349 réponses à ce sujet

[iniudan]

Vohx wrote...

Min/maxing and inventory management do not a RPG make.

Actually it can, but they in the hack'n'slash or an MMORPG subcategory. That where Diablo, Torchlight, Borderland, WoW are.

If it has those element with detailed story it is in the hardcore subcategory. That where DA:O, Baldur's gate are.

If you have detailed story with those management element been light it is action RPG or Story driven RPG subcategory, depending on component making it. This is where Mass Effect series is.


Plenty of other subcategory to RPG.

I like how most people in this topic forget what many element make an RPG, but the main point is always been involvement in the developpement of the game, through extensive story or character developement, if it has the have the two it just happen to be the hardcore subcategory, if it only has one of the element it is other category depending on other element that make the game, through it still a RPG.


Hope my post make sense.

Modifié par iniudan, 30 janvier 2010 - 02:43 .

[DireGenesis526]

Is there a chance that maybe the shooting in ME2 is still using the dice rolling mechanics that ME1 had? the difference being the we, as players, don't have full control over the spread of points, i mean we do improve the weapons through upgrades that we find, but besides that I think everything else is handled by the game as we level up.

Aside from the cover mechanic and the game engine, I just think that there maybe too many differences between ME2 and Gears to actually accuse ME2 of being a copy of Gears.

Anyway just putting in my thoughts

By the way, ME1 had cover mechanics and the unreal engine and no one at the time compared it to Gears. So why complain about ME2 having the unreal engine and cover mechanic now?

[Typifire]

Mahouhashi wrote...

ME2's combat isn't as tight as GOW's shooter combat, but it is far more tactical once you figure out how to mix and match your skills with teammates. And the characters are very fleshed out, combat is awesome fun, limited duologue trees, but what do you expect when everyone is voiced, the missions are also fun now and the environments are just a marvel to behold and actually feel alive this time round and IMO the story is still good. With all this I wish ignorant fools who play a mere 5 hours of the game and come on here and complain would just not voice any opinions ever.

 
Once again with the name calling.  You made your points very well, and then had to resort to a cheap shot at the end.

5 hours is all that's necessary to gauge the mechanics of the battle system.  Playing any longer only let's you see if you're willing to put up with something you don't really care for, if you don't like it that is, in lieu of other features.

Modifié par Typifire, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:40 .

[Mezinger]

Zentrasi wrote...

"Mass Effect 2: Gears of War with interactive dialogue"

Sounds like an awesome game to me.

Boo whack a mole? Please we've had better game mechanics on Ataris.

[WhiskeyKnight]

Didn't read the whole thread, but with all the negativity floating around I wanted to say one quick thing if any of the devs are reading .



I just got to Illium and Mass Effect 2 is now officially my favorite game of all time.



Thank you.

[For Humanity]

After playing on Insanity mode where every battle takes 5-15 minutes, this game does play out the same as Gears of war - with dialogue. There are specific models of guns, like gears. The various armours you could get have been reduced to barely noticible mods and those can only be changed after the fights are over back at the ship; so when entering a tough fight instead of thinking "should I change my armour to one with higher biotic resistance but less shielding", you think, "where should I take cover".



Bringing in an ammo system didn't help the comparison, nor the regenerating red ring of health. Those powers are a difference but with point system simplified from 20 or so bars to six and with the main difference being when you unlock or evolve a power; you could start up Gears and tell the player that they can increase their chainsaw kill speed the same as this system and I guarentee it will take at least an hour before they realise they haven't changed anything.



Other than the dialogue sections which just serve to break up fighting segments all I can say is ALL ABOARD THE COLE TRAIN BABY!

[DFxSOVEREIGN]

I am a bit disappointed with the shield/health system and I miss my inventory (I had all the good stuff!), but I still love the game. I think it just takes some time to get used to the new combat system. It took me a little while to get the hang of it.

[Typifire]

DireGenesis526 wrote...

Is there a chance that maybe the shooting in ME2 is still using the dice rolling mechanics that ME1 had? the difference being the we, as players, don't have full control over the spread of points, i mean we do improve the weapons through upgrades that we find, but besides that I think everything else is handled by the game as we level up.
Aside from the cover mechanic and the game engine, I just think that there maybe too many differences between ME2 and Gears to actually accuse ME2 of being a copy of Gears.
Anyway just putting in my thoughts
By the way, ME1 had cover mechanics and the unreal engine and no one at the time compared it to Gears. So why complain about ME2 having the unreal engine and cover mechanic now?

