147 réponses à ce sujet

[Illusivestofmen]

I thought ME1's inventory was far to big and complicated, even for a veteran RPG player like myself. ME2's was a little too stripped for my taste, hardly any weapons and armor to choose from, hardly any customization for squadmates. I'd like to see something in between. I don't want to spend hours in the inventory menus but I want to have my squad and shepard be unique through item customization.

[AlanC9]

worm_burner wrote...
Never said shooter gameplay is dumb, two of my favorite games are shooters (Halo and Bad Company 2), but if i want shooter mechanics I'l play a shooter.  When Im playing ME, I usually dont want to feel as if Im playing a shooter.  Id rather be too immersed in the story to realize what type of game Im playing, this is where imo ME2 fell short.  I can overlook the shooting mechanics in ME1 simply because I am always so into the story that I dont care.  In ME2 however the lack of a main story (compared to ME1) makes the game focus solely on the shooting mechanics.  And yes I know I just compared story and rpg, but for me at least they should tie together.

Well, that's fair enough. But does "dumbed down" capture what you're actually trying to say?

The weird thing here is that it sounds like you don't really care what the mechanics are.

As for inventory-- what good is it? Shepard should have started ME1 with the best equipment available anyway. I don't have much use for NG+, but at least your equipment makes sense that way.

Edit: I wouldn't mind something like the ME1 item types if the game didn't implement tiers. So only one type of Colossus armor, not Colossus I, then Colossus II, etc.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 juin 2010 - 05:55 .

[phordicus]

being able to customize a face or select your squadmates does not an RPG make. whatever ratio of rpg/tps ME2 was supposed to be, it's definitely a worse bastardization of the genres than ME1. the combat was improved but at the cost of a lot of RPG elements.

[AlanC9]

By "worse bastardization" you mean that it didn't put the balance exactly where you'd like it?

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

leeboi2 wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Any shooter with RPG elements that forces you to dump points into weapon specializations just to hit something with reasonable accuracy is failed design.

I'd prefer ME2 to ME1's mechanics any day.

Action n00b, do you start feeling ill if a minute goes by without explosions and nice simple gameplay?

Are people on this forum incapable of recognizing the sheer amount of explosions and simple gameplay present in both ME1 and ME2?

Or do I need to make another (5th?) 4000-5000 word thread guide, except this one cataloging all the explosions you'll cause or run into in each mission?

If you have the urge of shoving your opinion down everyone's throat with another pointless thread like many do on this forum, go right ahead. But don't expect people to experience a new revelation or something.

[Massadonious1]

worm_burner wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You actually thought ME1 inventory was awesome?

better than not having one at all.

Yes, let's put in bad RPG mechanics in just for the sake of having RPG mechanics.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 18 juin 2010 - 06:15 .

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

As for inventory-- what good is it? Shepard should have started ME1 with the best equipment available anyway. I don't have much use for NG+, but at least your equipment makes sense that way.

But then there'd be no gear progression at all, and it would be even more lacking than ME2 was. In either case, there should be no single pieces of "best equipment" in the game, but instead a different selection of varied items with different strengths and weaknesses.

Edit: I wouldn't mind something like the ME1 item types if the game didn't implement tiers. So only one type of Colossus armor, not Colossus I, then Colossus II, etc.

I think this is the way to go too actually. Get rid of the different tiers of each type of item and simply use the existing upgrade system to upgrade them and mods to give additional bonuses. Keep the armour in parts, but also actually have it act like armour instead of just a bunch of bonus giving items (like wearing a whole bunch of rings or amulets).

Massadonious1 wrote...

Yes, let's put bad RPG mechanics in for the sake of having RPG mechanics. Who cares if the game suffers, right?

And yet ME2 has suffered from a complete lack of RPG mechanics. I personally don't think any of the mechanics in ME1 were superfluous or unnecessary or were there just for the sake of it. Some of them may have been a bit clumsy, and, yes... needlessly complicated and annoying. But what they were trying to do in pretty much every case added something to the game that fit, whether the way it went about it did not.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 juin 2010 - 06:14 .

[Massadonious1]

I'm not saying and never will say ME2 did it better, but I'd rather something not be clumsy, needlessy complicated and annoying, regardless if it "fit" or not.

