10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Brannon]

I'm currently 50 hours into the game (still have side missions and DLC missions to do), which is actually a few hours longer than my last ME1 play through where I completed every quest, yet the game feels shorter and quicker.



It seems that for every great idea or addition to the game play, Bioware took away something I liked. I love to be able to go to the docking bays and change a teammate without having to go in and out of the Normandy, but for some reason they decided to not allow you to toggle helmets on or off while walking around. For me its mainly little things like this.



I also like having some sort of pause screen inventory. It need not be like ME1, but not having one at all never felt right to me.



Upgrades were a nice touch, but I would have liked to be able to see the current bonuses my armor was giving me in the squad screen not just in the armor screen.



Minor quibbles aside, ME2 is a fantastic game. The main story isn't as gripping as in ME1, but I think that the side quests/loyalty quests and characters are genuinely better and more complex in ME2.

[Darth Drago]

Ok just a heads up announcement.

In the first posting of the topic I have added links to every 5 pages that this thread has, starting with page 5. This should make it easier for anyone who wants to look through the thread.

[Lusitanum]

Terror_K wrote...

What you're talking about there isn't even balance-related; you're just stating how you felt the combat was flawed. I'm talking about the TPS to RPG ratio here, not how successful these elements were or weren't.

Still was pretty much balanced, even in that regard. Hell, ME1 was also a game where you spent the vast majority of your times shooting at stuff, the only difference being that at least you didn't have that godawful Citadel section to stop and confuse you right at the start of the game.

Terror_K wrote...

In either case, I always find it amusing when people complain about ME1's spamming of powers when the blink-of-an-eye recharge rates on the cooldowns in ME2 make things far worse; you can just spam the same power every two seconds. Even if you did spam all the powers in ME1, at least the player was out for a minute or so.

Except that if you did spam all your powers in ME1 then, bum! room cleared, regardless of who you were facing. On the other hand, the powers in ME2 have their own limitations in how and when to use them and what might work fine on one enemy might not work on another one.

It's still not a perfect system and it could always need some work, but it's a hell of a lot better.

Terror_K wrote...

But the RPG elements weren't simply "tweaked here and there" they were massively cut back and simplified in ME2. And as I've said several times before, one could have changed the nature and style of the combat in the same way without needing to cull, simplify and reduce the RPG factors too. Why does making the combat player-skill-based instead of stat-based mean all the other stuff has to go too? The only thing that needed to go to accomplish that was the cone-of-death and the weapons skills associated with it.

Because it turns each member of your team into a character with its own distinctive uses depending on what you're expecting to face. Everytime I played ME1, I just had to chose a squad that balanced my lack of combat/biotic/tech and I was set for the whole game. Playing a Soldier? Bring Liara and Tali. Infiltrator? Kaidan and Wrex. Adept? Ashely (or maybe Wrex) and Tali. You get the point.

In ME2, I have to keep swtiching up my squad members according to the situation. Blood Pack mercenaries? Mordin and Jacob to burn armor and prevent health regeneration. Geth? Need people with Overload and maybe AI Hacking. Eclipse? Then I need Warp for the Biotic barriers and Push to counter the Vanguards and their shotguns.

You still can go from start to finish with the same exact group, but now there's actual reasons as to why that might be a bad idea.

Terror_K wrote...

And what I meant by ME2 "being focused on combat alone" was that all the RPG elements were now focused pretty much just on combat. Unlike most RPGs there are no longer any non-combat skills: its all just about killing the enemy faster and protecting yourself from getting killed and that's about all. There's no alternatives any more with each fight being pretty much inevitable and nothing related to things like hacking, decryption, first aid, persuasion, etc.

I don't recall a single shot begin fired on Thane's loyalty quest. Or Samara's. Or in other quests where the objective was to pretty much just get to one place and repair a shield or something.

Also, first-aid is a combat-skill (did you ever use it for anything else other than fixing combat damage?), persuasion is still tied to your class skill and your current alignment (meaning that there's an actual incentive now) and even with that, the loss of hacking, decription and point based persuasion is valid.

First off, I never understood the point of giving you two different skills to open stuff up (never seen a game where there were two kinds of lockpicking). If it was like Deus Ex, where you might have to open a door by picking the lock or by hacking the keypad that controls it, I could understand, but in this case, there's no reason for it.

Secondly, was there really any point to getting to a given place and realize that you just couldn't hack/decrypt or even persuade someone just because your skill wasn't high enough? Was there any valid reason as to why I had to turn Garrus, the guy who's supposed to be my expert sniper, into my personal lockpicker because I had to pump up his TWO different hacking skills just to make sure I could open chests? And only after that I could begin to put points into his combat skills, meaning that at the beggining he was pretty much useless in a fight?

And at least those are the skills I could max as long as I had the points for it, unlike Charm, which forced me to be at 75% Paragon before I could make some persuasion checks. It was really odd to get to the planet with Toombs and realize "Oh crap, I can't persuade that guy even though I've been constantly investing into the persuade skill. Guess I'll just have to return back here in a few hours then."

Or constantly leaving Feros behind too, because there was no way to convince the ExoGeni representative without having a complete Paragon character.

So... what did the persuasion skill added to the game in the end? And if you are persuading people and making choices, do you honestly need a stat added to it to turn the game into an RPG?

