Terror_K wrote...
But the thing is Mass Effect is part RPG.
We are in loop in our arguments and I not sure if we find out of it.
I've admitted several times that ME2 made the right basic choices in some areas, but simply took them too far. Getting rid of junk items and scaling down the inventory and looting was good, but it was taken too far. Replacing stat-based shooting for skill-based shooting was admittedly a better move, but they oversimplified that as well. Cutting down the masses of samey weapons and giving us less that are more unique was a good call, but they took it too far. The list goes on.
If you say this then act like this in you arguments. Yes, they took it too far as too simple, but the base design is good.
I understand what you say, but every argument what you do here in forum is about change something in Mass Effect to be more like in RPG. Now is there single thing in Mass Effect what you would leave out of RPG style? You don't even seem to accept TPS combat side as it is, but demand changes to there what are more RPG like. Is that true? Also some RPG elements has negative effect to TPS side too, even without direct connections.
I think, you still think that Mass Effects is full blood RPG. I have allways seen Mass Effect serie as hybrid, but also more fast paged cinematic action game than just RPG with shooter combat. Meaning some RPG elements what you want for ME3, are breaking that cinematic impression, because they are statical or slow.
I don't my self like first person shooters at all, but I'm fine with TPS gameplay. Why? Because fast based action range combat doesn't really work well in RPG combat systems. RPG combat system fits better in tactical and close combat situations.
Yes, I understand what ME2 is lacking as you do too and what ME3 needs more and I agree many of you view points, but not all of them. I agree that ME3 need more RPG. It's just question how it's done where our disagreement exist and this all is comming from out different view point to look the Mass Effect series as what it really is. You view point is too much ME1 and my is maybe too much ME2 (not the too simplifying stuff, but base design).
Maybe we should argue as look more close to game details, than this abstract arguments, because it's possible that we aren't so far in our opinions as we think.
Possible details as what is fine in ME2 and what need to be change to ME3 and how?
1. TPS combat system
In my opinion ME2 did well in this, it need little bit expanding and fixing. Maybe add over heat system in heavy fire rate weapons, like machine guns, assult riffle and some heavy weapons. Also the looting clips should be more realistic, like from bodies. Also I would like smaller target cross. Also DLC "items" should not unbalance main game.
2. Inventory vs research
ME2 did well here too, base idea in here is fine, like finding new technology and turn it to "items". This really cuted off the dublicated and junk items from game what ME1 was full off. Not much to improve here than just add more variety as more different kind of "items".
3. Exploration (vehicle & planets)
In my opinion ME1 did this better. The planet terrain was not so good in many mission for Mako, but Mako it self was fine. Also in ME1 main mission Mako worked fine. Hammerhead was also fine in ME2, but feeled little like some arcade game. ME2 planet mining system was total crap. Exploration need to be in planet surface and players need reason to search someting.
4. Weapon customation and moding
ME2 weapons, because they are "better", feeled better and are different enough. Then add more of them with weapon mods possibility from ME1. Meaning you should be able little customize weapons too as adjust it to some direction or add/expand some feature.
5. Armor customation and moding
ME2 Shepard was fine, maybe moding was little too light weighted and too few base armor choises in main game. How ever, this customation should be in all characters, not just for Shepard. Also armors should be only when combat areas. In places where is no combat, characters should use casual cloths or military uniforms. Customized by style and colors. Modding should be strong enough for player to feel it inside the game.
6. Character progression linear or parallel
Linear progression doesn't really fit well in Mass Effect series, because Shepards background story. So, I suggest more parallel way, meaning Shapard doesn't come so much stronger with skills, powers, items and so on, but playing more increase variety of choises for player. Meaning you learn new ways to do stuff. ME2 progression was too limited (simple) and ME1 progresson was too linear.
7. Impression details
In this my opinion ME1 did better. Sometimes small details like elevator or shuttle entrace or interview with npcs reporter, can increase impression of game world to be alive. How ever, sometimes it did not much matter what you did choose, because end result was allways same. Also sometimes choosing something totally surprice what Shepard sayed, it wasn't what player thinked the choise was.
8. Character skills and powers
Both games sucked in this. ME1 was illusion, just choose few what you needed and you could ignore most other skills. Also ME1 skills and talent system totally destroyed TPS combat side balance. In ME2 they cut most skills off and all not combat related, what created very simple power system. This isn't good, player need more powers and skill, but also so that they have some gameplay meaning. Also turning ammo mods to powers, wasn't so good thing. It's handy, but also limits ammo mods from other classes and make non bionic classes feel like bionic, when it's power. (Impression).
9. Dialog system
I don't have much to say on this, both games worked fine here. I did like more ME2 side, because paragon system, but some others seem to like more persuade system. It's more a taste. Why I liked ME2 system better? Because it can cause something negative to happen to player because dialog choises from past. ME1 system provided 100% positive result every time.
10. Companion interactions
In my opinion ME1 and ME2 wasn't so good at this. I would actually let this comes from DAO, where companions did they back ground talking more activily. How ever, I don't want too much banter, just enough to keep illusion of companions to be alive. Game focus should never become simulatiting relationships, but as adventure of story. Too much focus in compantion can turn the focus of the game. Like sex, romantic and so on. They should be very small side events, not to become main focus. After player has played, player should remember the main story highlights, not how love they where with some companions.
11. Story and theme
ME1 was better here. ME2 story was too much about companions and too little weight in main story. As for other story aspect as heretic of pass events, I don't really care. Is story new or continue old ones, it has no real meaning for me. How ever, as ME3 will be last of serie, I would suggest end the open questions.
So where we have biggest disagreements?
Did I forgot something important?
Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:18 .
Retour en haut
