10273 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Not really. CoD4 had a better weapon system then ME. In ME you had only four weapons. There was diffrent colors, three reskins but the only diffrence was the stats. 

In ME2 each weapon was unque.

Oh this rubbish again...

And each weapon would have been unique in ME1 if there'd only been one pistol, shotgun, assault rifle and sniper rifle too: its the same principle, but that would have been considered weak and unacceptable if that'd been the case in ME1, just like if Dragon Age Origins only had two longswords in the entire game. ME2 doesn't increase the amount of weapons there are, it just increases the amount of types, but then pretty much reduces it to two: one you start with and one you find inevitably in the same damn place every damn time. And they don't even have visible stats or attributes... just a stupidly vague description.

If this was a shooter I could understand the approval, but I just don't get the mentality that this is a deeper and better system when its no better than running around in Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you play. For an RPG that's unacceptable, and I've still yet to see anybody actually give a logical reason why its a better system that suits an RPG more than ME1's one. All I get it "Bu-bu-but each gun is unique!" all the time, but when all of the guns are unique, none of them are. Especially when they're always in the same place, completely inevitable and aways the same, with no means of modding them.

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yes. Because as we all know, throwing out RPG mechanics and replacing them with simple shooter ones that aren't much deeper than the systems in Doom or Quake is evolution. <_<

and you know better than making a glib and factually incorrect statement, too, right? <_< (because the change to the RPG mechanics had nothing to do with the improvements to the combat mechanics - they both underwent substantial changes - accusing one of affecting the other, therefore, is flawed logic in the extreme).

But they're linked. And the weapons system in ME2 was basically just a substandard shooter one, while the one in ME1 was at least more akin to fitting an RPG. At least it had some variety, randomness and customisation to it. ME2's weapons system can barely even be called a system at all.

Terror, you DO know that the call of duty games have far better and deeper customization than even mass effect? You are basically trying to claim that ME1's weapon modding is deeper than that of any shooter, you are clearly wrong.

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think ME2 is being held up purely because of its writing and cinematic mastery, because its RPG systems are shallow as hell and its shooter systems are functional but generic. Take away its presentation, dialogue, writing and cinematic factors and there's not much left that's any good and/or unique.

Replace "shallow" with "needlessly cluttered", and you can say the same thing about ME1. Yeah, they culled too much in ME2, scrapping the inventory altogether and about slicing the character stats in half, but was the stat system in ME1 really better in the sense that you could do more with it? I prefer charm/intimidate as levelable stats rather than a separate system, but that's about it. How many stats does Shepard have that influence health? How doeds this make sense? Why is the relationship between stats and powers nearly unintelligible? What purpose does this serve?

I've never played KOTOR, DAO or Baldur's Gate, but looking at ME1's inventory and stats system, I honestly wonder why anyone would consider Bioware to be good at the RPG mechanics of their games. They know how to tell a damned good story and keep it interactive, and they've learned some things about combat that they applied in ME2, but it seems like they only know how to make inventory and character stats usable by practically scrapping them. Is this stuff done better in their classics, or is it just more complicated?

[Orchomene]

Well, Kotor and BG uses a RPG mechanic that has not been invented by Bioware.

BG uses a standard inventory management with a fixed amount of places by characters and a weight measure.

Kotor uses the same all-in-a-big-list used in ME1 but you are less overwhelmed by the quantity of objects.

DAO is a system made by Bioware that is between the d20 system (attributes and skills influences) and a system like diablo/divinedivinity for powers with some tree view style.

The inventory is about the same as in ME but with less junk. At least, you are not forced to take the junk if you don't want.

Honnestly, Kotor was limit, DAO is easily managed and ME is tedious with respect to inventory management. All three in the same kind of management.

[Lumikki]

Yes, RPG skill system was linked to weapon system in ME1. Rpg skill system on ME1 did not make combat better, it cause problems, unbalance and redused impression. So, it did create variety, but not so good ways, at least in weapon side of the combat. Also ME1 and ME2 combat system is 3rd person shooter. Category is very clear. Who does the shooting (aiming) player or character?

