89 réponses à ce sujet

[Schurge]

This post is going to act as if MEII was not a sequel, so we can ignore disappointments about the old crew and romance thing.

I came here to make a thread because a friend was telling me of many many unfounded complaints about Mass Effect II not being a real RPG, lack of weapons, of the combat system sucking, missions being to linear, the ending not being epic etc. etc. etc. on these forums (Otherwise I'd never even bother to look here).

Mass Effect II is an RPG, not only is it called an RPG, it is a REAL RPG. An RPG is not about micromanaging stats and getting lots of new gear. An RPG is about story and choices, both in the field, and in dialogue. And Mass Effect II has it in Spades (Again, ignoring that it is a sequel).

First I said choices in story... it is self evident. Yes, responces were limited, but NO MORE LIMITED THAN ANY OTHER GAME OF ITS KIND. In fact, it added something great and new, the ability to interrupt conversations. Which while such a simple little thing, does make things more dynamic. I often paused and sat there for a few seconds deciding which option to hit. Mass Effect went a step further and got you attached to the Joe Shmoes of the crew, Chambers, Connolly, if you played the game you know how this emotionally affects you in certain events.

I also said "on the field" what does this mean? Being able to tackle problems many different ways... in Mass Effect IIs case, this was limited to fighting only, however... what a plethora of options it has. Every single spawn point has at least three ways to tackle it, and you roleplay in making those choices. Do you needlessly put your crew in harms way or you do the really risky things yourself? Do you go right down the middle or take your time positioning you and your squad in specific points on the battlefield for maximum effectiveness? This is roleplaying. And this aspect of roleplaying, Mass Effect I, KotOR, and others did not have, in fact most RPGs dont have it... especially eastern ones which many  of you think define what an RPG is supposed to be.

That is what an RPG is, and this is what an RPG is not.

An RPG is NOT micromanaging stats.
An RPG is NOT getting phat l00tz.
An RPG is NOT a large and complex spec tree.
An RPG is NOT well... you get where I am going.

A applaud Bioware for mostly not coping out on this game (They did cop out with the old crew/romance IMO),  they focused on story and choices, and did the unthinkable, carried the roleplaying into the heat of battle. Micromanaging stats, and the other things I mentioned are a cop out done by lazy RPG game developers, to hide the fact that there is no Role-Play in the game at all. And sadly many of you have been spoonfed that slop for so long you feel it is necassary for a good RPG.

Next is "the lack of weapons" complaint, I refer you back to the list of what an RPG is not.

We are going to cover the "linearity" now and the answer is simple. Its alot less linear then your precious eastern RPGs.

I am going to skip the common complaint about the combat system, because frankly, there is no need to explain why the combat system is good... because it is good - and if you say otherwise you are either blind or it falls down to personal preference (eg, you not liking shooters). Instead I will go to the ending supposedly not being epic... And I will answer that complaint with a question.

I ask you what is not epic about an final encounter with high stakes in which characters can die, in which every time someone seems to be hurt, weak, tired, or who have said they are in danger you are worried they will perma-die? What is not epic about having gotten so into the story you felt as if you actually had a personal stake in this outcome? What is not epic about a final fight and a final boss that can actually kill you? (ME I final boss was a joke) What is not epic about fighting that final boss ON FOOT!?!?

Besides the scanning thing, and the fact that old romances and friendships were ditched (except two friendships), there is really no reason to complain. And if we ignore those two things MEII was inarguabley an overall improvment... If you don't like the core of this game (Roleplay, as defined by me, and combat), why even bother to play?

Modifié par Schurge, 31 janvier 2010 - 09:39 .

[ranger614]

Jack > You.

[Schurge]

ranger614 wrote...

Jack > You.

ROFL.

[Nemesis7884]

An RPG IS micromanaging stats.

An RPG IS getting phat l00tz.

An RPG IS a large and complex spec tree



at least this is what current rpgs are and what players expect and want additionally to

a deep and intense story

interesting and interactive characters

choices

[Twitchmonkey]

Nemesis7884 wrote...

An RPG IS micromanaging stats.
An RPG IS getting phat l00tz.
An RPG IS a large and complex spec tree

at least this is what current rpgs are and what players expect and want additionally to
a deep and intense story
interesting and interactive characters
choices

That's because too few developers have dared to stray from the D&D formula, not because it makes for a better RPG. RPGs should be about being able to define your character's personality and place in the world and having the game reflect those decisions you make. If the first three are what matters to you, play a dungeon crawler like Diablo. Not that Diablo is bad.

[Duckduden]

I tottaly agree with you Schurge. In my Book Mass Effect 2 is what an Rpg is all about: decicions, deep characters, interesting story, exploration, etc.

