BioWare: Mass Effect 3 Combat Perfected

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Kottick, is that you? What are you doing at Bioware?

Oro44:
This all seems to be semantics over what and what does not constitute an rpg. Personally, I try not to categorize a game by any specific genre and just take it for what it is. If you want every game to be a shining example of a genre, you're going to be disappointed every time. For me, ME1 and 2 were general "action games", Portal was a simple "puzzle game" and New Vegas was a "boring game".

How DAAAAAARE you even suggest that the ingredients of an RPG can vary from person to person, sir?!?!

Next you will say there are multiple types of trees in the world. Everyone knows that all trees have coconuts and grow in tropical climates. There can be NOOOOOOO flexibility on this. If you DAAAAAAAAARE to try to tell me that those "redwoods" in the Pacific Northwest are trees, I will call you a LIAR!! A LIAR!!!!! No coconuts? NOT A TREE!

haraa for good shooting elements
Now all we need is some good ol RPG elements and we got ourselves the greatest game EVAR!!
the down side to all this is that the awesomeness keeps growing and i dont get to see this awesomeness till november..... Haroo

I found both games to be very enjoyable in their own ways.

I don't see how this can really go wrong. But then... I was never concerned about the combat in ME3.

All I'm concerned about is bringing an exploration element.. like the Mako.

Like Yahtzee said... bringing about some "tangible bigness" to the game.. and also his point on showing Sheperd actually leaving and entering the ship. These were probably my only real complaints about ME2.

mjc0961:

Zhukov:
The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

They already did that for Mass Effect 2, so I say who cares what they think about the 3rd?

I say good. And improvement to the core gameplay is fine by me.

agreed. the combat was much more functional and enjoyable in the second game (in the first game, I preferred making conversations than shooting people...I know, odd. just goes to show)

hopefully Mass Effect 3 is the culmination of everything BioWare has learned with the Mass Effect games, both pros and cons

that, or as long as Garrus has more calibrations to do

I guess from a story or realism stand point it makes sense to strip a lot of leveling up system out. Shepard isn't some rookie straight out of boot camp. He/she's an experienced soldier who has already saved the galaxy at least once. Shepard already knows how to use a gun. the whole experience points system almost seems outdated. I mean, what the hell are they and why does killing things give them to you? I notice a lot of rpgs don't really explain that to you. But that's a discussion for another time.

As for the limited ammo, yeah I think the old system was better. They should either bring it back or figure out a way to combine the two like someone else suggested. You can control your fire and watch the heat bar or you can fire continuously and when the gun overheats reload the thermal clip. ME1 fans will be happy because they've got their unlimited ammo back. And ME2 fans will be happy because they can still spray bullets around with reckless abandon.

Oro44:
This all seems to be semantics over what and what does not constitute an rpg. Personally, I try not to categorize a game by any specific genre and just take it for what it is. If you want every game to be a shining example of a genre, you're going to be disappointed every time. For me, ME1 and 2 were general "action games", Portal was a simple "puzzle game" and New Vegas was a "boring game".

I agree here. Everyone wants to fight over what exactly an RPG is. Everything is becoming more skewed these days. I love RPG's, but it doesn't have to fit that mold of what an RPG is every single time.

That said, you can't add meaningless level progression to a game and call it an RPG either. Dragon Age 1 was a definitive RPG, Dragon Age 2 simply gave you choices of how you wanted your character to attack, it's not really the same thing.

OT: I wonder how ME3 will really be at this point. I don't want a meaningless shooter out of any ME game.

ecoho:
[
ok to be truthfull it was NEVER suposed to be just an RPG, it was sold as an epic story action RPG. Also dont go bitching just yet about ME3 see as they are bringing back alot of the RPG eliments which will make it a better game. Now i love both games for different reasons 1 had better biotic combat and the custmization,and 2 had better combat, no mako, no cluster fuck inventory(i do miss the custumization but if thats what it took to get rid of that horrible interface so be it), and it did what the second chapter should it set up for the theird while reminding us about stuff we did in the first.

