212 réponses à ce sujet

[Allattar1]

It is important to define what an rpg is.



RPG means role playing game, where the you take the role of a character, in computer games this is usually the lead character. You then get to play them, there morality and views and make there decisions.



Nowhere in rpg is there a definition that says you need dice, or dice rolls (although they are prevalent in rpgs), you don't even need a lot of items to collect, you don't need lots of loot, or an overhead view, or a character progression reward system based on acquiring xp to gain levels.



In that essence ME3 is pretty high up in terms of being an rpg, sure it doesn't give you the freedom of a pen n paper rpg, however until they create mass effect 30 in 2099 where it recognises you speaking to the computer and combines this with high end AI to tailor all interactions I think well have to stick to the few dialogue choices or actions we are given.



I think what the OP was asking for was making ME3 more munchkin rpg. Give us hundreds of skills to pick from, level fast that we can dive down one or two trees to the ultimate bad ass power. Loot that we can steal pick up and horde so we can investigate the ultimate min max combo iwin button ever.



I think there are MMO's for those people

[exboomer]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Thanks, in part, to EAs purchasing of the rights to the ME series, the original RPG heavy interface with an action-based combat system was thrown away.  ME2 plays much more like a straightforward action-shooter with a slight bit of RPG flavoring in the "Squad Powers" screen and somewhat customizable armor.

Dialogue is really the only RPG element that was maintained from the 1st game.  There is basically no exploration, no combat-kill based XP system, and a (comparitively) primitive talent system (called "powers" in ME2).  IMO, if you took the graphics from the 2nd game (and the Shield/Barrier/Armor rock paper scissors system) and ported it into the1st game, you'd have the perfect game.

As it stands, the removal of the awesome talent system from ME1 (that gave a TON of leeway for detailed tailoring of your characters progression) makes the game MUCH LESS replayable.  I completed ME1 nine times... that's NINE TIMES.  I've completed ME2 3 times and probably won't revisit it for at least a year.

Having only 3 "powers" for my squadmates is a huge loss from ME1.  In fact, I returned to play another run through of ME1 after completing the sequel because I missed it so!

Are there any other fans of ME1 that feel the game lost it's RPG mystique that was so easy to love in the first game?

There are many of us who feel the same way but I doubt Bioware/EA will pay any attention to us. All EA cares about is making money, game quality and customer satisfaction is a distant second to that.  And EA hardly ever listens to it's customers when it comes to doing game changes. Face it, those of  us who are disappointed in the changes that were made will just have to suck it up. I for one have become much more reluctant to buy any Bioware game that purports to call itself a RPG which is a shame, Bioware used to stand for quality RPG games but not anymore.

[Paperghost]

exboomer wrote...I for one have become much more reluctant to buy any Bioware game that purports to call itself a RPG which is a shame, Bioware used to stand for quality RPG games but not anymore.

interestingly, nowhere on the instructions and boxes for both mass effect 1 and 2 does it say the word "RPG". and the only references i can find to RPG specifically on the Bioware site are magazine snippets quoted as saying "mass effect is the greatest rpg that has ever been made, ever" etc, or awards it was given for "rpg of the year" or whatever.

if anything, bioware are doomed to be "those rpg guys", even when the product itself (box, disc, manual) never actually says the word.

/ edit for clarity - I'm aware there is a "role playing: perfected" article on the ME1 portal, which talks about rather generic "role play" aspects in relation to your character that frankly could be found in most games that don't have the "RPG" tag assigned to it - however, it still doesn't call the product an "RPG" and the product itself never mentions RPG once on the box, which is a very strange omission for a game supposedly so RPG-centric.

Modifié par Paperghost, 11 février 2010 - 05:13 .

[wrdnshprd]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

What it lost was all the depth Mass Effect had. It lost the sense of progression, it lost the sense of specialization, lost the sense of exploration. They may not have been implemented well enough in the first game, but they were there at least and now they're not. Simple as that.

You're wrong, but it's OK.

really?

you can customize your squadmates armor (and an alternate costume does not count)?
you had more than 3 weapons to choose from for each type (heavy weapons excluded)?
there are paragon and renegade skills in the level up tree?
the skill trees had more than 4 dots per skill?

huh.. my version of ME2 must be bugged..

/sarcasm [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png[/smilie]

that being said, i do have to agree with you on the exploration part.  i actually like the planet scanning.  much better than the polygon mountain climbing of the first game.

also, you may comeback and say 'you like the omni-gel inventory system?  and i would return with.. no i dont.  but they also didnt have to go as far as they did either.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 11 février 2010 - 05:02 .

