262 réponses à ce sujet

[DrinkySmurf]

I loved both ME1 and ME2, but I did feel like I had been dramatically weakened in ME2, which would be fine, if it had been explained properly, but it wasn't. The RPG aspects that let you build powerhouse characters was exchanged for the more realistic shooter build, fine, but tell me in-game why I used to be able to go toe-to-toe with a colossus or 2 and now cannot please. The explanation for ammo clips bugged me too, it was easy for me to, mid-game make a gun that fired plenty of shots,was super accurate and never overheated if fired correctly. It was so easy to do so, that using ammo feels cumbersome and is vastly inferior.



I am told in the beginning that I am an upgraded Shepard, but I am much weaker than before, they say that ammo guns are better, but they are not. I did find it funny that they at least mentioned the omni-gel removal, which is the only change that made a lot of sense.



I did like the better cover mechanic and the way my allies actually did what I said to (good thing too because they also got a massive downgrade). But I played ME and it was an RPG-shooter, that was what was so fun about it. ME2, has smoother combat, but that is because it is a SHOOTER-rpg. If I have to choose between smooth combat and cool character customization, the character wins every time!

[james1976]

tonnactus wrote...

Frraksurred wrote...


ME2 got the combat right, the diversified squad right

The squad was a joke in all honesty.
And a bad one.
Party members who could only use Two active talents at best for 50 percent of the game (and one of them could be an ammo "talent") are a big joke.
Party members talent cooldown that was increased compared with shepardt,even their special talents.(at least the double amount)
The 30 sec cooldown for the combat drone was my favourite.Really great in a system with global cooldown...
I had to deactivate power usage everytime legion or tali was in the party so they rather use usefull abilities(the drone died far earlier then it was ready to be activated again,so its only usefull on an engineer shepardt)
That made it impossible for me to actually view them as equals.(not like in the first game,where Wrex was actually even superior to a soldier shepardt)
The "best" specialist in the galaxy.I have to laugh.

I agree with you on the talents.  I also feel the same on the skills.  There were far too few skills to advance in ME2.  It was very disappointing.

[james1976]

Turien Rebel wrote...

if they would just add some more skills to the me2 system i think id be OK with it.

Also Give us modular guns with lots of modules or A crap load of different guns. Like borderlands style lots of guns.

While Borderlands got the "looter-shooter-rpg" right it is also a different animal.  I wouldn't compare the two.  ME1 had plenty of loot but Mass Effect itself isn't really that type of game.  But I agree with you on skills and mods and perhaps a good number of guns AND armor to choose from for all party members.   Customization is truely what ME2 lacked.  It felt more like a shooter with dialgue choices.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Hammer6767 wrote...
Why so serious, everyone?  Wasn't it 30+ hours of more fun than you had with most games last year?

No. That's kind of my problem with it, actually. It was a tedious and too-challenging (for my non-shooter-playing talents, granting that I'm sure my experience is far from typical) sequel to one of my favorite games of the decade. It had game mechanics I didn't enjoy, and a story that, while not awful, felt quite disposable. I mean, sure, I've played far worse games, but given my expectations for ME2, it was one of the biggest letdowns in recent memory.

It goes without saying that your mileage may (and probably will) vary. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their fondness for the game, as it's clearly all relative. But the reason that I (and expect many others) have criticized the game is exactly because the game wasn't fun. Or, at bare minimum, wasn't as fun as I had been expecting.

[PSUHammer]

To each his own, I guess. I found it extremely enjoyable, more so than any game released last year. Although, I don't get bogged down in semantics of "RPG this or Shooter that"...I just play the game and if it is fun, great.

People like to micro-analyse too much. Especially on these boards. It is borderline obsessive.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 31 décembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[james1976]

I admit to being obsessed with customizing but that it. I customized my computer by building it myself and I customized my car by having modifications made The lack of customization always bothers me.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Hammer6767 wrote...

