177 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphael]

Jean de Valette wrote...

Bioware created BG1 and later BG2. That was the pinacle of their cRPG gamemaking ability apparently. Since then it has been one, long decline. It's painful to watch and has caused appologists like the OP to bend themselves backwards to excuse Bio.

ME2 is not a pure RPG and the OP knows it. You play a pre-defined character (just like the Witcher) with virtually no customization beyond the superficial (naughty-goody convo's, superficial class selection).

That said ME2 is a good game. But Bioware is the Neville Chamberlain of the computer industry. One long appeasement to the console masses. They "streamline" their games which basically is dumbing down.

We saw what happened to Chamberlain and how history has come to view that man. Hopefully Bioware won't end up the same.

Judging DA and ME2, all hope is lost that there ever will be a half decent western party-based cRPG coming from them.

People should stop trying to pigeonholing things so much. From LARP to MMORPG; the RPG genre is a lot of different things for a lot of different people.

I'm one of many that feel that ME2 has all the needed, and wanted, hallmarks of an RPG. Massive amounts of items and levels is "roleplaying" with support wheels and not needed or wanted as it shifts the focus away from what is important. In the extreme, loot is the all-encompassing motivation and defines the character. For me the formula is simple; realism leads to immersion which in turn improves the roleplaying experience. The shooter aspect is beneficial to tue roleplaying as such. Micromanagement and loot hoarding doesn't even figure into that equation.

This Canadian "Neville Chamberlain" is a powerhouse and have with this series evolved the genre in a new and exciting direction. Dinosaurs should step aside or me overrun by progress.

[KotOREffecT]

newcomplex wrote...

To be perfectly honest, Bioware has yet to make anything to match the scope of the original Baldurs gate :/

But maybe being eleven years old when playing that game has effected my judgement of it.    

Maybe you should play KotOR, in many minds still BioWares best work yet. But to each his own..

ME 2 is def overall the most polished, solid game they may have made. I mean the music, the pacing, graphics, character animations, gameplay, is spot on. However RPG/Story wise, still not perfect yet. Maybe ME 3 though, esp if it combines elements from ME 1 and even KotOR..

[JrayM16]

Here's a way to settle this. I've created a poll concerning whether or nor ME2 is an RPG. Vote and leave comments. Here:

http://social.biowar...222/polls/2609/

Modifié par JrayM16, 23 février 2010 - 09:27 .

[Daeion]

JrayM16 wrote...

Here's a way to settle this. I've created a poll concerning whether or nor ME2 is an RPG. Vote and leave comments. Here:

http://social.biowar...222/polls/2609/

That won't solve anything because a RPG is different things to different people.  I would hae to vote that yes ME2 is a RPG but I would say that ME was the superior game.  Also, there are too many options if you are trying to find out if it's just a RPG.

Modifié par Daeion, 23 février 2010 - 09:29 .

[JrayM16]

Daeion wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Here's a way to settle this. I've created a poll concerning whether or nor ME2 is an RPG. Vote and leave comments. Here:

http://social.biowar...222/polls/2609/

That won't solve anything because a RPG is different things to different people.  I would hae to vote that yes ME2 is a RPG but I would say that ME was the superior game.

Well this is just one aspect of the ME2 debate that frequently goes on on the forum.  Besides, numbers are always simpler than forum bickering.

[JrayM16]

Come on people, get out the vote if you want your voices heard!

[smudboy]

If by Perfect RPG you mean massive plot holes and absolutely no trilogy development for a TPS, sure.

[KotOREffecT]

smudboy wrote...

If by Perfect RPG you mean massive plot holes and absolutely no trilogy development for a TPS, sure.

...

[Creston918]

Bioware has finally created the perfect RPG, by making it an RPG-Lite. At best.

Don't get me wrong, I love ME2, the writing is excellent, the story is excellent. But it's pretty damn hard to keep calling it an RPG, when almost every single RPG mechanism has been utterly stripped out.

