So Bioware are officially closing down their forums

So they cannot have political themes in their games?

And really, Bioware is nowhere near taking political positions in their games. Its just another made up anti-SJW argument.

I never said ME2 has a high skill ceiling. I'm not sure why you would bring that up. I just said there are many ways to play it.

You are also misinformed and under explaining MEs combat system. Not only do you get your choice of character which effects your talents (or as you call them spells) You have 2 teammates to choose form out of 8 or 9 (IIRC) to take on each mission and you can all combo off each other. Powers aren't 1 off, They combo off each other. Tech bursts, Biotic explosions, and Fire explosions combos off yourself and teammates. Dominate and hack depending on if you are fighting organics or machines, Biotic is good for barriers, Fire for armor, Tech for shields. The right power for the right situation. There were tons of ways to play it. Thats why the ME3 Multiplayer was so popular. For essentially nothing but a repetitive horde mode, people dumped in 1000s of hours because of the variety of combat. And as far as the gunplay, sure it was nothing special, but outside of gears and remedy games, I can't think of a TPS that is much better then what ME provided, and lets not forget about full melee builds. For instance pull can't be used on armored, shielded, or barrier protected enemies. But have an enemy with health you can pull them, then charge into them crating a biotic explosion, then shockwave to knock back and finish off with a melee or shotgun. Or you can shoot them with the Inc ammo, charge them and create a fire explosion. and thats just 1 of many combo examples.

I'm not saying you have to like the game, clearly your taste differs from mine, I'm just saying you are over simplifying the combat system which is still overall one of the best and varied in an action RPG. Sure beats the crap out of other RPGs combats like skyrim, witcher, dragon age, fallout. and for my taste, much better then turn based combat which i consider personally to find boring. I'm not saying there isn't strategy involved, I'm just saying it's personally boring

Skill ceiling is a pretty good way to guage how much depth there is. And how much depth is one of the main factors to determine how good a battle system is. Another is the general feel of combat, and Mass Effect had terrible gunplay.

Mass Effect 2 had very little potential for comboing spells, spell synergy was absolutely dismal in that game. Especially since most spells were a variation of self buff, damage or crowd control. Compare this to Divinity: Original Sin which had some SERIOUS potential to combo off spells, not only combo off your allies, but your enemies as well. The comboablility is partially the reason Original Sin's combat is considered to be the greatest of any RPG. Even Kid Icarus, had much greater comboability with its spells. Partly because the spells had far more variety than disable and moar damage, but also because unlike ME2, the cooldown was practically non-existant. The 6 second global cooldown would pretty much prevent any real solo comboing from going on. This never happened in Kid Icarus where it was very much possible to combo spells on your own.

No, Mass Effect does not have one of the best ARPG combat systems. It is utterly demolished by the likes of Dragons Dogma, Ys, Dark Souls, Mount and Blade, Dark Messiah. Being better than most ARPGs isnt exactly anything to be proud of. Because most ARPGs have terrible combat. Action and RPG doesnt mix very well at all. Part of the reason for this is because Action games tend to deal with the here and now and play skill. RPGs tend to deal with the abstract and MANIPULATING the abstract. Changing the variables in your favor. This is why RPGs that use more tactical combat work. Because tactical combat can deal with the abstract fairly well, action combat... cant.

I'm sorry but dark souls has some of the worst combat ever. Pretty much all the games you listed to me are trash. So basically just agree to disagree? We clearly have different taste in games. You seem to prefer a more slow and methodical game (which bores me to death) and I prefer faster paced games which is why I play a lot of PvP games online

Yet... Dark Souls combat actually has its merits. It does what it tries to achieve, and does it well. Mass Effect is a poor man's gears of war in many regards with some gimmicky spells thrown in for good measure. Being an inferior system of an already awful combat system is not a good sign. Gears combat had very little going for it. With the combat being basically a glorified whac-a-mole with assault rifles. What Dynasty Warriors is for spectacle fighters, Gears of War is to shooters.

Those combos you mentioned were insanely mediocre by any standard. And as a faster paced game, Mass Effect did a terrible job. It is way slower than Kid Icarus, Doom 4, and lets not even get into classic Doom and its clones, or any Serious Sam.

Doom is your worst example. The weapon variety is lacking and it's not much but bunny hopping and shooting. Yes it does it really well, but there is no variety to it or what you can do. Mass Effect Did a great job on the combos, Gears is the best TPS out there and the fact you think it's wack a mole with lancers is cute (it's all about wall bouncing and gnasher) and shows you don't know anything about the game.