I would think not.  I only say that because battles can be ended prematurely with head shots.  It could be possible that particular area of the enemy just receives a damage bonus, and the core mechanics remain the same, but it just doesn't feel that way.

The reason ME didn't feel as much a shooter, to me, was because they had elements in place that made the battles more about stats/weapons/powers and less about strategic aiming.  It made the battles longer and somewhat more drawn out, which it seems some disliked.  To me, however, it was almost the perfect combination of tactics and action.  I only say almost because the AI and the AI of enemies was poor.  And that has definitely improved in ME 2.

I would like to see something implemented in ME 3 that would allow the strategic postioning of your NPCs the way that it's handled in Dragon Age.  To me it's far easier to take full control of the character set their postion and queue their power and then switch to the other NPCs to do the same before resuming control of your main character and resuming combat.

But considering where they've pushed ME 2, that level of control, or what some may consider micromanaging, will probably never make it in...

Modifié par Typifire, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:55 .

[Katnap Devikat]

seconded.



Plus its Bioware's damn game, their damn time, and their resources they can use them how they want.



Now i am going to go scan planets and make people explode with biotics.



good day

[ThePilgrim101]

 I enjoy the game because it's mine.

If everyone would like to shun a perfectly good game for simply removing a few extraneous RPG elements and complain about mechanics that were in the first game. Then so be it.

I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that the combat for Mass Effect 1 was built on "take cover, fire from cover, repeat". That is quite simply what you did, until you were maxed out in level and could simply walk through the game.

I enjoy the game because it's a continuation of my story line. The game fits like a condom around all of my choices from the first game. There are very few games out there that can say "Hey! Remember that one girl you shot in the first game? Yeah, turns out she lived and she's a little ticked!" I find the whole thing honestly fascinating. 

Everyone is entitled to hate or love the game, whatever their reason. I just think it's important to realize that, if you dislike the combat system for ME2, there is no reason you should have liked the combat system from ME1. Assuming that logical relationship, there should have been no reason for you to play the game and therefore no reason to have an issue with recurring mechanics.

[Prof-Elefant]

I'd say it's largely improved with the laborious menu crawling cut away... but that said, I actually rather miss modding weapons. *shrug* Go figure.

[Typifire]

Prof-Elefant wrote...

I'd say it's largely improved with the laborious menu crawling cut away... but that said, I actually rather miss modding weapons. *shrug* Go figure.

The weapon and armor mods are definitely missed.  Though I greatly enjoy appearance customization.

Except for those useless extra armors I paid for and can't customize... [mutters under breath]

[Typifire]

ThePilgrim101 wrote...

 I enjoy the game because it's mine.

If everyone would like to shun a perfectly good game for simply removing a few extraneous RPG elements and complain about mechanics that were in the first game. Then so be it.

I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that the combat for Mass Effect 1 was built on "take cover, fire from cover, repeat". That is quite simply what you did, until you were maxed out in level and could simply walk through the game.

I enjoy the game because it's a continuation of my story line. The game fits like a condom around all of my choices from the first game. There are very few games out there that can say "Hey! Remember that one girl you shot in the first game? Yeah, turns out she lived and she's a little ticked!" I find the whole thing honestly fascinating. 

Everyone is entitled to hate or love the game, whatever their reason. I just think it's important to realize that, if you dislike the combat system for ME2, there is no reason you should have liked the combat system from ME1. Assuming that logical relationship, there should have been no reason for you to play the game and therefore no reason to have an issue with recurring mechanics.

Actually I've covered this already.  The combat sytem in ME , while it required firing from cover, was still based on the rules of an RPG.  Damage was decided by your character's skill, class, weapon and the enemies shields, armor, and available health.  Thus, it would not be possible to aim well and take out an enemy with a pistol in one shot.  Thus battles took a little longer, but felt more tactical, to me. 

Some did not like that, thus the new system.  You still use powers, but I have yet to find weapon stats, and your skill with the weapon does not determine your likeliness of hitting, your aim does.  It's a fairly significant difference.  It makes the battles feel more hectic and rushed.  Some may like that. I don't.

I don't hate the game. I dislike the direction that the focus on action orientation has shifted the combat mechanics...

Modifié par Typifire, 30 janvier 2010 - 05:47 .

