411 réponses à ce sujet

[JedTed]

I support the idea of a SINGLE skill to dictate your ability to charm or intimidate but only if it's part of a seperate trait pool. I don't like having to sacrifice my combat abilities in order to boost my speech skill(one of the things i hated about Fallout 3).

[GodWood]

I support deeper RPG elements.

[Terror_K]

@Phaelducan: It fits the basic definition... just. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying it doesn't do it very well and thus fails to properly fuction. I'm sure others will claim the same about ME1, but the difference there (IMO) is that it doesn't fail, but merely succeeds in a rather clumsy manner. It still manages to make the progression and mechanics (mostly) work like they should in an RPG, which is where ME2 fails. ME1 may stumble around to get from A to B, but ME2 doesn't even really try and falls flat on it's face by oversimplifying everything to the point where you almost may as well not even have what's left there.

Lumikki wrote...

You have this idea what RPG is and you can't get pass this idelogy. Like every game has to have sertain aspect of RPG to be RPG. I don't think so, because RPG can be created many ways. Thats' where our disagreement comes. I can accept that not all RPG aspect (features) exist in every (hybrid) RPG.

Again, you miss the point. Not all RPG aspects need to be there, but if you're going to have the basic ones you at least need to make them work properly. There are certain basic principles you need to get right at the simplest level when it comes to RPG mechanics, and ME2 fails that entirely through its oversimplification and shallowness. They can't even get progression right, which is the most basic RPG principle there is. The whole system is too automated and too focussed on just letting players have their cake and eat it too that it utterly fails from the get-go. Without trade-offs and limitations the very point of choices, consequences and proper RPG progression is nullified, and you need it even more in your gameplay design than in your narrative.

Also I don't like you view point and mocking of ME2 allmost every time you comment something. You say you don't want ME to go more traditional direction of RPG, but everytime you suggest something, it's exactly what you want. It's conflict in you general message.

I do want ME to go more traditional with its RPG mechanics though... after ME2 came along. I just don't want it go go all the way. That's why almost every suggestion is more akin to heading towards the game becoming a deeper RPG: because ME2 took it too far away from that. I don't want ME3 to be 100% RPG because that's not what Mass Effect is supposed to be and not what I want from the series. I just want to get it closer to the 50% mark that ME1 had than the 10% mark that ME2 had. Of course when something goes too far I'm going to want to pull it back, but that doesn't mean I want to pull it back even further than I believe it is supposed to go.

[Lumikki]

@Terror_K

But ME2 has all basic RPG features. What you say is, they aren't good enough. Because you want them to be more like in traditional RPG. That's problem. You say RPG can be different in hybrid, but you don't allow any RPG feature be simplifyed. Even if story of ME doesn't even really support of some features at all.

What I mean the main character what we play is "God" like from start of ME1, best of the best. Character progression by character development doesn't fit in ME story at all. Only customation what does fit is technology based development and that's about items and customation of items.

So, character development can be simplified, because it fits in story better. What ME2 did miss was enough technology based item modification and development.

When you people get that ME serie doesn't have this basic rat to God character development in it's story. Like Kotor and DAO has, both of them main character starts as noob and becomes strong hero. Most of basic RPG stories have it, but ME story doesn't have it, that's why it doesn't fit in it. You are trying to force some RPG feature in full power in the ME what doesn't fit in it. Same problem what ME1 had. All ME1 problems comes from this, tring to force RPG features what did not fit into the story and style, that caused gameplay experience to be worst.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:15 .

[Phaelducan]

@Phaelducan: It fits the basic definition... just. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying it doesn't do it very well and thus fails to properly fuction. I'm sure others will claim the same about ME1, but the difference there (IMO) is that it doesn't fail, but merely succeeds in a rather clumsy manner. It still manages to make the progression and mechanics (mostly) work like they should in an RPG, which is where ME2 fails. ME1 may stumble around to get from A to B, but ME2 doesn't even really try and falls flat on it's face by oversimplifying everything to the point where you almost may as well not even have what's left there.



I think you are trolling, but what the heck, I'll bite. What RPG element *specifically* does ME2 fail at. No general statements, no vague descriptions, but specifically what element does ME2 fail to implement well, or in a shallow manner.



I state that ME2 has deeper RPG elements than many current and recent mass-market pure RPG games.



