352 réponses à ce sujet

[Evil Johnny 666]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Which is what I did. Bioware stealing game mechanics from DnD doesn't meant that ME2 isn't less intelligent or complex. And comparing again to other Bioware games, stats, weapons, choices, EVERY RPG element got limited. How is ME2 better on those aspects? [/quote]

And yet, it speaks entirely to a lack of innovation from Bioware. If all it takes for someone to enjoy an RPG is DnD mechanics, we would still be in the cRPG stone age, as it were. Kotor marked the fourth Bioware game which featured dnd as a rules system. Can you honestly tell me that Bioware would be much improved by continuing to use 3.0 as a rule base for all its games? Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Mass Effect 2 all represented a great shift in this regard.[/quote]

How did those games represented a shift? What did they brought to the RPG table? Nothing. It's the same DnD system, except 50 times worse. And it's funny, it's like you're saying RPGs must be less RPG in order to not be stuck in some sort of stone age. And it's funny how games of the stone age are several times more deep than anything Bioware made recently.

[quote]You want to argue that Mass Effect 2 is 'dumbed down'? By all means, go for it. But  can you do so effectively while maintaing that Mass Effect was in any way, shape, or form intelligent? Compare the gap from Jade Empire/Mass Effect to Kotor. It's much larger than the gap from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2. So if Mass Effect 2 is 'dumbed down', Mass Effect is not much better off. It's hardly on any sort of RPG pedestal. [/quote]

Now that's completely irrelevant. I ACKNOWLEDGED ME1 was dumbed down. Why do you keep going back there when it's not the subject at all? We talk about ME2 being dumbed down, nothing else. ME1 being more dumb down from Jade Empire than ME2 from ME1 doesn't change ANYTHING. And if anything, we're principally talking about ME3 being Bioware's last hope. I say plenty of unused potential and hints of brilliance of ME1, my biggest gripe with ME2 is how it ignores all this and gets even more simpler instead.

[quote][quote]
You're misunderstanding. Those interaction with new and exciting characters doesn't require life-realistic visuals/movements/eyes/whatnot. I play Bioware games to meet new and exciting character, and have deep and satisfying interactions with them, which Bioware almost failed in ME1, and failed in ME2 by only giving you the illusion of choice. [/quote]

And yet, you're contradicting yourself. How exactly can you have a deep, satisfying interaction if you can't even believe what is happening on screen? Try watching a movie where all the characters behaved like the Kotor or Mass Effect cast. You would not believe what you saw on screen for a second. This was a limitation of the gaming genre in the earlier days of Bioware, but no longer. You're claiming you want satisfying interactions while ignoring a major part of what fuels human interaction; body language, which is absent in all previous Bioware games.[/quote]

That's not a contradiction. Games and movies work differently, as books, the mediums are different. That's why the fact that games tries to be too much like movies nowadays cheapen the video game medium. I never found KOTOR to not be believable. When I speak to a friend, I don't walk around doing plenty of gestures for the sake of it. And when I talk to friends, I certainly do not see myself doing things or see my friends from different angles. You speak of immersion, but contradict yourself since ME2 is more cinematic than it is realistic. Again, what this has anything to do with the system's depth? Nothing. It doesn't change the system, doesn't make it better, it only makes it LOOK better. Good actors can't change a bad script. Good graphics and animation doesn't make a conversation system better. Maybe technology can help to make the interactions more believable, but this is useless if it tries to annihilate the reason why I like such system in the first place. As much as you can make something good, it's useless if there's nothing to back it up. But then, it isn't surprising not more people are bothered by that considering Hollywood blockbusters, considering how everyone went crazy when Inception hit the theatres.

[quote][quote]
Complete overhaul in character interaction? You gotta be kidding. I always thought interaction included the player. Deeper, better interaction means YOU, the player having more possibilities and the NPC reacting accordinly in better, more dynamic - ie. a dynamic conversation system, not the different NPC poses - conversation system. Bioware are glossing over everything, but instead of manking more dynamic, reactive and interesting interactions, they're cheepening them on the inside. [/quote]

It also means characters behaving realistically. Take the Dr. Chakwas conversation on the Normandy in Mass Effect vs. Mass Effect 2 for a perfect demonstration of this. No cRPG will ever be able to compare with pen and paper in terms of how many options they can offer the player; the experience is by definition limited.

Bioware can't make every possible decision you might want happen, but increasing the number of character animations is something they can do for everyone.[/quote]

It's not because cRPGs can't offer as much as in the original medium that it has to use this as an excuse to give us increasingly poor choices. Anyway, Bioware always boasted choice. Developpers should use what the medium offers them, which is a more dynamic choice system and character creation/progression. Make things as adaptive as possible. Using cinematic elements instead is the last thing they should do, use it only if it still supports the advantages the medium brings. Again, developpers nowadays tries too much to make their games cinematic, and ignore plenty of ways they can use the gaming medium to its advantage and give us far better experiences in the process. [quote]
[/quote]
[quote]I fail to see how this is the case. All characters are stereotypical on the surface-level. Even Kotor's cast. Jolee Bindo really just is a play-off of Obi-Wan Kenobi. I still personally consider Mass Effect to include Bioware's worst cast of characters, while Mass Effect 2 to be one of their best, but that's just me.[/quote]
I just said that I thought it was even more obvious in ME2. Seriously, Jack and Grunt are some of the worst characters I ever encountered in any RPG.

[quote]I also find your criticism of Samara somewhat funny since she was intended as a play-off of the Paladin's code. I could argue the existence of a Spectre program is just as dumb or ridiculous. [/quote]
Her code is way too restrictive. The Paladin's code never made me cringe as much as her code. The Spectre program infinitely makes more sense. And even, it adds a certain moral abiguity. I fail to see how it's even dumb or ridiculous in the first place. It's kind of like a Jedi with more freedom. Beyong her code, Samara is a lifeless, personallity-less robot. Samara IS the code, nothing more.

[quote][quote]
Yes, ME1 had problems with the wheel system, but Bioware didn't improved it and made it even worse. Yes, you could never really know what Shepard would say sometimes, but it wasn't as awful and making you contradict yourself as in ME2. I used to not always choose the same option in ME1, I always do in ME2 because it's unbearably impossible otherwise. Bioware went all the way to the "choose between 3 even more stereotypical Shepards". I always thought he was the weak link in Mass Effect, but it's worse than ever in ME2. Add in that the way the paragon/renegade system is implemented, and the conversation system is a total wreck. [/quote]

And I could barely tell the difference between the two. I didn't find Mass Effect's dialogue wheel any better off. But if you really want to push forward this argument, we can start hyper-analyzing every piece of dialogue in both games to determine which was 'better'. But somehow, I don't think we'll end up better off for it.[/quote]

Well, I never tried to over-analyse the system. These are my observations from several playthrough in boths games. I was irritated several times by the system in ME1, but it was never as worse or as cringe-worthy as in ME2. Add in how non-sensical and ridiculous the left options work, and it's noticeable enough for me.

[quote][quote]
Just look how sometimes you could just kill someone in KOTOR, but you could also keep in alive and manage to get better advantages/be more evil in the process. You could do so after helping someone, but you could refure the reward, as keeping it without being an a-hole. You had far more choices with more subtleties, and you always knew what you were telling people. But I'm not saying the conversation system should've been identical to KOTOR, only improved, using the new technology to do that, rather than make things all the more shallow. [/quote]

In which case, you just killed the Mass Effect franchise. Period.  How exactly do you 'improve' this? There will always be someone who complains that they did not understand what the dialogue wheel was telling them.[/quote]
Huh? First off, yes ME1 had that grave problem, but even if my argument "destroyed" the whole ME franchise, it was still worse in ME2. And then I don't get your second sentence either. NO ONE can know for sure what Shepard will say. Let me give you the most aggravating example.
-My Shepard tells The Illusive Man that he feels well after being put together again - which grants me renegade points for unknown reasons. Then, speaking to Jacob, I have 3 conversation options. 1. I trust you 2. I don't know yet 3. I don't trust you. Me wanting to be friend-friend with Cerberus, use the first option. But instead, Shepards adds "but I think you're working for the wrong people". What? The hell? If I wanted to be the bad guy, I would've been obligated to tell him that I didn't trust him. And if I wanted to be the good Shepard who doesn't trust Cerberus and its emplyees, telling him I don't trust him grants me renegade points. What the hell? And it's not the only moment I experienced this. It could've been better in ME1, but I never can to these ridiculous problems.

