10273 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Does everybody here just happen to have Alzheimer's? Again, the only good thing about FO3 was the character creator and the combat. Nothing else.

What about the quests which have many many different ways of being tackled. You're looking at it totally in terms of the main plot, the strength of that game was that there were so many ways of tackling situations.

[KalosCast]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Does everybody here just happen to have Alzheimer's? Again, the only good thing about FO3 was the character creator and the combat. Nothing else.

And trust me, when you concentrate your stats focusing on your endurance and charm/persuasion, it can play against you with VATS.

VATS is the combat, and the primary subject of why I said FO3 was bad. But yeah, I guess if you intentionally gimp your character, you'll be bad at it. Just like how you seem to be unable to grasp the basics of ME2 combat enough that it apparently takes you hours to get through it all and magically makes up 90% of the game.

The character creation was just the character creation used in every single major game in the Elder Scrolls series, so it can't even take credit for that.

Modifié par KalosCast, 04 mai 2010 - 07:00 .

[Massadonious1]

I said whatever makes the developers the most money. Dragon Age made BioWare a lot of money. Is that a shooter? Alan Wake will probably be a large commercial success despite not being a pure shooter.

Your implication detector is broken.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 04 mai 2010 - 07:21 .

[KalosCast]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I said whatever makes the developers the most money. Dragon Age made BioWare a lot of money. Is that a shooter? Alan Wake will probably be a large commercial success despite not being a pure shooter,

Your implication detector is broken.

Also, the highest selling PC game of all time is a sim, anyway. Almost all the top-selling console games are adventure games or platformers. So... yeah. SHOOTERS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[uberdowzen]

KalosCast wrote...

Also, the highest selling PC game of all time is a sim, anyway. Almost all the top-selling console games are adventure games or platformers. So... yeah. SHOOTERS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Really? There are adventure games (aside from Heavy Rain) on consoles? And platformers still (aside from Tomb Raider)?

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

What about the quests which have many many different ways of being tackled. You're looking at it totally in terms of the main plot, the strength of that game was that there were so many ways of tackling situations.

Could you please put something into perspective for me uberdowzen?

You obviously like combat and you're content with dialogue in missions so it doesn't interfere with your headshots. So let's say ME3 goes one step further. I don't know what your Shepard's background is, but as I pointed out earlier, it pissed me off that my sole survivor didn't even have a throwaway line about how Cerberus tortured his fellow comrade and friend. If you have the sole survivor background, did that bother you? Even if you don't, would it have? Would it REALLY bother you if the dialogue wheel was removed? Would it REALLY bother you even if it wasn't removed, you get less opportunities to use it because the length of the missions are doubled? Would it REALLY bother you, as you have demonstrated before with how you're content with blocks of text that make up emails, almost all your choices from ME2 are reduced to receiving emails?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

Massadonious1 wrote...

I said whatever makes the developers the most money. Dragon Age made BioWare a lot of money. Is that a shooter? Alan Wake will probably be a large commercial success despite not being a pure shooter.

Your implication detector is broken.

Massadonious1 wrote...

The future of gaming is whatever makes developers the most money, not what your biased personal prefrence is.

By saying "not what my biased preference is"(and I'm not biased) you, intentionally or unintentionally, implied the games I enjoy can't turn a profit. Or at least "as much" of a profit as something like ME2 or Halo.

uberdowzen wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Also, the highest selling PC game of all time is a sim, anyway. Almost all the top-selling console games are adventure games or platformers. So... yeah. SHOOTERS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Really? There are adventure games (aside from Heavy Rain) on consoles? And platformers still (aside from Tomb Raider)?

Most "adventure" games also focus on combat.

[uberdowzen]

Wow, where to start...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

What about the quests which have many many different ways of being tackled. You're looking at it totally in terms of the main plot, the strength of that game was that there were so many ways of tackling situations.

Could you please put something into perspective for me uberdowzen?