I'm scared to complain about anything in ME2, for fear that Bio will just discard it. Oh wait, scrap that: The mining sucks. Please delete it.

But, I LOVE the fact that decisions carry over between game to game. I just want it to carry over far more meaningfully. I want choices in ME1 and 2 to be able to kill my chances to win in ME3.

[JrayM16]

While it cannot be denied that certain RPG elements were stripped out, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a weak or hollow RPG.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

JrayM16 wrote...

How does ME1 not have forced shooter elements?  Most of ME1 involved shooting as well, including the few character side quests that there were( which were pretty shallow compared to ME2 character quests)
Also, how can you use a phrase like "forced shooter segemts" when the primary gameplay mechanic of both games was shooting?  How does ME1 not ahve these "forced shooter segemnts"? 

I knew some idiot would try and bring this up, and it happened to be you. Heres how: an effective power system that worked alongside the existing shooter mechanics better, and in general areas where shooting was left completely unneccessary for extended periods of time. In ME2 its only a short time before somehow it becomes necessary to start combat. Its usually on either Omega, Illium or the Citadel, and there is barely anything to do in each before a recruitment/loyalty mission must be done, which normally amounts to 90% combat.

JrayM16 wrote...
Your arguments are really starting to fall flat, and it looks really pathetic when you start criticizing things in ME2 that were the same or even worse in ME1.  You used to be able to provide some substance and reasonsin behind your arguments Dink, now, you're jsut making stuff up and being condescending towards those who disagree.  It's kind of sad, I used to really enjoy the interesting debates we had, but now you've basically become the negative equivalent of the "this game roxx" fanboys you always hated on the old forums.

Youd love to be able to dismiss so easily as simply being condescending to everyone, but the truth is, I am only that way towards posters who bring it upon themselves. Also, "being condescending towards those who disagree" is the standard procedure on these forums most of the time when someone has something to criticise about ME2. Like you for instance, so desperate to try and dismiss any perceived blemish on ME2. Listen, ME2 is a dumbed down TPS above all else. Try and deny it all you want, but if you pay attention when you play the game youll see its perfectly clear that ME2 is far less of an RPG than ME1. Its more than just the inventory system. Its how combat, no matter the class, its weapon/cover based, especially on insanity to the point of crippling powers like biotics. Im not the negative equivalent of "this game roxx" fanboys, I just tend to annoy said fanboys by actually being able to criticise ME2. If you have a problem with this, maybe its because you unknowingly are one of said "this game roxx" fanboys.

Edit: Jray, your pathetic polls prove nothing by the way, so stop acting like they do. Even if the result is "its no longer an RPG at all" coming out on top, it still proves nothing even though that would be the opposite of what you intended.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 23 février 2010 - 10:00 .

[Daeion]

JrayM16 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Here's a way to settle this. I've created a poll concerning whether or nor ME2 is an RPG. Vote and leave comments. Here:

http://social.biowar...222/polls/2609/

That won't solve anything because a RPG is different things to different people.  I would hae to vote that yes ME2 is a RPG but I would say that ME was the superior game.

Well this is just one aspect of the ME2 debate that frequently goes on on the forum.  Besides, numbers are always simpler than forum bickering.

Right, but you are essentially asking two questions with your survey, first is ME2 a RPG, and second, does it succeed as a RPG, this is asked regardless of if it the responondant considers it to be a RPG.  So really you should have two survey's and the first should have a link to the second for those that said yes.

Modifié par Daeion, 23 février 2010 - 10:30 .

[JrayM16]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

How does ME1 not have forced shooter elements?  Most of ME1 involved shooting as well, including the few character side quests that there were( which were pretty shallow compared to ME2 character quests)
Also, how can you use a phrase like "forced shooter segemts" when the primary gameplay mechanic of both games was shooting?  How does ME1 not ahve these "forced shooter segemnts"? 

