147 réponses à ce sujet

[BladedRose]

My biggest objection to what I've heard so far about ME2 is the lack of xp and leveling system. The satisfaction of leveling up a character and being able to customize their abilities is something I find important to any game that wants to be an RPG, even an RPG/Shooter Hybrid.



I will admit that I found parts of the inventory system in ME1 to be tedious, most notably the omnigelling of the ridiculous amounts of duplicates of mods and guns. It would be nice if they'd bring back the inventory system, but have you find less stuff, and have the stuff you find be more useful, as opposed to having you pick up another set of polonium rounds every time you killed something or opened a box.



Another thing I've heard that gives me some doubts about ME2 is the fact that they took out all of the exploration elements. I know a lot of the worlds in ME1 were somewhat cookie cutter and repetitive, but it is also completely possible to go through the game going to barely any of them if you want a more linear experience. The fact that ME2 has been describe to me as just jumping from mission to mission with cutscenes inbetween makes me a bit less excited about the game. I also hear that you can't just wander around the citadel. I liked this, especially being able to listen to the random conversations of NPCs. If you didn't like the running around part, the rapid transit was available. One suggestion I've heard for making exploring more fun is having random encounters on planets. As many of them are noted as being occasional hideouts for terminus system pirates, this is easily justifiable in game. Also, things like running into research teams that might have side quests or information could also work.



In ME3 I hope they'll bring the leveling system back, even if its a bit more simplified into less skills, but the ability to choose which ones to level with your level up points, and xp for kills and finding information. Also, I hope they'll bring back an inventory system thats a bit less clunky then in ME1. I definately hope that they'll make it a game with a setting that can be explored, even with parts that don't necessarily relate to the main mission. It makes for a more emmersive experience, but if you want a linear game you can just stick to the missions.



As someone who likes both shooters and RPGs, I'd like to see more of the RPG elements brought back. I haven't actually gotten to try out the new combat mechanics, but they sound interesting, and possibly like an improvement. Though I've heard that there is no longer a map?

[CroGamer002]

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?

Did you forget that your in Bioware forum?<_<

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

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.

I'll rephrase.

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

Ecael, bringing up 'facts, numbers and lines taken directly from the game' will not change how people like SaBM feel about ME2. Why? Because those things are only part of their dissatisfaction with the game. A lot of them are of a subjective nature.
Agree to disagree. That's the last thing I'll say about it.
As for Bioware's original vision for ME's gameplay, that concept flew out of the window before even ME (1) got released. Just look at the gameplay vids they showed on the E3 2006 and X06.

[CroGamer002]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

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.

I'll rephrase.

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

Ecael, bringing up 'facts, numbers and lines taken directly from the game' will not change how people like SaBM feel about ME2. Why? Because those things are only part of their dissatisfaction with the game. A lot of them are of a subjective nature.
Agree to disagree. That's the last thing I'll say about it.
As for Bioware's original vision for ME's gameplay, that concept flew out of the window before even ME (1) got released. Just look at the gameplay vids they showed on the E3 2006 and X06.

Her point is that it's really stupid not to like ME2 and like/love ME1 since they mostly same.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Ah...here we go again, I'll grab some pop corn.

[Shotokanguy]

Mesina2 wrote...

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?

Why should he? Those are trying to be purely RPGs...it's a different type of game.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Ecael wrote...

subjective

Subjective, of course. Because the ones here who aren't happy with the way ME2 turned out are irrelevant.

There was MORE dialogue in ME2, but ultimately less said.

[Orchomene]

All I can say is that if you like shooter and not RPG, you may find ME2 interesting, just skip the dialogues.

But if you don't like shooter and like RPG, you won't like it since the shooter gameplay can't be skiped.

[InvaderErl]

And you could skip the shooting bits in Mass Effect?

Wow, dude - tell me how the heck you managed that one!

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Ecael wrote...

subjective

Subjective,
of course. Because the ones here who aren't happy with the way ME2
turned out are irrelevant.

There was MORE dialogue in ME2, but
ultimately less said.

Translation:

I have no evidence to back up anything I say (like usual), so therefore I'm going to ignore all proof thrown my way and say: Nuh uh!

Modifié par InvaderErl, 18 juin 2010 - 09:39 .

[Sidney]

BladedRose wrote...

My biggest objection to what I've heard so far about ME2 is the lack of xp and leveling system. The satisfaction of leveling up a character and being able to customize their abilities is something I find important to any game that wants to be an RPG, even an RPG/Shooter Hybrid. 

