616 réponses à ce sujet

[Merci357]

slimgrin wrote...

ME2 is checkers. Dragon Age is chess. That make it clear?

Edit: You can substitute the following titles for Dragon age:

Baldurs gate 2, The Witcher, Divine Divinity, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Elder scrolls - these games have complexity and depth, ME2 is like watching an after-school tv special by comparison. It's all about cinematics and action, which is fine, but don't pretend the game is anything other than that. Its not tactical like Dragon Age. It offers virtually nothing in the way of open ended gameplay like Oblivion. The side missions are a joke, unlike Divine Divinity ( character missions aside) 

But no matter. I will be told how all the above titles are crap. They are, in fact not RPG's at all, and ME2 is master of the universe, the most sublime manifestation of any video game ever conceived.

It's a modified action title people. Wake up. This was a deliberate move on Bioware's part.  

Tactical combat is, in my opinion, no requirement for a RPG, it's not even part of the definion. Take, for example, Fallout Tactics. I loved that game, and honestly, as the name suggests, it is way more tactical then any RPG you listed. Then again, Fallout Tactics is considered a strategy game, no RPG, even if it has RPG traits, like character progression. What tactical abilities where needed in The Witcher?
Then you could look at Bethesda games, and you might think, exploration and open end are important parts of RPGs, but again, it's not. Dragon Age has virtually no exploration and no open ended gameplay.

ME2 hasn't the depth of DA or even ME, but just compare it, for once, to a real shooter. Metro 2033 is the last one I played and quite recent, but take any shooter you like for comparison. Metro is so much shorter, has no decisions, no tactical gameplay, and no dialogue, just monologues for story progression. (I'm not bashing Metro 2033, I liked it, but it's a very different kind of game.)

Has RPG any real meaning, besides being a lable?

I don't even regard ME2 as a RPG, but it's much, much more then your average shooter game. I love BioWare games because of their story, their cinematic presentation, because of dialogue and choices, because of the characters. And ME2 isn't lacking in that department. DA isn't lacking, either.
It's no definition of RPG or not, for me, it's just, do I like it, or not. And, honestly, that's all that should matter.

[HTTP 404]

I think you and Terror K have good points but on a thread about talking about dissappointments with ME2 is almost like preaching to the choir. people who are not disappointed with the game like me are not going to that thread much less going to be persuaded to no longer like the game anymore.

[Massadonious1]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Massadonious himself implies in his sig there's no such thing as too much 'SPLOSHUNS but there is such a thing as too much character interaction/plot.

Of course you would think that it implies such a thing.

[FlyingWalrus]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Of course it's an RPG. Hardly anybody is saying it isn't. Just that it's not on par with their past title in terms of story. Drago made the perfect point in another thread. The EXCESSIVE combat is what kills ME2 for many. There was no balance with character interaction and moving along the plot. The story "evolves through the combat". And that's a GOOD thing, right? How dare story progress via character interaction and cutscenes. Screw that. Massadonious himself implies in his sig there's no such thing as too much 'SPLOSHUNS but there is such a thing as too much character interaction/plot.

Actually, I've got Kalfear in maybe a dozen posts in this very thread saying that very thing: that ME2 isn't an RPG. And Slimgrin on this page says to "Wake up," that ME2 is "just" an action title. ME1 isn't exactly combat light, either, you know. In fact, pretty much every planet you land on has a bunker with 20-30 bum-rushing mooks lurking in wait for you. I think the combat just took such a center stage this time because of how briskly-paced the story was. At this point, we can agree that it's a matter of taste.

There are whole missions in ME2 where you do little or no combat. Most of Jack's loyalty mission is exposition; there's just that group, and once they're dealt with, you spend the rest of the time dealing with her issues. That seems like story progress through character interaction. Let me not even mention Thane and Samara's stories, during which you don't have to fire a single (direct) shot.

There were more 'SPLOSHUNS in ME1, to be honest. I don't have a bandolier of grenades in ME2. :<

[Sigma Tauri]

Merci357 wrote...
Then you could look at Bethesda games, and you might think, exploration and open end are important parts of RPGs, but again, it's not. Dragon Age has virtually no exploration and no open ended gameplay.

Well, just to note, exploration is a part of gaming overall, not just RPGs. That's why there are dungeons. People like to explore them. However, the way a player explores a gameworld however differs. Bethesda's renowned for freefrom exploration of a vast gameworld + its various dungeons. Dragon Age has more enclosed places, but still allow you to explore a town in spite of limited space. You could say though that Bioware doesn't really have you explore spatially, but narratively, though that's not what anyone's meaning when it came to exploration.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 15 juin 2010 - 06:38 .

[Kalfear]

First off, never call me bro!
My bros are intellegent thinking players with years of experience and knowledge behind them. Not cyber mouth peices that cant tell the different betwene a RPG with Shooter qualities (ME1) and a Shooter with a back story (ME2).
If you must address me Walrus, sir or master will do!