I knew some idiot would try and bring this up, and it happened to be you. Heres how: an effective power system that worked alongside the existing shooter mechanics better, and in general areas where shooting was left completely unneccessary for extended periods of time. In ME2 its only a short time before somehow it becomes necessary to start combat. Its usually on either Omega, Illium or the Citadel, and there is barely anything to do in each before a recruitment/loyalty mission must be done, which normally amounts to 90% combat.

JrayM16 wrote...
Your arguments are really starting to fall flat, and it looks really pathetic when you start criticizing things in ME2 that were the same or even worse in ME1.  You used to be able to provide some substance and reasonsin behind your arguments Dink, now, you're jsut making stuff up and being condescending towards those who disagree.  It's kind of sad, I used to really enjoy the interesting debates we had, but now you've basically become the negative equivalent of the "this game roxx" fanboys you always hated on the old forums.

Youd love to be able to dismiss so easily as simply being condescending to everyone, but the truth is, I am only that way towards posters who bring it upon themselves. Also, "being condescending towards those who disagree" is the standard procedure on these forums most of the time when someone has something to criticise about ME2. Like you for instance, so desperate to try and dismiss any perceived blemish on ME2. Listen, ME2 is a dumbed down TPS above all else. Try and deny it all you want, but if you pay attention when you play the game youll see its perfectly clear that ME2 is far less of an RPG than ME1. Its more than just the inventory system. Its how combat, no matter the class, its weapon/cover based, especially on insanity to the point of crippling powers like biotics. Im not the negative equivalent of "this game roxx" fanboys, I just tend to annoy said fanboys by actually being able to criticise ME2. If you have a problem with this, maybe its because you unknowingly are one of said "this game roxx" fanboys.

Edit: Jray, your pathetic polls prove nothing by the way, so stop acting like they do. Even if the result is "its no longer an RPG at all" coming out on top, it still proves nothing even though that would be the opposite of what you intended.

Alright,, I'll bight.  LEt me address a few things first.  I never said ME2 was perfect, or that no one had a right to criticize it.  I just happen to find what i perceive as flaws in people's arguments and feel not obliged, but I do want to respond to them and give my own take. 

Biotics may have been nerfed, but as long as good use is made of party tech and ammo abilities, it was never an issue for me.  For instance, I let one character use disrupter ammo on the enemy shields while I use biotics to take down non shielded or armored enemies.  bY the time the I'm done w/ them , the shielded enemy's shield is now down, allowing me to throw them to my heart's content. 

Also, I hate to be the one of the "you're doing it wrong" people, but I always found that if I looked hard enough, there were always plenty of non combat sidequests arounf these hub areas.

In fact, there are still character sidequests that had no combat at all.  Samara and Thane's quests involved no actual gameplay combat whatsoever. 

Can you really effectively judge the overall game balance playing on insanity?  Taht difficulty is clearly unbalanced, everyone knows it but saying a game is poor in combat based on the highest difficulty?  Really?

Again, all character sidequests in ME1 involved more than 90% combat.  A brief dialogue intro on the Normandy, then go to random planet(or ship in Garrus's case) kill dudes for 2 minutes, then brief conversation.  Again, why does ME1 get a free pass for this yet ME2 damned for it?

If you really feel my polls are pathetic and stupid, why bother particpiating in them or devoting time to say that they;re stupid?  I can make them, it's my right asa  forum vet.  I never said they were the end all be all of the discussion, just a potential gauge of what people think on the forum. 

Again, you misinterpret my words.  I never once said ME2 was MORE or the Same and RPG ME1 was.  I said it was still an RPG and I felt it wasa  better game than ME1.  Also, you seem to imply that being more RPG-like makes it a better game?  THis is closemindness.

You say ME2 is clearly trying to ape HEars of War.  Was ME1 not doing the same, only less smoothly?  Does having to use cover really make the game a dumbed down TPS?  If so, then recall that ME1 forced us all to use cover quite a bit, and I certainly had trouble taking out some of those larger enemies and turrets in ME1 w/out bullets. 

