111 réponses à ce sujet

[UsagiVindaloo]

Mallissin wrote...

I preferred ME1 in many ways too. But Mass Effect is evolving away from it. The Ammo system for one, which I've been told will not be changing again.

I'd prefer to go back to more RPG elements like Usagi suggests as well. I just don't see it happening.

I blame the fact it's being targeted at the Xbox 360. Game Developers seem to think console owners are dumber.

Ironically, ME1 was a more complicated game (in terms of Charm/Intimidate anyway) and it was originally XBox exclusive. The trimming down occurred after the PC port. PERHAPS IT'S THE PC GAMERS WHO ARE DUMBER OMG. 

LOL, kidding, kidding. Obviously it's not a console vs. PC issue, but I do agree that Bioware seems to be aiming at a slightly different market within both platforms. Still, I don't see any reason why that market would complain about having a Charisma skill. It's not like anyone's forcing them to take it.

[Collider]

Bigdoser wrote...
who would want a leader who is neutral people would rather have someone who has a stance imo. Also I agree with what kraidy said and i doubt bioware will change it back to the way me1 done it.

Um, people do not have paragon and renegade scores in real life. Just...think about that.

[kraidy1117]

Mallissin wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Don't even start on the ammo system, this was one of the best things to happen to ME. The combat is alot more fun, fastpaced, fluid and not boring.

*hisses* You're a filthy Xbox owner, aren't you?

Anyway, as I said I'd prefer it got back to more RPG elements, like more skills including the return of Persuade and Intimidate like Usagi suggests. But I've lost my optimism in anything getting better in ME3. I'm just along for the story now.

Who cares if I am an xbox owner, the gameplay in ME was downright terriable. The story was good but combat and inventory was a wreak. ME2 is a RPG SHOOTER. Let me say that again, RPG shooter. It plays like a RPG but it needs to play like a shooter which ME did not, ME2 plays like a shooter and a RPG. Get used to it, you might find it fun running into a room sparying your pistol and killing everything with your weapon never getting overheated and not dying but I do not. I perfer combat that is fun and fluid which ME2 gives us.

[UsagiVindaloo]

Bigdoser wrote...

who would want a leader who is neutral people would rather have someone who has a stance imo. Also I agree with what kraidy said and i doubt bioware will change it back to the way me1 done it.

I don't know, I think I'd like a neutral leader because I know he/she would take all sides into consideration. Also, a neutral Shepard is still taking a stand (Collectors bad!), he just doesn't get involved in side squabbles etc.

[Mallissin]

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante

[Mallissin]

kraidy1117 wrote...
Who cares if I am an xbox owner, the gameplay in ME was downright terriable. The story was good but combat and inventory was a wreak. ME2 is a RPG SHOOTER. Let me say that again, RPG shooter. It plays like a RPG but it needs to play like a shooter which ME did not, ME2 plays like a shooter and a RPG. Get used to it, you might find it fun running into a room sparying your pistol and killing everything with your weapon never getting overheated and not dying but I do not. I perfer combat that is fun and fluid which ME2 gives us.

Yah, hence my first post. ME1 = shooter RPG, ME2 = RPG shooter. And yes, I know you're an Xbox owner. The gig is up.

[UsagiVindaloo]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Don't even start on the ammo system, this was one of the best things to happen to ME. The combat is alot more fun, fastpaced, fluid and not boring.

*hisses* You're a filthy Xbox owner, aren't you?

Anyway, as I said I'd prefer it got back to more RPG elements, like more skills including the return of Persuade and Intimidate like Usagi suggests. But I've lost my optimism in anything getting better in ME3. I'm just along for the story now.

Who cares if I am an xbox owner, the gameplay in ME was downright terriable. The story was good but combat and inventory was a wreak. ME2 is a RPG SHOOTER. Let me say that again, RPG shooter. It plays like a RPG but it needs to play like a shooter which ME did not, ME2 plays like a shooter and a RPG. Get used to it, you might find it fun running into a room sparying your pistol and killing everything with your weapon never getting overheated and not dying but I do not. I perfer combat that is fun and fluid which ME2 gives us.

