340 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth_Shizz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

*snip

That is what I said. It looks like you didn't catch that.

Looks like you didn't catch anything.

[akintu]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
The removal of some stats (which have or have not been replaced by others) did cause a change.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. I looks like you didn't catch that.

I think you're blowing the changes in squad make up out of proportion.  Tali and Garrus will be members.  Wrex is in game, but doing important things.  Liara/Kaiden/Ashley are probably around and likely up to important things as well.  You don't know the personalities of the characters well enough at this point.  They may seem superficially renegade, but I suspect there will be surprising depth to most of them.  And this is just my assumption, but I think it is likely more original squad members will be rejoining us in ME3.  I'm assuming they have roles that are important for storyline reasons in ME3, and therefore cannot be allowed to die in ME2, unlike all of our ME2 squad members, who are basically expendable in terms of the ME3 conclusion.  

That's just my guess, but this is part two in a trilogy.  You can't really judge a character's absence until we get the ME3 conclusion of the story.  I don't think we can assume they have been "written out" simply because they are not in ME2.

[DocLasty]

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.

First off, two of the teammates are still on your squad. One's dead, anyway. From one of the SyFy videos, it seems the human love interest you had plays a fairly big role in events. We don't know what Wrex's role is, but it seems like he'll have a pretty big role when you're on Tuchunka. Just because three of the characters from the first game aren't squad members anymore doesn't mean that they're gone completely or that their stories have stopped, and it doesn't mean that the things you did with them are moot.

Secondly, there's no reason to think that every single new squad member is EVIL. It honestly seems about half-half.

Grunt: A bit rough around the egdes, yes. He likes to fight, but at least greed isn't a big factor, like for most Krogan. He just enjoys a good battle. Doesn't make him a bad person. Renegade
Subject Zero: Aggressive, yes. Doesn't mean she's a bad person, exactly. Renegade.
Samara: She's a vigilante, basically. She's dedicated her entire life to fighting against injustice and crime. Paragon.
Jacob: Hard to say since he joined Cerberus, but in ME Galaxies he seemed like a decent guy. Paragon.
Garrus: Probably depends on how you taught him in the first game. For you, Paragon.
Mordin: Difficult to say, but it does seem like he genuinely wants to help people, even if that means he has to get his hands dirty from time to time. Not much info on him, so we'll say he falls somewhere in between.
Miranda: She fights for humanity and genuinely wants to see it advance and thrive, and she wants to save people. She's blunt about it and doesn't have much tolerance for crap, but that doesn't mean she's 'scum'. I'd actually put her somewhere in the middle, too. Hard to really judge.
Legion: ...?
Tali: Paragon.

The only two characters I'd unquestionably put in the renegade category are Grunt and SuZe, and if I were a betting man I'd say that you can actually skip recruiting them if you so choose.

For an example the way I have build my team has been become unimportant.

It's about as important as it was before, in all honestly. You want to create a balanced team so that you're ready to fight just about anything that comes your way. I'm going with an Infiltrator character, so I'll probably have Samara for her biotic skills, and Grunt because I need a close-ranged sort of guy to back me up while I'm sniping.

I might as well start over.

You can, but there's no point, at least when you have perfectly good saves.

Modifié par DocLasty, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:17 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

alex_ladik wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
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. I looks like you didn't catch that.

I think you're blowing the changes in squad make up out of proportion.  Tali and Garrus will be members.  Wrex is in game, but doing important things.  Liara/Kaiden/Ashley are probably around and likely up to important things as well.  You don't know the personalities of the characters well enough at this point.  They may seem superficially renegade, but I suspect there will be surprising depth to most of them.  And this is just my assumption, but I think it is likely more original squad members will be rejoining us in ME3.  I'm assuming they have roles that are important for storyline reasons in ME3, and therefore cannot be allowed to die in ME2, unlike all of our ME2 squad members, who are basically expendable in terms of the ME3 conclusion.  

That's just my guess, but this is part two in a trilogy.  You can't really judge a character's absence until we get the ME3 conclusion of the story.  I don't think we can assume they have been "written out" simply because they are not in ME2.

I am not blowing it out of proportion, because I cannot influence those NPCs which are not henchmen. Who cares that Wrex has a cameo if I had him in my team most of the time. Who cares if I can kiss Liara one more time if she used to be a permanent member. Etc. The way that team was build defined how I build my character. To me it was a balanced team. Nothing left of it now.