To each his own, I guess. I found it extremely enjoyable, more so than any game released last year. Although, I don't get bogged down in semantics of "RPG this or Shooter that"...I just play the game and if it is fun, great.

The thing is, I don't think there are all that many people who are expressing a philosophical issue with the idea that ME2 is "less RPG" than ME1. It's not a holy war, it's question of enjoyment. And there are people out there (myself included) who didn't enjoy ME2 (or, at least, not as much as the original) because we didn't enjoy it. And we didn't enjoy it because it departed from the style of game that we enjoy, as well as the style of game represented by its predecessor.

In other words, the backlash against the game isn't because it's not an RPG. It's because it wasn't as enjoyable (to some, though obviously not all) as the first game, or as they expected it to be. One of the reasons why this is the case is because it jettisoned a number of features that fans of ME1 liked, and which are broadly categorized as "RPG elements." If you like the changes, great. But don't be so condescending to suggest that those of us who don't are more concerned with semantics than with the game's enjoyability. We're not being nitpicky, nor are we being pedantic: the game simply didn't appeal to us, and we're hoping that we'll get more enjoyment out of ME3.

[PSUHammer]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

To each his own, I guess. I found it extremely enjoyable, more so than any game released last year. Although, I don't get bogged down in semantics of "RPG this or Shooter that"...I just play the game and if it is fun, great.

The thing is, I don't think there are all that many people who are expressing a philosophical issue with the idea that ME2 is "less RPG" than ME1. It's not a holy war, it's question of enjoyment. And there are people out there (myself included) who didn't enjoy ME2 (or, at least, not as much as the original) because we didn't enjoy it. And we didn't enjoy it because it departed from the style of game that we enjoy, as well as the style of game represented by its predecessor.

In other words, the backlash against the game isn't because it's not an RPG. It's because it wasn't as enjoyable (to some, though obviously not all) as the first game, or as they expected it to be. One of the reasons why this is the case is because it jettisoned a number of features that fans of ME1 liked, and which are broadly categorized as "RPG elements." If you like the changes, great. But don't be so condescending to suggest that those of us who don't are more concerned with semantics than with the game's enjoyability. We're not being nitpicky, nor are we being pedantic: the game simply didn't appeal to us, and we're hoping that we'll get more enjoyment out of ME3.

I am not being "condescending".  Quite the contrary.  I have seen people repeatedly attacked on this forum for saying they enjoyed the game.  Just because someone disagrees with someone else, does not make them "condescending."  If you don't like the game, that is fine.  Some people make valid points to that extent.

The problem I have is with the vitriol and obsessive nature of some of the people on this forum bashing Bioware and fans that enjoyed the game.  It is obsessive, as I stated.  Some come across so poorly as if they are repeatedly shout and moan at others because their personal needs weren't met by the game. I stand by my observations, above.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 01 janvier 2011 - 03:44 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Hammer6767 wrote...
The problem I have is with the vitriol and obsessive nature of some of the people on this forum bashing Bioware and fans that enjoyed the game.  It is obsessive, as I stated.  Some come across so poorly as if they are repeatedly shout and moan at others because their personal needs weren't met by the game. I stand by my observations, above.

Not all comments need be laudatory: there are people who were legitimately disappointed by the game, and have an interest in discussing how and why this was so, as well as expressing a wish that the third game not repeat what they perceive to be the mistakes of the second. It's absolutely not cool to criticize or attack people for having different opinions, but (while it certainly has happened in the past) I don't see anything really approaching ad hominem attacks on either side here.

What I sort of object to in your earlier message isn't the fact that you liked the game. It's the implied statement behind "I don't get bogged down in semantics of 'RPG this or Shooter that'": that people who didn't enjoy the game were more concerned with semantics than with whether the game was fun. It's a way of casually dismissing the opinions of those who have a different take on the game than yourself: they're bogged down in details and minutae, missing the forest for the trees, etc. What you see as semantic issues are actually very important characteristics of the game for a number of people. Or, in other words, what's a game of semantics to you, with little direct impact on whether or not the game is enjoyable, is exactly the sort of thing that makes the game enjoyable (or not) to other people. It's not that you're wrong and I'm right (or vice versa), or that either of us deserves to be attacked for our opinions: it's that's there are different perspectives, and it's a matter of courtesy to respect each other's opinions even if we don't share them.