All in all ME3 WILL be better then both because it seems like theyve found balance.

BTW DA2 is a different team so stop saying bioware has sold their soul to EA and that every game will be like DA2!

Actually it was supposed to be an RPG, just one that worked in real time and looked kind of like a shooter.

Lack of inventory and loot, was a big blow against the game. Maybe not for shooter fans, but that kind of thing is a big part of what makes RPGs what they are.

The combat wasn't "better" so much as it was "a shooter" which is better if you want the major determining factor of confrontations to be your abillity to aim/twitch as opposed to what the character you built is capable of. Differant type of game. You can't have the combat based on player reflexs and be an RPG, as RPGs are defined by the capabilities of the character being what does the work as opposed to the person playing the game. Storylines and such are simply tacked onto that.

When it comes to the combat, they have been saying a lot of differant things. Really the only bit they have mentioned as being more "RPG-like" is the powers being able to evolve more than once. Everything else points towards this just being another shooter, weapon mods aren't the same as "loot" and plenty of shooter games use those already. What's more they stated that they ultimatly want to dumb down the game further by removing a big part of the game balance, by pretty much letting every character use any weapon, and simply having class determine how many slots they have. This means that the component of having to play your class is being removed to dumb it down further, with every player being able to take whatever weapons they happen to be most comfortable with, or feel are best for the mission in question. The Assault Rifle being pretty much "Soldier Only" and characters like Vanguards being given Shotguns (pretty much requiring a close-in attack strategy) have been balanced gameplay concepts. I don't much care for doing away with that, the idea seems to be primarily because shooter fans wanted to be able to use whatever gun they wanted as opposed to having to "role play" and adapt what they had to the situation.

Time will tell if I'm right or not, you are definatly not alone in disagreeing with me.

Also for the record, I haven't been going on about the so called "EA Devil" though I imagine they do have some influance.

To put things into perspective, look at the other response I received. People keep talking about how "Mass Effect 2" oldsold "Mass Effect 1" so obviously people embraced the changes and liked them. That's hardly the case, given that most sales take place due to pre-orders and initial sales around the time of release which is why game companies work so hard to surpress negative reviews when a game is first coming out.

Remember also that used game sales, as much as the industry hates them, mean that more people actually play a game than the sales would indicate. A lot of people who purchused the sequel probably played "Mass Effect 1" used. I don't think it was so much a new audience (though there was some of that) as much as the exponential rate at which the used market can cause game audiences to grow without the industry being able to track it.

What's more, people seem to think that those who hate on games are "trolls" who have not played them, that is hardly the case. Especially in the case of "Mass Effect 2" your looking at a situation where the complaints were made by people who paid for the game and were being considered "satisfied customers" on the paperwork, when they really weren't. "Played it but was disappointed" really isn't something marketing for games follows, it's either a sale or it isn't, if the game sells, then it's viewed as being a win.

Understand also that when I say that I think Bioware is in for a surprise, I do *NOT* mean that I think they are going to take a bath, or go out of business, or anything else. I simply think that there is a good chance that "Mass Effect 3" is going to underperform and be successful, but hardly the anticipated blockbuster they are hoping. Plenty of people who otherwise hate it will probably play it just to see how the story ends if nothing else. Bioware can carry some success just on the merits of their writing.

I think right now a lot of people are very wary, and like me, will take a lot of convincing to go running out and buy the game. If this game is a lot more similar to '2' than to '1' then chances are I'm not going to run out and buy it for $60 and support them with DLC purchuses like I have done in the past. I'm more likely to hold off until it drops in price, or pick up a discounted "game of the year edition", or perhaps most likely buy it used after the fact. If it's a massive twitch fest, I'm just going to pass on it, because I'm not a big shooter player, I do play some, but not many, and I don't pay $60 for them. The market they seem to be going for (Bulletstorm, Call Of Duty, etc...) sort of represents to anti-thesis of what I am interested in as a gamer.

To put things into perspective, a few of the shooters I have played are things like the STALKER series, and Precursors, none of which are among my favorite games, but at least they have inventory management and loot.

