409 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Says the person who regards ME2 as pure gold. Just because some people don't have the mental capacity or patience to handle a highly detailed inventory system doesn't mean it's retarded, and it doesn't mean that others can't. Also, I'm pretty sure it was capped at 50 items at a time, not bottomless. No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
-Polite

Wait, Mass Effect's inventory required mental capacity? It felt more like a time sink to me. All Mass Effect's inventory really did was soak up gameplay time while providing very little value in comparison to other RPGs out there. Any fool can break down omnigel.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Tazzmission wrote...

Niddy' wrote...

I'm surprised this lasted so long, Mods usually lock and delete anything with criticism.

probably because this is the final dlc and they may figure you know what let them express how they feel

And how would it look if  Bioware were to lock a thread simply because they don't agree with the critiques a loyal fan has for their approach on their new games? I would hope you would have considered the outcome if such an event took place. They'd essentially be acting just like Bungie, a group of arrogant and prideful "game developers" who silence anyone who criticizes their games in the slightest.

-Polite

[Lukertin]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...
The original Deus Ex and (And the Human Revolution prequel) were/are also Action/FPS-RPGs and yet those games STILL managed to pull off heavy RPG elements. I mean have you seen the videos for Deus Ex: Human Revolution and all the possible augmentation options available? Eidos Montreal is not watering down the RPG elements in Deus Ex, so why is Bioware with Mass Effect?

The difference is that the original Deus Ex bored me, Mass Effect didn't.

Or course Deus Ex bored you! Because it wasn't created to cateer to gamers with a short attention span. I think that statement of yours pretty much sums up what Bioware was trying to do with ME2 and even DA2. They saw how great Call of Duty was and how it is pretty much ALL ACTION and cinematic, and wanted that in ME2.

No, Deus Ex bored me because it made itself look like an FPS, and it wasn't one.  That is lame.  And I am not a 'gamer with a short attention span'.  I play starcraft2 kinda hard core, requires the most attention of pretty much any game that exists (with the exception of starcraft1)

[Jaron Oberyn]

Il Divo wrote...

Wait, Mass Effect's inventory required mental capacity?

I didn't think so, but many people thought it was too complicated to sort through the inventory. I thought it was pretty simple. However, others don't view it that way.

-Polite

[MajesticJazz]

greed89 wrote...

Singing up allot of praises of a game that isn't even out yet

No, the game isn't out yet but that doesn't mean there isn't any relevant info out yet.

I haven't played the game, but I have seen videos talking about various RPG elements such as exploration and augmentation (Deus Ex for "character progression/leveling up). From what I have seen/read thus far, DE: HR is going to hold up as the vanguard for what a true Action/Shooter-RPG is and should be.

Again, it sounds as if you haven't been keeping up with the DE: HR media. You should hit it up on youtube and view some developer interviews and trailers to see what the fuss is about.

There is a realm of Action-RPGs outside of Mass Effect. People act like interactive dialog was invented with Mass Effect when it was actually pioneered by Deus Ex nearly a decade ago. Deus Ex IS the leading example of what a Action-RPG is, not Mass Effect and certainly not Mass Effect 2.

Deus Ex has proven that you can attract "the shooter crowd" with a game that has deep RPG features to it. No, it didn't sell 50 gazillion copies like CoD and I think that is where the problem lies. As great exammple and ambassador to the Action-RPG genre that Deus Ex is, it didn't sell like hotcakes. So that is why Bioware is so hell bent on bringing over that CoD crowd so their games can sell a gazillion copies and everyone can get big fat bonus checks. Even if it means severly watering down many RPG elements and making it essentially a shooter with interactive dialog which is exactly at Arrival was.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Lukertin wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...
The original Deus Ex and (And the Human Revolution prequel) were/are also Action/FPS-RPGs and yet those games STILL managed to pull off heavy RPG elements. I mean have you seen the videos for Deus Ex: Human Revolution and all the possible augmentation options available? Eidos Montreal is not watering down the RPG elements in Deus Ex, so why is Bioware with Mass Effect?

The difference is that the original Deus Ex bored me, Mass Effect didn't.

Or course Deus Ex bored you! Because it wasn't created to cateer to gamers with a short attention span. I think that statement of yours pretty much sums up what Bioware was trying to do with ME2 and even DA2. They saw how great Call of Duty was and how it is pretty much ALL ACTION and cinematic, and wanted that in ME2.