That said, I do recognize that this is a minefield of a topic, and that there's been far more vitriol flying around the subject than there should be. So I do want to emphasize again that I don't mean to insult (intentionally or unintentionally) anyone who liked the game despite/because of it's lack of "RPG elements", or anyone who feels that the game was just as much an RPG as ME1. If I disagree, it's because I'm interested in seeing how and why we have differing opinions, not to attack anyone for having those opinions.

[Lumikki]

One of big probem here when people try to talk RPG elements for Mass Effect 3, is that we people here in this forum don't see RPG or Mass Effect serie it self same ways. Bioware is the one who define what Mass Effect serie is and no-one here can do anything about it. How ever, if different people see Mass Effect series style in different ways, we people have different goals. Meaning our values as what's important can vary so much that we don't anymore have common ground for our discussion.

I mean, what I want Mass Effect serie to be, can be so different what someone else want.

You may ask what this has to do with RPG elements?

Some RPG elements support some style while it's agaist some other style. If two people have different goal, they end in disagreement, because they needs is totally agaist others. To actually have solutions to anything, we would need to first define what is Mass Effect style, when it comes to related RPG elements. What's "our" goal here?

Is your purpose to improve RPG elements in Mass Effect 3 so that style of Mass Effect serie will be preserved?
Is your purpose increase RPG elements in Mass Effect 3, because you want more RPG?

There is many ways to reach goal, put what is your goal?

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 janvier 2011 - 08:06 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Really sad to read this thread, even if it's sometimes pretty nice discussion.

First why would anyone here thing that Mass Effect is traditional RPG?

I mean some of you people ask more RPG while you also define that RPG is same as traditional RPG. Do you really understand what you ask and what it means for game like Mass Effect.

All I can say that Mass Effect main STYLE is cinematic game-play. Cinematic game-play here means smooth movie like camera perspective game-play as advancing in the story. It's about not breaking the screenplay for technical game-play or information what doesn't really support the movie like feeling. The RPG part in Mass Effect is about creating players more choices, variety, impression and social connections, so that it's improving the players freedom and impression of living world. Customisation and choices can be made many ways and some traditional RPG features just doesn't make game like Mass Effect better, even how good features they are for traditional RPG. This is because the Mass Effects style is totally different, so these RPG features need to be created so that they support the Mass Effect style.

Unfortunately that RPG part in Mass Effect is bare bones at best. I never felt like having any choices, but having my hand hold most of the time. There's even less dialogue choices in ME2 than in ME1 which was a bit lacking. Hell, I can't really appropriately choose my dialogue options, they're all tied to a particular Shepard character, so I might end up contradicting myself and playing as someone with a personality disorder. And that happened to me quite often when trying to play as I'd do. 

Also, I think you're advancing a bit too much Mass Effect's RPG style, I think some of what you said is how YOU want it. Because really, there wouldn't be all this arguing if it was so obvious in ME1, why is ME2 an almost unrecognizable sequel? Why is it so different? Why so many people are so bothered with it? It's because they liked how ME1 was made despite its faults, it's because ME2 would be similar to ME1 in designed, it's called ME2 after all. I like a cinematic-style type of game from time to time, but there's a cinematic-style type of game and a cinematic-style type of game, it doesn't have to be it all the way through, there's different levels. I liked it in ME1, but in ME2, I felt I was too restricted, I felt I was playing a movie from time to time. You have to admit it, the more you make something movie-like, the more you restrict it, there's no other way around. The less choice you have in the game, the more fluid the experience becomes (like a movie), thing is, ME2 restrict choice way too much. You may want the experience as fluid and cinematic-like as possible, but it doesn't meant the game was originally (as evidenced by the first outing) designed as such. Personally, as flawed as the "traditional" RPG elements of ME1 were, I liked it a lot more than in ME2.

