344 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

@ Everyone



If progression is so limited, and playstyle so forced upon the player, how is it that the strategy forums have new spins on how to play the classes ALL THE TIME?

[Myplane150]

What is the best way to contact Bioware regarding negative and positve comments?  I have a few things I would like to say to them.  Thanks

[SmokePants]

ME1's gameplay was a haphazard mess. BioWare was trying to pull off action -- they just weren't any good at it. With ME2, they looked more closely at games that actually work and it paid off for them.

[Terror_K]

Veex wrote...

This doesn't feel like an accurate representation to me. Nothing about Mass Effect's original inventory was complex, nor deep. It doesn't take any semblance of intelligence to sort through large quantities of the same items. It was tedious, shallow, and time consuming. If that is what passes for "deep" RPG mechanics these days than I'm personally happy BioWare did away with them.

Mass Effect 2's inventory is as simple as Mass Effect's, it simply removed  hundreds of items that had marginal stat differences and performed exactly the same. Do I agree that Mass Effect 2 would benefit from a greater selection of weapon and armor options? I do. I'd also like to see the modification system make a comeback in some fashion. But to say that either game's inventory was more or less complex seems inaccurate in my opinion. One simply requires you to push "sell" or "omni-gel" more often.

I think you kind of missed what I meant though. What I was saying is that ME1's inventory was overly complex for what it was, by making the player trudge through too much just to do the simplest thing, while ME2's went too far in the other direction by not giving them enough. With ME2 there's far too little options and no real customisation outside of armour colour really. There's not enough varied items, there's no real choice and there's no real customisation or modding at all. The guns are too few and always in the same places making the game the same item-wise every time, everything is far too easy to obtain and the research/upgrade system is linear and shallow allowing everything to be upgraded and God-modded too easily with no trade-offs or real choices (because they aren't really choices at all without trade-offs).

Simply put: ME1 had the player doing too much to get results, while ME2 doesn't let the player do enough, and decides to do most of the work for them. One is tedious because you have to do a lot of sorting and scrolling and clicking to get results, but at least you can get results. The other is tedious because you basically just let it do it all itself and never really get to play with anything or make it your own and it's the same in every playthrough no matter what class you are and how you play.

I think you've placed some over emphasis on RPG's being more "hard" or "complex" than they really are. The things that differentiate Mass Effect from a game like Call of Duty or Halo is the ability to shape your character with branching dialogue and story options coupled with a cinematic presentation. Not having a tedious inventory, as an example, might make Mass Effect more similar to Halo or Call of Duty, but it is certainly still more BioWare than "generic shooter."

Again, if  taking time to sort through and organize an inventory is what makes Mass Effect less "simple" than "generic shooters" I am very pleased we've gotten rid of the feature.

Again, I think you're mixing up my use of the term "complexity" here. I don't mean complexity in that they're hard or really complicated. I mean that they're simply not simple games and require the player to put some effort into building their character and choosing their skills and items carefully. I'm talking about the game having more elements and depth to it, not necessarily being hard to grasp, but simply not just being a "run around and kill things" fest and little more.

And you talk like having an inventory means that you have to have it like it was in ME1, as many ME2 supporters do. An inventory doesn't automatically mean having to have tedious sorting and clumsy menu systems, and there are plenty of games that have had better ones. Besides, it's more the loss of player customisation, trade-offs and choice that went the way of the dodo with ME2 than it is the actual inventory. Had the weapons/loadout system remained as it was in ME2 and simply had more options, more items and actual proper mods and modding then it would have been okay. The problem is in throwing out the inventory they threw out the aspects that actually made it worthwhile in the process and either never brought them back or turned them so much on autopilot that they're just not fun and it defeats the purpose of even having them.

I think that gamers are more diverse than you give them credit. When a series is being labled as an "Action/RPG" hybrid and it's shooting mechanics are overly RPG (meaning statistical points for weapon skills etc), it didn't hit the mark. When that series alleviates said discrpency, implements true shooter mechanics alongside it's RPG elements, it seems to more accurately fit it's label. It has nothing to do with the game being more or less simple, complex, or mainstream. It has to do with it being, for a lot of people, more fun.

I somehwat agree, but I actually think it's game developers who are more guilty of this than I am. They see where the money is and basically go, "let's make it as close to that as possible!" rather than actually making it to suit varied tastes and make the game it should be made. Developers don't have to keep trying to make their games the same action-oriented brown mush as everybody else, but they're choosing to. ME2 didn't need to be dumbed down, but the devs chose to do it.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Inventory barely existed in ME2. It was no deeper than collecting guns or powerups in a shooter like Quake III or Unreal Tournament, but that's another matter.[/quote]
Loot,then ? 

[quote]What I mean is the practice of making complexity simple. With ME1 the inventory was over complex for what it was. ME2 on the other hand was overly simple. Complexity and depth in games --especially RPGs-- is a good thing, but to make it work well you have to try and make it so the complex aspects are as simple as possible, so that you make them easy to use but still maintain their depth and functionality in the process.[/quote]
There's still an inventory and you can still upgrade your weapons by researching, ME offered basically the same concept, but in a much more complex version.

The problem is one can be too simple and take away what made the aspect good and fun in the first place by doing so. It's fine to take the overly tedious and unnecessary stuff out, but when you start taking away customisation, choice and variation in the process and let everything do itself too much it just becomes tedious and dull, especially when you end up making things linear and samey in the process.[/quote]
ME1 was more fun? For whom exactly? You can't have the make the majority die from boredom in order to satisfy the 'hardcore' minority.

I'll use an example I've used before for this: The Hank Scorpio episode of The Simpsons where the family moves town so that Homer can work with Scorpio. There's a few scenes in that where Marge Simpson is at home and wants to do housework, but the house just automatically cleans and takes care of itself, which leads to her just sitting there drinking wine. That's what ME2 feels like to me: they've taken away so much control, options and variations by automating things and cutting out the middle man that I just feel left out and want to do stuff but can't. Everything is too simple, too linear and/or on autopilot too much, it just doesn't feel interesting or rewarding, especially when in every playthrough everything ends up being the same in the same way with the only exception being my Shepard's face and what colour their armour is.

