212 réponses à ce sujet

[Canez fan 1988]

I don't really care if it's an RPG or not. It's still one of the best games i've ever played and unless they really f up ME3 I'm gonna love that game too.

Modifié par Canez fan 1988, 12 février 2010 - 01:15 .

[Amikae]

yoomazir wrote...

Amikae wrote...

yoomazir wrote...

I can only agree with TC, I don't have big hopes to see ME3 with more rpg content like ME1 but I think I' ve found ME1 spiritual successor in Obsidian videogame Alpha Protocol.

Define "RPG content". Because as far as im aware of Mass Effect 2 has the best roleplaying there is. And i mean quality not quantity like in DAO where you have 30 hours of dialog 90% of which is irrelevant.

Get your facts straight. RPG=roleplaying. Dont whine about old and broken mechanics.

ME2 best roleplaying? please
quatlity dialog that is your rpg definition? if so I would suggest you to go to a theater and not playing videogames.

The best dialog, the best characters, the best history, the best universe = the best RPG. Not hoarding experience and items like a madman. That never was and never will be the definition of RPG. Its pretty sad some people will never get over the old days. Why cant you understand that you cant go forever with no progress and innovation? RPG's cant always follow the Baldurs Gate/Dragon Age formula. Mass Effect is different and better(for me).

[yoomazir]

Amikae wrote...

yoomazir wrote...

Amikae wrote...

yoomazir wrote...

I can only agree with TC, I don't have big hopes to see ME3 with more rpg content like ME1 but I think I' ve found ME1 spiritual successor in Obsidian videogame Alpha Protocol.

Define "RPG content". Because as far as im aware of Mass Effect 2 has the best roleplaying there is. And i mean quality not quantity like in DAO where you have 30 hours of dialog 90% of which is irrelevant.

Get your facts straight. RPG=roleplaying. Dont whine about old and broken mechanics.

ME2 best roleplaying? please
quatlity dialog that is your rpg definition? if so I would suggest you to go to a theater and not playing videogames.

The best dialog, the best characters, the best history, the best universe = the best RPG. Not hoarding experience and items like a madman. That never was and never will be the definition of RPG. Its pretty sad some people will never get over the old days. Why cant you understand that you cant go forever with no progress and innovation? RPG's cant always follow the Baldurs Gate/Dragon Age formula. Mass Effect is different and better(for me).

the best universe? I agree,but saying that xp and items aren't part of any rpg is plain stupid,in fact your basically saying that previous Bioware games aren't rpg,yet they are the ones who made games like NVWN where items was part of succeding in a game and gave you a sense of accomplishment for yourself and your team.

I'm not atlking about a Diablo kind of looting,but I can assure there's nothing more rewarding seeing Wrex with the best krogan armor available in the game or when you traveled landscapes and looking at the different skies.

This game is  straight  foward shooter in corridors,hell they even throw you "results and the end of each mission.
For me it feels more of a arcade game where you need to make the best score.That is not rpg,and coming from Bioware that is an insult.

[Mass_Casualty]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Mass_Casualty wrote...

@Flintlock Jazz:

You're arguing semantics. And your semantics aren't really supportable. We both agree there were NOT dialogue options in earlier RPGs (whatever the reasons). I LIKE the dialogue options. That isn't part of my discussion.

Please provide a plethora of examples on the "different types of RPG". I know there are different types. But where are the RPGs with no equipment menu, no REAL xp system, limited "magic or powers" (2-3 to a squadmate), and a run-and-gun playstyle?

Your point is just a statement of semantics and has not much to do with the original point.

No it's not, and I explained why in my earlier posts if you had taken the time to read them.  CRPGs are based on the tabletop RPGs, maybe you should look them up instead of relying on your 30 year experience with a limited range of RPGs, especially since your experience seems limited to the console RPGs from Japan.  As to the dialogue, that is considered one of the main parts of many RPGs, and it was you who brought it up trying to discredit it, I just pointed out that it was due to lack of resources that they did not include it in early CRPGs.

