109 réponses à ce sujet

[Tsaritsyn]

ME2 has me spending relatively more of my time thinking about the kinds of things a commander should be thinking about in such a setting. Compared with ME1 and especially with other more traditional RPGs, the player in ME2 doesn't have to kill things to gain experience, doesn't have to worry much about buying and selling items, doesn't have to obsess about his or her character build, and is freer to think about the story, relationships, tactics, etc. The game mechanics are streamlined and you spend less time interacting directly with the RPG system and more with the story. As far as I'm concerned this is an improvement for the most part. I'm still pondering some of the other trade-offs in the game, but I don't miss a more intrusive rules system that has me making more decisions about character levels and what weapon upgrade I should convert to omni-gel or whatever.

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

you posit, nothing-

you are stating a fact with one caveat where they did downgrade the rpg elements- relationships.

however, thats not the reason why people typically make the claim that its me1 is more of an rpg than 2.

IF one could even fathom that claim- it would be more accurate syaing that me1 is more of a JRPG than me2. since item collecting and tedius and repetative combat are more the realm of cinematic adventure games (jrpgs) not role playing.

item collecting and inventory management are not aspects of role playing.  of course that is something that by necessity must occur in all games pnp or video games because someone must obtain ordinace, but the incessant colleciton and switching is what they refer to erroneously as aspects of role playing.

[MojojojoeJDH]

Commander Darmok wrote...

In ME1, each level got you some points, which you HAD to spend to make something effective.  Your elite N7 commander cannot hit a wall with a pistol unless he has some points in it.  Each level grants you like 2% damage and accuracy, so you're not actually a decent shot until you're an "expert" in that skill. 

they assume that an N7 commander can aim a gun

This was pretty much my main point when defending removing the skill based hacking and such. The other part was that Spectres usually work alone. Do you think Saren couldn't open a crate or access a terminal because his "skill" wasn't high enough? I don't think so. Spectres need to be able to get by without the help of others, and as such Spectre canidates would need to have all the prior training to do so.

Others argued, "well Shepard has a squad, so ha." Lets look at this from a different perspecitive. What if Eden Prime wasn't under attack, and Nihlus observed Shepard through several more missions and realised just how bad**** he was and submitted his review to the council resulting in Shepard achieving Spectre status. He wouldn't have had a squad. He would be reporting to the council like all Spectres, and would be sent on all sorts of missions, ON HIS OWN.

Back to the quote, I always though it was funny when you used a sniper rifle with a three foot long barrel and somehow when you fired it there was a chance it would hit BEHIND YOU.

[ME2Shephard]

MojojojoeJDH wrote...

Commander Darmok wrote...

In ME1, each level got you some points, which you HAD to spend to make something effective.  Your elite N7 commander cannot hit a wall with a pistol unless he has some points in it.  Each level grants you like 2% damage and accuracy, so you're not actually a decent shot until you're an "expert" in that skill. 

they assume that an N7 commander can aim a gun

This was pretty much my main point when defending removing the skill based hacking and such. The other part was that Spectres usually work alone. Do you think Saren couldn't open a crate or access a terminal because his "skill" wasn't high enough? I don't think so. Spectres need to be able to get by without the help of others, and as such Spectre canidates would need to have all the prior training to do so.

Others argued, "well Shepard has a squad, so ha." Lets look at this from a different perspecitive. What if Eden Prime wasn't under attack, and Nihlus observed Shepard through several more missions and realised just how bad**** he was and submitted his review to the council resulting in Shepard achieving Spectre status. He wouldn't have had a squad. He would be reporting to the council like all Spectres, and would be sent on all sorts of missions, ON HIS OWN.

Back to the quote, I always though it was funny when you used a sniper rifle with a three foot long barrel and somehow when you fired it there was a chance it would hit BEHIND YOU.

