366 réponses à ce sujet

[Gvaz]

I like playing dressup with my characters and min/maxing them

[luet1991]

I fail to see any sense in the first post as it more focuses on game play mechanics than storyline.

[Gaudion]

Rilke21 wrote...

Killing enemies no longer provides experience. Neither does exploring the world, searching out codex entries, picking obscure dialogue options, finding rare items, interacting with your squad, or any of the other little details that sets an RPG apart from a shooter. For the most part, these details have been streamlined into the abyss. Where they’ve survived, there’s no longer an incentive to find them.

Keep in mind that Mass Effect, like most Bioware RPG's, is supposed to be a game of immersion. To that effect, I'm actually glad that they removed the XP-gathering effect from everything save killing enemies. With all the data-gathering and a lot of the sidequesting in ME1, Shepherd felt like a bit of a do-gooder busybody, which really ate into the concept of a detached and/or renegade Shepherd since you were punished for not doing with a lack of XP.

In the original Mass Effect, your character gets to choose from a list of 13 abilities. (This isn’t much compared to the 78 spells that mages can pick from in Dragon Age, but it’s not a bad selection.) Any of these powers can be unleashed on your enemies at any time, though once you’ve used a power you have to wait for it to recharge before you can use it again. In Mass Effect 2, you get to pick from 4 abilities. (Make that two if you’re playing as a soldier, since choosing your ammo hardly counts as a skill.) Using any of these powers makes the rest unusable until all of them recharge. Since only one or two of these powers is of any use in the first place, the chances are good that you’ll max out one skill and then spam it for the entire game. In effect, where the first game lets you use 13 powers in combat, the second lets you use 1. (I’d make a snarky comment about this exciting new development in tactical complexity, but I think you get the picture.)

Without NGP abilities, my ME1 Sentinel has access to 11 powers if you count Unity and First Aid. A lot of them seem redundant and useless, and the only reason some ever get used in the first place is because others are on cooldown.

In ME2, there are fewer abilities, but they actually matter. And with clear-cut differences in enemy defenses, if you're only mindlessly spamming one then you're either an idiot or playing on one of the easier difficulties where you have that luxery.

The inventory is a pretty essential part of any RPG, and not just because it’s fun to hit the I-key and play dress-up with your characters. The reason inventories are important is because loot management sets RPGs apart from their mindless shooter brethren.  In Mass Effect 2 you’ll occasionally find new items (maybe five or six, but only if you blow 10 bucks on the DLC.) But because there’s no inventory there’s virtually no way to distinguish which gun does more damage, or which armor offers more protection. The only noticeable differences between the weapons in Mass Effect 2 are clip size and accuracy, but since each gun is about as effective as the other guns, you might as well just keep one for the entire game.

... Which makes the game more of a shooter and less of a turn-based SNES RPG. Power-leveling and better gear is not the answer to every problem. The game asks you to approach combat tactically with what you have instead of coming back ten levels higher with an upgraded inventory. Again, something you might not notice on lower difficulties.

Mass Effect’s inventory went down the garburator, and half of the depth and fun of an RPG went with it. Most of you remember Diablo 2, a fairly simple game that was infinitely replayable because of the sheer depth of its item system. (Certain nerds have devoted the last 10 years of their lives to finding the next cool Diablo item. I in no way condone this behaviour, but it does say a lot about the importance of a decent item system.) My point is that much of the replayability of an RPG comes from finding new items, customizing your character with them, and enjoying how much of a badass you can become. When you take items and experience out of an RPG, you take away the incentive to develop your character. You take away half the incentive to play the game at all.

I'm beginning to think the greater issue at large is that you simply want Mass Effect to be something it's not. Where exactly other than your personal preferences is it mandated that inventory be a consumate feature of the RPG experience?

What makes up the other half of a great RPG? You guessed it...the story! And here is where Mass Effect 2 really fails to shine. Do you remember in Alien 3 when the survivors from the last movie are killed off in the first 20 seconds? It’s a plot device that writers fall back on when they’re either very strapped for time, or they just aren’t sure how to continue their last story.