Terror_K wrote...

To you and me yes. But you'd be surprised how many people I hear complaining about them being too complicated, slow and not actiony enough. To say that an RPG like Baldur's Gate, NWN and DAO has less or equal complexity to that of the average shooter is just false. That and options for building and progressing your character in varied and meaningful ways, which while wasn't as in-depth in ME1 as in most of BioWare's previous offerings was still more than we got with ME2.

Except that, more often than not, all the different builds meant that you'd probably screw up your character to which you've poured 20 hours of your life. Which is, you know, kind of annoying. Complexity shouldn't come at this cost.

Oh, and DAO was complex? Since when?

Terror_K wrote...

I don't actually recall it, though I did notice that each BioWare game was getting less and less RPG-heavy as time went on, with the exceptions of ME1 being step up from Jade Empire and DAO being a rather large step up again. ME2 on the other end dived the seemingly-rising curve. In either case, I didn't see any major claims of BioWare selling out until the first DAO advertising came along, and then again with some of the ME2 stuff. Thankfully DAO was nowhere near as bad as its advertising made out, which made it look more like God of War with dragons than a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. ME2 was thankfully better than most of its advertising, though only just. It wasn't until around the same time that I saw devs responding with the "we have to make money by going mainstream" posts and comments too. I guess you and I just have different memories.

I recall the devs saying "we have to sell to keep growing as a company", which is completely different. And look at them, branching out, trying new things and moving the whole industry forward. That's why people are so excited for the new Star Wars MMORPG, even though it comes from a company that never made an MMO, based off a licence that left a sour taste on gamer's mouths after Galaxies and in a genre completely dominated by World of Warcraft.

And in a large part, you can thank ME2 because, even if it was more mainstream, it still moved the industry forward more than... pretty much 95% of games out there.

[KalosCast]

Gotta agree with Lusitanum on that opening Citadel bit. I remember just being horrendously confused the first time I played it... and then trying to just power through it as fast as possible, barely paying attention to what I was even doing.



That's Peragus Mining Facility levels of horrible opening sequence.

[Terror_K]

Lusitanum wrote...

Still was pretty much balanced, even in that regard. Hell, ME1 was also a game where you spent the vast majority of your times shooting at stuff, the only difference being that at least you didn't have that godawful Citadel section to stop and confuse you right at the start of the game.

How on earth did The Citadel confuse you? Seriously... I don't even get what you're saying. I personally loved the place, and its introduction came at just the right time. It also provided a lot of sidequests that I loved and was more than happy to do to get away from all the combat now and then.

Except that if you did spam all your powers in ME1 then, bum! room cleared, regardless of who you were facing. On the other hand, the powers in ME2 have their own limitations in how and when to use them and what might work fine on one enemy might not work on another one.

It's still not a perfect system and it could always need some work, but it's a hell of a lot better.

Only because biotics were so horribly nerfed... if they weren't the method in ME2 would have been a joke and you'd have have unstoppable biotic Shepards at about Level 7 or 8. What's better is a matter of opinion as well. I agree with the concept of a universal cooldown, though I think it should only be universal per type (i.e. all tech skills are tied in cooldown, all biotic skills are tied in cooldown, etc.) and on top of that they need to make the recharge on them far slower while not making biotics so lore-screwingly nerfed.

Terror_K wrote...

Because it turns each member of your team into a character with its own distinctive uses depending on what you're expecting to face. Everytime I played ME1, I just had to chose a squad that balanced my lack of combat/biotic/tech and I was set for the whole game. Playing a Soldier? Bring Liara and Tali. Infiltrator? Kaidan and Wrex. Adept? Ashely (or maybe Wrex) and Tali. You get the point.

In ME2, I have to keep swtiching up my squad members according to the situation. Blood Pack mercenaries? Mordin and Jacob to burn armor and prevent health regeneration. Geth? Need people with Overload and maybe AI Hacking. Eclipse? Then I need Warp for the Biotic barriers and Push to counter the Vanguards and their shotguns.

You still can go from start to finish with the same exact group, but now there's actual reasons as to why that might be a bad idea.

I personally found the opposite... sort of. I thought that off-setting your character by having your companions cover your weakness is the entire point of squad-based, RPG combat. It certainly has been in most of the ones I've played, and that goes for pen & paper too. With ME2 I could just take anybody with me and it didn't seem to really matter, as long as at least somebody was good with a gun. Most of the time I just ignored them and did my own thing, picking random companions each time, with the exceptions of loyalty missions.

I guess we don't really disagree that ME1 forces companions on you more than ME2 does, but we simply disagree on whether these things are good or bad and which one is better. I personally prefer the former, rather than my companions largely not making much of a difference, except perhaps if I'm a Vanguard and I take Jack and Jacob and pretty much screw myself. I guess I'm stuck in my old ways though and prefer the classic "if I'm a warrior/fighter I make sure I take a mage and rogue/thief with me, if I'm a mage I make sure I take a fighter and a thief, etc."

I don't recall a single shot begin fired on Thane's loyalty quest. Or Samara's. Or in other quests where the objective was to pretty much just get to one place and repair a shield or something.