Also ME1 inventory system got fixed in ME2, but they did go little too far with it. What cause hole customation possibility be redused alot.  They simplifyed stuff alot, now to fix it, they need more variety to customation and make it more personal too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juin 2010 - 01:09 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

And each weapon would have been unique in ME1 if there'd only been one pistol, shotgun, assault rifle and sniper rifle too: its the same principle, but that would have been considered weak and unacceptable if that'd been the case in ME1...

Would it have been?
In ME1 it doesn't make a whole lot a sense that the Alliance's best Soldier gets next to no support in terms of load out. If I wanted my men to succeed I'd gear them up with the best the Alliance could offer. Instead Shepard has to scrounge from the droppings of simple mercenaries. Makes sense in a traditional RPG sense, but not so much with ME1's backdrop.

And while we're on that "same principle", ME1's weapon did not go past any mold. Gear simply "varied" in appearance and performance because you used what was flat-out better than what you had before, and in a game where all encounters are scaled around your level it becomes a rather lifeless and crap-filled progression.

ME1's system was flat because of the selection of guns (made up slightly via the customization), ME2's was flat because of the lack of weapon customization (made up slightly via the amount of loadout possibilities).

And also:

Terror_K wrote...

Oh this rubbish again...

THIS needs to stop.

[tigrina]

Alice829 wrote...
I don't know why, because the novels were decent, and ME2 was supposedly written by the same person, but the character interactions are just clunkier than hell.

Not really. ME1 has a different lead writer than ME2.

Alice829 wrote...
To be fair, there are some moments that do work, especially humor, and I think the VAs do the best they can with what they have, but they need to borrow a few of the DA:O writers to help with ME3.

Let them be working on their DA projects please... otherwise we get two half decent projects >.<
I can see why you say that though. ME team could use some lessons in friendly vs. romance dialogue, for one. I hate it when romances just get slapped on you and with that, how your character acts. *cough*Jacob*cough*

Somehow I think it is mostly style and gameplay decisions. It feels like it is supposed to be a 'fast' game rather than a 'deep' one. Not really my thing. I like more dialogue and banter. Both ME1 and ME2 are lacking in that department, in my opinion. I did like all the little references you can hear and see throughout ME2 to ME1 though.

[Orchomene]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, RPG skill system was linked to weapon system in ME1. Rpg skill system on ME1 did not make combat better, it cause problems, unbalance and redused impression. So, it did create variety, but not so good ways, at least in weapon side of the combat. Also ME1 and ME2 combat system is 3rd person shooter. Category is very clear. Who does the shooting (aiming) player or character?

I don't see why people affirm that a character based combat system is worse than a player based. I can say the reverse : my PC Shepard is a very good shooter, yes I miss all my target because the PC can't alone find the next target all by himself.
There is no bad or good way to handle distance combat, there are FPS/TPS one and RPG one. I like RPG way and not TPS one, but I won't say that the ME2 system is broken. Everyone has his taste.

[Lumikki]

Orchomene wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, RPG skill system was linked to weapon system in ME1. Rpg skill system on ME1 did not make combat better, it cause problems, unbalance and redused impression. So, it did create variety, but not so good ways, at least in weapon side of the combat. Also ME1 and ME2 combat system is 3rd person shooter. Category is very clear. Who does the shooting (aiming) player or character?

I don't see why people affirm that a character based combat system is worse than a player based. I can say the reverse : my PC Shepard is a very good shooter, yes I miss all my target because the PC can't alone find the next target all by himself.
There is no bad or good way to handle distance combat, there are FPS/TPS one and RPG one. I like RPG way and not TPS one, but I won't say that the ME2 system is broken. Everyone has his taste.

I'm talking here where  Shepard the best military person was chosen from elite solders to become Specter for humans.

Sniper rifle at level 1, player could not hit even barn with it. Hell it did not feel like N7 elite solder, where's the impression now. Pistol in later levels feeled like some submachine gun, because "marksman" rpg skill. What also make it one of most damaging weapon. Pistol could be used to everyting.