The first Mass Effect introduced a brilliant new Sci-Fi universe that rivals Star Wars in its scope and creativity. In contrast, Mass Effect 2 starts off by blowing up the Normandy, killing or scattering the crew, and then magically bringing Shepard back from the dead. The rest of the story is pretty simple: Shepard rebuilds the crew, gains their loyalty (?), and then blows up a base. Game over, man. (We’re told a number of times that the crew is on a suicide mission. Unfortunately repeating “suicide mission” over and over  doesn’t make this story any more compelling.) Mass Effect 2 gleans what little narrative magic it has from riding on the coattails of its predecessor. Nothing new is added, and a lot is taken away. (To be fair, there’s one big exception here: the surprising development with the Geth is a very nice touch! If only the game’s ending made a shred of sense...)

The definition of stupidity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results. I'm not saying this to call you stupid, but it's a poignant example and spurs the obvious question: We've known Shepherd dies in the opening and that the game is a suicide mission long since the game was in developement. So... why did you play this game looking for something else.

Mass Effect 2 promised to incorporate the decisions you made in the first game into the story of the second. And it does. (In the form of trite little emails that Shepard receives from the forgettable NPCs of Mass Effect 1.) Remember Samesh Batia? Well you’ll be reminded. Or how about that Asari who got stuck in the Thorian? Yeah, you’ll get to do a pointless little quest for her, and then she’ll even flirt with you! Unfortunately, because there’s no reward for slogging through the dull side-quest dialogues, only true perfectionists will bother with the side-quests at all. The beauty of any good story is in the details. But when the details are thrown in as filler, and the story is nowhere to be found, they just detract from the whole experience.

Details and story from the first game are incorporated, you're not happy about it. This is just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm assuming what you really want is for this to buttonhook back to your initial arguments about the inventory and gear, which has nothing at all to do with story or details from the first game.

Mass Effect 2 is not much of an RPG. So why does it deserve the praise that people have been throwing at it? The answer is that the game looks like a movie. (If you ignore the side quests and the left-half of the dialogue wheel, it even plays like a movie.) But the cinematic quality of the second game is nothing new to the Mass Effect series. And when you combine bare-bones plot with uninspired side-quests and depth-free combat, Mass Effect 2 just plays like a gutted version of the original. Lip service has been paid to what made the original Mass Effect great (the voice acting is mostly excellent and the combat is still good for the occasional adrenaline rush), but much of the substance of the origional has been removed. We’re left with a decent third-person shooter that is by no means a bad game. It’s just not what I expected from BioWare.

RPG's have been called such and gotten away with a lot worse. FFX was as much of a movie as you're claiming ME to be, and FFXII had a less cohesive story and far less character developement than an FPS that doesn't even claim to be an RPG. Any given Zelda game has fewer gear upgrades than ME2. (And no, sub-items don't count. 75% of their use was solving puzzles in dungeons, with the remaining 25% being used to defeat enemies in puzzle-like ways. There wasn't much to improve on simply swording things.)

That said, I’m writing this to remind BioWare of what makes a game great, and of what Mass Effect 2 is sadly lacking. For the real fans out there, maybe we’ll have better luck next time.

This thread has been the opinion of one person based solely on personal preference. Which you're entitled to, but much of it is your wishing Mass Effect 2 into a vanilla RPG which it is clearly not meant to be, in which case the simplest solution would be for you to go play something else so the constituency with a broader scope can enjoy something less the usual fair.

Calling yourself a "true fan" while the rest of us are, I assume, beer-ponging frat boys who only stop to play video games between courting slam pieces at the weekend social bar crawls was not exactly the best way to end this either.

Modifié par Gaudion, 02 février 2010 - 02:45 .

[olp33]

Hey what happened to medi gels being able to heal you? Not just revive your teamates.......that's all I have to say

Modifié par olp33, 02 février 2010 - 02:16 .

[Erakleitos]

olp33 wrote...

Hey what happened to medi gels being able to heal you? Not just revive your teamates.......that's all I have to say

If i'm not mistaken you can upgrade them.

[TheLostGenius]

 The item and equipment system in ME1 was NOXIOUSLY cumbersome. My MAIN complaint about ME2 is the miniscule selection of weapons. Does make playing it simpler. There is so much content. I think we should all be happy.

Miss the moon rover though. I actually liked that in the first one, just not the combat aspect of it.

[olp33]

Erakleitos wrote...

olp33 wrote...

Hey what happened to medi gels being able to heal you? Not just revive your teamates.......that's all I have to say

If i'm not mistaken you can upgrade them.

No I'm talking about just pressing "Y" and being able to heal yourself. I have no idea why that was taken out.

[Shady314]

olp33 wrote...

Hey what happened to medi gels being able to heal you? Not just revive your teamates.......that's all I have to say

They do heal you. Get injured and use Unity. It's right in the description. But since health can regenerate that is usually a waste.

