10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs...

Not always. Fire or Ice damage, good vs. big monsters or good vs. small monsters, good at short range or long range?

What determines the variety of items in RPGs is function, and numbers are only a part of that.

Those are additional effects though. Without base stats backing them up, they lack substance, choice and trade-offs. This was exactly the problem with ME1's armour for instance: it didn't have any base stats and didn't even act like armour, and was more akin to wearing a bunch of rings or amulets that gave bonuses. If you don't have base stats that stretch across all items of the same type then you essentially just have power-ups. RPG objects of the same type need a common ground that spreads across all items of the same type. ME1 had this, ME2 did not.

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

But ME2 didn't actually fix the problems, it just eliminated them by throwing them out entirely. That's not fixing at all...

Trashing what's broken to start anew. Thought we went over this?

I thought so too, but people still keep claiming that ME2 "fixed ME1's problems" when it did not. And I'm still a firm believer that ME1's system was not beyond repair.

In either case, if one is going to throw something out, whatever replaces it should be a superior system that does what the original intended to do in every way and perhaps more. ME2's replacement systems didn't, and were in fact shallower and simpler. The reasons these systems "worked" is because they were so simple and lacking in complexity that they simply couldn't really fail. That's not an improvement in my books. It's like replacing a car with a skateboard, because a skateboard doesn't have an engine or a whole bunch of mechanical parts that can go wrong. Of course you aren't going to have engine problems when you don't have an engine.

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

And ME2's system just brought on a whole bunch more problems, which are less forgivable to me because they stem from bad ideas that lack in depth as opposed to good ideas that tried but simply failed.

Good ideas? Speak for yourself. The mechanics mixed with the way gameplay was presented just did not sync well for me. In a more traditional RPG setting? It'd be awesome. Not so much if you're attempting to meld it with third-person-shooter gameplay.

I like the way combat feels this time around as well as the way armor and weapons work. I wouldn't be too upset to see them expand on customization in this regard (something both games lacked to varying degrees) and to see what else they can come up with in regards to cooldowns.

Regardless, I don't really feel that Bioware is the developer to come to when expecting 'in-depth' RPG mechanics. They can definitely be interesting from time to time, that's for sure, but for what they have in variety is lost in lack of balance.

Besides stats determining your ability to hit things, I fail to see how the other elements interfere so directly with the combat of Mass Effect. You could easily still have an ME2-esque combat system without eliminating and simplifying inventory, customisation, exploration, weapon modding, having stats on items, skill-based hacking and decryption, more class abilities, etc.

I mean, really... if the stat-based RPG combat was the bathwater and the other RPG mechanics were the baby, did the baby really need to be thrown out with the bathwater?

[jlewlotr]

ME2 blew my mind in many ways and it's still one of my favorite games ever, but after playing it through several times, it definitely has a few shortcomings, compared to ME1. In no particular order...



Also, ***SPOILERS BELOW***, just in case.



1. The star system exploration. I much preferred the exploration system in ME1, simply clicking on stars/planets and zipping to them, It felt more like you are at a holographic console pressing buttons. In ME2, you control a toy-sized Normandy, which, for me, makes the galaxy feel so much smaller, as if it actually takes the Normandy 3 seconds to fly between planets. The abstraction of the system in ME1 did not play with your mind's concept of the scale of the galaxy.



2. The inventory system. This was actually better in some ways and worse in others. In ME2, being unable to change your armor/weapons on the fly in an inventory screen was definitely missed. I understand that inventory management could become somewhat of a burden in ME1, but with the smaller amount of weapons in ME2, a true inventory system as in ME1 would not have had the problem of having to deal with so many items. I also really wished you could toggle helmets.



3. The dialog. While I found almost all the crew members to have very cool and interesting dialog in ME2, it felt like Shepard's responses to them were a bit lacking. The personal conversations in ME1 seemed to have more substance, and Shepard's responses seemed less generic, and allowed you to craft his personality a bit more.



