10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 for the most part satisfied me, and I don't really think a top-down, turn-based approach would have worked since they were going for an interactive cinema experience just as much as they were going for anything else.

Then they should be able to go the DA:O route of things: play back or play up close, depending on what you want to see or do. The RPG elements suffered for trying to make it feel 'immersive' and 'cinematic' - hence why I sympathize when you're upset about ME2 focusing more on combat rather the RPG elements: I  don't feel the same about the topic, but I do feel the same way.

Terror_K wrote...


I think BioWare saw which was the wind was blowing with the massive popularity of Halo, Gears of War and CoD4 and decided to follow the money that was being taken on the breeze, hence the culling and slimming of the RPG elements.

I agree, but I felt that it started with Mass Effect in the firstplace: another space marine in space armor in an over-the-shoulder setting scoring with alien chicks.

Terror_K wrote...

Well, I guess that's a preference thing...

Sums up about 98% of the thread and 100% of this side conversation.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 juin 2010 - 12:31 .

[Terror_K]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Actually, aside from the limited Shepard creator and a few minor things, most of ME1's problems are already gone. Not because they were fixed, but because the things causing the problem were just thrown out or simplified so much as to remove not only the faults but almost everything else. This unfortunately caused a lot of new problems, and these are where most of ME2's faults actually lie.[/quote]
Yes, but fixing ME2 problems, should not bring the ME1 problems back. Remember, some of people have been asking to go back more the ME1 direction. How ever, there is danger that it brings some ME1 problems back too.[/quote]

This is true, which is why many are suggesting systems that compromise and/or meet in the middle, and try and achieve what ME1 attempted to while also trying to avoid the pitfalls that come with it. There's a lot of good ideas out there for trying to bring back depth without bringing back awkwardness and redundancy, especially some of Ecael's suggestions and threads. I think when people say they want things to go back more in an ME1 direction they mean what ME1 was trying to achieve and bring to the table rather than literally going back to how it was done there. Most of ME1's problems come from systems not working, while most of ME2's problems come from a complete lack of any depth or complexity in their systems and oversimplification.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

My answer is simply "what came first" just in all those other examples. Most people would just choose to say
"which version I like best" I guess, but I pretty much take the first stuff as the correct stuff. Comics are somewhat of an exception, but beyond that the original.[/quote]
So, what you say here is, even how bad the first game is, every other sequel has to made same technical design.  So, with this kind ideology, if players get crap game design, it can't be fixed in sequels. Now if you say of course problems can be fixed, then how you define what's the problem? Is it based your own personal decissions or game developers?
[/quote]
[/quote]

No, not exactly. What I'm saying is that the sequels --especially direct sequels-- should adhere to the same basic design and principles. Many of ME1's ideas and designs weren't bad in concept, but merely bad in execution. If something doesn't work but has a purpose and adds something to the game, then I believe it should be improved and fixed and not scrapped and simplified in order to avoid the problem entirely by making the system so simple that it can't have the problems because there's not enough complexity for things to go wrong.

That's what mostly happened with ME2, and it left us with gameplay that didn't give us the aspects that the first game had in the process. A sequel should generally be pretty much the same as its predecessor but with more and better. ME2 was merely similar and had less. Some people will say "quality over quantity" but when you're dealing with RPGs part of the quality is quantity. What makes a satisfactory shooter does not always make a satisfactory RPG, and we're dealing with a hybrid here, so one side is just as important as the other.

Few people disagree on what ME1's problems were, but many have differing views on how best to solve them. BioWare decided that scrapping and going back to the drawing board was the best solution, and while some agree with them, others do not, and feel the problems should have been explored and actually fixed rather than just have the elements surrounding them binned in favour of overly simplistic replacements. I've seen even the most ardent ME2 supporters at least admit that even if they think things are better that a little more depth would be nice and that they miss one or two elements that went to the wayside. Some also feel that some factors such as The Mako and elevators took a fall for entirely the wrong reasons, and had potential. Even many ME2 fans feel The Hammerhead is a poor substitute that beyond handling better misses the point and feels lacklustre compared to The Mako, while others feel the elevators would still have been better than loading screens and that they merely needed to be sped up, etc.