Mass Effect didnt, the combos were extremely basic and the whole global cooldown system was incredibly detrimental to comboing. Seriously, just play Divinity: Original Sin, and then you will see how ACTUAL comboing in games works. Or even Magicka.

As for gears being the best TPS out there... so basically, you like sewage. Gears of War is a slowass shooter, that deemphasizes the rush players get from shooters, instead emphasising monotomy. The game fails at being high adrenaline power fantasy like Doom 4 successfully became, and it failed just as miserably at being a slower, more methodical and tactical shooter. The only thing Gears of War got right was the chainsaw and the perfect reload system. The gnasher felt terrible compared to any shotgun in any id game. Wall bouncing is a terrible mechanic, and feels overly restrctive, emphasizing corridors over anything else. The free movement offered by Kid Icarus or Doom was greatly more satisfying than the clunky, restrictive movement of Gears. The kind of speed you got from wall bouncing in gears was still slower than the speed you got in Doom or even Kid Icarus. And the evasiveness it offered. How about you, the player dodging those bullets instead of essentially having the game do it for you. IT is basically the quickscope of movement. Using half assed game mechanics to have the game essentially do something that you the player are supposed to do.

Here is an example of speed in a TPS,

Want to see some actual good movement mechanics?

Here they are,

running to a spot fast = speed? lol since when. You are comparing a mobile game and a FPS to a TPS. how about comparing it to some other TPS games? It's a genre lacking in good games. gears and remedy are the only ones making good ones.

I'm sorry but I don't like your taste in gaming. Divinity looks terrible, looks more like a RTS then anything and again those games bore me. The amount of reflexes and skill it takes to pull this off is beyond ridiculous.

Moving to a spot fast is EXACTLY what speed is about. The fact is, Pit in that video demonstrated both high speed and velocity. Or do I seriously need to educate you in 6th grade physics? And Kid Icarus Uprising is a handheld game, not a mobile game. Gears is not a good game. Kid Icarus uprising is. Divinity has little to do with RTS gameplay, outside of pointing and clicking. For starters, RTS are real time and divinity, when in combat is turn based.

That video was very unimpressive. But then again, there is only so much you can do on a controller. Here are something legit impressive. Not impressive by special olympics standards material like that video you posted was.

lol I've played plenty of quake in my day. I know it's a good game, but the gears video si much more impressive. You wouldn't understand since you haven't played it. It's funny you talked about "skill ceiling" yet I'd bet you a million dollars you couldn't pull off what was done in that gears video.

Going by your comment just now. I highly doubt that.

I probably can't pull off that stuff with a console controller, but I could do similar things on a KB/M shooter. As a matter of fact, I have. That Quake stuff however... dont think I will ever achieve that. EVER!

Edit: I did play Gears of War 1. But only got so far before I threw it away in disgust. One of the worst shooters I have played in my life. 2/10

as the kids say these days. get gud. He did it with a controller and you can see he was dominating other people. Not just AI. And I've seen plenty of impressive halo vids with a controller too. All you are doing is moving goal posts. Like I said agree to disagree and be done with it. We don't have the same taste in games, if you don't like ME that's fine. Its your opinion. I told you whats good about it, you tried to cherry pick games to show me other games do it (no crap every game has mechanics from another in some shape or form) But none of them put it all together like ME. If you disagree, thats fine

Where exactly did I shift the goalposts?

My goalposts have always been at the high skill ceiling bit. Handicaps like a controller doesnt make things more impressive, nor does it raise the skill ceiling. Competitive console shooters are like the special olympics, and that is the stance I have had all along.

The problem is that your tastes and justifications for liking games are utterly ridicilous. In this discussion, you have flat out made errendous assertions on games you havent played (you seriously used menu based combat to describe fire emblem). Your argument for ME having combos still baffles me. Those combos you listed were weak as hell. Especially for someone who has played Divinity, Kid Icarus Uprising, Nox or Magicka. YOur defense of the game was abysmal and that is why I am not agreeing to disagree. The combos you listed may impress you, but for someone like me who has actually played what this genre has to offer. What ME2 offered was incredibly mediocre. And no, ME2 did not pull it well together. Everything about Mass Effect's elements were below average. For them to come well together well, they actually have to be good, if not excellent. World of WarCraft is one such example. It took existing elements from previous games, and improved on all of them. Mass Effect, took elements from older games and made them all worse. That is my issue with Mass Effect. Everything it does, it does poorly.