4. The romances. While there were more options in ME2 for who Shepard could be in a relationship with, the individual relationships felt a bit superficial. I actually haven't played a female Shepard yet, so I can't really comment on those options. The conversations had with the romantic interests before the culmination of battle seemed less compelling to me. In ME1, both with Liara and Ashley, the conversations were pretty deep, and the situation seemed more dire because of it. With Miranda there wasn't a conversation at all besides, "Meet me in the engine room." Tali and Jack were better, but still not on par with ME1.



5. In ME1, one of the most intense moments was when you had to decide whether Ashley or Kaiden dies. The reason this was so intense was because it involved the fate of a character you had grown attached to, and the burden of choice was placed upon the player. In ME2, there aren't really any moments like this until the end mission but even then, the character deaths were somewhat unexpected, and didn't have enough consequence in the form of dialog and cutscenes. I feel like they weren't treated with the same gravity. Granted, any character could die, so I realize how tough that would be to give each death that much due. Also, the choice the player is given wasn't a morally difficult one, it was simply which character would be the best for the situation. Plus if you played the game well enough, no one would die.



6. I know everyone hated the elevators in ME1, but to be honest, I would rather have elevators than loading screens. At least the characters would sometimes engage in dialog, or there would be an news report of some sort. The other thing is that the elevator kept you connected to the game environment, whereas a loading screen takes away from the mental continuity of an area. Almost every area of a particular location felt connected within the same environment, whereas every area in ME2 felt compartmentalized and disconnected, especially the way the combat areas were completely separated from the "hub" areas. You always knew you wouldn't be fighting in the "hub" areas, which added a sense of predictability. In ME1, the hub areas were often directly connected to and integrated with the combat areas.



Those are some of the things I dislike in ME2, and there might be a few more that I have forgotten, but overall it's still an amazing game. I probably still liked it a bit more than ME1, despite those shortcomings.

[SithLordExarKun]

Felfenix wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

This.

Everyone who wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game with guns needs to be made simple for you.

DAO's RPG mechanics were relatively simple, by your logic that means its a pure shooter too... oh wait. Dao isn even a shooter... ME2 isn't a pure shooter either.

Just because theres a simple RPG doesn't make it a shooter nor does it mean we should only play pure shooters.

I'm surprised there aren't rants on the DAO forum that it's not an RPG because it's not turn based, "only" has 20/30 levels, and that the game focusses too much on sex/gore and fancy real time sword swinging. lol

Thats because most ME1 fanboys are childish elitists. Hell one of them even said "i wont play DAO becuz teh protanist haz n0 voice omg!!".

[MassEffect762]

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

This bioware, this times 1,000.

ME2 was WAY too simple, and I like simple.

[Terror_K]

The thing is, simplicity is a good thing... but being simple is not. What we want is complexity made simple, not just simplicity full stop. And that's what ME2 was.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, simplicity is a good thing... but being simple is not. What we want is complexity made simple, not just simplicity full stop. And that's what ME2 was.

In your opinion.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

But ME2 didn't actually fix the problems, it just eliminated them by throwing them out entirely. That's not fixing at all. That's like saying you fixed your red-ringed XBox by throwing it away and buying a PS2 instead.

Not a great simile there. Total replacement is often the best option with electronics.

Throwing something out is only a problem if it's somehow more costly than repair. If I don't already feel that throwing those elements out removed something of value, this argument has no force.

Edit: nothing wrong with pure rhetoric, of course. But aren't we a little past that here?

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 juillet 2010 - 03:28 .

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

In either case, if one is going to throw something out, whatever replaces it should be a superior system that does what the original intended to do in every way and perhaps more. ME2's replacement systems didn't, and were in fact shallower and simpler. The reasons these systems "worked" is because they were so simple and lacking in complexity that they simply couldn't really fail. That's not an improvement in my books. It's like replacing a car with a skateboard, because a skateboard doesn't have an engine or a whole bunch of mechanical parts that can go wrong. Of course you aren't going to have engine problems when you don't have an engine.

