461 réponses à ce sujet

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

I like to screw myself.

Two can play that game, ****. Want a shotgun to the face?

Wow you´re so clever , btw shove the shotgun where the sun doesn´t shine.

[Gleym]

I'm getting massive Online Gamer vibes from Lunatic. He seems to fit the 'typical shooter' profile.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, simplicity is good, but only when to apply it to the right areas and know when to stop. Christina and co. clearly didn't know when to stop judging from how ME2 turned out. Some players approve, but many just feel the entire process to be shallow and unsatisfactory to the point where they may as well automate everything completely without any input or choice from the player at all if they're going to reduce it so much. Some players don't necessarily need to be able to tweak all these aspects, but many of us find the game's mechanics horribly shallow, linear and dull when we don't even really get the choice.

Kind of cute the way you use "some" and "many" in this passage. I assume you're playing to the gallery.

All I get from "clearly" there is that Terror_K doesn't like where Christina & Co. drew the balance.

First of all, can you actually just respond without these veiled, subtle little digs and innuendo that seems deliberately one step away from a personal insult? That'd be nice, thanks. Though I have to admit, you do it better than most who try similar tactics. And at least you're not throwing around such juvenile buzzwords as "elitist" and "hater" etc.

Well, at least we admire each other's rhetoric.

I certainly wasn't trying to be subtle there. I don't think it was a bad thing that you tried to load the dice in that passage; I just was pointing out that you did it.. But you were being a little obvious about it. This next bit is much better:

Moving on, I'm not alone in this. There are plenty of people who think BioWare took things a little far with their "streamlining" even some who overall prefer ME2 to ME1.

No one said you were alone, of course. And "plenty of people" can be applied to any side of a debate over a game with this many players; it's meaningless. But it sounds good. Moving on...

Can you honestly say you're completely happy at where they drew the balance? Can you honestly say they didn't take things even just a wee bit too far? There are a lot of fans out there who understood why the inventory and planet exploration went but are still wondering "why did modding go too?" for instance.

I would have gone further than they dared to go with inventory and planet exploration. I would have yanked upgrades and planet scanning completely, and assigned sidequests through NPC interactions and terminal hacking only. I don't believe exploration, as such, has any place in a game with ME's main plot.

Or rather, I would have wanted to do that. If I had actually been lead developer for ME2 then I very likely might have felt the need to compromise and keep these elements, even though I personally believe they're worthless.

But I know that some others here feel the same way. Talking only for myself solely isn't going to turn heads if I'm admitting I'm the only one, because I'm not. I personally can't see how an experience role-player couldn't feel like the game was treating them like an infant while playing it. It's not exactly subtle, which is part of the problem. Whether it bothers somebody or not is completely personal of course, but ME2 was like a tutorial for a tutorial that never switched off.

Itals mine. I'm an experienced role-player, and I don't feel that way. It's OK for you to fail to understand how I feel, but do not speak for me if you don't. I'm sure you can find some way to define the group you speak for without defining it in a way that includes me. "I" isn't necessary, of course; I was trying to be pithy there, rather than precise.

Just out of curiosity, what do you determine to be "pointless" exactly?

In this context, a debate where neither I nor anyone else can learn anything of value.

Well suspicion usually comes before outright accusation, does it not? I'm not going to make an outright claim until I feel I have enough evidence. I'd like to think I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, but I must admit my doubts are seeming more and more like facts. If ME2 wasn't a big clue, then the fact that the very same curse seems to be infecting the Dragon Age side of things too sure is. It looks like DA2 is going to suffer from pretty much the same issues I had with the transition from ME1 to ME2. As it stands I'm reserving judgment on BioWare until after ME3, or at the very least until we know a good deal about it. They've claimed that they're going to strengthen the RPG elements a bit more in ME3 so I'm going to give them a chance to prove it and show me that they haven't sold out to the mainstream gamer, despite all the mounting evidence that seems to support that they are.

You may be disappointed. From what Gaider and especially Laidlaw have said, Bio doesn't seem to believe that getting rid of the things that repel mainstream gamers is a bad thing for the games. Talking about Bio selling out is like talking about Steven Spielberg selling out. Or Michael Bay, if you don't like what they've been up to lately.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 février 2011 - 08:52 .

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

I would have gone further than they dared to go with inventory and planet exploration. I would have yanked upgrades and planet scanning completely, and assigned sidequests through NPC interactions and terminal hacking only. I don't believe exploration, as such, has any place in a game with ME's main plot.

Or rather, I would have wanted to do that. If I had actually been lead developer for ME2 then I very likely might have felt the need to compromise and keep these elements, even though I personally believe they're worthless.

I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree here. I personally loved the exploration aspect of the original Mass Effect and the whole concept of it. This is a sci-fi series, and ME1 really did give us the first taste I've really had in a game for a while of exploring the unknown and seeing the wonders of the universe. As much as I love the main story and the cinematic aspect, I liked that we could delve deeper into the universe and not just be limited to experiencing the main story and that's all. It's immersive and deep, and I gives the universe depth, IMO.

I do actually have to agree that it doesn't quite suit the plot though, with the whole "race against time" aspect. We're supposed to be chasing Saren or stopping The Collectors, but we're going around these other worlds doing this extra stuff. Though at least in ME2 I suppose one could leave that until afterwards thanks to the open-ending. That said, I still would rather have it than not. I find the aspect fitting to the overall style of the game and setting, even if I admit it doesn't quite suit the story. I also agree that getting quests from terminals and other NPCs is better than just scanning for anomalies (which is why I preferred ME1's method of things like terminals, news reports, Nassana Dantis, Admiral Kahoku, Admiral Hackett, etc. giving you the UNC quests rather than just wandering around and finding anomalies, and hope that this comes back.). In either case, such quests are always optional, so if you don't like them and don't think they fit, then don't do them. I don't think those that enjoy the aspect should suffer because of those who don't when something is completely optional.

I can't see why you'd want to do away with upgrades completely; as much as I hate the research/upgrade system of ME2 (at least in execution anyway, the idea itself is solid, but needs work) I would rather have that than have the game just be "you get the gun, and then that's it" which to me would be even shallower and just make the game even more of a depthless shooter than it's already somewhat become. I'm curious as to why you would, considering you're claims of being an avid RPG fan and the fact that most fans actually do seem to want upgrades to be improved and gun modding to come back in some form. Unless you really do just think Mass Effect suits being a story-driven cinematic shooter more than an RPG, in which case I can understand, even if I strongly disagree.

You may be disappointed. From what Gaider and especially Laidlaw have said, Bio doesn't seem to believe that getting rid of the things that repel mainstream gamers is a bad thing for the games. Talking about Bio selling out is like talking about Steven Spielberg selling out. Or Michael Bay, if you don't like what they've been up to lately.

Michael Bay sold out from the start, but that's another matter.

