Shepard the Leper wrote...
Dumbing down is about perception mostly. ME1's gameplay is actually dumbed down compared to ME2's. If you're saying BW went a little too far when it comes to removing certain features - I agree (but that's a different story).
ME2 is actually streamlined in many ways. I'll mention one; in ME2 you can play AND uses all available abilities on the fly (no pausing needed - which is pretty important for a game that relies a lot on shooting/action-focused gameplay). In ME1 you can only control Shepard without pausing, to give commands to your buddies requires pausing the game = bad for gameplay fluency.
I guess you've never played the PC version of ME1 then... y'know, where I can hotkey up to 10 abilities with no need to pause, and actually sent both squaddies to different places and give them instructions without having to pause either.
The point here is, ME2 didn't actually even fix this: the PC conversion of ME1 did, and then ME2 simply adopted it for the console version of the sequel.
I don't really understand what your point is. Do you mean games that are highly complex are somehow "better"?
Good games are easy to play yet difficult to master. Poor games are difficult to play and easy to master. ME2 is easy to start playing, but it takes skill to master and dominate Insanity. ME1 is a pain the first time around, but once you figured out how all powers and abilities work (and against whom) things become incredibly simplistic.
I would disagree with that assessment. Aside from the fact that ME2 only really becomes harder as things progress because enemies become thicker damage sponges rather than actually getting smarter, it's just a simpler game overall. There's no real thought required because most of the stuff that isn't simple combat is either done for you or is impossible not to get right. Complexity does not always mean "better" but it usually does mean more depth and more involvement.
I value choice above anything else. In ME1 you have the choice between uber-gear and lots of junk (=the choice between gimping yourself on purpose or not). In ME2 there's far less choice when it comes to weapons, but most weapons (except the OP DLC stuff) are fairly well balanced. Using the Scimitar instead of the Claymore is a valid option. It requires a different playstyle, but both weapons can be equally effective in combat. ME2 inventory provides less options, but at least has options to choose from. Quality beats quantity.
While I agree that the weapons are more diversified in ME2, where was the choice when it came to modding, upgrading or customisation? In ME1 I can create many different weapons, but in ME2 all my weapons are the same as yours. In ME2 the armour is mostly cosmetic too. There's no trade-offs or real choice because the game either makes the choices for you automatically or they're too obvious to miss. The research/upgrade system is a straight line of items that are always in the same places, always easy to get and have no limitations beyond your credits and resources, which quite frankly fall on your lap (especially with an import, and even moreso after LotSB). Choice isn't choice when the final answers are always the same for everybody.
LOL.
- You think forcing the player to bring a tech-buddy to allow the player to start mini-games is good?
Yes. It helps define the tech classes, while also putting limitations in place, which a good RPG needs. Much like a fantasy RPG doesn't usually let Fighters and Mages lay traps, stealth or unlock things, etc. because that's the thief/rogue's role. If you're not going to limit the classes like you should and just hand the thing on a platter like that, why even bother with the mini-game at all: why not dumb it down even more and just let Shepard get the items/unlock the door, etc. automatically.
- XP rewards for completing an objective are somehow "meaningless", but killing a mook isn't?
- Isn't XP a pointless stat system to give players the illusion of progression? I rather have a system without XP that allows me to create a character at the beginning with the goal to make the most out of the selected abilities instead of having to wait till the end before being able to use the most advanced (usually the most fun also) abilities.
XP is a pointless stat and only gives the illusion of progression in ME2, yes. But it shouldn't. It's supposed to reflect the growth of the character by rewarding them with an amount of experience based on what they did so they can grow further. XP rewarding for an objective isn't inherently meaningless, but in ME2 there's no scale or context for it, and no way to really tell the player why they earned what they did. No matter how the quest is done, and no matter how long it took, how the player got there or how many things they killed, found, or how successful they were, the amount is exactly the same, and usually conveniently just enough to level up to the next level. XP without context is meaningless, and that's why ME2 fails in this regard. For all we know it's an arbitrary number thrown at us and really reflects nothing. At least when you kill something you know it's worth X amount of XP because of what it is in reflection to your character, and that a persuade attempt gives you X because you succeeded, or unlocking a door or disarming a trap gives you X because you succeeded in that, and they're all scaled depending on difficulty and given a common ground and scale with a logic to it, and thus overall performing a mission can give different degrees of XP depending on the approach.
- Armor pieces should make a difference - agreed - but armor is almost redundant in both ME games anyways (hopefully that will change in ME3).
In ME1 at least armour actually provided a protection. In ME2 it was more akin to wearing rings and amulets, because modders have proven that you can mod Shepard to wear Normandy civvies and he/she is just as combat capable as an armoured Shepard. I realise that this could run into another case of Colossus Armour syndrome, but perhaps the key here is armour being different on the inside than the out.
- I prefer ME2's companion system over ME1's where you couldn't seperate Ash and Liara when they wear the same armor and helmets. The way some ME2 characters handle hazardous environments is pretty bad though.
I think the key is to make outfits both unique and sensible. Another option some games have used is the basic concept of the visual appearance either always adapting to the armour/clothing type so it still suits, usually via colour or something common to the character, or simply having their appearance static, but the items on them still being able to be altered (which, even then, can be an option: look like me, or look like what I'm wearing). In either case, there should always be an exploration "space-worthy" variant for every companion, IMO.
That sounds like you prefer ME2 in those aspects (except the bio-amp / onmi-tool thing). ME2 has fewer options, but most are viable, unlike ME1 where most things are completely redundant anyway considering the God-like abilities available.
By issue is that ME2 didn't really have options. It just had a God-modding, linear upgrade system that you always ended up maxing out. The main issue was basically that there were no trade-offs or choice of "this, or that" and you could always just have and upgrade everything. I'm not saying ME1 didn't have issues, what with things like Master Spectre Gear and Colossus gear, but that was mostly broken due to there being one piece of clearly L33T gear better than all the rest. Had the stats on the items been more varied so there was less examples of the next item you come across that's better almost always being better across the board then it wouldn't have been as much an issue. Though I definitely agree that we don't really need 10 versions of every weapon/armour mod, and there could stand to be fewer levels of each gun. ME2's biggest problem is essentially the lack of proper customisation in this department, but I guess at least ME3 is fixing that.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
and i am thinking that those that do play it will find it much better then they thought it would be. When i am able i plan on getting my kinect system and a better computer (computer first) which means 8 copies in total for me for me series so far. and yes i am that obsessed. also my brother and his wife played the first one and i just talked him into getting me2 ( he didn't know that i played) so we can play me3 multiplayer together. he runs multi platforms also so that is more copies for them as well (so we can all play together regularly). thats 4 people right there and multiple games purchased. i think that bioware will be pleased.
