270 réponses à ce sujet

[Lakmoots]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Abriael_CG wrote...

They looked like they had only one set of clothing through the entire game, which in an RPG is lame.

I didn't find it lame. For me, companions are an important part of RPGs, and unique designs and abilities reinforce their personality. The ability for the PC to be able to select different clothing is important because it's a form of customization.

That said, in DA, I spent 75% of the game in the same two armor sets (Blood Dragon and Legion of the Dead), which made it look like I only had two sets of clothing.

...

Iol! I did that too

I understand completely with what you are saying - and I think a better example  would be Bioware's "Knights of the Old Republic" game... this has much more in common with DA:O and has exactly the elements you are talking about.

Some of the companion characters had specific costumes that gave them a particular look. This could be changed, however, in exactly the same way as we do in Dragon Age.

However, I found that it was simply wrong to put Bastila in a different costume, or Handmaiden. This is the same thing I feel for characters like Morrigan, who have a strongly defined visual appeal.

The sequel to Kotor was the same, and I think that this and DA:O also run a fine line of allowing charcters to be customised as well as presenting a certain (almost set) visual definition.

I know of people who make Morrigan an Arcane Warrior and Wynne a Blood Mage, Sten a Templar. For me, that is akin to sacrilege, but there we go...

So, I certainly think in the future there will be unique outfits that give characters a certain visual trend... just as there will be those who want to destabilise that.

[Abriael_CG]

corebit wrote...
I am already on my fourh DA replay, and on my sixth ME1 replay. After completing ME2 once however, I find little incentive to start a new playthrough. Can someone explain to me why is this? FYI I never rush through any Bioware game. I got the side quest achievement on my first DA playthrough, same with ME1.

I can, at least I can give you my answer.
Unless you're morally very flexible, ME2 lacks variation tremendously. Shepard can be a paladin or can be an absolute space jackass with zero brains. Personally, I don't enjoy playing a space jackass with zero brains, so for me the "renegade" path simply doesn't exist. Some don't like to play the paladin, and have the opposite problem. People that enjoy both options, still have only two viable variations.

In Dragon Age there are several branching choices that have nothing to do with good and evil, can have unforseen consequences or can simply lead to many shades of gray. It adds a whole ton of variation to the game. Add to them the different origins (while background in ME is pretty meaningless) and you got a nice picture.

Then there's class and specializatiion variation, and skill variation. In ME2 you can change your class, but the difference between classes are actually quite limited, normally to a couple powers and the weapons you're limited to. Your companions never change, they always have the same powers.
In DA:O not only the PC classes are all very differrent between each other, but there also are several builds in the same classes that bring massive differences in gameplay and itemization. And this works both for you and your companions, making the degree of variation in gameplay exponentially higher than in ME2.

Finally, there's visual customization, that's partly derivative of the above point (Morrigan can be a straight mage and wear her clothes, or an arcane warrior and wear plate) and itemization. They add a further degree of variation as you switch out equipment sets and hone your party to it's best effect. Mind you, the fights are not eccessively difficult but they are still more challenging than in the ME series, so equipment definitely has a meaning.

All those factors together paint a very clear picture. ME2 is a good game, but it's objective replayability factor (due to the relative lack in variation) is kind of low. DA:O as a much higher degree of branching and variation in story, gameplay and itemization, and that makes it's objective replayability value immensely higher.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Actually I simply said that the armor and weapon system per se was very meaningful. The only thing that made it less meaningful was the fact that difficulty was badly set.
The problem was in the abysmal AI and in the overly easy difficulty, not in the armor and weapon system, that had a few (very easy to solve with a lower drop rater and a better inventory management) flaws, but did add several layers of depth to the game. The fact that ANOTHER flaw made inventory management less meaningful doesn't make it meaningless per-se.

Istead of solving the actual flaw (bad enemy AI), Bioware simply took the easy way out, removing the entire inventory system, keeping the bad enemy AI.

