308 réponses à ce sujet

[AsheraII]

darknoon5 wrote...

The only important gameplay elements RPG's have that Bioware need are choice-driven storylines and character customization.

That is basically ALL that matters to whether a game is an RPG or not. And the Character Customization ONLY matters on the psychological level, NOT for statistics, abilities, skills, levels or whatever.

Equipment & inventory, stats, abilities, skills, levels, etc. are only the framework for an RPG, designed to constrain the player and force him/her to abide the rules of nature for the setting. Without them, you allow so called powerplay, enabling the players to form a solution to EVERY problem with OPTIMAL results, not the need to take the setting into account. Space Ninja's with lazor eyes in a high fantasy settings so to speak. They're a tool to support the setting, but they do not make the setting.

To those wondering: statless RPG's have been made in the past, even pen and paper versions. There was one back in the eighties already called Starstone, only a few thousand copies were made, and they're collectors items now. It wouldn't amaze me if one of the docters had a copy of one under glass somewhere. But the problem with those statless RPG's is that you need both players and a GM who can work with such a game, who don't give in to the temptation to make themselves all-powerful, who understand that their characters too have limitations.

This wouldn't be something your avarage modern computer gamer could deal with. Just look through the forums here: people asking for optimal results, optimal builds and performance of their character, basically, people are trying to find ways to powerplay through the game within the constraints provided by the game. People aren't trying to play or experience their character. They're trying to optimize their character. They need the constraints of the gamemechanics to be actually able to play the game without turning themselves into space ninja's with lazor eyes.

[Maias227]

I don't think a lot of you have played modern shooters, you try play the campaign in Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty and then tell me Mass Effect 3 campaign is similiar (read it isn't). Yes you shoot at things in both but that's the most similar things you are going to find there is absolutely no dialogue choices at all in the Battlefield 3 campaign, there's no hub world to explore, no codex and not too much direct involvement at all. You simply play a completely predefined part of the script which can't be said of Mass Effect 3 because surprise you're hard pressed to find two playthroughs that are the same. You can play the battlefield 3 as many times as you want, everything will play out exactly as it did before.
Note I don't think that's bad per say, it can be enjoyable having that campaign I just want to emphasis that Mass Effect's campaign is nothing like that.

[Kilkia123]

If BioWare getting rid of the useless loot, faux-exploration (driving around on generic landscapes accomplishing generic missions that provided nothing but filler tedium), and surplus level-up customizations from ME1 makes ME3 less of an RPG, I don't see why there's a problem with that at all. The story of ME1 could be finished in about seven hours, 14 hours if you finished every single sidequest. All you had to do was slap on Spectre gear and breeze through the opposition. In ME3, I have never skipped a single dialogue sequence; I do not want to miss a thing, and that is what matters to me in a game: it can hold my attention with its story. ME3 is an action RPG; it carries the elements of an RPG but with a more shooter-oriented style. This does not necessarily make it worse than other "true" RPGs at all, whatever the term may be defined as in this context.

[Terror_K]

Maias227 wrote...

I don't think a lot of you have played modern shooters, you try play the campaign in Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty and then tell me Mass Effect 3 campaign is similiar (read it isn't). Yes you shoot at things in both but that's the most similar things you are going to find there is absolutely no dialogue choices at all in the Battlefield 3 campaign, there's no hub world to explore, no codex and not too much direct involvement at all. You simply play a completely predefined part of the script which can't be said of Mass Effect 3 because surprise you're hard pressed to find two playthroughs that are the same. You can play the battlefield 3 as many times as you want, everything will play out exactly as it did before.
Note I don't think that's bad per say, it can be enjoyable having that campaign I just want to emphasis that Mass Effect's campaign is nothing like that.

You must have played a very different Mass Effect 3 than I did.

[Kalundume]

Effectively, ME3 is not an RPG game at all: the choice aspect is boiled down to almost nothing (Tuchanka & Geth quests are the only truly RPG quests in that game) and character customization is more like an third person shooter with some elements inspired by RPGs.

[Allen Spellwaver]

Kalundume wrote...

Effectively, ME3 is not an RPG game at all: the choice aspect is boiled down to almost nothing (Tuchanka & Geth quests are the only truly RPG quests in that game) and character customization is more like an third person shooter with some elements inspired by RPGs.

