150 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Solving a see-saw puzzle is not brains.

You and your see-saw fetish...

Anyway, there was none of that in CoD or Halo, games which, sadly, aren't much fun without friends.

[Sajuro]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

 You won with brains, not pew-pew.

Solving a see-saw puzzle is not brains.

Anyway, I'm with the OP on this one. Mass Effect 2 is an excellent RPG and as a game it plays much better than its predecessor.

that is not the only puzzle, i think.

[Serena Firewing]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Games that stick to the pure genre formula tend to bore me.

Excuse me, did Half-Life 2 tend to bore you?

It did bore me...

[UKStory135]

I know a great game that had a huge inventory, a variety of choices in challenges, and a very complex leveling system. It's called Tiger Woods 2011.

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Games that stick to the pure genre formula tend to bore me.

Excuse me, did Half-Life 2 tend to bore you?

Why, no.  It was part shooter, part logic puzzle.  You won with brains, not pew-pew.

Lol, than this game is probably a "part shooter" too... After all, you win by pew-pew there... And it plays like a Mass Effect 2 Lite, actually.

[Sajuro]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

that is not the only puzzle, i think.

No, it pretty much is just that. Sometimes you just have to hunt for the see-saw parts.

using the gravity gun could be a puzzle in death.

[Zulu_DFA]

Sajuro wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

that is not the only puzzle, i think.

No, it pretty much is just that. Sometimes you just have to hunt for the see-saw parts.

Using the gravity gun could be a puzzle in death.

No, it's just role-playing elements: you're a brilliant physicist in that game, remember?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 mars 2011 - 05:56 .

[88mphSlayer]

5. Missions have much more plot and roleplaying points than in ME1. Wrex loyalty for instance you could do it or not and the mission was a linear one with no choices. In ME2 the Thane loyalty mission will be used as an example. First you had to acquire info and you could actually torture a suspect if you wanted to or you could persuede him to tell it. This defines Shepard and is great roleplay. You could knock out a security guard or talk your way in and at the end you could kill the target, talk down Thane's son, or choose another way to end it. These all impact the game world differently. it is like this throughout ME2. The missions if you are honest in ME1 were just linear shootouts with some objectives on the way and maybe one choice at the end. They all played out the same and offered little in the way of choice and role-playing.

i did like the more personable decision making in ME2, i thought they did a great job with that, but i missed the greater-impact decisions of the first game..

some of the biggest decisions:
-saving or destroying the colony on feros
-releasing the rachni queen or killing it off
-letting the council die or preserving the council's power

and a multitude of smaller but also impactful decisions:
-finding a cure for the peak 15 victims or letting them suffer
-defending the peak 15 safe area or running away (the guard captain will be agitated if you don't fight the wild rachni)
-killing fist in cold blood or letting him live for giving you valuable info
-executing shiala or letting her help Feros colony survivors
-letting violent corruption continue on Noveria or helping the investigation
-acting like an **** to your squadmates, or just not recruiting some of them
-killing wrex for wanting a cure vs. convincing him to stand down
-having to choose between ashley or kaiden on virmire
-helping the virmire salarian STG in the attack on the facility or letting them get ripped to shreds
-convincing Helena Blake not to become a crime lord or encouraging her ambitions
-resolving the biotic reparations hostage situation or killing the biotics
-convincing Major Kyle to surrender or slaughtering the entire cult
-shutting off the life support for the brain dead son
-etc.

would be cool if they brought back more big decisions like that for the 3rd game, a lot of the "big" impact decisions you can make in ME2 seem very superficial at times like encouraging the Quarians to goto war which isn't played out at all and has no consequences in the game, in the mission report there's concerns they'll goto war regardless if you encourage them or try to discourage them

also the renegade/paragon system is buggy in ME2 and at times you simply don't get much power because the game thinks you have X % of points vs. potential points... it ends up forcing you to always be paragon or always renegade which isn't roleplaying at all it's just meta gaming

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 14 mars 2011 - 06:50 .

[Moiaussi]

UKStory135 wrote...

I know a great game that had a huge inventory, a variety of choices in challenges, and a very complex leveling system. It's called Tiger Woods 2011.

You have a problem with the concept of roleplaying as a PGA golfer?

[Undertone]

I better not hear some blasphemy about Half-Life or I will blow an aggression inhibitor. That game is absolute legend. Not to mention a main source of income during my childhood since we had huge neighborhood bets among the kids. I ruled them all and won all muhaha.

