469 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

javierabegazo wrote...

lol, darn you sloppy forum quoting!


Meh, I'm over that shock. It's been that way for years. And EA's had a pretty good track record recently. Dead Space 2..Battlefield 3...

EA is hit and miss to me right now. They are no longer the evil corporation working to destroy the gaming industry, but they have long shed the reformed paragon of the industry they turned into after that phase. Right now they are in a sort of flux, they have all these great studios and games getting pumped up, but at the same time they are making dubious choices in worrisome directions.

That origin business for example, and the dubious nature of DA2. Something went wrong there.

In any case I am excited for ME2, even with the very little we were shown. (And I avoided most of the story spoilers too.) Even if ME3 is just a slightly revamped ME2, i'll enjoy it. Hell just the inclusion of melee attacks and weapon mods is promising.

However ME2 had plenty of issues that broke up my enjoyment and immersion at times, more so than ME1 did. So I am definately keeping my eye out for improvements on those issues. Story is something I won't know about until release, but little things like animations (stiff squadmate movements, frozen arms), voice acting (remember fast talking shep?), and such. Still optimistic though.

[Tony Gunslinger]

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

I argue against thermal clips because they were a needless change that breaks lore, and the explanation that BW used to shoe-horn them into the game is about the most half-assed, nonsensical garbage I've ever heard. Not to mention that it's implementation is completely inconsistent. Cooldowns were also a unique feature that ME1 introduced that helped differentiate it from other shooters on the market, and it was removed explicitly to do the exact opposite; make ME2 more like traditional shooters with a familiar ammo mechanic.[/quote]

Unique doesn't necessarily mean it's good. If there were mass accelerated weapons in the real world, they would have a hard cap to eliminate overheat so the cooldown would be short enough to compete with conventional reload time. Managing an ever-changing variable is a distraction in battle. Guns need to work as simple and predictable as possible. ME1 guns overheat because it was a game mechanic designed to gimp you. Cooldowns made guns an abstract minigame, not guns.


[quote]
Cooldown worked. It may have needed a little balancing and tweaking, but removing it entirely was throwing the baby out with the bathwater.[/quote]

How would cooldown been tweaked to be better? Less cooldown time? More cooldown time? Tweak the heat buildup rate? By how much? To which guns? Propose something concrete instead of saying it worked but needed fixing.

[quote]
That it's somewhat annoying to play an Infiltrator (aka "sniper") and not be able to use the weapon that the class was built around for the majority of the game - instead relying on an SMG 90% of the time - is an argument that I've used in opposition to the thermal clip system, but it's an argument of playstyle and entertainment value, not difficulty. I've never "whined" that the game is too hard because I'm running out of ammo for my SR. I've complained that I'm not able to use the weapon that I want to use and instead find myself using an SMG for virtually every encounter. Yes, sniping IS a valid tactic and it should be made more feasible or else sniper rifles as a whole become pointless. The fact is, the thermal clip system is not set up well for sniping. You can use ARs, SMGs, Pistols and Shotguns without worrying much about ammo. Why should sniper rifles be the sole exception?[/quote]

90% of the time using SMGs? Ask any infiltrator players out there and they'll tell you that they use their sniper rifles conservatively 50-70& of the time.


[quote]
Nice try distorting my argument though.

You also didn't refute my point. In fact, you basically agreed with me that ammo is a non-issue.
[/quote]

Nice try distorting my argument: You're saying health regen ruins tactics but ammo regen doesn't.


[quote]

Wrong. The Trauma Module upgrade in ME2 allows you to use Unity to restore health, meaning you CAN still "rush in, kill shoot a couple of guys and hit the 'heal' button and shoot some more."[/quote]

Global cooldown prevents you from using any other powers, and you can only use medigel 8 times max. Using immunity/barrier/shield boost in ME1 doesn't interfere with other powers.

