366 réponses à ce sujet

[Skilled Seeker]

I liked the changes in ME2. I just hope ME3 can find a happy balance between 1 and 2 so then everyone is happy But really the story and gameplay is MUCH more intense in ME2 and its only arbitary things that ME1 did better maybe.

[Xenmir]

I actually find this very comforting to see that I'm not the only one who felt this way. It seems like out of 10 or even 20 people, 1 would feel the same way as you do. (For lack of better words, disappointed vs not)



Unlike some other members here who have posted, I did not like the new shooting mechanics. It has become a shooter with rpg elements instead of an rpg with shooting abilities.



True, ME1 was in no way polished in terms of inventory, etc. but at least it was there and not nearly stripped away.



Anyway, well said to many of you.

[DeadlyParasite]

Nope, in fact ME2 for me was the most polished BioWare game to date. No more of that nonsensical converting 150 indentical items into omni-gel, visiting indentical bases, driving up 90 degree slopes, fighting through choppy framerates,or communicating with walking codexs.

Story takes precedence over futile micromanagement.

Now that they have a strong combat system and engine they can spend even more time on story and customization in the third game.

Modifié par DeadlyParasite, 03 février 2010 - 12:00 .

[Warden4423]

At no point did I say that I did not enjoy ME2. The game its self is fun, the story is fantastic, the characters are deep and I will be replaying it multiple times in preparation for ME3.



The point, and posting anything at 7:30am was probably a bad idea, is that Bioware didnt just streamline the game, they cut aspects down to the most basic form. Yes, there IS a need for the credits you find but once you buy all the upgrades, money has no purpose. Its similar to ME1 in that you get to the point where you have so much money, it loses all value. Here, there is so little to buy, once those items are bought, money has no value. Yes, there is the ability to upgrade your weapons and I think thats fantastic but it is not a substitute for new equipment. If the intent was to reduce the amount of junk in your inventory, removing your inventory is not the answer. There was no balance attempted, they went to the other end of the spectrum by removing it all together.



I see, and I understand, each point of view here. Some enjoy the limited amount of weapons and armor choices. Other really dislike that limitation and I'm one of them. All the people like myself are asking for, or have an issue with, is that the option of more equipment isnt there. Its fine that some of you like the total lack of inventory and I'm glad that ME2 has given you what you wanted. The rest of us want more options and I honestly can't see why those options for armor/weapons/equipment were not put into the game.



ME2 is, once again, a fantastic game. No, it doesnt fit my definition of a RPG and I see it as a story driven shooter with some RPG elements and in that light, it blows away what my expectations were. I hope that Bioware finds a nice middle ground for the equipment in ME3. I'm going to buy it and probably play it a bunch of times. Some more variety is all I'm looking for.

[Souai]

Rilke21 wrote...
So why did playing it feel like a big BioWare boot to the teeth?

Fans of the original probably noticed right away that the second Mass Effect is a streamlined version of the first. Think Deus Ex 2: an unbroken system of levelling, character development and inventory management was “fixed” by eliminating it completely. (Granted, the inventory in the first Mass Effect was a little clunky, but it still got the job done.)

Immersion, consolidation of redundancies, and to make skill use more choice based than a kitchen sink scenario.  Effectiveness of guns not tied to level.  Improves the shooting system.

Killing enemies no longer provides experience. Neither does [a lot of] 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.

I saw it as part of smoothing the difficulty curve.  Easier to tell what players will be at.  Allows you to be less thorough in subsequent playthroughs without gimping yourself.

In the original Mass Effect, your character gets to choose from a list of 13 abilities [to use at any time with individual cooldowns]. In Mass Effect 2, you get to pick from [~2-]4 abilities [on a global cooldown]. 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.)

I really feel like you're overstating the choice in ME1 and understating the choice in ME2.  Where was the incentive to use anything that wasn't a CC ability and to hold down LMB in ME1?  The global cooldown felt like a compromise to let people choose the abilities they want more often.  It didn't make much sense to say oh you can use powerful biotics, but not this biotic ability because you used it earlier for everything.  If you're completely focused on using one ability in ME2, that seems like a possible class balance and encounter design problem, not an issue with the general system.  You're ignoring the interaction between say overload, warp, incinerate, and then biotics versus unshielded targets.  That's a lot deeper to me in situations where there are multiple enemies  with different attacks who're at different defense stages and different levels of danger/interaction with environment than in ME1 where it was geth army after geth army with the same boring attack patterns with the same LMB spam mixed with biotic abuse.  I most strongly disagree with your arguments in this section, I think you may be misremembering the combat mechanics of ME1.

