349 réponses à ce sujet

[Typifire]

Alocormin wrote...

It's funny, I remember making a couple threads that were like, "Won't you miss the old days when you had to do such and such gimpy thing in ME1?" and I got unanimous, "no, I won't miss those days,"

Then all these people come on the forums and complain about every nerdy (not meant to be mean by saying "nerdy") little detail that's changed by the sequel.

 
I don't take it as being mean.  But I do enjoy those elements in an RPG, and that is my right.

An answer to a cluttered inventory system is to make one that isn't cluttered, not simply do away with the inventory.

Should we get rid of all cars until we can find a cheaper renewable resource?

Modifié par Typifire, 27 janvier 2010 - 12:37 .

[klossen4]

Just me who thinks they put the hardcore RPG elements to dao and the new starwars mmo.

[blades11]

Mass effect 2s strongest component its its character driven story and the interaction of the player with the ingame world. There are many more dialogue options and potential choices than the first game. This is one the the defining components of the rpg genre. Stats and inventories and loot are all on the side, and these were the weakest parts of the first game. And no, most shooters are not rpgs because you play a pre-determined character without much choice in the game except who you kill and in what order. ME2 has taken a realistic step of eliminating clunky inventories (who carries around 100s of guns and armour sets anyway?) and stupid stat levels (an elite solider who needs to level up just to hit a target 10ms away with his gun? cmon) so that the intense and exciting story can better be experienced. Everyone who likes the game is getting sick of explaining simple **** over and over again to the small group of whiners that plague these forums. If you think rpgs are all about loots and personal stats then ME2 aint the game for you.

[Auts]

The inventory was just horrible in ME. I don't mind taking it away, since "upgrading your weapon to x% beter weapon for every party member after x missions" doesn't increase the depth of the game, just some macro you have to do time and time again.

[Popinjay]

blades11 wrote...

Its already been proven that:
a)ME2 is an astounding rpg
b)RPG does not stand for cluttered inventory and useless stats. rather character driven story
c)all the people who claim to be hardcore rpg lovers and dont like ME2 suck at shooters

a) FALSE!  You can't prove opinion. - I agree ME2 is a great game, but that's still an opinion, not fact.
Link to proof please?
c) Link to proof please?  I suck at shooters and I'm enjoying ME2. 

On a more helpful note:  Perhaps the secret for players who are not great at shooters is to lower the difficulty setting.

[GreenSoda]

I don't think the changes are as severe as you make them out to be. Sure there's no accessible inventory anymore, but the underlying functions are still in place.

You still get new weapons -only now you don't find them as often or have to research them. Instead of ~50 variations of the same gun with slightly better stats you get ~5 iterations that matter.

You also still get new armor -in fact this point is more fleshed out in comparison to ME1. You can equip multiple helmets, breastplates, cauldrons & boots which all got different stats -only now you have to equip them in your personal quarters and can't hand them down to your squadmates.

The only *real* aspect of the inventory system that actually got removed is the selling of surplus loot. I'm fine with that. Having 12 shotguns, 14 assault rifles, 5 pistols & 9 pieces of armor in my inventory never seemed overly realistic to me.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 27 janvier 2010 - 12:55 .

[Murmillos]

Could it be that they don't want the ME series to be a generic - has everything every other RPG has - clone.



As stated above, ME strong points are the character driven story and strong story that the player can really change. Introducing boring and needless elements just to satisfy the limited minority whom expects every single RPG "aspect" to be in the game to be an RPG is not the direction BioWare wants to take with ME.



They want ME to be about the character and story. Not about fiddling around with crap weapons and useless armor.

[action jim]

Actually, I never put even half as much time into Gears of War as I did into ME2 just yesterday. That's because Gears kinda sucks.

[Terror_K]

So they make it more of a generic shooter instead. Yeah... that makes sense.



Seriously, I admit the original game was flawed as hell, but I would hardly call it like every other RPG out there.

[Darth_Shizz]

Popinjay wrote...

blades11 wrote...

Its already been proven that:
a)ME2 is an astounding rpg
b)RPG does not stand for cluttered inventory and useless stats. rather character driven story
c)all the people who claim to be hardcore rpg lovers and dont like ME2 suck at shooters

a) FALSE!  You can't prove opinion. - I agree ME2 is a great game, but that's still an opinion, not fact.
Link to proof please?
c) Link to proof please?  I suck at shooters and I'm enjoying ME2. 

