147 réponses à ce sujet

[JonDoe297]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

It is an RPG and a shooter. RPG doesn’t necessarily have to mean turn based combat or point and click combat, in fact RPG is irrelevant from combat it refers to the storytelling aspect of the game; where you, the player, takes on the role of the protagonist and shapes the story around their own decisions.

There aren't less RPG elements and more shooter elements in Mass Effect 2 it’s just that the shooter elements are much better in ME2 and the RPG elements are made more streamlined, but not forgotten all together. The shooter gameplay in ME2 is inarguably better than ME1's; the guns are much more accurate, and more satisfying to use. The game holds up as a shooter and the game responds when you shoot someone in the head, or when shooting of a mechs legs, where in ME1 it didn’t really matter where you shot them. Not only are the shooter mechanics themselves improved but the rest of the skills at your disposal are as well.

While it appears that some of you may enjoy fumbling through excessively long lists of weapons and upgrades, when you look at it ME1 really only had 4 or 5 different ammo types, and the rest of the weapon upgrades were simple increase damage or accuracy type upgrades, rather useless overall considering each weapon is basically a rail gun; seriously a +5% dmg is irrelevant when you’re dealing with weapons like these, and there is that headshot thing that makes people die fast. ME2 didn't get rid of any of the ammo upgrades, it just put them in your skill bar, i.e. Incendiary Ammo, Cryo Ammo, Shredder, AP, Warp so they didn't get rid of any of the ammo types, they just made them accessible. I much preferred being able to take out a mech's shields and then switch to incendiary ammo at the touch of a button to take out its armour rather than going to my inventory to switch the ammo type to level V Incendiary ammo every time I want to switch weapon types.

The biotic abilities in ME2 are also improved over those in ME1. For one, there are more biotic abilities in ME2, although you may not be able to unlock them all, or get them all to level 4 they are still never the less there. But your adept doesn't need every biotic ability at max because you can use multiple biotic abilities together to deal much more damage, plus you have teammates like Miranda and Samara who have biotics as well, which can be used in combination with your own to devastate any enemy on the field. And yes, there aren’t as many levels for each ability, but now each level does a significant increase to a particular ability resulting in noticeable improvement with each level up. In addition the forth rank of each skill provides two options that each allow you to cater the ability to your needs.

There are less weapons and equipment in ME2 but in its defence ME1’s weapons were not all that different, each simply added a damage or accuracy increase. The weapons in ME2, the assault rifle for example, are different weapons. The first is full-auto, and the second is a burst-fire so each is useful in different situations. Not to mention that in ME1 basically every weapon other than the assault rifle was more-or-less useless. As for armour, ME2 still has a good variety; about 5 different chests, arms, legs and helmets which can all be combined and all have their own unique effect.

I really don’t think there are any less RPG elements in ME2 than were present in ME1, they are just dispersed into different areas of the game and made much more accessible. I wouldn’t say that ME1 was more of an RPG and ME2 is more of a shooter its simply that Mass Effect is an RPG-Shooter so they worked to make the shooter element as strong as it could be, and at the same time worked to keep the RPG elements intact. All the games Bioware makes are RPGs, but each one has a specific core gameplay whether it be action, adventure or shooter; the Project Director, Casey Hudson even said that, and in an interview on Gamespot he explained that the RPG elements weren’t removed to make way for a shooter, they were dispersed and made more accessible.

Modifié par JonDoe297, 19 juin 2010 - 06:48 .

[Orchomene]

JonDoe297 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

It is an RPG and a shooter. RPG doesn’t necessarily have to mean turn based combat or point and click combat, in fact RPG is irrelevant from combat it refers to the storytelling aspect of the game; where you, the player, takes on the role of the protagonist and shapes the story around their own decisions.

RPG is also a lot about combat. Otherwise, adventure games would be RPG games.
RPG means taking the role of a character. That is also that this is the skill of the character is determinant in the way the character interacts with the environment. Thus, a shooter gamplay is not a rpg gameplay.
ME2 is a shooter/adventure game, not more. There is not a single RPG element in ME2 besides some minor tweaks linked to leveling (which is in most part irrelevent, enemies leveling at the exact same speed).