Very true.

The only thing I would even concede can be called broken in ME 1, was the inventory. I never really minded it, but of course it's a bit clunky. The funny thing is, it could easily be fixed by making it just a bit more "complicated". Just implement a weight limit and/or a realistic number of items limit. There, fixed. That BioWare did nothing of the sort but cut it out altogether, proves that this was not about improving, but about dumbing down for their new audience and about saving development time in the process.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:07 .

[Xeranx]

javierabegazo wrote...

Must be different. Because on the XBOX, you'd get a pop up screen with all four right hand xbox controller buttons displayed, ABXY, and one at a time the light would pop up on one of them, and you'd have to hit that corresponding button before the light flashed off. LIke i said, Simon Says


edit: may not be exactly simon says, but it's certainly a dumber version of said game

That's terrible.  I guess a good question to ask would be who on either side played which version.

This is what we get for electronic locks and decryption:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The piece I circled is what we have to move from outside the circle to inside.  The red rectangles move around in either clockwise or counter-clockwise motion with the orange ones being stationary.  This one is an easy decryption.  The next level is a little tougher with more red rectangles and orange stationary blocks, and I believe the red blocks move around faster.  The last level is hardest with more of everything and some levels where the blocks rotate move faster than others.
 
This is what we got as far as the simon says game:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Difference here is we have to find the code sequence.  This one is on Therum and the one on the Citadel is timed as it's attached to a bomb.

This is on the PC version.

Modifié par Xeranx, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:09 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Terror_K wrote...

In either case, if one is going to throw something out, whatever replaces it should be a superior system that does what the original intended to do in every way and perhaps more. ME2's replacement systems didn't, and were in fact shallower and simpler. The reasons these systems "worked" is because they were so simple and lacking in complexity that they simply couldn't really fail. That's not an improvement in my books. It's like replacing a car with a skateboard, because a skateboard doesn't have an engine or a whole bunch of mechanical parts that can go wrong. Of course you aren't going to have engine problems when you don't have an engine.

But skateboards are SOOOO much FUN.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

I like the way combat feels this time around as well as the way armor and weapons work. I wouldn't be too upset to see them expand on customization in this regard (something both games lacked to varying degrees) and to see what else they can come up with in regards to cooldowns.

Regardless, I don't really feel that Bioware is the developer to come to when expecting 'in-depth' RPG mechanics. They can definitely be interesting from time to time, that's for sure, but for what they have in variety is lost in lack of balance.

Alpha Protocol has been brought up before, but I think they did well with customizing gear.

Each weapon type (pistol, smg, shotgun, assault rifle) had about a dozen variations over three "tiers"  These weapons had v vaiety of stats: such as damage, recoil, or clip size.  You could purchase the one you felt fit your playstyle best.

Each weapon had four modification slots:  barrel, sights, magazine, and "accessory" (anything else, it seemed)  Weapons could only be purchased, mods could be purchased or sometimes found as loot.  These mods could be used to further customize the weapon to suit your own playstyle.  If you're sneaky, you could put a silencer on your pistol, though do less damage.  You could put an extended clip on your weapon to hold more rounds, but it will be less stable when you move, and so on. 

I had always believed that the best balance of gear was somewhere between ME 1, which had way too much (and not really enough modification options), and ME 2 which hardly had anything at all (ditto).  This system seems to have the best of both worlds.  You aren't weighted down by an improbable amount of weapons of varying types.  But what items do exist you can customize to your own specifications, rather than be stuck with whatever weapon happens to be lying around waiting for you to find.

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, simplicity is a good thing... but being simple is not. What we want is complexity made simple, not just simplicity full stop. And that's what ME2 was.

I call it "going past simplicity and into simplistic"

Gear is a comparatively minor problem for me, the mods in ME 1 did it for me way more than the weapons or armor.  But when you remove inventory of all types, the lack of choice in ME 2 becomes way more apparant.

