469 réponses à ce sujet

[DocLasty]

All I can say is - I liked ME1 because it was a fun game. I liked ME2 because it was a fun game. I'll probably like ME3, because it will probably be a fun game.

I - and I think the vast majority of people in general - do not really care what genre it falls under. If it's fun, it's fun. It's not like there's some magic sweet spot where it automatically becomes an RPG and turns enjoyable. 

[Crackseed]

Sp0ck, you're pretty much spot-on to what I wanted to say in response. It seems like there is alot of grumbling about some of the streamlining that occured when half of the changes turned the game from ME1's clunky combat into the streamlined and sexy animal that ME2's combat system became. I think where most of us can agree is that some of the RPG "fat" trimmed could have just been tweaked and left in to supplement said sexy animal such as squad customization, mods and deeper skill trees - all of which are coming back in ME3.

If ME2 became a bit less RPG and more shooter by developing said systems in this way, I would still argue [as an opinion of course] that they went on the right track overall. ME2 had no shortage of critical decisions, even if they were more episodic and people focused rather then major plot point centric. It was still decisions to be made and I do argue that the interrupt system added more depth to this. It wasn't necessarily about "being fast with the mouse click" as much choosing if you really wanted to shut someone up or get a word in to change the flow of a conversation.

My final point remains the same - ME2 was, in general, a better RPG from a non-combat viewpoint because it actually added additions and refinements to ME1's formula. The story was not as intense due to ME1 bringing about the shock and awe of the subject matter, but aside from slimmed down squaddie convos between missions, I think ME2 trounces it's predecessor there.

Modifié par crackseed, 15 juin 2011 - 05:18 .

[Ylhaym]

Notanything wrote...

I dislike that basically it's a skill tree that's only been doubled in size, the customization returning is a welcome improvement, but I cannot say the menu interface suddenly makes the game a better RPG either.

Yeah, its a skill tree that's only double the size of ME2, maybe half of ME1. But the customization of skill/stat tree brings a whole new depth in building your Shepard. From what i've seen I'm pretty satisfied in what ME3 brings to the table (RPG Stuff)... The only thing im hoping for is ME3 having some type of squad armor customization...

crackseed wrote...

Sp0ck, you're pretty much spot-on to what I wanted to say in response. It seems like there is alot of grumbling about some of the streamlining that occured when half of the changes turned the game from ME1's clunky combat into the streamlined and sexy animal that ME2's combat system became. I think where most of us can agree is that some of the RPG "fat" trimmed could have just been tweaked and left in to supplement said sexy animal such as squad customization, mods and deeper skill trees - all of which are coming back in ME3.

If ME2 became a bit less RPG and more shooter by developing said systems in this way, I would still argue [as an opinion of course] that they went on the right track overall. ME2 had no shortage of critical decisions, even if they were more episodic and people focused rather then major plot point centric. It was still decisions to be made and I do argue that the interrupt system added more depth to this. It wasn't necessarily about "being fast with the mouse click" as much choosing if you really wanted to shut someone up or get a word in to change the flow of a conversation.

My final point remains the same - ME2 was, in general, a better RPG from a non-combat viewpoint because it actually added additions and refinements to ME1's formula. The story was not as intense due to ME1 bringing about the shock and awe of the subject matter, but aside from slimmed down squaddie convos between missions, I think ME2 trounces it's predecessor there.

+1 

[SalsaDMA]

Arrow70 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

starmine76 wrote...

ME1 felt like a game that desperately wanted to be fresh, new and exciting, but could only go so far because it was built on the fundementals of old-school Roleplaying. 

Considering I never get that vibe from the first game, I'd have to rake down your comment as purely a subjective opinion.

The vibe I got from the first game was an epic story that enthralled me in the same way that the good sci-fi tv series did.

ME2 totally abandoned that mood, which I was saddened by. Sure, some of the actual game mechanics in combat were better, but their disregard for what I felt was the thematically superior element of the game compared to other games (the heavy sci-fi series feeling) was really a downer.

From the looks of it, ME3 continues this trend.

To make an anology: I felt like ME1 was like the movies "Alien" and "Aliens". ME2 was "Alien 3". I beg the powers that be, that ME3 won't turn into "Alien: Ressurection" which was just.... urgh....

The hypocrisy of this statement is ridiculous you called someone out for posting a subjunctive opinion and posted one of your own

Oh no.. People have opinions? What is the world coming to?

Try harder next time you want to make random posts just for the sake of posting.

Shocking that people use a forum to make their opinions heard, I know...