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.

I agree that BioWare may have fallen short in disclosing the effectiveness of the avialable weapons, but that isn't because there's no item selling and general inventory.  The armor bonuses were probably purposely weak so you could not be severely hampered by dressing the way you wanted to.  There are plenty of older RPGs that emphasized exploration and story over loot, and honestly the massive inventory and item trend really started with jRPG's through the 90's.  I disagree that an inventory is an essential part of any RPG.

Mass Effect’s inventory went down the garburator, and half of the depth and fun of an RPG went with it. [M]uch 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.

Mass Effect's inventory system was half the fun of the game?  It felt like save money buy spectre guns and become grossly overpowered to me.  It was clunky, discontinuous, and combined with the achievement system forced you to use the same couple squadmates for most of the game.  The customization in ME2 is what squad you choose for which mission and which weapons you decide to bring.

I didn't like the setup and execution of the story in ME2.  The Geth development was nice but everything else felt contrived and less magical to me than the first game.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the story of ME2.  I though the two year break was executed well enough and gave a much needed break to allow the characters from the first game to develop and the effects of your actions in ME1 to begin to bear fruit.  What alternative were you expecting?

Mass Effect 2 promised to incorporate the decisions you made in the first game into the story of the second. [I believe it wasn't done well enough and I was not motivated to interact with the returning characters]. 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.

The story is nowhere to be found?  What?  Did you mean that you did not like the story?  I thought it was pretty clear from the get go that Collectors are probably abducting human colonies.  Gather a team(recruit), Confirm(Horizon), and figure out how to beat them up, we think that involves going through the Omega-4 relay(IFF -> endgame).  The first game was presented as Saren is bad and is screwing humanity.  Gather a team(less dossier driven but still recruit), Confirm (Virmire), figure out how to stop him/his ship (Ilos Conduit->Finale).  I agree that the impact of the larger choices felt more muted than expected in ME2 and that some of the e-mails were misleading (I thought I could meet up with those three or four people from the citidel who sent a message).  I'm hoping that was more an effect of foreseeing too much divergence for the third game rather than a cost cutting choice that will be continued for the next title.  What were the details in ME1 that were not filler versus the details in ME2 that are filler for you?  This seems like a subjective call without any supporting evidence. 

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.

I think you're overstating the cinematography and direction of the first game and understating it for the second.  Have you played ME1 recently after completing ME2?  What parts of the original were substantive over ME2?  I think you're overgeneralizing many topics and not providing enough details.  You're using loaded words like bare-bones and lip service with no reasoning.  I thought the plot was not bare-bones and have no idea what you thought made the original ME1 great that was not in ME2.  What do you mean by 'lip service has been paid to what made the original ME great'?

It’s probably apparent that I’m not a 16-year-old with an Xbox. I understand that mass (console) appeal makes money, and in principle there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m part of the old cabal of Bioware supporters, and I’ll probably buy Mass Effect 3 (even if they resurrect Sovereign as a renegade Hanar and have Shepard kick its butt in a boxing match.) BioWare is still at the top of my list of game developers. (After all, it’s nigh impossible to resent the company that released Dragon Age two months ago.)

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.

What is the point of this section other than to inflame people who feel you've marginalized them?  You mention DA as BioWare's gift to RPGs, without contrasting it to ME2 and comparing where and how you feel DA was better.  I would go back and find examples and reorder your argument with examples from what you feel are better titles and how their systems worked better than what was done in ME2 while thinking about the underlying reasoning that BioWare may have chosen the direction they did for ME2.  

This long post reads more like a notebook or journal entry than an honest evaluation of why the streamlined gameplay of ME2 was a poor design choice.  I would have gone with an open question and looked for the opinions and evidence of others on the forum rather than trying to present an incomplete agrument of your opinion on the presentation of ME2.  If I were a BioWare employee looking for feedback about how I designed ME2, this argument wouldn't be very convincing. 