[quote]
More to the point, ME1 had finite health and finite medi-gel and no one seemed to have much trouble advancing through areas in that.
[/quote]

Again, because they have immunity/barrier/shield boost with ARush to reset Immunity/Shield boost and other powers, soldiers have health regen, and Medical Exo have health regen. You're not making a good case here, ME1 gave you enough redundant defensive powers and items that make you think less about your health so you rarely bothered to use any tactics, more so than ME2.


[quote]
Yes, creating an overpowered uber-God and blitzing through the story IS about the only point to playing ME1 NG+. BioWare were never shy about saying as much. Of course, to get that uber-God with all the best equipment, you're looking at probably your 3rd run through and at that point I would argue that anyone who's willfully subjecting themselves to it forfeits all rights to complain about it being too easy and pointless, but that's beside the point.[/quote]

You're right, that comment about people who plays 3 times is beside the point. The point is that you seem to not understand that ME1's combat cannot sustain itself without inventory and awful-to-awesome quality progression to gimp you at the start. It's designed to reward grinding, not thinking about tactics on the battlefield. And that's not even an RPG thing, that's a standard way of extending an otherwise ordinary gamplay system.

ME2's core gameplay can sustain itself even if the game only has only one gun and one power. Tactics are still being used, you still have to counter defenses, the game mechanics are sound. Inventory in ME2 augmented the core gameplay, not the other way around.


[quote]
Anywho, exactly what "new builds" does ME2's NG+ allow you to try out? I suppose you could use Retraining to respec and try out different outcomes but, again, at Lvl 30 you'll have enough points to max out every power you've got anyway and the only real variation available is "do I want a small AoE radius or do I want 20% more damage on the same powers I had before?" I don't exactly consider that to be a new "build" worthy of the name. I think you're grossly overstating ME2's complexity.

The only point of separation between ME1 and ME2 NG+ is, as you yourself apparently admit, that upgrades don't carry over in ME2 and that you have the option of respec'ing your abilities for whatever that's worth. It has nothing whatsoever to do with inventory, and I'd be interested to hear how you somehow connect them.

Adepts. Engineers. Infiltrators. I can use whatever class you want. Care to explain why my selection of Adepts somehow makes any difference there? ALL powers in ME2 follow the same "AoE or more damage" evolutionary paths, whether it be Warp, Overload or Concussive Shot. Confirmation bias indeed. All we've confirmed is your own bias.
[/quote]

AI hacking and dominate are useless on low levels on insanity, they need to be maxed to be of any use. Cryo ammo and cryoblast were once considered the worst powers in the game until after NG+ playthroughs that they were proven to be very powerful. Shotgun infiltrators using Reave, vanguards using cryo ammo, Engineers using ai hacking and dominate, Claymore soldiers, Adepts using shockwave, Sentinels with sniper rifles, they all play differently. Go to the strategies section if you don't think there are meaningful varieties of builds in ME2.


[quote]
[quote]Tony Gunslinger wrote...

And asking questions in this condescending way makes you sound smart because...?

Ending a reply with snide comments like what I'm doing right now is cheap. Doesn't get you points.[/quote]

I asked a question. If you read it in a condescending way, that's on you.

I find it especially ironic that I pointed out the fact that painting an argument with a snide label does nothing to refute it and your response was to post another snide comment criticizing my intelect without actually responding to the question at hand (namely, how exactly is ME1's gameplay not able to "sustain itself" without inventory and precisely how is the inverse true for ME2?). You instead went off on some tangent about how the 3rd runthrough of ME1 with all the best weapons and equipment is pointless.[/quote]

I find it ironic that my comment seem snide to you when all I did was following your writing style, and you didn't get it.

[quote]
No more difficult than any of the other recruitment/loyalty missions available to the player after Freedom's Progress...?

