233 réponses à ce sujet

[Daeion]

Fredvdp wrote...

To me role playing is about playing a role and there are few games that do it as well as Mass Effect. I don't care about level, stats, inventory, etc. as long as I get to direct the story through my character.

So then Halo and Gears are RPGs?

[SurfaceBeneath]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
I don't think he cares what it is labeled, he cares what it IS.

ME1 = rpg with shooter elements.
ME2 = shooter with rpg elements

Not everybody likes games that are primarily shooters.

Except Mass Effect 2 isn't any more of a shooter or less of an RPG than ME1

[KainrycKarr]

X2-Elijah wrote...

I don't. By the question I asked what 'kind' of game experience it provides, not what label it has. I wanted to know if it will play like an old-fashion traditional rpg (somethign along the lines of Fallout 3, at least), or like a third-person shooter, like Gears of war.

The majority of people here seemed to understand the question. Why didn't you?

Because it plays like neither. It plays like freaking Mass Effect 2. There is no comparable game to ME1, or 2.

I smells trollin'.

[Daeion]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
I don't think he cares what it is labeled, he cares what it IS.

ME1 = rpg with shooter elements.
ME2 = shooter with rpg elements

Not everybody likes games that are primarily shooters.

Except Mass Effect 2 isn't any more of a shooter or less of an RPG than ME1

That's debatable at this time since only a lucky few have palyed the game yet.  I think one of the thing that makes people concerned, myself included, is that while the tagline for ME was that was roleplaying perfected and now all we hear about is the intence shooter gameplay.  Also, if they got rid of target assist like the OP mentioned was one of his concerns and everything is twitch based, then it could seem to have shifted it's focus.  Now that's not to say that Shooters can't have great stories or be well written, I'd say ODST was fairly well done, however just because it's a great story and you take on the role of the rookie doesn't make it an RPG.

[lord magnious]

I like the OP.



People told him/her what the mechanics are like, he didn't like them, so he let it go and moved on.



He/she didn't make a big deal about it.



That's what some people on this forum should do, instead of braking their fingers complaining, they should let it go.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Daeion wrote...

That's debatable at this time since only a lucky few have palyed the game yet.  I think one of the thing that makes people concerned, myself included, is that while the tagline for ME was that was roleplaying perfected and now all we hear about is the intence shooter gameplay.  Also, if they got rid of target assist like the OP mentioned was one of his concerns and everything is twitch based, then it could seem to have shifted it's focus.  Now that's not to say that Shooters can't have great stories or be well written, I'd say ODST was fairly well done, however just because it's a great story and you take on the role of the rookie doesn't make it an RPG.

Got rid of target assist? ME1 had no target assist. You had to aim at the enemy, fire, and then an arbitrary number determined whether your shot hit or not.

And the shooter parts have been shown off most, but that's because ME1's were lacking, roleplaying elements are something that is very difficult to get across in previews (especially without spoilers), and combat gets across very easily and attracts a broad range of players, so that's obviously what they would do. Old fans would look at the game and say, "Hey, they improved the combat that was pretty lacking in the first... awesome!" while new players will say, "Hey, that looks really fun, I think I'll pick that up!" They were just making the most effective use of their marketing capital.

That doesn't mean there are fewer RPG elements and I've argued before that there are actually quite a few new RPG systems in work now than before.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Got rid of target assist? ME1 had no target assist. You had to aim at the enemy, fire, and then an arbitrary number determined whether your shot hit or not.

Beg pardon? Go to settings---> Gameplay and lo and behold you find targeting assist.

And the "arbitrary number" has to do with the skill of the character. An rpg is about the skills/stats of the character, not the player. ME 1 had actual weapon and armor skills. The skill of the character mattered in the rpg. Imagine that.