It's a shame BioWare has taken on this attitude, though I'm not entirely sure it's one that everybody in the company shares. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that those who have left BioWare over the past few years may have done so because they weren't entirely happy with the direction the company was going in. Apparently according to somebody on the DA2 forums recently one of the BioWare devs tweeted as much not long ago, but it was never stated who, so I can't verify that. I've seen several posts from those on the DA2 side of things that almost seem to regretfully say, "we're sorry, but we have to do this if we want to make a profit these days" which I personally feel is a bit of a crock, but I at least credit them with admitting to it rather than just pretending that everything is the same and mostly ignoring the issue.

In either case, it's a shame that BioWare either don't see or don't care that adding a lot of these mainstream aspects and taking away a lot of the RPG ones can put off some of their old RPG fans as much as it appeals to those who they wish to bring in. BioWare have outright said they want to bring in more fans, appeal to a wider fanbase and perhaps bring in those who normally wouldn't play RPGs with these "branching out RPG-Lite" affairs that they're making, but I personally I feel that the very aspects that normally put people off RPGs that they're ditching or watering down are the very same factors that quite often attract existing RPG fans to their games in the first place.

I wouldn't mind them going all mainstream so much if BioWare relegated that to other, new IPs rather than seeming to meddle with existing ones part the way through, changing them up and retooling them, etc.  It's all fair to say that they're doing it to try and wean them onto the more hardcore RPGs, but the thing is, if they really are merely using these admittedly "RPG Lite" branching out affairs to try and snag new fans and maybe put them onto deeper RPGs, what's the point when they're not even making them any more? What exactly are ME2 and DA2 going to possibly encourage these players to play when all BioWare are making now is the "weaning" titles? One could say their older titles like DAO, KotOR and NWN, or even Baldur's Gate, but are young gamers who avoid RPGs really going to be going to older titles that'll seem dated in this day and age? I doubt it.

I think BioWare are in a mode these days where they're trying to have their cake and eat it too and are trying to find some perfect formula to appeal to both sides. The problem is that some old fans are being discouraged by the things they're doing to encourage the newbies, so it'll never really work. At least not for the old-school fans who are being put off by it. But I'm sure they won't care as long as it means $$$ for them. I thought BioWare were better than that, but it seems I was wrong. Or perhaps I was right, but things changed. Some see a connection to EA, since they came around the same time said signs began to show. I dunno... I'm not personally going to point fingers as easily, but I can't deny the thought has crossed my mind, and the timing is awfully convenient.

So it either comes down to the fact that BioWare are just bad developers when it comes to making RPGs now, or they're deliberately sabotaging them and watering them down to appeal to the mainstream gamer and deliberately alienating a group of their old players in favour of the new crowd. And neither of those is a particularly good thing, whichever it is.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 février 2011 - 09:33 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree here. I personally loved the exploration aspect of the original Mass Effect and the whole concept of it. This is a sci-fi series, and ME1 really did give us the first taste I've really had in a game for a while of exploring the unknown and seeing the wonders of the universe. As much as I love the main story and the cinematic aspect, I liked that we could delve deeper into the universe and not just be limited to experiencing the main story and that's all. It's immersive and deep, and I gives the universe depth, IMO.

I do actually have to agree that it doesn't quite suit the plot though, with the whole "race against time" aspect. We're supposed to be chasing Saren or stopping The Collectors, but we're going around these other worlds doing this extra stuff. Though at least in ME2 I suppose one could leave that until afterwards thanks to the open-ending. That said, I still would rather have it than not. I find the aspect fitting to the overall style of the game and setting, even if I admit it doesn't quite suit the story. I also agree that getting quests from terminals and other NPCs is better than just scanning for anomalies (which is why I preferred ME1's method of things like terminals, news reports, Nassana Dantis, Admiral Kahoku, Admiral Hackett, etc. giving you the UNC quests rather than just wandering around and finding anomalies, and hope that this comes back.). In either case, such quests are always optional, so if you don't like them and don't think they fit, then don't do them. I don't think those that enjoy the aspect should suffer because of those who don't when something is completely optional.

completely agree with you here and can readily accept the dichotomy as it's still a game, not a life-sim.a combination of assigned tasks and random anomalies is best for variation.

Terror_K wrote...
I can't see why you'd want to do away with upgrades completely; as much as I hate the research/upgrade system of ME2 (at least in execution anyway, the idea itself is solid, but needs work) I would rather have that than have the game just be "you get the gun, and then that's it" which to me would be even shallower and just make the game even more of a depthless shooter than it's already somewhat become. I'm curious as to why you would, considering you're claims of being an avid RPG fan and the fact that most fans actually do seem to want upgrades to be improved and gun modding to come back in some form. Unless you really do just think Mass Effect suits being a story-driven cinematic shooter more than an RPG, in which case I can understand, even if I strongly disagree.

stack depth into other areas that actually matter - the combat has it's own depth, it doesn't need extra, unnecessary layers like stat-aiming (yes i know you didn't bring that up) or, even, upgrades. me2 had much fewer guns but much more differentiation than me1 managed with all the different add-ons - just add more guns, build better environments, allow more variation in tactics etc and you'll have all the depth you crave.

Terror_K wrote...

You may be disappointed. From what Gaider and especially Laidlaw have said, Bio doesn't seem to believe that getting rid of the things that repel mainstream gamers is a bad thing for the games. Talking about Bio selling out is like talking about Steven Spielberg selling out. Or Michael Bay, if you don't like what they've been up to lately.

Michael Bay sold out from the start, but that's another matter.

It's a shame BioWare has taken on this attitude, though I'm not entirely sure it's one that everybody in the company shares. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that those who have left BioWare over the past few years may have done so because they weren't entirely happy with the direction the company was going in. Apparently according to somebody on the DA2 forums recently one of the BioWare devs tweeted as much not long ago, but it was never stated who, so I can't verify that. I've seen several posts from those on the DA2 side of things that almost seem to regretfully say, "we're sorry, but we have to do this if we want to make a profit these days" which I personally feel is a bit of a crock, but I at least credit them with admitting to it rather than just pretending that everything is the same and mostly ignoring the issue.

In either case, it's a shame that BioWare either don't see or don't care that adding a lot of these mainstream aspects and taking away a lot of the RPG ones can put off some of their old RPG fans as much as it appeals to those who they wish to bring in. BioWare have outright said they want to bring in more fans, appeal to a wider fanbase and perhaps bring in those who normally wouldn't play RPGs with these "branching out RPG-Lite" affairs that they're making, but I personally I feel that the very aspects that normally put people off RPGs that they're ditching or watering down are the very same factors that quite often attract existing RPG fans to their games in the first place.