You face 2 YMIR mechs in both Jack's and Grunt's recruitment missions too (both available right after Freedom's Progress) as well as a Gunship and potentially another YMIR during Garrus' recruitment mission (also available right after Freedom's Progress). Why should Kasumi's mission be some insurmountable hurdle to you? Doing Kasumi's mission first is actually advisable if for no other reason than because the Locust makes every other recruitment mission a cake walk whereas my Sentinel and Infiltrator would be stuck trying to complete them with nothing but a Shuriken otherwise, and good luck dropping anything with that weak POS.
[/quote]

You face YMIRs with 2 two squadmates of your choice in large environments and a gunboat you can disable a chunk of its armor vs. stuck with one (Kasumi) with no choice on the matter in confined layouts, and the enemies spawn from random platforms while a gunboat with full shields and armor blasting you from above. So yes, Stolen Memory antes up the difficulty.

And yes, I drop pretty much everything with my POS Shuriken.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 16 juin 2011 - 08:12 .

[azerSheppard]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

@JKoopman - how can you talk about how awesome ME1 was with it's finite medigel (which you can fully replace every time you return to the Normandy, so.... "finite"... ehhhhhh....) and then talk about how crap ME2 is because you can just use Unity to restore your health when... Unity uses medigel. And you can't just restore it all with a little jaunt back to the Normandy. I mean, being honest, both games have finite health because if you get shot in the face a bunch of times..... you're going to have to reload, whether it's ME1 or ME2.

Not to mention, with Medical Exoskeleton upgrades in ME1.... I never had to use medigel anyway.

Also, I'd just like to point out that it didn't take until your third NG+ playthrough to feel like an Uber-god. I manage to do that just fine on playthrough one. Granted, I'm not level 60 at the end, but I can hit mid50s, have Specter X weapons and Colossus/Equivalent X armor and just sleepwalk through Ilos/The Citadel Redux... At that point, it's not fun, it's just boring. I've started my final playthrough - a uberRenegade Sentinel - and I just threw the difficulty down to casual because... the combat is so terrible in ME1 that I just want to get it over with as quickly as possible so I can move on to ME2 and have him ready for import.

ME1, for all it's awesomeness, was just as even more faulty on half of the Shooter/RPG hybrid meter than ME2. ME2 lacked some RPG elements (note I say "lacked", not "was missing" because in my opinion, I didn't "miss" anything that was cut out. F the Mako. F it in it's fing ear.) sure, but combat in ME1 was far FAR worse and a much more egregious example of a failure than the RPG/ME2 issue.

Thats such a cheat, it even lowers cooldown, get two of those and won't need adrenaline rush xd, i remember being able to cast immunity at a cont rate.

[Bnol]

JKoopman wrote...

I argue against thermal clips because they were a needless change that breaks lore, and the explanation that BW used to shoe-horn them into the game is about the most half-assed, nonsensical garbage I've ever heard. Not to mention that it's implementation is completely inconsistent. Cooldowns were also a unique feature that ME1 introduced that helped differentiate it from other shooters on the market, and it was removed explicitly to do the exact opposite; make ME2 more like traditional shooters with a familiar ammo mechanic.

Cooldown worked. It may have needed a little balancing and tweaking, but removing it entirely was throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That it's somewhat annoying to play an Infiltrator (aka "sniper") and not be able to use the weapon that the class was built around for the majority of the game - instead relying on an SMG 90% of the time - is an argument that I've used in opposition to the thermal clip system, but it's an argument of playstyle and entertainment value, not difficulty. I've never "whined" that the game is too hard because I'm running out of ammo for my SR. I've complained that I'm not able to use the weapon that I want to use and instead find myself using an SMG for virtually every encounter. Yes, sniping IS a valid tactic and it should be made more feasible or else sniper rifles as a whole become pointless. The fact is, the thermal clip system is not set up well for sniping. You can use ARs, SMGs, Pistols and Shotguns without worrying much about ammo. Why should sniper rifles be the sole exception?

Nice try distorting my argument though.

You also didn't refute my point. In fact, you basically agreed with me that ammo is a non-issue.

Lore:  I never really bought into the ME1 lore of how guns worked with the heat system.  I mean, where is all this heat buildup going?  I mean the heat has to go somewhere, but it can't really be rapidly vented as that would be a hazard to the user and anyone around him.  Also, how does a skill like Overkill even logically work in terms of just magically your gun not generating heat (I can wrap my mind around no recoil).  Also, weapon development is not done in a vacuum.  There can be advances in armor and shield technology that requires more rounds down-range and/or higher velocity to be effective.  But honestly, it is a gameplay decision.