And how i see it the leveling system is better this time around, you might not get as many bars, but you get more of a specialization (by choosing one of two "forms" of tan ability at the last level).

Keep it up Bioware, there are still people out here who does like a good game, and not just grinding for loot.

[Wishpig]

I KNOW RIGHT!? I've always thought this! What makes an RPG to me is the ability to role play! It's about story, it's about being able to pick your own path, it's about molding the characters personality... not stats, not numbers!



I think Mass Effect 2 is a brilliant game, and allot of fun, but going by the above it's not that much of an RPG though (bet you didn't expect me to take that turn!) Commander Shepard is Commander Shepard... you can make him a goody toe shoes of a bad cop, but he has a set voice and a somewhat set personality. Dragon Age is a true example of an RPG to me. You have a much wider range in your characters personality, choices, ect.



Same with ME1, only ME1 had far worse combat.



At the end of the day, I don't care what category a game falls into, FPS, RPG, RTS, whatever... if it's FUN I am sold and happy!

[Mr. Beaver]

Totally agreed OP, it is sad that many people don't know what "Role Playing" means in RPGs.

[Schurge]

Nemesis7884 wrote...

An RPG IS micromanaging stats.
An RPG IS getting phat l00tz.
An RPG IS a large and complex spec tree

...at least this is what current rpgs are and what players expect and want...

Its what RPGs needed in the early 1990s, and what RPG makers use now as a cop out rather then creating real content. Your customization was what you wear the weapon you use, how you respond, who is in your squad, how you use them, and how you fight.

People only expect it because its what they've been spoonfed for so long and that it is a means of measuring progression in a game with a ******-poor story and tedious repititive run here, kill 10 guys, pick herbs, take back to old man. MEII doesn't need that crutch.

And the smaller amount of skills and skill points added a layer of strategy.

[Schurge]

Whoops, double post.

Modifié par Schurge, 31 janvier 2010 - 07:23 .

[Xivai]

Both parties are right. An RPG can be many things. The mechanics differ, but it is always about a story. The difference is on what mechanics are used, and just how emphasized they are.



Despite this knowledge I predict a 76% chance someone will call me a whining ****. 10% chance I will simply be ignored. 4% chance someone questions my sexuality. .5% chance someone l2p. .4% chance someone is going to send me a flame message. .1% chance someone listens long enough to offer counter points to my opinion.

[Pocketgb]

ME2 doesn't lack depth, it's not "Gears of Effect 2", it's just more of a different game. And I can understand that completely, just look at the original Fallout fans when Fallout 3 hit.

But does that mean Fallout 3 is a terrible game? No.
Is Fallout 3 more shallow than Fallout? Of course not.

Bioware just went a different route with ME2, possibly a route they wanted to test out, possibly one that they felt was more appropriate with where they wanted to head with the series.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 31 janvier 2010 - 07:22 .

[Bigeyez]

Are you people not tired of seeing THESE EXACT SAME THREADS all day long? Jeez. I think I'm going to have to start clubbing anyone who utters the phrase RPG on these boards.

[FredrickMcNeal]

Gotta agree with you here. RPG shouldn't be defined as managing stats and tedious inventory screens. RPG means Roleplaying Game, so playing the role of the character should come first.



I personally think that ME 2 made a massive leap forwards in this respect, even if at some times the dialouge that Sheperd sprouts is crindgeworthy the vast majority is good.



I'm just going to have to disagree about the old friendships thing, romances yes, friendships no. The old romanced crew members was very very annoying when I came across it. I went for Liara in the first ME and when I met her in ME 2 I was expecting some wonderful reunion, a kind of heart wrenching tale of how Liara had missed Sheperd and that she still loved him and so on but when it came to it, it was as if they were just two close friends who hadn't seen each other in a few weeks...



Very disappointed on that part, however in terms of the none romanced crew (With the exception of the Kaiden/Ash encounter) I thought it was handled very well. Garrus's mission was a joy to do and I enjoyed the relationship between them in that mission. I've yet to recruit Tali as I left her till last but still, meeting Wrex again was also great.



I don't think the friendships were ditched, they all gave valid reasons for not following you on your mission but were all (Except Liara and Ash/Kaiden) good to meet again.



Great game I must say...

[Twitchmonkey]

Wishpig wrote...

I KNOW RIGHT!? I've always thought this! What makes an RPG to me is the ability to role play! It's about story, it's about being able to pick your own path, it's about molding the characters personality... not stats, not numbers!

I think Mass Effect 2 is a brilliant game, and allot of fun, but going by the above it's not that much of an RPG though (bet you didn't expect me to take that turn!) Commander Shepard is Commander Shepard... you can make him a goody toe shoes of a bad cop, but he has a set voice and a somewhat set personality. Dragon Age is a true example of an RPG to me. You have a much wider range in your characters personality, choices, ect.