[hawat333]

Even though the game made it's way to my top5 list, I agree completely. Well said with reasonable points and logic.

However I don't see the situation as dire, but I see where your thoughts are coming from.

[Nomcookie]

You know what the problem is? ME2 took most of us old-time RPG players far out of our comfort zone. We LIKE the feeling of finding random bits of trash on dead things (Hey, look! That fish had a nuke launcher in it!), we LIKE playing dress-up with our characters and party members. We even LIKE having to choose between 13 skills/talents and trying to decide whether Random Pistol VI is better than Other Random Pistol IV.

As much as we may love ME2, we're always going to feel this itch in our skulls because all these things that we enjoyed were "taken from us" (so to speak). It's more of a knee-jerk reaction, parts of this game just feel wrong because of it.

*waits for someone to start ranting that the things I mentioned "don't matter"*

Edited because my grammar fails.

Modifié par Nomcookie, 02 février 2010 - 03:32 .

[TheKnave69]

Hm..  Just my thoughts, but I'm a "real" RPG fan.  I've been playing TT games since junior high school, AD&D prior to 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5 editions, Shadowrun, etc.  I've been playing CRPG's since, as my profile says, I could change the discs in my Commodore 64.  I've been a fan of Bioware games for a long time.  Wasn't a huge fan of Jade Empire (not RPG enough form me), but that's just my personal preference.

ME and ME2 are marketed as action role playing games.  ME focused more on RPG than action, while ME2 focuse more on action and less on RPG.  Taken as a stand alone game, ME2 is great fun to play, and better than 90% of games currently on the market (if a bit short, and less RPGy than I personally would have liked), but when compared to ME, it loses a lot of what RPG fans found most enjoyable in the first game. 

It's possible to successfully combine the two elements into an epic game, look at something like The Witcher, or (as flawed as it is) Vampire - Bloodlines.  Both have real time combat, and fully fleshed out RPG tropes: World changing decisions, branching quests, inventory, improved character customizations, etc.

Would I have liked to see the game have more complexity? Of course. My personal preference is toward more complexity, choice, customization, etc.

I think that as software/hardware technology advances, so should the genre.  Does it seem like ME2 has taken a step back?  Compared to the first game, in terms of gameplay, yes; in terms of graphics, sound design, definately not.  It's not a hardcore game, and appears to be geared more to the casual player (broader audience).  

One thing I've been wondering is how much resources did Bioware have to invest in ME2.  There are a finite amount of resources (money, time, manpower) to allocate without a company going broke, and Bioware was also working on DA:O including DLC, ToR, and ME2 including DLC, as well as an unnamed project. 

Since Bioware is a subsidiary of EA, there was probably quite a bit of pressure to publish on time.  I'm sure the developers had many ideas that they would have liked to implement that didn't get in due to resource allocation issues, this may or may not be rectified by DLC.  It probably will based on current sales numbers.  More revenue = more freedom to develop and support a successful franchise.  If you look at what they've done with DLC for DA:O, major quests, characters, etc., you can see the same potential with ME2.

I could go on and on, but I won't.   

Modifié par TheKnave69, 02 février 2010 - 03:47 .

[darkwonders]

olp33 wrote...

Hey what happened to medi gels being able to heal you? Not just revive your teamates.......that's all I have to say

If you read the codex, the medigel has been incorporated into your armor, so that's where the regenerative health comes into play. You only need to use a huge dose of medigel to revive incapacitated squad members. Any minor injury can be fixed by your suit.

[darkwonders]

Nomcookie wrote...

You know what the problem is? ME2 took most of us old-time RPG players far out of our comfort zone. We LIKE the feeling of finding random bits of trash on dead things (Hey, look! That fish had a nuke launcher in it!), we LIKE playing dress-up with our characters and party members. We even LIKE having to choose between 13 skills/talents and trying to decide whether Random Pistol VI is better than Other Random Pistol IV.

As much as we may love ME2, we're always going to feel this itch in our skulls because all these things that we enjoyed were "taken from us" (so to speak). It's more of a knee-jerk reaction, parts of this game just feel wrong because of it.

*waits for someone to start ranting that the things I mentioned "don't matter"*

Edited because my grammar fails.

While I do enjoy those things... there are tons of RPGs that do that already! Heck Bioware just released one that fits that description, Dragon Age: Origins!

