244 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

I also generally think you need junk items in an RPG. Special and/or rare items aren't special and/or rare when there are no common items at all. When every item is unique, none of them are.

[spacehamsterZH]

LPPrince wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...

The resources listing on the mission computer page plus your weapons and armor loadout, that's your inventory, strictly speaking. The problem being that you're very restricted in terms of what you can do with it, of course.

What you can do with it is the problem.

Hell, the fact that you can't sell any inventory for credits is a MAJOR FAIL.

Sure. I'm just saying I don't think it's entirely accurate to say there's no inventory at all in ME2. You still have various sorts of equipment and resources and ways of looking at lists and doing things with it, it's just so restricted that you practically feel like you're locked out of it. And yeah, the fact that you can't sell anything is the biggest problem for me too, mostly because it basically means that there's a set amount of money in the game and it's possible to spend it all and never find another credit.

[ThePatriot101]

My two cents.



There is an inventory in ME2. It's called armor customization, finding weapons and researching upgrades, it's also finding weapons clips, heavy weapon ammo, and finding additional resources in maps.



Given that Bioware wanted to make a game that was more action-oriented, more appealing to a more casual audience of the RPG genre (and of the shooter genres), this streamlining did was it was meant to. Certainly there were a few tradeoffs, but in the context of it coming from ME1 is was still an improvement overall.



Besides, haven't you people figured out that Bioware didn't want to make a game strictly cater to the looting trope of RPGs? If they wanted to cater to the hardcore RPGers out there they would've. But they made ME2, and to a degree ME1, towards a more casual audience. ME1 was largely an experiment because they while they did put the shooter elements in first they didn't put the RPG bits too far behind.

[AlanC9]

Loot didn't make sense in the first place. Shepard's flying around in the most advanced and expensive ship humans have got, and he still has to buy his own personal equipment?

[troyk890]

I'm fine with the ME2 system(or lack thereof) but the ammo and other weapon upgrades should be actual upgrades, not powers. Surely they can think up better skills for soldiers to have then the ability to carry around a bunch of different ammo types.

Also I'd like to bee able to change up my squads armor(they should wear armor and full helmets in ****ing space, I don't care if it makes Jack look silly).

Modifié par troyk890, 28 juillet 2010 - 06:36 .

[bjdbwea]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Besides, haven't you people figured out that Bioware didn't want to make a game strictly cater to the looting trope of RPGs? If they wanted to cater to the hardcore RPGers out there they would've. But they made ME2, and to a degree ME1, towards a more casual audience. ME1 was largely an experiment because they while they did put the shooter elements in first they didn't put the RPG bits too far behind.

Oh, we have figured that out alright. But believe it or not, there are still people who deny that BioWare/EA dumbed down the game, including the RPG elements, to appeal to the shooter crowd. And in my opinion indeed the casual gamers as well. Together, the changes for both audiences made the game what it is. Not the first franchise to go down that route, but given the brillance of the first installment, it's an especially unfortunate example.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 28 juillet 2010 - 07:44 .

[Epic777]

bjdbwea wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Besides, haven't you people figured out that Bioware didn't want to make a game strictly cater to the looting trope of RPGs? If they wanted to cater to the hardcore RPGers out there they would've. But they made ME2, and to a degree ME1, towards a more casual audience. ME1 was largely an experiment because they while they did put the shooter elements in first they didn't put the RPG bits too far behind.

Oh, we have figured that out alright. But believe it or not, there are still people who deny that BioWare/EA dumbed down the game, including the RPG elements, to appeal to the shooter crowd. And in my opinion indeed the casual gamers as well. Together, the changes for both audiences made the game what it is. Not the first franchise to go down that route, but given the brillance of the first installment, it's an especially unfortunate example.

Seriously are hardcore RPGs for the most intelligent and enlightened? While I like RPGs this attitude I despise. The mass effect franchise is an action/rpg and in particular a shooter/rpg in the same vain as system shock, bioshock, deus ex etc. Me1 from a neutral stand point did not have the greatest shooter elements, the cover system being flaky and had boring sidequests among other things.  In personal opinion me1 was like 60% rpg, 40% shooter in me2 I think it was reversed.

