340 réponses à ce sujet

[SnowHeart1]

MarloMarlo wrote...

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Fair question. I think, before answering, it's worth touching on an underlying issue:  the definition of an RPG.  I'm not going to try to answer that because, I believe, it's very subjective.

How can you possibly be concerned about RPG elements if you can't even define what that means and argue for the definition.

Did you bother actually reading what I wrote before responding to it?  At the risk of wasting my time, I will try one last time to clarify.  If you'd still rather cast silly little stones than respond constructively, then have at it.  As someone else said, some of the folks "defending" the game in this thread make me want to cry.  If that sounds frustrated and/or pissy, it's because it is. 

Discussing what constitutes an "RPG" opens up a whole new can of worms that isn't worth getting into because it was largely tangential to the post to which I responding (JRPG, RPG, CRPG, Western RPG, stats vs. story, die rolling versus skill based, etc.).  Even people who all claim to be RPG fans will disagree on what constitutes an RPG.  More to the point, it isn't necessary in this thread.  Why?

Because instead of talking about the storytelling elements of ME/ME2, the OP was instead talking about some of the underlying mechanics and UIs which have been the traditional underpinnings of most CRPGs.  Thus, what we're actually talking about here is about a particilar component of some CRPGs.  It is a component that some fans find very important, others less so.  Indeed, for those who are not fans of CRPGs, it is a component that many cite as a reason as to why they don't like CRPGs.

A lot of people are saying stats, or inventory screens, or whatever are RPG elements. But they never argue why. Sometimes, like you, they'll say that RPGs have made use of them in the past. So what?...

Please read what I just wrote, and reread what I wrote previously.  I said there is room for disagreement and there is room for innovation and improvement, and perhaps Bioware's changes will actually improve the game and experience.  But my point was, while it doesn't make it sacrosanct, such mechanics HAVE, in fact, been a part of most CRPG games over the last 20 years.  You may not like them, and that is fine... That's not the point.  The point is the OP does like them and so do many other people, and yes... it causes them concern and fear to see elements that they might have liked but thought could be improved instead be completely removed from the game.  I feel like you want me to argue opinion as actual fact, and I'm not going to do that, because it's not.

SnowHeart1 wrote...
The ending resolution and interupt features would, I argue, go to the storytelling, not the traditional RPG mechanics.

Argue it, then. Anyone can say "I would argue that Subject Zero is like Hamlet on estrogen" and then leave it at that.

Wow.  One flip comment after another, and way to completely frakkin' quote without context and *snipping* the rest of the paragraph.  I'm sorry, but I do begin to understand why people make snide comments about "reading comprehension".  You know, I was trying to be respectful and acknowledge differences of opinion.  I was trying to differentiate between what was relevant to the conversation (underpinning mechanics) and what wasn't (storytelling).  You aren't even the author of the post to which I was responding, and instead you came in very aggressively, snidely, and condescending, making comments without context or place.  I really don't appreciate it but, as they say, welcome to the internetz. 

Re-read the above, re-read the post you butched in quoting, and then re-read the post to which I was actually responding.  Maybe then you'll understand.  Sorry, but this seriously pissed me off.  You came in mid-way through a conversation, selectively quoted what I wrote and ignored both context and intent.  If you didn't mean to be a dick, then fine, I apologize, but seriously... 

[Laterali]

Of all the games BioWare has put you know how many have disappointed me? None. I personally look forward to all the changes. I'm really looking forward to seeing how armour and weapon customization works.



The idea of finding tech and scanning it to replicate it on the Normandy sounds like a much better idea than lugging 100 weapons around that are junk. And I'm so glad they reworked the armour for squadmates. For all intents and purposes, in the story of Mass Effect these people are adults. They should be perfectly capable of choosing what they want to wear. I'm not the house mother, I'm not here to play dress up. I'm here to find out what the hell the reapers and collectors are up to.



If they made a kickin story like they did with the first one, I've got no problem with the changes they made to gameplay.

[Zlarm]

sinosleep wrote...

As I've asked countless times, how is this any different than ME 1? You unlock spectre weapons on first playthrough, you now never have to make a decision with regards to what weapon you're going to use EVER again. Itemization was never something to put thought into in the first game. All ME 2 has done is gotten rid of the constant influx of vendor trash.

