297 réponses à ce sujet

[BellaStrega]

I like that Mass Effect continues to move away from the tabletop RPG model. Not that it doesn't have a place and wasn't a lot of fun in Bioware's previous games, but I think that in a lot of ways the RPG genre has been held back on computers and consoles by tabletop-style expectations.

[TJSolo]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

BrianWilly wrote...

In a lot of ways I feel like the combat in ME2 is more RPG-like than in ME1. The shielding types and the sorts of abilities or weapons you'd have to use against that felt very strategic and RPGish for me, and you didn't really see that at all in ME1.

True, I mean sheilds were just their in ME, in ME2 I go OVERLOAD! WARP AMMO! WARP!

ME1 had more ways to deal with shields and armor, the ammo upgrade system allowed you to partly or completely bybass a targets defense and go for health.
Of course that was when you could see a targets armor, shields, and health at the same time.

There isn't a lot of changing weapons or ammo in ME2, once you start a mission with your team and weapon choices. You are stuck with the weapons and whatever power ammo you or your team have until the end.

[Schneidend]

BellaStrega wrote...

I like that Mass Effect continues to move away from the tabletop RPG model. Not that it doesn't have a place and wasn't a lot of fun in Bioware's previous games, but I think that in a lot of ways the RPG genre has been held back on computers and consoles by tabletop-style expectations.

Eh, let's not go too far. Genre-blending is great, but old school stuff will always have its place. Mass Effect is about space age infantry combat and espionage, which makes shooter elements an excellent fit to mix in with the RPG. I'd still rather see a Baldur's Gate sequel that plays like 4th Edition D&D than see Baldur's Gate turn into Diablo II, though. Although, I do love me some Diablo II. Really looking forward to the third game. Anyway, I'm rabbling. In summation, genre-blending and purism both have their strong points.

[WillG027]

The lack of character customisation and RPG elements leads to a feeling of detachment with the characters.

This just made the whole walkthrough feel of the game more evident and, in the end, I just didn't care what happened because I didn't have control of the characters in any meaningful way, and therefore, no emotional investment in them.

The system implemented for upgrading may aswell have done itself for all the impact it has on the characters or outcome.



ME2 was a massive dissappointment. Really dumbed down game. It felt like I was being led through it the whole time, making it feel like a game for casual gamers, and really unstimulating. A game that requires no brains whatsoever.



Bioware srewed the pooch with ME2 and ruined everything that was good about the game from ME1.



Mass Effect 2 could have truly been such a special gaming world if they had chosen to further refine the more traditional RPG elements from the first game. It's such a shame that they have, instead, taken the game towards the other end of the spectrum, more towards a brain dead, shoot everything on screen till your at the end of the corridor approach with the franchise.



Biggest disappointment in the gaming sequel history.

[TJSolo]

BellaStrega wrote...

I like that Mass Effect continues to move away from the tabletop RPG model. Not that it doesn't have a place and wasn't a lot of fun in Bioware's previous games, but I think that in a lot of ways the RPG genre has been held back on computers and consoles by tabletop-style expectations.

Saying that tabletop RPG models hold back video game RPGs is like saying the NBA holds back basketball video games.
If you don't adhere in someway to pre-established rules of a genre the you don't fit into that particular genre. It's not a bad or good thing just that genres have general expectations.

You can move a game away from the traditional RPG system as much as you like but honestly as some point that game won't be an RPG.

[Schneidend]

WillG027 wrote...

What lack of character customization, exactly? You can choose from multiple weapons with different behaviors (full-auto vs. burst, etc.), multiple armor pieces with different effects, and the six-power system with evolutions is much deeper than the talent trees in ME1, in my opinion. Why is it whenever people talk about there being a "lack of customization" or a "dumbing down of RPG elements" they are never specific?

[MassEffect762]

Schneidend wrote...

WillG027 wrote...

What lack of character customization, exactly? You can choose from multiple weapons with different behaviors (full-auto vs. burst, etc.), multiple armor pieces with different effects, and the six-power system with evolutions is much deeper than the talent trees in ME1, in my opinion. Why is it whenever people talk about there being a "lack of customization" or a "dumbing down of RPG elements" they are never specific?

I think what Will was getting at was that the game was too simple.(Design/Gameplay)

[TJSolo]

The power evolutions consist of more limited power selections than ME1. That is a lacking.



Weapon selection is sparse and differences out side of clip size and RoF are ignorable.