[TuringPoint]

But there are weapon stats in this game. Also, you can't resort to weapon power, weapon power, weapon power in ME2, like you could in ME1. I didn't like the min/maxing, and I didn't like the worse than average inventory system. I miss modding weapons and armor, but I really liked being able to wear N7 armor throughout.

Anyway, I disagree about ME2 simply being "less of an RPG." The weapon/armor upgrading in ME2 was an RPG quality, and how I see this, having these things based on character skills doesn't make a lot of sense. In a sci-fi setting, and in a third-person shooter setting, where you aim, how well you aim, and the weapon you have in your hands are what matter. In a way, I think it overcomplicates things to put character competency into the mix.

I definitely liked having something based on my character stats, but in ME1 they had taken out character attributes in favor of simplifying it and putting it on the one character sheet, anyway. The result was that your character, although a trained special forces agent, couldn't aim or even use very many powers at the beginning of their career, in order to allow your character to build over 60 levels and throughout a thirty+ hour game.  The other result was that once you had achieved a high level, you couldn't be killed unless you just stopped paying attention. The balance was rather poor. How would you correct that balance in order to keep the RPG quality of ME1 combat? I can't think of how they would do that, and what solutions I can think of still bring the sequel to ME1 rather close to what the sequel ended up being.

So while I liked character advancement, and I think having lots of that is nice, not only did ME1 have very linear character advancement - which ME2 improved with the research system - but ME 1 forced you to play an incompetent character when it came to aiming, and all changes were incredibly incremental.  Still, I liked having *some* advancement attached to your character.  TBH, I think the ME 1 gameplay was just fine overall - but I also think ME 2 gameplay is just fine. It makes a lot more sense to me for them to change things up rather than to keep everything the same in terms of gameplay for each game.

I would've preferred they keep some of the RPG conventions that they lost, and improved them, but it doesn't ruin the gameplay for me.

I guess what it comes down to, is that I like shooters just fine. If they have a decent story, I might even enjoy them. ME2 has plenty of decent story.

EDIT:  I just thought of an improvement.  Because they had fewer upgrades, couldn't they have attached some passive character bonuses to marksmanship or shield power to certain skills?  Like, overload gives shield power, or tactical cloak gives shield power, and the ammo powers give a slight overall passive damage boost?

Modifié par Alocormin, 30 janvier 2010 - 02:11 .

[Jonnerz]

In my opinion, Bioware had the right idea.

Mass Effect 1 was fantastic, but it felt awkward. The stats weren't really organised properly and the shooting suffered as a result of trying to mix two game systems, though overall they pulled it off well.

In this game, they minimalised the stats to something fast and simple to use, and focused on engaging dialogue, beautiful gameworlds and fun combat, which was what gathered the praise for the original.

In this current market, games where the majority of playtime is spent in dialogue and organising stats, with rather weak combat, does not appeal. Bioware's struck a great balance with enjoyable combat, awesome characters and a great game-world and story.

It doesn't feel the same as the original. But it's not always good to keep re-using the same old tricks. And in this case, I think the changes they made are wonderful.

Modifié par Jonnerz, 30 janvier 2010 - 02:15 .

[sinosleep]

For Humanity wrote...

After playing on Insanity mode where every battle takes 5-15 minutes, this game does play out the same as Gears of war - with dialogue. There are specific models of guns, like gears. The various armours you could get have been reduced to barely noticible mods and those can only be changed after the fights are over back at the ship; so when entering a tough fight instead of thinking "should I change my armour to one with higher biotic resistance but less shielding", you think, "where should I take cover".

Bringing in an ammo system didn't help the comparison, nor the regenerating red ring of health. Those powers are a difference but with point system simplified from 20 or so bars to six and with the main difference being when you unlock or evolve a power; you could start up Gears and tell the player that they can increase their chainsaw kill speed the same as this system and I guarentee it will take at least an hour before they realise they haven't changed anything.

Other than the dialogue sections which just serve to break up fighting segments all I can say is ALL ABOARD THE COLE TRAIN BABY!

Posts like these are why I rarely post here unless I'm insulting someone. Once again, where did you buy a version of gear where EVERYTHING IN THE GAME WAS STAT BASED bar aiming/hacking/decrypting? How did your version of gears wind up involving resource gathering/management? Weapon upgrading? A 30+ hour campaign (hell ask that of any shooter)? Customizable squadmates? I could go on and on and on about how GOW and ME 2 are practically nothing alike but since you're clearly a muppet why should I bother?