[quote]
It's not that these are bad games, it's that they're generic and rather simple games, [/quote]
OK, in that case let's include ARMA I and II since they fit your definition. It's much more complex than ME1.

[QUOTE]and they're also not the type of game that Mass Effect is supposed to be. I enjoy a bit of CoD, Unreal Tournament, Quake III, Team Fortress 2 and even Gears of War now and then myself, but I don't want every game that I play and every game that comes out to be like that. That's no what Mass Effect started as and not the audience it was originally aimed at and not the type of game it should be. It's not about good or bad, it's about what is best for the game and what it's supposed to be. Mass Effect is an action RPG, that just happens to have TPS combat. It's not supposed to be that simple and generic, and the original game was more than the sum of its parts. These games aren't all bad games, but they're different from Mass Effect and should stay that way. [/QUOTE]
ME2 is a generic and mainstream shooter then, where do you base that, and how was ME1 any different ?

[quote]And on top of that, there are more than enough of them out there as it is. Too many games are the same these days and it's only getting worse, and for Mass Effect to start heading down the same path is not a step in the right direction and not innovative or fresh. The mainstream gamer of today already has millions of titles catering to them, so why do the few titles that were still made for more niche audiences have to go down the same overtravelled road?[/quote]
Excuse me, but even adventures have been more innovative in their evolution than RPGs. There are more similiarities that modern traditional RPGs have with board games and the first CRPGs than differences. At least shooters have evolved since Doom.

[quote]
I'm not saying it was a bad game, I'm saying it was a bad sequel and a bad RPG. Reviewers liked it because they probably weren't judging it on being a sequel and expecting as much from it as I was, so they reviewed it like they'd review any game, not caring about labels or prior expectations (not to mention the fact that reviewers hand out 9's and 10's far too easily these days). Gamers liked it because it was more like the type of games today's modern gamers like, just like I said above. It's more like a shooter, it's more simple and it's more like all the other big titles out there today, and that's the "in thing" at the moment because gaming is more mainstream than it was a decade ago. It's as simple as that.[/quote]
Assumptions in bold, ME1 wasn't less mainstream or a better RPG because it's shooter component was badly done, and I don't see how ME2 is a bad RPG as long as it fulfills the role that an RPG has. Except if you suggest that recycling feautures makes an RPG.

[quote]As for the final comment, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some BioWare employees who actually felt the same why I do, but have to keep quiet and just go along with it. I've seen devs on the Dragon Age forums even say that they'd like to create more hard core RPGs than they are, but that the market simply isn't going for those things right now and they have to make games for where the market is going. So there may be some Mass Effect devs out there who would prefer to make a deeper, more complex game, but they have make what the "market wants" or something.[/quote]
Where did you get that?

[quote]I find it extremely difficult to believe that ME2 was the natural evolution of ME1, especially given early videos. It just doesn't gel with me, and I'm almost certain that it was purposefully retooled part the way through to appeal to a greater audience and branch out more. The devs pretty much said as much when criticised at the old board shortly after E3 when concerns were raised about it being too much of a shooter, but still tried to claim that ME2 was still a strong RPG. So, who can really say whether ME2 was really the devs "expressing their personalities" or not? I personally don't think it was, and am convinced that they simply made ME2 like they did for profit and popularity reasons more than they truly wanted to make it. If ME2 was really supposed to be how the Mass Effect games were meant to be, then it would have started that way. Otherwise why would ME1 contain so many RPG elements and complex factors that are simply gone from ME2? Wouldn't they just have made ME1 like ME2 from the start since it's a far simpler game if that's what it was meant to be?
[/quote]
1) I have been playing RPGs for some time, and you probably have done the same. I think that ME2 is a strong RPG, please convince me that it isn't.
2) I really don't see how copy/pasting elements that have been going on for two decades expresses one's personality.

[SmokePants]

Action games are incredibly complicated and precise machines under the hood. That's why RPG mechanics that tweaks some of those carefully calibrated properties do more to hurt the experience than help it.

RPG's originated on pen and paper. They are designed in such a way that a pair of die can simulate anything. But when you have a good computer combat simulation going, like ME2 has, those RPG mechanics become counterproductive.

The problem is compounded when we consider that RPG customization leads to broken, overpowered, or pointless options at a far greater rate than they deliver fair, balanced options. There is so much junk in RPG's; it's ridiculous.

Modifié par SmokePants, 19 décembre 2010 - 11:17 .

[Veex]

Terror_K wrote...

With ME2 there's far too little options and no real customisation outside of armour colour really. There's not enough varied items, there's no real choice and there's no real customisation or modding at all. The guns are too few and always in the same places making the game the same item-wise every time, everything is far too easy to obtain and the research/upgrade system is linear and shallow allowing everything to be upgraded and God-modded too easily with no trade-offs or real choices (because they aren't really choices at all without trade-offs).

Simply put: ME1 had the player doing too much to get results, while ME2 doesn't let the player do enough, and decides to do most of the work for them. One is tedious because you have to do a lot of sorting and scrolling and clicking to get results, but at least you can get results. The other is tedious because you basically just let it do it all itself and never really get to play with anything or make it your own and it's the same in every playthrough no matter what class you are and how you play.

In my opinion there are just as many options in Mass Effect 2 as there are in Mass Effect 1. The only thing Mass Effect does is give you hundreds of nearly identical items to sift through. Shotguns all behave the same, sniper rifles behave the same, etc... What Mass Effect 1 does is allow you to moddify those weapons to your liking, what Mass Effect 2 does is provide you with weapons that actually have differences from the jump. I do agree that this reduces player input, and as I mentioned I would like to see modding again in ME3, but finding the same weapons in the same places exists in the first as well. You're just finding a much larger quantity of items.

I do agree that a little more ownership of the modification and upgrade aspect would have been nice, but I think you're operating on the illusion that armor and weapons in the first weren't simply reskins of the same item with different color schemes. As I said before, a more robust selection of weapons and armor would be nice - with the ability to add modifications to those items, but I prefer the ME2 system more than the original's.

