186 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

sonsonthebia07 wrote...

I am not saying that I use pull on enemies that have defenses up, I'm just saying that there is still an effect. Singularity will stun enemies in the field over and over again even with defenses up, and I use it all the time.

To bad it doesnt work on critters like varren and robo dogs.The most retarded thing what they did to powers in Mass Effect.Another one is that geth hunters are not affected by the combat drone.That made some geth encounters easier for adepts then engineers.

Modifié par tonnactus, 26 avril 2010 - 09:07 .

[sonsonthebia07]

tonnactus wrote...

sonsonthebia07 wrote...

I am not saying that I use pull on enemies that have defenses up, I'm just saying that there is still an effect. Singularity will stun enemies in the field over and over again even with defenses up, and I use it all the time.

To bad it doesnt work on critters like varren and robo dogs.The most retarded thing what they did to powers in Mass Effect.Another one is that geth hunters are not affected by the combat drone.That made some geth encounters easier for adepts then engineers.

True, they just run right through the field. But are they ever really an issue anyways? I find it funny how squadies can't target geth hunters when they are cloaked but they can still use powers on them.

[tonnactus]

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

[quote]tonnactus wrote...


Well,biotics are a part of the combat in this game and so you agree that they were better in Mass Effect. Right?

[/quote]

I explain this.Combat in Mass Effect consists: Weapons, biotics and tech powers.
The last two got nerfed.
So two parts of the Mass Effect 2 combat were worser then in Mass Effect.But its still better??

[tonnactus]

sonsonthebia07 wrote...


True, they just run right through the field. But are they ever really an issue anyways?

That wasnt the question.
Make the harbinger harmless,but couldnt stop such critters??

[Tirigon]

tonnactus wrote...

I explain this.Combat in Mass Effect consists: Weapons, biotics and tech powers.
The last two got nerfed.
So two parts of the Mass Effect 2 combat were worser then in Mass Effect.But its still better??

But the weapons part is - at least for me - the more important part. If to you the powers are more important I would agree that it´s better in ME1.
But I spend more time shooting than casting, I prefer ME2.

[sonsonthebia07]

tonnactus wrote...

sonsonthebia07 wrote...


True, they just run right through the field. But are they ever really an issue anyways?

That wasnt the question.
Make the harbinger harmless,but couldnt stop such critters??

Aye, but you also have Jack taking on 3 heavy mechs by herself in a cutscene and then being unable to go toe-to-toe against 2 footsoldiers at once, so there are always some inconsistencies. I agree with you that it is ridiculous.

[TJSolo]

sonsonthebia07 wrote...


I meant using Singularity and Lift in tandem with other biotics, or with Liara spamming her biotics also. That is why the global cooldown is a good thing.

You NPC teammates don't spam their powers in tandem. Playerwise, there is better ways to spend time then bringing up the power wheel 3 or more times at the start of a fight.
That is how it is supposed to happen. That is how ME1 was envisioned and designed for combat.
The number of powers combined with the longer individual cool downs make the idea of a global cooldown, not warranted.

ME2 combat since it focuses on gunplay with less powers flying around, with greatly shorter cooldowns make having a globalcool down less noticable. Still it fits in oddly when just pressing buttons on a gun to activate an ammo type puts a gamer under global cooldown.

ME1 combat and ME2 combat are not interchangable; what is good as limits in ME2 can not be equally stated as being good for ME1.

[sonsonthebia07]

Global cooldown would be horrendous in ME1 with all of the powers already having such a long cooldown. I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought global cooldown would be a good addition to ME1, but it certainly worked out well with the smaller cooldowns of powers in ME2. I honestly think that it comes down to personal preference, and I just feel that there are a lot more edge-of-your-seat moments in the combat of ME2.



Hopefully I'm not playing up your sig. too much, I still prefer the RPG elements over the action. But when I am in combat, I want there to be as much action as possible.

[tonnactus]

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

[quote]tonnactus


But the weapons part is - at least for me - the more important part. If to you the powers are more important I would agree that it´s better in ME1.
But I spend more time shooting than casting, I prefer ME2.

[/quote]

Then it doesnt make sense that the adept was your favourite class in Mass Effect...

