Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Klaustrophobia on March 11, 2011, 09:54:12 pm
-
i know i'm late to this party, but I finally started playing it a few days ago.
what the HELL?!?!? MASSIVE step backward from 1. sure there's some cool new small features and the graphics look nicer, but the combat is utter CRAP, at least compared to ME 1. the control system is even worse. i can't even blame it on being a console port, because there's really no way it would make sense for them either. it doesn't even feel like the same universe to me because the mechanics are so bland. back to ammo, regen health, no crouch, context sensitive controls, and a frustrating amount of some of the SAME bugs that were around in ME1. :banghead:
i haven't gotten too far in the story, but it MUST be amazing for the game to have gotten such great reviews. i certainly won't be buying ME3 unless there is a demo.
[/rant]
-
I'll agree, I absolutely loathed ME2's combat system, with both Shepard and in the Hammehead. It was all HIDE BEHIND COVER so your body made of paper so yo don't get shredded in seconds while you lob off shots every few seconds from behind perfectly/naturally cut rock cover in what is generally just the generic, Gears of War Super Glue cover-based combat. All of the areas that you got into combat scenarios were generally the same too, perfectly cut whatever to hide behind, and huge square rooms.
Playing as the Hammerhead was no better, it was made of paperium, with no shields, and anything, including a single Geth trooper, could tare it apart in seconds, which meant you had to hide behind some debris or something and boost up to lob missiles at the enemy, which got boring, quickly.
The story itself is rather good, quite a reverse of ME1 in that ME1 started off a little weak and ended beautifully while ME2 started off better while its ending was ****.
Note, the fact that you might have blamed it as 'consolization' makes me want to feed you to a sharkcano (shark plus volcano).
-
Jeez, I must've been the only one who liked the combat system. I thought it was more fluid and streamlined than ME1's, which by contrast I thought was clunky as hell.
-
In ME1, my squaddies constantly fired entire clips into walls two feet away. That's gone in 2. Improvement!
-
sounds like the see-through-walls bug (or more accurately, lack of concern over AI quality). i've noticed it a bit in 2 when enemies are in cover.
i really don't understand why this happened. if they weren't going to take any time to make a decent combat system, why not just reuse the old one?
-
Klaustro, what class do you play as, out of curiosity?
Also, those bugs annoyed me too...but I found they didn't happen too often.
-
Basically everything about ME2's actual gameplay was better than ME1. ME1 was a series of moderately interesting bits of dialogue capped together with horrible treacly vomit combat, with two great final levels. ME2 is actually consistent and fun to play, a huge step-up design wise from ME1.
ME2 is at its very best cranked up to insanity, where it is a nail-bitingly good time, especially as a Vanguard.
I hear if you yell about it louder though people will change their minds and agree with you
-
The only step backwards was the addition of ammunition. This can be turned off fairly easily.
Otherwise wtf are you on.
-
I didn't like ME2 combat much at all either, though I can't remember much about ME1 to compare it to, though. I suppose it's possibly less combat than general gameplay regarding combat, but whatever.
pretty much it all boiled down to:
1) in a lot of places it didn't even seem like they tried to make it seem that you weren't trapped in a corridor
2) seems like everyone could hire dozens of mercinaries, and sidequests would all too often boil down to you smashing your way through a platoon to find someone that's hiding, and then a token conversation and character dilemma.
3) thermal clips were a neat idea but implemented wrong.
4) there are very few guns.
can't really nail it down to anything more specific without replaying it, which I have neither the time nor the inclination for anymore
I will say one thing I do remember from ME1 was that I didn't really like the reticle and mouse look stuff, which I thought was improved in ME2. Also they got rid of the awful inventory system from ME1. I guess #4 is the price I had to pay...
-
Except the damn terminator thing in the end (man, I can't stop ranting about that **** :) ) I liked both games very much. IMO, the biggest flaw in both game is the complete lack of modding capability. I hoped with ME3, when the trilogy is completed, Bioware will give some modding support so that new levels can be done.
-
Note, the fact that you might have blamed it as 'consolization' makes me want to feed you to a sharkcano (shark plus volcano).
Exactly, since ME2 was actually dumbed down for the PC. (I am serious. The first ME on PC was a port, ME2 had been developed specificly with PC's in mind).