You may state that my point is semantics, but that does not make it true, I have explained my reasoning, so please explain how it is semantics.

It seems like you're real attached to the whole JRPG / CRPG thing, so for your sake, I'll answer this mostly excessive, off-topic subject.

I had no comments on CRPGs or Tabletop.  This is a video game.  I'm referring to XBOX 360, therefore, it is a console video game.  A console video game that self-states it's genre as RPG/3rd person shooter.  The dialogue had basically NOTHING TO DO with my original post and the intention of this entire thread.

It doesn't matter WHY there was barely any dialogue options in earlier RPGs, the statement was that it wasn't there.  We both agree on this.  Earlier video-game RPGs don't have many dialogue options if any.  Agreed.  Good.  It doesn't matter why.  That's not the point of this thread.  THAT is why it is semantics.  You've even ventured into discussing table top RPGs.  This is a video game.  Part of a multi-billion dollar (and growing) industry which utilizes genres to hint at the gameplay interface and style.  Talking about D & D in 1970 (that's an RPG) has zilch to do with discussing Mass Effect now.

The symantecs is that you're getting hung up on labels.  I'm discussing interface, game play, and game content.  You're hung up on the dialogue sub-thread that started for no real reason.  That's why I'm saying it's semantics.  Let's stick to the original point, please.  Thanks a bunch.

@Yoomazir:
Totally agree.  Couldn't have said it more succinctly.  Storyline, dialogue, and characters are present in just about EVERY game that is produced currently.  I'm not sure there are many 3D, console games that don't have a heavy amount of all 3.  Some do a better job of this (like Mass Effect and Halo).

However, everyone is getting real hung up on the label RPG.  If that's what's stopping the discussion, forget the label.  Focus on the gameplay.  I had a real extensive post on page 6 that detailed each point I'm trying to make here.  If great characters, universe, storyline, and dialogue make up an RPG, then Halo is an RPG.  GTA is roleplaying.  COD is roleplaying.  You play a character, right?  He's got a name.  There are other named characters with personality.  There's a storyline.  There's dialogue.

So throw the label out the window.  It's the gameplay and interface I'm referring to.

Modifié par Mass_Casualty, 12 février 2010 - 01:29 .

[EternalWolfe]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Alright, a lot to respond to.

1) Exploration: you don't fix something that is only slightly broke by eliminating it. If you think that spending 10 minutes per planet using that scanner is better, that's your opinion, however, it is definitely not any less mundane than driving around a landscape. An easy fix would be to have random mercs/pirates/slavers appear on the planets. Also, in ME1, you couldn't land on a planet unless there was a mission or assignment associated with it so it isn't like there was nothing to do. Again, the exploration was completely removed instead of fixed. With 2 discs, they could easily have added a bit more variety to the planetside bunkers and some random enemy scripts. Removal isn't a real solution, it's a lazy man's solution. Commence Bioware defense tactics.

2) Experience System: For those of you who think this game is still an RPG, go revisit Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, and even Playstation 1. After 3 decades of playing RPG video games, i can assure you, this is not an RPG. It is an action game with some little RPG elements like "experience points" and customizable armor mixed in. As to the posters who said that this is simply an upgraded version of ME1's kill-based xp system, you are a little confused. The ME2 system would be more efficient if they cut out XP entirely and simply allowed you to choose power promotions at the end of each mission. That's basically what's happening. Once in a while on higher levels, you might get 2 groups of power-points. Other than that, XP is basically a facade to keep the "RPG" element. Finally, in ME1, you had the option of hopping out of the tank to fight enemies (like Colossus and Armatures) on foot for extra experience points and there were Merc/Geth groups on some explorable planets to increase your experience. ME2 is run and gun PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

3) RPGs are generally much more involved in character development both with dialogue AND actual gameplay. Not so much in ME2 as all your squadmates will have the same "promotions" and "powers" in every single playthrough. There isn't very much leeway at all for custom tailoring them. In ME1, you could tailor EACH squadmate differently in every playthrough. Alenko could serve 3-4 different roles (Bio-heavy, Tech-heavy, First-Aid Heavy, or Balanced) and each Talent could be increased in strength incrementally. In ME2 it's oversimplified. Again, ME2 is an ACTION SHOOTER with a couple RPG elements. You can argue till your blue in the face, but it won't change the game into an RPG.