Except for, as I said, this is one part of the RPG that actually hinders the action portion of it, which is why it was taken out. Now you upgrade your armor through research and that is a much better system because it keeps the game moving forward without bogging you down with cumbersome itemization concerns. It's a much more natural progression system that fits both the needs of the RPG half and the shooter half. It wasn't the easy way out, it was the best way to do it. You can disagree all you want, but it comes down to your preference over carefully selecting gear and micromanagement over your preference over other aspects of the game.

Try to work as a gaming journalist for a while. You'll be amazed by how unprofessionally that job is done in average, by the complex web of favors and credits that goes on under the table, by how journalists are often given minimal scores to give to selected games and encouraged to be "nice" to certain publishers, and several other niceties that would probably surprise you (they actually happen in several fields of journalism, not just in the gaming one, but the gaming field is often worse because professionalism is less widespread and most jorunalists are self-thaught)

Tin foil hat time? No thanks, I'll step out.

There is such a thing as companies selling out to release inflated scores of games due to publishers. However, ME2's metacritic score is at 96%, which means that either EA bought out every single published gaming media in the world, or that the game is really that damn good.

By the way. I don't think that ME2 is "bad". I liked the game, even if it has several glaring flaws, one of which the lack of any meaningful itemization and visual variation. That's not enough to make the game "less than good", but this doesn't mean it couldn't have been much better if they simply didn't rip away big parts of what made the game an RPG disguising what's simply cutting corners as "streamlining".

Like I said, game was made smarter by stripping those parts away. I haven't heard a single good argument otherwise. And notice how you didn't even argue my points. Nor did you attempt to outargue me that Planescape: Torment was both one of the best RPG s of all times but also GREATLY simplified over the DnD system it was based off of.

As for replayability, while you can personally like the game more or less (and as such the replayability value can fluctuate for you), there are objective factors to it. One of such factors is variation. Cosmetic and skill variation is part of that value.

While Mass Effect 2 has only 2 paralel paths and absolutely no cosmetic/skill variation besides the main character's class and him being male/female, DA:O has a strongly branching development, with a much higher degree of variation, and variation in skills and itemization for the party is objectively part of that value. An element that ME2 lacks.

Ya huh. Again, you're basically saying that a game that encourages you to stack variables in your favor in order to overcome RNG (which is what any longsword +1 equates to) is inherently more replayable than an action game where this is minimized and your actions in combat matter more than your actions out of combat. That's not objective. Not everyone gets the same joy out of stacking variables in different ways to help overcome odds. And there's a lot of joy to be had in replaying ME2 trying out different classes that play completely differently from one another as well as seeing how your actions can effect the outcome of the ending differently (a full loyalty all upgrade ending plays out COMPLETELY differently than a no loyalty no upgrade ending)

Again, I enjoy both games equally, but I've replayed ME2 more than DA:O. So take your "objectivity" bullcrap and honestly go home.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 février 2010 - 06:08 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

You're more a shooter fan Surface, and thats quite alright, to each their own and all. But I'm sure Bioware could have found some sort of middle ground with the RPG elements rather than esentially gut them entirely that would have made everyone at least content rather than just some.

[Abriael_CG]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
except for, as I said, this is one part of the RPG that actually hinders the action portion of it,

And who ever said that the "action portion" should be more important of the RPG? There are (as the ME2 boards clearly show) quite a lot of people that enjoyed the RPG part a lot and disliked their removal immensely.

Now you upgrade your armor through research and that is a much better system because it keeps the game moving forward without bogging you down with cumbersome itemization concerns. It's a much more natural progression system that fits both the needs of the RPG half and the shooter half.

Not really. The upgrade system has a completely linear development and removes any kind of choice. Which means lack of depth. Lack of depth definitrely doesn't "fit the needs of the RPG half". depth is the bread and cheese of RPGs.

