107 réponses à ce sujet

[Bigeyez]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Sorry OP, you aren't allowed to have an opinion on these forums that isn't "OMG WTF Bioware has been killed by EA and ME2 is a dumb console kiddie shooter for the moronic masses."

I lol'd. + 10 internetz for you sir. To be fair though there are a fair share of posters argueing for the game that are just as idiotic when they post.

[Zenon]

Maybe my remarks were too complicated. Anyway, let's agree, that the RPG genre of computer games is currently evolving towards a less complex gameplay. While I'm not saying, that complex PnP RPGs are the pinnacle of RPG games in every aspect they do offer many choices in terms of individual character development in various levels like attributes, talents, skills, spells, background traits, alignment, etc. The character should be able to become as unique in the fantasy as the player is in the real world. Basically the amount of details found in NWN, NWN2 (not to mention BG series) was already quite streamlined in DA:O. Compared to KotOR already ME1 is very much streamlined. I honestly didn't see a point or reason in cutting down this game aspect further in ME2 until it almost feels like this RPG aspect is crippled. So the story, dialogue, decision part of the gameplay may have been improved, but the Shepard becomes more generic.

Also my question how it makes sense to have a "incendiary ammo" SKILL (??) hasn't been answered.

It doesn't matter if development goes through exp or skill raises. It doesn't matter if you got five or fifty more or less unique items. But if the characteristics and skills making your hero unique and adaptable to your role in the universe get streamlined too much, then an important aspect of the RPG is lacking details and almost making the whole exp/level or skill development merely an interesting gimmick instead of an engaging gameplay aspect.

I believe ME2 is great anyway, but the discussion is about how much ME2 (still) is a RPG.

[novaseeker]

NorseDude wrote...

3. Yes, there are a lot of shooting, but so what? Dragon Age has at least as much combat as this, but it's turnbased and with swords and magic. Still, what's the difference? Combat is combat. Heck, I remember Eye of the Beholder back in those days. You start in a dungeon and fight your way through. That's it. Yet there was no doubt it was a RPG. Same with Might & Magic, come to think of it. It's 90% combat and 10% RPG. But if it has guns, it's a shooter, not a RPG. Sigh...

Actually, the difference is that in a RPG, whether an action succeeds or not is generally determined by your character's abilities, not your own.  That's the essence of an RPG -- the character is a separate entity from you, and whether he/she succeeds at what you are trying to get them to do depends on the character's skills, not your skillz.  

This is why shooters struggle when people try to look at them as RPGs.  There are three ways to approach the combat.  One way is to make it like Dragon Age or virtually every other RPG and make the character skills determinitive of whether an action succeeds.  Shooter fans hate this because non-RPG shooters aren't made this way, obviously.  A second way is to make it a bit of a hybrid -- ME1 was that approach, where you had to manually control movement and shooting, but your "to hit" determination was largely based on your character's skills, rather than your 1337 shooter skillz.  A third way to do it is the way ME2 has done, which is to make it almost entirely based on the player's skillz rather than the character's skills.  The shift from method 2, which the RPG crowd generally prefers, to method 3, which the shooter community generally prefers, is where the angst about the combat in ME2 is coming from.  Having my twitch skillz as a player determine outcomes is very non-RPG to me, regardless of the dialogue trees.  It pierces the veil between player and character and melds them together, just as you are melded together with Master Chief when you play Halo -- and we all know Halo isn't an RPG just because you are "playing the role of Master Chief".  Or are some of you going to seriously call Halo an RPG now? 

Modifié par novaseeker, 30 janvier 2010 - 11:39 .

[Riot Ring]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Sorry OP, you aren't allowed to have an opinion on these forums that isn't "OMG WTF Bioware has been killed by EA and ME2 is a dumb console kiddie shooter for the moronic masses."

AWESOME! I finally found you!

99% of the people here come into a forum and say "You cant have an opinion because these fanboys will rage." But you are the exact opposite! You are the Fanboy sympathizer. Almost like a bizzaro fanboy. 

