271 réponses à ce sujet

[Murmillos]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

Good luck trying to determine whoms to judge "the best"..  the shooterist and RPG fans favor different aspects of the game differently.  Some see ME1 as the better game in need of tweaks instead of the featured hack and slash ME2 offered; others see ME2 the better game in every way, 100% - no questions ask no looking back.

Modifié par Murmillos, 07 mars 2010 - 11:38 .

[CLime]

Andy_Haugh wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

But it hasn't been "simplified", there are undeniably, more weapons now than there were in the past. Before, the weapons were only reskins that in form and function were the exact same...

Actually, I will go ahead and deny that, because it's just not true. Did you ever play ME1?

Did you?  ME1 had more weapons only in purely nominal terms.  If you think the Kessler I, Kessler II, and Striker I were different weapons, they're not.  I would bet good money that an ME1 vet could not identify any given ME1 weapon without looking at the model or menu, and that an ME2 player could identify any ME2 weapon (outside perhaps the SMGs and Mantis/Widow) just by how it feels to shoot.  If anyone thinks the Mantis and the Viper are the same weapon, then... I don't know.  I suppose I would be surprised they are able to use a forum at all.

Murmillos wrote...

Here is a interesting idea, play ME1
with out using the Spectre weapon, and as a added fun, don't use the
Colossus armor also - nor mod out your weapons to be endless never over
heating weapons. Just because you can get the Spectre weapon, its feels
better to complete the game with out having to resort to it.

I
do like that for ME2, that weapons have some further depth to them
(hand cannons for the Armor, SMG for the Barriers/Shields, AR all
around, etc.etc.)

I mean, the whole "loot" system could have
been changed to satisfy most RPG'ers "loot" requirement by getting
changing the "damage upgrade" system and replaced it with finding
weapons. Same thing in the end, but it gives the illusion of upgrading
with better weapons - which you can just then replicate back on
Normady. That is what is missing from ME2 - instead, its a generic
upgrade system which just takes something from the whole feeling of ME2
which we were given in ME1.

Also, they still needed to diversify
the weapons they did have in ME2. They almost have it right with the
AR's and SG's.. but it could have been better. They could have had more
diverse feeling models between each weapon of the same group. A weapon
that favors one of its stat above all others (damage, range, heat-sink
efficiency) and one overall balanced one. This would give players more
choices in matching weapons to their game play.

You could also play ME1 without spending any talent points, but that wouldn't mean the game itself wasn't much less challenging than ME2.  Self-imposed limits generally cheapen the sense of accomplishment.  I feel better when I beat an inherently difficult game using every resource available than when I beat an easy one while intentionally making subpar decisions.

I find claims of "dumbing down" hard to believe when you could easily complete ME1 without ever using the cover mechanic or microing squad abilities.  ME1 threw a lot more junk at you, but the incentive to use any of it was pretty low.  ME2 has less junk, but you've got to be able to master the junk you've got.  That should be on the game box.  ME2: Master Your Junk

Sure, even more variety would have been better, but Time Machines Inc. doesn't deliver to Canada.  There's always room for improvement, but development time is finite.  I feel the current weapon system fulfilled the standard set by Bioware's past games.

Terror_K wrote...

And how is that different from most RPG's,
exactly? A whole bunch of items of the same type that you look at and
compare between them stat-wise and then choose the best one until a
better one comes along. Yeah... that's pretty much how these games are supposed to work. Of course, ME2 makes the decision for you automatically with its pitiful selection.

Most RPGs don't hand you the Uber Sword of Godslaying in the first quarter of the game.  Most RPGs don't innundate you with Pointy Sticks of Impotence after handing you said sword.

ME1's weapons may have had little variety, but that wasn't the main problem.  If the game had actually given you one worthwhile weapon every ten crates instead of ten useless weapons every one crate, the illusion wouldn't have been so transparent.

I'd refute the ME2 selection comment yet again, but I feel like if I beat this dead horse anymore I'll have PETA kicking my door down..

Food for thought: The assumption that the shooter genre is "dumber" than the RPG genre is, in a word, elitist.

Modifié par CLime, 07 mars 2010 - 11:43 .

[slyguy07]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

This. At the very least give 5 weapons of each type (maybe not for HW though) and make the last 2 exceptionally unique...and harder to obtain. Each weapon should be upgradeable and customizable, too. Some people just don't like the color gray out there. Or Red.

