3223 réponses à ce sujet

[LGTX]

That was a very lame interpretation of Casey's words. ME never was an RPG, and hoping it will one day become one is pointless. It also never was an "uncool shooter wannabe". And that's why I love Mass Effect; because it's not an RPG/TPS or a percental hybrid of the two, it's just Mass Effect. Doesn't limit itself to genre-specific trends and frames. It is its own thing, and it'll improve the prior formula with the third installment. I think it doesn't go any more complex than that.

[kregano]

Torhagen wrote...

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the
experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent
decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.

We had progression in Mass Effect 2 in armour and weapon choices but
that activity chain was too simple. That whole activity chain I think
was a button we weren't really pushing in ME2 and specifically were
trying to hit for ME3.

here is strange thought they could have used the system they already had in place in ME1 geez

The ME1 system was terrible since there was no real feeling of customization. ME3's system appears to be far superior even at this early stage since it not only changes the stats for the guns, but appearance too.

[Lumikki]

Juha81FIN wrote...

Many past bioware games rely on existing RPG mechanics, in ME, JE and DA they developed their own mechanics. I believe "kill all" solutions came with joining EA . (if I understood what you wanted to say).

We should talk in finnish language so no miss understanding.

I was pointing that many of Biowares games seem to be in end, solve it by combat. Sure, every game has some exceptions, but not as there actually would be different paths than combat to do. Example thief as stealth through missions.  You get mission or quest, how many of them in % is about combat only related?

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:16 .

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...
I don't like the recent direction BioWare has chosen to take, no. I'll fully admit that. Previously I loved pretty much every game they made and the first disappointment was ME2. Why? Because it dumbed things down, mainstreamlined and moved away from what I loved about the original. The second disappointment was Dragon Age 2. Why? Because it dumbed things down, mainstreamlined and moved away from what I loved about the original.

Your comparisons of ME2 and DA2 fall flat because ME2 was a polished, complete game.  DA2 was rushed trash.

[Juha81FIN]

Lumikki wrote...

Juha81FIN wrote...

Many past bioware games rely on existing RPG mechanics, in ME, JE and DA they developed their own mechanics. I believe "kill all" solutions came with joining EA . (if I understood what you wanted to say).

We should talk in finnish language so no miss understanding.

I was point thing that many of Biowares games seem to be in end, solve it by combat. Sure, every game has some exceptions, but not as there actually would be different paths than combat to do. Example thief as stealth trough missions.  You get mission or quest, how many of them in % is about combat only related?

Hehe . Yeah I noticed this especially with DA2, many missions lead to a violent hack & slash. I think it is about how much $, effort and time you´re willing put in development, there are exceptions ofcourse. But in FPS games easiest way to resolve different situations is to shoot things up and ME is very visual in it.

[Greenlock]

i dunno what you ppl whant but for me the only 2 problems i had with ME2 are the no armor customisation for squadmates,the lack of weapon customisation for shep and squad...and the lesser skill trees...

from what theyve showed on E3 half my conserns are already gone...

if the new skill take on is actualy realised the way they showed it(and if i understood it correctly) it shud lead to alot of passible combinations...

the weapon customisation looks sweet...

all i need to see now is the armor customisation...

i know alot of ppl do not bother to do the best build they can but i whant to be able to customise my team as much as possible so i can make my fights smooth...and to troll how all your builds suck

here is a suggestion...to the BIOWARE team... no need to bring back loot and stuff like that... just give us 2 workstations on the normandy so we can tweak armors and weapons...

and your explanation for where we get all begginer stuff is "youre funded by the allience now the reapers are attacking so you get all the **** they can give you" ...

and have the ships engineer or sciense officer bring up new updates/parts for your teams weapons and armors on the way as you gather info on the new mutated enemies reaper teck/cerberus teck and ****...

preaty much what was in ME2 but not only for shep but for your teammates as well... and bringing the weapon custom...

btw since im on the giving suggetions tune...
why dont you give the soldier class the power to whield a shield like the enemies...and give him the ability to "throw down" enemies even medium mecks...after all whats the point of wearing this heavy exosceletal armor exept for increasing hand to hand dmg like in ME1~2...thisway he wont be as boring as he currently is...

and...why not use the character that carries the shield as a moving cover... he moves and one dude stands behind him shooting and getting in cover...

imagine the ceberus troops moving like that from cover to cover... one shielding the other hiding benind him and advancind towards you...

shud also include chaotic cover fire without aiming..(not like in some games where you aim even thou cant see **** in this position)

btw is there a thread for suggestions???