I didn't like ME2 combat much at all either, though I can't remember much about ME1 to compare it to, though. I suppose it's possibly less combat than general gameplay regarding combat, but whatever.
pretty much it all boiled down to:
1) in a lot of places it didn't even seem like they tried to make it seem that you weren't trapped in a corridor
2) seems like everyone could hire dozens of mercinaries, and sidequests would all too often boil down to you smashing your way through a platoon to find someone that's hiding, and then a token conversation and character dilemma.
3) thermal clips were a neat idea but implemented wrong.
4) there are very few guns.
can't really nail it down to anything more specific without replaying it, which I have neither the time nor the inclination for anymore
I will say one thing I do remember from ME1 was that I didn't really like the reticle and mouse look stuff, which I thought was improved in ME2. Also they got rid of the awful inventory system from ME1. I guess #4 is the price I had to pay...
I disagree with number 4. There are a lot more guns. ME1's guns were just a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, and a sniper rifle. They all had thousands of variants, but the only differences were the damage they did. ME2 actually had guns which were different from each other, like semi automatic sniper rifles as opposed to bolt action ones, shotguns which did more damage to armor then usual, shotguns which were automatic, etc..
Number 1 and 2... hmm... It seems like these were present in ME1 as well.
And number 3... What exactly are your problems?
-
I somewhat like the way ME2 handled guns. I like the specialization, as ME1 had no variety whatsoever, but I much preferred ME1's RPG-style inventory, especially with weapon mods. A blend of the two would be ideal IMO.
The thermal clips... I dunno. I liked both systems. I slightly prefer ME1's system simply because ammunition works the same in so incredibly many FPS's, but either one is good.
I really wanted the Mako back. Knowing the Unreal engine, the problem wasn't the Mako's physics as much as it was the terrain. With smoother terrain, and possibly more detailed terrain, the driving sections would have been excellent. Of course, the Mako's replacements- the Hammerhead and PROBE LAUNCHED- are just sickening. Whoever came up with planet scanning (for resources! Not even an optional sidequest like in ME1!) should be converted into genetic paste.
Either way, I heard some of the RPG-like elements will be making a return in ME3, and I can only hope the (improved) inventory and Mako and non-crappy endings are among them.
-
When ME2 came out I had not played the original, so I bought both and played ME first then immediately continued with ME2. The combat game play was not ME's strong suit, it was generally pretty clunky and nearly every non campaign mission took place in the same two or tree installations on a slightly retextured planet. Sure there was more inventory options, and I had the ability to load my team in *****in' gear, towards the end my whole team was sporting ACU pattern armor, but you were literally drowning in crap. You had to tediously sit there looking at stats of the crap you owned to figure out what was the best equipment and what was a pos to be sold.
ME2 may have lacked some of the grandiose scope of ME but it was much tighter for it. It had solid third person shooting mechanics. Combat was now something to be enjoyed rather than a means to an end. Sure the battefields were generally more linear, but the environments were not carbon copies of the same planet/installation. Did I miss some of the customization of the old inventory system? Yeah, on the other hand I wasn't wasting half an hour at a time analyzing the gear for optimal load outs and stripping all the useless **** out of my stocks. So in the end ME might have had a larger vision, one that as a complete game covered for its short comings, ME2 was a much more tighter and solid outing mechanically. Plus who doesn't walk into Afterlife for the first time and not have to scoop their jaw off the floor?
-
Good things about ME2:
- thermal clips. Battles are more tactical and you are prompted to switch weapons more often. And it makes more sense.
- interrupts
Bad things about ME2:
- no companion armor or weapon customization.
- Hammerhead. It's not a worthy successor to the Mako
Inventory - good that it isn't cluttered and useless as ME1 one, but it does feel a bit too minimalistic at times.
-
I was going to reply with agreement to your post StarSlayer but I'm too busy selling 40 units of Polonium Rounds II
I sure wish I was making this post from ME2 :(
-
When ME2 came out I had not played the original, so I bought both and played ME first then immediately continued with ME2. The combat game play was not ME's strong suit, it was generally pretty clunky and nearly every non campaign mission took place in the same two or tree installations on a slightly retextured planet. Sure there was more inventory options, and I had the ability to load my team in *****in' gear, towards the end my whole team was sporting ACU pattern armor, but you were literally drowning in crap. You had to tediously sit there looking at stats of the crap you owned to figure out what was the best equipment and what was a pos to be sold.
