10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

See, it's a challenge. Don't you like to get a little reward when you finally managed to do it? The satisfaction to gain the next level a bit earlier, so that the next fight will be a bit easier?



Of course you could go further and give XP based on how strong the player's weapon is. I wouldn't object to it, but it would be much more complicated, because in different situations different weapons are better suited.

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

And that's pretty much what happened. Now they're going to have to prove themselves...it because its generally more complex that other genres. Making an RPG simple defeats the purpose.

I don't have time to reply to this right now (I'll come back and reply later) but for now, some food for thought.

[Shamgaur]

I personally love ME 1&2 but do believe that improvements could be made. ME 2 covered one major one and that was going to a different planet just to have it look like the exact same one as you just came from five star clusters over. However they did take out the vehicle which i kind of missed. I really hope they add more missions for the hover tank you get in the dlc. with the armor system i like ME 2's customization but the number of different armors in ME 1 was much better. there were litteraly hundreds of different armors to choose from.Also i miss choosing armor for my team mates.if they added more armor pieces to ME 2 it would be amazing. I love the combat of ME 2, it's much more fluid than the first however there are improvements that could be made. i don't think the ammo type should be a power, it should be something you switch on the weapons screen and at the armory things. this would allow them to add more, much cooler biotic and tech powers. this leads to my next point in that it felt as if ME 2 wasn't as much of an RPG as it use to. this is personal prefference as my favorite game type is rpg and ME 2 was lacking the heavy role playing. in the first one you had to run through the game at least twice to get to the highest lvl. this made me want to play it. in ME 2 you get to the final lvl very easily in one playthrough. als the amount of powers that you and your squaddies have i felt could have been more numerous which would be possible with more levels.I also thought that there could be more story behind the side missions like in ME 1 and more side missions. also there could have been more weapon selection. even with this i love ME 1&2 and can't wait for the third. i know this is long but i just wanted to voice what i thought and see what others thought

Modifié par Shamgaur, 12 mai 2010 - 02:55 .

[TJSolo]

SuperMedbh wrote...

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.

Math is not magical, sorry. Math is real 2 is greater than 1.
What I was saying was that stating all the variations of weapons is deceptive seeing as player class also determines weapon selection.

You ask is there one best weapon of each type, yes there is but there is a little variance depending on class. Most agree that the Locust is just damn OP and is the best SMG for player use. The Widow is the best single bolt sniper but for soldiers the Viper is better. The Eviserator is the best shotgun and the Handcannon is the best  pistol. The Rev is the best AR. Damage output being the key factor except in the case of the Revanent and Viper for soldiers.

You can try and demean ME1 because it has spectre weapons although I am not sure that having top class is bad in a game. Unless the designers make all weapons the same then there will always be a way to determine what setup is the best.

[SuperMedbh]

re: magical math: for someone as fond of circumlocution as you are, you're terribly literal minded



re: everyone agrees on the best weapon for each class: I could have sworn I saw you on the character build forums at least once. If three ME2 players get together and try to decide what the "best" weapon/tactic/colour of armour is, you'll get four opinions.



But to address your actual point--

You can try and demean ME1 because it has spectre weapons although I am not sure that having top class is bad in a game. Unless the designers make all weapons the same then there will always be a way to determine what setup is the best.

Okies, I'm not demeaning ME1. It's a terrific game. But the point is that the differences between weapons are pretty linear. A tends to be better than B better than C. And you get the top tier weapons about halfway through the game. After that, weapons become credits with cute names.



Conversely, there is a lot of difference in handling between weapons in ME2. The Vindicator isn't just a more powerful Avenger, it actually fires differently. The only similar difference in ME1 was the Geth Pulse Rifle compared to the other assault rifle.

[TJSolo]

SuperMedbh wrote...

re: magical math: for someone as fond of circumlocution as you are, you're terribly literal minded

re: everyone agrees on the best weapon for each class: I could have sworn I saw you on the character build forums at least once. If three ME2 players get together and try to decide what the "best" weapon/tactic/colour of armour is, you'll get four opinions.