4) The equipment: Someone here said that the equipment menu in ME1 was "horrible". Again, this shows the bias towards Action-Shooter heavy preferences over RPG elements. The equipment screen in ME1 allowed you to not only choose between more accurate weapons or more powerful weapons, but they also allowed you to mix and match different weapon upgrades and ammo types. Once again, the result is only MORE customization abilities and detailed character tailoring. However, once you can buy the Spectre gear, there is little else you need until getting to the next level of Spectre gear (X). This is simply an oversight in design, NOT A FLAW. You don't remove something like this because of a simple number-based design oversight. Simply make more weapons VIABLE alongside Spectre gear with different strengths (IE a much higher strength weapon with less accuracy).

5) Last one - the Upgrade system: ME2's upgrade system is different. I still like it, but it remains less of an RPG style feel to it (which was my original point). I prefer to be able to mix and match different upgrades to guns in the field and without needing to grab resources for it. Why not just buy the actual upgrade in a store instead of just the plans? Either way would work, but they should not have done away with such intensely customizable systems as the Equipment/Upgrade from ME1. There were a lot of really cool and different upgrades once you got into the higher levels in ME1 which are not present in ME2.

Finally, ME2 is an obvious Run-and-Gun game no matter what genre you use to describe it. Complete mission, choose power promotions, go to the Tech lab for upgrades. Rinse repeat.

I would like to point out that I THOROUGHLY enjoyed ME2. It's a great game. It's a great ACTION SHOOTER game. If you insist that it is an RPG, then it is a subpar,not-so-great RPG in that it lacks many factors that make an RPG outstanding. Those features are heavily present in ME1. That's all I gots to say.


EDIT: Oh, and to those posters who are upset (for some juvenile reason) that the title of the thread has "ME3" in it, the thread really has NOTHING TO DO WITH ME3.  It was to point out the dropping of RPG elements in ME2. Perhaps YOU should be the one reading before posting.

1.  Ok, people need to stop seeing scanning as the replacement for the mako.  N7 missions replaced the Mako missions, scanning replaced survaying.  And I think the Hammerhead was originally supposed to be put in, as the replacement for the Mako.  I do hope it gives us more explorable enviroments though.

2.  Not all RPGs are about 'kill everything to gain xp'.  Some RPGs only give xp at quest(mission) completion or at the end of a session.  And you don't always boost stats to these huge numbers, some give you access to new passive and active skills.  ME2 is light on the RPG side, but no 'kill for xp' isn't the reason.

3.  I can only agree with you here, and I think ME3 should move back this way, with teammates feeling like full on teammates.

4.  Ok, no.  ME1's problem wasn't that Spectre gear was god, it was that you got tons of junk items with no use at all, which only got turned into credits and omni-gel, which you would need neither of eventually, because you have so much.  ME2's inventory is better implemented, it is, however, sparse as hell, and we need more choices.  Choices, not 'Widox V and Widow VI'.  Same goes for armor, system is better, needs more parts.

5.  This I agree with.

Now then, for my final point: ME was  never supposed to be a RPG, it was supposed to be a hybrid.  I do agree, ME2 is less of a 'classic' RPG then ME1 is.  I think they need to aim for the middle of the two for ME3.  That is all.

[Amikae]

yoomazir wrote...

Amikae wrote...

yoomazir wrote...

Amikae wrote...

yoomazir wrote...