So you are telling me that the Council would send a single Spectre to take down a Rogue Spectre and an army of Geth.... Your logic right there is flawed my friend. Its in the story. Right now people are just making assumptions. "oh Spectre's work alone." How do you know that? Because Nihlus worked alone. Because Saren? I remember talking to Captain Anderson in the first game about his history with Saren and I believe that they worked on a Mission together. Spectre's are a reconnaissance group. Sometimes they work alone, sometimes they don't. And here is another assumption. The Council just made him a Spectre. The first human Spectre at that. Do you think they would send him in there alone only going off his achievements in Akuze/Elysuim/the Skylian Blitz? I am assuming not. Also, being hypothetical here won't work. There is no "what if it wasn't attacked" because Eden Prime was in fact attacked. Its part of the story and hypothetical situations hold no merit what so ever when discussing a video game.

By the way, I know people are going to call me a hypocrit because of my assumptions in the above statement so I'm going to save you the trouble and tell you I am assuming those points just as the person I quoted is assuming his.

On the Sniper Rifle issue. You are correct they needed to fix it and they did. The Sniper Rifle was near useless in the first game. In this one it wasn't. It was very good. But in what way does this glitch/bug affect whether ME1 is more or less of an RPG than ME2

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 04 février 2010 - 05:58 .

[Gatt9]

An RPG is Character Based Skill.  That's the whole meaning of the word Role. ME2 has no chacter based skill,  therefore ME2 is not an RPG.  Just because there's dialogue doesn't make something a RPG.

[Commander Darmok]

Gatt9 wrote...

An RPG is Character Based Skill.  That's the whole meaning of the word Role. ME2 has no chacter based skill,  therefore ME2 is not an RPG.  Just because there's dialogue doesn't make something a RPG.

Dude, please read my post before coming in with this garbage.  I've already addressed how and why it is just as character based skill as other rpgs, especially as much as ME1.  Also, your definition of role doesn't hold up.

As to the poster who questioned my choice of the word "posit," I'll define.  Posit - transitive verb: to suggest an explanation.  That's exactly what I did. 

[MojojojoeJDH]

ME2Shephard wrote...

MojojojoeJDH wrote...

Commander Darmok wrote...

In ME1, each level got you some points, which you HAD to spend to make something effective.  Your elite N7 commander cannot hit a wall with a pistol unless he has some points in it.  Each level grants you like 2% damage and accuracy, so you're not actually a decent shot until you're an "expert" in that skill. 

they assume that an N7 commander can aim a gun

This was pretty much my main point when defending removing the skill based hacking and such. The other part was that Spectres usually work alone. Do you think Saren couldn't open a crate or access a terminal because his "skill" wasn't high enough? I don't think so. Spectres need to be able to get by without the help of others, and as such Spectre canidates would need to have all the prior training to do so.

Others argued, "well Shepard has a squad, so ha." Lets look at this from a different perspecitive. What if Eden Prime wasn't under attack, and Nihlus observed Shepard through several more missions and realised just how bad**** he was and submitted his review to the council resulting in Shepard achieving Spectre status. He wouldn't have had a squad. He would be reporting to the council like all Spectres, and would be sent on all sorts of missions, ON HIS OWN.

Back to the quote, I always though it was funny when you used a sniper rifle with a three foot long barrel and somehow when you fired it there was a chance it would hit BEHIND YOU.

So you are telling me that the Council would send a single Spectre to take down a Rogue Spectre and an army of Geth.... Your logic right there is flawed my friend. Its in the story. Right now people are just making assumptions. "oh Spectre's work alone." How do you know that? Because Nihlus worked alone. Because Saren? I remember talking to Captain Anderson in the first game about his history with Saren and I believe that they worked on a Mission together. Spectre's are a reconnaissance group. Sometimes they work alone, sometimes they don't. And here is another assumption. The Council just made him a Spectre. The first human Spectre at that. Do you think they would send him in there alone only going off his achievements in Akuze/Elysuim/the Skylian Blitz? I am assuming not. Also, being hypothetical here won't work. There is no "what if it wasn't attacked" because Eden Prime was in fact attacked. Its part of the story and hypothetical situations hold no merit what so ever when discussing a video game.

