8 réponses à ce sujet

[JrayM16]

Alright, here's what i hope to be a clear and un angry argument as to why I think ME2 is still very much an RPG, albeit a different take on RPGs. 

Stats actually allow for more customization:

There are less stats in ME2 then there were in ME1.  This fact is undeniable.  However, when a stat levels up in ME2, there is a much more immediate and noticeable reward than in previous rpgs like ME1, making it more akin to actual character growth which is what rpgs are all about ijn the first place.  There is also the specialization for each stat.  This allows an ability to take two different forms.  In other words, I've played a class more than once, deliberately giving each stat a different spec than I did before.  This, combined w/ the exp limit on how many stats I can max in one game, cause me to approach combat differentel;y in two variations of the same class.  Customization is one of the key aspects of western rpgs and ME2 excells in that regard(atleast in terms of stats)

You are playing a role:

I know this has been the chief defense for any who argue that ME2 is an rpg.  However, it is still very true.  You play a distinct role as Shepard and you can mold that role as you see fit.  And while impacts from choices arent all there, on my second palythrough I did notice some significant differences based on what I'd done in ME1 and my actions/ character in ME2.  Many have already put down BW for lack of choice imapcts, particualrly those from ME1 but many of these arent really noticed until a second playthrough is completed w/ a different file.

Combat is as tactical as any rpg, only in shooter format:

You can pause and manage squaddie powers, combine their's w/ yours for some truly impressive strategies, even more than in ME1.  You can position them, customize their abilities to compliment yours and so on.

Upgrades act as replacement for some character growth:

Particularly character specicifc upgrades.  All upgrades add soething significant to your team, encourage side missions to get them, and show real change in abilities over the course of the game.

There's still plenty of questing in hub worlds:

Title of paragraph is self-explanatory.

You get tot know characters:

While there may not be as much dilaogue per character, you still evolve and grow varying types of relationships w/ in game characters.

So in conclusion:

While BW has done some new things to the rpg approach(streamlning, exp at end of mission) and done some non  rpg things(lack of inventory, limited armor) ME2 is still very much anRPG.

[Frotality]

yes it is still an RPG, just a very bad example of what a good rpg is, leaning heavily upon being a good TPS instead.

it is much less of an RPG because it accomplishes its task of immersing players in a role much less effectively than ME1 or any other bioware game.

2 pieces of bread are still a sandwich, but most would like to think bioware capable of giving us more of a sandwich instead of adding a piece of pizza to try to compensate.

[Andorfiend]

It is still an RPG. I agree. I would even argue it's more of an RPG than, say, Diablo because the greater use and importance of dialogue overrides the removal of more mainstream RPG aspects like stats and inventory. But how much more of an RPG is it than Diablo? I'm not sure, and I wish I were.

[JrayM16]

Frotality wrote...

yes it is still an RPG, just a very bad example of what a good rpg is, leaning heavily upon being a good TPS instead.

it is much less of an RPG because it accomplishes its task of immersing players in a role much less effectively than ME1 or any other bioware game.

2 pieces of bread are still a sandwich, but most would like to think bioware capable of giving us more of a sandwich instead of adding a piece of pizza to try to compensate.

I dont want to sound like a jerk, but could you elaborate as to how ME1 immerses you into a role more then ME2?

[Frotality]

JrayM16 wrote...

Frotality wrote...

yes it is still an RPG, just a very bad example of what a good rpg is, leaning heavily upon being a good TPS instead.

it is much less of an RPG because it accomplishes its task of immersing players in a role much less effectively than ME1 or any other bioware game.

2 pieces of bread are still a sandwich, but most would like to think bioware capable of giving us more of a sandwich instead of adding a piece of pizza to try to compensate.

