I have to agree the marketing was quite sparse. I'm a big ME fan and I absolutely want to play this game. But there's so little info to this game that for the longest time I didn't even realize just how close we are to release.

Heartland

Sweden24604 Posts

February 03 2017 09:04 GMT

#102

What, this is released in like a month? Cuuurrraaazeeeee

Foxxan

Sweden3427 Posts

February 07 2017 04:42 GMT

#103

The gameplay looks better atleast in this game. Not sure i will actually play through ME2 and ME3 because the combat isnt good to be frank.

Duka08

3391 Posts

February 07 2017 04:50 GMT

#104

On February 07 2017 13:42 Foxxan wrote:
The gameplay looks better atleast in this game. Not sure i will actually play through ME2 and ME3 because the combat isnt good to be frank.

Wait, trying to get this from your last few posts. You played through ME1 recently, but then moved to ME2/3 and didn't play through them or like them because of the combat changes? That seems to be the one thing most people agreed improved throughout the trilogy. Surprised. I assumed ME:A will be similar.

Foxxan

Sweden3427 Posts

February 07 2017 05:05 GMT

#105

I skipped ME1 because of the clunky combat and started with ME2 instead.

Heartland

Sweden24604 Posts

February 07 2017 08:22 GMT

#106

The combat in ME2/3 is decent. It's not great but I never got bored (though 2 was a bit too easy sometimes). But the reason to play those games is hardly the combat, it's the amazing story and the fucking insane way you feel pulled into the relations with the other characters and the world. I actually got teary-eyed twice in ME3 which I haven't had in any other game ever.

PoulsenB

Poland7751 Posts

February 07 2017 08:36 GMT

#107

ME2 had very solid combat, and ME3 made it even better, especially when you take the multiplayer into account, the amount of weapon/skill builds was insane. ME1 was kinda clunky, but had some fun stuff, like Geth Hoppers (honestly why did they cut them from 2 and 3? They were great), being able to use Lift even on Geth Armatures/Collosi, and turning sniper rifles into small cannons with proper mods and explosive ammo.

Elentos

55591 Posts

February 07 2017 09:08 GMT

#108

I've been playing through ME1 recently on PC. All my original playthroughs were on the 360, so it was a fresh start without all my good old Spectre gear. And combat for the first few hours is a chore. You fire less accurately than a stormtrooper and your guns do tickling damage. Also I never really noticed this on the 360 versions, but Wrex (one of my favorites) is a fucking idiot in combat. He constantly gets stuck in random places from which he can't help you fight.

ME2 and 3 are so much smoother in this aspect. But I still enjoy playing ME1 despite that. Also it took a decade but I have now mastered the Mako.

Bacillus

Finland2079 Posts

February 07 2017 11:04 GMT

#109

On February 07 2017 17:36 PoulsenB wrote:
ME2 had very solid combat, and ME3 made it even better, especially when you take the multiplayer into account, the amount of weapon/skill builds was insane. ME1 was kinda clunky, but had some fun stuff, like Geth Hoppers (honestly why did they cut them from 2 and 3? They were great), being able to use Lift even on Geth Armatures/Collosi, and turning sniper rifles into small cannons with proper mods and explosive ammo.

Even ME2 combat is seriously lackluster at times. It only works when you're fighting stationary enemy in front of you, anything else breaks the system to an almost unplayable mess. There are moments in the game where you easily get flanked and at that point the whole thing falls apart right away. And any attempt of improvising and playing creatively falls into same issues of total lack of flexibility.

The steam version also seems to have some bugs and inconsistencies with the cover. Sometimes your shields fail to regenerate when somebody is shooting your cover and some missiles hit you directly despite you being in cover. Retrying a long fight for the fifth time because some oddball cover inconsistency gets very frustrating at the few tough fights the game produces.

The combat works when you're excited about the next piece of storyline, dialogue or world building, but on 2nd playthrough it starts to get obvious how barely it actually holds together at times. I guess you can call it sufficient, but it really requires that AAA+ delivery outside the combat.