[ZenAdept]

You know, I strongly agree with original post. ME2 is a great game and I enjoy it but I am disappointed by a lot of the changes. Character development, inventory, loot, party interactions& management -  all seem lacking comparing to ME1 imo. I can’t help but feel that the game is moving further away from PC and into console word if it makes sense…

[Jonathan Shepard]

Those were pretty much my sentiments, OP, but I felt the story itself was great, except that it felt much shorter, even though the game itself took me ten hours longer. The lack of hotkeys for inventory and such also really detracted... this one felt more like a port than the first one, unfortunately. The lack of anyway to compare your items killed a part of it for me, and the near-useless-ness of many of the abilities on higher difficulties. It really becomes a cinematic shooter (which is in this case horrible, even though I love Halo 3 and MW2-- but those are supposed to be shooters, and even in those games, your weapon selection is much greater). I felt the "MISSION COMPLETE" screens also killed it. Those were terrible. They better NEVER rear their faces again.



Otherwise, everything you said is right. Where's the huge impact of everything? Only a few lines of dialouge are changes by saving/losing the council, and that's one of the biggest choices. It was a let down, unfortunately, until passing through the Omega-4... after that, it felt like Mass Effect 2 to me. But the first 29 out of 30 hours felt... not bad. It was definitely good. Just not up to Bioware's standard.



Though, the expansion on the Geth, like you said, was one of the best parts of the game.

[Skilled Seeker]

Well I enjoyed ME2 much more than ME1 and thats saying something since ME1 was my favourite game until 2 came along. So there!

[Mr.Skar]

I disagree with the DE2 comparison. DE2 took a system that was deep, worked perfectly well, and no one had any issue with, and broke it. ME2 has merely decided that this series would be more shooter than RPG, something ME1 couldn't really decide on. I do miss the ability to explore the planets, but apparently that will change with a future DLC.



In regards to the loss of the inventory, I can only partially agree. I miss being able to pick up new gear as there is a certain thrill to getting new things. Unfortunately, most of that gear was crap. I would like to see a balance between the two systems struck for ME3.



In terms of story, while I agree with you, most middle sections of a trilogy suffer from an uninteresting plot line. Even in books, this is often the case. First game/movie/book introduces the story, while the second one has to fill the gap between the big intro and the big finish. While I would have liked a more interesting plot, I'm not really surprised or even dissappointed with what we got. Just not thrilled. Implementation of a lot of the ME1 sidequests was also about what I expected.



On the whole I really enjoy the game though. What changes got made didn't really hurt my enjoyment. Though I do suggest we discuss what we thought about the game, so long as we can keep from insulting each other in the process it may be more productive.

[Rilke21]

Souai, thanks for taking the time to write such an in-depth response. Since I’ve already addressed the skill/item issue in a previous post, let me focus on the story for a bit.



A typical narrative arc has a beginning, a middle and an end. (Every once in a while, people like Zach Braff will play around with this structure and end up with decent results. Garden State was pretty great despite having a strange beginning-middle-beginning-end structure.) If you lay out the narrative structure of Mass Effect 2, you’ll notice that it starts with the End (boom! Everybody dies.) The middle is actually 20 little short stories (these would be the “find a teammate and make him/her/it loyal” stories), each with their own B-M-E structure. None of these stories is particularly inspiring, all but a handful seem contrived, and some are just rotten. (No really. Why is Grunt pure again? Maybe if we repeat “pure” over and over then people just won’t question it. We should throw “suicide” in for good measure.) Interspersed with the short stories is a slightly longer and much more effective story that has to do with the collectors, the sweet new Geth squad mate, and a big boom at the end. This story is told with cinematic flare and gut wrenching action... and it lasts about 3 of 30 hours of gameplay.



So we have a Beginning (end?), followed by 20 B-M-Es, and then an End (boom!) The result is a story that feels stilted and never really goes anywhere.



In regard to your “this is more like a journal than a convincing argument” comment, I can only say that I’d be happy to go into further detail than I already have, but a really bomb-proof argument would take me at least 8 hours to concoct. I really don’t have the time at the moment. But hey. If there’s a developer reading this post, but I’d be happy to come over and give you a play-by-play of my Mass Effect 2 experience. I’m in the neighbourhood, after all.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Rilke21 wrote...
So we have a Beginning (end?), followed by 20 B-M-Es, and then an End (boom!) The result is a story that feels stilted and never really goes anywhere.