It turned an RPG with action elements that was M1 in an action game with some very limited and almost non-existant RPG elements. The fact you like shooters more doesn't automatically make that option more valid, expecially in the light of the fact that the market is already overcrowded with shooters, while good RPGs are much lower in numbers.

Tin foil hat time? No thanks, I'll step out.

It's not a matter of tin foil. It's a matter of direct experience on the field.

Like I said, game was made smarter by stripping those parts away. I haven't heard a single good argument otherwise.

You must not visit the ME2 forums often. There are literally hundreds of good arguments otherwise. The fact that you don't deem them valid because you happen to enjoy action games more isn't honestly of much consequence.

Ya huh. Again, you're basically saying that a game that encourages you to stack variables in your favor in order to overcome RNG (which is what any longsword +1 equates to) is inherently more replayable than an action game where this is minimized and your actions in combat matter more than your actions out of combat. That's not objective. Not everyone gets the same joy out of stacking variables in different ways to help overcome odds. And there's a lot of joy to be had in replaying ME2 trying out different classes that play completely differently from one another as well as seeing how your actions can effect the outcome of the ending differently (a full loyalty all upgrade ending plays out COMPLETELY differently than a no loyalty no upgrade ending)

The game doesn't FORCE you to min-max, you can pretty much play through it effectively by giving itemization very limited attention. On the other hand it OFFERS such an option to the many that enjoy it.

The same goes for Mass Effect 1, you said that you didn't need to go through itemization to finish it on the maximum difficulty level, this means that itemization didn't really influence your enjoyment of the game. You have the option not to play that part concentrating on the elements you liked. People that enjoyed that part had the option to play it.

You seem to advocate that catering just to one demographic (action fans) removing the RPG elements is better than catering to both the action and RPG fans and as such removing the RPG elements is good so that the game can be only action.
Sorry, but that's quite farfetched. If you want purely action games, the market is bursting full with them, you can take your pick. 

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 06:37 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You're more a shooter fan Surface, and thats quite alright, to each their own and all. But I'm sure Bioware could have found some sort of middle ground with the RPG elements rather than esentially gut them entirely that would have made everyone at least content rather than just some.

My five favorite games are all RPGs. Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment, Dragon Age, and now Mass Effect 2.

So no, I'm not a shooter fan. I'm an RPG fan. And ME2 is a great RPG game that also does action really well.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You're more a shooter fan Surface, and thats quite alright, to each their own and all. But I'm sure Bioware could have found some sort of middle ground with the RPG elements rather than esentially gut them entirely that would have made everyone at least content rather than just some.

My five favorite games are all RPGs. Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment, Dragon Age, and now Mass Effect 2.

So no, I'm not a shooter fan. I'm an RPG fan. And ME2 is a great RPG game that also does action really well.

Fair enough, I disagree but you're entitled to your opinion. Though we are kinda getting off topic in that I'd really hate if Bioware took Maria's advice and esentially stripped out all the customization components that make DA:O what it is just so she can have unique clothing for companions.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Abriael_CG wrote...

And who ever said that the "action portion" should be more important of the RPG? There are (as the ME2 boards clearly show) quite a lot of people that enjoyed the RPG part a lot and disliked their removal immensely.

Where do you get to draw the line between what constitutes an RPG and what constitutes a shooter? It's a little of both and it skimps from both systems and elaborates in others. While there is a dedicated fanbase who did like the ME1 style of things, go to ANY other gaming forum or look at ANY critical review of the game and you will see just how in the minority these people are. Don't assume because something is common among a small devoted fanbase that this is the overall trend.

You must not visit the ME2 forums often. There are literally hundreds of good arguments otherwise. The fact that you don't deem them valid because you happen to enjoy action games more isn't honestly of much consequence.

No there are not. They are literally the same bad arguments screamed as loudly as possible to get the most attention. You can't "argue" against them because there's nothing to argue about and the argument never changes. Again, you haven't actually argued one of my points since I started this in a successful manner. Again, I point you at Planescape: Torment and ask you how that game, though being GREATLY simplified from other DnD based games at the time, was also worse for it. Go on, tell me.