[LPPrince]

Epic777 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Besides, haven't you people figured out that Bioware didn't want to make a game strictly cater to the looting trope of RPGs? If they wanted to cater to the hardcore RPGers out there they would've. But they made ME2, and to a degree ME1, towards a more casual audience. ME1 was largely an experiment because they while they did put the shooter elements in first they didn't put the RPG bits too far behind.

Oh, we have figured that out alright. But believe it or not, there are still people who deny that BioWare/EA dumbed down the game, including the RPG elements, to appeal to the shooter crowd. And in my opinion indeed the casual gamers as well. Together, the changes for both audiences made the game what it is. Not the first franchise to go down that route, but given the brillance of the first installment, it's an especially unfortunate example.

Seriously are hardcore RPGs for the most intelligent and enlightened? While I like RPGs this attitude I despise. The mass effect franchise is an action/rpg and in particular a shooter/rpg in the same vain as system shock, bioshock, deus ex etc. Me1 from a neutral stand point did not have the greatest shooter elements, the cover system being flaky and had boring sidequests among other things.  In personal opinion me1 was like 60% rpg, 40% shooter in me2 I think it was reversed.

ME1 to me was 60/40 RPG/Shooter, but ME2 is 70/30 Shooter/RPG.

I hate how much they imbalanced it in ME2.

Modifié par LPPrince, 28 juillet 2010 - 08:31 .

[haberman13]

Epic777 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Besides, haven't you people figured out that Bioware didn't want to make a game strictly cater to the looting trope of RPGs? If they wanted to cater to the hardcore RPGers out there they would've. But they made ME2, and to a degree ME1, towards a more casual audience. ME1 was largely an experiment because they while they did put the shooter elements in first they didn't put the RPG bits too far behind.

Oh, we have figured that out alright. But believe it or not, there are still people who deny that BioWare/EA dumbed down the game, including the RPG elements, to appeal to the shooter crowd. And in my opinion indeed the casual gamers as well. Together, the changes for both audiences made the game what it is. Not the first franchise to go down that route, but given the brillance of the first installment, it's an especially unfortunate example.

Seriously are hardcore RPGs for the most intelligent and enlightened? While I like RPGs this attitude I despise. The mass effect franchise is an action/rpg and in particular a shooter/rpg in the same vain as system shock, bioshock, deus ex etc. Me1 from a neutral stand point did not have the greatest shooter elements, the cover system being flaky and had boring sidequests among other things.  In personal opinion me1 was like 60% rpg, 40% shooter in me2 I think it was reversed.

I would say RPGs are primarily for the *more* intelligent gamers.  Attraction to: complexity, variation, min/max, sorting, choosing, building denotes a higher level of intelligence than "pew pew".

Same with anything really, if you like NPR you are probably more intelligent than someone who watches TMZ.

Bioware made ME2 (and to a large extent ME1) for the TMZ crowd with sprinkles of NPR on top.

(though the story and presentation are fantastic, among the best)

[LPPrince]

I wouldn't agree with the "RPG=Higher Intelligence" argument.



Rather, I'd say, "RPG=Complexity" while "Shooter=Simplicity".

[haberman13]

LPPrince wrote...

I wouldn't agree with the "RPG=Higher Intelligence" argument.

Rather, I'd say, "RPG=Complexity" while "Shooter=Simplicity".

Step of logic further:

Desire for complexity = higher intelligence
Deisre for simplicity = lower intelligence

Generally speaking of course.

[bjdbwea]

haberman13 wrote...

Step of logic further:

Desire for complexity = higher intelligence
Deisre for simplicity = lower intelligence

Generally speaking of course.

Not really. I could easily imagine a rocket scientist preferring simpler games in his free time. But that doesn't change the fact that RPGs are indeed the more complex and intelligent games in comparison to games where you just click enemies dead.

[LPPrince]

haberman13 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I wouldn't agree with the "RPG=Higher Intelligence" argument.

Rather, I'd say, "RPG=Complexity" while "Shooter=Simplicity".

Step of logic further:

Desire for complexity = higher intelligence
Deisre for simplicity = lower intelligence

Generally speaking of course.

Again, I can't back that argument.

I like RPG's and Shooters. Lately, I've played more Modern Warfare 2 than Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age.

And I guess I can't really comment on my intelligence without tooting my own horn, so I'll have to stick to facts-

Last time I checked my IQ(been like 5 years now) it was 139.

And I can spell floccinaucinihilipilification, pronounce it, define it, and put it into a sentence.