[Cabel Blacke]

Bioware has said since ME1 that the series was intended to be an "Action RPG"; I think they chose that moniker because at the time we didn't have the nice phrase "Role-Play Shooter" which has been attached a lot to Borderlands and is probably the best description for ME2. But to be honest.... I..... just.... don't........ care........... If the game is good, scratches an itch I did or didn't know I had, and I keep coming back for more, then I could care less how the game is classified.
As someone earlier said, Bioware never intended to make Dragon Age in outer space. What they did make is a pretty damn enjoyable game that seems to get better the more I play. Had I listened to the opinions on this forum, I might have missed out on a very fun space romp.

Modifié par Cabel Blacke, 30 janvier 2010 - 11:39 .

[Riot Ring]

novaseeker wrote...

NorseDude wrote...

3. Yes, there are a lot of shooting, but so what? Dragon Age has at least as much combat as this, but it's turnbased and with swords and magic. Still, what's the difference? Combat is combat. Heck, I remember Eye of the Beholder back in those days. You start in a dungeon and fight your way through. That's it. Yet there was no doubt it was a RPG. Same with Might & Magic, come to think of it. It's 90% combat and 10% RPG. But if it has guns, it's a shooter, not a RPG. Sigh...

Actually, the difference is that in a RPG, whether an action succeeds or not is generally determined by your character's abilities, not your own.  That's the essence of an RPG -- the character is a separate entity from you, and whether he/she succeeds at what you are trying to get them to do depends on the character's skills, not your skillz.  

This is why shooters struggle when people try to look at them as RPGs.  There are three ways to approach the combat.  One way is to make it like Dragon Age or virtually every other RPG and make the character skills determinitive of whether an action succeeds.  Shooter fans hate this because non-RPG shooters aren't made this way, obviously.  A second way is to make it a bit of a hybrid -- ME1 was that approach, where you had to manually control movement and shooting, but your "to hit" determination was largely based on your character's skills, rather than your 1337 shooter skillz.  A third way to do it is the way ME2 has done, which is to make it almost entirely based on the player's skillz rather than the character's skills.  The shift from method 2, which the RPG crowd generally prefers, to method 3, which the shooter community generally prefers, is where the angst about the combat in ME2 is coming from.  Having my twitch skillz as a player determine outcomes is very non-RPG to me, regardless of the dialogue trees.  It pierces the veil between player and character and melds them together, just as you are melded together with Master Chief when you play Halo -- and we all know Halo isn't an RPG just because you are "playing the role of Master Chief".  Or are some of you going to seriously call Halo an RPG now? 

THE WINNER OF THE FORUM
My personal hero. Way to set em straight, I couldn't have said it better myself.

So good, it had to be repeated.

[Lmaoboat]

ITT: We debate the meaning of a loosely defined term.

[Johnson45]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Sorry OP, you aren't allowed to have an opinion on these forums that isn't "OMG WTF Bioware has been killed by EA and ME2 is a dumb console kiddie shooter for the moronic masses."

Lol!

you earned +1 personal fan   for that

[Bigeyez]

novaseeker wrote...

NorseDude wrote...

3. Yes, there are a lot of shooting, but so what? Dragon Age has at least as much combat as this, but it's turnbased and with swords and magic. Still, what's the difference? Combat is combat. Heck, I remember Eye of the Beholder back in those days. You start in a dungeon and fight your way through. That's it. Yet there was no doubt it was a RPG. Same with Might & Magic, come to think of it. It's 90% combat and 10% RPG. But if it has guns, it's a shooter, not a RPG. Sigh...

Actually, the difference is that in a RPG, whether an action succeeds or not is generally determined by your character's abilities, not your own.  That's the essence of an RPG -- the character is a separate entity from you, and whether he/she succeeds at what you are trying to get them to do depends on the character's skills, not your skillz.  