Finally, I view myself  as a "this game roxxx and here's why" type of forum user.  I give constructive arguments where I can.  And as to your statement that I respond harshly to your criticisms I would like to quote you from the old forums "I give what I get."

Thank you for listening to my screed. 

[Jean de Valette]

Seraphael wrote...
This Canadian "Neville Chamberlain" is a powerhouse and have with this series evolved the genre in a new and exciting direction. Dinosaurs should step aside or me overrun by progress.

True. ME2 is a good game and I'm not denying that.

But I didn't realize there were so many people here who a) either never played the BG series or Interplay and Troika games or  really hated the aforementioned.

The OP claims this is the best RPG he's ever played. Either he hasn't played a cRPG (in all variants) in his life or he's a family member of someone in Bioware's staff.

Bioware is indeed the Chamberlain of our time. They've sacrificed Silesia (the PC RPG gamer) so that Great Britain (console gamer) can rest easy. Why? Because Britain is where the interest (read money) lies. Do I blame Bioware? No, they're just another company looking to make a buck. But I reacted to the OP's rediculous claims. Bioware isn't interested in making RPGs, they're interested in making money. And these days that means appeasing console players.

How? Making sure "action" is fast passed and as few buttons are involved. That's means dumbing down folks, which you appologize as "streamlining" and "getting with the programe".

And yes I heard the ingame comment from one of the buyers to the "game salesman" on the Citadel, where he claims he liked it better when players needed to remember to drink water or they would die. Nice stab under water there.

I don't remember having to eat or drink water or relieve myself in the BG series. But I guess Bio felt what kind of reaction there would come from the "purist" community (read those who played the BG series) and decided to redicule them.

But I've done enough "whining" for tonight. I count my blessings that I've played real cRPG games back in the day made by Bioware. Ignorence is bliss, as Alistair would say citing the Chantry. And yes I'll keep enjoying ME2 for what it is: a 3rd person shooter with adventure elements.

[bjdbwea]

I like history, but that comparison with Chamberlain? The important lesson is, his idea worked in the short term, but in the end he (or rather his nation and the world) suffered dearly for it. I fully agree that BioWare "sacrificed" fans of real RPGs to "appease" the casual gamer mass market, and I don't like it one bit. But so far, that business model seems to pay off. To keep the comparison valid, the "old" gamers would a) have to stop purchasing, and this would have to make for greater losses in sales than can be covered by the new target audience, so that BioWare would need to change their attitude again. I don't see that happening, and there goes your comparison.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 février 2010 - 11:30 .

[Daeion]

JrayM16 wrote...
Biotics may have been nerfed, but as long as good use is made of party tech and ammo abilities, it was never an issue for me.  For instance, I let one character use disrupter ammo on the enemy shields while I use biotics to take down non shielded or armored enemies.  bY the time the I'm done w/ them , the shielded enemy's shield is now down, allowing me to throw them to my heart's content. 

I think the issue is that even as a biotic your game play doesn't really differ as much as it did in the first one.  I personally found biotics to be extreamly boring in ME2, sit in cover, fire at the enemy until their defenses are down and then fire off 1 power.  To me the biotic is this games version of a wizard, so it shouldn't be relying as much on weapon skills as it does.  I found myself firing of warp, then shooting at the target and by the time warp was back up the target was already dead, and this was on hardcore.

JrayM16 wrote...
Also, I hate to be the one of the "you're doing it wrong" people, but I always found that if I looked hard enough, there were always plenty of non combat sidequests arounf these hub areas.

In fact, there are still character sidequests that had no combat at
all.  Samara and Thane's quests involved no actual gameplay combat
whatsoever. 

I'll have to wait to get home and compare the lists but I want to say ME2 has 2-3 non combat quests per area where as I feel ME and 3-4.

JrayM16 wrote...
Again, all character sidequests in ME1 involved more than 90% combat.  A brief dialogue intro on the Normandy, then go to random planet(or ship in Garrus's case) kill dudes for 2 minutes, then brief conversation.  Again, why does ME1 get a free pass for this yet ME2 damned for it?