I disagree. I found the ME1 gameplay fine, and I *much* prefered the overheat system to the current ammo system... it gave things a bit more challenge. You couldn't just fire, reload, fire... if you fired too long, you would have to wait. Skilling up weapons was also kind of a neat element, although not one I mourn for intensely. And I definitely found ME1 to play like a shooter. In fact, in some ways it was more like a shooter than ME2, namely in that I never had to tell my party to do anything. Half my time in ME2 is spent choosing abilities from the pause menu.

I think that BOTH games had/have good gameplay, when we get down to it. It's just different. Not better, not worse... different. No reason to say one was bad, just say, "Hey, ME1 was fine for what it was, but I prefer ME2." Much more respectful and gets the same point across.

[kraidy1117]

Mallissin wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Who cares if I am an xbox owner, the gameplay in ME was downright terriable. The story was good but combat and inventory was a wreak. ME2 is a RPG SHOOTER. Let me say that again, RPG shooter. It plays like a RPG but it needs to play like a shooter which ME did not, ME2 plays like a shooter and a RPG. Get used to it, you might find it fun running into a room sparying your pistol and killing everything with your weapon never getting overheated and not dying but I do not. I perfer combat that is fun and fluid which ME2 gives us.

Yah, hence my first post. ME1 = shooter RPG, ME2 = RPG shooter. And yes, I know you're an Xbox owner. The gig is up.

Thats my point? Who cares if I am an xobx owner? What does that mean I don't know what I am talking about because I own a console because I can't afford a good computer to game on?

[UsagiVindaloo]

Mallissin wrote...

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante

Again, it depends on what kind of neutrality. If it's more, "I'm not getting involved," I'd agree. If it's more, "I want to hear all sides of the story," or "All sides have some merit to their case," then that's a noble ideal, because it shows compassion and understanding. Of course, that's probably a bit closer to a Paragon anyway.

[UsagiVindaloo]

Mallissin wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Who cares if I am an xbox owner, the gameplay in ME was downright terriable. The story was good but combat and inventory was a wreak. ME2 is a RPG SHOOTER. Let me say that again, RPG shooter. It plays like a RPG but it needs to play like a shooter which ME did not, ME2 plays like a shooter and a RPG. Get used to it, you might find it fun running into a room sparying your pistol and killing everything with your weapon never getting overheated and not dying but I do not. I perfer combat that is fun and fluid which ME2 gives us.

Yah, hence my first post. ME1 = shooter RPG, ME2 = RPG shooter. And yes, I know you're an Xbox owner. The gig is up.

Why is being an XBox owner such an issue? I'm an XBox owner myself, you realize. 

[kraidy1117]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Don't even start on the ammo system, this was one of the best things to happen to ME. The combat is alot more fun, fastpaced, fluid and not boring.

*hisses* You're a filthy Xbox owner, aren't you?

Anyway, as I said I'd prefer it got back to more RPG elements, like more skills including the return of Persuade and Intimidate like Usagi suggests. But I've lost my optimism in anything getting better in ME3. I'm just along for the story now.

Who cares if I am an xbox owner, the gameplay in ME was downright terriable. The story was good but combat and inventory was a wreak. ME2 is a RPG SHOOTER. Let me say that again, RPG shooter. It plays like a RPG but it needs to play like a shooter which ME did not, ME2 plays like a shooter and a RPG. Get used to it, you might find it fun running into a room sparying your pistol and killing everything with your weapon never getting overheated and not dying but I do not. I perfer combat that is fun and fluid which ME2 gives us.

I disagree. I found the ME1 gameplay fine, and I *much* prefered the overheat system to the current ammo system... it gave things a bit more challenge. You couldn't just fire, reload, fire... if you fired too long, you would have to wait. Skilling up weapons was also kind of a neat element, although not one I mourn for intensely. And I definitely found ME1 to play like a shooter. In fact, in some ways it was more like a shooter than ME2, namely in that I never had to tell my party to do anything. Half my time in ME2 is spent choosing abilities from the pause menu.

I think that BOTH games had/have good gameplay, when we get down to it. It's just different. Not better, not worse... different. No reason to say one was bad, just say, "Hey, ME1 was fine for what it was, but I prefer ME2." Much more respectful and gets the same point across.