Terror_K wrote...

And you talk like having an inventory means that you have to have it like it was in ME1, as many ME2 supporters do. An inventory doesn't automatically mean having to have tedious sorting and clumsy menu systems, and there are plenty of games that have had better ones.

I completely agree, but if I'm forced to choose between a tedious and clumsy system or a streamlined and condensed system I'm going to take the second every time. A happy medium would be great, and maybe BioWare will find that medium in ME3, but I'll take the lesser of two evils each and every time in this regard.

Terror_K wrote...

I somehwat agree, but I actually think it's game developers who are more guilty of this than I am. They see where the money is and basically go, "let's make it as close to that as possible!" rather than actually making it to suit varied tastes and make the game it should be made. Developers don't have to keep trying to make their games the same action-oriented brown mush as everybody else, but they're choosing to. ME2 didn't need to be dumbed down, but the devs chose to do it.

Yes, developers want to make money. BioWare didn't make the same brown mush to achieve that goal. This kind of reductionist criticism is why I hate the term clone. Mass Effect 2 isn't dumbed down because the original was never more complex to play. I know we RPG gamers like to think we're a breed apart but customizing a character and managing an inventory don't add complexity nor depth. They're, when done like ME1, timesinks. The combat may be different, but the presentation and core of the experience is intact. I can understand your opinion as I know many people really emphasize the tenants of an RPG being inventories, customization, and stat based combat,  however; in this case I think the most important aspects remained.

[ak4115]

Basically, you can play ME2 as a shooter, but its a very primitive shooter compared to a real RPG / FPS hybrid like Borderlands. PPL playing the streamlined ME experience don't get the gameplay mechanics really , all they just see is overlapping skills, and nothing really useful.
Or,
You can take your magnifying glass , and look for RPG elements, and choose your allies accordingly. Im playing with a force feedback controller now, its very difficult to shoot, cause everytime I get hit, the servomotor lets me know, so its difficult to shoot, leave it at that . But I use my allies more often and chosse my actions differently. This way I can play Mass Effect like an RPG. And its very good.

My problem is the lack of dynamic lightning. This is a huge problem, makes birds eye "tactical screen" irrelevant, cuz it won't look good (ape minigame anyone? ) .

By the way I am not concerned about Mass Effect and its lore anymore, with the release of Crysis2 and Cryengine3 , maybe its time for the community to make squad games, maybe we can use Star Control2 lore instead . Hahah. Maybe the crysis2 invaders are Ur-Quan , who knows. But I sure know if I hear the word ur-quan suddenly I dont **** care about ^^reapers^^ anymore. Hahah.

Modifié par ak4115, 20 décembre 2010 - 05:08 .

[Terror_K]

Veex wrote...

In my opinion there are just as many options in Mass Effect 2 as there are in Mass Effect 1. The only thing Mass Effect does is give you hundreds of nearly identical items to sift through. Shotguns all behave the same, sniper rifles behave the same, etc... What Mass Effect 1 does is allow you to moddify those weapons to your liking, what Mass Effect 2 does is provide you with weapons that actually have differences from the jump. I do agree that this reduces player input, and as I mentioned I would like to see modding again in ME3, but finding the same weapons in the same places exists in the first as well. You're just finding a much larger quantity of items.

I do agree that a little more ownership of the modification and upgrade aspect would have been nice, but I think you're operating on the illusion that armor and weapons in the first weren't simply reskins of the same item with different color schemes. As I said before, a more robust selection of weapons and armor would be nice - with the ability to add modifications to those items, but I prefer the ME2 system more than the original's.

Sorry, but I still don't feel there are anywhere near the same amount of actual options. They're not really options when they're inevitables that happen the same way and manner in every playthrough almost automatically.

For starters, there's no real non-combat skills to choose any more, just combat abilities and they don't really illustrate or truly define your character as they're not particularly diverse and just about hurting enemies and that's all. Compare this to ME1 that had armour classes tied to a skill, first aid, hacking, decryption, charm, intimidate, etc.

On top of that we've got a small selection of weapons that are all always in the same places and pretty much can't not be collected. We've got no modding whatsover for them meaning they stay the same. There's no weapon progression at all, just weapons. Sure, there's the linear research/upgrade system, but it has no trade-offs and thus no real choices: every player in every game will just upgrade everything to the max.

Armour comes in pieces which is nice, and is customisable which is also nice, but can't be modded and doesn't even actually protect you any more.

Omni-tools and biotic amps are a thing of the past and not even in the game beyond a couple of upgrades in that same unsatisfying research/upgrade system that just lets you God mod anything and everything without even paying attention. As long as you have the resources it's just click and research without even paying attention, and it's so damn easy to get loads of resources, especially after LotSB.

The main issue that plagues the entire system is that the player never has to pick and choose and is never forced to build things right or make any proper choices or decisions with the equipment, and the research/upgrade system is the most guilty of this sin.

Now, I realise that ME1 was kind of broken and unbalanced too, but it could have worked had the items been tweaked to be better. The problem with ME1 was that in most cases the next best item was better across the board, so one never had to make a choice and decide things like "do I want more damage, more shield bypass or better head management?" and things like that. Had the weapons been more varied and had more emphasis on specific strengths and weaknesses then it would have been fine. ME2 didn't even try for that approach at all and simply went with a small selection of weapons that just feel different with no statistical values whatsoever.

ME2 just feels the same every playthrough when it comes to items and just runs too much on autopilot by doing the work for you and not giving you any real choice and not giving you trade-offs and variation. It basically puts everything in a bucket and instead of limiting you by saying "you have only so many choices to make with this stuff, so choose wisely" it just goes "here, have everything and use it all every time!"

As I've said before, if I'm a driver who likes driving his car I'm not going to like it when my car is taken away and I'm forced to take a taxi everywhere that never lets me choose how I get there and is the same journey every time. That's not satisfying, it's boring.

They're both flawed in opposite ways: ME1 was tedious because it made you do too much to get so little. ME2 is tedious because it just does it all for you and it never really feels like you're doing the work or making any significant choices or input.

