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.

I'm almost certain they've made that change.

 

Combat is pretty much the only thing I enjoyed in ME, also I don't have any trouble aiming with the gamepad, and my party members were very useful. ME is just a badly made game though, not something you can draw valid conclusions from about whole genres.

Edited September 1, 200916 yr by Wrath of Dagon

A button is used to get in and out of cover: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/mass-effect-2-hands-on

*massive sigh of relief*

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.

 

Again you believe your opinion is correct, when what it is, is your opinion.

 

Mass Effect = Action RPG

Does the tactical party thing work? 360; version not so much, PC version: Yes (but not as well as it could, due to AI issues)

Does the cover and shoot thing work? Yes

Does that mean the game is a failure from a gameplay design standpoint? No

 

 

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.

 

Almost all previews noted that ME biggest failing was it's combat and that as the franchise went on that should be the area they improved on. They just didn't believe (like me) the combat was as bad as you did.

 

(which was probably a good thing for you since you odnt like it)

 

Where have I said I don't like tactics? I said I don't play rpgs for tactics, there are other games that offer it, far better then any rpg.

Edited September 2, 200916 yr by Bos_hybrid

For a rodent who hates the game so very much, Boo sure talks about it all the time

Does the cover and shoot thing work? Yes

When I played the game, I tried the "cover & shoot" but I found that most enemies would just charge me and unload a shotgun in my face. *shrug* So I switched to Rambo tactics which worked great for the entire game.

Does the cover and shoot thing work? Yes

When I played the game, I tried the "cover & shoot" but I found that most enemies would just charge me and unload a shotgun in my face. *shrug* So I switched to Rambo tactics which worked great for the entire game.

 

That's bad AI, not a broken cover and shoot mechanic.

If ME is an Action RPG, then what do you call the Diablo genre?

 

You also have the ill-defined System Shock/Deus Ex genre of FPRPGs.

Edited September 2, 200916 yr by Purkake

Does the cover and shoot thing work? Yes

When I played the game, I tried the "cover & shoot" but I found that most enemies would just charge me and unload a shotgun in my face. *shrug* So I switched to Rambo tactics which worked great for the entire game.

 

And you unload one in their face and that's how the game is played all the way to the end.

 

For a rodent who hates the game so very much, Boo sure talks about it all the time tongue.gif

 

I love bashing overhyped games

 

If ME is an Action RPG, then what do you call the Diablo genre?

 

Exactly. Instead of cramming new games whose genre identity is debatable into a two word definition I tried to be more precise *shrugs*

 

Almost all previews noted that ME biggest failing was it's combat and that as the franchise went on that should be the area they improved on. They just didn't believe (like me) the combat was as bad as you did.

 

And went on to slap it 90%, the grade reserved for truly excellent games. They also called the dialog wheel innovative at which point their credibility took a headshot.

 

Again you believe your opinion is correct, when what it is, is your opinion.

 

Lets leave it at that then. You like the game, I don't. I think my reasons for not liking the game are its objective failings, not just a gut feeling, but whatever.

If ME is an Action RPG, then what do you call the Diablo genre?

Mind you, I don't care about labels, but if ME is called a RPG, why is STALKER called a shooter with RPG elements? Because ME is story-based, it becomes a RPG?

If ME is an Action RPG, then what do you call the Diablo genre?

 

An Action RPG.

 

Genres are broad. That's why we can call Lord of the Rings, Dracula, and Alice in Wonderland fantasy despite them being very different in content and tone.

Game genres are defined by gameplay while others are defined by the setting etc.

 

I'd say ME's dialog system differentiates it from other action rpgs like Diablo etc.

 

Stalker is a shooter with RPG elements because it's main focus is the combat, the interaction and inventory management are secondary. Just compare it to Deus Ex.

Edited September 2, 200916 yr by Purkake

Game genres are defined by gameplay while others are defined by the setting etc.

 

I'd say ME's dialog system differentiates it from other action rpgs like Diablo etc.

 

Stalker is a shooter with RPG elements because it's main focus is the combat, the interaction and inventory management are secondary. Just compare it to Deus Ex.

 

Anything not turn/round based equals action rpg.

I find that categorization needlessly limiting. Both Company of Heroes and Commandos are RTSs but they are vastly different in their gameplay.

 

So basically almost every rpg from Diablo to Deus Ex to Mass Effect is an action RPG? There are hardly any games with turns/rounds anymore, I can only think of Dragon Age off the top of my head.

Edited September 2, 200916 yr by Purkake

I think it's pretty pointless to try to force games under one single genre. Many of them are combinations of different genres, especially ME.

Sure, I like to think of ME as a hybrid of old-school wrpg dialog system and an action oriented combat system.

I would say an action RPG is where combat depends on player reflexes, but others define it differently.

Game genres are defined by gameplay while others are defined by the setting etc.

 

Game genres like survival horror are not purely defined by their gameplay.

 

A genre is simply a collection of tropes that the community finds meaningful and there are no rules as to what a community finds meaningful. If I call Mass Effect a Space Marine Shoot 'um Up, and enough people do the same, a genres been created. Mass Effect is now in the same genre as Doom and Halo, but not Half-Life or Stalker. People on message boards around the world can argue about whether a SMS'umU requies some time in space and if a game with some gun combat but mostly melee qualifies.

 

 

I'd say ME's dialog system differentiates it from other action rpgs like Diablo etc.

 

There are tons of elements that seperate Mass Effect from Diablo, but they are both action RPGs. There are tons of elements that sperate Dracula from My Little Pony, but they are both horror.

 

Stalker is a shooter with RPG elements because it's main focus is the combat, the interaction and inventory management are secondary. Just compare it to Deus Ex.

 

Combat is the main part of many RPGs. I'm playing Drakensang and Betrayal in Antara right now and both of them have tons of combat. It's the same with Wizardry 8, Morrowind, and BG 2. A good RPG lets you do stuff other than combat and lets you develop your character in ways other than your character sheet, but it's not necessary.

 

Bloodlines is a fairly well received RPG around these part, but I never felt that I had any control over my neonite

Edited September 2, 200916 yr by Maria Caliban

I guess the game genres are pretty loose and ill-defined.

 

The genres are pretty much created by someone making an awesome game and then everyone else copying the same formula to the best of their ability while changing things around a bit. If you make a good enough game and change enough stuff then people will copy that game instead.

Well looks pretty good, at least the cinematography is a major step forward. Combat however is typical ME1: Brutish and flawed. But I can live with that.

One way to make the combat more interesting would be to have actually meaningful equipment drops. In ME there were way too many weapons with similar stats and the choice didn't really matter at all

One way to make the combat more interesting would be to have actually meaningful equipment drops. In ME there were way too many weapons with similar stats and the choice didn't really matter at all

 

Or they could design a AI that doesn't charge, adding localized damage means nothing if the AI behaves like headless chickens.

That sound like more work

 

That...actually looks a lot better than ME1. I noticed a number of new combat options (Haymaker, Storm), a new weapon, what looked to be a good grenade launcher on the assault rifle, NPC companions calling out where enemies were, enemies which slowly advanced while firing rather than charging, and NPCs that seemed, at first blush, more interesting than the primarily-bland NPCs of ME1.

 

I wonder if it is worth slogging through ME1 again, though, in order to have an end save. I beat the game once, and tried again earlier in the week to go through it, but there were so many boneheaded design decisions and elements that I just could not do it without a reason.

 

Finally, who's the Asari with Shepard? Any new romances for Shepard?