[CaptainZaysh]

I much prefer the new inventory system to ME1's. Looting every single dead body and looking inside random crates for valuables does not contribute to the story for me. If anything, I wish Shepard didn't spend so much time stealing money from wall safes in ME2.



I really don't understand why people are yearning once more for the days when you'd carry around 37 slightly different assault rifles.

[Pedro Costa]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

One man's gold is often another's trash, tho... =S

[slyguy07]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I much prefer the new inventory system to ME1's. Looting every single dead body and looking inside random crates for valuables does not contribute to the story for me. If anything, I wish Shepard didn't spend so much time stealing money from wall safes in ME2.

I really don't understand why people are yearning once more for the days when you'd carry around 37 slightly different assault rifles.

 
He's on a mission to save humanity he needs all the money he can get! Even if he is a paragon stealing some poor people's hard earned money!

end /sarcasm

[Murmillos]

CLime wrote...

You could also play ME1 without spending any talent points, but that wouldn't mean the game itself wasn't much less challenging than ME2.  Self-imposed limits generally cheapen the sense of accomplishment.  I feel better when I beat an inherently difficult game using every resource available than when I beat an easy one while intentionally making subpar decisions.

What I mean is, if using Weapon X or Skill X trivializes the game play, don't whine about it, just don't use it.  You are taking a simple don't use X because X makes the game too simple into, don't use anything better or any improvement at all.

Most RPGs don't hand you the Uber Sword of Godslaying in the first quarter of the game.  Most RPGs don't innundate you with Pointy Sticks of Impotence after handing you said sword.

ME1's weapons may have had little variety, but that wasn't the main problem.  If the game had actually given you one worthwhile weapon every ten crates instead of ten useless weapons every one crate, the illusion wouldn't have been so transparent.

I'd refute the ME2 selection comment yet again, but I feel like if I beat this dead horse anymore I'll have PETA kicking my door down.

Again, that was the problem with the ME1 loot system - not the over all mechanics of a loot system. If ME1 didn't allow you to get the uber weapon within the first 1/4 of the game, and didn't drop 20 weapons every time you killed 4 enemies, ME1 system would have NOT been as bad as it was. There was a glut and item budget balancing issue. If that had been noticed/fixed/tweaked before the game shipped - then I am willing to safely say people would not have had a problem with ME1 loot system - and may have enjoyed it and not complained about it.

That's what ME2 should have fixed - not scrapped.

[MarloMarlo]

Terror_K wrote...
Somehow the ME1 main quests despite technically being like this simply felt more real and less forced and gamey, IMO.

Big surprise that the only difference between ME1's and ME2's level designs that somehow makes ME1's levels feel more real and less forced than ME2's, despite being pretty much the same, is that ME1's levels were in ME1 and ME2's were in ME2.

[CLime]

[quote]Murmillos wrote...

[quote]CLime wrote...

You could also play ME1 without spending any talent points, but that wouldn't mean the game itself wasn't much less challenging than ME2.  Self-imposed limits generally cheapen the sense of accomplishment.  I feel better when I beat an inherently difficult game using every resource available than when I beat an easy one while intentionally making subpar decisions.
[/quote]

What I mean is, if using Weapon X or Skill X trivializes the game play, don't whine about it, just don't use it.  You are taking a simple don't use X because X makes the game too simple into, don't use anything better or any improvement at all.[/quote]

[quote]

I enjoy the challenge of finding the most effective builds to beat a challenging game.  If the best build is not only immediately apparent, but also trivializes the game, then a lot of that fun disappears.  I'm more forgiving if the brokeness owes to an exploit or very specific combo, but the Immunity, Barrier, and Biotic spam builds in ME1 were neither of those, nor were the HWM weapons.

[quote][quote]Most RPGs don't hand you the Uber Sword of Godslaying in the first quarter of the game.  Most RPGs don't innundate you with Pointy Sticks of Impotence after handing you said sword.

ME1's weapons may have had little variety, but that wasn't the main problem.  If the game had actually given you one worthwhile weapon every ten crates instead of ten useless weapons every one crate, the illusion wouldn't have been so transparent.