Then why don't you put same opinion on ME1 and 2?

[Terror_K]

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Kalundume wrote...

Effectively, ME3 is not an RPG game at all: the choice aspect is boiled down to almost nothing (Tuchanka & Geth quests are the only truly RPG quests in that game) and character customization is more like an third person shooter with some elements inspired by RPGs.

Then why don't you put same opinion on ME1 and 2?

Uh... perhaps because ME1 and ME2 actually gave you varied dialogue choices and opportunities to roleplay your Shepard, as opposed to Shepard just blathering on with no input from the player at all half the time and only being given two choices the other half.

I mean seriously... how is it that when choosing "Full Decisions" in ME3's menu it means "Less decisions than ME1 or ME2?" I actually thought my game was set on the wrong setting for a while there and double-checked, then I wondered if it was just broken. Turns out no... that's just the norm now and we get the FF XIII and MGS4 treatment.

I honestly don't care if it leads to the same basic outcome most of the time, but I'd at least like to be given some varied options even if the choice is an illusion over having Shepard auto-talk and only being given two. Different reactions and more varied ways to define our Shepard even if it doesn't actually set new tags or change the outcome beyond how somebody reacts at least gives the player some freedom. It used to be the norm in fact. ME3 just took away freedom and player choice utterly dialogue wise.

[fchopin]

Terror_K wrote...


I mean seriously... how is it that when choosing "Full Decisions" in ME3's menu it means "Less decisions than ME1 or ME2?" I actually thought my game was set on the wrong setting for a while there and double-checked, then I wondered if it was just broken. Turns out no...

Actually i thought the same thing, i kept checking to see if i picked the correct settings for the start.

[MissOuJ]

Terror_K wrote...

Maias227 wrote...

I don't think a lot of you have played modern shooters, you try play the campaign in Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty and then tell me Mass Effect 3 campaign is similiar (read it isn't). Yes you shoot at things in both but that's the most similar things you are going to find there is absolutely no dialogue choices at all in the Battlefield 3 campaign, there's no hub world to explore, no codex and not too much direct involvement at all. You simply play a completely predefined part of the script which can't be said of Mass Effect 3 because surprise you're hard pressed to find two playthroughs that are the same. You can play the battlefield 3 as many times as you want, everything will play out exactly as it did before.
Note I don't think that's bad per say, it can be enjoyable having that campaign I just want to emphasis that Mass Effect's campaign is nothing like that.

You must have played a very different Mass Effect 3 than I did.

Very possible since pretty much all the desicions you've made in ME & ME2 come to play in one way or another in ME3, leading into very different experiences for different people. You know, with this not being an RPG series and all...

[Terror_K]

MissOuJ wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Maias227 wrote...

I don't think a lot of you have played modern shooters, you try play the campaign in Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty and then tell me Mass Effect 3 campaign is similiar (read it isn't). Yes you shoot at things in both but that's the most similar things you are going to find there is absolutely no dialogue choices at all in the Battlefield 3 campaign, there's no hub world to explore, no codex and not too much direct involvement at all. You simply play a completely predefined part of the script which can't be said of Mass Effect 3 because surprise you're hard pressed to find two playthroughs that are the same. You can play the battlefield 3 as many times as you want, everything will play out exactly as it did before.
Note I don't think that's bad per say, it can be enjoyable having that campaign I just want to emphasis that Mass Effect's campaign is nothing like that.

You must have played a very different Mass Effect 3 than I did.

Very possible since pretty much all the desicions you've made in ME & ME2 come to play in one way or another in ME3, leading into very different experiences for different people. You know, with this not being an RPG series and all...

Yep. Definitely not the same Mass Effect 3 I played. Where can I get a version like that? Mine is pretty much identical in every playthrough for the most part. Sure, the odd line of dialogue and face is different, and the lines are sometimes delivered by a different voice actor, but I always end up doing the same things in the same order with the same outcome, no matter what the variations were in ME1 and ME2.

Does yours actually have more than two dialogue choices when the wheel appears and almost no autodialogue too? Because I really need to get your version of ME3 if that's the case.

[Fyurian2]

AsheraII wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

The only important gameplay elements RPG's have that Bioware need are choice-driven storylines and character customization.

That is basically ALL that matters to whether a game is an RPG or not. And the Character Customization ONLY matters on the psychological level, NOT for statistics, abilities, skills, levels or whatever.

