10273 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

2 pages in and I'm yet to see someone say "Ditch the cinematics, just have shooting, plot and characters suck."

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone was complaining about that. I haven't seen anyone complaining that there were too many cutscenes because, as I've pointed out before, the people who dislike the game that much weren't going onto the forums and complaing about it, they were going out and playing games that they liked. I'm going to look over the old forum again, but I suspect I know what I'm going to find...

Dude you're so off the mark. As I've said before, many shooters fans feel if a game has guns, they're entitled to it being THEIR kind of game. Give or take, my 5th post in this thread I cited a bunch of quotes. Check out the thread here titled "Large dialogues" and you'll get a sense at where a lot of the gamers stand. The shooter fans will gripe and moan about stuff like dialogue but still play Mass Effect.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Dude you're so off the mark. As I've said before, many shooters fans feel if a game has guns, they're entitled to it being THEIR kind of game. Give or take, my 5th post in this thread I cited a bunch of quotes. Check out the thread here titled "Large dialogues" and you'll get a sense at where a lot of the gamers stand. The shooter fans will gripe and moan about stuff like dialogue but still play Mass Effect.

I agree, I don't see why those people are playing Mass Effect. There are plenty of shooters like Halo and Half-Life out there, but I don't think that this is a vocal fanbase that BW is actually listening to for the most part.

I must be an enigma. Shooter's aren't my favourite genre, yet I liked ME2.

[tonnactus]

brfritos wrote...

But appointing huge plot holes, like Legion telling me the first time I talked to Soverign was on Ilos (not Virmire), make the writers and QA pay more attention to their work.

That is a minor mistake.But when Miranda told shepardt that cerberus free the rachni after they found out that they are intelligent???
Do the writers think that the player is that dumb? How cerberus could not know this? How the rachni made a galactic war without their own spaceships? Is Miranda that dumb or did she thought that shepardt was it.

Those parts of the writing are Uwe boll quality.

Ashley know in the first game how geth look.This was part of history lessons in the Alliance...
But now C-Sec officers dont know that.

Modifié par tonnactus, 21 mai 2010 - 10:52 .

[uberdowzen]

Also, as ME1 had very shooter-like combat, why would you not take some of the things that make those games great and put it into ME? I don't think any percieved change of focus in ME2 came from them putting headshots in the game.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Also, as ME1 had very shooter-like combat, why would you not take some of the things that make those games great and put it into ME? I don't think any percieved change of focus in ME2 came from them putting headshots in the game.

Nothing wrong with headshots, but you keep saying to everybody that there was no more emphasis on combat, much less at the expense of plot, and the fights weren't longer when the truth is the opposite of both of those statements.

[uberdowzen]

I'm yet to see someone on the old suggestions forum saying that the cinematics should be cut down. I see people saying that the combat should be improved but that's it.

[SkullandBonesmember]

tonnactus wrote...

Do the writers think that the player is that dumb?

Well when the average player is only interested in '-
never mind.... 

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm yet to see someone on the old suggestions forum saying that the cinematics should be cut down. I see people saying that the combat should be improved but that's it.

If you go back through this thread to dig up the quotes, are you actually going to read them?

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

What doesnt work with ashley? Shooting,surviability?? What is your class and on difficulty you are playing?

It's just that if there's an enemy behind a corner or a piece of wall she just stands there trying to shoot a hole through the whole thing . They just spent half of the Rogue VI mission dead while I sniped the bots from locations where they did not hit back.

Only Tali and Garrus are the right ones for this missions,both with sabotage.

I just imagine this mission with the horrible Mass Effect 2 combat system. Drones have only shields. Sabotageworks only when enemies are down to health. That make hacking impossible too.
The room full of rocket drones will be different to handle without leaving the builiding.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Nothing wrong with headshots, but you keep saying to everybody that there was no more emphasis on combat, much less at the expense of plot, and the fights weren't longer when the truth is the opposite of both of those statements.

But there was a strong emphasis on combat in ME1 as well. That was the problem, it was a game focussing quite a bit on combat which it didn't do very well. You're also forgetting the long UCWs and the parts where you run aimlessly around the Citadel.

[Ecael]

uberdowzen wrote...