To everyone else I dont have utter contempt for
I actually agree that many mistake RPG with what they like/dislike!
Fallout 3 was not a RPG, it had at best a 10 hour story but was so spread apart you wasted 30 hours getting to it. It had no level progression to speak of, no companions to learn about (beyond the most basic and shallow of character builds). It was for the most part a open world shooter.
I never finished FO3 because its basic storyline was so simplistic you couldnt avoid spoilers out there and really I just got bored with mindless wandering and silly head shot combat.
Dragon Age on the other hand was pure RPG. I personally liked its stratagy based combat system as it was far more technical then whats been offered in ME games and FO3/Elder scroll games. But im a old school player that likes tactics over twitch so that makes sence.
I can understand not everyone liked DA:O, it was very wordy and very rich in detail and the details mattered. It wasnt solid action scene to action scene. In fact there was many times you could go hours and hours with no combat style action. Thats going to appeal to RPGer, not twitch/action junkies!
A game is not a RPG because yyou like it or dislike it! RPGs are about story, interaction, communication, exploration, LEVEL/CHARACTER PROGRESSION, tactical combat. Take one of these out and your not a real RPG. Take a number out and your something else!
Fall Out 3 was a FPS with a back story
Mass Effect 2 was a TPS with a back story
Elderscrolls and Oblivion do count as RPGs (barely) but designed more for the twitch ADD player then the traditional RPG player. Rich in exploration but not so rich in detail and storylines.
And for the 100000000000000000000000000000 time. No one (well I am as I didnt like ME2 but thats personal taste) saying ME2 wasnt a good SHOOTER GAME. They saying it wasnt a real RPG game. The problem is now and always has been that Mass Effect franchise is suppose to be a RPG/Shooter hybred (like the first game). Not a Shooter with a back story (like the 2nd game).
If Bioware wanted to make a shooter and try to crack into that area, they should have made a new IP and called it a shooter game and made ME2. That way no one would of had pre conception of what the game should be like and would have no room to complain.
But thats not what they did, sadly!

Here is my question. I stopped posting cause I really have nothing but utter contempt for a number of posters (you know one already) in these threads so im ignoreing those people and addressing the others here.

Why is it so all fired important to you that Traditional RPG fans call Mass Effect 2 a RPG?
Why is saying its a good/great/excellent shooter not good enough for you?

Im being serious because I dont understand the logic. You like Shooters, you play shooters, why cant you just accept ME2 was a shooter and move on.

I dont like shooters so I dont casually tag some RPG a shooter so I can say im a shooter fan, im not! If someone thinks less of me because Im not a shooter fan, thats their problem, not mine.

Just accept that ME1 was a RPG/Shooter hybred.
ME2 was a shooter with a back story
ME3 is appearently going to be a mix of 1 and 2 (based on what Bioware has already said)

End of topic, move on!

I can make my cats fetch, that doesnt make them dogs!

Modifié par Kalfear, 15 juin 2010 - 06:37 .

[Terror_K]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

The burden is on you to explain your ridiculous comment. I've had noooo reason whatsoever to look in that thread because I'm not disappointed with the game.



Because the last time I checked, the goal of any game was to "entertain," and ME2 doesn't really fail at that.

That depends what one is looking for. ME1 entertains me far more, while except for the first time with ME2 I find myself starting a game and then getting bored of it a few days in and I just leave it for a while and play something else. This included importing what I consider my ultimate character who I care the most about: I took her through and stopped playing her about halfway. That almost never happened with ME1 with any of my characters, with the one exception the time DAO was released and briefly drew my attention away from my current playthrough.

As for explaining, I'm not going into everything again, but perhaps this piece I posted yesterday from the aforementioned topic you can't be bothered going into with suffice:-

I, Terror_K, wrote... in another topic... yesterday... related to something similar...

Well, when I personally say it dumbed down and lacked RPG elements I'm referring to several things that are lost, such as the following:-


* Stats no longer determining your ability to shoot a weapon whatsoever.

* The complete scrapping of any non-combat stats. Even persuasion is incorporated into a combat-skill now.

* Half as many skills overall, with less variation in class builds.

* The weapons system basically being reduced to a standard shooter one, with little variety in the items department and said items being governed entirely by their "feel" now and completely lacking in any statistical data/attributes to summarise and define them, or to compare them to similar items.

* The completely linear items system, where each and every item is in the same exact place every time and getting every item is pretty much inevitable, with no challenge or variation whatsoever. There's no incentive and no reward, the stuff is just thrown at you. Its about as deep as playing single-player Quake and finding each weapon as you progress. No... I lie actually: Quake was deeper because sometimes they were actually in hidden locations and harder to find. Everything just falls on your lap in ME2.

* The loss of weapons modding.

* The loss of armour modding.

* The loss of armour classes.

* Armour being mostly cosmetic now, with no statistical attributes at all. It doesn't really even act like armour: more just like a thing to have with a bonus attribute. Meaningless and shallow when it performs no other function. It's nice that it's split up now instead of always just being one piece, but the individual parts have no real identity. Its less armour and more like just wearing a bunch of Rings or Necklaces in a Fantasy RPG.

* The loss of decryption and hacking ability being determined by a statistical skill/attribute, or even a class.

* That XP is almost meaningless now with no context beyond the overall mission. XP may as well be a random arbitrary number in the current system, as we're given no indication as to what we're actually getting XP for directly. To compare it to something, its like the difference between getting back a fifty-question multi choice exam you did with each question individually marked as to whether its correct or incorrect and being given one with only an overall grade on it and no indication where one was right or wrong. It also doesn't help that the amount you get is exactly the same no matter what you do or how you accomplish the quest.

* Omni-tools and Biotic Amps are gone completely, let alone reduced to shooter models with no stats. They simply don't exist and no longer factor.