[quote][quote]
At least in ME1 you saw what happened to the Rachni by killing them or not, you saw the Council being dead or not or Anderson being a councilor or not. In ME2, besides the Collector base you barely have any choice, and how the choice got carried over is very limited, most being e-mails. Some people you kept alive only have two sentences to tell you, it seems Bioware did the whole thing as an afterthought, while it was supposed to be one of the big features of the game. Again, Obsidian beat Bioware at their own game with the dynamic choice/consequence system of Alpha Protocol. [/quote]

And it's the most I expected, for part 2 of their series. Do you know precisely how many variables they would have to take into account for Mass Effect 3 if they allowed such wildly differing storylines? It's utterly impossibly for them to take all those into account.

Mass Effect 2 offered about as many meaningful choices as Mass Effect imo with Legion's, Tali's, and Mordin's loyalty missions. The rest was just waffle in both cases.[/quote]

The choices are waffle in ME1 because Bioware failed to implement them properly. But then, why did they bother giving you the Rachni or Council choice if they didn't plan to make them work? Why? That, and most choices had nothing to do with the main story. Some only added to possibility to talk to someone for 30 seconds, and the e-mails. Why did they bother to implement these consequences if no one cares about such limited ones? Why didn't they divert their efforts into making the consequences of the real, meaningful choices more real? And again, don't bother giving us such choice if you're going to **** out. Don't bother giving us such choice if they are ridiculously limited and bare-bones in consequences. It seems like everything is half-assed in ME2. Why didn't they cut the useless - planet scanning, upgrade system, inventory (please, why even use it if you always get no moddable weapons that are always better than the last you had?), hacking, decrypting, worthless consequences for choice - and worked into making the other elements of the game more meaningful and deep.

[quote][quote]
But then, my point was about freshing-up the role-playing genre, about changing it, not about improving it. Any game is improved by a better immersion, that has nothing to do with making the genre evolve. And there, I'd disagree with you too, I feel ME2 is even more less immersive, as it feels 1) more like a movie 2) more arcadey. By making the game even more limited and shallower, it feels more like a game. The more choice you have, the more abilities, etc. the more you feel like playing a character and doing something. I feel like having no choice with Shepard, not knowing what he will say makes it even more obvious that he isn't me, that he's just the main character of a video game. Putting points solely towards unlocking special bullets or combat abilities makes it even more obvious that I have no control over other parts of my character. Whatching MY character talk makes it again more obvious that he isn't my character. Seeing different perspectives of Shepard walking around speaking to a NPC again shows me how I'm not seeing what Shepard sees, that he's not my character and that I have barely no control over him.
[/quote]

1) Mass Effect from the start was intended as a more cinematic experience.[/quote]
There's cinematic, and there's cinematic. There's Micheal Bay, and there's Dario Argento or Akira Kurosawa.

[quote]2) Mass Effect is a game, so it should feel like one.[/quote]
That was a response to your "ME2 feels more immersive" argument.

[quote]3) This was the case with Mass Effect 1.[/quote]
Yes. This was a response to your "ME1/2 feels more immersive than other games" argument.

[quote]4) Again, this was the case with Mass Effect 1. The dialogue wheel is not intended as the prescripted responses. [/quote]
Again, Shepard had the tendency to add something more than in ME1. The dialogue wheel may have been intended as such, but that doesn't make it good. Why the hell would you give choices when you never actually know what the character would say? Basically, that's saying: the point of the system is that there is 3 choice, the good, the bad and the ugly, keep choosing the up options if you want to be the good guy, etc. Hell, Bioware coul've given that choice at the beginning of the game, making dialogue purely scripted events and the difference would've been barely noticeable. Again, it never infuriated me in ME1, I never was like "that's not what I meant". Yes, it wasn't very good in ME1, but I already said that.

[Franzius]

The main issue many have with ME2 is not strictly limited to the lack of the RPG elements!!!

For many (myself included) ME2 is a far inferior experience as a whole game: very limited-super linear corridor levels, no exploration (both on vehicle & on foot), no looting, no dialogue with squad outside normandy, far inferior plot, far less inspired visuals (I am not talking about the tech... all those palm trees in the galaxy.. .) inferior athmospere and feel, less epic, world less credible, and in the end a little bit boring too.

ME2 maybe run better than ME1 but it is inferior in every other aspect!!!

[Evil Johnny 666]

johnbonhamatron wrote...

I just had what might be a profound thought (well, profound for me, anyway), when I read people's posts about the short dev time for ME3, thinking to myself that ME2 was also in development for 2 years, and it was astounding. Ah, but, then, I thought a bit harder. I considered that they planned Mass Effect as a trilogy from day one, so ME3 hasn't been in development for 2 years.

In effect, philosophically speaking, it's been in development for six years, with the core story (I would imagine) locked in since the beginning. Sure, things can evolve as the games develop, but they've already got that story foundation from when they first came up with it, and the gameplay foundation from ME2.

So I see it not as 2 years of developing the game, but 2 years of putting all the awesome stuff together that they've been working on for the last 6 years.

So, last hope? Nah.

I guess. But what everyone needs to understand, is that they made major changes for Mass Effect 2. Now that "everyone" seems to think ME2 is an astounding game - I didn't even thought of that for ME1 - you bet changes will be minimal, hence the shorter dev time. There's nothing to "worry" about in other words. Or to my case, there's more to worry about.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Franzius wrote...

The main issue many have with ME2 is not strictly limited to the lack of the RPG elements!!!

For many (myself included) ME2 is a far inferior experience as a whole game: very limited-super linear corridor levels, no exploration (both on vehicle & on foot), no looting, no dialogue with squad outside normandy, far inferior plot, far less inspired visuals (I am not talking about the tech... all those palm trees in the galaxy.. .) inferior athmospere and feel, less epic, world less credible, and in the end a little bit boring too.

ME2 maybe run better than ME1 but it is inferior in every other aspect!!!

100% agree. I could write a book on how ME2 is vastly inferior to ME1. Hell, just look at the story, they dropped the ball by making a twice too big squad and making it all about recruiting them. Where's the intrigue, the mystery? Where's the let's learn and find out about the Collectors? etc...

[Whatever42]

Franzius wrote...

The main issue many have with ME2 is not strictly limited to the lack of the RPG elements!!!

For many (myself included) ME2 is a far inferior experience as a whole game: very limited-super linear corridor levels, no exploration (both on vehicle & on foot), no looting, no dialogue with squad outside normandy, far inferior plot, far less inspired visuals (I am not talking about the tech... all those palm trees in the galaxy.. .) inferior athmospere and feel, less epic, world less credible, and in the end a little bit boring too.

ME2 maybe run better than ME1 but it is inferior in every other aspect!!!

very limited-super linear corridor: definately could be better but most of the shooting levelson ME1 were pretty narrow too.

no exploration (both on vehicle & on foot): would love exploration but that sucked in ME1. Better little exploration than driving around on a cookie-cutter rock.

no dialogue with squad outside normandy: except on their character missions. And they spoke during lots of missions and it was mostly good stuff. About the same as ME1 really.

far inferior plot: going to get nit-picky on you but the plot was fine. The pacing and story elements caused a lack of dramatic tension, I agree.

far less inspired visuals: nonsense. Visually, ME2 is far more visually stunning. The cityscapes of Illium easily outdid the vista at the Citadel, for example.

inferior athmospere and feel: different, certainly. I'm ambivilent to which one I preferred more.

less epic: agreed. ME2 had some seriously epic moments but as far as the main story goes, it was far less epic.

world less credible: I would agree. ME2 went for style over substance more. Personally, I grew up with Han Solo running around inside a giant worm in an asteroid with nothing but a breather mask so it didn't bother me. MMV.

end a little bit boring too: ME2 was far more exciting than ME1 in almost every mission and I found the characters much more dramatic. Where it failed was the main story missions. The lack of tension in the main story really drained the tension, which might be your point. So if it is, I agree.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

no exploration (both on vehicle & on foot): would love exploration but that sucked in ME1. Better little exploration than driving around on a cookie-cutter rock.

