New Mass Effect 2 character

[RPGmasterBoo]

I use it constantly, it does improve your aim and it allows people behind you to shoot. And it feels stupid to stand around if you don't have any cover, only idiots make themselfs bigger targets in a bulletstorm.

 

True, if being shot is an actual danger in the game. In ME it wasnt, 90% of the time.

 

This video has probably been posted before, it is the E3 2009 stage demo, and shows a chunk of gameplay.

 

 

Now can some kind soul enlighten me as to what AI improvements Greg keeps yapping about, since the enemies seem to follow the well known routine of "charge and die (or they strafe with the speed of a comatose snail)" with the occasional "hide behind box before charging and dying".

 

Its also noticeable that the person playing is either completely inept, or the controls are as unwieldy as before because the targeting reticle moves so slowly and imprecisely it. Also its worth noting that even with the terrible performance of the person/controls all the enemies were defeated easily which again raises the question of difficulty - or rather the lack of it.

Edited September 1, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[Guest Slinky]

True, if being shot is an actual danger in the game. In ME it wasnt, 90% of the time.

Oh, but then you didn't notice how often your party members shoot you in the back

[RPGmasterBoo]

True, if being shot is an actual danger in the game. In ME it wasnt, 90% of the time.

Oh, but then you didn't notice how often your party members shoot you in the back

 

There were plenty of reasons to hate them even without that

[Niten_Ryu]

Your own party members shooting your backside have long traditions in cRPGs

 

Seriously, removing crouching is very stupid. Stand, crouch and prone should be available in any game that has ranged attacks. It's natural thing to hit the ground when bullets (or arrows) or explosives start to fly. ME use Unreal Engine 3 just like Gear of War and that game was basically one big "shoot and cover" simulator. If Biowares braindead combat designers or programmers can't get THAT feature to work in ME2, they should quit the biz.

[Bos_hybrid]

The ability to crouch has been removed from the game.

That's just stupid, did they give any good reason?

 

 

From a Bio dev:

 

We generally found that people would crouch a few meters behind cover and shoot over the cover (because of some camera tricks, this was possible), instead of actually using the cover.

 

It made it hard for the AIs to fight back since they didn't have access to the same camera tricks.

 

So that's the reason they are giving. He went onto say:

 

We looked into why people weren't using cover... especially since we were making a lot of improvements to the system and we really wanted people to take advantage of them.

 

A lot of it had to do with responsiveness, ease of use and a whole mess of small issues that simply meant that cover was not very satisfying to use.

 

So, we fixed up most of those issues and it's now miles better than it was before. A very satisfying experience overall.

 

There is more, but it's along the same lines. (dev hype up)

 

Just to be clear here you can still use crouch cover, but you can't crouch in general. But let me ask you, when was the last time you played a shooter that didn't have crouch.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Its a case of bad design philosophy.

They are mixing two completely unrelated gameplay types, the reflex based shooter and the tactical RPG and the game is stuck somewhere in between them. Unfortunately there isnt enough reflex skill to satisfy a shooter fan or enough tactics for an RPG player.

They also can't seem to decide whether the enemies are shooter enemies or rpg mooks, since the former in general should be capable of quickly and efficiently killing the PC (with good AI and reflexes) and the latter usually are inferior (in tactics) to the player, and slower to react (since its really the stats deciding the outcome, the speed loses importance).

 

The result is a gameplay full of holes like the one we see now. It wouldnt have been so terrible if the game wasnt so immensely overhyped.

Edited September 1, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[Guest Slinky]

Its also noticeable that the person playing is either completely inept, or the controls are as unwieldy as before because the targeting reticle moves so slowly and imprecisely it. Also its worth noting that even with the terrible performance of the person/controls all the enemies were defeated easily which again raises the question of difficulty - or rather the lack of it.

Thats your avarage pad aiming for you. That is precisely the reason why I prefer PC over consoles.

 

 

Seriously, removing crouching is very stupid. Stand, crouch and prone should be available in any game that has ranged attacks.

Couldn't agree more.