[Felfenix]

JonDoe297 wrote...

It is an RPG and a shooter. RPG doesn’t necessarily have to mean turn based combat or point and click combat, in fact RPG is irrelevant from combat it refers to the storytelling aspect of the game; where you, the player, takes on the role of the protagonist and shapes the story around their own decisions.

There aren't less RPG elements and more shooter elements in Mass Effect 2 it’s just that the shooter elements are much better in ME2 and the RPG elements are made more streamlined, but not forgotten all together. The shooter gameplay in ME2 is inarguably better than ME1's; the guns are much more accurate, and more satisfying to use. The game holds up as a shooter and the game responds when you shoot someone in the head, or when shooting of a mechs legs, where in ME1 it didn’t really matter where you shot them. Not only are the shooter mechanics themselves improved but the rest of the skills at your disposal are as well.

While it appears that some of you may enjoy fumbling through excessively long lists of weapons and upgrades, when you look at it ME1 really only had 4 or 5 different ammo types, and the rest of the weapon upgrades were simple increase damage or accuracy type upgrades, rather useless overall considering each weapon is basically a rail gun; seriously a +5% dmg is irrelevant when you’re dealing with weapons like these, and there is that headshot thing that makes people die fast. ME2 didn't get rid of any of the ammo upgrades, it just put them in your skill bar, i.e. Incendiary Ammo, Cryo Ammo, Shredder, AP, Warp so they didn't get rid of any of the ammo types, they just made them accessible. I much preferred being able to take out a mech's shields and then switch to incendiary ammo at the touch of a button to take out its armour rather than going to my inventory to switch the ammo type to level V Incendiary ammo every time I want to switch weapon types.

The biotic abilities in ME2 are also improved over those in ME1. For one, there are more biotic abilities in ME2, although you may not be able to unlock them all, or get them all to level 4 they are still never the less there. But your adept doesn't need every biotic ability at max because you can use multiple biotic abilities together to deal much more damage, plus you have teammates like Miranda and Samara who have biotics as well, which can be used in combination with your own to devastate any enemy on the field. And yes, there aren’t as many levels for each ability, but now each level does a significant increase to a particular ability resulting in noticeable improvement with each level up. In addition the forth rank of each skill provides two options that each allow you to cater the ability to your needs.

There are less weapons and equipment in ME2 but in its defence ME1’s weapons were not all that different, each simply added a damage or accuracy increase. The weapons in ME2, the assault rifle for example, are different weapons. The first is full-auto, and the second is a burst-fire so each is useful in different situations. Not to mention that in ME1 basically every weapon other than the assault rifle was more-or-less useless. As for armour, ME2 still has a good variety; about 5 different chests, arms, legs and helmets which can all be combined and all have their own unique effect.

I really don’t think there are any less RPG elements in ME2 than were present in ME1, they are just dispersed into different areas of the game and made much more accessible. I wouldn’t say that ME1 was more of an RPG and ME2 is more of a shooter its simply that Mass Effect is an RPG-Shooter so they worked to make the shooter element as strong as it could be, and at the same time worked to keep the RPG elements intact. All the games Bioware makes are RPGs, but each one has a specific core gameplay whether it be action, adventure or shooter; the Project Director, Casey Hudson even said that, and in an interview on Gamespot he explained that the RPG elements weren’t removed to make way for a shooter, they were dispersed and made more accessible.

QFT

A lot of the people on these forums are just too dumb to get it.

Modifié par Felfenix, 19 juin 2010 - 09:37 .

[InvaderErl]

JonDoe297 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

It is an RPG and a shooter. RPG doesn’t necessarily have to mean turn based combat or point and click combat, in fact RPG is irrelevant from combat it refers to the storytelling aspect of the game; where you, the player, takes on the role of the protagonist and shapes the story around their own decisions.