The main point is that the ideals and overall style of Mass Effect didn't need to be sacrificed to make the game work, but BioWare chose to do so, probably for several reasons. And I think whether it makes a better game or not, it was a mistake to deviate from the original vision and feel of the first game to do so.

[LucidValvo]

I LOVED Mass Effect 1. Felt like a truly immersive Sci-Fi Epic. All the characters had excellent dialogue, the suspense was amazing, and finally defeating Saren was a blast. Sure, the Mako got annoying on the second or third playthrough when you just wanted to hurry it up and get to the fun stuff.



As for Mass Effect 2, I love what they did to the combat system. We all know ME1 had combat problems, just look at Pinnacle Station. ....but the characters felt hollow, the Hub Worlds offered very little exploration. I think exploration is the thing they toned down altogether. Very few side quests. I liked being able to walk through the airlock and back. Sure the elevators could get annoying, but that's why they included the fast transit!



I don't know, Mass Effect 2 is a great game, it just doesn't feel like Mass Effect.

[bjdbwea]

Orchomene wrote...

I don't like the gameplay of ME2 so doing anything but discussions was a pain for me. So, I just forced myself to do the main missions and loyalty missions just to see the end of the story game. But I just after that uninstalled all of this. The point is that I don't like the shooter mechanics. So if the RPG elements are great I can enjoy a game even if the game is close to a shooter. But for ME2, it was too close to a shooter and the story wasn't interesting at all. I finfd the game boring : hide in cover to replenish life, aim, shot, cover, aim, shoot, cover, ...  When I tried to do a bit differently, like going out of cover, I was quickly dead so I stopped trying something different. Then romances may be fun to do, but there was really nothing of a challenge. I tried Miranda but it was like a vicious Shepard all looking at her ass during the discussion, it felt just wrong since they are working together and he found nothing more than talking to her ass. I've always found that BW was limit at story level. their stories lack of originality but can be well organized to be enjoyable. But in ME2, it was not even that. I'm not sure after having seen and played Awakenings and ME2 that I will buy another BW game after having plyed almost all their other games. Either I'm getting old or they are evolving in a direction that is not mine. A bit like the evolution of Bethesda from Daggerfall to Morrowind and then Oblivion. I couldn't finish Oblivion whereas the first two games were really enjoyable. Now that video game is a big market, we can see some companies going to the "easy way of mainstream developing". There is no return from this easy path. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Yeah, I understand your point. And I agree with all you said. Especially the bold part. Funny enough, I haven't completed Oblivion either. I do like Fallout 3 a lot though, so Bethesda proves a company can find its way back on a better path. Also with their DLCs, after the Oblivion stuff they have delivered 5 very well done and reasonably priced DLCs. Still not as good as a real add-on as it used to be, of course, but certainly the best DLCs for any game so far.

So I'm still hoping BioWare might find their way again too. Otherwise, I will of course not buy ME 3, nor DA 2 for that matter if it strays too far from its predecessor. But since I did pay money for ME 2, I've played through it several times even. Apart from planet scanning and the terrible side quests, which I both quickly ignored, it was entertaining enough, I guess. Just not enough that I would normally "need" and buy such a game. Maybe from the budget bin later on.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 juin 2010 - 12:45 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

The main point is that the ideals and overall style of Mass Effect didn't need to be sacrificed to make the game work, but BioWare chose to do so, probably for several reasons. And I think whether it makes a better game or not, it was a mistake to deviate from the original vision and feel of the first game to do so.

And here comes the real problem. Main point as what is Mass Effect style?

Mass Effect style is fluid cinematic storytelling with dialogs. Combat part done with 3rd person shooter and game included "minor" part of roleplaying.

What's the problem here?

