1067 réponses à ce sujet

[CanadAvenger]

I agree with OP. I do like the changes they made to the combat system, for the most part. (Though when playing on high difficulties it's still annoying that I have to spend most of my time behind a crate doing potshots.)



And I agree that we need some more story-driven DLC... Guns are nice, but we already have enough. If we were to get another free gun, I suggest an SMG, seeing as how there are only 2 of them currently.

Lots of people don't really use the DLC gear anyways, (specifically the armour - b/c of lack of helmet removal)...



So, we could use some more story-driven DLC. Even if it's one little mission with lots of dialogue. The shooter fans are being kept happy with all of their big shiny guns, so I think now it's the RPG fan's turn... (And I am also a shooter fan too, for perspective)



Hell, I'd be happy with some dialogue additions to the squadmates. Having like 2 or 3 convos with them, and then they refuse to talk? Lame. Garrus is always] calibrating....



Anyways that's my 2 cents.

[Yana Montana]

If DLC's contain any nicely written story my overall ME2 rating will jump from 7.5/10 to 9/10.

[ThePatriot101]

Deltaboy37-1 wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Deltaboy37-1 wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

Couldn't agree more, Shavon. Expanding the game's audience is great and all, but not at the expense of the core fanbase. If Bioware keeps cranking out garbage like this lightning gun nonsense, they're going to reach to reach a point where they'll be losing more customers than they gain. Shooter fans are fickle.... they'll move on to the new hotness, and Bioware will be left scratching their heads, wondering what they did wrong.

Quoted for truth, which is why I am slightly shocked BioWare didn't cater more to the RPG fans. But being a full supporter of BioWare, it makes me concerned, because I know how fickle shooter fans are. Most of them aren't even forumites. They are fly by night fans who jump to one thing and then the next weeks later. I should know, because my second favorite genre is shooters and if it wasn't for my love for RPGs, I'd be playing Bad Company/MW2 and others instead of ME2 right now and looking forward to the many shooters coming out soon.

RPG's are far fewer and in between these days, making it a more valuable market (fan wise, IMO) so the only explanation for catering to the shooter fans is money...and that goes back to my EA reference, although I hate to paint them like that, but it is the goal of most companies.

Even though it makes business sense, I can't wait to find a company that puts customers over money (I know it makes no sense). I know in the long run it will be better though, but most comapnies look for instant gratification.

I would say it's more that the RPG is undergoing some experimentation in combining with other genres and finding things that can work.  JPRGs nowadays are more the standard for typical linear RPGs given that they haven't changed much over the years.  As ME2 has proven you can actually combine the shooter and RPG and make something that is truly remarkable.  And as they have said, much of their changes between ME1 and ME2 was done because fans brought the issues up so I'm pretty sure they are focused on their customers.

I am with you on the fact that combining is good, and I actually think it is great, but then balance becomes a huge issue and I think as far as balance, BioWare has made it painfully clear that the shooter aspect is the golden child in this iteration of the trilogy.

I think if Bioware intended the Mass Effect franchise to be RPG-first/Shooter-second they would still be doing it.  But the shooter aspect is what defines Mass Effect and separates it from other RPGs.  Remember that Bioware is a business and in my opinion (currently working on a Mgmt. Degree) it would be a mistake on Bioware's part to make games that didn't change stuff up or add something new.

[Yana Montana]

If DLC's contain any nicely written story my overall ME2 rating will jump from 7.5/10 to 9/10.

[DigitalMaster37]

Rodriguer2000 wrote...

Deltaboy37-1 wrote...

Rodriguer2000 wrote...

Deltaboy37-1 wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

Couldn't agree more, Shavon. Expanding the game's audience is great and all, but not at the expense of the core fanbase. If Bioware keeps cranking out garbage like this lightning gun nonsense, they're going to reach to reach a point where they'll be losing more customers than they gain. Shooter fans are fickle.... they'll move on to the new hotness, and Bioware will be left scratching their heads, wondering what they did wrong.

Quoted for truth, which is why I am slightly shocked BioWare didn't cater more to the RPG fans. But being a full supporter of BioWare, it makes me concerned, because I know how fickle shooter fans are. Most of them aren't even forumites. They are fly by night fans who jump to one thing and then the next weeks later. I should know, because my second favorite genre is shooters and if it wasn't for my love for RPGs, I'd be playing Bad Company/MW2 and others instead of ME2 right now and looking forward to the many shooters coming out soon.