I'm talking about the RPG mechanics of the game, not the narrative of the game and the style of the quests presented to you. All the character building from a technical standpoint is purely about combat and that's all. In those examples you give do you actually use any skills beyond combat ones to attain your goals? No... its either just go from A to B and let it play out, or just go from A to B and maybe talk your way through something (which may have meant something with a persuasion skill, but... no.) It's not like you actually use tech abilities and skills to repair the shield you mentioned or anything.

Also, first-aid is a combat-skill (did you ever use it for anything else other than fixing combat damage?), persuasion is still tied to your class skill and your current alignment (meaning that there's an actual incentive now) and even with that, the loss of hacking, decription and point based persuasion is valid.

First-aid is no more a combat skill than saying Hacking is one because it allows me to get more weapons or enter the next area to kill things. In most RPG's first aid is given to a medic style class who is usually a support character who barely takes part in combat. Saying First-Aid is a combat skill is like saying a Healer achetype in an MMO is a combat class. Pesuasion is still technically there, but its tied into a combat class and not separate, completely eliminating the diversification and limitations a persuasive character should have in an RPG. Finally, the loss of those skills ISN'T valid. It's just oversimplification and dumbing down that removes another restriction on the player and eliminates proper diversification and options. If in ME3 EVERY class could suddenly use biotic powers, would that be okay too? Because that seems to be the type of mentality and direction you're supporting here.

First off, I never understood the point of giving you two different skills to open stuff up (never seen a game where there were two kinds of lockpicking). If it was like Deus Ex, where you might have to open a door by picking the lock or by hacking the keypad that controls it, I could understand, but in this case, there's no reason for it.

One is a mechanised lock, the other is purely electronic. To expect both from one would be like expecting a mechanic to be an expert computer hacker as well. Even hardware technicians don't always have good knowledge of software.

Secondly, was there really any point to getting to a given place and realize that you just couldn't hack/decrypt or even persuade someone just because your skill wasn't high enough? Was there any valid reason as to why I had to turn Garrus, the guy who's supposed to be my expert sniper, into my personal lockpicker because I had to pump up his TWO different hacking skills just to make sure I could open chests? And only after that I could begin to put points into his combat skills, meaning that at the beggining he was pretty much useless in a fight?

And at least those are the skills I could max as long as I had the points for it, unlike Charm, which forced me to be at 75% Paragon before I could make some persuasion checks. It was really odd to get to the planet with Toombs and realize "Oh crap, I can't persuade that guy even though I've been constantly investing into the persuade skill. Guess I'll just have to return back here in a few hours then."

Or constantly leaving Feros behind too, because there was no way to convince the ExoGeni representative without having a complete Paragon character.

So... what did the persuasion skill added to the game in the end? And if you are persuading people and making choices, do you honestly need a stat added to it to turn the game into an RPG?

The whole point of all these things are limitations and diversification. In a good RPG you shouldn't be able to just become a Master of All Trades, you need to make the decision of whether you want to be a fully combat capable character or whether you want to branch out a little or whether you want to become a more technical character or have a high charisma. Removing the limitations and just allowing Shepard to do everything well without any trade-offs is completely pointless in character building and progression in an RPG. Trade-offs and having to choose between this or that because you can't have both is key. ME2 removes those limits and you just end up with a bunch of God-like Shepards who can do everything without hinderance and all end up the same. The more limitations you have and the more options you have, the greater degree of choice and character builds you have. If you want to have a high charisma, then you have to put up with not being quite as capable in battle. If you want to have some tech abilities, then the same applies. If you want to be a juggernaut in battle, then you can't be charming or technically capable. This is the POINT of RPG character building. Mass Effect 2 is basically the equivalent of rolling an AD&D character who is a Fighter-Mage-Thief with 20 in every stat and none of the XP penalties normally tied to the character and with all the Thief skills as automatic passes.

Except that, more often than not, all the different builds meant that you'd probably screw up your character to which you've poured 20 hours of your life. Which is, you know, kind of annoying. Complexity shouldn't come at this cost.

Yes it should. It wouldn't be a good RPG if a retarded chimp could mash buttons and throw faeces at the screen and still create a perfect character. A good RPG should require the player to make smart decisions in building their character and reward them for doing so, while making it possible to fail and create a weak character, particularly if one tries to be a jack of all trades. ME2 fails this entirely: you could pretty much just random jam points anywhere in ME2 without paying attention and it wouldn't make much difference to things at all. A good character build is inevitable, which is why it fails in this department.

I recall the devs saying "we have to sell to keep growing as a company", which is completely different. And look at them, branching out, trying new things and moving the whole industry forward. That's why people are so excited for the new Star Wars MMORPG, even though it comes from a company that never made an MMO, based off a licence that left a sour taste on gamer's mouths after Galaxies and in a genre completely dominated by World of Warcraft.

And in a large part, you can thank ME2 because, even if it was more mainstream, it still moved the industry forward more than... pretty much 95% of games out there.

Yes. Because falling back on tired old shooter mechanics that are over a decade old and cutting out all the stuff that even had a lick of complexity sure is moving the genre forward. <_<

Also, regarding SWTOR, a quote recently came out of E3 posted at Gamesradar that specifically said that it's not a mainstream title aimed at the Hardcore player but for the Star Wars, RPG and Bioware Fans.

Modifié par Terror_K, 24 juin 2010 - 10:33 .

[Iakus]

KalosCast wrote...

