244 réponses à ce sujet

[CakesOnAPlane]

It just felt so much better than ME1, no more pointless menus and sifting through to find the green bars, and the suicide mission at the end was the most intense feeling I've had playing something since HL2 probably. Hell even scanning was kind of fun, and the anomaly missions were short and sweet.



Also, it's the middle section of the trilogy. A story with a load of twists/new enemies would just confuse things in the overall plotline, and this approach worked well imo.

[TJSolo]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

A game with light RPG elements is still an RPG.

Try again.

[Killian Kalthorne]

The suicide mission didn't feel all that intensive to me.

[nicodeemus327]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...
And I agree this is a failing. However, a number of upgrades apply to the entire squad.

It's the nearly the exact same thing as ME 1 with the item management bullcrap removed.

Nearly the same is not the same.  There is only a 3% genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee.  Our genetic code is nearly the same.  Obviously we aren't the same.  In ME1 all the upgrades and equipment can be used by the squad.  If that means there needs to be item management in the game then I am all for it.  You see, I am a RPG player.  Not a shooter player.

The only major difference is that you cannot customize the armor of squadmates and you cannot sell stuff.

[Shal-ziar]

I agree with part 3, I pursued a relationship with Liara in part one, and after seeing her again after two years, she gives me a single kiss , it felt like being slapped in the face (so the emotional effect was there).

I fully agree with part 4, I'm currently playing the game as an hardcore adept and i'm using only three powers: warp+Reave and sometimes Singularity that's al I need. If I compare it to Dragon Age I must say it shocks me, Dragon age might be a bit too complex for the average gamer, it did however keep me interested in preparing for tough fights, thinking about strategy...



But the thing i miss most of all is the customizability of your weapons, I really like the invention system but it feels unreal that you can't buy a single weapon in the galaxy, or that no one ever drops one, in a normal game that would be ok but this is a shooter AND an RPG so no tweaking gear should be in the top 10 of priority's

[Killian Kalthorne]

nicodeemus327 wrote...


The only major difference is that you cannot customize the armor of squadmates and you cannot sell stuff.

That is a significant difference.  If this is what we are to expect in ME3 then I am waiting for ME3 to hit the bargain bin.

[nicodeemus327]

TJSolo wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

A game with light RPG elements is still an RPG.

Try again.

Where is the bible the says certain features are required for an RPG? There isn't one. Even so, all of the features you listed as features (I think it was you) are in ME 2. The numbers are just different.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 10:47 .

[nicodeemus327]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...


The only major difference is that you cannot customize the armor of squadmates and you cannot sell stuff.

That is a significant difference.  If this is what we are to expect in ME3 then I am waiting for ME3 to hit the bargain bin.

I don't think selling stuff is a significant problem. In fact I like it. I had to watch my money in ME 2 while in ME 1 I had so much money that buying anything was a non-issue. As I've said before, I 100%agree that not being able to cusmoize squad armor is a major problem.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 10:47 .

[jienoma]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

jienoma wrote...

I agree that we disagree

So its not enough character progression? Do you agree to that?

More character progression and skills as a deeper itemization for the whole party, plus some meaningful exploration would help a lot. 

I can even add that the continuation of many plot left unfinished in the first, Rakni Queen, previous romanced character (Liara for crissake ...), reintroduction of party banter, more dialogues and explorable planets with a veicle, the reintroduction of a cooldown per skill (global cooldown is another great introduction that have more cons than pros) and a deeper expansion of a universe that has unlimited possibilities.

The story also lacks of a great evil, Saren was a beautifull character, Benetia was well done with an interesting plot linked to Liara.

[twaninator]

Well put OP. I wholly agree.

[nicodeemus327]

jienoma wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

jienoma wrote...

I agree that we disagree

So its not enough character progression? Do you agree to that?

More character progression and skills as a deeper itemization for the whole party, plus some meaningful exploration would help a lot. 