There aren't less RPG elements and more shooter elements in Mass Effect 2 it’s just that the shooter elements are much better in ME2 and the RPG elements are made more streamlined, but not forgotten all together. The shooter gameplay in ME2 is inarguably better than ME1's; the guns are much more accurate, and more satisfying to use. The game holds up as a shooter and the game responds when you shoot someone in the head, or when shooting of a mechs legs, where in ME1 it didn’t really matter where you shot them. Not only are the shooter mechanics themselves improved but the rest of the skills at your disposal are as well.

While it appears that some of you may enjoy fumbling through excessively long lists of weapons and upgrades, when you look at it ME1 really only had 4 or 5 different ammo types, and the rest of the weapon upgrades were simple increase damage or accuracy type upgrades, rather useless overall considering each weapon is basically a rail gun; seriously a +5% dmg is irrelevant when you’re dealing with weapons like these, and there is that headshot thing that makes people die fast. ME2 didn't get rid of any of the ammo upgrades, it just put them in your skill bar, i.e. Incendiary Ammo, Cryo Ammo, Shredder, AP, Warp so they didn't get rid of any of the ammo types, they just made them accessible. I much preferred being able to take out a mech's shields and then switch to incendiary ammo at the touch of a button to take out its armour rather than going to my inventory to switch the ammo type to level V Incendiary ammo every time I want to switch weapon types.

The biotic abilities in ME2 are also improved over those in ME1. For one, there are more biotic abilities in ME2, although you may not be able to unlock them all, or get them all to level 4 they are still never the less there. But your adept doesn't need every biotic ability at max because you can use multiple biotic abilities together to deal much more damage, plus you have teammates like Miranda and Samara who have biotics as well, which can be used in combination with your own to devastate any enemy on the field. And yes, there aren’t as many levels for each ability, but now each level does a significant increase to a particular ability resulting in noticeable improvement with each level up. In addition the forth rank of each skill provides two options that each allow you to cater the ability to your needs.

There are less weapons and equipment in ME2 but in its defence ME1’s weapons were not all that different, each simply added a damage or accuracy increase. The weapons in ME2, the assault rifle for example, are different weapons. The first is full-auto, and the second is a burst-fire so each is useful in different situations. Not to mention that in ME1 basically every weapon other than the assault rifle was more-or-less useless. As for armour, ME2 still has a good variety; about 5 different chests, arms, legs and helmets which can all be combined and all have their own unique effect.

I really don’t think there are any less RPG elements in ME2 than were present in ME1, they are just dispersed into different areas of the game and made much more accessible. I wouldn’t say that ME1 was more of an RPG and ME2 is more of a shooter its simply that Mass Effect is an RPG-Shooter so they worked to make the shooter element as strong as it could be, and at the same time worked to keep the RPG elements intact. All the games Bioware makes are RPGs, but each one has a specific core gameplay whether it be action, adventure or shooter; the Project Director, Casey Hudson even said that, and in an interview on Gamespot he explained that the RPG elements weren’t removed to make way for a shooter, they were dispersed and made more accessible.

How dare you make good and sensible points!

You maniac!

[Pocketgb]

Orchomene wrote...

RPG is also a lot about combat. Otherwise, adventure games would be RPG games.
RPG means taking the role of a character. That is also that this is the skill of the character is determinant in the way the character interacts with the environment. Thus, a shooter gamplay is not a rpg gameplay.
ME2 is a shooter/adventure game, not more. There is not a single RPG element in ME2 besides some minor tweaks linked to leveling (which is in most part irrelevent, enemies leveling at the exact same speed).

The only reason I considered ME1 barely an 'RPG' - by technical standards - was because of dicerolls.

That was about the only thing the game had going for it.

There was little to no build customization: You could end up with only about two skill trees unmaxed. Specifics to your character become diminished as it no longer becomes you tailoring what you want your Shep to be good at and rather choosing a few things that he's *not* good at.

Gear curve is pointless: The entire point of finding new equipment was to put you on the same level of effeciency as your opponents, and in this sense the way armor and weapons work in both ME1 and ME2 can be seen as being "technically the same". It's just that in ME2 you don't have to search crates for the gear and you don't have the option of wearing something that's worse than what you're wearing.