Anyway I don't have a problem with ME2 shooter elements. They are polished and feel nice. What I have a problem with is that with them being polished and nice, everything else feels one step behind or completely gone.

Reloading - I'm fine with that too, so long they provide a different method of finding ammunition. Walking around to pick up big flashy orange things after I killed the crowd of enemies isn't fun.

The whole inventory system could have been simplified and not removed. How much equipment do we have without the DLC which are optional? Almost none. I was like hmmm where did all the equipment go!? Where can I buy stuff from!? With the DLC we get at least a moderate amount of customization. I don't like to pay for something that should have been included in the game, sorry.

I could go into to make a more elaborated response but frankly I feel lazy. But in short I'm fine with ME2 action system being better, I am not fine with other elements getting downgraded or right out removed. I don't like the game being dumped down and over-simplified.

[Phaedon]

Half-Life 2 is a shooter/adventure hybrid. There's as much shooting as there is problem-solving.

And no, I am not calling it a puzzle hybrid, since these things have ruined adventure games.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 mars 2011 - 12:23 .

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

Wait.

People are claiming that RPGs are all about the stats?

The stats?

Dunno about you guys, but the SimCity games are my favourite RPGs.

I know that the OP's point is that roleplaying is more important than classic RPG elements, but think about this.

The ME games are RPG/shooter hybrids. Don't fool yourself, classic RPG elements aren't anything more than a simulation, and that's why stats (in the form of character stats, weapons, potions etc) are important. The more stats you have, the better the simulation is.

So, gameplay wise, ME1 is a better game than ME2? Does it have better RPG elements?

No. If developers could make their board games or CRPGs play like Mass Effect 2 back in the 70s/80s, then traditional RPGs wouldn't exist at all. The only reason somebody came up with that idea was because the player couldn't directly interact with the protagonist.

DPSs on swords exist only because devs didn't have the ability to allow the player to 'handle' the swords themselves, and have the damage be affected by the player's skill.

However, seeing as ME2 is also a shooter, that means that there is a way for that to happen. Traditional RPG elements need to stay on things that the player can't control, such as the effect of biotic attacks and power cooldown.

ME2 didn't do it perfectly, but ME1 did it wrong as a concept all together, I am looking at you Accuracy stat.

So yes, ME2 is a better RPG, because the simulation part doesn't affect your roleplaying.

QFT

[tonnactus]

Mass Effect is the better roleplaying game for the fact alone that it has persuation skills,so players dont have to  be either good or bad...

[Sajuro]

Moiaussi wrote...

UKStory135 wrote...

I know a great game that had a huge inventory, a variety of choices in challenges, and a very complex leveling system. It's called Tiger Woods 2011.

You have a problem with the concept of roleplaying as a PGA golfer?

That I don't get to sext my misteresses during golf games and be hit with a golf club as I drive away from my wife, yeah.

[UFF139821HC]

Sajuro wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

UKStory135 wrote...

I know a great game that had a huge inventory, a variety of choices in challenges, and a very complex leveling system. It's called Tiger Woods 2011.

You have a problem with the concept of roleplaying as a PGA golfer?

That I don't get to sext my misteresses during golf games and be hit with a golf club as I drive away from my wife, yeah.

Lol, sigged
Anyway, tbh with the Quarian/Geth war that we can influence, I was always of the opinion that we don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, for all we know it could be a major factor in ME3. Same thing with the "meaningless" choices in ME1, like saving wrex and the council and the rachni and so on. Just because we don't see the impact of those choices now doesn't mean they won't have an impact in saving the galaxy from the Reapers. I do think ME2 was a better shooter than ME1 and ME1 was the better RPG though, but it's really just down to personal opinion. 
Also for the record, Half Life 2 is 99.99999999etc % pew pew and point 000000.1 brains. Same challenges over again re-brain power, weather it's making a bridge over sand or electric water or just water.
Not that I have anything against Half Life 2

Modifié par UFF139821HC, 14 mars 2011 - 03:25 .

[Il Divo]

Whatever we may think about Mass Effect 1 and 2, can we all stop attempting to present our mere opinions as 'facts'? All it does is incite anger. If your arguments are good enough, people will see what you are trying to say without you having to resort to the 'facts' argument.