This is why shooters struggle when people try to look at them as RPGs.  There are three ways to approach the combat.  One way is to make it like Dragon Age or virtually every other RPG and make the character skills determinitive of whether an action succeeds.  Shooter fans hate this because non-RPG shooters aren't made this way, obviously.  A second way is to make it a bit of a hybrid -- ME1 was that approach, where you had to manually control movement and shooting, but your "to hit" determination was largely based on your character's skills, rather than your 1337 shooter skillz.  A third way to do it is the way ME2 has done, which is to make it almost entirely based on the player's skillz rather than the character's skills.  The shift from method 2, which the RPG crowd generally prefers, to method 3, which the shooter community generally prefers, is where the angst about the combat in ME2 is coming from.  Having my twitch skillz as a player determine outcomes is very non-RPG to me, regardless of the dialogue trees.  It pierces the veil between player and character and melds them together, just as you are melded together with Master Chief when you play Halo -- and we all know Halo isn't an RPG just because you are "playing the role of Master Chief".  Or are some of you going to seriously call Halo an RPG now? 

Thats actually a really valid point and a great way of explaining the difference between the two approaches. Yes the first Mass Effect's combat was based more heavily on skill trees deciding what you could and couldn't do in combat. Mass Effect 2 changes it up and bases it more on player skill and instead uses skills and stats as just one factor in what a player can and cannot do instead of the end all be all in that department.

The question is whether this change all of a sudden makes the game not an RPG. You can argue this back and forth and never come out with an answer, because there is no definition of an RPG. In my mind an RPG is a game that brings several mechanics to the table, including story, skills, stats, progression, some form of choice (choice does not always mean dialogue choices) and a role that you play. Mass effect has all those, so to me it's an RPG. A more action oriented RPG, and definitely no where near being a traditional RPG, but an RPG nonetheless.

Edit: This gets even more murky when you look at games like Fallout 3 that actually have both systems within the same game! You had VATS which approaches combat much like Mass Effect 1 with skills determining whether you hit you'r target, missed it, scored a crit, etc. Then it had the real-time non VATS combat where if you aimed at the target and shoot you hit it as long as you were within range of the gun, but what stats and skills affected there were how much damage the target took, like in Mass Effect 2. Fallout 3 also had similiar controversey when it came out, with some people saying the game wasn't an RPG either.

Modifié par Bigeyez, 30 janvier 2010 - 11:52 .

[newcomplex]

Riot Ring wrote...

Besides changing armor colors, Wing Commander has those elements. I wouldnt want to change the main character in Wing Commander anyway, he's Mark Hamill.

Wing Commander, is twenty years old.    :/.   It really has no relevence.     

There are different types of RPGs and yes, they do evolve over time. If ME2 is a form of evolution, then it evolved into an action game. Nothing more. I named core games that made the RPG genre, ME2 is wonderful, but it will not be as impacting as ME was, not by a long shot.

FF made the rpg genre? ... Its influneces on western RPG are almost nonexistent, and it didn't introduce anything new to JRPGs either, though I admit it did play a large role in making them more popular.

To say Diablo and FF "made" the RPG genre contradicts itself.   Look at the mechanics in diablo and final fantasy (any one)   How many of them are shared?   One.    Leveling.   So theirs are ten year gap between the two "makers" of the RPG genre, and they have literally no influences from each other?   This implies that FF had nothing to do with making Diablo.    Hence, diablo was created independently, or from other influences.    (which it was, it was created based on the influences of nethack, which comes out around the same time as FF, and itself was influenced by PNP RPGs and the game "hack", which itself was inspired by rogue, the namesake of the genre.).    

That means that if FF did not exist, it would have no impact on any western RPGs.   Mass Effect included.

Those games you listed had absolutely NOTHING to do with the making of the RPG games genre.    Well, diablo popularized and streamlines the concept of random item modifyers, which is a somewhat big contribution.