ME had a terriable cover system, which ME2 fixed. The overheat system was broken because it was poseable to pray your gun around and never overheat and once you got spector gear and put a heat damp on it you could fire non stop and never worry about heatiung again. ME2 fixed that with ammo and gave it more tactical and fast paced. Also ME2 had body damage, something that ME lacked and hurted the gameplay. If I do a headshot it should do aloty of damage, nort the same as shooting the person in the arm. ME2 fixed that again. Also the party was useless in ME. You could not tell one party member to go to one place and the other to go to the other and they just spamed there powers, in ME2 you can give diffrent commands to each party member, they are smart with there powers now and the AI is a hell of alot better. I never had problems with my AI runnig around like a moron.

I love RPGs and shooters, one of the rewasons why I love ME2. ME was a good RPG, but for it's shooter gameplay it was downright terriable. Add to that the horrid MAKO and inventory system and the only thing that made ME was the story and characters.

[Bigdoser]

Collider wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...
who would want a leader who is neutral people would rather have someone who has a stance imo. Also I agree with what kraidy said and i doubt bioware will change it back to the way me1 done it.

Um, people do not have paragon and renegade scores in real life. Just...think about that.

I am not talking about renegade or paragon i am talking about a leader in general.

[UsagiVindaloo]

kraidy1117 wrote...

ME had a terriable cover system, which ME2 fixed. The overheat system was broken because it was poseable to pray your gun around and never overheat and once you got spector gear and put a heat damp on it you could fire non stop and never worry about heatiung again. ME2 fixed that with ammo and gave it more tactical and fast paced. Also ME2 had body damage, something that ME lacked and hurted the gameplay. If I do a headshot it should do aloty of damage, nort the same as shooting the person in the arm. ME2 fixed that again. Also the party was useless in ME. You could not tell one party member to go to one place and the other to go to the other and they just spamed there powers, in ME2 you can give diffrent commands to each party member, they are smart with there powers now and the AI is a hell of alot better. I never had problems with my AI runnig around like a moron.

I love RPGs and shooters, one of the rewasons why I love ME2. ME was a good RPG, but for it's shooter gameplay it was downright terriable. Add to that the horrid MAKO and inventory system and the only thing that made ME was the story and characters.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I thought ME was excellently constructed as both shooter and RPG, and while I do feel there were a lot of refinements in ME2 (and that, in terms of combat, it's probably the better game), I think ME1 was still wonderful and well balanced. I still miss Liara and her singularity. ;_;

In the end, it's just a matter of opinion; you didn't like ME1, I did, we're both right in our own ways.

[Knoll Argonar]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Don't even start on the ammo system, this was one of the best things to happen to ME. The combat is alot more fun, fastpaced, fluid and not boring.

*hisses* You're a filthy Xbox owner, aren't you?

Anyway, as I said I'd prefer it got back to more RPG elements, like more skills including the return of Persuade and Intimidate like Usagi suggests. But I've lost my optimism in anything getting better in ME3. I'm just along for the story now.

Who cares if I am an xbox owner, the gameplay in ME was downright terriable. The story was good but combat and inventory was a wreak. ME2 is a RPG SHOOTER. Let me say that again, RPG shooter. It plays like a RPG but it needs to play like a shooter which ME did not, ME2 plays like a shooter and a RPG. Get used to it, you might find it fun running into a room sparying your pistol and killing everything with your weapon never getting overheated and not dying but I do not. I perfer combat that is fun and fluid which ME2 gives us.

I disagree. I found the ME1 gameplay fine, and I *much* prefered the overheat system to the current ammo system... it gave things a bit more challenge. You couldn't just fire, reload, fire... if you fired too long, you would have to wait. Skilling up weapons was also kind of a neat element, although not one I mourn for intensely. And I definitely found ME1 to play like a shooter. In fact, in some ways it was more like a shooter than ME2, namely in that I never had to tell my party to do anything. Half my time in ME2 is spent choosing abilities from the pause menu.

I think that BOTH games had/have good gameplay, when we get down to it. It's just different. Not better, not worse... different. No reason to say one was bad, just say, "Hey, ME1 was fine for what it was, but I prefer ME2." Much more respectful and gets the same point across.

? I though that was ME1 for me 0_ò

I think ME2 was clear and simple, tactical but functional. In ME1 you wonder How the hell you got the N7 title when in Eden Prime you don't even know how to shoot.

Anyway, a Charm ability doesn't affect the ME2 playstyle at all. It just adds "diplomacy" in the skill.

[77boy84]

DrunkenGoon wrote...

