92 réponses à ce sujet

[AlbertoAquilani]

I think they should stick to Dragon Age if they want a more stats-based RPG. Which is also a good game, maybe now the Mass Effect series isn't for them. I can't wait to judge for myself on Friday.

[xBEATDOWNSx]

AlbertoAquilani wrote...

darthdrake201 wrote...

Is it just me or what, an rpg without specialization or stats makes the game quite boring and ridiculously easy.Please dont think iam a troll, iam a hardcore fan of bioware since playing baldur on ps2 but iam only going to play this sequel to see the story since theres no challenge. Hopefully SWTOR will be nothing like this.

If you want a more stats based approach, there is always the older Bioware stuff and Dragon Age. If you want a more immersive experience, less stats based, just look at Bioware's work KOTOR onwards.

Or Neverwinter ahahaha

[TileToad]

Mercarcher wrote...

Mass Effect is no longer an RPG, it is a story shooter unfortunately.

So it's basically the same as the 7 year old "Unreal 2: The Awakening"?

Such innovation..

This doesn't bode well..

[Daeion]

JGHutch wrote...

First off, troll?....second off...no that's about it troll sums up what I wanted to say.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them a troll, if anything you're more of a troll for not adding anything to the conversation.

I've only played for about 45 minutes and so far I'm not impressed with the "evolving" powers and seeing how it was a better system.  People kept saying to just wait until you can see how the powers evolve and you will see that two people from the same class can take the same power but evolve it differently and have different gameplay experiences.  So far I'm not seeing that.  Lets take adrenilane rush, when you hit max you can either have it reduce the dmg you take or enimies appear to stop, wow...that really changes the way one person is going to play using it versus someone else...

[tommythetomcat]

oct13 wrote...

ME2 feels a little more "dumbed down" than ME to me. Of course, I'm an oldschool RPGer who actually likes min/maxing skill systems and mucking about with inventory. I haven't gotten that far into the story yet but so far the "tone" seems very different than ME, not sure if thats bad, good, or just different yet though.

My personal nitpick is that it the intro takes so long to get though and there's no was to bypass it. I'm starting several characters to figure out what I want to play and it'd be nice to skip the intro and get to the gameplay more quickly.

this is one criticism I totally agree with, the into should be able to be skipped in some fashion... it really annoys me that again if you screw up your face in customization you have to sit through 15min of things you've seen 5 times already from trying out all of the classes.  

Just seems like after ME1 they could have at least added the option of skipping the intro.

[WillieStyle]

PerfectLife wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

In most RPGs the abundance of stats/talents is an illusion. There are typically 2-3 solid paths to take and anything else just isn't worth it.
I mean why was immunity even optional in ME1? Did any soldier or infiltrator not max it out?

Streamlining stats and talents is a good thing. Having an over abundance of either just makes it more likely that folks will screw up their characters.

This is actually the reason people are pissed off. They remembered the times when they had to go to online forums to copy the same "uptimum" build as everyone else

I think those people are idiots and should be made into batteries.

Fixed that for you.

[Darth_Shizz]

darthdrake201 wrote...


Absoloutely! 
The entire game in all aspects is linear and boring. How the hell is using cryo/incen ammo one of my "special" abilities. So stupid. Seriously they should just get rid of upgrading and specialization since its 100% linear and doesnt matter what you choose.

Much in the same way Magic Missile or Melf's Acid Arrow are "spells"

[TileToad]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

I keep seeing these threads about how Mass Effect isn't an RPG but a Shooter because their isn't an inventory system, the mini-games/scanning "suck," combat is too combat like and the leveling system is too simple.

What I want to know is when RPGs went from being about story, dialogue and characters to being about inventory systems, minigames and complicated/cumbersome combat/stats? It seems if it doesn't have those last three its automatically a shooter or dumbed downed piece of junk that only "fanboyz" like. Forget all the character choices, the great dialogue and epic storyline...those are shooters/action things...

RPG=Role Playing Game. Not Inventory/Level/Statistic Management and Multi-Simulation game. Although all can be included in an RPG the same way shooter aspects can as FEATURES, not RPG elements.

