380 réponses à ce sujet

[Toxik King]

In ME1 I dozed off mid conversation with Kaiden talking about his headaches.

I sold/omni gelled everything, cuz it'd be too boring to see if the mountain of crap I had had anything useful.

Talking to someone on a planet was just them saying something random.

A Noveria and Feros were amazingly boring. Go look for half an hour for something to kill, yay.

In combat get 1 shotted when you start off and become invicible half way through (when you hit the money cap).

The best part was blowing **** up in the Mako, but driving for 2 hours in the middle of nowhere ruined it.



DA:O got really boring cuz I just pressed a couple of buttons and then repeated ME1.



Shooters are fun, what's wrong with making a game more like one? I don't get how liking that crap makes you smarter btw.



My favourite game is MW2 btw =)

[packardbell]

Judging from the many improvements from the first game, they are LISTENING to customer feedback.



So, stay hopeful guys.

[kraidy1117]

Indoctrination wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

I still think ME2 is a better game, but I agree as an RPG it could use a few good ole' ME1 features.
But seriously, the armor and characters and are improved. What game have you been playing?

I don't know how you can argue that ME2's armour system is an improvement. ME1's system was a chore and just plain uncomfortable but at least it was meaningful. You can play all of ME2 without ever changing your armour and likely not notice the difference.

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

[rastakore]

Signed for great justice. ME1 main plot missions feel a lot more rich and you a have that feeling of an epic space opera... ME2 plot feels a bit empty and shallow in comparison, what they did right was flesh out the backstory and personality of your squad mates and I think ME2 is more about that then the reaper menace.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

Agreed. Plus, if you're looking for counter-examples from DA:O just look at Sten and Leliana. The way you pick them up is just so utterly random. It felt like they couldn't think of any other way to add them to your party, so they had to tack them on somehow.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 09 avril 2010 - 09:26 .

[Gill Kaiser]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I agree to a degree, except on cusomization. I personally have never looked at stats as being a critical element of an RPG. ME1's gameplay could have been a complete FPS and if it kept the same story elements, I wouldn't care. The idea that a game is an RPG only if it lets you level up and choose weapons armor, etc to me is very out-dated. ME2's combat system was much more fluid for example. Plus, if levels and stats are all it takes to make an RPG...then we must start allowing World of Warcraft into the ranks.

...WoW is an RPG, specifically an MMORPG.

What characterises the RPG genre is the ability to earn and spend some form of currency (usually experience, but can be money or something else) to build and develop your character's abilities and equipment in a way not purely dictated by the main plot progression. So, for example, Zelda doesn't count because you always get new equipment/abilities from the same places at pretty much the same times. God of War III doesn't count because even though there is a currency system in place, it is only used to enhance the abilities Kratos already has, which he receives at strictly designated points during the main plot.

Western RPGs usually have an additional identifying feature, which is the ability to customise your character's appearance, and also their personality through dialogue options and the choice of where to go and what to do.

[kraidy1117]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

Agreed. Plus, if you're looking for counter-examples from DA:O just look at Sten and Leliana. The way you pick them up is just so utterly random. It felt like they couldn't think of any other way to add them to your party, so they had to tack them on somehow.

As much as I love the characters in DAO only two where very importent to the main plot, three if you count Wyn and she lsurvives the tower. Alistair and Morrigan are the only characters vital to the main story, that't it. All the other characters expect for Wynn just seem random, tho I <3 Leliana.

[mosor]

I don't really care about the leveling up. The only issue have an issue with ME2 is that the interactions with other characters is so superficial. I kinda liked the influence system they had in dragon age.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

...WoW is an RPG, specifically an MMORPG.

2. What characterises the RPG genre is the ability to earn and spend some form of currency (usually experience, but can be money or something else) to build and develop your character's abilities and equipment in a way not purely dictated by the main plot progression. So, for example, Zelda doesn't count because you always get new equipment/abilities from the same places at pretty much the same times. God of War III doesn't count because even though there is a currency system in place, it is only used to enhance the abilities Kratos already has, which he receives at strictly designated points during the main plot.

