Terror_K wrote...
HR didn't also baby the players and insult them by treating them like people who had never played a game with anything more to it than "point and shoot" like ME2 did. Many of ME2's issues stem from its "Fisher Price: My First RPG" feel, tone and design as much as they do from the dumbing down as a whole.
LOL. I see you need to hear over the to DX:HR topic in the Off-Topic forum, where I'm currently debating with someone who argues that DX:HR is dumbed down and insulting to fans of the old game. Let me add the features that he suggests are dumbed down:
1) Cover mode allows you to peek over corners without risking yourself.
2) Real-time maps for every area in the game instead of paper maps like Deus Ex
3) Radar points out locations for enemies which removes stealth & makes upgrades trivial
4) Health system is radically dumbed down (100HP and regenerating health versus full body)
5) Passive upgrades and rechargeable energy instead of energy-draining augs make the game too easy
I could go on, but this slobbering of HR is silly.
While ME2 doesn't have stealth, one can compare the factor of being able to approach situations differently through different means, which HR does, by providing several options in almost every situation to proceed, while ME2 always comes down to combat when its combat and dialogue when its dialogue. ME2 doesn't really have alternate paths and methods to complete a mission.
ME2 doesn't have alternate paths on a broad level because ME2 only has 1 style of gameplay: combat.
Within that, though, the gameplay is varied. The different classes play different, and you can experiment with very different builds (e.g. CQC infiltrator). ME2 combat is generally varied.
Except that XP has weight, context and meaning in HR, but is completely arbritrary and meaningless in ME2. With HR you can see where the XP comes from and why, but in ME2 it's just a random number tossed at you at the end of each mission that has no real context and conveniently levels you up almost every time.
XP in HR has absolutely no weight. No matter how hard you slobber over it, you can beat the entire game with 0 augs on Give Me Deus Ex.
XP in HR is absolutely a random number tossed at you where you
rarely level up and
hilariously (I say this because I remember you criticizing ME2 for this very point) often you are stuck in situations where you can't upgrade anything because starter upgrades require
2 praxis points and leve-up gives you
1 praxis point.
HR also actually has some more passive, non-combat skills (as you note), while ME2 is just pretty much only about killing enemies and that's about it. ME2 platters every upgrade too, while you can't really God-mod yourself in HR.
HR has scripted storyline upgrades, and ME2 has passive persuade + combat upgrades (the whole Combat Mastery or whatever chains). Certainly there are less abilities in ME2, and HR beats it out of the water there... but that doesn't make HR less streamlined (compared to DX).
It's not a "non-RPG" feature, but the shallowness of ME2's XP system (as I outlined above) really does call the way it's done into question. From what I can tell the whole system is completely faked and that questions whether it's a real RPG system at all or just a facsimile of one solely there so that it's still present and so players can have a system in place to progress with. The entire progression of ME2 is suspect and shallow at best.
The progression in HR is just as shallow.
Both are about the same from what I can tell,
Then you haven't played HR.
though HR doesn't have romances and factors porting over from its predecessor. I've also only completely HR once so far. Both seemed to come down to tackling a mission and the choices being made via one major dialogue choice usually towards the end.
HR very rarely has mission choices at the end.
HR had far weightier dialogue choices and variations in this regard though, and didn't just come down to two types of black and white approach that always equalled a win if you had enough points for it.
HR doesn't have weightier dialogue. It has funner dialogue for the player, but you'll find many hardcore RPGs (not me, though, I hate how RPGs handle dialogue) argue that by making
player skill relevant in dialogue you've broken RP outright.
That's why it's kind of debatable. I don't have as many builds technically in HR, but I have more varied ways of playing the game. My ghost-like stealth, non-kill and non-encounter playthrough will be completely different from my run-and-gun one, and how much I specalise in hacking can factor in additional changes to a degree. Every ME2 playthrough is essentially the same gameplay wise, with me taking the same routes, the same approaches and fighting the same people in the same places, with only the powers I use really changing anything.
You have more breath environmental choices, because HR was designed with environmntal solutions in mind.
ME2 was designed with combat variance in mind. HR has mentally deficient enemies who you can pick off from the shadows as they all pile over the same body and look around in surprise.
Saying you can play a combat Jensen in HR is a little like saying you can play a stealth infiltrator Shepard who CQC's everyone with the melee attack.
Modifié par In Exile, 05 septembre 2011 - 04:39 .
Retour en haut