Example these two situation is TOTALLY fault of RPG skill system.

Oh, my point was that character based skill systems works well with character based combat. How ever, mixing character skill (rpg) and players skill (shooter), isn't really good idea. Mass Effect series has 3rd person shooter combat, so character skill system doesn't make combat better. Not a good mix.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juin 2010 - 01:41 .

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Terror, you DO know that the call of duty games have far better and deeper customization than even mass effect? You are basically trying to claim that ME1's weapon modding is deeper than that of any shooter, you are clearly wrong.

Ah, once again a pro-ME2 person jumps to an extreme conclusion and puts words in my mouth while failing to actually properly read what has been said.

When did I ever say that ME1's system was deeper than that of any shooter? In fact, if you bothered to read my posts properly, you would have seen that I stated in this very thread that CoD4 and Hitman: Blood Money both had better systems and that they weren't RPGs. There's a difference between something being deeper than most standard shooter systems and deeper than all of them, and the truth is those examples are more the case of RPG-esque systems being introduced into a shooter. They are not the standard rule when it comes to weapon systems in a shooter, they are the exception.

My problem with ME2 is that it does the opposite: it introduces a standard shooter-esque system into an RPG, while ME1's system, admittedly flawed as it was, was at least an RPG system.

And, as usual, you seem to think that by complaining about ME2's shallow one I automatically want it replaced again with ME1's broken one. This is not the case at all. All I'm stating is that ME2's weapons system is shallow and insufficient for an RPG and needs more depth to it. That doesn't automatically mean that falling back again on ME1's method is the answer.

Pocketgb wrote...

In ME1 it doesn't make a whole lot a sense that the Alliance's best Soldier gets next to no support in terms of load out. If I wanted my men to succeed I'd gear them up with the best the Alliance could offer. Instead Shepard has to scrounge from the droppings of simple mercenaries. Makes sense in a traditional RPG sense, but not so much with ME1's backdrop.

That may be true, but one sometimes has to separate gameplay elements from narrative ones. Otherwise one could get really picky and start saying, "why would Shepard be worrying about gaining XP and leveling up, etc." as well. The same applies to weapons. Also, if what you proposed were the case, there'd be next to no gear progression whatsoever because you'd automatically have the best stuff at the start, making things even more shallow.

And while we're on that "same principle", ME1's weapon did not go past any mold. Gear simply "varied" in appearance and performance because you used what was flat-out better than what you had before, and in a game where all encounters are scaled around your level it becomes a rather lifeless and crap-filled progression.

And how is this different from standard RPG models? That's pretty much how the systems work in general. And it's still far more progressive and varied than ME2's completely limited and entirely on-the-rails and inevitable progression... if you can even call it progression.

ME1's system was flat because of the selection of guns (made up slightly via the customization), ME2's was flat because of the lack of weapon customization (made up slightly via the amount of loadout possibilities).

At least you can agree that they're both flawed... which is beyond what most ME2 fanboys who defend the ME2 weapons system as if it were God's gift to gamers and the most deep and satisfying RPG system in existence. Yes... hyperbole, I know. But if you guys keep doing it to us, I might as well have some fun back. Which leads to...

And also:

Terror_K wrote...

Oh this rubbish again...

THIS needs to stop.

That's exactly what I thought, which is why I said it. 

Seriously though... the pro-ME2 group need to actually read what's being said instead of constantly coming up with the same inane claims and putting words in peoples' mouths and jumping to conclusions regarding the faults being brought up with ME2, because this whole thing keeps going in circles because no matter how many times things are said they're always taken the wrong way and the same silly claims keep getting thrown at those of us who are unhappy. And yet you expect us to respect your opinions and see you as smart people and not mindless shooter fans or whatever despite this. It's not helping.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yes. Because as we all know, throwing out RPG mechanics and replacing them with simple shooter ones that aren't much deeper than the systems in Doom or Quake is evolution. <_<

and you know better than making a glib and factually incorrect statement, too, right? <_< (because the change to the RPG mechanics had nothing to do with the improvements to the combat mechanics - they both underwent substantial changes - accusing one of affecting the other, therefore, is flawed logic in the extreme).