Also, as ME1 had very shooter-like combat, why would you not take some of the things that make those games great and put it into ME? I don't think any percieved change of focus in ME2 came from them putting headshots in the game.

Because people are using this kind of logic in defining a genre:

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 hardly show noticeable blood spatter and gore compared to other games.
Statement 2: Most shooter games show much more killing and gore as a well-known "shooter element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not shooters.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 use guns.
Statement 2: Most RPGs use swords, magic and other melee weapons as a well-known "RPG element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 require DLC downloads to "complete" the game
Statement 2: Most games ever released do not require DLC as a well-known "game element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not games.

Statement: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs, shooters or games.

Conclusion: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are

Modifié par Ecael, 21 mai 2010 - 11:00 .

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm yet to see someone on the old suggestions forum saying that the cinematics should be cut down. I see people saying that the combat should be improved but that's it.

If you go back through this thread to dig up the quotes, are you actually going to read them?

This thread? I'm really starting question how much I can be bothered. I've got a fourth Dragon Age playthrough to get through...

[Orchomene]

I'm not sure ME2 is more combat oriented if we just compare proportions with ME1.

It's just that the missions are so short and somewhat repetitive in the begining, that the story is a bit ineficient.

Look, half of the missions are recrutments and the other half are loyalty missions.

Yet, at some moments, there are other missions...



In the end, I think that the biggest problem of ME2 is the inconsistancy of story telling.

With maybe only 7 squadmates and the 8 thus spared missions transformed into plot missions, the game would feel better.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

This thread? I'm really starting question how much I can be bothered. I've got a fourth Dragon Age playthrough to get through...

Then please cease saying nobody has asked for less plot/more combat because the proof is here in this thread.

[Iakus]

Orchomene wrote...

In the end, I think that the biggest problem of ME2 is the inconsistancy of story telling.
With maybe only 7 squadmates and the 8 thus spared missions transformed into plot missions, the game would feel better.

100% agree there

[Ecael]

Ecael wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Also, as ME1 had very shooter-like combat, why would you not take some of the things that make those games great and put it into ME? I don't think any percieved change of focus in ME2 came from them putting headshots in the game.

Because people are using this kind of logic in defining a genre:

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 hardly show noticeable blood spatter and gore compared to other games.
Statement 2: Most shooter games show much more killing and gore as a well-known "shooter element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not shooters.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 use guns.
Statement 2: Most RPGs use swords, magic and other melee weapons as a well-known "RPG element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 require DLC downloads to "complete" the game
Statement 2: Most games ever released do not require DLC as a well-known "game element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not games.

Statement: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs, shooters or games.

Conclusion: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are

Modifié par Ecael, 21 mai 2010 - 11:06 .

[tonnactus]

JoeFooser wrote...

One minor quibble I have with ME2 is not being able to get early access to squad member's loyalty powers on subseqent playthroughs. You have to play through the game again, take on your squadmembers' missions again, and then be able to have them use their unique powers. It would be nice to have this at the start of the game since you already unlocked them before. Most of my favorite games have this feature, which is a big reason I like to play games over and over again. Again, it's nothing major, just a little something that makes playing games over again more fun.

That teammembers teach shepardt their special powers only after their personal mission was ok.But that they use them only after those missions is pure and utter crap.Most people would expect that they would use all their talents to survive on the battlefield.

[uberdowzen]

Ecael wrote...

Ecael wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Also, as ME1 had very shooter-like combat, why would you not take some of the things that make those games great and put it into ME? I don't think any percieved change of focus in ME2 came from them putting headshots in the game.

Because people are using this kind of logic in defining a genre:

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 hardly show noticeable blood spatter and gore compared to other games.
Statement 2: Most shooter games show much more killing and gore as a well-known "shooter element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not shooters.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 use guns.
Statement 2: Most RPGs use swords, magic and other melee weapons as a well-known "RPG element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 require DLC downloads to "complete" the game
Statement 2: Most games ever released do not require DLC as a well-known "game element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not games.

Statement: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs, shooters or games.

Conclusion: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are

Yep..

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

This thread? I'm really starting question how much I can be bothered. I've got a fourth Dragon Age playthrough to get through...

Then please cease saying nobody has asked for less plot/more combat because the proof is here in this thread.