You know why you getting so much hate Riot?   Nobody gives a **** you dislike ME2, but when you make statements like "ME is not a RPG" and "ME is dumbed down", your implicitly insulting everyone who enjoys the game, especially those who like it more then the original, by saying they're intellectually inferior and "true" RPG are too complicated for them.   Many of them have probably been playing RPG for longer then you were alive, going by the sheer ignorance in a lot of your posts.    (FF invented RPG genre)    

And your comments seemed to discredit FF as one of the reasons RPG games became a genre. K? Do you think ME2 will be looked back upon years from now and someone will say, "Boy oh boy, this was my favorite RPG?" Id like to think not.

FF isn't the reason RPG games became a genre.   lalwalwlawlalwlawllalw.   You seriously just say that?      FF isn't even the reason it became popular.   FF just happens to be the only franchise from that era that is still fairly popular today.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 30 janvier 2010 - 11:51 .

[Riot Ring]

newcomplex wrote...

Riot Ring wrote...

Besides changing armor colors, Wing Commander has those elements. I wouldnt want to change the main character in Wing Commander anyway, he's Mark Hamill.

Wing Commander, is twenty years old.    :/.   It really has no relevence.    

You asked for a game, I gave you a game. I didn't know there was an age limit.  

There are different types of RPGs and yes, they do evolve over time. If ME2 is a form of evolution, then it evolved into an action game. Nothing more. I named core games that made the RPG genre, ME2 is wonderful, but it will not be as impacting as ME was, not by a long shot.

FF made the rpg genre? ... Its influneces on western RPG are almost nonexistent, and it didn't introduce anything new to JRPGs either, though I admit it did play a large role in making them more popular.

To say Diablo and FF "made" the RPG genre contradicts itself.   Look at the mechanics in diablo and final fantasy (any one)   How many of them are shared?   One.    Leveling.   So theirs are ten year gap between the two "makers" of the RPG genre, and they have literally no influences from each other?   This implies that FF had nothing to do with making Diablo.    Hence, diablo was created independently, or from other influences.    (which it was, it was created based on the influences of nethack, which comes out around the same time as FF, and itself was influenced by PNP RPGs and the game "hack", which itself was inspired by rogue, the namesake of the genre.).    

That means that if FF did not exist, it would have no impact on any western RPGs.   Mass Effect included.

Those games you listed had absolutely NOTHING to do with the making of the RPG games genre.    Well, diablo popularized and streamlines the concept of random item modifyers, which is a somewhat big contribution/

Your mind keeps focusing on miniscule details when I am busy talking about the RPG Genre as a whole. The slow RPG evolution process can thank FF as one of its contributors. Along with an armada of other things. Why is it that you think I am saying "Without FF, there would be no RPGS!" ? I snickered when you said FF or Diablo had nothing to do with the making of the RPG Genre. Too funny. Swallow your pride an respect a bit of history. Maybe not the game, but the history tells it all.

And your comments seemed to discredit FF as one of the reasons RPG games became a genre. K? Do you think ME2 will be looked back upon years from now and someone will say, "Boy oh boy, this was my favorite RPG?" Id like to think not.

FF isn't the reason RPG games became a genre.   lalwalwlawlalwlawllalw.   You seriously just say that?      FF isn't even the reason it became popular.   FF just happens to be the only franchise from that era that is still fairly popular today.   

Read what you quoted carefully. Then read how bad you butchered what I said. Things are kinda different when you read things entirely aren't they?

[novaseeker]

Bigeyez wrote...

Thats actually a really valid point and a great way of explaining the difference between the two approaches. Yes the first Mass Effect's combat was based more heavily on skill trees deciding what you could and couldn't do in combat. Mass Effect 2 changes it up and bases it more on player skill and instead uses skills and stats as just one factor in what a player can and cannot do instead of the end all be all in that department.