You obviously like combat and you're content with dialogue in missions so it doesn't interfere with your headshots. So let's say ME3 goes one step further. I don't know what your Shepard's background is, but as I pointed out earlier, it pissed me off that my sole survivor didn't even have a throwaway line about how Cerberus tortured his fellow comrade and friend. If you have the sole survivor background, did that bother you? Even if you don't, would it have? Would it REALLY bother you if the dialogue wheel was removed? Would it REALLY bother you even if it wasn't removed, you get less opportunities to use it because the length of the missions are doubled? Would it REALLY bother you, as you have demonstrated before with how you're content with blocks of text that make up emails, almost all your choices from ME2 are reduced to receiving emails?

Stop putting words in my mouth!!!

I have never said anything that even implies I'm fine with dialogue if it doesn't "interfere with headshots". The Sole Survivor thing is a bit of an oversight, but other than that most of the choices from ME1 do affect something in the main plot. And yes, I would mind if the dialogue wheel was removed from ME3 because then it wouldn't be an RPG!!!!

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

That group doesn't even have 200 members.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Also, the highest selling PC game of all time is a sim, anyway. Almost all the top-selling console games are adventure games or platformers. So... yeah. SHOOTERS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Really? There are adventure games (aside from Heavy Rain) on consoles? And platformers still (aside from Tomb Raider)?

Most "adventure" games also focus on combat.

If it focusses on combat, then it's not an adventure game. This and this, and especially this are adventure games.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

And yes, I would mind if the dialogue wheel was removed from ME3 because then it wouldn't be an RPG!!!!

Wait. So you're saying by the removal of the dialogue wheel, that alone would stop it from being an RPG anymore?

BUT THE SKILLS! BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIAL TO AN RPG.

uberdowzen wrote...

That group doesn't even have 200 members.

Umm, big deal. First, it's only been around for a few months, second, not everybody joins groups here, third, not everybody knows about every group. I didn't even stumble across it until a few weeks ago.

uberdowzen wrote...

If it focusses on combat, then it's not an adventure game.

You're right, I retract. Read and wrote adventure but my brain was thinking action.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

And yes, I would mind if the dialogue wheel was removed from ME3 because then it wouldn't be an RPG!!!!

Wait. So you're saying by the removal of the dialogue wheel, that alone would stop it from being an RPG anymore?

BUT THE SKILLS! BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIAL TO AN RPG.

WHAT THE HELL MAN!!!! I very specifically said a few pages back that skills and inventory aren't what define and RPG. An RPG is a game where you play a role, with your choices affecting the plot. The skills and inventory etc are RPG elements they are not essential to RPGs and the don't make a game an RPG.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

That group doesn't even have 200 members.

Umm, big deal. First, it's only been around for a few months, second, not everybody joins groups here, third, not everybody knows about every group. I didn't even stumble across it until a few weeks ago.

So essentially that group defines the people who go out of there way to join a group because they have feelings about an issue. It's a measure of nothing, they do not count as an argument.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

If it focusses on combat, then it's not an adventure game.

You're right, I retract. Read and wrote adventure but my brain was thinking action.

Right.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

WHAT THE HELL MAN!!!! I very specifically said a few pages back that skills and inventory aren't what define and RPG. An RPG is a game where you play a role, with your choices affecting the plot.

WHAT THE HELL MAN!!!! I never said you said that! Many do though.

uberdowzen wrote...

So essentially that group defines the people who go out of there way to join a group because they have feelings about an issue. It's a measure of nothing, they do not count as an argument.

Never argued anything of the sort. Just pointing out I'm not alone in wanting more plot.

uberdowzen wrote...

Right.

Right.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

WHAT THE HELL MAN!!!! I never said you said that! Many do though.

WHAT THE HELL MAN!!!! Then why was that posted in a post with me quoted?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

So essentially that group defines the people who go out of there way to join a group because they have feelings about an issue. It's a measure of nothing, they do not count as an argument.

Never argued anything of the sort. Just pointing out I'm not alone in wanting more plot.

True, but there are also minorities that want the old inventory back, want the old levelling system back, want a krogan love interest etc. Bioware can only please so many people.

[Darth Drago]

RyrineaNara wrote...

Mass Effect 1 Combat isn't confusing, and I still had to do tactics in Mass Effect 1. I still don't get how people don't use tactics in Mass Effect 1.

-Totally agree. There is plenty of strategy options in ME1.