And I find what you view as traditional RPG elements a bit funny seriously. Because, what's a traditional RPG? From what you're saying, it's everything that isn't a modern western RPG. JRPGs since the beginning of their existence, tons of cRPGs and others have elements you qualify as traditional. How can something be traditional if it's still as present as ever and constitute a very big portion of RPGs.

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Also, I think you're advancing a bit too much Mass Effect's RPG style, I think some of what you said is how YOU want it. Because really, there wouldn't be all this arguing if it was so obvious in ME1, why is ME2 an almost unrecognizable sequel? Why is it so different? Why so many people are so bothered with it? It's because they liked how ME1 was made despite its faults, it's because ME2 would be similar to ME1 in designed, it's called ME2 after all. I like a cinematic-style type of game from time to time, but there's a cinematic-style type of game and a cinematic-style type of game, it doesn't have to be it all the way through, there's different levels. I liked it in ME1, but in ME2, I felt I was too restricted, I felt I was playing a movie from time to time. You have to admit it, the more you make something movie-like, the more you restrict it, there's no other way around. The less choice you have in the game, the more fluid the experience becomes (like a movie), thing is, ME2 restrict choice way too much. You may want the experience as fluid and cinematic-like as possible, but it doesn't meant the game was originally (as evidenced by the first outing) designed as such. Personally, as flawed as the "traditional" RPG elements of ME1 were, I liked it a lot more than in ME2.

And I find what you view as traditional RPG elements a bit funny seriously. Because, what's a traditional RPG? From what you're saying, it's everything that isn't a modern western RPG. JRPGs since the beginning of their existence, tons of cRPGs and others have elements you qualify as traditional. How can something be traditional if it's still as present as ever and constitute a very big portion of RPGs.

I rest my case.

Here we see, I (Lumikki) has totally different needs, what "Evil Johnny 666" here want. There is no common ground for discussion when hole consept what we as different people want is so totally different. I mean we end just going circle as trying to show what we want, what is not what other "side" wants. It's disagreement, what can't changed anyway.

As for Traditional RPG, use "Dungeons & Dragons" or most common level based mmorpgs as your example, then you know what I mean.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 janvier 2011 - 08:17 .

[Walker White]

You all know that there is a word for people that make these types of complaints, right? They are called "Grognards". The term is so old that it predates mass-market publication of Dungeons and Dragons.



So the fact that this forum has Grognards is itself an evidence of the RPG elements of the ME series.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...
I rest my case.

Here we see, I (Lumikki) has totally different needs, what "Evil Johnny 666" here want. There is no common ground for discussion when hole consept what we as different people want is so totally different. I mean we end just going circle as trying to show what we want, what is not what other "side" wants. It's disagreement, what can't changed anyway.

As for Traditional RPG, use "Dungeons & Dragons" or most common level based mmorpgs as your example, then you know what I mean.

I'm not sure I get it, I mean, I thought it was obvious. Reading your post I thought I understood you were defining how the ME games should be...

And I don't understand the last bit about traditional RPG either. Like I said, every RPG type of games except modern western ones seems to fit in what you label as traditional... so I don't see what's the relevance at all of your D&D comment.

[bjdbwea]

ME 3 needs better and more RPG elements and mechanics, for the reasons already described by people who agree with this opinion.

Fallout: New Vegas apparently sold much better than ME 2, even though the RPG elements were not only not dumbed down in comparison to Fallout 3, but actually even made a bit more complex. What does that tell? There is still a large audience, even on consoles, that appreciates and buys RPGs with proper RPG elements and mechanics. And since ME 2 apparently didn't sell much more than ME 1, all the changes to make the game more appealing to the mass market and to shooter fans apparently didn't exactly pay off much. So hopefully ME 3 will be more like ME 1 again.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 janvier 2011 - 08:59 .

