1067 réponses à ce sujet

[EternalWolfe]

rabidhanar wrote...

Story plot in general is a big let down to me in the second game. The first blew me away, yes it was mostly all cliches but the plot felt alive and fresh. I actually couldn't guess how the ending was going to be until the last two levels. The second, you know basically exactly what is going to happen. Shepard wins, threat removed, known threat removed at that. From the second "mission" on freedom's progress you know who the true "bad guys" are and you know that shepard will win.

Without spoiling here, some of the plot seemed like it was created on flawed ideas. The final boss, in particular, was so stupid that I rarely beat the game anymore. The dedicated team at bioware seemed to drop the ball near the end of their game.

The problem is, its the sequel.  We already know who the big bad is, and no matter what front they put up, we are going to know what's going on.  I personally think they made a mistake in the first game, letting us know who the true enemy is.  We should have only had an inkling of something much more dangerous behind Saren, and the truth should have come up in the second instead, with the third being the epic conclusion battle.

Although I do admit the first story was better, overall.  The second one lacked cohesion - the story didn't flow quite as well as the first games.  Plus making the majority of the game Get Party Memebers and Make Members Happy loses some of the feel of the first game.  I'd rather get all my character's throughout the main story, rather then having unreleated story portions created just to recruit them(like Thane's for instance) - letting me both gain my members and further the main plot at the same time.

[-System]

EternalWolfe wrote...

rabidhanar wrote...

Story plot in general is a big let down to me in the second game. The first blew me away, yes it was mostly all cliches but the plot felt alive and fresh. I actually couldn't guess how the ending was going to be until the last two levels. The second, you know basically exactly what is going to happen. Shepard wins, threat removed, known threat removed at that. From the second "mission" on freedom's progress you know who the true "bad guys" are and you know that shepard will win.

Without spoiling here, some of the plot seemed like it was created on flawed ideas. The final boss, in particular, was so stupid that I rarely beat the game anymore. The dedicated team at bioware seemed to drop the ball near the end of their game.

The problem is, its the sequel.  We already know who the big bad is, and no matter what front they put up, we are going to know what's going on.  I personally think they made a mistake in the first game, letting us know who the true enemy is.  We should have only had an inkling of something much more dangerous behind Saren, and the truth should have come up in the second instead, with the third being the epic conclusion battle.

Although I do admit the first story was better, overall.  The second one lacked cohesion - the story didn't flow quite as well as the first games.  Plus making the majority of the game Get Party Memebers and Make Members Happy loses some of the feel of the first game.  I'd rather get all my character's throughout the main story, rather then having unreleated story portions created just to recruit them(like Thane's for instance) - letting me both gain my members and further the main plot at the same time.

I agree. I enjoyed ME2 a lot, but it definitely could have had better flow. I think the third installment will surprise us. I also think BW will take the time to go through these threads and try to make as many people happy as possible for the last game.

EDIT: However, some people need to realize that it's impossible to please everyone.

Modifié par -System, 10 avril 2010 - 01:40 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Its not just the inventory. I can count about half-a-dozen things that ME1 did that could have been done better and were flawed, but I can count about a dozen things that ME2 did that were just plain awful and/or horribly dumbed-down, I don't know why BioWare went in that directly from a quality and depth standpoint (I can, however, see why they did it from a money-making and popularity standpoint).

With the existence of a whole lot of dialog, multiple and altering powers, and punishing the standard shooter mentality (spoiler alert: suicide mission), I really feel saying "it's made for the masses" can only go so far.

A lot of "deh kidz" like Master Chief because he's a guy that always gets stuff done. Shepard is an awesome character too, but you can mess it up and the standard "blam blam" mentality may not be able to comprehend that, and instead go "WHY I DIE LAME ENDING".

I never said BioWare went the whole way, but that doesn't mean they didn't take the second game more in that direction. I think they were trying to please both parties if they could, not realising that it's not entirely possible. In the end they went too far to trying to bring in the mainstream gamer... the fact that the design screams that they're almost embarrassed of its RPG nature is evidence enough for that in my books.