[Orchomene]

bjdbwea wrote...

I'll just wait and see. Fallout 3 was great, and even though it was very different from the old games, it was actually not dumbed down, especially not if you use the right mods of course. I hope that Obsidian will also (refrain from) / (not be forced to) dumb down New Vegas. But if there was one company I would have thought was able to withstand that, it was BioWare. So I'll just wait and see how New Vegas turns out, and hope Obdisian and Bethesda don't go down the same route.

Obsidian has done great sequels improving the mechanics from the games. I know that they improved melee weapons and with Chris Avellone, you can be sure that there will be a very strong story since it's one of the best video games writer.

[Iakus]

Xeranx wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Must be different. Because on the XBOX, you'd get a pop up screen with all four right hand xbox controller buttons displayed, ABXY, and one at a time the light would pop up on one of them, and you'd have to hit that corresponding button before the light flashed off. LIke i said, Simon Says


edit: may not be exactly simon says, but it's certainly a dumber version of said game

That's terrible.  I guess a good question to ask would be who on either side played which version.

I had the PC version.  The "spinning circles" definitely sounds better than what the console users had.  Though I must say they get really boring after a while (the minigame, not the console users).  ME 2 gets points for at least doing something different.  It was no bigger a challenge, but at least it was something else.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
In either case, if one is going to throw something out, whatever replaces it should be a superior system that does what the original intended to do in every way and perhaps more.

Not if you don't want to do what the original system tried to do. Bio tossed the explorable world map from BG1 in favor of quest-related maps in BG2 because they didn't think that world exploration was what they wanted to do. IMO they were right, though some BG1 diehards disagree to this day.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs.

Not really.

Some traditional RPG's has alot about numbers, but roleplaying it self isn't about numbers. Numbers has allways been just tool for many roleplaying games, to help to have rules. How ever, many roleplayers think best RP happens when there is no rules anymore and all players can play without them. Because then it's about story and adventure, not numbers. Numbers cause players to conserate find optimal and perfect situations, what is actually more close to powerplaying than roleplaying.

Yes, numbers can be part of roleplaying games, but they aren't the main "thing" in items. Main thing about item variety is the function of item. Like someone before allready sayed. Is this sniper rifle or flame thrower. Is this item key to open doors or bag back to carry items. It's not about the numbers, it's the different function of items what creates variety and makes games really good. The differences on items is what makes items great. 

Yes, number based traditional RPG can be great, but they aren't only way to make great roleplaying games. You can build roleplaying also around impression and story, not around stats and numbers.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:45 .

[Felfenix]

Where is that flash game where you just hit a button and numbers get bigger? I think that's a lot of people's ideal game. XD

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs.

Not really.

Some traditional RPG's has alot about numbers, but roleplaying it self isn't about numbers. Numbers has allways been just tool for many roleplaying games, to help to have rules. How ever, many roleplayers think best RP happens when there is no rules anymore and all players can play without them. Because then it's about story and adventure, not numbers. Numbers cause players to conserate find optimal and perfect situations, what is actually more close to powerplaying than roleplaying.

Yes, numbers can be part of roleplaying games, but they aren't the main "thing" in items. Main thing about item variety is the function of item. Like someone before allready sayed. Is this sniper rifle or flame thrower. Is thia item key to open doors or bag back to carry items. It's not about the numbers, it's the different function of items what creates variety and makes games really good. The differences on items is what makes items great. 

Yes, number based traditional RPG can be great, but they aren't only way to make great roleplaying games. You can build roleplaying also around impression and story, not around stats and numbers.

Impression and story are great, don't get me wrong.  I think story is the most important part of an rpg.  Equipment is definitely not everything.  But I think I see where Terror is coming from

One important aspect about role-playing games is being able to make the character you play your own.  This is your own personal Commander Shepard.  You built him or her yourself from the ground up.  Motivations, skills, appearance, are all created by you within the parameters of the game.  This I believe is part of what has people upset. In ME 2, there are (or appear to be) fewer choices in abilities to take, in equipment to wear, in customizing Shepard in anyting besides facial features and armor patterns.