Yea I agree with the OP.. You can't really play through ME2 without being extremely one sided.. Well not unless you want a bunch of your crew to wind up dead.. With Charm or intimidate at least then you could make any decision you want and still be able to get out of tight situations like Miranda vs Jack or Tali vs Legion..

Not true at all.
I played using both options (went renegade more often, so i had a little higher renegade score) and I only lost Tali and Zaeed, and none of the crew.

With Charm/Intimidate you could make any decision you wanted, at the cost of nuking all your other stats.
How my shepard will act should be based on how he acts. If he acts like a jerk more often than not, more jerk options should open up. It should NOT be based off of arbitrary levels and stats.

[TheCrakFox]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Am I the only one who never had problems with this? I make choices I would make and I always end up full Paragon and Renagde is over the 4th line. I never had problems choosing Renagde and Paragon. I perfer this new system because you can focus on dev your powers, people this is not like DAO or KOTOR where you got a crap load of thigs like skills, attributes, talents ect. I loved the system and had no problem with it.

I suppose I'm worried more for those who, say, want to pick neutral dialog a lot of the time, or who swing massively back and forth between one extreme and the other. For example, my third playthrough will likely be a female Shepard who will happily Renegade her way through almost everything, but still loves her crew and has a big soft spot here and there (e.g. oh yeah, she will SO hug Tali). Basically, she'll take every interrupt of either type which will result in some... rather odd scores. My worry is that come Jack/Miranda time, her two pronged approach will end up with not enough of either to make a difference.

That is EXACTLY what happend on my last playthrough. Which is why I think a 'charisma' skill is a good idea.

[Lalandrathon]

They did make a whole lot of improvements to the shooter part of ME2. The ammo system was not one of them. They had already addressed the problem of people feeling free to spray bullets wildly by having combat balance favor cover more heavily and removing inventory/weapon mods. The overheat system was streamlined, and quite frankly an improvement on ammo systems gameplay-wise. Bioware was just too timid and stuck with traditional shooter mechanics, being new to that sort of game.



The only thing using ammo instead of overheat mechanics does is let people run out of ammo. This slows down fights by either forcing people to use powers or weapons when they are less situation appropriate and make thing take longer. Inaccuracy is already punished by the game balance--if you don't make your shots count, you are out of cover and getting shot and enemies are getting more of a chance to get in close and tear you apart.



Most of the other streamlined mechanics I liked. The way charm/intimidate I think worked well. I pretty much just tossed points into the dialogue options, so now the game pretty much does that for me automatically, and I can invest more heavily in conversation options with my skill selection if I so choose by putting points in the class passive skill, and choosing whether to get the 70% or 100% paragon/renegade point boost at the end.

[UsagiVindaloo]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

I disagree. I found the ME1 gameplay fine, and I *much* prefered the overheat system to the current ammo system... it gave things a bit more challenge. You couldn't just fire, reload, fire... if you fired too long, you would have to wait. Skilling up weapons was also kind of a neat element, although not one I mourn for intensely. And I definitely found ME1 to play like a shooter. In fact, in some ways it was more like a shooter than ME2, namely in that I never had to tell my party to do anything. Half my time in ME2 is spent choosing abilities from the pause menu.

I think that BOTH games had/have good gameplay, when we get down to it. It's just different. Not better, not worse... different. No reason to say one was bad, just say, "Hey, ME1 was fine for what it was, but I prefer ME2." Much more respectful and gets the same point across.

? I though that was ME1 for me 0_ò

I think ME2 was clear and simple, tactical but functional. In ME1 you wonder How the hell you got the N7 title when in Eden Prime you don't even know how to shoot.

Anyway, a Charm ability doesn't affect the ME2 playstyle at all. It just adds "diplomacy" in the skill.

To clarify: I found that in ME1, my party members seemed a lot better at using their powers effectively. Or perhaps it was more that their powers were universally useful and thus the NPCs could spam as much as they like and I wasn't about to stop them. My party was Soldier Shepard, Liara and Tali, and I pretty much took potshots while Liara kept stuff CCed and Tali blew stuff up. It was SO. MUCH. FUN. I miss the days of seeing entire roomfuls of badguys floating gleefully through the air...