Tirigon wrote...

And what, exactly, would these things be?

1) An overall design and presentation that screams that the devs are embarrassed that this is an RPG and try to hide that fact whenever possible, making ME2 come across like "Fisher Price: My First RPG (But be quiet! I don't want people to know I'm playing something with numbers involved!)"
2) A kick in the balls to the lore with their horrid thermal clip system that presents itself with more holes than a moth-eaten lace tablecloth at a shooting range.
3) An almost complete disregard and pushing into the background of even ME1's seemingly most crucial decisions.
4) A complete unaccounting of several key ME1 import decisions and weak substitutions instead of actual differences.
5) A complete elimination of armour classes, skill-based decryption and hacking, healing or anything else previously skill-based that wasn't combat.
6) A jarring and awkward "Mission Complete" screen in place of naturally earning XP as you go.
7) One of the absolute worst HUDs in gaming history... made even worse in that it replaced one of gaming's better HUDs, which was as far as I can tell never complained about by anybody. Just one of many cases of something that wasn't even broken being "fixed" by the ME2 team.
8) A tiny handful of weapons that are completely devoid of any stats whatsoever.
9) A tiny selection of armours that are completely devoid of any stats whatsoever.
10) A collection of DLC and Promo/Pre-Order armours that are a single piece and can only be that way.
11) A complete lack of inventory beyond the small selection of linear weapons and armour above which are always in the same place and always the same.
12) Modding weapons and armour =  scrapped.
13) Mako replaced by action-oriented DLC vehicle that misses the point of vehicle exploration entirely and proves that even an awful HUD (like ME2's on-foot one) is better than no HUD whatsoever.
14) The lazy, tacked-on feeling N7 missions had that lacked proper polish, despite being more varied than their ME1 counterparts.
15) Complete inability to customise team-members beyond which gun their holding.
16) Awful character-creation system from a design standpoint. While this was in ME1 too admittedly, the fact that so much that didn't need fixing got "fixed" in ME2 and yet this remained in such a broken state is unforgivable.
17) Unskippable opening that goes for 15 minutes before you can do anything. Point #16 doesn't help either.

and while this last one wasn't a complete failure and entirely awful, I have to mention it:-

18) A complete scrapping of statistical-based shooting in favour of purely skill-based shooter combat.

Also, what makes you think ME would be more RPG if these things weren´t "awful"?

ME1 is more of an RPG, or is at least better at it. It has far more things determined and governed by stats. As I said in another topic if ME2 weren't lesser an RPG than the original game, people wouldn't keep posting topics and responses about it being as such, reviewers wouldn't have mentioned the RPG elements taking a back seat despite their lauding and Christina Norman and BioWare themselves wouldn't have outright admitted as such. Whether one thinks its an improvement or not, its a stone cold fact. You're free to think that the game is better off for it, that's your opinion, but to deny that its the case is just outright wrong.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I never said BioWare went the whole way, but that doesn't mean they didn't take the second game more in that direction. I think they were trying to please both parties if they could, not realising that it's not entirely possible. In the end they went too far to trying to bring in the mainstream gamer.

Bioware could make the most action-packed, flawless, and epic combat system in the world - and it *still* wouldn't attract the "mainstream gamer" because it isn't completely A -> B, and filled to the brim with conversation. One can only press X so often to skip the dialog, and doing so can usually result in you doing something you wouldn't want to with the chance of Shepard coming off as a schizophrenic character. A mainstream hero that does not make, especially when he dies. I also counted about nearly five things in that entire list that were understandable to be upset at, the rest - including and not limited to the HUD, character development, and otherwise - were completely subjective.

