yoomazir wrote...
newcomplex wrote...
Let me break it to you. ME1 was a buggy game with broken combat mechanics, that many bioware fans derrided as catering to the "fps kiddies" like Jade Empire had supposedly done, completely removing stats from weapons, and removing an inventory system, leaving only an "equipment" system. The regiments and miscellaneous items from past bioware games was replaced by a then percieved as "dumbed down" version of medigel and omnigel, which were regarded as completely superfluous and brain dead. In addition, its dialogue system was regarded as a joke by hardcore BG/Kotor/NWN bioware fans that retarded character development. Its side missions were lauded as filler content in contrast to the rich side quests of the BG, Kotor and NWN universes.
This was the common consensus among people like you for ME1.
If you viewed ME1 was the pinnacle of RPG design, you are retarded.
Ain 't you the smart one? it's very nice of you mentioning all those games since I've played all of them, I could mention also Fallout 1&2, Icewind dale and the best rpg ever made : Planescape Torment. So, I am well aware how ME rpg part was toned down compared to these games but his sequel his far far far worse: IT HAS NO RPG FEELING AT ALL !. could you tell me how ME2 is an improvement sicne you practically put this game to be the best thing you ever had in your whole life?
So your blathering about ME1 being the best thing ever is blatantly false, even according to yourself. You yourself agree that compared to classical RPG from the late 90s and turn of the century, Mass Effect is incomparable in terms of the shear depth of the RPG elements.
So that begs the question. if ME1 was a failure of an RPG, AND a failure of a shooter, why on earth would you hold such high expectations towards Mass effect 2? Mass Effect 2 is the natural trajectory of Mass effect 1. Mass Effect 2 streamlines and improves everything that was worth improving about Mass Effect 1, and removes all that was not worth improving. The only reason one would ever play Mass Effect 1, in all its broken, invalid combat and hastily designed sidequests was to experience the cinematographic experience of the well written plot, and to interact with the universe and the characters. These elements are all clearly present in Mass Effect 2, because these were the main point of mass effect 1.
Mass Effect 1 lacked an inventory. Mass Effect 2 had an equipment screen. It was NOT an inventory, because inventory requires the presence of items, not just weapons and armor. Inventory was removed in favor of dumbing down regiments, blueprints, etc etc into medigel and omnigel. However, the inventory fails at its centric design purpose of streamlining the gameplay, instead requiring you to do intense, mindless micromanaging on weapons that essentially only had numeric stat values, as opposed to dynamically managing weapons that have a variety of different functions and proficiencies.
Mass Effect 2 removes this tedium by removing the onslaught of superflous weapons. Mass Effect 2 lacks an inventory because Mass Effect 1 never had one. Mass Effect 2 address the imbalanced, depthless combat, and the superflous skills by adding variety. Not a single person has made the case that Adepts skills are too similar, while the forums were flooded by them in ME1. Not a single person has made the case that skills are too similar to each other in ME2.
At the same time, Mass Effect 2 preserves the core integral storytelling experience of ME1, and more fleshed out side quests. It is the natural trajectory of a game like ME1, because ME1 was essentially a dumbed down RPG with many design flaws. ME2 simply removes though design flaws. You are expecting ME1 to do a complete 180, an completely illogical expectation.
To draw an analogue, it would be like expecting the sequel to say, civilization, to be in real time, to address the complaints of it "being too slow". That would be a completely illogical expectation because civilization was designed ground up to a turned base game, just like how mass effect 1 was designed ground up to be a dumbed down RPG.
Their would be no expectation that ME2 would be anything other then the continuation of the trend presented in ME1. Why would expect a reversale of the trend proves that you are likely afflicted with Down Syndrome. To further the point, if you dislike Mass Effect 2 on the grounds if it being an incomplete RPG experience, that implies you are mentally retarded enough to think Mass Effect 1 was a
complete RPG experience. Which it clearly was not.
Now to clarify, this isn't to mean that all people who dislike ME2, or all people who want the return of dropped weapons back into Mass Effect are retarded. I disagree with that assertion, but I think its a little bit valid.
edit:
And why the **** will you have hope for Alpha Protocol and New Vegas? Fallout 3 was literally devoid of all the complexity in the previous games, in fact, I would argue it in more depthless and retarded then Mass Effect 2. You lack skills, and the only viable skill is charisma. Weapons themselves are more or less as limited as Mass Effect 2. Plus, it lacks all the storytelling and virtual acting awesomeness that Mass Effect 2 has, and the plot was a laughable joke. Getting excited for New Vegas is exactly the kind of retardation that got you ranting here in the first place. Alpha Protocol looks exactly like Mass Effect without skills, and with drastically less dialogue and plot. Their is also no squadmates, so their will be no squad interactions either, a key selling point of ME2. Their is no reason why either of those games will be even vaguely live up to your retarded RPG standards.
Modifié par newcomplex, 20 février 2010 - 11:22 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