Gameplay:  The way they had the heat buildup made combat slower.  It also made weapon swapping practically unecessary, especially with the pistol being so good.  So putting in the thermal clips helps mitigate both of those problems because you only have the 1 second reload time, instead of the longer cooldown time.  Once the Widow was acquired I really didn't have much issue with ammo (obviously the Mantis needed more ammo and the Viper wasn't a great alternative for the Infiltrator), certainly it was a concern but I never used the SMG for anywhere near 25% of my shooting, and not even close to the 90% you are claiming, especially since any extended fighting had plenty of ammo around and with Tactical Cloak you can fairly easily acess it.

JKoopman wrote...

Adepts. Engineers. Infiltrators. I can use whatever class you want. Care to explain why my selection of Adepts somehow makes any difference there? ALL powers in ME2 follow the same "AoE or more damage" evolutionary paths, whether it be Warp, Overload or Concussive Shot. Confirmation bias indeed. All we've confirmed is your own bias.

I will agree here that both Shepard's leveling and the Squads leveling was much too formulaic in ME2.  Although I would argue that ME1 wasn't that much better.  Certainly you have a wider variety of skills, but it was still generally better to maximize the best skills as soon as possible, and those skills didn't change a whole lot as you progressed them.  They gave the more power/longer duration/shorter CD/larger area.  I guess different proportions of those values makes the advancement different enough for you.  I found a wide variety of skills to be quite annoying to play on a console, especially with only one hot-button ability so even though I would have liked to have somewhere in the middle of ME1 and 2 with 3 hot-buttons, I would rather have it on the fewer side so there isn't a ton of power wheel usage and instead more streamlined skill usage.

[Phaedon]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

Did anyone see that banner that said, "Bioware, A division of EA"?
Angry person is me, and i am angry.

You should be glad that Bioware still exists as a corporation, since EA owns it.

[Ylhaym]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

Ylhaym wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

I just went to that link that shows the supposed "Added RPG Elements", and well, i saw none. I am seriously starting to think that people are only thinking its RPG elements will be as strong as Mass Effect 1's, because the stat menu is blue again, instead of orange...wow...just wow.

http://imageshack.us...10608at125.jpg/

Here, you look, and you tell me what RPG come backs or additions you see.

RPG additions? let's see...
You can actually choose what direction you want your power to evolve to. Better than how ME1 handles "stats".
And the Workbench, weapon customization done better than ME1.

If you think RPG Elements is all about inventory, then yes you are correct. I don't see any RPG Elements there.

 

If weapon custimization makes a game an RPG, then Army Of Two is the greatest RPG i have ever played.

Wow, just wow. Good job ignoring half of the post and interpreting it as "The only thing a game needs is a weapon customization and its already an RPG".

Thanks for the laugh sir. 

[Lumikki]

ME serie is hybrid of TPS and action RPG.

ME serie is not pure RPG and NEVER ment to be, so people stop using your opinions base like it is. Bioware talks about RPG, because it's part of ME serie. How ever, it's not all what it is and only thing what it is. ME games aren't some heavy classic RPG. Bioware is focusing in action side, not in strategy side of statical gameplay what some more heavy classic RPG's are offering. It's about choosing what RPG elements to take and how strongly to support action like gameplay. Focus is more in role impression, than in numbers as statical gameplay based RPG.

Action RPG is not same as classic RPG. So stop threating them like they are. You people talk like there is only one type of RPG and that's your RPG as how you define it. RPG gendre is wide and there is many different RPG styles.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juin 2011 - 06:03 .