* Regenerating health. A standard modern shooter convention that takes away the need to have a vitality or healing-based skill, as well as items related to this.

* Exploration pretty much gone.

* A far more linear approach to... well, pretty much everything. Far fewer variations on going about a quest, with pretty much everything reduced to getting from A to B with combat. Few non-combat solutions. Pretty much no alternatives or branching out in levels, with everything pretty much a straight line.

* Shallow leveling system that goes for instant gratification rather than gradual improvement.

* The loss of new abilities opening up as you progress a skill. Split up at 4th skill level is nice, but doesn't change much or provide two completely different paths; generally just a trade-off between more damage over more time, more damage over more defense, or more damage to one target over wider damage to more, etc.

* Certain classes no longer needed. Companions less crucial, meaning you can pretty much take anybody with you rather than needing somebody who compliments and offsets your class. No need for a tech character at all any more, since non-combat tech requirements no longer an issue.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 juin 2010 - 06:38 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Kalfear wrote...

First off, never call me bro!
My bros are intellegent thinking players with years of experience and knowledge behind them. Not cyber mouth peices that cant tell the different betwene a RPG with Shooter qualities (ME1) and a Shooter with a back story (ME2).
If you must address me Walrus, sir or master will do!
To everyone else I dont have utter contempt for
I actually agree that many mistake RPG with what they like/dislike!
Fallout 3 was not a RPG, it had at best a 10 hour story but was so spread apart you wasted 30 hours getting to it. It had no level progression to speak of, no companions to learn about (beyond the most basic and shallow of character builds). It was for the most part a open world shooter.
I never finished FO3 because its basic storyline was so simplistic you couldnt avoid spoilers out there and really I just got bored with mindless wandering and silly head shot combat.
Dragon Age on the other hand was pure RPG. I personally liked its stratagy based combat system as it was far more technical then whats been offered in ME games and FO3/Elder scroll games. But im a old school player that likes tactics over twitch so that makes sence.
I can understand not everyone liked DA:O, it was very wordy and very rich in detail and the details mattered. It wasnt solid action scene to action scene. In fact there was many times you could go hours and hours with no combat style action. Thats going to appeal to RPGer, not twitch/action junkies!
A game is not a RPG because yyou like it or dislike it! RPGs are about story, interaction, communication, exploration, LEVEL/CHARACTER PROGRESSION, tactical combat. Take one of these out and your not a real RPG. Take a number out and your something else!
Fall Out 3 was a FPS with a back story
Mass Effect 2 was a TPS with a back story
Elderscrolls and Oblivion do count as RPGs (barely) but designed more for the twitch ADD player then the traditional RPG player. Rich in exploration but not so rich in detail and storylines.
And for the 100000000000000000000000000000 time. No one (well I am as I didnt like ME2 but thats personal taste) saying ME2 wasnt a good SHOOTER GAME. They saying it wasnt a real RPG game. The problem is now and always has been that Mass Effect franchise is suppose to be a RPG/Shooter hybred (like the first game). Not a Shooter with a back story (like the 2nd game).
If Bioware wanted to make a shooter and try to crack into that area, they should have made a new IP and called it a shooter game and made ME2. That way no one would of had pre conception of what the game should be like and would have no room to complain.
But thats not what they did, sadly!

Here is my question. I stopped posting cause I really have nothing but utter contempt for a number of posters (you know one already) in these threads so im ignoreing those people and addressing the others here.

Why is it so all fired important to you that Traditional RPG fans call Mass Effect 2 a RPG?
Why is saying its a good/great/excellent shooter not good enough for you?

Im being serious because I dont understand the logic. You like Shooters, you play shooters, why cant you just accept ME2 was a shooter and move on.

I dont like shooters so I dont casually tag some RPG a shooter so I can say im a shooter fan, im not! If someone thinks less of me because Im not a shooter fan, thats their problem, not mine.

Just accept that ME1 was a RPG/Shooter hybred.
ME2 was a shooter with a back story
ME3 is appearently going to be a mix of 1 and 2 (based on what Bioware has already said)

End of topic, move on!

I can make my cats fetch, that doesnt make them dogs!

Cool story... bro.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 15 juin 2010 - 06:44 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Of course you would think that it implies such a thing.

Even after you've edited you sig, it's still dripping in sarcasm. Implying story in a game from Bioware isn't important. But I'm just misinterpreting it. <_<

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Actually, I've got Kalfear in maybe a dozen posts in this very thread saying that very thing: that ME2 isn't an RPG. And Slimgrin on this page says to "Wake up," that ME2 is "just" an action title. ME1 isn't exactly combat light, either, you know. In fact, pretty much every planet you land on has a bunker with 20-30 bum-rushing mooks lurking in wait for you. I think the combat just took such a center stage this time because of how briskly-paced the story was. At this point, we can agree that it's a matter of taste.

There are whole missions in ME2 where you do little or no combat. Most of Jack's loyalty mission is exposition; there's just that group, and once they're dealt with, you spend the rest of the time dealing with her issues. That seems like story progress through character interaction. Let me not even mention Thane and Samara's stories, during which you don't have to fire a single (direct) shot.