The game doesn't FORCE you to min-max, you can pretty much play through it effectively by giving itemization very limited attention. On the other hand it OFFERS such an option to the many that enjoy it.

The same goes for Mass Effect 1, you said that you didn't need to go through itemization to finish it on the maximum difficulty level, this means that itemization didn't really influence your enjoyment of the game. You have the option of playing that part or not. People that enjoy it have that option.

You seem to advocate that catering just to one demographic (action fans) removing the RPG elements is better than catering to both the action and RPG fans and as such removing the RPG elements is good so that the game can be only action.
Sorry, but that's quite farfetched. If you want purely action games, the market is bursting full with them, you can take your pick. 

Actually, I've already said that I am someone who primarily values RPGs and I think ME2 caters brilliantly to both demographics.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 février 2010 - 06:42 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You're more a shooter fan Surface, and thats quite alright, to each their own and all. But I'm sure Bioware could have found some sort of middle ground with the RPG elements rather than esentially gut them entirely that would have made everyone at least content rather than just some.

My five favorite games are all RPGs. Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment, Dragon Age, and now Mass Effect 2.

So no, I'm not a shooter fan. I'm an RPG fan. And ME2 is a great RPG game that also does action really well.

Fair enough, I disagree but you're entitled to your opinion. Though we are kinda getting off topic in that I'd really hate if Bioware took Maria's advice and esentially stripped out all the customization components that make DA:O what it is just so she can have unique clothing for companions.

And that's an understandable statement that expresses your opinion without doesn't marginalize hers.

I think that the BEST system would be the one that lets you customize clothing while still having team mates retain their identities. Like I said, provide unique upgradable versions of their stock clothing, perhaps in a few varieties. Make you able to customize it like you can do to the N7 armor in ME2.

[Abriael_CG]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
So no, I'm not a shooter fan. I'm an RPG fan. And ME2 is a great RPG game that also does action really well.

Having a story doesn't mean being an RPG. There are plenty games out there with a story that aren't RPGs at all. ME2's RPG elements have been stripped beyond the bare bone, making it simply a pretty good (not groundbreaking, the AI isn't good enough, and the cover system is pretty clunky) third person shooter with a story and some sparse RPG element.

"Playing a role" isn't enough to make a game an RPG, given that in 90% of games you play a role.

[SDNcN]

Abriael_CG wrote...

And who ever said that the "action portion" should be more important of the RPG? There are (as the ME2 boards clearly show) quite a lot of people that enjoyed the RPG part a lot and disliked their removal immensely.

The forums represent a small percentage of people who actually bought the game. That and people who dislike portions of a game tend to the more vocal in their disapproval than people who see nothing wrong.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

And that's an understandable statement that expresses your opinion without doesn't marginalize hers.

I think that the BEST system would be the one that lets you customize clothing while still having team mates retain their identities. Like I said, provide unique upgradable versions of their stock clothing, perhaps in a few varieties. Make you able to customize it like you can do to the N7 armor in ME2.

Which would be esentially doing what they did in ME2, stripping most of the customization. Personally I find strong narative and dialog should be what defines a character and makes them unique. Not some silly skin tight leotard.

[Abriael_CG]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Where do you get to draw the line between what constitutes an RPG and what constitutes a shooter? It's a little of both and it skimps from both systems and elaborates in others. While there is a dedicated fanbase who did like the ME1 style of things, go to ANY other gaming forum or look at ANY critical review of the game and you will see just how in the minority these people are. Don't assume because something is common among a small devoted fanbase that this is the overall trend.

Again, most "critical reviewers" are just happy that they can rush through the game and get to write the article as fast as possible. It's faster money like that. They give high scores to absolute aberrations just because they're simple (just look at some wii games). Also, what forums? If you look at RPG dedicated forums, you won't see that much approval at all.
Also, there are also "critical reviews" that aren't that enthusiastic at all. You seem pretty selective in your reading. Try this one (interesting to read his Dragon Age Review, by the way, I find both reviews to be almost 100% spot-on, incidentally).