I dont want to sound like a jerk, but could you elaborate as to how ME1 immerses you into a role more then ME2?

completely understandable; i'll summarize, as im in no mood for posting another long winded description

customization-in ME1 your choice of equipment was as most people claim; "a hollow illusion". all customization in any structured game will always be a hollow illusion, but it is that illusion of choice i enjoy so greatly. as long as a game has a defined beginning and end, there will never be any 'real choice', and i and every RPG player since D&D didnt care; everything about a video game is a fantasy, and to entertain the fantasy that player choice matters is an inextricable part of immersion that ME2 completely shot to hell. of course a giant variety of weapons and upgrades never made a real difference over just having 1-2 balanced weapons, but it seperates 1-2 into a cornicopia of choices that make me feel like i have personal control of my arsenal, and more importanly that i have options with wich to personalize it. ME2 hardly even has 1-2 options, as the second was always better in addition to different, which restricts my options often to non-existent; one is always better than the last, so it doesnt even entertain the illusion at all anymore. upgrades were then relegated to just that; direct upgrades completely negating any player choice beyond but/dont buy. all in all, ME2 railroads you down its very limited number of paths far too much. RPGs should make the player feel in control of their character as much as possible, ME2 gives you much less to control and much less options among what little you can control.

combat- in ME2, combat is a TPS with powers; granted ME1 wasnt any better at blending tps combat with RPG strategy either, but thats another discussion. short answer; both games fail in the combat department to immerse the player as they should; depending on taste ME2 might be better (slightly), but niether game offers much beyond spam power/shoot. IMO, thermal clips killed any desire for me to use weapons over unlimited powers, and thus got the same role as heavy weapons instead of viable offense choices for you specific character like in ME1, where you had free reign to use a weapon as long as you wanted in addition to powers to add up to some tactical choices in combat. instead they serve the same role of grenades; limited resources that at no point are ever necessary and its much more tactically viable to use your powers instead of wasting a very limited resource. because of this my infiltrator in ME2 is much more of a pyromaniac incinerating everything than an infiltrator because the sniper is never actually needed and is too much of a hassle having to worry about its pathetic ammo limit instead of just burning everything. in this one becomes very seperated from that class role because of imbalanced and unnecessary gameplay restrictions.

level structure- ME1 had none. you landed and the world was an undefined mass of immersion; you didnt know when you headed to a hub or into death, the world was interconnected, fluid, and wonderous, if incredibly tedious as was the case with uncharted worlds, but still grand and open. ME2 completely seperates combat from hubs and vice versa; and because of it omega and mordins clinic feel like completely different places. hubs are big open explorations, while every section of comabt is completely seperate from that, completely linear in design, completely predictable, physically seperate from its hub never to be seen again, and to top it all off has a 'mission complete' just to remind me that this was a linear conventional shooter level in case i forgot.

morality system- a major failure of ME2 is the new importance of para/renegade. in ME1, i at least had the classic persuasion skills to influence my dialogue, that made sense and made the "choice" to put points into charm/intimidate matter, not the best option, but alot better than what we have now. in ME2, i am now completely restricted in dialogue because of dialogue choices ive made before (represented as morality points). this is the single worst atrocity to player choice in the game; every moral dilemna in the game is not only classified as one of 2 moralities before you ever were presented with it; but now your choice on the matter is completely gone because the game's skewed moral compass has decided you werent enough of a jackass throughout the game to call out the admiralty board on political undertone in a trial. for the same reason using a pistol shouldnt lock out your ability to use an smg, this needs to end.



well that was a horrible summary i know, but believe it or not that is an actual summary of my feelings on the matter, so there ya go OP, feel free to comment.

[llinsane1ll]

Another one of these threads...

[DigitalLiquid I]

llinsane1ll wrote...

Another one of these threads...

Another one of these threads filled with the typical responses.

[llinsane1ll]

QQ

[LyonVanguard]

The problem is not that its not an RPG. It obviously is an RPG. The problem is that it is less of an RPG than the first one. They should have kept the same things that made ME1 such a huge hit and upgrade (not downgrade like they did with the inventory system) the things players complained about. Its as simple as that really.