There were more 'SPLOSHUNS in ME1, to be honest. I don't have a bandolier of grenades in ME2. :<

ME2 have stats? Check, even though there's a level 30 cap and the combat focuses more on your reflexes instead of in-game skills. Sooo, catering to the shooter fans. ME2 have dialogue? Sure, even though it's not implemented as much compared to ME1 and there's a good amount of times where Shepard speaks without prompts. But he/she stays NEUUTRAAL, right?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

There was no balance with character interaction and moving along the plot. The story "evolves through the combat". And that's a GOOD thing, right?

One thing that just boggles my mind is how people bring up that there was combat in ME1.

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? Nobody is saying there should be NO combat, just that there should be an equal, balanced ratio between character interaction and story. Loyalty missions don't count and neither does that crashed ship mission. The loyalty missions are thrown together with "getting to know your squad mate" and headshots. Speaking of:

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

How is the combat emphasised over plot? I'll give you combat emphasised over RPG elements but not over plot. And considering that there is just as much (if not more) character interaction in ME2 than in ME1, how has it suffered?

Let me spell it out for you. To get from the beginning of a main world to the end took about 35-45 minutes on average with my ME1 Shepard. After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali, we could chat it up with Conrad again at the Citadel, we could check in with Anderson and Udina, and we could give the post mission report to the council. There was also the scenic view. When all is said and done, dialogue was even with the length of missions, sometimes even more. In addition there was a lot of dialogue and character interaction DURING the missions. Now let's look at ME2. We could get maybe 10 minutes of dialogue on average with SOME characters if milked dry. After those 10 minutes, we're thrown in with an hour long plus mission stopping for the occasional renegade/paragon interrupt. We can talk to archangel only TWICE. Your entire squad is almost always too busy to speak with you. We have more squad members, but not more dialogue to reflect that. And there's hardly any discussion with anybody post main mission. Instead we get text to read from emails. The only time Anderson talks again is after meeting Ashley.

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

We get more emotional satisfaction from chatting with the crew as opposed to headshots.

uberdowzen wrote...

Secondly, I completely agree with what was said on that youtube clip, but honestly ME2 has a lot of character interaction and as I stated earlier I actually thought most of ME2's characters were deeper than ME1's. Anyway, almost all good sci fi at some point gets around to everyone going off and shooting something.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

No it doesn't. Maybe out in the middle of a fight, but who the hell feels like having a chat for a few minutes just to be dropped RIGHT BACK into a fight? Not sure who it was but somebody FROM BIOWARE said, and I'm paraphrasing-
"There's just enough combat for you to look forward to relaxing after missions to get to know your squad and just enough socializing for you to look forward to get back into the action."

Which, was a complete lie.

Palidine_0225 wrote...

Put simply I buy Bioware games for the story not some ground breaking gameplay. I buy Valve, id Software, and Epic if I want to see some new earth-shattering combat in a game.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 15 juin 2010 - 12:14 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 is an RPG. It's just a shallow one. Just because it fits the definition doesn't mean it succeeds at it.

Time to elaborate.

What's an RPG supposed to succeed at, again...?

Seriously? *sigh* Just look in the "Disappointment with ME2 thread" I've already explained it at least half a dozen times there alone... let alone in all the other threads over the last 5 months. I'm kind of sick of repeating myself and going in circles here.

If your'e so sick of repeating yourself, why do it? Isn't that like being a manianical evangalical christian who preachs non stop but can't get anyone to join his cause?

[Massadonious1]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...
Of course you would think that it implies such a thing.

Even after you've edited you sig, it's still dripping in sarcasm. Implying story in a game from Bioware isn't important. But I'm just misinterpreting it.

You're right, my bad. It's not like I was mocking the lot of you who are using the photoshopped .gif of a mentally retarded fat kid with not so different messages implying that BioWare is now catering to the less enlightened and intelligent masses (pun not intended) that play the kind of games that ME2 apparently turned in to. I clearly despise any game with any sort of cohesive narrative flow.

You have me pegged, good sir.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 15 juin 2010 - 07:12 .

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Seriously? *sigh* Just look in the "Disappointment with ME2 thread" I've already explained it at least half a dozen times there alone... let alone in all the other threads over the last 5 months. I'm kind of sick of repeating myself and going in circles here.

If your'e so sick of repeating yourself, why do it? Isn't that like being a manianical evangalical christian who preachs non stop but can't get anyone to join his cause?

No. It's more like being the scientist who keeps showing evidence of evolution to evangelical christians and them still refusing to acknowledge its existence and keep calling you a "spawn of satan!" for saying as much. 

[FlyingWalrus]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

That depends what one is looking for.[/quote]
I really should say that this is all it boils down to, but I want to address a few things point by point.

[quote]ME1 entertains me far more, while except for the first time with ME2 I find myself starting a game and then getting bored of it a few days in and I just leave it for a while and play something else. This included importing what I consider my ultimate character who I care the most about: I took her through and stopped playing her about halfway. That almost never happened with ME1 with any of my characters, with the one exception the time DAO was released and briefly drew my attention away from my current playthrough.[/quote]
Then play ME1. That's what I've been doing lately. The achievements were much more difficult to earn in ME1 because they required you to play every class, and Biotics is just not my style. But I got bored of ME1 on Insanity after working on it for several days straight on what I would consider my ultimate character. I haven't touched it in a couple of months. I got bored of it, I got distracted, I don't remember. But does that mean that ME1 failed to entertain me? No, of course not. Well, wait. It did. It was the fact that I exploited the ability to get the best loadouts so early in the game that it's essentially a cakewalk. The power trip was nice, but asides from the Geth Snipers, nothing is a threat to me anymore.

