10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

Differently is the issue. I brought ME1 at launch knowing it was not a real shooter but was an RPG that used guns. I was 100% fine with that as I didn't need another shooter game, I wanted to play an RPG.

I'd say Fallout 1 and 2 were RPGs with guns. For me ME had always been a shooter with RPG elements. Sure, I'd love for them to go back to the ME1 roots with some aspects (I even liked the Mako) as long as they keep the smoother combat and interesting characters of ME2.

[Sidney]

Videit wrote...

Its funny cause I think that story in an RPG and in Mass Effect is hella important and these games wouldnt be the same without it. Heck I play PnP D&D and our group goes whole sessions without combat. I just cant stand RPG snobs and these boards are full of em. People who keep wanting ME3 to be ME1 again for one reason or another instead of it being ME3. I do think however I understood the story telling in ME2 and some didnt. Mostly the game and Bioware I think needs to look forward despite people who want it to go back to the way things were and dont understand that some RPG's are changing. Of course that doesnt mean things should be sacrificed like story but it does mean that maybe the story and RPG elements can be done in different ways.  Take it or leave it.

They don't want ME1, they want BG2. Anything that varies that from model is a heresy that must be purged - and really if you see all the DAO whining it isn't even BG2 but the AD&D rulset people have a love affair with.

I keep hearing this "shooter" nonsense but ME2 doesn't relate to CoD or Halo in any major way. Yes, you point guns at stuff and pull the trigger but there's no story in those things. There's no interaction with the environment or the other people like you have in ME2. If this game was EXACTLY the same but it had the BG2 combat system it'd be an RPG as if the mode of combat is what makes or doesn't make an RPG.

I think people have lost sight of what role playing means. it doesn't mean looting corpses, and customizing armor or selling vendor trash. It doesn't mean turn based combat. Those were things people stuffed into RPG's years ago but those have zippo to do with role playing even though you are used to them. Role playing is about have a character that has a serious effect on the world you are in beyond just blowing crap up and both ME1 and ME2 fill that niche.

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...


-So in short, instead of fixing the enemy AI to do something like react to being shot at or even reacting to your position, their solution is to just remove the crouch? Yea, that make the game so much better. We now are penalized for playing smart. Ask any soldier or police officer and I’ll bet they will say the best way to engage in combat would be to exploit your environment to take the safest shot.

Combat environment improvements? Really, is that what they call it? Barriers that fold up conveniently in front of you to give you something to hide behind, painfully obvious shooter arena level designs and levels that really don’t give you any freedom of movement beyond the narrow corridor layout.

Sounds like they just loved taking the quick fix route in ME2 by just removing game elements completely instead of fixing the problems in the first place.

Its interesting.In Far Cry(the first game/2005) it was even possible to to lay on the ground and move.The enemy ai wasnt fooled through this. And to be honest i dont remeber any scene in the first Mass Effect where the enemys were fooled because of that.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 mai 2010 - 05:47 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

How did they cut corners? I think the game is a lot more polished than ME1 (a few examples, better cinematics, motion blur that doesn't turn the graphics to mud, no sticky cover, not so badly optomised that my video card fan goes into overdrive - literally often I can't hear the dialogue it's so loud).

Did you ever played as a vanguard in Mass Effect 2??
No one that did that could say that this game was polished.

[TJSolo]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Differently is the issue. I brought ME1 at launch knowing it was not a real shooter but was an RPG that used guns. I was 100% fine with that as I didn't need another shooter game, I wanted to play an RPG.

I'd say Fallout 1 and 2 were RPGs with guns. For me ME had always been a shooter with RPG elements. Sure, I'd love for them to go back to the ME1 roots with some aspects (I even liked the Mako) as long as they keep the smoother combat and interesting characters of ME2.

For me FO3 and ME1 are similar in that the combat used guns and there was an attempt to make the combat interesting but not the focus of the game., thus not being shooters(genre) but using guns for combat. There is a problem when people see guns used for combat and instantly think the rules for the shooter(genre) need to apply.

