pull its only two bullets to kill someone.

normally im all for cover in shooters but endless hallway fight after hallway fight became lame. seriously why wouldnt eclipse, blue suns and bloodpack team up and capture the citadel, based on the combat they have thousands of troops to just throw away wave after wave. their like russia world war two except instead of the axis its shepard killing all these people

This

As other's have said, the combat in both games is lacking but ME2's gets boring sooooo fast as it's the same thing over and over and over, crouch, shoot, crouch, shoot, crouch, shoot...  At higher difficulties abilities are pointless, enemies are dumb as rocks, redundent defenses, redundent weapons, paper thin life forcing you to cower behind cover 90% of the time, no tactics, hemoginized universal cooldowns, micro stat pumping for minimal gain, uber linear power progression and more..

ME1 had many of those same problems as well, but two things in that list really pushed ME2 into drooler territory, universal cooldowns and forced cover play.  Spamming the exact same power because it's the best gets extremely old and being forced into whack a mole combat is snore inducing.  I struggle replaying ME2 because there's almost no tactical differentiation between fights. The guns are guns this time and hold no strategic signifigance besides preference.  In ME1, if I lost a fight because, in close, I get destroyed, I stay back the next time and snipe, if that doesn't work in a different fight because of their snipers laser blasting me to death, I run in close and start smashing faces and throwing abilities.

ME2, it doesn't matter at all how you play, it's all the same minus maybe Vanguards and melee oriented cloaking Infiltrators, both of which are frustrating as hell at Insanity as you die so fast it makes your head spin when out in the open..  Cover/popup is pretty much the only choice or you risk getting killed extremely fast.  It closes the tactical options of fights from the handful in ME1 to essentially one in the sequel.

And concerning the stylistic differences between the two games, I'll reiterate that it's the over the top presentation and Michael Bay like story exposition that drove the universe from being a fairly realistic although clinical world to one that just wants to look like Bad Boys 2 with space ships.  The end "twist" is still one of the most contrived and threadbare plot devices I've ever seen in a game with this level of production.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

However, now I usually run around setting up warp bombs, slamming opponents, shotgunning them in the face and even meleeing. And you can do that with anything from an adept to a vanguard with great effectiveness and its a lot of fun. Go watch some of the vids in the gameplay forum - I'm not as good as many of those guys and die a bit more often but its not hard, its a lot more fun, and its definitely effective.

You must play on veteran or lower because the defense system pretty much destroys that playstyle.  It's hard to warp bomb anyone until after you bust their shields/armor, then you have to use one of your squaddies abilities to either pull/singularity them and then warp bomb them or vice versa, by that time, if your out in the open, your essentially dead.  When there's more than 3 enemies on screen you pretty much have to stay in cover until all of their defenses are down and you can begin to cripple them with abilities or your spamming medigel/heavy weapons. The terrible agro system is partly to blame as all enemies solely go for Shep 90% of the time.  Vanguards are about the only class I see get consistent results on insanity not cowering behind cover.

Modifié par Revan312, 22 septembre 2010 - 08:02 .

[belwin]

the only reason i looked into this thread is because revan's avatar is a dancing kirk.

xD

[Revan312]

belwin wrote...

the only reason i looked into this thread is because revan's avatar is a dancing kirk.
xD

Lol, he's a raging angry Kirk

Kick that chair, oh ya, that will stop Kahn..

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
Customized looks.  Customized armor.  Function and aesthetics.  It can be done.  You can have both

But 'showing mesh' is not the same as 'showing skin'. A design on your suit isn't the same as a design on your chest. Not that I'm disagreeing with your idea, rather how distinctive Jack can be.

iakus wrote...
I'm not sure what you mean here.  Cutting the banter made for...more depth?

No. Cutting the number of party members down to a much bearable number (i.e. three). There'd be incredible potential for characterization then, just not as much personality.

iakus wrote...
it might be nice if we could see these highly individualistic characters of diverse backgrounds and upbringings interacting a little

It would also be nice if they had their own daily routines, +5000 lines of dialog, and all sorts of other goodies.

That's not the point, though. The point is "how much is too much, and how much is enough?"

iakus wrote...
But ME 2 wasn't exactly "Blade Runner"  How is it darker?

Well that kicks off right at the start: You die. And from that, you start with little. Sure, Cerberus gives you all sorts of other cool tools that could help you out but it's not the same. It's not the same crew, it's not the same people.

One of my favorite moments is when Shepard first goes into Omega (which is more or less the intended route to follow): It's quite different than anything we experienced in ME1, but that's the idea. Two years is quite a long time, and to be spending that whole time being essentially 'dead' really makes an impact. When Shepard walks into this foreign and unfamilar night club, he felt a *lot* older, and he had missed a whole lot. I haven't felt that lonely in a game since Silent Hill 2, and personally I see that as an awesome feat for another game to achieve.

