195 réponses à ce sujet

[solitude00]

Seems that quite a few of the complaints seem to lie with the "dumbing down" of the character building elements and the increased emphasis on gamer skill over stats. Yes, I know there are other issues, but these are the ones that affect MY enjoyment of the game.

I agree with dodger187 in that "gamer skill" (dexterity / reflexes / hand-eye coordination) seems emphasized more than "character skill" (stats) as a game goes farther and farther into the shooter side of the equation. My character may have maxxed out accuracy scores but if I were slow to lock my crosshairs onto a target, I'd never hit anything - and for players that enjoy the character building process more than the action itself, it can be frustrating. All the anticipation of building the perfect character is wasted when that potential is never quite realized. 

For the record I used VATS in every Fallout 3 fight ... even on the cheapo flies. 

A complaint on the relative focus on gamer skill as opposed to character skill I can understand. But an issue with the actual mechanics of how the character is built - that I'd probably care less about. Different RPG's have different level up systems ... heck, the FF series made a point of having different schemes in every release.

Some gamers (me included) enjoy building characters ... patiently, methodically, statistically optimized. Building the perfect character can be more fun than finishing the game - we're the people who probably have many different characters active at any given time (assuming backstory and gameplay  characteristics are different enough to make  it enjoyable). I have 5 L20++ characters in DA:O but only finished the game once. I'm the type of player for whom  a 150 attack rating looks sooo much sexier than a 149 attack rating - no matter that the impact on the game is insignificant at that point.

Now, several people seem to have a preference for complex mechanics - makes the game more meaty for them I guess. They probably also enjoy playing Sim City games and TBS games like Civ (gaming prefences of most of my CRPG playing friends who  enjoy character building). They're probably the ones who feel the most disappointed with ME2 since the various character building options aren't there - yes they've been replaced by a deeper tactical complexity in actual combat, but combat isn't  the character builder's primary source of enjoyment.

I and others like me, are probably more pragmatic - we just focus more on learning how best to optimize the build itself, regardless of the levelling mechanic used. As long as my character reaches the end-game significantly more powerful than when the game began, I'd be reasonably satisfied that character development occurred (stats wise anyway). One thing I didn't like about old-school pure shooters is that after all the levels are done ... the character difference between Hour One and Hour 10-15 (depends on length) is the quantity of  ammo and health packs the character possesses. Ugh.

And because of this, despite my being stat obsessed, I don't mind ME's simplified / streamlined / "dumbed down" character  building mechanic at all. Anyway you look at it,  Shepard at the end of the ME2 is a totally different animal from the Shepard at the beginning of the game. And the ride to the end of the game is a fun one.

Now the Mission Summary screens that somehow strayed into ME2 ... that's another story ... 

Edit: Oh, and we min-maxers just luuv to finish RPG's on Insane / Nightmare difficulty (solo even for some) and there's no way we're turning down fight difficulty to Easy just because we can't beat certain bosses. Now, assuming we don't have the right level of "gamer skills" to score headshots every time ... its gonna be a much more frustrating time in ME2. Hehe. 

Modifié par solitude00, 29 janvier 2010 - 08:03 .

[packardbell]

This whole subject is opinionated - someone says the 'rpg elements' have been watered down while others disagree.



I seriously hate people stating their opinion as fact, it gets really old.

[Jeremy Winston]

solitude00 wrote...

... snipped for length ...

Very well written!  I enjoyed that immensely.

I think you've articulated my general feelings, even when I couldn't.

[Demencia]

I dont like Mass Effect2, is a action-shooter and 1% rpg..

-inventory??

-looting??

-exp for kill mobs??

-sell/buy from merchants



Better the 1st Mass Effect.

[Schneidend]

ME1 was already a shooter with RPG elements. There was no "turning." The only change here is that combat is now more visceral and strategic. This is a good thing.

[rockchild123]

I would not have a problem as much if BioWare would have been a little more upfront about the changes they made. I could have prepared myself for a well scripted shooter rather than fantastic developed sequel I wanted. This game had, in my opinion, a great chance to become the best game made to date. If they cahnged the resource gathering system and maybe through me a little bone with inventory (RPG like) then ME3 will be the best game ever made. Hands down.

[ilickyourmother]

i love how the joker dies

[Parallax Demon]

ilickyourmother wrote...

i love how the joker dies

SPOILERS!

[Jaradakar]

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

Yup, I can't agree more! 

For a more detailed review, check out my post here:

http://social.biowar...03/index/836976

Modifié par Jaradakar, 29 janvier 2010 - 09:52 .