While I loved the exploration in ME1 - I just loved the ominous, sometimes deserted feel driving around the planets gave. Some were too alike to others and not particularly well made, others had pretty fine geometry to me. I liked the overall variation of the planets - but I agree that it could've been better. My gripe with ME2, is that instead of making the whole experience better and more polished, more eventful, they scrapped it entirely. Since I loved the exploration and saw a lot of potential, it deeply disappointed me. And I think too few people manage to see the potential. In fact, many times I see different ways several games could be improved, and what I find is often different from any game I played.

far inferior plot: going to get nit-picky on you but the plot was fine. The pacing and story elements caused a lack of dramatic tension, I agree.

Personally, I think the plot could've been way better and was too contrived. The problem is that they made the game around the suicide mission and gathering a squad. Instead, they should've made the game around the Collectors and the Reapers, like they made ME1 around the Geth and the Reapers. There's plenty of things they could've done to make the game more plot-centered and exciting, but they didn't. Maybe it's because I read Ascension that I think so, but the Collectors felt incredibly lacklustre to me after reading about them. I thought they were going to be of a bigger importance. Why didn't we fly around the galaxy learning about them, their trades and weird doings? Getting somewhere they just left and seeing the consequences? Most of what you do is talk to someone to know about the whereabouts of someone, instantly finding about them, and then getting into a linear shooting segment. Just look at what Bioware did in the Taris part of the game. Your only goal was to escape the planet, but they did so in a masterful way. Now the only thing you have to do to get to your goals, is talk to a person or two, is gettting told everything by the Illusive man. Being instantly told or shown something deeply cheapens the impact of what it's about (the Collectors for example). The Collectors felt nothing more than cannon fodder, rather than a mysterious race you're eager to find about in a great interactive way.

[Whatever42]

The characters and thier missions just replaced the useless side missions in ME1, which almost all involved driving around on near identical worlds, fighting in identical mines/bunkers. Neither plot revolved around any of it. Why you would stop to kill a rogue AI on the the moon when pursuing a madman hellbent on destroying all civilization is probably even more incomprehensible than helping out a teammate wrap up some loose ends prior to their possible death. At least in ME2, they tried to make the missions relevant.

Both had about the same number of main missions. In ME1, you had eden prime, novaria, feros, liara's dig site, virmire and the citadel. In ME2, you had the Cerberus space station, horizon, freedom's progress, the Collector Ship, the dead Reaper, and the Collector base.

The problem was that the character missions completely outshone the main missions. In ME1, the side missions were interesting but the main missions held all the drama. In ME2, the character missions were largely riveting, had emotional impact and big moral decisions while most of the main missions were pretty unexciting.

Deciding to keep or destroy the genophage data was a dramatic moment. Deciding the reprogram the heretic geth was a dramatic moment. They all happened in side missions. And while awesome moments, none of which directly related to the main plot. Killing Liara's mom had to do with the main plot. Destroying the research facility had to do with the plot. It kept the tension where it needed to be.

That's what I meant about about lack of dramatic tension. And the pacing is another story. The gap between the Collector Ship and the IFF mission is huge if you do all the missions.

[Il Divo]

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

How did those games represented a shift? [/quote]

I never said it was a good shift. Jade Empire and Mass Effect were the first Bioware RPGs which did not rely on the DnD rules-base and were in effect the most 'dumbed down' of the Bioware line up. Here, you're saying that Mass Effect 2 was very dumbed which is incredibly mis-leading when considering the full range of Bioware titles and where Mass Effect evolved from. Hence why I consider some of these comments (that Mass Effect 2 alone is killing BIoware) to be somewhat bizarre.

[quote]
What did they brought to the RPG table? Nothing. It's the same DnD system, except 50 times worse. And it's funny, it's like you're saying RPGs must be less RPG in order to not be stuck in some sort of stone age. And it's funny how games of the stone age are several times more deep than anything Bioware made recently. [/quote]

Depends, if by 'less RPG' you mean relying on numbers, then yes they must rely on them less. Notice that the old style cRPG has died out, for the most part. Dragon Age: Origins is a rarity in a breed of games which have been steadily moving away from relying on large-scale numbers.

[quote]
Now that's completely irrelevant. I ACKNOWLEDGED ME1 was dumbed down. Why do you keep going back there when it's not the subject at all? We talk about ME2 being dumbed down, nothing else. ME1 being more dumb down from Jade Empire than ME2 from ME1 doesn't change ANYTHING. And if anything, we're principally talking about ME3 being Bioware's last hope. I say plenty of unused potential and hints of brilliance of ME1, my biggest gripe with ME2 is how it ignores all this and gets even more simpler instead. [/quote]

It depends on how you look at it. Twilight is a better film than Battlefield Earth, but that hardly speaks to Twilight's brilliance. Likewise, pointing out that Mass Effect is 'deeper' than Mass Effect 2 doesn't get us very far unless you can explain how Mass Effect itself was deep. I thought both games were fairly shallow in this regard.  

I saw little 'brilliant' about Mass Effect's gameplay. Instead, I saw an over-inflated inventory which really needed to go, among other flaws.
 
[quote]
That's not a contradiction. Games and movies work differently, as books, the mediums are different. That's why the fact that games tries to be too much like movies nowadays cheapen the video game medium. I never found KOTOR to not be believable. When I speak to a friend, I don't walk around doing plenty of gestures for the sake of it. And when I talk to friends, I certainly do not see myself doing things or see my friends from different angles. [/quote]

So, let me get this straight: because games and movies are different, it somehow makes sense that games are allowed to feature static character interactions? Again, if the goal is to make these characters realistic and believable, what you are saying is a contradiction, whether you accept it or not. It's the rough-eqiuvalent of suggesting that voice-acting didn't improve the Kotor cast over Baldur's Gate II. People are not silent when they speak, nor are they completely motionless. These are two things which Kotor and Mass Effect 2 improved on respectively.


[quote]
You speak of immersion, but contradict yourself since ME2 is more cinematic than it is realistic. [/quote]

While true, every RPG would have to be played from the first person perspective to create immersion. Thankfully, this isn't the case.  

[quote]
Again, what this has anything to do with the system's depth? Nothing. It doesn't change the system, doesn't make it better, it only makes it LOOK better. Good actors can't change a bad script.  [/quote]

Actually, I'd argue that a bad line said well will work much better than a good line said badly.

[quote]

It's not because cRPGs can't offer as much as in the original medium that it has to use this as an excuse to give us increasingly poor choices. Anyway, Bioware always boasted choice. Developpers should use what the medium offers them, which is a more dynamic choice system and character creation/progression. Make things as adaptive as possible. Using cinematic elements instead is the last thing they should do, use it only if it still supports the advantages the medium brings. Again, developpers nowadays tries too much to make their games cinematic, and ignore plenty of ways they can use the gaming medium to its advantage and give us far better experiences in the process. [/quote]

Because most video games are shown in the third person, like movies. That's why a cinematic conversation with Ashley would have been infiitely better for what Mass Effect intended (and failed) to do. Virmire and the end sequence aside, most of Mass Effect is exactly what we'd been seeing in every past Bioware game. I saw this level of character-interaction five years earlier with Kotor, which had a better cast.

[quote]
I just said that I thought it was even more obvious in ME2. Seriously, Jack and Grunt are some of the worst characters I ever encountered in any RPG. [/quote]

Which doesn't get us very far, since I felt both were equally obvious. Most Bioware characters present some spin on a cliche.