[Lumikki]

SmokePants wrote...

Action games are incredibly complicated and precise machines under the hood. That's why RPG mechanics that tweaks some of those carefully calibrated properties do more to hurt the experience than help it.

RPG's originated on pen and paper. They are designed in such a way that a pair of die can simulate anything. But when you have a good computer combat simulation going, like ME2 has, those RPG mechanics become counterproductive.

The problem is compounded when we consider that RPG customization leads to broken, overpowered, or pointless options at a far greater rate than they deliver fair, balanced options. There is so much junk in RPG's; it's ridiculous.

I agree, at least most what you say. I don't mean every RPG feature does this, because some of them can improve cinematic simulations too. But some features are like you sayed totally opposite what the simulation of game tries to do, it hurt more than make it better. I usually call it change of focus or direction. Meaning when you put this "wrong" kind of feature very strongly in game, the focus as what the game really is also change with it. It's not allways just the feature, but also how the feature is done.

I my self, want to keep the fluid cinematic impression style what Mass Effect has, but some features just doesn't support that well, they do the opposite. I think the reason why we argue about these stuff is that we players have different image in our mind as what Mass Effect serie should be, based our personal need and taste of games. So, puting too strongly some features can hurt the style what game has, it's like change of direction, new focus as how game works as in total picture. I mean like how much gameplay time player is using to do something in game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[Vena_86]

double post fail

Modifié par Vena_86, 20 décembre 2010 - 08:30 .

[Vena_86]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

@ Everyone

If progression is so limited, and playstyle so forced upon the player, how is it that the strategy forums have new spins on how to play the classes ALL THE TIME?

This.

Playing the game with a certain class and certain "strategy" from beginning to end has nothing to do with progression. That's just grinding. And the amount of intuitive options you have, during the game are still very limited.
Also, having one exclusive power for every class can hardly be considered a completely different experience, most powers are still copies, for you and for your team.
ME2 just shows how much you can achieve with very little diversity. Now add some more diversity and it will have a great impact.

Modifié par Vena_86, 20 décembre 2010 - 08:30 .

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Anyone else feel like this thread has run its course?

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

There's still an inventory and you can still upgrade your weapons by researching, ME offered basically the same concept, but in a much more complex version.

Yes, but the research isn't really customising at all, it's a completely linear system that ends up with the same thing happening in every playthrough with little to no attention from the player needed. There are no trade-offs and no real choice, and no modding at all. No matter what class you are and what style you play with, every single game of ME2 is going to be the same in this regard.

ME1 was more fun? For whom exactly? You can't have the make the majority die from boredom in order to satisfy the 'hardcore' minority.

Fun is a point of view. I've played ME1 completely through dozens of times in dozens of different ways. I've only played ME2 completely through three times, and I find it hard to stomach it any more than that because I just find the linearity, lack of variation and customisation and the fact that nothing really changes that much between playthroughs tedious and samey.

OK, in that case let's include ARMA I and II since they fit your definition. It's much more complex than ME1.

They're more tactical warfare games than the standard ilk though. They're more like military simulations than fast-paced, action-oriented shooters. And they're nowhere near as popular as any of the CoD, Gears or Halo games.

ME2 is a generic and mainstream shooter then, where do you base that, and how was ME1 any different ?

I never said that, I simply said that ME2 was more of one than ME1 and seemed to be heading more in that direction. ME1 had stats governing even one's ability to shoot for one thing, and didn't make players rely on some kind of ammo, nor did it have the current shooter trend of super regenerating health. The overall style and presentation is also more bombastic, modern and aimed at a different, younger audience. It's split into levels via "Mission Complete" markers like an action game.

Those are just a few examples. The main point is, almost all of the changed elements were altered to something more akin and more common to modern day shooter titles. Which is why I scoff so much whenever people call ME2 "innovative" or "fresh" or anything like that. Almost every change made it more like every second action game out there today, and few things were things I'd call fresh or innovative at all. Using TPS combat that's already in things like Gears of War, Army of Two and Kane and Lynch isn't fresh, while how many other games used TPS combat tied to stats? Regenerating health is in every other shooter these days, so is ammo reliance. So are "Mission Complete" screens. So are red veins and a heartbeat across the screen when you're near death. About the only thing ME2 did that was innovative were interrupts, and they were something that was initially supposed to be in ME1 but never made the cut. Everything else that was added has been done to death lately, and often better.

Excuse me, but even adventures have been more innovative in their evolution than RPGs. There are more similiarities that modern traditional RPGs have with board games and the first CRPGs than differences. At least shooters have evolved since Doom.

And how, exactly, is simply making the game more of a shooter "innovative" and "evolution" exactly? These days many of the mechanics ME2 added are older and more tired than standard RPG ones. Not so much due to the age of the mechanics, but due to the saturation of shooters on the market. ME2's weapons system is no more complex or deep than collecting guns in Doom. At least with ME1 you had a selection that was varied, randomised and had different stats, strengths and weaknesses, as well as modding capabilities. It didn't quite pull it off to its full potential admittedly, but it was still there.

Assumptions in bold, ME1 wasn't less mainstream or a better RPG because it's shooter component was badly done, and I don't see how ME2 is a bad RPG as long as it fulfills the role that an RPG has. Except if you suggest that recycling feautures makes an RPG.

I see. So games like Two Worlds and Gothic 3 are both good RPGs merely because they "fulfill the role that an RPG has" then? As long as you fit the description then you can't do it poorly, is that what you're saying?
 

1) I have been playing RPGs for some time, and you probably have done the same. I think that ME2 is a strong RPG, please convince me that it isn't.
2) I really don't see how copy/pasting elements that have been going on for two decades expresses one's personality.