3. Western RPGs usually have an additional identifying feature, which is the ability to customise your character's appearance, and also their personality through dialogue options and the choice of where to go and what to do.

1. In the loosest sense of the term, yes. It's an RPG in so far as you have stats, experience, and armor customization. Unfortunately that represents the most cliche stereotype that is often associated with RPGs. It's not enough to "level up".

2. I'm going to have to disagree with this. You are defining RPG in terms of stats and leveling up, which I consider
to the lowest form. RPGs, more than anything else, are characterized by choices and being able to create any type of character imaginable. The ability to replicate this should be the strong point in a video game. Something like WoW may possess RPG-like gameplay, but I wish you great luck in finding any sort of role-play or choice on a wow server.  Bioware designed ME to be a RPG/TPS hybrid. I would assume this means they are incorporating shooter gameply mechanics, while producing a good story with as many choices as possible within the game's context. ME2 is not "less of an RPG" because they took away the ability to choose your armor or guns; there are other, more important reasons to consider .

3. RPGs have their origins with role-playing table tops, such as dnd. I would characterize their importance in this order:

1) Choice/Free will (the most unique element).
2) Diverse character personalities.
3) An enjoyable story.
4) Customization or the ability to choose stats/class/equipment.

Wow contains only the fourth in overly large quantities. This does not make up for the other three. It's a very shallow approach to the elements of RPGs.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 09 avril 2010 - 09:43 .

[Halmiriliath]

Indoctrination wrote...

ME2 is simply lacking many of the RPG elements that made the first Mass Effect so rich. For example, in the first game many of the main plot missions have their own full sub-plots which make them interesting. You're on the mission to help your Saren investigation, but you get caught up in something bigger along the way, and the characters you meet become involved. Feros has you storming in, helping some colonists fight of a Geth attack. Then you explore the colony for a bit and chat up the colonists. Then you continue on your mission, fighting through the Geth, meet the Exogeni employees, chat them up for a bit, and learn some more about what's going on. Eventually you find out about the Thorian, mind control, etc. Feros is like the perfect model of what the format of a main plot world should be.

Now let's look at pretty much every main plot mission in ME2. "Shepard, there's this bad dude out there that I think you should recruit for your team. Go and fight your way through a giant flood of mercenaries to find him."
And when that's not the case, it's "Shepard, the Collector's are up to no good. Go fight your way through dozens of collectors for an hour or so to show them who's the boss."

Almost all of the ME2 missions feel like something out of a generic shooter. It feels like there's a bare minimal plot there because even shooters are expected to have basic minimal plots these days. These aren't things I should be saying about an RPG. I don't understand how the scenario writers could have allowed this to happen. There was so much potential too. Like with Samara's mission there was a murder sub-plot for a whole 5 minutes. This should have been the main sub-plot of the entire mission. Ideally, it would have been explore, talk to people about the murder, go and fight the oblogatory giant swarm of mercs, explore the murder some more, rinse and repeat until it becomes clear that the murder must have been done by one of a few suspects. Then throw in a nice plot twist. That would have been a good mission. Instead it's talk about the murder and Samara for 5 minutes, fight the mercs for an hour, recruit Samara. It feels completely soulless.

I sincerely hope that Mass Effect 3 brings back the RPG-goodness that made the first Mass Effect such a legendary game. That means sub-plots that matter within missions that consist of more than just fighting a giant horde of mercs. If BioWare takes the RPG aspects of ME1 and combines them with the improved shooter aspects of ME2, then ME3 will truly be the best game in the series.

A lot of very interesting and valid points, and I too would have liked to have seen complaints from squad members if they didn't like the direction you're taking, as well as consequences for having disagreements with them. However, I just wanted to pick up on the idea of plots and sub-plots within missions.  There were indeed interesting sub-plots within Feros and Noveria with ExoGeni, Anoleis, Quinn etc. and also upon arrival at the Citadel in the first Mass Effect, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the sub-plots in Mass Effect 2, which added layers of depth and backstory to the overall plot direction. Three in particular that are worth emphasising are: the Genophage sub-plot in Mordin's loyalty mission; Quarian politics regarding the Geth on the Migrant Fleet (in which you become quite an active participant); and the decision to rewrite or destroy the heretics on Legion's mission. Now I know it isn't a sub-plot in Legion's mission, but Legion's mission is effectively a sub-plot of the main mission and thus qualifies in my mind.