"Darker" may not be the most appropriate word, but we're no longer entering this universe wide-eyed and in awe.

iakus wrote...
But in either case, it was less a matter of how easy the fight is and more a matter of "Oh frak, I now have the attention of the Cthulhu-like entity that'sholding off an entire fleet outside that window!"

Except he's dying to that entire fleet, so I don't feel terribly threatened. Gameplay and narrative go hand-in-hand. If you set up an awesome and terrifying looking boss, you don't want to make it so he can be killed through a rather comfortable method.

Terror_K wrote...
And yet I'm supposed to take ME2 seriously and trust the same team to make ME3.

You trusted them with Jade Empire, which came out after Ninja Gaiden was seeing mass amounts praise and the God of War franchise was booming.

You trusted them with Mass Effect, which also took part in attempting to get a slice of the TPS pie by introducing slight RPG influenced cover-shooter mechanics.

I can definitely see how ME2 can be 'tuned to the masses', but I can also see it in their previous titles.

Revan312 wrote...
As other's have said, the combat in both
games is lacking but ME2's gets boring sooooo fast as it's the same
thing over and over and over, crouch, shoot, crouch, shoot, crouch,
shoot.

ME1 at low levels: same thing.
ME1 at higher levels: just shooting.

I'm not saying ME2's combat is any deeper. I'm saying that I see no good out of arguing about which game is "more deep".

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 septembre 2010 - 08:14 .

[Ghostano]

I still can not get over the removal of the ablity to crouch. Everytime I had to srpint to cover I woudl think this would be alot easier if I could just bend my knees



Can not forget the lack of the ablity to heal given the number of times I would try to go into cover only to have my shapard jump over the cover with there rear end swinging in the breeze. Hell red dead redmemption has the same health regen thing but lets you use meds to heal. All in all I think it handles combat alot better then ME2 and it is a sequal rpg. The again the first one was a shooter but it is apple and grapes.



Nice to have Leira back but I guess she lost her combat armour like everyone else from ME 1

[Revan312]

Pocketgb wrote...

Revan312 wrote...
As other's have said, the combat in both
games is lacking but ME2's gets boring sooooo fast as it's the same
thing over and over and over, crouch, shoot, crouch, shoot, crouch,
shoot.

ME1 at low levels: same thing.
ME1 at higher levels: just shooting.

I'm not saying ME2's combat is any deeper. I'm saying that I see no good out of arguing about which game is "more deep".

ME1 at higher levels for me was never just shooting, in fact the higher level I got in ME1 the less and less I used my guns.. Unless your a soldier, by the end of the game you have a number of abilities that all can be chained on one enemy or spread out, by the time you've used your last one the first abilitie's cooldown is up and your reapplying them in sequence.  Again I find myself hating on universal cooldowns.. Jesus I hate that mechanic and imo the combat in ME2 could be made 1000X better if they each had their own, seperate cooldowns..

Modifié par Revan312, 22 septembre 2010 - 08:21 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

So how is swapping out the ability to carry dozens of suits of armor for the ability to wander about in toxic enviroments unprotected a good thing? [/quote]

I wouldn't say its necessarily a good thing, but I think his point is that most people tend to home in on some of the more shallow aspects of RPGs (leveling, gear, etc). They require these elements in order to become involved. If they can't level or get shiny new lootz, then they stop caring, which is a sentiment I can agree with shootist on. Why can't we set aside the gear, stats, etc, and just focus on being the character and experiencing the world? [/quote]

True enough, loot isn't everything.  But in ME 2's case we get little/no loot, characters that develop almost exclusively in missions centered on them,  and  worlds that are composed mainly of corridors full of people shooting at you.

[quote]
Neither option you listed is realistic. Mass Effect being the former case of your two examples. You say that Mass Effect 2's approach to armor is unrealistic, but then so have been previous Bioware games. I would hardly call what Dawn Star, Silk Fox, and Sky wear to be 'realistic' and I would say the same for Kotor. However, despite this, each outfit was unique and suited the particular character well. This is actually why I kept my Kotor party wearing their original outfits. It may have been weaker for gameplay/non-sensical, but it looked like something the character would wear. [/quote]

Jade Empire's setting is different than Mass Effect.  JE is based on a mythological version of ancient China.  It isn't even trying to be "realistic".  It's essentially a fairy tale rpg.