As for smooth combat; far from it. I have to go slower with ME2s combat because of the problems with edge warping/stuck on objects, the cover button being linked to rush and mount, and the fact ME2 uses spawn points with enemy waves. The battles feel like scenarios or practice mode from shooters where the game has you practive only few tactics but it is the actual game. I would call the combat limited, not smooth.

[tonnactus]

StodgyFrost98 wrote...

I swear the only thing that I think really killed the replay value in ME2 was the planet scanning, it was so slow and tedious that I would practically fall asleep.

That with the "fuel" was a lot more annoying for me.

[tonnactus]

Videit wrote...

Like I said the story in ME 2 wasnt plot driven it was character and choice driven.

And what story was told through the characters?Did any loyality quests add something to the Mass Effect Universe beside the preparing squadmembers for the suicide mission??

Oh great, i solved thanes father son relationship.
Some where intersting like grunts ritus,but they add nothing to Mass Effect.Most of them boring personal problems.

[Ippensheir]

tonnactus wrote...

StodgyFrost98 wrote...

I swear the only thing that I think really killed the replay value in ME2 was the planet scanning, it was so slow and tedious that I would practically fall asleep.

That with the "fuel" was a lot more annoying for me.

After my first playthrough I used a savegame editor for resources. Would not have been able to make it through a second playthrough otherwise.

[bjdbwea]

Sidney wrote...

They don't want ME1, they want BG2. Anything that varies that from model is a heresy that must be purged - and really if you see all the DAO whining it isn't even BG2 but the AD&D rulset people have a love affair with.

That's how you want to perceive it, but it's not true. I like ME 1 just as much as BG 2 (my two favourite games ever), even though they're very different. I don't like ME 2 nearly as much, for a lot of reasons.

And by the way, ME is not SW. Just because people like or don't like the second part of the SW trilogy, doesn't mean the second part of ME is any better or worse.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 mai 2010 - 07:44 .

[tonnactus]

When talking about rpg elements, was it ever mentioned that it is impossible now to play a a support class like in Mass Effect. In a way that squadmates finish off opponents and shepardt mostly weaken and disable them.
First,most party members have a lot lower health and shields then sheaprdt.Only grunt is a exception,but his weapon damage doesnt come close with that of shepardt.

Shepardt have always a higher weapon damage then his squad.Even thane and zaeed didnt get higher stats because they have a lower base damage even when using the same weapons.

Biotics and tech got nerfed.A lot of them dont work when enemies have defenses,and even the ones that do have laughable range.Overload has now only a radious of 3m when in Mass Effect it was 8.The sabotage included in overload only works when shields are down.The same is true for biotics.

As far i could remember a support class like the healer was always a part of rpgs.
Something like this dont exist in Mass Effect 2 anymore.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 mai 2010 - 07:07 .

[AlanC9]

Sidney wrote...
I think people have lost sight of what role playing means. it doesn't mean looting corpses, and customizing armor or selling vendor trash. It doesn't mean turn based combat. Those were things people stuffed into RPG's years ago but those have zippo to do with role playing even though you are used to them. Role playing is about have a character that has a serious effect on the world you are in beyond just blowing crap up and both ME1 and ME2 fill that niche.

I mostly agree with this -- CRPGs picked up the worst parts of D&D years ago, and by now those have hardened into conventions But if people like that kind of gameplay, they like it. They're not going to convince you of anything by telling you that ME2 isn't a "real RPG," and you're not going to convince them of anything by saying that it is.

And while I'm a big fan of what happened to inventory in ME2 -- I come out of PnP roleplaying, where loot has been obsolete for decades -- I can understand how someone might think that RPG means "shaping the characters through lots of loot and a big inventory," and if something's billed as an RPG but doesn't have that mechanism, being disappointed by the game. Sure, people should be better-informed about their purchases, but that's just not what people do.