I am not convinced that my player character is happy in this new game for reasons mentioned earlier. And one more time... Maybe it all works out fine and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Next week I will have my answer.

[Darth_Shizz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am not convinced that my player character is happy in this new game for reasons mentioned earlier. And one more time... Maybe it all works out fine and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Next week I will have my answer.

I am quite convinced that your player character also realises that they have bigger problems to worry about, than who they go to the fair with 

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:54 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am not convinced that my player character is happy in this new game for reasons mentioned earlier. And one more time... Maybe it all works out fine and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Next week I will have my answer.

I am quite convinced that your player character also realises that they have bigger problems to worry about, than who they go to the fair with 

Exactly. One of them, a pragmatic paragon (which I used in this thread as an example), is already scratching her head.

[akintu]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am not convinced that my player character is happy in this new game for reasons mentioned earlier. And one more time... Maybe it all works out fine and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Next week I will have my answer.

I am quite convinced that your player character also realises that they have bigger problems to worry about, than who they go to the fair with 

Exactly. One of them, a pragmatic paragon (which I used in this thread as an example), is already scratching her head.

Well, if she's pragmatic, I'm sure she can roll with the punches 

[DocLasty]

I am not blowing it out of proportion, because I cannot influence those NPCs which are not henchmen. Who cares that Wrex has a cameo if I had him in my team most of the time. Who cares if I can kiss Liara one more time if she used to be a permanent member. Etc. The way that team was build defined how I build my character. To me it was a balanced team. Nothing left of it now.





GARRUS. TALI. You'll be doing more in this game with both of them than you ever did in ME1. In ME1, they both had relatively small parts, and a really small mission tied. In ME2, they play much bigger, expanded roles.



We don't know what role Wrex plays in ME2 exactly or how prominent he was in ME1, but it's not like he was all that important of a figure before, anyway. I like Wrex, don't get me wrong, but he had one minor mission tied to him and had little impact on anything. For all we know, he plays a bigger role here than he did before - it's not hard to imagine. And it's not like having Wrex or Liara on your team made them any more important to the storyline. They were just there and said stuff.

[Darth_Shizz]

DocLasty wrote...


GARRUS. TALI. You'll be doing more in this game with both of them than you ever did in ME1. In ME1, they both had relatively small parts, and a really small mission tied. In ME2, they play much bigger, expanded roles.

Especially Tali.

*nudge*

*wink* 

[AngryFrozenWater]

DocLasty wrote...

I am not blowing it out of proportion, because I cannot influence those NPCs which are not henchmen. Who cares that Wrex has a cameo if I had him in my team most of the time. Who cares if I can kiss Liara one more time if she used to be a permanent member. Etc. The way that team was build defined how I build my character. To me it was a balanced team. Nothing left of it now.


GARRUS. TALI. You'll be doing more in this game with both of them than you ever did in ME1. In ME1, they both had relatively small parts, and a really small mission tied. In ME2, they play much bigger, expanded roles.

We don't know what role Wrex plays in ME2 exactly or how prominent he was in ME1, but it's not like he was all that important of a figure before, anyway. I like Wrex, don't get me wrong, but he had one minor mission tied to him and had little impact on anything. For all we know, he plays a bigger role here than he did before - it's not hard to imagine. And it's not like having Wrex or Liara on your team made them any more important to the storyline. They were just there and said stuff.

Your response has no meaning to the point I made. You still don't get it.

[Darth_Shizz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

DocLasty wrote...

I am not blowing it out of proportion, because I cannot influence those NPCs which are not henchmen. Who cares that Wrex has a cameo if I had him in my team most of the time. Who cares if I can kiss Liara one more time if she used to be a permanent member. Etc. The way that team was build defined how I build my character. To me it was a balanced team. Nothing left of it now.


GARRUS. TALI. You'll be doing more in this game with both of them than you ever did in ME1. In ME1, they both had relatively small parts, and a really small mission tied. In ME2, they play much bigger, expanded roles.

We don't know what role Wrex plays in ME2 exactly or how prominent he was in ME1, but it's not like he was all that important of a figure before, anyway. I like Wrex, don't get me wrong, but he had one minor mission tied to him and had little impact on anything. For all we know, he plays a bigger role here than he did before - it's not hard to imagine. And it's not like having Wrex or Liara on your team made them any more important to the storyline. They were just there and said stuff.