Combat in ME1 had its flaws mainly with the enemy AI on the interiors of the UNC missions. Getting mobbed by several enemies charging at you made the game intense but really had me thinking what went wrong with the programming. Also seeing at least one of them has a sniper rifle with him wondering whether to shoot me or beat me with it got annoying a lot as well.

To work around this I always set up my squad mates to stand by a door and then crouch walk into the main room to draw out a few of them. I used this same strategy to snipe targets outside by positioning my squad to another spot away from me or sometime using my squad mates as decoy targets.

Dudeman315 wrote...

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.

-Lol! How true. Or that the thermal clips still gave you ammo in your weapons equivalent to your standard shooter clip size. Not to mention all of your heavy weapons use their own clip type. Must me some super hi tech gadget that transforms a heavy reload into missiles.

A thermal clip should be separate and not bound to each weapon and you should be able to carry the same amount regardless of weapon. If I prefer to use the M-6 Hand Cannon I’m limited to just 6 rounds in the gun and 16 rounds to reload with. While a M-8 Avenger assault rifle has a 40 round clip with 400 rounds to reload with. Sounds real fair and balanced don’t it?

If they want to keep the clip size for each weapon the same that’s fine (not preferable though) but I should be able to have a base amount of thermal clips to reload with on any weapons I have since they seem to be universal in use anyways. In the current system in ME2, maybe have the capacity be at 200 thermal clips to use in any weapon I carry.

That really wouldn’t solve the thermal clip idea though. One thermal clip should give you a certain amount of shots before needing to change it. Like I said in my earlier post something like 60 shots would actually make sense. Of course you now would carry less actual thermal clips. Using my above example of the 200 extra rounds you would only need to carry 4 thermal clips. It certainly makes more sense than carrying around 300 or more single thermal clips on you somehow. A soldier would carry about 400 for the assault rifle (3 out of the 5 carry 400+), 18- 60 for a heavy pistol, up to 16 for the shotgun and up to 48 for the sniper rifle.

And to think people gripe about the ME1 inventory system and how its not realistic to carry all that inventory. I guess Shepard must have Quarian pockets to carry that many “D” sized battery items to use for his/her weapons.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

WHAT THE HELL MAN!!!! Then why was that posted in a post with me quoted?

Eh, I guess I was just being a ******. Sorry.

uberdowzen wrote...

True, but there are also minorities that want the old inventory back, want the old levelling system back, want a krogan love interest etc. Bioware can only please so many people.

Bioware's longterm, established fanbase isn't a minority.

[KitsuneRommel]

Darth Drago wrote...

And to think people gripe about the ME1 inventory system and how its not realistic to carry all that inventory. I guess Shepard must have Quarian pockets to carry that many “D” sized battery items to use for his/her weapons.

Right. Complaining about carrying all those guns and armor with you is "griping" but nitpicking about thermal clips isn't.


Let's gripe about something else too. It's funny how you are supposed to be a highly trained soldier in ME1 but your sniper rifle waves around like it's being held by a 10 year old kid with atrophied muscles.

[Massadonious1]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

And to think people gripe about the ME1 inventory system and how its not realistic to carry all that inventory. I guess Shepard must have Quarian pockets to carry that many “D” sized battery items to use for his/her weapons.

Right. Complaining about carrying all those guns and armor with you is "griping" but nitpicking about thermal clips isn't.


Let's gripe about something else too. It's funny how you are supposed to be a highly trained soldier in ME1 but your sniper rifle waves around like it's being held by a 10 year old kid with atrophied muscles.

Well, we apparently can rifle-butt Thresher Maw's to death. Maybe our muscles are actually too big to support such a steady aim.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 04 mai 2010 - 10:07 .

[Dudeman315]

KalosCast wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Does everybody here just happen to have Alzheimer's? Again, the only good thing about FO3 was the character creator and the combat. Nothing else.

And trust me, when you concentrate your stats focusing on your endurance and charm/persuasion, it can play against you with VATS.

VATS is the combat, and the primary subject of why I said FO3 was bad. But yeah, I guess if you intentionally gimp your character, you'll be bad at it. Just like how you seem to be unable to grasp the basics of ME2 combat enough that it apparently takes you hours to get through it all and magically makes up 90% of the game.