For me shooting is only one part of the combat,not more important then tech and biotics.
And it was alsways intended this way in the first game,considering the squad sreen that shows you how balanced your squad was.
Now they remove it that of course..

[SirOccam]

I thought the ME2 combat was MUCH better than ME1, in almost every way.

*Clips were vastly preferable to the overheating thing, even if it did add another thing to keep track of (ammo). I didn't find it to be a problem, though, as ammo is lying around just about everywhere.

*Cover was much smoother, in my opinion. Not only was it nice not having camera angles and whatnot screwed up so much, but I loved being able to sprint right to a low cover and slide right into it.

*Sprinting itself was much improved as well. In ME1 you could sprint super-fast, but only for like 2 seconds. It was bordering on *too* fast, so slowing down really wasn't much of a sacrifice, and you could do it a lot more often.

*Biotics were way more fun to control, with being able to curve them and everything. Plus they added some really fun ones, my favorite probably being Shockwave. Throw is a classic that never gets old, but having pull and slam and everything else was excellent.

*Vaulting...there isn't really much to say here. Jumping over your cover is much more awesome than running back away from it then turning to run in an arc around it.

I would love to be able to re-play ME1 with ME2's combat. Now if you could just convince them to give it ME2's inventory system and lack of Mako, it would be an infinitely superior game.

[TJSolo]

sonsonthebia07 wrote...

Global cooldown would be horrendous in ME1 with all of the powers already having such a long cooldown. I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought global cooldown would be a good addition to ME1, but it certainly worked out well with the smaller cooldowns of powers in ME2. I honestly think that it comes down to personal preference, and I just feel that there are a lot more edge-of-your-seat moments in the combat of ME2.

Hopefully I'm not playing up your sig. too much, I still prefer the RPG elements over the action. But when I am in combat, I want there to be as much action as possible.

I read your post and took it incorrectly then. We seem to be talking more about ME1s combat then the idea of implementing ME2 combat in ME1.
Doing so would make many battles un-winnable for the player. Saren, forget it. Matriach Benezia, nope. Don't even try to rescue Liara.

ME2 combat is not so good that it should be used more than once without improvements.  Certainly not good enough spend the time to put it in a pre-existing product, and ME3 the combat should be tweaked again not a repeat of ME2.

Also the words of the sig are not proved by players, even if some are examples.

[JaegerBane]

I found ME2 combat to be visceral and engaging. I'm still on the fence about reloading but I suppose it serves it's purpose. It didn't get in the way, at least.

My only real problem is the way the classes were balanced out. While the Vanguard was an easy choice for me in ME1, they messed around with it in ME2 to the extent that I couldn't stand playing it any more (adding stupid things like Cryo Ammo that required 10 points for it to do anything useful while taking away staples like Throw).

Adepts were not bad, particularly with their new biotics, but nerfing the Singularity was just trying to fix what wasn't broken and resulted in an underwhelming class power.

I don't know. ME2 combat mixed with ME1 class balance would have been epic.

[masseffectfan00]

Balerion84 wrote...

The combat in ME2 is leagues ahead of ME1 combat so I'd love to have ME2 combat in ME1. Shame it will never happen though.

It will happen with Mass Effect Sigma for PS3

Modifié par masseffectfan00, 26 avril 2010 - 09:59 .

[SP One Nineteen]

tonnactus wrote...

SP One Nineteen wrote...

I definitely thought that ME2 combat was superior, but the power system in ME i liked more.

Oh men, powers are part of the combat in this game.
Combat doesnt mean weapons only.

Did you read the rest of my post??

[Xpheyel]

TJSolo wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

TJSolo wrote...


People are not able to differentiate using guns for combat versus the shooter genre. Then deem every game that implements gun combat must conform to current favorite mechanics.

No, actually I don´t even like Shooters - at least not the likes of Call of Duty, Counterstrike etc...
But I rather have a good shooter than a bad hybrid.

Like I said, ME1s combat works. The combat mechanic used are not the current favorite, but that does not mean the mechanics are bad.
From a Half Life, Quake, or even COD standpoint, the combat is not bad. If the only measuring stick used is "Where is my cover" then of course the combat mechanics would seem unacceptable.