Gotta agree with Lusitanum on that opening Citadel bit. I remember just being horrendously confused the first time I played it... and then trying to just power through it as fast as possible, barely paying attention to what I was even doing.

That's Peragus Mining Facility levels of horrible opening sequence.

I'm a bit confused here.  What part of the Citadel are we talking about here?  I recall Shepard's first trip there as being one of the highlights of the game.

[nelly21]

Why do so many posters believe that rpgs are somehow the "smart" genre? I have played rpgs my whole life and I can hardly say that intelligence had anything to do with my playtime. In every rpg you choose a template (i.e. warrior, priest, etc.). That template always comes with set skills and you pick which ones suit you. It's not intelligence guiding those choices, it's preference. The only genres I would classify as intelligence driven are strategy and puzzle.



If you've read any of my recent posts you will obviously know that I am a stauch supporter of ME 2. The Mass Effect franchise is phenomenal and I adore both games. I do not look at either game through rose colored glasses however. I didn't like all of the changes in ME 2. I didn't like the removal of squad armor. I didn't like that the ammo is now guided by character powers instead of being equipment. These changes don't make the game smarter or dumber. If we are being honest with ourselves, equipment differences in ME 1 were clear. Upgrading equipment was a matter of looking at the numbers and deciding whether you liked the colors or not.



I don't mean to rant but the constant "dumbing down" comments irritate me. Choosing your preference does not equal intelligent deduction. Ultimately, rpgs simply throw a million and one similar items at you and you pick which ones you prefer. Bioware chose to remove the clutter and have you focus on Shepard and the story. I understand why they did it. Imagine Jack running around in Phoenix armor. But I prefered the old way. Now to say that ME 2 is somehow catering to dumb people. That's a stretch guys.

[Iakus]

nelly21 wrote...

I don't mean to rant but the constant "dumbing down" comments irritate me. Choosing your preference does not equal intelligent deduction. Ultimately, rpgs simply throw a million and one similar items at you and you pick which ones you prefer. Bioware chose to remove the clutter and have you focus on Shepard and the story. I understand why they did it. Imagine Jack running around in Phoenix armor. But I prefered the old way. Now to say that ME 2 is somehow catering to dumb people. That's a stretch guys.

i don't feel as passionately about the inventory bit as some, but I can say I prefer the idea of Jack in that ugly Phoenix armor to the leather harness she's stuck with in ME 2

[nelly21]

iakus wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

I don't mean to rant but the constant "dumbing down" comments irritate me. Choosing your preference does not equal intelligent deduction. Ultimately, rpgs simply throw a million and one similar items at you and you pick which ones you prefer. Bioware chose to remove the clutter and have you focus on Shepard and the story. I understand why they did it. Imagine Jack running around in Phoenix armor. But I prefered the old way. Now to say that ME 2 is somehow catering to dumb people. That's a stretch guys.

i don't feel as passionately about the inventory bit as some, but I can say I prefer the idea of Jack in that ugly Phoenix armor to the leather harness she's stuck with in ME 2

Agreed a billion and one times. The ugly space hooker look died in the 80s thankfully

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

How on earth did The Citadel confuse you? Seriously... I don't even get what you're saying. I personally loved the place, and its introduction came at just the right time. It also provided a lot of sidequests that I loved and was more than happy to do to get away from all the combat now and then.[/quote]

Let's see: it was a huge space that just opened to you all of a sudden, made you feel lost, required constant backtracking through those godawful elevators and just put the whole "shooter" aspect of the game on hold for about 5 hours.

It's not like I don't know that place like the back of my hand now, but everytime I hear someone say that they gave up on ME1 because they felt discouraged by the Citadel (and even if they forced their way through, they ended up on a Mako section), the bad memories come flooding right back

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Only because biotics were so horribly nerfed... if they weren't the method in ME2 would have been a joke and you'd have have unstoppable biotic Shepards at about Level 7 or 8. What's better is a matter of opinion as well. I agree with the concept of a universal cooldown, though I think it should only be universal per type (i.e. all tech skills are tied in cooldown, all biotic skills are tied in cooldown, etc.) and on top of that they need to make the recharge on them far slower while not making biotics so lore-screwingly nerfed.[/quote]

Given that some class have biotic, tech and combat classes, that would just mean that they'd always have something to fire at an enemy, meaning that the spamming would be back. I like part of your idea, but it's still not preferable to the current system.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

I personally found the opposite... sort of. I thought that off-setting your character by having your companions cover your weakness is the entire point of squad-based, RPG combat. It certainly has been in most of the ones I've played, and that goes for pen & paper too. With ME2 I could just take anybody with me and it didn't seem to really matter, as long as at least somebody was good with a gun. Most of the time I just ignored them and did my own thing, picking random companions each time, with the exceptions of loyalty missions.

I guess we don't really disagree that ME1 forces companions on you more than ME2 does, but we simply disagree on whether these things are good or bad and which one is better. I personally prefer the former, rather than my companions largely not making much of a difference, except perhaps if I'm a Vanguard and I take Jack and Jacob and pretty much screw myself. I guess I'm stuck in my old ways though and prefer the classic "if I'm a warrior/fighter I make sure I take a mage and rogue/thief with me, if I'm a mage I make sure I take a fighter and a thief, etc."[/quote]

"If I'm a fighter and I'm fighting Geth I bring a tech for Overload, if I'm fighting armored opponents I bring people with fire, if I'm fighting enemies who attack with melee attacks, I bring people who can blast them away..." 