No, Deus Ex bored me because it made itself look like an FPS, and it wasn't one.  That is lame.  And I am not a 'gamer with a short attention span'.  I play starcraft2 kinda hard core, requires the most attention of pretty much any game that exists (with the exception of starcraft1)

Well what do you know - Mass Effect 2 is advertised as an RPG, yet it isn't one. Now isn't that something?
ME2 bores me because it is a shooting gallery, but tries to act like an RPG. Starting to see where I'm coming from now?

-Polite

[greed89]

[quote]PoliteAssasin wrote...

[quote]Naltair wrote...

[quote]PoliteAssasin wrote...
You honestly believe that ME1's skill tree was confusing? It had descriptions for each ability right in the game. ME2's skill progression system is useless since you only have about 4-5 skills and have to invest in only those, with the exception of some leftovers for certain classes. Then you choose an upgraded form of the skill. In ME1 it was more detailed, and you had specializations. ME2 isn't a convergence of genres, it's a transition from Shooter/RPG to complete Shooter. 

-Polite
[/quote]
I was pointing to how it was muddled and not clear, anyway I am not seeing much of a discussion here, you came here to whine so I shall leave you to it.

[/quote]

I don't understand how criticism of the diminishment of RPG elements is equivalent to whining. It's feedback. So judging by the logic in your statement, unless someone is discussing how great and flawless Bioware's games are they're whining. Well you go ahead and think that my friend. It's not going to get you far going into denial. The game has some serious flaws, and it's transitioning from one genre to another.

[quote]greed89 wrote...

[quote]PoliteAssasin wrote...

[quote]AwesomeName wrote...

I
fail to see how how Arrival had no RPG elements in it. ME is an RPG in
the fact that you make choices that affect the story. And it's been
marketed as an action-rpg shooter. There really isn't a better term for
it. At the end of the day, who bloody cares what genre it belongs to?
What matters is how good the game is for WHAT it is, not for how well
it can conform to ONE man's definition. They don't make ME with the
ultimate goal being to make it fall strictly within certain boundaries.
No, they try to make the best story they can, tell it the best way they
can, and make it as emotionally engaging as they can through the
gameplay. It's foolish making a game and restricting yourself to genre
definitions. Screw genre definitions. There's been plenty a book,
movie, tv show, artwork, piece of graphic design that's been REALLY good
precisely because it "broke the rules."[/quote]

ME started out
as an RPG. ME2 is a shooter, with little RPG elements in it. It's only
inevitable given Bioware's current course with the game that ME3 will
have less RPG features than ME2, which was minimal. The game is supposed
to be the players unique and personal universe, according to Casey
Hudson. Please explain to me how that can be the case if the player's
character already has predetermined dialogue and choices? Look
throughout ME2 and the entire LoTSB and Arrival DLC's and you'll know
what I mean. If there are set choices, and automatic dialogue sequences,
what's there to differentiate between two people who play Mass Effect?
It won't be a unique personal experience at all. It will be the same
exact experience for everyone, thus proving Mr. Hudson a liar.
Unfortunately, that's where they're heading. It's been seen in DA2, it's
been seen in ME2, what do you think will happen in ME3?

-Polite
[/quote]

ME2 only had a few auto Dialouge and none of them required a variety of difrent awnsers


your making a mountain out of a mole hill

[/quote]

I think you should consider playing the game over again before making such an erroneous statement.

[quote]MajesticJazz wrote...

[quote]TheSeventhJedi wrote...


To
the OP - BW never intended to make a straight RPG, and many of the RPG
mechanics and "choice" of ME1 were expensive lipstick on an ugly hooker.
If the story hadn't been so absolutely amazing, the sequel would've
never been made. They also never intended to make a straight shooter,
and many of the Gears arguments are reductio ad absurdum. They're
experimenting to find that sweet spot between action and RPG, and I
think they can find it for ME3. Ironically, the part of Arrival that has
me most worried for ME3 is actually the story/writing.
[/quote]

The
original Deus Ex and (And the Human Revolution prequel) were/are also
Action/FPS-RPGs and yet those games STILL managed to pull off heavy RPG
elements. I mean have you seen the videos for Deus Ex: Human Revolution
and all the possible augmentation options available? Eidos Montreal is
not watering down the RPG elements in Deus Ex, so why is Bioware with
Mass Effect?

[/quote]

Because Bioware/EA fears that the RPG system would be too complicated and scare away the CoD consumer base that they're trying to target. They don't realize that CoD players, or at least the majority of them, aren't interested in role playing games at all.