PoulsenB

Poland7751 Posts

February 07 2017 11:30 GMT

#110

I've never had any problems with cover or shields on the Origin version, and such bugs are not really the fault of the combat system itself. I also have a total of 5 full playthroughs of ME2 and 2 of ME3 (not counting about 8-10 unfinished runs with both the games) and never found the combat boring or annoying. It was designed as a (admittedly) pretty basic cover shooter, so no wonder it doesn't lends itself to attempts on creativity, seeing as getting out of cover on higher difficulties means certain deaths in 1-2 seconds because of how much dps the enemies dish out. The way I see it serves it's purpose very well and is still able to bring a lot of fun to the gameplay (except for Praetorians in ME2, fuck those fuckers xD). I can understand how it might not be everyone's tastes, but saying that it barely hold together is a bit too much imo

for creativity I would recommend ME3 multiplayer, there are tons of characters and playstyles to choose from (provided you have things unlocked)

Heartland

Sweden24604 Posts

February 07 2017 12:44 GMT

#111

Maybe it's different if you play on the hardest levels but generally I just think that ME combat falters because you can usually just crouch by the nearest cover and kill off enemies with your variety of weapons. You don't have to necessarily do so much (even if it's more fun to do so).

I generally think Vanguard is the most fun to play.

Bacillus

Finland2079 Posts

February 07 2017 13:57 GMT

#112

On February 07 2017 20:30 PoulsenB wrote:
but saying that it barely hold together is a bit too much imo

Yeah, rereading my post afterwards, the description 'barely holds together' is a bit harsh. What I meant to say is that there are moments where it starts being borderline tedious and frustrating. It's OK as it is, but I think it's still one of the weaker and least exciting parts of ME experience.

And to be clear I tend to complain about a lot of stuff in games even when they're all passable and even decent. It usually gets more interesting discussion going on.

PoulsenB

Poland7751 Posts

February 07 2017 14:58 GMT

#113

discussion is nice

Andromeda will have a more dynamic combat system from what we've seen in the trailers. Less cover, jetpacks, also the new Nomad for some vehicle combat.

Are you hyped? I'm hyped.

Bacillus

Finland2079 Posts

February 07 2017 15:50 GMT

#114

On February 07 2017 23:58 PoulsenB wrote:
discussion is nice

Andromeda will have a more dynamic combat system from what we've seen in the trailers. Less cover, jetpacks, also the new Nomad for some vehicle combat.

Are you hyped? I'm hyped.

Considering how much of the combat seems to be in open ground, I think they absolutely have to rethink the system to be less cover based. Either that or every planet needs to have some pretty convenient rock formations scattered around.

I've kind of given up on being hyped about pretty much anything, but I'm definitely curious and looking forward to see how it looks on release.

Foxxan

Sweden3427 Posts

February 07 2017 17:09 GMT

#115

The combat in ME2 is infact tedius, not only is the challenging part laughable on the hardest difficulty its also very unflexible.
Using charge as the class that has it is usually a nono because if you use it and ram into 3-4 enemies, you might end up dead because of the unsmoothness of moving your character.

Just powers in general feels way to unflexible to use which should be a big part of the game.

You cant do much in combat in general either, just rinse and repeat and be "immortal" under cover.

The "fun" part about the combat isnt really the combat itself but more about collecting companions and getting money for upgrades.. The collective part is the fun part or if there are some part of the story you like. The combat itself is at best 5/10.

The combat in adromeda looks way better than in ME2. Hell even ME3 looks way more flexible than ME2.

WolfintheSheep

Canada14127 Posts

February 07 2017 18:32 GMT

#116

ME2's combat issues were basically too many barriers, shields and armour. No matter which class you played, all of the fun powers were completely negated until you took out 2/3rds of an enemy's EHP. Was probably a lot better on difficulties below Hardcore, but anything higher and you and your squad were just spamming the same 2-3 powers.

ME3 improved things a lot by having a lot less enemy protection, adding a lot more power combos, and letting a lot more powers hit through barriers/shields/armour.

Yoav

United States1874 Posts

February 07 2017 18:55 GMT

#117

Mass Effect had combat?

Thezzy

Netherlands2117 Posts

February 07 2017 20:49 GMT

#118

ME1 had some clunky shooting, playing early Infiltrator is just stupid. The sniper rifle bounces around as if you're in a rollercoaster. The Lift and Throw physics were fun though when I played as Adept.

ME2 was smoother but enemies had a lot of protection as mentioned above.

ME3 was a good improvement on that and I also liked the armor/wall piercing abilities some weapons had.