[SkullandBonesmember]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I expect a sequel to a game that focused the most on story as opposed to the combat mechanics to be focused the most on story as well.

Except that's not what ME1 really was.

I dare you to tell me I'm wrong that there was less dialogue in ME2. YES I AM WELL AWARE THAT THERE TECHNICALLY WAS MORE DIALOGUE RECORDED! But You can't honestly tell me that the cutscenes and character interaction was longer and as, if not MORE abundant in ME2, can you?

But hey, who cares, right? Who cares if the missions were longer. The cutscenes really dragged in some parts. BOOOOOOORING. Gimmie the combat already! Why don't you answer this-

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

While we're at it, I want a Mario game where I don't step on Goombas.

You would probably be AGAINST the OPTION of a simplified combat to further the plot along faster, wouldn't you?

KitsuneRommel wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

What's an RPG snob? Is that what you call people who demand a proper story and gameplay beyond pew-pew?

I guess you should have started demanding that before ME1. *ka-ching*

For the billionth time, if you want to talk about an "action" RPG, no need to look beyond ME1 because everything from the plot to the combat was damn near perfect but that wasn't the case with ME2.

Sidney wrote...

Videit wrote...

Its funny cause I think that story in an RPG and in Mass Effect is hella important and these games wouldnt be the same without it. Heck I play PnP D&D and our group goes whole sessions without combat. I just cant stand RPG snobs and these boards are full of em. People who keep wanting ME3 to be ME1 again for one reason or another instead of it being ME3. I do think however I understood the story telling in ME2 and some didnt. Mostly the game and Bioware I think needs to look forward despite people who want it to go back to the way things were and dont understand that some RPG's are changing. Of course that doesnt mean things should be sacrificed like story but it does mean that maybe the story and RPG elements can be done in different ways.  Take it or leave it.

They don't want ME1, they want BG2. Anything that varies that from model is a heresy that must be purged - and really if you see all the DAO whining it isn't even BG2 but the AD&D rulset people have a love affair with.

I keep hearing this "shooter" nonsense but ME2 doesn't relate to CoD or Halo in any major way. Yes, you point guns at stuff and pull the trigger but there's no story in those things. There's no interaction with the environment or the other people like you have in ME2. If this game was EXACTLY the same but it had the BG2 combat system it'd be an RPG as if the mode of combat is what makes or doesn't make an RPG.

I think people have lost sight of what role playing means. it doesn't mean looting corpses, and customizing armor or selling vendor trash. It doesn't mean turn based combat. Those were things people stuffed into RPG's years ago but those have zippo to do with role playing even though you are used to them. Role playing is about have a character that has a serious effect on the world you are in beyond just blowing crap up and both ME1 and ME2 fill that niche.

We're not asking for turn based combat and most of us feel loot and skills is RPGing in the most shallow of ways! This is what I've been saying all along since joining the original board, video games have evolved a long way from Pong. If you want an RPG experience, today's technology allows for such immersion. There are different genres for everybody when it comes to TV shows, films, books, and yes, video games. There's definitely a demographic for story driven games that don't FOCUS on the type of combat ME2 gave us. Personally, ME1, Prince Of Persia, and Fallout 3 had perfect combat, and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

tonnactus wrote...

Did you ever played as a vanguard in Mass Effect 2??
No one that did that could say that this game was polished.

[sarcasm]Awww. Is it tough for you? WAAAAAH! WAAAAAH! I CAN'T BEAT YOUR GAME BIOWARE JUST MAKE IT EASIER!

Seriously maaaaaan, don't ya want a CHALLENGE? After all, a challenge means have to be stuck in battle forever.[/sarcasm]

AlanC9 wrote...

I mostly agree with this -- CRPGs picked up the worst parts of D&D years ago, and by now those have hardened into conventions But if people like that kind of gameplay, they like it. They're not going to convince you of anything by telling you that ME2 isn't a "real RPG," and you're not going to convince them of anything by saying that it is.