I wouldn't mind them going all mainstream so much if BioWare relegated that to other, new IPs rather than seeming to meddle with existing ones part the way through, changing them up and retooling them, etc.  It's all fair to say that they're doing it to try and wean them onto the more hardcore RPGs, but the thing is, if they really are merely using these admittedly "RPG Lite" branching out affairs to try and snag new fans and maybe put them onto deeper RPGs, what's the point when they're not even making them any more? What exactly are ME2 and DA2 going to possibly encourage these players to play when all BioWare are making now is the "weaning" titles? One could say their older titles like DAO, KotOR and NWN, or even Baldur's Gate, but are young gamers who avoid RPGs really going to be going to older titles that'll seem dated in this day and age? I doubt it.

I think BioWare are in a mode these days where they're trying to have their cake and eat it too and are trying to find some perfect formula to appeal to both sides. The problem is that some old fans are being discouraged by the things they're doing to encourage the newbies, so it'll never really work. At least not for the old-school fans who are being put off by it. But I'm sure they won't care as long as it means $$$ for them. I thought BioWare were better than that, but it seems I was wrong. Or perhaps I was right, but things changed. Some see a connection to EA, since they came around the same time said signs began to show. I dunno... I'm not personally going to point fingers as easily, but I can't deny the thought has crossed my mind, and the timing is awfully convenient.

So it either comes down to the fact that BioWare are just bad developers when it comes to making RPGs now, or they're deliberately sabotaging them and watering them down to appeal to the mainstream gamer and deliberately alienating a group of their old players in favour of the new crowd. And neither of those is a particularly good thing, whichever it is.

there's nothing wrong with appealing to the mainstream - by default mainstream is not a bad place to be and it doesn't necessarily correlate with the lowest common denominator, either (evidence: see any christopher nolan film, the matrix  and in terms of games mass effect would fit that, too). there's no such thing as "selling out" regarding Bioware's direction (or any other dev's for that matter). games these days are complex and expensive to make - simply adding all the features that you would like (and most are unnecessary anyway) and only appealing to certain parts of the audience is impractical, even if it would work at all. don't forget the original mechanisms to represent certain things were originally put in place to overcome certain limits, be they technological, gameplay, presentation etc. as the medium has developed, not all of these actually even apply anymore - things can be done better in newer ways: turn-based combat because realtime wasn't possible for example - is it the best solution? - no, but it was an accepted one, which has now been (mostly) superceded because we can do better; to use another analogy it's like religion: just because it's always been done a certain way doesn't mean it always has to - some people resist (extremists) because they are scared of the change, some don't (moderates/progressives). in purely economical terms hardcore rpg players are not going to make a project profitable on their own, certainly not one like mass effect - and mass effect was never intended to be solely an rpg.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 15 février 2011 - 10:10 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I can't see why you'd want to do away with upgrades completely; as much as I hate the research/upgrade system of ME2 (at least in execution anyway, the idea itself is solid, but needs work) I would rather have that than have the game just be "you get the gun, and then that's it" which to me would be even shallower and just make the game even more of a depthless shooter than it's already somewhat become. I'm curious as to why you would, considering you're claims of being an avid RPG fan and the fact that most fans actually do seem to want upgrades to be improved and gun modding to come back in some form. Unless you really do just think Mass Effect suits being a story-driven cinematic shooter more than an RPG, in which case I can understand, even if I strongly disagree.

stack depth into other areas that actually matter - the combat has it's own depth, it doesn't need extra, unnecessary layers like stat-aiming (yes i know you didn't bring that up) or, even, upgrades. me2 had much fewer guns but much more differentiation than me1 managed with all the different add-ons - just add more guns, build better environments, allow more variation in tactics etc and you'll have all the depth you crave.

I still feel like we need more item types and customisation. More guns simply isn't enough, especially if they're going to be in the same places every time. I can't really see there being that many tactics available in ME3 unless the combat gets a decent overhaul and we get some really varied skills. Levels and environments already need to be improved upon as it is to stop them being so linear, small and obviously designed (i.e. fake). Though I have to say, Overlord and LotSB gave be a little hope on this front and at least provided a little more interesting scenarios, bosses, areas and didn't feel quite as repetitive and staid as vanilla ME2 combat. I also hope that gun-wise vanilla ME3 has at least as many guns as ME2 had after all the DLC was released. In fact, I'm crossing my fingers that ME3 is basically the complete ME2 weapon roster with maybe one or two more in each category.

Still, modding needs to come back in some form, though not necessarily in the same form as it did in ME1. Most players agree on this and want it back in some way, and it seems especially shallow when there are shooters and other more action-oriented games out there that provide more customisation and modding of weapons and other items than ME2 --a supposed RPG-- does. I get more satisfaction out of a CoD title, Crysis or Hitman: Blood Money than I do out of ME2. I honestly don't even know why it went at all. I don't agree with inventory being so slimmed down and The Mako going, but I can understand the reasons there. When it comes to modding, I just don't get why it went the way of the dodo, and for such a horrible "replacement" too.

As it stands the linear, unhindered upgrading through the research/upgrade system is a joke, requiring no effort or thought on the part of the player in order to just max out everything without any trade-offs. Personally I'd like mods to be a research item you can create yourself and/or buy, but that you then choose to install in your weapon(s) rather than just having all the upgrades unlimitedly stack into a God-weapon, ala ME2. Keep ME2's replication method and get rid of the need to have ten grades of it, but other than that bring modding back in. I want to be able to tweak the weapon and customise it the way I want, like I at least could in ME1. I'd also like omni-tools and biotic amps back in some form. And some non-combat skills again.

there's nothing wrong with appealing to the mainstream - by default mainstream is not a bad place to be and it doesn't necessarily correlate with the lowest common denominator, either (evidence: see any christopher nolan film, the matrix  and in terms of games mass effect would fit that, too). there's no such thing as "selling out" regarding Bioware's direction (or any other dev's for that matter). games these days are complex and expensive to make - simply adding all the features that you would like (and most are unnecessary anyway) and only appealing to certain parts of the audience is impractical, even if it would work at all. don't forget the original mechanisms to represent certain things were originally put in place to overcome certain limits, be they technological, gameplay, presentation etc. as the medium has developed, not all of these actually even apply anymore - things can be done better in newer ways: turn-based combat because realtime wasn't possible for example - is it the best solution? - no, but it was an accepted one, which has now been (mostly) superceded because we can do better; to use another analogy it's like religion: just because it's always been done a certain way doesn't mean it always has to - some people resist (extremists) because they are scared of the change, some don't (moderates/progressives). in purely economical terms hardcore rpg players are not going to make a project profitable on their own, certainly not one like mass effect - and mass effect was never intended to be solely an rpg.

Unnecessary is a point of view. I personally find many of the aspects that either went or were watered down in ME1 to be necessary to be truly enjoying the game, because I personally find ME2 pretty damn tedious outside of conversations. Every playthrough is the same, and I actually can play ME1 repeatedly and find it far more interesting despite all the shortcomings and the repetitive visits to the inventory screen than I do just running around and shooting in ME2. ME2 just seems completely mindless to me, and far too much of the work is done for me. I play too much with the inventory in ME1, yes, but I still get to play with it, and that's something I pretty much never get to do in ME2 because the options either aren't there at all or the game does too much of the work for me. As I've said before, I feel like Marge Simpson in her new house when Homer went to work for Hank Scorpio in The Simpsons.