On a more helpful note:  Perhaps the secret for players who are not great at shooters is to lower the difficulty setting.

Agreed on that last part 100%

As for proving b and c...well, I doubt it can be done. Genre conceptions are far too much of a subjective thing to find any one particular source that will give an all-encompassing definition. However, I personally believe that whilst some RPG components have been removed, others have been added...it's also had more action injected into combat. Whether or not this make it a worse game/rpg? I'm doubtful myself. There are also a number of posts that allude to the idea that people being bad at shooters is the reason they find the changes offensive, though of course, this is by no means everyone.

On that note. Is it not possible to keep all these posts in one place? It'd make it far easier to actually go through and weigh opinions against each other. As it stands, this just looks and feels way too much like spam 0_o

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 27 janvier 2010 - 01:00 .

[Bluemax151]

RPG has different connotations when associated with videogaming. Role Playing is really only definitive in association with LARPing.



What people really look at is stereotypical Western RPGs, Japanese RPGs and their subcategories and consider that/those "RPG".



Realistically they haven't made "real" RPGs in over twenty years. Even then most of them came with silly translation wheels or were solely text driven.

[Barhador]

These discussions are really stupid. You cannot prove if ME2 is a RPG or not. Rather each person have to make his own definition for RPG and then compare ME2 to that definition.

Every person has slightly different definitions. If you define RPG's by their story, exploring, ability to build a party etc, then YES it is a RPG.

If you however define the RPG genre by its focus on character stats, ability to pick up items (inventory) etc, then NO it is is not a RPG.

It is all about how the individual player defines RPG.
 

[Canden Zain]

What's interesting here (I think) is that this bears all the hallmarks of a debate about genre, similar to those you might get regarding cinema.



A tenet of genre theory is that genre's are fluid concepts subject to change over time. They also have significant crossover. For example, is Butch Cassidy a western or a buddy movie? Is Terminator 2 an action film or science fiction?



It's fair enough for people to prefer one type of game or other, but almost all the complaints are being made about expectations not being met, regardless of how reasonable those expectations were.



It's been flagged for months that ME2 was more action oriented, and every single review has made that point, so Caveat Emptor. Bioware created a game that has received massive acclaim for doing exactly what it promised to do. I don't really see that the complainers have a valid argument beyond saying 'I didn't enjoy playing it.'

[CMD-Shep]

blades11 wrote...

Its already been proven that:
a)ME2 is an astounding rpg
b)RPG does not stand for cluttered inventory and useless stats. rather character driven story
c)all the people who claim to be hardcore rpg lovers and dont like ME2 suck at shooters

^ this.

[JGHutch]

Geth Colossus wrote...

Oh look, another complaint thread about how stats and inventory make a game an RPG and not the damn story.

It seems to be hardcore RPG fans that can't accept that this was the direction Bioware wanted to take Mass Effect in the first place, I love it and all my friends love it, your loss.

Garrus's penis -.-....sorry had to be blunt.

lol quoted wrong thang haha, meant the walking Llama that looks like a penis

Modifié par JGHutch, 27 janvier 2010 - 01:25 .

[Barhador]

Canden Zain wrote...

What's interesting here (I think) is that this bears all the hallmarks of a debate about genre, similar to those you might get regarding cinema. 

A tenet of genre theory is that genre's are fluid concepts subject to change over time. They also have significant crossover. For example, is Butch Cassidy a western or a buddy movie? Is Terminator 2 an action film or science fiction?

It's fair enough for people to prefer one type of game or other, but almost all the complaints are being made about expectations not being met, regardless of how reasonable those expectations were. 

It's been flagged for months that ME2 was more action oriented, and every single review has made that point, so Caveat Emptor. Bioware created a game that has received massive acclaim for doing exactly what it promised to do. I don't really see that the complainers have a valid argument beyond saying 'I didn't enjoy playing it.'

Yep, that is why i call Mass Effect 2 for a action role-playing third person shooter (even though it sounds ridiculous). Because it can fit into all of these genres to my idea.

Modifié par Barhador, 27 janvier 2010 - 01:24 .