If your only rebuttal to that is that "ME1 doesn't really fail, it just sucks at succeeding" then this is a pointless discussion.

[Gleym]

Do tell me, Lumikki, what those 'basic RPG features' are in ME2. Cause if it's just 'Pick this skill to increase your damage', then God of War, Devil May Cry and other such games are RPGs by that definition.

Also, what's with this continued, ridiculous misconception that 'Shepard is god-like'. He's part of Earth's special forces (which, last I knew, Earth was the buttmonkey of the universe who barely survived extinction at the hands of Turians thanks to the Council intervening), and elligible for Spectre status, at the start of ME1. That doesn't mean he's God-like. It means he's 'a pretty damned good soldier given his military tenure'. Shepard isn't 'God-like' in the slightest. He's still a Rookie Spectre, even, regardless of his achievements.

Modifié par Gleym, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:16 .

[Terror_K]

@Lumikki



I disagree with your assessment of ME1. ME1's issues were because the RPG aspects were handled in a clumsy way, not because they didn't fit. About the only exception was the "cone of death" mechanic with the weapons, and that's something I have no issue with disappearing.



But just because Shepard is awesome doesn't mean he/she is awesome at everything. Great with weapons, sure... and that's covered in the disappearance of the aforementioned cone. But aside from the fact that getting better and gaining levels and skills is purely a gameplay mechanic and doesn't really need to relate to the narrative at all, if one still has classes and abilities and skills they need to be well-defined and have their own limitations and aspects that define them. In ME2 all we have is a bunch of all-combat skills that basically are only really different ways of Shepard killing things.



Shepard is supposed to be awesome, but an awesome soldier doesn't necessarily mean an awesome biotic, awesome diplomat, awesome tech expert, etc. The problem with Shepard being a Master of All Trades is that it's taken away the very basis of proper and defined class design, and it's just pandering to all the modern gamers who want to have their cake and eat it too with no limitations, and who whine whenever they can't open something because they don't have the tech ability to do so or whine because they can't talk an NPC into getting what they want because they didn't invest in making Shepard a good persuader. So ME2 just throws any semblance of balance and limitations out the window and just allows you to do everything with every character without restraint to pander to this mindset, and now we have a completely shallow and lacking progression system that completely defeats the very purpose of having defined and differentiated classes in the first place. As is stands you may as well do away with them and simply allow players to just spend points on getting whatever the hell powers they want from the entire pool without restriction.

[Lumikki]

@Gleym

Player character Shepard is hero from start of the game. In basic RPG story, player starts as noob and become hero. That's the different between RPG basic story and ME story. Specters aren't noobs, they are best of best. Only best's can become Specter at all.

@Terror_K

I just disagree with you. ME1 problems comes from forcing RPG features so strongly in gameplay, like character progression and it's affects to combat and item side. Also inventory system did make gameplay worst, because developers tryed to have normal RPG inventory system in fluid cinematic style of game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:33 .

[Gleym]

Agreed, Terror_K. If they're gonna oversimplify and strip bare all of the RPG features of the series like they have so far, might as well just drop the RPG label altogether and call it a 'cinematic Shooter with dialog options'. As it stands, Bioshock 2 has more RPG affordability than ME2 does; at least there you're limited on your selection and can't do everything.

And Lumikki, again you seem to have a strange misconception of Shepard being a God: At the start of ME1, Shepard isn't even a Spectre yet. He's ELLIGIBLE. That means 'potential candidate'. Hell, technically, Shepard FAILS his initiation and only gets the rank due to politics. Also, just so you know, not all RPGs start you off as a 'noob' character. That you think this, and believe that because Shepard is a seasoned soldier means that there's no reason for Shepard to adhere to such a basic principle of RPGs, shows how little you actually know about RPGs.

Modifié par Gleym, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:22 .

[Lumikki]

@Gleym, insulting me doesn't make your point any more valid, so just disagree, but keep it polite.

[Terror_K]

Phaelducan wrote...

I think you are trolling, but what the heck, I'll bite. What RPG element *specifically* does ME2 fail at. No general statements, no vague descriptions, but specifically what element does ME2 fail to implement well, or in a shallow manner.

I state that ME2 has deeper RPG elements than many current and recent mass-market pure RPG games.