If you exclude the fact you are unable to upgrade your crewmates then numerically armor customization may be equal in the two games. But ME1 was deeper with the abilty to use upgrade kits, omni tools, and amps.



When people talk about the "dumbing down" of the game they tend to be as specific as the people that talk about "streamlining".

[WillG027]

Thats pretty much it ME762.



Yeah Schneidend, you can change the armor and weapons A LITTLE BIT.

But, ultimately, most of the upgrades were very similar in nature and didn't change the overall gaming experience much at all. The bullets were a bit stronger, or the Bio lift lasted longer.

It took no thought or planning to upgrade your character, as the choices were very limited and had little impact on how the game is played, or on the progression of the characters class/story.



ME2 just didn't require much brain power on the part of the user at all.

[kregano]

TJSolo wrote...

The power evolutions consist of more limited power selections than ME1. That is a lacking.

Weapon selection is sparse and differences out side of clip size and RoF are ignorable.

If you exclude the fact you are unable to upgrade your crewmates then numerically armor customization may be equal in the two games. But ME1 was deeper with the abilty to use upgrade kits, omni tools, and amps.

When people talk about the "dumbing down" of the game they tend to be as specific as the people that talk about "streamlining".

A lot of the power selections in ME1 were weapon skills or passive talents that really shouldn't have been there in the first place (skill trees for both Charm and Intimidate). All fully upgrading a skill did was give you a lot of duration, damage, and area of effect. ME2's system at least let's you choose between maxing out damage or area of effect (admittedly, there isn't that much of a difference in terms of stats).

As for the weapons being the same outside ROF and clip size, that was also true in ME1. There aren't that many attributes one can use to differentiate guns aside from aesthetics, ROF, clip size, and accuracy and I'd rather not have to deal with tons of guns with minor differences just because somebody felt that there needed to be tons of guns for the hell of it.

ME2's upgrade system pretty much mirrors ME1's amp, omni tool, and mod system; it's just done automatically so you don't have to manually install the things on each and every gun/armor for all of your team.

[Schneidend]

WillG027 wrote...

Thats pretty much it ME762.

Yeah Schneidend, you can change the armor and weapons A LITTLE BIT.
But, ultimately, most of the upgrades were very similar in nature and didn't change the overall gaming experience much at all. The bullets were a bit stronger, or the Bio lift lasted longer.
It took no thought or planning to upgrade your character, as the choices were very limited and had little impact on how the game is played, or on the progression of the characters class/story.

ME2 just didn't require much brain power on the part of the user at all.

I can look at the differences between playing as my Soldier in ME1 and playing him in ME2 and come to the conclusion that I disagree vehemently. In ME1 Insanity my Soldier simply had to turn on Master Immunity and run around with the trigger held down, and I would win. There's no real strategy or thought process involved when you literally cannot be killed. In ME2 Insanity, however, it actually matters what weapons I use or how I outfit my character, because just turning on Adrenaline Rush isn't the answer to every problem the game throws at me. Even if I activate Adrenaline, if I haven't chosen the right weapon or the right ammo mod for the enemy or the situation then I have wasted a global cooldown, and a wasted global cooldown is a few more seconds Harbinger has to walk right next to me and hit me in the face with his one-two punch insta-kill.

The choice between Squad Ammo and Heavy Ammo, I think, is a much bigger choice than what was presented to me in ME1. Even at level 50, my Soldier had enough points to max out all the skills he needed and then some, and I didn't even use the multiple playthroughs trick for free Charm/Intimidate points. In ME2, I can only max out 5 skills out of a maximum of 7, and all 7 of those skills can contribute to my ability to win an encounter. Even after I decide what five skills to master, I find that choosing a combination of evolutions is a similarly large hurdle, though some evolutions are better than others, depending on the class and the skill in question.

[MPSai]

Yeah really, they didn't take out RPG elements, they took out annoying micromanagement.

[TJSolo]

No really, they took out RPG elements.

[MarloMarlo]

TJSolo wrote...
No really, they took out RPG elements.

The one RPG element in existance is role playing.

Every game has rules, but there's no such thing as a specific RPG rule set. Even if you wanted to argue about something like stats, you'd be wrong. And an inventory isn't an inventory screen, which, by the way, you get at lockers.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 27 février 2010 - 05:15 .

[addiction21]

TJSolo wrote...

No really, they took out RPG elements.

To me they toned back the tedium out of some of the RPG elements.