But they're linked. And the weapons system in ME2 was basically just a substandard shooter one, while the one in ME1 was at least more akin to fitting an RPG. At least it had some variety, randomness and customisation to it. ME2's weapons system can barely even be called a system at all.

they're not linked - unless you secretly work at bioware and can tell me that they had a meeting in which they said: "btw guys, we're putting all our resources into the TPS combat this time around and we'll sort something out regarding the RPG rubbish later!" both systems were developed concurrently for both games. they knew afetr me1 that the combat system needed fixing to compete with the better examples in the genre, like gears, and they also attempted to improve the rpg systems to accomodate the larger cast of me2.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 10 juin 2010 - 02:01 .

[Orchomene]

But I don't understand why some people seem to think that a combat system that has not changed since almost 20 years ago (Doom) is better than a character based system. Pew-pew is fun when you are ten year old, but it becomes quickly boring.

Well, there can be some variety in it : pewpewpew, bam or fizzzz.

Nonetheless, they lowered the system in ME2 up to the point that the player has to do it all by himself instead of having a system with him.



About gear, I can agree that the background explaining why Shepard doesn't get the best gear is pretty poor. But that's not because a background is poor that you need to downgrade the rpg gameplay.

In other games there are reasons given and the designers of ME could have found an issue if they thought about it some hours.

[Vena_86]

From my obvervation limited imagination is the main problem why things go in circles. Too many people assume there is only ME1 and ME2 and it is a matter of choice which complete systems are better. Why doesnt it accure, that systems like the inventory can be stripped down to many single elements, which can be discussed? Why doesnt it accure, that even a system that is better then another system still has flaws which should be pointed out and discussed so that there can be future improvements? And just by pointing something out that was better in another game for comparisons sake, doesnt mean that everything that is even remotely connected with the element at hand has to be copy pasted from that other games system.



This is the main problem I see with a large part of the fanbase and BioWare too. If something doesnt work nuke it away and start something completely different! Its like playing poker and going "all in" all the freakin time.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...


Ah, once again a pro-ME2 person jumps to an extreme conclusion and puts words in my mouth while failing to actually properly read what has been said.

Heres the thing Terror_K, while we had many great discussions in the past, why shouldn't i try to force words into your mouth the very same way you try to force your personal opinions on others as absolute facts?

Terror_K wrote...
When did I ever say that ME1's system was deeper than that of any shooter? In fact, if you bothered to read my posts properly, you would have seen that I stated in this very thread that CoD4 and Hitman: Blood Money both had better systems and that they weren't RPGs. There's a difference between something being deeper than most standard shooter systems and deeper than all of them, and the truth is those examples are more the case of RPG-esque systems being introduced into a shooter. They are not the standard rule when it comes to weapon systems in a shooter, they are the exception.

Just how would i read your posts buried within hundreds of other baw baw baw posts? Now that you mention it, i take back what i said. But seriously, despite ME1's weapon system being supposedly closer to an RPG(which i respectfully disagree), i fail to see how it is any deeper than ME2's system when all weapons work the same with the exception of the additional 2-3 slots for mods which once again debunks any depth to a different weapon if you transfer over the same mods(with barely noticable differences).

While ME2's weapon system is flawed, at least each weapon felt different from one another, unlike ME1's weapons where all weapons in their respective classes fired the same exact way and felt exactly the  same,ME2's weapons were much different, the vindicator in ME2 felt like an M16 in COD4/MW2 with its unique burst fire and high accuracy, the standard assault rifle with its full auto felt like an M4A1, the revenant felt like an AK-47, powerful bursts but high recoil. And what was the name of the bolt action sniper rifle that felt like a Kar98? At least it felt different from the other sniper without bolt action.