[quote]
Her code is way too restrictive. The Paladin's code never made me cringe as much as her code. [/quote]

Then I recommend you actually look into the various Paladin's code scenarios which DMs present their players. More than a few are designed as nothing more than to cause their characters to fall if they deviate at all from their code. That's the very point of the Paladin's code.  

[quote]
The Spectre program infinitely makes more sense. And even, it adds a certain moral abiguity. I fail to see how it's even dumb or ridiculous in the first place. [/quote]

Yes, I'm sure the populus at large would willingly allow their governments to impose an organization which features complete immunity to the law, because this wouldn't end badly. I fail to see how it makes 'infiinitely' more sense.
 
[quote]
It's kind of like a Jedi with more freedom. Beyong her code, Samara is a lifeless, personallity-less robot. Samara IS the code, nothing more. [/quote]

Then you understood the point of Samara's character.


[quote]Well, I never tried to over-analyse the system. These are my observations from several playthrough in boths games. I was irritated several times by the system in ME1, but it was never as worse or as cringe-worthy as in ME2. Add in how non-sensical and ridiculous the left options work, and it's noticeable enough for me. [/quote]

Yet, not for me. Bioware is in a lose-lose situation it seems, especially considering there were Mass Effect 1 players who felt as you do about Mass Effect 2.

[quote]
-My Shepard tells The Illusive Man that he feels well after being put together again - which grants me renegade points for unknown reasons. Then, speaking to Jacob, I have 3 conversation options. 1. I trust you 2. I don't know yet 3. I don't trust you. Me wanting to be friend-friend with Cerberus, use the first option. But instead, Shepards adds "but I think you're working for the wrong people". What? The hell? If I wanted to be the bad guy, I would've been obligated to tell him that I didn't trust him. And if I wanted to be the good Shepard who doesn't trust Cerberus and its emplyees, telling him I don't trust him grants me renegade points. What the hell? And it's not the only moment I experienced this. It could've been better in ME1, but I never can to these ridiculous problems. [/quote]

Which demonstrates that you are not fully understanding the paragon-renegade system. Top options typically represent paragon options, bottom represent renegade. You received renegade points with Jacob because you responded in a renegade manner, even if you don't like Cerberus. Paragons are noted for being more diplomatic and trusting. By telling Jacob you don't trust him, you've taken on a renegade stance.

This would help if you could provide a youtube link as well.

[quote]
The choices are waffle in ME1 because Bioware failed to implement them properly. But then, why did they bother giving you the Rachni or Council choice if they didn't plan to make them work? Why? That, and most choices had nothing to do with the main story. Some only added to possibility to talk to someone for 30 seconds, and the e-mails. Why did they bother to implement these consequences if no one cares about such limited ones? Why didn't they divert their efforts into making the consequences of the real, meaningful choices more real? [/quote]

The choices are waffle because most Bioware choices are 'waffle'. Take a second and consider how many choices in most Bioware games actually evolve into something significant, which is usually no more than one or two.

This doesn't explain how/why you thought Mass Effect 2 was going to allow large-scale consequences for your choices from Mass Effect. This would make Mass Effect 3 impossible to develop from a cost perspective, short of Bioware charging double or triple for such a game.

[quote]
There's cinematic, and there's cinematic. There's Micheal Bay, and there's Dario Argento or Akira Kurosawa. [/quote]

Sure, if that's what you chose to see. In movies, directors typically pay much closer attention to camera angles, close-ups, etc, that sort of thing, which Mass Effect 2 did quite a bit. Ex: At the end of Freedom's Progress, we receive a close-up of Shepard's reaction as he's studying the Collector image.

[quote]
Again, Shepard had the tendency to add something more than in ME1. The dialogue wheel may have been intended as such, but that doesn't make it good. Why the hell would you give choices when you never actually know what the character would say? Basically, that's saying: the point of the system is that there is 3 choice, the good, the bad and the ugly, keep choosing the up options if you want to be the good guy, etc. Hell, Bioware coul've given that choice at the beginning of the game, making dialogue purely scripted events and the difference would've been barely noticeable. Again, it never infuriated me in ME1, I never was like "that's not what I meant". Yes, it wasn't very good in ME1, but I already said that.
[/quote]

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 mars 2011 - 07:51 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

The characters and thier missions just replaced the useless side missions in ME1, which almost all involved driving around on near identical worlds, fighting in identical mines/bunkers. Neither plot revolved around any of it. Why you would stop to kill a rogue AI on the the moon when pursuing a madman hellbent on destroying all civilization is probably even more incomprehensible than helping out a teammate wrap up some loose ends prior to their possible death. At least in ME2, they tried to make the missions relevant.

I don't know why you're talking about the rogue AI thing, it certainly has nothing to do with the plot.

Both had about the same number of main missions. In ME1, you had eden prime, novaria, feros, liara's dig site, virmire and the citadel. In ME2, you had the Cerberus space station, horizon, freedom's progress, the Collector Ship, the dead Reaper, and the Collector base.

That's hardly relevant. On Noveria, you had to find your way to Benezia, you had to talk to people and do quests for them. You had to put the station back together. Before going there, you had to go on the Citadel and become a Spectre. In order to do so, you had to do several things. ME2 only asks you to go to some place, load the mission, shoot your way through it and then finished. Add a dialogue or two, having to speak to someone before starting the mission and that's it. Basically, the Illusive Man or certain cinematics tells you everything you could've learning in way more interesting fashions while doing other missions. ME2's missions felt like missions, rather than quests. I love good shooters, but the problem is that ME2's storytelling should've been more interactive. Personally, I found all of ME2's main missions extremely boring except the Collector ship which was okay.

Also, I consider the both types of squad missions to be main missions. Half of them are unnessesary as half of the characters are from worthless to expendable. That's where they should've added missions exploring the Collectors' background, learning about them and the Reapers, instead of being told about it in a movie fashion. There's too much about your squad and not enough about the Collectors/Reapers (the latter being the reason why we play the game).

The problem was that the character missions completely outshone the main missions. In ME1, the side missions were interesting but the main missions held all the drama. In ME2, the character missions were largely riveting, had emotional impact and big moral decisions while most of the main missions were pretty unexciting.

I half agree. I wasn't really touched on any emotional impact, I thought it was all standard fare and nothing special. The character's stories were good for a cerain part, but hardly what I would call riveting or having any emotional impact besides slighlty feeling bad for the characters. As for big moral decisions, I think Bioware subdued them a lot. They tried too much to make Mordin good and took out most of the moral ambiguity. The choice about the collector base wasn't that easy, but I fail to see what's has so much to do with morality. But when you look at the Rachni choice, it was a far harder and morally ambiguous one. I made a character I wanted the most the be "canon", trying to find the choice of what would've fit in a movie for example, but it was the hardest one, as both sides had their plus and minuses.

Deciding to keep or destroy the genophage data was a dramatic moment. Deciding the reprogram the heretic geth was a dramatic moment. They all happened in side missions. And while awesome moments, none of which directly related to the main plot. Killing Liara's mom had to do with the main plot. Destroying the research facility had to do with the plot. It kept the tension where it needed to be.

Meh, Bioware managed to explain so much Mordin's actions that it wasn't really a choice for me unless I wanted to do the bad guy. Again, I thought it was lacking ambguity.

[Il Divo]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

So what's the point of arguing other than to try and disprove his opinions? It seems like then, you only enjoy trying to prove others wrong, even if it takes you numerous and annoying replies back to try. So if that's the goal you are wasting your time.

Or to have fun and improve the overall quality of my own posting style. It's not all about you, ya' know.

You see, I've accepted that I'm just another idiot with an opinion on these forums. If I can convince someone of something, great! Good for me. But I don't expect that as the default. Yet you've had 14 pages and haven't been able to convince anyone of anything. And for that, I'm sorry.

[shep82]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

billywaffles wrote...

Yes, it is. For the old rpg fanbase of bioware at least. Completely destroy the rpg element of ME and make us angry to never trust in them again.

I disagree. They didn't destroy the rpg elements of ME in the second nor will they in the third. It's just that RPGs are changing and some purists are too picky.