By the way, I know people are going to call me a hypocrit because of my assumptions in the above statement so I'm going to save you the trouble and tell you I am assuming those points just as the person I quoted is assuming his.

On the Sniper Rifle issue. You are correct they needed to fix it and they did. The Sniper Rifle was near useless in the first game. In this one it wasn't. It was very good. But in what way does this glitch/bug affect whether ME1 is more or less of an RPG than ME2

It has been stated that spectres USUALLY work alone but within the Universe you never actually hear about any that don't. And USUALLY most likely means SOMETIMES they don't. There is no way that during the course of a Spctres career that they wouldn't do solo missions. And when they d those mission they need to be able to get the job done by themselves. And hypothetics work fine. Why do they work fine? Because other than Shepard having to save the galaxy his actual ROLE and the CHARACTER of the being doesn't change, the whole reason that you end up stopping Saren is the same reason Cerberus brings you back. You are who you are. There is something that makes Shepard extrodinary, something that makes hims special. Whether it's his training or somthing else, Shepard has a drive that allows him to do the things he does.

That is what an RPG is really about IMO. You play a ROLE but you craft you own CHARACTER. Sure, in all RPGs you get to choose your role to an extent, in ME you can choose to be a bad**** N7 Commander Adept, or a bad**** N7 Commander Soldier, or a bad**** N7 Commander Engineer and everything in between. But you are still a bad**** N7 Commander. N7 being the highest N designation you can achieve, and Commander being the highest N7 operative rank you can achieve. Sure Anderson became a Captain but, though he has N7 training he is no longer an N7 operative. He chose to continue on with his career and further progress into the ranks of a SA military as a whole. It would be like an high ranking Enlisted Soldier became a captain. Though you don't see that kind of thing in the US military, or any military I know of, which isn't many, but he SA military seems to be more streamline when it comes to advancement.

The ROLE point was why I thought no skill based hacking was good, your ROLE is a bad**** N7 Commander who by definition should already know how to do that stuff. In most every other RPG out there you start out at the bottom, I haven't played DA:O but I know you can start off as a noble, to which there is no reason that a NOBLE should know how to pick a lock, when it comes to the world of combat a noble is as lowly as a bottom feeder, he might have some training, but nothing campared to what real experience can provide. REAL EXPERIENCE is exactly what Shepard has. No one here knows what sort of knowledge Shepards past experience and training gave him, that's up to BW, and they say that the man can hack any terminal and bypass any wall safe he wants becasue within the confines of the ROLE that is Commander Shepard he has the know how to do it. Because that is what RPG games are truly about, PLAYING a ROLE, CREATING a CHARACTER. Will you be a bad@SS N7 Commander Paragon or a bad@SS N7 Commander, or maybe something in between. Who lives, who dies, thats for your CHARACTER to decide, but you still have a ROLE to play, you still have a job to do.

So by defiition ROLE-PLAYING-GAMES are not about the ROLE you PLAY, but about the CHARACTER YOU MAKE. They won't be about the role you play until a game developer makes a game that has no real plot, it's just a huge pre-defined universe that you find yourself in, you choose what you want to do, where you want to go, if you want to kill civilians, if you are even a soldier and you strike your way into the unknown, forging your own destiny and completely losing sight of reality becoming more involed in this fantasy world then the real one.

[ME2Shephard]

@mojojojoJDH: I don't want to quote you because of how long it would be so I will start off by saying, this is forum so you are entitled to your opinion. I will not bash on you for that. However I would like to point out that Bethesda came out with game called Fallout 3 and in that game you are put in the middle of a vast city(universe that you like to say), where you do what you want. If you kill civilians, your perogative. If you explore, your perogative. You want to the small amount of plot in the game, your perogative. Bethesda is the game developer that you just spoke of at the end of your post that does all those things that you mentioned. Go and play it. You will see what I'm talking about. And Fallout 3 I consider an RPG... A first person shooter RPG.... Had a stat system, a role you played where you shaped the character how you wanted.... Yup sounds like a winner to me.