Same with ME1, only ME1 had far worse combat.

At the end of the day, I don't care what category a game falls into, FPS, RPG, RTS, whatever... if it's FUN I am sold and happy!

I agree. ME1 and 2 both by themselves don't address your character's choices in much of a significant way. However, I think that taken as a series, the effects of your choices in ME1 are seen in ME2. I also think that removing some of the flotsam that has attached itself to RPGs is a good thing, though that itself does not make it a better RPG. ME2 is great because of its shooter mechanics, because of the story, the acting, the beautiful visuals, the polish, the depth of content, not because of the personal choices you can make to define your character.

However, that has nothing to do with having less skill points or less phat loot.

[MoneyDeluxe]

Fully agree with you OP on every point.In fact I would even go so far to call Mass effect 2 a true next- gen roleplay game, cause it manages to deliver on the theme of "personalization" in every section of the game despite its scope and still feel as tense as any scifi action can be.The only critiscism I could think of would be nitpicking at best, it's that good.

[BanditGR]

An RPG is about story and choices, both in the field, and in dialogue. And Mass Effect II has it in Spades (Again, ignoring that it is a sequel).

What you and lots of people fail to comprehend is that there is a ton of games out there with a wonderful, immersive and even epic story that may offer "choices" to some degree that affect the outcome of said story. Are you saying that all of these games should be labeled as RPG's ? Perhaps. Personally I think that RPG's are defined by a combination of many different elements. Story and choices are definetely amongst the most prominent, yet they cannot define a genre by themselves.

First I said choices in story... it is self evident. Yes, responces were limited, but NO MORE LIMITED THAN ANY OTHER GAME OF ITS KIND.

This is correct.

In fact, it added something great and new, the ability to interrupt conversations. Which while such a simple little thing, does make things more dynamic.

The only thing that is really "new" about this, is that you have limited reaction time, if you want to "succeed" in the interrupt. Other than that, the ability to interrupt a conversation and skip straight to the action has been a part of many, many games in the past (usually offered as a dialogue option). I'll give you the fact that is has been nicely implemented in ME2 though.

I also said "on the field" what does this mean? Being able to tackle problems many different ways... in Mass Effect IIs case, this was limited to fighting only, however... what a plethora of options it has. Every single spawn point has at least three ways to tackle it, and you roleplay in making those choices. Do you needlessly put your crew in harms way or you do the really risky things yourself? Do you go right down the middle or take your time positioning you and your squad in specific points on the battlefield for maximum effectiveness? This is roleplaying.

No. I'm sorry, this is not role-playing. It is rather called tactical awareness or if you prefer, the ability to understand and analyze a battlefield which enables you to make informed decisions on how to proceed. It's more of a shooter element, in fact its an integral part of many 1st and 3rd person shooters. From a certain point of view, you can also easily argue that party based RPG's such as DAO, NWN and even the older Baldur's Gate games provided you with more options in that specific area. Bottom line, tactical options is not role-playing, unless you want to call a plethora of shooters out there, RPG's (after all you are also assuming a "role" in those games. See what I did there ?).

That is what an RPG is, and this is what an RPG is not.

An RPG is NOT micromanaging stats.
An RPG is NOT getting phat l00tz.
An RPG is NOT a large and complex spec tree.
An RPG is NOT well... you get where I am going.

If you examine any of the subjects you mentioned as a single element, then yes I do agree, that an RPG is neither of those things, however combine them together and throw in a good story, deep customization of characters, choices that affect everyone around you, then you have a game that is much much closer to being called an RPG (in the traditional sense of the term, ever since CRPG's were released). ME2 does a good job in many of those areas, yet it feels more focused on the action elements, rather than rest (this is a personal opinion btw and to avoid flames no, I don't believe that anyone is forced to embrace it). This is not necessarily a bad thing, though I can understand why it could put some people off. Perhaps it is their own expectations that are to blame.

Bottom line is, trying to argue whether ME2 is an "real" RPG or not is an uphill battle. It has been attempted and 9.9/10 times it ended up a flamefest, mostly because people have different definitions of the term in their heads, derived from their own personal experience with past games that were (at the very least) widely considered as "RPG's". That being said, ME2 is a great game in itself, hell I could go on a limb and even say its a great "hybrid" in itself, perhaps over time it will spawn its on genre. Does it have its issues ? Sure, which game doesn't ? But this whole real RPG argument is idiotic at best.

Modifié par BanditGR, 31 janvier 2010 - 07:37 .

[gridlockSG400]

Too short, IMO. I am desperately trying to put off the end, and I'm on the Reaper IFF thing.