I fully admit that ME1 was not supposed to be a hardcore RPG and is better off for it and shouldn't have things like turn-based combat and base stats like Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc. and skills like Swimming, Athletics, etc. either, but I still feel that too much was taken away from how the experience started out in ME1. It was RPG-Lite from the start, yes, but the original game I feel had the balance about right, even if it was a little clumsy about it. ME2 --as I've said before-- overcompensated for its failings and took things too far. One can be too little and RPG just as one can be too much of one. ME1 at least felt like it was trying to be an RPG, while ME2 almost seems to be embarrassed about it and looks like it's trying to cover it up at every turn. And that's not even getting into the shift in style presentation wise either, which actually bugs me more than most gameplay changes. Some of these RPG aspects are what makes the game fun for RPG fans and what makes them like RPGs in the first place, and if you take too many of them away you can also take away the fun as well, which is what ME2 did to me. As far as I'm concerned ME2 did pretty much exactly what Deus Ex: Invisible War did and got slammed for, and what Fable 3 did recently and many fans disliked, but yet it gets away with it.

I believe a lot of players still want the depth to the game, but just don't want the complexity that comes with it. If they didn't, a lot of people wouldn't have agreed with me in this thread, including many who think ME2 is the better game and have otherwise been on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to debating things here. ME3 can have more depth added to it and bring back some of what was lost between ME1 and ME2 without having to revert back to ME1 entirely, or even half-way. Many of the systems in place in ME2 could simply be built upon to add more depth and functionality while retaining the basic simplicity they provide.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 février 2011 - 11:43 .

[morrie23]

Got to agree with terror on this one. The ME2 weapon upgrade system is pretty shallow, they could of done away with it entirely and the game would have played out the same (minus the need to scan for as many minerals, probably). I think a decent proportion of people would like to see the return of some sort of weapon mod system, I know I would. In this thread, most seemed positive about getting weapon mods back (but this is by no means a complete survey of the community!). I appreciate the some people don't like to 'fiddle' (as some would call it), but then again others do. Different strokes for different folks, I guess the challenge for any developer is finding the right balance.

[Sandbox47]

Pokemon!

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Unnecessary is a point of view. I personally find many of the aspects that either went or were watered down in ME1 to be necessary to be truly enjoying the game, because I personally find ME2 pretty damn tedious outside of conversations. Every playthrough is the same, and I actually can play ME1 repeatedly and find it far more interesting despite all the shortcomings and the repetitive visits to the inventory screen than I do just running around and shooting in ME2. ME2 just seems completely mindless to me, and far too much of the work is done for me. I play too much with the inventory in ME1, yes, but I still get to play with it, and that's something I pretty much never get to do in ME2 because the options either aren't there at all or the game does too much of the work for me. As I've said before, I feel like Marge Simpson in her new house when Homer went to work for Hank Scorpio in The Simpsons.

yes and so is "i personally..." (bold is my emphasis). the only difference between me1/me2 is the time spent in menus, and time spent in menus is not time playing the game - it's tweaking aspects of the game. oh and of course: driving the mako over simple ploygonal mountains.

here's what would help me2: less linear levels - open them up, add-in a little more (on-foot) exploartion, a couple of different possible routes/methods. the combat areas already embrace this to a degree - you have a lot more tactical flexibility with every class than in me1 - you just have to actually exploit it.

Terror_K wrote...
I fully admit that ME1 was not supposed to be a hardcore RPG and is better off for it and should have things like turn-based combat and base stats like Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc. and skills like Swimming, Athletics, etc. either, but I still feel that too much was taken away from how the experience started out in ME1. It was RPG-Lite from the start, yes, but the original game I feel had the balance about right, even if it was a little clumsy about it. ME2 --as I've said before-- overcompensated for its failings and took things too far. One can be too little and RPG just as one can be too much of one. ME1 at least felt like it was trying to be an RPG, while ME2 almost seems to be embarrassed about it and looks like it's trying to cover it up at every turn. And that's not even getting into the shift in style presentation wise either, which actually bugs me more than most gameplay changes. Some of these RPG aspects are what makes the game fun for RPG fans and what makes them like RPGs in the first place, and if you take too many of them away you can also take away the fun as well, which is what ME2 did to me. As far as I'm concerned ME2 did pretty much exactly what Deus Ex: Invisible War did and got slammed for, and what Fable 3 did recently and many fans disliked, but yet it gets away with it.

you're right: me1 was clumsy - combat was stilted and clumsy (though the squad mechanics were ok, or would have been but for the AI, still problematic in the sequel), the inventory and customisation was awkward etc. i loved it though, and stuck with it because the important bits were captured just right: the setting, story, characters, the role-playing was everything i dreamed of growing up a science fiction fan. me2 might have stripped some bits and added others i also didn't like, but in terms of most of the important stuff it did even better. me2 also had clumsy features, and they all come from the legacy mechanics: the old shields/armour/health rock-paper-scissors mechanics that have to be ground through every damn time (except with lower enemies that miss out on one of those things), so even when you get differentiated and better gear you still have to mutliple-head-shot enemies with your widow, for example - that spoils the entire point of it... the rpg in mass effect 2 was closer to what was originally envisioned, but it's not the stat-type role-playing that you seem to want in every game.

Terror_K wrote...
I believe a lot of players still want the depth to the game, but just don't want the complexity that comes with it. If they didn't, a lot of people wouldn't have agreed with me in this thread, including many who think ME2 is the better game and have otherwise been on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to debating things here. ME3 can have more depth added to it and bring back some of what was lost between ME1 and ME2 without having to revert back to ME1 entirely, or even half-way. Many of the systems in place in ME2 could simply be built upon to add more depth and functionality while retaining the basic simplicity they provide.

everyone wants depth, but depth is not screens of menus or clumsy mechanics, depth is character interaction & development, story, combat, immersion etc. complexity comes from not being able to implement an idea properly - the best things hide their complexity so that you don't even notice them, because they are natural and readily accepted, like you would IRL. and yes me3 can bring back some things that were cut from 2, or even try some other new things, and some will work and some won't, however you can't deny it's easier from a solid platform of me2's than the comparative mess that was me1's.

EDIT: btw i'm very interested in Deus Ex: HR and what they do with it (loved the first, on PC, played 10 minutes of the sequel - it was awful).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 15 février 2011 - 11:54 .

[Capeo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Capeo wrote...


Bethesda's RPGs are on consoles and they're some of the best RPGs out there.  About as far as you can get from JRPGs.

I did say I hated Bethesda's RPGs.