Hate on the game all you want, but at least hate on something VALID.

p.s. For the upgrades don't matter people. You can nearly double your damage and actually CAN double your ammo through upgrades. Yeah, that has no affect on the game whatsoever.

Modifié par sinosleep, 30 janvier 2010 - 02:59 .

[ThePilgrim101]

Typifire wrote...

Actually I've covered this already.  The combat sytem in ME , while it required firing from cover, was still based on the rules of an RPG.  Damage was decided by your character's skill, class, weapon and the enemies shields, armor, and available health.  Thus, it would not be possible to aim well and take out an enemy with a pistol in one shot.  Thus battles took a little longer, but felt more tactical, to me. 

Some did not like that, thus the new system.  You still use powers, but I have yet to find weapon stats, and your skill with the weapon does not determine your likeliness of hitting, your aim does.  It's a fairly significant difference.  It makes the battles feel more hectic and rushed.  Some may like that. I don't.

I don't hate the game. I dislike the direction that the focus on action orientation has shifted the combat mechanics...

While I really enjoy the notion that damage was purely based on dice-rolls, it really wasn't.

Was it possible to take out an enemy with a single headshot in ME1? No. Did getting a headshot result in generally more damage? Yes. Aim played a significant factor in damage for ME1. If it didn't, I might as well pulled a Dragon Age and sent a Fireball flying behind me.

Everything you mentioned about combat from the first game is nearly the exact same combat used in ME2. Damage is STILL dependent on Weapon Type, Opponent Armor Type, Power Type, Baseline Damage, Opponent Shield Strength, etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong in the fact that they took out some of the more extraneous RPG elements such as pumping skill points into your Adept's Pistol to make it super-powerful and reduce the diameter of the targeting reticule. I agree with you. It's a shame it's gone.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the combat mechanics are largely unchanged. Sometimes battle feel like they're shorter, yet other times, they seem to drag. I suspect that rushed moments are felt when a player is constantly checking their new ammo (knowing you have an infinite supply really lets you take a load off you know) and the fact that they can simply sling powers around cover now.

Again, you make some interesting points and I agree with you that it's a shame some things were removed. The only thing I take issue with is a game that is nearly a mirror reflection of it's predecessor being ridiculed for mechanics that were infused previously. 

Also, it goes without saying that Gears of War had a horrible Plot compared to this game. Gears of War would have one-liners that were much...much worse.

[mintcar]

Dragon Age is for roleplaying fanatics. Mass Effect is a hybrid shooter and just got a whole lot better with number 2. I enjoy them both, and I believe I'm richer for it.



Please leave us alone, all of you who make these threads! When will I be able to see threads that discuss favourite class and game play strategies? When will this forum become useful to anyone again?

[Darth Garrus]

I don´t think that´s fair. I´m loving ME2 so far. But that doesn´t keep me from posting my critics. Ok, there are people who just trash it, and don´t criticize. But on the other hand, even when you present fair criticism, some people want you to shut up and never complaint. Like it would prevent more games from being released. No, it just can make the games better.



The shooter fanatics flooded the forums after ME1, and the more RPG inclined stood silent. That cost them a big part of what they liked. Maybe it´s time to let these forums to be better balanced. Let the good criticism be made. Shut the trolls, not the criticism.

[Typifire]

mintcar wrote...

Dragon Age is for roleplaying fanatics. Mass Effect is a hybrid shooter and just got a whole lot better with number 2. I enjoy them both, and I believe I'm richer for it.

Please leave us alone, all of you who make these threads! When will I be able to see threads that discuss favourite class and game play strategies? When will this forum become useful to anyone again?

No one's forcing you read these threads.  If you don't agree, then you don't have to read them and you don't have to post.

If you do post, feel free to discuss why you disagree.

Otherwise everyone has a right to their opinion and to discuss it whether you agree or not.

[Typifire]

ThePilgrim101 wrote...

Typifire wrote...

Actually I've covered this already.  The combat sytem in ME , while it required firing from cover, was still based on the rules of an RPG.  Damage was decided by your character's skill, class, weapon and the enemies shields, armor, and available health.  Thus, it would not be possible to aim well and take out an enemy with a pistol in one shot.  Thus battles took a little longer, but felt more tactical, to me. 

Some did not like that, thus the new system.  You still use powers, but I have yet to find weapon stats, and your skill with the weapon does not determine your likeliness of hitting, your aim does.  It's a fairly significant difference.  It makes the battles feel more hectic and rushed.  Some may like that. I don't.