[Twitchmonkey]

gridlockSG400 wrote...

Too short, IMO. I am desperately trying to put off the end, and I'm on the Reaper IFF thing.

If you do everything, there is about twice as much content in ME2 than in ME1, I think that's pretty good.

[steve1945]

Love ME2 but I prefer the old school RPGs more. Its a good game. But just like the abortion that was DOW2 not being a RTS game too me. I feel like ME2 is not a RPG.



Dont like that? Well im sorry but its my opinion and its how I feel. If you think its stupid or idiotic thats your right to do so just as its my right to form opinions and dislike or like what I want to.

[Abriael_CG]

Actually ME2 lacks severely exactly in what you praise, other than in the stats, loots and tree (which is a BIG flaw already). The choices you're given are too black/white, so much that it's silly. Everything is easily forseeable and you have to do no real thinking on the choices you make. You wanna be a paragon? Up. Wanna be a renegade? Down.
It's so mindless it's numbing. You could basically play the game without reading the dialogue.

It's quite simple. Bioware wanted to appease the mimimum common denominator of the gaming crowd (FPS/action fanatics) and dumbed down the game. There's no real argument to defend this choice other than it's probably gonna earn them more money.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 31 janvier 2010 - 08:03 .

[Twitchmonkey]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Actually ME2 lacks severely exactly in what you praise, other than in the stats, loots and tree (which is a BIG flaw already). The choices you're given are too black/white, so much that it's silly. Everything is easily forseeable and you have to do no real thinking on the choices you make. You wanna be a paragon? Up. Wanna be a renegade? Down.
It's so mindless it's numbing. You could basically play the game without reading the dialogue.

It's quite simple. Bioware wanted to appease the mimimum common denominator of the gaming crowd (FPS/action fanatic) and dumbed down the game. There's no real argument to defend this choice other than it's probably gonna earn them more money.

Well, if all you care about is going renegade or paragon then yes, the game does allow for this, but if you actually want to think, then the game allows for that too. There are a lot of issues that are complex and if you aren't content to either just choose the paragon or renegade option (something you could do in ME1 as well) then there is a lot of space to define your character's values. The only problem is that as with ME1, your choices don't immediately effect anything greatly. At least not immediately, we'll see how things go in ME3.

[Schurge]

Many valid points both for me and against... also alot of nitpicking.

In the end I am saying this is still just as much an RPG as those stat-micromanaging type RPGs, and I personally feel to many RPGs use the stats and what not as an excuse for no story, character development, etc. You will especially notice that in the eastern titles that they churn out that come to America.

Stats do not define the genre. Story, choices, and combat do.

[quote]Abriael_CG wrote...

The choices you're given are too black/white, so
much that it's silly. Everything is easily forseeable and you have to
do no real thinking on the choices you make. You wanna be a paragon?
Up. Wanna be a renegade? Down.
It's so mindless it's numbing. You could basically play the game without reading the dialogue.[/quote]

You are absolutely right if you didn't read what was going on and then tried to understand your options you'd find that most (excluding how you treat your crew) Renegade options are grey.[/quote]

[quote]Abriael_CG wrote...

It's
quite simple. Bioware wanted to appease the mimimum common denominator
of the gaming crowd (FPS/action fanatics) and dumbed down the game.
There's no real argument to defend this choice other than it's probably
gonna earn them more money.[/quote]

Its quite simple, Bioware understands what an RPG is, even if you do not, and wanted to try something new. The game has its problems, but that supposed "appeaseing" is not a cause.

Modifié par Schurge, 31 janvier 2010 - 08:25 .

[Kalfear]

All ill say is yes it had a story but it was to rigid and unbending for my taste.



ME2 isnt up to bioware standards and the vast majority obviously agree so stop whining about people not liking the game already!



When recommending RPGs, I wouldnt recommend this game. When recommeding shooters with a strong story backdrop, I would.

[Schurge]

Kalfear wrote...

All ill say is yes it had a story but it was to rigid and unbending for my taste.

ME2 isnt up to bioware standards and the vast majority obviously agree so stop whining about people not liking the game already!

When recommending RPGs, I wouldnt recommend this game. When recommeding shooters with a strong story backdrop, I would.

If it wasn't up to Bioware standards they wouldn't have made it this way. Bioware purists who are stuck with Baldurs Gate are never going to like next gen RPGs... And if the vast majority thinks this way then the vast majority is wrong. However you forget that the vast majority will never visit these forums and will be enjoying the game. Official forums are never a good representation of a game's community, sadly it is all Bioware has to look at.

I just don't want the groundless complaints to be all Bioware is hearing.

Modifié par Schurge, 31 janvier 2010 - 08:30 .