Oh, so just don't know what a good RPG is.  Cool.  Now that that's cleared up I'll leave to you continue using your withering wit to endlessly rebut points by calling people jackasses.  Good luck with that.

[CannotCompute]

BioWare just needed to find middle ground. They didn‘t succeed with ME2, because (imo) too much content was cut, but I have very good hopes with the final installment. In BW I trust

Modifié par CannotCompute, 15 février 2011 - 02:39 .

[Lunatic LK47]

*Removed post. Rectified in next one*

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 15 février 2011 - 05:14 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Capeo wrote...


Oh, so just don't know what a good RPG is.  Cool.  Now that that's cleared up I'll leave to you continue using your withering wit to endlessly rebut points by calling people jackasses.  Good luck with that.

I spent at least a good month on Fallout 3, and found out it was
little more than an overglorified waste of my time with the ****load of
glitches and system lock-ups I went through, not to mention the voice-acting is Z-list quality (i.e. no qualities to make any of the characters likeable), and just about
every single mission devolved into "No matter what path you take, you
will *ALWAYS* lose because we have the 'Gotcha, ' moments."
Broken Steel may have rectified the ending with Fallout 3, but I've
already given up on the game long before it got released.

[Capeo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Capeo wrote...


Oh, so just don't know what a good RPG is.  Cool.  Now that that's cleared up I'll leave to you continue using your withering wit to endlessly rebut points by calling people jackasses.  Good luck with that.

I spent at least a good month on Fallout 3, and found out it was
little more than an overglorified waste of my time with the ****load of
glitches and system lock-ups I went through, not to mention the voice-acting is Z-list quality (i.e. no qualities to make any of the characters likeable), and just about
every single mission devolved into "No matter what path you take, you
will *ALWAYS* lose because we have the 'Gotcha, ' moments."
Broken Steel may have rectified the ending with Fallout 3, but I've
already given up on the game long before it got released.

The game played butter smooth for me.  Only had lock ups after Broken Steel was installed actually. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "gotcha moments" ro "always losing".  Even sidequests had multiple outcomes.  As for the end, you realize you don't have to die, right?  You can convince Lyons to sacrifice herself instead with a high enough Speech skill.  You can also just walk away and let the purifier blow up.

[Lunatic LK47]

Capeo wrote...


The game played butter smooth for me.  Only had lock ups after Broken Steel was installed actually.

Opposite for me, and I game for at least 8-10 hours during my downtime (mainly weekends or vacation days). 

Let me give the example: Vault 101 Overseer fate. "Keep Overseer alive, or deal with a worse replacement." "Co-opt peace between Tenpenny Tower residents and Ghouls? All your persuasion ended up being for nothing, since Ghouls will kill the residents anyway after a few bad words." "Subject a baby to a lifetime of experimentations, or let a city die?" I'm pretty sure there are some side missions I may have forgotten because it's been two years since I played the game.

Even side-missions have multiple outcomes

I'm not denying the multiple outcomes, but the problem is a good number of them have very crappy resolutions or are geared towards "You should let things be, otherwise everything will be ****ed up."

As for the end, you realize you don't have to die, right?  You can
convince Lyons to sacrfice herself instead with a high enough Speech
skill.  You can also just walk away and let the purifier blow up.

I know about the outcomes, but I found both choices to be equally stupid if I had a robot, a mutant, or a ghoul that's immune to irradiation standing right beside me. Last time I checked, the general public hated the ending, period, and Broken Steel was made soley for giving the alternate ending.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 15 février 2011 - 06:02 .

[Ahriman]

ME2 has more shooter elements and chicks in leather and less rpg elements. Was sales better? Nope.
Muzyka and Zeschuk have enough influence to make games as they want to. Maybe Bioware is simply tired from rpg and wants to try something new? Someone will say it's an evolution of rpg but it's not. New genre is borning and it wont replace traditional rpg because they give different experience and their core customers are different.

I want ME to be more RPG, but I've accepted the way it goes. After all masterpiece is a masterspiece regardless of genre.

[spernus]

Autolycus wrote...

Most...many people.....blah blah blah...yadda yadda yadda....
You do realise that approximately 15% of game buyers actually bother going to the main forums. So the 'majority' here want the old system back....well...boo hoo, not going to happen. Because the 'real majority' don't mind (or there would 100x more ppl here moaning).

Also, Bioware make now make games in the style EA tell them to (see DA2 as a case example), but anyone thinking part of the game mechanics needs improving is quite frankly delusional (unless you are actually, you know, a real game developer), and any who thinks that Bioware is going to spend even more time and effort going back to the way things were in ME1 after spending so much dev time changing it in the first place, is even more delusional.

Sorry to be blunt, but thats the way it is.

Bioware is making games in the style they want first and foremost,not planned on what EA is asking them to do (and what does EA know about game design anyway? Specifically rpgs which have always been rare among western developers).

No reason to go back to the Mass effect 1 model when it's the second game which won them a ridiculous amount of awards.Mass effect 3 will mostly be inspired by 2,but with more rpg mechanics and I'm sure it will be less of a corridor shooter.

[spernus]

Wizz wrote...

ME2 has more shooter elements and chicks in leather and less rpg elements. Was sales better? Nope.
Muzyka and Zeschuk have enough influence to make games as they want to. Maybe Bioware is simply tired from rpg and wants to try something new? Someone will say it's an evolution of rpg but it's not. New genre is borning and it wont replace traditional rpg because they give different experience and their core customers are different.

I want ME to be more RPG, but I've accepted the way it goes. After all masterpiece is a masterspiece regardless of genre.

ME2 sold better than the first,although not by much.The fact that EA lowered the price+numerous awards probably ended up being the difference,but Bioware probably expected to double the sale performance of the first game which didn't happen (shooter fans don't want or need RP/dialogues,they want to blow up faces ),

Modifié par spernus, 15 février 2011 - 06:00 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

the only difference between me1/me2 is the time spent in menus, and time spent in menus is not time playing the game - it's tweaking aspects of the game. oh and of course: driving the mako over simple ploygonal mountains.

It's not the only difference between the games, but in either case that's exactly what the problem is though, even if you put it across more as a positive. There isn't enough time tweaking aspects of the game. There was admittedly too much of this in ME1, but there's not enough of it in ME2. I like to tweak my weapons and items and in ME2 it's virtually non-existent and the closest thing we get it a horribly linear research/upgrade system that does all the work for us and just God-mods everything too easily without trade-off. What ever happened to "rich customisation" and "making your weapons unique and your own" in the end? I was pretty sure BioWare were touting that prior to release, but there's pretty much no sign of it in ME2 at all. The armour is a little different, but it no longer acts like armour and is pretty much only a vanity thing now. As it stands the weapons systems in ME2 are no deeper than those in something like Quake or Doom: it's just collect gun and then you have it, and that's about it. The fact there are plain old shooters out there that have more options and more customisation speaks volumes too.