This is and allways has been about amount of rpg in Mass Effects to please people who likes RPG. This isn't what Mass Effects REALLY are, it's about what RPG players wants it to be. It's about some players wanting bigger roleplaying part in Mass Effect series. I'm fine with it, I like roleplaying impressions. How ever, that doesn't mean I want to some number crushing traditional RPG, like some people here have been asking

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2010 - 12:53 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Lumikki wrote...

This is and allways has been about amount of rpg in Mass Effects to please people who likes RPG. This isn't what Mass Effects REALLY are, it's about what RPG players wants it to be.

Like I've said here before, it's totally true that some shooter fans act like they're entitled to every game with a gun in it, but on this board I also get the impression that some RPG fans act like they're entitled to every game with a stats system in it. It's not entirely unreasonable given that the developer in question here is generally known as an RPG developer and BG was based on AD&D, but why aren't these same people fuming at the mouth about the lack of RPG elements in MDK2? Mass Effect has never been what hardcore RPG geeks really want out of a game.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The main point is that the ideals and overall style of Mass Effect didn't need to be sacrificed to make the game work, but BioWare chose to do so, probably for several reasons. And I think whether it makes a better game or not, it was a mistake to deviate from the original vision and feel of the first game to do so.

And here comes the real problem. Main point as what is Mass Effect style?

Mass Effect style is fluid cinematic storytelling with dialogs. Combat part done with 3rd person shooter and game included "minor" part of roleplaying.

What's the problem here?

This is and allways has been about amount of rpg in Mass Effects to please people who likes RPG. This isn't what Mass Effects REALLY are, it's about what RPG players wants it to be. It's about some players wanting bigger roleplaying part in
Mass Effect series. I'm fine with it, I like roleplaying impressions.
How ever, that doesn't mean I want to some number crushing traditional
RPG, like some people here have been asking

That's not what most who preferred ME1 have been asking for though. We know that ME1 was never a traditional RPG from the start, but nor was it a traditional shooter. It was a hybrid, and many of us liked the elements in the original game and thought the balance was pretty damn good between the three main elements that make up the game: RPG, TPS and Interactive Sci-Fi Movie. The RPG elements in ME1 were light but significant. But then ME2 comes along and skews everything out of proportion, with the RPG elements becoming even lighter and losing most of their significance while the shooter ones come to the fore and dominate. The near-perfect balance is lost and the game is closer to being a traditional shooter than it is being a harmonious blend.

Everybody knows the story of The Three Bears. Mass Effect 1 was closer to being the third bowl of porridge than Mass Effect 2, which was closer to the first one. When you've got a hybrid things should be well balanced, and when part of that hybrid is an RPG losing depth and complexity and choice is the last thing that should happen. You make an RPG too simple and you miss the point of it entirely, and ME2 proves that though its near-on complete devotion to combat and combat alone.

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Like I've said here before, it's totally true that some shooter fans act like they're entitled to every game with a gun in it, but on this board I also get the impression that some RPG fans act like they're entitled to every game with a stats system in it. It's not entirely unreasonable given that the developer in question here is generally known as an RPG developer and BG was based on AD&D, but why aren't these same people fuming at the mouth about the lack of RPG elements in MDK2? Mass Effect has never been what hardcore RPG geeks really want out of a game.

And yet a lot of them became Mass Effect fans with the first game and were (mostly) satisfied with it.

Modifié par Terror_K, 23 juin 2010 - 01:05 .

[Orchomene]

Beth doing Fallout 3 was a bit of a goal for them. They bought the Fallout franchise and knew it would be difficult to make a sequel that could be appreciated by the fallout fanbase. I think Beth dev loved playing fallout 1/2 and wouldn't want to do a too mainstreamed product. Yet, I still think they went to far in the "modernizing" direction.

