Jebel Krong wrote...
again: me2 is a direct sequel - the majority of the game is identical, and there was no "major shift" in anything - that's all in your head - ME1 aimed at being an rpg-TPS-action hybrid, ME2 was a refinment on that concept, ME3 will be more of one - will it add-in some of the things ME2 dropped? i don't know, quite possibly, and i'm sure it'll drop other things and add-in new ones, too. will you decry it then, as you have #2 for being different again?
BS! Besides the fact that for something that is "only in my head" a lot of other fans feel the same way, it's not exactly subtle about it. If you can't see the overall shift in style between the games both in gameplay and presentation then you're either blind, stupid or have been completely taken in by the wool BioWare are trying to oull over your eyes (which means you're both blind
and stupid). It's all very well to be somebody who says they prefer the shift in style, which a lot of people will do simply because that's what happens when you appeal to the masses, but to deny its existence is just ignorance.
And ME2 wasn't refined, it was diluted. Gameplay wise, it's just watered-down and simple now. Even if the first game's gameplay was a bit strong, that doesn't negate the fact that ME2's wasn't strong enough. As I said, just like one can go too far with unnecessary complex elements (ME1) one can also go too far the other way and just make things tediously shallow and simple (ME2).
As for ME3 and how I will feel about it, that depends. I don't know enough about it yet. Some things I do know I don't like the sound of (e.g. another "stand-alone" title, the speed at its arrival), others I do (stronger RPG elements, the possibility of going nuts with consequences, carrying on from where you left off progression wise, VS having a decent role perhaps). How I feel about it overall will depend largely if it feels immersive and brings back that X-Factor that ME1 had and ME2 almost completely missed, whether it feels mature again and whether the RPG elements are sufficiently strong. And overall, whether it basically returns to being what Mass Effect originally was meant to be.
Pausanias wrote...
Terror_K, do you think the PC and NPC characterization was deeper in ME1 than ME2? I don't.
Forgetting about combat mechanics for a moment, it seems that the views of characterization in ME2 (and upcoming DA2) fall into two categories. Category 1 people perceive less detail in the characterization as increased depth, because their imagination is free to fill the rest in. Category 2 are people who perceive less detail in the characterization as huge gaping holes in the storytelling which need to be filled.
Category 1 sees the mute expressionless Warden as a good thing; Category 2 sees the mute expressionless Warden as a bad thing.
I don't really have many issues with the interaction and characterisation in ME2, beyond things like Garrus always doing calibrations (I swear, he said
more in ME1!), Zaeed and Kasumi's half-assed approach to being companions and the overall complete lack of banter and pretty much
anything dialogue wise on N7 missions, where silent Shepard wanders around blank-faced with his/her equally silent companions. I also kind of have an issue that too many of ME2's squad are made up of these over-the-top, "I fill a cliche role!" comic book style super heroes rather than the more realistic and down-to-earth nature of the original squaddies, but I kind of let that slide because of the overall premise (get the best of the best) and because they all aren't quite as shallow as they may first appear on the surface once you get to know them.
There is the overall thing that a voiced-protagonist in modern games isn't always a good thing though. It works in Mass Effect, but I don't really like it so much in Dragon Age 2. Having a character voiced for you takes away a lot. It reduces dialogue options, especially when tied to a dialogue wheel as opposed to a big list. You're never going to have quite as many options and never going to have quite as big a game in an RPG when your character is voiced. It costs more and you have to restrict yourself more. It also limits things in the game itself as far as choices go. In DA2 for example, you
have to be a human. As long as BioWare are fully voicing their games, there's always going to be more of a restriction here. DAO allowed one to easily be an elf and a dwarf as well because you didn't need additional voice-actors and recordings for all those variations.
Beyond that, I actually feel it ruins immersion in a roleplaying game a lot of the time. It's not so bad in a pre-defined role, but if you want to give the player total freedom and let them be whatever they want, however they want, then part of that is allowing them to "voice" their own character. To be honest, I think this is endemic to the younger generation today having been plonked in front of the TV more than they've been given a book. Avid readers never find it hard to give voice to a character who you can only ever hear in your head, while those brought up more with TV and movies who won't read so much will probably have trouble with this, and start demanding that their character have a voice. Sure, it's more cinematic to have a voiced-character so the cutscenes flow together and all, but when I'm playing a more open game where I want to define the character, a voiced protagonist just gets in the
way of whatever vision I have for that character. When I'm supposed to be crafting a character entirely then that
includes voice, and beyond that how they would say something and their overall character. Giving them a voice takes that away from the player and forces them into being somewhat pre-defined.