Seeing as I had just recently played DAO, I would prob not have liked Mass Effect 2 as much if they kept it that RPG... Sure upgrading the weapons was fun in Mass Effect, but once I got the Spectre Weapons... I couldn't care less about the loot I got. I either turned it into omnigel or sold it to the stores. By the end of the game I had the max number of credits the coding allowed, which was boring as I could buy anything.

And for the grenades, I don't miss them at all. They were awkwardly placed on the 360, so I always forgot to use them in a battle. I've used them maybe a few times. I like that it was replaced by heavy weapons as I used those more against the bosses. Since they were on my weapon wheel I remembered to use them.

I also enjoyed the new power wheel. While everything was on the same cooldown, they were so much faster cooling down. By the end of the game I could string together all of my attacks because the upgrades made the cooldowns even less.

I was playing engineer so I would be able to spawn my droid in the battle. Its cooldown is only 3 seconds, but much shorter because I had the mechanic upgrade. It also lasted longer. While that was distracting my enemies, I would either AI hack, or use Cryo Blast. I also had the bonus ability to drain shields/harm synthetics. If my droid was destroyed, I would just spawn another and then focus on the enemies while they were distracted.  Having 5 quickslots between the party was very nice for the 360 and allowed me to stay in the action longer.

[Kilmiina]

TL;DR version:

Warden4423 wrote...
1. Loot is a staple of every RPG. /snip

This doesn't have to be the case and I disagree with the need for endless streams of useless loot.

Warden4423 wrote...
2. The fact you don't get exp for killing enemies is also confusing. /snip

I believe ME2's experience system convey's a sense of character growth superior to ME1's system. 

Warden4423 wrote...
3. Economy. As people have stated, there isnt one. Money is nearly pointless in ME2. /snip

The economy in ME2 was definitely weak, but there was no absolutely no economy in ME1 whatsoever.

All in all, I think that the kind of game some folks wanted to play wasn't even much of a Mass Effect game, but more like Dragon Age in space and unless that's what was offered these same folks were bound to be disappointed.

----comments below----

Warden4423 wrote...
1. Loot is a staple of every RPG. /snip

True. And there's plenty of loot in ME2. How many different assault rifles, pistols, sub machine guns, etc does someone really need? Afterall, it all boiled down to those three stat bars in ME1 and once you got the best weapons, armour, amps and omni-tools, what else was there to do with all those pieces of leftovers? Sell it for useless cash or reduce it to omni-gel in order to avoid playing the boring 'hacking' mini-game. Let's face facts though. The mechanics in ME1 made combat so easy that  the best gear wasn't even needed to completely dominate the firefights, particularly on the default difficulty setting. In the end, the top gear was really just the equivalent of little blue pills for the e-peen.

Warden4423 wrote...
2. The fact you don't get exp for killing enemies is also confusing. /snip

This is a game and to be fair both systems are completely abitrary ways of controlling character progress. However in terms of immersive gameplay, I think that it's worth think about this for a second. How does blowing away a bunch of uppity collectors equate with "experience" and justify a potential level-up (another completely arbitrary way to measure progress) compared to completing an entire mission where you save the majority of a colony from those collectors? In my opinion, it doesn't. A great soldier doesn't learn and grow as a tactician and leader by huddling behind a box lobbing grenades at whatever cannon fodder lumber his way. A great soldier is realised by reflecting on the accomplishments and mistakes made during a mission. I believe ME2's system is more able to convey that sense of growth and "experience" than ME1's.

Warden4423 wrote...
3. Economy. As people have stated, there isnt one. Money is nearly pointless in ME2. /snip

I really thought that this was a troll. I always seemed to have a ridiculous amount of palladium and platinum at hand and never enough element zero. So, I would have liked to see some mechanic that would allow the characters to buy and sell the minerals for research. A minor point, but it was. That said, there was no "economy" in ME1 at all, which leads to my second point.

By the end of my first playthough of ME1 I had enough cash on hand that the game didn't count any higher and I had nothing to spend it on. Keep in mind that I rarely hacked a lock manually because I didn't enjoy the hacking mini-game, so my extra loot wasn't being sold as much as it was being turned into omni-gel. ME1's vendors were more or less pointless since I got a lot of stuff from opening crates and the endless stream of loot drops. I can honestly say that with the exception of medi-gel upgrades, grenades, vendor licences and Spectre weapons, I rarely felt compelled to buy anything and when I did, money was never a barrier to any purchase I made. Despite what you might think, that's not an economy. An economy implies having to strike a balance between competing needs given finite resources. Given the practically limitless funds on hand in ME1 at little to no effort, that need to balance simply wasn't there.