If your only rebuttal to that is that "ME1 doesn't really fail, it just sucks at succeeding" then this is a pointless discussion.

It fails at defining classes and basic progression. See my response to Lumikki for how and why.

In ME1 you at least needed to spend points (or go through new game+ a bunch of times) to be good at persuading at the expense of more combat-oriented skills. To use decryption and hacking you needed to invest points in the appropriate skill. In ME2 Shepard is just automatically good, no matter the class.

Half the elements from ME1 are either gone or completely automated in ME2. We have a horrid linear upgrade system that just allows us to upgrade everything to the max with absolutely no trade-offs or limitations, essentially God-modding everything with barely any effort from the player. In ME1 I at least got to (and had to) choose how I wanted to upgrade and mod my weapons, or which omni-tools or biotic amps I wanted to use. In ME2 I don't get the choice at all, it's simply upgrade or not, and when it's so damn easy to just set the research/upgrade terminal to just upgrade everything, why wouldn't I. This basically eliminates player choice and customisation by doing everything for you. Watch The Simpsons? Ever see the Hank Scorpio episode? If you have, let me just say that I feel like Marge Simpson did in her new automated how when playing ME2.

The paragon/renegade system being self-feeding/reputation-based means I either need to twist my character to have a lot of both if I want to roleplay them beyond pure Renegade or pure Paragon to actually get the options or twist them a bit in ME1 and import them.

Weapons are so few and far between, always in the same place and aren't even moddable any more, offering no customisation at all, let alone stats. They're just another victim of the horrible research/upgrade system, that ensures that what I use and how they progress and when and how I get them is in the same exact boring, tedious and repetitive manner as it was with every other class and every other playthrough.

All these factors mean that I feel that I only really need to a small amount of Shepards it feels, since there's not enough difference any more between them to warrant bringing them all through. My three Vanguards are basically all the same now in ME2, so I may as well just take my favourite and leave the others in ME1. My tech-based classes feel useless now since any class can now do half their job and they've been reduced to being just another combat class in different clothing.

On top of it all the XP given to you is so completely devoid of context or meaning that I don't even know if I'm really earning experience of whether BioWare is just throwing a randomly made-up number at me at the end of every mission.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Player character Shepard is hero from start of the game. In basic RPG story, player starts as noob and become hero. That's the different between RPG basic story and ME story. Specters aren't noobs, they are best of best. Only best's can become Specter at all.

But there are different ways of being the best, and it doesn't automatically mean Shepard should be the best at everything, and that's the problem with ME2.

Even when playing a more standard "peasant to God" style RPG, at the end of it when the player is at max level the Fighter is in a very different place and has very different abilities, skills, strengths and weaknesses than the Mage or the Rogue do. The problem is that Shepard has become the sc-fi equivalent of the Fighter-Mage-Thief without the struggle to get there. Shepard is too good, and thus the whole point of class distiction and individuality has been completely lost.

Generally RPG fans like to play a game through several times and will go, "I want a character strong in battle" in the first playthrough, and then create a new character and maybe go "I want a character who's good at being charismatic" and then perhaps in a third playthrough think, "I'll try more of a support character to achieves his/her goals through mostly non-combat means" etc. ME2 completely throws that out the window because Shepard is just too awesome at everything from the get-go no matter how you make them, because they don't even really need an skillset assosicated with these factors any more and can just do it by playing a silly minigame or talking.

[Gleym]

I wasn't aware that implying you had a limited scope of RPGs and their protagonists was an 'insult', Lumikki. I would rather think that it was a fact on account of you believing that every RPG protagonist starts off as a 'noob', despite there being several games that show otherwise.

Modifié par Gleym, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:45 .

[Phaelducan]

The classes are more defined in ME2 than 1. A Vanguard is almost identical to an Adept in ME1, but vastly different in 2. Same with the other options. ME2 diversifies the classes more.



As to maxing your tree? No you can't. Why would you claim that? With a bonus skill, and even at 30, you aren' t maxed.



Reputation system? If anything the ME2 system is more immersive and more like an RPG than 1. In one, it was a static point system. X check requires Y points and it was pass/fail. In 2, you are rewarded for playing a certain way in that you get points based on your actions. If you RP a paragon, you get more paragon. If you RP renegade, you get those points. How is that a devolvement?