[88mphSlayer]

Arcian wrote...

 This is what a normal person thinks of ME1:
This is what a normal person thinks of ME2:
This is what a RPG purist thinks of ME1:
This is what a RPG purist thinks of ME2:

Contrary to popular belief, most fans of the franchise are normal people. The games are marketed towards normal people. Therefore, any RPG purist who feels the need to complain about the direction the game is heading in (and always have, as a matter of fact) can go and literally FTOF.

if you're providing feedback on a game you're already not a "normal person" to begin with, you're an enthusiast

personally i try to keep my enjoyment of a game separate from what i think needs to be objectively looked at to improve a game's experience, in this regard i think ME3 would benefit from loot/stats, that people feel any kind of loot/stats is dangerous to the experience is just as ugly an opinion imo as somebody saying a game not having loot/stats is dangerous to the experience

loot/stats is simply a tool for giving players a more interactive experience, the problem that i bring up time and time again is that those interactive experiences aren't being replaced by other - new - experiences but rather they're just stretching the old ones to close the gaps, this is what happened in ME2 and imo the experience suffered for it even tho most people still enjoyed the game

i'm not adverse to change, and i'm okay with calling the ME franchise a shooter (dunno why people get angry at calling something that) just as much as people are okay calling Zelda an action/adventure game even tho 15 years ago people called it an rpg (yes it's true), this desire to say Mass Effect is its own unique experience is wrong, there's nothing in it that's unique, it just as a good story and is really well crafted, and it's an experience that wouldn't be hurt by additions rather than subtractions

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:04 .

[Garrison2009]

Phaedon wrote...

BioWare enough dumbing down.

Of your community that is.

Role-playing games are obviously not about the role-playing, you silly Casey Hudson. Just because you co-develped KOTOR and BG, it doesn't mean that you are anything but a fanatic streamliner. Admit it.

Never mind about:

Modern shooters having more 'passive' stats than 'old-school' RPGs. (Selectively old-school of course, because everyone thinks that stats just got born instantly along with RPGs)

Simulation games have more active, modifiable stats than RPG will ever have. Therefore they are better RPGs, along with shooters.

Silly, BioWare, thinking that RPGs are about roleplaying.

PS: Will everyone stop using "action/adventure" as a genre?
Action RPGs are a subgenre of RPGs, while shooter games are a subgenre of action games.

Adventures have as much to do with shooters and RPGs as...

nevermind, I can't think of genres that could be further apart.

Ok... so, what's your point exactly?

[whywhywhywhy]

littlezack wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I'd actually say the majority of people who play the game don't really give a crap about classifying Mass Effect as an RPG or not - they play the game because they find it fun. The people who obsess over this sort of thing don't represent a large group, despite what they'd like to believe. They're a minority. A very small, and often unpleasable, minority.

I doubt that me1 was a million+ seller and that game was basically a rpg with shooter elements, I don't think me3 wil do as well as 1 or 2 did, bw is making all the wrong moves

Mass Effect was a million seller. If it wasn't, there probably wouldn't have been any Mass Effect 2. Hell, if Mass Effect 2 wasn't a million seller, there probably wouldn't be a Mass Effect 3. They ain't making this games purely out of the goodness of their hearts.

But, okay, let's stop and talk for a second about that last statement, making all the wrong moves. See, when someone around here says something about 'Bioware is betraying the fans!', they're basically saying 'Bioware is betraying the fans like me'.  The problem with that mentality is that it acts like Bioware should only ever care about catering to one group of fans, regardless of what that might mean for sales and whatnot. It acts like only one group of fans matter. Which is, frankly, a little selfish.

People all want different things from this game. If Bioware just nailed down and listened to one group of fans, they'd wind up pissing off another group. Every group is just as valid in their fandom as the othes, and you just can't please everyone. The best course of action is to get as close to a consensus as possible, listen to fan input, but temper it with your own judgment first. You can't please everyone. You just can't.