[SalsaDMA]

In Exile wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
You joking? I think Mass Effect serie is very close to Star Wars in it's base consept as universe. Little different style and enemies, but in general they both are universes where player travels in worlds where live multible alien races.

I failed pretty badly. ME is really a lot like Star Wars. But not like Star Trek.

Shepard isn't going out to explore new worlds and meet new civilizations.

Nonetheless, picking 2 squadmates to beam join you in the mako while exploring unknown planets of different types certainly made me think of Star Trek whenever I landed on a planet in ME1.

[rt604]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

-Noncombat skills
-Healing,  which is now a generic "Wait a couple seconds and you'll heal fully like any other shooter"
-Being able to make decisions,  in ME I could save the Rachni,  someone else could kill it,  and get a different result.  In ME2,  everyone's the same,  gets the same things,  same outcomes,  no matter their path,  with one exception (Samara/Daughter).
-Stores with something in them.
-Rewards for quests that mattered
-The ability to actually progress based upon what you did in the game,  rather than flat awards,  that were clearly designed to give the most rewards to the main missions,  such that even if you did side missions you were pretty much no different from the next guy.
-Actual gear worth having.

-Noncombat skills
    In ME1 you have Charm and Intimidate, two non combat skills that do the same thing, open up a few more conversation options.  While I liked how this was handled in the first one better, in ME2 you have the same ways of opening conversation options, plus interrupts.  Is this really such a massive feature difference?  The game is about story, characters, and action.  I don't need to work on Shep's alchemy skills or mercantile.

-Healing,  which is now a generic "Wait a couple seconds and you'll heal fully like any other shooter"
     So having a health bar and pressing Y when it gets low is suddenly a deep, genre defining feature of RPGs?  Regenerating health allows for better encounter design and frees up a button on an already starved controller.  Plus, you can still heal in ME2 so...?

-Being able to make decisions,  in ME I could save the Rachni,  someone else could kill it,  and get a different result.  In ME2,  everyone's the same,  gets the same things,  same outcomes,  no matter their path,  with one exception (Samara/Daughter).
   This is a blatantly false statement.  There are just as many decisions of this nature in ME2, if not more.  Every loyalty mission can be completed numerous ways resulting in different outcomes.  The geth decision is arguably more impactful than the rachni, as well the the genophage cure choice.  

-Stores with something in them.
   Space hamster.  At least it changes something visible, unlike the generic weapons and upgrades of ME1

-Rewards for quests that mattered
   Huh?  What ME1 quest had "rewards"?  ME series isn't about quest rewards like WoW.  Completing the quests is a reward unto itself.

-The ability to actually progress based upon what you did in the game,  rather than flat awards,  that were clearly designed to give the most rewards to the main missions,  such that even if you did side missions you were pretty much no different from the next guy.
   I don't even know what this means.

-Actual gear worth having.
   Sure, ME1 had a lot more gear.  But it was all the same.  ME2 you have less weapons but each one is distinct and unique.  You can play through the whole game with the Avenger if you like, or if you prefer the Vindicator, use that.  You don't just mindlessly replace your weapons with identical gear with a slight increase in stats.


ME2 wasn't perfect.  But I get frustrated when people hold up ME1 as this shining example of a great RPG.  ME1 had a fantastic story, great atmosphere and soundtrack, and some cool vistas.  But in terms of actual gameplay, its the same as ME2, only clunky and not as polished.  Why did ME2 attrat more shooter fans?  Not because it was "lol CoD crap," because it actually had fun shooter combat, unlike ME1's broken, imbalanced combat.

Besides, ME3 looks like its really combining the best of the 2 games, so I don't know what everyone is so worried about.

I agree with most of what you said sp0ck, especially the genophage cure with Mordin, I think that will be big decision in Mass Effect 3, but I think the Rachni decision was a huge decision in the first game, just as important as the rewriting the Geth decision from the second game.

But there are a couple of things I have a slightly different take.  Bioware tried to make the equipment diverse in ME1, but they gave so many choices but relatively no different looks when it came to the gear, I really didn't mind the lack of different looking weapons and armor.  But once your team was equipped with Spectre X weapons, and Colossus Heavy Armor X, Predator H X, and the Battlemaster X, you won't need the other equipment.  The rest of the equipment is just a stop gap until you get the best equipment, or you sell it to purchase the best equipment.  That said I can't explain why, but I don't like rpg games where you can go through the entire game using the same weapon you began the using at the start of the game, I guess I like progession, because when you are fighting the reapers and their minions, you best believe I'm going to equip the team with best weapons and armor available over the course of the mission, because as the mission continues you would think the challenges would increase in difficulty and frequency and better gear (or powers) will help you meet those challenges or give you multiple avenues of strategy to tackle those challenges.  Whether you choose to stand toe to toe with hordes of enemies or pick them off from afar one by one, your tactics should be reflected by your powers and equipment load out.

