186 réponses à ce sujet

[javierabegazo]

Dokteur Kill wrote...

For the most part I preferred the system in ME1.

By all means, ME2 combat works well enough to be fun, but it does tend to get a bit formulaic. If you see an area with lots of conveniently placed cover, you just know that a fight is about to begin. Duck behind first piece of cover, pop up to fire a salvo or unleash a power, duck down again, lather, rinse and repeat. Haven't played Vanguard yet, though, so that may shake things up a bit. ME1 felt more varied.

Vanguard WILL shake things up I Just started playing a vangaurd for the first time yesterday (on insanity) and I'm stunned at how different I approach certain levels, and also at how quick some fights end.

Then i started a  Soldier for the first time, and thought that it generally wasn't a fun class because it was all about sustained fire, not concentrated bursts of gameplay/damage.
So far Infiltrator and Vangaurd are my favorites with Adept lingering for 3rd place

[thedonof51]

Well, I'm going to put my 2 cents in now.....

I liked ME1 combat and I like ME2 combat. You can't really compare the 2 because they are totally different. I play shooters and ME1 was not a shooter. ME2 is more shooter. In ME1 you could use any weapon you wanted. In ME2 you can't, depending on class. That right there makes for a different game in and of itself. Yes you had unlimited ammo in ME1 and you don't in ME2. With ME2 you must think more about how you use your weapons and powers.

[DarthValo81]

I wish they would make the biotics a little more powerful tbh. I liked how in ME1 if I used lift in a room, everything started floating. They may have been overpowered in ME1 but I felt they were underpowered in 2, especially with the barrier/armor/shields nerfing biotic abilities. I should still be able to toss around some dude wearing armor.

[TJSolo]

Two different beasts both systems have their problems. People say ME1 was clunky and there are those that find having one button to cover,mount, and exit cover prone to interface error.



To me the ME2 cover system felt too forced; too many convenient boxes, a retcon so some form of ammo can be included, piddly health/shields, and enemies that don't move out from there shooting gallery spots.



ME1 was more free, fluid, and aggresive. Starting fresh going for cover and not going for cover both had benefits in fights. The issue I had was after gaining a lot of power not taking cover trumped then option for taking cover in almost every fight. I still enjoyed ME1s mechanics better as I didn't feel forced to do it a certain way.

[voteDC]

javierabegazo wrote...

I didn't mean to put him down, and I didn't bring up Halo as if calling him a fanboy at all, I merely referenced Halo because the majority of the game, you spend it strafing out in the open, I like fearing for my life, It's more immersive when 3 mercs have their guns trained on me, and if I don't time my reactions right, they immediately peel away my shielding. its' what I picture future combat to be like,

Sorry if that was taken derisively, I didn't mean it in that tone at all, merely was comparing the game based on gameplay

Because of the faulty, glitchy cover system in ME1, I found myself never using cover at all, but merely hugging a corner when using a long distance weapon, and if not, then running into a run, and launching a volley of powers and offense, then ducking back to let shields recharge. It just simply didn't feel like a true engagement, 

The one thing I'd like for changing is to have the enemies not always KNOW where Shepard is at all times, I'd like more Aggro features

I probably did come across a bit more agressive than I intended, so sorry about that.

Now I have to disgree with you saying the cover system in Mass Effect was glitchy. I entered cover when I wanted and exited just as smoothly thanks to me having to actively press against it and pull away. Compare that to Mass Effect 2 where the slightest brush when running will throw you against a wall and I know which I'd consider more problematic.

The only character I found that could stand as you describe is the Soldier thanks to heavy armour and Immunity. Try a firefight with an Adept without using cover and you're on a swift trip to deaths-ville.

Ducking back into cover to let your health and shields recharge, how is that any different to what we have in Mass Effect 2, excluding the screen obstruction of course.

I honestly don't see where the improvement is meant to be. We've gone from having to actively wanting to enter cover to the slightest brush throwing you against a wall, combined with accidentally vaulting over cover.

Instead over leaving low cover and still being able to take advantage of its protection because we are crouching, we now stand up the instant we leave cover.

If we want to use all our powers in a fight we still have to pause the game with RB (not a problem I confess on the PC thanks to the larger amount of keys.)

Which bring us to how on earth the global cool-down can be an improvement. In Mass Effect 1 I'd use Throw on the enemy behind me and then flip around and use Lift on another. Sure the cool-down was longer but I had access to more than one power at a time.

As I said I like the ability to curve powers now but of course that adds travel time to the equation (something oddly that the squad-members don't seem to experience with their abilities.)

I'm honestly not seeing improvement here, just a differnet way of doing things.

Modifié par voteDC, 01 mars 2010 - 11:08 .

[skan5]

I liked both combats, I prefer 1's a bit more though. I've played shooters since Doom, through Quake, through Unreal and into CS/GoW/BF/[enter shooter here]. I've played RPGs since Fallout, Icewind Dale and on (my two favorite genres, what can I say )



ME1 was a good mix, more on the RPG side. ME2 feels just like a shooter to me with different fluffs. Playing GoW, RE5 and ME2, there's hardly any difference to me (in the shooter aspect). Big difference for me when I go from RE5 to ME1.