RPG's are far fewer and in between these days, making it a more valuable market (fan wise, IMO) so the only explanation for catering to the shooter fans is money...and that goes back to my EA reference, although I hate to paint them like that, but it is the goal of most companies.

Even though it makes business sense, I can't wait to find a company that puts customers over money (I know it makes no sense). I know in the long run it will be better though, but most comapnies look for instant gratification.

hmmm didnt it it occur to you that theres people out there that like all types of games.

You're right, but when it comes to RPGs, there is a dedicated fanbase and although not nearly as many the number of shooter fans, we (IMO) are more passionate about our respective genre. RPGs are more personal in the first place, so it draws more patient, intellectual people (no offense shooter only fans). It is a simple fact though. The core shooter fan can care less for story which requires an attention span longer than 1 minute. The core RPG fan can last through a story 60+ hours with a very few combat elements. So yes you are correct that there are many people (like you and myself I assume) that like both genres and have a level of tolerance for long spans of both, but we are the minority in truth I think.

alright i would happily accept more rpg aspects in me 3 as long as they keep the shooter aspects from mass effect 2 in how bout that? can we agree on that? oh yeah i want the cover system to stay too lol:D

Well of course, I never said I wanted them to nix the combat, just show as much love to the RPG and story elements.

[DigitalMaster37]

javierabegazo wrote...

Deltaboy37-1 wrote...


You're right, but when it comes to RPGs, there is a dedicated fanbase and although not nearly as many the number of shooter fans, we (IMO) are more passionate about our respective genre. RPGs are more personal in the first place, so it draws more patient, intellectual people (no offense shooter only fans). It is a simple fact though. The core shooter fan can care less for story which requires an attention span longer than 1 minute. The core RPG fan can last through a story 60+ hours with a very few combat elements. So yes you are correct that there are many people (like you and myself I assume) that like both genres and have a level of tolerance for long spans of both, but we are the minority in truth I think.

While I whole heartedly agree with you, it is the sad truth that there just isn't that much of a market for pure bred RPG's. I think it was pointed out in David Gaider's famous passed along RPG post where he says that AAA games that are high budget can't simply cater to a specific small niche of gaming

Yeah, I know, but it bothers me that everything has to come second to corporate agenda's. I think a good amount of money can be made for a very well made RPG and ME1 proved that IMO. But I guess you're right, it is only delusional for me to hope for anything else.

[ratzerman]

javierabegazo wrote...
Imagine if NONE of the community had complained about the Mako. you can bet we'd probably be driving it right now.

I'd much rather cruise around in the Mako than watch a planet revolve.  I know I'm in the minority, though.

[javierabegazo]

CanadAvenger wrote...

Lots of people don't really use the DLC gear anyways, (specifically the armour - b/c of lack of helmet removal)...

I think that's ONLY true when talking about the DLC Armors, because I use the DLC weapons VERY often, namely the Flamethrower, the Blackstrom, my Incisor rifle, my collector rifle, and the Eviscerator

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

This is it, I dont care that there is a large shooter element to the combat in ME2, the soldier class is all about shooting for crying out loud. Im not saying it should be RPG combat through, Im saying its supposed to be a hybrid of them, and ME2 ISNT!

Take the Adept. Werent they supposed to "control the battlefied"? Well thats crap, since adepts in ME2 do just what soliders do: hunker behind cover and pick off enemies. The difference between the two is, once you "debuff" your enemies, you are instead supposed to wrap them in a singularity/pull them/push them.

Of course by the time youve debuffed them, they are about dead anyway, so it feels cheap. A simple headshot gets the job done far quickly, so it just leaves singularity as a fancy finishing move, instead of an effective way to take enemies out of the battle, like in ME1. (keep in mind, I was playing on insanity almost from the start of ME2 as I can handle high difficultly, and playing on lower difficults is too damn easy, since like I said, its constant finishing moves/headshots)

Im not objecting to shooter elements getting attention, since ME1 was a shooter by and large (heck it forced all classes to carry all weapons, despite them being useless for many).  Its just blatantly obvious that the TPS is the main feature of ME2. If they cant change that for ME3, at least dont BS us with "the RPG elements are still there and improved, only streamlined".