 

Just to be clear here you can still use crouch cover, but you can't crouch in general. But let me ask you, when was the last time you played a shooter that didn't have crouch.

I didn't think it was possible, but they are actually making things in ME2 simpler, than they were in ME

[RPGmasterBoo]

Its also noticeable that the person playing is either completely inept, or the controls are as unwieldy as before because the targeting reticle moves so slowly and imprecisely it. Also its worth noting that even with the terrible performance of the person/controls all the enemies were defeated easily which again raises the question of difficulty - or rather the lack of it.

Thats your avarage pad aiming for you. That is precisely the reason why I prefer PC over consoles.

 

Thought as much. How anyone can put up with that sort of frustration is beyond me.

[Bos_hybrid]

Its a case of bad design philosophy.

 

No, not unless AP is as well. (Which I don't believe)

 

They are mixing two completely unrelated gameplay types, the reflex based shooter and the tactical RPG and the game is stuck somewhere in between them.

 

Again no, DA:O is a game made by bio trying to be a tactical rpg. ME is a action rpg.

 

Unfortunately there isnt enough reflex skill to satisfy a shooter fan or enough tactics for an RPG player.

 

I don't play rpgs for 'tactics', I play them for there story and characters.

 

It wouldnt have been so terrible if the game wasnt so immensely overhyped.

 

To you maybe, but not to me, I enjoyed ME more then a lot of the games on your 'good' list. Except for VTM:B and maybe MOTB.

 

Thats your avarage pad aiming for you. That is precisely the reason why I prefer PC over consoles.

 

+1

 

I didn't think it was possible, but they are actually making things in ME2 simpler, than they were in ME

 

Which is why I'm not pleased with a lot of then news coming out for ME2. The only good news to come out for it so far is, that ME2 has one third more dialogue then the original.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Bos_hybrid

[Guest Slinky]

The only good news to come out for it so far is, that ME2 has one third more dialogue then the original.

That is good news. I hope they flesh out the party members little (read: alot!) more.

[Bos_hybrid]

The only good news to come out for it so far is, that ME2 has one third more dialogue then the original.

That is good news. I hope they flesh out the party members little (read: alot!) more.

 

Which is unlikely, since they have doubled the amount of party members.

[RPGmasterBoo]

No, not unless AP is as well. (Which I don't believe)

 

If it ends up doing what ME is doing it will prove that point. If it fixes the inherent flaws in the conception then I'll be the first to put my dunce cap on.

 

Again no, DA:O is a game made by bio trying to be a tactical rpg. ME is a action rpg.

 

No, an action RPG since the term was coined was effectively a diablo clone. While there is some reflex action in those games its a specific sort of real time micro managment gameplay. ME is a shooter RPG which is substantially different.

It isnt a pure shooter since it features multiple controllable characters and pause-issue command combat, taken from Baldurs Gate.

In fact its a bastard child of Baldurs Gate/Kotor gameplay and TPS shooting (Gears of War style).

 

And if the shooter part works worse than 1999 TPS games coupled with the fact that the supposed tactical choices of having multiple party members are effectively zero - then something, somewhere, has gone wrong.

 

I don't play rpgs for 'tactics', I play them for there story and characters.

 

Combat is at least as important as those to make a complete game regardless of whether you, or me or anyone else care about it in particular. Torment is the only notable exception that got away with crap combat and only by the virtue of its outstanding plot and characterization.

Edited September 1, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[entrerix]

i'd add deus ex maybe to that list. it's one of my favorite games of all time, but the straight up "combat" side of the game is much weaker than the stealth and plot side of the game.

[Bos_hybrid]

No, not unless AP is as well. (Which I don't believe)

 

If it ends up doing what ME is doing it will prove that point. If it fixes the inherent flaws in the conception then I'll be the first to put my dunce cap on.

 

No all it will prove is that both devs have not successfully combined the two yet.

 

Dues Ex proves a hybid can be done very well.

 

No, an action RPG since the term was coined was effectively a diablo clone. While there is some reflex action in those games its a specific sort of real time micro managment gameplay. ME is a shooter RPG which is substantially different.