Hmmm it looks like I should have included a bit more background in my original post.  Basically I agree with you that ME2 doesn't really have much less choice than ME1 (sure ME1 had more total choices but most of them were false ones, the spectre gear you pointed out is a good example).  I (and perhaps quite a few others) had hoped that for the sequel they would put alot more choices in rather than just remove all the false ones. 

sinosleep wrote...
The armor sets it's just an agree to disagree thing. For one, we haven't seen any footage whatsoever that there are even any truly hostile enviornments in the game, so if they aren't there that's a non issue in regards to what people are wearing. And frankly, I prefer it this way any way. Many games that allow you to place every armor piece on everyone in your armor wind up using the same body model on everyone. Just look at Dragon Age for example. When Morrigan is in her default clothing she has a different body type than the standard female NPC, but throw any kind of armor on her and viola, goodbye individuality hello cookie cutter. Miranda and SuZe have completely different body types even though they are both female. If switching to outfits instead of using armor results in that staying that way then so be it. It's worth it in my eyes. Hazardous enviornments be damned.

While I do disagree with you about the Dragon Age system being bad (doesn't it make sense the armor doesn't change in size depending on who wears it?)  it's not just the hostile environments that I'm totally worried about. I also think it's ridiculous that you can go into combat against heavily armored opponents without the option to put armour on your whole squad (yes I know this hasn't totally been confirmed yet, but all signs point to this being the case). 

[Srolo]

Am I the only one that's more pleased to have your squad mates wear actual clothes instead of skintight jumpsuits or bulky armor that doesn't fit with their character? Why on earth would anybody want to put Thane or SuZe in heavy armor? Or even Miranda for that matter. They're not grunts for the military. Each has a specialization and they wear what is most beneficial and less cumbersome for them to get the job done. I don't know I could be the odd one out but that's just my preference.

[sinosleep]

Zlarm wrote...

While I do disagree with you about the Dragon Age system being bad (doesn't it make sense the armor doesn't change in size depending on who wears it?)  it's not just the hostile environments that I'm totally worried about. I also think it's ridiculous that you can go into combat against heavily armored opponents without the option to put armour on your whole squad (yes I know this hasn't totally been confirmed yet, but all signs point to this being the case). 

I have two problems with this. As far as Dragon Age goes, we're talking about skin tight robes here. Going from skin tight rags, to skin tight robes isn't going to change anyone's bodytype. In Dragon Age and in many other games they do not change body types because of any lore reasons, but because in order to save time it's easier to dump the same armor model on everyone that wears it than it is to model each individual set of armor to each individual character.

As to the armor. The way I see it is this, the squad you are playing with aren't alliance marines, they don't have a dress code and as such can wear whatever they please. Hell, even in today's world, did you know that police AREN'T required to wear body armor in many departments? Sure, they are issued and provided for them, but an officer can go their entire career without wearing one, and many do. It's just a personal thing. So if police officers that know they can wind up in a gun fight on any given day don't have to wear body armor if they don't want to, than SuZe, Miranda, and whoever else on the Normandy doesn't want doesn't have to either. From what I've seen Garrus and Grunt both wear, Jacob and Tali aren't in what you'd call standard gear either. It looks like primarily it's the biotics in the crew that aren't wearing armor, and lore wise they don't need to any way.

All of that aside though, at the end of the day I'll take it for the individuality alone. I postively LOATHE playing a game only to see that everyone on the planet has the same body type, are all the same size, and are all going to have 1 of 8 faces. I'll sacrifice practically anything to maintain at least a tiny bit of individuality.

Modifié par sinosleep, 19 janvier 2010 - 05:40 .

[Zlarm]

sinosleep wrote...

I have two problems with this. As far as Dragon Age goes, we're talking about skin tight robes here. Going from skin tight rags, to skin tight robes isn't going to change anyone's bodytype. In Dragon Age and in many other games they do not change body types because of any lore reasons, but because in order to save time it's easier to dump the same armor model on everyone that wears it than it is to model each individual set of armor to each individual character.

As to the armor. The way I see it is this, the squad you are playing with aren't alliance marines, they don't have a dress code and as such can wear whatever they please. Hell, even in today's world, did you know that police AREN'T required to wear body armor in many departments? Sure, they are issued and provided for them, but an officer can go their entire career without wearing one, and many do. It's just a personal thing. So if police officers that know they can wind up in a gun fight on any given day don't have to wear body armor if they don't want to, than SuZe, Miranda, and whoever else on the Normandy doesn't want doesn't have to either. From what I've seen Garrus and Grunt both wear, Jacob and Tali aren't in what you'd call standard gear either. It looks like primarily it's the biotics in the crew that aren't wearing armor, and lore wise they don't need to any way.