The question is whether this change all of a sudden makes the game not an RPG. You can argue this back and forth and never come out with an answer, because there is no definition of an RPG. In my mind an RPG is a game that brings several mechanics to the table, including story, skills, stats, progression, some form of choice (choice does not always mean dialogue choices) and a role that you play. Mass effect has all those, so to me it's an RPG. A more action oriented RPG, and definitely no where near being a traditional RPG, but an RPG nonetheless.

Edit: This gets even more murky when you look at games like Fallout 3 that actually have both systems within the same game! You had VATS which approaches combat much like Mass Effect 1 with skills determining whether you hit you'r target, missed it, scored a crit, etc. Then it had the real-time non VATS combat where if you aimed at the target and shoot you hit it as long as you were within range of the gun, but what stats and skills affected there were how much damage the target took, like in Mass Effect 2. Fallout 3 also had similiar controversey when it came out, with some people saying the game wasn't an RPG either.

It's true that people will have different opinions about what constitutes an "RPG".  Much of that, I think, depends on the background of the gamer.  

I do think we are seeing more shooter/RPG hybrids now because developers are trying to access both markets at once, rather than making pure shooters that many RPG fans won't play (I've never really played a shooter for more than an hour or two), or pure RPGs like Dragon Age that a lot of shooter fans won't play.  So games like ME2 and Fallout 3 are probably the future as developers and publishers try to access both of these markets.  Some designs will be more friendly to that than others, I think.  In my view, ME1 and Fallout 3 were both more friendly to RPG fans because the combat was more hybridized (and in the case of Fallout 3, could be played in an RPG way or in a more FPS way).  ME2 leaned too heavily, for my personal taste, in the direction of pure shooter for the combat side of the game, reducing its appeal to me, despite how much I like the storyline and so on.

[infalible]

Bigeyez wrote...

infalible wrote...

This thread amuses me to no end. When a proper RPG gamer says that Mass Effect 2 is missing fundamental elements that make an RPG, they aren't talking out of their behind. They certainly aren't missing the point to any degree. In ME2, the following statement is fact: there are lots of things missing or things that are very simply iterations on quite detailed RPG elements... lots and lots of things. I could list them all off for you but I'm not going to insult your intelligence by doing that. All I will say is: compare games like Neverwinter Nights and Oblivion - even Dragon Age and the original Mass Effect - with Mass Effect 2 and you'll see that the game is treading very fine line between story-driven shooter and story-driven Action-RPG.

And I can understand why Bioware did this. Mass Effect was never about offering the complicated, stat heavy and gear orientated fiasco that a lot of hardcore RPG fans are used to. This wasn't supposed to be another Neverwinter Nights or the sci-fi version of Dragon Age. Bioware are clearly aiming for two distinct franchises with Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Mass Effect is their simple, easy-to-swallow RPG pitched at the fans of games like Halo. It's an amalgamation of popular shooters like Gears of War with the story-driven and inspirational content that Bioware is famous for. Then you have Dragon Age which is clearly pitched at those of us who want more Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale -type games. It's aimed at those of us who like our in-depth class structures, gear orientated game play and traditional RPG-esque feel to our games.

And it's true that a lot of Bioware's long term fans - that haven't been brought on board with Mass Effect - want more of what we loved about the old titles, which Mass Effect isn't delivering right now. And Bioware probably empathise with that notion because they've been delivering that content to us for many years now; they probably realise that a hell of a lot of the people who buy their games will want this. Some elements on their team would probably really love to take Mass Effect in that direction and I would really love to see that happen as well; we all know that the franchise won't end with 3 and that there will be more to it than that, so there's always hope that in the future we'll have that traditional RPG flavour for another Mass Effect game.

So instead of slandering us for pointing out the very valid observation that Mass Effect 2 isn't a true representation of a pure RPG and in fact represents a compromise many of us feel that Bioware should never have had to make, why don't you try to empathise and understand why we are saying it? Why don't you go back and look at the games that fuel the statements we make? That way any slander you levy against us will be educated, rather than ignorant.