Mass effect is a good action game, and as that is reviewed. This doesn't mean it's also a good RPG. It's not.

No there are not. They are literally the same bad arguments screamed as loudly as possible to get the most attention. You can't "argue" against them because there's nothing to argue about and the argument never changes. Again, you haven't actually argued one of my points since I started this in a successful manner. Again, I point you at Planescape: Torment and ask you how that game, though being GREATLY simplified from other DnD based games at the time, was also worse for it. Go on, tell me.

The fact that you consider your arguments  valid and other people's argument flawed doesn't automatically make them so.
Planescape might have simplified the D&D rules, per se, but simplifying the D&D rules (D&D is just ONE RPG) doesn't mean stripping the game bare of it's RPG elements. In fact the RPG elements are fully there, despite the ruleset used.

Actually, I've already said that I am someone who primarily values RPGs and I think ME2 caters brilliantly to both demographics.

A lot of people in the ME forums and here seem to think otherwise. Me included.

SDNcN wrote...
The forums represent a small percentage of
people who actually bought the game. That and people who dislike
portions of a game tend to the more vocal in their disapproval than
people who see nothing wrong.

Going by that reasoning all games are perfect, no matter how thunderous the criticism is.
Also, i'm afraid I have to point out that in forums dedicated to a certain game or software huse, fanboys tend to have the louder and most vocal voice, that, of course, unless something is really amiss.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 07:03 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Abriael_CG wrote...

The fact that you consider your arguments  valid and other people's argument flawed doesn't automatically make them so.
Planescape might have simplified the D&D rules, per se, but simplifying the D&D rules (D&D is just ONE RPG) doesn't mean stripping the game bare of it's RPG elements. In fact the RPG elements are fully there, despite the ruleset used.

In Planescape there was extremely limited weapon selection (including no ranged weapons), no Armor customization at all to speak of for either you OR your party, you could only chose one of three classes, you could not really modify your teammates abilities at all, there were almost no skill checks of any kind outside of dialogue....

I could go on dude. Planescape stripped TREMENDOUSLY more of its RPG elements from the base infinity engine than Mass Effect 2 did from Mass Effect 1. And it was a better RPG than any of them.

[SurfaceBeneath]

double post

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 février 2010 - 07:05 .

[Abriael_CG]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
In Planescape there was extremely limited weapon selection (including no ranged weapons), no Armor customization at all to speak of for either you OR your party, you could only chose one of three classes, you could not really modify your teammates abilities at all, there were almost no skill checks of any kind outside of dialogue....

I could go on dude. Planescape stripped TREMENDOUSLY more of its RPG elements from the base infinity engine than Mass Effect 2 did from Mass Effect 1. And it was a better RPG than any of them.

Not really. Your memory can be a tad clouded here. Planescape Torment was simplified, but still had a full fledged inventory system and itemization, full attribute system and so forth.
It's absolutely incomparable with the extremely limited RPG elements retained in ME2.
As for it being better than the others, that's veeeery farfetched. I'd say both Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 simply demolish Torment with complete ease. The only one that could be considered inferior (and only for strorytelling reasons) is Icewind Dale.

You seem to value a lot your "critical reviewers" when they agree with you, but not when they don't, given that the metacritic and gamerankings score for Baldur's Gate 2 is quite a lot higher than that for Planescape Torment...
You use review score to say that ME2 would be better than DA:O, but then you say that Torment is better than the BG series. Isn't it ironic that the metacritic/gameranking scores of DA:O are very comparable to those of Torment, while those of BG2 are comparable to those of ME2? So which ones are right and which ones are wrong? 

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

[SDNcN]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Going by that reasoning all games are perfect, no matter how thunderous the criticism is.
Also, i'm afraid I have to point out that in forums dedicated to a certain game or software huse, fanboys tend to have the louder and most vocal voice, that, of course, unless something is really amiss.