All of that aside though, at the end of the day I'll take it for the individuality alone. I postively LOATHE playing a game only to see that everyone on the planet has the same body type, are all the same size, and are all going to have 1 of 8 faces. I'll sacrifice practically anything to maintain at least a tiny bit of individuality.

I don't think your police comparison here is totally valid. Police officers rarely get in gunfights multiple times a day (of course it depends on the Country).  A more apt comparison would be a soldier going into battle against armored opponents in regular clothes, which seems a little ridiculous.  And while biotics have barrier to protect them wouldn't they want to wear armour anyways in case their barrier went down (I mean they wore armour in ME1)?

As to individuality that's more a personal preference.  I would rather have more armour options for all of my squad members (ala DAO) then worry to much about how their models look the same.  You clearly feel differently. 

Modifié par Zlarm, 20 janvier 2010 - 02:16 .

[Terror_K]

sinosleep wrote...

mewarmo990 wrote...
2 Scram Rails + High Explosive X rounds + shotguns or snipers = fun and OWNAGE

If your idea of fun is one shot then overheat sure. I tried this the other day (originally played on 360, recently purchased for PC so I would have import saves) just to try and find SOME kind of use for high explosive rounds and even with spectre x weapons and 2 frictionless materials best I could do was one shot before overheat. Those rounds are useless.

Also, by the time you get access to scram rails you're doing enough biotic/tech damage/cc where debuffs are entirely unnecessary.

It actually work well with Sniper Rifles. Give Garrus a sniper rifle with that in it and he's a roaming death machine. He shoots less, but pretty much every shot is an instant kill. I gave my Vanguard that in her sniper rifles too, so she can get a single long-distance kill before switching weapons. By the time I want to switch back, it's cooled again.

[MarloMarlo]

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Did you bother actually reading what I wrote before responding to it? At the risk of wasting my time, I will try one last time to clarify. If you'd still rather cast silly little stones than respond constructively, then have at it.

Do you think being constructive means coasting by on nothing statements rather than expecting people to bring more than their tangents and feelings?

SnowHeart1 wrote...
As someone else said, some of the folks "defending" the game in this thread make me want to cry.  If that sounds frustrated and/or pissy, it's because it is. 

Yes, I remember that post. Imagine a world where sounding reasonable means not being specific about your tearful criticism. I don't want to live there; do you?

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Discussing what constitutes an "RPG" opens up a whole new can of worms that isn't worth getting into because it was largely tangential to the post to which I responding (JRPG, RPG, CRPG, Western RPG, stats vs. story, die rolling versus skill based, etc.).  Even people who all claim to be RPG fans will disagree on what constitutes an RPG. More to the point, it isn't necessary in this thread.  Why?

Because instead of talking about the storytelling elements of ME/ME2, the OP was instead talking about some of the underlying mechanics and UIs which have been the traditional underpinnings of most CRPGs.

Imagine another world, where there's a different definition for a word for each person that uses it. Let's take you, for instance. You don't want to talk about what an RPG is. But, like a lot of people talking about it, you sure like to talk about what it is. In fact, you talk about it in the quote of yours I'm replying to.

Why isn't it necessary to define RPGs, you say? Because the OP wasn't talking about storytelling elements -- as if that somehow automatically validated your argument. Either you're describing RPGs as something that has to do with storytelling elements, or you're saying that one thing isn't necessary because of a completely different thing.

This reminds me of the time when the OP said "No, I'm not going to make any sort of speculation about a game I haven't played yet."

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Thus, what we're actually talking about here is about a particilar component of some CRPGs.  It is a component that some fans find very important, others less so.  Indeed, for those who are not fans of CRPGs, it is a component that many cite as a reason as to why they don't like CRPGs.

And I was talking about some of the things you said.

SnowHeart1 wrote...
But my point was, while it doesn't make it sacrosanct, such mechanics HAVE, in fact, been a part of most CRPG games over the last 20 years. You may not like them, and that is fine... That's not the point.  The point is the OP does like them and so do many other people, and yes... it causes them concern and fear to see elements that they might have liked but thought could be improved instead be completely removed from the game.

