10273 réponses à ce sujet

[ElektroDragon]

Here is the main problem with ME2, besides the DLC helmet toggle:

It has a very linear "push the player forward and don't let them backtrack" design.  This is infuriating! I expect this from low budget games like Pirates of the Carribean, not Mass Effect!  Here are some annoying examples:

On Freedom's Progress, after you speak with Tali, you can't go back if you missed something in the level!

Also, after the "boss" on that level, once you find the crazed qunari in the room, heaven forbid you missed anything else in that level, because you are whisked out of the level with no hope of backtracking.  I had to replay the battle because I made the decision to not chat up Tali right before talking to the qunari.  Granted, she didn't say much and I only missed out on 100 credits, but still, infuriating!

Mass Effect 1 never had issues like this!  The whole way they broke it down with "missions" and mission complete summaries, and not giving you XP for enemies... it's like they've decided they'd rather have Mass Effect be a story based shooter, than an RPG.  Well, I LIKE MY RPGs, and ME1 was an outstanding example.  I'm afraid ME3 will not have any RPG elements at all, and just be a squad based shooter with story elements.

Unfortunately, I don't think BioWare reads or cares about our opinions unless they are looking for a thread lockdown power trip.

Modifié par ElektroDragon, 11 mai 2010 - 06:02 .

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

What bad incentive? To kill stuff? To explore around to find more things and in turn discover more areas?

Like dismounting to kill enemies instead of using the mako because you get a lot more xp that way.

[Dagiz]

I'll be Johnny come lately to this discussion and add my two cents.

If there was any disappointment for me, it came in a couple of areas.  

1.)  The story.  Thought that it was relatively weak compared to ME1.  Very straightforward, and pretty bland.  In the first one I found myself engrossed my first play through, and even in subsequent play throughs it was keeping in the game.  For ME2, not so much.  

2.)  Planet exploration.  Sure the scanner saved time when it came to get resources and a few anamolies here and there, other than that, was rather dull.  At least in ME1 if you were exploring you would get chomped by a Thresher Maw if you weren't careful.  Doing everyting from the ship didn't feel too much like exploration. 

3.)  Zones/Missions - I thought that they were all a little short.  Didn't take too long to get through anything, and just seemed really short.  The loyalty missions were probably the ones that were the worst.  And the side missions were few and sparse for such a large universe.

4.)  Dialogue options - pretty poor I thought.  And rather bland. 

5.)  Inventory - Not a fan of this system at all.  Yes ME1 had a really bad system, but going to this was not great. 

6.)  XP/Mission End - I really disliked that after every mission I was "magically" transported back the the Normandy.  I mean every mission ended the same way for the most part. 

Those are the things that stood out for me.  More than a couple I guess.  Given all that, was this an absolutely horrbile game?  No, it wasn't.  Is it something that I can see myself playing multiple times, not really.  I hope that there is a good balance bewteen the two with the third game.  I like the franchise and the setting and overall enjoy it.  Though there are some changes that I would like to see happen.  Than again, I am sure that can be said for every game I have played. 

[KitsuneRommel]

ElektroDragon wrote...

Mass Effect 1 never had issues like this!

The main quest was full of those!

[ElektroDragon]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

ElektroDragon wrote...

Mass Effect 1 never had issues like this!

The main quest was full of those!

Well, then they were better implemented, because the only time in ME1 that I noticed that any area had been blocked off to me was at the very end of the game, where it wasn't a big deal, but rather expected.

[Iakus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

What bad incentive? To kill stuff? To explore around to find more things and in turn discover more areas?

Like dismounting to kill enemies instead of using the mako because you get a lot more xp that way.

i think I'll just agree that Exploration=good incentive and xp exploits=bad incentive  I'm sure we could have one without the other

[KitsuneRommel]

ElektroDragon wrote...

Well, then they were better implemented, because the only time in ME1 that I noticed that any area had been blocked off to me was at the very end of the game, where it wasn't a big deal, but rather expected.

Because usually people don't even try going back to places they already completed. Also the main quest had many of those "door locking behind you" moments. It was worse in ME2 though.

i think I'll just agree that Exploration=good incentive and xp
exploits=bad incentive  I'm sure we could have one without the other

Yeah.

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...
I don't think that Bioware designed ME2 to drag in the "Common Joe Sploshun Fan" and if they were, then they failed miserably.

I agree the attempt to mainstream the game didn't now pan out that well as there are still plenty of "Common Joe Sploshun Fans" not that interested in ME2, it is still too much RPG for them.
What am I left with as product. Neither a  fleshed out RPG nor a particularily well designed shooter. If I play ME2 the same way I play my shooters I come up disappointed because the combat A.I is bad with only two routines for most enemy classes either melee or range. The level design is predictable because of all the conveniently placed chest high walls, gee Beav I wonder what is going to happen now. Also the weapons are sparse combined with the fact your class determines what weapons you can you; it makes for a very limited armory.
This is just for my perspective has a "Common Joe Sploshun Fan".