[LordNige]

Given that most of the skills in ME1 were weapon/armour/hacking/Medigel/dialogue related with a few for biotics/tech skills it made sense to have a smaller stats list. The one thing that annoyed me about ME1 was that Shep could essentially reach the rank of commander without the necessary skills to fire a pistol or wear armour beyond light armour. As I said, ME2's shortened power list made sense, I welcome a slightly more detailed power list in ME3 though

[Il Divo]

LordNige wrote...

Given that most of the skills in ME1 were weapon/armour/hacking/Medigel/dialogue related with a few for biotics/tech skills it made sense to have a smaller stats list. The one thing that annoyed me about ME1 was that Shep could essentially reach the rank of commander without the necessary skills to fire a pistol or wear armour beyond light armour. As I said, ME2's shortened power list made sense, I welcome a slightly more detailed power list in ME3 though

Funnily enough, plot-wise the leveling systems might have worked better if they were done in reverse. At the start of ME1, Shepard is a special forces N7 soldier at the top of his game, so being unable to fire a gun (ME1's system) seems rather silly. On the other hand, at the start of ME2, Shepard has just returned to life after a 2 year hiatus. One could argue that Shepard should need to relevel all his weapon abilities due to being 'out of practice' so ME2's system is not applicable. Just a thought that came to mind.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Umm.... six, actually. You forgot Virmire.

Other than that quibble, I'm in total agreement.

I think you can cut Virmire entirely (like Theron), even though it's the most awesome part of the game. All that happens is you get a completed vision from the Beacon (but you can subsume that into Eden Prime), lose a squadmate (but you could do that anywhere) and meet Sovereign and Saren. Saren could just be waiting for you on Noveria and is pushed back (he is a stockholder in Bianari Helix) and they could save the big Sovereign reveal for Ilos.

That list was supposed to be: all plot flags the same, but locations vary.

[The Spamming Troll]

you guys gotta ask yourself, over the corse of three games, with all the choices well all have made, why will ME3 ALWAYS end on the same planet, killing the same guy, freeing that same girl. no matter what i did in ME1, i fought saren on the citadel. no matter what i did in ME2, i fly through the omega relay. no mater what i did, even if i was full paragon or full renegade in ME1, ME2, and ME3, ill still end the game in almost the exact same way.

is that ROLE playing?

[Bozorgmehr]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys gotta ask yourself, over the corse of three games, with all the choices well all have made, why will ME3 ALWAYS end on the same planet, killing the same guy, freeing that same girl. no matter what i did in ME1, i fought saren on the citadel. no matter what i did in ME2, i fly through the omega relay. no mater what i did, even if i was full paragon or full renegade in ME1, ME2, and ME3, ill still end the game in almost the exact same way.

is that ROLE playing?

You know games which have completely different stories / endings or whatever based on your choices?

For all I know, they don't exist.

[DocLasty]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys gotta ask yourself, over the corse of three games, with all the choices well all have made, why will ME3 ALWAYS end on the same planet, killing the same guy, freeing that same girl. no matter what i did in ME1, i fought saren on the citadel. no matter what i did in ME2, i fly through the omega relay. no mater what i did, even if i was full paragon or full renegade in ME1, ME2, and ME3, ill still end the game in almost the exact same way.

is that ROLE playing?

Yes. It's certainly not indicative of NOT roleplaying. Most RPG have fixed points. Hell quite a few RPGs don't have much choice at all period. Games like Final Fantasy offer rigid stories that don't offer much, if any deviation from the main plot; you can play it a milion times and get the same experience each time. Some might debate the quality of such games, but none would say 'Final Fantasy is not an RPG because it doesn't give me choices'.

[AlanC9]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys gotta ask yourself, over the corse of three games, with all the choices well all have made, why will ME3 ALWAYS end on the same planet, killing the same guy, freeing that same girl. no matter what i did in ME1, i fought saren on the citadel. no matter what i did in ME2, i fly through the omega relay. no mater what i did, even if i was full paragon or full renegade in ME1, ME2, and ME3, ill still end the game in almost the exact same way.

is that ROLE playing?

You know games which have completely different stories / endings or whatever based on your choices?

For all I know, they don't exist.