Yes, and my point was that the people who think that an RPG "necessarily incorporates a lot of the issues talked about by the OP" are wrong. Which is why my argument was written the way it is. I even explained why.

And before you think I left you out, or bunched you up with the wrong crowd, don't forget that you've said that ME2 doesn't really have an inventory system at all. Did you think the part about terminals and Shepard's guns was random? I hope not. It was all for you.

SnowHeart1 wrote...
I feel like you want me to argue opinion as actual fact, and I'm not going to do that, because it's not.

I want everyone to argue their points when they present them. This thread is 12 pages long and filled with mostly nothing because people seem to think an opinion is valid by virtue of existing as text. If you think opinions get a free pass from having to make sense because they're just opinions, consider Sarah Palin's opinion that Fox News "...so values fair and balanced news."

Can't argue with that if you don't think opinions can or need to be argued.

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Wow.  One flip comment after another, and way to completely frakkin' quote without context and *snipping* the rest of the paragraph. I'm sorry, but I do begin to understand why people make snide comments about "reading comprehension".

Really? It's flippant to expect you to deliver on your arguments?

The rest of what you said was irrelevant. All you do is talk about how you think the story will be fine and say armor and ship customization are more storytelling rather than an RPG issues -- whatever that means. Yes, let's talk more about RPGs while simultaneously refusing to talk about what that even means. You know, besides ship fighting.

Maybe I should clarify that you were merely speculating about ship customization. Does speculating about how something can be described as being more or less something you refuse to describe give you constructive posting cred?

SnowHeart1 wrote...
You know, I was trying to be respectful and acknowledge differences of opinion.  I was trying to differentiate between what was relevant to the conversation (underpinning mechanics) and what wasn't (storytelling). You aren't even the author of the post to which I was responding, and instead you came in very aggressively, snidely, and condescending, making comments without context or place.  I really don't appreciate it but, as they say, welcome to the internetz.

Yes, welcome to the Internet, where people who use terms they refuse to define complain about other people taking things out of context. Where unseen and irrelevant intention is supposed to be a defense against criticism over saying things that don't make sense.

And should I be more explicitly sharing what I don't appreciate as well? I'd hate to give you the impression that I consider you to be some blameless innocent. No contesting my points if I do! It's just my opinion, after all!

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Re-read the above, re-read the post you butched in quoting, and then re-read the post to which I was actually responding.  Maybe then you'll understand.  Sorry, but this seriously pissed me off.  You came in mid-way through a conversation, selectively quoted what I wrote and ignored both context and intent. If you didn't mean to be a dick, then fine, I apologize, but seriously...

Wrapping ribbons around a lemon doesn't make it meat.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:14 .

[Seraphael]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Their making the game more acessiable. While shunning some of the original fan-base, they are attracting many new prospective gamers.

Bioware is making the game more accessible by downplaying some of the nonsensical and tedious roleplaying game elements. Some will undubitably feel alienated as they're more concerned about what the genre is supposed to be as opposed to what actually makes a game more fun. At the same time true roleplayers (as opposed to Diablo/WoW-lovers) will love it. If you don't like it - tough ******, only you have the power to actually shun the game.

IMO they've made alot of sideways steps, instead of striaght forward. OK, you add armor customization for shep, but the squad is now reduced to outfits?

How fun was constantly dressing up all your squad mates, most of them only used sporadically, with a crazy amount of ever improving new loot? Boring as hell.

You get rid of medi-gel, and heath auto regens, but you add ammo?

Medi-gel was a poor implementation. Increased health regen (possibly explained in codex as "nanobots" working to heal injury) between combat is a better choice for more flowing gameplay. The ammo-system adds tension, unpredictability and increase the challenge of combat. Combat in ME1 was was for the greater part predictable and devoid of challenge.

Ok now weapons are upgradable, but the ENTIRE inventosy system is gone.

The inventory system in ME1 was a disaster. An inane amount of loot cluttered up everything, it took ages to sell and completely destroyed the economy.

No more Mako mountain climbing, but now it completely removed?

The exploration in ME1 was pretty bad. Illogical too. When you have a whole planet to explore, why is it you only get to run up and down very limited areas? An abstracted system is an improvement. Ideally we would have a true exploration system, but ME2 is already bigger and takes longer to play through than the prequel. We just can't have it all.

Armor is now cosmetically customizable, yet upgrades are gone?

There'll be class specific armour parts. The armour entirely modular and as such, every part can be considered to be upgrades of some sort (each is said to have specific properties and bonuses unless I'm mistaken).