You are entitled to believe in that Sheperd was a badass commander and should be able to do things from bypassing wall safes to open heart surgery but that limits your squad mates. Now I know what you are going to say... Your squad played more of role in this game than in the last. Not true. Sure in combat they did. Not through out the entirety of the game though. I was a Soldier class so I didn't have Decryption or Electronics or Singularity. So I needed squad members to make up for that. I think how they had the classes in the first game made sense. I don't think a Soldier should be able to hack terminals. I don't think an Engineer should be able to use every gun in the game proficiently. It made the class that you chose actually mean something. In ME2 your class was chosen just to see the class specific power.

Ok, Spectre's tend to work alone. Tend meaning majority. But when you have a majority there will always be a minority and the Sheperd falls into that catagory. He is the minority. Could he work alone, of course. Does he, no.

Last but not least, High ranking Enlisted NCO's, don't become officers. In fact, even though Officers go through West Point and they deserve the respect that is given to them, NCO's pull more weight. Let me teach you, because I was in the military, and I'm not sure if you were or not, but there is only one program that is available for Enlisted men, I think its called "Go for Green" or something like that where enlisted men can become officers by doing 3 yr contract extension. Everyone else has to have a college education and ROTC experience. When someone with a college education comes out of Basic they are sent to Officer school. It almost never happens that a Sergeant First class or a Command Sergeant Major (high ranking NCO's of the Army) become Commisioned Officers.

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 05 février 2010 - 05:27 .

[Selvec_Darkon]

I disagree with the OP.

[Master Smurf]

Forget "RPG" - I have been won over - It is the new standard of action gaming - This is what Assasins Creed, Metal Gear solid etc should all be striving for (not the crappy scanning and loading screen parts) - The character interactions and extensive conversations etc.



Imagine this type of game with blu-ray size storage. Kojima must be kicking himself when he sees how character development and interaction can play out instead of ridiculous long cut-scenes.

[Rm80]

I like this inventory system more, but I want more weapons, and more armor parts and more of everything.....my needs will never be fulfilled

Modifié par Rm80, 05 février 2010 - 05:17 .

[pedal2metal]

ME2Shephard wrote...

 I don't think an Engineer should be able to use every gun in the game proficiently. It made the class that you chose actually mean something. In ME2 your class was chosen just to see the class specific power.

.

In ME1, every class could use every gun.  The distinction was with training for specific guns which increased your accuracy & lethality with that weapon.  However, you could use any weapon, trained or untrained.
In ME2, that is not the case.  You can only use guns enabled for your class.  So while the training has been dropped, the actual usage restriction has been applied.

It's a fine point & doesn't really impact the essence of your point but wanted to point it out.

Personally, ME1 & ME2 are different design architectures.  I think both work well for the goals that were trying to be achieved for each game.  I've played ME1 20+ times through, still love it.  I've only played ME2 1 time (w/more in-progress) but love it too.  I have room in my heart for both.  Role-playing game roots are founded more in choice/consequence than skills, levels, items, etc....  Those evolved over time but Zork I was a great story game & was all text, no leveling, no skills, no items (actually some but just for accomplishing specific tasks), just choice & consequence.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Modifié par pedal2metal, 06 février 2010 - 05:16 .

[ME2Shephard]

pedal2metal wrote...

ME2Shephard wrote...

 I don't think an Engineer should be able to use every gun in the game proficiently. It made the class that you chose actually mean something. In ME2 your class was chosen just to see the class specific power.

.

In ME1, every class could use every gun.  The distinction was with training for specific guns which increased your accuracy & lethality with that weapon.  However, you could use any weapon, trained or untrained.
In ME2, that is not the case.  You can only use guns enabled for your class.  So while the training has been dropped, the actual usage restriction has been applied.

It's a fine point & doesn't really impact the essence of your point but wanted to point it out.