[TheConfidenceMan]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

What it lost was all the depth Mass Effect had. It lost the sense of progression, it lost the sense of specialization, lost the sense of exploration. They may not have been implemented well enough in the first game, but they were there at least and now they're not. Simple as that.

You're wrong, but it's OK.

So where is the progression of your character? I didn't feel any more powerful at the end than I did at the beginning. Only a few choices of weaponry, only a few upgrades for them, only one suit of armor with modifications that add only minor bonuses. Your characters' skills don't affect his proficiency with weapons any more, so you're as good a shooter at the very beginning as you are at the very end. You have literally one stat to upgrade that improves your base stats, and you only upgrade it four times. You can max it out very early on, and then what? 

As for specialization, since the skill set was so drastically reduced and skills not related to combat outright cut, there are fewer options for crafting a character with a specific role. This applies doubly for squad members, who's abilities are so meager they can't even reflect the portrayal of the characters.

And exploration is pretty much nonexistent. There's rarely anything worthwhile to find, and the few things that are scattered around are placed directly in your path so you can't possibly miss them. There are no rewards for going off the beaten path, mainly because there is nowhere else to go but the beaten path.

[ReDSH1FT]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Thanks, in part, to EAs purchasing of the rights to the ME series, the original RPG heavy interface with an action-based combat system was thrown away.  ME2 plays much more like a straightforward action-shooter with a slight bit of RPG flavoring in the "Squad Powers" screen and somewhat customizable armor.

Dialogue is really the only RPG element that was maintained from the 1st game.  There is basically no exploration, no combat-kill based XP system, and a (comparitively) primitive talent system (called "powers" in ME2).  IMO, if you took the graphics from the 2nd game (and the Shield/Barrier/Armor rock paper scissors system) and ported it into the1st game, you'd have the perfect game.

As it stands, the removal of the awesome talent system from ME1 (that gave a TON of leeway for detailed tailoring of your characters progression) makes the game MUCH LESS replayable.  I completed ME1 nine times... that's NINE TIMES.  I've completed ME2 3 times and probably won't revisit it for at least a year.

Having only 3 "powers" for my squadmates is a huge loss from ME1.  In fact, I returned to play another run through of ME1 after completing the sequel because I missed it so!

Are there any other fans of ME1 that feel the game lost it's RPG mystique that was so easy to love in the first game?

I'm a huge fan of ME1, but I think ME2 was better in every respect.

Please take your inane drivel to a JRPG forum, thanks.  This is America, we do things different.

WRPGs > JRPGs

[Sibbwolf]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

What it lost was all the depth Mass Effect had. It lost the sense of progression, it lost the sense of specialization, lost the sense of exploration. They may not have been implemented well enough in the first game, but they were there at least and now they're not. Simple as that.

You're wrong, but it's OK.

So where is the progression of your character? I didn't feel any more powerful at the end than I did at the beginning. Only a few choices of weaponry, only a few upgrades for them, only one suit of armor with modifications that add only minor bonuses. Your characters' skills don't affect his proficiency with weapons any more, so you're as good a shooter at the very beginning as you are at the very end. You have literally one stat to upgrade that improves your base stats, and you only upgrade it four times. You can max it out very early on, and then what?

It's meant to be a continuation of ME1, not a new game entirely. If you've already reached the pinnacle of combat effectiveness, how are you to improve?

That's not me saying I think there shouldn't be more character progression, that's me saying there is continuity to consider.

As a side, I'd love a few more levels on the skills to play about with.

[haberman13]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Thanks, in part, to EAs purchasing of the rights to the ME series, the original RPG heavy interface with an action-based combat system was thrown away.  ME2 plays much more like a straightforward action-shooter with a slight bit of RPG flavoring in the "Squad Powers" screen and somewhat customizable armor.

100% agree OP

Also, in the first 20 minutes of the game one of the NPCs keeps refering to the attackers as "monsters" - when I heard that I knew immediately what I was in for, a dumbed down version of the first game.  It felt really out of place, and just sounded like dialogue created for 13 year olds.  (dumb complaint, but that just occured to me as my first indication fo where ME2 was going)

[TheConfidenceMan]

Sibbwolf wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

What it lost was all the depth Mass Effect had. It lost the sense of progression, it lost the sense of specialization, lost the sense of exploration. They may not have been implemented well enough in the first game, but they were there at least and now they're not. Simple as that.

You're wrong, but it's OK.

So where is the progression of your character? I didn't feel any more powerful at the end than I did at the beginning. Only a few choices of weaponry, only a few upgrades for them, only one suit of armor with modifications that add only minor bonuses. Your characters' skills don't affect his proficiency with weapons any more, so you're as good a shooter at the very beginning as you are at the very end. You have literally one stat to upgrade that improves your base stats, and you only upgrade it four times. You can max it out very early on, and then what?