You put a bunch of words in my mouth and then responded to them, not a very bright post you've argued against your own argument.  I simply stated that Bioware is making a mistake, I firmly believe they are making a mistake.  They had a original IP in ME1 and instead of expanding on it they choose to take it mainstream FPS, they had cornered the market on SCI FI rpg more and more fans were picking up me1 due to fans raves of the game.  Then they abandon that model to go mainstream to increase sales but in the process destroy what they achieved in ME1.  I believe this to be a mistake I don't feel personally betrayed and 'angry' at bioware as you incinuate, I'm not upset about and single thing and ranting that BW change it.  I do have a problem with the overall feel of the game, I have voiced this opinion on different forums since right after I beat ME2.  The game was crap.

Claims to care about story and character driven progress and development by the devs then abandonment of that model to retrofit the game into a more popular format disenfanchised the fanbase.  All fans really needed was questions answered in a true sequel to me1, not  a transformation and abandonment of nearly everything that made the first one great.

ME2 truth told is a horrible game, it fails as a shooter, rpg or action hybrid.  It only sold well because of fans who expected a true sequel to ME1, if you were looking for any of the genres you'd find better in different games.  IF I want a fps gears of war, call of duty black ops and halo come to mind.  Tons of action hybrids and rpg's are out there if that's what you want. All superior to me2.  When ou move the fanbase over to fps and sacrifice everything else, then they'll flock to the better fps.

In essence they are going to kill the IP, they know this that's why they release comments trying to please both camps, but you can't.  RPG/action gamers and fps gamers are looking for two entirely different things, this is why they released a statement saying they were looking not to abandon the rpg elements, while showcasing fps elements in combat.  Those rpg/action fans make up the bulk not the minority of the fanbase, I refuse to believe any large amount of people bought ME as a fps fix.  Too many better games in the genre exist.  ME2 might of netted some more fans but just about all the fps action added in me3(shown) is been there done that for true fps fans.  With a 2012 release it's fps strides will seem dated, disgruntled rpg fans will have moved on.  A small amount will remain.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:14 .

[Garrison2009]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

littlezack wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I'd actually say the majority of people who play the game don't really give a crap about classifying Mass Effect as an RPG or not - they play the game because they find it fun. The people who obsess over this sort of thing don't represent a large group, despite what they'd like to believe. They're a minority. A very small, and often unpleasable, minority.

I doubt that me1 was a million+ seller and that game was basically a rpg with shooter elements, I don't think me3 wil do as well as 1 or 2 did, bw is making all the wrong moves

Mass Effect was a million seller. If it wasn't, there probably wouldn't have been any Mass Effect 2. Hell, if Mass Effect 2 wasn't a million seller, there probably wouldn't be a Mass Effect 3. They ain't making this games purely out of the goodness of their hearts.

But, okay, let's stop and talk for a second about that last statement, making all the wrong moves. See, when someone around here says something about 'Bioware is betraying the fans!', they're basically saying 'Bioware is betraying the fans like me'.  The problem with that mentality is that it acts like Bioware should only ever care about catering to one group of fans, regardless of what that might mean for sales and whatnot. It acts like only one group of fans matter. Which is, frankly, a little selfish.

People all want different things from this game. If Bioware just nailed down and listened to one group of fans, they'd wind up pissing off another group. Every group is just as valid in their fandom as the othes, and you just can't please everyone. The best course of action is to get as close to a consensus as possible, listen to fan input, but temper it with your own judgment first. You can't please everyone. You just can't.

You put a bunch of words in my mouth and then responded to them, not a very bright post you've argued against your own argument.  I simply stated that Bioware is making a mistake, I firmly believe they are making a mistake.  They had a original IP in ME1 and instead of expanding on it they choose to take it mainstream FPS, they had cornered the market on SCI FI rpg more and more fans were picking up me1 due to fans raves of the game.  Then they abandon that model to go mainstream to increase sales but in the process destroy what hey achieved in ME1.  I believe this to be a mistake I don't feel personally betrayed and 'angry' at bioware as you incinuate, I'm not upset about and single thing and ranting that BW change it.  I do have a problem with the overall feel of the game, I have voiced this opinion on different forums since right after I beat the game.  The game was crap.

Claims to care about story and character driven progress and development by the devs then abandonment of that model to retrofit the game into a more popular format disenfanchised the fanbase.  All fans really needed was questions answered in a true sequel to me1, not  a transformation and abandonment of nearly everything that made the first one great.