The other thing I miss from the first game was the ability to boost both defensive and offensive abilities that were passive.  Soldiers could increase the damage for their individual weapons by adding points to the respective weapons,  they also had health boosts and immunity as defensive powers.  In ME2, you had to make a choice, be more offensive or defensive, hopefully they'll go back to the former method for ME3.

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Arrow70 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
Considering I never get that vibe from the first game, I'd have to rake down your comment as purely a subjective opinion.

The vibe I got from the first game was an epic story that enthralled me in the same way that the good sci-fi tv series did.

ME2 totally abandoned that mood, which I was saddened by. Sure, some of the actual game mechanics in combat were better, but their disregard for what I felt was the thematically superior element of the game compared to other games (the heavy sci-fi series feeling) was really a downer.

From the looks of it, ME3 continues this trend.

To make an anology: I felt like ME1 was like the movies "Alien" and "Aliens". ME2 was "Alien 3". I beg the powers that be, that ME3 won't turn into "Alien: Ressurection" which was just.... urgh....

The hypocrisy of this statement is ridiculous you called someone out for posting a subjunctive opinion and posted one of your own

Oh no.. People have opinions? What is the world coming to?

Try harder next time you want to make random posts just for the sake of posting.

Shocking that people use a forum to make their opinions heard, I know...

 Depends on what you meant by "rake down your comment," which is an idiom I've never heard. If it means something negative, Arrow70's got you cold on the hypocrisy charge.

[sp0ck 06]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
You are somewhat correct there, however...They shouldnt have removed, the Mako, the inventory, the stats (silly hyperbole deleted) in the process of making it "full hybrid".

Why not?

Ignoring the fact that you actualy thought ME2's story was better than ME1's...
The Mako was awesome, the inventory was very manageable after you had gotten into the game heavily, and the stats DID make the game a better RPG. Building on your characters abilities in great detail is very important to a Role Playing Game, don't you think?

What are these magical stats in ME1 that allowed you to build up your character in great detail?  Health?  Weapon damage?  The same stats are present in ME2.  Sure, ME1 had larger skill trees and the weapon mods allowed you afforded you some limited customization.  But ME2 still has those stats.  Putting points into your passive ability allows you to increase your health, weapon damage, storm speed, recharge timers, tech/biotic dmg,etc.  How is that really any different from what you were doing in ME1?  Plus, from what we've seen of the skill trees/weapon mods in ME3, it looks to allow you to tailor your character in a much deeper way than either ME1 or 2.

Sidenote:  If you thought the Mako was that awesome, thats your opinion.  Personally, the Mako sections felt like a terrible chore to me.  Also, the ME1 inventory became worse and worse to manage as the game progressed and you realized 90% of the crap you were picking up was utterly useless.

[Aimi]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Sidenote:  If you thought the Mako was that awesome, thats your opinion.  Personally, the Mako sections felt like a terrible chore to me.  Also, the ME1 inventory became worse and worse to manage as the game progressed and you realized 90% of the crap you were picking up was utterly useless.

Only 90%?  Felt more like 99, because the only things that were worth it were Colossus Armors (if you didn't already have them), Geth Armory armor for krogan (again, if you didn't already have them), and Phantom Armor for turians (again, if you...you get the idea).

And on NG+, it was even worse.

[the_one_54321]

starmine76 wrote...
ME1 felt like a game that desperately wanted to be fresh, new and exciting, but could only go so far because it was built on the fundementals of old-school Roleplaying.  Don't get me wrong, I love ME1, but it's true. Bioware wanted to both make a modern Action game and an Epic RPG, but they didn't quite know how to put them together.

So what did they do? The wiped the slate clean. They pretty much went back to square 1 with the sequel, stripping back a lot of the bulkier RPG systems to focus on getting the combat clean and the gameply slick. The result was a game that never lost it's focus and certainly did what it was intended to do (namely, being really damn fun), but still left much to be desired in the eyes of many RPG fans.