In short,

Gunplay: The guns in Mass Effect 2 felt weak. Cover based shooting is a cancer on gaming that needs to go away.

Magic: Boring spells and abilities that were usually around more damage or crowd controlling enemies. Only 5 spells per class. Global Cooldown system limits if not flat out prevents any comboability.

Variety: Nearly every encounter in ME2 plays the same. There are very few curveballs thrown at the players making the encounters in ME2 overall, very stale. Conveniently placed chest high walls removes any suspension of where the enemy can be, and removes any real need for positioning. This is why I argue that Doom has variety. Doom throwed plenty of curveballs at the player to keep the pace up. Good variety has NEVER exclusveily meant a variety in playstyles. Generally speaking, it implies a variety of situations the game throws you in. And that is something ME2 did very poorly.... and really any other BioWare game for that matter.

Playstyle Variety: You are either a mage or a gunner, or a hybrid of both.... yawn. In games like Underrail, your playstyles can vary greatly from game to game, this affects not only what you do in combat, but whether or not you will try to engage in combat to begin with. A player who is specialized in psionics, will probably find himself sneaking past robots. In ME2, no matter who you are, you will go through every situation guns blazing, because there is no roleplaying to be had. All playstyles are way too similar, with the only real differences being what weapons and skills you use. Some builds may go melee, but in the end, the differences are pretty slim. Especially compared to proper RPGs.

No matter how you look at it. Mass Effect 2's gameplay was subpar.

Compare this to Kid Icarus Uprising. A game you dismiss for being handheld. Actually excels in most areas that arent related to controls. That is why I like it. Its spells are fun to use, the writing is competently done and consistant with its satire on gaming, pop culture and anime, the game in its 12 hour campaign, throws enough curve balls at you to keep you invested and never bored, its bosses are consistant with the mechanics and themes of the level, its character and progression system rewards skill over anything else.

Compare this to Divinity. A game you dismissed for being turn based. Yet this game excels and absolutely dominates the genre, in combat. The writing was pretty poor, but I didnt mind. The game was a game about excellent combat and the game delivered so hard in here. The combo potential utterly destroys any previous RPG. The skills were immensively satisfying to use. The controls and UI were very intuitive and

I like my games to excel in areas. Sometimes it can be a slow and methodological ARPG like Dark Souls, in other times, it can be a tactical game where every move is a life and death situation like Fates, in other times it can be hectic large scale action game like Mount and Blade, in other times it can be a high adrenaline shooter like the old id software games, it can also be a spectacular beat em up like Bayonetta, sometimes it can be a perfection craving ARPG like Ys. The point is... all these games did something and they did it really damn well. That is what I want in games. More ambition in games is not necessarily a good thing, that just means more things the dev has to get right.

Edit: Like the Gears of War video you linked before. That Halo video comes across as VERY unimpressive. If not outright underwhelming compared to what I have seen in overwatch. What goes on in those videos would be completely dismissed as mediocrity on a PC fps.

However Mass Effect 3 DOES have one of the best ARPG systems and as a result, a very successful multiplayer.

ME3's gameplay and tactics are far superior to ME2's.

Not going to debate that because I only played the Demo.

Above average, for sure. Still paled in comparison to the games I listed.

Nope, its better. Enemies will use tactics and staying in cover after the first couple of missions will get you killed. Unlike ME2, ME3 has enemies that break your cover and enemies can even one shot kill you.

Also, players have greater selection of powers, has a great gun weight system that slows cooldown the more you carry, and on harder difficulties, combo bursting is more important.

Bioware are idiots for doing this, it's insulting to the small fanbase that still communicates there.

The forums provide a lot more intelligent discussion than most other social media.

Exactly, twitter and facebook are just super dumbed down forums for the lowest common denominator.

On forums you get your all stars you get the professionals you get the real core if ya know what I mean, same with youtube comments those people are real too.

You do realize, that enemies do use some limited tactics in mount and blade, and those other games are WAAY, WAAAY more punisihng for standing still. Especially Ys, where standing still for even one second is a death sentence. The weapon weight system was done before in both Souls and Mount and Blade. And Souls did it better too. One shot kills is pretty common in ARPGs actually.

I do agree ME3 was better than ME2, ME2's battle system was pretty rubbish. And ME3 was semi tolerable, which says something, considering the bog standard quality ARPGs have.