Do I feel a different "change of gears" with ME2? Definitely, but one I feel for the best. Bioware has been having a lot of trouble developing their own systems in regards to functional mechanics and/or how it affects the game as a whole: Jade Empire, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all suffer from glaring imbalance issues, leading to an incredibly boring game. With ME2 they're actually starting to make things a bit more enjoyable, and it's possibly the most challenging Bioware game I've played since BG2. Looking forward to an increase in depth in ME3.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 avril 2010 - 07:48 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Do I feel a different "change of gears" with ME2? Definitely, but one I feel for the best. Bioware has been having a lot of trouble developing their own systems in regards to functional mechanics and/or how it affects the game as a whole: Jade Empire, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all suffer from glaring imbalance issues, leading to an incredibly boring game. With ME2 they're actually starting to make things a bit more enjoyable, and it's possibly the most challenging Bioware game I've played since BG2. Looking forward to an increase in depth in ME3.

That's entirely subjective though, because I personally feel that Jade Empire, Dragon Age (particularly so) and the original Mass Effect were far less boring and far more enjoyable than Mass Effect 2 was. Yes, I'll admit they all have their flaws with balancing (ironically, DA:O was better balanced when it first came out before the patch made everything easier) but they at least still stick to a proper RPG system, as opposed to throwing that aside and mostly falling back on tired old shooter mechanics and making sure that a five year old wouldn't get confused by anything. There are a lot of people out there who find ME2 to be BioWare's weakest game yet.

[Tawg]

Are you allowed to try and debase someone's argument based on subjectivity while following up with 'I feel'?

The game is enjoyable, and while I agree that the RPG elements were rather r4p3d (The new equipment system rips at my heart) it's still an amazing game, hell, I'd even say it's kinda fun to be able to play /one game/ over multiple genres like this.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

That's entirely subjective though, because I personally feel that Jade Empire, Dragon Age (particularly so) and the original Mass Effect were far less boring and far more enjoyable than Mass Effect 2 was. Yes, I'll admit they all have their flaws with balancing (ironically, DA:O was better balanced when it first came out before the patch made everything easier) but they at least still stick to a proper RPG system, as opposed to throwing that aside and mostly falling back on tired old shooter mechanics and making sure that a five year old wouldn't get confused by anything. There are a lot of people out there who find ME2 to be BioWare's weakest game yet.

What defines "proper"? I'd agree if it means *striving* to be an RPG, otherwise I really beg to differ.

Dragon Age: Origins doesn't suffer from just balancing, it suffers from nasty unqueable combat and rather boring leveling curves: as a Mage you benefit best from maxing evenly Willpower and Magic while having a large degree of freedom into which spells you want. Warriors have *no* interesting level curve whatsoever, since it's incredibly ineffective to "dual-spec" because zero abilities crossover. Rogues are stuck a bit like the Wars but not as deeply.

ME1's combat largely suffered due to gross imbalances that could turn the game into an AFK-fest (hence why I find it ironic when you consider
ME2 to be "newbie friendly!") , but add in a pointless gear curve, unexplained mechanics and straight-forward character progression and it only looked intriguing at first appearance.

How the **** could you find Jade Empire *more* appealing than Mass Effect 2? Combat devolved into dodge-dodge-dodge-dodge-hit-repeat, the only thing to look forward to in upping your skills was more damage, and the only form of customization was which ones you wanted to do the most damage.

Maybe it's that some people would rather have any traditional RPG systems over none, but ME2 is truly when Bioware has been able to mix their great characterizations, story-telling, and character development with gameplay that matches. They finally reached what they had been aiming for with ME1: a true action-RPG, one that has a lot of tactical depth, and actually presents somewhat of a challenge.

[Meglivorn]

Just a note: playing dragon age right now. And to tell the truth I'm totally fed up with the inventory always full of junk, the totally same (ugly) armors only different by a bit and always checking who can wear what and is it worth it, the skills I know I will never use.

I'm interested in the story, and character developement, the decisions I make. And not least how she or he looks. But totally annoyed the pointless tetris with skills and junk, only there becouse "the genre says so".



So, I'll stay with the way ME2 is. No crap, just the story and the game.

