ME2 can essentially be treated as a standalone game and that's what I do with it, free of the trash that is ME1's combat and ME3's story, ironically thanks to ME2 being written, disastrously, as a pointless sidequest instead of as the 2nd Act of a 3 Act story.
>ME2 can essentially be treated as a standalone game
also why it was so good and popular
no-one wants to play through 1 or more old and possibly shit games to get to the good one
Fleshed out a lot of the universe set up in 1, focused on characters and cinematic effect (as in camera work and dialogue structure), postponed the reaper moronation.
I still have the original Steam version of ME2. Since it's not EA supported and never was after EA originally pulled out of Steam, it's never been patched and it has no DLC, not even the free Day 1 DLC. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay EA for the same game again, so that's what I stick with.
You can still download the DLC for the original Steam version from EA's site. You have to login to the game with an EA account that purchased the DLC to activate it but I think they made it free a while ago. If not there are mods and DLC cracks that can unlock them.
They let you configure the top two controller buttons to use abilities/powers of your choice. This meant you didn't have to to pull up a menu every 10 seconds - made combat much smoother and more enjoyable
sounds like a skill issue. but also probably a technical issue. the reason why controller aiming gets such a bad rep is because most devs didnt develop them properly over the years. most console games had horrible deadzones and camera sensitivities. thats not the case in the modern age but people wont let go of the meme-hate
now with steam big picture controller settings you can customize your deadzones and shit to your liking. ive noticed a lot of games even today have horrible controller settings. but ive fixed all of them. steam really deserves more credit for their controller tech
Controllers as an aiming device are inherently flawed, since they control camera velocity rather than position. Mouse and gyro recreate your movement 1:1, allowing for both tiny changes and large flicks in a split second. A controller by its very nature introduces a delay, as you >physically move the thumbstick >wait for the camera to move >release the thumbstick while trying to avoid over/underaiming
Steam overlay is great, but it cannot fix a fundamentally broken control scheme. At least look into gyro if you're dead-set on using a controller.
>since they control camera velocity rather than position
i dont think i understand what this means. the right stick controls the camera the same way a mouse would. thats how its emulated. youre just using your thumb instead of your whole palm. after that it depends on player skill to know how well to move the stick. if you get a comfortable deadzone and sensitivity then its game over for your opponents. i dont think the stick is limited in any way compared to a mouse. most people are just used to using a mouse so they can aim faster with it than a controller. most mouse users dont even give controller the time of day. this is where 'skill issue' comes in
you are factually wrong, and factually delusional
stay mad, controllershitter, your aim assist did all the work for you, and you still lost
6 months ago
Anonymous
i dont play online games. im mostly talking about cover shooters like uncharted, the new tomb raider series, and mass effect. most if not all shooters are very comfy with a controller. i was just telling that to this guy
>controller >in a game where you have to aim AND use a lot of different buttons
>i dont think i understand what this means. the right stick controls the camera the same way a mouse would.
If you move your thumbstick all the way to the left, you'll keep turning left forever at constant velocity. If you move your mouse all the way to the left of your mouse pad, the camera will stop moving. So a controller is responsible for controlling the camera velocity, while a mouse is responsible for controlling camera position.
Your final goal is to move your cursor to a specific spot. It's much easier and faster to do when you control the camera position directly, rather than indirectly through camera velocity.
6 months ago
Anonymous
im not trying to argue and im sorry if im still not completely understanding your point, but that sounds like an imaginary issue in actual practice. i dont have any problems moving my crosshair to a specific spot with a thumbstick. thats what im trying to get at. in fact your mouse coming off the mousepad sounds like a real issue that controller users never run into
6 months ago
Anonymous
A controller is, in essence, a control system. The video below explains what that is. Just replace a pedal with your thumb, the car velocity with camera velocity and the car position with camera position. Control systems are a complex topic that I won't go into in a short Ganker post, but essentially - the more layers of "misdirection" you are from what you're trying to achieve, the worse the results - the bigger error you accumulate. With a controller you move your thumb, which controls the camera velocity, which then controls the camera position. Even small errors in thumb position greatly affect the final camera position, which you have to compensate for. On the other hand, since with a mouse you control the camera position directly, a small error in hand position will lead to proportionally lower camera position error.
