61 réponses à ce sujet

[MPaBkaTa123]

Mendelevosa wrote...

Why does the genre of ME and ME2 matter? A game is a game. I could care less if Mass Effect was an RPG, FPS, or Sports game. As long as the game is good, then that's all that matters to me.

If you have read the other 10 billion topics about this you would now that any game produced by Bioware is made or broken by its RPG status regardless of actual entertainment provided because Bioware are only allowed to create RPGs and nothing else.

[VehementAbyss]

Mass Effect 1 was clearly a card battle game.

[MPaBkaTa123]

VehementAbyss wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was clearly a card battle game.

Mass Effect 3 will be a puzzle game.

[VehementAbyss]

MPaBkaTa123 wrote...

VehementAbyss wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was clearly a card battle game.

Mass Effect 3 will be a puzzle game.

OOOOOHHHHHH like tetris but with renegade interupts.

Modifié par VehementAbyss, 16 février 2010 - 07:16 .

[MPaBkaTa123]

VehementAbyss wrote...

MPaBkaTa123 wrote...

VehementAbyss wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was clearly a card battle game.

Mass Effect 3 will be a puzzle game.

OOOOOHHHHHH like tetris but with renegade interupts.

Yes you will be able to talk to different aliens and challenge them to different games if you lose you get  a renegade interrupt to shoot them in the face. If they lose you have a paragon interrupt to call their mommy to comfort them.

Modifié par MPaBkaTa123, 16 février 2010 - 07:18 .

[ZeroXraven]

Mass Effect 2 is an AMAZING game. It's everything the first should have been. I agree however that ME2 needed more inventory, but still the overall quality and feel of it was astounding. The atmosphere, level design, characters, music, amazing framerate, graphics, story, and the importing of your previous shepard make it wayyyy better than the first. I even loved the armor custimization and having your own room even though they needed more options to customize. Also, all these people claiming other people are idiots or dumb for loving the sequel more than the first are ****s. We have oppinions too, so get over it. Don't even act like your oppinion is more important than anyone elses morons...

[Space Shot]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

*sighs*

Yes. Why? It focused more on plot as compared to its sequel. The story as a whole suffered because of more emphasis on combat to cater to fans of 'SPLOSHUNS.

There's a difference between your focus and actual quality.  With focus, it is relatively distributed to what you find interesting or appealing and so the amount of focus for any given thing is largely dependent on what else you are experiencing.  Now, for ME1, all you had to focus on was the plot because the combat and game mechanics were weak for a shooter and an RPG respectively.  For ME2, the shooter side has been brought up to at least par with even a dedicated TPS and the RPG elements are actually effective.   So, naturally you aren't going to be as focused on the plot in ME2 as you were in ME1 because there are other aspects of the game that compete for the focus that you used to pay to the plot and the plot alone.  That isn't to say that the plot is weaker, though.  There's just more to enjoy now than just a story.

Modifié par Space Shot, 16 février 2010 - 07:45 .

[lukandroll]

MPaBkaTa123 wrote...

VehementAbyss wrote...

MPaBkaTa123 wrote...

VehementAbyss wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was clearly a card battle game.

Mass Effect 3 will be a puzzle game.

OOOOOHHHHHH like tetris but with renegade interupts.

Yes you will be able to talk to different aliens and challenge them to different games if you lose you get  a renegade interrupt to shoot them in the face. If they lose you have a paragon interrupt to call their mommy to comfort them.

Well in ME2 you already got the blocks and boulders (you known those who appear magicaly on the floor and provide cover)
We need more shapes tho, a tetris with only retangles is boring

[MPaBkaTa123]

True luka but can you push the rectangles, I think not. Shepard should climb up a cliff near these battlegrounds and challenge the others into games of tetris. If the other guy wins your team mates hidden behind him blow his brains out. Its a win win situation.

[Forest03]

Re: RPG vs FPS

Your disappointment seems
to stem mainly from the skill system and the main character's ability
to shape the world with the decisions he/she makes. I agree with on
that matter.