The character creation was just the character creation used in every single major game in the Elder Scrolls series, so it can't even take credit for that.

VATS is the only thing that saved FO3 from being generic PA shooter X.  VATS is why everyone I know loves FO3.  ME2 combat sucks from an rpg perspective, but is fine from a shooter perspective. FO3 combat is fine from an rpg perspective(stats+skill= hit), but broken from a boom boom splushin' perspective(too much pausing/missing).  FO3 combat is the best hybred system to date, but may not be perfect. VATS was in FO1 & 2 so it really was a fan service.  Plus you could complete missions in a variety of ways in FO but usually only one in ME2(Red vs blue doesn't cut it either).

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

What was the teamwork I said you had to use with enemy biotics?

You said enemy biotics threw you.This is easy to prevent if you take someone like Tali or/and Garrus with you,that could damp enemies.

I said earlier that you do need to use your team in ME2, for situations like I use lift and then someone else uses pull.

You mean pull and then throw.Is this good that a biotic cant perform such an action alone anymore??

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

Are you telling your squad to take cover? Also how is this any different than ME1? I can't count the number of times my squad has got slaughtered (at veteran) and I've had to finish up.

What????
You made something horribly wrong then.Even on insanity liara and tali barely die when the player skilled them right.I dont even talk about someone like wrex.

[megatron999]

dudeman wrote...
[/quote]
VATS is the only thing that saved FO3 from being generic PA shooter X.  VATS is why everyone I know loves FO3.  ME2 combat sucks from an rpg perspective, but is fine from a shooter perspective. FO3 combat is fine from an rpg perspective(stats+skill= hit), but broken from a boom boom splushin' perspective(too much pausing/missing).  FO3 combat is the best hybred system to date, but may not be perfect. VATS was in FO1 & 2 so it really was a fan service.  Plus you could complete missions in a variety of ways in FO but usually only one in ME2(Red vs blue doesn't cut it either).
[/quote]

Your missing the point of the game. It is a trilogy so there are three games in the series therefore each mission must have a specific end to fit it in the game.

What would be the point of not for example recruiting mordin but not bothering with distributing the atidote on omega?.

Red-Blue does cut it for me as it affects your squad and speech skills.

Also the combat is awful for fallout3!

Modifié par megatron999, 04 mai 2010 - 05:43 .

[tonnactus]

To regard the actual thermal clip system: They dont add anything to the game and are only an annoyance.There is too much ammo to make the game "tactictal",even on insanity.Then why even include this crap?Everytime after a fight i collect thermal clips, just for case. They dont make anything tactical,all they do is that i sometimes couldnt use my weapon of choice.

[tonnactus]

Adriano87 wrote...


Because you use other weapons, and become under pressure. mixing two systems, make the game more exciting:
Thermal(Reloding) + overheating

I never ever came under pressure in Mass Effect 2 because i had not enough ammo.
Not even as a soldier.After getting the revenant,this weapon could be used til the end of the game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 mai 2010 - 06:08 .

[megatron999]

Or if you reloaded your ME2 character you could get the revenant anyway so its largely irellevant having ammo clips, I agree with Tonnactus.

[KitsuneRommel]

megatron999 wrote...

Or if you reloaded your ME2 character you could get the revenant anyway so its largely irellevant having ammo clips, I agree with Tonnactus.

Yea, playing a soldier in either game makes them a snorefest. People already knew that.

[KalosCast]

Dudeman315 wrote...

VATS is the only thing that saved FO3 from being generic PA shooter X.  VATS is why everyone I know loves FO3.  ME2 combat sucks from an rpg perspective, but is fine from a shooter perspective. FO3 combat is fine from an rpg perspective(stats+skill= hit), but broken from a boom boom splushin' perspective(too much pausing/missing).  FO3 combat is the best hybred system to date, but may not be perfect. VATS was in FO1 & 2 so it really was a fan service.  Plus you could complete missions in a variety of ways in FO but usually only one in ME2(Red vs blue doesn't cut it either).

Lol, it's not stats + skill = hit, it's "you take less than 10% damage and are partially immune to certain things while in VATS so just run straight up to them, then pause the game and score 37 headshots with impunity"