I don't hate the game. I dislike the direction that the focus on action orientation has shifted the combat mechanics...

While I really enjoy the notion that damage was purely based on dice-rolls, it really wasn't.

Was it possible to take out an enemy with a single headshot in ME1? No. Did getting a headshot result in generally more damage? Yes. Aim played a significant factor in damage for ME1. If it didn't, I might as well pulled a Dragon Age and sent a Fireball flying behind me.

Everything you mentioned about combat from the first game is nearly the exact same combat used in ME2. Damage is STILL dependent on Weapon Type, Opponent Armor Type, Power Type, Baseline Damage, Opponent Shield Strength, etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong in the fact that they took out some of the more extraneous RPG elements such as pumping skill points into your Adept's Pistol to make it super-powerful and reduce the diameter of the targeting reticule. I agree with you. It's a shame it's gone.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the combat mechanics are largely unchanged. Sometimes battle feel like they're shorter, yet other times, they seem to drag. I suspect that rushed moments are felt when a player is constantly checking their new ammo (knowing you have an infinite supply really lets you take a load off you know) and the fact that they can simply sling powers around cover now.

Again, you make some interesting points and I agree with you that it's a shame some things were removed. The only thing I take issue with is a game that is nearly a mirror reflection of it's predecessor being ridiculed for mechanics that were infused previously. 

Also, it goes without saying that Gears of War had a horrible Plot compared to this game. Gears of War would have one-liners that were much...much worse.

You could not target indiviual areas in ME at all.  So, damage was not greater in different areas.  I read this when they were revealing new features for the game.

From:

http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=16631

"You no longer need to spend level up points on your weapon class either, as you will be fully effective in that weapon if your class supports it. You can now target individual parts of the body and you have to manually enter cover rather than automatically, a la the original Mass Effect."

Also, as I have repeatedly stated, I was comparing the gameplay mechanics to Gears of War.  Not the entire game.  Unfortunately, comabt is a very large portion of the game.

Modifié par Typifire, 31 janvier 2010 - 06:03 .

[Typifire]

sinosleep wrote...

For Humanity wrote...

After playing on Insanity mode where every battle takes 5-15 minutes, this game does play out the same as Gears of war - with dialogue. There are specific models of guns, like gears. The various armours you could get have been reduced to barely noticible mods and those can only be changed after the fights are over back at the ship; so when entering a tough fight instead of thinking "should I change my armour to one with higher biotic resistance but less shielding", you think, "where should I take cover".

Bringing in an ammo system didn't help the comparison, nor the regenerating red ring of health. Those powers are a difference but with point system simplified from 20 or so bars to six and with the main difference being when you unlock or evolve a power; you could start up Gears and tell the player that they can increase their chainsaw kill speed the same as this system and I guarentee it will take at least an hour before they realise they haven't changed anything.

Other than the dialogue sections which just serve to break up fighting segments all I can say is ALL ABOARD THE COLE TRAIN BABY!

Posts like these are why I rarely post here unless I'm insulting someone. Once again, where did you buy a version of gear where EVERYTHING IN THE GAME WAS STAT BASED bar aiming/hacking/decrypting? How did your version of gears wind up involving resource gathering/management? Weapon upgrading? A 30+ hour campaign (hell ask that of any shooter)? Customizable squadmates? I could go on and on and on about how GOW and ME 2 are practically nothing alike but since you're clearly a muppet why should I bother?

Hate on the game all you want, but at least hate on something VALID.

p.s. For the upgrades don't matter people. You can nearly double your damage and actually CAN double your ammo through upgrades. Yeah, that has no affect on the game whatsoever.

You know people are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours.  It's not normal behavior to get this angry everytime someone disagrees with you.

He pointed out elements of the game he felt were the same.  He didn't say the entire game was the same. 

For that matter, head on over to Gamespot and flame their reviewer.

From:

http://www.gamespot....ary;read-review

"Mass Effect 2's third-person shooting action is greatly enhanced over the original, making battles exciting and violent, which befits the overall shift in tone. Battles play out as they do in a typical cover-based shooters like Gears of War, with a few caveats (you can't tumble, for example). Sliding into cover is slick and easy, as is popping in and out to take potshots at the wide variety of foes that assault you."

Now, even this reviewer, who loved the changes, still said it felt like a typical cover-based shooter like Gears of War when in combat.

I'm not saying the game isn't better than Gears of War, because it obviously is better.  But the combat which makes up a very large portion of the game feels more like a TPS than a hybrid.