In ME3, the weight system is about being more about gunplay or more about powers. The more and bigger guns you have, the slower your powers. In a way, you can make heavy adepts that way, or even light, more power driven soldiers. They allow adepts and engineers to equip anything, but at a price.

And multiplayer is even more tactical. Teams that do not play like one are wiped in seconds.

Lol ikr. The number of trolls on those forums is unbelievable.

>Mass Effect
>tactics

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA come on, get real.

You are wrong about Crysis and you are super wrong about Divinity: Original Sin. I respect your opinion but I just want to say that I used to think just like you about Turn Based Combat but I still gave Divinity: Original Sin a try and it ended up being my GOTY 2014. Now I want more RPGs to have Turn Based Combat. Encounter design and combat in that game was unbelievable. And the way you can interact with the game world, really shows what you can achieve by taking advantage of gaming medium's strengths. BTW I love Mass Effect 2.

Play multiplayer without tactics even on bronze and you will die very quickly.

you're wrong

It's horde mode, and Killing Floor is better at it, significantly. Fucking Terrorist Hunt did that stuff better.

But each character plays far differently, and different factions have different challenges.

Yeah and sharp shooters don't exactly play like medics, and the level design has a more profound impact in a game like Killing Floor than something like a cover based shooter. Basic team coordination while nifty, isn't exactly some profound evidence of tactical depth. It's a reasonable well put together mode, in spite of Mass Effect 3 actually having shoddy mechanics, but lets not get too ridiculous, tactical? It's a turd person cover shooter.

In which the cover isn't everything. Some characters cannot even take cover.

And level design plays a profound impact in ME3's MP.

The weight system in Mass Effect 3 is as artificial as it gets from the looks of it. I dont exactly see how heavier equipment load suddenly makes spells recharge faster.

Just like the suicide mission in ME(diocre) 2. This guy doesnt trust you enough, therefore he gets shot in the face in the final mission because reasons.

What exactly do you think happens in teams that co-operate in Mount and Blade Warband's multiplayer vs the ones that dont. The ones that dont co-operate get completely roflstomped. The fact is, games where people work together well perform much better applies to any game. Having basic co-operation mechanics in ME3, doesnt magically make it tactical. Mount and Blade: Warband's combat isnt overly tactical either, but it certainly is more tactical than Mass Effect's.

Point is, having some basic co-operation mechanics doesnt make a game tactical. Whac-a-mole style shooters have very little tactical depth. Positioning is pretty meaningless compared to actual tactical shooters, or even arena shooters, where positioning is much more important.

Heavier equip loads SLOW power cooldowns, not quicken them. So you use powers at a slower rate with heavy equipment.

Positioning does matter in ME3 as some enemies have frontal defenses, and you have to get away from cover busters while taking to account suppressers. Also, on harder difficulties, combos are more important.

I meant slow down... and the fact is, its arbitrary.

Slowed down speed movement speed and clunkier movement, actually makes sense. The other comes across as gamey. Dodging attacks often doesnt involve positioning much as much as it involves reflexes. Suppressive fire is hardly as much of a deal as you make it out to be. Especially since regenerative health allows you to effectively take hits without any long term consequences.

Any form of crowd control are terrible for tactical gameplay too. As they effectively serve as get out of jail cards. Making it too easy to get out of a bad situation.

I super love the games but the forums were scary. Almost all the threads seemed to be people wanting to bang anything and everything. I'd go on the forums for a little bit for help in a game and would feel dirty for being a fan. For example I remember reading how a person would always leave their TV on a ME2 part with Liara on the screen. This was before the DLC also, so it was that short part where she gives you a quest. Anyways the player would talk about how they stared at Liara for hours and whenever they ate they would eat in front of the TV staring at Liara. The player went on much more but that story was common on the forums. Bioware even had to have a romance section because there was so many threads but they still ended up in the other threads anyways. It was them wanting to bang robots, aliens, gay sex with everyone or whatever.

Hate to see easy help for their games go away but I completely understand why Bioware is done with the headaches.

No it isn't. I would easily see how weight would effect a biotic and wear them down more

ME3 does not have regenerating health in the same way ME2 does. You need medigel if you get hurt as the bar is split into fractions and can only regenerate to a certain point.

And the tactics in multiplayer is about matchups and who to target, as some characters battle some things more effectively than others and some enemies are a problem for a particular class.

Yes it is. Had it been power consumption, I could definately have understood it. But weight affecting cooldowns an already gamey mechanic? That is as gamey as it gets.