With ME3, however, It seems that Bioware has finally figured out exactly how to pull off balancing shooter and RPG. They aren't simply throwing random RPG elements at us torn from their past games and expecting it to work (a la the inventory/upgrade system in ME1). Instead they are putting in RPG elements that make sense in the context of the game, and also serve to deepen our immersion into the world. They are returning to the conceps and Ideas they had when making ME1, expept now, they're smarter, they're leaner, and they're fully primed to deliver the most kickass experience possible.

So yeah, I guess you could say I was impressed by the demo

EDIT: Altered the thread title so that people understand that, yes, this is purely subjective and only my opinion based on a small amount of facts,  just like the majority of posts on these forums.

What they did was not make a leaner RPG in ME2, what they did was make a not-RPG. They made it into a straight forward shooter. Which was fine with me, because the UI was entirely shooter based. They did need to stop being half way and just make it an all out stat based game or an all out shooter. Either direction would have been fine, so long as they stick with it now.

[AlanC9]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
Ignoring the fact that you actualy thought ME2's story was better than ME1's...

Did I actually post that?

The Mako was awesome, the inventory was very manageable after you had gotten into the game heavily, and the stats DID make the game a better RPG. Building on your characters abilities in great detail is very important to a Role Playing Game, don't you think?

No, I don't.

Evaluating whether a game is a "better RPG" is pointless. The only thing that counts when evaluating a game is whether it's enjoyable to play. The better RPG is the RPG that's more fun to play even if it has "less RPG features" than the other game.

ME2 and ME1 are both RPGs according to how I classify games (different folks have different taxonomies; I'm not arguing with the_one_54321 or Gatt9's systems). ME2 was more fun to play. Therefore it's a better RPG. End of story.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2011 - 10:08 .

[sp0ck 06]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

You know its funny, everytime you try and make an argument about WHY you didnt care for Mass Effect 2, someone always says, "Hey, if you don't like it don't play it, besides, change is good and if you cant handle it then just don't play it"...Change can be good, but not when its not for the better.
Everyones excuse is always Change is good, change is good, change is good. Well look at the response from the core fanbase after the 2nd game came out. Change is no good 98% of the time, and we all need to come to terms with this. hahaha...

The reason for this response is because generally people who dislike ME2 come on here and criticize the game for being "dumbed downed," "streamlined," "not a real RPG," "catering to casuals,"being a generic Gears of War shooter," and other similar sentiments.  As a fan of the series, I feel it's my duty to then debunk these sorts of statements, partly for my own satisfaction and partly so the game creators don't buy into that sort of feedback.

I don't think people in this thread and the many others like it are robotically chanting "Change is good.  Change is good."  I certainly know that not how I feel.  I don't think ME2 is a perfect game, and I loved ME1.  But the endless criticism of ME2 is (IMHO) unjustified and I want to respond to that.

Saying things like "Change is no good 98% of the time" is the kind of statements I'm talking about.

[AlanC9]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
Better in some ways yes, but in the means of an RPG?...no.

Again, I find this argument to be completely silly.

Why does it matter if the game is a "good RPG" unless being a "good RPG" makes it more fun to play?

If you think more numbers and more inventory and more Mako and more whatever would make the game more fun to play, then just say that.

[the_one_54321]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
You know its funny, everytime you try and make an argument about WHY you didnt care for Mass Effect 2, someone always says, "Hey, if you don't like it don't play it, besides, change is good and if you cant handle it then just don't play it"...Change can be good, but not when its not for the better.
Everyones excuse is always Change is good, change is good, change is good. Well look at the response from the core fanbase after the 2nd game came out. Change is no good 98% of the time, and we all need to come to terms with this. hahaha...

Change in ME2 was good because it got rid of ambiguity.

Change in DAII was bad because it for the most part the changes only attempted to dredge up new fans while masking the elimination of everything the old fans liked.

[JKoopman]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

-Noncombat skills
    In ME1 you have Charm and Intimidate, two non combat skills that do the same thing, open up a few more conversation options.  While I liked how this was handled in the first one better, in ME2 you have the same ways of opening conversation options, plus interrupts.  Is this really such a massive feature difference?  The game is about story, characters, and action.  I don't need to work on Shep's alchemy skills or mercantile.

Charm/Intimidate also had a passive effect on the cost of shop items and how much money you received from selling them. In addition, there was also Electronics (bypass doors, +shields, +repair), Decryption (hack containters, +tech damage), Fitness (+health), First Aid (+health restoration), Medicine (-medi-gel cooldown), and Basic/Tactical/Combat Armor (+armor, access to different armor tiers). Does ME2 have ANY talent that doesn't directly pertain to an offensive ability?