Different cutscenes after the final battle don't count, right?

Well, Wing Commander 3 comes to mind. Botch a key mission and you go to the Proxima--Sol missions. Though that isn't exactly a choice.

Actually, the much-maligned ToEE had some variability. You could join the Temple or confront Zuggy and resolve the situation in one of three ways; you could even bypass the lower temple completely. But the alternate endings are essentially early termination of the game rather than actual branches

It's not surprising. If the game endings diverge rather than converge, how do you avoid leaving stuff unresolved?

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 juin 2011 - 03:44 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Umm.... six, actually. You forgot Virmire.

Other than that quibble, I'm in total agreement.

I think you can cut Virmire entirely (like Theron), even though it's the most awesome part of the game. All that happens is you get a completed vision from the Beacon (but you can subsume that into Eden Prime), lose a squadmate (but you could do that anywhere) and meet Sovereign and Saren. Saren could just be waiting for you on Noveria and is pushed back (he is a stockholder in Bianari Helix) and they could save the big Sovereign reveal for Ilos.

That list was supposed to be: all plot flags the same, but locations vary.

Gotcha. I was thinking of just cutting without any redesign. So I mean 7 worlds with that approach, since I forgot Theron.

[Il Divo]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys gotta ask yourself, over the corse of three games, with all the choices well all have made, why will ME3 ALWAYS end on the same planet, killing the same guy, freeing that same girl. no matter what i did in ME1, i fought saren on the citadel. no matter what i did in ME2, i fly through the omega relay. no mater what i did, even if i was full paragon or full renegade in ME1, ME2, and ME3, ill still end the game in almost the exact same way.

is that ROLE playing?

Can you start naming all these examples of RPGs which do as you suggest?  

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 juin 2011 - 03:52 .

[AlanC9]

I can think of a few more games that use the early termination model. SoZ, for instance, where you can retire your party at almost any point in the game.

There are also games where finishing the main quest doesn't end the game, but I'm not sure that's the sort of thing T-S-T was talking about

[Lumikki]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys gotta ask yourself, over the corse of three games, with all the choices well all have made, why will ME3 ALWAYS end on the same planet, killing the same guy, freeing that same girl. no matter what i did in ME1, i fought saren on the citadel. no matter what i did in ME2, i fly through the omega relay. no mater what i did, even if i was full paragon or full renegade in ME1, ME2, and ME3, ill still end the game in almost the exact same way.

is that ROLE playing?

You know games which have completely different stories / endings or whatever based on your choices?

For all I know, they don't exist.

I think Blade Runner game has different kind of ending possibilities.
It's how ever rare to have any major story changes, because it's not cost efficent to do.
How ever, story changed isn't the only thing what define RPG or ability play role.

[The Spamming Troll]

Il Divo wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys gotta ask yourself, over the corse of three games, with all the choices well all have made, why will ME3 ALWAYS end on the same planet, killing the same guy, freeing that same girl. no matter what i did in ME1, i fought saren on the citadel. no matter what i did in ME2, i fly through the omega relay. no mater what i did, even if i was full paragon or full renegade in ME1, ME2, and ME3, ill still end the game in almost the exact same way.

is that ROLE playing?

Can you start naming all these examples of RPGs which do as you suggest?  

i cant name any. you guys are bicking about what an RPG is. i just wanted to point out it doesnt matter waht you do or dont do, it wont matter if youve never played ME1 or ME2, youll still end ME3 in the same way ill end ME3. even after bringing in a shepard that did every single thing the two previouse ME games offered, the new ME3 player will still end the game in the same way. hell, dead ME2 import shepard will end ME3 in the same way that my uber-shepard will.

RPG is just a label that means nothing to me. im glad im not as hell bent on this stuff as i am with crappy biotics.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 16 juin 2011 - 05:06 .