Dedicated forums are most certainly filled with fans, but the majority of the people who bought the game will most likely never use these forums, while people who disliked design decisions made in ME2 will most assuredly flock to forums to explain why they didn't like X about the game. Which is why looking on the forums and thinking "Oh man ME2 must have screwed up big time" is flawed thinking.

Modifié par SDNcN, 11 février 2010 - 07:12 .

[Abriael_CG]

SDNcN wrote...
Dedicated forums are most certainly filled with fans, but the majority of the people who bought the game will most likely never use these forums, while people who disliked design decisions made in ME2 will most assuredly flock to forums to explain why they didn't like X about the game. Which is why looking on the forums and thinking "Oh man ME2 must have screwed up big time" is flawed thinking.

ME2 is a good action game, not as good an RPG. Ergo, people that like action games will surely love it. People that like RPGs more than action games will very possibly have very mixed feelings.

While many fans won't ever use the forums, also many people that disliked the game will simply shelve it, or sell it at their local gamestop without giving it a second thought.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 07:18 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Abriael_CG wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
In Planescape there was extremely limited weapon selection (including no ranged weapons), no Armor customization at all to speak of for either you OR your party, you could only chose one of three classes, you could not really modify your teammates abilities at all, there were almost no skill checks of any kind outside of dialogue....

I could go on dude. Planescape stripped TREMENDOUSLY more of its RPG elements from the base infinity engine than Mass Effect 2 did from Mass Effect 1. And it was a better RPG than any of them.

Not really. Your memory can be a tad limited here. Planescape Torment was simplified, but still had a full fledged inventory system and itemization, full attribute system and so forth.
It's absolutely incomparable with the extremely limited RPG elements retained in ME2.
As for it being better than the others, that's veeeery farfetched. I'd say both Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 simply demolish Torment with complete ease. The only one that could be considered inferior (and only for strorytelling reasons) is Icewind Dale.

Personally I hated Torment. I know I know blasphemous. I tried mutiple times to get into it and just failed miserably. If we're comparing the infinity engine games I'd put both BG1 & 2 (plus expansions, TOB especially) over anything Black Isle did, though I still would have liked to have gotten the chance to play Torn (I believe that was the name of the BI game that got canned during the throws of Interplay's implosion)

[SDNcN]

Abriael_CG wrote...

SDNcN wrote...
Dedicated forums are most certainly filled with fans, but the majority of the people who bought the game will most likely never use these forums, while people who disliked design decisions made in ME2 will most assuredly flock to forums to explain why they didn't like X about the game. Which is why looking on the forums and thinking "Oh man ME2 must have screwed up big time" is flawed thinking.

ME2 is a good action game, not as good an RPG. Ergo, people that like action games will surely love it. People that like RPGs more than action games will very possibly have very mixed feelings.

While many fans won't ever use the forums, also many people that disliked the game will simply shelve it, or sell it at their local gamestop without giving it a second thought.

But you can't ignore that people simply are more vocal when they are upset than when they like or have simply have mixed feelings about a product. There is fair critisim of the game on the forums and from other sources. Bioware shouldn't ignore it as trival really need to listen to them to make the third game a great RPG, but going back to what I originally responded to, number of posts on a forum isn't a reliable gauge of what the playerbase really thinks about the game.

For example before release I remember a thread showed up where someone was agruing against the action elements in ME:2 and believed that ME:3 should return to something similar to the KOTOR series, which honestly if Bioware actually listened to that extreme they would isolate both ME:1 & 2 fans. But get six or seven people to agree with the OP and all the sudden there is a revolution at hand and they are storming the Bastille.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Abriael_CG wrote...
Not really. Your memory can be a tad clouded here. Planescape Torment was simplified, but still had a full fledged inventory system and itemization, full attribute system and so forth.
It's absolutely incomparable with the extremely limited RPG elements retained in ME2.
As for it being better than the others, that's veeeery farfetched. I'd say both Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 simply demolish Torment with complete ease. The only one that could be considered inferior (and only for strorytelling reasons) is Icewind Dale.