And the shooter parts have been shown off most, but that's because ME1's were lacking, roleplaying elements are something that is very difficult to get across in previews (especially without spoilers), and combat gets across very easily and attracts a broad range of players, so that's obviously what they would do. Old fans would look at the game and say, "Hey, they improved the combat that was pretty lacking in the first... awesome!" while new players will say, "Hey, that looks really fun, I think I'll pick that up!" They were just making the most effective use of their marketing capital.

The fans who are primarily rpg fans say "What the heck happened to all the rpg elements? The fans who are mostly shooter oriented say ,"Woot, combat has been improved."

I thought ME1 combat was just fine.

That doesn't mean there are fewer RPG elements and I've argued before that there are actually quite a few new RPG systems in work now than before.

Sure it does. People (including me) have named lots of rpg elements that have been removed. And then we are inevitably called trolls and haters for saying so.

I think pretty much every review has said the the rpg elements have been dumbed down. I guess it is all one giant conspiracy.

I like rpgs and shooters though I am primarily a rpg fan. I'm sure that when I get my hands on my copy tomorrow I'll have lots of fun. But I'm also sure from what I've read that the game is now a shooter with rpg elements rather than a rpg with shooter elements.

[Kusy]

It's a trading card game. You fight the Collectors to collect them all - they have certain decks that they don't want to trade so you have to beat 62 gym leaders. Sorry for spoiling.

[averbalin]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

vashts1985 wrote...

So.. Is this an RPG or Third-person shooter?

why do you care so much what its labeled?

I don't think he cares what it is labeled, he cares what it IS.

ME1 = rpg with shooter elements.
ME2 = shooter with rpg elements

Not everybody likes games that are primarily shooters.

And by that token not everybody likes games that are primarily RPGs

[MMonkeyking]

i dont care how to define mass effect 2, its a bioware game... and a very good one at that

[MisterMonkeyBanana]

As someone said, its a shooter and a RPG.



And I like the fact that the combat has been made to be more like a shooter, to me it fits the setting and the game more (dice rolling and guns just doesn't work in my mind when I think "standard" FPS combat works better for guns).



But the talking, storytelling and everything else seems firmly like a RPG, unlike a TPS or FPS where the story components aren't interactive at all and just a cutscene (or even worse, brr... a quick time event) or even a loading screen.

[KainrycKarr]

MisterMonkeyBanana wrote...

As someone said, its a shooter and a RPG.

And I like the fact that the combat has been made to be more like a shooter, to me it fits the setting and the game more (dice rolling and guns just doesn't work in my mind when I think "standard" FPS combat works better for guns).

But the talking, storytelling and everything else seems firmly like a RPG, unlike a TPS or FPS where the story components aren't interactive at all and just a cutscene (or even worse, brr... a quick time event) or even a loading screen.

And here is why I will never understand why ME2 is considered by many to be a shooter.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Beg pardon? Go to settings---> Gameplay and lo and behold you find targeting assist.

And the "arbitrary number" has to do with the skill of the character. An rpg is about the skills/stats of the character, not the player. ME 1 had actual weapon and armor skills. The skill of the character mattered in the rpg. Imagine that.

I did not know there was a target assist in ME1. Is this something that's only on the Xbox version (many console shooters have that option where their PC counterparts do not)? Is there any reason to believe that it's been taken away? Either way it doesn't matter much. You're still having to do two seperate things to hit the target, first being aiming at it and the second being getting past the skill check to hit it. Does that make sense to you? Do you think that that makes for a better game? Accuracy essentially only adds to your damage over time anyway, so is this any different than simply saying every shot (when aimed properly) hits and then you upgrade your damage rather than have to upgrade two seperate things that accomplish the exact same goal?

The fans who are primarily rpg fans say "What the heck happened to all the rpg elements? The fans who are mostly shooter oriented say ,"Woot, combat has been improved."

I thought ME1 combat was just fine.

