429 réponses à ce sujet

[Sasie]

I prefer ME1 for the simple reason that it plays like a RPG with guns rather then an action game.
In ME2, if you transfer a saved game, you can max out one out of four of your skills for the entire game at the first level! There is no sense of progression after that since you can use the same max level skill on the first mission as well as on the last boss.

This might been a bit better if they had tons of more skills like other RPG's that used a similar system, think Vampire the Masqurade bloodlines, or if they put a limit on when you could unlock the higher levels but the way it is there is almost no skill progression since you can unlock a full skill right away and go with it.

[Someone With Mass]

I'd gladly give up those redundant inventory management things ME1 introduced if it means that there'll be a smoother gameplay.

[saracen16]

There were some things, I think, that ME1 did better in terms of gameplay than ME2 did. For example, I felt that there was slightly better control in moving in and out of cover in ME1 and the sprinting felt less clunkier. If you rush into cover in ME2, you could make the mistake of hauling yourself over cover if you didn't release the W key.

Also, some of the levels in ME1, such as Ilos, had large open spaces, and that's what gave them a more exploratory edge over their counterparts in ME2, which was more of a straight-up shooter (not that it's a bad thing).

Overall, I'd say that both had excellent gameplay, and there were things that both did right. I just hope ME3 levels synthesize the two gameplay concepts and make better levels.

[Cainne Chapel]

Yes both were good in their own ways ( I do have hundreds of hours logged on both to be sure).

Story wise, yes ME1 felt more epic so to speak, but then it WAS the opening salvo, and ME2 had the unfortunate distinction of being the middle ground from Opening to Closing and thus was more....expansionary in terms of characters and background information (which I think ME2 did remarkably) hte overall story wasn't quite as Grand as ME1, but I get why.

Inventory, well, as much as an RPG lover as I am, I could do with or
without inventory honestly and much preferred the weaponry (and armors)
from ME2, each was more distinct in terms of appearance and function and
I much preferred that to the "stats" screen. (Although with ME3 I'm
looking forward to having that back what with the customization of the
weapons, so they'll be both distinct AND customized).

As for progression, I will have to disagree with you there Sasie, with shepard ALREADY being an elite and seasoned soldier as well as the level of tech in the games universe, progresssion never seemed like a big deal to me. Granted a max power as you say will do the same damage int he beginning as the end, I dont think that's really a big problem in the system, especially considering you're importing a near max level or max level save. (not quite as powerful as say ME1 once you pass midgame, but thats another debate altogether).

As for the rest I do have to admit to liking the gameplay overall in ME2 more (Dont misconstrue that as I feel ME1 is lacking, it most certainly is not and I am currently replaying ME1 AGAIN for another ME2 and eventual ME3 import...yeah I have issues) and I am more than satisfied as to how the game turned out... I mean i have beaten it a combined total of more than 30x times at this point so there's GOTTA be something there (Other than my addiction that is...)

In any case... sorry for the rant!

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 28 janvier 2012 - 09:16 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

More than 30 times you say? You make me feel better about myself. (my total is 10 counting both games.)

[incinerator950]

Sasie wrote...

I prefer ME1 for the simple reason that it plays like a RPG with guns rather then an action game.
In ME2, if you transfer a saved game, you can max out one out of four of your skills for the entire game at the first level! There is no sense of progression after that since you can use the same max level skill on the first mission as well as on the last boss.

This might been a bit better if they had tons of more skills like other RPG's that used a similar system, think Vampire the Masqurade bloodlines, or if they put a limit on when you could unlock the higher levels but the way it is there is almost no skill progression since you can unlock a full skill right away and go with it.

Mass Effect is not an RPG, its a third person shooter with RPG qualities.  The Illusion of choice doesn't justify it being an RPG, no matter what the ratings say.  The redundant crap that was scrubbed from the first game was done so to focus more on actual game play. 

[tetrisblock4x1]

I think you're the first person to say that in all of these 10 pages. Impressive. I'm so proud of BSN right now.

[Arppis]

Because it's not stiff and clunky!

I always disliked the fact that I didn't have more control over my character in ME1, thats why I played that game on Casual and ME2 on Veteran.