Because of this, I find ME2's combat non unique (and yes, even on Insanity) and ME1's more unique, making me prefer ME1's. But as I said, I like both, so meh.

[Nick Fox]

javierabegazo wrote...

Nick Fox wrote...

We all have our own preferences about what we do like and not. Personally i think the battle in Me 1 is much more fun and free (you can actually move around without dying in a split second). In Me 2 its like these shooting ranges and lvl types (think old school arcade here) and thats not a total mess, but not what I want in ME series. Everything in ME 2 feels so small and tight, nah not my thing in a sci fi game like this. Sure there are some improvments but to me there is also some very dishartening things about the combat now and its not finetuned at all as I see it. Gets kind of boring to tell you the truth, anyway lets hope ME 3 will be very good in all aspects of the game (RPG BW), shall we.

My 2 cents

Have you ever seen actual firefights though? It shouldn't be like Halo where you just strafe all over the place jumping up and down to avoid incoming fire. You're in a fire fight with trained killers, who know exactly where to aim

Sorry, why are you asking me if I been in a actual firefight ? Is that a presquite to play the game ? Have you or any of the devs for that matter ? Is Me 2 now a combat sim ala Tom Clancy series ?

The thread is about the combat and I said I liked it far better in the first game, you like it better in the second, good for you then. There have been many that expressed it better than I have in this thread and others (english isnt my native tounge). I cant see anything wrong with how the first treated combat, in fact I liked that you could choose to move around and/or take cover. Made it feel more alive and intense. Now its duck and cover....very repetive indeed and I find that change boring. I want to be able to use my powers/skills more in how it was done before thats all.
The global cooldown isnt helping in that area, what it does is that it forces you into cover all the time and diminish powers/skills to be more of funny finishers rather than a mean to dominate the battlefield. Of course they help you but doesnt really change the pace, intesivity and fun of the actual gameplay imo. Quite the opposite.

I get that you want the sheilds to be gone in a second and to you its fun that the enemys always focus on you and you like to cover to make you feel its more of a real firefight etc. I just dont agree with it, to me its the other way around.

BW went out and changed the whole series in many ways and to me its not the right direction, far from it to tell you the truth. I dont hate the game but I sure dont think its anything special at all either. Average and not a classic people (or at least I) is going to talk about for years to come. Dissapointed I am. This has been done many times and better in other games too imo, so if I known this I wouldnt have gotten the game.

If the first game had been this "slimmed"/"Streamlined", then I honestly wouldnt think it would've been a sucess, maybe a moderate one but not close to a classic.

[Tazzmission]

TJSolo wrote...

Two different beasts both systems have their problems. People say ME1 was clunky and there are those that find having one button to cover,mount, and exit cover prone to interface error.

To me the ME2 cover system felt too forced; too many convenient boxes, a retcon so some form of ammo can be included, piddly health/shields, and enemies that don't move out from there shooting gallery spots.

ME1 was more free, fluid, and aggresive. Starting fresh going for cover and not going for cover both had benefits in fights. The issue I had was after gaining a lot of power not taking cover trumped then option for taking cover in almost every fight. I still enjoyed ME1s mechanics better as I didn't feel forced to do it a certain way.

i actualy think me2 felt more fluid...... they really improved the sniper rifle wile in me1 it was pretty blah. dont get me wrong i love me1 but me2 felt more realistic shooter wise

[Nick Fox]

just a little addition to my earlier post. The biotics now doesnt work on sheilds (Warp does but most dont) and armor. This is a change do to the new combat system wich is an indication of that BW wants a more shooter based gamemechanics. Shooting ranges, ammo, cover system and this new resistance armor thing is not a good way of doing it more interesting to me. Logicly one wonder why on earth anybody would get biotic implants that gives you severe headaches etc (at least the L 2 version does, the  L 3 is a little better but not as powerfull)
when you only can use biotics from the get go on civilians ? I can only see criminals seeing any real benfit tbh.
No body in their right mind would do such a thing to yourself with so little advantage in a battle where everybody uses armor and shields. its just so silly!

The imunity ability and resitance values on both armors and upgrades is pure genious compared to this.

Why cant you all of a sudden not use Biotics on a armored foe ? before you could even use a strong lift to lift up a colossus for crying out loud. Now you cant even pull or shockwave for ex a normal geth. Makes no sense and can only draw the conclusion of that it is due to gamemechanics and a wish from BW to make it more...shooter friendly. in many cases I just dont see a point of using an ability when the gun does the job faster.
The more I think of it and play ME 1 (Just started that up again á couple of days ago).
The less I like the new combat "improved" system myself.
A tweak of the old one should've been made and not this revamp imho. This is a fail in comparison to me.
Some like the new better, I sure as hell dont though!

Modifié par Nick Fox, 02 mars 2010 - 12:19 .

[Dark Glasses]

Andaius20 wrote...

I feel like it should be the other way around. ME 2 with ME 1 combat.

Oh thank god I'm not the only one who likes ME1 combat more.

