271 réponses à ce sujet

[rabbitchannel]

slyguy07 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Minority? Again how can you prove that? 

Easily:
http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/
http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/

GameSpot's user score for ME1 is 8.9 (PC) and 9.1 (360), while for ME2 is 9.3 (PC) and 9.4 (360)

 
And that takes into account everyone who has bought the game? ME2 is a great game, but there is a lot of people out there who feel like they removed too many of ME1's elements that made it great.

It's sampling. Surveying a representative slice of the population. No survey can possibly take into account everyone.

[Gorn Kregore]

slyguy07 wrote...

Minority? Again how can you prove that? Now you are just being stupid to say ME1 was more shooter than ME2. Nobody can in their right mind draw that as a logical conclusion. Almost everyone else on these forums would disagree with you whether they like ME1 or ME2. I done arguing with you though if you are that ignorant. Obviously your "whine about whiners" crap carries the same condescending childishness that gets most threads locked. Grow up. I am sick of the action/shooter people acting as though their opinion is somehow more valid than those who enjoyed ME1 more.

Reread my post. "ME1 was more shooter than RPG" not "than ME2". 

I love how you judge us as "action/shooter people" like they're second class citizens. Its kinda ironic how you think we're the ones which valid our opinion more than "your kind" seeing as its the contrary  "omg mako was so g00d inventory was so pr0 everything bout me2 is bAD so im rite guise (rpg fanboy) " . I'm also into several RPGs myself, I've played the old fallouts and whatnot. Hell I even enjoyed playing Dragon Age Origins. I've also enjoyed shooters probably because I'm not as closed minded as you are. The fact that you are accusing me of being childish is also pretty funny seeing as you're the one which can't handle my opinion. So grow up yourself.

[DarthCaine]

slyguy07 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Minority? Again how can you prove that? 

Easily:
http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/
http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/

GameSpot's user score for ME1 is 8.9 (PC) and 9.1 (360), while for ME2 is 9.3 (PC) and 9.4 (360)

 
And that takes into account everyone who has bought the game? ME2 is a great game, but there is a lot of people out there who feel like they removed too many of ME1's elements that made it great.

All the people that complained on this forum have voted on the first poll since it was a major thread
Gamespot has over 3500 votes for each platfrom

And I'm also sure there is a lot more people out there who feel like ME2 is a much better game (just like you're sure that there is a lot of people out there who feel like they removed too many of ME1's elements)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 06 mars 2010 - 04:29 .

[slyguy07]

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Minority? Again how can you prove that? 

Easily:
http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/
http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/

GameSpot's user score for ME1 is 8.9 (PC) and 9.1 (360), while for ME2 is 9.3 (PC) and 9.4 (360)

 
And that takes into account everyone who has bought the game? ME2 is a great game, but there is a lot of people out there who feel like they removed too many of ME1's elements that made it great.

All the people that complained on this forum have voted on the first poll since it was a major thread
Gamespot has over 3500 votes for each platfrom

Like I said though how about those who don't care to get on the forums? I certainly didn't for the first game and to be honest this is the first game I have bothered going to the forums for. Not to mention I waited a month or so to do so.

[DarthCaine]

slyguy07 wrote...

Like I said though how about those who don't care to get on the forums?

And how much people that don't care to get on forums loved the game? 'cos I know a lot of people that aren't on forums and loved the game

People that love the game usually don't come on forums, while haters always come to complain on forums

Modifié par DarthCaine, 06 mars 2010 - 04:31 .

[Lonely_Fat_Guy]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Interesting. But perhaps before giving lectures on how to make radical changes to a game without alienating it's existing fanbase they should learn how to make radical changes to a game without alienating it's existing fanbase. Because that's exactly what they did. And the way those changes where communicated by members of the dev team and moderators left something seriously to be desired (basically "If you don't like it then this game isn't for you anymore").

QFT
sorry but i loved ME1 and im even loving ME2 more, yeah improvements are still to be made (abit more skills and abit more open unvierse with quests(hammerhead perhaps)) but overall its a great game and i still dont get it how people got allienated from it :S

[lukandroll]

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

No it's just ignorant to say ME2 was just as much of an RPG as ME1.