ME2 on the other hand had me thinking about the order in which I was going to upgrade. Not knowing when the next Collector attack was, I poured resources into ship upgrades first (which, in retrospect wasn't necessary) which left me with nothing to use for weapons, armour and prototypes. I had to take time out to harvest more and scour each zone for what little I could find. Even by the end of my roughly 35 hour run, I still didn't have enough to get all the upgrades available. It isn't a perfect economy as I'm sure that more time scanning down resources would have gotten me everything I would need, but at least it would have taken some modicum of effort to get it. At least there was some some decisions that had to be made. Granted, when I get around to a second replay I'll probably be sitting on a tonne of cash and resources, but that's part of the bait used to get people to play the game again and again.

[4lice4nn]

What makes a person a "fake" fan? Just wondering how that works...

[Rilke21]

Twizz089 wrote...

Whats so wrong with make a game that everyone can enjoy and have some fun with?

Like I said in my post, Twizz, there's nothing wrong with this at all. (Rockstar does it all the time, and does it well.) But here's an analogy for you.

I live in a pretty small city (actually BioWare lives here too,) and there's a symphony orchestra in town. If you asked 10 random people on the street if they caught the last symphony, probably none of them would say yes. But that doesn't mean the orchestra isn't something of value, or isn't worth preserving, or wouldn't be enjoyed by more people if they cultivated a taste for the classics.

BioWare is a company that (with the glaring exception of Jade Empire) has always written symphonies. Mass Effect 2 is like a foray into pop music. Now sometimes an orchestra needs to play pop to draw in a crowd and pay the bills, and the original Mass Effect already did that to some extent. But with Mass Effect 2, it's as if the national radio station decided to cut the classics entirely and started playing nothing but pop (and hey, that happened here too!)

I'm not bashing the console crowd, but I am (objectively) pointing out that console games generally aren't as sophisticated as games that are developed for the PC. Mass Effect broke the mold by being a sophisticated console game. Mass Effect 2, while still a great game, took three steps toward pop music.

[Kilshrek]

Just read OP's post, no time for the rest. I agree with just about everything said. Hopefully we get enough voices out there for BioWare to listen again and not simplify any further, because then it'd really be terrible and I'll hate consoles for the rest of my life.

[x-wrentaile]

I agree with everything the OP said, but have to add that I hate the circuit and scanning. Heck, I've had to quit out of missions because I can't finish the frelling circuit game, and there is no way to skip it (omni-gel, anyone?).

Also, the ammo system is just a layer of fake difficulty and nonsensical on top of it. In two years every weapon in the galaxy has been upgraded to this system? And why is in once I (or rather the game for me) assign universal ammo to a gun, it becomes unique to that gun (I know why, the answer is poor design and lazy programming)?

Modifié par x-wrentaile, 02 février 2010 - 10:38 .

[Shoko86]

Well said OP. I agree with you. ME2 was a great game as it is, but it was a slap in the face for the RPG fans of Bioware. :/

[Rilke21]

Railstay, I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. The inventory in the original Mass Effect is one of the worst that I’ve seen in an RPG. Converting about a hundred items into omni-gel because of a full inventory and a full bank is not my idea of a good time. But these are technical glitches that can easily be fixed. I hate to bring up Deus Ex again, but it’s a great example of a functional inventory that didn’t get in the way of the action and still allowed for a variety of cool items.



I have a confession to make. I actually play a lot of shooters (I was even in an Insurgency clan for a while.) My concern with Mass Effect 2 is that it’s neither a good RPG or a good shooter. It tries to be both, but the decent new combat gameplay does not make up for what has been lost on the RPG side of things. (Again, inventory is a part of this, but story is really my main concern.) To make a good shooter out of Mass Effect the developers would have to add some crosshairs. The writers would have to provide a coherent, fast-paced story ark. If they did that, the game would be indistinguishable from an excellent Sci-Fi flick...it would actually be better, since you’d feel like you were living in a movie.



As it is, Mass Effect 2 is a bad RPG with a fractured story and some good action. If the inventory took away from the action in Mass Effect, it’s the dialogue that takes away from the action in Mass Effect 2. I don’t think that we should have to pick between fast action, deep gameplay and great story. (Someone else mentioned The Witcher as good example of a game that combines all three, but you could also plug in just about every other BioWare game.)