[Praetor Knight]

bjdbwea wrote...

ME 3 needs better and more RPG elements and mechanics, for the reasons already described by people who agree with this opinion.

Fallout: New Vegas apparently sold much better than ME 2, even though the RPG elements were not only not dumbed down in comparison to Fallout 3, but actually even made a bit more complex. What does that tell? There is still a large audience, even on consoles, that appreciates and buys RPGs with proper RPG elements and mechanics. And since ME 2 apparently didn't sell much more than ME 1, all the changes to make the game more appealing to the mass market and to shooter fans apparently didn't exactly pay off much. So hopefully ME 3 will be more like ME 1 again.

Source please?

I tried to look around and found this site that does not exactly agree, unless I missed something else.

Lifetime sales total (on 360):
2,348,842 - ME http://gamrreview.vg...35/mass-effect/
2,352,048 - ME2 http://gamrreview.vg.../mass-effect-2/
2,145,017 - FONV http://gamrreview.vg...lout-new-vegas/
 

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 02 janvier 2011 - 09:46 .

[Malistix]

the topic is about "rpg elements in ME3" so im like cool, lets read it.

then u are discussing ME1 was better then ME2 in RPG-elements.

WTF? why are we not discussing the upcomming game and how they will add new/excisting elements? ME1 was good and ME2 improved, end of topic.

[Walker White]

Praetor Shepard wrote...
I tried to look around and found this site that does not exactly agree, unless I missed something else.

Lifetime total:
ME2: 2,352,048 http://gamrreview.vg.../mass-effect-2/
FONV: 2,145,017 http://gamrreview.vg...lout-new-vegas/ 

As much as I hate the sales-numbers argument, you need to compare 10-weeks to 10-weeks to get accurate. ME2 has been out longer, so the numbers are skewed by end-of-life sales.  FONV has a greater trajectory at 10 weeks than ME2 does.

With that said, you cannot argue that FONV does better because of RPG elements.  Gameplay in the new Fallouts is very shallow (VATS is a joke) compared to the rich class system of ME2, and they are designed for a pure shooter experience.  There are too many variables to compare them with.

[Walker White]

Malistix wrote...
WTF? why are we not discussing the upcomming game and how they will add new/excisting elements? ME1 was good and ME2 improved, end of topic.

Because it is difficult to have an RPG discussion on these forums without the grognards getting involved.  And so it has been since the Dawn of Time ("Chainmail was so much better than that new Dungeons & Dragons crap.").

[bjdbwea]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Source please?

I tried to look around and found this site that does not exactly agree, unless I missed something else.

Lifetime sales total (on 360):
2,348,842 - ME http://gamrreview.vg...35/mass-effect/
2,352,048 - ME2 http://gamrreview.vg.../mass-effect-2/
2,145,017 - FONV http://gamrreview.vg...lout-new-vegas/

As you said, that's on the 360 only. You can easily find articles with Bethesda's claim that NV sold (or shipped, which of course is a difference, but anyway) more than 5 million copies overall. You may debate those numbers, but at least they are official numbers, whereas BioWare and EA so far apparently couldn't be bothered to release any numbers, which might tell its own story.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 janvier 2011 - 09:57 .

[Praetor Knight]

bjdbwea wrote...

As you said, that's on the 360 only. You can easily find articles with Bethesda's claim that NV sold (or shipped, which of course is a difference, but anyway) more than 5 million copies overall. You may debate those numbers, but at least they are official numbers, whereas BioWare and EA so far apparently couldn't be bothered to release any numbers, which might tell its own story.

Honestly, I didn't have an opinion.

I just could not find more sources to tell either way.

Thanks

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

And I don't understand the last bit about traditional RPG either. Like I said, every RPG type of games except modern western ones seems to fit in what you label as traditional... so I don't see what's the relevance at all of your D&D comment.

That's the problem, some people still think that RPG is equal as traditional RPG. I don't understand why they do that, maybe because they have never seen RPG go beoynd traditional RPG.