And while I'm a big fan of what happened to inventory in ME2 -- I come out of PnP roleplaying, where loot has been obsolete for decades -- I can understand how someone might think that RPG means "shaping the characters through lots of loot and a big inventory," and if something's billed as an RPG but doesn't have that mechanism, being disappointed by the game. Sure, people should be better-informed about their purchases, but that's just not what people do.

True dat. Like I said, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. If the marketing is the same as it was for ME2, I'll know what I'm getting into and wait for a used copy or borrow one from a friend.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

How did they cut corners? I think the game is a lot more polished than ME1 (a few examples, better cinematics, motion blur that doesn't turn the graphics to mud, no sticky cover, not so badly optomised that my video card fan goes into overdrive - literally often I can't hear the dialogue it's so loud).

Did you ever played as a vanguard in Mass Effect 2??
No one that did that could say that this game was polished.

The character I just brought forward from ME1 is a vanguard. It's really fun, especially the biotic charge, which is awesome.

[rplong]

I agree with uberdowzen on how ME2 is more polished. The correction of having all textures loaded when going into a scene is a massive improvement. I hated watching the textures slowly come into focus or improve as a scene progressed in ME1

[Videit]

bjdbwea wrote...

What's an RPG snob? Is that what you call people who demand a proper story and gameplay beyond pew-pew?

No, just people I disaggre with.

Seriously though its not people who want more story or want more RPG elements added to the game that bother me it its people who use words like pew pew and are so uppity about how RPG's need to be exactly like they say they should be instead of an exercise in creativity and fun.   I mean look at Skull's signature...

The story in ME2 wasnt as plot driven as most RPG's but does that mean there is something wrong with it because it wasnt your typical way of storytelling in an RPG?  No, especially when the story from the get go was form your team and undertake a suicide mission.  To me ME2 was a different RPG than I had played before and I respected it for that not for what it used to be or what it wasnt anymore.

TJSolo wrote...

Videit wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

When an RPG and FPS or TPS is combined, there is bound to be friction. As I've said before, shooter fans and story driven fans can't and do not mesh.

Lies!!!

The Mass Effect series is an Action RPG so thise things should mesh and do very well for me in both games, they just do it differently.

That quote is about fans not the genres.

I am both of those in one person so I still call fubar on that.

[bjdbwea]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

For the billionth time, if you want to talk about an "action" RPG, no need to look beyond ME1 because everything from the plot to the combat was damn near perfect but that wasn't the case with ME2.

This. And I agree that combat in ME 1 was superior too. And not because it is easier, it isn't. I'm only playing both games on the highest difficulty. In ME 1 with its RPG system, at least in the beginning you're so weak that a single hit from a sniper or rocket means reloading the game. And it's very hard to hit anything with a sniper rifle. Only later does the game get easier, as you're getting stronger, like it should be in an RPG. In ME 2, Shepard can shrug off even a direct hit from a missile, and is a perfect shot, from the very start. The only occasions when ME 2 is challenging is when it spams you with lots enemies, sometimes even respawning, Serious Sam style. Krogans in ME 2 are quite weak too, whereas in ME 2 they are very tough, as they should be.

My only real complaint with the combat in ME 1 is that on PC there was no way to completely deactivate auto-aim, which is completely unnecessary. That at least is gone in ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 mai 2010 - 09:19 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...


The character I just brought forward from ME1 is a vanguard. It's really fun, especially the biotic charge, which is awesome.

"Cannot reach the target" at least one time in each mission.On collector platforms it didnt work if you are in cover.You have to be on the other platform even when it connected with the one you are.So you have to take a lot of bullets first before you can use charge.Sometimes i charge an enemy with the result i stands onto a cover and shot at me from above.

Vanguard gameplay is bugged as hell.

[Videit]

Some have said the story was episodic and I might be inclined to agree with that. Is there a problem with an episodic story?