ME2 may have lacked some of the grandiose scope of ME but it was much tighter for it. It had solid third person shooting mechanics. Combat was now something to be enjoyed rather than a means to an end. Sure the battefields were generally more linear, but the environments were not carbon copies of the same planet/installation. Did I miss some of the customization of the old inventory system? Yeah, on the other hand I wasn't wasting half an hour at a time analyzing the gear for optimal load outs and stripping all the useless **** out of my stocks. So in the end ME might have had a larger vision, one that as a complete game covered for its short comings, ME2 was a much more tighter and solid outing mechanically. Plus who doesn't walk into Afterlife for the first time and not have to scoop their jaw off the floor?
+1
This is almost exactly my experience. I got ME1 after ME2 came out, and tried to get to level 60 as quickly as possible to import it into ME2. Now, my opinion might be slightly biased, since for ME1, I chose a soldier w/ shock trooper specialization (by the time I realized this was about the dumbest class I could have chosen, I had already beaten the game once, and didn't want to start a new character) and the combat, especially once I got to higher levels, was incredibly boring. All I basically did was run around killing things with my assault rifle, which generated no recoil and never overheated, and occasionally pulled out the sniper rifle. This, coupled with my insane number of hitpoints, made me almost invincible (on less than insane, I could survive a shot from a geth armature evern w/out using immunity) and combat just became super boring. For ME2, I chose the infiltrator class, and the combination of sniper rifle, smg, and tech powers kept combat more interesting.
-
Yeah I don't understand how people enjoyed ME1 combat. It was trivial to create a gun that never overheated and did pretty good damage. Just run around M1ing.
-
That's actually one of the few things I didn't like about thermal clips. You could NEVER, as hard as you tried, make a gun that didn't overheat, and you couldn't reuse the damn clips anyway.
-
The fluff of how the science fiction guns work should matter only to neckbeards
-
Having just started ME2, this thread is timely. =)
I played the crap out of ME1 (though when I went to import a character, I realized my level 60 had all the plot choices I DIDN'T want to import, so I had to make do with my level 50 and do some quick modding), and there are a lot of things I like about ME2, and a few things I think were a step backward... so far.
The Positives:
-No more inventory from ****ing hell. There are a relative few number of weapons that you simply upgrade. That's a HUGE improvement.
-No more driving randomly around a damned planet looking for chunks of rock to scan. No more attempting to vertically climb hills in the Mako. No more worlds that look like the same geometry plunked over and over again with different colours.
-Have I mentioned the reduction in the number of weapons?
-Improved control interface for squad combat.
-Levels don't involve so much sprinting about across all sides of a freakin' station/planet/etc.
-The improved Paragon/Renegade options in dialog with actions is slick; much better than the old charm/intimidate.
-Leveling: 30 levels with XP based on missions makes a lot more sense than 60 levels with XP based on kills, etc. Much improved for the better.
-Powers and abilities seem more diversified and oriented to specific gameplay mechanics. My Vanguard no longer plays like an adept with a shotgun and pistol but without singularity.
-No more hacking/decrypting inanity and having to put talent points into those abilities. Nothing was so annoying as landing on a planet, running around and finding a probe, and then discovering you didn't bring the teammate with the appropriate skill. Argh.
-Flying the ship around was moderately amusing, until I discovered that fuel has been introduced (see below).
-Introducing ammunition was a good idea, though I'm not totally sold on the implementation.
-The combat, the cover system, and pretty much everything* about the aggressive gameplay is a massive step in the right direction.
The Downsides:
-STILL NO ABILITY TO SKIP THE ****ING CUTSCENES LIKE THE NEW CHARACTER MOVIE. HONESTLY, THIS FUNCTIONALITY EXISTED IN 1990 - WHY DO MODERN GAMES KEEP OMITTING IT?!?!
-I kinda liked the hunt for superior armor, bioamps, omni-tools, etc. Now it seems it's all upgrades-based rather than loot, which makes me somewhat sad.
-Related to the above, a balance could have been struck between the previous inventory silliness and the current system. I like to be able to find a few different weapons (WITHOUT DLC, THANK YOU!). Part of RPGs is traditionally collecting ****; when you eliminate virtually all but the most basic **** for collection, it makes OCD packrats like myself a little disappointed.
-Fuel? Probes? Scanning? WTF is this ****? No, it doesn't add depth to the game, it just makes it tedious to obtain resources. At least in the original when you scanned a planet you couldn't land on, you just collected the resources. This new system just adds hours to the game that could be better spent doing other things.