 

While Diablo was the game that coined it, the term now days has broadened. Most journalist will call ME/AP an action rpg, the devs themselves will also use the term to describe their games. Oblivion and FO3 are also considered action rpgs.

 

Combat is at least as important as those to make a complete game regardless of whether you, or me or anyone else care about it in particular. .

 

Which I agree with, I was disagreeing with people play rpgs for tactics. A lot do, a lot don't.

[Gromnir]

as much as many of us snobby old timey pnp players complain 'bout d&d, it is tough to ignore the impact d&d had on any role-play game that were to follow. d&d evolved from tabletop wargaming, so is not surprising that virtual all rules for d&d were combat related in some way, shape, or form. role-play were almost a misnomer when attributed to d&d as the rules didn't genuine deal with role-play. d&d were a squad-based tactical combat game... the role-play elements were pretty much left up to player and dm discretion. even so, is very few exceptions to the Combat First kinda aspect o' most pnp rpgs... and is even more rare with regards to crpgs.

 

does crpg needs combat? 'course not, but is unsurprising that people have come to expect good squad-based tactical combat from their crpgs. after all, the combat is pretty much an established convention o' the genre.

 

ps:t is an intriguing example. am recalling a couple o' posts from chrisA in which he disagreed with notion that ps:t combat were lame... 'course he were kidding himself. in any event, ps:t did have combat, and a good amount o' it too... whcih ain't a shock considering ps:t reliance on d&d rules. the thing is, even for folks who thought ps:t were sooper-groovy-keen, is few that thought ps:t combat were a positive feature. maybe ps:t didn't even need combat, but the fact is that it Did have combat. if you put combat in game is it not worthwhile to make that combat engaging and challenging? Gromnir's favorite crpg is ps:t, but it would be more favorite if combat weren't teh suck. likewise, while we found kotor to be an entertaining game in spite o' its flaws, the combat were horrible. is no question we woulda' enjoyed kotor more if combat were better implemented. rpgs not need combat and Gromnir can enjoy games with lame combat. nevertheless, if developer adds combat, why not make combat... good?

 

btw, feel free to restrain self from naming the handful o' pnp systems that don't use combat, 'cause Gromnir is already aware o' such systems.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

You could crouch in Mass Effect? Huh, I never noticed. Of course, I didn't pay much attention to the combat, it really wasn't why I played the game.

[RPGmasterBoo]

No all it will prove is that both devs have not successfully combined the two yet.

 

Dues Ex proves a hybid can be done very well.

 

Only partly true. Deus Ex was essentially a FPS, with stealth and RPG gameplay. ME is a TPS with party based combat and RPG gameplay. While the line is thin between them, they are not in fact the same. ME is not very good as a shooter and the party/squad based thing doesnt mix well.

I'm arguing that that particular melding doesn't work well at all, because it tries to appeal to cover shooter fans and tactical RPG fans and that there isnt enough quality action for the former and enough party based combat for the latter.

 

I've overlooked the fact that AP is a single character game (dunno how the occasional mercenaries are controlled), so it only has to deliver on one aspect - the shooting, which is inherently simpler - and has been proven to work - in Deus Ex.

 

While Diablo was the game that coined it, the term now days has broadened. Most journalist will call ME/AP an action rpg, the devs themselves will also use the term to describe their games. Oblivion and FO3 are also considered action rpgs.

 

Thats where the terminology becomes sucky. Because if Oblivion was an action RPG then Morrowind was an action RPG, which leads to Daggerfall being an action RPG, which screws up the whole idea - so lets keep this simple:

Mass Effect = BG/KOTOR + Gears of War

Does the tactical party thing work? No

Does the cover and shoot thing work? Partly, fairly average

Does that mean the game is a failure from a gameplay design standpoint? Probably

Does that make the game less fun? Entirely subjective. yes for me, no for you.

 

I couldn't get past it, (because it felt extremely unsatisfying and I had the vague feeling that the game considered me a moron) but you could.

 

What I also cant get past is that barely any reviewer mentioned it and thats why i have the need to bring it out. Not only does it not meet the hype of the game (which to be fair almost no game does), it doesnt meet even its own suggested standards.