Weapons? Seriously, in ME1 there were fewer total gun types than in ME2. In ME1 you got your four types, which depending on your class really means one or two. Even worse when you bring math in and everyone wants to use pistols. So grats, Spectre VII or X and choose your type. ALL those awesome manufacturers and different types were grossly sub-par to purchased weapons available near the start of the game.



At least in ME2 your weapon choices mean something. You get your loadout, and are stuck with it. You don't have 80 guns in your backpack, and 140 mods. You get your loadout, grats and good luck. Again, an improvement in the RP convention. A soldier carrying 6 tons of gear breaks immersion and is silly.



Upgrades? You have to mine resources and allocate them. How is that not a RP element? Almost every RPG out there now has SOME sort of crafting mechanic. In ME1 you just bought the best guns with no effort, whereas in ME2 you have to find rare gun upgrades and then research them. Again, improvement in the mechanic.



Modular upgrades? Yeah, those were nice in ME1. 2 Medical Exoskeletons X was awesome... and again silly. Redundant upgrades wouldn't work, and breaks immersion. All ME2 does is take those modular upgrades and makes them universal once researched.



As to each playthrough being the same? I fundamentally disagree. Credits are rare in ME2, which is a HUGE improvement in RP for me as it makes me choose upgrades carefully. Yeah, you can eventually buy pretty much everything once you do ALL of the DLC and quests, but if you are playing an infiltrator you are going to prioritize certain upgrades first, as you don't need the same things an Adept does.



All the things you are stating as mechanical regressions... I really don't get it. I loved ME1, but the inventory system was a PITA at best and an unrealistic waste of time at worst. The decryption/electronics requirement for crates? Why is that a problem? It's the old DND issue that ONLY thieves can pick locks, regardless of whether or not the PC could have spent 40 years as a locksmith. Oh sorry, you aren't a thief, so you can't make the check. That's a bad RP convention, and always has been (kudos to Oblivion for skill-based rather than class based).



Look, I get it that everyone has different opinions, but with terminology like "RP Conventions" we are talking about a 25 year evolution of the genre and the mechanics. There is a reason why things moved past Kotor's persuade checks... because it was effing annoying having a Scoundrel with an 18 charisma and maxed persuade failing DC 10 checks.



What you prefer is fine and valid, and that's why we have nostalgia, but it's not accurate to portray the game itself as failing to implement subjective and vague criteria (btw more kudos to the person who referenced Torment). Was ME2 perfect? No, no game is. Was it one of the best games of the last 3 years? Absolutely, and the sales, reviews, and ongoing community interest back that up.



I compare it to Fable 3, or FFXIII, and I can't with a straight face compare them. ME2 out-RPG's most RPG's.

[Lumikki]

Gleym wrote...

I wasn't aware that implying you had a limited scope of RPGs and their protagonists was an 'insult', Lumikki. I would rather think that it was a fact on account of you believing that every RPG protagonist starts off as a 'noob', despite there being several games that show otherwise.

Most RPG's progression is linear from noob to hero. Of course there is allways exceptions in all cases.

I have played RPG's for many year, allmost 20, they are my favour playing style. But i'm not blind and think it's perfect how it's done. Too much has been herited from table top RPG's and that doesn't allways really work well in computer games.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 décembre 2010 - 12:53 .

[Phaelducan]

Even in the context of an RPG protagonist being a veteran versus a noob, gameplay mechanics usually force the protagonist to start at a "noobish" state otherwise the game is boring.



I think back to Betrayal of Krondor, which has you control numerous "powerful" characters, but you still start with low skill percentages which increase thoughout gameplay.



I can't think of very many RPG's that have you start with a powerful hero who stays powerful past the prologue or intro.

[catabuca]

catabuca wrote...

I've suggested a system similar to the armour locker in Shep's cabin. We had a weapons locker in the armoury that was utterly redundant, since you got to choose your load-out before each mission anyway. The weapon could get selected, and then you get sliders for each 'slot' (magazine, barrel, sights - or their futuristic sci-fi equivalent etc.) that allow you to choose which mod you want to use. Sure, there are plenty of other ways the same can be achieved, but it keeps to the familar and simplified design already in ME2 and just brings it to another area of the game. There could be a couple of 'base model' weapons of each type, that are upgradable via mods, and then some truly unique weapons that have in-built mods that can't be changed (just as the current armour system works). That gives players who like modding the option to, and those who just want to grab an awesome gun and go that option too.