All Bioware did was get down some of the shooter fundamentals like ammo and cover but since they just copied, they don't understand there are also inherent negatives. Ammo is rarely a problem in single player campaigns and cover as I said before becomes too obvious.  Conventional shooters don't use ammo to make you switch weapons, they hide various weapons and ammo around a map so that players can pick their preferred weapon.  To make cover less of a boring safezone experienced shooter makers use grenades, traps, and bombs so that the player doesn't think cover is always a safezone.

[Iakus]

Dagiz wrote...

I'll be Johnny come lately to this discussion and add my two cents.

If there was any disappointment for me, it came in a couple of areas.  

1.)  The story.  Thought that it was relatively weak compared to ME1.  Very straightforward, and pretty bland.  In the first one I found myself engrossed my first play through, and even in subsequent play throughs it was keeping in the game.  For ME2, not so much.  

2.)  Planet exploration.  Sure the scanner saved time when it came to get resources and a few anamolies here and there, other than that, was rather dull.  At least in ME1 if you were exploring you would get chomped by a Thresher Maw if you weren't careful.  Doing everyting from the ship didn't feel too much like exploration. 

3.)  Zones/Missions - I thought that they were all a little short.  Didn't take too long to get through anything, and just seemed really short.  The loyalty missions were probably the ones that were the worst.  And the side missions were few and sparse for such a large universe.

4.)  Dialogue options - pretty poor I thought.  And rather bland. 

5.)  Inventory - Not a fan of this system at all.  Yes ME1 had a really bad system, but going to this was not great. 

6.)  XP/Mission End - I really disliked that after every mission I was "magically" transported back the the Normandy.  I mean every mission ended the same way for the most part. 

Those are the things that stood out for me.  More than a couple I guess.  Given all that, was this an absolutely horrbile game?  No, it wasn't.  Is it something that I can see myself playing multiple times, not really.  I hope that there is a good balance bewteen the two with the third game.  I like the franchise and the setting and overall enjoy it.  Though there are some changes that I would like to see happen.  Than again, I am sure that can be said for every game I have played. 

1) YES!!!  This is a bigger problem than everything else combined

2) While i don't think planet scanning is as bad as others make it out to be, I stil rpeferred planetary exploration

3)  "a little short" is kinda like saying water is "a little wet" Some of the loyalty missions were interesting in concept though.

4) Not enough of it too

5 The new system wouldn't have been so bad if there had been more pieces to get. 

6 I don't really mind the xp systeem too much, but there's not enough skills to really customize your character as Shep progresses. Getting "beamed back" to the Normandy after every mission was kinda lame though

[Dagiz]

iakus wrote...
6 I don't really mind the xp systeem too much, but there's not enough skills to really customize your character as Shep progresses. Getting "beamed back" to the Normandy after every mission was kinda lame though

I forgot to mention the skills.  That was kinda sad.  Sure you could randomize one of your skills, but really, this fell way short compared to what was offered in ME1.  I understand they were trying to reach for a larger audience, but I am not sure they need to move completely away from some sort of skill customization.  

Oh and for crying out loud, how is it that I have about fifty options for heavy weapons but only a few for other guns?  Unless I missed a ton, which seems unlikely. 

[KitsuneRommel]

Dagiz wrote...
2.)  Planet exploration.  Sure the scanner saved time when it came
to get resources and a few anamolies here and there, other than that,
was rather dull.  At least in ME1 if you were exploring you would get
chomped by a Thresher Maw if you weren't careful.  Doing everyting from
the ship didn't feel too much like exploration.

Not really. Most of the time it was large circular area with a probe etc in the center. Oh, suprise! A tresher maw! Some of the planets looked really nice (like the ones from Geth Invasion side quest) though many of them were not really fun to drive in.

4.) 
Dialogue options - pretty poor I thought.  And rather bland. 

Really? That's one of the thing that was greatly improved from ME1 (all IMO of course).

I forgot to mention the skills.  That was kinda sad.  Sure you could randomize one of your skills, but really, this fell way short compared to what was offered in ME1.  I understand they were trying to reach for a larger audience, but I am not sure they need to move completely away from some sort of skill customization.

One of the reasons why ME1 seemed to have so many skills is that you had Charm/Intimidate and Spectre skills which didn't really make sense.

Oh and for crying out loud, how is it that I have about fifty options for heavy weapons but only a few for other guns?  Unless I missed a ton, which seems unlikely. 