Ammo powers are now player powers, but there are only 4 kinds?

Four kinds that all have four ranks and two specializations each. In addition there will be different types of "ammo"/thermal clips for different weapon types apparently.

I can't judge the game, as it could still be great. But it just seems like BW made alot fo drastic, uncessary design choices.

Either Bioware, which is a large rock-solid company with a reputation for making stellar games, has made a lot of design blunders. Or possibly you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to go with the last possibility, it seems much more likely don't you think?

[Terror_K]

Fun is a point of view. That's why different genres exist in the first place.



And what some find tedious others find deep and involved, and would roll their eyes and think those who get too bored only have short attention spans.



The fact is, ME2 is mixing a genre that is well known for its depth with one that is well known for its base simplicity. Some will look at it and see a shooter with more depth, while others will see it as an RPG with less.

[K3m0sabe]

Removing NPC armours + customization + inventory is overly simplifying a simple RPG system that was Mass Effect 1.

[LurchALC]

K3m0sabe wrote...

Removing NPC armours + customization + inventory is overly simplifying a simple RPG system that was Mass Effect 1.

WARNING! Nuclear Launch Detected!

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

The fact is, ME2 is mixing a genre that is well known for its depth with one that is well known for its base simplicity. Some will look at it and see a shooter with more depth, while others will see it as an RPG with less.

RPG systems can have depth. Whether or not ME1's system had depth is an entirely different matter. I'd argue it didn't. I've stated my reasoning for this many times before, though I'm yet to see any concrete arguments as to why Mass Effect had depth anywhere else but in the story elements. Adding some much needed "simplicity" to the game was the best thing Bioware could've done.

P.s. Still, you'll see me on the front lines complaining if they ever decided to do the same to Dragon Age...it's just not fitting.

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 20 janvier 2010 - 02:19 .

[Nozybidaj]

Srolo wrote...

Am I the only one that's more pleased to have your squad mates wear actual clothes instead of skintight jumpsuits or bulky armor that doesn't fit with their character? Why on earth would anybody want to put Thane or SuZe in heavy armor? Or even Miranda for that matter. They're not grunts for the military. Each has a specialization and they wear what is most beneficial and less cumbersome for them to get the job done. I don't know I could be the odd one out but that's just my preference.

I agree, you're not the only one.

[TheAnima]

DeathCultArm wrote...

That EA logo is on the box...I trust BW, but ALOT of the deisgn choices reek of EA. I know they don't develop the game...but it seems like their influence is being felt.

It is a bit of a rant. Everyone knows the positives of the game, I was shedding light ont he negatives. I was playing devil's advocate. I have the game pre-ordered, so a few complaints are in order.

BioWare IS EA. They're the same company, BioWare is just a smaller subdivision that has a unique perspective on it's RPGs.

[Terror_K]

That's what I don't get: If an RPG purist says ME2 seems lacking in depth or in a deeper RPG system and seems shallow compared to ME1, we get a bunch of people retorting that ME1 wasn't all that deep at all.



So... if ME1 wasn't that deep, then why are you embracing less depth? Why are you encouraging the game to become more simple? It's like saying "this wooden bridge isn't strong enough, so instead of agreeing with the people who want to reinforce it with stone, we'll take a sledgehammer to the supports."

[SurfaceBeneath]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

P.s. Still, you'll see me on the front lines complaining if they ever decided to do the same to Dragon Age...it's just not fitting.

I'm not sure how people can make that slippery slope connection. Dragon Age is and was always meant to be an old school tactical RPG ala Baldur's Gate. Mass Effect was always meant to be an actiony-shooter/RPG. It's not like Bioware did a 180 with Mass Effect 2 by making it slightly more actiony (especially when they added new RPG elements that naysayers don't ever seem to want to address anyway).

I hope that Dragon Age's expansion really explore the tactical aspect of the game and give us much more complicated fights. Oh, but that's probably a discussion for a different forum...

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
So... if ME1 wasn't that deep, then why are you embracing less depth? Why are you encouraging the game to become more simple? It's like saying "this wooden bridge isn't strong enough, so instead of agreeing with the people who want to reinforce it with stone, we'll take a sledgehammer to the supports."

Because people disagree that it is less deep.

[SnowHeart1]

MarloMarlo wrote...

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.  Now I get to try out the new "block user" feature.  Yay! 