[Jaradakar]

EchoTango wrote...

Druss99 wrote...

I dont understand this dislike for the game because its being viewed as more of a shooter. Is a great game not still a great game no matter what genre it is? Why do people limit themselves to only playing one kind of game and look with disdain on all other genres? Im not having a go at any one person in particular but it seems to be a theme on here.

I don't look to disdain to other genres.  I like action-RPG's.   They're my favourite.  However just recently I fell in love with Borderlands, which I bought because I thought it would be an ARPG, but turned out to be a shooter.  Either way, awesome game.

My point is, people aren't upset because it's just simply another type of game, they're upset because there's an obvious emotional connection to ME1, and ME2 was supposed to be an extension of that.  ME2 was supposed to make the bad things about ME1 better.  Instead they took a different approach, and seemingly redesigned major parts of the game.  Whether this is to appeal to a broader base or not, it's just not the same as ME1.

That being said, I'm enjoying it and will play it through.  But I'm still dissappointed.

Yeah I'm really surprised that they did not go with the age old philosophy of, "If it's not broken, don't fix it".

Instead of just improving what was done poorly in ME1 the changed things that did not need to change.

[Parallax Demon]

rockchild123 wrote...

I would not have a problem as much if BioWare would have been a little more upfront about the changes they made. I could have prepared myself for a well scripted shooter rather than fantastic developed sequel I wanted. This game had, in my opinion, a great chance to become the best game made to date. If they cahnged the resource gathering system and maybe through me a little bone with inventory (RPG like) then ME3 will be the best game ever made. Hands down.

Well said. It's not that I don't like the game. I do play shooters, but I expected to play a RPG and not a shooter.
From the hardcore RPG point of view I'm doing far too much shooting before I finally can progres with the great story.
What's next? A horde DLC, like Gearbox did with Borderlands? Got that game to 1.250 for the whiners among you btw.

[IndianKJBlue]

The way I see it, ME1 was an RPG that tried to be a shooter.



And maybe ME2 is a shooter that tries to be an RPG. But in its endeavor, it succeeds far more than ME1 does in what BioWare has wanted to achieve with this title, which is to make something of a perfect RPG/Shooter hybrid.

The first ME1 may have looked like a shooter, but it wasn't at all really. Infinite ammo with a WIDE aiming reticule meant you pretty much squeezed the trigger and hit no matter what your actual aim was. The idea of taking cover was pretty much useless except to occasionally save yourself from a flying rocket or something. In the end, godly talents like Immunity or Lift would always ensure success, no matter how you aimed or how you positioned yourself.



ME2 gets all those wrongs right. Now you need to take cover and use it. Manually positioning your team is now possible and sometimes quite necessary. Instead of giving Shepard access to 50% of the talents with any class you choose, you only get a handful. But your team mates have a wide variety of different talents among them. And the talents are more narrow in their uses, so it helps your team greatly to have a variety of talents amongst your teammates. Ammo is now limited so that you have to pick your shots, and are punished for misses.



Is this more of a shooter now than an RPG? Only if you look at things from your PC's perspective. As a whole, the game is forcing you to make more choices via your team. And the story... dear god. If you look at the story, the Mass Effect franchise as a whole is the greatest RPG ever made, without a doubt. You have a lot of different choices and directions that you can give the story, and the story itself is just... epic. The character side-quests in this game are each a great story in themselves, with you having a lot of say in the outcome.



In the end, ME2 is harder to label as either a shooter or an RPG, whereas ME1 was simply an RPG. This game is truer to what BioWare wants Mass Effect to be, and, not just for that reason, it is awesome. So awesome.

[IndianKJBlue]

Also some people, I think, are looking at things too quantitivately (made-up word).

Yes, you have less guns in this game, but there is actually a lot more variety in the types of guns and how they perform.

Yes, characters have less talents per character, but as a whole, there are a lot of talents in this game with just as much variety, if not more, than ME1. All it means is that to experience that variety, you have to make that balance with your team. And any team isn't going to get you all the talents in the game, you'll have to decide which are most important.

But people see less of something in numbers and think that the game has been "dumbed down". Really, though, the opposite is true. It's just that the game doesn't let the RPG elements coddle you away from the shooter elements.



/rants

[schnydz]

IndianKJBlue wrote...

Also some people, I think, are looking at things too quantitivately (made-up word).
Yes, you have less guns in this game, but there is actually a lot more variety in the types of guns and how they perform.
Yes, characters have less talents per character, but as a whole, there are a lot of talents in this game with just as much variety, if not more, than ME1. All it means is that to experience that variety, you have to make that balance with your team. And any team isn't going to get you all the talents in the game, you'll have to decide which are most important.
But people see less of something in numbers and think that the game has been "dumbed down". Really, though, the opposite is true. It's just that the game doesn't let the RPG elements coddle you away from the shooter elements.