If by changing you mean dubbing down everything - ie. NOT streamlining, it's different. Seriously, where's the good RPG elements in ME2? Nowhere. The stat allotment/classes are terrible, the conversation us weak as ever - it was already simplistic and too contrived in ME1 - the real RPG quests are mostly gone, Shepard is also ****ty as ever with no opportunities to make him do anything to actually make him as you want. The best thing about the RPG side of the game is the dialogue scripts, and it's only related to the actual RPG.

I always find these comments funny, because I can't seem to understand what RPG elements you guys are referring to. You talk about change in the RPG genre, but the only difference I can see between KOTOR and Mass Effect 2 in the gameplay is the inclusing of a shooter section (not RPG), dumbing down of the class system, dumbing down of the skill system, dumbing down of the conversation system, dumbing down of weapons choice, dumbing down of the quests in favour of TPS missions (not RPG). So really, what is the change, the breath of fresh air ME2 brings into the RPG world? And what makes the game better in the "changes" I listed? In a nutshell, Bioware just dumbed down every RPG element in favour of adding non-RPG element, I don't see how it's revitalizing the genre instead of killing it, since there's nothing special or new about the RPG elements.

Add to the crappy RPG elements, you have subpar FPS mechanics. The shooting isn't bad, but if it wasn't for the Mass Effect story - which is incredibly underwhelming in several aspects - and backstory - which still manages to stay strong - you bet I'd play Gears of War anytime instead.

I don't agree.  You RPG purists are just looking too deep. The rpg elements are there and I don't see how anything is dumbed down IMO.

[Whatever42]

Evil Johnny, clearly you and I are so far apart that we can't really discuss anything. To me we're comparing two different types of apples. You've magnified the differences to such an astounding degree that you're comparing an apple to a elephant. I understand your points but its like someone's trying to convince me that an anthill is Mt. Everest.

I'll simply say that I profoundly disagree with you and leave it at that.

[Franzius]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Franzius wrote...

The main issue many have with ME2 is not strictly limited to the lack of the RPG elements!!!

For many (myself included) ME2 is a far inferior experience as a whole game: very limited-super linear corridor levels, no exploration (both on vehicle & on foot), no looting, no dialogue with squad outside normandy, far inferior plot, far less inspired visuals (I am not talking about the tech... all those palm trees in the galaxy.. .) inferior athmospere and feel, less epic, world less credible, and in the end a little bit boring too.

ME2 maybe run better than ME1 but it is inferior in every other aspect!!!

very limited-super linear corridor: definately could be better but most of the shooting levelson ME1 were pretty narrow too.

no exploration (both on vehicle & on foot): would love exploration but that sucked in ME1. Better little exploration than driving around on a cookie-cutter rock.

no dialogue with squad outside normandy: except on their character missions. And they spoke during lots of missions and it was mostly good stuff. About the same as ME1 really.

far inferior plot: going to get nit-picky on you but the plot was fine. The pacing and story elements caused a lack of dramatic tension, I agree.

far less inspired visuals: nonsense. Visually, ME2 is far more visually stunning. The cityscapes of Illium easily outdid the vista at the Citadel, for example.

inferior athmospere and feel: different, certainly. I'm ambivilent to which one I preferred more.

less epic: agreed. ME2 had some seriously epic moments but as far as the main story goes, it was far less epic.

world less credible: I would agree. ME2 went for style over substance more. Personally, I grew up with Han Solo running around inside a giant worm in an asteroid with nothing but a breather mask so it didn't bother me. MMV.

end a little bit boring too: ME2 was far more exciting than ME1 in almost every mission and I found the characters much more dramatic. Where it failed was the main story missions. The lack of tension in the main story really drained the tension, which might be your point. So if it is, I agree.

-) ME1 majority of maps are simil sand-box (most of them are also explorable with vehicle); The majority of the ME2 maps are instead very short and linear!!!
We would like to talk about the HUB worlds?

-) What is your problem with the exploration of ME1? MAKO controls? (Have you realized that are similar to the ones used by Bungies for all the terrain vehicle of Halo series?) The splendid planet vistas? Or simply you do not like exploration? And which is the "litte exploration" in ME2? ME2 has no vehicle exploration and the level are really really linear... And then on ME2 you can practically collect only (useless) money!!!

-) You can not really talk with your squad mate on ME2 outside Normandy... What are you talking about?

-) The concept design is very very uninspired in ME2: Illiuim is Corouscant, baby terminator, palms trees, blade runner for Omega, collector... I really suggest you to watch the video regarding the concept design that you can find in the second disc of the collector edition of ME1... Listen to what they affirm there and how they changed their mind in ME2!!!

-) Atmosphere?!?!? We moved to tge 70-80 classic Sci-Fi (ME1) to Armageddon (ME2)... next step War of the World 2011 (have you see the ME3 trailer?).

Really sorry for that but again ME2 run better that ME1 but the first one is a masterpiece the second one is a huge disappointment (as a sequel of the first one).

[Lunatic LK47]

Franzius wrote...

 What is your problem with the exploration of ME1? MAKO controls? (Have you realized that are similar to the ones used by Bungies for all the terrain vehicle of Halo series?)

Except the controls for the Warthog isn't erratic. Pressing up on joystick= ALWAYS DRIVE FORWARD, Press down on joystick= Always Reverse. Mako= Any direction drives forward depending on camera angle. Making simple U-turns became a freaking nightmare just because the Mako decided to randomly hit reverse. It's as stupid as saying, "It's perfectly fine for my car to randomly hit reverse when I'm making a U-turn, despite the fact that my transmission is set on Drive."

[Evil Johnny 666]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

How did those games represented a shift? [/quote]

I never said it was a good shift. Jade Empire and Mass Effect were the first Bioware RPGs which did not rely on the DnD rules-base and were in effect the most 'dumbed down' of the Bioware line up. Here, you're saying that Mass Effect 2 was very dumbed which is incredibly mis-leading when considering the full range of Bioware titles and where Mass Effect evolved from.[/quote]
Except when I speak of a a certain game or two, I don't always refer to all the games the company made. Why should I consider the full range of Bioware games if I'm not even referring to them?

[quote]Hence why I consider some of these comments (that Mass Effect 2 alone is killing BIoware) to be somewhat bizarre. [/quote]
I never said that. In fact, I even said Bioware have been making increasingly less good games for some time.

[quote][quote]
What did they brought to the RPG table? Nothing. It's the same DnD system, except 50 times worse. And it's funny, it's like you're saying RPGs must be less RPG in order to not be stuck in some sort of stone age. And it's funny how games of the stone age are several times more deep than anything Bioware made recently. [/quote]

Depends, if by 'less RPG' you mean relying on numbers, then yes they must rely on them less. Notice that the old style cRPG has died out, for the most part. Dragon Age: Origins is a rarity in a breed of games which have been steadily moving away from relying on large-scale numbers.[/quote]

You'd have to tell me what RPG element not relying on numbers have been better, or the same.

[quote][quote]
Now that's completely irrelevant. I ACKNOWLEDGED ME1 was dumbed down. Why do you keep going back there when it's not the subject at all? We talk about ME2 being dumbed down, nothing else. ME1 being more dumb down from Jade Empire than ME2 from ME1 doesn't change ANYTHING. And if anything, we're principally talking about ME3 being Bioware's last hope. I say plenty of unused potential and hints of brilliance of ME1, my biggest gripe with ME2 is how it ignores all this and gets even more simpler instead. [/quote]

It depends on how you look at it. Twilight is a better film than Battlefield Earth, but that hardly speaks to Twilight's brilliance. Likewise, pointing out that Mass Effect is 'deeper' than Mass Effect 2 doesn't get us very far unless you can explain how Mass Effect itself was deep. I thought both games were fairly shallow in this regard. [/quote]

That's irrelevant. The question was whether or not Mass Effect 2 was less deep or not, Mass Effect 1 being not that deep in the first place is irrelevant. I think you're misinterpreting my original post.

[quote]I saw little 'brilliant' about Mass Effect's gameplay. Instead, I saw an over-inflated inventory which really needed to go, among other flaws.[/quote]
Kind of how you were dazzled by ME2's gloss.
 