CD-R:
I guess from a story or realism stand point it makes sense to strip a lot of leveling up system out. Shepard isn't some rookie straight out of boot camp. He/she's an experienced soldier who has already saved the galaxy at least once. Shepard already knows how to use a gun. the whole experience points system almost seems outdated. I mean, what the hell are they and why does killing things give them to you? I notice a lot of rpgs don't really explain that to you. But that's a discussion for another time.

The only thing I can think of is, having faced enemies previously, he now faces a whole new tier of enemies. I like to think of it like this: if you're a professional football player, you're not instantaneously good at other sports, and you can become a professional basketball player, but you are starting pretty much at level 1.

Toasty Virus:

teebeeohh:

Zhukov:
I remember reading that in those magazine scans that hit the net awhile back. Sounds good to me.

The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

Heh.

well the RPG crowd i hang out with didn't hate the combat system in ME2 but the reduction in character development. But since Bioware promised to change that in ME3 I am really looking forward to this.

Reduction in character development? ME2 had MASSIVELY developed characters.

OT: I'm glad, This game looks better every update!

no it didn't
at least not the kind where you have lot's of diagrams, bars and statistics that show you just how much you your character has changed.

isn't this what people were complaining about in ME2?

The only things I want again in ME3, are more varieties of armor and weapons like you had in the first one, the Mako, and the (almost) unlimited ammo you had for the weapons (with the overheating and all). Fucking hated thermal clips.

Besides that, I'll give this a wait-and-see approach as I am really looking forwards to ME3.

Also, GIVE US JADE EMPIRE SEQUEL! Although the first one ended off the story perfectly, Jade Empire still has many opportunities for more storyline and gameplay advancement that Bioware should really consider taking a second look at. *HEM*

Zhukov:
I remember reading that in those magazine scans that hit the net awhile back. Sounds good to me.

The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

Heh.

what makes an rpg an rpg? character customization (class, skills etc), an interesting story. Well depicted and build characters that you might actually move yourself to care for.

The combat system plays little into it actually. A game does not become an rpg because of how the combat plays out, now does it.

I am looking forward to a streamlined adventure.
I'd love to have mass effects shooter spirit and the toned down array of weapons, but have those more customizable (really, Ammo powers?!") - and thats what they have done as far as i am aware.

i am not missing picking a dozens sell trash items out from an inventory.
I wont miss several manufacturer of weapons of where only two are only really viable and the rest clutters your inventory. same for mods.

I wont miss putting in dozens of stat points into skills that give me a 2% increase in farting.

I do like having a very clean and tidy and especially "to the point" skill tree to pick and chose
Yes i do miss the awesome special effects display of sabotage, detonate, dampen etc from a nice hybrid biotech char. But i pretty sure we will get that back.

So far, less mouth foaMY MARKETING ;MORE ACTUAL FOOTAGE:

Irridium:
SNIP.

this.
they did this to dragon age, please don't do it to mass effect too

GLo Jones:
I guess seeing is believing, because 'multi-tiered levels joined by ladders' sounds pretty damn frustrating and tedious to me.

exactly the kind of thing the "classic" rpg fanboys want. with extra tedious and some extra frustration on the side to boot

as for me? only thing that frustrated me about mass effect 2 was its sometimes inconsistent cover system that wouldn't let me take cover when i wanted it to. or the enemies that would somehow get behind me while my sometimes useless squadmates did nothing

other than that, where can you go from there?

Baresark:

CD-R:
I guess from a story or realism stand point it makes sense to strip a lot of leveling up system out. Shepard isn't some rookie straight out of boot camp. He/she's an experienced soldier who has already saved the galaxy at least once. Shepard already knows how to use a gun. the whole experience points system almost seems outdated. I mean, what the hell are they and why does killing things give them to you? I notice a lot of rpgs don't really explain that to you. But that's a discussion for another time.