The thing is, BioWare are pandering to these gamers who start whining as soon as anything at all gets in the way of their killing things, and I'm personally sick of games being dragged into Derpsville because of this type of mentality. Taking away customisation and choice from gamers to that degree is just a bad move. Yes, I can understand that ME1 had players doing this far too often and why it would put people off, since it was so bad that you almost spent more time in the inventory than in the game, but taking it away pretty much entirely and offering next to no customisation was too far and just made things shallow and tedious, merely in a different way. The thing is because of the attitude of gamers such as those I mentioned at the start of this paragraph, I get the feeling it won't come back as strong as I'd like because too many just whine as soon as anything  even remotely threatens to ruin their flow and get in the way. There should be a good balance, but I get the feeling BioWare will cater more to the above audience and just keep things on autorun like they are in ME2, simply because I can't see them being able to introduce a system that allows proper customisation without the ADD players throwing a fit. You can't automate a good weapons modding system, it always relies on proper player input.

here's what would help me2: less linear levels - open them up, add-in a little more (on-foot) exploartion, a couple of different possible routes/methods. the combat areas already embrace this to a degree - you have a lot more tactical flexibility with every class than in me1 - you just have to actually exploit it.

That would help, but that alone still wouldn't be enough. That would just be improving what's already there, it wouldn't really add anything when it came to strong RPG mechanics and customisation. It would still be just as shallow if that's all they did.

you're right: me1 was clumsy - combat was stilted and clumsy (though the squad mechanics were ok, or would have been but for the AI, still problematic in the sequel), the inventory and customisation was awkward etc. i loved it though, and stuck with it because the important bits were captured just right: the setting, story, characters, the role-playing was everything i dreamed of growing up a science fiction fan. me2 might have stripped some bits and added others i also didn't like, but in terms of most of the important stuff it did even better. me2 also had clumsy features, and they all come from the legacy mechanics: the old shields/armour/health rock-paper-scissors mechanics that have to be ground through every damn time (except with lower enemies that miss out on one of those things), so even when you get differentiated and better gear you still have to mutliple-head-shot enemies with your widow, for example - that spoils the entire point of it... the rpg in mass effect 2 was closer to what was originally envisioned, but it's not the stat-type role-playing that you seem to want in every game.

I don't see that at all. ME2 just seems to be nothing like how Mass Effect was originally envisioned, especially given the early videos that actually had things more complex and even more RPG layers than ME1 ended up. And I don't want every game to be a stat-type role-playing one, I just want consistency within the same series, especially when said series is a trilogy and is basically supposed to be three parts of the same game rather than three different games. ME2 is mostly less clumsy simply because there's less to go wrong because it's so damn simple and shallow. That seems to be the basic attitude and model BioWare went with for ME2: make it so simple and use so many old, tried-and-true shooter mechanics that it can't break down. Simply put, ME2 doesn't have enough moving parts to break. It's not as broken a game as ME1 was, but it's also incredibly shallow and unsatisfactory because of it.

everyone wants depth, but depth is not screens of menus or clumsy mechanics, depth is character interaction & development, story, combat, immersion etc. complexity comes from not being able to implement an idea properly - the best things hide their complexity so that you don't even notice them, because they are natural and readily accepted, like you would IRL. and yes me3 can bring back some things that were cut from 2, or even try some other new things, and some will work and some won't, however you can't deny it's easier from a solid platform of me2's than the comparative mess that was me1's.

Again, why does everybody act like in order to have deep RPG mechanics in ME2 we must automatically fall back to how they were with ME1? That's the biggest reason we go in circles in these debates: because every time ME2 gets slandered for being watered down, those defending it point to ME1 as if it's the only way to have complex RPG mechanics in a Mass Effect game.

Yes,  I agree with some of this though: the best things do hide their complexity so that you don't even notice them. The problem is, ME2 doesn't even have much complexity at all any more, and what little is left is too hidden and doesn't let the player play with it, which makes it cease to be complex at all any more. Like I was saying earlier, simplification is good when its applied right and maintains the functionality and complexity of the concept. It's not good when it doesn't and is just plain simple, and that's the problem with ME2.

The thing is, RPGs these days generally have two layers: a technical/mechanics layer and the presentation/narrative layer. With ME2 it's the former that's suffered. I wonder how people would react if BioWare were to start automating and taking control away from the narrative too, by --for example-- automating the dialogue so the player didn't get to choose what they were saying and the game just chose for you at every turn. I'm sure people would throw a fit because it's taking away their choice and their roleplaying... and yet it's okay when the very same thing has already happened to the technical/mechanics layer and we have a research/upgrade system that doesn't really let us choose and a complete lack of weapon customisation.

The most ironic thing overall is that a lot of game developers are actually adding more RPG mechanics to their games these days and making their gameplay mechanics deeper and adding more customisation. A lot of action and shooter titles that as little as 6 years ago or so would have been rather simple with a paper-thin story and done-to-death simple shooter mechanics and pretty much no cusomisation are starting to become more story driven, offer more choices in how you approach things and have things like weapon modding and even stat-based upgrade systems and leveling up. BioWare now seem to be going in the opposite direction of everybody else: they already had all this stuff in their games, but are now dumbing them down and weeding out the mechanics in favour of overly simple, done-to-death action/shooter mechanics. It just seems the way things are going in 2015 we're going to see an epic, 80 hour game of choices and consequences and deep customisation called Call of Duty 16 on one side and an 8 hour game of mindless, linear hack'n'slashing called Dragon Age: Unoriginals and a 4 hour corridor shooter where the protagonist's only words are grunts of anger or pain called Mass Effect: Degradation.

[Lee The Krogan]

I would like the leveling up system to be something like that of the Fallout series.

[Capeo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Opposite for me, and I game for at least 8-10 hours during my downtime (mainly weekends or vacation days). 

Let me give the example: Vault 101 Overseer fate. "Keep Overseer alive, or deal with a worse replacement." "Co-opt peace between Tenpenny Tower residents and Ghouls? All your persuasion ended up being for nothing, since Ghouls will kill the residents anyway after a few bad words." "Subject a baby to a lifetime of experimentations, or let a city die?" I'm pretty sure there are some side missions I may have forgotten because it's been two years since I played the game.

Have you ever played FO1 or 2?  Basic rule of Fallout: the world is very ****ty.  A huge part of the world of the game is that no matter how much good you do people in crisis are selfish asses that don't change and lie to get what they want.  Did you really expect a bunch of ghoul racists to have lasting peace with the ghouls?  Or the ghouls that have suffered at their hand to not take advantage of getting inside?  Something not turning out how you expected it is not a fault.  That's an indication of a good RPG.  I have no idea what what you're reffering to in your second example.  The only "city" that you can wipeout is Megaton and you don't have to.  You can still get into Tenpenny Towers if you don't if you care to, even without the ghouls' help. If you're trying to be a moral person in the world of Fallout it's a ton of hard decisions and a constant one step forward, two steps back reality.  