I doubt I can really convince you, but what I will do is quote something I said waaaay back on the DA2 forums about ME2:-

-----

Both were always hybrids rather than pure RPGs or pure shooters, but ME1 had the balance better. ME2 weighted far too much on the shooter side and cut out or down far too many RPG elements. They took stats away from items, reduced the items entirely and made them completely linear and basically a shooter-based weapon system, they removed armour classes, they removed armour actually acting like armour, they removed omni-tools and biotic amps, they removed weapon and armour modding and replaced it with a linear upgrade system with no penalties or trade-offs meaning every character can easily upgrade everything without having to pick and choose (essentially allowing players to have their cake and eat it too), they cut the class skills in half (making less possible builds for each class), removed skill determining weapon capability, removed pretty much all non-combat skills, removed hacking, electonics and decryption skills determining ability to unlock or decrypt things, removed first aid, cut the persuasion skills into one and merged it with a combat skill, made XP completely meaningless by giving a set amount after every mission no matter how the mission is done (how do we know the XP is even real and not just an arbritrary number now?), removed different ways of completing a mission beyond Paragon/Renegade dialogue at the end, made most of the levels a linear line from A to B, took away planet exploration entirely, etc.

Now, whether one thinks these things were an improvement is a matter of opinion, but the fact that it did happen is an out-and-out fact. And I just can't help but see parallels between what's happening here with DA2 and what happened with ME2.

-----

As for Number 2, BioWare's past record and style express their personality to me. I find it hard to believe that absolutely everybody in BioWare have gone from fantasy, sci fi and RPG-loving nerds to clones of Cliffy B and Michael Bay who think Call of Duty is the epitome of intelligent gaming excellence.

Modifié par Terror_K, 20 décembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[Terror_K]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Anyone else feel like this thread has run its course?

Well, with the weekend close to over in Edmonton, I'd actually be curious to see if any devs come back in and respond to anything from the weekend posts. Unlikely, I know... but they have at least been somewhat active in this topic, which has been a rarity lately.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

True, I was quite surprised. I just meant though it seems to have gone from a thread about the devs listening, to a more generic 'why ME2 was good/bad and why' thread.



Just my $0.02

[Lumikki]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Both were always hybrids rather than pure RPGs or pure shooters, but ME1 had the balance better. [/quote]
Based fully opinion what is the good balance, what is based what player wants from game.

[quote]ME2 weighted far too much on the shooter side and cut out or down far too many RPG elements.[/quote]
Maybe, but some of the RPG elements needed to be cut too, because they made the non RPG side worst.

[quote]They took stats away from items, [/quote]
I agree as visuality, they are now hidden, but doesn't really make much different are they there or not.

[quote]reduced the items entirely[/quote]
This was really good thing, we got rid of illusion of items and now have items what really feels different.

[quote]and made them completely linear[/quote]
I disagre, they made them feel different.

[quote]and basically a shooter-based weapon system[/quote]
I agree, but Mass Effect TPS is shooter combat, so of course shooter-based weapon system is A LOT better choise.

[quote], they removed armour classes, [/quote]
Yes and no, there is still some classes, but they where now in DLC. But I agree, this wasn't best choise.

[quote]they removed armour actually acting like armour[/quote]
Yes and no, armors act like armor still, but without choises you can't really feel it. Also shooter combat isn't about armor as ability stand middle of battle field, like RPG combat is.

[quote], they removed omni-tools and biotic amps[/quote]
Yes, they did, not good choises, I agree. Because more variety is often better.

[quote], they removed weapon and armour modding[/quote]
Yes, they did it mostly, really bad move from developers.

[quote]and replaced it with a linear upgrade system with no penalties or trade-offs meaning every character can easily upgrade everything without having to pick and choose (essentially allowing players to have their cake and eat it too)[/quote]
This is where we disagree, not as what you say, but how you see it. The above this comment is what they removed, this removing will cause the feel of linearity as consequence, because without choise what was removed, there is no trade-off. Point is, you blame wrong target.

[quote], they cut the class skills in half (making less possible builds for each class),[/quote]
Yes, but the class skills wheren't that good in ME1 in first place. Almost half of them was useless. I do agree this needs alot of improvement from developers.

[quote]removed skill determining weapon capability[/quote]
This was must to do. This is what cause major problems in ME1 and ****ed hole combat system.
Meaning TPS is player skill not character skill. Mixing them is bad choise.

[quote], removed pretty much all non-combat skills[/quote]
Yeah, I would like too some non-combat skills.

[quote], removed hacking[/quote]
No they did not, they just changed how it worked. From skill based to fully player based. Assuming we talk same hacking, because there was many of them.

[quote], electonics and decryption skills determining ability to unlock or decrypt things[/quote]
Consequence of making someone to player skill. Good or bad hard to say, I ques opinion what player likes. I maybe agree with you as some skills could be better to be as character at least skills what aren't fully combat related.

[quote], removed first aid[/quote]
Oh, so important skill

[quote], cut the persuasion skills into one and merged it with a combat skill[/quote]
No they did not do this. They did remove persuation skill, but they did not merge it to anything. There is no persuation in ME2 at all, just reputation system. Persuation is skill what affects directly as skill to result of dialogs. Reputation is something where your past choise and actions affects result of dialogs. Persuation skil has no past affect at all, it's situation moment based.

Example to make you understand the difference better.

Shepard meets sister and brother. Shepard shoot the brother. (Don't assume they are met sametime)
Now how the sister reacts to this situation:

1. Persuation skill: Shooting the brother has zero affect the sisters behavior. (There is no past, just skill)
2. Reputation system: Shooting the brother affects sister behavior, but how it's question. (There is no persuation, just affect of reputation, as past what has been done)

My point is that even if ME2 system isn't really that good, because it's just moral reputation, it's still better than persuation skill, because it's actually calculating players past actions and choises. So ME2 is in correct direction on design, just too black and white, like limited ways..

[quote], made XP completely meaningless by giving a set amount after every mission no matter how the mission is done (how do we know the XP is even real and not just an arbritrary number now?)[/quote]
Has abolute zero meaning as XP is 100% useless. Progression is needed, not some matematic numbers floting around.

[quote], removed different ways of completing a mission beyond Paragon/Renegade dialogue at the end,[/quote]
No they did not, they just changed that scenes doesn't come anything else than paragon/renegade reputations. I do how ever agree, that it was too one way or other, but they did not remove other choises. You self did that by you gameplay. Nothing removed you possibility choose the middle neutral dialog choise in right side.