[Terror_K]

I'm just giving an example that shows its entirely a matter of opinion as to how enjoyable the game is and/or how boring it is. Pocketgb thinks ME2 is more enjoyable than Jade Empire, DAO and the original Mass Effect. I personally find DAO and the original Mass Effect to be more enjoyable than ME2 (Jade Empire is a gray-area really. There's less that annoys me in JE than there is in ME2 and I find JE a less flawed game, but I by far prefer the ME universe and ME2 is presented far better.). The point is, its a matter of opinion as to which game(s) are better or more enjoyable.



I personally wouldn't call ME2 an amazing game. Its RPG content is severely limited and its shooter stuff is pretty damn generic. Its mostly held up by the third aspect it possesses: the presentation and interactive movie features, which are absolutely fantastic. But these don't make a game. Even the original Mass Effect was held up by these aspects to rise it above its flaws, but those flaws were a product of it at least trying to work as an RPG, rather than giving up and going for tired shooter mechanics that are only less flawed because they're so simple its hard to mess them up.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Even the original Mass Effect was held up by these aspects to rise it above its flaws, but those flaws were a product of it at least trying to work as an RPG, rather than giving up and going for tired shooter mechanics that are only less flawed because they're so simple its hard to mess them up.

How come whenever someone says ME2 has "tired shooter mechanics", they forgot the depth of customizing their armor (plop 20% more HP on your vanguard, see the difference), the amount of abilities you can use to alter the battlefield (going against Vorcha on Insanity with nothing but overload and shield disruption = groan), simply leveling your character with numerous paths and classes, and the wide assortment of enemy types with varying defenses - all which, I remind you, mold to make ME2's combat one of the most diverse of any shooter out there?

I guess it's true: this really won't ever get anywhere!

[Terror_K]

Aside from the fact that its an RPG element and not a "shooter mechanic", there is next to no depth of armour customisation in ME2... 90% of it is purely cosmetic, and I'll bet most people simply choose what looks best and/or best suits their Shepard. The armour has no real stats to speak of and no real way to compare beyond trial and error, and doesn't really make that much of a difference really. You can just stick with the default armour for the entirely of the game from Level 1 to Level 30 and it doesn't make a jack of difference. Sure, it's nice that there are parts to the armour now, but if we ignore the DLC stuff there's only four of each one in what is supposed to be a 40 hour or so RPG. That's pathetic.

Leveling (also an RPG mechanic and not a shooter one, btw) doesn't make that much of a difference if you have a good gun, since one could if they wanted avoid it and would still be able to cruise through the game because your ability to kill with a gun isn't effected whatsoever by your skills with the exception of getting through those varying defenses you mention, which by the way aren't exactly complex or deep... they're simply just extra layers one has to get through before making it to the meat. It's about as deep as packaging spam into a series of matryoshka dolls instead of a single can. I'll admit that the enemies are more varied and interesting than they were in ME1, but that's something that could (and should) apply to any game that involves combat, and not solely indicative of an RPG.

You yourself say that these factors make ME2's combat "one of the more diverse of any shooter out there" but that just goes to hammer home that ME2 is far too much of a shooter when its supposed to primarily be an RPG. And I somewhat agree with you, because ever since ME2 came out I've said "you can either view ME2 as one of the deepest shooters out there, or one of the shallowest RPGs" and it only gets the former title because of the few RPG elements that weren't totally culled from the original game (as well as the small few that were added*).

* = Yes... I fully admit there were certain RPG aspects in ME2 that weren't there in ME1, and they added some depth to the game... or at least would have had so much not been removed beforehand. As I said in another topic, they're one step forward after two steps back: you can't pour 10 litres of water out of a jug and then add only 1 litre back in and claim that there's 11 litres there.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 avril 2010 - 10:19 .