Not being labled a specific genre isn't going to lessen my enjoyment of or affect my purchase of a product. Having superfluous, broken mechanics that only seem to be there to classify it, will.

If ME3 has a inventory system, they better do it right. I refuse to slog through omni-gel'ing everything in my inventory, or something equally ridiculous, just for the sake of "bring more RPG features back."

Modifié par Massadonious1, 18 juin 2010 - 06:47 .

[HTTP 404]

Saying Mass Effect 2 suffers from rpg elements is still an opinion, Terror_K



but I would have liked a little bit more of it but I wouldnt consider it suffering, without taking away from the "shooter" aspect but that just my opinion too.

[Pocketgb]

Ecael wrote...

leeboi2 wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Any shooter with RPG elements that forces you to dump points into weapon specializations just to hit something with reasonable accuracy is failed design.

I'd prefer ME2 to ME1's mechanics any day.

Action n00b, do you start feeling ill if a minute goes by without explosions and nice simple gameplay?

Are people on this forum incapable of recognizing the sheer amount of explosions and simple gameplay present in both ME1 and ME2?

Or do I need to make another (5th?) 4000-5000 word thread guide, except this one cataloging all the explosions you'll cause or run into in each mission?

RPG --------------------I-------------------- Shooter
         --------------------I--ME1-----------
         --------------------I--------ME2-----

It's interesting to note that ME1 also came with extensive vehicle sections in each major mission, which personally is one of my biggest nitpick gimmick in action-focused games.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 juin 2010 - 06:56 .

[phordicus]

AlanC9 wrote...

By "worse bastardization" you mean that it didn't put the balance exactly where you'd like it?

i meant it exactly as written.  what part of the post do you need help with?

[CaseyPreston]

I much proffered me2's combat system, in me1 the inventory was just far to big and it became painful trying to sort through all the garbage you picked up, in every me1 play through i end up with the max amount of money possible just cus i sell all that rubbish, for me3 keep it closer to the system that me2 had, in my opinion i would say keep it exactly like me2 but I know someone's gonna have a problem with that.

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

leeboi2 wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Any shooter with RPG elements that forces you to dump points into weapon specializations just to hit something with reasonable accuracy is failed design.

I'd prefer ME2 to ME1's mechanics any day.

Action n00b, do you start feeling ill if a minute goes by without explosions and nice simple gameplay?

Are people on this forum incapable of recognizing the sheer amount of explosions and simple gameplay present in both ME1 and ME2?

Or do I need to make another (5th?) 4000-5000 word thread guide, except this one cataloging all the explosions you'll cause or run into in each mission?

If you have the urge of shoving your opinion down everyone's throat with another pointless thread like many do on this forum, go right ahead. But don't expect people to experience a new revelation or something.

Right. Because it's not like the 10 threads I have listed below in my signature have any kind of significant value.

[Christmas Ape]

Ecael wrote...

Right. Because it's not like the 10 threads I have listed below in my signature have any kind of significant value.

Depends on if you have some kind of emotional investment in ME2 being a worse game because of the elements it shares with ME1 and/or generated the most user complaints, but lacking a subjective "newness" that makes it objectively better, or not.

I suspect, anyway.

[Ross42899]

The combat system of ME2 is way better than the combat system in ME1 but unfortunately ME2 lacks of RPG elements (skill tree is too small, no armor upgrades for squadmates, not enough things to loot & trade, etc.). I really hope for ME3 bioware will take the positive things of both games and create the ultimate experience (so combat system of ME2 + RPG system of ME1)

[Christmas Ape]

I too demand 20% of my play experience be "Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm. Reduce to gel; confirm". That got me into the role of a galaxy-saving military hero like nothing else could.

[Digressive]

IMHO:



ME1 = Too much RPG

ME2 = Too little RPG

ME3 = Juuuuuuust right.

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

leeboi2 wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Any shooter with RPG elements that forces you to dump points into weapon specializations just to hit something with reasonable accuracy is failed design.

I'd prefer ME2 to ME1's mechanics any day.

Action n00b, do you start feeling ill if a minute goes by without explosions and nice simple gameplay?

Are people on this forum incapable of recognizing the sheer amount of explosions and simple gameplay present in both ME1 and ME2?

Or do I need to make another (5th?) 4000-5000 word thread guide, except this one cataloging all the explosions you'll cause or run into in each mission?