Combat felt "out-of-place": Said this quite a few times now. ME1's combat felt akin to playing an FPS that used racing controls, or playing Street Fighter with a steering wheel, or playing God of War with a Rock Band drumset. Having aim be required and not rewarded just seems rather backwards. ME1's combat would've worked so much better if done in a KotOR-ish or more traditional topdown fashion.

Essentially it's this: ME2 is mainly a shooter with light RPG mechanics, ME1 was a lackluster RPG with poor
shooter mechanics.

Mass Effect 1 was hardly had any of the "intellectual RPG greatness" that many like to make it out as having. This wasn't to say things couldn't be improved, of course, but it comes back to what I've said numerous times in other threads. When you screw up your art project you have two choices: try to fix it or start from scratch, and which one is better all depends on you.

[Raizo]

Terror_K wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

ME1was too far on the RPG side of things, and I think people expected all the games would be like that. BioWare moved it back towards the middle and for some reason people don't like it.

I disagree with this. I'd say ME1 was actually closer to the middle --the perfect blend if you will-- and that it was ME2 that was moved too far on the shooter side of things.

I would hate to think that ME1 was closer to the middle of both genres ( rpg and 3rd person shooter ) because it implies that ME1 got things right and while it is more balanced gameplay wise than ME2  I still think there is plenty of room for improvement in ME3.

First of all, ME1's combat feels old and dated and also a bit unrealistic. It was great back when it first came out but playing ME2 and then going bcak to ME1 makes you aware of how bad the shooting elements were done.

I know alot of people miss it but ME1's inventory was awful. Weapon/Armour/Upgrade management was a pain in the ass. As much as I miss buying new equipment in shops and selling my old stuff, as much as I miss finding new loot  and being able to go into the menu and equip my new gear whenever I want ( without having it done automatically for me ) or having to go back to the Normandy I would rather have No Inventory at all than go back to what ME1 had.

I also hated ME1's skill tree. Why did I have to put skill points into things like like Pistols, Heavy Armour, Assault Rifles?  ME2 did a great job of removing all the unnecessary skills and simplifing things.

In other ways ME1 is too much of an rpg. For example, I decided to replay ME1 again recently, I got about as far as the Presidium ( after completing Eden Prime ) before ME1 began to wreck my head. It's too big, too much walking to get from point A to B, to many people to talk to, sidequest to do  and most of these require a relativly high Charm/Intimidate score in order to see all possible outcomes, it's too soon in the game for ME1 to be getting the player bogged down with this much distractions. I love rpg's ( I would not have invested time in the ME univese if it were not an rpg ) and have beaten ME1 before and I feel overwhelmed just being in the Presidium, think of how intimidating this can be for a gamer new to ME universe, a gamer new to rpg's. It's so funny how everyone ( myself included ) ****es about how small the Citadel is in ME2 and yet now that I've gone back to ME1 I now think it is too big.

I am still hoping that when ME3 finally does come out that it will strike that perfect balance between RPG and 3rd person Shooter, between ME1 and ME2 because as far as I am concerned we haven't gotten there yet.

[Orchomene]

Pocketgb wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

RPG is also a lot about combat. Otherwise, adventure games would be RPG games.
RPG means taking the role of a character. That is also that this is the skill of the character is determinant in the way the character interacts with the environment. Thus, a shooter gamplay is not a rpg gameplay.
ME2 is a shooter/adventure game, not more. There is not a single RPG element in ME2 besides some minor tweaks linked to leveling (which is in most part irrelevent, enemies leveling at the exact same speed).

The only reason I considered ME1 barely an 'RPG' - by technical standards - was because of dicerolls.

That was about the only thing the game had going for it.

There was little to no build customization: You could end up with only about two skill trees unmaxed. Specifics to your character become diminished as it no longer becomes you tailoring what you want your Shep to be good at and rather choosing a few things that he's *not* good at.