Equipment & inventory, stats, abilities, skills, levels, etc. are only the framework for an RPG, designed to constrain the player and force him/her to abide the rules of nature for the setting. Without them, you allow so called powerplay, enabling the players to form a solution to EVERY problem with OPTIMAL results, not the need to take the setting into account. Space Ninja's with lazor eyes in a high fantasy settings so to speak. They're a tool to support the setting, but they do not make the setting.

To those wondering: statless RPG's have been made in the past, even pen and paper versions. There was one back in the eighties already called Starstone, only a few thousand copies were made, and they're collectors items now. It wouldn't amaze me if one of the docters had a copy of one under glass somewhere. But the problem with those statless RPG's is that you need both players and a GM who can work with such a game, who don't give in to the temptation to make themselves all-powerful, who understand that their characters too have limitations.

This wouldn't be something your avarage modern computer gamer could deal with. Just look through the forums here: people asking for optimal results, optimal builds and performance of their character, basically, people are trying to find ways to powerplay through the game within the constraints provided by the game. People aren't trying to play or experience their character. They're trying to optimize their character. They need the constraints of the gamemechanics to be actually able to play the game without turning themselves into space ninja's with lazor eyes.

Sincerely, bravo.

It seems that many people (not just on BSN) want a "true" RPG when they don't actually realise how loose a genre RPG is.
There is no such thing as a "true" RPG. Not Baldur's Gate, NWN, Fallout, Temple of Elemental Evil, Alpha Protocol or even Mass Effect.

[AngryFrozenWater]

The main problem is not even whether or not ME3 is a worse RPG than ME1 and ME2. ME1 smelled like an RPG, ME2 laid next to one, and ME3 was described as an action game with an interactive story. One cannot find the term RPG on the ME3 site.

KotorEffect3 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Rikketik wrote...
It is true that there is more auto-dialogue in ME3, but then again, it's the final part of the trilogy. It's about the war with the Reapers and finally ending it; the bulk of the character development took place in ME1 and ME2 when there was time for that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

David Silverman is that you?

Typical tactic. If someone says something remotely positive about ME 3 it must be a bioware employee in diguise!!!

Well, it *is* very hard to say something remotely positive about ME3.

"It is true that there is more auto-dialogue in ME3, but then again, it's the final part of the trilogy."

Fans did not like the treatment that Zaeed and Kasumi got in ME2. Now every character got the Zaeed/Kasumi treatment whenever their dialogue, which wasn't much anyway, runs out. The final part of the trilogy has nothing to do with that, other than the urge to defend something that lots of fans didn't want.

"It's about the war with the Reapers and finally ending it;"

We may be at war, but Shepard learns that he/she got it all wrong. The ending seems to do with the fact that the reapers are supposed to be our friends and that the synthetics, who never were a threat, have switched their hats from white to black. However, it was the organics and the reapers who turned the synthetics hostile and not the other way around. That means there is no synthetics threat and the three main options in the endings are solutions to a non-existent problem. However, the player *must* accept this hypothetical threat.

Destroy: Shepard accepts the hypothetical threat and the geth plus EDI are destroyed. Shepard either betrays the geth in Rannoch or stabs a knife in their back by exterminating the geth and EDI in the ending.

Control: Shepard dies a martyr of a hypothetical cause and his/her memories are now uploaded to an AI, much like the brat, which will take care of that future hypothetical threat. The reapers and their infrastructure are kept in place to launch another cycle whenever the new brat sees fit. The new brat betrays the geth and EDI by enslaving them.

Synthesis: Shepard dies a martyr of a hypothetical cause and Shepard's "essence of who [he/she] is and what [he/she] is", indicating Shepard's personality, will be mixed to the Crucible's energy to transform the civilizations, without their consent, into a new hybrid organic/synthetic race, which are forced into a Disney-like utopian pipe dream fueled by mind control using that essence, to end the hypothetical threat. The geth are included here and these were the ones who explicitly stated that that they want to determine their own future and the path to obtaining that was just as important as the end result. No body else wanted this either, because all they have indicated is that they wanted the reapers to be destroyed or defeated. In synthesis they now join the reapers instead. Not only is Shepard taken care of, the civilizations have been completely reaperfied too.

