144 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Admoniter wrote...

That's all well and good, but no matter how connected each ME game is they still do have to be able to stand on their own. IMO if the merit of ME2s plot turns out to be "Well its significantly better when you factor in ME3" well that isn't exactly a point in its favor.

I have to disagree actually. I think one of the main issues plaguing this so-called trilogy is that BioWare were too concerned about making sure each game could stand on its own and that anybody could come in anywhere without problems, rather than making it a proper trilogy that really does rely on the other parts to work. ME2 feels too isolated and removed from ME1 where it matters for the most part story-wise and I felt part of the reasons we didn't have more in-depth import stuff was because it was too individual and had to stand on its own. The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars weren't designed like this for good reason, and nor should Mass Effect be, IMO.

[Funker Shepard]

petipas1414 wrote...

It wasn't as dumbed down as people make it out to be.

You could say that ME was a RPG/Shooter and ME2 is a Shooter/RPG.

I dunno, it seems to me like people associate RPG with the way things were done in, say, baldur's gate and KOTOR, and any departure from those makes the game "NOT RPG!!!11". Which is a kind of... narrow (to put it charitable) view, considering how many different kinds of RPGs there exist in the "real world".

My opinion, both ME2 and DAO are definitely RPGs, just because they (partially) dip into non-D&D RPGs for their mechanics inspiration doesn't make them less so.

[Admoniter]

Terror_K wrote...
I have to disagree actually. I think one of the main issues plaguing this so-called trilogy is that BioWare were too concerned about making sure each game could stand on its own and that anybody could come in anywhere without problems, rather than making it a proper trilogy that really does rely on the other parts to work. ME2 feels too isolated and removed from ME1 where it matters for the most part story-wise and I felt part of the reasons we didn't have more in-depth import stuff was because it was too individual and had to stand on its own. The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars weren't designed like this for good reason, and nor should Mass Effect be, IMO.

I knew this would come up and yes I agree. All in all I would prefer most trilogies to be more along the lines of "if you missed out on the first one too bad, watch the first one, we're not catering to you." That said it would appear as though (and to a degree I understand why Bioware doesn't want to alienate newcomers) Bioware disagrees with this philosophy. What I was getting at (albeit quite haphazardly upon re-reading what I had wrote) was that if they are going with the "Each game is its own game" model they had best be prepared for it to stand up on its own and not on the merits of the other one.

[Almostfaceman]

Admoniter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
If you want to take this approach that's your call.  I'd rather wait to judge the story once I've seen it all put together.  I'm glad you still seem to be interested in seeing what happens.  What I'm saying is that ME3 can actually enhance what happens in ME2, so I take that into account when deciding how much I enjoy ME2.

That's all well and good, but no matter how connected each ME game is they still do have to be able to stand on their own. IMO if the merit of ME2s plot turns out to be "Well its significantly better when you factor in ME3" well that isn't exactly a point in its favor.

For me, it's a point in its favor, because I'm interested in games that tie together to make a larger story.  I don't mind that ME2 leaves plot points blank, because that makes me more interested in seeing how they're resolved in ME3.

[Admoniter]

Almostfaceman wrote...
For me, it's a point in its favor, because I'm interested in games that tie together to make a larger story.  I don't mind that ME2 leaves plot points blank, because that makes me more interested in seeing how they're resolved in ME3.

As do I but like I said I did not get that vibe from ME2.

Modifié par Admoniter, 20 mars 2011 - 11:02 .

[slimgrin]

ME2 is limited in the RPG dept. Maybe that's a kinder way to put it.

There are fewer skills, more linear areas, a weak plot, and mostly cut-and-dried choice and consequence. It lacks nuance. The gameplay though, is much better.

I hope ME3 incorporates elements from both games, but I fear that Bioware is more interested in attracting players new to the genre rather than keeping their established fanbase. That can only mean one thing...more 'streamlining'.

Modifié par slimgrin, 20 mars 2011 - 11:09 .

[Lunatic LK47]

SpaceDesperado wrote...


Once you have chosen the best weapon for you and your companions you turn the rest into omni-gel. There is absolutely no reason to keep the lesser guns. Now whenever you go looting all you have to do is see which weapon has a better rank, or if you dont recognize it pick it up and compare.

Only reason why I keep the lesser guns is so I can sell them.

[AlanC9]

I don't think selling things really works in ME1. By the time you get enough cash to buy something good, you're getting stuff almost as good in random drops anyway.

[Tarek]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't think selling things really works in ME1. By the time you get enough cash to buy something good, you're getting stuff almost as good in random drops anyway.

indeed

[Terror_K]

slimgrin wrote...

ME2 is limited in the RPG dept. Maybe that's a kinder way to put it.

There are fewer skills, more linear areas, a weak plot, and mostly cut-and-dried choice and consequence. It lacks nuance. The gameplay though, is much better.

I hope ME3 incorporates elements from both games, but I fear that Bioware is more interested in attracting players new to the genre rather than keeping their established fanbase. That can only mean one thing...more 'streamlining'.

The thing is, BioWare have made claims along the lines of "perhaps by appealing to people who don't normaly play RPGs with things like ME2 we can wean them onto the more hardcore stuff later" but the main issue here is that they aren't even doing the hardcore stuff anymore. Now Dragon Age--the IP that started off as a hardcore, proper, full-fledged RPG-- has become a watered-down, console-ified action game series as well there really isn't anything BioWare seem to be doing any more that's even remotely full-fledged RPG. I at least had hope with Dragon Age, but after Laidlaw and co. got into it and ruined the IP there's not much hope for BioWare overall, IMO. What's next... in ME3 we're suddenly going to have a complete design change for the hell of it and have asari with flowing purple hair and turians with feathers?