The only thing I can think of is, having faced enemies previously, he now faces a whole new tier of enemies. I like to think of it like this: if you're a professional football player, you're not instantaneously good at other sports, and you can become a professional basketball player, but you are starting pretty much at level 1.

I don't know about that he's still doing pretty much the same thing he did last time. Shooting things that are trying to shoot him. The only really new enemy in the game was the collectors. Who just shoot stuff and occasionally get tougher after being possessed by Micheal Dorn. Everything else Shepard faced in the first game. If he went from shooting things to fighting with a light saber then yeah I could see your point.

I love my RPGs but I loved ME2 for how it treated the shooter aspect but it's not perfect. I'm excited for ME3. yaya BioWare.

CD-R:

Baresark:

CD-R:
snip

snip

I don't know about that he's still doing pretty much the same thing he did last time. Shooting things that are trying to shoot him. The only really new enemy in the game was the collectors. Who just shoot stuff and occasionally get tougher after being possessed by Micheal Dorn. Everything else Shepard faced in the first game. If he went from shooting things to fighting with a light saber then yeah I could see your point.

I'm not saying I am right, haha. It just helps me sleep at night as a guy who likes RPG's. I would like to argue that he learns a little more each time he pulls that trigger, but as a carpenter, I sure as hell don't learn something every time I swing my hammer. =P

Can someone tell me how having a bigger levels, more ways of going through an area, and a smarter AI to make the game harder as they will flank you, and be more aggressive, with a refined cover system, makes ME3 not a rpg, because they decided to tweak the combat? I mean you have the mods which changes the guns look, and how it works, you have multiple branches of skill trees for customization on your Shepard.

The choices mechanics are going to be even more dynamic as in no emails, more on par with making decisions in the Suicide mission and having consequences react now, and later on in the story. Getting race loyalty doesn't even have to be stuck in quest.

So color me confuse. More customization for skill trees. More customization for classes thanks in part to classes being able to use all weapons with restrictions on how many can carry. Customization on weapons mods. Having smarter AI with levels that you can go multiple ways to engage an enemy, making the game harder. I am confused, as it seem like improvements and adding or in ME3 case returning some of the mechanics in the first game.

I think Bioware has made a conscious choice towards storytelling and characterization. In the same time reducing min/maxing, numbercrunching, and inventory management.
To fans of old Bioware games, there are some old school style indie crpgs for the PC.

In short they have put more "role" into crpgs, and reduced the "gaminess" (game theory).

Okay, tell you what. Dick around with the combat as much as you want.

But if you make me play "Ethel The Ardvaark Goes Quantity Surveying" for all my upgrades again, I quit. I can't count the amount of times I fell asleep running that stupid cursor back and forth across planets.

I mean, I know the vehicle sections from ME1 weren't popular, but I'd take those over a goddamn pixel hunt any day of the week. It's like the devs were punishing people for complaining about the vehicle handling.

For everyone complaining that the weapons didn't upgrade, I understand why you think that. Because you couldn't be fucking bothered with it.

Daedalus1942:
Well... looks like I won't be buying Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect 2 was a broken, dumbed down piece of shit and bioware made me pay $120 for an expansion that should have been DLC.
Fuck Bioware. We knew EA would destroy them.
Anyone remember Jade Empire?
Such a good game, shame it will likely never see a sequel.
-Tabs<3-

It's ironic that you're lauding the most consolised game that Bioware had ever made, at least before Dragon Age 2. Don't get me wrong, Jade Empire was a wonderful game, but it was guilty of all the "dumbing down" that Mass Effect 2 exhibited.

Anyway, the lead gameplay designer for the Mass Effect series said after Mass Effect 2's release that she was looking to add back in more RPG elements for ME3. The Game Informer article said that more skill progression/customisation is being added, along with a return of the ability to modify weaponry (and it'll actually show on the weapon's model this time). I'm not too worried.

Bioware are obviously going to try to keep Mass Effect 3's shooting gameplay at a competative level, but the majority of that was done with ME2. It's the RPG side that needs to be fleshed out for ME3, and I think Bioware understand that.