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
 (especially when they added new RPG elements that naysayers don't ever seem to want to address anyway).

I've addressed this several times, but will again for your benefit:-

1) These new systems are actually mostly fairly good. There's no sense complaining about good things. However...

2) Many of these factors are mostly aesthetic and/or far removed from the core gameplay now. More like fun little RPG additions that are neat than things that truly add depth to the main facets of the game.

3) We feel that these RPG factors should have been there as well as (most of) the old ones, and not instead of them.

[DocLasty]

That's what I don't get: If an RPG purist says ME2 seems lacking in depth or in a deeper RPG system and seems shallow compared to ME1, we get a bunch of people retorting that ME1 wasn't all that deep at all.







So... if ME1 wasn't that deep, then why are you embracing less depth? Why are you encouraging the game to become more simple? It's like saying "this wooden bridge isn't strong enough, so instead of agreeing with the people who want to reinforce it with stone, we'll take a sledgehammer to the supports."



I'd actually say ME2 is more deep. In ME1, most of the choices for a class were fairly aesthetic; in the end two people playing Sentinels would play about the same way, and have two skill readouts with minor difference. In ME2, those same two people could have wildly different skill readouts and play the same class different ways, depending on what they choose to evolve and focus on.

[Darth_Shizz]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

P.s. Still, you'll see me on the front lines complaining if they ever decided to do the same to Dragon Age...it's just not fitting.

I'm not sure how people can make that slippery slope connection. Dragon Age is and was always meant to be an old school tactical RPG ala Baldur's Gate. Mass Effect was always meant to be an actiony-shooter/RPG. It's not like Bioware did a 180 with Mass Effect 2 by making it slightly more actiony (especially when they added new RPG elements that naysayers don't ever seem to want to address anyway).

I hope that Dragon Age's expansion really explore the tactical aspect of the game and give us much more complicated fights. Oh, but that's probably a discussion for a different forum...

I figure this wasn't aimed so much at me? Seeing as I don't expect them to do that to dragon age, hence "it's just not fitting" and my arguments over me1/2

[SurfaceBeneath]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

I figure this wasn't aimed so much at me? Seeing as I don't expect them to do that to dragon age, hence "it's just not fitting" and my arguments over me1/2

No no, of course I wasn't.

But some people have made that connection. Which is baffling I tell you! BAFFLEING! 

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

2) Many of these factors are mostly aesthetic and/or far removed from the core gameplay now. More like fun little RPG additions that are neat than things that truly add depth to the main facets of the game.

I disagree. Researching is now an entirely new way to progress as a character and Loyalty provides very real statisitical benefit to your party for developing them as well. Also, the new leveling system shows a lot more promise and flexibility, with not all characters of the same class playing the same way depending on how you choose to develop your skills.

3) We feel that these RPG factors should have been there as well as (most of) the old ones, and not instead of them.

Nothing that was taken away from the game was worth being there in any form anyway (except the Mako sections, which I disliked, but I did like exploring so I felt like that could have been expanded upon... but that's neither here nor there as that is not an RPG element any more than the shooting is). Mass Effect 1 was Bioware's first shooter-based RPG, and many of the systems that were in ME1 were holdovers from what they as a company were familiar with. I think they know good and well what worked and what didn't and what will make for a better game.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 20 janvier 2010 - 02:55 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Claiming that a bunch of stats are what make up even PART of the identity of Mass Effect, is actually incredibly demeaning to what is otherwise a brilliantly crafted game.

Where is that claim?

So far, all your complaints have been regarding the removal of a stat based combat system/stat progression. So whilst you never specifically stated "Mass Effect is not Mass Effect without stats", it's still not incredibly difficult to come to that conclusion.

The removal of some stats (which have or have not been replaced by others) did cause a change. True. But that is not what mainly concerns me. It is a combination of things. The focus is the removed henchmen which were a substantial part of my player characters' histories, the removal of some old stats, and the change in "morale" of the new characters. You see, the new stats have changed drastically and caused that the old ones cannot be imported. Tell me that is not true. And I didn't even discuss if I liked those changes or not. Also, because of the henchmen changes a part of my history gets lost and the new henchmen have a rather different "morality" than my pragmatic paragon and are probably incompatible with most of the new ones. What concerns me is that these changes will cause my characters to lose their identity. For an example the way I have build my team has been become unimportant. I might as well start over. That is what I said. It looks like you didn't catch that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:02 .