10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

This

2 million copies in stores doesnt mean so much copies where actually sold to customers.

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

There was PLENTY of and much better cover in ME1. And when there wasn't, it's not like you NEEDED it too much for casual through veteran.

Ok, half the time is an exaggeration, but for example, I was doing the boss on Noveria last night, and those crates by the steps where you're standing can be destroyed by Biotics. This means that you have to run to the other side of the room to get to the only other crates (which because of the "unsafe" cover in ME1 doesn't protect you all that much) while being slaughtered by asari commandos and Benezia. Yeah, it was definitly a lot better in ME1.

You have still destroyable cover in the second game.On the right side,there was undestructable cover,even the "bridge" gives good cover because sheaprdt could crouch in Mass Effect.He /she couldnt do that anymore in 2.Another "invention" that "improves" gameplay.

Modifié par tonnactus, 07 mai 2010 - 07:57 .

[tonnactus]

Xpheyel wrote...

And thats half of what made ME1 combat gameplay boring to me. It was about using a super power and drilling a target with your gun while they were helpless and/or you were invincible. A floating Armature is a boring Armature. 


 

At least an armature blast kill everyone without immunity and heavy colossus armor immediatly.
And i hope no one really think the colossus on talis mission was an exiting and dangerous enemy.

[tonnactus]

Sniper11709 wrote...


Would you like to explain that to Kage (my Soldier) who did do it from scratch?

The first fight could be different.It matter if you fight just ithe krogan in the bar with the other hugs or the two turian bounty hunter before choras den.The bountyhunter have basic immunity,carnage and shield boost, and always took cover when they are wounded.This fight could take at least some patience and an early level character could die there sometimes.

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...
I'm playing through ME1 right now, and I'm finding the inventory adds nothing to the game. When I can be bothered using it, I find that combat remains exactly the same.

Then wait when you finally get two medical exoskleletons and an savant x bioamp.Permanent barrier and biotic recharge sometimes even faster then in the second game.(and no global cooldown)

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

There was PLENTY of and much better cover in ME1. And when there wasn't, it's not like you NEEDED it too much for casual through veteran.

Ok, half the time is an exaggeration, but for example, I was doing the boss on Noveria last night, and those crates by the steps where you're standing can be destroyed by Biotics. This means that you have to run to the other side of the room to get to the only other crates (which because of the "unsafe" cover in ME1 doesn't protect you all that much) while being slaughtered by asari commandos and Benezia. Yeah, it was definitly a lot better in ME1.

You have still destroyable cover in the second game.On the right side,there was undestructable cover,even the "bridge" gives good cover because sheaprdt could crouch in Mass Effect.He /she couldnt do that anymore in 2.Another "invention" that "improves" gameplay.

Yeah, but my example of Noveria is a boss fight and there is hardly any cover. And...

Brenon Holmes, Bioware Programmer


We generally found that people
would crouch a few meters behind cover and shoot over the cover (because
of some camera tricks, this was possible), instead of actually using
the cover.



It made it hard for the AIs to fight back since they didn't have access
to the same camera tricks.



We looked into why people weren't using cover... especially since we
were making a lot of improvements to the system and we really wanted
people to take advantage of them.



A lot of it had to do with responsiveness, ease of use and a whole mess
of small issues that simply meant that cover was not very satisfying to
use.



So, we fixed up most of those issues and it's now miles better than it
was before. A very satisfying experience overall.



Additionally, in ME1 we weren't really familiar with the idea of combat
spaces, it being a new type of gameplay for us. So you had a lot of
situations where you'd be out in the open - using crouch to decrease
your profile was a pretty natural thing to do.



This time around we've made a lot of improvements to the combat
environments... so you don't really find yourself in situations where
you're out in the open and need to reduce your profile while you take
some shots. Or if you do, there's generally cover near by... since the
environment has been set up for it.



Hopefully that clears it up a bit?

People going out of there way to say that Bioware don't know what
they're doing and that they could have made ME2 better if they were
making it are forgetting that Bioware is a company of a couple of
hundred people who's full time job it is to work out how to fix what was
wrong with ME1, whereas you are someone who has played it a few times
and has decided they know better.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 07 mai 2010 - 10:07 .

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...
I'm playing through ME1 right now, and I'm finding the inventory adds nothing to the game. When I can be bothered using it, I find that combat remains exactly the same.

Then wait when you finally get two medical exoskleletons and an savant x bioamp.Permanent barrier and biotic recharge sometimes even faster then in the second game.(and no global cooldown)

But what about the hundreds of other potential armor upgraded that could potentially change the way the game plays? Oh yeah, that's right only medical exoskeletons are actually useful.