[Tawg]

Terror_K may I ask you something?
Would you say that the PS3 Title Heavy Rain is not an RPG?
Because I'm quite sure it is the definition of Role Playing;  RPG is not a set of game mechanics it's the commitment to story and the telling there of, getting players into it, and letting them interact and see the effects their actions take.
Mass Effect is a Role Playing game, regardless of whether it follows your 'ideal' RPG template's that most likely aren't even that easy to integrate into real time shooter combat, which is apparently a goal the BioWare team wishes to emphasize in this Sci-Fi game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is ideal for me, I was quite sad when the inventory went away in place of the new gun system, or when they reduced the complexity of the skills trees and value of leveling essentially; Those are by far my favorite parts of the game in the first one, but they chose to take them out in favor of things I can rest assured they prioritized after much deliberation.  But the story still get's there, and BioWare still has my unwavering support in what ever endeavors they might choose to take.
They do have dead lines, and I fully understand why they went to the new 'Mission' model of world interaction, instead of the free-roam plantary exploration of the past, it greatly cuts down the time they have to spend crafting the senery & 'landing zones' that I use to love; but it allowed them to focus on what they needed to no doubt, like the completely new shooter system they had to design for this game (Which is quite nice, at least they did us that justice, instead of slaping on some horrificly terrible shooter), or the cool new system of interupting certain diologs with 'Pragon' or 'Renagade' actions (Which pushes the game far closer to Role Playing than all the mechanics you could ever gripe about).

This argument isn't about the game being an RPG, it's about your definition of RPG;  And nothing you can say will prove your definition is correct.  True this takes a far more shooter frame, but I'm still playing the role of Shepard, still evolving a beautifuly complex story via the actions I choose, and most importantly having fun.

If it's such a disapointment, then I'm sorry; it seems you have been let down, but you're not changing the game by arguing they must follow the reliable RPG template that you're defining as you go and could never truely nail down if you wanted.

[Tawg]

Cool, double post=]

Modifié par Tawg, 10 avril 2010 - 06:52 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Aside from the fact that its an RPG element and not a "shooter mechanic", there is next to no depth of armour customisation in ME2... 90% of it is purely cosmetic, and I'll bet most people simply choose what looks best and/or best suits their Shepard. The armour has no real stats to speak of and no real way to compare beyond trial and error, and doesn't really make that much of a difference really. You can just stick with the default armour for the entirely of the game from Level 1 to Level 30 and it doesn't make a jack of difference. Sure, it's nice that there are parts to the armour now, but if we ignore the DLC stuff there's only four of each one in what is supposed to be a 40 hour or so RPG. That's pathetic.

How come you ignored what I said about Vanguard's needing that health boost? 20%, even 10% makes a huge difference between killing that last bad guy in the cover you just went into and either having to retreat or straight up dying. There have been a *lot* of instances where I've come out with the tiniest sliver of health. Are some classes less reliant on gear? Hard to say, but I'm pretty sure the Collector ship made a lot of people want to get the most "bang for your buck" in terms of gear.

Terror_K wrote...

Leveling (also an RPG mechanic and not a shooter one, btw) doesn't make that much of a difference if you have a good gun, since one could if they wanted avoid it and would still be able to cruise through the game because your ability to kill with a gun isn't effected whatsoever by your skills with the exception of getting through those varying defenses you mention, which by the way aren't exactly complex or deep... they're simply just extra layers one has to get through before making it to the meat.

I find it interesting how you say leveling isn't "required" (and thus abilities) to play through the game, and I'm wondering on what basis that's on? You could do the exact same damn thing in ME1, and hell my nephew was playing Dragon Age the other day just running four Warriors and right-clicking his way to victory.

But the point here is effeciency. In Doom you *could* kill everything with the pistol, but if you really wanted to be effective you had to choose the right weapons for the right situations. No different than most other games: the right abilities for the right situations. In Doom you don't want to waste a rocket on the weakest zombie. In Dragon Age, you don't want to freeze the enemies of least priority.

Now, in ME2 does using your abilities make quite a difference? Definitely. That's the point.

Terror_K wrote...

You yourself say that these factors make ME2's combat "one of the more diverse of any shooter out there" but that just goes to hammer home that ME2 is far too much of a shooter when its supposed to primarily be an RPG.