ME2 truth told is a horrible game, it fails as a shooter, rpg or action hybrid.  It only sold well because of fans who expected a true sequel to ME1, if you were looking for any of the genres you'd find better in different games.  IF I want a fps gears of war, call of duty black ops and halo come to mind.  Tons of action hybrids and rpg's are out there if that's what you want. All superior to me2.  When ou move the fanbase over to fps and sacrifice everything else, then they'll flock to the better fps.

In essence they are going to kill the IP, they know this that's why they release comments trying to please both camps, but you can't.  RPG/action gamers and fps gamers are looking for two entirely different things, this is why they released a statement saying they were looking not to abandon the rpg elements, while showcasing fps elements in combat.  Those rpg/action fans make up the bulk not the minority of the fanbase, I refuse to believe any large amount of people bought ME as a fps fix.  Too many better games in the genre exist.  ME2 might of netted some more fans but just about all the fps action added in me3(shown) is been there done that for true fps fans.  With a 2012 release it's fps strides will seem dated, disgruntled rpg fans will have moved on.  A small amount will remain.

Perhaps the reason Mass Effect 2 truly did so well is because some of us (Who truly enjoyed the first one and fell in love not only with the characters but also with the world that was created in this series) actually simply wanted to see how the story would progress without really caring about the gameplay or mechanics. Now if they had changed Mass Effect 2 into a puzzle game or something... yeah, that would've set me off. But as it is, they didnt change it soooo drastically that I couldnt play it. I greatly enjoyed ME2 for the basic reason that it continued Shepard's story, not because they pushed the combat or lessened the RPG expereience or anything like that... Simply because I wanted to see what happened next in this universe I've come to enjoy playing in. I am glad to say I've already preordered ME3 and am looking forward to seeing the next installment of the series.

Modifié par Garrison2009, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:19 .

[Candidate 88766]

Gunderic wrote...
S'okay, I wasn't offended. :happy:

I didn't think Shepard looting containers and other objects in Mass Effect 1 was potrayed in such a way that it made me unable to suspend disbelief at a certain point. I'm certainly not asking BioWare to let us loot random, mundane junk items like you could in Dragon Age 2. Shepard also did ask the settles on Eden Prime for additional supplies during the geth invasion there, so using other found items during missions is brought up to a certain extent, if that matters at all ( even if it was just a pistol, in this case ).

I don't see it needing a lot of additional justification, compared to other settings. It's still ( almost ) as unrealistic if you'd be hoarding junk in a fantasy setting.

It might harm the player's suspension of disbelief if taken too far in some cases, but a little gameplay and story segregation is in order for RPG's ( imo ).

I know I seem to be pushing the loot example a bit, but I think its one of those things that isn't really necessary for Mass Effect to be a good game. A good loot system is, I admit, pretty important for most RPGs but just not Mass Effect. I think ME2 was better in this regard than ME1 - you had a smaller range of weapons, but each had a specific combat role and there were genuine differences between them. Rather than negligible differences in accuracy or damage, you had a limited range but taking assault rifles as an example you have the standard one, the burst fire one that works at longer range, the Geth one to use against synthetics, the heavy machine gun for closer range and the single shot, long-range assault rifle. A more limited range than in ME1, and a system that many people called streamlined and 'dumbed down', but I think it was better because it meant the choice between guns was a real choice - choosing one gun over another gave a genuine difference, as opposed to ME1 where you would eventually end up with the Spectre assault rifle. If ME3 has a slightly larger range and a bit more customization, but keeps the essence of the ME2 system, then I think I will have a loot system that fits the style of game ME is trying to be.

[littlezack]

I'm going to a movie, so I don't have time to argue your poorly phrased points. You didn't like ME2, I can't convince you to like it, nor do I really want to.

I didn't put words in your mouth, though. You said ME1 wasn't a million seller, and you were wrong. You believe ME is going in the wrong direction, and you're not alone. But it's silly of you to think you represent a majority opinion, and that the IP will suffer because of your loss. Most people really don't give a crap about how much ME is like an RPG. They just play games because they find them fun.

[Candidate 88766]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Perhaps the reason Mass Effect 2 truly did so well is because some of us (Who truly enjoyed the first one and fell in love not only with the characters but also with the world that was created in this series) actually simply wanted to see how the story would progress without really caring about the gameplay or mechanics. Now if they had changed Mass Effect 2 into a puzzle game or something... yeah, that would've set me off. But as it is, they didnt change it soooo drastically that I couldnt play it. I greatly enjoyed ME2 for the basic reason that it continued Shepard's story, not because they pushed the combat or lessened the RPG expereience or anything like that... Simply because I wanted to see what happened next in this universe I've come to enjoy playing in. I am glad to say I've already preordered ME3 and am looking forward to seeing the next installment of the series.

