True, inventory does not make a RPG. Still, inventory does offer greater flexibility. In ME it was kind of weak in that many mods were so superior to others, many were non-choices. I don't think anyone really used the Combat Scanner, but virtually everyone used Frictionless Materials. If all the mods were of near equal utility, it would have made the choices harder. Still, it did offer customization. With greater customization comes greater freedom in play style, which does offer more opportunity for roleplaying. Personally, I like games that don't have random loot. I like having a few powerful unique items in the game. It then becomes chosing between them and choicing who in the party gets to equip them. In ME, after playing through multiple times, everyone has Colossus X or Predator M X armor and HMW X weapons. On the other hand, that took multiple playthoughs. In ME 2, there was no customization since every upgrade was attainable. So while inventory does not make a better RPG, the greater customization offers more potential for roleplaying.InvincibleHero wrote...
It basically comes down to decisions you can make in the game and their impact on the people and places in it. These are role-playing opportunities. ME2 has far better execution and more decisions left to the player overall. I have been roleplaying and playing computer RPGs since the early 80s, but that doesn't make my opinions better than anyone else's. I love more stats and inventory as much as anyone.
1. Equipment and inventory are not role-playing. I can equip Bishop in Rainbow 6 Vegas and even order his squaddies around, but it is still a shooter not RPG. You can mod the weapons with silencers, scopes, and more and the answer is ditto. You can equip Mario in platform games and it doesn't make it RPG. It only impacts gameplay. Both have inventories, armor, and weapons. Sure ME1 has more choice in that regard and I did like that, but it does not make it a better RPG.
That was the entire premise of the game. It is like complaining that you had no choice about becoming a Grey Warden in Dragon Age: Origins or no choice about the Reapers invading. There was still plenty of room to roleplay your motivation. I played characters that looked up to the aliens species, felt humanity had a lot to learn and wanted to prove themselves. I played bigots who wanted human supremacy. I played heroic types who thought everyone had merit and was equal. If we are going to mention a lack of choice, let's talk about being shoehorned into working for Cerberus. I still have characters where I haven't worked out a completely satisfactory justification. BioWare decided they wanted this story, so they made it happen. They simply severed your ties to the Alliance and the Council. They didn't give you a choice. While some of my characters would have welcome the choice, we didn't get one.2. In ME1 you had no choice but to become a spectre. In ME2 you can be reinstated or choose not to. That is a choice.
These two seem basically the same to me. You could chose not to recruit Wrex or Garrus. You could chose to kill Wrex on Virmire. You could choice the order of the main plot worlds, and get funny dialogue from Liara if you did her last. In ME2, losing squadmates isn't about choice, it's about failing. In ME2, the main plot worlds happen in the exact same order, and some are triggered automatically, giving you no choice.3. In ME1 you got to decide who dies Ashely or Kaiden but not a role-playing choice really. It was similar to the misison in ME2 where you had to choose whether the spaceport or residential area gets hit by a missile. Which is more meaningful "choice" in either game is opinion. In ME2, you can kill several team members or choose not to activate Grunt, and even sell Legion. This is far more choice.
4. Far more optional squaddies in ME2. You can pick and choose which to me is role-playing. Pretty much Wrex or Garrus or recruit both was your only choice in ME1. Yeah I recruit everyone since it makes it easier netting more people and XP and credits etc. However, the fact remains more is left to the player in ME2.
On Noveria, you could give Opold's package to Anelois to get a garage pass. You could give the evidence to Lorik Qui'in, Anelois or get Lorik to testify to get Parasini's pass. You could even get Anoleis and Parasini to kill each other and take the pass off a body. You could help Mallene Calis plant bugs in Binary Helix's system or tell the representative about the asari's plans. You could then lie to the asari or tell her what you did. There were times you could choice to avoid a fight all together. You could leave Helena Blake sole ruler of her syndicate, convince her to disband the group or kill her. While not every assignment was like this, I think there was more variety in ME than the sequel, especially in the way things played out. In ME2, the mission plays out the same way no matter what you do, then you get a choice at the end.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.