[quote][quote]
That's not a contradiction. Games and movies work differently, as books, the mediums are different. That's why the fact that games tries to be too much like movies nowadays cheapen the video game medium. I never found KOTOR to not be believable. When I speak to a friend, I don't walk around doing plenty of gestures for the sake of it. And when I talk to friends, I certainly do not see myself doing things or see my friends from different angles. [/quote]

So, let me get this straight: because games and movies are different, it somehow makes sense that games are allowed to feature static character interactions? Again, if the goal is to make these characters realistic and believable, what you are saying is a contradiction, whether you accept it or not. It's the rough-eqiuvalent of suggesting that voice-acting didn't improve the Kotor cast over Baldur's Gate II. People are not silent when they speak, nor are they completely motionless. These are two things which Kotor and Mass Effect 2 improved on respectively. [/quote]

You're again misinterprating me. I never said Interactions had to be static, I said it shouldn't be at the expense of the depth of the actual system itself. Yes, people are not silent and such, but as you said, games are games. If you're going to destroy the reason why I play games and keep nothing but realistic characters, but nothing that it adds too - ie. the quality of the interaction themselves - then I'm not going to bother. Ie. if you give me the choice between a relatively poor looking shooter, but with an incredibly deep level design and gameplay, and an extremely good looking graphics and fancy cinematic moments, but an incredibly linear level design and gameplay - ie. COD - I'll choose the former any day. Unfortunately, it seems most people prefer something that looks good, rather than play good.

[quote][quote]
You speak of immersion, but contradict yourself since ME2 is more cinematic than it is realistic. [/quote]

While true, every RPG would have to be played from the first person perspective to create immersion. Thankfully, this isn't the case.  

[quote]
Again, what this has anything to do with the system's depth? Nothing. It doesn't change the system, doesn't make it better, it only makes it LOOK better. Good actors can't change a bad script.  [/quote]

Actually, I'd argue that a bad line said well will work much better than a good line said badly.[/quote]

If the conversation system is identical in both cases, I agree. Otherwise, I'll take a bad acter line any time of the day if it means that the interactions will be deeper and better made, if the game itself is better. For some reason it reminds me collectors buying records to stare at them, rather than to play them, even if they may not look as good as time passes by.


[quote]
[quote]
It's not because cRPGs can't offer as much as in the original medium that it has to use this as an excuse to give us increasingly poor choices. Anyway, Bioware always boasted choice. Developpers should use what the medium offers them, which is a more dynamic choice system and character creation/progression. Make things as adaptive as possible. Using cinematic elements instead is the last thing they should do, use it only if it still supports the advantages the medium brings. Again, developpers nowadays tries too much to make their games cinematic, and ignore plenty of ways they can use the gaming medium to its advantage and give us far better experiences in the process. [/quote]

Because most video games are shown in the third person, like movies. That's why a cinematic conversation with Ashley would have been infiitely better for what Mass Effect intended (and failed) to do. Virmire and the end sequence aside, most of Mass Effect is exactly what we'd been seeing in every past Bioware game. I saw this level of character-interaction five years earlier with Kotor, which had a better cast. [/quote]

How third person has anything to do with movies? It's not the third person perspective with is cinematic, it's how you use it. Are you telling me JRPGs are more cinematic because of the third person perspective? Play non-cinematic ones as Chrono Trigger and come tell me this again. The perspective has much to do with the gameplay and the design - ie. it's easier to make a good looking game out of a TPS than a FPS - it's how you do it that is cinematic or not. Personally, I fail to see how Ashley's conversation could've been significantly better in ME1, I thought it was perfect the way it was. When I talk to a friend somewhere, I don't start running around. When we're on the couch talking, I don't get up walk to around a bit, put my feet on it to hold my knee, than getting straight up again crossing my arms, then walking again sit on the other couch getting in all sorts of positions. Yeah, I'm obviously exaggerating, but my point is that what ME2 added in this regard was superfluous. Continue that direction, and you're straight into Uncanny valley. In fact, there's plenty of little things that fall in that category, principally about character faces though.

[quote][quote]
Her code is way too restrictive. The Paladin's code never made me cringe as much as her code. [/quote]

Then I recommend you actually look into the various Paladin's code scenarios which DMs present their players. More than a few are designed as nothing more than to cause their characters to fall if they deviate at all from their code. That's the very point of the Paladin's code. [/quote]

For some reason I misinterpreted it for something in KOTOR... anyway, why did you even talked about it in the first place? Completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

[quote][quote]
The Spectre program infinitely makes more sense. And even, it adds a certain moral abiguity. I fail to see how it's even dumb or ridiculous in the first place. [/quote]

Yes, I'm sure the populus at large would willingly allow their governments to impose an organization which features complete immunity to the law, because this wouldn't end badly. I fail to see how it makes 'infiinitely' more sense.[/quote]

Yeah, because I'm sure that if a small group is against that they'd stand a chance to do anything. If Spectres don't directly bother the population, I don't see what people would have against them. In fact, I think some might be happy about it for some reasons. But then, here it comes the moral ambiguity. I bet it wouldn't suffer such a backlash as you think, but questions would arise for sure, and that's why it's a lot more interesting than Samara's brainless code.
 
[quote][quote]
It's kind of like a Jedi with more freedom. Beyong her code, Samara is a lifeless, personallity-less robot. Samara IS the code, nothing more. [/quote]

Then you understood the point of Samara's character. [/quote]

Yes, I never said I didn't. I just said she's an incredibly boring and stupid character.



[quote][quote]
-My Shepard tells The Illusive Man that he feels well after being put together again - which grants me renegade points for unknown reasons. Then, speaking to Jacob, I have 3 conversation options. 1. I trust you 2. I don't know yet 3. I don't trust you. Me wanting to be friend-friend with Cerberus, use the first option. But instead, Shepards adds "but I think you're working for the wrong people". What? The hell? If I wanted to be the bad guy, I would've been obligated to tell him that I didn't trust him. And if I wanted to be the good Shepard who doesn't trust Cerberus and its emplyees, telling him I don't trust him grants me renegade points. What the hell? And it's not the only moment I experienced this. It could've been better in ME1, but I never can to these ridiculous problems. [/quote]

Which demonstrates that you are not fully understanding the paragon-renegade system. Top options typically represent paragon options, bottom represent renegade. You received renegade points with Jacob because you responded in a renegade manner, even if you don't like Cerberus. Paragons are noted for being more diplomatic and trusting. By telling Jacob you don't trust him, you've taken on a renegade stance.

This would help if you could provide a youtube link as well. [/quote]

It's the other way around, it demonstrates how the paragon-renegade system sucks. Only, it felt less worse in ME1 because the conversation option themselves didn't feel so routed to a morality side, and that they didn't leave you as much surprises. As for a youtube link, well try find any.

[quote][quote]
The choices are waffle in ME1 because Bioware failed to implement them properly. But then, why did they bother giving you the Rachni or Council choice if they didn't plan to make them work? Why? That, and most choices had nothing to do with the main story. Some only added to possibility to talk to someone for 30 seconds, and the e-mails. Why did they bother to implement these consequences if no one cares about such limited ones? Why didn't they divert their efforts into making the consequences of the real, meaningful choices more real? [/quote]

The choices are waffle because most Bioware choices are 'waffle'. Take a second and consider how many choices in most Bioware games actually evolve into something significant, which is usually no more than one or two.[/quote]
Except other Bioware games are irrelevant here. And except Bioware didn't brought countless waffle choices into another game, which is my main point here.

[quote]This doesn't explain how/why you thought Mass Effect 2 was going to allow large-scale consequences for your choices from Mass Effect. This would make Mass Effect 3 impossible to develop from a cost perspective, short of Bioware charging double or triple for such a game. [/quote]
I never said large scale. I said meaningful. Bioware made me, and I think pretty much everyone else, into believing the consequences of our choices meant having e-mails or a single short conversation with someone. Many people were disappointed how the rachni and council choice had little effect in ME2, cheapening the choice itself and the whole thing. If you're not going to bother making a decent choice/consequence thing over 3 games, don't do it. Money isn't an excuse, they started it thus I expected something at least good.