[quote]greed89 wrote...

[quote]MajesticJazz wrote...

[quote]greed89 wrote...

[quote]MajesticJazz wrote...

[quote]TheSeventhJedi wrote...


To
the OP - BW never intended to make a straight RPG, and many of the RPG
mechanics and "choice" of ME1 were expensive lipstick on an ugly hooker.
If the story hadn't been so absolutely amazing, the sequel would've
never been made. They also never intended to make a straight shooter,
and many of the Gears arguments are reductio ad absurdum. They're
experimenting to find that sweet spot between action and RPG, and I
think they can find it for ME3. Ironically, the part of Arrival that has
me most worried for ME3 is actually the story/writing.
[/quote]

The
original Deus Ex and (And the Human Revolution prequel) were/are also
Action/FPS-RPGs and yet those games STILL managed to pull off heavy RPG
elements. I mean have you seen the videos for Deus Ex: Human Revolution
and all the possible augmentation options available? Eidos Montreal is
not watering down the RPG elements in Deus Ex, so why is Bioware with
Mass Effect?

[/quote]


And i wonder how much of that "agumentation" will be pointless and redundant?

[/quote]

I take it that you never played the original Deus Ex game ha?

In
that game, the original, there was various upgrades/augmentation that
basically served as your leveling up and NONE of it was pointless and
redundant. I don't want to get into the details, but all I'm trying to
say is that just because ME was supposed to be a hybrid of Shooter and
RPG, doesn't mean that the RPG had to be VERY basic like it was in ME2.

Deus
Ex proved that you can have a hardcore FPS shooter title, but still at
the same time have hardcore RPG elements. The same is being applied to
the prequle, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Basically Eidos Montreal is
making DE: HR 50% FPS/Shooter and the other 50% Exploration/RPG.

What Bioware did with ME2 was make it 80% Shooter and 20% Exploration/RPG.


In
other words, Deus Ex and even Deus Ex: Human Revolution is what a REAL
Shooter-RPG is/should be. Bioware's ME2 was just a plain out 3rd Person
shooter, that took some RPG elements and embedded it within the
gameplay.

[/quote]ohh please

Not havign a a bottomless and retareded inventory system didnt make  ME2 any less of a rpg

[/quote]

Says the person who regards ME2 as pure gold. Just because some people don't have the mental capacity or patience to handle a highly detailed inventory system doesn't mean it's retarded, and it doesn't mean that others can't. Also, I'm pretty sure it was capped at 50 items at a time, not bottomless. No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.

-Polite

[/quote]

Lol the ME1 inventory system wasnt  a deep intriguing system for item magment,  it Handeld like crap and all it really did was waist time.

It WAS Retarded

And i have Played ME2 going on 8 times, the Automated diolouge were far apart as well as unimportant

Modifié par greed89, 31 mars 2011 - 04:23 .

[lazuli]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Needless to say, this DLC was horrible. It was really disappointing. You guys need to get a reality check. ME is either an RPG, or a Shooter. There can be no compromise.

What you mean to say is "I will accept no compromise."

ME2 was a compromise, and a highly effective one from many angles.  I'm sorry you expected a dialogue-driven DLC full of choices and variables this late in ME2's life.

Edit: For what it's worth, I will grant that DA2 was by and large a complete disaster.

Modifié par lazuli, 31 mars 2011 - 04:29 .

[Il Divo]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I didn't think so, but many people thought it was too complicated to sort through the inventory. I thought it was pretty simple. However, others don't view it that way.

-Polite

Then you just hit on the problem. I like inventories because they force me to make decisions about how I equip my character. Dual wielding or two hander? Attack speed or strength? Things of this sort, which you find in games like Dragon Age or Neverwinter Nights.

Mass Effect's inventory did not present anything close to this, weapon mods aside. It was a very simple mechanic that required you to choose the gun with the biggest numbers. It really did serve as an excuse to break down omnigel. If given the choice between Mass Effect's inventory and no inventory, I will choose the latter every time.
 
If you're going to include an inventory, do it right or not at all.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 mars 2011 - 04:26 .

[MajesticJazz]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...
The original Deus Ex and (And the Human Revolution prequel) were/are also Action/FPS-RPGs and yet those games STILL managed to pull off heavy RPG elements. I mean have you seen the videos for Deus Ex: Human Revolution and all the possible augmentation options available? Eidos Montreal is not watering down the RPG elements in Deus Ex, so why is Bioware with Mass Effect?

