I can honestly say that there is much of the criticism this game gets that I personally don't understand (and some I find perfectly valid, which I will get too as well)
Firstly, regarding inventory and character building; I actually think the streamlined function of ME2 quite compelling. As far as inventory systems go, I am... well, usually less than fond of them (outside of straight monty haul dungeon crawlers such as Diablo, were loot is generally one of the points of playing).
My main issue with them is that they are very counter-intuitive as far as immersion goes. Mass Effect I's inventory system definitely wasn't great mechanically, as it was an exercise in repetition and comparing items with very minor changes in stats, not to mention selling them all/converting them to omni gel. And, as far as immersion goes, I somehow find the notion of three people in skin tight armor somehow carrying around literally hundreds of items, armors and weapons quite weird. Comparatively the scanning of item schematics and incorporation of them, if perhaps too simplified, felt far more appropriate to the setting, and a preferable mechanic. I do on the other hand wish that the game might give you different was to customize weapons to specialize in certain fields of combat, but hey, that's a minor nitpick for me.
Either way, I've not understood the arguments that it makes it less of a role-playing game without inventory though. Fair enough, most RPGs use inventory systems, but aside from aesthetics (which is covered by the new cuztomisation) and specialising (which is covered by skills and weapon choices, and to some extent by armor pieces) I don't see it as integral to the experience, but largely as a relic from old school RPGS.
Note: Before anyone starts bashing me for not being a true RPG fan or whatever, I do like old school RPGS, both PnP and CRPGS, and their spritual modern successors as well. I own pretty much every Black Isle/Bioware/Obsidian CRPG (as well as 2 copies of Dragon Age for both console and PC, even), and I do like them, so it's not about baselessly bashing their systems, but arguing against them being necessary for the RP experience. Inventory systems are an acceptable system, sure, but I like attempts at innovating them in favor of something that might in time surpass them - and I think this is a step in the right directions, albeit one that could use somewhat more complexity and choice.
Oh, and I would have wanted more different looking armor pieces and casual outfits, but that is the aesthetics w**** in me talking. Also, like mentioned previously, more customizing of weapons, but not the actual inventory system back.Secondly then, the level system; I personally did not notice a major difference in how the systems worked, except a difference in scale. I can however say that I am very glad for the removal of the weapon skill trees.
An elite military specialist should not need more experience to be able to hit things.
Also, I find it gives the levels a feeling of being useful rather than just another point or two that does slight statistical changes. The new system was hardly revolutionising, but for me just as functional as the old one, or slightly more so perhaps.
The lack of XP for codex/dialogue is... well, for me, of very little consequence. Can't say I like or dislike it, as a matter of fact, but I do support removing XP for kills though - I prefer the Vampire:tMB approach of quest experience depending on how you solved the mission anyway.
The global cooldown I can agree on though, as it tends to give less versatility as to which skills you use, especially early game. I can agree that the skill spam possibilities was too high in ME1, but I think it hampered some of the more skill based classes slightly and made you rely too much on the one or two best abilities you had, so that is valid criticism I believe (even though I think the skills are more interesting this time around).
And thirdly, regarding story, of all the nitpicks I could make, the starting narrative is not one of them. I thought it was cinematic and well-executed, and a narrative device I quite like (don't believe the Alien 3 analogy is quite right, as a pointless killing off of everyone except protagonist
for no reason wasn't exactly what happened, seeing as the amount of well-defined NPCs that are killed is pretty much, well, Navigator Presley). I think it raises the dramatical stakes quite well, but to each their own.
Admittedly, I can see some good points regarding the plot of the rest of the game (and the somewhat strange ending), but I think the Dirty Dozen recruitment idea is quite an interesting idea. By no means perfectly executed, but to be fair, I did not expect it to be. It does however lend a functional narrative, as what is going on in ME2 is essentially a very focused mission compared to the more exploratory sense of the ME1 main quest.
Regarding side quests, this is one point that differs in my experience as well, I was actually somewhat more engaged in the side quests in this game, and rarely did many in ME1 other than for completionism (exception being major Alliance missions and Follower missions), as many felt mundane or trivial, or not suited for a military specialist (so, for role-playing reasons). This goes for some missions in ME2, but I find them actually more compelling and thematically suitable, thusly averaging double the time for an ME2 playthrough over an ME1 playthrough.
Which leads to my final point, which is combat, that I feel is far improved and actually more enjoyable than previous. It is more visceral, more cinematically evocative and generally for me, more badass, I guess. ME1 is still one of my favourite games of all time, but it had many combat flaws and could end up somewhat lacklustre in my opinion, especially compared to the new combat.
And finally, can we not go for the
"dumbing down for consoles" strawman, please? It adds nothing to the discussion, and is just a cheap rhetoric shot anyway. Streamlining does not equate dumbing down, and needless complexity does not necessarily add gameplay value, but is rather just different approaches to design philosophy. Personally, I think it is a good idea to attempt to innovate CRPGs, and this is one of the best attempts I have seen. It does have defects, of course, but this is also Biowares first attempt at such an overhaul (more so than ME1, which did have this to some degree, especially combat- and dialogue-wise.
I am personally glad that this game is not Dragon Age in Space, but rather a different direction for CRPGs to go. Not because I dislike Dragon Age, hell, I have easily 100+ hours in that game, but because that was not an optimal design philosophy for Mass Effect in my opinion, which benefits from streamlining, which seems to be in line with the setting.
The problem here is that everything that is a step away from traditional RPG norms is seen as "pandering to the masses", and a betrayal of old school fans, as if there was only one way a "true" fan could feel about this direction, which frankly, isn't true.
Bioware is definitely my favourite game developer, with some other almost on par, and both Dragon Age
and Mass Effect 2 reminded me why that is.
Heh, I apparently needed that rant. Very much aware of the TL;DR potential of this post, but felt I needed to add my two cents.
I would like to add that I hope this is not misconstrued as saying what you feel about the game or it's design philosophy is not valid, but simply to add what I feel, and because I feel the extreme use of strawmen on both sides of this debate is somewhat annoying. Again, I have few games I love as much as Mass Effect 1, despite perceived flaws, so my support of the new way of ME2 is not because I dislike that game, but simply because I am glad to see an attempt to innovate the genre and play to the strenghts of the first one, but work out the inherited problems from the RPG tradition that did not work with the original
Modifié par Zombievarning, 23 février 2010 - 06:52 .
Retour en haut
.