[quote]made most of the levels a linear line from A to B[/quote]
This is allmost same as it's in all story based games, including ME1.

[quote], took away planet exploration entirely, [/quote]
I agree, bad choise because it did give some variety to gameplay.

[quote]Now, whether one thinks these things were an improvement is a matter of opinion, but the fact that it did happen is an out-and-out fact. And I just can't help but see parallels between what's happening here with DA2 and what happened with ME2.[/quote]
As for DA2 , yes there is some similarity, but the style is different. They wanted DA to be more actions and limited some choises, because visuality. I did not personally like the direction they did, but that doesn't mean it's not gonna be really good game. They still keeped it more RPG than ME serie ever was.

How about now you Terror_K would list what developers did ADD in ME2, what wasn't in ME1? Are you able to do that?

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2010 - 12:25 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

nelly21 wrote...

@ Bourne

How is that any different than Saren? Saren didn't want to be a slave of the Reapers. He did it because he thought it was the only way to save organic life. He gave himself up to the Reapers to try and prove the worth of organic life. He even denies being indoctrinated until the end and if you make the right dialogue choices, he tries to kill himself to gain a little bit of redemption back.

The point is, we already had a tragic figure antagonist in this series (two if you count Benezia). How would adding another one move the story forward?

I would have perceived this as obviously, evident, not. The entire basis of my story concept is a sympathetic villain. Saren sought to serve the Reapers, to prove the value of organic servitude. The revelation his mind was partially still his own removed even a fragment of redemption in his character. We pitied him for the coward he truly was; incapable of rising against the Reapers. He readily surrendered until the conclusion. The General would have been the opposite, seeking to rid his tragic fate, to rebel against his imprisonment and be allowed to finally die. Their motivations are in complete contrast. Saren gave in the General would struggle. Saren campaigned against Shepard, while the General would subtly aid Shepard. How you deprive no difference in their characters escapes me.

Benezia was largely wasted potential and admittedly, where I base the initial angle I portrayed the General in. By her lonesome, she cannot be classified beyond an underutilized hurdle. If you are similar with Final Fantasy, she was a poor man’s Rufus, which is saying something.

Furthermore, giving such characteristics to Collector General would go against what we learned about the Collectors. Mordin explains it. They are not living things any more. They are tools. They have no culture, no personal will, no society. They exist to serve the Reapers. Why would the Reapers allow one Collector to be repentant and try to sabotage their plans when they can easily replace it with thousands of others?

Coincidently, you just described the Geth until the recruitment of Legion. They were believed to not possess individual thought, nor functionality beyond a primitive AI. Legion disregarded this theory in an instance. His entire as whole is contrast to the evidence. Moreover, therein lays the qualm for Mordin. His conclusion is based upon limitation of facts. The game is frequent in its assurance the Collectors are an enigmatic. In actuality, there is partial indication the General does garner personality when Harbinger disregards him as a failure, albeit the significance is up for debate. One could argue against the aforementioned. The Reapers could not be aware a portion of whatever he had been remains, not unlike Benezia’s, who retained a fragment of herself. Perhaps, it is discovered and he is subsequently destroyed or mutated further. The latter would be a superior foe than Baby-Reaperminator. We could have learned about the Prothens, albeit while not in any way necessary, I find would have been interesting.

As for the invasion of Earth, remember two things: One, the Normandy is the most highly advanced ship in the galaxy. Two, the Collectors were building a Reaper. We do not know whether they needed to invade Earth in order to build the Reaper or whether Earth would be the intial target of the new Reaper. It would seem likely that the Reaper was intended to be used in the invasion of Earth. Otherwise, why even bother starting with smaller isolated pockets of non-Alliance colonies? And as we saw in the first game, a single Reaper was more than capable of destroying an Alliance fleet.

The Normandy SR-1, while technological the most advanced ship in the galaxy, was considered inferior in close range combat to a standard Dreadnaught. Despite this, it was capable of destroying Sovereign once its shields fell. Using this knowledge, we can surmise there is a high probability the Collector Ship would be destroyed with minimal damage to any fleet with a Dreadnaught. This is further bolstered by the fact a non-upgraded Normandy can still destroy the Collector Ship. Even in the invasion of the Citadel, it require a legion of Geth ships and Sovereign to finally decimate the Destiny Ascension. The Collector Ship is not even a fraction of the strength Sovereign was and would be annihilated.

Given the nature of the Collectors it is a nigh guarantee Earth would be their target, otherwise finalizing Arnold would be impossible. EDI confirms this, albeit it is only through probable speculation if they would invade Earth. Thus, I reiterate the aforementioned. The Collectors would be destroyed.

You see my point? I would have been unhappy with your storyline. But if you were the creator of the Mass Effect series, would that give me the right to say you aren't listening to me? Or would you say, "Our game is more popular than it's ever been, the overwhelming majority of people liked it. I'm going to deliver the story they already like"? Bioware and their writers delivered a sequel in the trilogy designed to expand on the universe without resolving the entire conflict. They succeeded in that respect. The story cannot cater to everyone. Bioware is going to write the story they want towrite and hope it is popular with fans. So far, it has been tremendously popular. Take a look at the VGAs. I defy anyone to point out another game that got a bigger pop from the crowd than ME 3. This tells me Mass Effect's story has hooked enough people to keep it among the most anticipated titles of 2011. One quick look at next year's releases will tell you just how much of an accomplishment that is.

No, I do not, primarily due to the fact I have not technically claimed Bioware is not listening to me or any of us. You position is essentially a straw man’s argument. “They like it, so deal with it!” I imagine film directors are less than pleased to watch some schmuck blatantly and mercilessly criticize their movie, yet we pay people to perform such a task. I am fully aware Bioware will commence forward with their own design, but voicing my complaints serves the possibility of a slight alternation in the objective. If enough people fault the storyline, it may see a centralized villain, for example. If we say nothing, it assures nothing will be changed. Is it delusional, perhaps. We shall see soon enough. Multiplayer will be a large component in the "does Bioware listen to their fanbase" argument because it is not been received kindly.