The difference is that the original Deus Ex bored me, Mass Effect didn't.

Or course Deus Ex bored you! Because it wasn't created to cateer to gamers with a short attention span. I think that statement of yours pretty much sums up what Bioware was trying to do with ME2 and even DA2. They saw how great Call of Duty was and how it is pretty much ALL ACTION and cinematic, and wanted that in ME2.

No, Deus Ex bored me because it made itself look like an FPS, and it wasn't one.  That is lame.  And I am not a 'gamer with a short attention span'.  I play starcraft2 kinda hard core, requires the most attention of pretty much any game that exists (with the exception of starcraft1)

Well what do you know - Mass Effect 2 is advertised as an RPG, yet it isn't one. Now isn't that something?
ME2 bores me because it is a shooting gallery, but tries to act like an RPG. Starting to see where I'm coming from now?

-Polite

+1

greed89 wrote...


Lol the ME1 inventory system wasnt  a deep intriguing system for item magment,  it Handeld like crap and all it really did was waist time.

It WAS Retarded

And i have Played ME2 going on 8 times, the Automated diolouge were far apart as well as unimportant

Exactly! And instead of Bioware going in to refine it and fix it, they completely get rid of it!

[greed89]

MajesticJazz wrote...

greed89 wrote...

Singing up allot of praises of a game that isn't even out yet

I haven't played the game, but I have seen videos talking about various RPG elements such as exploration and augmentation (Deus Ex for "character progression/leveling up). From what I have seen/read thus far, DE: HR is going to hold up as the vanguard for what a true Action/Shooter-RPG is and should be.

Nice Hyperbole

 

Again, it sounds as if you haven't been keeping up with the DE: HR
media. You should hit it up on youtube and view some developer
interviews and trailers to see what the fuss is about.

Thats you making an assumption, sure it looks good but its not any thing i havent seen befor to be honest

 

There is a realm of Action-RPGs outside of Mass Effect. People act like
interactive dialog was invented with Mass Effect when it was actually
pioneered by Deus Ex nearly a decade ago. Deus Ex IS the leading example
of what a Action-RPG is, not Mass Effect and certainly not Mass Effect
2.

Its Been A LOOOOONG time since the First Game Came out so no its not Thats Like Saying Duke nukem is still the  TOP FPS after all this time



 

Deus Ex has proven that you can attract "the shooter crowd" with a game
that has deep RPG features to it. No, it didn't sell 50 gazillion copies
like CoD and I think that is where the problem lies. As great exammple
and ambassador to the Action-RPG genre that Deus Ex is, it didn't sell
like hotcakes. So that is why Bioware is so hell bent on bringing over
that CoD crowd so their games can sell a gazillion copies and everyone
can get big fat bonus checks. Even if it means severly watering down
many RPG elements and making it essentially a shooter with interactive
dialog which is exactly at Arrival was.

Arrival WAS NOT A FULL GAME

Stop acting like it was , IT was an add on to the main game, the equivlent of a nother  Dungenon to crawl

What is so hard to understand about this

And Bioware didnt Water down any  thing, they  tweaked the redunant **** to make things flow easier, and guys what it worked

Exactly! And instead of Bioware going in to refine it and fix it, they completely get rid of it!

And that is a Good Thing cause it wasnt needed, and didnt make sense Story wise

Modifié par greed89, 31 mars 2011 - 04:33 .

[Lukertin]

I know, an RPG-Shooter centered around a space marine who can't fire a rifle and hit the broad side of a barn it is more appealing than an Shooter-RPG centered around a space marine who only needs decide what weapons he's gonna use, and how to develop his abilities/powers given his combat role.

Also it makes sense that the Heckler-Koch's and Springfield's of the 22-23rd century make various weapon models with incrementally increasing statistics.

[DarkSeraphym]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I agree. But it's not the same game. ME1 had more choices. More interactivity. ME2 is too linear, and very few choices. The same goes for the LoTSB and Arrival DLC's. Bioware could have improved upon the combat while keeping the RPG elements of ME1. Instead, they watered down the RPG elements, and improved upon the combat. They chose the shooter crowd over the RPG crowd. 

-Polite

To be fair, Christina Norman and Casey Hudson had some pretty good reasons as to why ME2 was more linear than ME1. If I recall, the biggest reason for that was because ME2 was sandwiched in between ME1 and ME3. ME1 didn't really have any consequences in it for decisions, so they could be as flexible with the choices as they wanted to be. Same with ME3 as it will be the last game in the series. Sadly, they said ME2's status as the middle game left it little room to "stray" too far from the linear parts of the game. From what I've read, we can expect to see a lot of that flexibility in ME3.