You seem to value a lot your "critical reviewers" when they agree with you, but not when they don't, given that the metacritic and gamerankings score for Baldur's Gate 2 is quite a lot higher than that for Planescape Torment...
You use review score to say that ME2 would be better than DA:O, but then you say that Torment is better than the BG series. Isn't it ironic that the metacritic/gameranking scores of DA:O are very comparable to those of Torment, while those of BG2 are comparable to those of ME2? So which ones are right and which ones are wrong? 

I play Torment every year during July. It's a staple of mine, like reading a great book. So no, I'm not cloudy. And I like Baldur's Gate 2 just as much as Torment (the same really), but Torment, to me, is a far FAR superior Roleplaying Game because Torment is the only game I've EVER played where I actually feel like I am the Nameless One. And while I think that the scores for Planescape: Torment are a tad low, I know that that is because I am an artsy philosophy and literature nerd who favors the more esoteric aspects of Torment's story and become more engaged in it. I don't make bland assumptions that because I think Torment is the pinnacle of Roleplaying excellence that it is INARGUABLY the best thing of all time. Also, Torment still got scores in the low 90s which pretty much confirms that critically it was still very successful.

Torment was an isometric tactical based roleplaying game which took its ruleset from the DnD system. It was completely stripped down from Baldur's Gate. But it was a better Roleplaying Game. I can't believe you actually tried to compare Mass Effect 2 directly to Planescape Torment because they inherently fall under different genres. What you CAN do is compare Planescape Torment to Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect. And in both cases you're left with the former having a "stripped down" ruleset from the later, despite still being RPGs and what many would consider better RPGs as well.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 février 2010 - 07:48 .

[Abriael_CG]

SDNcN wrote...

But you can't ignore that people simply are more vocal when they are upset than when they like or have simply have mixed feelings about a product. There is fair critisim of the game on the forums and from other sources. Bioware shouldn't ignore it as trival really need to listen to them to make the third game a great RPG, but going back to what I originally responded to, number of posts on a forum isn't a reliable gauge of what the playerbase really thinks about the game.

For example before release I remember a thread showed up where someone was agruing against the action elements in ME:2 and believed that ME:3 should return to something similar to the KOTOR series, which honestly if Bioware actually listened to that extreme they would isolate both ME:1 & 2 fans. But get six or seven people to agree with the OP and all the sudden there is a revolution at hand and they are storming the Bastille.

Extremes are extremes. Remove the extremes (the haters and the fanboys) and you normally get a fair assessment of the problems of a game. Even removing the extremes you can easily notice on the ME2 forums that there are a whole lot of people that while appreciating several parts of the game, don't appreciate at all the excessive curbing of the RPG component and the lack of customization and options offered by the game.

This doesn't mean hating the game, it just means that for us ME2 is still a good game, but it didn't live up to it's potential because quite a few corners have been cut. Whether that is to appeal to the shooter audience or to spare resources or time we can't know. But it's pretty evident that the flaws in the inventory and customization system in Mass Effect could have been solved without hampering the action simply by lowering the abysmally high drop rate and making the inventory more accessible and intuitive. They didn't, and that's a pretty evident and big cut corner, one that many, me included, consider an important one.

That's the whole reason why we're definitely against the chance of them trying to cut some of the same corners with Dragon Age.

At the moment the Dragon Age saga is bsically the only by-the-book AAA CRPG we have left in the whole market. I'm not eager to see the death of a genre. Are you?

Surfa
Torment was an isometric tactical based roleplaying game which took its ruleset from the DnD system. It was completely stripped down from Baldur's Gate. But it was a better Roleplaying Game.
I can't believe you actually tried to compare Mass Effect 2 directly to Planescape Torment because they inherently fall under different genres.
What you CAN do is compare Planescape Torment to Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect. And in both cases you're left with the former having a "stripped down" ruleset from the later, despite still being RPGs and what many would consider better RPGs as well.