Other way around son.

Obviously you have no idea what an RPG is about then. Hate to tell you most people out there say ME1 was more RPG and ME2 more shooter. In modern terms that is. We aren't talking about going back to the Fallout 1 days.

Ok, I'll bite, how is ME2 any less of an RPG than ME1 ?

I'll go ahead and quote myself

"I believe ME2 is more a shooter than Action RPG like its predecesor.
The chance to hit a target is not represented on the character talents,
but yours as a player, that's wrong from a role playing aspect; because
you are "role playing" yourself, and not the character. I dont have
to go too far away for this, for instance, take FALLOUT 3, even when
you aim and shoot with a energy weapon, if your character does not have
the right amount of "Energy Weapons" talent, he will miss, that's basic
gameplay in a action role playing game. Because THE CHARACTER is not
skilled enough to use the weapon, in that case It really DOESN'T
matter if you are good or not at aiming, that's why you are role
playing the character."

And this this only ONE of many aspects of why I think that; I could also mention the linearity of outcomes in secondary quest and encounters, the linearity of aproachs on any missions,  the ultra defined Good/Evil responses in dialogue, etc.

[slyguy07]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Minority? Again how can you prove that? Now you are just being stupid to say ME1 was more shooter than ME2. Nobody can in their right mind draw that as a logical conclusion. Almost everyone else on these forums would disagree with you whether they like ME1 or ME2. I done arguing with you though if you are that ignorant. Obviously your "whine about whiners" crap carries the same condescending childishness that gets most threads locked. Grow up. I am sick of the action/shooter people acting as though their opinion is somehow more valid than those who enjoyed ME1 more.

Reread my post. "ME1 was more shooter than RPG" not "than ME2". 

I love how you judge us as "action/shooter people" like they're second class citizens. Its kinda ironic how you think we're the ones which valid our opinion more than "your kind" seeing as its the contrary  "omg mako was so g00d inventory was so pr0 everything bout me2 is bAD so im rite guise (rpg fanboy) " . I'm also into several RPGs myself, I've played the old fallouts and whatnot. Hell I even enjoyed playing Dragon Age Origins. I've also enjoyed shooters probably because I'm not as closed minded as you are. The fact that you are accusing me of being childish is also pretty funny seeing as you're the one which can't handle my opinion. So grow up yourself.

Hmm you were the first one on here to post that childish gif and iniate this and impose your "superior" opinion as the one that mattered. I don't think my is anymore valid is just can't stand people who think that it should be brushed aside. I can handle an opinion just not an ignorant who thinks his is more valid. I really didn't care for the MAKO too much either know-it-all. So yeah maybe I can admit I am being somewhat childish, but only because someone else was acting just as much so to get me a little huffed.

[slyguy07]

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Like I said though how about those who don't care to get on the forums?

And how much people that don't care to get on forums loved the game? 'cos I know a lot of people that aren't on forums and loved the game

People that love the game usually don't come on forums, while haters always come to complain on forums

Meh probably right, but there are those who are too lazy to do so or don't care to bother. I loved the first Halo and didn't bother to get on the forums for those or CoD:MW. Regardless it's speculation on our part.

[Gorn Kregore]

lukandroll wrote...

And this this only ONE of many aspects of why I think that; I could also mention the linearity of outcomes in secondary quest and encounters, the linearity of aproachs on any missions,  the ultra defined Good/Evil responses in dialogue, etc.

Mass Effect had that too if you didn't realize.

[DarthCaine]

lukandroll wrote...

"I believe ME2 is more a shooter than Action RPG like its predecesor.The chance to hit a target is not represented on the character talents,but yours as a player, that's wrong from a role playing aspect; because you are "role playing" yourself, and not the character. I dont have to go too far away for this, for instance, take FALLOUT 3, even when you aim and shoot with a energy weapon, if your character does not have the right amount of "Energy Weapons" talent, he will miss, that's basic gameplay in a action role playing game. Because THE CHARACTER is not skilled enough to use the weapon, in that case It really DOESN'T matter if you are good or not at aiming, that's why you are role playing the character."