They make it pretty clear that if you kill the rachni queen, the rachni are extinct. Also, whether or not you killed Wrex on Virmire may ultimately have a greater effect of the krogan than the genophage cure.6. You could impact a whole species that of the Geth in ME2. You could even dictate Quarian militarism or peace making attempts with the Geth. However, the huge choice to overwrite or destroy the Geth is huge. Also the genophage data save it or destroy it will have much impact on Krogans. The only parallel in ME1 is kill Rachni queen or not. AFAIK the racni will still exist in ME2 regardless of you killing her in ME1. Don't call that fact though unless it really is. What you should come away with is more meaningful roleplaying choices in ME2.
I will note before I respond that I always play on Insane. I remember reading a long time ago that the hardest difficulty was how the developers intended the game. So I play on the hardest difficulty because I feel I'll be cheating both myself and the developers. And let's face it, on some of the easier difficulties, the game is so easy it feels like cheating.7. Less skills/stats does not mean less roleplaying. Roleplaying is choices and which powers you have or not determines gameplay. Yes it defines your character, but the same classes were to be had in both games. I do prefer the ME1 more rich options. None of the powers could be used in a meta way to change outcomes in actaul roleplay opportunities. If you could use barrier or pull to yank someone from falling off a roof to save someone that would otherwise die then that would be roleplaying with the powers. Neither game does this. At best a wash for RPG opportunity.
This is very similiar to inventory. Yes, skills do not make an RPG, but they add potential to it. BioWare stated that they found everyone was spamming all their powers at a beginning of a fight, so the get the global cooldown to stop that. All that means is that players just end up spamming the same power over and over again whenever it resets. This is greatly compounded by the fact that most powers are useless, so players don't use those powers at all. BioWare felt biotics were overpowered, so they made everyone with armor or shields or barrier immune to "balance" it. The problem was that everyone had armors and/or shields. Without viable debuff, buffing or crowd control powers, you can't even play as a support character. Given the fact your squadmate invariable would ignore orders and get dropped in a crossfire, you'd have to slug it out yourself, advancing for thermal clips. In the first game, it was a very viable option to play as a pistol Vanguard. In ME2, the Vanguard almost has to be a close quarters combantant.
As you said, this is more about playstyle than roleplaying, but playstyle can inform roleplaying. With my supporting Engineer in ME, he ended up being a bit of an introverted, reluctant hero who avoided combat whenever possible. In ME2, he ended up slaughtering his way through mission after mission just like everyone else. The characters just didn't feel the same, like I was being forced to play someone else.
How does the Collector Base end the game any differently. In ME, you either talked with Udina and Anderson or the Council afterwards. In ME2, you talk with TIM. Sure, in ME2, you can keep playing, but that is the difference in how the game was designed. As of for not having much effect as of now, neither does saving or destroying the base. Both ME and ME2 were linear games. This was necessary since they were part a trilogy. I hope the third game is able to offer diverging paths. We won't really see the impact from any choices until the third game. The only other option would have been to have a dozen or more origin prologues to get the characters to the same place for the game.8. The ending. In ME1 save council or not and you could save for paragon or let them die for a neutral and renegade reason. Now the result pretty much ended the game the same. In ME2 collector base BOOM or not. This ends the game differently and has much roleplaying choices in dialogue whichever way you choose.
I could add more points as well, and I'm sure there are people here that can refute those points. When I search my feelings about ME2, I find a game that hovers somewhere between slightly liking it to mildly disliking it. Mostly, I find great disappointment and a gaping hole where my unwavering faith in BioWare used to be. Ultimately, it is all subjective. You can not quantify it. For those who enjoyed the game, good for you. I'm not being sarcastic. I wish I enjoyed it. There were things I liked about it. There were even things I think ME2 did better. Ultimately, I am left with my feelings. I enjoyed ME better than it's sequel, and I felt it was a better roleplaying experience. Others feel different, and their opinions are just as valid as mine. At this point, though, I mainly just hope ME3 is a game we'll all enjoy.I could add more and more points, but why belabor the obvious. Well and enjoy and be civil to on another. I know some ME1 purists won't be very accepting of this. However, if they searched their feelings then they'd know ME2 is a great RPG with more choice than ME1.
Also, I apologize for the long post.
Retour en haut