2 heavy pistols, 3 SMGs, 4 shotguns, 5 assault rifles and 4 sniper rifles and 8 heavy weapons. There should have been more than 2 heavy pistols but otherwise I don't see problem considering that each weapon handled differently.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 11 mai 2010 - 07:33 .

[AlanC9]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

What bad incentive? To kill stuff? To explore around to find more things and in turn discover more areas?

Like dismounting to kill enemies instead of using the mako because you get a lot more xp that way.

Ooh, forgot that one. Funny, because there was actually an argument about that one when ME1 shipped. But yeah, that's an example of doing something stupid for XP reasons.

As for TJSolo's post you replied to, yes, all of those are bad. The player is doing things in the game world for reasons determined by the game mechanics, not any sort of role-playing reason.

Note that this is a hard-core roleplaying argument -- for all that people say ME2 has gotten away from RP mechanics, in this case it didn't. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 mai 2010 - 08:47 .

[AlanC9]

bjdbwea wrote...
 Nevertheless, many ME 1 fans are probably gone, while the shooter-fans-turned-ME-2-fans are always very vocal on these forums (and often rude).

Funny -- from what I've seen the disappointed ME1 fans are far more vocal.

[bjdbwea]

Why exactly is it stupid? Killing enemies on foot is harder, so you get more XP. Whoever cares for that, can go for the extra challenge. It's called freedom. A thing ME 2 lacks very much.

[AlanC9]

TJSolo wrote...

The way XP per mission was done in ME2 does not encourage exploration or doing anything outside of the main questline. since you only get about 10% of a main quest XP.

Note that this is just a beef with the amount of XP awarded rather than the method of awarding it.

Whether exploration or sidequests should be encouraged by the system is another matter entirely.

[AlanC9]

bjdbwea wrote...

Why exactly is it stupid? Killing enemies on foot is harder, so you get more XP. Whoever cares for that, can go for the extra challenge. It's called freedom. A thing ME 2 lacks very much.

Stupid tactics are tactics that put you at greater risk than necessary. Do I need to explain why? You're arguing that players should be rewarded for taking needless risks with no game-world benefit.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

What bad incentive? To kill stuff? To explore around to find more things and in turn discover more areas?

Like dismounting to kill enemies instead of using the mako because you get a lot more xp that way.

Ooh, forgot that one. Funny, because there was actually an argument about that one when ME1 shipped. But yeah, that's an example of doing something stupid for XP reasons.

As for TJSolo's post you replied to, yes, all of those are bad. The player is doing things in the game world for reasons determined by the game mechanics, not any sort of role-playing reason.

Note that this is a hard-core roleplaying argument -- for all that people say ME2 has gotten away from RP mechanics, in this case it didn't. 

You are reaching. Exploration for exploration sake is utopian but realistically exploration is spurred by reward. XP per kill is RPable. Fighting to get stronger is a very RPable reason.

For you to call it a hardcode roleplaying argument is very subjective and depends on what you would qualify as hardcore.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Why exactly is it stupid? Killing enemies on foot is harder, so you get more XP. Whoever cares for that, can go for the extra challenge. It's called freedom. A thing ME 2 lacks very much.

Stupid tactics are tactics that put you at greater risk than necessary. Do I need to explain why? You're arguing that players should be rewarded for taking needless risks with no game-world benefit.

The greater the risk the greater the reward.
The tactic is only stupid if you fail.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

The way XP per mission was done in ME2 does not encourage exploration or doing anything outside of the main questline. since you only get about 10% of a main quest XP.

Note that this is just a beef with the amount of XP awarded rather than the method of awarding it.

Whether exploration or sidequests should be encouraged by the system is another matter entirely.

If that is the case you want to now claim, there is no way to state the positives or negatives of the two.

[SuperMedbh]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

2 heavy pistols, 3 SMGs, 4 shotguns, 5 assault rifles and 4 sniper rifles and 8 heavy weapons. There should have been more than 2 heavy pistols but otherwise I don't see problem considering that each weapon handled differently.

I'll agree there.  While I'm all for more weapon and armour types, ME1 provided more of an illusion of that than anything else.  I'm not talking about customizing the ammo and armour, which was great, but rather the base types.  Seriously, mostly it was weapon A was better than B until you get C (aka Spectre weaponry). 

On the other hand, ME2 weapons have distinctly different handling, to the point that there are whole threads dedicated to which sniper rifle or shotgun is the best for each playstyle.  I mean, there are some no brainers (Widow beats the Mantis pretty easily), but even the lowly Predator pistol has its fans.

[bjdbwea]

AlanC9 wrote...

Stupid tactics are tactics that put you at greater risk than necessary. Do I need to explain why? You're arguing that players should be rewarded for taking needless risks with no game-world benefit.