If they refine the combat so it won't get tedious after 100 h playtime, I'll give them tremendous kudos.

It's good to hear them bringing back some of the RPG elements. Not that I'd missed in Mass Effect 2, I play games for the experience, not the numbercrunching.

tlozoot:
Snip

You belong to the very small section of logical thinking amongst the ocean of demand towards tedium. Looks like we're in this together.

As long as they don't go back to the ME 1 style.

I don't want to call it bad but when the only thing that's keeping me going is the fact that if I don't, I will get a shitty stroy in the second game...it doesn't really leave room for kind words.

Thunderhorse31:
Oh great, cue the incessant pissing and moaning about how ME isn't supposed to be a shooter but an RPG, how this ruins the franchise, Bioware is now a sellout to EA, and other completely bat-shit overreactions.

*looks back over 2 pages*

Dammit, looks like it's already well underway.

Sad isn't it? I can't even imagine what it will be like once they start releasing actual trailers and gameplay footage...I can't decide if it will get better or worse.

The.Bard:
For one thing, it's not 'supposedly.' They did it or they didn't. I've read the quote aloud twice, and I would say, no, they didn't brag. Nothing close to it, really. I also get the impression he was referring to multiple paths and high/low tiers, not the actual addition of ladders. But that's me extrapolating. A dangerous past-time (I know!)

I swear I remember reading something (but I can't remember where, so consider this pure extrapolation on my part) where they said they were changing the way you climb so you don't have to go into cover to get to a higher level. That's what the whole "ladder" think made me think of. Or maybe I'm completely crazy *shrugs* who knows?

Is it just me, or does it sound like--according to this guy--the Mass Effect series is slowly forgetting what it is, an RPG? All I saw in this was "shoot, shoot, shoot some more." Does he really think people are going to compare Mass Effect 3 with Call of Duty? (Do people like that actually exist?)
Please tell me one of those tweaks that the made to combat is that I can now use more than one power at a time. PLEASE!!!!!

People are still bitching about Dragon Age 2? -resists urge to bash head on desk-

You people do realize that Dragon Age and Mass Effect are handled to two separate teams right? The Dragon Age 2 horse started smelling a while ago, it's time to stop beating it. I'm tired of hearing the non stop whining.

And I guess everyone missed the news on the 8th where BioWare said they're bringing back a lot of the RPG elements and weapons mods from the first game, so it isn't just going to be a shooter. It sounds to me like they're trying to combine the elements of the first two games and improve on them.

And I have to say, as much as I love the first Mass Effect it is tedious as hell compared to Mass Effect 2. The side quests suck and the cover system is terrible. While the main story in Mass Effect 2 wasn't as good as the story from the first, the side quests were amazing and enjoyable. That alone made Mass Effect 2 a more re-playable experience for me than the first.

I'd like them remove the thermal clips and health regen though, as they were the only parts of the second game I hated.

Until we actually see a video lets just wait and see what changes they're making before everyone jumps on the "It's gonna suck!" bandwagon that people seem to be so eager ride on.

Zhukov:
I remember reading that in those magazine scans that hit the net awhile back. Sounds good to me.

The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

Heh.

Well wouldn't you be upset if your favourite game did a major change that you didn't agree with? Plus I thought people were unhappy with the coverbased shooting in ME2?

Also why would they want to compare their combat with Call of Duty? It's 3rd person like Gears of War not an FPS.

Captcha: isollyea explicitly. So I sell yea, explicit-ly?

That's good, I'd actually like it if Mass Effect 3 played a bit like Gears of War (mostly with the cover system - Mass Effect 2 was clunky as hell in that regard), but they need to bring back the sense of progression you had in the first game.