Anyway, before I get too sidetracked. Because ME1 failed to hold my attention this time, does that make it a failure as a game or RPG? Hardly. I still have to go through the rest of Dragon Age, too, but just because that's such a long and ponderous game.

[quote]I, Terror_K, wrote... in another topic... yesterday... related to something similar...

Well, when I personally say it dumbed down and lacked RPG elements I'm referring to several things that are lost, such as the following:-


* Stats no longer determining your ability to shoot a weapon whatsoever.[/quote]
This I disagree with. It is customary in most RPGs for certain characters, based on their race or class, to already start out with a proficiency in certain weapons. Given that Shep is a soldier and, atop that, a Special Forces badass, it's a given that he'll know how to shoot straight regardless of his specialty.

Like the system in ME1 was so balanced anyway. Like I said in another thread, do you know how much I have invested in Assault Rifles on that ultimate character I mentioned? One point. And with that one point and the Spectre VII Assault Rifle, I can bestow several seconds of high-speed death with perfect accuracy on anything. That's not balanced in the least, and I haven't even added ammo or upgrades to the gun yet.

[quote]* The complete scrapping of any non-combat stats. Even persuasion is incorporated into a combat-skill now.[/quote]
It has actually been incorporated into your overall character progression's talent. Choosing the option that grants you the bonus to Persuasion and Intimidation usually means giving up the path that would've given you a boost in your combat abilities. >_>

[quote]* Half as many skills overall, with less variation in class builds.[/quote]
I agree with this. I am all for more Talents as I was a huge fan of tech mines in ME1.

[quote]* The weapons system basically being reduced to a standard shooter one, with little variety in the items department and said items being governed entirely by their "feel" now and completely lacking in any statistical data/attributes to summarise and define them, or to compare them to similar items.[/quote]
There is a lot more variance in weapons because of how functionally different they are from one another. In ME1, a pistol was always a pistol. In ME2, you can choose the pistol with less power per shot but a deeper magazine, or great power per shot but a very shallow magazine. Assault Rifle with full auto fire, or Assault Rifle with more accurate burst fire, or (on Hardcore) the Assault Rifle that decimates shields but is weak against other parameters. Their statistics are not as important as their function, being that you can influence their damage easily with ammo abilities.

[quote]* The completely linear items system, where each and every item is in the same exact place every time and getting every item is pretty much inevitable, with no challenge or variation whatsoever. There's no incentive and no reward, the stuff is just thrown at you. Its about as deep as playing single-player Quake and finding each weapon as you progress. No... I lie actually: Quake was deeper because sometimes they were actually in hidden locations and harder to find. Everything just falls on your lap in ME2.[/quote]
This happened in ME1, too. You would ALWAYS get the Stinger II pistol on New Eden from those farmers, provided you were able to Persuade or Intimidate them. That pistol, being that it was from Devlon Industries, was so good that it lasted most people until halfway into the story before they found another one good enough to replace it and feel a difference. While some of the items you'd find in a loot were random, several were pre-determined as well, especially early on.

I'd say I was pretty incentivized to get that Geth Pulse Rifle. Otherwise, heh, I wouldn't have upgraded the difficulty to Hardcore.

[quote]* The loss of weapons modding.[/quote]
Research.

[quote]* The loss of armour modding.[/quote]
Research.

[quote]* The loss of armour classes.[/quote]
Is there a military out there that will arbitrarily give you light armor as opposed to the heaviest protection it can afford? Someone noted here in this thread that L/M/H armor was just a fantasy RPG holdover.

[quote]* Armour being mostly cosmetic now, with no statistical attributes at all. It doesn't really even act like armour: more just like a thing to have with a bonus attribute. Meaningless and shallow when it performs no other function. It's nice that it's split up now instead of always just being one piece, but the individual parts have no real identity. Its less armour and more like just wearing a bunch of Rings or Necklaces in a Fantasy RPG.[/quote]
I, too, feel that the armor statistics have little meaning to me. At least, less than the armor research upgrades do. The good thing is, at least, that I can wear whatever armor I wish without fearing a backlash. What if someone really liked the Phoenix armor in ME1 but couldn't use it because it was such merchant trash?

[quote]* The loss of decryption and hacking ability being determined by a statistical skill/attribute, or even a class.[/quote]
This is true.

[quote]* That XP is almost meaningless now with no context beyond the overall mission. XP may as well be a random arbitrary number in the current system, as we're given no indication as to what we're actually getting XP for directly. To compare it to something, its like the difference between getting back a fifty-question multi choice exam you did with each question individually marked as to whether its correct or incorrect and being given one with only an overall grade on it and no indication where one was right or wrong. It also doesn't help that the amount you get is exactly the same no matter what you do or how you accomplish the quest.[/quote]
The XP you get seems to scale depending on the kind of mission you accomplish. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the way it was structured in ME2. I wish that the XP was given to you with each act that you did to gain it.

[quote]* Omni-tools and Biotic Amps are gone completely, let alone reduced to shooter models with no stats. They simply don't exist and no longer factor.[/quote]
Technically, they're in research and upgrading them is vital if you wish to do any damage whatsoever with your techs or biotics.

[quote]* Regenerating health. A standard modern shooter convention that takes away the need to have a vitality or healing-based skill, as well as items related to this.[/quote]
This is actually in Guild Wars, so it's not really a shooter mechanic all on its own. You can also use medigel to replenish your health after you've attained a certain research upgrade if you're really in a bad spot.