Yes, many of those talents in ME1 also had bonus combat abilities included with them at lvls 1, 5 and 9, but they were predominantly passive stat bonuses. Along came ME2 and it basically trimmed away all the passive bonuses and supporting stuff and distilled it down to nothing but the combat abilities.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

-Healing,  which is now a generic "Wait a couple seconds and you'll heal fully like any other shooter"
     So having a health bar and pressing Y when it gets low is suddenly a deep, genre defining feature of RPGs?  Regenerating health allows for better encounter design and frees up a button on an already starved controller.  Plus, you can still heal in ME2 so...?

"Having a health bar and pressing Y when it gets low" is a gross simplification bordering on dishonesty. The finite amount of medi-gel that the player could carry meant that you had to be careful about every encounter. Get sloppy and lose too much health? Now you have to weigh the options and consider whether to use one of your medi-gels to bring your health up to full for the next encounter - potentially running the risk of not having enough if a particularly difficult enemy is faced later on - or conserving your medi-gel and hoping that your health is sufficient for the next battle.

ME2's regenerating health means that you can basically blunder and bludgeon your way through every encounter and, as long as you take cover from time to time for a few seconds, you never have to bother with tactics. And, no matter how badly you perform in each individual encounter, your health will always be full for the next. It's brainless and requiress no strategy or forethought whatsoever.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

-Stores with something in them.
   Space hamster.  At least it changes something visible, unlike the generic weapons and upgrades of ME1

Really? So your counter to armors, armor mods, weapons, weapon mods, grenade mods, neural implants, omni-tools and licenses is... the Space Hamster? The thing that you buy, click on once to see what it does and then never bother so much as looking at again and that has no effect or impact on your character(s) whatsoever?

sp0ck 06 wrote...

-The ability to actually progress based upon what you did in the game,  rather than flat awards,  that were clearly designed to give the most rewards to the main missions,  such that even if you did side missions you were pretty much no different from the next guy.
   I don't even know what this means.

I believe he meant that in ME1 you gained experience dynamically from virtually everything your character did (killing enemies, unlocking containters and doors, completing even the most trivial of sidequests). In ME2, the only time you ever see EXP gained is at the Mission Report screen (and always the same amount of EXP no matter how you performed), which comes only at the end of major story segments and N7 missions. In other words, you got "flat awards" for completing major missions (read: levels) and nothing for much of anything else.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

-Actual gear worth having.
   Sure, ME1 had a lot more gear.  But it was all the same.  ME2 you have less weapons but each one is distinct and unique.  You can play through the whole game with the Avenger if you like, or if you prefer the Vindicator, use that.  You don't just mindlessly replace your weapons with identical gear with a slight increase in stats.

How often did you really feel like your character's equipment was improving and changing in ME2? Really, stop and think about that and give an honest answer. Yeah, there were only 8 different weapon models (with I don't really know how many different skins for each) but you could visibly see that one weapon was better than another and almost constantly felt like your arsenal was improving and evolving as the game progressed even if the model in Shepard's hands looked the same. In addition, there were 26 different armor styles across 3 different types (Light, Medium, Heavy) with 10 tiers apiece, and a whole plethora of weapon mods, armor mods, grenade mods, neural implants and omni-tools that left your character's equipment constantly evolving even if it wasn't visible.

In ME2, yeah the weapons are more "unique". But unique so often means that you find the one weapon that suits your style and then never equip or change anything else ever again. I tended to prefer the Carnifex to the Predator, for example. So, as soon as I'd acquire the Carnifex on Mordin's recruitment mission, I'd equip it on all my characters and there it would remain until the end of the game. Likewise for SMGs. The Locust was far superior to every other SMG in ME2, so as soon as I'd acquire it on Kasumi's loyalty mission, I'd equip it on all my characters with an SMG slot and there it would remain, etc, etc. The same goes for armor. As soon as I'd acquired the armor piece that I prefered, I'd equip it and never see my armor locker again. ME2 felt static in that regard. Yeah, each piece was more visually unique, but there was no feeling of progression or evolution.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

ME2 wasn't perfect.  But I get frustrated when people hold up ME1 as this shining example of a great RPG.  ME1 had a fantastic story, great atmosphere and soundtrack, and some cool vistas.  But in terms of actual gameplay, its the same as ME2, only clunky and not as polished.  Why did ME2 attrat more shooter fans?  Not because it was "lol CoD crap," because it actually had fun shooter combat, unlike ME1's broken, imbalanced combat.