I fully agree with this. I didn't buy ME1 because I wanted an RPG, I bought ME1 for the story and the fact that you could fly around the galaxy as captain of your own starship. I bought ME2 to continue the story, and I will buy ME3 for the story. I imagine most people bought Mass Effect for the story, not for the gameplay. The gameplay between 1 and 2 is pretty much the same, and no doubt it'll be the same style in ME3. 

[Lumikki]

Yeah, but ME serie is not shooter or RPG, it's hybrid, because it has both.

[Garrison2009]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Perhaps the reason Mass Effect 2 truly did so well is because some of us (Who truly enjoyed the first one and fell in love not only with the characters but also with the world that was created in this series) actually simply wanted to see how the story would progress without really caring about the gameplay or mechanics. Now if they had changed Mass Effect 2 into a puzzle game or something... yeah, that would've set me off. But as it is, they didnt change it soooo drastically that I couldnt play it. I greatly enjoyed ME2 for the basic reason that it continued Shepard's story, not because they pushed the combat or lessened the RPG expereience or anything like that... Simply because I wanted to see what happened next in this universe I've come to enjoy playing in. I am glad to say I've already preordered ME3 and am looking forward to seeing the next installment of the series.

I fully agree with this. I didn't buy ME1 because I wanted an RPG, I bought ME1 for the story and the fact that you could fly around the galaxy as captain of your own starship. I bought ME2 to continue the story, and I will buy ME3 for the story. I imagine most people bought Mass Effect for the story, not for the gameplay. The gameplay between 1 and 2 is pretty much the same, and no doubt it'll be the same style in ME3. 

Glad to see there are others out there who agree with me. Like I said, I personally dont care about the gameplay, so long as they stick to the formula they've had so far and the story continues to keep me on the edge of my seat, I'm content.

[Candidate 88766]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Perhaps the reason Mass Effect 2 truly did so well is because some of us (Who truly enjoyed the first one and fell in love not only with the characters but also with the world that was created in this series) actually simply wanted to see how the story would progress without really caring about the gameplay or mechanics. Now if they had changed Mass Effect 2 into a puzzle game or something... yeah, that would've set me off. But as it is, they didnt change it soooo drastically that I couldnt play it. I greatly enjoyed ME2 for the basic reason that it continued Shepard's story, not because they pushed the combat or lessened the RPG expereience or anything like that... Simply because I wanted to see what happened next in this universe I've come to enjoy playing in. I am glad to say I've already preordered ME3 and am looking forward to seeing the next installment of the series.

I fully agree with this. I didn't buy ME1 because I wanted an RPG, I bought ME1 for the story and the fact that you could fly around the galaxy as captain of your own starship. I bought ME2 to continue the story, and I will buy ME3 for the story. I imagine most people bought Mass Effect for the story, not for the gameplay. The gameplay between 1 and 2 is pretty much the same, and no doubt it'll be the same style in ME3. 

Glad to see there are others out there who agree with me. Like I said, I personally dont care about the gameplay, so long as they stick to the formula they've had so far and the story continues to keep me on the edge of my seat, I'm content.

I think they've pretty much nailed the formula for Mass Effect, so ME3 should be amazing in both story and gameplay. Its the former one I'm looking forward to though. As long as Bioware doesn't hold back in the story and isn't afraid to give us some really tough choices then I'm happy.

[Someone With Mass]

Just to let everyone know, Mas Effect 2 is not a First Person Shooter, as many claims it to be. It's a Third Person Shooter.

Also, speak for yourself. Don't say that everyone hates the game just because you're so butthurt because of the lack of some RPG elements that add absolutely nothing of importance to the gameplay like the required weapon skills in ME1. Not to mention that they made no sense, since Shepard is N7. Elite soldier. Been in the military his whole adult life.

[Dangerfoot]

Eduadinho wrote...

Terror K you are acting like the game should be made for you. You suggest that no loot stats is bad, even though ME2 clearly had stats. You get angry when a game isn't made to your specifications why am I not allowed to suggest that your opinion is incorrect without being what I am sure you a thinking a "streamlined, dumbed down gamer". Nowhere in RPG does it say anything about stats or loot.

