1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

The lack of actual character creation does contribute to "naysayers", although the fact that you can choose what you want to say means that you develop your character and his personality.

Besides, even in tabletop RPG you don't ALWAYS go by character creation. Those "naysayers" should try to play during a tabletop RPG convention where it's the case for most games.

[Guldhun2]

Hey, want to know a secret? The people calling ME2 a RPG are only naming it an RPG because it makes them feel better, and more intelligent. Admitting it's a TPS with some dialogue choices behind it places them in the same categorie of gamers as Gears of War and they don't want that.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 19 septembre 2011 - 11:31 .

[didymos1120]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Hey, want to know a secret? The people calling ME2 a RPG are only naming it an RPG because it makes them feel better, and more intelligent. Admitting it's a TPS with some dialogue choices behind it places them in the same categorie of gamers as Gears of War and they don't want that.

Rank amateur, internet psych bullsh*t. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 19 septembre 2011 - 11:36 .

[Guldhun2]

didymos1120 wrote...

Rank amateur, internet psych bullsh*t. 

Oh, getting angry. Did i hit a nerve? I must be pretty spot on then.

[CroGamer002]

didymos1120 wrote...

Guldhun2 wrote...

Hey, want to know a secret? The people calling ME2 a RPG are only naming it an RPG because it makes them feel better, and more intelligent. Admitting it's a TPS with some dialogue choices behind it places them in the same categorie of gamers as Gears of War and they don't want that.

Rank amateur, internet psych bullsh*t. 

You're too kind.

[trying_touch]

it's an RPG, bioware says so, i believe them cause i like them better than everyone else here...

[NICKjnp]

ME1 was an RPG with shoot elements. ME2 was a shooter with RPG elements. Who knows what ME3 will be like but since all we have really been shown is pew pew pew...I'm guessing it is more shooter and less RPG than ME2.
As for choice...since they are making it a standalone game then all the choices we have made are only going to have an aesthetic feel to them. They won't affect the overall gameplay or story one bit.

[CroGamer002]

^ME1 is a hybrid of pathetic RPG elements and with bad excuse of shooter elements.

ME2 in other hand is hybrid of RPG and with little outdated shooter mechanics.

[Guldhun2]

Mesina2 wrote...

^ME1 is a hybrid of pathetic RPG elements and with bad excuse of shooter elements.

ME2 in other hand is hybrid of RPG and with little outdated shooter mechanics.

What are the pathetic RPG elements in ME1? And how are those RPG elements better in ME2? Please ellaborate.

NICKjnp wrote...

ME1 was an RPG with shoot elements. ME2
was a shooter with RPG elements. Who knows what ME3 will be like but
since all we have really been shown is pew pew pew...I'm guessing it is
more shooter and less RPG than ME2.
As for choice...since they are
making it a standalone game then all the choices we have made are only
going to have an aesthetic feel to them. They won't affect the overall
gameplay or story one bit.

Ofcourse, just like in ME2. You'll get an E-mail. Awesome.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 19 septembre 2011 - 11:53 .

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Guldhun2 wrote...

NICKjnp wrote...

ME1 was an RPG with shoot elements. ME2
was a shooter with RPG elements. Who knows what ME3 will be like but
since all we have really been shown is pew pew pew...I'm guessing it is
more shooter and less RPG than ME2.
As for choice...since they are
making it a standalone game then all the choices we have made are only
going to have an aesthetic feel to them. They won't affect the overall
gameplay or story one bit.

Ofcourse, just like in ME2. You'll get an E-mail. Awesome.

That's better than nothing. The sheer continuity of the series is something that I think gets taken for granted a lot, but understand that not everything that happens is Chekhov's Gun. Some things aren't going to be relevant to the endgame, no matter how you slice it.

[Guldhun2]

Arcian wrote...
Gears of War is a good game. When will people realize this?

Oh wait, never.

>RPG elitism
>2011
ISHYGGFY

Did i say GoW isn't a good game? It's a twitchy action game about shooting and killing things with a "the end is nigh" backstory. That doesn't make it bad. ME2 is the same, only with dialogue choices. That doesn't make ME2 an RPG.

[CroGamer002]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^ME1 is a hybrid of pathetic RPG elements and with bad excuse of shooter elements.

ME2 in other hand is hybrid of RPG and with little outdated shooter mechanics.

What are the pathetic RPG elements in ME1? And how are those RPG elements better in ME2? Please ellaborate.

Simple.

In ME1 it's just straight line with power level ups and no real choice. While weapons are all same with just different stats.

While in ME2 you can choose 2 different version of every power once you max out. And every weapon is different from other and has ups and downs( except Mattock).



As for the choices?

Well in ME1 it doesn't matter what you do entire game, you'll always get 2( 4 if you count location and few lines changes) endings, while in ME2 if you screw up or don't do something it can impact ending a little with deaths( including Shepard) but wasn't executed well.

It's all left for that in ME3.

[Someone With Mass]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^ME1 is a hybrid of pathetic RPG elements and with bad excuse of shooter elements.

ME2 in other hand is hybrid of RPG and with little outdated shooter mechanics.

What are the pathetic RPG elements in ME1? And how are those RPG elements better in ME2? Please ellaborate.

I don't know about you, but the level system in ME1 was weak at best. You had to level up some parts to get a whooping 5% boost in pistols or waste all your points in Charm/Intimidate to get anywhere without feeling like a chump.

The inventory...goddamn, was that system broken. You couldn't back out of anything if you didn't have enough space when looking inside a container to pick up everything. Nope, you had to convert most of it into omni-gel.

The weapons were laughably bad too. I don't think any military would accept a weapon that fires in a cone shaped pattern at random.