"the bulk of the character development took place in ME1 and ME2 when there was time for that."

All the decisions have either been turned into an abstract EMS-number or have been reduced to cameos to force them into the linear story. If characters were killed they are replaced by another to make sure the linear story can continue with a minimum of dialogue line changes - from rachni queen to Legion.

There is no reason why SP content could not be implemented, without losing the feeling of urgency of the final episode. But of course that was too expensive, so the SP content has been severely cut to make room for MP, which was given priority to attract a new audience. Apparently there is no room for SP, but there is lots of time for MP content. It can last forever if the player wants to.

The only argument in which time makes sense was the rushed state of the ending.

MP obviously was more important than the ending, because the ending got the finger. The ending looks like it was developed by another team, who didn't get the script of anything that happened before and who forgot what Shepard was all about. Same team? Incredible. It feels like the ending was developed on a Monday morning after a hangover.

Of course we were promised that we didn't get an ABC-ending. And look what we got. When players reasoned why the ending was bad, BW first tried to insult their player base. The fans were supposed to have a hard time saying farewell to the characters and they were supposed to have no clue what ME3's great ending was about. So, instead of creating an ending that make sense they promised an EC with more "closure" and "clarification". When that promise didn't work BW claimed "artistic integrity". After all, this way they can feed any crap to those who cannot understand true art. Of course these culture barbarians understood that true art isn't sold shrink wrapped when it was created by telemetry data, marketing and PR, for a large audience who were supposed to be lured into the game by MP and the fame of ME1 and ME2. So when that didn't work either, BW announced that it had deliberately designed the game to allow any head canon the player can dream up. That is even worse than the artistic integrity claim because it excused BW's bad writing.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with that."

I used to be an advocate of the series like this poster, but it is hard to make any sense of it now. Anything that made the series fun was destroyed. It is been reduced to an average game which is playable until I reach the ending.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 juillet 2012 - 02:50 .

[LinksOcarina]

I find it funny people are arguing the issue of auto-dialouge as if it was a game-breaker to begin with.

I also find it funny that people are still in denial over the truth of the matter regarding the multiplayer mode, which has been discussed ad-nausea and pretty much proven to be A) done by a different division of BioWare, something BioWare wanted to do since game one, and C) is a well implemented mode in terms of challenge, balance and overall replayability. Hell, you have role-playing the multi-player mode. Only Assassins Creed did that before, and did it well.

One more thing, what does most of the above have to do with what makes an RPG? Because I know a lot of RPGs that are multi-player based, or have multiplayer implemented, that make them more fun as well. Dead Island, Borderlands, Diablo, Icewind Dale, even Baldurs Gate. Is multiplayer a bad thing?

One can argue it was unnecessary in Mass Effect 3, but to that I say, so was the dialogue system in Mass Effect 1. Yep, their biggest selling point was not needed in Mass Effect 1, because a lot of the dialogue options pretty much were auto-dialogue anyway, giving the same response. And please, none of this "intent is important" stuff, because if that was the case than Dragon Age II, a game few people like it seems, had a superior dialogue system where it matched intent with tone and made options actually different each time based on those two aspects.

And no, none of this makes it a true RPG. I already discussed the disparity between the gameplay mechanics, it boils down to a simple question, do you like crunch, simplicity, both, or neither?

[AlanC9]

LinksOcarina wrote...
I also find it funny that people are still in denial over the truth of the matter regarding the multiplayer mode, which has been discussed ad-nausea and pretty much proven to be A) done by a different division of BioWare, something BioWare wanted to do since game one, and C) is a well implemented mode in terms of challenge, balance and overall replayability.

Don't forget that MP comes with its own revenue stream and funding too. People talk like SP subsidized MP, but there's no basis for that.

[LinksOcarina]

AlanC9 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
I also find it funny that people are still in denial over the truth of the matter regarding the multiplayer mode, which has been discussed ad-nausea and pretty much proven to be A) done by a different division of BioWare, something BioWare wanted to do since game one, and C) is a well implemented mode in terms of challenge, balance and overall replayability.

Don't forget that MP comes with its own revenue stream and funding too. People talk like SP subsidized MP, but there's no basis for that.

Well, it was likely given a separate budget during development, and likely has a separate budget after development.

at least, this is what Ubisoft did with Assassins Creed: Brotherhood from what I understand. 