 

Which I agree with, I was disagreeing with people play rpgs for tactics. A lot do, a lot don't.

If the game is supposed to have a tactical side with several characters working in unison, then it has to be rated as such. The fact that no tactics were required (which was probably a good thing for you since you odnt like it) was just proof of halfway broken game mechanics.

Its like the often featured slew of PC abilities in any game to have it later turn out that spamming one or two is all you need to beat the game.

Edited September 1, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I think I crouched once or twice for longer shots using the pistol or assault rifle, but other than that it was pretty worthless.

 

Also please make cover non-automatic. Pressing a button to go into cover really helps make the game less of a mess. The walls just feel ridiculously magnetic if you make cover automatic.

[Niten_Ryu]

ps:t is an intriguing example. am recalling a couple o' posts from chrisA in which he disagreed with notion that ps:t combat were lame... 'course he were kidding himself. in any event, ps:t did have combat, and a good amount o' it too... whcih ain't a shock considering ps:t reliance on d&d rules. the thing is, even for folks who thought ps:t were sooper-groovy-keen, is few that thought ps:t combat were a positive feature. maybe ps:t didn't even need combat, but the fact is that it Did have combat. if you put combat in game is it not worthwhile to make that combat engaging and challenging? Gromnir's favorite crpg is ps:t, but it would be more favorite if combat weren't teh suck. likewise, while we found kotor to be an entertaining game in spite o' its flaws, the combat were horrible. is no question we woulda' enjoyed kotor more if combat were better implemented. rpgs not need combat and Gromnir can enjoy games with lame combat.

 

Have to agree with this. Both games would have been much better with less combat (or perhaps no combat) or with totally different combat mechanics (of course in both cases licences would have made it extremely difficult for developers). Planescape as a world is interesting, some of campaign rules (like chaos vs. law axis or power of will to do things) work great in different mediums but it's always tied to that small squad turn based combat system that is balanced around level 5 to level 12 (your preferred distance might vary). Star Wars game obviously had more options but I guess they went for d20 rules for some unknown reason.

 

I'm one of those rare players who absolutely enjoy first person combat as it's done in DeusEx, Bloodlines and Mass Effect. The random movement of your sniper rifle, the well timed shots, the uncertainty of the hit... I really enjoy the extra challenge. I could rush or exploit weak AI (sometimes that's VERY hard to do) but I view it bit same way as I do roleplaying in these games. Games just feel better if I roleplay and try not to cheese thru encounters. In case of KotOR 2, I really had to gimp my character and use certain NPCs so that combat would have been at least somewhat ok. In Mass Effect stupid party AI made sure that team members slept thru most of the combat but I didn't mind as I could do my own thing.

[Volourn]

"Does the tactical party thing work? No

Does the cover and shoot thing work? Partly, fairly average

Does that mean the game is a failure from a gameplay design standpoint? Probably

Does that make the game less fun? Entirely subjective. yes for me, no for you."

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

 

No.

 

Yes.

[Purkake]

Anyone who can't see that the combat in PST was sucky needs to take a reality check. It's an awesome RPG, but it's not a flawless gem handed down to gamerkind by Zeus himself.

 

As for ME, the party thing most certainly didn't work for me. Both of my companions were dead in seconds in most of the fights.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

Haha I didn't find them to be quite that useless.

 

 

I do love the pigeonholing of game types though. "This is an Action RPG" "No it's not, blahblahblah"

 

I remember someone correcting me that Diablo was actually a "roguelike" and not even an "Action RPG."

[Purkake]

You have to look at the different systems in place. ME is pretty much a classic WRPG with action-oriented combat, so I'd call it a hybrid.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Purkake

[Lyric Suite]

Torment's combat wasn't any worst then any other IE game, it's just that most of the encounters leaved a lot to be desired, which would have been been as scarce through out the whole game as it was during the first few chapters. One thing it did very well were the spell effects and critical hit animations, which made things a bit more bearable.

[Purkake]

The graphics were nice, but the combat really lacked the complexity of BG2, for example. No awesome wizard on wizard battles