Do you get my point? I'm not saying its perfect, but at the least each weapon felt different from another, now true that they should have made the weapons somewhat moddable, but they didn't and they should do so in the next game seeing that if thyey want to make the combat mechanics like a COD shooter, they should at the least have the customization akin to that of a COD multiplayer which is incredibly deep or like Metal Gear Solid 4 which offered excellent weapon customization.

Terror_K wrote...
And, as usual, you seem to think that by complaining about ME2's shallow one I automatically want it replaced again with ME1's broken one. This is not the case at all. All I'm stating is that ME2's weapons system is shallow and insufficient for an RPG and needs more depth to it. That doesn't automatically mean that falling back again on ME1's method is the answer.

ME1's weapon system in my opinion isn't that great either.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 10 juin 2010 - 01:59 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Orchomene wrote...

But I don't understand why some people seem to think that a combat system that has not changed since almost 20 years ago (Doom) is better than a character based system. Pew-pew is fun when you are ten year old, but it becomes quickly boring.

Yeah, because shooters these days still play the same as Doom. Good grief. You know, I'm really not a huge fan of the FPS genre, but if you don't even know that, you don't get to have an opinion.

[Orchomene]

So, enlighten me. What is different ? Don't you take a gun, aim at a target, find cover and shoot the enemy in the head ? After that you need to collect ammo and sometimes better weapons. Of course, the technology may have improved will sense of physical models and things like that. But those are minor modifications.

All in all, play one shooter, you have then played all the shooters.

[Lumikki]

Hehe, I'm, RPG player and don't really like to play FPS games. How ever, I don't think the combat is just shoot the head from cover. *grins*

Example in ME2 I can make head shots, but I think under 10% of my shooting is actually head shots. So, when you compare that to shape of human body, it's pretty accurate way. My point is that there is no point to make head shot everytime, if it's not needed to kill the enemy. Many enemies dies fine just from body shots and they are easyer to make fast.

Sorry, I can't enlight you, because I'm RPG player too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juin 2010 - 02:30 .

[bjdbwea]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

But I don't understand why some people seem to think that a combat system that has not changed since almost 20 years ago (Doom) is better than a character based system. Pew-pew is fun when you are ten year old, but it becomes quickly boring.

Yeah, because shooters these days still play the same as Doom. Good grief. You know, I'm really not a huge fan of the FPS genre, but if you don't even know that, you don't get to have an opinion.

Basically, they do, don't they. I can understand multiplayer shooters, that's a competition of skills. But singleplayer? He's right, that's always the same. What's the point in "killing" enemies by clicking a button when all you need is to be quicker than a stupid AI? It's a different thing if you have a working RPG system like Fallout 3 (and to some extent ME 1), or if it's really realistic and difficult like in OFP. But it often seems that a challenge isn't even wanted. Cool it has to be, flashy and shiny.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 10 juin 2010 - 02:29 .

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Heres the thing Terror_K, while we had many great discussions in the past, why shouldn't i try to force words into your mouth the very same way you try to force your personal opinions on others as absolute facts?

I don't force people to think anything. I just call things how I see them. People are free to prefer and believe what they want. Some things I think are fact, some I agree is opinion. For example, I personally think that ME2 being dumbed-down is a fact. But I'll admit that whether this dumbing down was an improvement or not is a matter of opinion.

But seriously, despite ME1's weapon system being supposedly closer to an RPG(which i respectfully disagree), i fail to see how it is any deeper than ME2's system when all weapons work the same with the exception of the additional 2-3 slots for mods which once again debunks any depth to a different weapon if you transfer over the same mods(with barely noticable differences).

Because at least the ME1 system had variety, customisation, trade-offs, weapon stats/attributes and wasn't completely linear and inevitable. Most of ME1's problems lay in the items themselves and not the system behind them.