I have been playing RPGs since the early 90s and probably 75% of RPGs ever made would be disqualified from actually being RPGs by some of the standards on these boards. I admit some of the features I liked in some and others I hated them, but I never thought that just because I didn't like an RPG's style it was therefore not an RPG.

You're confused with adventure games. Those are about story and characters. They used to be as popular as mindless shooters are today.

RPG is about customizing your character to the fullest within a story. It's sad that this has been forgotten by almost everyone today.

[Daeion]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

darthdrake201 wrote...


Absoloutely! 
The entire game in all aspects is linear and boring. How the hell is using cryo/incen ammo one of my "special" abilities. So stupid. Seriously they should just get rid of upgrading and specialization since its 100% linear and doesnt matter what you choose.

Much in the same way Magic Missile or Melf's Acid Arrow are "spells"

except ammo is somethign that's added to a weapon already in use, not something you create out of nothing.  Everyone should be able to use all ammos.

[atheelogos]

bcooper56 wrote...

Okay so im 2 hours in and there are two things that are really make game bad for me.

1. The new lvling system in my opinion is a step back i have only having 4 upgrade per power and there are even less than first game. I know the first game was not as deep as game like dragon age but still it was huge step back and just limits it into more of shooter.

2. Scanning the planets has to be the worst part of the game. I really rather have the mako back it boring and after 1 or 2 planets it's so dam boring.

3. How you earn weapons is also really bad. I don't know abut rest of you but i liked buying weapons instead of upgrading the limited ones in thes ship.

Last all i can say me1 was trying to an rpg and shooter and did both okay but nether was great and well in me2 they pretty much went more shooter and stripped down the rpg parts. Sure i still really like the game and will finish it and play it to death but at the end of the day if i want an rpg ill go back to dragon age on my pc.

I don't know what your talking about. This game rocks:happy:

[WillieStyle]

I think this discussion reveals interesting things about the psychology of different sorts of gamers.



Take 2 hypothetical game systems:

System 1: skills have 10 levels. Each level you gain a +2% bonus to your abilities. Every third level you gain a new ability.

System 2: skills have 4 levels. Each level you gain a new ability and get a 5% bonus to your abilities.



Is System 2 a "dumbed down" version of system 1? I say no. Apparently a few people here say yes.



Another example.

System 1: You have 10 skills to choose from. You can max out 2 skills. 3 of the skills are FAR better than all the rest.

System 2: You have 3 skills to choose from. You can max out 2 of them.



Does system 1 provide more "choices" than system 2? I say no. Apparently a few people here would say yes.

[DigitalMaster37]

Everyone has their opinion and rightfully so. So to the people who loved the game (me included) don't get angry at the people who did not. I promise you more love it than don't so there is no need to feel defensive. Constructive criticism is accepted and BioWare uses it. Yet the people who complained so much about ME1 are the same ones who are not satisifed with the changes in this one. IRONIC eh?

[AlbertoAquilani]

TileToad wrote...
You're confused with adventure games. Those are about story and characters. They used to be as popular as mindless shooters are today.

RPG is about customizing your character to the fullest within a story. It's sad that this has been forgotten by almost everyone today.

RPG has many definitions to many people. It's the more complex genre in gaming.

[Darth_Shizz]

Daeion wrote...

except ammo is somethign that's added to a weapon already in use, not something you create out of nothing.  Everyone should be able to use all ammos.

Yet it's implemented as a skill that has a specific effect on an enemy. Whether or not it were "ammo", or banana peels, or magic makes no difference...

A soldier type class has abilities which, believe it or not, augment his gun combat. Why is that so surprising? Why is a system that allows every class to use ammo mods (which tended to consist of 3 different types everyone used in ME1), any better or deeper than redesigning class combat abilities to make them more balanced and more useful than guns?

[Balek-Vriege]

darthdrake201 wrote...

Absoloutely! 
The entire game in all aspects is linear and boring. How the hell is using cryo/incen ammo one of my "special" abilities. So stupid. Seriously they should just get rid of upgrading and specialization since its 100% linear and doesnt matter what you choose.