As for skills, I admit I was a little harsh in my criticism of the tactics in Mass Effect 2. It’s plenty of fun to hit an enemy with pull and then blow it up with overload. But there aren’t nearly enough of these tactical combinations...at best, there’s one fun little tactic per squad, and at worst there’s nothing but “Shepard uses impact shot, Tali uses combat drone, Grunt makes a lot of noise, everyone hides to regenerate health, repeat.” This is actually a lot more fun than it might sound, but it’s not nearly enough fun to amount to any replay value.



And I guess this is the real kicker for me. A good RPG can be played for hundreds of hours. Mass Effect 2 is only good for a couple of play throughs, and that’s around 60 hours max. (But only if you’re a perfectionist like me and you also play on the high difficulty settings.) Replayability is sacrificed when the depth of an RPG is thrown out the garbage shoot...especially when the writers haven’t sleep for a month and produce a script that’s in need of some serious editing.

[pozipoziamparo]

ME2 is a good game. It's also a missed opportunity to expand the Mass Effect Universe. They just changed Geth for Collectors and Sovereign for Harbinger (and throwed in a TON of totally dull mercs to fill in the gaps).

Modifié par pozipoziamparo, 02 février 2010 - 10:46 .

[Rilke21]

Thanks Shoko, great art on your site btw.



wren, I actually liked the new mini games at first, but they get very dull very fast!

[tsd16]

I personally liked the stream lining of the combat. It reminded me alot of combat from brothers in arms, don't get me wrong I am not a shooter fanatic by any mean. I just think tactical squad based combat is very fun, involving "really" taking cover, positioning your squad mates, and attempt to out flank the enemy. (which when playing the game, you will notice, in most situation, there is an option to have a squadmate hunker down and take a squad mate and outflank the enemy. As opposed to your normal, run and gun shooters playing rambo is not really an option in ME2, you will die.

I did have some questions about the story not really being very epic in ME 2, but overall the story and dialogue was still very good and engaging. As far as inventory, I like the current inventory system, I dont mind "upgrades" as opposed to 50 different weapons that really dont look all that different to begin with. or 10 tiers of the same looking armor in light med and heavy varieties. so I wish maybe their were 10+ variations for each armor piece in appearance, and maybe 10+ upgrades for each weapon. Maybe some variations for squadmates.aside from recolors.

Modifié par tsd16, 02 février 2010 - 11:10 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

madvibe wrote...
So tell me how stats (the numerical representation of your abillties), levels, experience (representations of your progession), or EPIC LOOTZ (the equipment used to enhance & customize your character's looks, abillities, & progression) don't help you mold & personalize your character to fit in the world. If I'm not mistaken one of the very first RPGs was D&D. Try to tell someone who plays that its just about story.

Oh I can easily tell you that it got alot better. I've played dnd for a long time, have 5 concurrent characters at this point and love every single one of them. But want to know something? Not all of Bioware's older games translate well into this system. My bigger issue with ME2 wasn't that they chose to reduce skills or anything; Alot of the original game's skills really did suck. I was more upset that in ME2 it felt like each party member's abilities were all the same. Liara wasn't unique with her biotic ability, etc. But they sure as hell pulled off the character development.

Now as far as loot system goes, would you say Jade Empire isn't an rpg? The game doesn't extend beyond buying weapons and techniques. Yes, customization is a wonderful thing. But Rpgs are about your choices and how they impact the world around you. Spending endless hours in the mako collecting minerals or performing dozens of pointless side quests does not an rpg make.

Alot of people laud Neverwinter Nights. It's honestly one of the worst rpgs I've ever played by Bioware. I can acknowledge its importance to opening up the way for better games. But as a game on its own? Dialogue system was weak, story was bland, combat looked retarded, and it translated to a bad port of what DnD was about. IF we are talking about the purpse of an rpg, Neverwinter Nights doesn't really meet that in the character-story department. That's why Dragon Age is so ground-breaking. For me, it hit the elements of what DnD consists of more the Nights ever could and without making a carbon copy system.

Edit: Very bad spelling.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 02 février 2010 - 11:44 .

[Hepzi3]

Agree 100 percent with the OP, But I really loved ME2 as well.



Character development over ruled the things that I did not agree with.



The combat was not better. It was more streamlined, Sure, But that does not mean better. I loved the first game to death, And I loved the 2nd to death. But the combat was not better.



Framerate and graphic upgrades made the game insane though. First one was SO GOOD as it was, Throw in a pretty damned good story and I am hooked.