I can even add that the continuation of many plot left unfinished in the first, Rakni Queen, previous romanced character (Liara for crissake ...), reintroduction of party banter, more dialogues and explorable planets with a veicle, the reintroduction of a cooldown per skill (global cooldown is another great introduction that have more cons than pros) and a deeper expansion of a universe that has unlimited possibilities.

The story also lacks of a great evil, Saren was a beautifull character, Benetia was well done with an interesting plot linked to Liara.

I can't speak for the rest of the stuff you mention. I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, the first sentence in your post is some pretty solid feedback.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 10:50 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

There is no bible, Nico. Stop bring religion in this. Its a weak strawman tactic that has no bearing to the issue at hand. I do not consider ME2 a CRPG. I consider it a TPS with light RP elements. It is the same reason why I don't consider Bioshock and Bioshock 2 as CRPGs. They are FPS with light RP elements. It is a matter of focus. ME2 uses closed off areas, and its progression style is mission based. Those are hallmarks of a TPS, not a RPG. ME1 was more open where you went, and the progression felt natural and cinematic. It was not broken up into "missions." That is why it is more on the CRPG side than ME2.

[jienoma]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...


The only major difference is that you cannot customize the armor of squadmates and you cannot sell stuff.

That is a significant difference.  If this is what we are to expect in ME3 then I am waiting for ME3 to hit the bargain bin.

I don't think selling stuff is a significant problem. In fact I like it. I had to watch my money in ME 2 while in ME 1 I had so much money that buying anything was a non-issue. As I've said before, I 100%agree that not being able to cusmoize squad armor is a major problem.

It could have been handled better, less trash loot to sell, a more refined economy was needed, they've resolved the issue making money being a fixed amount per quest and side quest in such a way they always know how many money you'll have at the end of the game. Oversimplification is not always the better way to handle a problem, easyer for sure

Modifié par jienoma, 09 février 2010 - 10:55 .

[nicodeemus327]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

There is no bible, Nico. Stop bring religion in this. Its a weak strawman tactic that has no bearing to the issue at hand. I do not consider ME2 a CRPG. I consider it a TPS with light RP elements. It is the same reason why I don't consider Bioshock and Bioshock 2 as CRPGs. They are FPS with light RP elements. It is a matter of focus. ME2 uses closed off areas, and its progression style is mission based. Those are hallmarks of a TPS, not a RPG. ME1 was more open where you went, and the progression felt natural and cinematic. It was not broken up into "missions." That is why it is more on the CRPG side than ME2.

Dude, did you even play ME1? Its progression was mission based yet it was an RPG?

[haberman13]

periaqueductal_gray wrote...
  It has the feel of something that has been thinktanked to death, and any subsequent shards of genius polished off as well.  It falls just short of that illusive quality we like to label as 'art'.

I think that pretty much sums up my complaints, it feels like its been homogenized for easy digestion.

[nicodeemus327]

jienoma wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...


The only major difference is that you cannot customize the armor of squadmates and you cannot sell stuff.

That is a significant difference.  If this is what we are to expect in ME3 then I am waiting for ME3 to hit the bargain bin.

I don't think selling stuff is a significant problem. In fact I like it. I had to watch my money in ME 2 while in ME 1 I had so much money that buying anything was a non-issue. As I've said before, I 100%agree that not being able to cusmoize squad armor is a major problem.

It could have been handled better, less trash loot to sell, a more refined economy was needed, they've resolved the issue making money being a fixed amount per quest and side quest in such a way they always know how many money you'll end at the end of the game. Oversimplification is not always the better way to handle a problem, easyer for sure

Did you really find trash drops to be fun? I didn't.

It in end its the same thing. You x amount of trash drops during a typical play though. That yields y amount of money. Instead you get y amount of money and don't have to deal with the hassle of managing trash drops. Maybe you find trash drops fun. I don't.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 11:00 .

[ShadowBurdus]

Amazingly well written post OP. It's nice to actually read one of these threads and see a well articulated post for once. However, with that said, I respectfull disagree.

1) Granduer? Perhaps, but I prefer to call to rehashed barren deserts. Landing on a planet in ME 2 meant forests, lakes, oceans, ravines, tunnels, space stations. Environments were different in Mass Effect 2. Planets were actually different and it showed. The fact that there were even trees on some of the planets on ME 2 was leaps and bounds better than anything in ME 1.