[quote]* Exploration pretty much gone.[/quote]
True, though I wouldn't say much of value was lost. Hopefully it will be implemented in ME3 in a more worthwhile way. If so, we should be getting a preview with Overlord very soon.

[quote]* A far more linear approach to... well, pretty much everything. Far fewer variations on going about a quest, with pretty much everything reduced to getting from A to B with combat. Few non-combat solutions. Pretty much no alternatives or branching out in levels, with everything pretty much a straight line.[/quote]
There were usually two solutions to every quest, which is about how many there usually are in ME2.

[quote]* Shallow leveling system that goes for instant gratification rather than gradual improvement.[/quote]
I'd say that the levels actually count for more in ME2 as opposed to ME1.

[quote]* The loss of new abilities opening up as you progress a skill. Split up at 4th skill level is nice, but doesn't change much or provide two completely different paths; generally just a trade-off between more damage over more time, more damage over more defense, or more damage to one target over wider damage to more, etc.[/quote]
Which is still more of a choice than you had in ME1 regarding certain skills. The scaling of talent upgrades was linear there, too. The talent split gives you more specialization, such as if you want to focus on single-target elimination or crowd control with, say, Area Incinerate.

[quote]* Certain classes no longer needed. Companions less crucial, meaning you can pretty much take anybody with you rather than needing somebody who compliments and offsets your class. No need for a tech character at all any more, since non-combat tech requirements no longer an issue.[/quote]
This is entirely not true. You try handling a horde of husks with Thane and Miranda as opposed to Mordin and Grunt. Techs are perhaps the best method of dealing with swarms outside of the Arc Projector or CAIN.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 15 juin 2010 - 07:30 .

[Terror_K]

Just a general response to everything you pointed to "Research" at here:-

No, research is not the same as modding. Why? Because research is completely linear and you can easily just get everything and make everything the best it can be, with no-trade offs or need to pick and choose. With proper modding you need to pick and choose between the various choices because of limited options (i.e. you can only put so many mods in a gun or armour, and only so many of any particular type). ME2 doesn't limit you at all, and everybody just ends up with the same gear all maxed out. This isn't customisation, its inevitable and linear gear progression. There's no way to make a weapon your own in ME2 whatsoever. The same goes with Omni-Tools or Biotic Amps, there's no trade-off and varied choices there, you just boosting everything with no downside. These aren't good RPG mechanics at all.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 juin 2010 - 07:42 .

[FlyingWalrus]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Actually, I've got Kalfear in maybe a dozen posts in this very thread saying that very thing: that ME2 isn't an RPG. And Slimgrin on this page says to "Wake up," that ME2 is "just" an action title. ME1 isn't exactly combat light, either, you know. In fact, pretty much every planet you land on has a bunker with 20-30 bum-rushing mooks lurking in wait for you. I think the combat just took such a center stage this time because of how briskly-paced the story was. At this point, we can agree that it's a matter of taste.

There are whole missions in ME2 where you do little or no combat. Most of Jack's loyalty mission is exposition; there's just that group, and once they're dealt with, you spend the rest of the time dealing with her issues. That seems like story progress through character interaction. Let me not even mention Thane and Samara's stories, during which you don't have to fire a single (direct) shot.

There were more 'SPLOSHUNS in ME1, to be honest. I don't have a bandolier of grenades in ME2. :<

ME2 have stats? Check, even though there's a level 30 cap and the combat focuses more on your reflexes instead of in-game skills. Sooo, catering to the shooter fans. ME2 have dialogue? Sure, even though it's not implemented as much compared to ME1 and there's a good amount of times where Shepard speaks without prompts. But he/she stays NEUUTRAAL, right?

ME1 didn't even have hard stats itself. Like ME2, ME1's stat progression was a buildup of a percentile bonus that modified some unseen number that people have to hack the game to find out. From a game design perspective, making the shooting part skill-based rather than stat-based was a smart move. Let's see how well that worked out for Alpha Protocol, shall we?

...

Indeed. Whereas Alpha Protocol was meant to be a game played stealthily, and its system works well WHEN it's played like that, getting into any heated, face-to-face combat was an utter pain in the caboose. Being that nearly all confrontation in ME1 and 2 is without question of the frontlines-of-war nature, it works better for the game sans "accuracy stat."

As for Shepard's 'neutrality,' there were far fewer "false" prompts in ME2. (The ones that seemed like different answers but gave the same reply as another response on the wheel.)

One thing that just boggles my mind is how people bring up that there was combat in ME1.

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? Nobody is saying there should be NO combat, just that there should be an equal, balanced ratio between character interaction and story. Loyalty missions don't count and neither does that crashed ship mission. The loyalty missions are thrown together with "getting to know your squad mate" and headshots. Speaking of:

ME1 is the measuring stick against which ME2 should be compared, being that they are both games of the same series. Being that the ME2 is not an RPG crowd is usually convinced that ME1 was an RPG, I use that right away. I'm not saying anyone's saying there should be no combat. But you say that ME2 is something like 80% combat, such that it sacrifices story for action. I am here to tell you that is not the case.