There's also an upper bound on camera velocity in case of controllers, which by definition will cause a bit of a delay to occur in comparison to a mouse, where you're bound only by your hand speed.
I wish I could explain it better but I haven't slept all night. Just know that controllers are an inherently flawed control system, due to being velocity rather than position-based. This leads to a bigger position error, which humans have to compensate for by sacrificing either speed of turning or aiming accuracy.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>I wish I could explain it better
Don't worry, anyone with a brain cell understood your first post. I commend your effort but it's completely wasted on that anon
You're a fricking neanderthal moron.
All the "le proper" implementations are just ultra strong bullet magnetism, sticky aiming and recoil reduction to near nonexistent. Aka, fricking built-in aimbotting.
some games have that stuff. some dont. some let you turn them off. and the settings i mentioned are deadzone calibrations. but you probably dont know what any of that is. youre very confidently ignorant while insulting me. weirdo
It's kind of like the perfect balance between slop and quality, it was obvious they wanted a more mainstream audience with this entry, but it still did enough right by its rpg roots, also harbinger and the collectors felt like awesome antagonists and made you excited for what they had in store for 3.
Too bad 3 sucked donkey nuts and the they managed to make the reapers absolutely goofy lolballs.
The concept of a consistent conciousness spawning in to fight you as a miniboss was interesting its just that the ending to 2 with the dumb humanoid reaper thing is just kind of anticlimactic and dumb
They managed to perfect the gameplay in 3 (especially when playing vanguard) by adding new powers instead of barebones shit present in 2 and they managed to make the stakes feel sufficiently grand in scale. Getting all the different races to gather together, pooling together your forces for a final confrontation - all of it was great. 3 would've been the best game in the series, had it not been for: >the ending >Kai Leng >having to play the fricking multiplayer to get more forces in your singleplayer campaign
>Legion ME2 content was cut to hell >Legion exists to die in ME3
Being a Legion fan sucks, I just wanted to snipe with my robot buddy and send Grunt out to the frontlines so we can cover him
>playthrough mass effect multiple times >ME2 releases >*excited* >I start the game >gutted RPG mechanics >just a 3rd person shooter with story bits
DROPPED AND SHITTED
this but unironically only it was when I learned that you couldn't roll
in a Gears of War ripoff
even the shittest Gears ripoff manages to get the movement right
except ME2
ME2 seems like mediocre at best nowadays but back then a GoW style cover shooter felt like a major improvement over whatever the frick ME1 tried to be. Nowadays it doesn't seem as noticeable because ME:LE's overhaul of ME1 gameplay is legitimately good and one of the few redeeming features about that buggy, half-assed pile of shit.
They should have backported some of ME3's improvements into ME2 so that at least Adept would be playable on difficulties above Veteran and you could get to play with every gun on every class again, but then it wouldn't be a half-assed pile of shit.
>"beep boop you're not saren" >"reapers? yep that's me" >"we're so smart you literally can't comprehend us (we'll tell you at the end of the third game though)"
ME1 was sci-fi slop
A lot of things actually turned me off in that game and it actually never made me fall for hype to the next big western game. In a way, I thank this game for opening my eyes.
Great gunplay and rpg mechanics with a story that wasn't too stupid. Somewhat confused why the game went away from the reaper plot to focus on the collectors.
Much like any story-focused medium, when you maximize the effectiveness of the most powerful element, the overall value goes up.
Characters. The most important element in any story is characters. Mass Effect 2 had a large cast of characters, many of whom strongly appealed to people.
Your terrible taste.
Your amazing taste.
You will never be anonymous.
ME2 can essentially be treated as a standalone game and that's what I do with it, free of the trash that is ME1's combat and ME3's story, ironically thanks to ME2 being written, disastrously, as a pointless sidequest instead of as the 2nd Act of a 3 Act story.
/thread
>ME2troony having a mentall illness thread again
day ended with a y? shit
kek. 8/10 series that explained why PlayStation won the past two decades. Though I admit with playerpass things have finally changed.
what? me1 was xb exclusive
no it wasn't
It literally was, zoomie, until after 3 came out (and next gen was imminent) and the ps3 version never even got all the dlc.