The only difference is that at least here you get to switch up according to the situation.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

I'm talking about the RPG mechanics of the game, not the narrative of the game and the style of the quests presented to you. All the character building from a technical standpoint is purely about combat and that's all. In those examples you give do you actually use any skills beyond combat ones to attain your goals? No... its either just go from A to B and let it play out, or just go from A to B and maybe talk your way through something (which may have meant something with a persuasion skill, but... no.) It's not like you actually use tech abilities and skills to repair the shield you mentioned or anything.[/quote]

Right, because it was so much fun in games KotOR to get to a quest, and halfway through it realize that you're supposed to have 18 in Repair to fix HK-47 and get to know his story and unluck his special abilities. Only problem is that you can't because you're a Soldier and can't train your Repair that high up without completely screwing up your whole build <_<.

Oh, and I also like your logic: go somewhere and solve a problem = not an RPG. Go somewhere and make a roll check = RPG. That's slamming...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

First-aid is no more a combat skill than saying Hacking is one because it allows me to get more weapons or enter the next area to kill things. In most RPG's first aid is given to a medic style class who is usually a support character who barely takes part in combat. Saying First-Aid is a combat skill is like saying a Healer achetype in an MMO is a combat class. [/quote]

That's because Healers don't just Heal, they buff and nerf people, but don't actually fight. That's what makes them a "support" class. On the other hand, if you're fighting and you're just using first-aid to heal yourself and your teammates, then yes, it's a combat skill.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Pesuasion is still technically there, but its tied into a combat class and not separate, completely eliminating the diversification and limitations a persuasive character should have in an RPG. [/quote]

Because "persuasion" should always mean "crippled fighter". You DO know that RPGs have grown past that, don't you? Hell, look at Jade Empire: your physical skills affected your persuasion skills too. The only problem being that some of them were alignement related, which could be a pain, but that's another thing entirely.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Finally, the loss of those skills ISN'T valid. It's just oversimplification and dumbing down that removes another restriction on the player and eliminates proper diversification and options. If in ME3 EVERY class could suddenly use biotic powers, would that be okay too? Because that seems to be the type of mentality and direction you're supporting here.[/quote]

If biotic experts still were the best biotics around and combat was balanced for all classes (and ignoring the fact that only some people can become biotics according to lore) ... yeah! why not? It wouldn't stop us from needing to bring stronger biotics with us in case we needed them and it would be a lot better than this system of "bring this guy that's useless in combat just because you might find a locked door".

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

One is a mechanised lock, the other is purely electronic. To expect both from one would be like expecting a mechanic to be an expert computer hacker as well. Even hardware technicians don't always have good knowledge of software.[/quote]

It's hacking and decryption, they're both software-related. And that doesn't change the point that you shouldn't need more than one skill to open stuff up. If you suddenly added actual lockpicking, the ability to bash doors, planting demolition charges and can-oppening and just said "this door can only be oppened by [this skill]" then that just means that you're going to have to bring another person to open it up. It doesn't add depth to the game, it just forces you to constantly drag a door-opener with you.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

The whole point of all these things are limitations and diversification. In a good RPG you shouldn't be able to just become a Master of All Trades, you need to make the decision of whether you want to be a fully combat capable character or whether you want to branch out a little or whether you want to become a more technical character or have a high charisma. Removing the limitations and just allowing Shepard to do everything well without any trade-offs is completely pointless in character building and progression in an RPG. Trade-offs and having to choose between this or that because you can't have both is key. ME2 removes those limits and you just end up with a bunch of God-like Shepards who can do everything without hinderance and all end up the same. The more limitations you have and the more options you have, the greater degree of choice and character builds you have. If you want to have a high charisma, then you have to put up with not being quite as capable in battle. If you want to have some tech abilities, then the same applies. If you want to be a juggernaut in battle, then you can't be charming or technically capable. This is the POINT of RPG character building. Mass Effect 2 is basically the equivalent of rolling an AD&D character who is a Fighter-Mage-Thief with 20 in every stat and none of the XP penalties normally tied to the character and with all the Thief skills as automatic passes.[/quote]

Yes, because Shepard in ME2 is a complete expert on combat, tech and biotics all at the same time. Oh, wait a second, no he's not! Shepard will still have limitations because he needs different people for different situations! You'll always need someone else to add combat and support skills that you don't have to complement what you lack.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Yes it should. It wouldn't be a good RPG if a retarded chimp could mash buttons and throw faeces at the screen and still create a perfect character. A good RPG should require the player to make smart decisions in building their character and reward them for doing so, while making it possible to fail and create a weak character, particularly if one tries to be a jack of all trades. ME2 fails this entirely: you could pretty much just random jam points anywhere in ME2 without paying attention and it wouldn't make much difference to things at all. A good character build is inevitable, which is why it fails in this department.[/quote]

Again, because what we want is waste 20 hours of our life down the drain because we didn't spend the weekend studying the documentation in order to play a videogame!

You know, I've recently started playing a game called Blood Bowl. I don't really know why, I just felt the urge to play this game and have some fun. Problem is, that this has a lot of rules. TONS of them.

