195 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorlen]

halO bendeR wrote...

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.

Same here.  I think overall it's a great game and I'm blown away by how amazing the game looks, but they just gutted all the stuff people complained about and simplified the game instead of repairing some very cool concepts.  The inventory, collecting loot and mako planet exploration just needed some polish, now they're gone, and the game now feels paper thin to me.  I don't expect everyone to understand, but what was once a very promising series to me has lost its charm.

I wonder if there's any possibility that some of these will be brought back in ME3, albeit more polished?

[dodger187]

Cruel Writer wrote...

All the stuff you guys complain about, equipment, skills, all these things you call rpg elements, for me have nothing to do with rpgs at all. For me that's mircomanaging.

RPG's definition is right there in the title: ROLE playing game. For me it's all about story. Is the story good? Yes. Is the fighting manageable? Yes. Are the skills varied and interesting? Yes. There's not a whole lotta them, but damn, I love my infiltrator's camouflage. So for me it passes the requirements for being both and rpg and a game I can enjoy.

Check out Jade Empire, how many "rpg elements" were there? And still it was an rpg

Jade Empire? Like a ton more rpg elements then in ME 1 and 2 together? O.o
For starters the open handed or closed fist path (good evil thing) for starters which really had meaning.
Not like the paragon renegade thing that not really altered anything but the max skill lvl of persuation.
That alone would be a BIG deal more rpg.

[Bigeyez]

By the logic some people in this thread are using Resident Evil 4 and 5 are RPGs, because they have inventory systems and stats on weapons...har har har.

[Gaddmeister]

Starhaus wrote...

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.

I agree with 1, disagree with 2, agree partially with 3 and play on console and hot keys work surprisingly well there with the limited number of buttons, but don't know about pc. Regarding jump, I'm fine with being able to just move over low obstacles, although you should be able to do so directly without going into cover, so that's the thing I don't like about the cover system. And on certain places where it looks like you should be able to to into cover you can't, which is annoying. It's moments like those where I miss crouch. Also, I somehow seem to stand up sometimes when I want to remain in cover, which is annoying. But I don't need to be able to just jump on the spot. My Shepard is on the battlefield to battle, not jump around like a rabbit.

Still, the combat system is very much improved since ME imo.

[Zoe Dedweth]

Majpain007 wrote...

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.

Mass Effect was never as large nor as diverse as any of the big RPG hits. Think Baldur's gate vs ME. Both are rpg's - but Mass Effect's main story was where it was at, with the Side misisons being footnotes. Alot of the supposed dumbing down has been for both logical and story reasons:

Removal of weapons skills - this makes sense - shepard is a N7 operative, the pinnacle of human military training. Why can't he hit the broad side of a barn at level 1 ? Take out the weapon skills and replace them with player aiming, because even the worst players aiming is better than the massive swaying you get when using a sniper rifle in me1.

As for skills - you got so many skill points in ME 1 that almost every character ended up identically, and ontop of this many of the skills where way overpowered (all the biotics and immunity - I'm looking at you). Cutting down the skills to a few different ones with different evolutions available is a better choice than having a dozen skills that you all end up getting anyway.

Story still rocks in ME2 - so no bonus points for ME1 there.

Mako exploration is removed because it was almost universally disliked by fans. Now that it's gone all the ME1 fans have come out the rocks on how awesome it was. I do not miss this and the Hammerhead is getting released as well. So i'd say it's a tie, neither ME1 or ME2 is better in this regards although personally I like the look of the planet exploration tool better.

Both games are still heavy on choice - For pete's sake your character choices carry over to ME3 from ME2. So in that regards they havn't dumbed down the game at all.

So basically the game has always been a third person shooter/ RPG. It still is except this time the shooter mechanics actually work much better. The guns are more accurate, your not sifting through millions of guns and loading enough off of them at the shop to be considered a arms dealer.