>ME2 can essentially be treated as a standalone game
also why it was so good and popular
no-one wants to play through 1 or more old and possibly shit games to get to the good one
It's the best Mass Effect game, while also being the worst and most damaging game for a Mass Effect trilogy about Reapers.
3 > 1 > 2
Absolutely horrific taste
Dangerously based taste.
correct
Fleshed out a lot of the universe set up in 1, focused on characters and cinematic effect (as in camera work and dialogue structure), postponed the reaper moronation.
I still have the original Steam version of ME2. Since it's not EA supported and never was after EA originally pulled out of Steam, it's never been patched and it has no DLC, not even the free Day 1 DLC. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay EA for the same game again, so that's what I stick with.
You can still download the DLC for the original Steam version from EA's site. You have to login to the game with an EA account that purchased the DLC to activate it but I think they made it free a while ago. If not there are mods and DLC cracks that can unlock them.
https://help.ea.com/en/help/faq/dlc-for-classic-games/
Femshep/Garrus romance
Based
Maleshep/Tali romance
They let you configure the top two controller buttons to use abilities/powers of your choice. This meant you didn't have to to pull up a menu every 10 seconds - made combat much smoother and more enjoyable
or you could just map all your powers to whichever keyboard you wanted
>controller
>in a game where you have to aim AND use a lot of different buttons
sounds like a skill issue. but also probably a technical issue. the reason why controller aiming gets such a bad rep is because most devs didnt develop them properly over the years. most console games had horrible deadzones and camera sensitivities. thats not the case in the modern age but people wont let go of the meme-hate
now with steam big picture controller settings you can customize your deadzones and shit to your liking. ive noticed a lot of games even today have horrible controller settings. but ive fixed all of them. steam really deserves more credit for their controller tech
Controllers as an aiming device are inherently flawed, since they control camera velocity rather than position. Mouse and gyro recreate your movement 1:1, allowing for both tiny changes and large flicks in a split second. A controller by its very nature introduces a delay, as you
>physically move the thumbstick
>wait for the camera to move
>release the thumbstick while trying to avoid over/underaiming
Steam overlay is great, but it cannot fix a fundamentally broken control scheme. At least look into gyro if you're dead-set on using a controller.
>since they control camera velocity rather than position
i dont think i understand what this means. the right stick controls the camera the same way a mouse would. thats how its emulated. youre just using your thumb instead of your whole palm. after that it depends on player skill to know how well to move the stick. if you get a comfortable deadzone and sensitivity then its game over for your opponents. i dont think the stick is limited in any way compared to a mouse. most people are just used to using a mouse so they can aim faster with it than a controller. most mouse users dont even give controller the time of day. this is where 'skill issue' comes in
you are factually wrong, and factually delusional
stay mad, controllershitter, your aim assist did all the work for you, and you still lost
i dont play online games. im mostly talking about cover shooters like uncharted, the new tomb raider series, and mass effect. most if not all shooters are very comfy with a controller. i was just telling that to this guy
who may or may not be you
>i dont think i understand what this means. the right stick controls the camera the same way a mouse would.
If you move your thumbstick all the way to the left, you'll keep turning left forever at constant velocity. If you move your mouse all the way to the left of your mouse pad, the camera will stop moving. So a controller is responsible for controlling the camera velocity, while a mouse is responsible for controlling camera position.
Your final goal is to move your cursor to a specific spot. It's much easier and faster to do when you control the camera position directly, rather than indirectly through camera velocity.
im not trying to argue and im sorry if im still not completely understanding your point, but that sounds like an imaginary issue in actual practice. i dont have any problems moving my crosshair to a specific spot with a thumbstick. thats what im trying to get at. in fact your mouse coming off the mousepad sounds like a real issue that controller users never run into
A controller is, in essence, a control system. The video below explains what that is. Just replace a pedal with your thumb, the car velocity with camera velocity and the car position with camera position. Control systems are a complex topic that I won't go into in a short Ganker post, but essentially - the more layers of "misdirection" you are from what you're trying to achieve, the worse the results - the bigger error you accumulate. With a controller you move your thumb, which controls the camera velocity, which then controls the camera position. Even small errors in thumb position greatly affect the final camera position, which you have to compensate for. On the other hand, since with a mouse you control the camera position directly, a small error in hand position will lead to proportionally lower camera position error.