[quote][quote]
There's cinematic, and there's cinematic. There's Micheal Bay, and there's Dario Argento or Akira Kurosawa. [/quote]

Sure, if that's what you chose to see. In movies, directors typically pay much closer attention to camera angles, close-ups, etc, that sort of thing, which Mass Effect 2 did quite a bit. Ex: At the end of Freedom's Progress, we receive a close-up of Shepard's reaction as he's studying the Collector image.[/quote]

The hell? That is EXACTLY what I meant. The difference between Micheal Bay, Dario Argento and Akira Kurosawa, among many things, is how they do they control their camera, how they make the action, what sort of feel they want to give. Akira Kurosawa has a lot of static work in some of his movies (those I saw at least) for certain effects, a certain feel. Tsui Hark has a very active camera work, with fly-ins, with getting around the action, following it etc. Dario Argento works a lot with colours, static angles to make a certain environment/happening all the more ominous - ie. a shot from high up of a blind walking with his dog at night in an illuminated plaza but with pitch black darkness directly around it. Or a conversation that is filmed by a static shot through a reflection - often makes slow paced shots while roughly staying at the same place but get around a bit putting the emphasis on the music, a lot of close ups on faces, weird angles etc. All those are different ways to be cinematic. And I think that's also one thing developers fail to see, they seem to think there's only one way to do cinematic work which is the crappy (for the most part) Hollywood way and ignore the countless other ways to make their games more cinematic in much, much more interesting manners. That comment makes me think that's all you know.

[quote][quote]
Again, Shepard had the tendency to add something more than in ME1. The dialogue wheel may have been intended as such, but that doesn't make it good. Why the hell would you give choices when you never actually know what the character would say? Basically, that's saying: the point of the system is that there is 3 choice, the good, the bad and the ugly, keep choosing the up options if you want to be the good guy, etc. Hell, Bioware coul've given that choice at the beginning of the game, making dialogue purely scripted events and the difference would've been barely noticeable. Again, it never infuriated me in ME1, I never was like "that's not what I meant". Yes, it wasn't very good in ME1, but I already said that.
[/quote]

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.
[/quote]

I don't know what there is not to understand, seems pretty clear to me.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 17 mars 2011 - 03:20 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Evil Johnny, clearly you and I are so far apart that we can't really discuss anything. To me we're comparing two different types of apples. You've magnified the differences to such an astounding degree that you're comparing an apple to a elephant. I understand your points but its like someone's trying to convince me that an anthill is Mt. Everest.

I'll simply say that I profoundly disagree with you and leave it at that.

I am VERY curious as to how I magnified anything. As far as I know, everything I'm saying is accurate - besides my opinion. My opinion is based on certain facts and how I react to them. I can understand our differences lie within what we look in a game, but the last thing I can understand is me changing things. Maybe you're just misreading me, missing parts of what I'm telling, or reading something else of what I wrote.

[Evil Johnny 666]

shep82 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

If by changing you mean dubbing down everything - ie. NOT streamlining, it's different. Seriously, where's the good RPG elements in ME2? Nowhere. The stat allotment/classes are terrible, the conversation us weak as ever - it was already simplistic and too contrived in ME1 - the real RPG quests are mostly gone, Shepard is also ****ty as ever with no opportunities to make him do anything to actually make him as you want. The best thing about the RPG side of the game is the dialogue scripts, and it's only related to the actual RPG.

I always find these comments funny, because I can't seem to understand what RPG elements you guys are referring to. You talk about change in the RPG genre, but the only difference I can see between KOTOR and Mass Effect 2 in the gameplay is the inclusing of a shooter section (not RPG), dumbing down of the class system, dumbing down of the skill system, dumbing down of the conversation system, dumbing down of weapons choice, dumbing down of the quests in favour of TPS missions (not RPG). So really, what is the change, the breath of fresh air ME2 brings into the RPG world? And what makes the game better in the "changes" I listed? In a nutshell, Bioware just dumbed down every RPG element in favour of adding non-RPG element, I don't see how it's revitalizing the genre instead of killing it, since there's nothing special or new about the RPG elements.

Add to the crappy RPG elements, you have subpar FPS mechanics. The shooting isn't bad, but if it wasn't for the Mass Effect story - which is incredibly underwhelming in several aspects - and backstory - which still manages to stay strong - you bet I'd play Gears of War anytime instead.

I don't agree.  You RPG purists are just looking too deep. The rpg elements are there and I don't see how anything is dumbed down IMO.

Yet, you still don't say anything to make me change my mind on anything. I mean, you're accusing me of being an RPG purist, saying you don't think anything is dumbed down without addressing my concerns about some things you guys say, you make me just asking myself even more how you can think some things. Plus, I never said rpgs elements are not there, did you not read my post?

[xTHExWARRIORx]

No I don't think so. They can do a lot of awesome spin offs from the series. It just won't be with Shep. Its a solid company and as a fan of the series I have faith in the company that has brought such an amazing series.

[Gatt9]

shep82 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

billywaffles wrote...

Yes, it is. For the old rpg fanbase of bioware at least. Completely destroy the rpg element of ME and make us angry to never trust in them again.

I disagree. They didn't destroy the rpg elements of ME in the second nor will they in the third. It's just that RPGs are changing and some purists are too picky.

If by changing you mean dubbing down everything - ie. NOT streamlining, it's different. Seriously, where's the good RPG elements in ME2? Nowhere. The stat allotment/classes are terrible, the conversation us weak as ever - it was already simplistic and too contrived in ME1 - the real RPG quests are mostly gone, Shepard is also ****ty as ever with no opportunities to make him do anything to actually make him as you want. The best thing about the RPG side of the game is the dialogue scripts, and it's only related to the actual RPG.

I always find these comments funny, because I can't seem to understand what RPG elements you guys are referring to. You talk about change in the RPG genre, but the only difference I can see between KOTOR and Mass Effect 2 in the gameplay is the inclusing of a shooter section (not RPG), dumbing down of the class system, dumbing down of the skill system, dumbing down of the conversation system, dumbing down of weapons choice, dumbing down of the quests in favour of TPS missions (not RPG). So really, what is the change, the breath of fresh air ME2 brings into the RPG world? And what makes the game better in the "changes" I listed? In a nutshell, Bioware just dumbed down every RPG element in favour of adding non-RPG element, I don't see how it's revitalizing the genre instead of killing it, since there's nothing special or new about the RPG elements.

Add to the crappy RPG elements, you have subpar FPS mechanics. The shooting isn't bad, but if it wasn't for the Mass Effect story - which is incredibly underwhelming in several aspects - and backstory - which still manages to stay strong - you bet I'd play Gears of War anytime instead.

I don't agree.  You RPG purists are just looking too deep. The rpg elements are there and I don't see how anything is dumbed down IMO.

Here's your problem.

Take away stat based characters and you get...Adventure game.
Take away character based skill and you get...FPS/TPS.

You keep calling us "Purists!" when the truth is,  all of your definitions evaluate to some completely different genre.  Dialgoue doesn't make a game an RPG,  it requires a defined character with his own intrinsic qualities.  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue and choices in 1994.  It wasn't an RPG.  Dialogue also exists in every Adventure game ever made,  with just about the same effect as Mass Effect 2's system.

So to be perfectly honest,  every time you sit here and chant "RPG Purist RPG Purist!!!"  You just further prove my point,  there's a bunch of people here who hate RPGs but for some reason want to believe they like them,  and demand RPGs play like some other genre because they hate RPGs.

[shep82]

Gatt9 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

billywaffles wrote...

Yes, it is. For the old rpg fanbase of bioware at least. Completely destroy the rpg element of ME and make us angry to never trust in them again.

I disagree. They didn't destroy the rpg elements of ME in the second nor will they in the third. It's just that RPGs are changing and some purists are too picky.