I'd also be wary of dismissing  the lack of depth or plot in the missions in Mass Effect 2, and feel that your summary of them in the second quoted paragraph is slightly unfair. Most things can be simplified down to such levels, but will always end up over-simplifying and failing to acknowledge its merits or depth, so I don't really think such an argument is applicable. I personally found a great deal of depth in some of the missions, while others could very well be improved upon. Given also that an 'RPG' means different things to different people depending on which aspects you'd emphasise, I'd be interested (and grateful) if you could elaborate on what would have made Mass Effect 2 more of an RPG to you beyond more sub-plots, greater squad interaction/independence and better armour customisation, or are those the main over-arching issues for you?

Modifié par Halmiriliath, 09 avril 2010 - 09:50 .

[Gill Kaiser]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

3. RPGs have their origins with role-playing table tops, such as dnd. I would characterize their importance in this order:

1) Choice/Free will (the most unique element).
2) Diverse character personalities.
3) An enjoyable story.
4) Customization or the ability to choose stats/class/equipment.

Wow contains only the fourth in overly large quantities. This does not make up for the other three. It's a very shallow approach to the elements of RPGs.

Well, I agree with you in principle, but not semantics. As they exist today, I'd say that my definition of cRPGs is correct. However, what I did not talk about is what makes a good RPG, which is a different kettle of fish entirely, and resembles your list.

Modifié par Gill Kaiser, 09 avril 2010 - 09:50 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Well, I agree with you on principle, but not semantics. As they exist today, I'd definately say that my definition of cRPGs is correct. However, what I did not talk about is what makes a good RPG, which is a different kettle of fish entirely, and resembles your list.

So overall, my mistake aside, would you say we are in agreement then?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 09 avril 2010 - 09:50 .

[Gill Kaiser]

Pretty much.

[Lisa_H]

I love ME2 and think it's a great game. But I must agree with OP. I hope ME3 get more of an RPG feeling especially when it comes to character and story development.

[EricLeb010]

 Technically speaking, Mass Effect is an Action RPG, which is a lot more inclined toward the shooter aspect of the game, but has many RPG elements as well. Think of Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. And the class system, as well as the dialogue choices, make the game suitable to be placed in the subgenre.

[EricLeb010]

Toxik King wrote...

In ME1 I dozed off mid conversation with Kaiden talking about his headaches.
I sold/omni gelled everything, cuz it'd be too boring to see if the mountain of crap I had had anything useful.
Talking to someone on a planet was just them saying something random.
A Noveria and Feros were amazingly boring. Go look for half an hour for something to kill, yay.
In combat get 1 shotted when you start off and become invicible half way through (when you hit the money cap).
The best part was blowing **** up in the Mako, but driving for 2 hours in the middle of nowhere ruined it.

DA:O got really boring cuz I just pressed a couple of buttons and then repeated ME1.

Shooters are fun, what's wrong with making a game more like one? I don't get how liking that crap makes you smarter btw.

My favourite game is MW2 btw =)

Your entire rant was compromised when you blurted that last sentence.

[wulf3n]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
3) An enjoyable story.
4) Customization or the ability to choose stats/class/equipment.  

Story: i still think the story for ME1 was a lot better.
Customization: The closest thing we really get to customization in ME2 is what color your armor is!

ME2 just feels so linear, and the worlds just seem so bland. In ME1 you could explore strange planets, find hidden secrets among asteroid belts, in ME2:

Shepard: " i wanna go down and drive around that planet <_<"
EDI: " Shepard, either scan for minerals, or go back to Omega, it's your  "choice" ".
Shepard: " i don't wanna go back to Omega, its lame, and the same ppl have been waiting to get into afterlife for 3 weeks now.:crying:"

[tonnactus]

arcelonious wrote...