Welcome to the minority. Combat in ME1 was lackluster. Sorry. ME2's combat has been improved greatly. Also, the fans who are true rpg fans notice that there is now more class customization, a research system that allows a seperate means of progression, a new interupt dialogue system, more in depth squaddies along with full fledged personal quests for each, a plot that meaningfully takes the actions of the player in to account, enemies that are weaker to certain types of damage, and several other features that are important to roleplayers.

The only "roleplay" elements that were removed were in fact "micromanagement" elements that burdened the original game and were completely unneccesary.

Sure it does. People (including me) have named lots of rpg elements that have been removed. And then we are inevitably called trolls and haters for saying so.

I think pretty much every review has said the the rpg elements have been dumbed down. I guess it is all one giant conspiracy.

I like rpgs and shooters though I am primarily a rpg fan. I'm sure that when I get my hands on my copy tomorrow I'll have lots of fun. But I'm also sure from what I've read that the game is now a shooter with rpg elements rather than a rpg with shooter elements.

No, you're just called petty and short sighted. I'm primarily an RPG fan too ( my two absolute favorite games are the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape Torment) and it doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see that the pounds ME2 shed were all in the right places, while it bulked up in places that needed the improvement, including in the cranial region. Calling it dumbed down is frankly idiotic: the original game's combat was effin retarded (Combat class? Activate immunity and ignore everything besides shooting. Tech class? Chain sabotage enemies so they can never fire. Biotics class? Singularity/lift an entire room and kill enemies while they cannot attack you). The original game's inventory was effin retarded (1 upgrade for every 50 items you picked up. Credits become useless after you buy your one specter weapon so you have no reason to be collecting items any longer). And the gun heat mechanics were effin retarded (put as many heat reducing mods on your weapon as possible and just hold down the trigger and never glance at your heat meter). The improvements made the game smarter.

By the way, I have to use this analogy more than I like, but the best and most brilliant video game RPG of all time is undoubtedly Planescape: Torment. It also has the most stripped down and basic adaptation of the DnD ruleset of any game from its generation.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 25 janvier 2010 - 03:09 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

I did not know there was a target assist in ME1. Is this something that's only on the Xbox version (many console shooters have that option where their PC counterparts do not)? Is there any reason to believe that it's been taken away?

I only have a PC. Targeting assist has not been mentioned either way for ME 2.

Either way it doesn't matter much. You're still having to do two seperate things to hit the target, first being aiming at it and the second being getting past the skill check to hit it. Does that make sense to you? Do you think that that makes for a better game?

Yes, it makes sense for a role playing game. You obviously have to target an enemy to determine which enemy you are trying to attack. Then your character's skills determine whether or not the attack is successful.

Unfortunately combat in ME 2 is now pure shooter.

Welcome to the minority. Combat in ME1 was lackluster. Sorry. ME2's combat has been improved greatly.

In other words you are a shooter fan and don't want character skills to determine if an attack is successful or not. I tget it. I understand why ME1's combat would be considered lackluster to you.

Sorry, shooter combat is not an improvement over rpg combat. It is a different style of combat. Your statment is like saying football is an improvement over chess. They are different games.

 Also, the fans who are true rpg fans notice that there is now more class customization, a research system that allows a seperate means of progression, a new interupt dialogue system, more in depth squaddies along with full fledged personal quests for each, a plot that meaningfully takes the actions of the player in to account, enemies that are weaker to certain types of damage, and several other features that are important to roleplayers.

I was probably playing rpgs while you were in diapers. Don't "true rpg fan" me.

Actually there are fewer character skills. Those who have played the game say there are fewere dialogue options. I obviously can't confirm that since I don't have my hands on my preorder yet.

About the interrupt, I'm really not sure exactly what that is supposed to do. All I've read is when you see an icon appear if you are fast enough in pushing buttons you'll see "someting unique" happen. In one of the Bioware videos that was punching someone.