So right now, I can't actually play it. I have to read the rules manual from start to finish just to start to enjoy the game I bought or I get clobbered because I have no idea of what I'm supposed to be doing. And you know what? That's terrible for a videogame. I shouldn't have to read something like this just to have some fun. I'm enduring it just because I think that the game in itself might be worth it, but I can undestand perfectly all those who just decided to avoid it.

It's the same thing with RPGs: wasting several hours of your life in a character that gets screwed up later on when you just wanted to enjoy yourself just creates unecessary frustration and makes people want to go play something else.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Yes. Because falling back on tired old shooter mechanics that are over a decade old and cutting out all the stuff that even had a lick of complexity sure is moving the genre forward. <_< [/quote]

If that's all you saw on the ME franchise, then you've just shown that you haven't seen anything.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Also, regarding SWTOR, a quote recently came out of E3 posted at Gamesradar that specifically said that it's not a mainstream title aimed at the Hardcore player but for the Star Wars, RPG and Bioware Fans.[/quote]

And a recent quote from your average gamer will say "OMG, can't wait", "looks good, I might give it a try", "finally, a MMO with something different", "PvP is
going to be awesome in this game", "I am very excited" and "ooooo this is sooo cool :D"

Your point was...

[quote]nelly21 wrote...

Why do so many posters believe that rpgs
are somehow the "smart" genre? I have played rpgs my whole life and I
can hardly say that intelligence had anything to do with my playtime. In
every rpg you choose a template (i.e. warrior, priest, etc.). That
template always comes with set skills and you pick which ones suit you.
It's not intelligence guiding those choices, it's preference. The only
genres I would classify as intelligence driven are strategy and
puzzle.[/quote]

They like to feel better about themselves, so everything that they don't like is directed at the "stupid people" who actually enjoy it. Seriously, they talk about these things like it's freaking Civilization. With the only difference being that even Civ is easy to get into and its complexity comes from the amount of options you're given, not how hard it is to get into the game. It's a fairly common trait among fanboys, but it's seems rather prevalent in the RPG fanbases.

Makes me feel kind of ashamed that this is my favorite genre...

Modifié par Lusitanum, 24 juin 2010 - 03:16 .

[bjdbwea]

nelly21 wrote...

Why do so many posters believe that rpgs are somehow the "smart" genre? I have played rpgs my whole life and I can hardly say that intelligence had anything to do with my playtime. In every rpg you choose a template (i.e. warrior, priest, etc.). That template always comes with set skills and you pick which ones suit you. It's not intelligence guiding those choices, it's preference. The only genres I would classify as intelligence driven are strategy and puzzle.

It's only preference because most games are so easy these days, that you can easily win every battle even if you've built your character(s) completely wrong, or because there are so little choices in the first place that you always end up with the same character build anyway. If you look at games like BG 2 or IWD, you certainly needed intelligence. Not only to properly build your party, but especially because you really needed strategies in combat. DA is already much more mainstream, but you still do need to think.

Whereas in both ME games, all you have to do is pew-pew. In ME 1, at least in the beginning, you still need to be "clever" enough to avoid being hit (a single hit by a sniper or rocket means reloading). In ME 2, there's not even that anymore. Well, you have to remember not to run into a heavy mech. And you need to remember to duck back into cover now and then.

So yeah, no video game is rocket science. But a good (!) RPG is certainly more challenging than any shooter. The mainstream gamers these days would probably bring down the forums with their amount of complaining if someone dared to make a game like BG 2 these days

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 juin 2010 - 04:27 .

[FieryDove]

Lusitanum wrote...

I don't recall a single shot begin fired on Thane's loyalty quest. Or Samara's. Or in other quests where the objective was to pretty much just get to one place and repair a shield or something.

I fired a shot on Thane's quest...and slapped his son silly.

I think this thread is one big circle. Everyone is going round and round and no one will change anyone's mind.

[tonnactus]

And yet they still go down faster than the Krogans in the first game if you have the right squad members and use their powers wisely. More than I can say for my squad in the first game.

[/quote]

I dont know what you mean.

This player played alone and krogans still went down as fast as in the second game.

[quote]
tonnactus wrote...


They're bosses and sub-bosses. The whole point is that they're supposed to be hard to kill.
[/quote]
Too bad that this is all they had to offer instead of a challenge. They not even use singularity,only warp and are hard to kill.


[quote]
And what
do you mean that all biotics have the same effect in the first game???

"Oh crap, here comes a Krogan rughing at me again! *Push* He's getting up again for another rush and Push hasn't had time to cooldown yet! *Lift* Oh, great, here he comes again. *Singularity* Here comes another rush. Thankfully Push has had the time to cooldown now *Push*"
[/quote]

And that means they are all the same? How are the biotics in the second game different from eachother? You have to explain me that. The differences biotics have in the first game: Singularity dont work on geth armatures and colossi.

Advanced and master lift did. Stasis was the only biotic that affected drones.
Warp was the only power that affected damage protection
So when i compare this with the biotics in the second game, the ones of the first are far more different and have specific uses.