While ME2's weapon system is flawed, at least each weapon felt different from one another, unlike ME1's weapons where all weapons in their respective classes fired the same exact way and felt exactly the  same,ME2's weapons were much different, the vindicator in ME2 felt like an M16 in COD4/MW2 with its unique burst fire and high accuracy, the standard assault rifle with its full auto felt like an M4A1, the revenant felt like an AK-47, powerful bursts but high recoil. And what was the name of the bolt action sniper rifle that felt like a Kar98? At least it felt different from the other sniper without bolt action.

Do you get my point? I'm not saying its perfect, but at the least each weapon felt different from another, now true that they should have made the weapons somewhat moddable, but they didn't and they should do so in the next game seeing that if thyey want to make the combat mechanics like a COD shooter, they should at the least have the customization akin to that of a COD multiplayer which is incredibly deep or like Metal Gear Solid 4 which offered excellent weapon customization.

Seriously... you're only saying what dozens upon dozens of others have said before. Weapon "feel" is purely a shooter thing though. When you're playing an RPG you don't determine how good a weapon is by "feel" you determine how good it is by statistical comparison. Also, again, if ME1 had only one of each type of weapon it would be the exact same thing, just with a slightly smaller selection. They're only "unique" and "feel different" because there are so few of them and because they're so limited. An RPG where you essentially have only one of each item is pointless and boring, especially when they're always in the same place every time and there's no customisation. Every game just ends up the same, there's no thrill of the hunt or randomness or anything. Its horribly linear, predictable and simple. How in any way is this system any more deep and meaningful than playing through Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you come across them? Seriously... I want an answer to this, because nobody has even given one, let alone given one remotely satisfactory.

[spacehamsterZH]

Orchomene wrote...
All in all, play one shooter, you have then played all the shooters.

If you take all of the shooters released at any given point in time, yeah, pretty much. It's all the same game with different graphics. But Doom and a modern shooter have very little in common. Doom had no body part specific aiming, so no, you actually didn't aim for the head in Doom. It also didn't have a cover system, ducking, different walking modes, any sort of weapon customization, aim pull or any other kind of mechanic throwing off the aim by rapid fire, any discernable variation in enemy AI except for "run at 'im and kill", vehicle or turret sections, and a bunch of other stuff I don't feel like listing because you're just going to dismiss it all anyway to feed your arrogant "my game genre can beat up your genre" attitude.

Honestly, I don't play a lot of FPS because I find them boring and repetitive and too similar, but it's just flat-out not true that the genre's gameplay mechanics haven't progressed. You might as well say all RPGs still play the same as 20 years ago. I mean, you have a character with stats you can level up, you walk around and either fight or talk to people. Right?

[spacehamsterZH]

bjdbwea wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

But I don't understand why some people seem to think that a combat system that has not changed since almost 20 years ago (Doom) is better than a character based system. Pew-pew is fun when you are ten year old, but it becomes quickly boring.

Yeah, because shooters these days still play the same as Doom. Good grief. You know, I'm really not a huge fan of the FPS genre, but if you don't even know that, you don't get to have an opinion.

Basically, they do, don't they. I can understand multiplayer shooters, that's a competition of skills. But singleplayer? He's right, that's always the same. What's the point in "killing" enemies by clicking a button when all you need is to be quicker than a stupid AI? It's a different thing if you have a working RPG system like Fallout 3 (and to some extent ME 1), or if it's really realistic and difficult like in OFP. But it often seems that a challenge isn't even wanted. Cool it has to be, flashy and shiny.

I think I liked you better when you made a point of ignoring me everytime I responded to one of your posts.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Seriously... you're only saying what dozens upon dozens of others have said before. Weapon "feel" is purely a shooter thing though. When you're playing an RPG you don't determine how good a weapon is by "feel" you determine how good it is by statistical comparison.

Yeah, but the point is Mass Effects, both of them are 3rd person shooter, not RPG. So, how the weapon feel is a issue for player, because it's player who does the shooting, not character.

How in any way is this system any more deep and meaningful than playing through Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you come across them? Seriously... I want an answer to this, because nobody has even given one, let alone given one remotely satisfactory.

It's not any deeper or better, it's just different way to handle things. It's not about what's deeper, it's that different players likes little different stuff.