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 09 mars 2010 - 04:23 .

[javierabegazo]

ratzerman wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...
Imagine if NONE of the community had complained about the Mako. you can bet we'd probably be driving it right now.

I'd much rather cruise around in the Mako than watch a planet revolve.  I know I'm in the minority, though.

I ALSO am in that minority.. sadlly

[javierabegazo]

Gazrion wrote...
God i rember the days when you were bloody lucky to get an expension pack after a year or 2. 3-4 months is not very long to wait really

Yup, I give BioWare 3 more months to come out with some story driven DLC. If after that period all we have are 16 heavy weapons, then I'll start shouting

But I am excited for more N7 Armor components on the way  

[Scottthesnow]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Didn't ME1 basically have eight weapons with just variations of stats?  ME2 actually had 19 separate weapons not counting DLC.

ME2 has more like 7 weapons.

Pistol, SMG, Shotgun, Assault rifle, sniper, and heavy weapon. They either have almost duplicate "uprgaded versions" that perform the same task with a slightly different feel, or they have, as I have pointed out already, simply repurposed powers disguised as heavy weapons.

Well, if you count weapon model variations, ME2 has more.  ME1 has far more weapons though, and far more weapon variation.  A lot of criticism comes from ME1 having the spectre class weapons, since they made the others obsolete and useless.  The heavy weapons of ME2 essentially replaced grenades from ME1.  The submachine gun, is absolutely new for ME2.

I like the inventory system.  If you could collect armor peices and use it to modify your squad (which I thought is what they were going to do before I bought the game) they would have had a better solution than the moutain slide of armor and equipment from the ME1.  As ME2 stands though, I have to say ME1 is better beyond the refined combat  and AI.

The ammo is the hokey mokey of this game.  All the weapons use the same ammo, from the submachine gun to the Revenant machine gun , to the Widow anti-material shoulder cannon.  The game vaunts the new ammo as "heat sinks", but they function like ammo ammounts not as any extension from the dynamic of ME1. The RPG player of me thinks its annoying micromanagement, and the tactical shooter in me thinks its simply retarded. Then all the heavy weapons use the same ammo, from grenade launchers to partical beams.  Then there is the gas mask business, the truncated character skill selection, and planet scanning.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

I also miss the MAKO, and it looks like the Hammerhead wont provide anywhere near the same experience that the MAKO offered and that I enjoyed. From the vid it looks something like Wipeout, and not something that will let you explore a hostile world. At least not without "blowing **** up at high speed".

[javierabegazo]

Scottthesnow wrote...

 the truncated character skill selection

I still don't understand how people would be upset with how the character skill bars have been truncated.

In ME1, a skill bar was 12 different levels, but only 3 noticable differences. The rest of the bars were incredibly minute improvements such as +5% accuracy (which I thought was INCREDIBLY lame)

I thought it was just wierd how in Fallout 3, a skill consisted of points from 1 to 100, but you really saw not much difference at all between 14 and 23.

One thing that irks me is how Squad Member skills were cut down. only 3 active skills? I really was expecting 4 or 5

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Scottthesnow wrote...

*snip*

This is why people are so fond of using the apt blanket statement that ME2 is hugely "dumbed down".

And its true. They even insult me by colour coding the powers for their stupid rock/paper/scissor system. I dont know what kind of idiots you were developing this game for Bioware, but if they cant even remember what limited methods affect shields and barriers and armour, I question how they could even put the game in the PC/console.

[sonsonthebia07]

Yana Montana wrote...

Combat was improved in ME2-hurray! But now I have to spend 90% of my game hiding behind crates playing a VANGUARD-tedious.
New characters-hurray! One freaking dialgue and then they refuse to talk to my desperate Shep-lame.
New story twists-hurray! Wait, have we actually had any?-uber-lame.
I WANT STORY AND ROLE-PLAYING NOT ANOTHER BIG GUN DLC, BioWare!

This is much less realistic than waltzing around the battlefield, keeping barrier up, and totally disregarding any sort of cover at all like in ME1, right?

And for the record, if you are spending 90% of the game in cover, you are doing something wrong.