Bigger challenge, bigger reward. If you think it's stupid to leave the Mako (and objectively it certainly is), just don't do it. Why do you want to take the possibility away from anyone else? Let it be there for anyone who likes more combat, as well as anyone who wants to collect XP.

That's exactly the problem with ME 2 though. It forces one view on everyone, and unfortunately it's the view of the casual gamers and the shooter fans. Whereas ME 1 gave us freedom. Don't like the Mako? Just ignore the planet side missions. No need to cut it out. Don't like the skill system? Use the auto-level function. No need to dumb it down so much. And so on. The same way you could've improved the inventory and other things, instead of going the easy (and of course quicker to develop) route of removing them altogether.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 mai 2010 - 09:18 .

[TJSolo]

SuperMedbh wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

2 heavy pistols, 3 SMGs, 4 shotguns, 5 assault rifles and 4 sniper rifles and 8 heavy weapons. There should have been more than 2 heavy pistols but otherwise I don't see problem considering that each weapon handled differently.

I'll agree there.  While I'm all for more weapon and armour types, ME1 provided more of an illusion of that than anything else.  I'm not talking about customizing the ammo and armour, which was great, but rather the base types.  Seriously, mostly it was weapon A was better than B until you get C (aka Spectre weaponry). 

On the other hand, ME2 weapons have distinctly different handling, to the point that there are whole threads dedicated to which sniper rifle or shotgun is the best for each playstyle.  I mean, there are some no brainers (Widow beats the Mantis pretty easily), but even the lowly Predator pistol has its fans.

You are agreeing with the illusion Kitsune posted. It is just the total possible selection not the actual selection a player gets. The actual selection is based on class and it a lot smaller.
ME1 offered iterations based on stats, you know math not illusion.The performance difference is obtainable via weapon mods.

[SuperMedbh]

TJSolo wrote...

You are agreeing with the illusion Kitsune posted. It is just the total possible selection not the actual selection a player gets. The actual selection is based on class and it a lot smaller.
ME1 offered iterations based on stats, you know math not illusion.The performance difference is obtainable via weapon mods.

I think you're trying to say "A character in ME1 could specialize in more weapon types than they could in ME2".  After all, both games restrict weapon types based on class.  The major difference is that an ME2 character can use any weapon their class can use right away, whereas an ME1 character needed to take points in the weapon, and possibly another to unlock it. 

I'm not sure how those magical maths work out for both games--  a quick glance at the wiki, and it looks like a wash.  An Engineer gets an SMG instead of a shotgun, that sort of thing.  I suspect that if you spent all your points on weapons in ME1, sure, you'd get an extra weapon.

But that's not the point, of course.  Kitsune was talking about variations of weapon types.  Is there only one "best" weapon of each type?  When that's not the case, as it isn't in ME2, it requires decision making.  And many people find that adds to gameplay.

[Urazz]

ElektroDragon wrote...

Here is the main problem with ME2, besides the DLC helmet toggle:

It has a very linear "push the player forward and don't let them backtrack" design.  This is infuriating! I expect this from low budget games like Pirates of the Carribean, not Mass Effect!  Here are some annoying examples:

On Freedom's Progress, after you speak with Tali, you can't go back if you missed something in the level!

Also, after the "boss" on that level, once you find the crazed qunari in the room, heaven forbid you missed anything else in that level, because you are whisked out of the level with no hope of backtracking.  I had to replay the battle because I made the decision to not chat up Tali right before talking to the qunari.  Granted, she didn't say much and I only missed out on 100 credits, but still, infuriating!

Mass Effect 1 never had issues like this!  The whole way they broke it down with "missions" and mission complete summaries, and not giving you XP for enemies... it's like they've decided they'd rather have Mass Effect be a story based shooter, than an RPG.  Well, I LIKE MY RPGs, and ME1 was an outstanding example.  I'm afraid ME3 will not have any RPG elements at all, and just be a squad based shooter with story elements.

Unfortunately, I don't think BioWare reads or cares about our opinions unless they are looking for a thread lockdown power trip.

Seems like another case of rose tinted glasses again.  ME1 did this tons of times in the main storyline missions.  And in ME2 there was really no reason to go back to a previous area locked out unless you got sloppy and didn't explore everywhere to get all credits and upgrades.

What would you have missed in Freedom's progress once you talk to Tali?  At most, 3 containers that carry credits in some form and a medkit if I recall correctly.

It never bothered me that I couldn't backtrack to some areas in missions because I grabbed all the upgrades and explored things enough that I never missed any big upgrades or credits.  I basically had no reason for going back to an area once I completed that section and it wasn't like any upgrades or credits were really hidden or anything like that.  At the most you would've left behind a medkit just in case you needed to use it so you would have a spare sitting around.

[AwesomeAuger]

I'm just disappointed with the bonus quests. They kind off stunk.