In ME2, I find that the abilities are much more situational, and you have to use the correct NPC abilities to best progress. For example, if I'm up against stuff with shields, I have to tell Miranda to use her Overload ability, otherwise the useless **** is likely to start warping things and wasting her cooldowns. The need to micromanage your party isn't necessarily a BAD thing, it's just... a thing. But I've definitely found I need to tell them what to do to get the best results. ("No, really, Tali. You can use your AI hacking on these guys. You don't need to pull out Chikkita for the fifteenth time.")

[TheCrakFox]

77boy84 wrote...

DrunkenGoon wrote...

Yea I agree with the OP.. You can't really play through ME2 without being extremely one sided.. Well not unless you want a bunch of your crew to wind up dead.. With Charm or intimidate at least then you could make any decision you want and still be able to get out of tight situations like Miranda vs Jack or Tali vs Legion..

Not true at all.
I played using both options (went renegade more often, so i had a little higher renegade score) and I only lost Tali and Zaeed, and none of the crew.

With Charm/Intimidate you could make any decision you wanted, at the cost of nuking all your other stats.
How my shepard will act should be based on how he acts. If he acts like a jerk more often than not, more jerk options should open up. It should NOT be based off of arbitrary levels and stats.

Just because you don't act like a jerk very often doesn't mean you shouldn't be prone to the occasional outburst of extreme jerkyness.

[77boy84]

TheCrakFox wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

DrunkenGoon wrote...

Yea I agree with the OP.. You can't really play through ME2 without being extremely one sided.. Well not unless you want a bunch of your crew to wind up dead.. With Charm or intimidate at least then you could make any decision you want and still be able to get out of tight situations like Miranda vs Jack or Tali vs Legion..

Not true at all.
I played using both options (went renegade more often, so i had a little higher renegade score) and I only lost Tali and Zaeed, and none of the crew.

With Charm/Intimidate you could make any decision you wanted, at the cost of nuking all your other stats.
How my shepard will act should be based on how he acts. If he acts like a jerk more often than not, more jerk options should open up. It should NOT be based off of arbitrary levels and stats.

Just because you don't act like a jerk very often doesn't mean you shouldn't be prone to the occasional outburst of extreme jerkyness.

It would be a bit silly if Shepard acted like a nice guy 24/7 then just up and shoved a guy out of a window. Or sent the biotic god to his death.

Besides, ME1 had the same thing. You couldn't use all of the renegade/paragon options unless you had the skill, which was unlocked through picking paragon/renegade options

[UsagiVindaloo]

77boy84 wrote...

DrunkenGoon wrote...

Yea I agree with the OP.. You can't really play through ME2 without being extremely one sided.. Well not unless you want a bunch of your crew to wind up dead.. With Charm or intimidate at least then you could make any decision you want and still be able to get out of tight situations like Miranda vs Jack or Tali vs Legion..

Not true at all.
I played using both options (went renegade more often, so i had a little higher renegade score) and I only lost Tali and Zaeed, and none of the crew.

With Charm/Intimidate you could make any decision you wanted, at the cost of nuking all your other stats.
How my shepard will act should be based on how he acts. If he acts like a jerk more often than not, more jerk options should open up. It should NOT be based off of arbitrary levels and stats.

Hmm, I see your point, but I'm not sure I fully agree. For one thing, while certainly his behaviour should reflect on his reputation and how people react to him, I think there's also something to be said for a person's inborn charisma. For example, even among real life jerks, people react differently to them. Some of them are just annoying and come over as genuine dipwads or people who are trying to hard, while others are just so gorram charismatic and confident that you can't help but like them despite their dickery; either that, or they're just so overpowering that you cave to them immediately as opposed to wanting to put them in their place. That is what I feel the Charisma stat would do; it would be the difference between Shepard being a jerk, and Shepard being a jerk and people running away from him. ;-)

Also, as I've pointed out, while it makes sense that being a jerk opens up jerk options, it doesn't mean that said jerk wants to be a jerk all the time. What if Jerk Shepard likes pegging people in the head, snarking, and just generally being a douche, but come Tali trial time finds himself desperate to protect the one person he actually somewhat cares about?