But to address your actual point--

You can try and demean ME1 because it has spectre weapons although I am not sure that having top class is bad in a game. Unless the designers make all weapons the same then there will always be a way to determine what setup is the best.

Okies, I'm not demeaning ME1. It's a terrific game. But the point is that the differences between weapons are pretty linear. A tends to be better than B better than C. And you get the top tier weapons about halfway through the game. After that, weapons become credits with cute names.

Conversely, there is a lot of difference in handling between weapons in ME2. The Vindicator isn't just a more powerful Avenger, it actually fires differently. The only similar difference in ME1 was the Geth Pulse Rifle compared to the other assault rifle.

The perfomance differences in the ME2 weapons is not a mechanic used in ME1 on the weapons alone. The performance difference you are seeking is handled with weapon mods in ME1.

[SuperMedbh]

I think I get what you're driving at, although it's hardly a game destroying feature to have weapons that work differently. Adding the ME1 ability to mod those base weapons would be nice, however, I'll certainly agree with you there.

[ShakeZoohla]

uberdowzen wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

And that's pretty much what happened. Now they're going to have to prove themselves...it because its generally more complex that other genres. Making an RPG simple defeats the purpose.

I don't have time to reply to this right now (I'll come back and reply later) but for now, some food for thought.

I pretty much disagree with that entire article.  I just can't comprehend how anyone could declare ME2 the "better space opera".  RPG vs. shooter aside, the game is just bland.  If Bioware was sincerely making an attempt to disregard labels for the sake of creating a great game, then I must respectfully salute their failed attempt.  My label for ME2:  a solidly unexciting shooter/rpg with dialogue choices, excellent storytelling, and an average plot, the sequel to the greatest game ever.  ME1 is slightly flawed fundamentally while ME2 is severely flawed conceptually.

[uberdowzen]

Firstly, I hope you did your homework and read the link I posted.

Because a lot of people actually liked The Mako... just because you didn't doesn't mean it should go. I've seen many comment that The Hammerhead is no substitute, and I agree. BioWare missed the point entirely regarding most of the Mako complaints, as they did with the elevators. In both cases these were words that came up a lot which best described the issues many had with ME1, but they weren't the problem itself. The Mako wasn't the problem, it was the worlds it landed on that were, and the elevators themselves weren't the problem it was the loading times associated with them that were. But because the words "Mako" and "Elevator" kept coming up, instead of actually looking at the problems associated with and surrounding these words, BioWare simply scrapped them entirely rather than fix them... a common issue with their approach to ME2 overall: if it doesn't work, scrap it entirely rather than actually sort out the problem. Simplify as much as possible as much as possible... then simplify it some more.

On top of this, I think BioWare's problem was actually that it didn't listen to the ME1 fans at all. Just like it didn't listen with The Mako, elevators and inventory (all of which I recall ME1 fans saying they believed needed improving and not scrapping) they listened too much instead to game journalists, official reviews and newcomers who came in expecting a shooter and then getting indignant and angry when the stats were getting in the way. That's who BioWare listened to more than anybody given the product we got.

Firstly, I think that Bioware did more than skim through the forum, looking for the most common words. From what I've been lead to believe, there is a spreadsheet with every suggestion and complaint made against ME2 and they put a lot of thought into these features before deciding to scrap them. The elevators were beyond saving, there was no way of doing those that would please PC gamers and 360 gamers without having to compromise. I mean lifts are boring in reality, why would I want them in my gaming time? I agree it would've been great to incorporate the hammerhead into the main game, but they decided to focus on the core of the game instead, which I consider acceptable (and to be fair they always said the Mako replacement was going to be added as DLC later). The article on Gamesradar that I link pretty much is my entire argument towards removing the inventory.

Because catering to the masses is the right thing to do, huh? When you create an IP and set it up to be a more niche game for sci-fi nerds who like RPGs its better to just ignore them and cater to the masses for $$$'s, hmmm? Again, the most profitable path isn't always the right one. I rarely is. The masses like the Halos, the Gears of Wars, and the Call of Dutys, so its hardly a surprise that ME2 becomes more like them when BioWare mainstreams the product. I'm not going to say BioWare has sold out yet, but its hard not to make that claim with what I've seen. Its up to ME3 to see if they want to make games for their old fans or just something for "everybody."