Alright, so 4 pages of comments retreading the same old back and forth, though I will admit with a few highlights. I really don't care for this whole genre argument. Honestly, what does it matter? There is only one really definitive choice you need to decide for a game - did I have fun with this? Because you know what, I had fun in the Mass Effect series, the Baldur's Gate series(even today still in my Top5 if not most favorite game), Mount & Blade, the Elder Scrolls series, the Orange Box, the Dragon Age series, Bulletstorm, Call of Duty, Dead Space, Eve Online, World of Warcraft, the Diablo series, the Starcraft series, Half-Life, Plants vs Zombies, Sword of the Stars, Torchlight and so on. I don't exclusively enjoy my games only if they exist in narrow predefined bands of genre.

When defining what little box you can label a game into based on x,y,z feature becomes more important than deciding for yourself if you had a good time with a game then dare I say I think you might have a screw loose.

"Now, with Mass Effect 3, we're able to complete that genre-shift with changes across the board."

Fixed that for ya.

But seriously, the combat in ME2 was just fine; they don't need to change it with every iteration. I don't see the point of this genre change when they set out to make a RPG, not a shooter. It feels far too forced at this point in the series. I can hear them talking now:

"What's that? We need an epic climax for our epic RPG? MAKE IT INTO A 100% SHOOTER! They're gamers, they won't know the difference!"

If I'm proven wrong, then more power to them, but I'm not sold on this in the least.

1, please don't make me dildo planets for hours just for an upgrade again.
2, i play shooters mainly and u know what they don't have... it's ladders!!! hell i'm doing a games design course and one of our assignments was to make a multi player level for UT3 (used for the assets, get to use full blown UDK next year squeeeeeeeee) and you know what they said... ramps always ramps, and maybe jump pads or lifts, no bloody ladders and especially not any bloody spiral stairs or stairs in general (despite the fact that the editor has a staircase brush _) no ladders in there haha. other than that i can't give input as i havn't played any mass effect but thats something i plan to fix over the summer.

Sniper Team 4:
Is it just me, or does it sound like--according to this guy--the Mass Effect series is slowly forgetting what it is, an RPG? All I saw in this was "shoot, shoot, shoot some more." Does he really think people are going to compare Mass Effect 3 with Call of Duty? (Do people like that actually exist?)
Please tell me one of those tweaks that the made to combat is that I can now use more than one power at a time. PLEASE!!!!!

The only thing I know is that they are making the classes more customizable by branching skill trees, more skills, and weapon mods. They are refining the cover system, refining the shooter mechanics so now when you hit other body parts they have added effects, hit the leg move slower, hit the arm less accurate. Improving the levels design, and having a smarter AI. Seems to me they are adding improvements to the game. Though a video will do nicely on showing the combat.

Irridium:
Yeah, not exactly looking forward to it.

In ME2, you were just as accurate and your guns were just as strong at the end as they were at the beginning. You did not get more accurate, your guns didn't get stronger, they stayed the same from beginning to end. There was no sense of progression, no sense of getting stronger. Yeah you got a couple of new guns/powers to play around with, but they didn't really change up combat. Like, at all. You still stayed behind cover and shot dudes who poked their heads out(or casted your powers, depending on your class). The only two classes that were fun to play were Vanguard(who can charge everywhere) and the Infiltrator class(can turn invisible). And even then it was still pretty "meh".

In Mass Effect 1, you start out with ass guns, ass stats, ass armor, and pretty much just ass everything. But as you progress, you get better. Your weapons get better. Your skills get better. Your team gets better. You have an actual sense of progression. At the start I had to fire in bursts and couldn't cast much powers. By the end I could fire for 2 minutes without the gun overheating(not counting the "overload" power, which boosts accuracy/lowers heating up even more), my guns were super-accurate, I had such beefy armor I was like a tank. I went from "standard soldier" to "uber-badass". And it was great.

You also learn how the combat works. At the start you'll fumble around, but then you'll learn it. Learn when to use your powers, when take your shots, everything. You get better, Shepard gets better, you both get better at the same time and it just gives a sense of immersion that no other game has ever given me. Most people try to play Mass Effect 1 as a straight up shooter. Casting powers all at once, running in, ect. and I think thats why there was so much hate for it.