[Arppis]

incinerator950 wrote...

Mass Effect is not an RPG, its a third person shooter with RPG qualities.  The Illusion of choice doesn't justify it being an RPG, no matter what the ratings say.  The redundant crap that was scrubbed from the first game was done so to focus more on actual game play. 

BALDUR'S GATE is not an RPG, it's a strategy game with RPG qualities.

You played as some god in the clouds who controlled all the actions and clothing choices of 6 people, not as the guy you made at the start of the game. It has nothing to do with actual roleplaying. Plus all the power uses Shepard issues are from his perspective only, that's one more thing that makes you connect to him more, it feels like you are actualy commanding them as Shepard, not as some omni-potent beign.

Atleast in ME games you get to really be that character you make, you get to make those choices to show what kind of character you are playing. You get to you know... roleplay!

So yes,  this is actualy more RPG than what people think.

[Icinix]

incinerator950 wrote...

Sasie wrote...

I prefer ME1 for the simple reason that it plays like a RPG with guns rather then an action game.
In ME2, if you transfer a saved game, you can max out one out of four of your skills for the entire game at the first level! There is no sense of progression after that since you can use the same max level skill on the first mission as well as on the last boss.

This might been a bit better if they had tons of more skills like other RPG's that used a similar system, think Vampire the Masqurade bloodlines, or if they put a limit on when you could unlock the higher levels but the way it is there is almost no skill progression since you can unlock a full skill right away and go with it.

Mass Effect is not an RPG, its a third person shooter with RPG qualities.  The Illusion of choice doesn't justify it being an RPG, no matter what the ratings say.  The redundant crap that was scrubbed from the first game was done so to focus more on actual game play. 

ME1 was marketed as a next gen RPG game - and RPG elements are still actual gameplay.

[Berkilak]

While I preferred ME2's actual gameplay, I do not believe that so many RPG elements had to be purged - they should have been expanded upon. RPG elements are usually "behind the scenes" things, no matter what shape the gameplay holds (shooter, turn-based, strategy, even platformer).

Modifié par Berkilak, 28 janvier 2012 - 10:30 .

[Xewaka]

KotorEffect3 wrote...
I don't care what playstyle he chooses I just disagree with the premise that player skill should not reflect on character performance.

I take it you never played a proper PnP RPG, then. The only player skill that could conceivably matter is reading comprehension, to use the handbook for character building. The character perfomance is determined by (shock) the character skill. RPGs are about roleplaying, not about twitching.

[DayusMakhina]

Sasie wrote...

I prefer ME1 for the simple reason that it plays like a RPG with guns rather then an action game.
In ME2, if you transfer a saved game, you can max out one out of four of your skills for the entire game at the first level! There is no sense of progression after that since you can use the same max level skill on the first mission as well as on the last boss.

Sounds like you're going to hate ME3 then considering an imported character is imported at the level he/she was on ME2, which for pretty much everyone will be 30. Right off the bat you'll have multiple skills maxed out!

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Arppis wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Mass Effect is not an RPG, its a third person shooter with RPG qualities.  The Illusion of choice doesn't justify it being an RPG, no matter what the ratings say.  The redundant crap that was scrubbed from the first game was done so to focus more on actual game play. 

BALDUR'S GATE is not an RPG, it's a strategy game with RPG qualities.

You played as some god in the clouds who controlled all the actions and clothing choices of 6 people, not as the guy you made at the start of the game. It has nothing to do with actual roleplaying. Plus all the power uses Shepard issues are from his perspective only, that's one more thing that makes you connect to him more, it feels like you are actualy commanding them as Shepard, not as some omni-potent beign.

Atleast in ME games you get to really be that character you make, you get to make those choices to show what kind of character you are playing. You get to you know... roleplay!

So yes,  this is actualy more RPG than what people think.

The "you get to play as character X and actually feel like you are them" line of reasoning can be used to claim that Mario or Halo are RPGs. All they lack are "story choices", but if we go down that road, it opens the door for games like Heavy Rain being the best RPG evar.