I'd refute the ME2 selection comment yet again, but I feel like if I beat this dead horse anymore I'll have PETA kicking my door down.
[/quote]

Again, that was the problem with the ME1 loot system - not the over all mechanics of a loot system. If ME1 didn't allow you to get the uber weapon within the first 1/4 of the game, and didn't drop 20 weapons every time you killed 4 enemies, ME1 system would have NOT been as bad as it was. There was a glut and item budget balancing issue. If that had been noticed/fixed/tweaked before the game shipped - then I am willing to safely say people would not have had a problem with ME1 loot system - and may have enjoyed it and not complained about it.

That's what ME2 should have fixed - not scrapped.[/quote]

Sure, both games' systems could be better, but I feel like ME2's has more potential than ME1's.  I would rather keep a small set of unique weapons the entire game than upgrade the same one weapon many times.

It's the same principle as the planet exploration, really.  A small handful of unique areas are preferrable to dozens of copies of the same rocky planet and lone space warehouse.

Modifié par CLime, 07 mars 2010 - 12:02 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Murmillos wrote...

That's what ME2 should have fixed - not scrapped.

Last time Bioware did a decent inventory system, it was Baldur's Gate 2 ten years ago. KOTOR, ME, and Dragon Age all have terrible inventories.

The new inventory is great. It's more realistic, avoids unncessary clutter, and keeps you in the action. What ME3 needs to do is to allow you to pick up or research modular add ons to attach to your weapons, that way you can have differentiation of weapon types and further customization while still avoiding inventory clutter.

[Murmillos]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

That's what ME2 should have fixed - not scrapped.

Last time Bioware did a decent inventory system, it was Baldur's Gate 2 ten years ago. KOTOR, ME, and Dragon Age all have terrible inventories.

The new inventory is great. It's more realistic, avoids unncessary clutter, and keeps you in the action. What ME3 needs to do is to allow you to pick up or research modular add ons to attach to your weapons, that way you can have differentiation of weapon types and further customization while still avoiding inventory clutter.

All inventory systems have minor issues, ME1 just had a bigger issues with it because it literally overwhelmed you very quickly - for very little benefit over the course of the game. If ME1 had 1/10th of the physical weapon drops (and items), and restricted the "uber" Spectre weapons until you've completed 3 or 4 core worlds, then ME1 system would have been like every other known loot system; "bearable". If it had a slightly better sorting system for the upgrades (putting items in order of name and then item rank) it would have as perfect as it could get for inventory systems.

ME2 doesn't have an inventory system - never once do you carry anything with you, and swap to it when you want it.
It has a selection screen. A selection screen is not a inventory system. (it is in the direct literal meaning - but not as a typical game play system).

Yes, what they did for the ME2 weapons is nice, but that differs from the inventory system. They could have had the same weapons, same strength and weaknesses, but provided actual found weapons in the real world - thus giving the proper illusion of loot.

[SithLordExarKun]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

One man's gold is often another's trash, tho... =S

Good point, but i am starting to believe that even if bioware made the game "perfect", people are still going to whine.

If bioware makes ME3 more like ME1, the shooter fans get angry, if they make ME3 more like ME2, the "core" rpg fanbase will get angry.

Heres the thing, you can never please everybody regardless of  how well you do things, there will always be people that don't like it and criticise you.

[slyguy07]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

DarkLord_PT wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

One man's gold is often another's trash, tho... =S

Good point, but i am starting to believe that even if bioware made the game "perfect", people are still going to whine.

If bioware makes ME3 more like ME1, the shooter fans get angry, if they make ME3 more like ME2, the "core" rpg fanbase will get angry.

Heres the thing, you can never please everybody regardless of  how well you do things, there will always be people that don't like it and criticise you.

That's the thing no game can be perfect so BW needs to compromise somewhere in there without pissing one crowd or the other off too much. That may be impossible to do though. Seriously biotics and tech need a good critque by the gameplay designers. Charge, warp, and pull were good. The rest were useless on hardcore or above. Overload and incinerate. That's all there is to being a tech. Cryoblast was useless compared to Cryo squad ammo. AI hack was ok. Not great. But I digress.

People will always point out the flaws. It's human nature. The way they go about that makes them look either genuinely concerned or outright childish.

[SithLordExarKun]

Yeah that will be almost impossible to do, someone at the end of the day is still doing to be unhappy despite whatever changes are going to be implemented to the game mechanics.

