141 réponses à ce sujet

[grieferbastard]

BIG JEEPER wrote...

if it was a real RPG... you would not be able to change weapons and select from the thousands of ammo/gun/etc mods in the MIDDLE OF A FIREFIGHT.

Shep - "Okay... I need to change from a scram rail IV.. wait no... I have only have a Rail Extension?... oh nevermind, there it is... and then I need to switch from shredder rounds to tungsten cause now I am fighting geth instead of people... okay... i think... i think i am good to go... damnit! that was for ashleys gun..."

*5 minutes of no shooting on the battlefield*

Geth - "Quick Attack! He is going through his giant brief case of mods!"

LOL - If anything, ME2 is MORE of an RPG and more like what you would be doing if it were really you out there hence "ROLE"

i am going to complain about complainers complaining from now on

So, let me ask you. Do you think that when Special Forces of any sort are going on a mission they don't have a big briefcase of supplies they go through and choose the correct tools for the job? Do you think they have 4 guns total to pick from and decide, ah what the hell, I can only carry enough ammo to shoot any of them a handful of times. Fortunately I'll just count on looting ammo as I go.'

RPG is generally about more realism, not less. What I don't get is why people are pissed that ME2 is not being called an RPG. It isn't. It's a TPS and a freaking brilliant one. The real complaint is that it got sold as an RPG, not a shooter - which is what it should have been sold as. A console-driven shooter following the storyline started by ME1.

Why is that considered so bad? I'm not complaining about ME2. I think it's an awesome game. I'm just saying call it what it is and realize that a lot of people (foolishly) bough the game based on how it was advertised but without reading the reviews.

[Nezacant]

grieferbastard wrote...

BIG JEEPER wrote...

if it was a real RPG... you would not be able to change weapons and select from the thousands of ammo/gun/etc mods in the MIDDLE OF A FIREFIGHT.

Shep - "Okay... I need to change from a scram rail IV.. wait no... I have only have a Rail Extension?... oh nevermind, there it is... and then I need to switch from shredder rounds to tungsten cause now I am fighting geth instead of people... okay... i think... i think i am good to go... damnit! that was for ashleys gun..."

*5 minutes of no shooting on the battlefield*

Geth - "Quick Attack! He is going through his giant brief case of mods!"

LOL - If anything, ME2 is MORE of an RPG and more like what you would be doing if it were really you out there hence "ROLE"

i am going to complain about complainers complaining from now on

So, let me ask you. Do you think that when Special Forces of any sort are going on a mission they don't have a big briefcase of supplies they go through and choose the correct tools for the job? Do you think they have 4 guns total to pick from and decide, ah what the hell, I can only carry enough ammo to shoot any of them a handful of times. Fortunately I'll just count on looting ammo as I go.'

RPG is generally about more realism, not less. What I don't get is why people are pissed that ME2 is not being called an RPG. It isn't. It's a TPS and a freaking brilliant one. The real complaint is that it got sold as an RPG, not a shooter - which is what it should have been sold as. A console-driven shooter following the storyline started by ME1.

Why is that considered so bad? I'm not complaining about ME2. I think it's an awesome game. I'm just saying call it what it is and realize that a lot of people (foolishly) bough the game based on how it was advertised but without reading the reviews.

I'm with you 99%.  I just wouldn't call their purchase "Foolish" when most of them bought it based on their experence from the first game.  Imagine if you bought Gears of War 2 and it ended up being a stat based RPG... 

[BIG JEEPER]

errr. me no understand your post grieferbastard...



Everyone has their own interpretation of RPG ... mine is Randomly Passes Gas or Ritards Play Good or Rocket Propelled Grenade <- personal favorite.



people complain b/c they can and frankly... if folks were not complaining, no one would be on this forum. Complaints generate discussion.



i dont care what "title" people give ME2... its great regardless.

[obie191970]

BIG JEEPER wrote...

obie191970 wrote...

Shep - "Okay... I need to change from a scram rail IV.. wait no... I have only have a Rail Extension?... oh nevermind, there it is... and then I need to switch from shredder rounds to tungsten cause now I am fighting geth instead of people... okay... i think... i think i am good to go... damnit! that was for ashleys gun..."n

HA!  Here's the thing - When did you have to do that in ME1 anyway?  I can't remember once having to switch out upgrades during battles seeing the combat was so easy in the game.

lol.  i did it all the time... after unlocking... i did several playthroughs using only the pistol on insanity (I was a bit bored your could say)  making sure you had the most appropriate upgrades for the enemy you were fighting was necessary. 

Kudo's to you - I can see you having to do that if you took that approach.

[Christina Norman]

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

 And the biggest change that may alienate RPGers:  There is no longer an option for Aim Assist like there was in ME1.

ME2-xbox does have aim assist, what we don't have is an option to turn aim assist off, or make it "high" or "low".