[quote]
 At least when I use Miranda in ME, her Warp is used for one thing, her Overload for another and Slam for something else. Less than half the powers than Liara had, but I actually use her for more than just pushing keeping Krogan away from me and softening them up with Warp.[/quote]

First: Miranda is a sentinel so it makes a lot more sense to compare with kaidan. You were also wrong that biotics in the first game are all the same.
Both have overload,kaidans is just better and not a crapped version of it with just a 3 m radius at best.
And slam...
A version of lift/pull,that then throws only one enemy to the ground and only when the enemy dont have any "protection".

[tonnactus]

Lusitanum wrote...


I don't recall a single shot begin fired on Thane's loyalty quest. Or Samara's.

Thats not the point because the game never let the player choose a peacefull way or combat.

[tonnactus]

Lusitanum wrote...

Yes, because Shepard in ME2 is a complete expert on combat, tech and biotics all at the same time. Oh, wait a second, no he's not! Shepard will still have limitations because he needs different people for different situations! You'll always need someone else to add combat and support skills that you don't have to complement what you lack.

Lol. Infiltrator with warp ammo has all defenses covered just as an adept with energy drain.

If you need an proof, watch this:




And this a low level character compared to the solo video of Mass Effect.

Modifié par tonnactus, 24 juin 2010 - 05:52 .

[nelly21]

bjdbwea wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Why do so many posters believe that rpgs are somehow the "smart" genre? I have played rpgs my whole life and I can hardly say that intelligence had anything to do with my playtime. In every rpg you choose a template (i.e. warrior, priest, etc.). That template always comes with set skills and you pick which ones suit you. It's not intelligence guiding those choices, it's preference. The only genres I would classify as intelligence driven are strategy and puzzle.

It's only preference because most games are so easy these days, that you can easily win every battle even if you've built your character(s) completely wrong, or because there are so little choices in the first place that you always end up with the same character build anyway. If you look at games like BG 2 or IWD, you certainly needed intelligence. Not only to properly build your party, but especially because you really needed strategies in combat. DA is already much more mainstream, but you still do need to think.

Whereas in both ME games, all you have to do is pew-pew. In ME 1, at least in the beginning, you still need to be "clever" enough to avoid being hit (a single hit by a sniper or rocket means reloading). In ME 2, there's not even that anymore. Well, you have to remember not to run into a heavy mech. And you need to remember to duck back into cover now and then.

So yeah, no video game is rocket science. But a good (!) RPG is certainly more challenging than any shooter. The mainstream gamers these days would probably bring down the forums with their amount of complaining if someone dared to make a game like BG 2 these days

It wasn't cleverness. I remember building my team up around two tanks and mages in BG 2. The only strategy was: send tanks to keep the mages and healer safe, buff up with the healer and spam every AoE ability my mages had. It wasn't strategy, it was reaction, and the fights were hardly dificult since you could pause. Furthermore, Mass Effect never claimed to be anything other that a shooter-rpg hybrid. So, comparing it to BG 2 is not applicable. When you compare it to similar games like Deus Ex or Alpha Protocol, you see that ME 2 is a quality product and the pinnacle of the genre. It isn't fanboyism, its fact. Alpha Protocol you can discard because it was atrocious, but lest we forget, Deus Ex was absolutely amazing. I adored it as did anyone who played it. But I defy you to make a comparison with even that masterpiece and claim that Deus Ex was better.

My point is this, many of you are asking for Mass Effect to be more like games that are not in the same genre. Mass Effect is a shooter-rpg. Dragon Age was made to be Baldur's Gate's successor. Mass Effect is its own creature. It's catering to different types of gamers. Simply writing off those gamers as stupid shows your own ignorance. If you want intelligence in your gaming, play chess online. But please don't make a fool of yourself and claim that you are more intelligent that shooter fans because you get to build up a virtual doll in any way you prefer. I can do the same thing in the Sims.

[bjdbwea]

[quote]nelly21 wrote...

But I defy you to make a comparison with even that masterpiece and claim that Deus Ex was better.[/quote]

Deus Ex was, as far as RPG elements, strategy, the shooting mechanics, and the influence of your decisions are concerned, most certainly better than ME 2.[/quote]

[quote]nelly21 wrote...

But please don't make a fool of yourself and claim that you are more intelligent that shooter fans because you get to build up a virtual doll in any way you prefer. I can do the same thing in the Sims.[/quote]

I never claimed that to be the case. Even a rocket scientist might play a shooter now and then, just to have some fun. Might even enjoy that he doesn't need to think for a while. However, the fact remains, good RPGs most certainly are more intelligent games.

[Guns]

I loved Mass Effect 2. With that said I do like the original more. I like the characters more, the story, the final confrontation, hell even the music better. This is all not counting combat gameplay as I don't play Mass Effect for the combat.

[MEATBONES]

My only complaint with ME2 at this point is the amount of damage it takes to kill any enemy on insanity. I guess that's the point, but I'm emptying all of my ammo into a few Krogan and then there's a YIMR Mech. Squadmates are idiots for jumping out into fire and dying consistently.

Mabye I should have chosen a biotic but the tech abilities all seem fairly useless compared to any of the guns.

Also the ammo levels feel like I'm playing Resident Evil 1. Killed one zombie and now I better get used to using the knife because I'm not going to be shooting anything for a few hours.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Deus Ex was, as far as RPG elements, strategy, the shooting mechanics, and the influence of your decisions are concerned, most certainly better than ME 2.