Kotor: Beginning-->Find 4 Star Maps-->ending sequence.

Jade Empire-->Beginning-->Build a Flyer-->Imperial City-->ending sequence.

Mass Effect-->Beginning-->Find info on Saren 4 planets-->ending sequence.

ME2 is a game that is built more on character development, of which I consider loyalty missions to be part of the main story, compared to others. It still follows the basic Bioware formula, but it *does* break it up abit more.

Mass Effect 2-->Beginning-->Find party members-->Horizon---> Find more party members-->Abandoned Collector Ship-->Finish party members/loyalty missions-->End sequence.

[tr0nzor]

 And there's the crux of the issue: mass appeal.

Anyone ever notice that if something is very popular, it usually sucks? Talk to a music connoisseur and ask him for a list of his fav bands. Chances are they're not widely-known or wouldn't be considered "pop" music.

I'm at odds, here. I'm part of the human race, and we create beautiful things, but when too many people share the experience it ultimately gets ruined.  

Maybe the Mormons are on to something with this limited-population in Heaven thing.

[KalliChan07]

I've been playing games for about 12-15yrs now.  I don't agree with you on what I read.  I had tons of incentive to build my character, find new planets, find new questlines, discover different scenarios, etc.

I used to feel similiar to the tone of what I read in the OP. 

Example, I was upset with the Final Fantasy series after the main developer left.  I was so frustrated with how different they were making the leveling system.  Until I took a step back and just looked at it as a whole, I didn't realize how my views on RPG's were so narrow-minded.  

It's the same thing with really... anything.  Games have to evolve.  Constantly putting little points into stats and micro managing is getting extremely old to me.  I loved the leveling up process in ME2.  Not having to bother with an inventory, and being able to focus on the game and not the leveling mechanics was refreshing.  Imo, ME2 was very inviting,  fun to pick up, and easy to get started (but still challenging to master per class).

RPG's are great, but having different styled RPG's isn't bad.  I applaud Bioware
in streamlining this game compared to the first one.

(Dunno if it's just my computer, but the forums keep splitting up my sentences all kinds of weird. )

Modifié par KalliChan07, 03 février 2010 - 01:48 .

[tr0nzor]

ZenAdept wrote...

You know, I strongly agree with original post. ME2 is a great game and I enjoy it but I am disappointed by a lot of the changes. Character development, inventory, loot, party interactions& management -  all seem lacking comparing to ME1 imo. I can’t help but feel that the game is moving further away from PC and into console word if it makes sense…

Even though ME1 was an Xbox exclusive before being PORTED to the PC.

[ZenAdept]

tr0nzor wrote...

ZenAdept wrote...

You know, I strongly agree with original post. ME2 is a great game and I enjoy it but I am disappointed by a lot of the changes. Character development, inventory, loot, party interactions& management -  all seem lacking comparing to ME1 imo. I can’t help but feel that the game is moving further away from PC and into console word if it makes sense…

Even though ME1 was an Xbox exclusive before being PORTED to the PC.

I am aware; but Bioware came up with a superior product which was embraced by PC users.  I feel that ME2 took a different direction and a lot of features were removed/dumbed down to accommodate primarily console market…if it makes sense.  As someone mentioned above, this DOES feel more like a port.

[Destructo-Bot]

Well said OP! I immediately pre-ordered ME2 after experiencing ME1. I will not be quite so quick on the pre-order button with ME3.

I feel that ME2 owes much of its success to standing on the shoulders of its predecessor. ME1 was flawed in many ways, but ME2 didn't address these flaws... not really.

Mass Effect felt like an epic story set in a grand universe. Mass Effect 2 hasn't inspired that same feeling of awe.

Grading of Mass Effect 1: A-
It has flaws that need addressed, but succeeds despite them. Despite flaws the game felt like an epic.

Grading of Mass Effect 2: C+
Failed to address the flaws of the 1st in a meaningful way and takes further misteps. Opening sequence was the best part of the game and gave a feeling of the epic story of the first. The rest of the story failed to deliver.