Honestly, I don't think intelligence or knowledge have anything to do with it.

Some folks like complexity, and other folks like simplicity. Its up to the person.

As far as intelligence and knowledge go, I'd say that would be the ability to HANDLE complexity and simplicity.

[Lumikki]

Few last post seem to be really about elitist thinking. No wonder few people here are tired to hear about this how excelent RPG players are. I'm my self RPG player and I'm starting to be shame to say it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juillet 2010 - 09:06 .

[LPPrince]

That's why I say I can't back that argument.



I'm not going to automatically assume a shooter fan is dumber than an RPG fan.



I can understand where people get that idea.



For example, a friend of mine who's a huge shooter fan thought Mass Effect was a horrible game because you didn't get to shoot enough things and it took too long to get to shooting things.



He's not that bright, but that's besides the point. Shooters and RPG's are two different styles of games, and people will naturally gravitate to one or the other. Maybe both, in my case.



Its up to the person's liking. Not their intelligence.

[Dragonfliet]

haberman13 wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Besides, haven't you people figured out that Bioware didn't want to make a game strictly cater to the looting trope of RPGs? If they wanted to cater to the hardcore RPGers out there they would've. But they made ME2, and to a degree ME1, towards a more casual audience. ME1 was largely an experiment because they while they did put the shooter elements in first they didn't put the RPG bits too far behind.

Oh, we have figured that out alright. But believe it or not, there are still people who deny that BioWare/EA dumbed down the game, including the RPG elements, to appeal to the shooter crowd. And in my opinion indeed the casual gamers as well. Together, the changes for both audiences made the game what it is. Not the first franchise to go down that route, but given the brillance of the first installment, it's an especially unfortunate example.

Seriously are hardcore RPGs for the most intelligent and enlightened? While I like RPGs this attitude I despise. The mass effect franchise is an action/rpg and in particular a shooter/rpg in the same vain as system shock, bioshock, deus ex etc. Me1 from a neutral stand point did not have the greatest shooter elements, the cover system being flaky and had boring sidequests among other things.  In personal opinion me1 was like 60% rpg, 40% shooter in me2 I think it was reversed.

I would say RPGs are primarily for the *more* intelligent gamers.  Attraction to: complexity, variation, min/max, sorting, choosing, building denotes a higher level of intelligence than "pew pew".

Same with anything really, if you like NPR you are probably more intelligent than someone who watches TMZ.

Bioware made ME2 (and to a large extent ME1) for the TMZ crowd with sprinkles of NPR on top.

(though the story and presentation are fantastic, among the best)

An attraction to charts means that you are attracted to looking at charts, not that you are more intelligent. Sorting through an inventory takes time, not intelligence. Any idiot can look at values, see that 89 is higher than 81 and switch it out and even a five year old can decide that since they want to run fast they are going to concentrate on picking things with higher run fast traits. I'm sick of idiots who think that because they like something it is somehow superior.

[haberman13]

LPPrince wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I wouldn't agree with the "RPG=Higher Intelligence" argument.

Rather, I'd say, "RPG=Complexity" while "Shooter=Simplicity".

Step of logic further:

Desire for complexity = higher intelligence
Deisre for simplicity = lower intelligence

Generally speaking of course.

Again, I can't back that argument.

I like RPG's and Shooters. Lately, I've played more Modern Warfare 2 than Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age.

And I guess I can't really comment on my intelligence without tooting my own horn, so I'll have to stick to facts-

Last time I checked my IQ(been like 5 years now) it was 139.

And I can spell floccinaucinihilipilification, pronounce it, define it, and put it into a sentence.

Honestly, I don't think intelligence or knowledge have anything to do with it.

Some folks like complexity, and other folks like simplicity. Its up to the person.

As far as intelligence and knowledge go, I'd say that would be the ability to HANDLE complexity and simplicity.

You've anecdotally proven my point: high IQ and likes RPGs

Just because you enjoy a shooter doesn't mean you are less intelligent.

If you ONLY like shooters, I would say you are less intelligent, or simply have different tastes (but on a poll I'm guessing the likihood of less intelligence goes up)

[haberman13]

Dragonfliet wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Besides, haven't you people figured out that Bioware didn't want to make a game strictly cater to the looting trope of RPGs? If they wanted to cater to the hardcore RPGers out there they would've. But they made ME2, and to a degree ME1, towards a more casual audience. ME1 was largely an experiment because they while they did put the shooter elements in first they didn't put the RPG bits too far behind.