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

When talking about rpg elements, was it ever mentioned that it is impossible now to play a a support class like in Mass Effect. In a way that squadmates finish off opponents and shepardt mostly weaken and disable them.
First,most party members have a lot lower health and shields then sheaprdt.Only grunt is a exception,but his weapon damage doesnt come close with that of shepardt.

Frankly I can't see how you could do that in ME1 either. Squadmates are too stupid and die fast on harder difficulties.

Biotics and tech got nerfed.A lot of them dont work when enemies have defenses,and even the ones that do have laughable range.Overload has now only a radious of 3m when in Mass Effect it was 8.The sabotage included in overload only works when shields are down.The same is true for biotics.

But instead you can use them a lot more often now. I played the first game on veteran difficulty as an Adept. With Garrus and Miranda having Overload and you and Miranda having Warp the enemies were stripped of their defenses (if they even had them) really fast and then you could just spam singularity+warp and everything blew apart. Imagine the snorefest if Singularity worked on enemies with armor and shields on.

As far i could remember a support class like the healer was always a part of rpgs.
Something like this dont exist in Mass Effect 2 anymore.

Oh, yes. Clerics. The class no one wanted to play so in every D&D edition they just got more and more powerful. It's the same in MMOs. People always need more tanks and healers.

[TJSolo]

[quote]
That quote is about fans not the genres.

[/quote]

I am both of those in one person so I still call fubar on that.[/quote]

That is why in that post I went into depth about it. The problem is the use of a different ratio mid-series. Go back to my comment that you paraphrased for a more descript opinion.

[KitsuneRommel]

bjdbwea wrote...

This. And I agree that combat in ME 1 was superior too. And not because it is easier, it isn't. I'm only playing both games on the highest difficulty. In ME 1 with its RPG system, at least in the beginning you're so weak that a single hit from a sniper or rocket means reloading the game. And it's very hard to hit anything with a sniper rifle.

I'm currently playing an Adept with Sniper Rifle bonus talent on Insanity. So far I've only had to reload once and that was when Wrex decided to charge into a bar full of enemies. It hasn't been hard at all, only annoying since even with lots of points in sniper rifle the gun waves around like you were drunk (c'mon the enemy is only 15 meters from me!).

Compared to e.g. DA:O the game is really easy.

[Iakus]

Sidney wrote...

I think people have lost sight of what role playing means. it doesn't mean looting corpses, and customizing armor or selling vendor trash. It doesn't mean turn based combat. Those were things people stuffed into RPG's years ago but those have zippo to do with role playing even though you are used to them. Role playing is about have a character that has a serious effect on the world you are in beyond just blowing crap up and both ME1 and ME2 fill that niche.

Long post, apologies ahead of time. 

No, gear does not make an rpg, Nor does designing armor.  They help in customizing your character, much like picking a class does.  But by itself it doesn't make an rpg.  Borderlands does as much.

Role playing means adopting the persona (usually the protagonist) of a story-based game where you make choices that affect the outcome.  Your character has a goal, a motivation, a reason for doing what you do.  In a good rpg, you are immersed in a story, just like you can get immersed in the stry of a good book or movie. 

Now, about ME2:  it is my belief that the story is the weakest part of the game, to the point where I had to doublecheck to make sure it was in fact a Bioware game.

I mean, what is the plot?  First it seems to be "find out why human colonies are disappearing".  Sounds intiguing, except...it gets solved with the first mission.  Okay, now we're going after the Collectors, right?  Find out who and what they are, what they're after, what's their connection to the Reapers, what their interest is in humans.  Heck, finding out who's leading them would be a good first step!  You've got a place for us to start, right TIM?

Not exactly.  We're going to deal with the Reapers by...slaughtering dozens and dozens of mercs as we build an elite  team to ...do something.  Asari mercs, human mercs, krogan, vorcha, batarians, salaraians.  Harbringer isn't "our salvation through destruction", it's Shepherd!