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 03 février 2010 - 02:13 .

[FriendofGarrus]

Well said. However, given the success of this game and wider appeal it has garnered I suspect this movement of "streamlining" will continue or at least remain in tact.

That being said- the combat was much better in ME2, even though the overall story was lacking and the items were almost nonexistent. The personal story lines were well done but I feel like all the build up will go to waste when we don't see these characters in the next game because they had the potential to die in this one. Major decisions like saving the council also had minimal impact.

Modifié par FriendofGarrus, 03 février 2010 - 02:13 .

[Cheetosaregood]

I have to agree with the OP.



I loved Mass Effect 2. I really did. However, I usually love games when I first buy them then once the hype dies down I realize that sometimes they're disappointing. That is what happened with this game.



The gameplay is fantastic, the characters are awesome and the storytelling is still good. But in my opinion? They took a few steps back when it just wasn't necessary. I agree with all of the OP's points, and all we can really do is hope for ME3 to bring back the things that made ME1 more than an RPG/TPS hybrid.

[mundus66]

People seem to have very different opinions. This game certainly has its flaws and some things where better with ME1. But you talk like the character progression and combat was deeper in the last game thats far from the truth.

Say im playing insanity and im up against a squad with some rocket geth. In the first i would just have popped barrier and ran in with my shotty and thrown some throws and lift here and there and get the job done. In this game i would carefully take cover and use my squads abilities to take down there barriers, so that i could pull one enemy to take him out. And then maybe use my charge to get into a flanking position and shoot them from there, while i was still using my squads and my own abilities to take down there shields or crowd control them. The gameplay is much more fun in this game. In the last game, you had so many spells and literally no cooldown, so you could just keep throwing spells all day and prevent your enemies from doing anything. You didn't even have to use your squads powers.

And i found that some integrations from ME1 was actually pretty good, for example when i got to Ilium on my renegade Shepard, Parasini wasn't even there, neither was Conrad Verner (i ignored him in ME1) and there was a human there from Feros who wanted help from the asari. On my paragon Shepard, i bumped into a asari who was mind controlled by a rachni, Conrad Verner and Parasini. It was also Shiala that wanted help from the asari instead of a human. But yeah some stuff where lazy, you just get an email from a lot of characters you helped in the first.

I can't say i miss the side missions from the first either, 10 minutes of riding around in the mako until i finally get to a house with the same layout as it had on the last 3 planets i was on, then some mindless charging in with shotgun and its over.

The old inventory system was dreadful i switched armor and weapons like 4-5 times in the entire game, yet i get at least 3 items in every box. This new system would actually had been better if they had some more armor and weapons. There is only 2 handguns, 2 submachine guns, 3 snipers, 3 shotties, 4 assault rifles and like 4 of every armor piece in the entire game(not counting DLC items). Hopefully they will make the weapon system more like RE4 next time, where you can find or buy new weapons and then upgrade that weapon and not just that weapon type. Would be more fun than it is now.

Modifié par mundus66, 03 février 2010 - 03:22 .

[Railstay]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Rilke21 wrote...
So we have a Beginning (end?), followed by 20 B-M-Es, and then an End (boom!) The result is a story that feels stilted and never really goes anywhere.

Kotor: Beginning-->Find 4 Star Maps-->ending sequence.

Jade Empire-->Beginning-->Build a Flyer-->Imperial City-->ending sequence.

Mass Effect-->Beginning-->Find info on Saren 4 planets-->ending sequence.

ME2 is a game that is built more on character development, of which I consider loyalty missions to be part of the main story, compared to others. It still follows the basic Bioware formula, but it *does* break it up abit more.

Mass Effect 2-->Beginning-->Find party members-->Horizon---> Find more party members-->Abandoned Collector Ship-->Finish party members/loyalty missions-->End sequence.

KOTOR had waaaaaayyyyyy more to do on those four planets, as did Jade Empire, than in the Mass Effects.  Consider that in KOTOR all the side missions took place on those planets too, so they felt much more cohesive to the main storyline.  Everything correlated with each other very well, as was the case in Jade Empire.  So each of those planets were packed with a lot of content.