Bioware is to a certain extent a business so yes, it is the right decision to appeal to the masses. I also don't think Mass Effect was ever meant to be a niche game for sci-fi nerds (I mean if this was the case they'd probably have released it as PC lead).

Again, I'm not talking about the defining of it as an RPG, I'm talking about it being a satisfactory one. Just because something technically fits a definition doesn't mean it does a good job at it. Two Worlds is an RPG... Gothic 3 is an RPG... doesn't mean they're good ones.

Also, there are quite a few aspects of ME2 that are pretty linear that weren't in the original.

I think this comes down to preference. I think it's a satisfying RPG (it focusses on the things I like most about RPGs) and I don't think a deep RPG with a complex inventory really matches the fast paced story of Mass Effect.

Sure. BioWare claimed that there'd be some really big outcomes and consequences in ME2, but that was a major farce. I find it very hard to believe that ME3 will be overly different, despite being the final part. Especially since they want to get it out so quickly apparently. I doubt the ramifications of saving the council or not will have any real impact in ME3 when it meant close to diddily squat in ME2.

You have no idea. Until Bioware prove otherwise (through a statment or ME3 not making use of these choices) you have to assume that they're not lying.

They have nowhere near perfected combat. The best proper shooters have far better combat and make far better use of combat than ME2 does. ME2's shooter elements are adequate... good at best.

I know I'm in a minority here, but I actually loved ME2's combat and thought that it was better than Call of Duty's (which in all honesty is essentially you standing there pointing the mouse at targets while holding down the left mouse button.

Again, they listened to the wrong people, as I said before. If they'd really listened to what the fans had said, then we'd have got a very different game than ME2. ME2 is a product of listening to official reviewers and disgruntled shooter fanboys who came in expecting something they didn't get. Now they've got it and they're happy, but many ME1 fans are peeved off. There's a difference between reading what fans say and listening to it as well. And if they're going to look at the issues, at least look at them properly and at least try to fix them rather than just chucking them out.

Christina Norman said that one of their major approaches to ME2 was "to make things as simple as possible" and I think that strategy and approach is what killed ME2 for me more than anything else. I don't play an RPG for simplicity, I play it because its generally more complex that other genres. Making an RPG simple defeats the purpose.

Firstly, define the wrong people. Most of the suggestions on the ME forum for suggestions for ME2 are pretty much in line with what I would have said, and I consider myself a pretty hardcore RPG fan. There's also complicated with satisfying payoff and complicated with unsatisfying payoff. In ME1 I spent ages making that inventory work and I felt that I got nothing out of it. DAO, inventory was pretty similar in a way but spending ages with that inventory felt great, when you resumed the game and saw the effects that occured because of your hard work.

[SuperMedbh]

ShakeZoohla wrote...
  I just can't comprehend how anyone could declare ME2 the "better space opera".  RPG vs. shooter aside, the game is just bland. 

Really, all you have to do is type.  Watch this <rolls up sleeves>.....  ME2 is definitely has a stronger narrative than ME1.  And that's saying something, because ME1 has a very strong space operatic part.

ZMOG, she's just being contrary here, ain't she?  Well, no, I'm not.  The thing about ME2 is that it delves deeper into the characters than ME1 did.  This is the most brilliant idea for a mid-trilogy installment that I've seen in a long time.  The problem with "Book 2" is that invariably, we have neither the sparkly fun of world building that the first part has, nor the big smashing end that the, well, end has.  Add to that the fact that Book 1 has to stand on its own (in case the series doesn't take off), whereas the middle part is designed to demand that the reader/viewer/player come back for more.