[Crackseed]

Deus Ex had 6+ different endings and that was definitely a FPS/RPG hybrid of note, so there's one game

Also, as I've just recently spent the past 4 days playing a fresh new ME1 playthrough and having recently played ME2 about a month ago, all the things that I love and dislike about both games seems more fresh. While I'm definitely one of the pro ME1 AND ME2 people, I think it's still fair to say that a good portion of these debates and back and forth is REALLY coming down to people's personal preferences about RPGs and Shooters clouding the way we feel about each game in the series so far.

A few people above has stated that we really can't define what makes a "true" RPG and I'd agree with that - the RPG genre in my opinion is probably one of the most open-ended gaming genres in the market. And I love it for that. You can range from a static game w/o any choice but incredibly epic scenes like Final Fantasy to a game where the story is almost a silent background montage to the RPG stats/loot/bloodletting like Diablo. And in ME1 and ME2's case, Bioware tried something new and interesting [in regards to their usual IP style] with ME1. They grafted what they felt at the time were solid RPG elements onto a TPS. And as much as I love ME1, it's a very very flawed beast that is STILL fun to play all these years later, even if I whine about the combat system. But it's easy to let nostalgia color your perception when it comes to comparing ME1 to it's successor and lambasting ME2 like it was a terrible change of pace.

ME1 brought too much baggage with it - but I don't fault that since it was their first shot at a game blend like that. I spent 10 minutes last night after I got my "You have 140 items" warning going through my inventory an omni-gelling stuff. This only highlights why, even if ME2 didn't need to completely jettison the inventory, it DID. Not having to sit around going through mods VII through X trying to figure what I'd keep or having to click omni-gel over and over again for items that are basically the exact same with an additional % increase now. I bought my Spectre X AR and sold my Spectre VII AR, the only difference being hey it did 30ish more damage with a bit more accuracy and overheat variance. Whereas, while ME2 could have used more weaponry, at least if I choose between a Mattock, Vindicator or Revenant I have 3 weapons that while drastically change how I fight as a Soldier - going from either precision long range fighting to CQC range spray fests. With ME1, it never changed my tactics. I popped immunity and medi-gel early in the game and late game I never popped anything really beyond just crouching and holding my firing button. I mean did the healing style of ME1 really work compared to what ME2 did? Both have their merits and when I consider which game's combat is more fun and why, I still come back to preferring ME2's system each time - even if it's a bit less RPG traditional. What makes the gameplay WORK better and supports the overall goal of the game?

So we see alot of talk about how the ME1 RPG elements were more meaningful then what ME2 had, yet when I consider their implementation in ME1 and their removal or streamlining in ME2, I still go to the ME2 model almost everytime. Why? Because evolving ME2 to a more well integrated TPS/RPG hybrid makes sense. Please note I am not defending every single change - I've been more then vocal about saying that things like squad customization and weapon/armor mods should have been kept in. We could have had the exploration element remain while having the Mako reworked to be the Hammerhead, except with the Mako's weaponry and armor and the latter's amazing movement capabilities. ME2 overstepped in some veins with too much streamlining. I know that even though I prefer the heat sinks in ME2, that'll never NOT be a contested point. But I'm looking at it from "What system made more sense?" even if the lore backing it had to be retconned or adjusted? ME2's made more sense - though of course the way you collected clips at times could be silly and handled better. But I'd still take that anyday over "I hold my fire button and never ever stop woo"

The other point is where everyone discusses the story and choices between the 2 games. I think it's fair to say that ME1 generally has the more "Oo and ahh!" story arc of the 2 - largely because, well - it set the stage and introduced the world. This was our first time there and we had a tremendous mission - one which we continued in 2 but was more subtle. We couldn't fight the big end battles yet, so now in ME2 we're collecting information and stopping the Reaper henchmen from some dastardly scheme. I won't try to defend the various legitimate weak points of ME1 or ME2 except to say this: It is a fictional world - there will always be room for improvement and there is always a need for people like us, who proclaim our love of imagination, awesome stories and our ability to make big choices that carry on through the games, to be forgiving of these stories and to enjoy them for what they are.