I'm not denying the multiple outcomes, but the problem is a good number of them have very crappy resolutions or are geared towards "You should let things be, otherwise everything will be ****ed up."

I don't understand why you think they should have good outcomes.  The world of Fallout is severely ****ed up.  It's not black or white.

I know about the outcomes, but I found both choices to be equally stupid if I had a robot, a mutant, or a ghoul that's immune to irradiation standing right beside me. Last time I checked, the general public hated the ending, period, and Broken Steel was made soley for giving the alternate ending.

I didn't know you were on the pulse of the general public.  Seeing as I was actually all over and always have been an active participant of the Fallout forums and community I can tell you you don't know what you're talking about.  It wasn't the ending itself, it was the fact that the game ended.  Bethesda fans were used to having free roam after the main story line.  And, again, Broken Steel?  You're ridiculously wrong there too.  Broken Steel was made and released because the public was clamoring for more FO3.  The game was a huge seller, over a million more than ME2 on the Xbox for instance, and Bethesda wanted to take advantage of it.  All the DLC wasn't planned from the beginning. 

Anyway, as an RPG ME2 can't hold a candle to FO3.  That said, they're different games.  ME2 is barely and RPG and FO3 is about a pure RPG you can get.  Real freedom to do whatever you want and to build the exact character you want to roleplay.

[Lumikki]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]Jebel Krong wrote...

the only difference between me1/me2 is the time spent in menus, and time spent in menus is not time playing the game - it's tweaking aspects of the game. oh and of course: driving the mako over simple ploygonal mountains.[/quote]

It's not the only difference between the games, but in either case that's exactly what the problem is though, even if you put it across more as a positive. There isn't enough time tweaking aspects of the game. There was admittedly too much of this in ME1, but there's not enough of it in ME2.[/quote]
Okey I try to fix both of you. Less time used in tweaking, better the game. How ever, more there is possible to tweaking, better the game. Point is that if tweaking is done so clumsy way that it consume alot of players time, it's not really well done. Tweaking should be done so that every tweaking has meaning and it's done so that player can do it fast and easy ways, but big variety.

So, ME1 tweaking was clumpsy and many ways empty illusion, even if it also had some good in it too.
ME2 how ever, become very easy and fast, but also very limited as not giving much tweaking possibilities at all.

[quote]I like to tweak my weapons and items and in ME2 it's virtually non-existent and the closest thing we get it a horribly linear research/upgrade system that does all the work for us and just God-mods everything too easily without trade-off. [/quote]
I like tweaking too, but I don't want to waste my playing time too much in menus. It's the difference what is the main priority the game, tweak or play role in story. As for research/upgrade system in ME2. You are wrong Terror_K there, it's actually really good in base idea. We have talked this before, the problem isn't the research, it's missing customation as making choises. Like we talked ones, the modding part. Research is trying to make the manual version update to more automatic. That is actually good thing. Because player manually changing sword +1 to sword +2 has absolute ZERO meaning to player, so why waste time to do it manually. What player needs it to make choises like to I use, fire sword or ice sword.

[quote]What ever happened to "rich customisation" and "making your weapons unique and your own" in the end?[/quote]
Good question, this is what is missing, the customation as player making choises with what to use and how something is. Weapon, character and armor customations.

[quote]I was pretty sure BioWare were touting that prior to release, but there's pretty much no sign of it in ME2 at all. The armour is a little different, but it no longer acts like armour and is pretty much only a vanity thing now. As it stands the weapons systems in ME2 are no deeper than those in something like Quake or Doom: it's just collect gun and then you have it, and that's about it. The fact there are plain old shooters out there that have more options and more customisation speaks volumes too.[/quote]
I don't like how you say this, it's more insult to shooters,  than actual point what you try to say. You do this kind of too much, blame others or compare to something like insult. How you think we people who likes ME2 feels, when you do this?

[quote]The thing is, BioWare are pandering to these gamers who start whining as soon as anything at all gets in the way of their killing things, and I'm personally sick of games being dragged into Derpsville because of this type of mentality. [/quote]
Yes, but have you ever consider that what you try to do may also be pain of others. Meaning don't think what you want and like is what other want and likes. There is no right way to go here, just different tastes. Also problem isn't you message, but again how you say it, like insult.

[quote]Taking away customisation and choice from gamers to that degree is just a bad move.[/quote]
I fully agree with you.

[quote]Yes, I can understand that ME1 had players doing this far too often and why it would put people off, since it was so bad that you almost spent more time in the inventory than in the game, but taking it away pretty much entirely and offering next to no customisation was too far and just made things shallow and tedious, merely in a different way. [/quote]
Yes, in my opinion you are right.

[quote]The thing is because of the attitude of gamers such as those I mentioned at the start of this paragraph, I get the feeling it won't come back as strong as I'd like because too many just whine as soon as anything  even remotely threatens to ruin their flow and get in the way. [/quote]
It's not just attitude of the others, it's also your own attitude. It's like if they are agaist you, they ruin you way. Of course they do, because they have different opinion. Point is it's same in both ways.

[quote]There should be a good balance, but I get the feeling BioWare will cater more to the above audience and just keep things on autorun like they are in ME2, simply because I can't see them being able to introduce a system that allows proper customisation without the ADD players throwing a fit. You can't automate a good weapons modding system, it always relies on proper player input.[/quote]
Sure, there should bee good balance. Let give Bioare time to figure what in they opinion is the good balance. My point is that it may be different what I or you think is the good balance. Because balance is depending what we want from the game as see it.


[quote]I don't see that at all. ME2 just seems to be nothing like how Mass Effect was originally envisioned, especially given the early videos that actually had things more complex and even more RPG layers than ME1 ended up. [/quote]
This is because you visualised it to be something what it never was or valued something what wasn't the point. You thinked Mass Effect serie to be more orginal RPG, than it really was. I see the gameplay mechanics change alot, what happen between Mass Effects, but the hearth what Mass Effect is was never changed. Meaning try to see Mass Effect more like cinematic adventure game.  Idea what Mass Effect really is, is still there. You are just looking wrong direction, the features and technical way how something is done. Not as impression, cinematic and visual story ways. It's same difference how we see the RPG it self, for you it's more adjusting numbers and me more impression related.

[quote]And I don't want every game to be a stat-type role-playing one, I just want consistency within the same series, especially when said series is a trilogy and is basically supposed to be three parts of the same game rather than three different games. [/quote]
What to say here. I don't believe you. You may think what you say here is what you believe, but after reading alot of you post, I don't really get impression what you say. Meaning you use the first of serie as escuse to support you needs of stat-type of role-playing. Be honest to you self, you want stats in general. Read you post how you attack any idea where someone wants something to be simple. You want it more complex and it has nothing to do with first Mass Effect. You just love and have alot of passion in the orginal type of RPG.