I'm probably from the minority of ME players that felt that there wasn't enough combat in ME 2. To illustrate, you go through the entire game slowly recruiting members and gaining their loyalty, and by the time you have filled out your entire squad, powers, and upgrades, you're already at the end of the game. For example, let's say that your favorite characters are Samara and Legion. Unfortunately, due to recruitment and loyalty missions, you're not going to be able to use them (with their full powers) until the latter portion of the game.

That has nothing to do with the amount of combat, but stupid decisions of gamedesigners to remove freedom from the player.(when you recruit someone in which order)  Legion has dialogue for all missions in the game.Some pcplayers use mods and could have him right at the beginning.
Loaylity mission are ok.
But that partymmembers use important talents only after doing them is plain stupid.

[Sesshomaru47]

Is ME2 an RPG? I though it was Gears wearing a new pair of stylish pants. I hope they put the RPG aspects back and stop pandering to the Gears crowd. I also hope the put back in side quests that involve more than my character running in shooting a few people then pushing a button then B to end mission. It's BORING BioWare BORING!!!!!!!!!!

[bjdbwea]

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Is ME2 an RPG? I though it was Gears wearing a new pair of stylish pants. I hope they put the RPG aspects back and stop pandering to the Gears crowd. I also hope the put back in side quests that involve more than my character running in shooting a few people then pushing a button then B to end mission. It's BORING BioWare BORING!!!!!!!!!!

This.

[tonnactus]

Toxik King wrote...

A Noveria and Feros were amazingly boring.

Cool, i have the exact opposite opinion.Noveria and Feros are better then anything in Mass Effect 2.

[tonnactus]

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Is ME2 an RPG? I though it was Gears wearing a new pair of stylish pants. I hope they put the RPG aspects back and stop pandering to the Gears crowd. I also hope the put back in side quests that involve more than my character running in shooting a few people then pushing a button then B to end mission. It's BORING BioWare BORING!!!!!!!!!!

At least Gears of War had interesting boss fights.(Like fighting in the worm)
Something that Mass Effect 2 dont have anymore.
Only fight guys/women with two layer protections.
So dont insult this game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 avril 2010 - 11:00 .

[Sesshomaru47]

tonnactus wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Is ME2 an RPG? I though it was Gears wearing a new pair of stylish pants. I hope they put the RPG aspects back and stop pandering to the Gears crowd. I also hope the put back in side quests that involve more than my character running in shooting a few people then pushing a button then B to end mission. It's BORING BioWare BORING!!!!!!!!!!

At least Gears of War had interesting boss fights.(Like fighting in the worm)
Something that Mass Effect dont have anymore.
So dont insult this game.

Ok Gears of War 2. Ok then? Because let's face it that last Brumak at the end of second game was stupid....and familar...

[BaladasDemnevanni]

wulf3n wrote...

Story: i still think the story for ME1 was a lot better.
Customization: The closest thing we really get to customization in ME2 is what color your armor is!

ME2 just feels so linear, and the worlds just seem so bland. In ME1 you could explore strange planets, find hidden secrets among asteroid belts, in ME2:

Shepard: " i wanna go down and drive around that planet <_<"
EDI: " Shepard, either scan for minerals, or go back to Omega, it's your  "choice" ".
Shepard: " i don't wanna go back to Omega, its lame, and the same ppl have been waiting to get into afterlife for 3 weeks now.:crying:"

I'm not denying that the story was better; I completely agree with you. But I think of it in the same way as Episode V. Did it *really* have a good plot? Half the movie is just watching Han and Leia fly in circles or Luke getting chewed out by Yoda. ME2's plot is not perfect, but it's serviceable. It did a great job of building up background material. Also alot of the party members I thought were really fleshed out (Mordin). Alot of it depends (at least for me) on what they do with ME3. If I retain most of my ME2 squad, I'll be happy. If they scrap them....well, screw you Bioware.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 09 avril 2010 - 11:23 .

[CrookedAsylum]

Toxik King wrote...

Shooters are fun, what's wrong with making a game more like one? I don't get how liking that crap makes you smarter btw.

My favourite game is MW2 btw =)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a game like a shooter, if you're intending for it to be a shooter.

When you're intending to make an RPG, however, and the game turns out to be more pew pew than anything else, it's kind of frustrating.