It's meant to be a continuation of ME1, not a new game entirely. If you've already reached the pinnacle of combat effectiveness, how are you to improve?

That's not me saying I think there shouldn't be more character progression, that's me saying there is continuity to consider.

As a side, I'd love a few more levels on the skills to play about with.

Alright, but I reached the pinnacle of biotic mastery in Mass Effect 1, yet my adept in ME2 has to start from scratch.

It had nothing to do with continuity and everything to do with making a more mainstream, casual-friendly shooter.

[AuraofMana]

Before you go into a ****ing rant, do you actually understand what RPG is? Can you list sufficient reason as to why ME2 is NOT a RPG?

Do come back after you understand how much of a retard you are when you are complaining about things you don't understand.

No seriously, shut the **** up already. Understand what RPG means before you **** about it.

[bjdbwea]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Mass Effect 3: BRING BACK THE RPG!

This. Are you listening, BioWare? Or only when the "wishes of the community" lead to less work for you, like in cutting things out?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 février 2010 - 05:21 .

[Valmy]

wrdnshprd wrote...

you can customize your squadmates armor (and an alternate costume does not count)?
you had more than 3 weapons to choose from for each type (heavy weapons excluded)?
there are paragon and renegade skills in the level up tree?
the skill trees had more than 4 dots per skill?

Well everybody ended up with Colossus X by the end and it was a matter of finding better armor not customizing it, because you couldn't customize it...except for the mods.  I would like for them to bring back a mod kind of system, that is more meaningful than what they left in.

Um...all the weapons in ME1 worked exactly the same.  There was no difference between one assault rife and another besides the fact that one simply had better stats.  Is that really a different weapon?  Because the different assualt rifles in ME2 actually worked a little differently...as assault rifles.

The Paragon and Renegade skills were simply made part of the karma system, they still exist.  Not sure I think that is good but really you would be nuts to not invest skill points in that area...however it does remove the option to ignore those skills and dump everything in weapon skills.

Um...there were only four levels of the skills.  You had the original skill and three upgrades in ME1 as you went along the track.  It is the same in ME2 only a bit more expensive.  I would like to see more skills per character in the future and too many characters had throw/warp.  Still depth =  more dots now?  Artificial depth maybe.

A huge problem the armor and weapon modding had in the first game was it was simply broken and unbalanced and made it far too easy to make the game trivial by making super combinations.  I am glad nothing is so broken in ME2.  That is an improvement...but adding back the customization now and making it balanced would be a positive step forward.

Modifié par Valmy, 11 février 2010 - 05:24 .

[Valmy]

bjdbwea wrote...

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Mass Effect 3: BRING BACK THE RPG!

This. Are you listening, BioWare? Or only when the "wishes of the community" lead to less work for you, like in cutting things out?

I hear insulting people by calling them names and attacking their character is a great way to get them to do what you want.

[jpetrey123]

.....nuff said nothing to see here move along....go play D&D if you want to play an old school RPG. games have to continue to change and evolve overtime to stay fresh. if we had dragon age: in space. it would not be near as good as ME is.

[jpetrey123]

Valmy wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Mass Effect 3: BRING BACK THE RPG!

This. Are you listening, BioWare? Or only when the "wishes of the community" lead to less work for you, like in cutting things out?

I hear insulting people by calling them names and attacking their character is a great way to get them to do what you want.

lol this

[ReDSH1FT]

AuraofMana wrote...

Before you go into a ****ing rant, do you actually understand what RPG is? Can you list sufficient reason as to why ME2 is NOT a RPG?
Do come back after you understand how much of a retard you are when you are complaining about things you don't understand.
No seriously, shut the **** up already. Understand what RPG means before you **** about it.

This.

So tired of all these japanophiles coming in here and moaning that BIOWARE IS SELLING OUT TO EA BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN RPG ANYMORE HURRRR DURRRRP.

Idiots pervade this forum more than the WoW boards..

[Solmenir]

Well, it depends what you consider as RPG. For me, the most important part of an RPG is the story, and your possible choices in the story. Also, building a character is part of it, though much less important. In ME2 you got a great story, and also 6 different, well designed classes - what else do you want? Personally, I don't care whenever you get xp from kills, or only from mission, and I'm really glad that Bioware got rid that terrible Mako exploration part. In my opinion, making character building simpler and leaving out "exploreing" and kill based xp doesn't make it any worse than ME1.

