[quote]uberdowzen wrote...
Weren't that bad? I've gone off, made a sandwich (literally), come back and it's only just finishing.Also, the elevators were just as bad on PC as they were on Xbox. That was the problem, the fact that load times on PC take about 7 seconds whereas they take a minute or so on Xbox. Also, I assuming you're playing on PC (please correct me if I'm wrong) so how would you know if they fixed the load times on Xbox (the load times with loading screens are the same in ME1 and ME2 on PC). I always assumed it was because the game had to read off the disc and the only way of fixing that was a hard drive install (which I assume you can still do with ME2 on Xbox). Anyway, I'm pretty sure most people hated the elevators.[/quote]
I played Mass Effect on the 360 when it first came out and then got the PC version later. The elevator loads on the PC were clearly faster, especially the Normandy one. That's how I know.
As for whether most people hated the elevators or not, I think overall its pretty divided. I do recall when they first announced they were replacing elevators with loading screens many thought that it was a bit of an odd step backwards, and I agreed. At the time I know I and many others were willing to give it a go because they said the loading screens were dynamic and had interesting info displayed about your location and such, but that turned out to be an exaggeration. The loading screens in ME2 are tedious. Admittedly faster, but tedious. I also miss literally leaving The Normandy and having that perfect transition from ship to location.
[quote]
I think it was more like mid 09. I also recall a lot of people saying "Well that's OK I guess, if the rest of the game is better for it." Also, the hammerhead is a more fun vehicle than the Mako, it's more the "interesting" balance of missions in the DLC.[/quote]
Sure... if you think so. Quite frankly I think The Hammerhead misses the point and was poorly integrated and used for the most part. Far prefer The Mako in pretty much every respect.
[quote]
You say they took the easy path with the inventory, but if you go with the idea that it's the future we can just replicate this anyway, how would you have done it? I can't think of any other method of doing an inventory in that way that'd work.[/quote]
Initially, I'd personally have it like ME1, but with not quite as many items, no Marks for the items (you'd research to upgrade them), with mods still present and with the weapons actually useful and balanced so not too many become obsolete too quickly and not too many are too good either, so that overall some are good at some aspects and some at others. All items of the same time would be sorted together and could be lumped together and sold or gelled in a bunch or have a "Sell/Omnigel All But One" option and a "Sell/Omnigel All But *# of Squaddies Who Can Use Weapon*" option too. I'd have weapon and armour mods the same, and overall just make the system easier to use.
After ME2, I'd change it a bit though, because there are some good ideas in the system, even if overall its weak. Firstly, I'd keep the "you only need to find an item once" style. I'd then have had about half a dozen of each weapon type, all with stats visible for comparisons, all with the ability to mod them, and mostly in random locations that changed every time. You'd also scan for mods from dead enemies or if you didn't want to do that because its too tedious you could simply buy them in shops. LIke weapons, one mod scanned and you can replicate it, though they'd be random too. Same goes for armour: more of it, more random, more moddable and with stats and overall have it act like armour. Have it so you can armour your squaddies too. Research would basically level up your guns, armour and mods for both. Guns and armour mods would be your customisation and trade-off stuff: limited mod slots that make you pick and choose how you want the gun to function. Some mods would be ME1 style, others more specific, a little like Crysis (different barrel mods, scope mods, trigger mods, etc).
[quote]
And the idea that the weapon progression is linear is just wrong. Each new weapon (except for the one weapon you can choose late game) is a different weapon, not a better one. For example, the 2 basic assualt rifles each have their own pros and cons.[/quote]
Except that every weapon is in the same damn place every time, you're always guaranteed to get it, its upgrades are linear and always in the same place, and you can get all of them easily, and there's no customisation or real selection of weapons at all. Nothing is random. Nothing is special. Nothing is rare or even common. It's just "play the game, find the gun." It's no deeper than playing through Doom or Quake. Its linear, limited, boring and repetitive, with no depth or customisation at all.
[quote]
I disagree with the idea that ME has been dragged into the mud.[/quote]
It has somewhat, IMO. Not into perhaps, but at least through it. It's been dumbed down for the masses.
[quote]
And since when did ME1 not appeal to mainstream audiences anyway? I was under the impression that it was one of the most popular games on Xbox. Also, aren't most of the people with consoles and/or PCs nerds anyway?[/quote]
Working in a place that sells games, you'd be surprised how many people have only just glancingly heard of the ME titles. Full on hardcore gamers, yes. Casual gamers, not so much.
And no... that used to be the case 10 years ago and more, but over the last decade gaming has become far more of a mainstream thing, and games overall have suffered for it, IMO, just as much as they've also grown from it. Deus Ex is still the pinnacle of gaming perfection that hasn't been touched since, and it's over 10 years old now.
[quote]
[quote]
So... you don't think ME1 suits Mass Effect?[/quote]
This sounds weird but, no, not really.[/quote]
No offense, but that's just stupid. That's the way the thing was set up, and that's how it was originally intended to be. Just because you feel it doesn't suit itself because you prefer the way it was done with ME2 doesn't mean you're right.
[quote]
If you can find a quote from Bioware (a quote, not predictions or analysis of what a developer has said) that is an outright lie, then I might consider believing this point of view. Up until then, no.[/quote]
You just responded to one just below your post here that a couple of other posters brought up... and mocked them for doing so, might I add. Y'know... the one about saving Wrex and The Council or not paying off big time and being a major event in ME2. What a crock of excrement that was. They all talked the whole thing up and kept saying this, only for the entire thing to be completely underwhelming, with the entire plot so removed from anything that it meant squat, most variations resulting in minor dialogue changes that didn't really change the universe at all, weak substitutions where things were essentially the same which was an insult to the supposed gravity of the situation and the characters involved, major stuff that was screwed up or simply not explored, and finally just a heap of lame emails and news reports, leaving about 5 or 6 decisions in total that were even remotely satisfying out of what was claimed to be over 700.
Yeah... I think that's enough to get the point across.
[quote]
Not really. I've played CoD4 twice and there isn't much more to it. Honestly, you can pretty much just duck behind cover and shoot through it.[/quote]
Ooooh... twice! Wow.. that's certainly a good run of the game to form an accurate assessment.
[quote]
I don't think the people who bought ME1 expecting another Gears of War are the kind of people who go out of their way to register for a forum and complain about how a game isn't like another game. If they were expecting another Gears of War clone, I suspect that just stop playing ME1 and go and play one of the many other gears of war clones.[/quote]
Except that it happened. I was here on the old forums, during and post ME1 release, long before the first ME2 teaser even hit, and it came up a fair amount.
[quote]
I mean, I loved ME1, but I still the think the combat was flawed. And like I said before, there's a difference between instant satisfaction, and putting in a huge amount of effort for little to no payoff, like with ME1's inventory.[/quote]
It is flawed. I won't deny that. But that doesn't mean ME2's system is perfect either and free of flaws.
And while there is a difference, ME2 relies too much on instant satisfaction and visible results and all that BS. It's too geared to the ADD gamer who will turn away and never look back if he/she isn't satisfied and sees a clear result every time he does something.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