*My caveat to the gameplay improvement... having to strip protections before I can use my biotics makes Ryan a sad Ryan. One of the absolute best features about the original ME was being able to throw enemies across the room, float them in the air, strip away their shields and health, etc. I have fond memories of using a maxed-out Lift on Geth Colossi and roasting them with my shotgun... and if the battles against the early-game mechs are any indication, that has somewhat gone away. Yeah yeah, it makes me use a more tactically-balanced squad... PFFT. I want my biotic badassery back.
-BioWare points for DLC sucks some serious donkey ass. Let me pay cash for exactly which DLC I want to buy, not buy POINTS in some bizarre combinations and then use those to buy DLC. That's just ****ty business practices... not that you don't expect it from EA, but PC gamers don't engage in this points bull****.
-The inability to JUMP in this game, and the use of 6-inch high ledges to keep you from moving to certain ledges, is just laziness in level design. It's a nitpick, but srsly BioWare, you can let people jump in your RPGs. Enough of this tomfoolery.
-
Ok my turn.
Inventory system in ME1 was horrible, but removing it altogether made ME2 feel less like an RPG and more like just a third person shooter. Loot and inventory should be integral parts of every RPG, and the lack of items to find and use detracted from what I would have preferred for ME2 "feel" as a game. I'll chalk it up to design choice though.
ME2 weapon retconning certainly did add an element of tacticality to the gameplay, I'll grant that. However, the implementation of ammo thermal clips was done in a frustratingly simplistic manner. Here are the biggest flaws on it from my point of view:
1. Even though all thermal clips are exactly the same, they're assigned into an individual slot for the weapon you happen to have selected. This means if you run our of heat sinks on sniper rifle, switch to another weapon, and walk over a heatsink, it's by default assigned to the weapon you happen to be using. This makes no sense and results in frustrating stuff when you need to have your sniper rifle selected to gather ammo for it - even though the heatsinks are exactly the same.
*HOW IT SHOULD WORK: heatsinks accumulate in a generic pool you're carrying, and every weapon has access to the same pool - if you carry let's say 40 heatsinks, then you would have 40 shots for Widow, 40x8 for Carnifex Hand Cannon, 40x30 for a weapon that gets 30 shots per heat sink, etc.
Either that or really make the heatsinks different based on what weapon they are compatible with...
2. Even though they're described as "thermal clips", they are functionally ammunition - you can't re-use a heatsink once it comes out of the gun. And the number of heatsinks you can carry tends to be a bit too low. You can increase it with armour selection, but only so much, and at the cost of other armour features.
*HOW IT SHOULD WORK: You carry a number of heatsinks. Used heatsinks are stored until they have cooled down. Based on how many heatsinks you have the capacity to carry and how fast they cool down, you could fire at enemies, change heatsinks as they overheat, and once you run out of heatsinks you restart using the heatsinks that have cooled off. If you're firing faster than your heatsinks have time to cool off, THEN you would be forced to search for fresh heatsinks and use them.
If the only reason for retconning the weapon mechanics was to make the weapons more functionally similar to current ones, this would have worked just as well.
3. Weapons cannot be fired at all if you run out of heatsinks.
*HOW IT SHOULD WORK: Weapons overheat similar to in ME1, and take a while before you can re-use them with same heatsink. That would make the whole heatsink mechanism an actually sensible thing, since switcing heatsinks would result in ability to resume fire faster after weapon overheat. Now it's just annoying since previously you didn't need to worry about ammo consumption in firefights, just avoiding the overheating of the gun was enough.
The planet scanning was retarded, much more so than driving the Mako around random planets. The Mako was actually a fairly nice vehicle, like was said before it was the improbably jagged terrains that made the random planets really annoying.
Story-wise, I thought ME1 was in overall better. ME2 had better characters (and the loyalty missions were actually the bulk and best parts of the game); the main quest missions (especially the ending) didn't make as much of an impression for me as ME1's main missions did.
ME2 story would'be been better with the allegedly original story elements about the Reaper under construction... as it was, though, it was somewhat silly. :blah:
That should address my immediate thoughts comparing the two games.
-
Here's to hoping ME3 will be as perfect as can be with all the lessons learned from 1 and 2.
-
Here's to hoping ME3 will be as perfect as can be with all the lessons learned from 1 and 2.
How often has this actually happened in trilogies, though? :p
-
Toy Story
-
Let's just hope it's more difficult to screw up video games than movies. Thankfully I think a lot of the biggest issues are pretty easy fixes that most people agree on. I'll just hope that they manage to add a little more variety to the side quest form they've been sticking to, though it doesn't seem like anyone else I've talked to shares my opinion on that. :p