The only thing that was broken and unbalanced about ME1's combat was the Frictionless Materials mod. The word "fun" is subjective. I certainly had plenty of fun with ME1's combat, and the greater RPG elements, better attention and respect to lore, and emphasis on tactics instead of run-n-gun action only served to enhance that enjoyment.

Modifié par JKoopman, 15 juin 2011 - 10:45 .

[rt604]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

You know its funny, everytime you try and make an argument about WHY you didnt care for Mass Effect 2, someone always says, "Hey, if you don't like it don't play it, besides, change is good and if you cant handle it then just don't play it"...Change can be good, but not when its not for the better.
Everyones excuse is always Change is good, change is good, change is good. Well look at the response from the core fanbase after the 2nd game came out. Change is no good 98% of the time, and we all need to come to terms with this. hahaha...

The reason for this response is because generally people who dislike ME2 come on here and criticize the game for being "dumbed downed," "streamlined," "not a real RPG," "catering to casuals,"being a generic Gears of War shooter," and other similar sentiments.  As a fan of the series, I feel it's my duty to then debunk these sorts of statements, partly for my own satisfaction and partly so the game creators don't buy into that sort of feedback.

I don't think people in this thread and the many others like it are robotically chanting "Change is good.  Change is good."  I certainly know that not how I feel.  I don't think ME2 is a perfect game, and I loved ME1.  But the endless criticism of ME2 is (IMHO) unjustified and I want to respond to that.

Saying things like "Change is no good 98% of the time" is the kind of statements I'm talking about.

Mass Effect 2 was a good game, but there is no doubt they streamlined the skill trees, especially for soldiers.

[Gatt9]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

You know its funny, everytime you try and make an argument about WHY you didnt care for Mass Effect 2, someone always says, "Hey, if you don't like it don't play it, besides, change is good and if you cant handle it then just don't play it"...Change can be good, but not when its not for the better.
Everyones excuse is always Change is good, change is good, change is good. Well look at the response from the core fanbase after the 2nd game came out. Change is no good 98% of the time, and we all need to come to terms with this. hahaha...

The reason for this response is because generally people who dislike ME2 come on here and criticize the game for being "dumbed downed," "streamlined," "not a real RPG," "catering to casuals,"being a generic Gears of War shooter," and other similar sentiments.  As a fan of the series, I feel it's my duty to then debunk these sorts of statements, partly for my own satisfaction and partly so the game creators don't buy into that sort of feedback.

I don't think people in this thread and the many others like it are robotically chanting "Change is good.  Change is good."  I certainly know that not how I feel.  I don't think ME2 is a perfect game, and I loved ME1.  But the endless criticism of ME2 is (IMHO) unjustified and I want to respond to that.

Saying things like "Change is no good 98% of the time" is the kind of statements I'm talking about.

Most of those statements are largely true,  whether you personally care for them or not.  ME2 is not a real RPG,  it lacks a Character,  Shepherd has no intrinsic qualities of his own.  It is dumbed down,  there's no inventory,  no loot,  no details on weapons and their damage output or any of their qualties,  armor does nothing,  health regenerates automatically,  no punishment for acting out of character*,  it's very basic.  It is very similiar in form and function to a GoW clone,  that's how the combat plays out,  and it's not very good at it.  I'd actually term it as Whack-a-Mole,  because all I did for the entire game was (Hide,  wait for enemy to hit it's pause in firing,  put crosshairs 1" above where they were crouching,  pull trigger when they popped up).

People do robotically chant that,  they continually insist it's a better game and a better RPG,  without dealing with any of the arguement.  All you'll get in response is "You're (Old, outdated,  archaic) and you don't deserve to play games anymore!" followed by about 2 paragraphs of regurgitating buzzwords marketing PR has thrown out (Evolvoed,  Revolutionary,  Immersive). 

Further,  I respectfully suggest that perhaps you should reflect on your intolerance of criticism in regards to ME2.  Nothing is perfect,  and if you can't tolerate any criticism at all,  then perhaps you're feeling that your enjoyment of it is being personally attacked rather than remaining objective about it and considering the possibility that ME2 did have problems?

Because honestly,  it had alot of problems.  I didn't even get into the horrible AI,  complete lack of need for tactics or strategy,  the fact that most of the missions followed the same pattern with the same enemies and the same end bosses,  the fact that there's perhaps a half dozen enemies in total,  the fact that the game contradicts itself frequently (I accepted Spectre reinstatement,  and then spent the rest of the game referring to myself as a former Spectre),  Every level's a corridor,  nothing really to spend your credits on,  planet scanning,  and many other things.