[Kane-Corr]

Remember everyone...in order for 2 to go through those massive changes, some things had to be reduced...however I seriously believe that three is going to tie everything together, in every way possible.

[Undertone]

Terror_K wrote...

Admoniter wrote...

That's all well and good, but no matter how connected each ME game is they still do have to be able to stand on their own. IMO if the merit of ME2s plot turns out to be "Well its significantly better when you factor in ME3" well that isn't exactly a point in its favor.

I have to disagree actually. I think one of the main issues plaguing this so-called trilogy is that BioWare were too concerned about making sure each game could stand on its own and that anybody could come in anywhere without problems, rather than making it a proper trilogy that really does rely on the other parts to work. ME2 feels too isolated and removed from ME1 where it matters for the most part story-wise and I felt part of the reasons we didn't have more in-depth import stuff was because it was too individual and had to stand on its own. The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars weren't designed like this for good reason, and nor should Mass Effect be, IMO.

Absolutely agree and share Terror's opinion. I wish it could been another way but unfortunately it's business.

[Zulu_DFA]

Terror_K wrote...

Admoniter wrote...

That's all well and good, but no matter how connected each ME game is they still do have to be able to stand on their own. IMO if the merit of ME2s plot turns out to be "Well its significantly better when you factor in ME3" well that isn't exactly a point in its favor.

I have to disagree actually. I think one of the main issues plaguing this so-called trilogy is that BioWare were too concerned about making sure each game could stand on its own and that anybody could come in anywhere without problems, rather than making it a proper trilogy that really does rely on the other parts to work. ME2 feels too isolated and removed from ME1 where it matters for the most part story-wise and I felt part of the reasons we didn't have more in-depth import stuff was because it was too individual and had to stand on its own. The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars weren't designed like this for good reason, and nor should Mass Effect be, IMO.

They could have killed off Shepard for good, along with the entire ME1 cast of characters, for all I care. I'd play ME2 as Legion (lol, remember the teaser?) and be happy, as long as it didn't completely broke the series by the gameplay / art / genre changes. In ME 2 the universe just doesn't feel the same as in ME1. It's like two completely different games, that strangely have characters going by the same name. Drives me crazy.

Oh, and did I mention that ME2 is a lot more boring gameplay-wise, as a standalone game?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 21 mars 2011 - 07:51 .

[marshalleck]

ME2 gameplay is essentially a much slower and easier Gears of War, with the addition of biotic and tech powers (which themselves often only act as projectiles and instantaneous explosions). But the core gameplay seems pretty much directly lifted from Gears.

Modifié par marshalleck, 21 mars 2011 - 04:26 .

[OssieZero]

As a TPS, ME2 is truly exceptional. As an RPG, it is mediocre.
RPG is a genre that has been fairly well defined by games in that field. It does no good to say "Well, an RPG to me means good story" or "Roleplaying, as defined by Websters means..." because RPG doesn't mean those things. It is, in a sense, a technical term, not to be taken literally.

RPG as a game genre has its roots in tabletop gaming, and in character building, looting, staggering breadth of world, huge variety in class, weapon, armour etc. This model clearly didn't fit the controlled vision that was needed for ME to move forward. Rather than attempt to reconcile these problems with their artistic vision, BW took the other path, and it worked out well for them. We can complain about it or we can enjoy what we got, an excellent game in it's own right. But to deny it altogether is just silly.

Yes, you can broaden 'RPG' to the point where it fits any game, but to what purpose? It only serves to dilute the genre. In an age where big budget games are becoming progressively more and more homogenised in the interest of mass appeal, this would a very poor decision for any roleplayer to make. So lets not call it an RPG, please. It really doesn't need it.

[Nozybidaj]

thrasher64 wrote...

Easy question, is it more or less of an RPG than Fallout 3?

In comparison to FO:3?  It's not much of an RPG. 

Folks around here would be a lot less confused if BW would just drop the rpg tag from their games and call them what they are, story driven action games.  That's not inherently a bad thing.  I'm just perplexed at times this stubborness to hang onto that rpg tag.

For the most part they don't even want to make rpg's anymore, and don't want to target the rpg demographic so why keep calling them rpg's?

[Chromie]

Nozybidaj wrote...

thrasher64 wrote...

Easy question, is it more or less of an RPG than Fallout 3?

In comparison to FO:3?  It's not much of an RPG. 

Probably more of a RPG....if you said Fallout 1 or 2 however well then.

[wrdnshprd]

ME2 was gears of war in space. sorry, it was. and this is only a bad thing because bioware advertised this as an TPS/RPG hybrid. if they would have improved on the inventory system and improved on the skill system, RPG purists wouldnt be as upset.

ive said it many times, but it bears repeating here.. there are certain gameplay elements people expect from an RPG and a FPS/TPS. if you take these out, or dumb them down, well fans of those genres will get upset.

so, on the rpg side, if you take out the inventory system, dumb down the skill system, and pretty much eliminate min/maxing from the game.. RPG fans will be upset

on the FPS/TPS side, if you take out the reactionary combat, make the combat more about stats than player skill, have lots of skill/inventory management, then FPS/TPS fans will be upset..

Bioware tried to bridge these two genres together, and unfortunately for ME2, they completely missed the mark.

[Praetor Knight]

The Mass Effect games are an experience. Who cares about labels.

But if we want a label then I submit "Iconoclast" for consideration, for both ME1 and ME2.