I think people need this one spelled out RPG= ROLE PLAYING GAME. Not STAT/LOOT BASED ADVENTURE GAME=SLBAG..

Pretty much. While early RPGs needed stats in order for them to be a game, the whole POINT was role playing. Just as shooting games are defined by the shooting gameplay, roleplaying games are defined by their roleplaying storytelling (not stat based gameplay). I'm not saying that stats are never welcome, just that you most certainly can have an RPG without most of the early gameplay elements of an RPG. This is because RPG is more of a storytelling genre than a gamplay genre. JRPG is a gameplay genre, although most of them lack any and all semblance of roleplay, so I wouldn't really call them JRPGs.

[sp0ck 06]

whywhywhywhy wrote...


Claims to care about story and character driven progress and development by the devs then abandonment of that model to retrofit the game into a more popular format disenfanchised the fanbase.  All fans really needed was questions answered in a true sequel to me1, not  a transformation and abandonment of nearly everything that made the first one great.

ME2 truth told is a horrible game, it fails as a shooter, rpg or action hybrid.  It only sold well because of fans who expected a true sequel to ME1, if you were looking for any of the genres you'd find better in different games.  IF I want a fps gears of war, call of duty black ops and halo come to mind.  Tons of action hybrids and rpg's are out there if that's what you want. All superior to me2.  When ou move the fanbase over to fps and sacrifice everything else, then they'll flock to the better fps.

In essence they are going to kill the IP, they know this that's why they release comments trying to please both camps, but you can't.  RPG/action gamers and fps gamers are looking for two entirely different things, this is why they released a statement saying they were looking not to abandon the rpg elements, while showcasing fps elements in combat.  Those rpg/action fans make up the bulk not the minority of the fanbase, I refuse to believe any large amount of people bought ME as a fps fix.  Too many better games in the genre exist.  ME2 might of netted some more fans but just about all the fps action added in me3(shown) is been there done that for true fps fans.  With a 2012 release it's fps strides will seem dated, disgruntled rpg fans will have moved on.  A small amount will remain.

Head on over to Metacritic.  Go on.  Take a peek at ME2 ratings, both critical and user.  You are in the minority.  A small minority.  If you seriously think BW "killed the IP" with ME2, well thats your opinion.  Obviously this is not the series for you.

[Jaldaric]

I loved ME1, a TPS game with some surprising RPG elements. I didn't expect that. I picked up ME2, was a bit disappointed of the rpg elements they pulled out, but I still enjoyed it as a TPS shooter. (Although the duck and cover, then shoot combat got tiring)

Mass Effect is just a TPS game with some rpg elements, I consider it an Action RPG-lite sci-fi game. So any rpg elements they add into ME3 will be a bonus.

[lovgreno]

Funny how "RPG" suddenly became something bad around here...

[Raxxman]

The thing is, RPG doesn't really stand for a system, it stands for a style of game. All RPGs have combat systems attached to them, the basic ones revolve around turn based, the more strategic ones have real time/tactical turn based, and the more action ones have real time skill shots.

RPGs (western ones at least) however generally allow you to have influence over the outcome game outside the system. This defines to me why Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 (shudder) are RPGs, while assassins creed and gears of war aren't.

People who want stats and loot, want it for 2 reasons, the first is the illusion of complexity, oh look at these hundreds of guns, so many to choose from. Reality is you'll pick the best one or two, the rest are pointless.

The other reason is the 'look at this aint it cool' reason. Now I feel this is the major reason why people like loot tables. Buying a krogan shotgun is meh. Fighting a Krogan battlemaster who's swatting you left and right, finally defeating him and taking his weapon as a trophy, now that's cool.

The point is, ME doesn't really suit that style of gameplay. The way ME introduced weapons as random drops/locker grabs was kinda boring, the way ME2 introduced them along a mission was in a way worse. ME2+ play through doesn't suffer at all for giving you all the guns at the start imo.

Opting out of loot tables allows you to focus on the story (and combat I guess) which is really what ME is about, telling an epic war story.

[Raxxman]

Arcian wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Funny how "RPG" suddenly became something bad around here...

It really depends on your definition of the term.

To me, the true essence of roleplaying is being able to change the outcome of the story through choices and being able to experience the richness of a good fictional universe and its characters. Not looting, not stats, not number crunching and not an endless supply of redundant items.

Lol, I like this human, he understands!