This being a computer game, options for customization are of course going to be limited.  In a PnP game, the only limit is the human imagination and what the DM is willing to let you get away with.  In a computer game, it is, for better or for worse, going to come down to numbers, and how those numbers affect the game world and your character.  You have a suit of armor, what does that armor do?  You have a gun, what does that do, and how well does it do it?  How does it affect you, or allow you to affect the world?  In a computer game, it all comes down to numbers because numbers are all a computer understands.  ME 2 takes away our ability to see and maipulate those numbers.

"What attributes are you willing to give up in place of another attribute?"   Not a whole lot of options in that department

"Should my soldier specialize in the shotgun or assault rifle?" "Doesn't matter, you're equally good in both.

"What's the difference between these sniper rifles?"  One does little damage but shoots a lot, the other blows heads off but is really slow.

"There a third alternative?"  Not really.

It's not really about numbers.  It's about being unique.

[Felfenix]

All the guns in ME1 were the same. What a joke. Bland linear upgrades.

I'd rather have different weapons and choices that actually matter, rather than just numbers going up.

You could specialize in weapon types you normally couldn't in ME2, and even change up your playstyle even within the same weapon archetypes. People debate Revnant/Viper vs Vindicator/Widow, and choosing to spec in a diff weapon type or get a very specialized weapon can make a huge playstyle difference. A lot of people don't test weapons and mess around enough, clearly, cause even the starter pistol can be superior to it's upgrade, along with other underestimated weapons. ME2 wasn't loaded with numbers, but the stats were definitely there. Rate of fire, damage vs each bar type, clip size, etc and they varied usefully between all the weapon choices depending on your playstyles and needs. All this while having multiple viable weapon choices, instead of a linear upgrading plays-the-same one-weapon system. But hey, if you prefer the illusion of choice to actual choice, more power to you. I don't need key jingling and color swaps. I prefer substance. Choosing between Avenger II and Avenger III isn't custom tailoring your playstyle nor a diverse and unique selection. If you just wanna collect pointless junk so you can click a sell button and see credits go up, again, there's an "awesome" flash game I came across once. NumberQuest or something.

Modifié par Felfenix, 02 juillet 2010 - 06:22 .

[Vena_86]

Felfenix wrote...
All the guns in ME1 were the same. What a joke. Bland linear upgrades.
I'd rather have different weapons and choices that actually matter, rather than just numbers going up.

Yes, all that people want is more choices that also include noticable trade-offs and specially beeing able to see and judge the differences, instead of having to check forums for stat sheets, because the game makes a big secret out of whats going on.
Alpha Protocol is better in that then ME1 and ME2 and so is even the latest Splinter Cell.

[Orchomene]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
In either case, if one is going to throw something out, whatever replaces it should be a superior system that does what the original intended to do in every way and perhaps more.

Not if you don't want to do what the original system tried to do. Bio tossed the explorable world map from BG1 in favor of quest-related maps in BG2 because they didn't think that world exploration was what they wanted to do. IMO they were right, though some BG1 diehards disagree to this day.

This is not entirely true : a good part of the BG2 maps (in the Sword coast) are explorable from the begining. And some maps in BG1 where quest related : BG city (you had to follow the story to enter it first time), Bandit camp, cloakwood forest. The big difference is that there is a feeling of map continuity in BG1 with areas unrelated to quests (or very small quests inside) whereas the areas in BG2 are more disconnected geographically one from another.

[Felfenix]

Vena_86 wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
All the guns in ME1 were the same. What a joke. Bland linear upgrades.
I'd rather have different weapons and choices that actually matter, rather than just numbers going up.