I agree more information on what the mods/weapons/armour actually does (i.e.stats) is sorely needed as well. A simple graphic on the left of the screen or at the bottom underneath the weapon description is all that's needed in that regard.

Rather going back to having 10 versions of the same type of mod, each only slightly better than the previous, each mod could be unique, with different properties, and the fun comes in choosing which combinations to use together on each weapon. It could be coupled with an upgrade system similar to the one we already have that somehow improves a weapon's overall performance in stages throughout the game (to avoid the possibility of resorting to grinding in order to get all the good mods early on, thereby upgrading your weapon to its absolute best before you're even 1/4 way through the game). I'm not sure that would work in practice though (I've no experience whatsoever in designing for rpgs). Perhaps the overall performance could still be handled in the weapon locker rather than the science upgrade facility.

Just quoting myself, because I've made this suggestion in a couple of other threads but have never (that I've seen) gotten any feedback on it. I'm happy to hear if everyone thinks it's rubbish and won't have a hissy fit.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Phaelducan wrote...

Reputation system? If anything the ME2 system is more immersive and more like an RPG than 1. In one, it was a static point system. X check requires Y points and it was pass/fail. In 2, you are rewarded for playing a certain way in that you get points based on your actions. If you RP a paragon, you get more paragon. If you RP renegade, you get those points. How is that a devolvement?

Because it's a devolvement. You are paragon or not, you don't become one over time. In case you didn't know, alloting points in rpgs means that you get better at something as in real life, and as in real life, you can't be good at everything. I'm not a better persuader because I show myself over time as a more paragon person while I never changed, you're a better persuader when you practice rhethorics and that is a SKILL that has nothing to do with morality. ME2 fails big time on being more immersive and realistic than 1 as well as more of an rpg.

And you guys seem to go by the definition of western rpgs which is frankly, very broad. First of all, the dialog/cinematic type of thing of ME1/ME2 is mostly a Bioware thing, or western RPG thing, if you look at other rpgs like the Japanese ones, you'd realise a lot of your "core elements which the game doesn't need all of them" are almost non-existent. Basically, what Final Fantasy VII and Mass Effect 2 have the most in common is your character's skills progressing over time, but while ME2... no ME1 allows you to put skill point after killing enough enemies yourself, it's all automated in FFVII. It's automated, but your character still grows and still stays within his specialisation. In ME2, you can't even put skill points! These are not skills but abilities.

The core element of rpgs is character progression, it's not about choice, not about character talking and such, these are only lesser elements which can make an rpg richer, but the very essential core to every rpg is character progression or stats for short. If you're not agreeing on this, you're telling me that the biggest thing some rpgs have in common may be elements which are present in pretty much every other type of games with main protagonists. And that certainly can't be right, have you played a shooter where you can't shoot? I haven't played an RPG without character progression. If you're telling me the core thing about rpgs is to "role play", well The Sims would be an RPG, any action adventure game and even shooters. You play a role in any game, and shooters like Far Cry 2 lets you customize your character by choosing him and from the countless of different weapons which may drastically change your gameplay, it lets you play a role in a sandbox design too. And again, most JRPGs don't let you even have choices beyond the "which characters will I take with me or with type of sword and/or magic I'm going to bring with me.

Taking this into consideration, yes ME2 fails spectacularly in having decent RPG elements. No matter how you want ME games to be, they were designed as an RPG/TPS hyprid, if they or you don't care about the core rpg elements, why not drop the whole **** and make a TPS with interactive cutscenes. Hell, an element I consider important to RPGs is doing quests from characters, something ME2 dumbed down A LOT. And no, missions are not quests, the loyalty missions are not real quest as they teleport you in an area designed as a shooter mission with few interactive pieces here and there where all you have to do is to shoot your way through, this is not a quest.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Gleym wrote...

I wasn't aware that implying you had a limited scope of RPGs and their protagonists was an 'insult', Lumikki. I would rather think that it was a fact on account of you believing that every RPG protagonist starts off as a 'noob', despite there being several games that show otherwise.