I mean, the spirit of Fallout was to show that there was still a place for the turn based RPG in the market. And it was a success since they put a big effort in trying to give a feeling of the P&P games. The freedom is still there in Fallout 3 but it lacks the difficulty you could see in the turn based games where a super mutant with a rocket launcher you didn't see could kill you in a critical single shot. It's just not possible to do that on a FP gameplay. I think the issue comes from the engine that was adapted for Oblivion but that couldn't go well in turn based. And VATS is not a good replacement of tb gameplay for many reasons (queuing system, no movement). Then there is the downgrade of RPG attributes in the SPECIAL system. SPECIAL was far more important in fallout 1/2 with a fun dumb gameplay wth an int lower than 4 or bad encounters with a low luck. But it's of course debatable.

For Bioware, I really don't know but doubt. If you have a large look at the game development from 2k up to know, you will clearly see an evolution (with some minor oscillations) targeting the console mainstream players. It's a so logical evolution (bigger market, less effort to put in story and gameplay but more on "polishing") that I can't see why they would go back to do games that are targeting a smaller audience of hardcore gamers. Maybe a game from time to time. So I will keep an eye on this, but not very close.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

The near-perfect balance is lost and the game is closer to being a traditional shooter than it is being a harmonious blend.

Near perfect balance was lost or arrived?

This depense who is looking the situation. You see it as lost, but not all see it that way. It's more player base choise. Does pure blood RPG fan like ME2, but also does pure blood shooter fan like ME1?  There is alot of people between these two extreme, where's the balance.

I also think it's more a lost, but also some of stuff what got lost is good thing. ME1's RPG side was badly done, not that ME2's rpg side is any better.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2010 - 01:31 .

[nelly21]

iakus wrote...

What would I have done?  For one thing, some of the recruitment and loyalty missions would have been different. 

For example:

You paragoned Garrus in ME 1:  Garrus goes on to become a Spectre.  HE's taken it on himself to investigate the missing colonies in the Terminus Systems with his own squad.  The Collectors hired a bunch of mercs to silence him.

Renegade option:  Garrus goes off and become a vigilante.  Plays out pretty much as it does in ME 2.

Doesn't even require much more than some dialogue changes.

Another example, one that would require more changes:

Samara was a senior officer on the Destiny Ascension.  If you saved the Council, she is still serving onboard.  You have to go aboard the ship (perhaps as part of a tour) when some crisis happens.  A Terra Firma terrorist attack, some kind of malfunction, or whatever.  Shep and squad save the day, and end up on the Ascension's bridge being personally thanked by the captain for your actions.  Samara is given leave to go on detached duty to help you in your current mission.

Council died:  Samara was one of the few survivors from the geth attack.  Now embittered towards the human-led Council she has resigned her commision and has taken up the ways of a justicar.  She is much more hostile towards Shepard on first meeting, perhaps giving Shep some conversation options explaning the motivations for letting the Council die.

this would also likely lead to a difference in the loyalty mission and her backstory, but at least it provides more connection between ME 1 and ME 2

Thane's loyalty mission.  Depending on who you helped in ME 1 (Dr Michel, Jorban/Jaleed, Emily Wong, the Consort, etc) these others may be willing to give you information in tracking down Kolyat.  It neednt' be much, just something other than an email to remind us that ME 1 did in fact take place.

The trick to an rpg is, even if you do have to follow a track, you have to make it seem like it's the player's choice.  Someting they would do on their own anyway.  ME 2 the story is rammed down your throat.  Do as TIM says or the galaxy is doomed.  You have to recruit these twelve people.  Trust us they're the best.  No one else will do. 

Few points:

Whether you paragon Garrus or not, he mentions his dislike for red tape. I got the sense when I paragoned him that you talked him into the importance of checks and balances ergo, talked him into staying with C-Sec. Furthermore, keeping him in the Spectres would negate his established character history. He was already chosen to apply and declined because of his father. I may be wrong, but I believe Spectre candidates are chosen not volunteered.

As far as Samara: When did she serve in the Acension? She's been hunting Morinth for centuries and has been a Justicar all that time. What you propose is to change the character completely in which case the question becomes: Why would you recruit for a suicide mission a run of the mill naval officer whose only claim to fame is serving on the asari flagship ? Aren't we supposed to recruit the best of the best?