Yes, all that people want is more choices that also include noticable trade-offs and specially beeing able to see and judge the differences, instead of having to check forums for stat sheets, because the game makes a big secret out of whats going on.
Alpha Protocol is better in that then ME1 and ME2 and so is even the latest Splinter Cell.

This is easily solved though. They should just show the numbers that already exist for the ME2 weapons. "2x damage vs barrier" instead of  "very good against barriers" along with clip size, a more meaningful description of how the gun actually works (instead of JUST fluff text) and all that jazz. The ME2 guns and specializations offer a lot more meaningful tradeoffs. I'd hate to see the weapons system dumbed back down to 4 guns just with a bunch of meaningless tiers. The research system takes care of any tiering and linear upgrades. They should offer more diverse research though, and make it hard to or even impossible to get all types of research for a gun. "Do I want more headshot damage on my rifles, or more armor piercing?"

[Orchomene]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs.

Not really.

Some traditional RPG's has alot about numbers, but roleplaying it self isn't about numbers. Numbers has allways been just tool for many roleplaying games, to help to have rules. How ever, many roleplayers think best RP happens when there is no rules anymore and all players can play without them. Because then it's about story and adventure, not numbers. Numbers cause players to conserate find optimal and perfect situations, what is actually more close to powerplaying than roleplaying.

Yes, numbers can be part of roleplaying games, but they aren't the main "thing" in items. Main thing about item variety is the function of item. Like someone before allready sayed. Is this sniper rifle or flame thrower. Is this item key to open doors or bag back to carry items. It's not about the numbers, it's the different function of items what creates variety and makes games really good. The differences on items is what makes items great. 

Yes, number based traditional RPG can be great, but they aren't only way to make great roleplaying games. You can build roleplaying also around impression and story, not around stats and numbers.

You then don't really have a roleplaying game but an adventure game. Without the rules, there is no way to know if the character is good doing something or bad. I don't know any RPG that doesn't have rules, even diceless RPGs have rules. Otherwise, I could say that my character kills every enemy just by the power of his mind.
In cRPG, since the computer does all the computation, you have the freedom to hide the numbers, but the numbers are still there, just unknown. I know that in our modern days many people are afraid of knowledge and think that knowledge of something may bring doom, but there is no real advantage to hide numbers in a single RPG. If you want to roleplay with powergaming, then you can do it even with numbers present, just ignore said numbers. If you want to powergame a bit (for valid or not reasons), then you can't if there is no numbers.
The powergaming, despised by some here, was before an important part of cRPG for the simple reasons that RPGs had some difficulty before. As already said, Fallout 1/2 was not easy to play without a bit of thought on the character development and the equipment. BG1 and  a bit BG2 were far from being as simple as ME or DAO if you use the P&P rules (that were considered as a bit more difficult that the "normal" difficulty in the game).
In ten years, the evolution of the RPG gameplay (and may be other genres, like strategy games) shows that people can't accept some difficulty.
An enemy can kill you with one shot (sniper in modern/scifi, "finger of death" kind of effect in fantasy) : this is bad design and broken gameplay, no instant killing, no luck involved whatsoever.
A minigame or lock can't be solved because of the lack of skill of the main character or NPCs : bad design, broken gameplay, you need to put easy minigames and locks everyone can break.
You go in an area and the enemy is much more powerful than you (or much less) : bad design and bad gameplay, you need to have scalable enemies.
You can't do some quests because it is mutually exclusive with one quest you have done : bad design, wrong gameplay, ne need to do the entire game in one playthrough.
I can go on with all those comparisons, but the main point is that in recent RPGs (and some strategy games), you can't loose. You can loose only if you do something wrong, which is unrealistic by itself. there are a lot of circumstances where you can act very thoughtfully and be still killed. But some people think it's too frustrating to be killed for an uncontrolable reason. They argue saying that it's a game and that they shouldn't face the issue they face in real life. But at the same time (contradiction is an important part of the human psychology), they want more realism. Since the realism is lacking in essence, it will be just an ersatz of realism : graphics, voice acting, cut scenes, facial expressions,...
I'm sorry to say, but I feel a lot more immersed (as people love this concept) in games like fallout, BG, planescape, M&M than in ME1/2 (a bit more in 2, since in 1 there were snipers and efficient biotics and difficult krogans). Just because everything is under control and I can be killed only if I do a big mistake, there is a detachement feeling that prevent me from being immersed.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I thought so too, but people still keep claiming that ME2 "fixed ME1's problems" when it did not...