Most RPG's progression is linear from noob to hero. Of course there is allways exceptions in all cases.

I have played RPG's for many year, allmost 20, they are my favour playing style. But i'm not blind and think it's perfect how it's done. Too much has been herited from table top RPG's and that doesn't allways really work well in computer games.

How do you think video game RPGs were designed? It's not for no reason they share the same name. Yes, you can make some modifications and refinements, but if you're scrapping the core elements out, it's no longer an rpg.

[Lumikki]

So, RPG what means role-playing game can't be done without character progression from noob to hero? I mean I'm unable play role in computer games without it?



Are you saying RPG is and can only be traditional RPG.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Well you don't necessarily need to be a total noob. What do you mean by traditional? I mean, the point of rpgs is character progression, kind of like shooting in shooters and driving in race games, what makes any of them more "traditional" than others? You can refine the game elements, but as long as the core ones remain, that would be the difference between modern and "traditional" (or old-school) ones. Because really, you take out player progression and leave everything in the hands of the player, and the game could be an action/adventure, a shooter, etc. A game to fit within a genre needs a predominant and important elements of the genre. Again, you can't just "play a role", you do that in every game and plenty of non-rpg ones have some more depth about it.

[enerqy]

It goes without saying, that you put a lotta work into this! Good work! I wish someone amalgamated all the (best) changes, and see what the fan ME3 would like. Being realistic; of course.

[JediMB]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I mean, the point of rpgs is character progression

Really, the point of most games is progression. The feeling that you have guided your character to become more powerful is a very satisfying one, and it's an excellent tool to keep the player interested in the game... alongside the story and other game elements.

Take an old FPS like Doom, and it still had this kind of progression, but in the form of acquiring more powerful weapons and better armor. Heck, the game even got rid of all your weapons between episodes, since it would be terribly unsatisfying to play through two thirds of the game with all (or most) weapons already in your possession.

[Evil Johnny 666]

JediMB wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I mean, the point of rpgs is character progression

Really, the point of most games is progression. The feeling that you have guided your character to become more powerful is a very satisfying one, and it's an excellent tool to keep the player interested in the game... alongside the story and other game elements.

Take an old FPS like Doom, and it still had this kind of progression, but in the form of acquiring more powerful weapons and better armor. Heck, the game even got rid of all your weapons between episodes, since it would be terribly unsatisfying to play through two thirds of the game with all (or most) weapons already in your possession.

Yes, but with rpgs it's character stats which isn't the case with shooters and other games. It was poorly worded, sorry.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 04 décembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[khevan]

I posted this in antoher thread, but I'll repost it here because it's pertinant to the current discussion.

Shepard is an N7 Alliance marine, the highest classification of special forces marine that the Alliance navy has. At the start of ME1, he can't even hit the broadside of the proverbial barn. How does this make sense?

Having some form of statistical progression is important for an RPG, this I fully agree with. HOW it's implemented, however, is a different story. In the Mass Effect universe, it should have been done with some form of upgrade system, where for example, Adepts start the game with a bioamp that allows them to use only a couple of powers, and during the game they can get better (and more expensive, which is why the Alliance didn't pay for 'em in the first place...) bioamps that allow them to use more and more powerful powers. Same with Engineers, etc. Their omni-tools only have the memory to store a couple of powers, but as they get better omnitools...well, you get the idea. In and among this, however, should be some system of a persuasion check, or at least points or something that goes back to something more akin to ME1. ME2's persuasion system was schizophrenic, confusing, and limiting to a degree that I disagree with.

If done correctly, and obviously my idea above was a very rough idea, this type of system would give just as much character progression as a character level/skill system, if not more, and would make more logical sense from the perspective of Shepard is a highly skilled, very deadly killer...but can't aim a sniper rifle until halfway through the game.

But like I said in the other thread, I also realize that this is a gameplay mechanic. So, while it makes me facepalm at times, and there's a definate WTFactor, I realize it's a gameplay mechanic, and I dismiss it as such so I can get on with the story.

Give me a "traditional" rpg with the "noob" to "God" routine, and I'm all for a level-up system with skill points, and all of that. I just think in Mass Effect it's silly, and the same thing could be done more realistically. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree, since this is a subjective subject anyways.

Edit: formatting

Modifié par khevan, 04 décembre 2010 - 04:56 .