Also please do't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in what you pursue. I my self like that too, but I never thinked first Mass Effect as orginal RPG, I allways thiked is as cinematic action adventure game. That's why the invetory adn combat system caused me problems, because they where so clumpsy.

[quote]ME2 is mostly less clumsy simply because there's less to go wrong because it's so damn simple and shallow. That seems to be the basic attitude and model BioWare went with for ME2: make it so simple and use so many old, tried-and-true shooter mechanics that it can't break down. Simply put, ME2 doesn't have enough moving parts to break. It's not as broken a game as ME1 was, but it's also incredibly shallow and unsatisfactory because of it.[/quote]
It's shallow, if you look about tweaking point, but if you actually play the game from impression point as just enjoying the story and combat, it's not that shallow at all. My point is that you view point is anything what doesn't have alot of stats is shallow, because you are looking orginal RPG in MAss Effect. If you think Mass Effect more as like interactive movie, it does good job in that. So, my point is that, if I think Mass Effect as strategy game, it doens't do good job in that. So, hole shallows as good it does something, is depending how you see the hole Mass Effect serie as what it is.


[quote]Again, why does everybody act like in order to have deep RPG mechanics in ME2 we must automatically fall back to how they were with ME1? That's the biggest reason we go in circles in these debates: because every time ME2 gets slandered for being watered down, those defending it point to ME1 as if it's the only way to have complex RPG mechanics in a Mass Effect game.[/quote]
If you have force who defence something and slammer something else, it ALLWAYS create opposite force. Meaning the exreme opinion are forced by both side, because people has need to defence our own opinions. If people would stop using extreme example or insult others or blame and be more reasonable then there would not be need for extreme defence.

[quote]Yes,  I agree with some of this though: the best things do hide their complexity so that you don't even notice them. The problem is, ME2 doesn't even have much complexity at all any more, and what little is left is too hidden and doesn't let the player play with it, which makes it cease to be complex at all any more. Like I was saying earlier, simplification is good when its applied right and maintains the functionality and complexity of the concept. It's not good when it doesn't and is just plain simple, and that's the problem with ME2.[/quote]
Yes, I agree, but it goes both ways.

[quote]The thing is, RPGs these days generally have two layers: a technical/mechanics layer and the presentation/narrative layer. With ME2 it's the former that's suffered. [/quote]
Sure, but here comes the question. What is the balance between them. The way you want or the way I want?

Because in my opinion the technical/mechanical layer should become as invisible as possible to players so that players can conserate the real game what is the presentative/impression layer.

[quote]The most ironic thing overall is that a lot of game developers are actually adding more RPG mechanics to their games these days and making their gameplay mechanics deeper and adding more customisation. A lot of action and shooter titles that as little as 6 years ago or so would have been rather simple with a paper-thin story and done-to-death simple shooter mechanics and pretty much no cusomisation are starting to become more story driven, offer more choices in how you approach things and have things like weapon modding and even stat-based upgrade systems and leveling up. BioWare now seem to be going in the opposite direction of everybody else: they already had all this stuff in their games, but are now dumbing them down and weeding out the mechanics in favour of overly simple, done-to-death action/shooter mechanics. It just seems the way things are going in 2015 we're going to see an epic, 80 hour game of choices and consequences and deep customisation called Call of Duty 16 on one side and an 8 hour game of mindless, linear hack'n'slashing called Dragon Age: Unoriginals and a 4 hour corridor shooter where the protagonist's only words are grunts of anger or pain called Mass Effect: Degradation.[/quote]
Yeah, because adding RPG isn't same as doing traditinal RPG. Like we have allready splited here between stat-RPG and role-RPG. Meaning games starts to add more roles to play, but more role can be arrived other means than adding alot of stats too. It's the difference between hidden stats affecting players gameplay and have alot of visual stats for player to adjust. What's the main point of game, adjusting stats or playing the story. Ask from you self is stats part of gameplay, because they are tools to adjust the gameplay or because stats has become the gameplay? Because if they are just tools, maybe they don't need to be so visible and can be adjusted by the gameplay it self, without visual manual adjusting?

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 février 2011 - 02:01 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Capeo wrote...

Have you ever played FO1 or 2?  Basic rule of Fallout: the world is very ****ty.  A huge part of the world of the game is that no matter how much good you do people in crisis are selfish asses that don't change and lie to get what they want.  Did you really expect a bunch of ghoul racists to have lasting peace with the ghouls?  Or the ghouls that have suffered at their hand to not take advantage of getting inside?  Something not turning out how you expected it is not a fault.  That's an indication of a good RPG.  I have no idea what what you're reffering to in your second example.  The only "city" that you can wipeout is Megaton and you don't have to.  You can still get into Tenpenny Towers if you don't if you care to, even without the ghouls' help. If you're trying to be a moral person in the world of Fallout it's a ton of hard decisions and a constant one step forward, two steps back reality.

Oops, pardon me for not knowing about the series since I did not have the internet nor Gamefaqs when the games were relevant on the market, not to mention my PC was not that great for a gaming platform at the time. I only tried it out just to see if min-maxing was possible, and to see if the game was all hyped up to be what it was, and I found it to be more of a major turn-off for me when I got burned out with the exploration. Want my $60 and wasted month back.

I don't understand why you think they should have good outcomes.  The world of Fallout is severely ****ed up.  It's not black or white.

Might as well put in bold letters, "No matter what path you take, the game will always work against you." Not really that enticing if you want new players in the series.

[Lunatic LK47]

Lumikki wrote...

Okey I try to fix both of you. Less time used in tweaking, better the game. How ever, more there is possible to tweaking, better the game. Point is that if tweaking is done so clumsy way that it consume alot of players time, it's not really well done. Tweaking should be done so that every tweaking has meaning and it's done so that player can do it fast and easy ways, but big variety.

So, ME1 tweaking was clumpsy and many ways empty illusion, even if it also had some good in it too.
ME2 how ever, become very easy and fast, but also very limited as not giving much tweaking possibilities at all.

This. I was more than happy that the research upgrades took only five seconds to do instead of twenty minutes. In terms of adding trade-offs, just copy StarCraft 2's research rewards, and I'd be on it like white on rice.

I like tweaking too, but I don't want to waste my playing time too much in menus. It's the difference what is the main priority the game, tweak or play role in story. As for research/upgrade system in ME2. You are wrong Terror_K there, it's actually really good in base idea. We have talked this before, the problem isn't the research, it's missing customation as making choises. Like we talked ones, the modding part. Research is trying to make the manual version update to more automatic. That is actually good thing. Because player manually changing sword +1 to sword +2 has absolute ZERO meaning to player, so why waste time to do it manually. What player needs it to make choises like to I [use, fire sword or ice sword.

This. I rarely switched weapons in KOTOR and avoided certain mods for items just because the stats just felt meaningless. It's just like asking if you'll make a better fire if you add one teaspoon of oil into your lighter.