So...you just ain't going to do much with the linear plot beside advance it somewhat but not all the way.  Where does that leave us?  Character development.  And the cool spiff neato thing in ME2 is that the various characters can develop in different ways that doesn't affect the overall plot arc (yes, we all would love it to, but then you've expanded the number of outcomes by an unweildy amount).  But it DOES matter, in the sense that each character has his or her own story to tell.  I'll avoid spoilers, but many characters in both ME1 and ME2 may continue to help the overall mission, but their world view will be strongly influenced, even destroyed, by what Shepard chooses to do.  It might not destroy the Reaper Menace, but it matters to that character.

Play Mordin's loyalty mission and look into his alien eyes as the plot unfolds.  That is top notch writing and narrative.  ME1 was fun, too, but it was definitely still in the realm of "Biggles the Aviator"

[Seipher05]

Okies, I'm not demeaning ME1. It's a terrific game. But the point is that the differences between weapons are pretty linear. A tends to be better than B better than C. And you get the top tier weapons about halfway through the game. After that, weapons become credits with cute names.

Conversely, there is a lot of difference in handling between weapons in ME2. The Vindicator isn't just a more powerful Avenger, it actually fires differently. The only similar difference in ME1 was the Geth Pulse Rifle compared to the other assault rifle.

I'm sorry but could you clarify this point? In the first paragraph, you seem to be criticizing ME1's weapon system as being linear "A > B > C".

In your second point though, you freely admit that the Vindicator (A) is more powerful than the Avenger (, but because it fires differently, it represents a more varied and deep weapon system than ME1? Unless you're arguing that the "different firing pattern" of the Vindicator represents some sort of trade off for its increased power, I don't see how you can be arguing that ME2 weapons aren't just as "linear" as ME1's 

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

I don't have time to reply to this right now (I'll come back and reply later) but for now, some food for thought.

This line made me laugh even as it killed a piece of my soul:

"Whether you saved or sacrificed the council, who you romanced, and whether you managed to keep Wrex alive are all landmark moments which define the experience of ME2."

[SuperMedbh]

I'm sorry but could you clarify this point? In the first paragraph, you
seem to be criticizing ME1's weapon system as being linear "A > B
> C".

In your second point though, you freely admit that the
Vindicator (A) is more powerful than the Avenger (, but because it
fires differently, it represents a more varied and deep weapon system
than ME1? Unless you're arguing that the "different firing pattern" of
the Vindicator represents some sort of trade off for its increased
power, I don't see how you can be arguing that ME2 weapons aren't just
as "linear" as ME1's

Sure. By "more powerful" I was speaking in terms of the whole DPS thingee. But the Vindicator fires in bursts, the Avenger doesn't. Depending on your playstyle, you might like the Avenger better for just that reason (I don't, but some say they do). What about the Revenant? Lots of damage, but sprays all over the place. Will your soldier character take that? Will you change your tactics to be closer in to take advantage of that?  Or will you stick with the Vindicator?

Now, none of this is rocket science, and most people settle on a favourite weapon or armour set, then stick to it. But it does open possibilities for more fun. The difference between a Vanguard with the Claymore and one who uses the Scimitar (and probably a sniper rifle) might not be as huge a difference as between a Vanguard and a Soldier, but it certain adds variations. And variety is the spice of replayability, as they say.

Modifié par SuperMedbh, 12 mai 2010 - 04:14 .

[ShakeZoohla]

SuperMedbh wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...
  I just can't comprehend how anyone could declare ME2 the "better space opera".  RPG vs. shooter aside, the game is just bland. 

Really, all you have to do is type.  Watch this .....  ME2 is definitely has a stronger narrative than ME1.  And that's saying something, because ME1 has a very strong space operatic part.

ZMOG, she's just being contrary here, ain't she?  Well, no, I'm not.  The thing about ME2 is that it delves deeper into the characters than ME1 did.  This is the most brilliant idea for a mid-trilogy installment that I've seen in a long time.  The problem with "Book 2" is that invariably, we have neither the sparkly fun of world building that the first part has, nor the big smashing end that the, well, end has.  Add to that the fact that Book 1 has to stand on its own (in case the series doesn't take off), whereas the middle part is designed to demand that the reader/viewer/player come back for more.