But this team, they're specialists, right?  They each have some connection to the Collectors, or they possess information we need?  Umm, not so much. Half seem to join up cause they have nothing better to do.

Ah, but this is a character-driven story, right?  This is about Sheperd building an elite team to do the impossible!  This is the Dirty Dozen!  Kelly's Heroes!  Ocean's Eleven!  They're going to come together as a well-oiled fighting machine and Fight for the Lost!

Well, not so much, in my opinion.  They have loyalty mission, which is nice, but in the end, all you end up with are 10-12 individuals personally loyal to you.  There's little to no communication amongst the squad.  Only two personality clashes.  Once a character is recruited and made loyal, they pretty much spend the rest of the game "guarding the ship" while you go out with your prefererd two (or the one you're making loyal plus your favorite character) 

So the storyline for ME2 is to go stop the Collectors by fighting everyone EXCEPT the Collectors in order to create an elite team of semirandom supercharacters to go forth and do something somewhere to somebody.  Glad that's straightened out.

 If this was a true "character-based" story, we'd see a lot more of the characters and their motivations.  More personalized comments on missions, more dialogues (both with Shepherd and other squadmates), more cutscenes.  Not that those are entirely absent.  But there really isn't enough if this is the route Bioware intended. In a movie featuring an ensemble cast like this, there's typically a "training montage" in the second act.  The disparate cast of characters work together and bond as a team while sorting out their personal problems.  Something like that is really lacking in ME2.  I mean, it's not just Shepherd's life that on the line here.  The squad needs to trust their fellow squadmates, right?

And this is beside the point that with two exceptions, all the characters from ME1 are almost entirely absent (Empire Strikes Back did NOT feature an almost entirely new cast, btw)  Maybe they didn't want to confuse those who didn't play ME1, I dunno.

[TJSolo]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

This. And I agree that combat in ME 1 was superior too. And not because it is easier, it isn't. I'm only playing both games on the highest difficulty. In ME 1 with its RPG system, at least in the beginning you're so weak that a single hit from a sniper or rocket means reloading the game. And it's very hard to hit anything with a sniper rifle.

I'm currently playing an Adept with Sniper Rifle bonus talent on Insanity. So far I've only had to reload once and that was when Wrex decided to charge into a bar full of enemies. It hasn't been hard at all, only annoying since even with lots of points in sniper rifle the gun waves around like you were drunk (c'mon the enemy is only 15 meters from me!).

Compared to e.g. DA:O the game is really easy.

If you are playing the game then you can define "lots" of points with actual numbers. Turn it on, tell us you skill level, and weapon, as your statement reads more like simile then actual experience.

Modifié par TJSolo, 09 mai 2010 - 09:34 .

[bjdbwea]

Then you're good at the game, so what. Doesn't change the fact that you'd have to reload if you made a mistake and were hit by a rocket or sniper. And hitting anything with that sniper rifle yourself IS a bit hard, but it gets better as you gain levels, as it should be in an RPG.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Frankly I can't see how you could do that in ME1 either. Squadmates are too stupid and die fast on harder difficulties.

Then you made something wrong.Two Squadmates have immunity.One have barrier and immunity,three have barrier.
Garrus was the only real squishy squadmember in Mass Effect.Tali has really high shields.None of them die often,even on insanity.And even when,with the medic specialisation you could revive them fast and often with medigel.
Weapon damage and accury of the companions were good enough with specter weapons.Even liara was quite good with the pistol and combat optics.

The companions now are not smarter anyway.They dont shoot you in the back.Thats it.Mordin nether use incinerate on shielded enemies like all other tech enemies do.Squadmembers with warp nether use them on shielded enemies like vanguards.

In addition to that,squadmates are now a lot worser because of having less talents and cooldown double as long as shepardt at least.I i dont know what gamedesigners smoke when they give a 30 s cooldown to combat drones of legion and tali.

But instead you can use them a lot more often now.

I doesnt matter because most of them dont work like intended.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 mai 2010 - 09:38 .