[Terror_K]

One has to remember that it's not just whether something has an aspect or not, it's also how well it executes it. ME3 still had a lot of factors the previous games had, but executed them poorly. The Journal is one obvious example, as are the say dialogue was handled for the most part. Same with ME2 in many cases, for example it had an XP system and an upgrade system, but both were handled poorly. Even ME1 had issues, such as having an inventory and loot system that was poor.

So given that all three games fell down in different areas, you're probably wondering what my point is here and why ME3 is, IMO, the worst off. Simple. Because it has poor systems and fails where either one or both of the previous two didn't. ME3 is filled with things that were never broken in the first place being "fixed" and the dialogue is probably the biggest victim of this. ME2 damn near had dialogue perfected, and about the only thing that could have been added was a few more chances to rebel against Cerberus, even if it didn't work. ME3 put everything on the rails and rendered all prior choices meaningless just so the writers didn't have to bother with things and just so newbies wouldn't be put off by things they couldn't understand or even do without playing the other games (something one of the devs, I believe it was Patrick Weekes, pretty much admitted to outright when the Rachni Queen shoehorning was raised; that they didn't want to create major content that not all players could access and that newbies to ME3 would miss).

Which was yet another problem: BioWare kept on about how choices and consequences would matter and about the import feature, etc. and not only do faces not import correctly at all, but their whole philosophy about building the series was completely counter-intuitive to their claims, simply because they don't want new players missing out. And that's kind of a symptom of a bigger problem with the Mass Effect trilogy and how BioWare have designed it: from ME2 on, they clearly focused more on and cared more about new players than they did existing ones who came in on the ground floor. The completely broken face import, fact they refused to have any proper consequences, move to a more casual/mainstream market and things like releasing a Wii-U version completely devoid of the two predecessors add up to pretty much prove that.

[rolson00]

LinksOcarina wrote...

rolson00 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

The problem with this topic, is that there are too many differing opinions as to what a RPG consists of.

BioWare defined the series as an Action RPG.

IMHO, the primary elements that make up a RPG are story and plot where the players actions/interactions can have a direct effect on the outcome of an event.

I will agree with those who suggest that 'open exploration' in not an element of a RPG.

rewinding back when ME1 came out i felt it was more of a sy-fi rpg
the ME series are loosly rpg but to be fair you play it for tts uniqness and epic storyline

Here is the problem though.

Mass Effect 1 was a more traditional style, computer RPG, that used modifiers and random dice rolling in the background such to calculate damage, with bonuses and reductions of powers, overheating for weapons, and so forth all mixed in. And it did not translate well to the action-styled mechanics that they created. It worked, but it was very clunky as a combat system. It had a lot of customization however, and a lot to play around with, which was a huge plus in customizing the weapons and amps of the character. As for powers and abilities, they were all numbers based, making the game the crunchiest of the three.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 were RPGs in the same sense that many aspects were carried over, but simplified. Combat was now more streamlined to be action-like as they wanted. Mass Effect 2 made it too simple, limited supplies you can customize, limited powers for squadmates, and limited bonuses for characters to really set them apart. Dialouge was also changed, it was no longer a point-based system that would gague success or failure on your charm/intimidate score. 

As for 3, they added the weight system which balanced power/weapon usage, and allowed more customizable character builds for various Shepards out there. They also brought back the weapon modding system, adding modifications to adjust weapon capabilities on damage, clip size, cooldown, accuracy, weight and even melee damage. As for dialouge, they changed that to the reputation system which, to be honest, made paragon/renegade irrelevent. It still helped in influencing decisions, but it also just made choices less poignant outside of major game decisions, including the endgame.

So the leaving Mass Effect 2 out of the argument here, the question is simple then. Do you want old-style RPG combat mechanics, or the action-RPG combat mechanics Mass Effect 3 had. A ton of crunch, or a more streamlined product? 

action wise i think me3 hit the spot in fact the only fault i have with the game now is the lack of exloration that
me 1&2 had

[element eater]

ME3 is a shooter

[Terror_K]

rolson00 wrote...

So the leaving Mass Effect 2 out of the argument here, the question is simple then. Do you want old-style RPG combat mechanics, or the action-RPG combat mechanics Mass Effect 3 had. A ton of crunch, or a more streamlined product?