ME 1 was the exact same planet. Ever time. Different coloured dirt. Different coloured sky. Sure it was cool, but after the third planet it donned on the player that EVERY planet is the same. There was no more "I wonder what's on this planet!" Instead it was replaced with "I hope I don't have to scale any 90 degree angle mountains this time."

The only thing good about planet exploration in ME 1 was that there was a lot of it. Other than that? It wasn't fun. it wasn't. If you go back and play it, it STILL isn't fun. Climbing mountains wasn't fun. Getting stuck on the mountains wasn't fun. And for what? Just to go into another building that the interior we've already seen for a battle and dialogue that lasted ten mintues at most? I don't understand why now that ME 2 was released and Bioware got rid of a game mechanic that wasn't fun and everyone complained about, everyone is wanting for it to return. Am I missing something?

2) The story is crap. I agree. The superb companions that you met and grew attached to is what made ME 2 amazing. However, amazing companions does not make an amazing story. Therefore, while arguable I can't disagree with you.

3) Bioware gave the fans what they wanted. Everyday there was a new Tali love thread, and every other day there was a new Garrus love thread. So Bioware made them romancable. The second the trailer for Thane was released at E3 there were countless threads about how sexy he was and how everyone hoped he was a romance option. And that was only after a 2 min dialogue! We told Bioware what we wanted. They gave it to us. Blame the community for 7 romance options. We asked for it.

As for the current romances that transer from ME 1... Yeah, seemed like a bit of a cop out. Agree with you there.

4) In ME the biggest decision the player had to do in terms of gear was choose whether they would prefer to have more shield or more damage protection. When you get right down to it, that was it. The weapons weren't much better. Does it do more damage? Does it sacrifice any/a noticable heat reduction? Those were the most complex issues. That's what I call simple.

Now, sure you no longer get 10 different Assault Rifles, but each one is significantly different. The Collector's Assault rifle is vastly different than the Avenger. The Widow is vastly different than the vindicator. There are still heated debates about which gun is "better". Was there any debates about which was the best guns in ME 1? No. It was obvious. It was SIMPLE to tell which one was better. And armour? You can actually change the colour of it as well as the stats on it! Want to survive longer? Put more shield things on. But wait! Is having your shields recharge faster better than having more shields? Or is having more health better than having more shields? My example alone is a lot more complex than anything in ME 1.

And there are RPG moments in ME 2. There is still number crunching to see what does the most damage. (see some of Hoffburger's posts) There are still ablities that you spend points in when you level up. There is still gear that you can custimize to make you character better suited for certain things. Is ME 2 a pure RPG? No. Is Mass Effect 2 a pure shooter? No. Dragon Age is a pure RPG. Halo is a pure shooter. ME 2 was advertised as a RPG -shooter. That's what it is. It has elements of both, but if you're looking for a pure RPG, ME is not it.

5) I personally believe this has more to do with opinion than fact so I won't get into it, although if anyone really has a burning desire for me to explain my opinion I will be happy to oblige.

Excuse any grammer/spelling mistakes anyone finds.

[periaqueductal_gray]

In response to a couple of your points ...

Eain wrote...
'Your previous relationship, quite frankly, had no real depth. It was a one night stand. It could've been more, sure, but then the game decided to end. '

I would argue that this is just one more example of Bioware's difficulty writing real relationships.  By necessity, these turn out to be one night stands precisely because they refuse to write more dialog.  They have been given a free pass up until now because these events tend to happen at the end of the game, and we have not had characters carry over into a real sequel until Mass Effect 2. 

'The ending of the game takes cinematic videogaming to a whole new level.' 

The ending, with its seemingly endless permutations of character deaths, was indeed a sequence of impressive scope and ambition.  The game was quite evidently designed with this goal in mind, working backwards to create a list of characters you could then kill off.  This design, however, sacrificed a seemless narrative for a series of unrelated missions. 