[Unit-Alpha]

tonnactus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

This

2 million copies in stores doesnt mean so much copies where actually sold to customers.

Umm... ME2 SOLD 2 million units in the first week. Google it.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 07 mai 2010 - 10:09 .

[bjdbwea]

uberdowzen wrote...

People going out of there way to say that Bioware don't know what they're doing and that they could have made ME2 better if they were making it are forgetting that Bioware is a company of a couple of hundred people who's full time job it is to work out how to fix what was wrong with ME1, whereas you are someone who has played it a few times and has decided they know better.

Wrong. Their job is to work out what works best to draw in shooter fans and casual gamers. That's a  whole different thing from "fixing" things. Well, perhaps if you think "complicated"  = "might damage sales" = "broken", then yeah, they've "fixed" things alright.

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

People going out of there way to say that Bioware don't know what they're doing and that they could have made ME2 better if they were making it are forgetting that Bioware is a company of a couple of hundred people who's full time job it is to work out how to fix what was wrong with ME1, whereas you are someone who has played it a few times and has decided they know better.

Wrong. Their job is to work out what works best to draw in shooter fans and casual gamers. That's a  whole different thing from "fixing" things. Well, perhaps if you think "complicated"  = "might damage sales" = "broken", then yeah, they've "fixed" things alright.

How does making that combat harder make the game more appealing to casual gamers? The only thing they changed in ME2 that would make it more appealing to casuals is removing the UCWs and honestly that made it more appealing to a lot of hardcore gamers.

[bjdbwea]

I won't get into that argument, I think. Suffice it to say I do not think that combat is harder in ME 2, I find it easier in most instances, once you know how it works. But even if combat would be more difficult, everyone can always play at the lowest difficulty. Neither game is any challenge there. Apart from the combat debate though, you can't deny that the game as a whole has been dumbed down significantly. Why, if not to cater to a new kind of audience?

[KitsuneRommel]

bjdbwea wrote...

I won't get into that argument, I think. Suffice it to say I do not think that combat is harder in ME 2, I find it easier in most instances, once you know how it works.

Few days ago I started my renegade insanity run with Adept in ME1. So far I've died only once and that was mostly Wrex's fault for charging into a bar full of enemies. So far it's been a lot easier than last hardcore run in ME2 (saving insanity for Vanguard after the ME1 playthrough). Most of the difficulty in ME1 comes from the clunky cover system.

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

I won't get into that argument, I think. Suffice it to say I do not think that combat is harder in ME 2, I find it easier in most instances, once you know how it works. But even if combat would be more difficult, everyone can always play at the lowest difficulty. Neither game is any challenge there. Apart from the combat debate though, you can't deny that the game as a whole has been dumbed down significantly. Why, if not to cater to a new kind of audience?

Dumbed down is an off term. The combat is now more fun, requires greater precision, requires you to think more about which powers you use (whereas in ME1 you could pretty much use which ever one you wanted to the same affect) and requires you to use more squad coordination. Yep definetly dumbed down...

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...



ok see you, bye - we don't need you. nor does BW. see they try and cater for gamers who want a rewarding experience, incorporating all their series traits: story, characters, combat, role-playing etc. not those few people who want mass effect to regress to something it never was in the first place, a clunky rpg-only game. the fact that mass effect 2 has sold more than double mass effect 1, kinda tells us they're going in the right (and natural) direction.

All that proves is that they're catering to the masses. The same masses who'd buy Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2. All it proves is that the game is more of a generic shooter.

uberdowzen wrote...



Ok, half the time is an exaggeration, but for example, I was doing the boss on Noveria last night, and those crates by the steps where you're standing can be destroyed by Biotics. This means that you have to run to the other side of the room to get to the only other crates (which because of the "unsafe" cover in ME1 doesn't protect you all that much) while being slaughtered by asari commandos and Benezia. Yeah, it was definitly a lot better in ME1.

Are you joking? Benezia's boss fight is the easiest one in the game because it has the biggest piece of indestructible cover in the game: the entire Rachni Queen tank. Get behind that and Benezia won't even touch you and the rest are easy to pick off.

uberdowzen wrote...



And would people stop implying that people who liked ME2 are idiots who are obssessed with "'sploshuns".