And fyi: watering down elements (such as the skill system, inventory system and gear system in Mass Effect 2) isn't, "disguising," and that's a mad thing to claim to be brutally honest. Whoever makes that claim should be ashamed of themselves.

An inventory system and gear an RPG do not make. Resident Evil has inventory and gear systems, you wouldn't call those RPGs would you? Devil May Cry has inventory and gear systems, you wouldn't call that an RPG would you?

The truth is an RPG isn't defined by one single element or another. Just look att he vast differences between all the RPGs out there. Some have certain features and others don't. Mass Effect 2 no longer has a standard inventory system or a standard gear system (although they still exist, they've just been moved to the Normandy), those two features don't all of a sudden make the game only a Shooter.

As far as ME being the representation of a "pure" RPG, I'm sorry but that statement is laughable. If you really think the first game was anywhere close to being comparable to a pen and paper RPG, or even old school Baldur's Gate you must have never played those games.

I do agree on your point that the game is treading the line between being an action/adventure game and really i think thats where Bioware wanted to take the game. Of course I can't speak for them, but when looking back at all the interviews they've doen for both games it seems they have always wanted Mass Effect to blur that line between RPG/Action/Adventure/Shooter. It's one big hybrid bastard of a game....in a good way haha.

Congrats on being one of the few people who argue against the game in a sensible manner however. You have a very well written post!

I've emboldened all of the parts you seem to have skipped over so you can understand how pointless your response was. Put some of it in red.

Here's a bullet point list:

- I never said that inventory and gear systems make an RPG
- I never said that the inventory and gear systems had been removed from the game
- I never said that either Mass Effect 1 or 2 were close to being PnP style RPGs
- I never said that Mass Effect 1 was a pure RPG

Thus the ignorance is removed and your post suddenly becomes totally pointless.

Don't mean to sound harsh about it but you either misread what I wrote or purposefully chose to ignore what I was saying so you could say what you wanted to say. Either way it was a rubbish thing to do :-)

[Zenon]

novaseeker wrote...

NorseDude wrote...

3. Yes, there are a lot of shooting, but so what? Dragon Age has at least as much combat as this, but it's turnbased and with swords and magic. Still, what's the difference? Combat is combat. Heck, I remember Eye of the Beholder back in those days. You start in a dungeon and fight your way through. That's it. Yet there was no doubt it was a RPG. Same with Might & Magic, come to think of it. It's 90% combat and 10% RPG. But if it has guns, it's a shooter, not a RPG. Sigh...

Actually, the difference is that in a RPG, whether an action succeeds or not is generally determined by your character's abilities, not your own.  That's the essence of an RPG -- the character is a separate entity from you, and whether he/she succeeds at what you are trying to get them to do depends on the character's skills, not your skillz. 

You got a point here, but then again why do some people say DA:O is easy on nightmare setting when others say it's hard on easy setting and both play the same game where combat success is supposed to be depending mostly on character skills? What I mean to say is, that concerning combat in DA:O your tactics and strategy matter, in ME(2) your reflexes and eye-hand coordination matter.

I don't mind an RPG having some kind of real-time shooter action with success in combat depending on my skills rather than my character's skills. What remains, as I repeatedly tried to point out, is how the character can interact with the world outside of combat. If dialogue matters, why were skills like persuade, intimidate cut out as well?

How about lock-picking skills, which could give the player e.g. more time to solve the puzzle in order to succeed? How about detection skills to find traps for example? These are things, which have the potential to make a RPG more interesting. Also the possibility to solve quests/problems in more than one way depending on the character is something I consider a typical trait of good RPGs. If the intention of Bioware was to create a fusion of RPG and TPS action shooter in ME, then it's sad to see how much overemphasized the shooter action appears to be in ME2 compared to the more (gameplay) balanced ME.