It isn't that way with Mass Effect.  In ME you just fight on those planets, and that's pretty much it.  No meeting cool characters on those planets, dialogue quests, etc.  The problem is that Mass Effect's side quests are detached and independent, so they feel meaningless, and the since the main mission areas in the ME series are so devoid of any relevant side missions the main plotline feels unfinished and sparse.  It seems like unavoidable problem because a big draw of Mass Effect is exploration, so by design they're forced to separate all these things.

But if Mass Effect all took place on four, huge, highly developed planets, I would've taken that version in a heartbeat over the exploring we have now.  That's just wishful thinking on my part, though.  It'll never happen, but it's for those reasons that KOTOR and Jade Empire are my favorite Bioware RPGs.

[Railstay]

Rilke21 wrote...

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.

Deus Ex was also an extremely PC-centric game.  It's my favorite game of all time, but it was designed clearly with and only with a computer in mind.  The entire inventory was supposed to be accessed with a mouse, and it would be much clumsier with a joypad.  The inventory was decent enough, but nothing spectacular.  The draw of Deus Ex wasn't playing Tetris with the inventory or spamming your assault rifle with DPS/stability upgrades.  The draw of it was the abilities you could use, all genuinely different which drastically changed your gameplay, and the great story.

I'm a realist.  No AAA developer aside from Blizzard can hope to tailor games just for PCs and hope to survive, and Mass Effect 2 has already proven it's far better without an inventory system bogging down the player.

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.

It's a pretty good shooter.  The best shooter I've ever played, just purely from a mechanics standpoint, was Rainbow Six: Vegas.  Mass Effect 2 tried to go for that with some extra bells and whistles, so I was very happy and even pleasantly surprised.  If my squadmate AI wasn't so idiotic and the enemies played smarter I might even call it the best shooter I've ever played, but it's still good and the shooting element is deep.

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.)

I agree the story was sloppy, nothing really got resolved and the action happened too quickly.  I disagree about the dialogue.  It's some of the most polished voice acting I've seen in any game.  Definitely better than how Bethesda uses their celebrity voice actors.

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.

I suppose this is the only tactic an average player may discover.

I really like whittling down enemies so their barriers/shields are gone.  Then I have Jacob cast Field Pull, I throw a Singularity in the middle of them and I finish them all off with a nuke from the CAIN.  Great way to mop up a bunch of dangerous enemies on Insanity difficulty.

But I can see why most people would resort to just spamming their abilities and simply giving up.  Just because you haven't discovered all the potential of skill combinations in this game doesn't mean it's invalidated.  And your criticism about the gameplay is unfair because I can boil every single shooter down to what you just said.

"Thief is a terrible game.  All you need is sneak around, and the point of the game is never to shoot an arrow once!"

"Insurgency...  What a crap game.  All you do is hide behind cover, shoot, crawl, shoot, hide behind cover, throw a grenade once in a while..."

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.

All the classes in ME2 are genuinely different from one another, with completely different playstyles and unique class abilities.  That doesn't offer a bunch of playtime?

Besides, the reason why other RPGs are so long is because of the enormous amount of padded playtime.  No one considers that about half of Dragon Age doesn't involve combat whatsoever.  It involves traveling around on foot, exploring, inventory management, going through dialogue, etc.  And in a game like Dragon Age that is much slower paced that works fine.  That's not the case for Mass Effect.

[mundus66]

Railstay wrote...

It'll never happen, but it's for those reasons that KOTOR and Jade Empire are my favorite Bioware RPGs.

While Kotor is still my favorite bioware game, Jade Empire is the only bioware game that i didn't like and i've played pretty much every one (except for the Sonic RPG). Not everybody has the same taste, but its funny that you picked my favorite and least favorite games as your top 2.

[Targonis1]

The problem with the lack of skills/talents/abilities is that it does not offer ANY real way to make your character stand out compared to others of the same type. By the end of the game, you SHOULD pretty much have most of your abilities maxed out, and only those who skip a lot of content will have to make ANY sort of decision about your character development. That is the problem.



In ME1, you had to CHOOSE where you wanted to spend your points. Diplomacy ability was not a given, you had to decide to go with diplomacy/intimidate if you planned to use those, and that was a trade-off over building your powers up. So, do you kick ass in a fight with no dialog options to avoid the fights, or do you tone down your abilities so you can avoid many fights via dialog?



