I think the changes made in ME2 were acceptable. Just looking at two of the things that have been common to all RPGs, which were given complete facelifts in ME2:
1) Attribute/Skill point allocation. I think people liked having to choose between investing points in a new skill v. improving an old one v. just making the character better all around. ME2 took a axe to this and cut out a lot of the superfluous stuff.
My only complaint is that they went overboard in this regard, but overall I think it's a good step in the right direction that newer RPGs should take. Take a generic RPG for example, where you have a mage character. You level up, and get to choose which attributes to increase...but is there really a point in doing this? You're obviously going to pick the ones that increase your mana/spellpower/whatever, so what is really the purpose behind this mechanic? (besides meeting item requirements for equiping, but that's another issue entirely, and can addressed in different ways)
Similarly, there are so many games out there that have spells/abilities nobody ever uses or invests in. Cutting down the number of these abilities is, overall, a good idea. When people buy a game, they want to pop the cd in and start playing, not spend 30 minutes reading the description for things and trying to decide what they want to get, how to get it, etc., and then kick themselves 5 hours into the game for doing the wrong thing because they understandibly don't understand how the game works before they play it, and having a first character which is unplayable.
2. Inventory Management -- The system used with permanent upgrades was great, now that I think about it. My only complaint is that you would get a weapon, or armor, and stick with the same one for the entire game. There was little point in changing or switching the weapons you had (not to mention you rarely even had the opportunity to change the weapons equipped). One of the things common to a lot of RPGs, I think, is that you can choose different equipment for different scenarios. This option was severely lacking in ME2, resulting in a more FPS-type experience at the expense of an RPG-feeling. There wasn't a situation in ME2 where you thought "oh, I'm facing this type of enemy, I should equip this rifle instead of what I'm currently using". Even in ME1 you at least had the option of switching weapon mods to transition from blasting geth to blasting organics. In ME2 it turned into "I need to bring this character in my party because s/he has abilities that counter X". It's great that the game sort of forced you to play with all the different characters, but I personally like to do playthroughs with the same groups of different NPCs (im sure i'm not alone in this)
To go into an example of another game, The Witcher, I disappointed to learn how you were basically stuck with the same armor for huge portions of the game--it makes you feel that you aren't playing towards anything (the story is there but there is a satisfaction of knowing that after you complete xyz quest and defeat difficult abc boss, you get cool new item)-- then had the choice near the end to upgrade your armor...but not in line necessarily with what you wanted your armor to be, but in line with your gameplay choices were. That isn't such a great idea. I was initially also turned off at the weapon progression in that game but I eventually warmed to it, as it makes the system less confusing and more manageable, since there were few weapons you could get but you could modify your core ones. I would characterize the weapon progression system in that game to be inbetween what ME1 and ME2's were, and I think it's actually superior to either game's.
Now there's probably a plethora of gameplay data companies like Bioware have collected to study how players actually do inventory management, and I would surmise a guess that this data shows the overwhelming majority of players get a new item, equip it, wait until something better comes along and then they sell their old item and equip the new one. I doubt the majority of players do any sort of advanced inventory management, which makes the upgrade system in ME2 a reasonable step toward actually catering how people play games. But the system shouldn't detract from what has been intrinsic aspects of RPG-play by removing player choice from the game entirely.
These two things all boil down to customization. Players of RPGs like to customize their character, to make a unique avatar-type thing of themselves. I don't think what Bioware did with ME2 detracted from this in significant ways. With a little tweaking they could easily design a system where a player would feel he had a high level of customization (even if it is just having a few same armors/weapons, getting upgrades to improve their function, and having mod slots to alter how those armor/weapons work and/or look), thereby keeping elements of what has come to be seen as traditional elements of RPG-play while allowing ME to be what ME is.
Modifié par Lukertin, 02 novembre 2010 - 08:58 .
Retour en haut