You level up, certainly. You earn XP for missions, yes. You can customize your character, absolutely. There are more talents in ME2 that are specific to your class than in ME1. The biggest thing they lost was weapon specialization points but bless Bioware's hearts they figured out to dump that stupid model from BG2 in DAO as well.

What people don't like is that rather than getting 1% better 20 times, you get 5 % better 4 times with your powers. To me, the point distribution for your character requires a bit more thought because you can "save" points to get a single stronger powers or spend them to get several low end powers. That's a choice you really never made in ME1.

[InvaderErl]

Sidney wrote...

BladedRose wrote...

My biggest objection to what I've heard so far about ME2 is the lack of xp and leveling system. The satisfaction of leveling up a character and being able to customize their abilities is something I find important to any game that wants to be an RPG, even an RPG/Shooter Hybrid. 

You level up, certainly. You earn XP for missions, yes. You can customize your character, absolutely. There are more talents in ME2 that are specific to your class than in ME1. The biggest thing they lost was weapon specialization points but bless Bioware's hearts they figured out to dump that stupid model from BG2 in DAO as well.

What people don't like is that rather than getting 1% better 20 times, you get 5 % better 4 times with your powers. To me, the point distribution for your character requires a bit more thought because you can "save" points to get a single stronger powers or spend them to get several low end powers. That's a choice you really never made in ME1.

QFT.

[SkullandBonesmember]

InvaderErl wrote...

Translation:

I have no evidence to back up anything I say (like usual), so therefore I'm going to ignore all proof thrown my way and say: Nuh uh!

What the hell evidence, if any, would you accept? Your ideal Mass Effect 2 came to fruition, it was not my ideal sequel though. You don't give a damn about relaxed personal settings. You're content with story evolving through combat. You don't give a damn that not all squad members didn't have something new to say after every main mission. I do. Emails don't bother you at all. Emails bother me however. Especially that it's not even possible to send replies.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 18 juin 2010 - 11:06 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Orchomene wrote...

All I can say is that if you like shooter and not RPG, you may find ME2 interesting, just skip the dialogues.
But if you don't like shooter and like RPG, you won't like it since the shooter gameplay can't be skiped.

Mass Effect isn't a shooter. It's an RPG. Just because dialogue can be skipped, doesn't mean it isn't. Dialogue was skippable in the first game also. Judging by Bioware's record, this game is an RPG. Not just because it says it on the box, or because an RPG company makes it, but because of the level of decisions and role playing that are involved. You won't find that in any shooter. Just because an RPG has a more advanced combat system than any other you've seen doesn't automatically render it as a shooter game. You wouldn't even be able to play the game correctly, or understand anything, without using the RPG elements of the game. You shooter fans need to go stick to UT3 or something.

 -Polite

[tonnactus]

Massadonious1 wrote...

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.

Complicated? Look how the skilltrees should look in the e3 demo of Mass Effect. The first game was already steamlined and easy accessible enough. Mass Effect 2 has just a boring kindergarden gameplay and upgrade system. Not more thinking required then the paper,scissors,rock game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 18 juin 2010 - 11:11 .

[tonnactus]

Christmas Ape wrote...

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.

I cant remember that anyone force the player to open lockers after they got the best gear.After that,only some random looted gear come from dead enemies and each main mission has a shop to get rid of this easy and fast.

[tonnactus]

Sidney wrote...


What people don't like is that rather than getting 1% better 20 times, you get 5 % better 4 times with your powers. To me, the point distribution for your character requires a bit more thought because you can "save" points to get a single stronger powers or spend them to get several low end powers. That's a choice you really never made in ME1.

Leveling make a difference in the first game.In the second,not so much.With advanced lift you lift armatures,with master a geth colossus,with basic all enemies lesser then that .What changes if you put points in pull?? A little more duration and at the end more radious.But the player still couldnt affect "protected" enemies even when the ability is "evolved".

[Sidney]

tonnactus wrote...

Leveling make a difference in the first game.In the second,not so much.With advanced lift you lift armatures,with master a geth colossus,with basic all enemies lesser then that .What changes if you put points in pull?? A little more duration and at the end more radious.But the player still couldnt affect "protected" enemies even when the ability is "evolved".

That's all true ion the first game Nothing changed about the powers except you advance in big leaps rather than little steps.

[InvaderErl]

I found Biotics to be overpowered in the first one to be honest.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Translation:

I have no evidence to back up anything I say (like usual), so therefore I'm going to ignore all proof thrown my way and say: Nuh uh!