Modifié par periaqueductal_gray, 09 février 2010 - 11:27 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

No, it wasn't. There was no little mission briefings with some authority figure looking on. There was no break down of events, what gear was found, who did what and how it affected their demeaner, and so forth and so on. All that was garbage. Only the main story missions ever force you back to your ship for a group meeting.



After each and every single jaunt out I was forced back to the ship. After every single jaunt out to finish a quest I was given a "mission" briefing screen and back onto the ship! I wasn't bloody ready to go back to the ship, damn it. I had other things to do in those areas. Places I want to do a little more exploring. NO! FORCED BACK TO THE SHIP!

[CDClock]

Great post man. I came here expecting to find that you left something out, but you hit the nail on the head.

[TJSolo]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

There is no bible, Nico. Stop bring religion in this. Its a weak strawman tactic that has no bearing to the issue at hand. I do not consider ME2 a CRPG. I consider it a TPS with light RP elements. It is the same reason why I don't consider Bioshock and Bioshock 2 as CRPGs. They are FPS with light RP elements. It is a matter of focus. ME2 uses closed off areas, and its progression style is mission based. Those are hallmarks of a TPS, not a RPG. ME1 was more open where you went, and the progression felt natural and cinematic. It was not broken up into "missions." That is why it is more on the CRPG side than ME2.

Dude, did you even play ME1? Its progression was mission based yet it was an RPG?

ME1 was experience based and people could get enough experience to progress their character from killing, exploration, missions, or some conversations at any given time.

ME2 is not experience based although they show a experience number. The only way to progress in ME2 is by completing missions and gaining a level is almost automatic upon complete.

[nicodeemus327]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

No, it wasn't. There was no little mission briefings with some authority figure looking on. There was no break down of events, what gear was found, who did what and how it affected their demeaner, and so forth and so on. All that was garbage. Only the main story missions ever force you back to your ship for a group meeting.

After each and every single jaunt out I was forced back to the ship. After every single jaunt out to finish a quest I was given a "mission" briefing screen and back onto the ship! I wasn't bloody ready to go back to the ship, damn it. I had other things to do in those areas. Places I want to do a little more exploring. NO! FORCED BACK TO THE SHIP!

So that little end of mission splash screen is what prevents ME 2 from being an RPG? Also, you weren't forced back to the ship. It would ask you if wanted to head back. Did you just miss that part?

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 11:07 .

[nicodeemus327]

Double post.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 11:05 .

[nicodeemus327]

TJSolo wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

There is no bible, Nico. Stop bring religion in this. Its a weak strawman tactic that has no bearing to the issue at hand. I do not consider ME2 a CRPG. I consider it a TPS with light RP elements. It is the same reason why I don't consider Bioshock and Bioshock 2 as CRPGs. They are FPS with light RP elements. It is a matter of focus. ME2 uses closed off areas, and its progression style is mission based. Those are hallmarks of a TPS, not a RPG. ME1 was more open where you went, and the progression felt natural and cinematic. It was not broken up into "missions." That is why it is more on the CRPG side than ME2.

Dude, did you even play ME1? Its progression was mission based yet it was an RPG?

ME1 was experience based and people could get enough experience to progress their character from killing, exploration, missions, or some conversations at any given time.

ME2 is not experience based although they show a experience number. The only way to progress in ME2 is by completing missions and gaining a level is almost automatic upon complete.

Many many RPGs use differnent methods of handing out experience points. It still has the same function. To progress your character.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 11:07 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

nicodeemus327 wrote...
So that little end of mission splash screen is what prevents ME 2 from being an RPG? Also, you weren't foreced back to the ship. They would ask you if wanted to head back. Did you just miss that part?

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now.

Yes, I was.  I was never asked if I wanted to head back.  NOT BLOODY ONCE.  It is not just that little end mission splash screen.  It is everything they removed.  Removal of the inventory system.  Removal of being able to armor up your squad.  Removal of exploration.  Removal after removal of what made ME1 a RPG, damn it.  IT IS THE WHOLE FRAKIN' THING!

ME2 is not a CRPG.  It is a TPS.