[Teredan]

i have to agree, although i enjoyed mass effect 2 massivly

i like to have more rpg elements back for part three that made part one so great.

this includes the costumization aspect. It's not that the mass effect 2's handling of armor and weapons is bad. it's just not enough to satisfy

[newcomplex]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

AuraofMana wrote...

Before you go into a ****ing rant, do you actually understand what RPG is? Can you list sufficient reason as to why ME2 is NOT a RPG?
Do come back after you understand how much of a retard you are when you are complaining about things you don't understand.
No seriously, shut the **** up already. Understand what RPG means before you **** about it.

This.

So tired of all these japanophiles coming in here and moaning that BIOWARE IS SELLING OUT TO EA BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN RPG ANYMORE HURRRR DURRRRP.

Idiots pervade this forum more than the WoW boards..

Not possible, sorry.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 11 février 2010 - 05:39 .

[Paperghost]

haberman13 wrote...Also, in the first 20 minutes of the game one of the NPCs keeps refering to the attackers as "monsters" - when I heard that I knew immediately what I was in for, a dumbed down
version of the first game.  It felt really out of place, and just
sounded like dialogue created for 13 year olds.  (dumb complaint, but
that just occured to me as my first indication fo where ME2 was going)

you mean the character so freaked out of his mind he can barely talk coherently? What else is he going to call them?

TheConfidenceMan wrote...Alright, but I reached the pinnacle of
biotic mastery in Mass Effect 1, yet my adept in ME2 has to start from
scratch.

It had nothing to do with continuity and everything to do with making a more mainstream, casual-friendly shooter.

your "reaching biotic mastery" is just some stat points assigned to your character in the game mechanics, like every other gaming convention that we accept without breaking the fourth wall. you think shepard says to himself "wait, I just picked up 100XP for killing that monster" or does a breakdance when he levels up to 60 even though the only person aware of the artificial levelling construct underpinning the game would be you and not him?

or that the team in ME2 is wondering why they're all on shared cooldown instead of "those pesky ME1 guys who could spam 10 skills in 5 seconds"? might as well question whether Soap Mc Tavish is aware of his regenerating health bar in MW2. It's a game mechanic tied to stats, it means little in terms of character progression or the reality of the drama playing out in front of you.

Yes, you start again at Level 1. Because its a game and you're being given some sense of progression because that's how a game works. You could start at level 60 if you want and have the ability to turn entire platoons into dust, but it wouldn't be much of a game then would it?

Modifié par Paperghost, 11 février 2010 - 05:45 .

[wrdnshprd]

@Crawling_Chaos and Valmy..



points taken on all counts. looking at it from your guys perspective, i actually agree for the most part. The only thing that remains is that you should still have the ability to customize your squads armor the same way you can shephard. that to me, is where they need to go for ME3.



also, regarding weapons, when im playing ME2, it still feels a bit underwhelming to see three pistols/shotguns/assault rifles in my weapon locker. when playing ME1 i had a bunch to choose from. did i want a gun with more accuracy and less damage or vise versa? and lets be strait.. there were a TON of weapon level X items to choose from, and each had varying stats regarding accuracy, damage, etc. sure, if i wanted to min/max my characters, i chose the spectre weapons.. but i dont always play like that. and i guess thats the point.. i had that CHOICE.. in ME2, not so much.

[Phaedra Sanguine]

My god, I am so sick of the idiots out here. RPG DOES NOT MEAN large inventories and loot farming.



GET



A



GRIP

[wrdnshprd]

Paxcorpus wrote...

My god, I am so sick of the idiots out here. RPG DOES NOT MEAN large inventories and loot farming.

GET

A

GRIP

i think the more accurate statement is.. YOUR definition of RPG does not constitute large inventories and loot farming..

tradition would dictate otherwise.

[Br0th3rGr1mm]

If you truely disect the RPG aspects of ME1, you will find that it is much closer to a JRPG (with a few western RPG aspects added) than any kind of open sandbox type of RPG. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but far to many "hardcore" RPG fans of ME1 don't realize that they are defending a slightly tweaked Final Fantasy genre RPG and it makes me chuckle a bit.

BTW, I liked both games and they each have thier strengths and weaknesses. Carry on.

I'm also intelligent enough to know that trying to project my desires on what Bioware (or the EVIL EA) does with the franchise by ranting on a forum is a waste of time.  They will do what they want to and the fans will either buy it or they won't.

wrdnshprd wrote...

tradition would dictate otherwise.

At what point do you stop letting a tradition get in the way of your enjoyment?  A preconcieved idea of what something SHOULD be can ruin just about anything if you let it.

Modifié par Br0th3rGr1mm, 11 février 2010 - 05:57 .