[Vena_86]

Murmillos wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

Good luck trying to determine whoms to judge "the best"..  the shooterist and RPG fans favor different aspects of the game differently.  Some see ME1 as the better game in need of tweaks instead of the featured hack and slash ME2 offered; others see ME2 the better game in every way, 100% - no questions ask no looking back.

Mass effect 2 has some clear improvements nobody argues about. The shooter parts feel and play better than before. The Normandy is more interesting.
The N7 missions are a good new addition such as the customizable armor of Sheppard but that brings me to my main point. All of those good things could have been implemented without sacrificing anything good from ME1.

An inventory that automaticly chooses the best item of a type for you and your team is possibly while maintaining the ability to have a choice and make strategic decisions for those palyers that want to.
The N7 missions could have been a new addition instead of a replacement. Having improved Mako missions with improved controls and N7 missions both would be far better than just having one type....again. Everyone could play both or those which they prefer.
Customizable armor is great but why just for sheppard? Why just one set? And why not with more pro/con tradeoffs for rewarding decision making?
Why are the weapon upgrades through research (good basic idea) so straight forward that again you as a player a stripped of any decision making?

There are so many things that can work together in harmony, leaving very little room for complains and even having the chance to attract players to game aspects which they dismissed before without forcing it. BioWare took the easy way out and decided for one side.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Murmillos wrote...
ME2 doesn't have an inventory system - never once do you carry anything with you, and swap to it when you want it.
It has a selection screen. A selection screen is not a inventory system. (it is in the direct literal meaning - but not as a typical game play system).

Yes, what they did for the ME2 weapons is nice, but that differs from the inventory system. They could have had the same weapons, same strength and weaknesses, but provided actual found weapons in the real world - thus giving the proper illusion of loot.

I define "good" inventory as inventory that has a tangible impact on the gameplay. The inventory's in the games I listed were glorified bags of holding with an arbitrary item limit and little organization. They felt like a product of the genre and I suppose on some level consoles can probably be blamed for the transition as they had to simplify inventory mananagement due to the absence of a mouse to effectively manage loot. In fact, I'd argue that no console game has really done inventory "right" (that I can think of off the top of my head) in that it felt like a real, tangible thing you carried with you. I still feel Dragon Age would be a superior game if your characters carried around loot and had weight encumberance... but maybe that's just me.

In any case, define "Inventory"? Does an inventory have to be navigated with menus? Is that the definition of an inventory? Because most adventure games have inventory, and that amounts to little more than a list of items you can use off to one side of the screen.

In ME2 you pick up credits/resources, Medi-gel, and heavy weapon ammo around, and can switch between 3 and 6 weapons. In function, they essentially stripped the inventory from your character and placed it on the Normandy. This makes more intuitive sense to me as a player. It's a "different" inventory, and definitely stripped to the core
basics, but I wouldn't say that it is not an inventory system at all. And, to me, it certainly beats half assing inventory due to consolization

[SurfaceBeneath]

Vena_86 wrote...
There are so many things that can work together in harmony, leaving very little room for complains and even having the chance to attract players to game aspects which they dismissed before without forcing it. BioWare took the easy way out and decided for one side.

I do believe that you are wrong sir. The new systems showed a lot of work and a fundamental redesign from the ground up is always more difficult than slight tweaking. They clearly wanted to change the way the game played rather than just alter its more frusterating parts. That's not the easy way out. Most would define that as the opposite.

I feel that Mass Effect 2 is a near perfect combination of Action and RPG. It really walks the tightrope and does not slip to either side.

[Seraphael]

Nice flamewar we've got going. I'm looking forward to Christina Normans lecture.

Murmillos wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.

Good luck trying to determine whoms to judge "the best"..  the shooterist and RPG fans favor different aspects of the game differently.  Some see ME1 as the better game in need of tweaks instead of the featured hack and slash ME2 offered; others see ME2 the better game in every way, 100% - no questions ask no looking back.

Now, to be fair the shooter fans really isn't here to voice their opinion nearly as much as RPG fans. Also, it's not mutually exclusive to like one or the other aspect. Quite a few of ME2's detractors seem to fail understanding that simple fact while also failing to realize that they are merely in a vocal minority. Guess it's easier to make sweeping generalizations to make sense of the universe. It's also human nature to complain, and not as much to show appreciation.