Personally, I found that to be a pretty good explanation for why ME2 was more linear than ME1. We certainly could not expect them to release a Mass Effect 2: Paragon, Mass Effect 2: Renegade, and Mass Effect 2: Insert any percentage between 100% Paragon and 100% Renegade.

I thought BioWare was working on an uphill battle with the different options for role-playing in Mass Effect anyway. As another user has posted, there can't really be a whole lot of flexibility with RPGS based around firearms when compared to their fantasy counterparts. You have your assault rifles for crowd control, your pistols for CQC, your shotguns for stopping power, and your sniper rifles for long-range fighting. Other than that, there really isn't a whole lot of flexibility in the way these weapons function. The only reason why games like Fallout can get away with it is because they also offer Melee, Unarmed, Explosives, Energy Weapons, etc.

I will give you that the side quests in ME were better than ME2. It wasn't an easy completing some of the side quests as it was in ME2, but really the only "difficulty" was more or less travelling from Point A to Point B anyway. I didn't really find this to be something in ME2 that I really missed. The thing that I missed most was the content of some of the side quests. I loved the diversity of the quests in ME2, but there is a real problem when one of your quests consists of me literally turning on a planetary shield and then leaving with no obstacles in between <_<. If they keep the diversity from ME2 and keep the content from the ME side quests, I think they'll be good for ME3.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 31 mars 2011 - 05:16 .

[Tazzmission]

me3 news in april!


gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/85230/mass-effect-3-details-coming-next-month/

[Tazzmission]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I agree. But it's not the same game. ME1 had more choices. More interactivity. ME2 is too linear, and very few choices. The same goes for the LoTSB and Arrival DLC's. Bioware could have improved upon the combat while keeping the RPG elements of ME1. Instead, they watered down the RPG elements, and improved upon the combat. They chose the shooter crowd over the RPG crowd. 

-Polite

To be fair, Christina Norman and Casey Hudson had some pretty good reasons as to why ME2 was more linear than ME1. If I recall, the biggest reason for that was because ME2 was sandwiched in between ME1 and ME3. ME1 didn't really have any consequences in it for decisions, so they could be as flexible with the choices as they wanted to be. Same with ME3 as it will be the last game in the series. Sadly, they said ME2's status as the middle game left it little room to "stray" too far from the linear parts of the game. From what I've read, we can expect to see a lot of that flexibility in ME3.

Personally, I found that to be a pretty good explanation for why ME2 was more linear than ME1. We certainly could not expect them to release a Mass Effect 2: Paragon, Mass Effect 2: Renegade, and Mass Effect 2: Insert any percentage between 100% Paragon and 100% Renegade.

I thought BioWare was working on an uphill battle with the different options for role-playing in Mass Effect anyway. As another user has posted, there can't really be a whole lot of flexibility with RPGS based around firearms when compared to their fantasy counterparts. You have your assault rifles for crowd control, your pistols for CQC, your shotguns for stopping power, and your sniple rifles for long-range fighting. Other than that, there really isn't a whole lot of flexibility in the way these weapons function. The only reason why games like Fallout can get away with it is because they also offer Melee, Unarmed, Explosives, Energy Weapons, etc.

cool that you got that explanation from the devs. i have to admit that if the devs made me2 to be me1 i think they wouldnt be able to complete a trilogy if you look at it from that prospective

[DarkSeraphym]

Tazzmission wrote...

cool that you got that explanation from the devs. i have to admit that if the devs made me2 to be me1 i think they wouldnt be able to complete a trilogy if you look at it from that prospective

I did not directly receive that explanation myself. It was an explanation posted long ago on gaming sites like IGN. If I still had the link, I'd be more than happy to post it. They'd still have been able to complete the trilogy, assuming they had the resources to do it. However, there is no way they could compile it onto a single version of the game. They'd have to make multiple versions simultaneously and you'd be correct in the assumption that they wouldn't have the resources to even consider it (aside from the fact that I doubt they'd sell as many 100% Paragon or 100% Renegade versions of the game, so this is not even a good business venture anyway).