When you think about it though Mass Effect is far less linear than any Final Fantasy or other Japanese RPGs and unlike any RPGs before it, Mass Effect's choices carry from game to game.  Would you say the Final Fantasy series in its entirety isn't an RPG?  Or is it an RPG because it had inventory systems and computer turned-based combat until FF9 therefore they're "true" RPGs?  Or is it not an RPG because their are no dialogue choices?  All of those questions miss the point of what an actual RPG is in my opinion and are just different aspects of one.

Linear and open-ended RPGs are just different styles of telling the story.  I have no problem with people not liking this game.  What I do find wrong are people claiming to be hardcore RPG fans but take issue about things which don't actually make an RPG.

TileToad wrote...

You're confused with adventure games. Those are about story and characters. They used to be as popular as mindless shooters are today.

RPG is about customizing your character to the fullest within a story. It's sad that this has been forgotten by almost everyone today.

Final Fantasy, Secret of Mana etc etc etc were all considered RPGs back in the day.  I actually do remember the arguments between the difference of an Adventure game and an RPG between friends of mine and myself.  It basically came down to adventure games being more about exploring worlds/places than the story, combat (some had none) or plot/characters development (some had none).  Maybe the FFs etc. are 90s console/adventure games with RPG elements to some, but they're RPGs to me.  

Character customization and complicated stats came from tabletop.  The purpose of DnD rules was to facilitate role playing a story through imagination.  For the last 30-40 years those rules have been streamlined.  Does that mean 1st edition DnD is more hardcore roleplay than 3rd editions? 4th?  Having a whole bunch of stats doesn't make an RPG and I have known people on forums to say they have thrown out rulebooks for their tabletop sessions.  Does that make them tabletop "adventure" gamers now?  Or are they still role playing as a group?

When it comes down to it RPGs are simple:  They're games that focus on playing a role and how your role plays out in the game.  That role can be chosen for you or completely customized.  The magic about RPGs are that they can assimilate any other genre within them (shooters, simulation, real time strategy, even adventure) as features ingame.

[DigitalMaster37]

Daeion wrote...

JGHutch wrote...

First off, troll?....second off...no that's about it troll sums up what I wanted to say.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them a troll, if anything you're more of a troll for not adding anything to the conversation.

I've only played for about 45 minutes and so far I'm not impressed with the "evolving" powers and seeing how it was a better system.  People kept saying to just wait until you can see how the powers evolve and you will see that two people from the same class can take the same power but evolve it differently and have different gameplay experiences.  So far I'm not seeing that.  Lets take adrenilane rush, when you hit max you can either have it reduce the dmg you take or enimies appear to stop, wow...that really changes the way one person is going to play using it versus someone else...

no offense, but only geniouses (I mean that in the most sarcastic way) judge games off of 45 minutes into it. So its hard to argue that you arent a troll.

[Theronyll Itholien]

PerfectLife wrote...

darthdrake201 wrote...



Absoloutely! 
The entire game in all aspects is linear and boring. How the hell is using cryo/incen ammo one of my "special" abilities. So stupid.

Hah hah, you bought a game you don't like and are now complaining online so everyone can know you're dumb. Good job compounding error with incompetence adding in a nice healthy dash of ignorance.

What are you doing on these forums? Are you the Trolling Narrator or something, dude? You add nothing to any topic I've seen so far but flaming others who think that ME2 is not perfect. Seriously, f*ck off or give arguments why you think the negative things are actually improvements, like the others defending ME2 do.

[Annora]

I dislike the fact that I can't change my squad's armor. Other than that, I like the changes.

Modifié par Anastassia, 26 janvier 2010 - 07:03 .

[aseop]

I do miss the more complex skill trees and inventory management, but it still has most of the RPG elements I look for except a wide open world exploration... bring back the Mako! Don't like the quests so far, but thats personal taste.



Anyway, even in a good Pen and Paper RPG Campaign, you usually find yourslef throwing rules away for story, so not sure why stats indicates RPG.



Also definitely not what most people would consider a true shooter, SHOOT - SHOOT - PAUSE - KEY ABILITIES - UNPAUSE - ABILITY ACTIONS WITH ALMOST NO TARGETTING - SHOOT - SHOOT - PAUSE...