Squaddies have fewer skills and wear outfits. You can't change their armor. They don't use ammo.  I don't hink that is more depth. Are they better visually? Yeah, graphics are better and I'll bet the sex scenes have been ramped up. Oh and one wears a bikini.

As far as enemies being weakeer to certain forms of attack, that is ok. But evidently they are immune to biotics if they have armor/barriers/shields. Warp works to take down barriers and armor which makes warm mandatory for adepts. I think adepts are going to be fairly ineffective since shields are the most common type of defense according to Bioware's blog. Adepts kind of need for their biotics to work for both offense and defense. They are kind of squishy and it would seem they will have a tough time trying to defend themselves when rushed at the start of a combat.

As for wheter or not the squadmates have more in depth personal missions that remains to be seen. Wheter or not player actions are taken into account more remain to be seen.

The only "roleplay" elements that were removed were in fact "micromanagement" elements that burdened the original game and were completely unneccesary.

How are weapon and armor skills burdensome?  I did not find the inventory to be burdensome. I did not find changing armor on the squad members to be burdensome.

No, you're just called petty and short sighted

It is unfortunate that some people are unable to hold a discussion without insulting those who hold an opinion that differs from theirs.

[Noble_House]

It is an RPG that is also a third-person shooter.



The definition of "role playing game" being a game in which you role play (which you certainly do in ME2), not "here are pages of stats and specializations and dice rolls and Longswords +2".

[SurfaceBeneath]

[quote]Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Yes, it makes sense for a role playing game. You obviously have to target an enemy to determine which enemy you are trying to attack. Then your character's skills determine whether or not the attack is successful.

Unfortunately combat in ME 2 is now pure shooter.
[/quote]

First off, you're assuming they took out the assisted targeting. Secondly, it's not like you could just target the enemy, hold the trigger, and you'd keep firing whever they went. You still had to track them and fire in their general direction. So my point still stands untarnished.

[quote]
In other words you are a shooter fan and don't want character skills to determine if an attack is successful or not. I tget it. I understand why ME1's combat would be considered lackluster to you.

Sorry, shooter combat is not an improvement over rpg combat. It is a different style of combat. Your statment is like saying football is an improvement over chess. They are different games. [/quote]

No, I'm saying that objectively the ME1 combat system was stupid for all the reasons I stated below about requiring absolutely 0 strategy, just spamming of your best IWIN buttons, cover was at times very difficult to "stick behind", and enemy AI was poor.  And you still had to aim and not let the game make all the decisions for you.

[/quote]
[quote]
I was probably playing rpgs while you were in diapers. Don't "true rpg fan" me.

Actually there are fewer character skills. Those who have played the game say there are fewere dialogue options. I obviously can't confirm that since I don't have my hands on my preorder yet.

About the interrupt, I'm really not sure exactly what that is supposed to do. All I've read is when you see an icon appear if you are fast enough in pushing buttons you'll see "someting unique" happen. In one of the Bioware videos that was punching someone.

Squaddies have fewer skills and wear outfits. You can't change their armor. They don't use ammo.  I don't hink that is more depth. Are they better visually? Yeah, graphics are better and I'll bet the sex scenes have been ramped up. Oh and one wears a bikini.

As far as enemies being weakeer to certain forms of attack, that is ok. But evidently they are immune to biotics if they have armor/barriers/shields. Warp works to take down barriers and armor which makes warm mandatory for adepts. I think adepts are going to be fairly ineffective since shields are the most common type of defense according to Bioware's blog. Adepts kind of need for their biotics to work for both offense and defense. They are kind of squishy and it would seem they will have a tough time trying to defend themselves when rushed at the start of a combat.

As for wheter or not the squadmates have more in depth personal missions that remains to be seen. Wheter or not player actions are taken into account more remain to be seen.
[/quote]

Do not patronize me with that "RPing while I was in diapers" crap. A true RPG gamer knows the game is about "Role Playing" not "Roll Playing". Any mechanic that helps you insert yourself in to the titular character and make that role your own is a mechanic that makes a game more of an RPG.