In regards to your other post,  JKoopman said it quite well,  I'm not going to write an essentially identical post.

*I was a 100% paragon,  pushed a guy off a building to his death in cold blood,  and no one even batted an eye.  I got 5 renegade points or so,  and...nothing.  No one noticed or cared that the Paragon of Virtue just murdered someone in cold blood.

[sp0ck 06]

.

Charm/Intimidate also had a passive effect on the cost of shop items and how much money you received from selling them. In addition, there was also Electronics (bypass doors, +shields, +repair), Decryption (hack containters, +tech damage), Fitness (+health), First Aid (+health restoration), Medicine (-medi-gel cooldown), and Basic/Tactical/Combat Armor (+armor, access to different armor tiers). Does ME2 have ANY talent that doesn't directly pertain to an offensive ability?

Yes, many of those talents in ME1 also had bonus combat abilities included with them at lvls 1, 5 and 9, but they were predominantly passive stat bonuses. Along came ME2 and it basically trimmed away all the passive bonuses and supporting stuff and distilled it down to nothing but the combat abilities.

Yes, ME1 had a bunch of passive skills (which are all directly related to combat, btw).  ME2 ditched most of them.  But why is that such a bad thing?  Placing a skill point into Fitness to increase health by +5% is not some deep feature which requires strategic thought.  How is that any different from researching a Heavy Skin Weave upgrade?  Having a skill tree with a bunch of passive skills that you dump points into does not mean ME1 was more "intelligent" than 2.  In addition, having your hacking skills derived from a passive skill was neither fun nor realistic.  Tali is this Quarian tech genius but she can't hack a wall safe because I haven't dumped enough points into her Decryption?

"Having a health bar and pressing Y when it gets low" is a gross simplification bordering on dishonesty. The finite amount of medi-gel that the player could carry meant that you had to be careful about every encounter. Get sloppy and lose too much health? Now you have to weigh the options and consider whether to use one of your medi-gels to bring your health up to full for the next encounter - potentially running the risk of not having enough if a particularly difficult enemy is faced later on - or conserving your medi-gel and hoping that your health is sufficient for the next battle.

ME2's regenerating health means that you can basically blunder and bludgeon your way through every encounter and, as long as you take cover from time to time for a few seconds, you never have to bother with tactics. And, no matter how badly you perform in each individual encounter, your health will always be full for the next. It's brainless and requiress no strategy or forethought whatsoever.

I would argue the inclusion of Heavy Weapons fulfills a similar purpose to what you describe as medi gel usage in the first game.  Save it for a tough boss, or blow it on the big pack of enemies you just can't seem to get past?  I .  I find it amusing you say describe ME2 combat as "brainless" when I dont ever recall running out of medi gel in ME1 due its absurdly broken and easy combat mechanics.  Try playing ME2 on insanity and "blunder" you way through.  Good luck.

Really? So your counter to armors, armor mods, weapons, weapon mods, grenade mods, neural implants, omni-tools and licenses is... the Space Hamster? The thing that you buy, click on once to see what it does and then never bother so much as looking at again and that has no effect or impact on your character(s) whatsoever?

Thats right, I'd rather just have some collectables than an endless torrent of useless armor weapons and mods I already have 10 copies off in a horrible inventory interface.

 believe he meant that in ME1 you gained experience dynamically from virtually everything your character did (killing enemies, unlocking containters and doors, completing even the most trivial of sidequests). In ME2, the only time you ever see EXP gained is at the Mission Report screen (and always the same amount of EXP no matter how you performed), which comes only at the end of major story segments and N7 missions. In other words, you got "flat awards" for completing major missions (read: levels) and nothing for much of anything else.

I'm not sure thats what the original poster meant but I actually hated the Mission Complete screens in ME2 and hope they do something else XP wise for 3.

How often did you really feel like your character's equipment was improving and changing in ME2? Really, stop and think about that and give an honest answer. Yeah, there were only 8 different weapon models (with I don't really know how many different skins for each) but you could visibly see that one weapon was better than another and almost constantly felt like your arsenal was improving and evolving as the game progressed even if the model in Shepard's hands looked the same. In addition, there were 26 different armor styles across 3 different types (Light, Medium, Heavy) with 10 tiers apiece, and a whole plethora of weapon mods, armor mods, grenade mods, neural implants and omni-tools that left your character's equipment constantly evolving even if it wasn't visible.