Firstly: there's a difference between saying people who liked ME2 are idiots obsessed with "sploshuns" and saying that ME2 caters for idiots who like "sploshions"



Secondly: perhaps if so many of the pro-ME2 fanboys didn't keep acting like this and keep saying that all the RPG stuff is boring and overly complicated, then they wouldn't keep proving the point. I'm not saying every pro-ME2 fan does, but for every well spoken and intelligent poster out there who has some valid points and well-structured arguments there are a dozen idiots who seem to prove that the former are the exception to the rule.

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

And would people stop implying that people who liked ME2 are idiots who are obssessed with "'sploshuns".

Firstly: there's a difference between saying people who liked ME2 are idiots obsessed with "sploshuns" and saying that ME2 caters for idiots who like "sploshions"

Secondly: perhaps if so many of the pro-ME2 fanboys didn't keep acting like this and keep saying that all the RPG stuff is boring and overly complicated, then they wouldn't keep proving the point. I'm not saying every pro-ME2 fan does, but for every well spoken and intelligent poster out there who has some valid points and well-structured arguments there are a dozen idiots who seem to prove that the former are the exception to the rule.

No, they're not overly complicated, they're just superflous. The different weapons and mods hardly change the game at all (and I've actually done a quick experiment, I'm not completely sure that the reticule in ME1 actually matches the accuracy of the current weapon) and they're just time wasted when you could be experiencing the plot. And for some reason, the RPG elements of ME1 are actually boring. Normally in RPGs I really enjoy looting and inventory managment and complicated levelling systems, but in ME1 I just end up going, "Oh god, not again."

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

How does making that combat harder make the game more appealing to casual gamers? The only thing they changed in ME2 that would make it more appealing to casuals is removing the UCWs and honestly that made it more appealing to a lot of hardcore gamers.

You've said it yourself. You NEED a "challenge". And nobody even WANTS an OPTION for those who prefer plot for the combat to be like ME1.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 07 mai 2010 - 11:11 .

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

And would people stop implying that people who liked ME2 are idiots who are obssessed with "'sploshuns".

Firstly: there's a difference between saying people who liked ME2 are idiots obsessed with "sploshuns" and saying that ME2 caters for idiots who like "sploshions"

Secondly: perhaps if so many of the pro-ME2 fanboys didn't keep acting like this and keep saying that all the RPG stuff is boring and overly complicated, then they wouldn't keep proving the point. I'm not saying every pro-ME2 fan does, but for every well spoken and intelligent poster out there who has some valid points and well-structured arguments there are a dozen idiots who seem to prove that the former are the exception to the rule.

No, they're not overly complicated, they're just superflous. The different weapons and mods hardly change the game at all (and I've actually done a quick experiment, I'm not completely sure that the reticule in ME1 actually matches the accuracy of the current weapon) and they're just time wasted when you could be experiencing the plot. And for some reason, the RPG elements of ME1 are actually boring. Normally in RPGs I really enjoy looting and inventory managment and complicated levelling systems, but in ME1 I just end up going, "Oh god, not again."

Okay... so you yourself fully admit that, and I quote, "normally in RPGs I really enjoy looting and inventory managment and complicated levelling systems."

If that's the case, why do the RPG systems in Mass Effect need throwing out of being stripped down beyond recognition or to the point of not being RPG systems at all any more? If you really do enjoy these factors in an RPG as you say, why aren't you on the side of those who want the systems still there but improved or replaced with something that at least has the same or better RPG depth?

Or are you one of these people who really does believe everything is black and white and we're either stuck with the system exactly like it is in ME1 or completely stripped and simplified?

Seriously: when are you pro-ME2 fans going to get it through your heads that just because we want these factors in the game we don't necessarily want them exactly how they were in ME1 and that its not the only answer?

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

Okay... so you yourself fully admit that, and I quote, "normally in RPGs I really enjoy looting and inventory managment and complicated levelling systems."

If that's the case, why do the RPG systems in Mass Effect need throwing out of being stripped down beyond recognition or to the point of not being RPG systems at all any more? If you really do enjoy these factors in an RPG as you say, why aren't you on the side of those who want the systems still there but improved or replaced with something that at least has the same or better RPG depth?

Or are you one of these people who really does believe everything is black and white and we're either stuck with the system exactly like it is in ME1 or completely stripped and simplified?

Seriously: when are you pro-ME2 fans going to get it through your heads that just because we want these factors in the game we don't necessarily want them exactly how they were in ME1 and that its not the only answer?