I can only agree with TC, I don't have big hopes to see ME3 with more rpg content like ME1 but I think I' ve found ME1 spiritual successor in Obsidian videogame Alpha Protocol.

Define "RPG content". Because as far as im aware of Mass Effect 2 has the best roleplaying there is. And i mean quality not quantity like in DAO where you have 30 hours of dialog 90% of which is irrelevant.

Get your facts straight. RPG=roleplaying. Dont whine about old and broken mechanics.

ME2 best roleplaying? please
quatlity dialog that is your rpg definition? if so I would suggest you to go to a theater and not playing videogames.

The best dialog, the best characters, the best history, the best universe = the best RPG. Not hoarding experience and items like a madman. That never was and never will be the definition of RPG. Its pretty sad some people will never get over the old days. Why cant you understand that you cant go forever with no progress and innovation? RPG's cant always follow the Baldurs Gate/Dragon Age formula. Mass Effect is different and better(for me).

the best universe? I agree,but saying that xp and items aren't part of any rpg is plain stupid,in fact your basically saying that previous Bioware games aren't rpg,yet they are the ones who made games like NVWN where items was part of succeding in a game and gave you a sense of accomplishment for yourself and your team.

I'm not atlking about a Diablo kind of looting,but I can assure there's nothing more rewarding seeing Wrex with the best krogan armor available in the game or when you traveled landscapes and looking at the different skies.

This game is  straight  foward shooter in corridors,hell they even throw you "results and the end of each mission.
For me it feels more of a arcade game where you need to make the best score.That is not rpg,and coming from Bioware that is an insult.

Im not saying previous BioWare games aren't rpg's. Im saying that it was not the looting that defined them. And yeah while it was fun being godlike in NWN, it was fun for a while.

Im not saying that ME2 doesnt have any flaws. Im saying that the current system works well. And you dont need to add exp or loot to achieve more variety. The current system is perfectly capable to allow us to customize our companions armors. Which means they can improve in ME3. They can add armor customisation for companions and set of armors that we can find troughout the game but not in the same way it was in ME1 where you hoard gear. Gear should be important. It should be hard to get, probably researched. But i agree that i would love them to improve in that aspect. Also a bit more variety with weapons.

I would hate for them to ruin what they have build in ME2. It would be much better to improve on that and everyone will get what they want.

[Paperghost]

You know what, I don't even know if the person who said this supports or rejects the notion that this game is or isn't an RPG so don't take this the wrong way but I feel the need to flag this again as it keeps popping up here:

A console video game that self-states it's genre as RPG/3rd person shooter.

This game does not mention on the disc, the box or the instructions that it is an rpg. or a shooter, for that matter. and the original game doesn't do this either.



also, to the people that keep saying "you can't have an RPG without XP, its madness!" or whatever: worth bearing in mind that fable 3 just got detailed, it IS being billed as an "rpg" and it is ditching the tired, tired XP mechanic.



my goodness, it's almost like bioware are ahead of the curve on this one.

[Mass_Casualty]

I agree there was too much "junk" items in the original. AGAIN, i can't stress this enough... you DON'T FIX something by ELIMINATING IT. Less "junk" items, the insertion of special items that have interesting effects/stats, and elimination of "omni-gel" is not only easier on the programming restructuring, but also maintains the "find items" element that is more "RPG-ish" in video game terms.



Quest ending-xp gaining is useless. Just allow promotion of powers post-mission and eliminate points altogether. Again, classic signs of action/run-and-gun.



ME wasn't supposed to be an RPG, but I don't think it was supposed to be a run-and-gun either.

[Mass_Casualty]

I agree there was too much "junk" items in the original. AGAIN, i can't stress this enough... you DON'T FIX something by ELIMINATING IT. Less "junk" items, the insertion of special items that have interesting effects/stats, and elimination of "omni-gel" is not only easier on the programming restructuring, but also maintains the "find items" element that is more "RPG-ish" in video game terms.



Quest ending-xp gaining is useless. Just allow promotion of powers post-mission and eliminate points altogether. Again, classic signs of action/run-and-gun.