There are fewer skills because they removed the passive increases and moved those over to a different resource system and then removed the weapon skills to allow more options in combat. However, each skill increase now gives you tangible benefits instead of you forgetting you leveled up 3 levels ago because leveling in ME 1 was a very uneventful and mundane process.

Interupts are ways for characters to interact more thoroughly in dialogue. Since the definition of roleplaying is to take a role and immerse yourself in it, anything that makes dialogue engaging is a plus.

Due to how combat works in ME2 with shorter cooldowns and more active abilities, fewer skills among your team mates doesn't actually make things less complex since they will be using them more often for greater effect.

I played insanity once without upgrading Tali's armor for the entire game (she was in Hydra 1 on Saren) and did not notice a tangible benefit between her and Liara who was in the best armor I could find. Who cares if you could switch out their armor if it didn't do crap? Also, the sex scenes are actually less revealing then they were in ME1. Oh, and Jack wears a bikini because her tattoos are an important part of her character and do anything but make her more attractive traditionally, so her dress suits the character and not bolsters her sexuality.

Too early to speak about class balance issues now, so I would throw those assumptions aside.

[quote]
How are weapon and armor skills burdensome?  I did not find the inventory to be burdensome. I did not find changing armor on the squad members to be burdensome.
[/quote]

Because weapon and armor skills are redundant when they're now upgraded through the research system and restricted gameplay by forcing to use a single weapon for the entire game.

You didn't find your inventory burdensome? Really? Even after halfway through the game when you bought your specter weapon and had 0 use for 95% of what you picked up and had to labor for up to 15 minutes at a time just to empty it all out every mission? Inventory was an absolute mess in that game and needed an overhaul. It wasn't fun, it didn't add to the game, and it just served to annoy.

[quote]
[quote]No, you're just called petty and short sighted[/quote]It is unfortunate that some people are unable to hold a discussion without insulting those who hold an opinion that differs from theirs.[/quote]

It's not that you have a different opinion. It's that you have a presumptious and uninformed opinion and instead of trying to understand why changes happen and what their net overall goal within the context of the game is, you make assumptions based on limited information (both in the sense that you have not played the game yet as well as that you actively ignore contrary evidence) in order to get yourself in to a huff. And then you hold an elitist attitude that your preferences are "smarter" than other people's preferences and say that the game is being "dumbed down" because many of the mechanics of the original that were proved to be extraeous and redundant and that can really put off new fans was being stripped away. And that's despite the fact that combat got WAY smarter in the sequel due to removal of most of the idiot IWIN buttons from the game and the fact that there is localized damage and enemy vulnerabilities that you have to use specific tactics to beat now.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 25 janvier 2010 - 04:27 .

[Gilded Age]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Unfortunately combat in ME 2 is now pure shooter.

In other words you are a shooter fan and don't want character skills to determine if an attack is successful or not. I tget it. I understand why ME1's combat would be considered lackluster to you.

Sorry, shooter combat is not an improvement over rpg combat. It is a different style of combat. Your statment is like saying football is an improvement over chess. They are different games.

I think you have to consider what Mass Effect is to realize that the classic turn-based combat has no place in the Mass Effect series.   ME1 & 2 are hybrid action-shooters (in game mechanics) that relies on narrative rpg elements to drive the plot and story forward, via dialogues.  ME1 and 2 feature a heavy reliance on real-time interactions, cutscenes, blah blah.  Throwing turn based combat into the mix would make the combat look hopelessly dated, especially to the console crowd and the younger generation of players who are not familiar with...what -- Ultima, the original Fallout, etc.

Not saying this is good or bad -- I understand the point you are making.  ME is not a traditional RPG game.