Shepard is a skilled man (or woman). While in ME1 he/she was a noob, in ME2 he's a badass since you spent all your talent points in ME1 on weapon stats so there's no need anymore. Think of it like some parts of your lvl are transfering like in BG2 or DA:O:A

And this this only ONE of many aspects of why I think that; I could also mention the linearity of outcomes in secondary quest and encounters, the linearity of aproachs on any missions,  the ultra defined Good/Evil responses in dialogue, etc.

Those aren't any different than ME1's

[Gorn Kregore]

slyguy07 wrote...
Hmm you were the first one on here to post that childish gif and iniate this and impose your "superior" opinion as the one that mattered. I don't think my is anymore valid is just can't stand people who think that it should be brushed aside. I can handle an opinion just not an ignorant who thinks his is more valid. I really didn't care for the MAKO too much either know-it-all. So yeah maybe I can admit I am being somewhat childish, but only because someone else was acting just as much so to get me a little huffed.

Right, apologies than for that childish .gif of mine I agree it was a immature move on my part.

[lukandroll]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

And this this only ONE of many aspects of why I think that; I could also mention the linearity of outcomes in secondary quest and encounters, the linearity of aproachs on any missions,  the ultra defined Good/Evil responses in dialogue, etc.

Mass Effect had that too if you didn't realize.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by that? Since you quoted me on 3 points
If its about the first two, you're wrong, Mass Effect have little more choice, its was little, but it was there. The chance to talk out from battles being one.

[JKoopman]

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Minority? Again how can you prove that? 

Easily:
http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/
http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/

GameSpot's user score for ME1 is 8.9 (PC) and 9.1 (360), while for ME2 is 9.3 (PC) and 9.4 (360)

All that proves is that there are more shooter fans in GameSpot's community than RPG fans, which isn't really surprising as the RPG market has always been smaller than the shooter market. It does nothing to prove that more fans of ME1 approve of the changes made in ME2 than disapprove of them.

DarthCaine wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

No it's just ignorant to say ME2 was just as much of an RPG as ME1.

Other way around son.

Obviously
you have no idea what an RPG is about then. Hate to tell you most
people out there say ME1 was more RPG and ME2 more shooter. In modern
terms that is. We aren't talking about going back to the Fallout 1 days.

Ok, I'll bite, how is ME2 any less of an RPG than ME1 ?

They completely gutted the inventory, weapon and armor stat customization and neutered character development and customization (there are half the number of skills or less for each class as there were in ME1; now you simply get a class skill, 1 or 2 combat abilities and an ammo skill).

ME1 was already RPG-lite. ME2 has become a full-blown shooter with an inconsequential skill upgrade system that ensures that everyone of the same class will have basically identicle characters by endgame. I spent days coming up with unique and fun character builds in ME1. ME2 leaves no room whatsoever for customization.

Does that answer your question?

[slyguy07]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...
Hmm you were the first one on here to post that childish gif and iniate this and impose your "superior" opinion as the one that mattered. I don't think my is anymore valid is just can't stand people who think that it should be brushed aside. I can handle an opinion just not an ignorant who thinks his is more valid. I really didn't care for the MAKO too much either know-it-all. So yeah maybe I can admit I am being somewhat childish, but only because someone else was acting just as much so to get me a little huffed.

Right, apologies than for that childish .gif of mine I agree it was a immature move on my part.

Well I apologzie, too. I just get too heated sometimes. I just really loved ME1 and they removed a few of my fave components. So I apologize to you as well Gorn Kregore.

I would make a terrible politician lol.

[lukandroll]

DarthCaine wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

"I believe ME2 is more a shooter than Action RPG like its predecesor.The chance to hit a target is not represented on the character talents,but yours as a player, that's wrong from a role playing aspect; because you are "role playing" yourself, and not the character. I dont have to go too far away for this, for instance, take FALLOUT 3, even when you aim and shoot with a energy weapon, if your character does not have the right amount of "Energy Weapons" talent, he will miss, that's basic gameplay in a action role playing game. Because THE CHARACTER is not skilled enough to use the weapon, in that case It really DOESN'T matter if you are good or not at aiming, that's why you are role playing the character."