As for Thane: Maybe, but why would these people know where an assassin is hiding? I felt that Kolyat should have been found by Liara and the whole mission should have taken place on Ilidum. But at least C-Sec found him. Why would any of these other people who aren't involved in assassinations or crime know where the assassin is? And if they did, wouldn't they contact C-Sec?

ME 2's story is a bit more on the rails, I agree with you there. But not nearly as much as you make it out to seem.  

[bjdbwea]

Orchomene wrote...

For Bioware, I really don't know but doubt. If you have a large look at the game development from 2k up to know, you will clearly see an evolution (with some minor oscillations) targeting the console mainstream players. It's a so logical evolution (bigger market, less effort to put in story and gameplay but more on "polishing") that I can't see why they would go back to do games that are targeting a smaller audience of hardcore gamers. Maybe a game from time to time. So I will keep an eye on this, but not very close.

Yeah, if you know how this business works and why things happen like they do, it's hard to be optimistic. People cite DA to prove otherwise, but that was in development for several years, also long before EA came into play. Whereas Awakening already suffers from some of the same "changes" that ME 2 does. First BioWare game I haven't bought by the way.

Off-topic, but as far as Fallout 3 is concerned: There are several mods that I would call essential, which make the game much more into a real RPG, more challenging, and the SPECIAL system becomes more important too. If a combat system works like that, I don't really mind that it's not turn-based but more action oriented. Both systems can be equally entertaining. What I don't like is simple pew-pew.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 juin 2010 - 01:28 .

[Orchomene]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

This is and allways has been about amount of rpg in Mass Effects to please people who likes RPG. This isn't what Mass Effects REALLY are, it's about what RPG players wants it to be.

Like I've said here before, it's totally true that some shooter fans act like they're entitled to every game with a gun in it, but on this board I also get the impression that some RPG fans act like they're entitled to every game with a stats system in it. It's not entirely unreasonable given that the developer in question here is generally known as an RPG developer and BG was based on AD&D, but why aren't these same people fuming at the mouth about the lack of RPG elements in MDK2? Mass Effect has never been what hardcore RPG geeks really want out of a game.

I can only talk for myself. The only issue I have is that I can see disappearing the games that are a middle ground between hardcore RPG gameplay (like some Indie games) and the "Mainstream" games. I would love seeing again games like Planescape/Fallout with good isometric graphics, story and character depth and great rpg mechanics. And I'm sure there is a strong market for that. Not the 2-4 million sales and the budget going with but a reasonable 500 k market with a smaller budget. Companies like BW could do have smaller projects if they want to. They just have to less advertise and put less effort in some of the "shiny" aspects. When you see what very small companies can do with almost no budget, it's sure it's doable. Just look at what was the cost of Fallout 1/2. The PC market is maybe smaller than the console one but it's a pretty stable market if you want to go in a cheap direction with expensions. Even older consoles market can be a good option. I regreat to not sea anything like that.

[Lusitanum]

Terror_K wrote...

That's not what most who preferred ME1 have been asking for though. We know that ME1 was never a traditional RPG from the start, but nor was it a traditional shooter. It was a hybrid, and many of us liked the elements in the original game and thought the balance was pretty damn good between the three main elements that make up the game: RPG, TPS and Interactive Sci-Fi Movie. The RPG elements in ME1 were light but significant. But then ME2 comes along and skews everything out of proportion, with the RPG elements becoming even lighter and losing most of their significance while the shooter ones come to the fore and dominate. The near-perfect balance is lost and the game is closer to being a traditional shooter than it is being a harmonious blend.

"Near-perfect balance"? Are you kidding? The combat was by far the worst aspect of the whole game. It wasn't so bad as to kill the enyoyment of playing it, but it felt weak throughout the whole thing. You could go through the whole game by just charging headlong into enemy fire with Immunity on as a combat class or spam powers as a support class. And you call that a "perfect balance" when combat is what you spend most of the time doing in the game?