If you have the urge of shoving your opinion down everyone's throat with another pointless thread like many do on this forum, go right ahead. But don't expect people to experience a new revelation or something.

Right. Because it's not like the 10 threads I have listed below in my signature have any kind of significant value.

They're as valuable as you or anyone who reads them want them to be. I don't understand why you bring up your thread collection. All of them are game guides of sort and suggestions for ME3, except for the one that compares ME with Pokemon which I can only assume is another addition of the flame war between pro/contra ME2 fans.
The point I was trying to bring is that it's absolutely pointless to start another thread that eventually ends into another flame skirmish where both sides can't even agree to disagree with eachother. A (4000 - 5000 word!) thread guide to all the explosions you cause/run into in the Mass Effect games? Come on, you're smarter than that.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 18 juin 2010 - 02:29 .

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

They're as valuable as you or anyone who reads them want them to be. I don't understand why you bring up your thread collection. All of them are game guides of sort and suggestions for ME3, except for the one that compares ME with Pokemon which I can only assume is another addition of the flame war between pro/contra ME2 fans.
The point I was trying to bring is that it's absolutely pointless to start another thread that eventually ends into another flame skirmish where both sides can't even agree to disagree with eachother. A (4000 - 5000 word!) thread guide to all the explosions you cause/run into in the Mass Effect games? Come on, you're smarter than that.

Actually, the Pokémon thread has a summary of improvements in the second post - some of them not found in either game. So it's still different from cherry-picking things from ME1 or ME2 and then telling BioWare you want those back.

As for the guides, I doubt you'll find anyone else on the forum who even thought of making those guides despite how useful they acutally are.

[SkullandBonesmember]

[quote]Ecael wrote...

Are people on this forum incapable of recognizing the sheer amount of explosions and simple gameplay present in both ME1 and ME2?

Or do I need to make another (5th?) 4000-5000 word thread guide, except this one cataloging all the explosions you'll cause or run into in each mission?[/quote]


[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]FlyingWalrus wrote...

I just don't understand why you guys get so caught up in so many specifics when it comes to designating what an RPG is and what it's not. It's ridiculous to claim that ME2 isn't an RPG in some way. You can't call it an action/adventure title, because action/adventure games don't let you determine the outcome for anything beyond winning or game over. You can't call it a generic third-person shooter, because those games don't offer the least bit of story direction or character customization. You can't call it a first-person shooter, because it's obviously not in first-person.
So that leaves us with what? RPG Shooter.
It's not that hard.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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?

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:

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

[Ecael]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[subjective analysis of dialogue in Mass Effect]

*WARNING* POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

Normandy Personal Dialogue Rankings, ME1/ME2

Ashley* - 458
Kaidan* - 420
Tali** - 387
Garrus** - 316
Thane - 298
Jacob - 286
Jack - 250
Mordin - 245
Legion - 220
Miranda - 218
Liara - 208
Samara - 203
Wrex - 155
Grunt - 132
Kasumi - 117
Zaeed - 83
Morinth - 43

(*Includes same-sex romance dialogue)
(**ME1/ME2 personal dialogue combined)

Tali (ME2) - 233, Tali (ME1) - 154, Garrus (ME2) - 146, Garrus - 170 (ME1)

Miscellaneous, Final Boss Banter

I'm going to assume someone is going to make a comment about the amount of generic dialogue in Mass Effect, so I'll post this pre-emptively as an example:

Mass Effect 1
Liara: Quick! Open the station's arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!
Tali: Quick! Open the station's arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!
Garrus: Quick! Open the station's arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down!
Kaidan: QUICK! OPEN THE STATION'S ARMS! MAYBE THE FLEET CAN TAKE SOVEREIGN DOWN BEFORE HE REGAINS CONTROL OF THE STATION!
Ashley: QUICK! OPEN THE STATION'S ARMS! MAYBE THE FLEET CAN TAKE SOVEREIGN DOWN BEFORE HE REGAINS CONTROL OF THE STATION!
Wrex: Quick! Open the station's arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!