Mass Effect 1 is not a shooter. It is an RPG(although that in itself is debatable) with shooter elements. If you play it as a tactical RPG, pausing while playing, issuing orders, managing powers, ect. the game's combat gets great, fun, and interesting.

In ME2 you start out as "so-so badass" and just stay that way through the whole game. You don't get better, don't get more accurate, don't improve your guns(all the guns are basically side-grades instead of upgrades). There just isn't any sense of progression. Yeah you level up and get a bit more powers, but they all have the same cooldown for some stupid reason, so you'll cast one, then wait for everything to recharge, and then do it again. Its boring.

Again, ME1 is not a shooter. If you don't like that, then guess what? The game is not for you. This is not a bad thing, it just means this game is not for you.

ME2 is a shooter. I guess it would be an action adventure, since it has essentially no role-playing. Same with Mass Effect 1, only ME1 is just adventure with shooter elements. Again, ME2 being more shooter-like isn't bad per-say, its just boring as hell to me.

Also ME1 had infinite ammo. And no matter how you say it, I don't see how going from unlimited ammo to limited ammo is an upgrade. Especially if you like sniping, in which case you'll be running out of ammo very quickly and have to just go up the front lines and fight Gears of War style anyway. Or sit in an area where the ammo things constantly respawn, which completely undermines the new ammo mechanic.

And another thing, I seem to be one of the very few people who think naturally moving in/out of cover is better then pressing A to stick yourself to a wall. In ME1 if you want to take cover you go up to a wall, and Shepard automatically gets into cover. In ME2 you have to tell him to do it. I guess TIM didn't fully repair his brain if he doesn't have the sense to get into cover when getting shot.

And that is why I liked ME1's combat much more than ME2's. Hopefully ME3 brings back the sense of progression, but from what I hear I doubt it.

Before I say this, everyone's entitled to their opinion. If you liked ME1 better in every way, that's perfectly alright.

However, I want to know how starting with ass-backwards guns is fun. I can understand starting with very little health and crappy biotics, but starting with guns that can hit everything except what you're aiming for is fun. It's actually quite annoying. Granted, you do have allies but they're almost as ass-backwards as the starting guns, and that doesn't level up. I understand that this isn't a shooter, and that's fine, but leveling up should have allowed you a greater selection of weapons with which to decimate the opposition, not to make your assault rifle 10% less ass. I see no reason why that would be fun in any RPG pretending to be a shooter, or shooter pretending to be an RPG. It just doesn't sound like a good idea.

I'll agree that ME2 started off more along the lines of Gears of War, but you still got different things. You got different guns and you leveled up and you had points to spend on stuff, which is very different from Gears of War in which leveling up comes from the skill and intelligence and wisdom you gain from progressing forward (i.e., you make dumbass mistakes at first and get wiser as the game goes on.

As for the infinite ammo vs. limited ammo argument - I was more bothered by the long time I had to wait for the gun overheating to go down than I was for the two-second reload time. However, neither bothered me much. Bioware's reason for this was that it reduced the time you had to wait for cooldown, but I don't buy that because if thermal clips were more efficient, then why the hell didn't they keep them in the first game?

Finally, I think ME3 is going to be a shooter with some true RPG elements (a good story that changes with your options, experience points, etc.) but the "shooter" part is definitely going to ring true throughout the game.

It will be welcome in my library.

EDIT: Also, I've seen that wall of text in other places, do you just copy and paste it to every Mass Effect forum?

Actual finally, take out ladders. No one likes ladders. I fucking hate ladders. They're bad design for the most part. Remove the fucking ladders.

I just wish they rework the weapon system.As it's been said before,you don't feel like you're progressing in ME2.
Also,while I can live with ammo being power-based,please give us back weapon mods Bioware.Now that weapons of the same class function differently,give us the option to define our play-style a bit more.
One more thing,how about keeping the heatsinks to act as "ammo mags" to quickly cool off a weapon,but give each weapon a slow cooling of itself.It keeps from having ME1's ridiculous infinite fire assault rifles,but keeps sniper rifle and shotgun users from having to srpint across the line of fire just to get ammo.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here