(I will cop to not knowing about Paragade still allowing most of the options; I heard from many people that they were stuck on the Jack/Miranda fight just because they were slightly more "neutral")

[kraidy1117]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

I disagree. I found the ME1 gameplay fine, and I *much* prefered the overheat system to the current ammo system... it gave things a bit more challenge. You couldn't just fire, reload, fire... if you fired too long, you would have to wait. Skilling up weapons was also kind of a neat element, although not one I mourn for intensely. And I definitely found ME1 to play like a shooter. In fact, in some ways it was more like a shooter than ME2, namely in that I never had to tell my party to do anything. Half my time in ME2 is spent choosing abilities from the pause menu.

I think that BOTH games had/have good gameplay, when we get down to it. It's just different. Not better, not worse... different. No reason to say one was bad, just say, "Hey, ME1 was fine for what it was, but I prefer ME2." Much more respectful and gets the same point across.

? I though that was ME1 for me 0_ò

I think ME2 was clear and simple, tactical but functional. In ME1 you wonder How the hell you got the N7 title when in Eden Prime you don't even know how to shoot.

Anyway, a Charm ability doesn't affect the ME2 playstyle at all. It just adds "diplomacy" in the skill.

To clarify: I found that in ME1, my party members seemed a lot better at using their powers effectively. Or perhaps it was more that their powers were universally useful and thus the NPCs could spam as much as they like and I wasn't about to stop them. My party was Soldier Shepard, Liara and Tali, and I pretty much took potshots while Liara kept stuff CCed and Tali blew stuff up. It was SO. MUCH. FUN. I miss the days of seeing entire roomfuls of badguys floating gleefully through the air...

In ME2, I find that the abilities are much more situational, and you have to use the correct NPC abilities to best progress. For example, if I'm up against stuff with shields, I have to tell Miranda to use her Overload ability, otherwise the useless **** is likely to start warping things and wasting her cooldowns. The need to micromanage your party isn't necessarily a BAD thing, it's just... a thing. But I've definitely found I need to tell them what to do to get the best results. ("No, really, Tali. You can use your AI hacking on these guys. You don't need to pull out Chikkita for the fifteenth time.")

What do you play ME2? If you play on the 360 just click the left or right D-pad (what ever side Miri was assinged)  Move your cruser to the guy you want to kill, press the D-pad (left or right) and she will use what ever power is nessary. Bioware made ME2 in a way where you never need to go into the power whee, only once in a blue moon.

[77boy84]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

DrunkenGoon wrote...

Yea I agree with the OP.. You can't really play through ME2 without being extremely one sided.. Well not unless you want a bunch of your crew to wind up dead.. With Charm or intimidate at least then you could make any decision you want and still be able to get out of tight situations like Miranda vs Jack or Tali vs Legion..

Not true at all.
I played using both options (went renegade more often, so i had a little higher renegade score) and I only lost Tali and Zaeed, and none of the crew.

With Charm/Intimidate you could make any decision you wanted, at the cost of nuking all your other stats.
How my shepard will act should be based on how he acts. If he acts like a jerk more often than not, more jerk options should open up. It should NOT be based off of arbitrary levels and stats.

Hmm, I see your point, but I'm not sure I fully agree. For one thing, while certainly his behaviour should reflect on his reputation and how people react to him, I think there's also something to be said for a person's inborn charisma. For example, even among real life jerks, people react differently to them. Some of them are just annoying and come over as genuine dipwads or people who are trying to hard, while others are just so gorram charismatic and confident that you can't help but like them despite their dickery; either that, or they're just so overpowering that you cave to them immediately as opposed to wanting to put them in their place. That is what I feel the Charisma stat would do; it would be the difference between Shepard being a jerk, and Shepard being a jerk and people running away from him. ;-)

Also, as I've pointed out, while it makes sense that being a jerk opens up jerk options, it doesn't mean that said jerk wants to be a jerk all the time. What if Jerk Shepard likes pegging people in the head, snarking, and just generally being a douche, but come Tali trial time finds himself desperate to protect the one person he actually somewhat cares about?

(I will cop to not knowing about Paragade still allowing most of the options; I heard from many people that they were stuck on the Jack/Miranda fight just because they were slightly more "neutral")

Just because you pick one option doesn't mean you're stuck with them. I played it both ways on my first playthrough (tho slightly more renegade than paragon) and the only time I ever got stuck out of an option was the morinth/samara scene, and the tali/legion scene.

And while my shepard didn't give a **** about tali, he still had the option to do the hug, even though he wasn't always paragon, and mostly renegade.

