195 réponses à ce sujet

[Jeremy Winston]

Problem? You mean for the people that ARE complaining? Perhaps. But, if so, they were drawn into ME1 and found it to their liking exactly because of the less demanding shooter mechanics.

That class of players helped make ME1 the success it was. I don't think it unreasonable for them to be a little put out that ME2 wasn't the game they were expecting.

Modifié par Jeremy Winston, 28 janvier 2010 - 09:27 .

[exboomer]

Ryuuichi009 wrote...

RPG elements?

I'm not being sarcastic or anything but that seems to be the root of the issue. All of you guys seem to have different thoughts on what exactly RPG elements are.

To me RPG = your character build determining his/her prowess in battle. So would ME2 be an rpg to me?

Yes it is still an RPG but Bioware has drastically changed how your character is able to level up which is what people are complaining about I think. It took a lot longer to gain proficiency in your biotic and combat skill in ME1 than it does in this game which I find very disappointing and I think it also makes the game lopsided in favor of just being a shooter. I have like the plot so far but I am disappointed with the changes they made to character development.

[Warlokki]

Answering to the title: Because Mass Effect 1 combine shooter and RPG, and the shooter part was very bad. ME2 is better shooter in addition to RPG.

[trumpedo]

i just wrote a really really long post about how they have taken too much rpg out of this game. "a shooter with rpg elements = a shooter that you get to decide between two choices" they really have no buisness calling this an rpg. you can argue than your playing a role, but this game needed to have a more indepth weapon/inventory system in order to be an rpg. all they needed to do was just make the inventory better and easy to navigate. instead of making it better, they just scrapped it and gave you a choice between 19 guns total, with some upgrades you just go buy somewhere. you could have all the sweet shooter elements, and the rpg elements from the first. it wasnt a mistake that the first one was popular, they did everything right, just needed some tweaking (mako driving, crazy hard to use inventory). there is nothing wrong with picking up weapons with base stats (any other rpg) and being able to use the new upgrade system to make them better. you wouldnt have alienated the shooter fans, and rpg fans love it too. and if you like both genres (myself) you would have declared it the best game in the past long while. its got a great story, great characters, great shooter handling and action, it just needs more pure RPG elements injected back into it.

[Warlokki]

Inventory doesn't make a RPG. We played with my friends rules a PNP RPG. We had no really any inventory systme what so ever. Sure we had armor and weapons... which we were pretty much able to pick during character creation. (And armors were OP.) We had skill system, with every rank having effect, similar to Mass Effect 2 (played last spring). It was very much RPG. Oh and weapons and things didn't have any stats either.

[Parallax Demon]

Darht Jayder wrote...

This thread is lame. It is an RPG set in a world with guns therefore it is a shooter with RPG elements. If you don't like shooting play Dragonage. Or any game that has no guns.

Using guns or not has nothing to do with a game being a RPG. Look at the first ME or Fallout 3. In both games u use guns and both are considered great RPG's.
By dumbing down all the micomanaging and getting the soldier to be the best character, BW makes clear they only listened to the teens who were complaining that ME1 didn't play like Halo or GoW. They just made a shooter with a great story but not a RPG.

Modifié par Parallax Demon, 28 janvier 2010 - 09:54 .

[Majpain007]

Zoe Dedweth wrote...

You do know ME has always been a shooter with RPG Elements right ?

No its been a RPG first. It sounds like they removed alot of Role playing elements in ME 2.

[Starhaus]

Um, I beg to differ ... I enjoy shooters but I am starting to hate ME2. The new combat interface and mechanics are HORRIBLE. There is no longer any crouch, and the sticky auto-movement and auto-shelter crap was bad enough in ME1 but they plunged it to new lows in ME2 making all combat more a struggle against the game's interface than against the storyline enemies. Worse you have little on screen info about anything, forcing you into ridiculous stop and start menus which interrupts movement and makes the games devs the only people you want to kill.

In ME1 at least the existing RPG elements made it kind of fun despite some minor issues with combat.  So in ME2, the removal of some of the collecting aspects of the original game basically removes one of the most fun parts of the game while turning the one slightly damaged area of the game into more of a disaster, imo.

If you are going to make a shooter, you have to hand over absolute control over the character to the person playing... that means: (1) crouch, (2) jump, (3) NO sticky auto-movements, (4) hotkey everything to minimize the chains of keystrokes you have to crank out to complete an action.    In other words, as a shooter, ME2 got it all wrong.  Plus on top of that they removed some of the fun RPG elements of the game.

Modifié par Starhaus, 28 janvier 2010 - 10:07 .