ME2 is clearly the better game by any objective standard. It is (or will be given time) a better commercial success, it has won more critical acclaim, and it is in general better liked by gamers (evident in sales and user ratings).

I'm a roleplaying purist (that rarely buy shooters) and value what furthers actual roleplaying (story, characters, interaction) over being constrained to the entire smorgasbord of traditional RPG-elements (loot, micromanagement). What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

Modifié par Seraphael, 07 mars 2010 - 01:41 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Seraphael wrote...
What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

*high fives*

Mass Effect 2 is probably going to squeeze in the middle of my top 10 games ever list. The only games I can think of off the top of my head that I do like more are Torment and Baldur's Gate (2 infinity engine RPGs) and XCom UFO Defense and Alpha Centauri (2 turn based micromanage heavy games). Clearly I consider myself more of an RPG/strategy gamer, yet Mass Effect 2 is just so well done and fun that it defies my normal genre preference and places itself high on my favorite games ever list.

[Seraphael]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Seraphael wrote...
What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

*high fives*

Mass Effect 2 is probably going to squeeze in the middle of my top 10 games ever list. The only games I can think of off the top of my head that I do like more are Torment and Baldur's Gate (2 infinity engine RPGs) and XCom UFO Defense and Alpha Centauri (2 turn based micromanage heavy games). Clearly I consider myself more of an RPG/strategy gamer, yet Mass Effect 2 is just so well done and fun that it defies my normal genre preference and places itself high on my favorite games ever list.

If you by strategy don't include most RTS, we certainly like the same genres and pretty much the exact same games.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Seraphael wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Seraphael wrote...
What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

*high fives*

Mass Effect 2 is probably going to squeeze in the middle of my top 10 games ever list. The only games I can think of off the top of my head that I do like more are Torment and Baldur's Gate (2 infinity engine RPGs) and XCom UFO Defense and Alpha Centauri (2 turn based micromanage heavy games). Clearly I consider myself more of an RPG/strategy gamer, yet Mass Effect 2 is just so well done and fun that it defies my normal genre preference and places itself high on my favorite games ever list.

If you by strategy don't include most RTS, we certainly like the same genres and pretty much the exact same games.

Heh. I had a phase were I really liked RTS games during the early 2000s. Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Age of Empires 2. Oh and Homeworld. I think Homeworld is in my top 10 too. God I would kill for another Homeworld.

Since then though, the genre really lost its luster. Haven't really loved an RTS since... 2002 maybe?

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 07 mars 2010 - 01:55 .

[SithLordExarKun]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Seraphael wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Seraphael wrote...
What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

*high fives*

Mass Effect 2 is probably going to squeeze in the middle of my top 10 games ever list. The only games I can think of off the top of my head that I do like more are Torment and Baldur's Gate (2 infinity engine RPGs) and XCom UFO Defense and Alpha Centauri (2 turn based micromanage heavy games). Clearly I consider myself more of an RPG/strategy gamer, yet Mass Effect 2 is just so well done and fun that it defies my normal genre preference and places itself high on my favorite games ever list.

If you by strategy don't include most RTS, we certainly like the same genres and pretty much the exact same games.

Heh. I had a phase were I really liked RTS games during the early 2000s. Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Age of Empires 2. Oh and Homeworld. I think Homeworld is in my top 10 too. God I would kill for another Homeworld.

Since then though, the genre really lost its luster. Haven't really loved an RTS since... 2002 maybe?

Not a fan of world in conflict or company of heroes?

[SurfaceBeneath]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Not a fan of world in conflict or company of heroes?

Have not played either. I actually haven't even looked in the general direction of RTS games at all in half a decade. I'm sure there are some great ones out there if I gave them my time, I just have a hard time working up the motivation to actually get into one again

[Vena_86]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Seraphael wrote...
What makes an RPG for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a good game.

*high fives*

Mass Effect 2 is probably going to squeeze in the middle of my top 10 games ever list. The only games I can think of off the top of my head that I do like more are Torment and Baldur's Gate (2 infinity engine RPGs) and XCom UFO Defense and Alpha Centauri (2 turn based micromanage heavy games). Clearly I consider myself more of an RPG/strategy gamer, yet Mass Effect 2 is just so well done and fun that it defies my normal genre preference and places itself high on my favorite games ever list.

What makes a good game for me isn't nearly as interesting as what makes a great experience.