I don't think this game is pure shooter, though.  It comes close, but a better term might be: shooter with a strong narrative thread and lots of interactions between the PC and the game world.  So...shooter-rpg.  And there is a lot of dialogue in it, a great dea of interaction between companions, the player and other NPCs within the world.  I would disagree with those who say that there isn't as much dialogue in ME2 than in ME1: there seems to be a bit more, I believe, considering you now have more companions than the old game and they all have their dialogues, quests, etc.

Modifié par Gilded Age, 25 janvier 2010 - 04:36 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Sharn01 wrote...

I personally believe that an RPG is a game where the character's abilities determine success or failure and not the player's.

I think that's the best distinction I've heard. Simplified to a large degree, obviously, but closer to the mark than any other one-sentence summary I've come across. The argument that any game in which you play a "role" qualifies as an RPG seems intentionally obtuse to me: you might as well argue that any game in which you have a gun is a shooter. And if we're going to be that literal in defining genres, I'd shudder to think about the adventure genre. I can't think of a single genre, in any medium, that is explained in its entirety by its name.

I think ME is an intensly story driven shooter. There is nothing wrong with this and I will be in line at midnight tonight to pick up my preorder, but its not technicly an rpg.

I haven't played the sequel, of course, but I think the original very definitely falls in between the two genres as a hybrid. You can't ignore the shooter-elements of the game, but you can't really blow through the game without some kind of eye on character stat development and advancement. Depending on your style of play, you can emphasize one style over another. I often suspect that I am in a distinct minority of gamers who chose to play the original more from the perspective of an RPG player than an FPS/TPS player, and as such I can't blame BioWare for more aggressively targeting the latter style of player with the sequel (assuming that the reviews I've heard are true).

Even then, though, my sense of the reviews are that while ME2 might incorporate more traditional shooter mechanics than the original, it's not enough to declare that it's a "true" shooter any more than the original was a "true" RPG.

[matt-bassist]

I consider ME (and ME2) a Sci-Fi RPG-Shooter. It's kinda got elements of all 3, which I like. To me, the RPG elements that I enjoy are the story, the characters and the consequences. You really feel like you *are* Shepard. Stats and levelling aren't so important to me. I also enjoy 3rd person games and sci-fi in general is fascinating.



All in all, I think ME2 is going to please me immensely. Oh yeah and I can't forget about... GARRUS!

[WabeWalker]

It's just not a role-playing game.



Risen reminded me of how dumbed down some of these games have gotten. ME 2 is a 3'rd person shooter. You don't even have to worry about leveling your character. In Risen, you had to worry about it. Here, it'll be cake.

[Daeion]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Beg pardon? Go to settings---> Gameplay and lo and behold you find targeting assist.

And the "arbitrary number" has to do with the skill of the character. An rpg is about the skills/stats of the character, not the player. ME 1 had actual weapon and armor skills. The skill of the character mattered in the rpg. Imagine that.

I did not know there was a target assist in ME1. Is this something that's only on the Xbox version (many console shooters have that option where their PC counterparts do not)? Is there any reason to believe that it's been taken away? Either way it doesn't matter much. You're still having to do two seperate things to hit the target, first being aiming at it and the second being getting past the skill check to hit it. Does that make sense to you? Do you think that that makes for a better game? Accuracy essentially only adds to your damage over time anyway, so is this any different than simply saying every shot (when aimed properly) hits and then you upgrade your damage rather than have to upgrade two seperate things that accomplish the exact same goal?

It goes to the profficency of a char with a weapon and goes back to pen and paper RPGs.  It basically says that just like realife anyone can fire a gun, but that doesn't mean you have the proper training wo actually hit things consistantly, that's why skill points into it improve your skill and you're saying that the char you are playing has gotten better at this.  In the current system no everyone can use the same guns which doesn't make sense, and there's no getting better, you either suck or you're great.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
The fans who are primarily rpg fans say "What the heck happened to all the rpg elements? The fans who are mostly shooter oriented say ,"Woot, combat has been improved."

I thought ME1 combat was just fine.

