Lumikki wrote...
Yes, some of those are missing the game, but are they missed by players is other thing.
By some, yes. Otherwise this topic and all the others like it wouldn't exist.
I mean, I miss some of those stuff, but some other stuff are actually good thing that they get rid of it. A few of the good stuff get rid are stats/skills affecting the gameplay. Yeah, those RPG stuff, because those did not make gameplay better, they did make it worst.
That's a matter of opinion.
Examples:
Decrypction skill determined players ability get access to decryption. Totally waste of time skill, because it just forces players to put point there if player wants to do decryption. Because in the end it was player based skill anyway.
Uh... no. It's the same as the common "Rogue" concept. A standard soldier wouldn't necessarily know how to properly hack a secure system with an omni-tool quickly or unlock an electronic lock. Same goes for a biotic specialist. A tech specialist would. If every Joe could just do it, why would people bother to even lock them or make their terminals secure in the first place? That's what a tech specialist is for... its pretty much a standard RPG mechanic.
Weapons skills affecting accuracy. Oh my good how bad design. Actually trying to prevent player to make the shot. Hole aiming is player skill and now character skill trying to make it harder for player. So, that player has to counter affect the negative situation with player skill. Think about sniper rifle.
Uh... okay. I'm seriously not sure what you're saying here, so I'll skip this one...
What about weapon skills like marksman what totally destroyed hole weapon combat balance and also make pistol feel totally different than pistols are. More like submachine gun. Totally bad game design there.
Not when a sub-machine gun doesn't exist otherwise. Also, its a limited power. Wouldn't work in ME2 because A) Sub-machine guns do exist,
Cooldowns are too damn quick.
Persuade and intimidate skills. 100% uselless skills because it only meaned if you want the addional dialog option, you where forced to put one of them points when it was possible. This is hell of lot better done in ME2, even if most of players here don't even understand why. Because it's now about players gameplay choises in dialog chat what determines the option, not just general character progression.
In most RPG's, when a character persuades somebody with dialogue they usually have to have a high persuasion skill of some kind (charisma, deception, intimidation, speech, etc. depending on the game) to succeed. The whole point of this is to make it so characters can't be a Jack of All Trades and that they either have to suck some combat stuff down to be able to be able to have a high persuasion, or they have to either ignore it to become stronger in combat or be less of a combat character and rely more of their charisma and persuasion to get them through situations.
ME2 craps on this concept entirely with its design. Shepard can now just be great at everything, not needing to put effort into being a charismatic character, and the same applies with the higher example about the tech skills now being meaningless. Essentially, Shepard can now pretty much be the Fighter-Mage-Thief with the benefits of being them all and none the drawbacks, without any effort to get there (point of note... Fighter-Mage-Thief characters do indeed tend to be badass, but take a lot of work to get there). There are no trade-offs any more, because all the classes and skills are reduced to simply being different ways of killing the enemy and stopping yourself getting killed and
that's all. Everything is entirely centred around combat now, and a good RPG shouldn't have such a narrow focus. Essentially, ME2 is pretty much just a story driven shooter with heavy dialogue where you upgrade your combat abilities. There's no real diversification or multiple facets at all.
My point here is that what the Terror_K wrote aren't all good thing. She/he just think so. Also many of them are just illusion and did not really make the game better. Example huge variety of items, when most the itmes where same items just different names.
They
are all good things. They just weren't all things that were done well in the first game. There's a difference.
But again, this is also a point of view.
Also some stuff are her/his self biased opinions. Example companions not needed. WTF, I never needed companions in both games. So, how is one better than other? That's what I, mean biased opinions.
Aside from the fact that
everybody has a biased opinion, regarding that very point, let's see you go through ME1 as a pure Soldier class taking only Ashley and Liara with you everywhere and never choosing the others. Or even Ashley and Wrex.
What's that? You can't open locked doors or decrypt things? I wonder why...
kalle90 wrote...
Also true. That applies to every single RPG and some other games too. Why are Cloud, Revan and even Batman so weak? Commander Shepard should have all his skills atleast halfway to the max from the start if look at it from the realism standpoint.
The save migration does some good, but it's still pathetic. I do think that it would be nice if we could migrate all our stats in ME, place up to ~20 skill points when we create a character or start some Final Fantasy game with a level 30+ character.
Some people need to be able to separate gameplay mechanics from narrative and story. These are
games and not every mechanic makes sense. Do you think Shepard
really has levels and is concerned about gaining XP and what he has to spend his points in next time? How about the fact that despite being crouched behind cover you can still see the battlefield and enemies before you, even though the way Shepard's head is positioned there's no way he/she could? Things would be pretty boring and restrictive if everything was overly realistic, and RPG progression would be meaningless if we were too concerned about that.
Modifié par Terror_K, 14 juin 2010 - 12:12 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