Actually if you look back a few posts, I said I'd be fine with (and actually support) ME3 having an inventory system of some sort and a new character system. My problem is with people saying that ME1 was better because it had a clunky and superflous inventory system. I think ME3 should add some light inventory system but armor should still be handled in the same way as ME2 (e.g. only customise Shepherd's and only a few sets of armor)

I am on the side of people who'd like greater RPG elements in ME3 but I'm not on the side of people who thought ME2 was a worse game than ME1 (or just a bad game in general). I'm also against people who thought the UCWs were brilliant. Because they just weren't.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

How does making that combat harder make the game more appealing to casual gamers? The only thing they changed in ME2 that would make it more appealing to casuals is removing the UCWs and honestly that made it more appealing to a lot of hardcore gamers.

You've said it yourself. You NEED a "challenge". And nobody even WANTS an OPTION for those who prefer plot for the combat to be like ME1.

The thing is though that the majority of people who play ME2 will have played ME1, and if you've fought your way through that game, than the combat in ME2 should be a push over.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

The thing is though that the majority of people who play ME2 will have played ME1, and if you've fought your way through that game, than the combat in ME2 should be a push over.

Not completely reading you. Are you saying after ME1, the combat in ME2 is easy? If so, I want what you're smoking.

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Actually if you look back a few posts, I said I'd be fine with (and actually support) ME3 having an inventory system of some sort and a new character system. My problem is with people saying that ME1 was better because it had a clunky and superflous inventory system.

That's not the only reason I (and many others) feel ME1 was better though.

I think ME3 should add some light inventory system but armor should still be handled in the same way as ME2 (e.g. only customise Shepherd's and only a few sets of armor)

I'd still like some stats on the armour, for the armour to act like armour, more armour pieces overall and to be able to at leave give armour to my squaddies even if customisation for them is limited compared to Shepard. For squaddies to be running around wearing little to no protection in most cases is farcial.

I am on the side of people who'd like greater RPG elements in ME3 but I'm not on the side of people who thought ME2 was a worse game than ME1 (or just a bad game in general). I'm also against people who thought the UCWs were brilliant. Because they just weren't.

ME2 was a worse RPG than ME1. Whether it was a worse game full-stop is another matter.

UNWs weren't brilliant, and needed some work, but they weren't horrid either and provided a sense of exploration and desolation that ME2 lacks entirely. I'm all for a mix of N7 style places and UNC style places in ME3.

[bjdbwea]

It was surely better than pressing a button to feed batteries into a mech, or running from A to B on a supposedly dangerous shipwreck, that in reality is perfectly safe forever until the final cutscene plays. What is gained by handcrafted levels, if the actual gameplay content is so dumb, that even little children would probably feel insulted?

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

That's not the only reason I (and many others) feel ME1 was better though.

Is the other reason less dialogue? Because I'm playing ME1 right now, and there isn't any less (I think overall there's actually slightly more companion dialogue.

I'd still like some stats on the armour, for the armour to act like armour, more armour pieces overall and to be able to at leave give armour to my squaddies even if customisation for them is limited compared to Shepard. For squaddies to be running around wearing little to no protection in most cases is farcial.

Yeah, I'm kinda with you on that. At the very least, Miranda should wear something less revealing when you're on a mission. What she does in her spare time though...

ME2 was a worse RPG than ME1. Whether it was a worse game full-stop is another matter.

I'd actually be willing to go with ME2 being a worse RPG (statistics and "crunchy" stuff wise) if you admit that it's a better game than ME1.

Edit: I do actually have to add a caveat. I would be willing to say that it is a better RPG, but you, on top of having to say that ME2 is a better game, have to admit that it is still an RPG, not a shooter.

UNWs weren't brilliant, and needed some work, but they weren't horrid either and provided a sense of exploration and desolation that ME2 lacks entirely. I'm all for a mix of N7 style places and UNC style places in ME3.

But that's what ME2 did. Just think of the N7 missions as the copy and paste dungeons of the UCWs and the planet scanning as the tedious Mako part. A combination of N7 missions and ME2's Hammerhead parts though, now that would be awesome.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 08 mai 2010 - 12:04 .

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Not completely reading you. Are you saying after ME1, the combat in ME2 is easy? If so, I want what you're smoking.

No, I'm saying that if you can cope with ME1 combat on normal or above, you can cope with ME2 combat.

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

People going out of there way to say that Bioware don't know what
they're doing

And in this case they are right. Instead of improving the ai they remove crouch. Do you really think this is a good "solution"?
Its just a very cheap one that restrict the gameplay.
And the cover system isnt good in Mass Effect 2.Accidently get suck in cover when sprinting,  jumping over it sometimes.
This should be better then in the first game??Hell,no.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 mai 2010 - 12:22 .