So...you just ain't going to do much with the linear plot beside advance it somewhat but not all the way.  Where does that leave us?  Character development.  And the cool spiff neato thing in ME2 is that the various characters can develop in different ways that doesn't affect the overall plot arc (yes, we all would love it to, but then you've expanded the number of outcomes by an unweildy amount).  But it DOES matter, in the sense that each character has his or her own story to tell.  I'll avoid spoilers, but many characters in both ME1 and ME2 may continue to help the overall mission, but their world view will be strongly influenced, even destroyed, by what Shepard chooses to do.  It might not destroy the Reaper Menace, but it matters to that character.

Play Mordin's loyalty mission and look into his alien eyes as the plot unfolds.  That is top notch writing and narrative.  ME1 was fun, too, but it was definitely still in the realm of "Biggles the Aviator"

The characterization is great, but none of the loyalty quests feel like more than incredible sidemissions.  ME1 set up an amazing plot that was all but ignored for the majority of ME2.  And I would argue that ME1 as whole has better narrative. ME2 has flashes of genius in the character stories, but the big picture just comes off as a series of unrelated tales that fail to live up to in any way to the themes of mystery and paranoia that ME1 pulled off so geniously with the Reaper-plot.  Its just too easy to tell that its all fluff.  Even if its well narrated fluff.

[Iakus]

SuperMedbh wrote...

ZMOG, she's just being contrary here, ain't she?  Well, no, I'm not.  The thing about ME2 is that it delves deeper into the characters than ME1 did.  This is the most brilliant idea for a mid-trilogy installment that I've seen in a long time.  The problem with "Book 2" is that invariably, we have neither the sparkly fun of world building that the first part has, nor the big smashing end that the, well, end has.  Add to that the fact that Book 1 has to stand on its own (in case the series doesn't take off), whereas the middle part is designed to demand that the reader/viewer/player come back for more.

So...you just ain't going to do much with the linear plot beside advance it somewhat but not all the way.  Where does that leave us?  Character development.  And the cool spiff neato thing in ME2 is that the various characters can develop in different ways that doesn't affect the overall plot arc (yes, we all would love it to, but then you've expanded the number of outcomes by an unweildy amount).  But it DOES matter, in the sense that each character has his or her own story to tell.  I'll avoid spoilers, but many characters in both ME1 and ME2 may continue to help the overall mission, but their world view will be strongly influenced, even destroyed, by what Shepard chooses to do.  It might not destroy the Reaper Menace, but it matters to that character.

Play Mordin's loyalty mission and look into his alien eyes as the plot unfolds.  That is top notch writing and narrative.  ME1 was fun, too, but it was definitely still in the realm of "Biggles the Aviator"

First, I will say that ME2 has some very interesting characters, maybe too many, given that any of your squadmates can be dead in ME2, and only one from ME1 is guarenteed to be alive.  Plus in the end you only need about half of them for this "intense suicide run" (I was actually going to try and do an ME2 run recruiting only six characters, then i found out you need at least eight so I decided why bother)

Second, the problem with making the main thrust of the game the individual stories is that the player is left with the feeling of"Interesting, but what has this to do with anything?" The main plot (Reapers threatening to destroy al advanced life in the galaxy) as well as several major repercussions in the first game, are essentially put in a holding pattern in favor of some human (or alien) interest stories.  If these stories somehow tied into the Collectors, the Reapers, or the missing colonies, well, I might have been too busy playing ME2 to bother posting here (Just imagine, if Samara had been a former officer on the Destiny Ascension what kind of conversation options might have come up, given your choices)

Here's an analogy.  In the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, there's a book called "Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina"  It's a collection of short stories featuring the various customers in the cantina scene in Star Wars.  Each story focuses on a different person, and what happened to bring them into that cantina at that time.  That's the only connection those stories had.  If ME1 was "Star Wars", ME2 is closer to that book than ""Empire Strikes Back"

[Seipher05]

uberdowzen wrote...
OK, this why the combat in ME2 is so much better than in ME1:

• The universal cooldown means that you can no longer just spam power buttons and have to rely on your team a bit more.
  
• The weapons now feel unique and aren't OP (like the shotgun) and they all have the special use (pistols for taking out armor, sub machine gun for taking out shields)
  
• Can use powers more often, meaning biotics no longer suck.
  