ME wasn't supposed to be an RPG, but I don't think it was supposed to be a run-and-gun either.

[Allattar1]

Talking about pen and paper rpgs and DnD has everything to do with this discussion. It is where the initial rpgs came from.



RPG means roleplaying, it doesn't mean anything about the mechanics of the game beihnd it. Roleplaying does not need to involve levels, inventory or any of those other game mechanics at all.



Japanese RPGs are munchkin heavy, they have this heavy reward system to entice players in. The earliest RPGs the reward system was such a major part of the game becuase of the limited opportunities of those systems.



I have seen several rpgs that try and break away from the old mold and the do quite well for it. A genre does not have to stick exactly to the unwritten genre categorizations. Doing that just turns out the same old stuff time and time again.



Trying to think of those games, last one I played was Risen, still had inventory and levels, but it was more action over than levels increase your power. They did, and certainly your ability was more important than levels until you started getting a lot higher in level.

There was the first person Might and Magic game as well, very decent too.



Why so hung up though on gameplay needing myriad skill choices and inventory.



Back to point, surely to make ME3 more RPG though there needs to be more of the interrupt system, more speech options, and the missions you run needs to be more open and less linear.



I cant help but think you ahve missed the point of rpg completely if your viewing rpg strictly as a game mechanic of inventory and levels.



Next you will tell me an MMO must have dice rolls, inventory, levels, crafting, and dodgy pvp.

[Allattar1]

I am still laughing though that it takes you ten minutes to scan a planet...

[SurfaceBeneath]

[FlintlockJazz]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Mass_Casualty wrote...

@Flintlock Jazz:

You're arguing semantics. And your semantics aren't really supportable. We both agree there were NOT dialogue options in earlier RPGs (whatever the reasons). I LIKE the dialogue options. That isn't part of my discussion.

Please provide a plethora of examples on the "different types of RPG". I know there are different types. But where are the RPGs with no equipment menu, no REAL xp system, limited "magic or powers" (2-3 to a squadmate), and a run-and-gun playstyle?

Your point is just a statement of semantics and has not much to do with the original point.

No it's not, and I explained why in my earlier posts if you had taken the time to read them.  CRPGs are based on the tabletop RPGs, maybe you should look them up instead of relying on your 30 year experience with a limited range of RPGs, especially since your experience seems limited to the console RPGs from Japan.  As to the dialogue, that is considered one of the main parts of many RPGs, and it was you who brought it up trying to discredit it, I just pointed out that it was due to lack of resources that they did not include it in early CRPGs.

You may state that my point is semantics, but that does not make it true, I have explained my reasoning, so please explain how it is semantics.

It seems like you're real attached to the whole JRPG / CRPG thing, so for your sake, I'll answer this mostly excessive, off-topic subject.

I had no comments on CRPGs or Tabletop.  This is a video game.  I'm referring to XBOX 360, therefore, it is a console video game.  A console video game that self-states it's genre as RPG/3rd person shooter.  The dialogue had basically NOTHING TO DO with my original post and the intention of this entire thread.

It doesn't matter WHY there was barely any dialogue options in earlier RPGs, the statement was that it wasn't there.  We both agree on this.  Earlier video-game RPGs don't have many dialogue options if any.  Agreed.  Good.  It doesn't matter why.  That's not the point of this thread.  THAT is why it is semantics.  You've even ventured into discussing table top RPGs.  This is a video game.  Part of a multi-billion dollar (and growing) industry which utilizes genres to hint at the gameplay interface and style.  Talking about D & D in 1970 (that's an RPG) has zilch to do with discussing Mass Effect now.

The symantecs is that you're getting hung up on labels.  I'm discussing interface, game play, and game content.  You're hung up on the dialogue sub-thread that started for no real reason.  That's why I'm saying it's semantics.  Let's stick to the original point, please.  Thanks a bunch.