Onward, you are incorrect. The storyline is widely considered the weakest part of Mass Effect 2 if online discussion is thought the consensus. We cannot determine the opinions of fans that do not have a voice. Therefore, minority or not, the storyline is generally perceived as inferior to the predecessor and arguably at times perceived as ordinary or run of the mill. Of course, this is not factoring in the Recruitment or Loyalty missions, which are superiorly praised.

Please do not insinuate people screaming at an award ceremony are the definition of good main plot. I love Mass Effect 2, nay, adore the game, yet am here criticizing what I believe was a poor aspect. You seem incapable of comprehending someone can both love and be critical of something. Everyone on this forum would have screamed for Mass Effect 3, yet many are still adamantly debating Multiplayer, often citing it a potential death to the series if implemented in ME3.

Furthermore, people scream at these events and I guarantee you an entire salary Mass Effect’s fanbase would be considered a quick echo if Blacks Ops was being released at the same time. That is not a shot towards Bioware, since I believe them to superior development. Their fanbase is just not remotely as large as Call of Duty’s. Lastly, sales depict Mass Effect 2 did not widely outsell Mass Effect and reviews indicate not even a whole point separates the two in popularity. Therefore, while you believe it means people are hooked, I could easily make an argument fans of Mass Effect bought Mass Effect 2 on a blind buy. You know, akin to Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Halo, and more or less any franchise. Not that I necessarily believe the latter, just highlighting the ease one could make an argument of it.

In any event, I wished to defend my position and had not realized this thread continued. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree in the end.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 20 décembre 2010 - 02:00 .

[lumen11]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Furthermore, people scream at these events and I guarantee you an entire salary Mass Effect’s fanbase would be considered a quick echo if Blacks Ops was being released at the same time. That is not a shot towards Bioware, since I believe them to superior development. Their fanbase is just not remotely as large as Call of Duty’s. Lastly, sales depict Mass Effect 2 did not widely outsell Mass Effect and reviews indicate not even a whole point separates the two in popularity. Therefore, while you believe it means people are hooked, I could easily make an argument fans of Mass Effect bought Mass Effect 2 on a blind buy. You know, akin to Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Halo, and more or less any franchise. Not that I necessarily believe the latter, just highlighting the ease one could make an argument of it.

you certainly make a valid point, but don't forget that a sequel has to be substantially better than the original to achieve similar ratings, let alone better ratings.

[PSUHammer]

Stanley Woo wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

So basically most arguments here come down to

a.) If they made the changes I wanted they listen to their fans
b.) If they made changes I didn't want then they are a horrible company that doesn't listen to their fans.

Yes. that seems to be the crux of it, based only on the arguments presented in this very thread. Some great examples are given on this very page as well. Most people are aware of their biases, some are not, and that's fine, since we still take it all into account when developing our games.

And, this whole RPG game argument from some folks is unfounded.  The doctors have said in interviews since ME1 that it was designed as an RPG/Shooter hybrid from the start.  Why some people think that a game has to solely be an RPG is beyond me.  I love the duality of this franchise...makes it unique and fun.

[PSUHammer]

lumen11 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Furthermore, people scream at these events and I guarantee you an entire salary Mass Effect’s fanbase would be considered a quick echo if Blacks Ops was being released at the same time. That is not a shot towards Bioware, since I believe them to superior development. Their fanbase is just not remotely as large as Call of Duty’s. Lastly, sales depict Mass Effect 2 did not widely outsell Mass Effect and reviews indicate not even a whole point separates the two in popularity. Therefore, while you believe it means people are hooked, I could easily make an argument fans of Mass Effect bought Mass Effect 2 on a blind buy. You know, akin to Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Halo, and more or less any franchise. Not that I necessarily believe the latter, just highlighting the ease one could make an argument of it.

you certainly make a valid point, but don't forget that a sequel has to be substantially better than the original to achieve similar ratings, let alone better ratings.

THat is true...and if you read reviews (Metacritic, etc.) you will find that most reviewers found ME2 to be a superior successor.  

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

removed different ways of completing a mission beyond Paragon/Renegade dialogue at the end,

No they did not, they just changed that scenes doesn't come anything else than paragon/renegade reputations. I do how ever agree, that it was too one way or other, but they did not remove other choises. You self did that by you gameplay.

Actually I think you misunderstood here. What I meant was that there were usually alternate paths to completing missions and several ways of doing them in ME1. Take the garage pass on Noveria for instance: that had about six different ways you could accomplish the task, from really quick and simple to really involved and involving more characters and mini sub-quests. All of them had different outcomes too, which not only saw you gaining the garage pass but also affected other characters such as Anoleis, Gianna Parasini, Opold, Lorik Qui'in, etc. as well. Same goes for how you get to Benezia at Peak 15. Same goes for dealing with the colonists on Feros. In ME2 on the other hand each mission is pretty much handled the same with the same basic outcome, and the only real variation is doing things either the one Paragon or one Renegade way through speaking to people, and that's it. There are no shortcuts, no alternate paths and no real optional quests within quests, etc.

made most of the levels a linear line from A to B

This is allmost same as it's in all story based games, including ME1.

Not at all. ME2 levels were mostly like a one-way snake with next to no branching-off points at all, and you literally tripped over any sidequest stuff. Compare Illium with Miranda's loyalty quest where you just snake around in one direction and trip over a trinket and salarian data along the way that's not even subtley hidden but is just there on your little one-way path to Feros where there were at least three whole optional areas you could just completely miss if you chose to that contained sidequest-related things off the beaten path. Same goes with Virmire (where it wasn't until about my seventh or eighth playthrough that I found the second group of salarian prisoners). Noveria was the same too if you did things the quick way. With ME2 it's just a narrow path you just follow and it pretty much never deviates or branches off. Not only does this lead to less variation, but it makes the places feel smaller and more manufactured, ruining immersion and making the entire universe feel small and convenient.