Ultimately, RPGs are about player skill dictating a course of action with character skill determining success of execution. The link between "imagination" and "roleplaying" is made through the decisions players make, either in creation of their character or in how they approach certain situations and interactions. Of course, a lot gets lost in the translation from PnP to cRPG since there's a human GM and players who can adapt to situations and find ways to use the extensive rulesets and systems to assume action X under paradigm Y. Sadly, cRPGs just aren't capable of providing that same freedom that a good GM and a cool group of players can provide. It's a shame though that most RPG developers don't even try.

How any of that relates to Mass Effect 1/2 gameplay is relatively minimal - Mass Effect 1 did try to be more "RPG" in how it handled skills. It affected accuracy, but the gameplay was clunkier as a result. It should've affected things like overheating, recoil and spread (which is different to accuracy) IMO. So then, it would've never directly contradicted the player, but still showed some form of significant progression as you level up.

But, I never saw Mass Effect as much of an RPG or never cared much about it's RPG-ness, I enjoyed it for other reasons. So nothing of value was lost.

Though personally and I must get this off my chest too, the whole stuff with the inventory was not a symptom of "RPG elements", it was a symptom of a **** inventory system.

So overall, I liked the concept of Mass Effect 1's better, but I recognise that it had gameplay elements which made Mass Effect 2 the better shooter. Which I daresay was the point.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 28 janvier 2012 - 01:48 .

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

As far as the Geth trooper "Flanking" you,  replay the mission a few times.  You'll find it always comes out of the same place and goes to the same points,  you just happened to be standing somewhere it would appear to flank you.

Uhh, no. When your enemies come around the barrier where you're currently taking cover behind and turns around to shoot you in the face, in contradiction of your claim that "the AI doesn't try to kill you".

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 janvier 2012 - 02:02 .

[Aimi]

Icinix wrote...

The issue I have, is that ME1 was a system that was far from perfect, but instead of tweaking and improving, trying something different - they cut it all out. Everything. Gone.

ME2 to me was as bad as ME1. They both missed the mark. ME3 though - looks to straddle the middle ground very well.

That's a confusing position to hold, in my opinion, on the grounds that ME3's gameplay is only an incremental alteration from ME2's.

[Il Divo]

CrustyBot wrote...

1) But, I never saw Mass Effect as much of an RPG or never cared much about it's RPG-ness, I enjoyed it for other reasons. So nothing of value was lost.

2) Though personally and I must get this off my chest too, the whole stuff with the inventory was not a symptom of "RPG elements", it was a symptom of a **** inventory system.

3) So overall, I liked the concept of Mass Effect 1's better, but I recognise that it had gameplay elements which made Mass Effect 2 the better shooter. Which I daresay was the point.

I support all three of these statements.

[StonedVolus]

To me the main reason was variety. Oh sure, you get hundreds of assault rifles in ME1, but they all do the same thing. In 2 the weapons function different from each other, making each a sort of preference for the player. Plus you actually want to play as the other classes now since Soldier isn't the only useful one anymore. Plus the ammo system made me consider my shots a little more instead of just spam, switch weapon, spam, switch back, spam. I honestly think it's much better gameplay than most other shooters out there.

[tetrisblock4x1]

StonedVolus wrote...

To me the main reason was variety. Oh sure, you get hundreds of assault rifles in ME1, but they all do the same thing. In 2 the weapons function different from each other, making each a sort of preference for the player. Plus you actually want to play as the other classes now since Soldier isn't the only useful one anymore. Plus the ammo system made me consider my shots a little more instead of just spam, switch weapon, spam, switch back, spam. I honestly think it's much better gameplay than most other shooters out there.

Hmm, well as a big fan of shooter I can't really agree with that. Max Payne 2 was much more intense and fluid as a third person shooter, and System Shock 2 had greater and more interesting customization of powers, skills and inventory.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 28 janvier 2012 - 02:11 .

[nelly21]

daqs wrote...

Icinix wrote...

The issue I have, is that ME1 was a system that was far from perfect, but instead of tweaking and improving, trying something different - they cut it all out. Everything. Gone.