Regardless, their explanation was logical. With a finite number of resources, they couldn't let Mass Effect 2 get too carried away as they already have a ton of different variables to consider and the only thing Mass Effect 2 would do is make that number go up exponentially had they given you too much room for choice. So yeah, it does suck that Mass Effect 2 was a little more linear. However, I think when Mass Effect 3 comes out we'll be happy with that sacrifice.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 31 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[Tazzmission]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

cool that you got that explanation from the devs. i have to admit that if the devs made me2 to be me1 i think they wouldnt be able to complete a trilogy if you look at it from that prospective

I did not directly receive that explanation myself. It was an explanation posted long ago on gaming sites like IGN. If I still had the link, I'd be more than happy to post it. They'd still have been able to complete the trilogy, assuming they had the resources to do it. However, there is no way they could compile it onto a single version of the game. They'd have to make multiple versions simultaneously and you'd be correct in the assumption that they wouldn't have the resources to even consider it (aside from the fact that I doubt they'd sell as many 100% Paragon or 100% Renegade versions of the game, so this is not even a good business venture anyway).

Regardless, their explanation was logical. With a finite number of resources, they couldn't let Mass Effect 2 get too carried away as they already have a ton of different variables to consider and the only thing Mass Effect 2 would do is make that number go up exponentially had they given you too much room for choice. So yeah, it does suck that Mass Effect 2 was a little more linear. However, I think when Mass Effect 3 comes out we'll be happy with that sacrifice.

agreed!

[Drake_Hound]

I dont find ME2 linear at all , when in the end you have 3 choices , keep the base , destroy the base or die (end of story). beats all standard shootemup games , where there is 2 choices . WIN or FAIL .

What was a shame that a lot of tactical options were taken out , to streamline the game , it worked out beter then I expected . but the same counts for the number of RPG elements taken out .You miss them , but in the end it did work for the beter in streamlining the fast pace action .

[Epic777]

Me2 lacked RPG elements?Did Me1 lack TPS elements?

[Lunatic LK47]

Il Divo wrote...
Then you just hit on the problem. I like inventories because they force me to make decisions about how I equip my character. Dual wielding or two hander? Attack speed or strength? Things of this sort, which you find in games like Dragon Age or Neverwinter Nights.

Mass Effect's inventory did not present anything close to this, weapon mods aside. It was a very simple mechanic that required you to choose the gun with the biggest numbers. It really did serve as an excuse to break down omnigel. If given the choice between Mass Effect's inventory and no inventory, I will choose the latter every time.
 
If you're going to include an inventory, do it right or not at all.

This. I shouldn't have to waste more than five minutes scrolling through my list just to install ONE ****ING MOD. KOTOR 1 had a better interface than ME1 ever did.

[Lukertin]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
This. I shouldn't have to waste more than five minutes scrolling through my list just to install ONE ****ING MOD. KOTOR 1 had a better interface than ME1 ever did.

God forbid you put the wrong one in.

[Winterfly]

Il Divo wrote...

Winterfly wrote...

To all of you xboxers.

Xbox or PS3 or whatever console will never ever have a game with the same mood and feeling that Baldurs Gate once bringed us. Period. Closest you get to one of those old classic old school RPG's would probably be on a Wii.

Dragon Age: Origins was released on the 360/PS3, not the Wii.

And you played Baldurs Gate? Dragon Age is not even close to Baldurs Gate. The infinty engine in my opinion still holds it against todays games. Dragon Age was a good game but I just wanted to rush it through to see the whole story. 

Mass Effect 1 is not a shooter for you others. Its a RPG with guns. It is in the space after all. Mass Effect 2 is not a shooter either but more and more going towards becoming a linear, level based Gears of War like game. I still have faith in Bioware to get it together and make something good out of it. Even if Arrival was under the bar of Biowares creations and Mass Effect 2 all in all is more of "Talk with the gun ****es" where Mass Effect 1 was "Saren, you should judge your own actions, yourself" and thats what he do. Not many places in Mass Effect 2 could Shepard talk his way out of. Seemingly Mercenary bands with a leadership and strong heirarchy with a structure of ranks and titles have less morale then the "Bring down the sky" Batarians. 

[Lunatic LK47]

Lukertin wrote...


God forbid you put the wrong one in.

Or actually delete your lower-tier mods at the bottom of the damn list.

[Seboist]

mrsph wrote...

Mass Effect's inventory system:

*cycle through 100 weapons with little variation*
*melt down to omnigel*
*repeat step one*

And the worst part of it is that unlike in Dragon Age you're FORCED to pick up all that garbage loot and sort it out.