We tuned our aim assist carefully over the course of the project to make it feel really good. It's subtle, but helpful.

We tried making it configurable (high aim assist, low aim assist, aim assist off) but none of those settings really played well, so we didn't put in an option to adjust aim assist. This is fairly common. Some shooters offer adjustment to aim assist, but many just have one set of settings that work really well for that game.

If you are not a confident shooter player there are a number of things you can do to improve your experience in ME2:
    - Pick a class who isn't focused as much on shooting like an adept, sentinel, or engineer
    - Use more aggressive, tough, squad members. Use the D-pad to control your squad members.
    - Play on casual, you can always up the difficulty if you're finding the game not challenging enough
    - Use cover, stay at a distance from enemies, and take down aggressive enemies first with powers or squad members.
    - Pause the game when you get in trouble

[Nezacant]

Christina Norman wrote...

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

 And the biggest change that may alienate RPGers:  There is no longer an option for Aim Assist like there was in ME1.

ME2-xbox does have aim assist, what we don't have is an option to turn aim assist off, or make it "high" or "low".

We tuned our aim assist carefully over the course of the project to make it feel really good. It's subtle, but helpful.

We tried making it configurable (high aim assist, low aim assist, aim assist off) but none of those settings really played well, so we didn't put in an option to adjust aim assist. This is fairly common. Some shooters offer adjustment to aim assist, but many just have one set of settings that work really well for that game.

If you are not a confident shooter player there are a number of things you can do to improve your experience in ME2:
    - Pick a class who isn't focused as much on shooting like an adept, sentinel, or engineer
    - Use more aggressive, tough, squad members. Use the D-pad to control your squad members.
    - Play on casual, you can always up the difficulty if you're finding the game not challenging enough
    - Use cover, stay at a distance from enemies, and take down aggressive enemies first with powers or squad members.
    - Pause the game when you get in trouble

Thanks for the reply Christina.  I stated in a later post that she and I were playing the PC version.  I knew of the differences in aim assist on the xbox version.

Those pointers are exactly what I've had her do.  I have her playing as a sentinel and showed her how left shift is her best friend.  As I said, she'll play and I'm sure she'll like it as much as she liked the first one.  It will just take a little getting used to. 

[Christina Norman]

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

As for aim assist.  We are playing this on PC.  There is no aim assist.  (There was in ME1 for PC.  I should have explained the platform she is playing on.)  I don't blame her for not wanting to play on Easy either.  She wants a challenge.  But as she is an RPGer she wants a tactical challenge, not a reflex one.

Ahhh yes on PC there is minimal aim assist, my other comments still hold though for recommendations on trying ME2. She can always up the difficult as she gets more familiarity with the game.

[AlanC9]

grieferbastard, why isn't it an RPG? What key RPG features is ME2 lacking?

[Nezacant]

Christina Norman wrote...

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

As for aim assist.  We are playing this on PC.  There is no aim assist.  (There was in ME1 for PC.  I should have explained the platform she is playing on.)  I don't blame her for not wanting to play on Easy either.  She wants a challenge.  But as she is an RPGer she wants a tactical challenge, not a reflex one.

Ahhh yes on PC there is minimal aim assist, my other comments still hold though for recommendations on trying ME2. She can always up the difficult as she gets more familiarity with the game.

Aye!  I didn't notice and since I'm not at home at the moment...  Can you change difficulty in game like you could in Dragon Age?

[obie191970]

What I fail to see is how ME1 was a "classic RPG" to begin with. Yes, you had more skills to level up and more levels per skill. So, more equals RPG? The inventory system in ME1 was crappy and the decision making in weapons was non-existent - Say you were an Infiltrator Commando who specialized in sniper rifles - Did you ever have to make a decision between sniper rifles over damage vs. accuracy? No, because there was always a clear cut winner, the decision was made for you. So then, micro-management means RPG? Even when it is a poorly implemented micro-management?

I am pretty sure that Bioware tried to make a TPS/RPG with ME1 and failed on the TPS part, which by all accounts has been fixed by ME2. I loved ME1 for the story and for the decisions I had to make during the game that affected the outcome - Not the RPG elements which were fairly weak to begin with. Bioware made their classic RPG recently - It's called Dragon Age.

Edit: Just to be clear, I think most of the RPG elements in ME are wonderfully implemented and consider the game a TPS/RPG.  But, I think the things that people most closely associate "classic RPG" with are tons of menus and micro-management - Both of which were poorly done in ME1.

Modifié par obie191970, 27 janvier 2010 - 05:38 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

Christina Norman wrote...