• Thermal clips make you think more about each shot (within the scope of the current battle) and means there's less downtime when you can't do anything because your weapon is overheating.

Bolded Portion:
So the fact that you could "spam" powers is a mark against ME1, but the ability to use those powers more often than when you were spamming them is a mark for ME2?

Underlined portion:
If you were "thinking about your shots" in the first ME, your weapon wouldn't be overheating. The only exception to this would be the Sniper Rifle, and in this case, thermal clips actually mean you have to think less about each shot, as it's no longer "1-2 shots and overheat" but more along the lines of "12 shots before reload"; I'm unsure how havinf 1-2 shots before an overheat makes you more careless with your shots than having 12 before a reload.

Italicized portion:
Yes, the weapon classes feel more unique, I just found that there were far too few weapons of each class, and that the weapons were far too linear in terms of upgrading, every weapon you found was always completely better than the one it was replacing

[Iakus]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

The characterization is great, but none of the loyalty quests feel like more than incredible sidemissions.  ME1 set up an amazing plot that was all but ignored for the majority of ME2.  And I would argue that ME1 as whole has better narrative. ME2 has flashes of genius in the character stories, but the big picture just comes off as a series of unrelated tales that fail to live up to in any way to the themes of mystery and paranoia that ME1 pulled off so geniously with the Reaper-plot.  Its just too easy to tell that its all fluff.  Even if its well narrated fluff.

If developers really do read these threads, I hope they jot this paragraph down and take it to heart.

[SuperMedbh]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

The characterization is great, but none of the loyalty quests feel like more than incredible sidemissions.  ME1 set up an amazing plot that was all but ignored for the majority of ME2.  And I would argue that ME1 as whole has better narrative. ME2 has flashes of genius in the character stories, but the big picture just comes off as a series of unrelated tales that fail to live up to in any way to the themes of mystery and paranoia that ME1 pulled off so geniously with the Reaper-plot.  Its just too easy to tell that its all fluff.  Even if its well narrated fluff.

Definitely agree about the flashes of genius in the character stories.  I mean, seriously, my jaw dropped a few times while I was playing, just because I couldn't believe the writers were taking the game so far afield from "kill the baddies menacing the galaxy".  I mean, when's the last time you played a videogame that got into analysis of the limitations of utilitarianism?  And not a simplistic "it don't always work" portrayal, but with enough grey to paint a battleship with.

Is it fluff to take a detour?  ME2 takes a loooooong detour, no doubt about it.  But if that detour takes you along a scenic route, are you really in that much of a hurry to get back to the highway?

[SuperMedbh]

iakus wrote...Here's an analogy.  In the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, there's a book called "Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina"  It's a collection of short stories featuring the various customers in the cantina scene in Star Wars.  Each story focuses on a different person, and what happened to bring them into that cantina at that time.  That's the only connection those stories had.  If ME1 was "Star Wars", ME2 is closer to that book than ""Empire Strikes Back"

Haven't read that, but it sounds interesting.  If those characters later on helped Luke et al save the Republic, then I'd say it would have had a strong place in the series.

[Seipher05]

SuperMedbh wrote...

Sure. By "more powerful" I was speaking in terms of the whole DPS thingee. But the Vindicator fires in bursts, the Avenger doesn't. Depending on your playstyle, you might like the Avenger better for just that reason (I don't, but some say they do).

Ok, but that's not a great example of the "depth" of the weapon system. I mean saying "I don't like firing in burst mode, so I'll use a weapon with less damage and accuracy" isn't anymore of a valid example of weapon depth than saying "I don't like the color scheme of the Spectre weapons so I'll use weapons with  less accuracy and damage' is.

Full auto vs burst has no real in-game effect in terms of the performance of the weapon, it's purely cosmetic, just as the color scheme is.  

SuperMedbh wrote...
What about the Revenant? Lots of damage, but sprays all over the place. Will your soldier character take that? Will you change your tactics to be closer in to take advantage of that?  Or will you stick with the Vindicator?