That said, I do believe that BioWare at least listened to these complaints at some point (Yay! Back on topic!) because both Overlord and LotSB seemed to do a far better job at making places feel bigger, more open and branchy and --most importantly-- real. There were a few cases in both those DLC where the areas just seemed more realistically designed and provided more combat options and routes. Sometimes it's more about how well you hide it as much as anything else.

How about now you Terror_K would list what developers did ADD in ME2, what wasn't in ME1? Are you able to do that?

What they added? Do you mean RPG elements, or just in general?

I guess there was basically the following:-

* Armour customisation (though at the expense of it for your crew and at the expense of helmet toggles and one-piece DLC armours)
* Interrupts (probably my personal favourite ME2 addition)
* More varied weapons (though at the expense of a good selection and stats and modding, etc. DLC kind of fixed the former, but there really needed to be that many in the vanilla game from the start)
* Civvie customisation (though too few options, half of which are Cerberus-themed ones. Need a modified .ini file to make it decent personally)
* Squaddies not drying up conversation quite as fast (except for Garrus it seems, who seems to have less to say than he did in ME1).
* Normandy customisation (which I like, but see as essentially "fluff" that wasn't necessary, as fun as it was. Simply put, devs should have focused more time and effort on more important things).
* Scanning minigame (which I don't actually hate as much as most people, funnily enough).
* Gathering minerals being actually useful.
* The research/upgrade system (the concept I actually like, but the execution is poor, IMO).
* Fuel and probes (I don't really like these though. They're more of a time sink that adds nothing than anything in ME1 was, IMO. I kind of see what they were going for, but don't think they pulled it off).
* N7 Missions (More varied than their ME1 equivalent, but they lack polish and depth, are often gimmicky, aren't as fleshed out and don't feel as important as ME1's UNC missions. No substitute for real exploration. If more attention had been given to them and they lost the "cheap DLC that's actually vanilla content" feel then I wouldn't be adverse to more appearing.)
* The Hammerhead (but I think The Mako is just better. I do love the main Overlord hub area though. Both also DLC too, so... don't fully count).
* Emails.. I guess.
* Kelly and more Normandy crew to chat with in general.
* The character face code (shame it doesn't work with ME1 imports though, which makes it kind of useless to me, since it's the only way I play).
* The item replication system (which I actually do like. Saves me getting loads of the weapon I want).
* Illium car chase in LotSB (loved that to bits! Though it is DLC, so maybe that shouldn't count).
* Vaulting over cover. (not really an RPG element, but I like it. However, I wish they hadn't tied it and two other things to the same key. I've got dozens of keys on my keyboard after all.)
* Respec options (don't really use them, but it's handy they're there).
* The facial scar thing (Which I actually hate to bits, but it's technically an added element, and sort of an RPG one, considering titles like KotOR and Fable have had it. Seems to gimmicky and "Modern Hollywood" for my tastes though.)
* Loyalty outfits (though if we could actually customise what our crew wore like we could in ME1 we wouldn't really need these. The fact they're mostly just reskins is kind of disappointing too, especially since in 90% of cases I keep them in their original garb anyway).
* Loyalty (though it's too binary. Still better than nothing I suppose).
* Skill Point Split-Off at Forth Tier (funnily enough very close to something I suggested after ME1 came out, because I thought ME1's skill were too much like a single branch and not enough like a tree. But I'd actually meant that they split off earlier and branch onto additional separate skill branches rather than just be a "this or that" thing for the end that actually isn't that diverse. That said, still better than ME1's "straight line only" skills).

Anything I miss? That's all I can think of off the top of my head. There are other things like heavy weapons, thermal clips, regenerating health, etc. too but these are mostly shooter elements and not ones I'm particularly fond of.

Modifié par Terror_K, 20 décembre 2010 - 12:45 .

[glacier1701]

Hammer6767 wrote...

...snip...

And, this whole RPG game argument from some folks is unfounded.  The doctors have said in interviews since ME1 that it was designed as an RPG/Shooter hybrid from the start.  Why some people think that a game has to solely be an RPG is beyond me.  I love the duality of this franchise...makes it unique and fun.

You missed the crux of what is being said. NO-ONE is saying that they want an RPG only Mass Effect. What they want is more RPG elements especially since ME2 took out much of the RPG element that was in ME1 and indeed was, for much of its development, under a NO RPG rule.

Hammer6767 wrote...
...snip...

THat is true...and if you read reviews (Metacritic, etc.) you will find that most reviewers found ME2 to be a superior successor.  

 I've read the reviews and find most of them shallow and lacking in believability that they actually played the game all the way through. Those reviews I do believe in, are for the most part, critical of many things that are in ME2 (and not necessarily the things I disliked either). However as much as people point to reviews (at least non-player ones) you do have to take most of them with a lot of salt since how unbiased can reviewers be when the ads on their sites come from the companies that they write about?  

 Terror_K has in the last few posts been expressing very good points about ME2. It is NOT a bad game even if our posts are negative. What we are saying is that the execution is not up to the normal BioWare standard. It does not help that the changes (whether or not it was intended) make the game more akin to many other games out there. After all if that is the path that all game companies are going down why should they not then all just sit down, decide on a game engine that they will all use, the mechanics that go into the game and then just do different art assets? The things that are being said here to counter Terror do seem to indicate that diversity is BAD and that every game should be the same as every other game. Is that what is really wanted? I doubt that that is the intention of those posters but thats what the arguements end up saying.

 I suspect that much of ME3 is already set in stone and that the changes in it are going to upset many people with many of those being those who liked the ME2 mechanics. What I can say is that, unlike ME2, I will not be pre-ordering ME3 and that BioWare will have a struggle in persuading me that ME3 is a game I should have in my collection.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Anything I miss? That's all I can think of off the top of my head. There are other things like heavy weapons, thermal clips, regenerating health, etc. too but these are mostly shooter elements and not ones I'm particularly fond of.

Oh and ability hit different parts of enemies too. I did example shoot leggs from few robots. ;-)
Yeah, pretty good list there you made.

I agree that ME1 had little more variety inside the missions how it goes, but there was also alot of very linear missions in both games. I'm not sure was all mission variety actual other possibility or just did player find all possibilities, what then affected the outcome as how it did go.