Personally, ME1 & ME2 are different design architectures.  I think both work well for the goals that were trying to be achieved for each game.  I've played ME1 20+ times through, still love it.  I've only played ME2 1 time (w/more in-progress) but love it too.  I have room in my heart for both.  Role-playing game roots are founded more in choice/consequence than skills, levels, items, etc....  Those evolved over time but Zork I was a great story game & was all text, no leveling, no skills, no items (actually some but just for accomplishing specific tasks), just choice & consequence.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

You do hold a valid point. I should have clearified better than what I did. You could use every weapon in the first game which I didn't like... I liked how a Vanguard could only usethe pistol, smg, and shotgun until you got training in either a sniper rifle or the AR. However for an Engineer to become proficient with the pistol, you would spend points to increase. Not like in ME2 and you start the game and the Engineer is already proficient with that weapon. I guess it makes sense that maybe Bioware was already saying, "Hey, you made this character proficient in the first game so there is no need to make him proficient again..." I don't know. But I enjoyed that aspect of the game more with building the character instead of starting the game with a badass commander.

[foxunit]

Im totally agreeing with the OP.

Mass Effect 2 and 1 are the best RPGs (oh my this is gonna hurt...) released ever since in my opinion.

I know what most of the purist will say, just so you know it I played the old school games and yes I played and still playing pnp and still im saying this is the best RPG series ever released.
Some of you might want to get out the Baldurs Gate torch trying to stick it up my nose, but seriously. Mass Effect the series is fast paced, good in the audio department, it is cinematic, you grow attached to the characters, you change the world over three games, you dont stuck in some lame ass turn based combat, of course it requires skill to hit your targets etc, but that should be the point, to immerse you into the character you are playing.

Mass Effect 2 is even better than one it streamlines the whole concept and gives it a even more action based and faster combat, wich in my opinion really adds to the feeling. If you dont think so, well it is your opinion.

Modifié par foxunit, 05 février 2010 - 08:16 .

[Kalfear]

Commander Darmok wrote...

First off, I'd like to say that I will apologize to the rpg purists that there is a small amount of skill required to actually aim and fire your weapon (it does snap to targets pretty quickly,) but aside from that, the rpg is there, it's just more realistic.

!

Stopped reading right there, clearly a shooter fan looking to flame and insult others. First line, attacking so called skill levels, how original!

Thought this game had a minimum age 17 restriction for cry out loud!

Modifié par Kalfear, 05 février 2010 - 08:16 .

[Moogliepie]

I saw a reviewer on Amazon claim they had reduced the role-playing aspects of the game. After playing it, I realized he meant to write "roll-playing." Leveling, gear and stats has nothing to do with role-playing. Role-playing is exactly as it sounds, playing a role. Bioware earned its reputation building their games around role-playing, the best they could in a single-player game. They did this by having many choices to make, and relationships that develop over time with characters. ME2 brought this aspect to a new level, where it feels much more like you are actually playing a role in an interactive movie than any other game I've played.



Roll-playing, on the other hand, is about stats, levelling, and gear. It's the aspect of gaming that draws obsessive-compulsive types who spend their time coming up with optimal DPS spreadsheets, and posting their uber-builds on websites. MMO's like way have thankfully absorbed most these types, but it still draws tons of people. Some people do actually enjoy this type of gaming, but I think most just get addicted ( "I just need this sword and I'll be maxed out."). The majority just copy someone elses build, and games that are built around this purposely make it extremely time-consuming (not necessarily challenging) to acquire your uber-gear-set.



Back when Baldur's Gate came out, there was a schism between Diablo players and BG fans. BG fans tended to turn their noses up at Diablo because it was a hack'n'slash "roll" playing game with little or no character development or moral choices to be made. Granted, I liked Diablo, and Diablo II, but it had nothing to do with role-playing.

[foxunit]

@Kalfear:

Why do you say he wants to flame?

Just cause he says beeing able to hit something is required to play the game? oO are you feeling attacked by that or what?

And btw why should he be a shooter-fan?

Obviously he likes RPGs Ô_O

Modifié par foxunit, 05 février 2010 - 08:20 .