What're you talking about? It was leagues ahead of ME1, as well. Both ME's aren't very good "RPGs", at least mainly in a technical sense. Bioware's focus was for the seamless and interesting dialog system as well as a super slick presentation, not to mention Bioware's niche for making awesome characters.

bjdbwea wrote...

I never claimed that to be the case. Even a rocket scientist might play a shooter now and then, just to have some fun. Might even enjoy that he doesn't need to think for a while. However, the fact remains, good RPGs most certainly are more intelligent games.

Depends on how they're built.

Regardless, RPG combat hasn't been Bioware's forte for years. KotOR was way too easy all around, JE you just dodged, ME1 you used your defensive power, DA:O gogogomage, ME2 find deh cover.

[sirandar]

I am in the midst of playing ME2 for the 3rd time. I have never played a game 3 times ..... I rarely even play twice. If it were not for the fact that I was kissing TIM's ass throughout the game, I would probably play again.

Sure there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement, but considering the current software development landscape, ME2 is a gem .... perhaps a miracle.


The only other game of the slightest interst to me is the new Witcher game.

Modifié par sirandar, 24 juin 2010 - 10:03 .

[Iakus]

Lusitanum wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

How on earth did The Citadel confuse you? Seriously... I don't even get what you're saying. I personally loved the place, and its introduction came at just the right time. It also provided a lot of sidequests that I loved and was more than happy to do to get away from all the combat now and then.

Let's see: it was a huge space that just opened to you all of a sudden, made you feel lost, required constant backtracking through those godawful elevators and just put the whole "shooter" aspect of the game on hold for about 5 hours.

It's not like I don't know that place like the back of my hand now, but everytime I hear someone say that they gave up on ME1 because they felt discouraged by the Citadel (and even if they forced their way through, they ended up on a Mako section), the bad memories come flooding right back

I'm starting to see why exploration was removed in ME 2

Kidding!  Kidding!  Couldn't resist!

But on a more serious note.  "Huge space that opens up to you all of a sudden" is exactly what it is, and I found the Citadel in ME 1 to be incredible.  It's supposed to be an entire city in space and that's exactly how it felt.  It had neighborhoods, police force, several different species of aliens about.  Any yes, you could get lost there.  That was part of the fun.  Just take a transit terminal back to somewhere more familiar if it happens.

I don't know about the five hours part though.  I always spread out my Citadel quests and did a few each time I visited it.  Heck some don't even open up until you've been to other worlds.

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...

Deus Ex was, as far as RPG elements, strategy, the shooting mechanics, and the influence of your decisions are concerned, most certainly better than ME 2.[/quote]

What're you talking about? It was leagues ahead of ME1, as well. Both ME's aren't very good "RPGs", at least mainly in a technical sense. Bioware's focus was for the seamless and interesting dialog system as well as a super slick presentation, not to mention Bioware's niche for making awesome characters.

Afraid I have to agree that Deus Ex was probably better than either ME game (been a while since I've played it though, maybe I should get that disc out.)  You could really customize Denton into anything you want, and decisions could really come back to bite you later on.  ME 1 is the best to come about in recent years though.

[Iakus]

sirandar wrote...

I am in the midst of playing ME2 for the 3rd time. I have never played a game 3 times ..... I rarely even play twice. If it were not for the fact that I was kissing TIM's ass throughout the game, I would probably play again.

Sure there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement, but considering the current software development landscape, ME2 is a gem .... perhaps a miracle.


The only other game of the slightest interst to me is the new Witcher game.

Alpha Protocol is keeping me occupied right now.  Graphically inferior to either ME game, but it is fun watching how your choices end up shaping the game.  It's gonna keep me happy way longer than ME 2

I liked the Witcher as an rpg, but the language was so needlessly  foul and the "one night stand ccg"  really threw me, It's like they were milking the M rating fro all it was worth.  I dunno if i'm gonna bother with the sequel.  Which is a shame.

Other rpg I'm looking forward to more than ME 2 right now:  Fallout:  New Vegas (I really think Obsidian can pull it off) and  Deus Ex: Human Revolution (as long as it's more like  like 1 than 2!)

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...

sirandar wrote...

I am in the midst of playing ME2 for the 3rd time. I have never played a game 3 times ..... I rarely even play twice. If it were not for the fact that I was kissing TIM's ass throughout the game, I would probably play again.

Sure there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement, but considering the current software development landscape, ME2 is a gem .... perhaps a miracle.


The only other game of the slightest interst to me is the new Witcher game.

Alpha Protocol is keeping me occupied right now.  Graphically inferior to either ME game, but it is fun watching how your choices end up shaping the game.  It's gonna keep me happy way longer than ME 2

I liked the Witcher as an rpg, but the language was so needlessly  foul and the "one night stand ccg"  really threw me, It's like they were milking the M rating fro all it was worth.  I dunno if i'm gonna bother with the sequel.  Which is a shame.

Other rpg I'm looking forward to more than ME 2 right now:  Fallout:  New Vegas (I really think Obsidian can pull it off) and  Deus Ex: Human Revolution (as long as it's more like  like 1 than 2!)

Witcher felt a bit 'forced' for me. "Hey what's up how are you? Feeling okay? Well let's make love!" "WHOA LASSIE"

Right now I'm playing the crap out of Morrowind, love me some Vvardenfell.