A silent progagonist is not an out-of-date or archaic mechanic in a game; it's a tool you can choose to use or not, and it's one that actually suits a more open, deeper RPG with lots of options more than a voiced protagonist does. One of the few things I actually
don't like about BioWare's upcoming Star Wars: The Old Republic is that your character is voiced in it, mostly because it's an MMO. Sure... I get the fact that it's Star Wars, and the whole thing is supposed to be cinematic because of that, but this is an MMO for crying out loud! I don't want to be a Bounty Hunter who sounds like Steve Blum teaming up with two other players who sound
exactly the same. How can one properly forge an identity when the personality, style and voice of your character is already pre-determined?
Again, in ME2 it works because Shepard is and always was somewhat pre-defined from the start. When one is trying to
completely craft their character, shoehorning them like that is a bad move. And as good as the dialogue wheel is, it's always going to be more limiting than a whole list is, and is always going to end up having situations where players aren't quite sure what the vague, clipped description means and end up saying, "that's not what I meant to say/do!" and "I didn't expect
that to happen!"
Overall, any RPG developer needs to at least get it into their head that a silent protagonist isn't an archaic mechanic that has no place in today's games, despite what many so-called "professional" reviewers say. Because if BioWare
really think that, then we're never going to see a fully customisable RPG where we can truly define our characters and have a lot of choice again.
Now for the rest of your arguments, I'll hand it to you that ME2 felt more cramped than ME1 without open-ended planet exploration. Furthermore, the art direction was less Alien and more Star Trek, and I'll also hand it to you that the Alien style worked better. Finally, too much variety was taken away from combat, especially for adepts. Singularity-Warp-Singularity-Warp just is waaay too repetitive.
However, what ME2 did do is fill in all those gaping holes in characterization... and this carried the day for a lot of people. Your evaluation of this move as a "Hollywood blockbuster for teenage morons," well that is hugely subjective. Bioware made choices about characterization, rather than leaving the characters blank slates for you to fill in... and in doing so they were sure to disappoint Category 1 types, plus anyone who doesn't agree with the choices that they made.
I think ME2 was a step in the right direction in characterization, and a step backward in combat mechanics. I'm not asking for much---just that they give us more skills and end that stupid global cooldown rule. Regarding inventory, I feel neutral. I neither liked nor disliked fiddling with inventory. I don't miss it, but wouldn't mind if it showed up again.
I didn't just mean characterisation though, I meant overall style. The gameplay just seems to have gotten simpler overall as I've already said, but the presentation of the gameplay itself and the game style-wise overall has shifted in that way as well. Aside from the whole thing feeling insulting to my intelligence with it's big Fisher Price explain everything interfaces, the whole thing just seems more bombastic, over-the-top and immature. There's too much gimmicky stuff and and overall approach of style over substance, and less down-to-earth and stuff I can take seriously. The Modern Hollywood "let's rush everything and make it full-on all the time!" approach as opposed to not being afraid to take its time. There are massive plot holes, contradictions and an overall feel that after doing such a great job with crafting the universe for the first one the devs just don't give a damn about their own universe any more and are willing to toss aside any credibility and logic for the sake of being "badass!" and "lookz awesum!!" and "sexified!" etc.
The more comic-book superhero style cast, things like the stupid Renegade scars, the sudden increase in bad language after the first being more of a PG affair, the faux-dark emo BS, squaddies running around completely exposed in PJs (if that!) with only breathing masks (including on The Flotilla and on a chlorine gas planet), Miranda's ass-shots, over-hologramming things, the more fast-paced action and less classic sci-fi approach, etc. Again, the whole thing has a "retooled by the network for today's target demographic" feel to it. ME2 reminds me of the second seasons of Buck Rogers and Space 1999, J.J. Abrams Star Trek and Stargate Universe: it feels like a semi-reboot more than it does a proper, follow-up, but is trying to be both. ME1 felt like sci-fi made for fans of classic sci-fi and who grew up with it in the late 70's to early 90's. ME2 felt like sci-fi made for today's action-loving, immature teenagers.
Modifié par Terror_K, 18 février 2011 - 11:28 .
Retour en haut