 KOTOR is based on a comic book version of the Star Wars universe.  Not that I found the armors particularly odd.  A little gaudy maybe.  The only thing that really got my head scratching was how easy it seemed to be to block a lightsaber.

Mass Effect, the first one, at least, established that the laws of physics work more or less the same as in the real world, save for the existence of mass effect fields.  You wear armor in combat.  Said armor had all sorts of neat gizmos:  shield generators, medigel dispensers, hardsuit computers, and oh yeah, protection from the elements.  So it was ugly, yes, fixing that for ME 2 could have been one of the tweaks I mentioned.  But instead of Miranda and Jacob gong into battle wearing suits of Cerberus armor, they wear spandex (wear do they even keep the shield generators?  Nevermind, I don't wanna know)  And Jack apparantly believes tattoos are bulletproof.

[quote] Mass Effect (if anything) ruins this formula with its terrible-looking armor pieces. Yes, each party member is now 'realistic' because they wear armor. But, it also makes them look idiotic. Mass Effect 2 reverts to the previous Bioware formula where outfits may be 'impractical' but also better-fitting. I personally consider it to be a good trade off. Obviously the best solution is to create 'realistic but fitting' armor pieces. But if I'm given a choice between the two, I'll take fitting over realistic. [/quote]

Unique armors for squadmates=good.  "I'm so bad**** bullets fear me!"=silly

Even modified Cerberus armors for each squadmates would have been fine. 


[quote]
Depends on what you considered limited. You clearly place a very high emphasis on squad banter. I don't. I view it as a nice extra and it's great when employed well (Dragon Age), but I don't consider it to be integral. Wrex asking Kaidan whether he could take Shepard in a fight does not provide anywhere near the level of depth which the loyalty missions had done for me. Or even the fact that characters now actually move when I talk to them instead of standing in one spot like a robot. [/quote]

I place a high emphasis on interaction.  Banter is an important part of it.  The entire point of ME 2 was to get twelve powerful beings of various specialties on your team.  These people are strongly individualistic, come from a variety of backgrounds, have a variety of motives, and they're all on the same ship for the same mission.  Yet almost nothing is done with this. 

Each character has a personal mission.  This is good, you get to see more of their background.  But it's not enough.  The third squadmate is practically a mute on these missions.  They don't interact on other missions, on other planets, or on the ship.  They do their mission, and have a personality there.  Afterwards they thank you fo rit (and yes the moving around while talking is nice) then they go back to being robots, standing around, or following oyu, not speaking or interacting.  As far as their concerned, Shepard is the entirety of their existence.  As Terror_K put it a while ago, it's all very insular.

FOr a game which the focus is the characters, rather than the Big Bad, you need more character development, not less.  Given the story, even ME 1's limited banter would have been enough.  you'd need someting more like the BG games, Kotor 1 or 2, or ideally, Dragon Age

[quote]
ME 1 had it's flaws, do't get me wrong.  It needed tweaking.  But there's pruning, then there's chopping off at the base.[/quote]

True, but then if one dislikes the base to begin with, it may as well be chopped off. [/quote]

I see little that needed to be chopped off.  Certainly not Character personalities and protective gear, even as a skin.

Here we go again with the walls of text debates

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


Only if it serves a purpose that's beyond vanity. I wouldn't object to ME2's gear showing more stats, but nor will I condemn Bioware if they didn't.

Its dumb that players had to go on the wikia site to now the dps of the weapons they have.Its dumb that nowthere
in the actual game it is stated that frozen enemies take 100 percent more damage.How someone could even want to deny that? A option to hide the numbers for people who only play on normal would be enough to please both sides.

[Pocketgb]

Revan312 wrote...
ME1 at higher levels for me was never just shooting, in fact the higher level I got in ME1 the less and less I used my guns..

And if all else fails? Shoot to kill, boost up your defensive power, and hide behind cover every once in awhile. ME1 did not demand much from the player, nor has any Bioware game after BG2, really.

You hate the global cooldowns, I hate the fact that Mass Effect was an RPG/shooter hybrid to begin with. Bringing personal player skill into the equation of an RPG makes a mess all over the place.

tonnactus wrote...
Its dumb that players had to go on the wikia site to now the dps of the weapons they have.

Well, I could go about saying it's "dumb" that players "have to know", because you certainly don't have to. If you're given one gun and one gun only throughout the entirety of a game, does it really matter that you know it's overall DPS?

That's essentially the case with ME2: It would be nice to see what each weapon did, but a description of its performance is required enough. Besides, unless you know exactly how much delay is in-between each burst of a Vindicator to the point of being able to judge milleseconds, you'll still be testing the weapons out anyways.