Says who? All the talk and coverage I saw leading up to the release of ME1 really hyped it to being a shooter/RPG. That could be part of the reason for these changes: they didn't like what they reached with in ME1.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 avril 2010 - 07:06 .

[Sad Dragon]

Correct me if im wrong, but hasnt Bioware said that they where going to put more RP back into ME3? If so - and i am 90% sure i have read that somewhere - isnt that both an admission that ME2 lacks RP elements as well as a statement that they will try and close the gap between the TPS and RPG?

With that in mind isnt it a bit redundant to argue about this instead of simply shifting the discussion to a "What areas of the RP in ME2 where lacking and how to improve them"-discussion?

There are problems with the RP in ME2 some major ones and some smaller ones. Most if not all of them comes down to personal tase however and can as such never be argued against in terms of right and wrong. One can however have a debate about them to explain your own point of view on the issue - this however dosnt make your oppinion the right one nor the other persons oppinion the wrong one. The debate is still worth having as it makes you think about the issues more in depth.

Take me for instance. My bigest problem with ME2 is that the story feels more railroaded then any other Bioware RPG i have ever played - mostly because i am forced to do thing by the game that my shep. wouldnt do - but for the sake of getting from A to B i have to, there is no choice about it. A prime example of this is Cerberus.

Some players will have no problem with this cause they come from another ME1 path. This dosnt excuse the issue in my opinion. A choice would have served both myself and the other players better as then both can play the game without feeling railroaded.

All in all, it remains to be seen how Bioware will handle the RP parts of the ME-saga in ME3. Personaly i hope they make ME3 into a RPG-Shooter instead of a Shooter-RPG.

/TSD

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Correct me if im wrong, but hasnt Bioware said that they where going to put more RP back into ME3? If so - and i am 90% sure i have read that somewhere - isnt that both an admission that ME2 lacks RP elements as well as a statement that they will try and close the gap between the TPS and RPG?

With that in mind isnt it a bit redundant to argue about this instead of simply shifting the discussion to a "What areas of the RP in ME2 where lacking and how to improve them"-discussion?

Bioware just tried a lot of new things for the RPG genre. A lot of people here just flat-out disagree with them because they don't follow the traditional mold. I can't say if its proof that the game lacks RP elements since you can always add more and more role-playing elements to a game.

[Sad Dragon]

What i meant was that if they have agreed that the RP part of the game was reduced too much there is no point to argue about that specific issue. Bioware has then already agreed with the issue as well as said that they where going to adress it - again, if i remember correctly. To argue yes or no on that specific point would serve no real purpose outside of the argument itself. And our energy is then better spend on dealing with the issue at hand. In this case I personaly feel this would be to offer constructive ideas as to how the RP could improve from ME2 going into ME3.



/TSD

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

What i meant was that if they have agreed that the RP part of the game was reduced too much there is no point to argue about that specific issue. Bioware has then already agreed with the issue as well as said that they where going to adress it - again, if i remember correctly. To argue yes or no on that specific point would serve no real purpose outside of the argument itself.

Do we have a source on this "if"? All I recall is much of Bioware proclaming that yes there are indeed still many RPG elements within the game, and that they're looking to expand on them for ME3. As I said earlier that doesn't hold much weight since you can expand on RP elements for Dragon Age (something many here claim to be a true RPG).

Sad Dragon wrote...

And our energy is then better spend on dealing with the issue at hand. In this case I personaly feel this would be to offer constructive ideas as to how the RP could improve from ME2 going into ME3.

/TSD

Things to add/improve:
-Few more abilities
-Thus, broader leveling curve/system
-Weapon customization
-More armor customization
-"% on hit" effects could be interesting to see

I liked the way the cooldown worked in ME2, but I'm still pretty on-the-fence as to how I'd see it done for ME3. But that's about all I'd hope to see.