In ME1 what was the difference between a Stinger I and a Stinger II ? Virtually nothing. You just kept upgrading the damn thing by replacing it constantly. It was almost universally agreed that the MK VII Shredder and Tungston rounds where the best because they made your gun do the most damage (except shotgun carnage). As for loadout almost everyone ended up with Frictionless Materials X times two or with the scram rail. Congrats - huge variation.

Colossos was the most sought after armor due to it's rediculous power over any other armor and Spectre weapons where so much better than anything else that the only reasons to use anything else was to handicap yourself so you don't kill everything instantly.

Did I mention the inventory was retarded ? And Why am I babysitting each individual squad member ? I'm a spectre not their mother.

They fixed some of the broken shooter stuff, The RPG side mostly stayed the same. How did they turn into a OMG Shooter for idiots GoW/COD from deeply detailed RPG. The RPG elements the first had are still intact.

I define RPG elements as:

Choices and Consequences.
Deep and Engaging Storyline
Develeoping characters
being able to customize your own avatar/character.

It still has these yes ?

[Stompi]

I don't care if there are less RPG elements in ME2. For me, the only important question is "Did I have more fun with Mass Effect 2?" And the answer for me is definiately "Yes". The game is much longer, I prefer the new combat system and - like it or not - the game is "emotionally enganging". Loyality missions and normal sidequests are much more detailled and varied in ME2.



Did ME1 have some advantages, especially in character customization? Yes.

Is the new scanning system getting boring after some time? Yes.



But some people are giving this game simply not enough credit.

[Gilded Age]

Zoe Dedweth wrote...
I define RPG elements as:

Choices and Consequences.
Deep and Engaging Storyline
Develeoping characters
being able to customize your own avatar/character.

It still has these yes ?

Yes.  But, apparently to many here, a "true" RPG also has: dull, repetitive, super-easy combat; skill trees with ridiculous, redundant skills (a marine doesn't know how to shoot a pistol?  LOLZ) and an archiac, poorly managed inventory.  Some people seem to enjoy watching their squad run into walls when given combat commands and spending two hours turning their inventory into omni-gel.  That is what a TRUE RPG is, didn't you know?

TBH, neither game is much of an RPG.  But, the fanboi lament that ME 2 is not the RPG that ME 1 NEVER WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE is laughable to the extreme.

[Darth Obvious]

You can customize your abilities, and interact with characters in the game, making decisions which can have significant outcomes..... yep, that's role-playing.



Spending hours micromanaging an inventory is not role-playing. What's the problem?

[dodger187]

Gilded Age wrote...

Zoe Dedweth wrote...
I define RPG elements as:

Choices and Consequences.
Deep and Engaging Storyline
Develeoping characters
being able to customize your own avatar/character.

It still has these yes ?

Yes.  But, apparently to many here, a "true" RPG also has: dull, repetitive, super-easy combat; skill trees with ridiculous, redundant skills (a marine doesn't know how to shoot a pistol?  LOLZ) and an archiac, poorly managed inventory.  Some people seem to enjoy watching their squad run into walls when given combat commands and spending two hours turning their inventory into omni-gel.  That is what a TRUE RPG is, didn't you know?

TBH, neither game is much of an RPG.  But, the fanboi lament that ME 2 is not the RPG that ME 1 NEVER WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE is laughable to the extreme.

Sorry but i must have missed that "developing character" part in ME 2

[Evil Johnny 666]

Because they didn't change this, ME1 was just that, it just had a little more rpg elements.

[dodger187]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Because they didn't change this, ME1 was just that, it just had a little more rpg elements.

Oh they changed the fact that my skill development had influence to the gameplay as in improved accuracy for example. So there was character development and improvement. Now its just gamer skill.
That a very ver big change in my eyes

[Evil Johnny 666]

dodger187 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Because they didn't change this, ME1 was just that, it just had a little more rpg elements.

Oh they changed the fact that my skill development had influence to the gameplay as in improved accuracy for example. So there was character development and improvement. Now its just gamer skill.
That a very ver big change in my eyes

Don't you think it's abnormal for someone like Shepard to not start at his full shooting capacity? I never noticed my character improving as this element of the game was lacking.