If by changing you mean dubbing down everything - ie. NOT streamlining, it's different. Seriously, where's the good RPG elements in ME2? Nowhere. The stat allotment/classes are terrible, the conversation us weak as ever - it was already simplistic and too contrived in ME1 - the real RPG quests are mostly gone, Shepard is also ****ty as ever with no opportunities to make him do anything to actually make him as you want. The best thing about the RPG side of the game is the dialogue scripts, and it's only related to the actual RPG.

I always find these comments funny, because I can't seem to understand what RPG elements you guys are referring to. You talk about change in the RPG genre, but the only difference I can see between KOTOR and Mass Effect 2 in the gameplay is the inclusing of a shooter section (not RPG), dumbing down of the class system, dumbing down of the skill system, dumbing down of the conversation system, dumbing down of weapons choice, dumbing down of the quests in favour of TPS missions (not RPG). So really, what is the change, the breath of fresh air ME2 brings into the RPG world? And what makes the game better in the "changes" I listed? In a nutshell, Bioware just dumbed down every RPG element in favour of adding non-RPG element, I don't see how it's revitalizing the genre instead of killing it, since there's nothing special or new about the RPG elements.

Add to the crappy RPG elements, you have subpar FPS mechanics. The shooting isn't bad, but if it wasn't for the Mass Effect story - which is incredibly underwhelming in several aspects - and backstory - which still manages to stay strong - you bet I'd play Gears of War anytime instead.

I don't agree.  You RPG purists are just looking too deep. The rpg elements are there and I don't see how anything is dumbed down IMO.

Here's your problem.

Take away stat based characters and you get...Adventure game.
Take away character based skill and you get...FPS/TPS.

You keep calling us "Purists!" when the truth is,  all of your definitions evaluate to some completely different genre.  Dialgoue doesn't make a game an RPG,  it requires a defined character with his own intrinsic qualities.  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue and choices in 1994.  It wasn't an RPG.  Dialogue also exists in every Adventure game ever made,  with just about the same effect as Mass Effect 2's system.

So to be perfectly honest,  every time you sit here and chant "RPG Purist RPG Purist!!!"  You just further prove my point,  there's a bunch of people here who hate RPGs but for some reason want to believe they like them,  and demand RPGs play like some other genre because they hate RPGs.

I hate RPG's yeah that must be why I play MMOs like DCU and WOW because I hate RPGs. Same reason I play Oblivion, Fallout , KOTOR, FF, THe Witcher because I hate RPGs. I happen to believe RPGs can exist with different gameplay and still be RPGs. ME 2 still has RPG elements while yes not as much as other rpgs they are still there. Call me what you want but I still believe ME 2 is an RPG game and a damn good one. COuld it have implemented the RPG elements a tad better? Yes. Did it completely strip them out? IMO no.

[Evil Johnny 666]

shep82 wrote...

I hate RPG's yeah that must be why I play MMOs like DCU and WOW because I hate RPGs. Same reason I play Oblivion, Fallout , KOTOR, FF, THe Witcher because I hate RPGs. I happen to believe RPGs can exist with different gameplay and still be RPGs. ME 2 still has RPG elements while yes not as much as other rpgs they are still there. Call me what you want but I still believe ME 2 is an RPG game and a damn good one. COuld it have implemented the RPG elements a tad better? Yes. Did it completely strip them out? IMO no.

Except the different gameplay ME2 has is of a shooter game, which has nothing to do with RPGs. Most here who prefer ME1 ackowledge ME2 is an RPG, only that some elements got taken out or at the very least were stripped down to the bare minimum, or just dumbed down.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

Here's your problem.

Take away stat based characters and you get...Adventure game.
Take away character based skill and you get...FPS/TPS.

You keep calling us "Purists!" when the truth is,  all of your definitions evaluate to some completely different genre.  Dialgoue doesn't make a game an RPG,  it requires a defined character with his own intrinsic qualities.  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue and choices in 1994.  It wasn't an RPG.  Dialogue also exists in every Adventure game ever made,  with just about the same effect as Mass Effect 2's system.

So to be perfectly honest,  every time you sit here and chant "RPG Purist RPG Purist!!!"  You just further prove my point,  there's a bunch of people here who hate RPGs but for some reason want to believe they like them,  and demand RPGs play like some other genre because they hate RPGs.

So you're saying that folks really want... an FPS/Adventure game hybrid? Except with choices, which neither of those genres traditionally provides. Then again, not all RPGs provide that either.

Let's say you're right. About the only thing I can see following from this is that the RPG genre turns out to be even less popular than we thought it was, since a lot of self-described RPG fans turn out to have been making a category mistake the whole time.

[Evil Johnny 666]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Here's your problem.

Take away stat based characters and you get...Adventure game.
Take away character based skill and you get...FPS/TPS.

You keep calling us "Purists!" when the truth is,  all of your definitions evaluate to some completely different genre.  Dialgoue doesn't make a game an RPG,  it requires a defined character with his own intrinsic qualities.  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue and choices in 1994.  It wasn't an RPG.  Dialogue also exists in every Adventure game ever made,  with just about the same effect as Mass Effect 2's system.

So to be perfectly honest,  every time you sit here and chant "RPG Purist RPG Purist!!!"  You just further prove my point,  there's a bunch of people here who hate RPGs but for some reason want to believe they like them,  and demand RPGs play like some other genre because they hate RPGs.

So you're saying that folks really want... an FPS/Adventure game hybrid? Except with choices, which neither of those genres traditionally provides. Then again, not all RPGs provide that either.

Let's say you're right. About the only thing I can see following from this is that the RPG genre turns out to be even less popular than we thought it was, since a lot of self-described RPG fans turn out to have been making a category mistake the whole time.

Yeah, because besides the choice between being the good or the bad guy, keeping the collector base or not and the ghenophage data, there's a ****load of choices with impacts on the actual game. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, as well - ****, forget Chaos Theory giving you more in-game choices that actually affects the game, Double Agent! According to you, DA is a RPG. Double Agent gives you choices, blow up the cruise ship or not, kill the hostage or not, blame Erica or not, kill Lambert or not. There's also choices you can do in game that affects missions such as the one where you are asked to kill a CIA agent, if you don't you have an addition segment where you need to rescue him and extract him. And you got 3 different endings. Chaos Theory had gameplay choices which could impacts your objectives in subsequent missions. Now I hope you're not going to tell me any Splinter Cell game is nowhere nearbeing an RPG...

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 17 mars 2011 - 04:51 .

[Vena_86]

shep82 wrote...

I don't agree.  You RPG purists are just looking too deep. The rpg elements are there and I don't see how anything is dumbed down IMO.

The RPG elements in ME2 are pointless. They have been made insignificant (so that you can just play it as a shooter). It looks like BioWare thinks that these things just scare of their new target audience instead of looking at why these elements persist in gaming and many other games even CoD use RPG elements, often in far more efficient ways than ME2.

The whole reasearch panel is just a liability to make it look like you can customize. Why is there not a reasearch all button? Why doesn't it reasearch all automatically, because in the end you end up with just that.
The ability to change weapons for squad mates and Shepard is pointless. The game gives everyone the best weapon for each type on it's own. The problem is that there are universal "best" weapons.
The leveling up feels dull. There is so little to do and look forward to (Soldier class, are you kidding me?).
There is no economy in the game and every item is in a fixed predetermined point. There is no joy in "finding" anything. The game just puts stuff on your linear path, without any feel of reward.
No fun in pimping out your characters. The modular armor system is greatly underused so that it becomes pointless as well. Play the game with custom armor setup or the default from the start...it doesn't matter, there is no noticable difference. Companions don't even have anything to customize except for loyalty clothes that are just slapped on without any logic, story explanation or progression.

ME2 looks like it doesn't know where it's going with these "RPG elements". In this oversimplified form, they don't add anything to the game and just appear like an uncomfortable leftover that was slapped on in the end after the actual game design has been worked out.
System like that should be included into the fabric of the game design.
When efficiently used they can add depth, complexity, diversity and long time motivation without sacrificing usability. ME2 looks like it never even approached those goals.

Modifié par Vena_86, 17 mars 2011 - 05:52 .