Gear curve is pointless: The entire point of finding new equipment was to put you on the same level of effeciency as your opponents, and in this sense the way armor and weapons work in both ME1 and ME2 can be seen as being "technically the same". It's just that in ME2 you don't have to search crates for the gear and you don't have the option of wearing something that's worse than what you're wearing.

Combat felt "out-of-place": Said this quite a few times now. ME1's combat felt akin to playing an FPS that used racing controls, or playing Street Fighter with a steering wheel, or playing God of War with a Rock Band drumset. Having aim be required and not rewarded just seems rather backwards. ME1's combat would've worked so much better if done in a KotOR-ish or more traditional topdown fashion.

Essentially it's this: ME2 is mainly a shooter with light RPG mechanics, ME1 was a lackluster RPG with poor
shooter mechanics.

Mass Effect 1 was hardly had any of the "intellectual RPG greatness" that many like to make it out as having. This wasn't to say things couldn't be improved, of course, but it comes back to what I've said numerous times in other threads. When you screw up your art project you have two choices: try to fix it or start from scratch, and which one is better all depends on you.

I agree with most of your points. I'm sure you can mix shooter and RPG intelligently in combat.
Shooter : aiming parts do matter, tactical use of the environment, weapons generally hit the point touched.
RPG : skills/attributes of the character enhance the distance of accuracy and the damage, potential special moves with distance weapons (like cripling shot, no recoil burst shots, ...), with melee weapons also.
All in all, there can be a global setting that would change the gameplay as more character based or more player based. It's not that hard with an engine like UE (there is an option for targeting help in UE, this could be enhanced by character skills to play as a RPG). Overall, the idea would be to let the player choose between heavy RPG combat or heavy shooter combat.
Last but not least, the RPG rules could be more balance in giving a necessity to oriente the develoment of the character toward one play style or another. Come on, it's not that hard to do that. It doesn't require a lot of modifications, just have a global variable to modify the settings and a work on the design of RPG dynamic. It takes largely less time than designing beautiful characters/environments. Even five to ten years old games (that is, less techological possibilities and a lot of less develoment time=money involved).

[Pocketgb]

Orchomene wrote...

I agree with most of your points. I'm sure you can mix shooter and RPG intelligently in combat.
Shooter : aiming parts do matter, tactical use of the environment, weapons generally hit the point touched.
RPG : skills/attributes of the character enhance the distance of accuracy and the damage, potential special moves with distance weapons (like cripling shot, no recoil burst shots, ...), with melee weapons also.
All in all, there can be a global setting that would change the gameplay as more character based or more player based. It's not that hard with an engine like UE (there is an option for targeting help in UE, this could be enhanced by character skills to play as a RPG). Overall, the idea would be to let the player choose between heavy RPG combat or heavy shooter combat.
Last but not least, the RPG rules could be more balance in giving a necessity to oriente the develoment of the character toward one play style or another. Come on, it's not that hard to do that. It doesn't require a lot of modifications, just have a global variable to modify the settings and a work on the design of RPG dynamic. It takes largely less time than designing beautiful characters/environments. Even five to ten years old games (that is, less techological possibilities and a lot of less develoment time=money involved).

One huge glaring issue with this is balance. Balance between the two modes (i.e. one mode being significantly easier at certain intervals/points - or in general all around easier), balancing enemies throughout each mode, balancing abilities and usage across both modes - they'd have to pretty much rebalance everything. Asking Bioware to create two systems is not only a massive undertaking, but also incredibly dangerous since they have a hardtime making even one mode in-depth.

So. What would I expect the result to be, especially keeping in mind all the other areas that ME3 will have to deliver upon? Poor, very poor, likely worse than ME1. I'd rather Bioware finetune one gamemode as opposed to spreading the same amount of resources across a couple.

[SkullandBonesmember]

InvaderErl wrote...

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

I snipped most because you mentioned a spoiler, but when you know who cries, I thought that was a beautiful, moving scene.

To answer your question, anything where headshots aren't implemented.

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.