[spacehamsterZH]

I think a good shooter RPG should strive to combine both - weapons that handle differently in real time like in a shooter, but also have accessible stats (damage output, range, precision) and can be customized.

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...

Basically, they do, don't they. I can understand multiplayer shooters, that's a competition of skills. But singleplayer? He's right, that's always the same. What's the point in "killing" enemies by clicking a button when all you need is to be quicker than a stupid AI? It's a different thing if you have a working RPG system like Fallout 3 (and to some extent ME 1), or if it's really realistic and difficult like in OFP. But it often seems that a challenge isn't even wanted. Cool it has to be, flashy and shiny.

that's the most retarded thing i've ever read. any game boils down to clicking buttons when you reduce it like that - does it then matter what's happening on the screen?

[bjdbwea]

Jebel Krong wrote...

that's the most retarded thing i've ever read. any game boils down to clicking buttons when you reduce it like that - does it then matter what's happening on the screen?

Many things can look retarded if you don't read the argument carefully and completely. So - read again?

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...


I don't force people to think anything. I just call things how I see them. People are free to prefer and believe what they want. Some things I think are fact, some I agree is opinion. For example, I personally think that ME2 being dumbed-down is a fact. But I'll admit that whether this dumbing down was an improvement or not is a matter of opinion.

Really? Why the massive walls of text to try to tell someone he is wrong then? The fact that you must win evey debate in this thread not because winning is everything, but because its the only thing?

Terror_K wrote...
Because at least the ME1 system had variety, customisation, trade-offs, weapon stats/attributes and wasn't completely linear and inevitable. Most of ME1's problems lay in the items themselves and not the system behind them.

Once again i completely and respectfully disagree, i just think that the "variety" was simply not one, but two different model weapons slapped on with different textures and different stats with slightly more higher damage and accuracy.

Terror_K wrote...
Seriously... you're only saying what dozens upon dozens of others have said before. Weapon "feel" is purely a shooter thing though. When you're playing an RPG you don't determine how good a weapon is by "feel" you determine how good it is by statistical comparison.
Also, again, if ME1 had only one of each type of weapon it would be the exact same thing, just with a slightly smaller selection. They're only "unique" and "feel different" because there are so few of them and because they're so limited. An RPG where you essentially have only one of each item is pointless and boring,

Once again you speak of this like its some universal law of
RPG's, then how come great RPG's like fallout 3 with much more powerful
RPG mechanics than ME1 only had 1 of each weapon? Does that make the weapons in fallout 3 "pointless and boring" if i apply your logic here?

And didn't you, like many other pro ME1 extremists keep trying to drill into peoples heads that ME2 tried to play as a shooter rather than a balance between RPG/shooter? So obviously its going to have "less[cluster crap] weapons" because according to you, the end be know all says that ME2 tried to be more of a shooter than an RPG? 

Terror_K wrote...
especially when they're always in the same place every time and there's no customisation. Every game just ends up the same, there's no thrill of the hunt or randomness or anything. Its horribly linear, predictable and simple. How in any way is this system any more deep and meaningful than playing through Doom or Quake and just finding the weapons as you come across them? Seriously... I want an answer to this, because nobody has even given one, let alone given one remotely satisfactory.

Let me answer for you, the reason why ME2's weapon system ended up the way it was, was because of the fact that ME1's weapon system wasn't that fantastic and like many ME1 extremists, constantly argued that ME2's shooter mechanics were parallel to that of a TPS, with the decs admitting their focus on combat, i don't see why they wouldn't have chose this path.

Really, you said that ME1 leaned more towards the RPG side rather than a perfect blend between RPG/shooter, you also said that ME2 leaned more towards the shooter side rather than a perfect blend between RPG/shooter, so, if its leaning more towards a deep TPS (going by your own words on this thread back over 100 pages), why shouldn't they implement this system?

Do you see other shooters like battlefield or call of duty where you find the very same model of an assault rifle but with different stats? No you don't.