[UsagiVindaloo]

77boy84 wrote...

TheCrakFox wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

DrunkenGoon wrote...

Yea I agree with the OP.. You can't really play through ME2 without being extremely one sided.. Well not unless you want a bunch of your crew to wind up dead.. With Charm or intimidate at least then you could make any decision you want and still be able to get out of tight situations like Miranda vs Jack or Tali vs Legion..

Not true at all.
I played using both options (went renegade more often, so i had a little higher renegade score) and I only lost Tali and Zaeed, and none of the crew.

With Charm/Intimidate you could make any decision you wanted, at the cost of nuking all your other stats.
How my shepard will act should be based on how he acts. If he acts like a jerk more often than not, more jerk options should open up. It should NOT be based off of arbitrary levels and stats.

Just because you don't act like a jerk very often doesn't mean you shouldn't be prone to the occasional outburst of extreme jerkyness.

It would be a bit silly if Shepard acted like a nice guy 24/7 then just up and shoved a guy out of a window. Or sent the biotic god to his death.

Besides, ME1 had the same thing. You couldn't use all of the renegade/paragon options unless you had the skill, which was unlocked through picking paragon/renegade options

Meh, depends on the guy. I'm not sure my Shepard would have killed, say, Kolyat's hostage or the gunship guy on Garrus' recruitment mission, but he might have shot one of those mechs in the head, or possibly even shoved Nassana's merc out the window if he believed the merc would alert the others. 

Also, there are plenty of examples of people who are jerks 24/7 but then are nice in one situation or to one person. The Tali example could certainly be one. Another I'm considering doing is a Renegade colonist in ME1 and being gentle and soothing to that one survivor, despite being a cold ruthless **** the rest of the time.

[UsagiVindaloo]

kraidy1117 wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

I disagree. I found the ME1 gameplay fine, and I *much* prefered the overheat system to the current ammo system... it gave things a bit more challenge. You couldn't just fire, reload, fire... if you fired too long, you would have to wait. Skilling up weapons was also kind of a neat element, although not one I mourn for intensely. And I definitely found ME1 to play like a shooter. In fact, in some ways it was more like a shooter than ME2, namely in that I never had to tell my party to do anything. Half my time in ME2 is spent choosing abilities from the pause menu.

I think that BOTH games had/have good gameplay, when we get down to it. It's just different. Not better, not worse... different. No reason to say one was bad, just say, "Hey, ME1 was fine for what it was, but I prefer ME2." Much more respectful and gets the same point across.

? I though that was ME1 for me 0_ò

I think ME2 was clear and simple, tactical but functional. In ME1 you wonder How the hell you got the N7 title when in Eden Prime you don't even know how to shoot.

Anyway, a Charm ability doesn't affect the ME2 playstyle at all. It just adds "diplomacy" in the skill.

To clarify: I found that in ME1, my party members seemed a lot better at using their powers effectively. Or perhaps it was more that their powers were universally useful and thus the NPCs could spam as much as they like and I wasn't about to stop them. My party was Soldier Shepard, Liara and Tali, and I pretty much took potshots while Liara kept stuff CCed and Tali blew stuff up. It was SO. MUCH. FUN. I miss the days of seeing entire roomfuls of badguys floating gleefully through the air...

In ME2, I find that the abilities are much more situational, and you have to use the correct NPC abilities to best progress. For example, if I'm up against stuff with shields, I have to tell Miranda to use her Overload ability, otherwise the useless **** is likely to start warping things and wasting her cooldowns. The need to micromanage your party isn't necessarily a BAD thing, it's just... a thing. But I've definitely found I need to tell them what to do to get the best results. ("No, really, Tali. You can use your AI hacking on these guys. You don't need to pull out Chikkita for the fifteenth time.")

What do you play ME2? If you play on the 360 just click the left or right D-pad (what ever side Miri was assinged)  Move your cruser to the guy you want to kill, press the D-pad (left or right) and she will use what ever power is nessary. Bioware made ME2 in a way where you never need to go into the power whee, only once in a blue moon.

I use the 360, but I didn't want to assign anything to the Dpad because I want to keep those free for assigning people on point. Plus there are so many squadmates that I'd get their assignments all confused. The pausing is sort of nice in that it provides a break in the action and lets me queue up multiple actions all at once (hooray for triple Overloads!)