Merced256 wrote...
While i tend to agree with your previous sentiments; i find this quote dumb.
What a nice way to put it.
You define something by its characteristics. Remove characteristics and its no longer a reflection of what it previously defined. Take a RPG, remove some RPG elements, is it still a RPG? No, at best its a game with RPG elements.
Yes, you define something by its characteristics, but that doesn't mean that all those characteristics
need to
be defining characteristics. Someone may have thought a manual transmission was part of what defined cars, but when automatics came along, would it be reasonable not to consider them real cars, or would that person be better off adjusting their previously-held notions of what cars
were?
In fact, that's more of an apt analogy than I realized when it initially occurred to me. It's something that certainly simplified the driving process, and to this day there are those that prefer one method over the other. Yet even something as fundamental as a shift in the way the transmission is controlled doesn't prevent automatics from being considered real cars.
That said, i enjoyed ME2. Bioware fixed the "issues" that ME1 had. That being inventory management and skill/level inflation. However ME2 had a lot more going for it than DA2 does at first glance. ME1 was made on the premise of it being a cinematic action RPG. It did this fairly well. ME2 was built to improve on that in most every aspect; it did this exceptionally well. However i wouldn't define ME2 as a RPG. A pillar of RPGs is character advancement. Some would also include character creation/customization. But unless you were playing on the highest difficulty level; skills meant very little. The combat was a contrived cover system that wasn't tactical or difficult at any end of the spectrum. That too is a pillar of CRPGs. I seem to recall DA:O being refferred to as a CRPG by the developers. Seems they changed their minds about where they wanted to take the franchise.
Character advancement: ME2 had it. You subjectively think it was weak, but it still had it.
Character customization: ME2 had it. Physical appearance, gender, name, and the aformentioned skills.
A tactical or difficult combat system? That's too subjective a term for me to wholly agree that it, too, is a pillar, and I'm not even sure I'd consider "tactical" a vital part anyway. I personally think they can mess with combat however they like without losing the "RPG" label. To me, combat doesn't define RPGs, but it does show up a lot. It doesn't surprise me that it shows up a lot, because it adds excitement, but I think it's not outside the realm of possiblity that there could be an RPG without any combat at all. Whether it would be done well is another story, or how well it would be recieved. I think combat is a function of story; if the story decrees that combat is necessary, then there should be combat.
That doesn't automatically make it a bad choice mind you, but it is a radical departure. That said, i think DA2 will be awesome the first play through, but like ME2... it'll just be boring any subsequent play throughs because dialog options alone are not enough to make it fun. Added to that is if the skills are largely as useless as in ME2 in combination with their passive bonus nature. Then the only replayability will fall to dialog for many. The reason being is that a reasonably large demographic prefer one arch-type to play. That is; warrior, mage, or rogue.
All fair points. I don't agree with most of them, but they are perfectly reasonable opinions to have. Personally, I replay DAO precisely because of the dialogue and the other effects that character choice has on the plot. If there was a way to fast-forward the combat, I would gladly take advantage of such an option (especially for the Deep Roads). I don't think ME2 was as good a game in general as DAO, but I think it's action-oriented combat is a strength.
If I were to pick between DAO, ME1, and ME2 to replay, I'd choose DAO. But if my choices were limited to the MEs, I'd choose ME2. I don't think either ME had as much depth as DAO, but that's where ME2's improved action comes in. Let's face it: once you've seen each finishing blow animation in DAO, there are really no surprises left. But in ME2, it's at least exciting. One of my favorite parts is on the Dantius towers, playing an Adept with Shockwave. I love fighting across that exposed bridge, using various powers to knock enemies off the bridge, advance on the rocket-firing enemies, etc. That right there is replayability of a different sort than DAO had. But both games have it, at least for me. ME1's combat wasn't that bad, but I hated the overheating concept, and there were a bunch of other little things that were sort of frustrating and detracted from my enjoyment. That's one huge improvement I thought ME2 had...the combat just worked so
smoothly.
I will always prefer CRPGs to cinematic rollercoasters. But cinematic rollercoasters can be entertaining, like a good movie. But the thing is; i'm not the type to watch the movie 20 times no matter how good it was. 
I think I've seen movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Truman Show, and several of my other favorites may more times than 20.
But in keeping with the movie theme...if you take a movie widely regarded as "great" but with crappy special effects compared to more modern works, do you think they'd be ruined if their effects were better? Now don't get me wrong, I am
definitely not saying they would all be
better if the effects were improved, or that effects are the only important thing. But if those great classics with their crappy effects were so good, shouldn't all movies aim for the same level of effects? Does their being great mean they've reached the pinnacle in every single aspect of filmmaking, and there is no room for change without necessarily worsening a movie?
Modifié par SirOccam, 12 août 2010 - 11:10 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
.
)
