SirOccam wrote...
I would agree with all of this. I guess the core issue is how you define "Mass Effectify." If it means the game will come to resemble Mass Effect more than it does Dragon Age, that would be a bad thing. But if it's just a term to illustrate the kind of changes that took place between Mass Effect 1 and 2, namely streamlining, some simplification, etc., then I think it would be a very good thing. I think DA could stand to have a few things streamlined and simplified, but it doesn't need to be changed in such fundamental ways as you outlined above.Eurypterid wrote...
I love the Mass Effect series. Excellent games, and a ton of fun. But if, by 'Mass Effectify', you mean change the game mechanics to the degree that it's not recognizable as Dragon Age; thinks such as (for a couple examples):
- remove the ability to directly control each individual party member
- remove the 'RPG-ness' of the quests and looting
- change the leveling mechanics
- remove the tactical camera controls
then I say "No thanks". That's not what Dragon Age is. I like different games for different reasons and I don't want Dragon Age to be turned into Mass Effect (or Dragon Effect, if you prefer). They're different games and a big reason I love both of them so much is because they're not the same game packaged in a different setting.
I thought combat was much more enjoyable in ME2. Everything just worked...better. From cover to ammo to headshots to leaping over cover to whatever else. The story was a bit weaker than ME1's, in my opinion, but I don't think the two things are related. It wasn't weaker because of the improvements made.
I really didnt care for a lot of the changes to ME2.
I would have had more respect if they simply retconned ammo clips instead of coming up with a really lame and idiotic lore excuse for thermal clips.
The cover system was overdone, Shepards armor was made of paper apparently and didnt offer any more protection to him/her then spandex, including while in a vacuum, but you could sit behind a 1/4 pane of glass and be immune to rocket launchers, the same pane of glass that you amazingly shoved a guy through with a simple push a few moments earlier.
Finally, the story was simply awful, they did a complete rewrite of Shepards personality and desires between the two games all in the name of being darker and bringing thier favorite pet from the novels to the forefront of the games. It would have been better as a stand alone game about a Cerberus operative then about Shepard, but even then you would have had to deal with the main story having absolutely nothing to do with what you where actually doing most of the game, the stupidity of your enemies, a horrible final boss and the fact that the game actually did nothing to progress anything. It did not test Shepard, put our side at a disadvantage that we had to overcome, even the victory of Shep walking all over the enemy did nothing to progress the overarching plot forward in any way at all. The game felt more like an introduction to Cerberus, one which ignores almost everything they have done in ME lore, then an actual sequal, and one could argue that the dumbing down of the story was to appeal to more fans, same with the other changes.
So no, I do not want to have them mass effectify DA2. If they want to streamline inventory so that its not so clunky I would support that, I would prefer most of the items I am using to be found rather then bought anyway. If they want to make combat smoother that is cool, so long as its not a complete overhaul. But do not go the route of ME2, ME2 took a step forward with some things, but it went way to far removing the options completely, and took a step back in other areas of the game. Very linier, Shepard magically forgetting his/her personality as well as Cerberus's past, instead of a streamlined inventory, no inventory at all, a leveling system so pointless you could beat the game with out ever spending a single skill point on any difficulty but insanity, the list goes on.





Retour en haut





