207 réponses à ce sujet

[Hizoka003]

for every plus ME2 has over ME1 there are 3-4 glaring minuses... sorry but this game is in no way close to the same immersion as ME1

[pedal2metal]

The inventory system in ME1 absolutely sucked. While I think having a functional inventory system is well within Bioware's coding skills (all of their other games had functional inventory), if ME3 were to revive ME1 inventory, I wouldn't get it. Period. It's that useless. Worse actually, it burns tons of real time. In that aspect, ME2 inventory approach (there isn't any just loadout/armor config) is much preferred if Bioware refuses to put a functional inventory system in an ME franchise game.



best regards,

Pedal2Metal

[Malanek]

I have now played a fair bit. ME1 did not have more customisation. In ME2 the six classes are all much more distinct and play much more differently than in ME1. The bonus powers you unlock in ME2 make the characters more diverse whereas in ME1 they made you even more like another class. These powers could be designed better to combine with other existing powers in ME3 though. The choice of squadmates in ME2 also provide a much greater point of difference. Although I still think this can be improved, every squad mate should have an ability that effects the entire squad like Miranda.

And all this was achieved seemlessly.

Modifié par Malanek999, 07 février 2010 - 10:47 .

[Sibbwolf]

Reading through this thread.. wow.



I'm slightly lost at something. ME1 is more of an RPG than ME2 because it:



A- Has loot.

B- Has more (redundant in most cases) 'skills'?



Seriously?



There's the two worst ideas for 'RPG' things I can pick out. The only real one that should be being talked about is immersion. While ME2 may have lacked the depth of immersion of ME1, it still had immersion.



For ME3, sure, I'd love more cosmetic variation allowed for 'my' character. But please don't bring back the ridiculous excessive loot!



However, for ME2, I'm actually quite happy with its RPG elements and shooter elements. I love that they stripped down some of the features. ME1 felt like GW1 in one main regard - too many 'skills'. The Six 'skills' in ME2 may be too few, but at least they all actually did something. ME1 did not have the same feel - there were skills that felt like they really did nothing. Solution is simple. Add in a few more skills, but don't fall into the trap of having skills for the sake of having skills.



As for which game I preferred, I enjoy them both equally. ME2 maybe lacked a little immersion, but it's still thoroughly enjoyable.



But remember what Bioware said it's doing with these games. The character is not exactly going to be unique to each player. The player simply determines which of the pre-established paths they are taking on any given play-through.

[lukandroll]

Hizoka003 wrote...

funny how people say the most profitable game in history is an example of a bad RPG...

So popularity > quality

GTFO

[MarloMarlo]

lukandroll wrote...
I sugest you to read the OP again, this discussion is about what RPG elements were stripped down from from ME, and what RPG elements ME3 could have

And why do I need to read it again? I haven't been responding to any arguments that RPG elements were stripped down. I've been responding to the mere insistance that ME2 is somehow less of an RPG than ME1 because ME2 is a better shooter than ME1 by pointing out how nonsensical and so far unsupported that line of insistance is. If you think I should be responding to arguments about RPG elements that were stripped down, then maybe he, or you if you're so interested, should provide some rather than ineffectually state that shooting elements have somehow removed any aspect of role playing.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 07 février 2010 - 11:01 .

[Sidney]

DKnightPortela wrote...
Did you even bother to read my post? I'm not talking about boundaries so stop changing my words if you dont compreend them, i was speaking of gettting acess to all the sites you have gone before and be able to again go back if you wish to do so, its called PLAYER CHOICE (i read somewhere that it was part of the roleplay definition but what do i know) and by compartimentalizing parts of a scenery just to take out the elevators took out complety the immersion of being in a huge place like the Citadel or Omega, i personally didnt have any problems with the elevators i did have a problem with the shooter mechanics which they resolved but then took out the parts that were working... Smart...

You need to choose your words better then because this statement is about limits or boundaries  -    "i was speaking of gettting acess to all the sites you have gone before and be able to again go back if you wish to do so". What is that if not a boundary? They have closed off the Presidum to you, they have placed a boundary there. You've never had the choice in any game to go anywhere. Even the open worlds like Fallout have edges to the map. In the case of Bioware they don't just put a fence around the edge of the world, they run it all through the word. That is why you can't roam every inch of Dantooine or all of the Citadel even in ME1. You can't go back in ME2 because that's not allowed space just like the Zakeeka Ward, or whatever it is in ME2, sin't an allowed space in ME1.

That isn't a shooter mechanism that's just basic level design and you seem to be missing that.

[reepneep]

TJSolo wrote...

Your level of interaction within an inventory if fully up to the you.
You wouldn't need to muddle around or get frustrated with trying to sort through the inventory. You could just sell it all if you want creds.