However, this entire trilogy was always meant to
incorporate elements of both FPS's and RPG's. It was never BioWare's
intention to fully incorporate every element that either genre offers.
The closest feasible category for this game, citing public opinion, is
RPG. Call it what you will - and interactive story is sufficient - but
don't let the technicalities detract from what is otherwise a good game.

Now, as far as the writing is concerned... I have serious issues with that.


Re: Writing, Character Integration, Plot Progression

First
of all, there are *fewer* plot elements in ME2 than there are in ME1.
When I say "plot", I refer to the main goal of defending against the
Reapers and perhaps destroying them. In ME2 you get a grocery list of
characters where 4 out of 11 have anything whatsoever to contribute to
gaining an advantage of the Reapers. More characters does not mean a
better story. Yes, there is a theme of loyalty and personal improvement
connecting all of them, but if there was any major plot, it was thinner
than the hairs on a Varren's butt.

Oh, wait... That's right. Varren have scales.

In
ME2, regardless of how game mechanics were improved and how well some
of the missions were designed, character immersion meant little to
nothing. We were encouraged to go through a boatload of pointless
loyalty quests that didn't do anything to get us to prepare for the
Reaper invasion. In fact, much of it was to prepare for a Suicide
Mission -- the very concept of which means that there is a great
potential for casualties, whereby the characters we had to babysit mean
little to the ME universe.

ME2 is a bridge to
ME3, nothing more. Its narratives were 80% dedicated to characters,
who, loyal or not, were insignificant cannon fodder. We could have
saved a lot of time just hiring a Merc army. It would have made little
difference to the outcome, and if most of them died, no one would care.

Only
Tali, Mordin, Legion, and Miranda have something significant to
contribute to the major elements outlying potential events in ME3.
Tali's research and involvement in the Geth-Quarian war, Legion's
reprogamming or destruction of the Heretics, Mordin's possible
continuation of Maelon's genophage cure, and Miranda's potential aid in
taking down Cerberus - these all have great ramifications. Everyone
else was just a time-sink.

In ME1, disregarding that stupid
Mako, nearly every mission-related world and character addition
propelled the main character forward in the quest to take down Saren
and Sovereign. Even if they had personal vendettas, their roles were
comprised of more than just a specialty role with a high casualty rate.
The very fact that BioWare took out 4 of them (Liara, Ashley, Kaidan,
Wrex) speaks volumes for their importance, not just fan favor.

At
any rate, the writers failed to implement any sense of progression in
ME2, whereas M1, however linear, compelled the player and placed them
in a role that meant something to the ME universe. If ME2 appears to be
an improvement over that aspect, it's an illusion. In the scope of the
ME game world, diverting our attentions with 8 (counting Miranda's)
irrelevant personal *assignments* (that's the category they really
should have been placed in) spread over the galaxy is not a good
substitute for a game that actually maintains its pursuit of the
primary objective for the majority of the missions.



Now, as far as the player's "role" in these objectives is concerned, be
it in the main plot or otherwise, there is certainly a lot of
participation - and varying opinions on whether or not it is worthy of
being a sequel. Regardless, it allows for at least a measure of
influence by the player, the greater of which is in ME2 despite it
being very thinly interwoven.

Although it excels in what it has
to offer, ME2 in no way excels in its narrative, and is certainly not
superior to ME1. ME2 is a very short narrative bridge, little else. Was
it worth crossing? We'll find out in a year or so.

Modifié par Forest03, 16 février 2010 - 08:43 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I don't know what happened to this thread, but it had 3 pages when I replied to it. Now it has only one reply and this one. There is something wrong with the server.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 16 février 2010 - 08:45 .

[Serevir]

Nowhere does it say RPG's must have dungeon crawling(although ME1 kinda does) searching for loot(which it also does) or rigid character leveling(which it does)



But even you go by the more "traditional"(because most of them have those things) definition then it's more of an RPG than #2



To me an RPG is a story driven game that emphasizes character/squad/team development. A really good RPG is one which allows the player to customize that aspect to a great extent.



Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls are the best in that aspect if you ask me