@Yoomazir:
Totally agree.  Couldn't have said it more succinctly.  Storyline, dialogue, and characters are present in just about EVERY game that is produced currently.  I'm not sure there are many 3D, console games that don't have a heavy amount of all 3.  Some do a better job of this (like Mass Effect and Halo).

However, everyone is getting real hung up on the label RPG.  If that's what's stopping the discussion, forget the label.  Focus on the gameplay.  I had a real extensive post on page 6 that detailed each point I'm trying to make here.  If great characters, universe, storyline, and dialogue make up an RPG, then Halo is an RPG.  GTA is roleplaying.  COD is roleplaying.  You play a character, right?  He's got a name.  There are other named characters with personality.  There's a storyline.  There's dialogue.

So throw the label out the window.  It's the gameplay and interface I'm referring to.

So you're not discussing whether this is an RPG or not?  Good, glad we got that settled, ME2 is an RPG then.

FACT:  RPG includes tabletop, it is part of the genre and cRPGs are intended to simulate them, that is why they are included.
FACT:  There are many different types of RPGs, try Vampire: the Masquerade Bloodlines for one that is vastly different yet is still a RPG, or Deus Ex, or any number of different other games.
FACT:  There were dialogue in many early RPGs, just not as well developed, it has since been developed and gained a stronger focus in cRPGs, so they are more able to properly simulate RPGs.
FACT:  ME2 has stats and a inventory, whether or not they are to your liking does not change this fact.
FACT:  A roleplay game is defined for some by how much control over the creation and control of said character, which is why many people do not consider JRPGs proper RPGs since you have no control over the choices made by said character, yet they are still classed as RPGs, hence showing the immense variation in RPGs and those who play them.

You may not like the stats and inventory in ME2, fair enough complain about that, but don't claim that a fish is not a fish, because it just invalidates the real concerns.

[Matshelge]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
So you're not discussing whether this is an RPG or not?  Good, glad we got that settled, ME2 is an RPG then.

FACT:  RPG includes tabletop, it is part of the genre and cRPGs are intended to simulate them, that is why they are included.
FACT:  There are many different types of RPGs, try Vampire: the Masquerade Bloodlines for one that is vastly different yet is still a RPG, or Deus Ex, or any number of different other games.
FACT:  There were dialogue in many early RPGs, just not as well developed, it has since been developed and gained a stronger focus in cRPGs, so they are more able to properly simulate RPGs.
FACT:  ME2 has stats and a inventory, whether or not they are to your liking does not change this fact.
FACT:  A roleplay game is defined for some by how much control over the creation and control of said character, which is why many people do not consider JRPGs proper RPGs since you have no control over the choices made by said character, yet they are still classed as RPGs, hence showing the immense variation in RPGs and those who play them.

You may not like the stats and inventory in ME2, fair enough complain about that, but don't claim that a fish is not a fish, because it just invalidates the real concerns.

Yes! Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines is without a doubt one of the best RPGs ever made, and it shares a bunch of traits with ME2.

[yoomazir]

"FACT: ME2 has stats and a inventory, whether or not they are to your liking does not change this fact."



you know,it's nice bringing game like Vampire,but honetly it just hurts your arguments.

And the inventory thing? you know I was playing Army of Two and I've found I could switch between 3 weapons!!!!! now that's inventory allright...

[bjdbwea]

Why do you even care if it's an RPG or not? Some people like a game void of inventory, character progression and meaningful classes, attributes, skills, and too much thinking. So there you have it. Enjoy. Why do you care if it's called an RPG or not? Does it sound cool to be a "roleplayer", or what?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 12 février 2010 - 02:14 .

[Allattar1]

How does Vampire the masquerade hurt his argument?



I have even seen inventory in RTS games, doesn't mean all RTS games must have inventory.

[uzivatel]

I dont think going back to ME1 system is an option as ME2 feels improved in most ways.

Modifié par uzivatel, 12 février 2010 - 02:46 .