<_<

They can be and are one in the same.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

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:

After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali. 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/

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

See above. I even made the major points shiny for you.

What's bollocks is your inability, or maybe refusal to grasp that I'm saying there needs to be BALANCE AND RATIO in terms of combat and story. Let's look outside the box for a moment since it's clear there are some who don't view plot and character evolution as the same thing. So let's scrap plot/story and focus on the wording of "character interaction" or "character evolution". That is not on par with the amount of missions, side quests or otherwise.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 19 juin 2010 - 12:09 .

[Christmas Ape]

So let's scrap plot/story and focus on the wording of "character interaction" or "character evolution". That is not on par with the amount of missions, side quests or otherwise.

Particularly if one arbitrarily defines character-focused missions in which a personally important decision is made and personal milestone reached as "not character interaction or evolution" because that would interfere with whining about 'dumbed down' gameplay and 'shooter fans ruining video games for us smart people'.

Your signature says a lot more about you than anyone else.

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 19 juin 2010 - 12:09 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Christmas Ape wrote...

Particularly if one arbitrarily defines character-focused missions in which a personally important decision is made and personal milestone reached as "not character interaction" because that would interfere with whining about 'dumbed down' gameplay and 'shooter fans ruining video games for us smart people'.

Yeah, 'cause that's exactly what I'm saying.

[tonnactus]

Sidney wrote...


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

Oh really? What about the "protection system"? I wouldnt call that a minor change? !? A change that sucks and destroy adept and tech gameplay. Because singularity is the only crowd control power that works on "protected" enemies. And there is another change.Just look what ranges biotic and tech powers have in the first game. Up to 10 meters.Now the player only get 3m at best.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...
.
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.

Oh yes,"cities". Small shopping malls is more correct.

[Minister of Sound]

Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG simply because there are way too many conversations in the game where Shepard speaks without input.

[tonnactus]

JonDoe297 wrote...
 I much preferred being able to take out a mech's shields and then switch to incendiary ammo at the touch of a button to take out its armour rather than going to my inventory to switch the ammo type to level V Incendiary ammo every time I want to switch weapon types.

But why make them powers? That causes more gameplay problems that they are worth it.(squadmates overwrite your ammo still if shepardt didnt have a squad ammo power)

The biotic abilities in ME2 are also improved over those in ME1.

No,they arent. And dont bother me with curving. All the player has to in the first game in to aim the power on the ground to put enemies out of cover.

But your adept doesn't need every biotic ability at max because you can use multiple biotic abilities together to deal much more damage, plus you have teammates like Miranda and Samara who have biotics as well, which can be used in combination with your own to devastate any enemy on the field.

To bad that the game designers decided to double the cooldowns for squadmates powers at least. What really decrease the possibility of biotic combination for no reason.
In the first game,liara and tali were nearly on par with an adept or tech shepardt when it comes to cooldown times.
I dont even start with the moronic decision to give squadmates tech drones a cooldown of 30 s...

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 juin 2010 - 01:44 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

tonnactus wrote...

Oh yes,"cities". Small shopping malls is more correct.

Yeah, there wasnt a single "hub world" in ME2. Just small locales designed to herd the player into the various one off shooter missions, and kill any kind of immersion with numerous loading screens and, worst of all, the dreaded mission complete screen.

[Terror_K]

[quote]Raizo wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

I disagree with this. I'd say ME1 was actually closer to the middle --the perfect blend if you will-- and that it was ME2 that was moved too far on the shooter side of things.
[/quote]

I would hate to think that ME1 was closer to the middle of both genres ( rpg and 3rd person shooter ) because it implies that ME1 got things right and while it is more balanced gameplay wise than ME2  I still think there is plenty of room for improvement in ME3.[/quote]

Just because ME1 was better balanced, doesn't necessarily mean it completely succeeded at what it did. All I'm saying is the amount of RPG elements to shooter elements was superior and closer to the best mix than ME2.