Does this make ME2 a less good game? Not necessarily, but if the RPG part becomes too insignificant the unique mix will be gone. I'm curious what will happen with ME3. Perhaps a story driven shooter with cool dialogue choices and alternative ends as most people may consider the few skills left could actually be cut out completely in the end... I wonder. I might even get it anyway, since I like the ME universe so much even if I don't like the direction the development of the gameplay took.

[Bigeyez]

novaseeker wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

Thats actually a really valid point and a great way of explaining the difference between the two approaches. Yes the first Mass Effect's combat was based more heavily on skill trees deciding what you could and couldn't do in combat. Mass Effect 2 changes it up and bases it more on player skill and instead uses skills and stats as just one factor in what a player can and cannot do instead of the end all be all in that department.

The question is whether this change all of a sudden makes the game not an RPG. You can argue this back and forth and never come out with an answer, because there is no definition of an RPG. In my mind an RPG is a game that brings several mechanics to the table, including story, skills, stats, progression, some form of choice (choice does not always mean dialogue choices) and a role that you play. Mass effect has all those, so to me it's an RPG. A more action oriented RPG, and definitely no where near being a traditional RPG, but an RPG nonetheless.

Edit: This gets even more murky when you look at games like Fallout 3 that actually have both systems within the same game! You had VATS which approaches combat much like Mass Effect 1 with skills determining whether you hit you'r target, missed it, scored a crit, etc. Then it had the real-time non VATS combat where if you aimed at the target and shoot you hit it as long as you were within range of the gun, but what stats and skills affected there were how much damage the target took, like in Mass Effect 2. Fallout 3 also had similiar controversey when it came out, with some people saying the game wasn't an RPG either.

It's true that people will have different opinions about what constitutes an "RPG".  Much of that, I think, depends on the background of the gamer.  

I do think we are seeing more shooter/RPG hybrids now because developers are trying to access both markets at once, rather than making pure shooters that many RPG fans won't play (I've never really played a shooter for more than an hour or two), or pure RPGs like Dragon Age that a lot of shooter fans won't play.  So games like ME2 and Fallout 3 are probably the future as developers and publishers try to access both of these markets.  Some designs will be more friendly to that than others, I think.  In my view, ME1 and Fallout 3 were both more friendly to RPG fans because the combat was more hybridized (and in the case of Fallout 3, could be played in an RPG way or in a more FPS way).  ME2 leaned too heavily, for my personal taste, in the direction of pure shooter for the combat side of the game, reducing its appeal to me, despite how much I like the storyline and so on.

I completely agree. Especially with the huge success of ames like Fallout 3 and the first and second Mass Effect and to some extent games like Borderlands, we're going to be seeing more of these RPG hyrbid games.

And yeah Mass Effect does indeed lean heavily to the shooter side of things and if you don't like it, you don't like it. No amount of story can get you to like something you just don't like. 

[novaseeker]

Zenon wrote...

Does this make ME2 a less good game? Not necessarily, but if the RPG part becomes too insignificant the unique mix will be gone. I'm curious what will happen with ME3. Perhaps a story driven shooter with cool dialogue choices and alternative ends as most people may consider the few skills left could actually be cut out completely in the end... I wonder. I might even get it anyway, since I like the ME universe so much even if I don't like the direction the development of the gameplay took.

Indeed.  The universe, setting, back story, and storytelling are all classic BioWare quality.  I think it will be interesting to see what direction they take with ME3 eventually.  For the record, I do think ME2 is a great game -- it's very well done.  it's just not my personal cup of tea because I'm really not a shooter fan.  I could deal with the combat in ME1, because it was hybridized and more friendly to an RPG type like me because of that, whereas here I've found myself finding the combat sections tedious as I slog through them to advance the storyline -- which is not good.  That's not because ME2 is a bad game, but it's not that appealing to me as an RPG fan, and based on what I have seen around in the internet, there are quite a few other RPG fans who have had similar experiences while playing.

[tonnactus]

Zenon wrote...