Modifié par Typifire, 31 janvier 2010 - 06:04 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Typifire wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Yeah, I said they were similiar with taking cover and what not.... but ME2 is leans more toward ME1 than it does GoW.

So, you would rather (in a future space faring world) have the hero kill everything with a pistol? That doesn't make much sense at all. I can totally see guns that freeze people, shoot multiple rockets, etc etc in a future type world like ME2. Battles are supposed to be fast-paced, exciting, and realistic.....at least, they are IMO. In ME1, I was so beast by the end of the game I could run in a room without squad mates, use zero powers, and clear the whole room with an AR. The enemies never can at me all at once or tried to get around behind me (not even on insanity). I can't see why anyone would hate the combat. Especially if its like combat in a game that they've played before and liked. I believe bioware's characters and story in this game make up (though I would say "add" ) to the fun or lackthereof in the new combat system.

Exactly, why do you think games are combining these elements, b/c more people buy them and IMO b/c they make the game more fun and satisfying. Personally, I loved Dead Space and Splinter Cell. Though I do believe ME2 has waaaay more RPGness to it than either of those games.

There were obviouly weapons other than pistols in the first universe.  You people love your false dilemmas.  Just because I don't want  Shepard toting around the BFG doesn't mean I want him to be limited to a chainsaw.  The weapon diversity in the first game was fine.  It all centered around ME technology, as in mass field generators, and I liked how that was tied together.

Games like Bioshoock benefit from RPG elements because it makes the mindless action less monotonous and more diverse.  I can't say that ME will benefit from going in the other direction.  But, once again, that's just my opinion.

I'm pretty sure they explain how the weapons were made/engineered in the universe/on the normandy if you look at the weapons description pages. They still have to do with ME technology. Come on, how can you not like big guns? lol

Well, you could also say that bioware going in the other direction would make the boring, tediousness of stat pages, dialogue etc more diverse and give that a break sometimes could you not? I'm a fan of both genres and I love the fact that both are included in this game.

[AltitudeNYC]

You're really complaining about an RPG this good?



Really???



Unbelievable.

[Typifire]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Typifire wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Yeah, I said they were similiar with taking cover and what not.... but ME2 is leans more toward ME1 than it does GoW.

So, you would rather (in a future space faring world) have the hero kill everything with a pistol? That doesn't make much sense at all. I can totally see guns that freeze people, shoot multiple rockets, etc etc in a future type world like ME2. Battles are supposed to be fast-paced, exciting, and realistic.....at least, they are IMO. In ME1, I was so beast by the end of the game I could run in a room without squad mates, use zero powers, and clear the whole room with an AR. The enemies never can at me all at once or tried to get around behind me (not even on insanity). I can't see why anyone would hate the combat. Especially if its like combat in a game that they've played before and liked. I believe bioware's characters and story in this game make up (though I would say "add" ) to the fun or lackthereof in the new combat system.

Exactly, why do you think games are combining these elements, b/c more people buy them and IMO b/c they make the game more fun and satisfying. Personally, I loved Dead Space and Splinter Cell. Though I do believe ME2 has waaaay more RPGness to it than either of those games.

There were obviouly weapons other than pistols in the first universe.  You people love your false dilemmas.  Just because I don't want  Shepard toting around the BFG doesn't mean I want him to be limited to a chainsaw.  The weapon diversity in the first game was fine.  It all centered around ME technology, as in mass field generators, and I liked how that was tied together.

Games like Bioshoock benefit from RPG elements because it makes the mindless action less monotonous and more diverse.  I can't say that ME will benefit from going in the other direction.  But, once again, that's just my opinion.

I'm pretty sure they explain how the weapons were made/engineered in the universe/on the normandy if you look at the weapons description pages. They still have to do with ME technology. Come on, how can you not like big guns? lol

Well, you could also say that bioware going in the other direction would make the boring, tediousness of stat pages, dialogue etc more diverse and give that a break sometimes could you not? I'm a fan of both genres and I love the fact that both are included in this game.

I think the main problem I have with big guns, aside from it bringing the game that much closer to the FPS strategy of "if that didn't kill it use a bigger gun," is that if an Adept isn't skilled enough to use an assault rifle or sniper rifle, why would one be able to use a grenade launcher/heavy weapon. I  would think those weapons would require much more skill to use.

Modifié par Typifire, 02 février 2010 - 04:00 .