Shepard is a skilled man (or woman). While in ME1 he/she was a noob, in ME2 he's a badass since you spent all your talent points in ME1 on weapon stats so there's no need anymore. Think of it like some parts of your lvl are transfering like in BG2 or DA:O:A

And this this only ONE of many aspects of why I think that; I could also mention the linearity of outcomes in secondary quest and encounters, the linearity of aproachs on any missions,  the ultra defined Good/Evil responses in dialogue, etc.

Those aren't any different than ME1's

1)I'm sorry but that's a poor excuse to a blatant omision. My last ME1 Infiltrator shepard, couldn't hit a cow that's two feets away from him with the AR, my ME2 shepard sundenlty its an expert on all guns and can hit moving targets that are 100 feet away with a weapon he never trained on.

2) And about the linearity, no, those weren't the same in ME1, in ME1 you have more ways to aproach certain missions. It wasn't on all mission, tho.

Modifié par lukandroll, 06 mars 2010 - 04:52 .

[Gorn Kregore]

JKoopman wrote...

All that proves is that there are more shooter fans in GameSpot's community than RPG fans, which isn't really surprising as the RPG market has always been smaller than the shooter market.

So just because people say ME2 is superior than ME1 automatically means they're shooter fans? Sounds pretty biased to me. I admit I've enjoyed some shooters at times (most tend to get old these days) but I have also enjoyed a large portion of RPGs (no not rocket propelled grenades). The RPG market has definately been smaller than the shooter market. 

JKoopman wrote...

It does nothing to prove that more fans of ME1 approve of the changes made in ME2 than disapprove of them.

How would you know that? I'm a fan of ME1 and I approve of the changes made in ME2, hell I even have several friends who approve the changes made to ME2.

[SurfaceBeneath]

JKoopman wrote...
They completely gutted the inventory, weapon and armor stat customization and neutered character development and customization (there are half the number of skills or less for each class as there were in ME1; now you simply get a class skill, 1 or 2 combat abilities and an ammo skill).

ME1 was already RPG-lite. ME2 has become a full-blown shooter with an inconsequential skill upgrade system that ensures that everyone of the same class will have basically identicle characters by endgame. I spent days coming up with unique and fun character builds in ME1. ME2 leaves no room whatsoever for customization.

Does that answer your question?

The inventory, weapon, and armor customization as already so shallow in ME1 as to be non-existent. Armor didn't provide noticible returns on upgrading, or in the soldier and infiltrator's case was redundant since they could have immunity on them nearly perpetually. Everyone just got a Specter weapon after the first mission they ran and then omni-gelled everything but the occassional weapon mod, so in essence 98% of all "loot" in the game was non-existent to the player.

Less skills means jack squat, because leveling up of skills had more noticible improvements in the ME2 system. And in the end, the ME2 system was more customizable than ME1 since in ME1 every character build of every class looked the exact same, which was only compounded by the fact that combat in ME1 was so shallow, any supposed differences you had didn't actually mean a damn because the combat played out the exact same either way! (Combat class: Activate immunty and pretend to be rambo ignoring all cover and just shooting things while invincible... tech/biotic class: spam all of your cooldowns at the enemy and then hide until cooldown. Repeat). Meanwhile there are many successful builds of each class in ME2 that play quite differently from one another (as an example, a close range focused shotgun sentinal or a power using sentinal play like different classes to one another essentially).

So yes, you answered that question with a DERP

[yoomazir]

it's great for that Christina girl,



"she will try to explain how to make extreme changes within your game without "alienating" your core gamers "



Guess what? try harder next time.

[lukandroll]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
They completely gutted the inventory, weapon and armor stat customization and neutered character development and customization (there are half the number of skills or less for each class as there were in ME1; now you simply get a class skill, 1 or 2 combat abilities and an ammo skill).

ME1 was already RPG-lite. ME2 has become a full-blown shooter with an inconsequential skill upgrade system that ensures that everyone of the same class will have basically identicle characters by endgame. I spent days coming up with unique and fun character builds in ME1. ME2 leaves no room whatsoever for customization.