[quote]
First of all, ME1's combat feels old and dated and also a bit unrealistic. It was great back when it first came out but playing ME2 and then going bcak to ME1 makes you aware of how bad the shooting elements were done.[/quote]

I'd hardly call ME1's combat "old and dated" and if anything it's ME2's combat that fits that description better, by coming across as largely generic TPS style with elements that are hardly revolutionary or even done anywhere near as well as the best pure TPS games out there. ME1's combat may have been somewhat clumsy, I'll give you that... but I'd hardly it them "old and dated" especially combared to ME2's. The only reason it's not considered as such is because its combat is the current style popularity wise. In either case good mechanics are good mechanics, whether they're old or not, but I resent the fact that ME2 gets called revolutionary and is said to be moving the genre forward and being with the times when its actually falling back on far more dated and simple mechanics than ME1 did. ME2's mechanics may be technically more functional, but they're also shallower.

[quote]
I know alot of people miss it but ME1's inventory was awful. Weapon/Armour/Upgrade management was a pain in the ass. As much as I miss buying new equipment in shops and selling my old stuff, as much as I miss finding new loot  and being able to go into the menu and equip my new gear whenever I want ( without having it done automatically for me ) or having to go back to the Normandy I would rather have No Inventory at all than go back to what ME1 had.[/quote]

I disagree. While I admit that ME1's system had a lot to be desired, I'd still rather have a system trying to add some options and depth and failing at it than one that is overly simple, completely lacking in depth, entirely linear and dumbed-down.

[/quote]
I also hated ME1's skill tree. Why did I have to put skill points into things like like Pistols, Heavy Armour, Assault Rifles?  ME2 did a great job of removing all the unnecessary skills and simplifing things. [/quote]

Oversimplifying things, which is ME2's overall problem in a nutshell. What some people called "unnecessary" others call "depth" and "options" etc. An RPG should have character progression after all, which ME2 lacks entirely, since its systems more like just a bunch of combat upgrades rather than actually making your character better, especially with the complete elimination of non-combat skills.

[quote]
In other ways ME1 is too much of an rpg. For example, I decided to replay ME1 again recently, I got about as far as the Presidium ( after completing Eden Prime ) before ME1 began to wreck my head. It's too big, too much walking to get from point A to B, to many people to talk to, sidequest to do  and most of these require a relativly high Charm/Intimidate score in order to see all possible outcomes, it's too soon in the game for ME1 to be getting the player bogged down with this much distractions. I love rpg's ( I would not have invested time in the ME univese if it were not an rpg ) and have beaten ME1 before and I feel overwhelmed just being in the Presidium, think of how intimidating this can be for a gamer new to ME universe, a gamer new to rpg's. It's so funny how everyone ( myself included ) ****es about how small the Citadel is in ME2 and yet now that I've gone back to ME1 I now think it is too big.[/quote]

Totally disagree with this. Loved The Citadel in ME1... loved to talk and wander, do sidequests that felt they had meaning, and just hang out and get away from the main plot now and then. ME2's Citadel felt underwhelming by comparison, and while it looked good it completely lacked in sidequests and any really meaningful content outside of the two loyalty missions associated with it. I don't think the Citadel in ME1 was too big at all. Besides, its not as if you couldn't rapid transit everywhere and it wasn't as if you were forced into the missions.

[quote]
I am still hoping that when ME3 finally does come out that it will strike that perfect balance between RPG and 3rd person Shooter, between ME1 and ME2 because as far as I am concerned we haven't gotten there yet.[/quote]

This I agree on. Though I suspect in a different manner than you do. You probably want the game to mostly be closer to ME2, while I want it closer to ME1, albeit admittedly a blend of both games.

[SkullandBonesmember]

If anybody thinks an RPG has "too many sidequests" or "too much walking", they're playing the wrong genre. Yet again, it stands to show how marketing can kill an RPG as we've seen with ME2. Too often I've seen comments like that or "who cares about the story, it's all about the fighting", or cutscenes in ME1 "dragged on forever".

[Orchomene]

Nobody has to do every side quest if he doesn't want.



About the development effort to have a global variable for RPG/shooter mode.