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

Do we have a source on this "if"? All I recall is much of Bioware proclaming that yes there are indeed still many RPG elements within the game, and that they're looking to expand on them for ME3. As I said earlier that doesn't hold much weight since you can expand on RP elements for Dragon Age (something many here claim to be a true RPG).

Sorry, im at a blank for where i got
it - which is why i am carefull to state that i can be wrong about it.
That being said, it is still irrelevant as we can focus on the expanding
of RP elements all the same ^^

Pocketgb wrote...

Things to add/improve:
-Few more abilities
-Thus, broader leveling curve/system
-Weapon customization
-More armor customization
-"% on hit" effects could be interesting to see

I liked the way the cooldown worked in ME2, but I'm still pretty on-the-fence as to how I'd see it done for ME3. But that's about all I'd hope to see.

Though i agree with you about more abilities i personaly have to agree with a previous poster in this thread that the abilities quickly becomes useless due to the armor/shielding nullifying them. This could be solved - as it already is in part - by instead of making targets 100% immune simply make the abilities less good.

Have to disagree with the cooldowns in ME2. I found myself basicaly just using 1 ability all the time since, at any given time there where one "best" ability. With the global cooldown there where no need to use anything but the "best" ability as using anything else would gimp you. Here i would like to see a return of the cooldown system of ME1 where each ability have an individual cooldown. Perhapps have a shorter global cooldown for each category of abilities so that you cant spam abilities one by one.

Ex. I use Throw. It has a 6s cooldown, and the global cooldown is 1 sec. Next i want to use Singularity. But as it also is an biotic ability i will have to wait 1 sec before the global cooldown is finished. I could however still used Incinerate directly after my Throw as it is a Tech ability and not a Biotic one.

Hope that made sense ^^;
/TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 10 avril 2010 - 08:13 .

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Though i agree with you about more abilities i personaly have to agree with a previous poster in this thread that the abilities quickly becomes useless due to the armor/shielding nullifying them. This could be solved - as it already is in part - by instead of making targets 100% immune simply make the abilities less good.

Party balance! It was a good start in ME2, although I think I'd prefer it if enemy's health pools weren't nearly the same in size as their defenses.

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

Though i agree with you about more abilities i personaly have to agree with a previous poster in this thread that the abilities quickly becomes useless due to the armor/shielding nullifying them. This could be solved - as it already is in part - by instead of making targets 100% immune simply make the abilities less good.

Party balance! It was a good start in ME2, although I think I'd prefer it if enemy's health pools weren't nearly the same in size as their defenses.

I appologise for being slow on this - will have to ask all the same though ^^;
How does party balance solve the problem of enemy defences nullifying your abilities?

If you mean that with the right party you will have one member who can deal with the defence then all that does is make your abilities useless and makes you shift focus to your companion. Also, a sniper shot to the head solves the problem with enemy defences as well. Neither of these does however make your abilities usefull.

/TSD

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

If you mean that with the right party you will have one member who can deal with the defence then all that does is make your abilities useless and makes you shift focus to your companion...

And then you shift focus back to you: their shields are down, so work your magic. Just like how if you know you're going to go against some trolls in a forest so you bring fire based damage, if you're going to Tuchanka you'd bring some incinderary abilities.

Sad Dragon wrote...

Also, a sniper shot to the head solves the problem with enemy defences as well...

But that's such a waste: sniper ammo is limited, abilities are not. Why not have you or a squaddie reduce their defenses, *then* go for the headshot?

Doesn't mean Infiltrators aren't capable of ridiculous damage, though.

[Tirigon]

Terror_K wrote...