For you not to count loyalty missions in ME2's assessment is a LUDICROUS logical fallacy. The loyalty missions are an obvious part of the game and resolving them to focus your crew members on the mission is a key objective in Shepard's quest. When I was first playing ME1 and encountered the sidequests with Garrus and Wrex, I remember thinking how great it would be for all the crew members to have something like that, some sidestory that fleshes out their personality and purpose more.

I can understand why you wouldn't count DLC like the Crash Site, but not counting the loyalty missions is ignorant. Not only do you get to talk to your squad members now, but you also get to experience their personal struggles. That kind of exposition does a lot more for the characters than rote conversations.

Palidine_0225 wrote...

Put simply I buy Bioware games for the story not some ground breaking gameplay. I buy Valve, id Software, and Epic if I want to see some new earth-shattering combat in a game.

And as for this snippet, it is also incredibly ignorant. While it's good to buy a game based on its developers' strengths, it's foolish to buy a game and not expect good gameplay. I know that The Old Republic will have a compelling story, for instance. But compelling story won't make up for broken or monotonous gameplay. Therefore I expect TOR to be some sort of improvement on modern day MMORPGs.

[FlyingWalrus]

Terror_K wrote...

Just a general response to everything you pointed to "Research" at here:-

No, research is not the same as modding. Why? Because research is completely linear and you can easily just get everything and make everything the best it can be, with no-trade offs or need to pick and choose. With proper modding you need to pick and choose between the various choices because of limited options (i.e. you can only put so many mods in a gun or armour, and only so many of any particular type). ME2 doesn't limit you at all, and everybody just ends up with the same gear all maxed out. This isn't customisation, its inevitable and linear gear progression. There's no way to make a weapon your own in ME2 whatsoever. The same goes with Omni-Tools or Biotic Amps, there's no trade-off and varied choices there, you just boosting everything with no downside. These aren't good RPG mechanics at all.

Here's what everyone in ME1 probably ended up with:

L/M/H Colossus Armor
Spectre Pistol VII
Spectre AR VII
Spectre Shotgun VII
Spectre SR VII

With one or more combinations of the following: Medical Exoskeleton, Scram Rail, Recoil Damper, Shredder/Tungsten Ammo, HE Ammo

And for Omni-Tools, Ariake's were obviously the best. No trade-offs there. And if you found a Prodigy Biotic Amp by chance, you'd probably never use another Amp again... at least not until you found another Prodigy Amp of a higher grade.

What you're saying is that ME2's linear progression with its research upgrades isn't customization. Based on your conclusion of 'inevitability,' neither is modding or gear in ME1. There's even less customization there, in fact, because everyone ends up stomping around in red and black armor carrying gray flak-launchers of death. You can choose at any point to limit yourself, but would you?

In ME2, there's no clear-cut "best gear." Whether or not I give Grunt the Avenger or the Vindicator depends entirely on what kind of a situation I'm anticipating entering.

Let me add a bit and say what I think: 

The research upgrades are actually there to compensate for the loss of upgrades to damage and accuracy that you would've gotten through level ups. This approach, I think, makes more sense, because the power and accuracy of a firearm is largely dependent on the firearm itself and not its operator. So you upgrade the gun instead. If ME2 doesn't limit you, then ME1 limits you even less. May I point out my example with the One Point in AR + Overkill + Spectre VII AR again?

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 15 juin 2010 - 08:21 .

[thebuggiman]

[/i]
Fallout 3 was not a RPG, it had at best a 10 hour story but was so spread apart you wasted 30 hours getting to it. It had no level progression to speak of, no companions to learn about (beyond the most basic and shallow of character builds). It was for the most part a open world shooter.
I never finished FO3 because its basic storyline was so simplistic you couldnt avoid spoilers out there and really I just got bored with mindless wandering and silly head shot combat.
!

Ive used 160 hours gametime in fallout 3, exploring, comepleteing the game with every karma way and every quest, getting my chars geared and get skill points (perks)
and yet you said its not a rpg?
The definition in my world of an rpg is=
-You play your own character
-You make your own decisions
-There is not just one main story line
-You can upgrade your character in some way

a game like Final Fantasy 13 would i call a rpg/adventure as you dont play your own characters yet, you can upgrade them at its a pretty free game.

I would say that Fallout 3 is one of the best Rpgs ive played, not because the story is special, but becuase all the time you can use in the capital wasteland

The same with Mass Effect. its (open worlded) there is off missions, you can customize your own character and make alot of choices, i remember while playing Me1 and Me2 i felt like a goddamn hero, when the epic soundtrack was on and me shooting bad guys  and yes i would definitely say the Mass Effect 2 is an Rpg.

[AmstradHero]

Hrmm, a thread discussing what is and isn't an RPG. How strange that I made a blog post about this very issue just yesterday.

Lots of people define RPGs differently, so arguing that something is or isn't an RPG is a little silly. Funnily enough, that doesn't stop people doing it.

People seem to have issues with ME2 in terms of "it didn't deliver what I expected it to deliver". So? That's called breaking new ground. Is ME2 revolutionary? No, but it was a step in a direction no one else had taken previously.  If you assess ME2 for what it IS rather than what you WANTED it to be, it's darned good.

This is another reason why I exclude myself from hype around games I'm interested in. I don't want to hear all the promises delivered to fans, because they're largely blown out of proportion by marketing to make the game sound more grandiose than anyone can deliver.  That's what marketing does, generate hype and interest.

I like to look at games unbiased and without preconceptions. It helps me judge them on their merits alone.