Considering I play an Adept, this question doesn't apply to me, as it wouldn't to players of Engineers, Vanguards, Infiltrators, and Sentinels. I would hesitate to praise a weapon depth that was relevant to 1 class out of 6. 

SuperMedbh wrote...
Now, none of this is rocket science, and most people settle on a favourite weapon or armour set, then stick to it. But it does open possibilities for more fun. The difference between a Vanguard with the Claymore and one who uses the Scimitar (and probably a sniper rifle) might not be as huge a difference as between a Vanguard and a Soldier, but it certain adds variations. And variety is the spice of replayability, as they say.

The Claymore and the sniper rifle are both bonus talents for the Vanguard, aren't they? There's no real difference between an ME1 Vanguard with Shotgun / Sniper Rifle and his ME2 Scimitar / Sniper Rifle cousin, is there? So the only real depth offered by ME2 is the potential access to the Claymore?

[SuperMedbh]

Seipher05 wrote...
The Claymore and the sniper rifle are both bonus talents for the Vanguard, aren't they? There's no real difference between an ME1 Vanguard with Shotgun / Sniper Rifle and his ME2 Scimitar / Sniper Rifle cousin, is there? So the only real depth offered by ME2 is the potential access to the Claymore?

It's not a "I'll get powerful weapon A or powerful weapon B" choice.  The Scim and the Claymore play very differently.  But if you're curious, you could read this thread in which smarter people than I talk about the characteristics of each:
http://social.biowar...8/index/2513306
(FWIW, after reading the advice on that thread my favourite shotgun is the Katana, aka the basic shotgun)

My point, and I do have one, is that ME2 did add quite a bit to the variety of base weapons.  On the other hand, they took away customization of weapons, which I wasn't as happy with.  Hopefully, ME3 will have both.

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

And that's pretty much what happened. Now they're going to have to prove themselves...it because its generally more complex that other genres. Making an RPG simple defeats the purpose.

I don't have time to reply to this right now (I'll come back and reply later) but for now, some food for thought.

It's a pretty weak defense from BioWare in a lot of cases in that article, IMO. Either the excuses don't carry enough weight or they outright admit that they made the game more of a shooter straight up, and that's something I just find doesn't give me much confidence for ME3 if they're going to have that attitude. I'm at least glad that the ammo system being introduced was a reluctant one from many devs, but it was still a mistake, IMO. I can't help but feel I almost always disagree with anything Christina says too. Also what "rich customization of your armour, weapons, and appearance” exactly? Appearance maybe, but the weapons aren't customisable at all; even less so than they were in ME1, and the armour system is pretty restrictive and weak too.

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Firstly, I think that Bioware did more than skim through the forum, looking for the most common words. From what I've been lead to believe, there is a spreadsheet with every suggestion and complaint made against ME2 and they put a lot of thought into these features before deciding to scrap them. The elevators were beyond saving, there was no way of doing those that would please PC gamers and 360 gamers without having to compromise. I mean lifts are boring in reality, why would I want them in my gaming time?

But many have said they miss the elevators and that the loading screens seem like a step backwards and are boring. And they are. The problem with the elevators was the loading times, not the elevators themselves (they weren't that bad in the PC version for the most part) and I'd much rather wait a tad longer and get some conversations between squadmates or hear a news report than watch a boring holographic representation of things that's the same every friggin time. If the elevators had simply been "enter, witness content while loading, exit" then they'd be fine. The problem was that it was "enter, witness content, wait a minute, then exit." Since they've clearly been able to make the game load faster now, I see no reason that elevators can't come back instead of tedious loading screens that add nothing. 

I agree it would've been great to incorporate the hammerhead into the main game, but they decided to focus on the core of the game instead, which I consider acceptable (and to be fair they always said the Mako replacement was going to be added as DLC later). The article on Gamesradar that I link pretty much is my entire argument towards removing the inventory.

Funny, I don't recall them saying that The Hammerhead was going to be DLC until late 2009. I remember this because when it was announced a whole bunch of people went "Wait, what?! So... the Mako replacement isn't even crucial to the game any more?"