[sticks435]

Ok, here's my take on the lvling system. I love it and hate it. The ME1 system had waaaay to many skills for Shepard for you to have any real choice in what you picked if you wanted to have any decent amount of fun. Let's do the math: After adding the Spectre skills, and class specialization, you had 137 or so ranks, and only what, 78 points to spend at the end of the first playthrough on a new char. Now granted if you were a solider you could skip 2 of the weapon talents and first aid, but that's still only 36 points if you wanted to max charm or intimidate, which I'd wager most people did the first time, since they didn't know you kept those points on NG+. You still have to leave some pretty good skills out altogether, or not level them up all the way which kinda sucks.



From what I've played so far, the ME2 system seems to be to simple. As the PC, I'm guessing you get 6 powers total, and according to the dev's, 50 points, of which the last 5 or 10 are very hard to get in the first playthrough, so you can pretty much max all your skills except for 2 on the first playthrough and 1 on the 2nd. Where's the variety in that? Your pretty much back where you started with everyone using the same powers.



If I'm wrong on any of these, please let me know. Maybe things will change the further I play. Also, I'm pretty peeved about the lack of shortcut keys and proper mouse support in the UI for PC, but that is another topic/complaint.

[hardvice]

I think it's weird that people still have this notion that RPG=lots of stats and skill trees and inventory. I mean, it's not like streamlined action-RPGs are a brand-new genre or anything.



Role playing games are about playing a role. They're about the characters and the story. That's universal whether it's a classic stats-based RPG or a slimmed-down action RPG. Yes, ME2 is the latter, but it's unfair to say it isn't an RPG just because min-maxers can't get their math party on.



It's just not the RPG for you if you're into stats.



As someone who plays RPGs to play a role, I'm finding I'm enjoying the allegedly "dumbed down" RPGs more and more. Sure, I can't spend hours upon hours in a paper doll screen tweaking and fine-tuning, but in the end, your character isn't their stats or their abilities or their equipment--your character is the choices they make and the actions they take. Most of the time, streamlining the mechanics makes the game not only more action-oriented, but also more immersive and more story-driven.



That having been said, I'm not really far enough into ME2 to say whether the new approach helps or hurts the story, or makes the gameplay more or less enjoyable. But what I can say is that it's silly to assume a change in the mechanics makes the game less of a role-playing game. Some role-playing games are character sheet bingo games; some aren't. This one isn't.

[Gorn Kregore]

Mercarcher wrote...

Mass Effect is no longer an RPG, it is a story shooter unfortunately.

RPG = Roleplaying Game fyi

You don't roleplay stats fyi

plus combat in me1 sucked fyi

[TileToad]

hardvice wrote...
It's just not the RPG for you if you're into stats.

Dammit, I'm into stats!!
I love spending hours upon hours planning and tweaking before going into battle.

*snippers*
your character is the choices they make and the actions they take. Most of the time, streamlining the mechanics makes the game not only more action-oriented, but also more immersive and more story-driven.

Trouble I have with this is that it becomes more like an interactive movie than a RPG. The game "Uncharted" springs to mind. For me, a true RPG gives you the possibility to customize your character how you want him/her to be. These new, streamlined (restricted) games, feel more like action adventure games to me. They force a role upon you that you then have to play.

[RGFrog]

The only thing that rubs the wrong way about the changes is that I'm just finding out about them.



I pre-ordered, not knowing the massive change in gameplay -- and it is massive, no matter how you define RPG. Had I known, I would have canceled my preorder and waited for the reviews.



They pulled an Activision/IW move here, albeit they learned from the former's mistakes and didn't say anything about it until it was too late for those that don't like this style of action adventure game to cancel and ruin their sales figures.



Kudos to Bioware for learning that lesson from IW. But shame on them for false advertising and thinking that leaving out the HUGE changes is a valid business tactic. Had they made the changes clear from the offset, I'd at least have some respect for them.



Now, irregardless of whether I like the simplified ME2 version of an RPG or not, I definitely don't like Bioware for this shady business move.