[Moogliepie]

Different level weapons is a terrible idea, and would be a step back. Sure, it's more traditional, but you end up with a whole lot of obsolete weapons. The upgrade system, has basically replaced different levels of weapons. In ME2, the combat system is more like a well-designed shooter, in that no weapon is superior to another. It's more about personal preference and choosing the right tool for the job (which gives a greater sense of immersion that looking at stat bars and constantly omni-gelling your junk loot after every battle.) I would have liked to seen some more weapon customization though, in the form of attachments. As far as charm/intimidate, well, they would have to eliminate getting boosts to those skills from your Paragon/Renegade score, and then everyone would whine. Notice in ME1, not a single build has any points in Charm/Intimidate. It made sense to drop those as point-related skills.



As far as the player's knowledge not having any influence on the character's knowledge? Well that may be true for a pnp rpg, but let's get real. Single player video game rpgs cannot emulate that at all, and throwing in unnecessary skills just so you can auto hack something is poor game design. Honestly, it doesn't matter, because when video games try to do that, like previous Bioware games, everyone just copies one or two optimal builds per class from gamefaqs, which completely eliminates the entire concept of choice in customization.

[foxunit]

Moogliepie wrote...

 everyone just copies one or two optimal builds per class from gamefaqs, which completely eliminates the entire concept of choice in customization.

this is gonna give you a lot of bad karma with some ppl ^^

[Soruyao]

I'm so sick of people saying this game has no inventory system.   An inventory is the list of things you have, pure and simple.  If we had a classic inventory system we'd be walking around with a list that says something like: "6 medi gel, 55000 paladium, 5000 eezo, 14 guns, 20 or so armor pieces, 10 research recipes, X amount of quest items, 12 power cells for your heavy weapons, 3 ship models and a fish."

When you get a ship model it would go "you aquired ship model x", then you would go to your ship model case and press A and then choose "use ship model X" and it would be in your case.

All they did is make it so that you don't need to sort through that massive list.  I've played numerous rpgs that have less items than this.  I distinctly remember running around in fallout 3 with two weapons, 1 set of armor, 50 stim packs and 10 rad x, with some random food and water and junk parts.    The inventory system wasn't that complex, and if they took the same amount of items and made you access them in the same way as you do in mass effect, it would be almost exactly the same.

Does anyone remember jade empire?  Your inventory was a pile of gems that only existed for minor stat increases, 3 different weapons (the weapons were skills!), and some crafting recipes.

Was jade empire an RPG?  Was it dumbed down? By that logic it was less of an RPG than ME2.

99% of the guns I picked up in ME1 were trash and became omni gel or were sold for cash.   Why not just eliminate the tedium and just give me the cash?   One of the most important things about game design is that if you have a choice that every player is going to make the same way, you don't have a choice at all. If everyone is going to wear phoenix VI until they get collossus VIII until they get collossus X, then the other armor don't even exist, they're vendor trash for everyone.

If everyone is going to use their starter gun until they get one good intermediary gun until they sell enough trash guns to afford the spectre gun at the shop, effectively the rest of the guns don't exist.   If we had mass effect 1 and all the guns that weren't those three were replaced with salvage nodes that just give you money/omni-gel, gameplay wouldnt change at all for anyone.  (Except for vendoring trash)   People would use the same guns and be saved a step everyone makes the same way.

One last issue:  The argument that a player's skill and knowledge should not in any way influence the way a character acts in combat is totally and completely wrong.  By this logic there has never been an rpg!

In ME1, your knowledge of where to stand, which enemies to kill first, how well you can aim at those enemies (having low weapon skill just meant the player had to be be more skilled at aiming to make up for the fact that the character sucked.) and which items stats are better all influenced how well the character did.  In PnP games, the player's understanding of stats and skill choices and the ruleset and even the style of the DM all influence how successful the character is in combat.