That health regeneration is lenient enough to allow you to give you enough time to jump into new cover. That is at least from my experience playing what I did of the game.

Great... so like with World of WarCraft's 5 man dungeons. A game people play together with 0 communication. Dont kid yourself, the invasion mode in ME3 absolutely pales in comparison to Killing Floor.

No it isn't. Biotics themselves storywise are affected by a persons fatigue, so it definitely makes sense. Instead of a consumption bar, its cooldown. Weapon restrictions on classes are more gamey in Mass Effect, especially with a trained N7 like Shepard. ME3 got rid of it and opened up new options in how you can play a class.

On bronze or normal difficulty, yes, its lenient because of shield gate and health gate mechanics. But on platinum and insanity, the gate effects are so small that its meaningless (1/100 of a second).

On bronze and silver and with a good team, on gold, yes, you can play without communication. On platinum, no way.

I played on the highest difficulty. The health mechanics were lenient. I had no issues going from one cover to another at any point. The shield would absorb any damage before I successfully dashed to the next cover.

But you were not facing elite enemies. A Geth Prime on hard difficulties will kill you in less than 2 seconds with full health and shields if not careful. A turret from Cerberus is also a killer. and once again, health does not fully regenerate.

The main portion of your health does, and that is section is relevant enough to allow you to effortlessly switch cover, without any real consequence.

And kill you in less than 2 seconds? Cute. In Ys (one of those games I mentioned that utterly demolishes Mass Effect's combat), you deal with a barrage of projectiles (those attacks can be homing). Merely getting caught in these attacks is enough to guarantee your death. Same goes with Rune Factory 4 (A harvest moon game). Mass Effect 3 was criticized for being quite easy, even on insanity.

The single player is easier than the multiplayer. The highest single player difficulty Insanity is comparable to gold on multiplayer. Multiplayer has platinum difficulty and the characters you play as are weaker than Shepard.

And Banshees, Brutes, Atlases, Phantoms (and Kai Leng), Scions, and Praetorians can instantly kill you. Vanguards, melee classes, and Krogan are more susceptible. Geth Hunters and Geth Primes can rip you to shreds as well.

On topic: I do feel this was probably for the better to remove the forums. They were a cesspit of ignorance and creepiness. Like visiting a justin bieber convention. Or yahoo answers.

Its probably best for BioWare to distance themselves away from their fan feedback. I dont blame EA for the decline on BioWare. We saw a strong and steady decline long before that. They have only gone downhill starting with Kotor.

Instant kills dont mean a lot when the are easy to avoid. Avoiding the barrages in Ys and Rune Factory 4 arent necessarily easy. Especially since you might be avoiding multiple attacks at once.

That is why the regenerating heals is such an issue. Because the timespan between getting hit will generally be enough to have you fully healed again, this is what makes them so lenient. And generally, again, due to the nature of cover based shooters, even if you do get hurt, you have plenty of options to heal oyurself up. Only a screw up can kill you instead of an overall poor performance. In the games I listed above, both a screw up, and a poor performance can both kill you. Mass Effect 3 does not have better combat. It being a cover based third person shooter alone, pretty much disqualifies it from being good to begin with.

Compare this to Kid Icarus Uprising. A much better game.

• You have to avoid attacks and attack patterns coming from you in all direcitons, including ones BEHIND you.
• There is no place to hide.
• Healing is finite in a level.
• So are spells. Its not only about when to what spell to cast and what to combo them with, but also. When to cast them. Are you going to cast them now or save them for a later encounter.

They are not easy to avoid in some enemies cases, and for melee classes and short range classes, they are a constant danger. Phantoms, Brutes, and Praetorians kill many players as they can surprise them. Scions are easier to avoid, so are Atlases, but Banshees do sync kill players at good rates. Also difficulty setting affects how often they do a sync kill.

Non sync kill enemies such as Geth Hunters and Possessed Abominations (their explosion after death), can kill you very quickly in Gold and above. And on Gold and Platinum, death comes very quickly.

Infiltrators cannot regen shields while cloaked. Once again, health is run differently in ME3 than in ME2 (only Vorcha get full health regeneration). On harder difficulties one shot can down a shield and many enemies fire in bursts.

Cover gets you only so far, with plenty of enemies there to break your cover. Also some characters can NOT take cover, Volus for example.

ME3's combat, especially on harder difficulties in multiplayer, is a highly lethal affair. Three shots can kill you, and many times less than that.