[Guldhun2]

Someone With Mass wrote...
I don't know about you, but the level system in ME1 was weak at best. You had to level up some parts to get a whooping 5% boost in pistols or waste all your points in Charm/Intimidate to get anywhere without feeling like a chump.

But how is that better in ME2? Having 10 bars each giving a 5% boost or having 5 bars each giving a 10% boost is the same. Just shorter.

Someone With Mass wrote...
The inventory...goddamn, was that system broken. You couldn't back out of anything if you didn't have enough space when looking inside a container to pick up everything. Nope, you had to convert most of it into omni-gel.

Sure the inventory was terrible in ME1. But they just removed it completely in ME2. How is that a better RPG element? It just feels really dumbed down.

Someone With Mass wrote...

The weapons were laughably bad too. I don't think any military would accept a weapon that fires in a cone shaped pattern at random.

That was what the skills were for. In ME2 again, they dumbed it down so you could finish the game without leveling up at all. Hard yes, but doable.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 19 septembre 2011 - 12:29 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dumbed down, dumbed down.

Let me tell you something.

Mass Effect was NEVER a smart game trilogy which required strategic thinking. Also, I can finish ME1 without distributing any points anywhere too, but I don't see the point in it, as I'm not one of those losers who thinks they're something just because they can perform ridiculous tasks in games with even more ridiculous restrictions that serves absolutely no purpose but to waste everyone's time.

[Someone With Mass]

Guldhun2 wrote...


But how is that better in ME2? Having 10 bars each giving a 5% boost or having 5 bars each giving a 10% boost is the same. Just shorter.

You just answered your own question there.

Guldhun2 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
The inventory...goddamn, was that system broken. You couldn't back out of anything if you didn't have enough space when looking inside a container to pick up everything. Nope, you had to convert most of it into omni-gel.

Sure the inventory was terrible in ME1. But they just removed it completely in ME2. How is that a better RPG element? It just feels really dumbed down.

It does? Removing something that only slowed the gameplay down is suddenly a bad thing? Oh, no. I don't have to waste time after every fight sorting out crap that I don't really need nor want. The game is doomed.

Guldhun2 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The weapons were laughably bad too. I don't think any military would accept a weapon that fires in a cone shaped pattern at random.

That was what the skills were for. In ME2 again, they dumbed it down so you could finish the game without leveling up at all. Hard yes, but doable.

So?

You can do the exact same thing in ME1. Then again, there's really no point in it.

But here's something RPG elitists can ****** to all day: The power unlocks in ME3 are based on a character level requirement instead of the level of a certain power.

[InvincibleHero]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Hey, want to know a secret? The people calling ME2 a RPG are only naming it an RPG because it makes them feel better, and more intelligent. Admitting it's a TPS with some dialogue choices behind it places them in the same categorie of gamers as Gears of War and they don't want that.

1. People who play RPGs are no smarter than any others. It is a myth prove your statement. My 8 year old niece plays Dragon Age Origins with me there and Sacred 2 on my brother's comp with no assistance. So I guess she's Einstein right.

2. You craft the personality of Shepard via the dialogue system and choices. This is the same as you do with a PC in any RPG.

3. Your condescending attitude reflects poorly upon you.

[Guldhun2]

@Someone With Mass

1. How does removing more than half of the skills in ME2 make it better than ME1? Making something shorter does not equal to making it better. Why not remove all but a single power? As you say, shorter equals better.

2. So every games from now on out should have no inventory whatsoever because, as you say " it slows down gameplay". Quickly, go tell the people at Blizzard to remove the inventory from Diablo 3. Because it slows down gameplay!

3. Even Bioware agrees that the leveling in ME2 was really dumbed to streamlined.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 19 septembre 2011 - 12:58 .

[InvincibleHero]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I don't know about you, but the level system in ME1 was weak at best. You had to level up some parts to get a whooping 5% boost in pistols or waste all your points in Charm/Intimidate to get anywhere without feeling like a chump.

But how is that better in ME2? Having 10 bars each giving a 5% boost or having 5 bars each giving a 10% boost is the same. Just shorter.

Someone With Mass wrote...
The inventory...goddamn, was that system broken. You couldn't back out of anything if you didn't have enough space when looking inside a container to pick up everything. Nope, you had to convert most of it into omni-gel.

Sure the inventory was terrible in ME1. But they just removed it completely in ME2. How is that a better RPG element? It just feels really dumbed down.

Someone With Mass wrote...

The weapons were laughably bad too. I don't think any military would accept a weapon that fires in a cone shaped pattern at random.

That was what the skills were for. In ME2 again, they dumbed it down so you could finish the game without leveling up at all. Hard yes, but doable.

You're confused as to what an RPG actually is. It is not the statistical numbers. Many games have them yet are clearly not RPGs. Sim City anyone or Civilization. Inventory is irrelevant. I can roleplay without my PC in D&D owning anything at all.  It is not a list of elements that are in SOME RPGs. Some do not have XP or stats but they have role playing. Roleplaying is creating a persona of an imaginary character speaking for and making decisions of said character.

[Guldhun2]

Arcian wrote...
Confirmed for tasteless plebeian.

I'd rather be a plebeian than one of these RPG experts.


Hate me if you want.

[Guldhun2]

InvincibleHero wrote...

You're confused as to what an RPG actually is. It is not the statistical numbers. Many games have them yet are clearly not RPGs. Sim City anyone or Civilization. Inventory is irrelevant. I can roleplay without my PC in D&D owning anything at all.  It is not a list of elements that are in SOME RPGs. Some do not have XP or stats but they have role playing. Roleplaying is creating a persona of an imaginary character speaking for and making decisions of said character.

That has been said a thousand million billion times. That makes every computer single game ever made a RPG. Thus making the term Role Playing Video Game worthless.