Oh, we have figured that out alright. But believe it or not, there are still people who deny that BioWare/EA dumbed down the game, including the RPG elements, to appeal to the shooter crowd. And in my opinion indeed the casual gamers as well. Together, the changes for both audiences made the game what it is. Not the first franchise to go down that route, but given the brillance of the first installment, it's an especially unfortunate example.

Seriously are hardcore RPGs for the most intelligent and enlightened? While I like RPGs this attitude I despise. The mass effect franchise is an action/rpg and in particular a shooter/rpg in the same vain as system shock, bioshock, deus ex etc. Me1 from a neutral stand point did not have the greatest shooter elements, the cover system being flaky and had boring sidequests among other things.  In personal opinion me1 was like 60% rpg, 40% shooter in me2 I think it was reversed.

I would say RPGs are primarily for the *more* intelligent gamers.  Attraction to: complexity, variation, min/max, sorting, choosing, building denotes a higher level of intelligence than "pew pew".

Same with anything really, if you like NPR you are probably more intelligent than someone who watches TMZ.

Bioware made ME2 (and to a large extent ME1) for the TMZ crowd with sprinkles of NPR on top.

(though the story and presentation are fantastic, among the best)

An attraction to charts means that you are attracted to looking at charts, not that you are more intelligent. Sorting through an inventory takes time, not intelligence. Any idiot can look at values, see that 89 is higher than 81 and switch it out and even a five year old can decide that since they want to run fast they are going to concentrate on picking things with higher run fast traits. I'm sick of idiots who think that because they like something it is somehow superior.

Would you agree that the liklihood of someone who enjoys charts/data/numbers being more intelligent goes up?

[LPPrince]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not comfortable calling other gamers stupid, no matter what games they play.

[Clover Rider]

haberman13 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I wouldn't agree with the "RPG=Higher Intelligence" argument.

Rather, I'd say, "RPG=Complexity" while "Shooter=Simplicity".

Step of logic further:

Desire for complexity = higher intelligence
Deisre for simplicity = lower intelligence

Generally speaking of course.

Again, I can't back that argument.

I like RPG's and Shooters. Lately, I've played more Modern Warfare 2 than Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age.

And I guess I can't really comment on my intelligence without tooting my own horn, so I'll have to stick to facts-

Last time I checked my IQ(been like 5 years now) it was 139.

And I can spell floccinaucinihilipilification, pronounce it, define it, and put it into a sentence.

Honestly, I don't think intelligence or knowledge have anything to do with it.

Some folks like complexity, and other folks like simplicity. Its up to the person.

As far as intelligence and knowledge go, I'd say that would be the ability to HANDLE complexity and simplicity.

You've anecdotally proven my point: high IQ and likes RPGs

Just because you enjoy a shooter doesn't mean you are less intelligent.

If you ONLY like shooters, I would say you are less intelligent, or simply have different tastes (but on a poll I'm guessing the likihood of less intelligence goes up)

Look at the Final Fantasy fandom they love RPGs and have an IQ of 3 .

[haberman13]

It is illogical to conclude that intelligence and taste don't go hand in hand.

I'm not saying a person who ONLY likes pure shooters is a worst person, but they are either:

a. less intelligent (nbd, lots of smarter people than me out there)
b. haven't been exposed to RPGs
c. have a complex enough job that pew pew is more relaxing than more number crunching

Idiocracy is a true story in my opinion, so I'm jaded when discussing the masses and their IQ.

Modifié par haberman13, 28 juillet 2010 - 09:30 .

[LPPrince]

Then lets hop off that topic and back to inventory, aye?

[haberman13]

LPPrince wrote...

Then lets hop off that topic and back to inventory, aye?

Bring back inventory or you are dumb!

I jest.

[LPPrince]

haberman13 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Then lets hop off that topic and back to inventory, aye?

Bring back inventory or you are dumb!

I jest.

ROFL. I was like, "THE HELL!?"

[Tpolsconsort]

RPG's don't really imply any greater intelligence on the part of a gamer. Really, once you learn to min/max your character every RPG I have played transforms into less of a challenge than Micky Mouse's Space Adventure. So I instead play them for fun and don't worry about feeling better than other gamers. That is after all much better left to the domain of combat sims and grand strategy games.