And that's exactly what I did. And there's simply no real paralel comparison. While Mass Effect 2, compared to MAss Effect, retains much less than the bare bones of an RPG system, Torment, compared to the BG2 still retains a pretty flashed out RPG system. siomplified, sure, but not nearly as simplified as ME2 is compared to ME. That's exactly the difference between simplifying and dumbing down. Torment is, in it's mechanics, simplified. ME2 is dumbed down.

In fact at that time I don't remember that many people very vocally complaining in forums and newsgroups that Torment was "dumbed down" as opposed to Baldur's Gate. On the other hand, people do it for ME2, and quite a lot. There must be something there.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 08:02 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Extremes are extremes. Remove the extremes (the haters and the fanboys) and you normally get a fair assessment of the problems of a game. Even removing the extremes you can easily notice on the ME2 forums that there are a whole lot of people that while appreciating several parts of the game, don't appreciate at all the excessive curbing of the RPG component and the lack of customization and options offered by the game.

No, the extremes are found on these forums. Between the haters and the Tali love threads.

Fair assessments of the game you go to other websites such as Gamespot, IGN.... heck 4chan's /v board when they're not just trolling. I'm a personal frequent of Penny-Arcade's forums, which has a very erudite posting base. And on those sites you find absolutely OVERWHELMINGLY positive opinions of the game and consensus that everything that was removed was for good.

As an aside, you'll also find that the posters here in both "Tali Love" and "ME2 SUX" threads are pretty much universally laughed at among other forum populations.

Surfa
And that's exactly what I did. And there's simply no paralel comparison. While Mass Effect 2, compared to MAss Effect, retains much less than the bare bones of an RPG system, Torment, compared to the BG2 still retains a pretty flashed out RPG system. siomplified, sure, but not nearly as simplified as ME2 is compared to ME. That's exactly the difference between simplifying and dumbing down. Torment is, in it's mechanics, simplified. ME2 is dumbed down.

In fact at that time I don't remember that many people very vocally complaining in forums and newsgroups that Torment was "dumbed down" as opposed to Baldur's Gate. On the other hand, people do it for ME2, and quite a lot. There must be something there.

Do you not -get- analogies at all? Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are both ENTIRELY different games from Baldur's Gate and Torment. You cannot compare them directly to one another because they play COMPLETELY differently. You have to judge games by the merits of their peers, not games that play nothing alike from one another. You're basically complaining that Mass Effect isn't a turn based isometric "traditional" RPG. Or at least that Mass Effect 2 didn't evolve in to one.

And yes, Planescape Torment was much more simplified from Baldur's Gate than Mass Effect 2 was from Mass Effect. The combat especially was, quite frankly, much inferior in fact. There were very little tactics to Torment's combat at all. I still consider it a better game.

And stop saying dumbed down, it's a retarded vague phrase that only further exemplifies how you are more willing to argue with rhetoric than examples or facts. I thought about Mass Effect 2 both in and out of the game easily twice as much as I ever did about Mass Effect. There is not a single arguable point that anything that was removed from ME1 was actually smarter than its replacement analogue in ME2 and despite your claim that plenty of posters have made posts proving so, you've yet to bring one here to counter any point I've made.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 février 2010 - 08:11 .

[Bfler]

Sorry for the question but what is a "AAA CRPG"? Do you mean a group based RPG with that?



Btw if somebody here is from Germany next week is release of Drakensang: The River of Time. I think one of the last real RPG-games that bases on pen and paper rules.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Also, I'm done with this thread. ME2 discussion doesn't belong on this forum, so it should cease.

Abriael_CG, you've demonstrated yourself as a person of low wit who would rather arrogantly insist your opinion as fact and condescendingly attempted to portray all other opinions as lower and "dumber" than yours. Have fun with that.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 février 2010 - 08:18 .