It's like in todays computer time, we still just simulate tabletop board RPG rules and don't use modern computer technology create new kind of RPG what is design just for computers. I mean computer can calculate bullets ballistic in blink of eyes and we still roll dice inside the computer program for us as visual. Why?

I mean roleplaing is about player taking role in story based adventure. Why we stil use the old clumpsy way stuff when we have computers to help us with all calculation. Modern computer can create beautiful visual effect and still we try add some primitive other aspects. Like flowting exp numbers in screen. Game masters use to tell us the exp, so we can calculate our character progression. Now day, computers can do it all, why still show something what has zero thing to do actual playing role in computer game? They are all obsolete faetures, what belongs to traditional RPG.

In Mass Effect we have this visual cinematic outstanding game and some players still threath it like calcsheet with numbers. Like the traditional RPG was. Why not try to find new ways to use RPG elements so that they don't destroy this beautiful cinematic Mass Effect universe with all the clumpsy traditional RPG features. I mean there has to be better way to create same elements, than these obsolite ways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 janvier 2011 - 10:19 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Lumikki wrote...
I mean roleplaing is about player taking role in story based adventure.

That's exactly the point: it isn't. At least, it isn't to me, and to a lot of the people who criticize the changes in ME2's gameplay compared to ME1. As I alluded to earlier in the thread, different people will define things different, but there are a lot of people to whom "RPG" means more than "a game with a story." For me, I've seen plenty of non-RPGs with fully-realized, immersive plots, especially in recent years, and I've seen plenty of RPGs with stories that are downright threadbare: no one praises the early Wizardry games, or the Diablo series for their storytelling.

Whether or not it has anything to do with the act of playing a role, the "primitive other aspects" you criticize have become closely associated with the genre of computer RPGs, and removing them means that a number of self-proclaimed fans of that genre will be disappointed. It's an accepted convention of the genre, and altering it will disappoint a number of genre fans. The same thing applies to other genres, too: you'd think that a shooter would really only need a gun (or some kind of projectile weapon, at least), but if you're marketing a game towards fans of Call of Duty or Gears of War, you'd better make sure your game plays similarly to those games and adheres broadly to the commonly-accepted features of the genre, or risk alienating that very audience.

You may see it as unnecessary cruft, but the point is that other people don't. What you see as "clumpsy traditional RPG features" that "destroy this beautiful cinematic Mass Effect universe" are the very features that I would argue make the Mass Effect series enjoyable as something beyond a movie (or, perhaps, a choose-your-own-adventure book). That is, since you don't like the features in question, of course you see them as obsolete. I do like those very same features in their own right (and not as a necessary evil because of limitations of the medium), so I certainly don't see them as obsolete.

[Chala]

Sammyb123 wrote...

Am I the only one who preferred the RPG system in Mass Effect 1 to ME2? Though I loved the game and it's improvements to combat, I was a bit disappointed with how they really simplified the RPG elements in ME2.

Does anyone else want a return of the RPG style we had in the first game? 

yep the RPG style in Mass Effect 1 is much better than in the second part, but also I can't deny the huge improvement in the combat system in Mass Effect 2. But I'm relaxed about this, because the developers confirmed that they'll improve the rpg part a few months after the release of ME2, here is the evidence:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1707043
(please don't revive the thread. it is dead and it should stay dead)
EDIT: I forgot to explain this: Read the presentation I posted in the thread, TO THE END. in that part Christina will say what thing they want to improve, one of them is "Richer RPG features"

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 03 janvier 2011 - 01:11 .

[Uszi]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
.... Diablo series for their storytelling.

Diablo doesn't quite qualify as an RPG.
It's a beat-em-up.  It's Gautlet legends with a better skill system and a more cohesive story.

Er...  But I agree with one of your points about common definitions.  Clearly, when people can't even agree on what is and is not an RPG, we're not in good shape as we begin discussin RPG elements.

Modifié par Uszi, 03 janvier 2011 - 12:58 .