[obie191970]

Why can't everyone admit that both ME1 and ME2 have some serious flaws to them. Yet, if you take them on face value and try not to pigeon-hole them into this or that genre, they are both fantastic games.



And someone above mentioned the ME2 is a shooter in corridors - How is that any different from the combat in ME1?

[Revan312]

Matshelge wrote...

Yes! Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines is without a doubt one of the best RPGs ever made, and it shares a bunch of traits with ME2.

What traits does VMB share with ME2?  The inventory was an actual inventory, with varying plot items etc. 

There was 7 different (and I mean super different) clans, each was treated completely distinctly from one another by nearly all the NPC's.. and there was what... like 21 skills with 4 points each to level up and you couldn't even come close to maxing even half of them, that doesn't include the 3 disciplines for each clan with 4 levels to each of those.

The dialogue was extremely well done and varied, leading to a multitude of different situations that could arise. Besides the 3-4 normal dialogue choices you had intimidate/persuasion/seduction/dominate dialogue choices.

The story itself actually evolved based on your decisions which lead to something like 6 completely seperate endings.  Each encounter with an individual could go into an array of different directions.

You had to balance your humanity so as not to become a crazed lunatic that frenzied at the drop of a pin, etc etc  It really doesn't have much in common with ME2 and saying so tarnishes VMB's name.

Even though I liked ME2 (minus the last boss ) VMB was 10 times the game imo.  It had the best dialogue/story/choices of any RPG I've ever played and had a cast of truly exciting and dynamic characters.  ME2 is a watered down shooter with a story that you can experiance in two different ways *yawn*  It was fun for the little time it held my interest, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking it was anywhere NEAR VMB's level of detail.

[The Siff Lord]

I agree with the OP. This is exactly how I feel about it. Based on my experience with ME1, I pre-ordered ME2 expecting similar gameplay and mechanics. And instead, what I got was now more or less a third person shooter.



I'm not saying ME2 isn't a good game. It's fun, has great visuals and dialogue, and there are a lot of things I like about it (especially the by-passing mini game). But it is definetly NOT the game I was expecting.



And if I had known it was a shooter, I'm sure I still would have bought it eventually. I just wouldn't have pre-ordered it, I'd have waited for the price to drop and saved myself $30



I would like to stress the point. The ONLY reason I pre-ordered ME2 was because of how much I enjoyed the original Mass Effect, and I was expecting it to have similar gameplay and mechanics. Mass Effect 2 IS a good game and I like it, but it IS NOT the game I was expecting or looking forward to for so long. And based on this experience, I will NOT be pre-ordering ME3.

[Amikae]

Revan312 wrote...

Matshelge wrote...

Yes! Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines is without a doubt one of the best RPGs ever made, and it shares a bunch of traits with ME2.

Even though I liked ME2 (minus the last boss ) VMB was 10 times the game imo.  It had the best dialogue/story/choices of any RPG I've ever played and had a cast of truly exciting and dynamic characters.  ME2 is a watered down shooter with a story that you can experiance in two different ways *yawn*  It was fun for the little time it held my interest, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking it was anywhere NEAR VMB's level of detail.

Thats just your opinion. I dont think many people will share it though.

[Hipno]

they could leave the action the way it is and adding the previous RPG elements

[Sibbwolf]

bjdbwea wrote...

Some people like a game void ... and too much thinking.

And this is different from ME1... how?

The extent of thinking in ME1 was pretty much limited to "is 2 greater than 1". No consideration to weapon types, tactics, etc. And despite some people's belief, both games are equally linear, in both games the outcome is obvious..

The "ME2 was dumbed down" argument is a joke.

[Revan312]

Amikae wrote...

Thats just your opinion. I dont think many people will share it though.

It being the best RPG I've played ya, that's an opinion, it having a ton more detail is a fact, whether people agree with it being good or not..  VMB had a ton more character customization, as well as having a bunch more of options concerning the story, period.