As far as the missions go, my real feel is that EVERY mission is almost 100 percent linear. There really is only one path through every mission, and you are lead by the nose from objective to objective. What happened to the idea that you have an environment as a whole, and you can pick your way through that environment by whatever method you choose? Go through the middle, or go around the sides, or use stealth to work your way around without drawing enemy fire? Sure, you have to deal with the enemy, but ammo conservation tends to be the thing to be concerned about.



There are no missions where you have to drive, it is all on foot. I appreciate how easy it was in ME1, but honestly, couldn't we have SOME missions where we have to drive and fire on enemies?



Now, as far as the overall story progression, you have to look at ME1 and see how it compares:



In ME1, you had three missions you could do in any order, leading to a fourth, and then on to the end. You could skip EVERYTHING else in the game, and get through pretty quickly.



In ME2, you have a bit more that you MUST do before you go through the main objectives. Picking up team members is a requirement, and for these, you need to go on a quest to get most of them. As a result, while it may FEEL like there are fairly few things required, the number of actual requirements is greater.



The dialog and voice acting in ME2 is MUCH better overall than in ME1, and the dialog in ME2 is free of the stupid thing in EVERY dialog where the person being talked to just glides off the screen, as if they were a bad actor that falls out of character the moment they finish their line, or where the camera stays on for TOO long and you see the look of "can I go to lunch now?" on the actors face.



There are many other issues, such as somehow losing the connection with the ground in certain places, and needing to re-load because you can't get back onto the normal ground. This may be a PC version issue, or it may affect the Xbox version as well, but that isn't a design flaw, just a bug.

[Chimerical Man]

It's late, and I'm fairly tired, so I won't give the huge reply I might usually do, but in summary, I have to disagree with most of what you said. I think Bioware succeeded in what they set out to do; they wanted to combine shooter elements with RPG elements.



People who like shooters more have their ample opportunity to spend the whole game blasting through whatever comes by, and there are no great penalties for their omission of side-missions or Investigate options or codex entries or other things they might not find interesting.



The more RPG-oriented players like myself have plenty to work with themselves, as well. All the codex, character development, and customization are perfectly accessible - customization more so, in some cases.



And surprisingly to myself, I actually like the majority of Bioware's streamlining in this game. I usually loathe the effects of streamlining (see Oblivion, Fallout, and 4th ed. D&D), but I didn't think they cut out anything essential in this game. I've been playing RPGs since Daggerfall, and I certainly didn't miss the inventory system. The current method is more realistic (you don't normally carry around about 150 weapons and armour sets on your person), and saves massive amounts of sorting through things, picking what to sell and what to omni-gel. I would have liked a bit more choice in weapons, but I think the tradeoff was worth what we have now. As far as experience not given for different things, again, this seemed to be a successful method of bringing in new players. If players don't find learning about the Normandy's engine cooling systems appealing, no sweat. Those of us who do need only talk to EDI about it, and I certainly didn't feel robbed by not having a reward for it.



Regarding the story, I honestly think you're being too harsh. I will grant you that the whole scattering of the crew seemed a bit forced, but I thought the idea of you becoming Cerberus' science project was an interesting idea. For the suicide mission not being that suicidal: that's up to the player if they want to reload saved games to keep everyone alive. A lot of people did indeed get several teammates killed, and some will chose to stick with that. And I believe the game's ending will be largely explained in the third game.



I'm not sure I follow when you say it feels like a gutted version of the original. The cinematic feel of the game seemed fairly thorough, and when I played ME1 shortly after the second game, I frequently felt that in comparison the characters lacked some of their personality and emotion.



Maybe it comes down to a matter of taste, but I truly feel that Bioware exceeded my own expectations for the game, in any case.

[Raezaiel]

First ME was a terrible RPG anyway so I don't know what you are complaining about. What RPG elements would you like back? The reskinned but subtly more damaging weapons? Enemies scaled anyway so it didn't matter. The inventory system? The upgrade system is way cooler. (ok thats personal preference) but In my opinon mass effect was a god awful rpg and a mediocre shooter. I trudged through it for story and it only interested me in the latter half of the game. They removed some garbage and just made it a shooter with rpg elements, more RPG than dead space but kinda the same.