Might be because it takes several conversations with said Garrus and Wrex until you can get their missions, in ME2 I didn't even talk to Suze and Kelly kept bugging me that she wanted to talk to me.  So you don't really need to get to know your crew like you did in ME.  Also, those were just quick side missions where as the new ones are fully a part of the main quest.  I will give them props for the Thane/ Samara ones since there is no combat but they are also probably the fastest ones, or at least Samara's is.

JrayM16 wrote...
You say ME2 is clearly trying to ape HEars of War.  Was ME1 not doing the same, only less smoothly?  Does having to use cover really make the game a dumbed down TPS?  If so, then recall that ME1 forced us all to use cover quite a bit, and I certainly had trouble taking out some of those larger enemies and turrets in ME1 w/out bullets. 

I wouldn't say ME was trying to copy Gears because it wasn't simply a cover based combat system, it had the option, but you didn't have to use it, in ME2 you have to use it or you're dead.  It doesn't make it a dumbed down shooter but it's not far from it, there's no suprises or anything, you can always tell where a fight is going to come from or going to happen simply by looking ahead of you, or the game tells you with a squad mate yelling out about enemies up ahead that you can't even see or take the Thane recruitment mission and that elevator with the krogan and two engies, perfect place for an oh crap moment but instead they tell you to take cover a head of time...

[Anzer]

Haha, this thread is great! It's basically a bunch of people saying, "F*ck you, D-bag, my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong!"

Half of the people in this thread don't seem to undertand the definition of an opinion.
Hilarity.

[JrayM16]

Zalekanzer wrote...

Haha, this thread is great! It's basically a bunch of people saying, "F*ck you, D-bag, my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong!"

Half of the people in this thread don't seem to undertand the definition of an opinion.
Hilarity.

Welcome to the internet.

[Black Bizart]

Look, it's all a matter of degrees. I'll agree with you that there is too little choice in ME2. However, it's not correct to view it as fundamentally different from a game like BG2. In truth, they are simply at the ends of the same spectrum of what makes a rpg/adventure game.

What's the basic structure of Mass Effect 2?

1. Limited weapons and powers.

2. run around recruiting members.

3. leveling up, gaining new powers.

4. find new weapons.

5. explore mazes.

Also: here's the plot/freedom element--you MUST assemble a crew to face down the collectors and figure out a way to go where no one has gone before. And you have to rescue Subject Zero, I mean Imoen from Spellhold, er whatever that place is called.

What do you get in BG2?

1. Huge selection of armor and weapons, but pretty much everyone figures out that the best weapons are the Holy Avenger sword, Crom Faeyr , and Celestial Fury. The armor goes the same way.

2. Huge variety of classes and abilities--though remember that everyone at the time complained that you couldn't use the 3rd gen AD&D rules. 

3. You gotta collect 20, 000 gold pieces to get the help of the Shadow Thieves or the Vampires. So you run around, do a bunch of mini-quests, recruit party members, and get that gold.

4. Before being thrust into a linear set of non-choices that lead you to Spellhold to rescue your party member, then you have to go through the Underdark.

5. Now you get out of the Underdark. You can do whatever you want, but pretty soon you're gonna have to confront the vampire and go through the Omega 4 relay, I mean take the Lanthorn out and find Sedellesnar. (Oh did I mention that your crew member, I mean party member gets captured by the collectors, I mean vampires and you have to rescue them?)

6. Whew, we finally beat Irenicus, now I guess we just chill on the Normandy until the DLC.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Baldur's Gate 2. I have played it through to the end a dozen times. I could recite the whole game for you right now, all sub quests included. But let's not pretend it has that much more complexity than ME2.

Now, with that said: sometimes the veil matters. For example, Neverwinter Nights tells you very bluntly "collect 4 gems to activate the doohickey." Well, that left me cold. It was just too lame and generic. Never played the game. Bought the additional add-ons and played them, they were ok. Compare to KOTOR. KOTOR has a great storyline. But what must you do? COLLECT THE FOUR GEMS. Except they aren't gems. They are planets. So instead of four dungeons with four gems, you have four planets before you activate the final quest. So there's something to be said for narration and artifice. Yet ME2 is not that far different from these earlier, more beloved rpgs.