This statement is preposterous.  You are REQIRED to play the loot game in ME1.  If you don't mess with the inventory at all, you can't finish the game because you're stuck with the tier 1 gear.

At a bare minimum you have to sort through you inventory once every few hours to make sure everyone is using the best gear you have available and then liquidate the rest.  A quick job of this takes around half an hour with the seven squaddies from me1.  Over the course of the whole game, thats several hours of swapping virtually identical parts just so you aren't completely overpowered by standard enemies.

Answering a why question is typically too subjective. If you don't like
something I could explain why I like it but you wouldn't agree. Also
there are already posts giving reason why some people enjoy sort,
shifting, and managing inventory.

I like tinkering with things.  I have no problem with inventory management as long as it serves a purpose beyond swapping out tier 1 guns for tier 2 guns.  ME1's loot system was terrible in this regard.  The guns weren't any different from eachother other than a linear progression in all the stat categories.  The only worthwhile thing from ME1's version of lootris was the equipment mods because it was the only thing that could make a piece of equipment genuinely different from another.  All the rest was worthless busywork.

Finding garbage items is fodder just to sell and save money for future purchases.

If they're garbage items, why not just give the player money instead of wasting their time by forcing them to sort through all said garbage?  After all, you don't get any where near enough money to buy anything unless you sort and sell all the vendor trash, which has no reason to exist other than to be sold for money.

Again this is mostly about choice; Some people are bothered by the lack of choices in ME2.

Like I've said, they force you to play the timewasting loot game in ME1.  There is no choice on that count unless you never plan on finishing the game.

Equipment mods should have been kept, discrete pieces of gear are better off gone unless they were going to do somthing better than linearly progressing tiered gear .  More complexity in the combat and character development systems would have been greatly appreciated.  ME1 -> ME2 is two steps forward, one step back.

In my not so humble opinion, of course.

[Jackal904]

Dude theres a ****ing thousand of these threads, do you think you're the only one? Gtfo, ME2 is an rpg and it has enough rpg elements. Go play DA:O.

[Justin2k]

I think ME3 could do with either more or larger hub bases.

I think having many more quests/fun conversations in these hubs is a good idea. They don't have to be huge but they would make the place seem bigger.

I prefer quality over quantity (ME2 > ME1) in the planet sidequests, so this is fine.

I prefer the current weapon/armor system although would like more options for armor customization and look, and would prefer to see some cool things drop from bosses or sidequests.

Would like a few really hard "epic" boss like fights which really require you to have good equipment and strategy. Optional sidequest fights.

I'd like deeper interaction with my team.  I find the platonic (i.e non romantic) relationships with females are not great.  You get to know them a little, they come on to you, you say no and thats it for them.  I'm finding much deeper conversations with the team mates of my own sex, the romance seems a distraction.  Would prefer to hear more stories of Jack's childhood, Tali's opinion on Geth, Miranda's Cerebus work for instance.

Otherwise ME2 is quite perfect for me. I prefer it to ME1 in all honesty, even though I'm more an RPGer than a FPSer.

Modifié par Justin2k, 07 février 2010 - 11:16 .

[Girchou]

I can has inventory?

[granattomten]

/signed
More RPG elements for ME3 would be good. If ME1 was an action/rpg, ME2 was an action game, maybe ME3 should be an rpg?

Modifié par granattomten, 07 février 2010 - 11:21 .

[EternalWolfe]

granattomten wrote...

/signed
More RPG elements for ME3 would be good. If ME1 was an action/rpg, ME2 was an action game, maybe ME3 should be an rpg?

ME1 was an RPG with a shooter combat.  ME2 was an action game with RPG elements thrown in on top.  ME3 should hit somewhere between them.  More RPG elements then ME2, but with them better designed then they were in ME1.

Mostly, both fall under Action RPG label.  Just my opinion though.

[DJStarstryker]

I still don't get the "more RPG" argument. ME2 is just as much RPG as the first game, it's just different.

IMO, ME2 allows for more customization than ME1 did. You can completely customize armor, you can pick and choose for upgrades (IMO upgrade system in ME2 is way better than ME1 because it seems to make more of a difference), you have a few different options for casual outfit, more different kinds of guns to play with that are actually different and not just extremely minor stat differences, you can put things in your cabin to make the Normandy a bit more of your own...

[screwoffreg]

If people's definition of RPG is obtuse inventory systems and other frustrating features, here is my vote for LESS RPG.

[Hizoka003]

why does every damn moron think RPG means inventory... it doesn't RPG are immersive you feel like you are part of the world you are playing in... ME2 does not come close to ME1 in that regard... mostly becasue of things like the mission complete screen (shooter thing) the load screens are load screens they are no longer hidden to keep from losing immersion...