[Jeremy Winston]

Dropping the crouch mechanic was odd. It makes you use the "cover" mechanic when all you really need to do is use the natural cover available and don't want to be stuck to it.

[Majpain007]

Why did they drop the crouch Mechanic? I used that ALOT in Mass Effect. Whats being used in its place?

[Jeremy Winston]

Nothing, really. However, since you manually enter or leave cover with a button press, you will crouch to enter cover. I guess they didn't feel that crouch was a useful mechanic outside of cover.

[Majpain007]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

Nothing, really. However, since you manually enter or leave cover with a button press, you will crouch to enter cover. I guess they didn't feel that crouch was a useful mechanic outside of cover.

Well in that reguard it isn't very useful I mean there were alot of times I would accidently press the SL down and go into crouch rather annoying. But Crouch came in handy with Sniper rifles and Shot guns. PRetty much every gun but the Pistol going crouch was useful.

[Jeremy Winston]

Yep. I avoided a lot of nasty areas by crouching and sniping off the bad guys from the distance.

[Zatwu]

The main difference between ME and ME2 when it comes to gameplay is in ME there was a lot of backtracking and problem solving, where as in ME2 most of the locations are one-off and you basically just shoot everything that moves.

[Jeremy Winston]

Backtracking is OK. One thing that's really irritating me is that I've had a few times where I had a choice of doors.. pick one, have some combat, have some dialog, decide that this was the mission-path, so I'd better pick up whatever behind the other door, go back, and.. WTF? I can't get back there!

[NewJerseyDude]

Every time I hit the reload button, or grub on the floor for ammo, my enjoyment of the game is negatively impacted.

[halO bendeR]

I'll be honest, while as a shooter I think it's really good at what it does, I am finding that I miss some of the RPG elements a little more than I thought I would. I like being able to level up a character in the middle of combat and find myself wishing there was a wider variety of skills available to spend skillpoints on in ME2. And, while I was not a fan of having to constantly convert unwanted items into omni-gel in the first game, I do miss the experience of outfitting my squad to some degree.



Still really enjoying the game though.

[Jeremy Winston]

Everyone talks about converting to omni-gel. Did I miss something? I never had to convert to omni-gel. I just sold everything.

[obie191970]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

Everyone talks about converting to omni-gel. Did I miss something? I never had to convert to omni-gel. I just sold everything.

Well, you quickly got to the point where you maxed out credits and omni-gel, so it really didn't matter what you did.

[Jeremy Winston]

True. I think I used omni-gel maybe three or four times, max.

[D00MRoar]

I think to many people are concerned with what Mass Effect was. Mass Effect 2 took the best elements from ME1 and made everything better. The overheating/no ammo system annoyed the crap out of me in the first Mass Effect. I understand that the story seems to go backwards from no ammo to ammo. If Bioware would of made up some story like a recall of all weapons because the overheating system has been know to blow up in the users hand then I think a lot of people would just have to except it because it is part of the story. Now the game is significantly more tactical. In ME1 you could just roll a soldier get immunity and max out assault rifles and plow through the game.

[dodger187]

Eshaye wrote...

Ryuuichi009 wrote...

To me RPG = your character build determining his/her prowess in battle. So would ME2 be an rpg to me?

To me that's not an RPG, that's just rules, I don't mind if the rules bend or change over time it's bound to happen.  Linear progression and development is also getting old.

Role playing game, is a game that let's you play a role regardless of how the classes develop and how the armory/inventory now works can you say you are Shepard when you play?

That's what is important. I've gone back to ME1 for a bit so I still can't answer that, but basically that's an RPG, is there a story, are you part of it? Is BioWare's staple of choices and consequences still part of the game?

To me that what matters everything else, not so much.

In my humble opinion that is just so wrong. If playing the role of the character is the most important thing of an RPG then Max Payne 2 is one of the best RPGs out there. See the flaw?

[Jeremy Winston]

They DID create a story, and I didn't buy into it, because I think the logic is wrong (for just the reason you stated).



If you take the mind-numbing time to read through all the codex entries (which I did), you'll see that the heat clips were a result of Geth analysis that said that the number one thing that affected win/loss was the amount of ammo you could fire down range. So, the cooldown took too long and they shifted to heat clips that could be ejected in a fraction of the time, thus putting more ammo down range faster.



The flaw in that is that now I have limited ammo, whereas before I didn't. So, unless I'm competent (which I'm not), I can ultimately get more ammo down range with cooldown rather than heat clips.



Mind you, I'm not complaining that they changed it. I'm complaining about how they elected to justify it.