Aside from the fact that ME3 was pretty much all about combat, while ME1 had other factors tied into its RPG mechanics (i.e. First Aid, Electronics, Decryption, Charm/Indimidate, etc.) is not that the statistical RPG gameplay suffered as much as the narrative and dialogue stuff did... the actual roleplaying. ME2 was largely just about combat as well, and while its statistical elements were weak, it's roleplaying ones remained strong. That wasn't the case for ME3.

The combat was admittedly strong in ME3, the strongest of all three games if I'm being honest, but that's not why I came to Mass Effect and what got me hooked personally. It was the other factors, and pretty much all those other factors suffered. Plenty, I'm sure, will no doubt point out that ME1 wasn't exactly brilliant with how it handled it statistical RPG elements from the start, but it at least was trying to have some more to it. Some say ME2 cut the fat, but I feel in that fat removal they also lost a fair bit of meat in the process.

Regarding the final comment and the bit I bolded, I have to add this: if game developers and BioWare really did "streamline" their products it wouldn't be so bad, but more often than not game developers these days use terms like "streamlined" to really mean "dumbed down" in the end. I know it's a term that many people cringe at here, but it's true. Streamlining is giving us the same functionality and control over something, but cutting out the complexity to do it. Automating and removing functionality and control itself is no longer streamlining, and that's the problem. The idea is to get the same result with minimum fuss, but that doesn't work when factors are removed that prevent players from even getting the same result.

These days I constantly find myself cringing when developers keep using terms like "streamlining" or "making it more accessible" or "to broaden appeal" etc. because I know what it really means, and it inevitably ends up with the same problems that the Mass Effect series has suffered.

[Seifer006]

Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy was great. Ended very well IMO

too bad ME3 didn't.

[Sombrero Bandit]

ME3 felt rushed and i totally agree. They shoulda put more time into it. Too linear and lack of love that ME1 had

[Seifer006]

I can Hackett wrote...

  I dont think im alone here but im in the middle of a Red Dead Redemption playthrough and im juist realizing thtat ME3 isnt even an RPG I mean not even close, IDK what it is maybe a hybrid between a 3rd ps and a rpg but nothing like me1, omg its just hitting me ...... what have they done?!!

should read my review (click signature)

[LinksOcarina]

Seifer006 wrote...

I can Hackett wrote...

  I dont think im alone here but im in the middle of a Red Dead Redemption playthrough and im juist realizing thtat ME3 isnt even an RPG I mean not even close, IDK what it is maybe a hybrid between a 3rd ps and a rpg but nothing like me1, omg its just hitting me ...... what have they done?!!

should read my review (click signature)

It's hard to as it is, considering you overuse colored text and have no true review structure. Its a book report more than a review.

No offense or anything.

By the way, the batman movie was ok, but I didn't like the ending too much in that one either. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 juillet 2012 - 01:50 .

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

 Same with ME2 in many cases, for example it had an XP system and an upgrade system, but both were handled poorly.

I thought those were great, myself.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

 Same with ME2 in many cases, for example it had an XP system and an upgrade system, but both were handled poorly.

I thought those were great, myself.

The ME2 XP system was so arbitrary and meaningless, it may as well just have been a random number being thrown at you (in fact, I suspect it was). XP is supposed to reflect and represent your skill at completing a task, and it simply didn't in ME2. There was no context as to why you were being given what you were, and it didn't reflect how you handled the situation because it was the same every time, no matter what you did or how you did it. It's like it was just there so your character could level-up for the sake of it. It made me question whether ME2 was even a proper RPG at all, because from what I could tell the progression system was entirely faked in this manner, giving the illusion of being there just because it "was supposed to be" rather than having any weight or meaning to it.

The upgrade system had no drawbacks, which every good gear progression system should have. It was too easy just to keep upgrading everything to the max with no penalties beyond cost, and if you'd imported a character that was pretty damn simple. Every playthrough just ended up with you having all the same stuff fully upgraded and God-modded to the max. A player should have to pick and choose this or that, not just be given everything. Gear progression, items and building a character aren't interesting when you get everything on a silver platter and don't have to weigh up options and alternatives. ME1 and ME3 do a far better job because players have to make choices as to what modifications they want to make, since items have limited slots. ME2 was the equivalent of being able to stack every upgrade into every item at the same time.

Modifié par Terror_K, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:31 .