Terror_K wrote...

Everybody knows the story of The Three Bears. Mass Effect 1 was closer to being the third bowl of porridge than Mass Effect 2, which was closer to the first one. When you've got a hybrid things should be well balanced, and when part of that hybrid is an RPG losing depth and complexity and choice is the last thing that should happen. You make an RPG too simple and you miss the point of it entirely, and ME2 proves that though its near-on complete devotion to combat and combat alone.

How in the hell was ME2 focused on combat alone? Most of the changes in the sequel were combat-related, yes, but that's because the combat in ME1 was flawed and had to be changed. Other than that, the RPG elements were fine as they were and only needed a few tweaks here and there.

And honestly, "you make an RPG too simple and you miss the point of it entirely"? Even if making a game that's hard to get into wasn't a terrible idea to begin with, since when were other Bioware RPGs like ME1 and Dragon Age not simple? You could just pick up and play them just fine because that's how games should be.

Terror_K wrote...

And yet a lot of them became Mass Effect fans with the first game and were (mostly) satisfied with it.

I was one of those fans. ME1 was the game that made me love Bioware again after my major loss of faith caused by playing Sonic Chronicles for the DS (you don't want to know... ). I loved ME1. And I loved ME2. Just like I loved Dragon Age, The Witcher, Fallout 3, Neverwinter Nights, KotOR, Jade Empire, Morrowind, Oblivion and even Fable. And yes, I was (mostly) satisfied with them. But they all had things that could have been changed.

But they all did things differently in some way. They all had their qualities and their flaws. And they all tried something different, instead of doing the same tired thing over and over just because their fans wanted a carbon copy of a given game and were afraid that they'd throw the "sell-out" card at them.

And the funny thing is that they all did get their fair share of fans complaining about how they'd sold-out, how they had just given in to the desire to make money (because before that, they apparently made games for the hell of it and the bills were paid by the Holy Spirit) and how the consoles and the "Haloz" were to blame.

And yet nowadays, they're "classics", games that are revered for what they brought to the industry and models to which new games should aspire to. Funny how the world works, isn't it?

[Iakus]

[quote]nelly21 wrote...]

Few points:

Whether you paragon Garrus or not, he mentions his dislike for red tape. I got the sense when I paragoned him that you talked him into the importance of checks and balances ergo, talked him into staying with C-Sec. Furthermore, keeping him in the Spectres would negate his established character history. He was already chosen to apply and declined because of his father. I may be wrong, but I believe Spectre candidates are chosen not volunteered.
[/quote]

If you talk to Garrus again, he speaks about possibly "reapplying(?) basically going through the training for potential candidates, despite his father's feelings about the Spectres.

[quote]nelly21 wrote...]

As far as Samara: When did she serve in the Acension? She's been hunting Morinth for centuries and has been a Justicar all that time. What you propose is to change the character completely in which case the question becomes: Why would you recruit for a suicide mission a run of the mill naval officer whose only claim to fame is serving on the asari flagship ? Aren't we supposed to recruit the best of the best?

[/quote]

The stroy I put forth here is oe I made up to hep provide links between ME 1 and ME 2 and to show how Shepard's choices could alter the game ie, you meet people in different places and circumstances in ME 2 based on what you did in ME 1.  Why would we recruit her?  I dunno, why would we recruit a lone-wolf justicar?  Biotics?  Military history?  We're going up against a Collector sip and might need soeone experienced in ship-to-ship combat?

[quote]nelly21 wrote...]

As for Thane: Maybe, but why would these people know where an assassin is hiding? I felt that Kolyat should have been found by Liara and the whole mission should have taken place on Ilidum. But at least C-Sec found him. Why would any of these other people who aren't involved in assassinations or crime know where the assassin is? And if they did, wouldn't they contact C-Sec?