If you are not a confident shooter player there are a number of things you can do to improve your experience in ME2:
    - Pick a class who isn't focused as much on shooting like an adept, sentinel, or engineer
    - Use more aggressive, tough, squad members. Use the D-pad to control your squad members.
    - Play on casual, you can always up the difficulty if you're finding the game not challenging enough
    - Use cover, stay at a distance from enemies, and take down aggressive enemies first with powers or squad members.
    - Pause the game when you get in trouble

If doing the first 2 makes the game easier for those who don't like shooters, I think ME2 is qualified as an RPG.
Since the choice of class and team makes different gameplay experience.

[Wolverfrog]

Christina Norman wrote...

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

 And the biggest change that may alienate RPGers:  There is no longer an option for Aim Assist like there was in ME1.

ME2-xbox does have aim assist, what we don't have is an option to turn aim assist off, or make it "high" or "low".

What?

Wait, are you saying the PC version DOESN'T have aim assist?

That seems a little silly. There are more shooter fans on the Xbox than on the PC. Doesn't it make more sense to have no aim assist on the 360 and aim assist on the PC?

[Northborn]

Wolverfrog, the point of Aim Assist is to aid with the low precision of console controllers. A mouse and keyboard is much more precise and easier to wield.

[Nezacant]

obie191970 wrote...

What I fail to see is how ME1 was a "classic RPG" to begin with. Yes, you had more skills to level up and more levels per skill. So, more equals RPG? The inventory system in ME1 was crappy and the decision making in weapons was non-existent - Say you were an Infiltrator Commando who specialized in sniper rifles - Did you ever have to make a decision between sniper rifles over damage vs. accuracy? No, because there was always a clear cut winner, the decision was made for you. So then, micro-management means RPG? Even when it is a poorly implemented micro-management?

I am pretty sure that Bioware tried to make a TPS/RPG with ME1 and failed on the TPS part, which by all accounts has been fixed by ME2. I loved ME1 for the story and for the decisions I had to make during the game that affected the outcome - Not the RPG elements which were fairly weak to begin with. Bioware made their classic RPG recently - It's called Dragon Age.

I don't think the arguement is whether or not Mass Effect was a classic RPG.  It wasn't.  But there was enough of the RPG element to keep hardcore RPGers happy.  A lot of that has been altered in ME2 in a way that feels streamlined to some and dumbed down to others.

[Nezacant]

Wolverfrog wrote...

Christina Norman wrote...

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

 And the biggest change that may alienate RPGers:  There is no longer an option for Aim Assist like there was in ME1.

ME2-xbox does have aim assist, what we don't have is an option to turn aim assist off, or make it "high" or "low".

What?

Wait, are you saying the PC version DOESN'T have aim assist?

That seems a little silly. There are more shooter fans on the Xbox than on the PC. Doesn't it make more sense to have no aim assist on the 360 and aim assist on the PC?

Why would you ever think there are more shooter fans on a console than a PC?  Don't you realize where console shooters came from, or why your game controler has two control sticks?  Sigh... I don't blame you... I blame Halo... 
/rant

[obie191970]

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

obie191970 wrote...

What I fail to see is how ME1 was a "classic RPG" to begin with. Yes, you had more skills to level up and more levels per skill. So, more equals RPG? The inventory system in ME1 was crappy and the decision making in weapons was non-existent - Say you were an Infiltrator Commando who specialized in sniper rifles - Did you ever have to make a decision between sniper rifles over damage vs. accuracy? No, because there was always a clear cut winner, the decision was made for you. So then, micro-management means RPG? Even when it is a poorly implemented micro-management?

I am pretty sure that Bioware tried to make a TPS/RPG with ME1 and failed on the TPS part, which by all accounts has been fixed by ME2. I loved ME1 for the story and for the decisions I had to make during the game that affected the outcome - Not the RPG elements which were fairly weak to begin with. Bioware made their classic RPG recently - It's called Dragon Age.

I don't think the arguement is whether or not Mass Effect was a classic RPG.  It wasn't.  But there was enough of the RPG element to keep hardcore RPGers happy.  A lot of that has been altered in ME2 in a way that feels streamlined to some and dumbed down to others.

I agree with you and would consider myself a hardcore RPG'er(As well as an avid Shooter fan).  But, as I mentioned in my edit, the things most closely associated with "classic RPG" were poorly implemented in ME1.  I guess what I'm failing to understand is why people are complaining about missing elements even when those elements were the biggest drawback to ME1.

[lokiarchetype]

Wolverfrog wrote...

Christina Norman wrote...

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

 And the biggest change that may alienate RPGers:  There is no longer an option for Aim Assist like there was in ME1.

ME2-xbox does have aim assist, what we don't have is an option to turn aim assist off, or make it "high" or "low".

What?

Wait, are you saying the PC version DOESN'T have aim assist?

That seems a little silly. There are more shooter fans on the Xbox than on the PC. Doesn't it make more sense to have no aim assist on the 360 and aim assist on the PC?