ME2 to me was as bad as ME1. They both missed the mark. ME3 though - looks to straddle the middle ground very well.

That's a confusing position to hold, in my opinion, on the grounds that ME3's gameplay is only an incremental alteration from ME2's.

I agree. Whereas the entire combat system from ME 1 was redone in ME 2, ME 3's combat system is a refinement of ME 2's. More mobility has been added with dodges and the ability to turn corners without leaving cover etc. But the system hasn't been redesigned. The only similarity I see between 1 and 3 is the use of grenades (I am glad to see them back).

[Wulfram]

nelly21 wrote...

I agree. Whereas the entire combat system from ME 1 was redone in ME 2, ME 3's combat system is a refinement of ME 2's. More mobility has been added with dodges and the ability to turn corners without leaving cover etc. But the system hasn't been redesigned. The only similarity I see between 1 and 3 is the use of grenades (I am glad to see them back).

ME3 has got more customization options for your character and their equipment, which is a key thing that people missed in ME2

edit:  It's still pretty clearly closer to ME3 than 1, though.

Modifié par Wulfram, 28 janvier 2012 - 02:25 .

[nelly21]

Wulfram wrote...

ME3 has got more customization options for your character and their equipment, which is a key thing that people missed in ME2

edit:  It's still pretty clearly closer to ME3 than 1, though.

I will grant you that customization was lessened in ME 2 to an extent. But I was talking about combat itself. The system has clearly not been overhauled from ME 2 but refined and improved. The customization is an aspect of ME 1 that they have brought in and the game will be better for it. Personally, I thought the differences in the weapons themselves was enough that I didn't miss the attachments and all that from ME 1. But I am incredibly excited that the system in ME 3 offers the individualistic feeling of each weapon while still allowing you to make it "yours".

[RKB28]

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

What? How come?

[Lambchopz]

Arppis wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Mass Effect is not an RPG, its a third person shooter with RPG qualities.  The Illusion of choice doesn't justify it being an RPG, no matter what the ratings say.  The redundant crap that was scrubbed from the first game was done so to focus more on actual game play. 

BALDUR'S GATE is not an RPG, it's a strategy game with RPG qualities.

You played as some god in the clouds who controlled all the actions and clothing choices of 6 people, not as the guy you made at the start of the game. It has nothing to do with actual roleplaying. Plus all the power uses Shepard issues are from his perspective only, that's one more thing that makes you connect to him more, it feels like you are actualy commanding them as Shepard, not as some omni-potent beign.

Atleast in ME games you get to really be that character you make, you get to make those choices to show what kind of character you are playing. You get to you know... roleplay!

So yes,  this is actualy more RPG than what people think.

What. BG was most definitely an RPG, Bladur's Gate drew it's influence directly from PnP games like Dungeons and Dragons. In fact, most of what BG was was DnD put into a pretty (for it's time) user-friendly graphical interface. That's about as pure as video-game RPGs have ever been.

Anyways, Mass Effect is NOT primarily an RPG. The minute you make the focus of combat manual, precision control in a shooter-like fashion, it pretty much becomes a shooter with RPG elements. Mass Effect NEEDS some RPG elements, but make no mistake that the game is a shooter/action game first, RPG second. If you want something more on the RPG side, Mass Effect is just not for you. I love RPGs and shooters, ME is definitely more of a shooter.

[Icinix]

nelly21 wrote...

daqs wrote...

Icinix wrote...

The issue I have, is that ME1 was a system that was far from perfect, but instead of tweaking and improving, trying something different - they cut it all out. Everything. Gone.

ME2 to me was as bad as ME1. They both missed the mark. ME3 though - looks to straddle the middle ground very well.

That's a confusing position to hold, in my opinion, on the grounds that ME3's gameplay is only an incremental alteration from ME2's.

I agree. Whereas the entire combat system from ME 1 was redone in ME 2, ME 3's combat system is a refinement of ME 2's. More mobility has been added with dodges and the ability to turn corners without leaving cover etc. But the system hasn't been redesigned. The only similarity I see between 1 and 3 is the use of grenades (I am glad to see them back).

That was a discussion about the RPG elements - not the combat.