It was improving every time I researched an upgrade for it.  ME2 should have shipped with more weapons, true, but once you got top tier weapons and armor in ME1 you never needed anything else anyways.  The Spectre AR handled and felt exactly like the one you started the game with, except the little bars in the menu had higher numbers next to them.  Tier I-X of armor was the same. 

I did like omni tools and was disappointed to not see them in ME2.

[JKoopman]

AlanC9 wrote...

ME2 and ME1 are both RPGs according to how I classify games (different folks have different taxonomies; I'm not arguing with the_one_54321 or Gatt9's systems). ME2 was more fun to play. Therefore it's a better RPG. End of story.

I classify Section 8: Prejudice as an RPG since you play the role of a space marine and it allows you some limited customization of stats and weapons. Since I have more fun playing Section 8: Prejudice than I do playing Baldur's Gate, I hereby dub Section 8: Prejudice to be a better RPG than Baldur's Gate.

See how silly and subjective that is?

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...


Most of those statements are largely true,  whether you personally care for them or not.  ME2 is not a real RPG,  it lacks a Character,  Shepherd has no intrinsic qualities of his own.  It is dumbed down,  there's no inventory,  no loot,  no details on weapons and their damage output or any of their qualties,  armor does nothing,  health regenerates automatically,  no punishment for acting out of character*,  it's very basic.  It is very similiar in form and function to a GoW clone,  that's how the combat plays out,  and it's not very good at it.  I'd actually term it as Whack-a-Mole,  because all I did for the entire game was (Hide,  wait for enemy to hit it's pause in firing,  put crosshairs 1" above where they were crouching,  pull trigger when they popped up).

People do robotically chant that,  they continually insist it's a better game and a better RPG,  without dealing with any of the arguement.  All you'll get in response is "You're (Old, outdated,  archaic) and you don't deserve to play games anymore!" followed by about 2 paragraphs of regurgitating buzzwords marketing PR has thrown out (Evolvoed,  Revolutionary,  Immersive). 

Further,  I respectfully suggest that perhaps you should reflect on your intolerance of criticism in regards to ME2.  Nothing is perfect,  and if you can't tolerate any criticism at all,  then perhaps you're feeling that your enjoyment of it is being personally attacked rather than remaining objective about it and considering the possibility that ME2 did have problems?

Because honestly,  it had alot of problems.  I didn't even get into the horrible AI,  complete lack of need for tactics or strategy,  the fact that most of the missions followed the same pattern with the same enemies and the same end bosses,  the fact that there's perhaps a half dozen enemies in total,  the fact that the game contradicts itself frequently (I accepted Spectre reinstatement,  and then spent the rest of the game referring to myself as a former Spectre),  Every level's a corridor,  nothing really to spend your credits on,  planet scanning,  and many other things.

In regards to your other post,  JKoopman said it quite well,  I'm not going to write an essentially identical post.

*I was a 100% paragon,  pushed a guy off a building to his death in cold blood,  and no one even batted an eye.  I got 5 renegade points or so,  and...nothing.  No one noticed or cared that the Paragon of Virtue just murdered someone in cold blood.

I'm too lazy to go through all your points but the idea is this:  Things like regenerating health might make ME less of a grognard RPG, but they do make it a better game.  Ultimately, that's all I care about.  

I never said ME2 was perfect, I explicitly stated otherwise.  I said I feel the need to defend it against UNJUSTIFIED criticism.  Almost all the problems you just stated can be applied in greater volume to ME1.  If you feel the series is so flawed in so many ways why are you even on this forum to begin with?

*I was a 100% paragon,  pushed a guy off a building to his death in cold blood,  and no one even batted an eye.  I got 5 renegade points or so,  and...nothing.  No one noticed or cared that the Paragon of Virtue just murdered someone in cold blood.

This is an extremely unfair example.  One of the series' strongest points is how characters react to the decisions you have made.  If you break character of your 100% paragon Shepard just to see if you can get the game to respond, that's not the game's fault.

[Lumikki]

@Gatt9

You have right to have you own believes as what RPG is. How ever, when you say like ME2 is not a real RPG. It's how ever based you own defination what RPG is. Even this forums veteran RPG players can't agree what RPG is, so what you really are saying is that for YOU ME2 isn't RPG, because you like your RPG done sertain ways.

Both ME1 and ME2 are hybrid games, action RPG with TPS combat.  ME1 was more statical than ME2. How ever, amount of statical doesn't define RPG, it's just one possible aspect of it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juin 2011 - 01:43 .