Well, I can't without spending more time than I'm willing to devote to trying to find the quotes so I won't. I still highly doubt that they are a) true fans of ME who Bioware will listen to that much or that many people.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

iakus wrote...

If said friend was a comrade in arms who had saved my life on more than one occasion, incluing an exploding nuke on Virmire,

If said friend had previously taken up arms against this evil splinter group, and had killed dozens of said group's agents, plundered their files, and disrupted their attempts to create super-soldiers out of husks, rachni, and thorian creepers,

If said friend saved the galaxy from an ancient threat few others took seriously, to the point of defying the Council and commiting mutiny, but this friend had proven to be 100% accurate about,

And if said friend had just saved a human colony (and me, again) from a new alien threat...

...I'd think my friend would have earned enough trust to take a moment to find out what the frak was going on and what would push this friend to to such desperate straits as to ally with this group. 

But Kaidan isn't like that. He's an Alliance guy, he'd never join Cerberus. And you've been dead, who says you're the same guy you used to be. In fact, joining Cerberus would just back up this theory in his view.

I'm not saying Kaiden (or Ashley) sould volunteer to sign up.  I knew well before the game came out that they wouldn't be recruitable, and I was fine with that.  What bothers me is the reaction.  Even if they don't approve of Shep's actions, they'd have a little faith that  if Shepard says there's something bigger at stake, that there's somthing bigger at stake..  I mean, Garrus and Tali do.  I could much more easily imagine an uncomfortable Asley/Kaiden saying someting like
 
"I'm afraid I can't join you, sir.  I've sworn an oath to serve the Alliance and still have my duty.  But good luck, Commander.  I hope to see you again when this is all over so you can tell me the full story..

"I still think it's a bad idea, Commander, working with those people. Don't let them get into your head.  Remember all those experiments of theirs we uncovered?   Cerberus has no conscience, will do anything to achieve their goals.  Remember what they say about the road to hell, sir"

[Bigdoser]

Ecael wrote...

Ecael wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Also, as ME1 had very shooter-like combat, why would you not take some of the things that make those games great and put it into ME? I don't think any percieved change of focus in ME2 came from them putting headshots in the game.

Because people are using this kind of logic in defining a genre:

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 hardly show noticeable blood spatter and gore compared to other games.
Statement 2: Most shooter games show much more killing and gore as a well-known "shooter element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not shooters.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 use guns.
Statement 2: Most RPGs use swords, magic and other melee weapons as a well-known "RPG element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 require DLC downloads to "complete" the game
Statement 2: Most games ever released do not require DLC as a well-known "game element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not games.

Statement: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs, shooters or games.

Conclusion: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are

Man your posts are always awesome.

[bjdbwea]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

As I've said before, many shooters fans feel if a game has guns, they're entitled to it being THEIR kind of game.

It seems that way. There are countless shooters, dozens of new ones released every year. Do I go to any of the forums and demand that the developers make those games more into RPGs? No, I most certainly don't.

[spacehamsterZH]

It's kind of funny how shooter fans seem to be the worst offenders when it comes to this weird idea that every game has to be exactly the same. I played Killzone 2 for a while, and even the board for that game, definitely a straight-up FPS, had tons of people complaining about even the most minor deviations from the norm. And then the devs made the mistake of patching out everything about the controls that the zombies complained about, which only led to more and more complaining both from those asking for even more changes and eventually of course those who had liked the game in its original form and felt it was now ruined.

I'm sometimes reminded of this when I read this board. Mind you, I think ME2 is a fantastic game and everyone who thinks it's "a shooter" is a retard who shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on anything, but there is definitely such a thing as listening to your fans (who never have a unified opinion anyway - someone's always going to be disgruntled) too much and ruining a game in the process, and I hope BW steers clear of that.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 22 mai 2010 - 12:53 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

As I've said before, many shooters fans feel if a game has guns, they're entitled to it being THEIR kind of game.

It seems that way. There are countless shooters, dozens of new ones released every year. Do I go to any of the forums and demand that the developers make those games more into RPGs? No, I most certainly don't.

But its funny that Cliffy B. thinks that the future of Shooters lay in rpgs.So maybee Epic would release a Gears of War rpg sometimes.