There's also an upper bound on camera velocity in case of controllers, which by definition will cause a bit of a delay to occur in comparison to a mouse, where you're bound only by your hand speed.
I wish I could explain it better but I haven't slept all night. Just know that controllers are an inherently flawed control system, due to being velocity rather than position-based. This leads to a bigger position error, which humans have to compensate for by sacrificing either speed of turning or aiming accuracy.
>I wish I could explain it better
Don't worry, anyone with a brain cell understood your first post. I commend your effort but it's completely wasted on that anon
You're a fricking neanderthal moron.
All the "le proper" implementations are just ultra strong bullet magnetism, sticky aiming and recoil reduction to near nonexistent. Aka, fricking built-in aimbotting.
some games have that stuff. some dont. some let you turn them off. and the settings i mentioned are deadzone calibrations. but you probably dont know what any of that is. youre very confidently ignorant while insulting me. weirdo
It's kind of like the perfect balance between slop and quality, it was obvious they wanted a more mainstream audience with this entry, but it still did enough right by its rpg roots, also harbinger and the collectors felt like awesome antagonists and made you excited for what they had in store for 3.
Too bad 3 sucked donkey nuts and the they managed to make the reapers absolutely goofy lolballs.
>also harbinger and the collectors felt like awesome antagonists
>harbinger
>awesome antagonist
jesus
that's enough internet for me today
Harbinger was cool.
The concept of a consistent conciousness spawning in to fight you as a miniboss was interesting its just that the ending to 2 with the dumb humanoid reaper thing is just kind of anticlimactic and dumb
They managed to perfect the gameplay in 3 (especially when playing vanguard) by adding new powers instead of barebones shit present in 2 and they managed to make the stakes feel sufficiently grand in scale. Getting all the different races to gather together, pooling together your forces for a final confrontation - all of it was great. 3 would've been the best game in the series, had it not been for:
>the ending
>Kai Leng
>having to play the fricking multiplayer to get more forces in your singleplayer campaign
ENEMIES EVERYWHERE
ME1 was made with a shoestring budget and ME3 was rushed in a single year for money.
>Legion ME2 content was cut to hell
>Legion exists to die in ME3
Being a Legion fan sucks, I just wanted to snipe with my robot buddy and send Grunt out to the frontlines so we can cover him
>playthrough mass effect multiple times
>ME2 releases
>*excited*
>I start the game
>gutted RPG mechanics
>just a 3rd person shooter with story bits
DROPPED AND SHITTED
this but unironically only it was when I learned that you couldn't roll
in a Gears of War ripoff
even the shittest Gears ripoff manages to get the movement right
except ME2
Global cooldown is rhe stupidest mechanic in vidya
ME2 seems like mediocre at best nowadays but back then a GoW style cover shooter felt like a major improvement over whatever the frick ME1 tried to be. Nowadays it doesn't seem as noticeable because ME:LE's overhaul of ME1 gameplay is legitimately good and one of the few redeeming features about that buggy, half-assed pile of shit.
They should have backported some of ME3's improvements into ME2 so that at least Adept would be playable on difficulties above Veteran and you could get to play with every gun on every class again, but then it wouldn't be a half-assed pile of shit.
It had the freedom of being the middle game. In a typical branching narrative computer game that's the fat part of the diamond.
Mass effect 2 was a step up from ME1 in raw gameplay and I'm tired of pretending the story of mass effect was anything to write home about.
>"beep boop you're not saren"
>"reapers? yep that's me"
>"we're so smart you literally can't comprehend us (we'll tell you at the end of the third game though)"
ME1 was sci-fi slop
ME1 being overrated shit
A lot of things actually turned me off in that game and it actually never made me fall for hype to the next big western game. In a way, I thank this game for opening my eyes.
Great gunplay and rpg mechanics with a story that wasn't too stupid. Somewhat confused why the game went away from the reaper plot to focus on the collectors.
Much like any story-focused medium, when you maximize the effectiveness of the most powerful element, the overall value goes up.
Characters. The most important element in any story is characters. Mass Effect 2 had a large cast of characters, many of whom strongly appealed to people.