[dodger187]

Actually i dont think thats abnormal. Everyone can improve.
Actually i really liked the way it was handled in Falout 3 with the percentage.
But if you miss it or not its lacking of character development and skills having influence. And when skills dont have any influence than its just a shooter with a good story and a well writen character to play. Thats great as it is but not what i or many other expected i think.

And please keep in mind that i think that it is a great entertaining game. Its just not what i suspected after the first one. If i had known that before i wouldnt have pre ordered it. Thats all.

Modifié par dodger187, 29 janvier 2010 - 03:53 .

[II Numero6 II]

Mass effect 2 is just a gears of war like with "mass effect'' write on the box to sale .



Removing something is not an improvement ( mako elevevator inventory mod etc..) they removed things because it take time to make them better all they wanted is making quickly money .



in my case i won't preorder mass effect3 i won't buy any mass effect downalnd content i don't care about cerebrus network the story line hum where is the story ? but kid are happy thye can targeting relaoding shooting....

[Spectre Impersonator]

The story in ME2 is much deeper than ME1, IMO. You have many more characters, all with very excellent side-quests. Screw the little details like ammo and character armour. Bioware dropped those things to add depth to the story and simplify combat and gameplay.

[dodger187]

JohnShepard12 wrote...

The story in ME2 is much deeper than ME1, IMO. You have many more characters, all with very excellent side-quests. Screw the little details like ammo and character armour. Bioware dropped those things to add depth to the story and simplify combat and gameplay.

And simplifying the gameplay is a good thing?
So first one was already simple. Too simple nearly i think.

[Bigeyez]

dodger187 wrote...

JohnShepard12 wrote...

The story in ME2 is much deeper than ME1, IMO. You have many more characters, all with very excellent side-quests. Screw the little details like ammo and character armour. Bioware dropped those things to add depth to the story and simplify combat and gameplay.

And simplifying the gameplay is a good thing?
So first one was already simple. Too simple nearly i think.

Me thinks adding in more weapon mechanics, protection mechanics, and new biotic/tech mechanics, along with evolving skills is more complicated then 1. Put Firctionless Materials on AR/Pistol/Shotgun. 2. Hold trigger until everything dies. 3. ??? 4. Profit. that was ME 1 gameplay.

Edit: I think you probably meant to type stats or skills or something instead of gameplay, because you can at least argue you're opinion about that being simplified, but trying to say ME 1 gameplay was more complex then ME 2 is just laughable.

Modifié par Bigeyez, 29 janvier 2010 - 04:10 .

[Gilded Age]

dodger187 wrote...

Gilded Age wrote...

Zoe Dedweth wrote...
I define RPG elements as:

Choices and Consequences.
Deep and Engaging Storyline
Develeoping characters
being able to customize your own avatar/character.

It still has these yes ?

Yes.  But, apparently to many here, a "true" RPG also has: dull, repetitive, super-easy combat; skill trees with ridiculous, redundant skills (a marine doesn't know how to shoot a pistol?  LOLZ) and an archiac, poorly managed inventory.  Some people seem to enjoy watching their squad run into walls when given combat commands and spending two hours turning their inventory into omni-gel.  That is what a TRUE RPG is, didn't you know?

TBH, neither game is much of an RPG.  But, the fanboi lament that ME 2 is not the RPG that ME 1 NEVER WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE is laughable to the extreme.

Sorry but i must have missed that "developing character" part in ME 2

That's okay.  I would recommend going back and replaying the game to get a better sense of what you missed in the first go-around. 

[Jeremy Winston]

I think he's referring to the RPG/Micromanagement aspects of game play.



I don't dislike the new game, but ME2 is mostly cinematics broken up by combat segments. ME1 is as well, but at least you had the illusion that you had more to do in the game other than shoot things. Some people like that. Some people don't. No need for people to get into upset about it.

[Spectre Impersonator]

dodger187 wrote...