ME1 >ME2 in pretty much every way with except to combat... ME2 does improve combat but it tanked everything else to do it

[MassEffect762]

I do hope the devs pop in sometime in the near future and let us know what they think about all this.



If ME3 follows the same design as ME2 I'll rent it and enjoy it for it's conclusion of Shepards tale at the very minimum.

[Terror_K]

ME2's problem wasn't the lack of an inventory system so much as a lack of inventory. There were only a small handful of weapons in total, almost half of which you started off with anyway, and most of the rest not being hard to find. The whole way weapons were handled in ME2 I feel is the biggest disappointment of the entire game. The weapons lacked any real stats, there aren't enough of them, there wasn't as much customisation as there initially seemed given what the devs said, and they are by no means as personal or unique as we were led to believe. You don't even mod the guns, you simply research upgrades. There's simply not enough choice and the weapons are too simple... it really isn't much different from a standard shooter in this regard.



So, we don't need an inventory system like ME1's for ME3 to make it better and more of an RPG, but we do need a greater degree of weapons and armour. Not a huge amount of mostly-the-same items as in the first game, but even just having a half a dozen of each type of weapon with some visible statistical strengths and weaknesses and different abilities, along with some proper weapon modding. ME2 suffers from the exact opposite problem that ME1 did when it comes to this, and the system really was too dumbed down.

[Hizoka003]

if ME3 = ME2 i'll get a pirated copy off the internet...

[MassEffect762]

Hizoka003 wrote...

if ME3 = ME2 i'll get a pirated copy off the internet...

Too far dude. You know they're going to stone you for this.

[Hizoka003]

well honestly i find it very very hard to justify spending 50 bucks on a game that takes less then a weekend to complete and do every side mission... i want a game that takes weeks to complete...





i guess i was spoiled by BioWare's other games...

[MassEffect762]

Hizoka003 wrote...

well honestly i find it very very hard to justify spending 50 bucks on a game that takes less then a weekend to complete and do every side mission... i want a game that takes weeks to complete...


i guess i was spoiled by BioWare's other games...

We can't win them all, but atleast we can...

A) Voice our opinion
Vote with our wallet

[Draconis6666]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2's problem wasn't the lack of an inventory system so much as a lack of inventory. There were only a small handful of weapons in total, almost half of which you started off with anyway, and most of the rest not being hard to find. The whole way weapons were handled in ME2 I feel is the biggest disappointment of the entire game. The weapons lacked any real stats, there aren't enough of them, there wasn't as much customisation as there initially seemed given what the devs said, and they are by no means as personal or unique as we were led to believe. You don't even mod the guns, you simply research upgrades. There's simply not enough choice and the weapons are too simple... it really isn't much different from a standard shooter in this regard.

So, we don't need an inventory system like ME1's for ME3 to make it better and more of an RPG, but we do need a greater degree of weapons and armour. Not a huge amount of mostly-the-same items as in the first game, but even just having a half a dozen of each type of weapon with some visible statistical strengths and weaknesses and different abilities, along with some proper weapon modding. ME2 suffers from the exact opposite problem that ME1 did when it comes to this, and the system really was too dumbed down.

ME 2 has more weapons than ME 1 because ME 1 just has 4 weapons with 10 versions that have slightly different stats, its logical to assume that if ME 3 follows the trend it would have more weapons that are actualy unique weapons.

[MassEffect762]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ME2's problem wasn't the lack of an inventory system so much as a lack of inventory. There were only a small handful of weapons in total, almost half of which you started off with anyway, and most of the rest not being hard to find. The whole way weapons were handled in ME2 I feel is the biggest disappointment of the entire game. The weapons lacked any real stats, there aren't enough of them, there wasn't as much customisation as there initially seemed given what the devs said, and they are by no means as personal or unique as we were led to believe. You don't even mod the guns, you simply research upgrades. There's simply not enough choice and the weapons are too simple... it really isn't much different from a standard shooter in this regard.

So, we don't need an inventory system like ME1's for ME3 to make it better and more of an RPG, but we do need a greater degree of weapons and armour. Not a huge amount of mostly-the-same items as in the first game, but even just having a half a dozen of each type of weapon with some visible statistical strengths and weaknesses and different abilities, along with some proper weapon modding. ME2 suffers from the exact opposite problem that ME1 did when it comes to this, and the system really was too dumbed down.

ME 2 has more weapons than ME 1 because ME 1 just has 4 weapons with 10 versions that have slightly different stats, its logical to assume that if ME 3 follows the trend it would have more weapons that are actualy unique weapons.

Not enough armor, for shepard or his/her squad. Find a way to "scan" it into ME3.

[DariusKalera]

They should approach the weapons like they did the armor.



There should be upgrades that you can find/research that will help out not only the main toon but your squad mates, and then have unique items that can be found/bought that will allow a player to personalize their weapons.