Welcome to the minority. Combat in ME1 was lackluster. Sorry. ME2's combat has been improved greatly. Also, the fans who are true rpg fans notice that there is now more class customization, a research system that allows a seperate means of progression, a new interupt dialogue system, more in depth squaddies along with full fledged personal quests for each, a plot that meaningfully takes the actions of the player in to account, enemies that are weaker to certain types of damage, and several other features that are important to roleplayers.

The only "roleplay" elements that were removed were in fact "micromanagement" elements that burdened the original game and were completely unneccesary.

I also felt the combat was fine.  Those who weren't looking for a shooter weren't disapointed, a RPG is not about intense shooter gameplay, it's about developing your character and their role in the story.  I'm not really seeing this class customization when half my skills as a soldier are ammo abilities that were part of the abse game in ME1 and anyone had access to different ammo but now has apparently forgotten how to use them.  An inventory system does not burden a game when done properly, DA:O had a decent inventory system and BW could have gone with something like that instead of dumbing it down so the computer just does everything for you.  Part of an RPG is making the decision of who is this item best for, do I have enough of a specific item to upgrade my entire team.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Sure it does. People (including me) have named lots of rpg elements that have been removed. And then we are inevitably called trolls and haters for saying so.

I think pretty much every review has said the the rpg elements have been dumbed down. I guess it is all one giant conspiracy.

I like rpgs and shooters though I am primarily a rpg fan. I'm sure that when I get my hands on my copy tomorrow I'll have lots of fun. But I'm also sure from what I've read that the game is now a shooter with rpg elements rather than a rpg with shooter elements.

No, you're just called petty and short sighted. I'm primarily an RPG fan too ( my two absolute favorite games are the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape Torment) and it doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see that the pounds ME2 shed were all in the right places, while it bulked up in places that needed the improvement, including in the cranial region. Calling it dumbed down is frankly idiotic: the original game's combat was effin retarded (Combat class? Activate immunity and ignore everything besides shooting. Tech class? Chain sabotage enemies so they can never fire. Biotics class? Singularity/lift an entire room and kill enemies while they cannot attack you). The original game's inventory was effin retarded (1 upgrade for every 50 items you picked up. Credits become useless after you buy your one specter weapon so you have no reason to be collecting items any longer). And the gun heat mechanics were effin retarded (put as many heat reducing mods on your weapon as possible and just hold down the trigger and never glance at your heat meter). The improvements made the game smarter.

By the way, I have to use this analogy more than I like, but the best and most brilliant video game RPG of all time is undoubtedly Planescape: Torment. It also has the most stripped down and basic adaptation of the DnD ruleset of any game from its generation.

All of your complaints there were things that could have been improved upon instead of scrapping.  I see the heat one a lot, so change it so you can only use one mod and it can't prevent you from overheating, just increases the time until you overheat or reduces your cool down period.  Come up with a way to break down all those useless items into abse components that you can then use to create new items or mod current ones.  Make items in your inventory stack and group with like items, i.e. all cryo rounds of the same type stack and then are grouped with other cryo rounds so you don't have to scroll through all your other rounds to find them.  There are ways to fix things without giving peple the impression that you dumbed down aspects of the game that didn't need it.

[Daeion]

Noble_House wrote...

It is an RPG that is also a third-person shooter.

The definition of "role playing game" being a game in which you role play (which you certainly do in ME2), not "here are pages of stats and specializations and dice rolls and Longswords +2".

So are Halo and GoW RPGs then?

[ITSSEXYTIME]

Games don't have to be so clearly defined by the genre they're in you know.

ME2 is a TPS with a strong RPG dialogue system underlayed with some streamlined RPG mechanics such as character development and abilities.

[the_one_54321]

it's not a question of evolution, it is a question of proper labels. even BioWare is saying that this game is really a shooter.



and before you ask, no i dont remember which interview that was in and im not going to go looking it up for you.