Your response has no meaning to the point I made. You still don't get it.

But he does get it. The problem is, you're arguing that the identity of Mass Effect is dependant on such things as keeping exactly the same lineup of characters from the first game in the series and/or not being forced to work alongside "scum" (I'm just going to assume you're talking about the game, as opposed to the mass Effect universe in general...else your claims would be even more unfounded). You're then taking this story progression, and essentially telling us, that you can no longer role play your character, because there has been too much change. It just sounds to me as if you're using roleplay as an excuse to whine about a shift to elements you don't particularly like, because (and I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you) when it comes to roleplay, you can certainly make anything work.

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 20 janvier 2010 - 04:54 .

[MarloMarlo]

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.  Now I get to try out the new "block user" feature.  Yay! 

Weren't you already doing that to both our accounts?

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 20 janvier 2010 - 04:44 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

DocLasty wrote...

I am not blowing it out of proportion, because I cannot influence those NPCs which are not henchmen. Who cares that Wrex has a cameo if I had him in my team most of the time. Who cares if I can kiss Liara one more time if she used to be a permanent member. Etc. The way that team was build defined how I build my character. To me it was a balanced team. Nothing left of it now.


GARRUS. TALI. You'll be doing more in this game with both of them than you ever did in ME1. In ME1, they both had relatively small parts, and a really small mission tied. In ME2, they play much bigger, expanded roles.

We don't know what role Wrex plays in ME2 exactly or how prominent he was in ME1, but it's not like he was all that important of a figure before, anyway. I like Wrex, don't get me wrong, but he had one minor mission tied to him and had little impact on anything. For all we know, he plays a bigger role here than he did before - it's not hard to imagine. And it's not like having Wrex or Liara on your team made them any more important to the storyline. They were just there and said stuff.

Your response has no meaning to the point I made. You still don't get it.

But he does get it. The problem is, you're arguing that the identity of Mass Effect is dependant on such things as keeping exactly the same lineup of characters from the first game in the series and/or not being forced to work alongside "scum" (I'm just going to assume you're talking about the game, as opposed to the mass Effect universe in general...else your claims would be even more unfounded). You're then taking this story progression, and essentially telling us, that you can no longer role play your character, because there has been too much change. It just sounds to me as if you're using roleplay as an excuse to whine about a shift to elements you don't particularly like, because (and I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you) when it comes to roleplay, you can certainly make anything work.

Ah. The whine argument. Yes. That makes sense.

[caveflea]

i wished they had removed all the RPG and all the shooter elements. that would make it a much better game.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

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.

Research feels shallow though. I like it, don't get me wrong, but I'd like it there in addition to a good looting system instead of it. Now the looting in ME2 seems almost non-existent and there's no surprise as to what we're getting when we're specifically researching select upgrades rather than randomly finding new items.

Loyalty I'm still divided on, as it depends how it's done. I don't like the idea, for example, that I'd have to take every single character with me at some point to gain loyalty for them all. It's better to take a select squad that compliments your play style, not have to chop and change just because one hasn't taken Grunt and Morlan enough. Loyalty should mostly be determined through Normandy interactions and doing their personal missions. It lessens replayability when one has to take everybody with them on a playthrough at some count multiple times because then every playthrough will mostly be the same if one wants to succeed, as opposed to playing one Shepard who takes Miranda and Jacob mostly, and then another one who mostly has Tali and Thane, etc. But again, this all depends how it's done, so I'm reserving judgment on this factor.

The leveling system to me seems more shallow. Now there's basically only class skills to develop and that's about it. The branching off is the exception, but aside from that it's very base and simple compared to ME1 where one had to develop their weapon skills, armour ability, decryption, healing, etc. on top of their class skills. Sure, the classes are more diverse, but without the basic statistical factors that should define every Shepard no matter what their class this is pointless. It's little different now to an old shoot-em up game where between levels one spends credits or points to purchase new powers before going onto the next level (anybody remember Xenon 2: Megablast from The Bitmap Brothers?)

I think the following is a good analogy of how I feel about ME2 compared to ME1, and why I feel the stuff in ME2 is less tied to the core gameplay. Keep in mind, before anybody jumps and yells "that's a poor analogy!" that this is how I feel about it and I'm not claiming that this is factually the case or an analogy that suits everybody.