[TJSolo]

Inventory is something you have that can be bought, sold, equipped, unequiped, dropped, or mangled on the players request.

Your weapons screen is only fully accessible on the Normandy or at conveniently placed weapons lockers within missions. It is little more than a list of what you have access to; there is no selling, deleting, or managing it.

I would prefer having full access to inventory and the ability to manage it as I please.



Every game has rules. Every genre has rules or if you want to call it something else, criteria for a game to fit within any given genre.



There isn't a pre-defined set of rules a game has to have to be considered an RPG, I am not arguing that.

All my statement said was there were RPG elements taken out of ME2.

If you want to have contention over that then go to the stickied Wishlist for ME3 or Scarecrow's thread as both have a good listing of RPG type issue I agree are lacking from ME2 or need improvement.

[TJSolo]

addiction21 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

No really, they took out RPG elements.

To me they toned back the tedium out of some of the RPG elements.

They flat out removed things instead of improving them.
ME1 may have had too much of somethings but ME2 is too sparce in areas.

[Schneidend]

TJSolo wrote...
They flat out removed things instead of improving them.
ME1 may have had too much of somethings but ME2 is too sparce in areas.

I can only agree with this sentiment in regards to weapon and armor mods, honestly. For the most part, the only things ME2 removed were pointless skills and mountains of worthless loot you'd inevitably have to get rid of. ME3 will pretty much be perfect if they keep the current system but bring back weapon mods in a positive way, like the Alpha Protocol or KotOR methods, and offer more variety as far as weapon and armor choices go.

Modifié par Schneidend, 27 février 2010 - 06:15 .

[TornadoADV]

LOL, ME2 didn't remove pointless skills, it just changed their names. Also, rather mountains of loot so I can change and mod weapons on the fly instead of having to hope for an out of place weapons locker in a mission. (Funny how Horizon had a Weapon Locker with a Cain in it.)

[Schneidend]

Eh, I didn't say ME2 was perfect, that's why I suggest the next game have an Alpha Protocol or KotOR-like customization system with scopes, barrel modifications, silencers, more stable riflebutts/grips, armor underlays and overlays, etc. I just think I'd rather not have mods at all than have a mind-numbingly cluttered crapton of them. Hopefully ME3 will bring back mods without making me want to mod a gun to deal as much damage as possible to my cranium.



As for pointless skills, Sabotage was made part of Overload, and you no longer have to level Overload to open crates full of 90% worthless junk. 'Nuff said.

[TornadoADV]

A ton of skills are pointless once you play on Veteran or higher difficulty. When I played on Hardcore and Insanity, it basically made the Avalanche pointless.

[Schneidend]

TornadoADV wrote...

A ton of skills are pointless once you play on Veteran or higher difficulty. When I played on Hardcore and Insanity, it basically made the Avalanche pointless.

Completely untrue. I love the Avalanche. Nothing gets through armor/shields/barriers faster on a large group of enemies than a 20+ shot volley from that beast. Okay, well, the Cain, does, I guess, but the Cain is pretty much the best weapon for any given situation if you have the ammo.

[Andaius20]

I'd say they're mostly upset because, said systems are completely stripped out instead of just being tweak like they needed to be completely functional.

[Gorthauran]

I don't get this argument really, at its core ME2 is the same as ME1 for me and I enjoyed every minute of it as much as the first one, if not more. ME1 was never pushed as a pure rpg so why the uproar now lol?



One can argue that the so called "dumbing down" features are more immersive than the old system. Regarding the inventory from a role playing point of view, having to return to weapon and armor lockers for loadout changes is more immersive than carrying around 10 sets of armor and 20 guns and countless other upgrades in your bottomless bag. I don't miss upgrading items really either as its down to weapon choice and abilities now. I think the scanning of new equipment is a great concept and more realistic in this sci-fi setting also. As far as equipping the party members go, they still get to make full use of your armory yet they use their own unique armor. I do miss gathering gear for them but at the same time appreciate them having their own unique look too, again from an RP perspective.



As for the character building side of things, I don't see much has changed as people still would be making the cookie-cutter builds today if it was left the same. The old system was too bloated with many points wasted to get what you want sometimes also. Personally I feel the new system cleaned all that up without taking much away at all.



I think Bioware made the right choice progressing as they have in this series and I respect the fact that they are trying something different to break away from the traditional rpg element also, its refreshing and if only more developers had the courage to do the same.

[MPaBkaTa123]

This thread is both new and interesting.