Not to mention that there are still a ton of unidentifiable variables when you have to deal damage: How much health an enemy has, their defensive rating, their weaknesses, etc. Generally, the main purpose of being able to look at the stats of your gear is to determine which piece of equipment is the best.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 septembre 2010 - 09:01 .

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...
Customized looks.  Customized armor.  Function and aesthetics.  It can be done.  You can have both

But 'showing mesh' is not the same as 'showing skin'. A design on your suit isn't the same as a design on your chest. Not that I'm disagreeing with your idea, rather how distinctive Jack can be.

I for one think Jack could show a lot of "creative vandalism" to a suit of Cerberus armor if she were to be issued one.

No. Cutting the number of party members down to a much bearable number (i.e. three). There'd be incredible potential for characterization then, just not as much personality.

Not as many personalities, maybe.  But  the ones that remain would have been really deep and developed, yes. 

Still, I think at least 6-8 is not out of Bioware's reach.

iakus wrote...
it might be nice if we could see these highly individualistic characters of diverse backgrounds and upbringings interacting a little

It would also be nice if they had their own daily routines, +5000 lines of dialog, and all sorts of other goodies.

That's not the point, though. The point is "how much is too much, and how much is enough?"

That depends on the game.  I would think that a game that went through all the trouble of creating twelve distinct characters with unique backgrounds and personalities would add some dialogue between them.  Maybe make the whole loyalty thing a bit more complex, rather.  Create a few more role-playing opportunites, instead of just using it as a framework for shooting things.

iakus wrote...
But ME 2 wasn't exactly "Blade Runner"  How is it darker?

Well that kicks off right at the start: You die. And from that, you start with little. Sure, Cerberus gives you all sorts of other cool tools that could help you out but it's not the same. It's not the same crew, it's not the same people.

Yes, he's killed, then brought back to life using a Phased Linear Oscillating Transducer device.  Then nothing is made of it anymore.  Nada.  Zilch.  No deep questions.  No dark brooding.  No wondering why Shep gets a second chance when so many others don't.   No pondering over whether Shepard is still Shepard, or an AI with Shepard's memories.  No philosophy with Thane.  No medical debates with Mordin.  No chats with Miranda over how such a thing is possible or where teh technology came from.  Shepard was meat.  Then Shepard was not-meat.  End of story.  That's not dark, that's depressing. 

New crew?  Expected that.  Working for Cerberus could have been dark, yet it got retconned into "Kinder, gentler Cerberus"  Dark elements?  Ugly outfits. Short term memory problems with Shepard too.

One of my favorite moments is when Shepard first goes into Omega (which is more or less the intended route to follow): It's quite different than anything we experienced in ME1, but that's the idea. Two years is quite a long time, and to be spending that whole time being essentially 'dead' really makes an impact. When Shepard walks into this foreign and unfamilar night club, he felt a *lot* older, and he had missed a whole lot. I haven't felt that lonely in a game since Silent Hill 2, and personally I see that as an awesome feat for another game to achieve.[

"Darker" may not be the most appropriate word, but we're no longer entering this universe wide-eyed and in awe.

Omega was Chora's Den.  But bigger.  Yeah it really shows off how much improved the graphics are.  But it takes more than a bad neighborhood to make a game dark. 

Dark was seeing the wreckage of the Normandy and the flashes of how it used to be and the characters who had died.  Knowing it was all gone forever. 

iakus wrote...
Except he's dying to that entire fleet, so I don't feel terribly threatened. Gameplay and narrative go hand-in-hand. If you set up an awesome and terrifying looking boss, you don't want to make it so he can be killed through a rather comfortable method.

Actually, the fleet was losing to Sovereign.  About halfway through the fight, Soverein starts to detach and is blowing apart cruisers with its cannons.  The fleet actually wants to pull back, but Hackett orderes them to keep going.  It's their only shot at stopping Sovereign.

There are still debates as to whether destroying Sovereign/Saren is what ultimately destroyed Sovereign or not.

Like I said, maybe it's my choice of character, but I always found Saren to be a reasonable challenge.  Not like the "Go for the eyes" Termireaper.

Modifié par iakus, 22 septembre 2010 - 09:28 .

[Epic777]

Pocketgb wrote...
And if all else fails? Shoot to kill, boost up your defensive power, and hide behind cover every once in awhile. ME1 did not demand much from the player, nor has any Bioware game after BG2, really.

You hate the global cooldowns, I hate the fact that Mass Effect was an RPG/shooter hybrid to begin with. Bringing personal player skill into the equation of an RPG makes a mess all over the place.

Out of cusoristy would you have preferred the ME series to be a straight RPG? While BG2 was harder than your average game it was not that challenging when you learn a few tricks such as overloading your stats.