Irenaeus III
Unwanted
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 990
the combat in 2 and 3 is worlds better than anything in AP.
Who even plays shitty Bioware "RPGs"?
the combat in 2 and 3 is worlds better than anything in AP.
All hail putin!Hello there, my russian brother!Отправлено с моего SM-A510F через TapatalkObsidian doesnt do combat very well.
the combat in 2 and 3 is worlds better than anything in AP.
Who even plays shitty Bioware "RPGs"?
the combat in 2 and 3 is worlds better than anything in AP.
Who even plays shitty Bioware "RPGs"?
Same could be said about Obsidian RPG's? if people actually played them maybe they wouldn't have needed to resort to KS.
It depends on what you consider fantasy. To me Fallout is fantasy just like steampunk is.
And the Brotherhood of Steel are the knights of the wasteland, so Fallout is confirmed as a Fantasy RPG!Fantasy is a knight on horseback running around and killing things.It depends on what you consider fantasy. To me Fallout is fantasy just like steampunk is. The difference is that it's retrofuturism from a different era.Hmmm. If you don't count expansions, I think they actually have more non-fantasy than fantasy titles. Which is pretty unexpected for an RPG developer if you think about it.
Alpha Protocol is their only non-fantasy RPG.
I've spoken in the past about how in an alternate universe, Obsidian could have developed into a kind of Telltale Games CYOA company with Chris Avellone in charge as a Ken Levine-style celebrity guru. Of course, the RPG Codex of that alternate universe would have been just as pissed off about them as it is in this one. So be careful what you wish for. By keeping one foot in the world of combat, they ensure that they remain real RPG developers.
It depends on what you consider fantasy. To me Fallout is fantasy just like steampunk is.
Everything can be anything if you use a separate, personal definition from the one that everybody else is fucking using, sure. Like, to me, all dogs are cats and all chairs are tables cause it depends on what you consider a table.
Compare it to MGS5 to see why it's such a pile of shit.Everyone is saying that Alpha Protocol combat is bad, and every time I fail to see what is the difference between this and other third person shooters like Mass Defect. At least it has melee combat and stealth mechanics.
The problem is not in games, but rather in the audience. Any popamole shit is selling better than any "RPG", and any "RPG" is selling better than a good RPG. I wish an ordinary gamer could be a little bit smarter.Same could be said about Obsidian RPG's? if people actually played them maybe they wouldn't have needed to resort to KS.
Compare it to MGS5
Maybe the original ME, the combat in 2 and 3 is worlds better than anything in AP.
:mrpresident:the reveal is 5pm pacific
which is 1am aryan time
which is past my bed time
which means it's gonna be crap
Past midnight? Who reveals a game past midnight?:mrpresident:the reveal is 5pm pacific
which is 1am aryan time
which is past my bed time
which means it's gonna be crap
To make America great again, other places need to be less great. Europeans must suffer by having to wait until the next morning to hear the latest game announcements.Past midnight? Who reveals a game past midnight?:mrpresident:the reveal is 5pm pacific
which is 1am aryan time
which is past my bed time
which means it's gonna be crap
If I were president, I would never reveal a game past midnight
I'd take on China. I'd bring games back.
Let me tell you... Obsidian is weak on RPGs. I don't know what they're -- do you know what they're doing?
They release low energy game after low energy game. I don't get it. I don't get it!
Obsidian... is a mess!
To make America great again, other places need to be less great.
Maybe the original ME, the combat in 2 and 3 is worlds better than anything in AP.
In Mass Effect 2 (Normal Difficulty):
-The Levels are full of things that you can use for cover, so you can easily reach any enemy with simple moving from cover-to-cover without any actual danger.
-No Grenades, so you can stand fearless behind your cover.
-Enemies don't try to attack you from the side, they just sitting behind their cover, poping out and shoot.
-The enemys aim slowlly, Call-of-Duty like. You rarely got hit.
-And, if you got hit, just sit bit behind your cover and the health would be regenerated in a few seconds.
In Alpha Protocol (Normal Difficulty):
-There are things that can be used for cover, but the levels are not full of them.
-There are Grenades.
-Enemies usually try to attack you from the sides.
-The enemies aim well and fast. They can also hit you if you stand in the edge of the cover (but you can do the same if aim well).
-Only the shield regenerates automaticallly.
Can you explain me why Mass Effect 2 has better combat than Alpha Protocol? I see the opposite.
The problem is not in games, but rather in the audience. Any popamole shit is selling better than any "RPG", and any "RPG" is selling better than a good RPG. I wish an ordinary gamer could be a little bit smarter.Same could be said about Obsidian RPG's? if people actually played them maybe they wouldn't have needed to resort to KS.
Compare it to MGS5
Alpha Brotocol 2 ? And there is that one tank game..Gawd, I'd love for Obsidian to NOT make a Fantasy game.
I dunno about normal mode on Mass Effect 2 but on the last difficulty, I remember pretty well enemies hitting me hard, the enemies were pretty accurate, I dunno about this enemies aiming slowly never experienced it. Health regeneration wasn't nowhere near enough to turn you on a Rambo even with the big shield classes. There are the Kroogans, Asari vanguards, flamethrowers and Engineer drones for example that charge at you forcing you out of cover on plenty of dangerous situations and there are dangerous sniper type enemies too. Alpha Brotocol gunplay is awful as it is ME 1 gunplay, character skill based aiming systems are a bad idea for action games always were, ME 2 guns have better shooting sounds too, the guns have some weight to their shots while I was seriously underwhelmed by Alpha Brotocol guns that didn't feel satisfying to shoot.Maybe the original ME, the combat in 2 and 3 is worlds better than anything in AP.
In Mass Effect 2 (Normal Difficulty):
-The Levels are full of things that you can use for cover, so you can easily reach any enemy with simple moving from cover-to-cover without any actual danger.
-No Grenades, so you can stand fearless behind your cover.
-Enemies don't try to attack you from the side, they just sitting behind their cover, poping out and shoot.
-The enemys aim slowlly, Call-of-Duty like. You rarely got hit.
-And, if you got hit, just sit bit behind your cover and the health would be regenerated in a few seconds.
In Alpha Protocol (Normal Difficulty):
-There are things that can be used for cover, but the levels are not full of them.
-There are Grenades.
-Enemies usually try to attack you from the sides.
-The enemies aim well and fast. They can also hit you if you stand in the edge of the cover (but you can do the same if aim well).
-Only the shield regenerates automaticallly.
Can you explain me why Mass Effect 2 has better combat than Alpha Protocol? I see the opposite.