The Hammerhead is a pretty weak replacement, IMO too.

Finally, I don't agree with the reasons for removing the inventory. It's pretty clear that they took the easy answer and just gutted it rather than come up with a system that works. I admit that I like the "we only need one of each item" approach, but the rest is horribly shallow and linear. Particularly for an RPG.

Bioware is to a certain extent a business so yes, it is the right decision to appeal to the masses. I also don't think Mass Effect was ever meant to be a niche game for sci-fi nerds (I mean if this was the case they'd probably have released it as PC lead).

First point: Then cater to the masses with a new IP, rather than drag an existing one into the mud.

Second point: If ME wasn't meant to be a niche game for sci-fi nerds, how come it turned out that way? I mean, for starters sci-fi is already a nerd-oriented genre of entertainment. Secondly, RPGs are a nerd-oriented thing too. On top of that it had so many callbacks, homages and similarities to classic sci-fi and feels like something straight out of the mid 80's; it doesn't feel like a modern, hammy mainstream product at all. Whether it was intended or not (and I'm pretty sure it was) Mass Effect was a game for sci-fi nerds above all else.

I think this comes down to preference. I think it's a satisfying RPG (it focusses on the things I like most about RPGs) and I don't think a deep RPG with a complex inventory really matches the fast paced story of Mass Effect.

So... you don't think ME1 suits Mass Effect?

You have no idea. Until Bioware prove otherwise (through a statment or ME3 not making use of these choices) you have to assume that they're not lying.

Except for all the claims they made about ME2 which were downright false and overplayed for the most part.

I know I'm in a minority here, but I actually loved ME2's combat and thought that it was better than Call of Duty's (which in all honesty is essentially you standing there pointing the mouse at targets while holding down the left mouse button.

There's more to CoD than that. If that's all you did, you'd die pretty damn quickly.

Firstly, define the wrong people. Most of the suggestions on the ME forum for suggestions for ME2 are pretty much in line with what I would have said, and I consider myself a pretty hardcore RPG fan. There's also complicated with satisfying payoff and complicated with unsatisfying payoff. In ME1 I spent ages making that inventory work and I felt that I got nothing out of it. DAO, inventory was pretty similar in a way but spending ages with that inventory felt great, when you resumed the game and saw the effects that occured because of your hard work.

Most people on the forums wanted stuff fixed, not scrapped. By the "wrong people" I mean shooter fans who bought ME1 expecting another Gears of War and then came onto the forums complaining about the combat in ME1, or official reviewers who made similar complaints or people who ****ed about anything that took a long time, took effort to do or didn't give them instant satisfaction which is the case with a lot of today's "gamers" and the gaming culture in general. I don't see a lot of what was being asked for after ME1 came out being properly addressed in ME2; it just seems to be BioWare either missed the point of the complaints and paid attention to the common terms that came up and not the issues at heart and/or they "solved" most of the issues by scrapping them entirely... which as I've said hundreds of times before is not a real solution at all.

I think in not focussing on making a great RPG or a great shooter and instead simply making a great game they've failed to make any of these things, and that's why ME2 feels so schizophrenic and lacking in focus or identity. They claim a "no sacred cows" approach, but I wonder how that will apply to ME3 when it comes to the shooter elements.

[Dudeman315]

uberdowzen wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

And that's pretty much what happened. Now they're going to have to prove themselves...it because its generally more complex that other genres. Making an RPG simple defeats the purpose.

I don't have time to reply to this right now (I'll come back and reply later) but for now, some food for thought.

So ME3 is going to be more worse from an RPG non-shooter aspect than ME2?--mandatory ammo system in ME3 =not spending money for me--I'll youtube the damn game,  seriously.  It sounds like Christina needs fired and maybe we can get a game that isn't pure splosion focused. 

And you never have to assume someone is orisn't lying. Until it's measurable both outcomes are equally possible and therefore neither is correct or assumable.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 12 mai 2010 - 06:39 .

[Massadonious1]

I think he should be fired if he doesn't make it more SPLOSIONS DUR DUR based.



Hey, opinions are fun!