/rants

Right, I think you ment "quantitatively"

but I'm with you on that...

Modifié par schnydz, 29 janvier 2010 - 10:40 .

[IndianKJBlue]

Quantitatively. Thanks. Sometimes I just can't be bothered to google my vocab.

[AlanC9]

Jaradakar wrote...
 I'm really surprised that they did not go with the age old philosophy of, "If it's not broken, don't fix it". 

I don't think Bio ever believed in that. They made huge changes between BG1 and BG2, for instance.

[schnydz]

just one more thought:



Why do we need to label it? Does it have to follow a special RPG protocol? Why not just enjoy the game for what it is...a bad ass alien kick'n game!

[Keadil]

packardbell wrote...

This whole subject is opinionated - someone says the 'rpg elements' have been watered down while others disagree.

I seriously hate people stating their opinion as fact, it gets really old.

But that is actually the proper way to state an opinion...  Since it is obviously not a fact then it is assumed to be an opinion.  I have to agree with the OP though.  This game is not an rpg, but it isn't a good shooter either.  I think that only leaves adventure game as the actual genre.  This game has too much focus on action for an rpg, too little focus on story and character development and yet still has too much story for an action game.

[Pocketgb]

IndianKJBlue wrote...

Also some people, I think, are looking at things too quantitivately (made-up word).
Yes, you have less guns in this game, but there is actually a lot more variety in the types of guns and how they perform.
Yes, characters have less talents per character, but as a whole, there are a lot of talents in this game with just as much variety, if not more, than ME1. All it means is that to experience that variety, you have to make that balance with your team. And any team isn't going to get you all the talents in the game, you'll have to decide which are most important.
But people see less of something in numbers and think that the game has been "dumbed down". Really, though, the opposite is true. It's just that the game doesn't let the RPG elements coddle you away from the shooter elements.

/rants

This is probably how I feel about it.

I love how the weapon system in this game works, it's exactly what I was hoping for. I consider "variety" to mean "multiple options", and there's not much variety in ME1 after you pick up Collosus armor and Spectre grade weapons.

While do wish you could do a bit more with your abilities - i.e. wishing not everything shared the global cooldown - there's still quite a few choices in what you could assign for you and your teammates to be built as, not to mention the research/upgrade progression.

For me it's still a great game: character characters, great relationships, great story, setting, gameplay, graphics, all sorts of tasty.

[nyxnocturne]

Druss99 wrote...

I dont understand this dislike for the game because its being viewed as more of a shooter. Is a great game not still a great game no matter what genre it is? Why do people limit themselves to only playing one kind of game and look with disdain on all other genres? Im not having a go at any one person in particular but it seems to be a theme on here.

hey i play RPG's and Shooters. i loved the KotORs to death as well as many other RPGs and i liked all 3 Halo games as well as Team Fortress 2 and i can say that i enjoyed Mass Effect when it wasnt mostly shooter because it was one of the few actually good realistic(science-wise) futuristic RPG's out there and i considered it to have a solid enough shooting system that it didnt interfere with the RPG elements. now that it has become more equal in both shooter and RPG it means that it has lost some of the depth of the first one in favor for the revamped combat system. which i like, for the first time i cant just run through the game with my handy pistol murdering everyone, it requires that i use my other guns too now. Which is fine if i didnt get the impression that the time spent on the the new system hadnt interfered with the length of missions and the number of side missions that i had really enjoyed running around to find in the first one. Its hard to find a good balance when you are making a hybrid game like this, and i feel as though in this installment the shooting aspect might have been slightly emphasized more than it should have been.

[nyxnocturne]

lokiarchetype wrote...

ME was supposed to be an action-RPG, a hybrid of RPG and Shooter.

It's just the shooter aspect was so downplayed and poorly integrated that not much attention was paid to it.

Now that the combat has been improved and is much deeper and more meaningful, the shooter part was allowed to come to the forefront and be a partner to the RPG elements instead of it's red headed step sister in the attic.

But because the shooter aspect was downplayed the RPG elements became what lots of fans of mass effect came to enjoy the most and as such, now that the element of gameplay that wasnt as important has been brought to the "forefront" the people who enjoyed the game for the RPG elements arent as happy with the changes because although the combat doesnt directly interfere with the missions. i have noticed a great decrease in the depth and time taken to complete missions and amount of side missions since the first one