[Shepard Lives]

In my opinion what makes a good RPG are a deep story and character interaction.

But this is not the point of my post.



Point is: these threads are useless. Everyone has the right to state their own thoughts, but the arguing is utterly senseless. There are people who like stats, people who don't mind stats and people who would flush stats down the drain if they were allowed to. Period. It's not like someone will change their opinion because they were told to by someone on the Internet.



Regards to everyone.



That is all.

[blades11]

Popinjay wrote...

blades11 wrote...

Its already been proven that:
a)ME2 is an astounding rpg
b)RPG does not stand for cluttered inventory and useless stats. rather character driven story
c)all the people who claim to be hardcore rpg lovers and dont like ME2 suck at shooters

a) FALSE!  You can't prove opinion. - I agree ME2 is a great game, but that's still an opinion, not fact.
Link to proof please?
c) Link to proof please?  I suck at shooters and I'm enjoying ME2. 

On a more helpful note:  Perhaps the secret for players who are not great at shooters is to lower the difficulty setting.

a)when something gets overwhelmingly postive reviews, thats general opinion proved in my book
b)its role-playing-game - not stats-loot-inventory-game. Role=character, not micromanagement
c)now your just not making sense - read it backwards if that helps

[estheman12]

its called wepon locker its in the new normedy like it says im not going to tell you what it looks like

[Darkeus]

Is ME2 a RPG. Yes for the short answer. DOes it have a character that you create or import from the one you create in ME1? Check.



Do you gather a party of like-minded individuals? Check.



DO you explore the world and take side quest? Can you find secret areas and items and missions?

I am gonna say check and check.



Is there a detailed story and not some "THose guys bad, shoot them!" story? Check



CAn you customize your armor and by doing so give your character different stats? Check, the stats aren't gone, they are just tied to armor now.



Can you upgrade and find new weapons? Check



DO you have to do research or go through some sort of "item synthesis" to acquire some items? Check. Heck, they finally put in some JRPG elements! Star Ocean and others have been doing this forever.



Just because it is streamlined (Which I like) doesn't mean it isn't a RPG. In the Tabletop Roleplaying world, we would call ME2 "rules-lite", meaning that it is more focused on story and Roleplaying and less on stats and crunch. If you are not good at shooters then you will have problems with this game. If you like stats and having fifty pieces of useless armor then this game does not have you in mind.



Mass Effect 2 compares more to games like Diablo II and Titan Quest (As all three are Action RPG's) then Gears of War one or 2. I liked both of those games alot and ME2 does not play like any of them.

[Tasker]

From what I can tell so far - ( Haven't got the game yet so i'm going off what I see and hear on the interwebz ) - Borderlands comes across as more of an RPG than ME2 does and that is a very sad thing.



I'm getting the feeling that ME2 is actually a bloomin' good game, it's just not a sequel to ME1.

[Count Viceroy]

Gears of war with Bioware story? Thats damn good praise in my book.

[Monstrion]

Darkeus wrote...

....

For the short answer, ME2 is not an RPG. Its an epic Shooter with RPG elements. You can check all you want ;p

[Marlina]

So ME2 lacks in stats, but has an excellent branching storyline? Then it's still an RPG. RPG = role playing game. Branching storyline = role playing. Stats fiddling = roll playing. As any active D&D player should know, roleplaying games are about deciding a path through a story, not stats. In D&D circles, we call the players who only want stat-based combat "rollplayers" since they only care about rolling the dices and not actual roleplaying.

[searanox]

No inventory? From what I remember, most of my time in Mass Effect's inventory was spent slowly scrolling through a list, turning countless useless items into goop one-by-one...

While I do miss some of the "depth" offered by things like different ammo types and armours, I also understand why they were removed.  Their use in the original game was pretty limited, and ultimately picking different items came down to a balancing act of "this one looks stupider, but it's more powerful, which do I choose?"

As for skills like first aid and electronics... eh, I don't care.  In the first game all it meant was that you'd have to take along a character you may not like so you could open chests, and there were so many skill points available that it wasn't like you ever had to sacrifice one skill for another... and if you ever did, I'd ask you to show it made a significant difference in gameplay.

Modifié par searanox, 27 janvier 2010 - 02:02 .