Well, let's have a look. Imagine we have ten developpers coding for a year, that's 2000 MDs (men days). Consider now what can do a modder having only some setting access to the engine. What do you think someone can do in 20 days having full access to the code ? Or even only 10 days

For the balance, there can be beta test sessions for some that preorder the game. It's very common.

What takes a long time is the story, the character dialogues, the animations, the textures, meshes, quality tests, debugging, UI dev, Modifying settings is also not expensive at all with respect to voice acting.

[Chuvvy]

DAOs Squad interaction ie Conversations, Romances, them caring about the choices you make.

ME2s Combat

???

Profit

[Sidney]

tonnactus wrote...

Oh really? What about the "protection system"? I wouldnt call that a minor change? !? A change that sucks and destroy adept and tech gameplay. Because singularity is the only crowd control power that works on "protected" enemies. And there is another change.Just look what ranges biotic and tech powers have in the first game. Up to 10 meters.Now the player only get 3m at best.

Wow, ummm on ranges, never noticed that and don't care. My Adept ripped through the game with no issues. I don't think there are that many wide open areas like you had in ME1 where range matters a ton.

As for "protection" so your gripe is that you had to think more about how to use biotics rather thasn just spamming them out there? There are powers that work vs Barriers, that work vs Shields and that work vs armor just not all of them. Your squad has to, you know, cooperate to bring down certain types of foes. Dear god, I thought everyone was atwitter about casualization.

[WilliamShatner]

Slidell505 wrote...

ME1 RPG with TPS elements.
ME2 TPS with RPG elements.
ME3 ???

Kart Racer.

[InvaderErl]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

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

I snipped most because you mentioned a spoiler, but when you know who cries, I thought that was a beautiful, moving scene.

To answer your question, anything where headshots aren't implemented.

You're making it sound as if the majority of their dialogue is battle chatter, but anyone who actually plays the game would know that's not true, certainly no more true than it was in the first game.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 06:04 .

[ThePatriot101]

I'd like to add something to this.



If I were to say anything on comparing the proportions between the RPG and Shooter aspects, I think that an actual proportion of the two in Mass Effect is close to 55% Shooter, 45% RPG. I say this largely because of what happened with Alpha Protocol, which had a solid RPG half, probably more than half, with a minority shooter aspect. Not to mention when comparing ME1 and AP, AP gives you the stat-based firing circle so that your chances of nailing a headshot in AP are much lower than what you'd get in a more accurate shooter like ME1. Any game that blends the two big elements while giving you a fairly typical shooter mechanism should be consider predominantly shooter as it its providing stats for how much damage you deal and to a degree how accurate you are but doesn't put making headshots out of your reach for a good deal of time until you raise up.



With that I'd say ME2 is closer to 60-65% Shooter, 35-40% RPG, because they removed excess bits from the RPG elements but also upped the ante on the characters and conversations. And because of that streamlining of the mechanical RPG elements it helped make the shooter elements more predominant.



This game series was designed to be a heavier shooter vs. RPG because they maintained basic norms associated with shooters and then tacked on a decent load of RPG material. It's also what sets this game apart from other RPGs and hybrids.

[JonDoe297]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

I'd like to add something to this.

If I were to say anything on comparing the proportions between the RPG and Shooter aspects, I think that an actual proportion of the two in Mass Effect is close to 55% Shooter, 45% RPG. I say this largely because of what happened with Alpha Protocol, which had a solid RPG half, probably more than half, with a minority shooter aspect. Not to mention when comparing ME1 and AP, AP gives you the stat-based firing circle so that your chances of nailing a headshot in AP are much lower than what you'd get in a more accurate shooter like ME1. Any game that blends the two big elements while giving you a fairly typical shooter mechanism should be consider predominantly shooter as it its providing stats for how much damage you deal and to a degree how accurate you are but doesn't put making headshots out of your reach for a good deal of time until you raise up.

I head that Alpha Protocol's combat, and just about everything else blew ass. So I don't see how a broken shooter system with terrible AI is a valid argument for good RPG-shooter combat.