[slyguy07]

They shouldn't have made biotics and tech powers unable to to do anything against barrier, shields, or armor unless it was a certain power. Throw should throw someone regardless of what they have.. Biotics aside from Charge and Warp are useless.

[Retsugi]

Dark Glasses wrote...

Andaius20 wrote...

I feel like it should be the other way around. ME 2 with ME 1 combat.

Oh thank god I'm not the only one who likes ME1 combat more.

It's funny, a majority of posts in this thread prefer ME1 combat over ME2, they both have their Pros and cons but I much rather Bioware base the next game's combat off ME1 and then add bits and pieces from ME2 to improve it.

To those who think ME2's combat is more fluid, go test it out, run around in battle with Shepard in ME1 and then go load up ME2.
Seriously ME2 just makes Shepard feel like a 500kg Robot running around.
While ME1 made Shepard feel quick, smooth and very Athletic.

The only  things i like about ME2 combat are blowing off parts, the rocket launcher, and the Sniper rifle actually looking like it's no longer aimed by a Very VERY drunk Shepard, oh and climbing over walls, I can deal with that as long as Auto cover and crouch along with ME1's animations and feels come back.

[Cypher_CS]

I wholeheartedly agree that ME1's combat feels much more fluid.



Furthermore, the interface design is easier to navigate, understand and perceive in the midst of battle.



I would love a mod, or even an official patch, that would allow at the very least the ME1 combat interface (when pressing Shift - I'm fine with the controls scheme) as an option to replace the ME2 interface (but with the ME2 colors, of course).



Please, make THAT a reality.

[Homey C-Dawg]

I like the combat from both ME games. To me, ME1 felt like a shooter/RPG and ME2 felt like a shooter. I hope they find a happy combination in ME3. There is something unique about the shooter/RPG combat in ME1 that was lost in ME2.

[rastakore]

Some of you that are praising the ME1 combat don't seem to remember how god damn awfull the ai is... why go into cover when all they do is run into you? ME1 combat is frustrating and messy. ME2 is more dynamic and tactical.

Modifié par rastakore, 26 avril 2010 - 11:21 .

[DarthCaine]

I've got things in my fridge older than ME1. Don't expect a remake till at least 10 years from now. I'd rather they remake BG

[Web2nr]

Nick Fox wrote...

Sorry, why are you asking me if I been in a actual firefight ? Is that a presquite to play the game ? Have you or any of the devs for that matter ? Is Me 2 now a combat sim ala Tom Clancy series ?
[snip]
Now its duck and cover....very repetive indeed and I find that change boring. I want to be able to use my powers/skills more in how it was done before thats all

he asked if you've seen a firefight, not been in one

The combat in both ME1 & ME2 are as fun as you make them. In ME2, sure you can sit back and play duck and cover all day, but if you utilize your squad's powers well you can move around a lot. With almost any class I bet if you take more risks it would be more fun, especially vanguard & solider.

That's not to say ME2 combat doesn't have faults but I can't agree with calling it boring because of having to use more tactics.

[BeresaadSoldier]

javierabegazo wrote...

The one thing I'd like for changing is to have the enemies not always KNOW where Shepard is at all times, I'd like more Aggro features

I'd also like to see this but imagine the advantage an Infiltrator with cloak will have in terms of gameplay. He'll never even get shot at.

[cruc1al]

I think the ME2 combat system could be improved in a lot of ways (see e.g. Scarecrow's Compendium of Proposals thread), so I don't feel that ME1 with ME2 combat would be such a good idea. Sure it could be fun. But as the OP said, it would be best to take the best from both ME2 and ME3. I hope ME3 combat will be better than ME2 in all respects, and in that case it should simply be the ME3 combat system that would replace the ME1 combat system.

[Darkchylde]

Personally I preferred the combat element in ME2, to me it felt more tactical and I found it easier to use, positioning squad members, combining my and squad members powers to take down one enemy. It made me feel like my squad were actually working with me rather than running head long into a Geth sniper like in ME1! The AI was much improved in ME2, although it still has it's faults. Squad members seemed to ignore some of my placements for example which was exceptionally frustrating, but I still get more of a buzz playing ME2.



I do however feel that biotics were better catered for in ME1, I wanted to use them more as they had more effect. In ME2 however they fell alittle flat in some cases, the later levels seemed to have more impact but they were still alittle dull IMO.



I think if BW can take parts from ME1 and ME2 they will offer the best combat experience.

[Bigdoser]

This is just my opinion but some people seriously think me1 combat is better than me2? I really can't see how me1 combat is better.

[Icinix]

I liked the different abilities / powers in Mass Effect 1, also loved the grenades.



These were the only two things I miss from the combat of Mass Effect 1.



If they were to do a special edition or remake of the Mass Effect Trilogy down the track, I imagine it wouldn't be done with the combat from one of the games, it would be done with a combination of all the games or which one garnered the most praise.

[Dudeman315]

Would rather have ME2 with ME1 combat. I own gears of war, I don't need another shooter with a questionable plot(ME2). Combat felt different with cooldown weapons and Biotics. Kinda like bioshock with plasmids, it was neat and new. If I wanted another shooter I would buy GoW3.