Buh. Sorry but I disagree with that. At least for COD and HL.
- The time-to-kill on ME1, especially at higher difficulties, is significantly longer in comparison with the original COD (a headshot with anything as far as I recall could instantly kill a ****). Even in Half Life, the only analog I can think of is killing a HECU with the SMG or Glock.

- Most of the AI behavior that I recall was closer to ME2 than ME1. The original COD especially, was a lot closer to the 'shooting gallery' with the ****s somewhat ineffectually hiding behind something so you could shoot them in the helmet, then storming their position to turn off the infinite respawn. Very rarely would things charge you in either game, if you were REALLY close in COD you could get a **** to melee you.

- COD would certainly kill you for running about in the open too much. To the extent that some of the objectives were save-scum luck missions if the AI decided to drill you instead of your buddies. The closest they come mechanically in my opinion is the first quarter or so of ME1. I've never beaten that British bridge-holding mission without picking up some random deaths.

- Both games utilize ammo. I switch guns constantly in COD and HL for just that reason. I often chucked otherwise effective allied weapons for an MP40 to be sure I didn't run out of rounds. Despite optimistic might-have-beens to the contrary, I don't think any cooldown system is going to emulate the effect of an ammo system. The player has too many ways to control it to avoid cooldown time (whereas reloading is basically inevitable). It also imposes a hard limit on how many shots can be fired before you need to stop using it or pick up more ammo for it. I used the Pistol on weak enemies in HL to conserve Tau Cannon ammo and grenades, etc. ME1's cooldown system really obliterates that consideration.

- The gun differentiation in COD and HL is a lot better in my opinion. HL gave you an entire arsenal of outlandish guns to vaporize things with. COD used a more realistic approach, with it's ARs (MP-44 and BAR's wacky effectiveness) and Pistols (nigh useless). Of course, it was a WWII game so most of the time you had SMGs and rifles (M1 complete with *PING*). 

- In operation, weapons in COD were also closer to ME2 than to ME1 in terms of the COF growth/regen IIRC. The ironsights of mounted MGs were probably the closest, or the British LMG with the ironsights up and the player prone... Even the MP44 and the BAR has pretty significant climb if continuously fired as I recall. Only thing thats really reminiscent is firing from the hip vs. aim-mode. 


**** = A WWII axis soldier that is not from Japan. 

Modifié par Xpheyel, 26 avril 2010 - 10:15 .

[cruc1al]

kraut

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Meh, I think for me to care, it would need ME1s ability to let players approach combat in a way thats not just cover based shooting.



Not that I care that much about combat to begin with.

[TJSolo]

Xpheyel wrote...
Buh. Sorry but I disagree with that. At least for COD and HL.
- The time-to-kill on ME1, especially at higher difficulties, is significantly longer in comparison with the original COD (a headshot with anything as far as I recall could instantly kill a ****). Even in Half Life, the only analog I can think of is killing a HECU with the SMG or Glock.

- Most of the AI behavior that I recall was closer to ME2 than ME1. The original COD especially, was a lot closer to the 'shooting gallery' with the ****s somewhat ineffectually hiding behind something so you could shoot them in the helmet, then storming their position to turn off the infinite respawn. Very rarely would things charge you in either game, if you were REALLY close in COD you could get a **** to melee you.

- COD would certainly kill you for running about in the open too much. To the extent that some of the objectives were save-scum luck missions if the AI decided to drill you instead of your buddies. The closest they come mechanically in my opinion is the first quarter or so of ME1. I've never beaten that British bridge-holding mission without picking up some random deaths.

- Both games utilize ammo. I switch guns constantly in COD and HL for just that reason. I often chucked otherwise effective allied weapons for an MP40 to be sure I didn't run out of rounds. Despite optimistic might-have-beens to the contrary, I don't think any cooldown system is going to emulate the effect of an ammo system. The player has too many ways to control it to avoid cooldown time (whereas reloading is basically inevitable). It also imposes a hard limit on how many shots can be fired before you need to stop using it or pick up more ammo for it. I used the Pistol on weak enemies in HL to conserve Tau Cannon ammo and grenades, etc. ME1's cooldown system really obliterates that consideration.