[SkullandBonesmember]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

ME1 didn't even have hard stats itself. Like ME2, ME1's stat progression was a buildup of a percentile bonus that modified some unseen number that people have to hack the game to find out. From a game design perspective, making the shooting part skill-based rather than stat-based was a smart move. Let's see how well that worked out for Alpha Protocol, shall we?

...

Indeed. Whereas Alpha Protocol was meant to be a game played stealthily, and its system works well WHEN it's played like that, getting into any heated, face-to-face combat was an utter pain in the caboose. Being that nearly all confrontation in ME1 and 2 is without question of the frontlines-of-war nature, it works better for the game sans "accuracy stat."

Not everybody likes face to face combat. Something that was forced on everybody whether that was their style or not.

FlyingWalrus wrote...

ME1 is the measuring stick against which ME2 should be compared, being that they are both games of the same series. Being that the ME2 is not an RPG crowd is usually convinced that ME1 was an RPG, I use that right away. I'm not saying anyone's saying there should be no combat. But you say that ME2 is something like 80% combat, such that it sacrifices story for action. I am here to tell you that is not the case.

For you not to count loyalty missions in ME2's assessment is a LUDICROUS logical fallacy. The loyalty missions are an obvious part of the game and resolving them to focus your crew members on the mission is a key objective in Shepard's quest. When I was first playing ME1 and encountered the sidequests with Garrus and Wrex, I remember thinking how great it would be for all the crew members to have something like that, some sidestory that fleshes out their personality and purpose more.

I can understand why you wouldn't count DLC like the Crash Site, but not counting the loyalty missions is ignorant. Not only do you get to talk to your squad members now, but you also get to experience their personal struggles. That kind of exposition does a lot more for the characters than rote conversations.

First of all, I wasn't talking about the Normandy DLC but the Estevanico mission.

FlyingWalrus wrote...

For you not to count loyalty missions in ME2's assessment is a LUDICROUS logical fallacy.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Let me spell it out for you. To get from the beginning of a main world to the end took about 35-45 minutes on average with my ME1 Shepard. After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali, we could chat it up with Conrad again at the Citadel, we could check in with Anderson and Udina, and we could give the post mission report to the council. There was also the scenic view. When all is said and done, dialogue was even with the length of missions, sometimes even more. In addition there was a lot of dialogue and character interaction DURING the missions. Now let's look at ME2. We could get maybe 10 minutes of dialogue on average with SOME characters if milked dry. After those 10 minutes, we're thrown in with an hour long plus mission stopping for the occasional renegade/paragon interrupt. We can talk to Garrus only TWICE. Your entire squad is almost always too busy to speak with you. We have more squad members, but not more dialogue to reflect that. And there's hardly any discussion with anybody post main mission. Instead we get text to read from emails. The only time Anderson talks again is after meeting Ashley.

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

We get more emotional satisfaction from chatting with the crew as opposed to headshots.

There is just too much combat in ME2. Give me a BREATHER for crying out loud. Let me get to know my crew in a relaxed, personal setting. After every main mission.

thebuggiman wrote...

-You make your own decisions

Can't seem to find who said it since you didn't quote their name, but some don't think choices are an RPG aspect. 'Cause you know, the definition of the RPG genre is static and will FOREVER remain the same as Nozy sarcastically pointed out on the original boards.

[SkullandBonesmember]

AmstradHero wrote...

Hrmm, a thread discussing what is and isn't an RPG. How strange that I made a blog post about this very issue just yesterday.

Lots of people define RPGs differently, so arguing that something is or isn't an RPG is a little silly. Funnily enough, that doesn't stop people doing it.

People seem to have issues with ME2 in terms of "it didn't deliver what I expected it to deliver". So? That's called breaking new ground. Is ME2 revolutionary? No, but it was a step in a direction no one else had taken previously.  If you assess ME2 for what it IS rather than what you WANTED it to be, it's darned good.

This is another reason why I exclude myself from hype around games I'm interested in. I don't want to hear all the promises delivered to fans, because they're largely blown out of proportion by marketing to make the game sound more grandiose than anyone can deliver.  That's what marketing does, generate hype and interest.

I like to look at games unbiased and without preconceptions. It helps me judge them on their merits alone.

More repeating Drago.....

I, along with many others are not opposed to change, but ARE opposed to massive overhauls.

[InvaderErl]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Not everybody likes face to face combat. Something that was forced on everybody whether that was their style or not.

Blatantly untrue.

A caster sentinel, an Infiltrator Sniper just off the top of my head.

[thebuggiman]

** SkullandBonesmember ** as i wrote: thats my personal definition of an rpg doesn't mean its the right one, and yes i know that everyone got their own opinion on how an rpg should be.

but in the way i look at it Mass Effect 2 is an Rpg, and not a shooter/adventure as many have written.. but yet again that is just my opinion

[Orchomene]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

That's a big difference between BW and Obsidian. Obsidian has always been above BW in terms of RPG gameplay. That's why NWN2 and Kotor 2 are far better than the first one. Only those that don't really like RPG would say the contrary.

And Bethesda is head and shoulders above both.

Yes and no. Of course, there is a lot of freedom. But there are to few choices done in Beth's games where the consequences are important. In many of the Beth's games, you can do all the quests and see all of the game in one playthrough. In Morrowind you could be a member of all the factions. I would rather have mutual exclusions. Those exclusions only concerned the "families" but could have included more.