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

How does ME1 not have forced shooter elements?  Most of ME1 involved shooting as well, including the few character side quests that there were( which were pretty shallow compared to ME2 character quests)
Also, how can you use a phrase like "forced shooter segemts" when the primary gameplay mechanic of both games was shooting?  How does ME1 not ahve these "forced shooter segemnts"? 

I knew some idiot would try and bring this up, and it happened to be you. Heres how: an effective power system that worked alongside the existing shooter mechanics better, and in general areas where shooting was left completely unneccessary for extended periods of time. In ME2 its only a short time before somehow it becomes necessary to start combat. Its usually on either Omega, Illium or the Citadel, and there is barely anything to do in each before a recruitment/loyalty mission must be done, which normally amounts to 90% combat.

JrayM16 wrote...
Your arguments are really starting to fall flat, and it looks really pathetic when you start criticizing things in ME2 that were the same or even worse in ME1.  You used to be able to provide some substance and reasonsin behind your arguments Dink, now, you're jsut making stuff up and being condescending towards those who disagree.  It's kind of sad, I used to really enjoy the interesting debates we had, but now you've basically become the negative equivalent of the "this game roxx" fanboys you always hated on the old forums.

Youd love to be able to dismiss so easily as simply being condescending to everyone, but the truth is, I am only that way towards posters who bring it upon themselves. Also, "being condescending towards those who disagree" is the standard procedure on these forums most of the time when someone has something to criticise about ME2. Like you for instance, so desperate to try and dismiss any perceived blemish on ME2. Listen, ME2 is a dumbed down TPS above all else. Try and deny it all you want, but if you pay attention when you play the game youll see its perfectly clear that ME2 is far less of an RPG than ME1. Its more than just the inventory system. Its how combat, no matter the class, its weapon/cover based, especially on insanity to the point of crippling powers like biotics. Im not the negative equivalent of "this game roxx" fanboys, I just tend to annoy said fanboys by actually being able to criticise ME2. If you have a problem with this, maybe its because you unknowingly are one of said "this game roxx" fanboys.

Edit: Jray, your pathetic polls prove nothing by the way, so stop acting like they do. Even if the result is "its no longer an RPG at all" coming out on top, it still proves nothing even though that would be the opposite of what you intended.

Modifié par Black Bizart, 24 février 2010 - 12:15 .

[imemoria]

ME2 is NOT an RPG.

[Iokastos]

Perfect RPGs were Planescape:Torment and Baldur's Gate 1&2

Games nowadays are about graphics not quality

[ZennExile]

JrayM16 wrote...

While it cannot be denied that certain RPG elements were stripped out, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a weak or hollow RPG.

How about we call it what it is then.  A partial 3rd person shooter (no veihicles and all modern shooters know better) with dumbed down RPG elements like upgrades and tedious nonsense like planet scanning.  That's it.  Borderlands is more RPG than ME2 is.

So yeah it's no stretch at all to say ME2 is a hollow RPG void of all the RPG goodness we expect.  The game is trying to hold itself up using cover shooter mechanics that lack even the complexity of a quick run through the arcade version of Contra.

So yeah we can Kinda call it a Shooter (without vehicles it's a stretch) but to really call it an RPG they need to add in more RPG elements than a gimick story writen by amatures with "choose your responce" mechanics that have no impact on the course of the game.

[TrueHD]

BioWare intern post?

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Razor124 wrote...

This game is about 1/10 RPG... There's no way in he-"double hockey-sticks" as an RPG it compares to FFX or FFXII...

Hell, or even Pokemon Silver for that matter!

The fact that those games define RPG to you is quite telling.

[Anzer]

Haha, that's a whole lot of rage you've got going on there, Zenn. How is that working out for you?