- The gun differentiation in COD and HL is a lot better in my opinion. HL gave you an entire arsenal of outlandish guns to vaporize things with. COD used a more realistic approach, with it's ARs (MP-44 and BAR's wacky effectiveness) and Pistols (nigh useless). Of course, it was a WWII game so most of the time you had SMGs and rifles (M1 complete with *PING*). 

- In operation, weapons in COD were also closer to ME2 than to ME1 in terms of the COF growth/regen IIRC. The ironsights of mounted MGs were probably the closest, or the British LMG with the ironsights up and the player prone... Even the MP44 and the BAR has pretty significant climb if continuously fired as I recall. Only thing thats really reminiscent is firing from the hip vs. aim-mode. 


**** = A WWII axis soldier that is not from Japan. 

Where did I say the games played the same?
Being able to melee or close range is what I was talking about.
Specific mechanics are not what I am referring to.

[Tirigon]

tonnactus wrote...


Then it doesnt make sense that the adept was your favourite class in Mass Effect...

In ME1 there are no headshots or anything, so sniping isn´t really fun. All weapons are the same: hold left mouse until the enemy is dead.

With adept, I can use biotics too. That makes the combat more fun.

[Shotokanguy]

I would like to see games remade as technology improves, such as the KOTOR series. Imagine K1 with the graphics and dialogue wheel from the ME series.



But ME1 is too new. Redoing it now would just be too soon, and in several years I probably won't really care enough to play it again...unless the entire game was overhauled a crazy amount. Like if Feros was made way bigger and more interesting, the Mako had all kinds of upgrades...etc.



So I'm no opposed to the idea of old video games getting updated, but I don't see it happening and wouldn't really care.

[cruc1al]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Redoing it now would just be too soon, and in several years I probably won't really care enough to play it again....

Oh just wait for the nostalgia to kick in...

[Brako Shepard]

WelshKris wrote...

 I was thinking yesterday when playing ME1 how awesome the game would be with ME2 combat. What do you guys think of something like an enhanced edition trilogy? It could be released when (or shortly after) ME3 comes out and would be all three games with the best ideas from ME2 and (the presumably better) ME3 implemented into the earlier games sort of like the metroid prime trilogy. 

I have been playing Mass Effect since last Friday I think it was. And after finishing it again tonight, boy was I glad to get back to Mass Effect 2.

Don't get me wrong, the story is amazing as ever. But yikes did it feel like everything was in slo-motion. I too was thinking how much better Mass Effect would have been with ME2's combat system and fluid movement. As much as I still love the story of Mass Effect, I am glad it is behind me now.

I cannot take anymore of the same conversations. Is this why people think it had more team conversations? Because I am telling you now....it does not. Boy am I glad I don't have to drive that 2 mph Mako again, all those planets and there was only about 4 things worth discovering.

I also like in Mass Effect 2, that no matter how much you upgrade your armour, you can still get wasted pretty quickly. Mass Effect had way too many strong upgrades that made you almost invincible.

[Xpheyel]

TJSolo wrote...

Where did I say the games played the same?
Being able to melee or close range is what I was talking about.
Specific mechanics are not what I am referring to.

TJSolo wrote...
Like I said, ME1s combat works. The combat mechanic used are not the
current favorite, but that does not mean the mechanics are bad.
From
a Half Life, Quake, or even COD standpoint, the combat is not bad. If
the only measuring stick used is "Where is my cover" then of course the
combat mechanics would seem unacceptable.

Call of Duty doesn't use a "current favorite" cover system but I certainly think that it is mechanically a better shooter than Mass Effect.

cruc1al wrote...

kraut

I was going to say that but I thought it might be offensive... Lol @ me.

Modifié par Xpheyel, 26 avril 2010 - 10:59 .

[TJSolo]

"Call of Duty doesn't use a "current favorite" cover system but I certainly think that it is mechanically a better shooter than Mass Effect."



The mention COD because it doesn't use a "current favorite" mechanics.

A pure shooter being better then a RPG that uses guns for combat, nobody is trying to say it isn't.

[RyrineaNara]

I think that a pure shooter is something I suck at, and I love Mass Effect system. Even thought I am a Shooter fan I just think that both combat system lacked. However, the RPG elements are something I want for ME3 not a pure shooter, if I want a shooter I just put in Halo, or Call of Duty. I think that both need improvement nothing is perfect.