Think of Mass Effect as a fairly new car... a couple of years old at the most. This car has four wheels, four doors, a steering wheel, a manual gearbox, windows, seatbelts, an engine, air con, a stereo, and a GPS system. That's it for the most part, it's a pretty simple car.

Now, this car has a few odd problems here and there. The radio is a bit crackly sometimes, the air con sometimes doesn't work and fifth gear can be a bit dodgy. It also lacks power steering. Apart from that, it works great.

Then, it's time for Mass Effect 2 to come along and so changes need to be made. The first thing that's added is a power-steering system (aka the stats-based shooting is replaced by twitch-based shooter style shooting) which makes things a bit smoother to steer, but means the car lacks a bit of the personality it once had. This is a personal thing though and can be overlooked or not depending on the driver.

However, aside from that, the doors and windows are removed, the air con taken out and replaced by a standard fan-heater instead of being repaired, the GPS removed entirely along with the stereo. An automatic gearbox is put in that does a lot of stuff for you now rather than giving you as much control as you once had, even though fifth gear now works. Instead of replacement windows, doors, stereo and GPS the car gets a bunch of neon lights, some spinning chrome rims, flame decals, personalised licence plates and an overly big spoiler, along with a new paint job.

This is how I feel ME2 is now: that despite the odd improvement here and there for the most part they've gutted a bunch of features from the original that may have not been perfect but defined what it was and were useful, only to replace most of them with a bunch of brand new, G'ed up features and additions that make the whole thing look cool but lack any real truly practical or defining features.

[Schneidend]

Both the shooter elements and the RPG elements are being made deeper and more streamlined. No RPG elements have been removed.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K: taking analogies to the funny, yet sad pointless extreme.

[Murmillos]

Schneidend wrote...

Both the shooter elements and the RPG elements are being made deeper and more streamlined. No RPG elements have been removed.

Well.. that depends on how you feel about squad based parties.  Most (not all) had some semi requirement that you have a party mix up of different members who could perform the different functions required (given) by the game.

Some are very restrictive (meaning poor balance means a very hard un-rewarding game), others are casual about it (you don't need do it, but if you want the best, full game possible and not miss out on anything - its best that you do).

ME2 is taking out the element that you need a "rogue/tech" squad member to unlock all your loot. 
For ME1, there was only one major issue with the tech problem tho, you needed to dump too many points too quickly into the 2 skills or you'd be running into loot you couldn't unlock really quickly.

Not that there wasn't a good selection. Kaidan, Garrus or Tali if your PC was not tech based (Sentinal, Infil, Engineer)

Modifié par Murmillos, 21 janvier 2010 - 08:40 .

[Schneidend]

Murmillos wrote...

ME2 is taking out the element that you need a "rogue/tech" squad member to unlock all your loot. 
For ME1, there was only one major issue with the tech problem tho, you needed to dump too many points too quickly into the 2 skills or you'd be running into loot you couldn't unlock really quickly.

Not that there wasn't a good selection. Kaidan, Garrus or Tali if your PC was not tech based (Sentinal, Infil, Engineer)

Hm, a fair point. I always had Tali, Kaiden, or Garrus, and always focused on those skills to upgrade their shields and make Overload as deadly as it could be. Therefore, it hardly affected me at all...

...Also, SEND YOUR FLEET IN. <Dramatic fist clench>

[Terror_K]

Yeah, well... that's kind of the point of good RPG's as far as I'm concerned. You take a rogue to unlock chests and a techie to do tech stuff. And like you said, it's not as if there weren't plenty of choices. And it's not like Tali wasn't kickass with a shotgun and Garrus kickass with a sniper rifle to boot, so they hardly sucked combat wise.

[Murmillos]

O.. I even remember once, doing myself as a Adept, I took Decryption as my bonus and rolled with Liara (electronics) and Wrex. That was fun.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, well... that's kind of the point of good RPG's as far as I'm concerned. You take a rogue to unlock chests and a techie to do tech stuff. And like you said, it's not as if there weren't plenty of choices. And it's not like Tali wasn't kickass with a shotgun and Garrus kickass with a sniper rifle to boot, so they hardly sucked combat wise.