In fallout 3, even when using vats, the player's knowledge of what parts of an enemy to aim at, which weapons to use, and how to stat out the character to use those weapons properly, along with what cover to use and how to stay alive long enough to enter vats again all influenced the success or failure of the character.

For a character's success or failure not to be influenced at all by the skill or knowledge of the player, it would have to act completely seperately from player input, in which case we don't have a game anymore, but a movie.

Modifié par Soruyao, 05 février 2010 - 10:47 .

[ME2Shephard]

@Soruyao: First off I'm so tired of people complaining about the inventory system and how you had to omni-gel a crap load of stuff and how a lot of items were pointless. Guess what in every RPG you cap out at some point. Every single one. You know why.... Because there aren't as many UPDATES!!! WOW!!! Golly I can't believe that came out of my mouth. Listen in console games you are eventually going to cap out at some point whether it be with level, armor, or weapons. Whatever we already know that. Fallout 3 it was the same thing. Fable was also, Oblivion etc. But because there aren't as many updates as per say an MMORPG, you will cap out. This little statement you made about people using the same gun and crap like that... You are making it out that ME1 was the only game to make the player do that. Fallout 3... Only three guns were worth anything BEFORE DLC and that was the Alien Blaster, Lincoln Repeater, and the A3-21 Plasma Rifle. So don't come out and start complaining about the inventory system in ME1 because it wasn't the first game to "cap out" with items.

[Soruyao]

ME2Shephard wrote...

@Soruyao: First off I'm so tired of people complaining about the inventory system and how you had to omni-gel a crap load of stuff and how a lot of items were pointless. Guess what in every RPG you cap out at some point. Every single one. You know why.... Because there aren't as many UPDATES!!! WOW!!! Golly I can't believe that came out of my mouth. Listen in console games you are eventually going to cap out at some point whether it be with level, armor, or weapons. Whatever we already know that. Fallout 3 it was the same thing. Fable was also, Oblivion etc. But because there aren't as many updates as per say an MMORPG, you will cap out. This little statement you made about people using the same gun and crap like that... You are making it out that ME1 was the only game to make the player do that. Fallout 3... Only three guns were worth anything BEFORE DLC and that was the Alien Blaster, Lincoln Repeater, and the A3-21 Plasma Rifle. So don't come out and start complaining about the inventory system in ME1 because it wasn't the first game to "cap out" with items.

To be fair, I'm not complaining about the inventory in ME1.  I didn't really mind it that much, although I do like the present incarnation better.

So lets take fallout 3 for example.  If before DLC there had just been a sniper rifle, the lincoln repeater, the alien blaster, the A3-21, the fat man, and a gatling gun (plus one of each melee weapon), and if in each place we would have picked up a vendor trash gun we just got caps instead, would it have made the game less of an RPG?  (Assuming we still upgrade the guns and our skills for progression.)   We never were going to use those worthless guns anyway, it would have just saved us a trip to town and some tedium.

[ME2Shephard]

@Soruyao: Of course not and I never said it did. True some people on here are saying that it does but if that were case then Resident Evil 5 would classified as an RPG because it utilizes an inventory system. But that's where ignorance shines when people don't know what classifies an RPG. I was just explaining that every consol game will eventually get to the point where the items you collect are pointless. The inventory system being cluttered and convoluded has been the consistent argument to those that had wished for the inventory system to be back. Now don't get me wrong, I still believe Mass Effect 2 is an RPG and I still loved the game but it lacks elements from the ME1 that made ME2 feel more like a TPS than an RPG. Bioware, like many people are saying, definitely should search for a balance. The first game felt more like an RPG whereas the second felt more like a TPS. Equalibrium needs to be sustained to truely make everyone happy which I don't feel they did in ME2. You may feel differently than I do.

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 06 février 2010 - 09:40 .

[Zoe Dedweth]

I get to play the role of Commander Shepard - The Biggest **** in the universe. Guess that makes ME2 a RPG for me.

[Booban]

Bioware is trying to do with ME2 what Apple did to the mobile phone market.



The ideas are refreshing and innovative, but not an iphone yet.