Liara: This is bigger than humanity! Sovereign's a threat to every organic species in the galaxy!
Tali: This is bigger than humanity! Sovereign's a threat to every organic species in the galaxy!
Garrus: This is bigger than humanity! Sovereign's a threat to every organic species in the galaxy!
Kaidan: THIS IS BIGGER THAN HUMANITY! SOVEREIGN'S A THREAT TO EVERY ORGANIC SPECIES IN THE GALAXY!
Wrex: This is bigger than humanity! Sovereign's a threat to every organic species in the galaxy!

Liara: The Council must be sacrificed for the greater good. Do not waste your reinforcements.
Tali: True. That's why you can't waste reinforcements trying to save the Council.
Kaidan: YOU CAN'T SACRIFICE HUMAN LIVES TO SAVE THE COUNCIL! WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE FOR US?
Ashley: YOU CAN'T SACRIFICE HUMAN LIVES TO SAVE THE COUNCIL! WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE FOR US?
Wrex: You'd sacrifice human lives to save the Council? What have they ever done for your kind?

Tali's Split Personality (YouTube Link)

Mass Effect 2
Garrus: I don't know, Shepard. What happened here was horrible, but we have to stop the Reapers. If we destroy this base, then all these people died for nothing.
Grunt: He's right. When your enemy gives you a weapon, you use it. You might not get another chance.
Jack: Seriously? Shepard, he's a user - just like Collectors.
Jacob: It's better because we'll do it? Shepard, this is way over the line.
Kasumi: Shep, he's talking about doing it all again. How will that help anything?
Legion: Shepard-Commander, this facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others.
Miranda: I'm not so sure. Seeing it first hand - using anything from this base seems like a betrayal.
Mordin: Hmm... Agreed. Collector base horrific. Vile experiments, but should use what's here. Risks galaxy to ignore opportunity.
Samara: You have not really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods.
Tali: Shepard, we fought to stop it. Us using it doesn't make it right.
Thane: Shepard/Siha, I've made a life of killing those who deserve to die. We must struggle to not become what we hate.
Zaeed: Someone gives you a weapon, you don't complain that it's dirty - you use it.

Modifié par Ecael, 18 juin 2010 - 03:03 .

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

They're as valuable as you or anyone who reads them want them to be. I don't understand why you bring up your thread collection. All of them are game guides of sort and suggestions for ME3, except for the one that compares ME with Pokemon which I can only assume is another addition of the flame war between pro/contra ME2 fans.
The point I was trying to bring is that it's absolutely pointless to start another thread that eventually ends into another flame skirmish where both sides can't even agree to disagree with eachother. A (4000 - 5000 word!) thread guide to all the explosions you cause/run into in the Mass Effect games? Come on, you're smarter than that.

Actually, the Pokémon thread has a summary of improvements in the second post - some of them not found in either game. So it's still different from cherry-picking things from ME1 or ME2 and then telling BioWare you want those back.

As for the guides, I doubt you'll find anyone else on the forum who even thought of making those guides despite how useful they acutally are.

Fair enough, but back to my previous post:

Mister Mida wrote...
The point I was trying to bring is that it's absolutely pointless to start another thread that eventually ends into another flame skirmish where both sides can't even agree to disagree with eachother. A (4000 - 5000 word!) thread guide to all the explosions you cause/run into in the Mass Effect games? Come on, you're smarter than that.

EDIT: I already see SaBM and Ecael repeat statements they made in other threads. I see this becomes another one of those threads.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 18 juin 2010 - 03:04 .

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...
The point I was trying to bring is that it's absolutely pointless to start another thread that eventually ends into another flame skirmish where both sides can't even agree to disagree with eachother. A (4000 - 5000 word!) thread guide to all the explosions you cause/run into in the Mass Effect games? Come on, you're smarter than that.

I wouldn't actually do that - although it's still just as crazy in length as most of my other threads.

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

EDIT: I already see SaBM and Ecael repeat statements they made in other threads. I see this becomes another one of those threads.

Except my last repeated post isn't some opinion or statement - they're facts, numbers and lines taken directly from the game.

Modifié par Ecael, 18 juin 2010 - 03:06 .

[CroGamer002]

Digressive wrote...

IMHO:

ME1 = Too much RPG
ME2 = Too little RPG
ME3 = Juuuuuuust right.

Play any other RPG( Fallout, Knights of the Old Republic...) and tell me if ME1 has too much RPG?