Weren't they always firing into the walls and invisible pixies anyway? (the next over exaggerated problem with ME1)

[Terror_K]

Perhaps in the 360 version... I don't recall having many problems with them in the PC one. At least not to that degree.

[Darth_Shizz]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Research feels shallow though. I like it, don't get me wrong, but I'd like it there in addition to a good looting system instead of it. Now the looting in ME2 seems almost non-existent and there's no surprise as to what we're getting when we're specifically researching select upgrades rather than randomly finding new items. [/quote]

I personally prefer the idea of research over looting, as it just seems to fit more to the genre (a sci-fi over fantasy debate, rather than rpg). I for one LOVE a good loot system, however, I can understand  the reasoning behind taking this route. The idea of a spectre filling his pack up with Greater Health Potions, and Studded Leather Armour +1s...with the occasional Shaft of the Mountain Destroyer thrown in for good measure. It just doesn't feel right to me personally. 

To be succinct; not every convention of the RPG is bound to work in every RPG made. This becomes even clearer when dealing with hybrids.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Loyalty I'm still divided on, as it depends how it's done. I don't like the idea, for example, that I'd have to take every single character with me at some point to gain loyalty for them all. It's better to take a select squad that compliments your play style, not have to chop and change just because one hasn't taken Grunt and Morlan enough. Loyalty should mostly be determined through Normandy interactions and doing their personal missions. It lessens replayability when one has to take everybody with them on a playthrough at some count multiple times because then every playthrough will mostly be the same if one wants to succeed, as opposed to playing one Shepard who takes Miranda and Jacob mostly, and then another one who mostly has Tali and Thane, etc. But again, this all depends how it's done, so I'm reserving judgment on this factor.[/quote]

As you've said, it's probably best to just see how this works out. I've actually not seen much information on the loyalty system myself, but from what I've seen you type here, I take it that it's pretty different to the relationship system used in DAO? 

Either way, I'm probably going to stick to a consistent party throughout the game, maybe occasionally switching it up depending on the mission (story missions, etc). I'd be surprised if BW punished you for this. Infact, I'd be very surprised if this didn't lead to some nice variation when it came to story outcomes.[/quote]

[quote]
The leveling system to me seems more shallow. Now there's basically only class skills to develop and that's about it. The branching off is the exception, but aside from that it's very base and simple compared to ME1 where one had to develop their weapon skills, armour ability, decryption, healing, etc. on top of their class skills. Sure, the classes are more diverse, but without the basic statistical factors that should define every Shepard no matter what their class this is pointless. It's little different now to an old shoot-em up game where between levels one spends credits or points to purchase new powers before going onto the next level (anybody remember Xenon 2: Megablast from The Bitmap Brothers?)[/quote]

I can see where you're coming from here. On the one hand, stats are no longer going to affect EVERY aspect of Shepard et al; a Soldier can decide to use practically any weapon at hand with as much proficiency as you can muster between your eyes and hands...this definitely brings it into shooter territory. However, in doing this, they've also placed certain restrictions on other classes, such as changing the way bonus talents work, or even limiting weapon usage by class. I believe this is a definite advantage when it comes to emphasising and clearly defining squadmate roles within a party...at least in theory.  In no way should this be considered pointless. 

[quote]
I think the following is a good analogy of how I feel about ME2 compared to ME1, and why I feel the stuff in ME2 is less tied to the core gameplay. Keep in mind, before anybody jumps and yells "that's a poor analogy!" that this is how I feel about it and I'm not claiming that this is factually the case or an analogy that suits everybody.

Think of Mass Effect as a fairly new car... a couple of years old at the most. This car has four wheels, four doors, a steering wheel, a manual gearbox, windows, seatbelts, an engine, air con, a stereo, and a GPS system. That's it for the most part, it's a pretty simple car.

Now, this car has a few odd problems here and there. The radio is a bit crackly sometimes, the air con sometimes doesn't work and fifth gear can be a bit dodgy. It also lacks power steering. Apart from that, it works great.

Then, it's time for Mass Effect 2 to come along and so changes need to be made. The first thing that's added is a power-steering system (aka the stats-based shooting is replaced by twitch-based shooter style shooting) which makes things a bit smoother to steer, but means the car lacks a bit of the personality it once had. This is a personal thing though and can be overlooked or not depending on the driver.