Also my question how it makes sense to have a "incendiary ammo" SKILL (??) hasn't been answered.
.

Gameplay reasons.A way to make the soldier class interesting.In the first one the soldier was just a immunity spammer and players could melee thresher maws....

[Zenon]

tonnactus wrote...

Zenon wrote...

Also my question how it makes sense to have a "incendiary ammo" SKILL (??) hasn't been answered.
.

Gameplay reasons.A way to make the soldier class interesting.In the first one the soldier was just a immunity spammer and players could melee thresher maws....

They already removed immunity. But would have been good enough to make it weaker. To add skills, which can't be skills from a logical RPG perspective for the sake of forcing some variation into character classes shows how far Bioware went away from classical RPG. At least it would be interesting how they reason on the skill improving the effect of the ammunition.

[Lmaoboat]

No one factor makes an RPG, rather it is having several of many possible factors that make something an RPG. Factors such as character statistics, skill trees, loot, and dialogue trees. This is why Diablo, Final Fantasy, and Baldur's Gate are all RPGs. So while ME2 is still an RPG, is simply has less RPG factors.

[Ross42899]

Well, ME2 definately lacks some non combat (side-) quests, character abilities & traits, and a possiblity to upgrade your team members' armor to be a good RPG. At this point for me it's more like a (good) "3rd person shooter with upgradde options and dialogue options" than a really good Action RPG.

[Schneidend]

This thread is redundant. Anybody with any sense already knows ME2 is a RPG.

[KVerde]

I read it earlier on this post a few times, and I think it is rather obvious what Bioware did. They stripped ME 2 of some of its RPG elements because they do want to create a shooter game that will have a wider range of appeal. Anyone who cant see that is an idiot. ME 2 is still technically a RPG but a watered down version, even when compared to the original. So I dont see why some people are afraid to acknowledge this. Those complaining about the lack of RPG are not being babies. They have reason to be upset since they were expecting a continuation of the first game's mechanics.



However, it happened that Bioware took the game in another direction. And it is not the first time that a developer has done this with an IP. Moreover, Bioware made MDK2 in the past which was a shooter, so its not like we can only expect the developer to make menu heavy RPG games. ME2 is what it is. An excellent game that does not need to be defined by it predecesor nor what some fans expected. If you chose to dislike it regardless, that is your opinion. I prefer to like it, though I too would have preferred that they kept some of the former's RPG elements. But I cant complain so much. Bioware also delivered with DAO. So I get two varieties of excellent storytelling with different approaches. Personally, I love both games. I love Bioware. They are in a class of their own to be able to pump out two amazing games in such a short period of time. Honestly, they make some other developers look pitiful.

[tonnactus]

Zenon wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Zenon wrote...

Also my question how it makes sense to have a "incendiary ammo" SKILL (??) hasn't been answered.
.

Gameplay reasons.A way to make the soldier class interesting.In the first one the soldier was just a immunity spammer and players could melee thresher maws....

They already removed immunity.

Soldiers can get something like basic immunity through the hardnened adrenaline rush.(health damage reduced by 50 percent)

[Greuf]

For me, the part "A game where the player is to make their own character" feels like something is missing, you don't have much of a choice.

You pick up a new gun, it's written 'this one is better than the previous model"... aha, ok, well... You pick up an upgrade, ok, great, you research it, a small click in the research panel and there you go, you have an upgrade... but I don't see any differences, you don't even have to choose, like the basic armor, between several upgrade type for your gun, would have been lovely to ba able to customize your weapon, especially when there are so few of them.

And for the skillz, well, you start with them, you can have a few more, your mates can give you some, but what's the point, they already have it...

Haven't finished the game yet, but it feels just like i'm playing somebody else's character, I can still choose what I wanna say but all the characters feels so, don't know, like they already are completed, feels odd XD.
But don't get me wrong, I love the game, but it's far beyond ME1 for me.

Modifié par Greuf, 31 janvier 2010 - 02:50 .