{/quote}

These people wouldn't necessarilly know an assassination was going on, or even that a Drell kid was on the station.  But they could point you out to someone who knows someone who knows someone who could lead you to Mouse, or another quest NPC.  I'm just saying Shepard met a bunch of people on the Citadel.  People who owe im/her favors.  Might have helped make this game feel more like a sequel if some of them made cameos other than "glad you're not dead' emails.

[quote]nelly21 wrote...]

ME 2's story is a bit more on the rails, I agree with you there. But not nearly as much as you make it out to seem.  [/quote]

I respectfuly disagree

[nelly21]

@ iakus



Okay. Garrus I could concede on then. I don't recall the conversation about reapplying to the Spectres but if it's there, your premise would work.



Samara, however, is different. You're recruiting a justicar specifically because she is a powerful warrior that does not answer to any government organization. This is important. Remember, Shepard's mission isn't sanctioned officially. Technically, he's rogue. Therefore, it stands to reason that the Council would forbid an Asari officer from joining Shepard.



Lastly; wouldn't your proposal for the Thane loyalty mission simply add a few forced and ultimately meaningless conversations to the mix? I have to speak to Chorban because he had a ten minute cameo in ME 1? It would feel needless.

[javierabegazo]

Reminder to keep your posts civil please. There's always a decent and polite way to convey your thoughts and ideas you just take a breath and put a little more thought into what you want to say

[ME_fanx100]

i think that harbinger couldve used some more indepth-character details. i mean you only saw him in like two cutscenes at the begining of the game, and then he was in every battle you had with the collectors. just a thought.

[nelly21]

ME_fanx100 wrote...

i think that harbinger couldve used some more indepth-character details. i mean you only saw him in like two cutscenes at the begining of the game, and then he was in every battle you had with the collectors. just a thought.

Agreed.

[Nightwriter]

I miss bigger, more extensive plot worlds/places. I felt like I was hopping around everywhere in ME2 like a frog with a mini nuclear weapon. Every planet/place was just a lily pad. I was there and then I was gone.

I miss going to a place and having that place be like a mini book/story in and of itself. You arrive and a story starts to unfold and progress. You get the sense this is a full chapter of the game.

As opposed to ME2, which felt more like a series of individual scenes flashed in front of you in quick succession.

[Lusitanum]

Nightwriter wrote...

I miss bigger, more extensive plot worlds/places. I felt like I was hopping around everywhere in ME2 like a frog with a mini nuclear weapon. Every planet/place was just a lily pad. I was there and then I was gone.

I miss going to a place and having that place be like a mini book/story in and of itself. You arrive and a story starts to unfold and progress. You get the sense this is a full chapter of the game.

As opposed to ME2, which felt more like a series of individual scenes flashed in front of you in quick succession.

Yeah, there was that in ME2: the feeling that many of the game's main quests felt like "instances" in a MMORPG. You'd say "I'm ready to go and do [this]." and then off you go to an area completely disconected from the rest of the game and to which you can never go back to after you complete your main objective. Not like we need to to have every single pointless piece of the world open to us at all times (I don't think we ever felt the urge to revisit the labs on Noveria after we dealt with the Rachni, for instance), but... just cutting the "instance" feel of the game would be nice.

Although it's not like we need the unnecesariily big worlds of the first game that just looked like bland, empty obstacles that you had to surpass with the goddamned moving bathtub with springs for wheels that someone once dared call a "vehicle" (yes, Mako, I still hate you with a passion and I think I always will). That was just tedious, annoying and one of the main reasons why people stoped playing the game halfway through it (the fact that they usually came from the incredibly boring Citadel and got dropped right into a Mako section didn't help... ).

So... where exactly would the "sweet spot" be in this situation?

[tonnactus]

Lusitanum wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Mass Effect? Doing only the main missions still allowed it to get spectre weapons and a good set of armor.

No it didn't because the equipment you can get (both from drops as well as stores) was dependent on your level, so if you only played the main missions, chances are you'd never get to a high enough level to get the best items. Unless, you know, you played New Game+ about 15 times...