1) An overall design and presentation that screams that the devs are embarrassed that this is an RPG and try to hide that fact whenever possible, making ME2 come across like "Fisher Price: My First RPG (But be quiet! I don't want people to know I'm playing something with numbers involved!)"
2) A kick in the balls to the lore with their horrid thermal clip system that presents itself with more holes than a moth-eaten lace tablecloth at a shooting range.
3) An almost complete disregard and pushing into the background of even ME1's seemingly most crucial decisions.
4) A complete unaccounting of several key ME1 import decisions and weak substitutions instead of actual differences.
5) A complete elimination of armour classes, skill-based decryption and hacking, healing or anything else previously skill-based that wasn't combat.
6) A jarring and awkward "Mission Complete" screen in place of naturally earning XP as you go.
7) One of the absolute worst HUDs in gaming history... made even worse in that it replaced one of gaming's better HUDs, which was as far as I can tell never complained about by anybody. Just one of many cases of something that wasn't even broken being "fixed" by the ME2 team.
8) A tiny handful of weapons that are completely devoid of any stats whatsoever.
9) A tiny selection of armours that are completely devoid of any stats whatsoever.
10) A collection of DLC and Promo/Pre-Order armours that are a single piece and can only be that way.
11) A complete lack of inventory beyond the small selection of linear weapons and armour above which are always in the same place and always the same.
12) Modding weapons and armour =  scrapped.
13) Mako replaced by action-oriented DLC vehicle that misses the point of vehicle exploration entirely and proves that even an awful HUD (like ME2's on-foot one) is better than no HUD whatsoever.
14) The lazy, tacked-on feeling N7 missions had that lacked proper polish, despite being more varied than their ME1 counterparts.
15) Complete inability to customise team-members beyond which gun their holding.
16) Awful character-creation system from a design standpoint. While this was in ME1 too admittedly, the fact that so much that didn't need fixing got "fixed" in ME2 and yet this remained in such a broken state is unforgivable.
17) Unskippable opening that goes for 15 minutes before you can do anything. Point #16 doesn't help either.

and while this last one wasn't a complete failure and entirely awful, I have to mention it:-

18) A complete scrapping of statistical-based shooting in favour of purely skill-based shooter combat.

1) well......
2) True
3) Not as bad as you say, but not entirely false.
4) true, sadly
5) True, but a plus imo
6) I liked it. Dialogue debrief like in main missions would be better, but still.
7) I really don´t see this. I like the ME2 HUD
8)too less weapons, yes, but definitely better than in ME1 where you had many that were all the same.
9) a good thing
10) All DLC sucks
11) A good thing
12) false. Ammo powers
13) no comment, didn´t play firewalker yet
14)True. Side missions mostly suck. But same is true for ME1
15) Yes, but it fits. Why should you dress your party? They are old enough to do that themselves.
16 + 17) ABSOLUTE YES!!!!!
18) DEFINITELY a plus. Statistically-based shooting is the ****ING WORST IDEA EVER!!!!!!!!!! IN ANY GAME!!

[Pocketgb]

Tirigon wrote...

18) DEFINITELY a plus. Statistically-based shooting is the ****ING WORST IDEA EVER!!!!!!!!!! IN ANY GAME!!

I was actually thinking about this the other day, and why it bugged me. I think it's annoying that even though I'm good enough to be able to actually keep my enemy in my crosshairs, I'm not rewarded for it. I think that's why hit rolls make more sense in a turn-based or tactical RPG, rather than an action focused one.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 avril 2010 - 11:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pocketgb wrote...

I was actually thinking about this the other day, and why it bugged me. I think it's annoying that even though I'm good enough to be able to actually keep my enemy in my crosshairs, I'm not rewarded for it. I think that's why hit rolls make more sense in a turn-based or tactical RPG, rather than an action focused one.

Whereas, I think the lack of stat-driven aiming or any reliance at all upon the player's aiming skill breaks the game.  It's crazy that Shepard be rewarded (or punished) for something that isn't his skill.

Shepard's an elite Marine.  He should be good at shooting things.  So why is he only good at shooting things if I'm good at shooting things?  If I'm a spaz, then Shepard will shoot like a spaz, but how did Shepard become an elite Marine if he shoots like a spaz?

The answer, of course, is that Shepard doesn't exist.  Shepard isn't actually a character; he's just an avatar that represents the player within the game.  That's what separates action games from RPGs, and ME2 falls on the wrong side of that divide to be an RPG.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 avril 2010 - 03:44 .