Both games are wonderful in their own right but at the end of the day, Bioware took what we complained about from ME1 and evolved the game further, and with the exception of a few mistakes [Squad customizing, planet scanning, etc] turned the game into a more refined beast that's still every bit of the RPG/TPS hybrid they set out to create.

As ever, that's my opinion of course so please don't think I'm trying to scold or tell people to shush about how they feel. Just offering some fresh personal thoughts after having played ME1 again after a few years with ME2 available alongside it.

Edit: Also, sorry about that wall of text - I did not realize it was that wordy haha xD

Modifié par crackseed, 16 juin 2011 - 05:50 .

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

I used the words in a meaning of "put your comment down on paper".

I have a horrible handwriting which is why I sometimes refer to writing or noting as "raking stuff down".

I didn't think of the confusion those particular words could cause untill you just mentioned it, so I'll stand corrected on not being entirely clear in the usage of those words.

[SalsaDMA]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
Old school D&D was very basic and only had a few stats to rely on for combat resolution. Stunts, actions, etc. were all determined through roleplay. The lack of stats and skills clearly does not make D&D 1e any less of an RPG than its last incarnation, 3.5, which is the most complex in the game's history.

Translation:
"They both have stats and story elements in varying degrees, but I think the story elements are more important than the stats so that's all there is to it. You can't prove this isn't true."

The story is always more important. This is why DMs usually handwave certain rules if a player comes up with an unusual, amusing, or creative solution to a problem or situation. Of course, this kind of flexibility isn't possible in a limited medium like computer games. However, it is possible to give a player freedom of determination. Especially in dialogue. Interrupts were a huge step forward for the series and one of the few things in ME2 that almost all fans will agree was a good thing. And that is so because it gives players more determination over their character's personality.

You also need to rememeber, that in "pen and paper" roleplaying games, the gamemaster reigns in the player if he tries something that is out of character, or make the "world" react to his actions proper.

In a computer game the computer needs to handle these restrictions and reactions. Without them, the roleplaying ceases to be, and starts becomming metagaming instead. The lack of proper reactions to paragon/renegade actins of Shepard from people (as in, people making note if you suddenly start behaving differently than you use to, or do stuff they personally disagree with) just doesn't really happen in the ME games proper. At least there was some degree of it in ME1, where you had philosophical debates with your squadmates in this regard (especially Garrus), but in ME2 it just seems as this aspect is largely ignored.

[AlanC9]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
i cant name any. you guys are bicking about what an RPG is. i just wanted to point out it doesnt matter waht you do or dont do, it wont matter if youve never played ME1 or ME2, youll still end ME3 in the same way ill end ME3. even after bringing in a shepard that did every single thing the two previouse ME games offered, the new ME3 player will still end the game in the same way. hell, dead ME2 import shepard will end ME3 in the same way that my uber-shepard will.

So all RPGs are failures, eh?

edit: I meant CRPGs.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 juin 2011 - 06:08 .

[SalsaDMA]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Because other studios manage perfectly fine showing and telling alot earlier than this.

Someone should tell Skyrim that, then.



All I see is some conversation/travel options and some dude casting magic.

From what I hear, Skyrim isn't exactly the best example to pull out when talking roleplaying games, as they seem to be headed the same disastrous direction as every  other business suit corporation is going these days.
I believe they dumbed down character stats to the level of DA2 or worse in Skyrim, so.. please... don't start using that game when talking about rpg...

It seems game companies forgot about the art of creating games for the games, and now are just games created to satisfy some corporate demands of profit maximizing. It's a trend that is infecting the entire established studio community I think, seeing the lack of creativity in the conveyer belt products that get released with "sure recipes" and "enlargened target groups" and so on...

I'm wondering when the bubble the companies have built themselves into will burst...

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
 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.

I used the words in a meaning of "put your comment down on paper".

I have a horrible handwriting which is why I sometimes refer to writing or noting as "raking stuff down".

I didn't think of the confusion those particular words could cause untill you just mentioned it, so I'll stand corrected on not being entirely clear in the usage of those words.

I see. I should have figured it was something like that myself