1.  Actually she specifically said there is.

2.  Shooters are PC territory.

3.  It's vastly easier to move your reticle with  mouse than it is with 2 joysticks.

[wintermute1984]

RPG = Role playing game. Good plot, good character development, meaningful choices, immersion into the universe and the main character. ME2 has all those. Thus it's an RPG.



Grinding, stat whoring, intense game mechanics math that kill the immersion doesn't make an rpg. ME2 fits the definition of RPG more than Diablo and WoW.

[Nezacant]

obie191970 wrote...

I agree with you and would consider myself a hardcore RPG'er(As well as an avid Shooter fan).  But, as I mentioned in my edit, the things most closely associated with "classic RPG" were poorly implemented in ME1.  I guess what I'm failing to understand is why people are complaining about missing elements even when those elements were the biggest drawback to ME1.

I think a lot of people wanted those elements fixed rather than removed completely.

[Kwonnern]

Wolverfrog wrote...
Wait, are you saying the PC version DOESN'T have aim assist?

That seems a little silly. There are more shooter fans on the Xbox than on the PC. Doesn't it make more sense to have no aim assist on the 360 and aim assist on the PC?

PCs have this wonderful mouse-tool which makes aiming easier than by using console-controllers, thus the need for aim assist is higher for console-users.

Shooters also originated on PC, not Xbox, so i wouldn't say that there are more shooter-fans on the xbox than PC.

Remember Wolfenstein 3D, Doom etc?

The FPS-genre was introduced on the PC 1992 with Wolfenstein 3D and many many many people played that, Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Unreal, Counter-Strike and several other games in the genre since then.

There are Many fans of FPS and TPS on the PC still.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Can someone care to explain me why would I care if a game doesn't fit with a particular tag genre? Can someone care to explain me why would I not like a good game for trivial reasons?

[Gill Kaiser]

Wolverfrog wrote...

Christina Norman wrote...

TormentedPhoenix wrote...

 And the biggest change that may alienate RPGers:  There is no longer an option for Aim Assist like there was in ME1.

ME2-xbox does have aim assist, what we don't have is an option to turn aim assist off, or make it "high" or "low".

What?

Wait, are you saying the PC version DOESN'T have aim assist?

That seems a little silly. There are more shooter fans on the Xbox than on the PC. Doesn't it make more sense to have no aim assist on the 360 and aim assist on the PC?

If there are indeed more shooter fans on the xbox than on the PC, which I seriously doubt, it must only be due to the overall larger number of console gamers. Shooters originated on the PC and evolved with the mouse and keyboard as their primary input system. Aim assist is almost completely unnecessary on the PC because of the high precision of the mouse - it only came into vogue when FPSs started appearing on consoles and the imprecise joystick aiming method had to be used.

Aim assist isn't about the skill level of the player, but about the precision of the control method.

I don't really see why anyone would need aim assist on the PC, unless they are completely new to computer gaming or have never played any shooter before.

[Inhocmark]

RPG is an antiquated term anyways. Consider that some people consider quite a few MMOs RPGs even though the majority of people play them with little or no Role Playing.



Personally I think the Term RPG is like the trunk of a tree, there are many different branches that are attached to that trunk. I like that developers are willing to look outside the traditional paradigms of a genre to bring different ideas and concepts that can shape and change things.



I mean we're getting to the point that different genres have recognizable Role Playing elements in them. Sports games, Shooters, third person adventure etc etc etc.



The term is old fashioned, has been for a long time.

[Nezacant]

Kwonnern wrote...

Wolverfrog wrote...
Wait, are you saying the PC version DOESN'T have aim assist?

That seems a little silly. There are more shooter fans on the Xbox than on the PC. Doesn't it make more sense to have no aim assist on the 360 and aim assist on the PC?

PCs have this wonderful mouse-tool which makes aiming easier than by using console-controllers, thus the need for aim assist is higher for console-users.

Shooters also originated on PC, not Xbox, so i wouldn't say that there are more shooter-fans on the xbox than PC.

Remember Wolfenstein 3D, Doom etc?

The FPS-genre was introduced on the PC 1992 with Wolfenstein 3D and many many many people played that, Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Unreal, Counter-Strike and several other games in the genre since then.

There are Many fans of FPS and TPS on the PC still.

PCs were playing 32 player online deathmatches and capture the flag when consoles were over excited about splitscreen multiplayer.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Inhocmark wrote...

RPG is an antiquated term anyways. Consider that some people consider quite a few MMOs RPGs even though the majority of people play them with little or no Role Playing.

Personally I think the Term RPG is like the trunk of a tree, there are many different branches that are attached to that trunk. I like that developers are willing to look outside the traditional paradigms of a genre to bring different ideas and concepts that can shape and change things.

I mean we're getting to the point that different genres have recognizable Role Playing elements in them. Sports games, Shooters, third person adventure etc etc etc.

The term is old fashioned, has been for a long time.

Quoted for truth.