Does that answer your question?

The inventory, weapon, and armor customization as already so shallow in ME1 as to be non-existent. Armor didn't provide noticible returns on upgrading, or in the soldier and infiltrator's case was redundant since they could have immunity on them nearly perpetually. Everyone just got a Specter weapon after the first mission they ran and then omni-gelled everything but the occassional weapon mod, so in essence 98% of all "loot" in the game was non-existent to the player.

Less skills means jack squat, because leveling up of skills had more noticible improvements in the ME2 system. And in the end, the ME2 system was more customizable than ME1 since in ME1 every character build of every class looked the exact same, which was only compounded by the fact that combat in ME1 was so shallow, any supposed differences you had didn't actually mean a damn because the combat played out the exact same either way! (Combat class: Activate immunty and pretend to be rambo ignoring all cover and just shooting things while invincible... tech/biotic class: spam all of your cooldowns at the enemy and then hide until cooldown. Repeat). Meanwhile there are many successful builds of each class in ME2 that play quite differently from one another (as an example, a close range focused shotgun sentinal or a power using sentinal play like different classes to one another essentially).

So yes, you answered that question with a DERP

Well, I don't know where to begin...well

1) The Spectre gear and the colossus wasn't available form the beginning of the game. Even If you were lucky to have a drop with a colussus armor, most of the times it wasn't a Colussus X with the size you wanted. To really get the spectre gear and the best colossus armor, you'd needed to play the game at least 2 times.
2) Skills have more noticeable effects on ME2? Since when??. In ME1 you could change the character's combat combat abilities raising the talents on the different types of weapons, you could improve the abilities on carryng more advanced armor types, and you could increase the character health and resistences.
In ME2 you have 5 skills, that until maxed out, they offer little to no differnce when upgraded. I won't lie, I like the abilitie to choose an especialization on the skills that ME2 offer, but most of the times they are all the same: a) Damage increase  splash damage.
3) If there was any difference between classes that was in ME1, in ME2 my engineer has the same accuracy with AR weapons than my soldier.

Modifié par lukandroll, 06 mars 2010 - 05:09 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Christina Norman: We have replaced the inventory and loot by a system which is much easier to access.  Let me give you an example... Instead of picking up a weapon and put it in the inventory to equip it at a later time at any location you simply have to pick up the research plans of that weapon, scan the surface of planets for resources using a mini-game (that some fans claim to like), select the weapon in a device in the lab on the Normandy to produce it, and walk to the armory on the Normandy to equip it. We envisioned that many players found that last step a bit hard so we scattered devices all around the galaxy that can remotely access the armory of the Normandy automagically. We hired additional level builders to make sure that these devices were strategically placed on nearly any level we build. For those that didn't like scanning we also placed some weapons here and there near those devices that don't need resources and manufacturing. At first you may think that the fans were confused by this new system, but we indoctrinated our most loyal fans to defend this innovation. We at BioWare beleive that other games should implement this great system as well. Thank you for your attention.

[AlanC9]

lukandroll wrote...
1)I'm sorry but that's a poor excuse to a blatant omision. My last ME1 Infiltrator shepard, couldn't hit a cow that's two feets away from him with the AR, my ME2 shepard sundenlty its an expert on all guns and can hit moving targets that are 100 feet away with a weapon he never trained on.

Of course, ME1 was widely criticized for the way it handled classes and weapons. It's kind of hard to justify except as a nod to RPG conventions.

[AlanC9]

yoomazir wrote...

it's great for that Christina girl,

"she will try to explain how to make extreme changes within your game without "alienating" your core gamers "

Guess what? try harder next time.

What percentage should she be shooting for?100% is impossible, obviously.

[CatatonicMan]

I'd say she should probably be talking about how to attract the widest amount of new gamers while alienating the smallest amount of core gamers. Pretending that radical change is possible without angering a portion of the core is an exercise in stupidity.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Everyone's a critic, everything was horrible about the inventory in the first game, I saw everyone here complaining about it.



Soon as they change it, they all cry. I mean seriously, how many times did I see topics about people wanting less useless loot?