However, aside from that, the doors and windows are removed, the air con taken out and replaced by a standard fan-heater instead of being repaired, the GPS removed entirely along with the stereo. An automatic gearbox is put in that does a lot of stuff for you now rather than giving you as much control as you once had, even though fifth gear now works. Instead of replacement windows, doors, stereo and GPS the car gets a bunch of neon lights, some spinning chrome rims, flame decals, personalised licence plates and an overly big spoiler, along with a new paint job.

This is how I feel ME2 is now: that despite the odd improvement here and there for the most part they've gutted a bunch of features from the original that may have not been perfect but defined what it was and were useful, only to replace most of them with a bunch of brand new, G'ed up features and additions that make the whole thing look cool but lack any real truly practical or defining features.[/quote]

It's actually a pretty sound analogy for your feelings on the subject 

Believe me, I'm not here to ****** all over the people that don't like change. I can totally empathise with you, and I'm pretty sure others can too. Let's face it, we're all gamers here, and know how bad it feels to see changes you don't particularly agree with made to a game you love. 

Still, giving ME2 a chance before calling it a sell-out. A shift to mainstream. An attempt to grab the Twitch-Market and give the finger to RPG fans*. That is really the best course of action. I'm confident that for every convention of the RPG that you find missing in ME2, you'll also find one added that actually makes you take a step back and think "hey...I can't believe that was missing last time around...how cool!". 

*This wasn't actually aimed at anyone btw.

[quote]Murmillos wrote...

Weren't they always firing into the walls and invisible pixies anyway? (the next over exaggerated problem with ME1)

[/quote]

I always heard that Garrus was insane with a SR...at least on the uncharted planets 

I think most of the problems with AI came down to the lack of ability to control their positioning; often, I'd order my squad to take cover at a doorway, or behind a box, and find that they spent half the time bumping into each other, standing out in the open, or shooting in completely the wrong direction, all because 2 people trying to take cover in certain areas screwed with pathing so much. Of course, this was only really an issue on the 360 as Terror mentioned. Though in fairness, the AI has its moments, even on the PC 0_o

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ah. The whine argument. Yes. That makes sense.

[/quote]

Congratulations on that response...would you be less hurt if I changed the word to complain? 

Seriously though, if I'm way off the mark with my interpretation of your complaint, feel free to correct me. To me, it looks as if your main problem is regarding two aspects of ME2:

1) Stat-based combat being removed
2) The story not fitting neatly with your idea of how your character should be.

Believe me, I get the second point. As I said however, in roleplay, assuming you have the creativity to create a fitting justification for why your character just ate a kitten, or even pooped on the bible, then there's nothing stopping you from creating a Paragon of Virtue that may occasionally have to toe the hard line in order to get through a certain situation. 

Whether or not you WANT to have to justify that though? That's a different matter entirely. Whilst Mass Effect and other VGs have offered us a great deal of roleplay choice, at their core, they're still only a bunch of code/polygons that have been bundled together by Creators whose ideas of what constitutes art and good fiction/gameplay/RP opportunities, aren't necessarily going to be the same as every person that plays said game. Besides a tabletop RPG, have you ever found a game which offers such unlimited freedom?

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:34 .

[Schneidend]

[quote]Murmillos wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, well... that's kind of the point of good RPG's as far as I'm concerned. You take a rogue to unlock chests and a techie to do tech stuff. And like you said, it's not as if there weren't plenty of choices. And it's not like Tali wasn't kickass with a shotgun and Garrus kickass with a sniper rifle to boot, so they hardly sucked combat wise.[/quote]

The point of an RPG, like any game, is to have fun, to entertain you. If having to bring a thief, rogue, or engineer along is fun for you, that's fine, but plenty of RPGs get along just fine without. Bioware is under no obligation to include such mechanics. Besides, what difference does it make, anyway? There is still hacking, it's just you don't need Tali to do it. If you're the type who always brings a Sentinel, Infiltrator, or Engineer along, like myself, the effect is the same. Just pretend they're handling it instead of Non-TechShep.


[quote]Weren't they always firing into the walls and invisible pixies anyway? (the next over exaggerated problem with ME1)

[/quote]

Actually I found Tali was pretty accurate. Saved me a few times in the thorian fight. I put High Explosive rounds in her shotgon and she was flinging creepers all over the place. I then later forgot she had said mods, and she knocked down a sniper before said sniper could perforate me with an Assassinate.