JohnShepard12 wrote...

The story in ME2 is much deeper than ME1, IMO. You have many more characters, all with very excellent side-quests. Screw the little details like ammo and character armour. Bioware dropped those things to add depth to the story and simplify combat and gameplay.

And simplifying the gameplay is a good thing?
So first one was already simple. Too simple nearly i think.

Well the actual shootouts themselves have been made more dynamic because you can use your powers more frequently. There aren't as many powers but that's why you need to use your whole squad.... all that boring menu customization has been simplified.

[Valmy]

Kquark wrote...

I do not like or play shooter type games, Mass Effect KOTOR and Drage Age are RPG games first and shooters second. ME and the others had deeper character development and much better story lines. in ME 2 its seems the story is just a reason to get into another fight. I will continue to play it and maybe things will improve.

It is a great looking game and if you like shooters  I am sure you will enjoy it

This is blatantly false.  The story is just as engaging and the characters just as interesting and the combat no more dominant in ME2 than ME1.  Do not let the marketing and hype change your perceptions.  In my experience, despite the changes to the leveling and combat systems, the gameplay and the purpose of the game is exactly the same.  I still fight to get to the next plot point and dialog.

[Valmy]

Just to clarify I think the actual gameplay is not simplified at all. Simply the way you build your character. I am not even sure if you have fewer options just...there are fewer levels of each ability and you have fewer abilities...

[Johnson45]

I don't understand why shephard would need to learn how to aim? Was he never trained in firearms?

And this game isn't gears of war, thats ridiculous, why is "mass effect just gears of war but put mass effect on the box for sales", When gow wouldn't need a different name to sell? It's a VERY popular game

[Jeremy Winston]

Valmy wrote...

The story is just as engaging and the characters just as interesting and the combat no more dominant in ME2 than ME1.  Do not let the marketing and hype change your perceptions.  In my experience, despite the changes to the leveling and combat systems, the gameplay and the purpose of the game is exactly the same.  I still fight to get to the next plot point and dialog.

I must agree with this.  Yesterday, I may not have, but I finally got some quality time and did the Archangel story.  It felt just like ME1, maybe better.  Yes... better.  The combat was more integrated with the story.  I even came to grips with the more difficult aspects of combat (ammo limits, having to keep track of my team, coordination, and most of all in this case, speed of killing).

I'm not a good shooter player.  I prefer the story action.  I'm really the kind of guy that should play these all on casual/easy, except that I'm too embarrassed to.

But, that said, I think I enjoyed the Archangel story more than any individual component in ME1.  I hope the rest of the game follows suit.

Modifié par Jeremy Winston, 29 janvier 2010 - 04:40 .

[FlameChucks]

This is what i think, and again, this is just my opinion.



One of the things that really had me hooked into this franchise was it's appreciation for a great story. When i started playing the first one, and began talking with various people around the Citadel, i began to understand what BioWare was trying to do. It's a space opera, and it's one that has the team really putting their hearts and souls into the project.



I appreciate what they are trying to do. They are presenting a story full of flawed yet fantastic characters. The entire world has been fully detailed down to the smallest race of aliens. It's that kind of appreciation that really puts me in the right place for this game.



The game play will always be another major component, but it won't be the reason why i won't enjoy this game. The conversations alone hold more entertainment for me than anything Gears of War has to offer. While i agree that the game has been stripped of a lot of the detailed oriented way of leveling and handling your inventory, it won't make me change my mind on what a great game it is. I've spent about 14 hours on the game already, really taking my time, seeing everything the galaxy has to offer, and i have yet to recruit Thane, Samara, or the Geth for the my team.



It's a game that may have flaws, and may not appeal to everyone out there, especially us hardcore RPG players. But we have to appreciate it for what it is. And if a refined combat system with a more streamlined experience is going to retract you from enjoying what is essentially a story driven game, then don't fret too much.



I'm sure fixes will come, and patches will help drive the game forward. I know there won't be a rehauled system in the future, but hey, we can still hope right?