[Sajuro]

Il Divo wrote...

Whatever we may think about Mass Effect 1 and 2, can we all stop attempting to present our mere opinions as 'facts'? All it does is incite anger. If your arguments are good enough, people will see what you are trying to say without you having to resort to the 'facts' argument.

No we can't not present our opinions as facts. Because "is mass effect 2" threads are a war and war.... war never changes.

[Slayer299]

But this isn't a "is mass effect 2" thread, it's a statement thread by the OP about ME2.

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

Mass Effect is the better roleplaying game for the fact alone that it has persuation skills,so players dont have to  be either good or bad...

Indeed, adding points to unlock options is better than role-playing it.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 mars 2011 - 04:55 .

[Mister Mida]

Phaedon wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Mass Effect is the better roleplaying game for the fact alone that it has persuation skills,so players dont have to  be either good or bad...

Indeed, adding points to unlock options is better than role-playing it.

So you're saying Bioware screwed the pooch until ME2?

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lol, than this game is probably a "part shooter" too... After all, you win by pew-pew there... And it plays like a Mass Effect 2 Lite, actually.

I have never heard of that game and have no interest in playing it.

To clarify: trying out new things and mixing genre elements does not automatically make a game good, nor will a game that follows traditional formulas automatically be dull.  I happen to prefer innovation and the defiance of tradition, but I can still appreciate a trope done well and recognize when an idea flops.

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lol, than this game is probably a "part shooter" too... After all, you win by pew-pew there... And it plays like a Mass Effect 2 Lite, actually.

I have never heard of that game and have no interest in playing it.

Oh but you should! It's amazing! The combat is fluent and responsive, the equipment system is streamlined, and  whenever you press a button, something awesome happens!

(Don't get me wrong, I'm being sarcasic, but that's actually a great game for what it is - the whole game is about the size of the "Shadow Broker" DLC, in terms of disk space. And it's less magical in terms of sci-fi, which is a huge source of my bias towards it!)

AdmiralCheez wrote...

To clarify: trying out new things and mixing genre elements does not automatically make a game good, nor will a game that follows traditional formulas automatically be dull.  I happen to prefer innovation and the defiance of tradition, but I can still appreciate a trope done well and recognize when an idea flops.

That's a very well balanced and thought out opinion you have here. But what is being discussed (on this forum in general) is that the actual "innovative idea" of ME2 has flopped miserably, while the game gets all the hype for other reasons. Even I can't deny that the characters of TIM and Zaeed made a few of my days back when the game was fresh. So I can only guess how a true talimancer must feel about ME2. Plus those few design traits it inherited uncut from ME1 kept it together for the most part.

Yeah, that's right, ME1 is the only one real source of innovation in this series (even the interrupts were meant to be there, but didn't quite make it due to time constraints). While ME2 cut off and trashed half of that innovation and took the series in the direction where the quick buck flows.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 mars 2011 - 09:26 .

[UKStory135]

Moiaussi wrote...

UKStory135 wrote...

I know a great game that had a huge inventory, a variety of choices in challenges, and a very complex leveling system. It's called Tiger Woods 2011.

You have a problem with the concept of roleplaying as a PGA golfer?

Actually I don't.  I love that game and all of the TW Golf games before it.  I was trying to make a point that inventories, leveling systems, and variety don't make a game a role-playing game.

One of the main arguments against ME2 was that it wasn't hardcore RPG enough.  I really don't know what that means, but I assume that it has something to do with the changes in inventory and leveling up.  The inventory didn't go away, it was just divied up into several neater parts instead of one big clusterfornication.  The leveling is streamlined, but it is not dumbed down.  All of the passive classes were lumped together and first aid / weapons classes were removed and put into research.  Those changes worked and now the points that you put into your powers are clearer and more powerful. 

The other argument is that ME1 had a much better story than ME2.  As far as the main plot goes, I agree.  But the main plot isn't the point of ME2, ME2 is under the premise of preparation.  Thus, character development is much more important and the side content is much more fufilling.  IMO, the quality of ME2's story can't fully be judged until ME3 comes out because ME2 was preparing for the final final battle while ME3 is fighting it.

At the end of the day, I like ME2 better than ME1 for one major reason:
I HATE THE MAKO!  Video games are supposed to be fun, but the Mako is anti-fun.  It is the Jar Jar Binks in the Mass Effect series to me.