What the hell evidence, if any, would you accept? Your ideal Mass Effect 2 came to fruition, it was not my ideal sequel though. You don't give a damn about relaxed personal settings. You're content with story evolving through combat. You don't give a damn that not all squad members didn't have something new to say after every main mission. I do. Emails don't bother you at all. Emails bother me however. Especially that it's not even possible to send replies.

Define relaxed setting? As in on the ship? Does loyalty dialogue not count?

In any case, you're still just sprouting nonsense so vague as to not provide a real straightforward argument.

But to argue your line of reasoning

Honestly, characters expressing themselves through actions - through being in the moment is technically and fundamentally superior to somebody talking and just TELLING you they're a complex character. I like characters to define themselves by being there and ACTING. That's one of the things ME2 smoked the first game on. Hearing Tali talk about her respect and admiration is one thing, seeing how willing she is to actually throw herself on a sword to take the blame for her father is quite another.

You can SEE Miranda's devotion to her sister, willing to kill anyone who gets in the way of her being safe. She just doesn't say "Oh I'm close with my sisters", she's actually willing to gun people down and its something shown, not told. This is Bioware taking a step towards better storytelling;

Mordin is easily the most complex character of the ENTIRE series and its because we get to see him grappling with emotions, something that happens and really only could truly happen OFF the ship. Its why Wrex was the best character in the first game, because he expressed himself on Virmire in a setting that was anything but relaxed.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 18 juin 2010 - 11:51 .

[AmstradHero]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
You don't give a damn that not all squad members didn't have something new to say after every main mission.

And here is where your argument that ME2 has less content that you keep spouting in every single thread on this subject falls flat on its face.
How many main missions are there in ME1?
3 / 4
How many main missions are there in ME2?
Let's see... recruitment mission for each character, loyalty mission for each character, a few other "core" missions...

In ME1 we get less than half a dozen conversations with each squad member. In ME2 we get at least that many, and we've got a squad twice the size. And don't ignore that the amount of conversation with each NPC is their loyalty mission is substantial.

Yet you still say there's less character interaction in ME2. Bollocks.

[InvaderErl]

He is saying that only "relaxed setting" dialogue counts.



Which is preposterous.

[Pocketgb]

We have plenty of people that want more emphasis on character interaction - but we also have a lot of people who want more of an emphasis on the story.

We have people who want a return to the "big hub" of the Citadel - but we also have people who really enjoyed going through various major cities.

We have people who found the overheat system from ME1 refreshing, we have people that felt it hindered the gameplay.

We have people who like ME1's systems more than ME2's, and vice versa.



Looks like causalities are inevitable.

[Bluko]

And here I thought this thread was going to offer some new insight about ME3...

Ecael wrote...

*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)

Wait what are these number representative of? Are these how many lines of dialogue each character has?

I'm surprised Zaeed only has 83 lines compared to Thane's 298. I dunno to me from the random clicking on Zaeed it would seem like he'd have more then that seeing as when you combine his "Grandpa Ramblings" it gets cose to like 10 minutes of dialogue. Where is all of Thane's dialogue from, I mean sure there's some hidden, but there can't be that much...

And Ashley has 458 lines of dialogue?

Digressive wrote...

IMHO:

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

This is what I see myself and am hoping for.

Modifié par Bluko, 19 juin 2010 - 12:44 .

[Shotokanguy]

Pocketgb wrote...

We have plenty of people that want more emphasis on character interaction - but we also have a lot of people who want more of an emphasis on the story.
We have people who want a return to the "big hub" of the Citadel - but we also have people who really enjoyed going through various major cities.
We have people who found the overheat system from ME1 refreshing, we have people that felt it hindered the gameplay.
We have people who like ME1's systems more than ME2's, and vice versa.

Looks like causalities are inevitable.

Which is why I think Mass Effect is an incredibly ambitious franchise. Creating a universe, figuring out the gameplay, making a game of such high quality...even if BioWare hasn't accomplished everything they've wanted to do so far, they've done amazing work.

[AmstradHero]

Bluko wrote...

And here I thought this thread was going to offer some new insight about ME3...

Ecael wrote...

*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)

Same-sex romance with Ashley/Kaidan? If it's not in the game, it doesn't count.

This also says Normandy dialogue, which would exclude recruitment mission, loyalty mission and interjection dialogue.

I won't disagree that some more interaction with squadmates would have been nice (in typical gamer "MOAR!" fashion), but the "less character interaction in ME2" argument simply does not stack up.

[Epic777]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

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?

Why should he? Those are trying to be purely RPGs...it's a different type of game.

~grunt sounding voice~ Ha
Just right?, nope just more complaints, trust me, no matter how good it is.