Colossus armor begins to drop at level 40 like savant and prodigy amps.The money for spectre weapons you get far earlier in the game. The difference between the first savant and savant x isnt that big anyway.

[tonnactus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

I just don't find looting particularly appealing if all I find is the same damn item eleventy billion times with slightly varying stats, not to mention 95% of the time it's something weaker than what I already have and the vast majority of the weapons and armors are just reskins of the same model. And the stat increases are so incremental

The difference between a colossus armor and the rest was really big and not just incremental.Light colossus armor was better then most other heavy armor in the game(except the geth armor for krogans).The differences between savant/prodigy bioamps to others were also not just incremental and i almost everytime found them in lockers.

[tonnactus]

Lusitanum wrote...

"Near-perfect balance"? Are you kidding? The combat was by far the worst aspect of the whole game. It wasn't so bad as to kill the enyoyment of playing it, but it felt weak throughout the whole thing. You could go through the whole game by just charging headlong into enemy fire with Immunity on as a combat class or spam powers as a support class. And you call that a "perfect balance" when combat is what you spend most of the time doing in the game?

That is your opinion.Dont forget that.Enemies have immunity too(at least on insanity).Yes,you could charge in combat with immunity,but gain nothing without having someone who did some crowd control.

And you have to explain what is different now.In the first game,you spam immunity,now you spam adrenaline rush,cloak,or singularity. At least people used more powers frequently in MAss Effect then just one or two over and over.

[smudboy]

ME_fanx100 wrote...

i think that harbinger couldve used some more indepth-character details. i mean you only saw him in like two cutscenes at the begining of the game, and then he was in every battle you had with the collectors. just a thought.

More?  I didn't know Harbinger had any.  Far as I recall, he was a windup doll prattling random sentences, minus the string.

[spacehamsterZH]

Orchomene wrote...
I would love seeing again games like Planescape/Fallout with good isometric graphics, story and character
depth and great rpg mechanics. And I'm sure there is a strong market for that. Not the 2-4 million sales and the budget going with but a reasonable 500 k market with a smaller budget. Companies like BW could do have smaller projects if they want to. They just have to less advertise and put less effort in some of the "shiny" aspects.

Sure there's a market for that, but at this point in the general development of gaming technology, what you're describing sounds like something an Indie company might develop as a d/l only game. And that's just not who Bioware is anymore. They're good at the glossy stuff - the dialogue writing is head and shoulders above basically anyone else, and the big cinematic games are where the money's at. It's just completely unreasonable to expect them to scale back and fire half their staff so that they can pander to a geeky niche market if they do the Hollywood-style games so well.

Terror_K wrote...
many of us liked the elements in the original game and thought the balance was pretty damn good between the three main elements that make up the game: RPG, TPS and Interactive Sci-Fi Movie. The RPG elements in ME1 were light but significant. But then ME2 comes along and skews everything out of proportion, with the RPG elements becoming even lighter and losing most of their significance while the shooter ones come to the fore and dominate.

The way I see it, you're exaggerating two things here. First of all, the shooter combat in ME1 was damn near broken. Enemy AI was nonexistent, and the best way to get through basically any combat situation, even with a soldier, wasn't to shoot, but to pause and spam powers until everyone was dead. ME2 now actually has something more closely resembling shooter combat (and for the record, I do think it's gone far enough in that direction, hence why I'm always yelling "f**k no" in threads asking for multiplayer), so it's more of the hybrid ME1 attempted to be. And I really don't see how you can say the RPG elements are insignificant. Yes, the looting's been neutered and the stats system has been "streamlined" a bit too much, but upgrading your powers, especially when you get to level four and choose a specialization, very directly and noticeably affects combat and goes well beyond a simple rise in damage output. That's clearly the way to go, now they just need to go back and ramp up the complexity a bit again (same as with the now overly linear weapon upgrades) to make leveling up more interesting.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 23 juin 2010 - 06:27 .