Because ME2 was indeed 'fixed' for many people.

Terror_K wrote...

Besides stats determining your ability to hit things, I fail to see how the other elements interfere so directly with the combat of Mass Effect...

That's actually quite big.

These days, shooters are glorified for having comfortable and sensible mechanics regarding a large number of things: recoil, accuracy, spread, etc. This is why I consider Bad Company 2 to be one of the best shooters released this decade, because there's actually quite a lot happening when you fire that bullet.

Part of the aspect that people like in shooters is being able to control - and thus enjoy - those mechanics, many if not all that were missing in ME1. I honestly thought the worst was when you maxed your Shepard out and could just go gung-ho with your spectre-grade weapon while having no downgrades in regards to recoil, accuracy, etc.

This will be a tough cookie to crack for ME3. The best example for this conflict is the people who like the heatsinks mechanic in the first game as opposed to the reloading mechanic of the second: plenty of people on each side. It's going to be impossible to find a middle ground for that, much like there is for this.

Terror_K wrote...

You could easily still have an ME2-esque combat system without eliminating and simplifying inventory, customisation, exploration, weapon modding, having stats on items, skill-based hacking and decryption, more class abilities, etc.

It would appear that it took a lot of effort on Bioware's part in actually making a bearable combat system. While it's not 'revolutionary' by shooter standards (it's still Bioware we're talking about here) it was quite a feat for them to be able to actually make combat not boring and - with the addition of abilities mixed into the combat - actually stand out a bit from the standard shooter crowd.

Bear in mind that I'm not claiming that ME2 had 'depth' to the gameplay. Likewise, I'm also not implying that ME1 had any, either.

[Orchomene]

Felfenix wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
All the guns in ME1 were the same. What a joke. Bland linear upgrades.
I'd rather have different weapons and choices that actually matter, rather than just numbers going up.

Yes, all that people want is more choices that also include noticable trade-offs and specially beeing able to see and judge the differences, instead of having to check forums for stat sheets, because the game makes a big secret out of whats going on.
Alpha Protocol is better in that then ME1 and ME2 and so is even the latest Splinter Cell.

This is easily solved though. They should just show the numbers that already exist for the ME2 weapons. "2x damage vs barrier" instead of  "very good against barriers" along with clip size, a more meaningful description of how the gun actually works (instead of JUST fluff text) and all that jazz. The ME2 guns and specializations offer a lot more meaningful tradeoffs. I'd hate to see the weapons system dumbed back down to 4 guns just with a bunch of meaningless tiers. The research system takes care of any tiering and linear upgrades. They should offer more diverse research though, and make it hard to or even impossible to get all types of research for a gun. "Do I want more headshot damage on my rifles, or more armor piercing?"

Choices. Things ME2 lack a lot. Oh yes, there is the choice between having a long range weapon or a shot range, or between having powerful but with slow rate of fire and the reverse. It's pretty small.
There is no customization of weapons, simply a static bonus upgrade, just "numbers" but hidden.
There is no choice between ranged weapons and melee weapons.
There is no choice in a way to do a quest or not : if the quest is a battle heavy quest, you have to fight, if the quest is a talkative one, you have to talk.
There is no choice in maps to go from point A to point B, just follow the corridor.
There is no choice between doing a sidequest that will block another one : you can just do all the quests in the game in one playthrough.
There is no choice in doing a challenging fight to earn some advantage later or only doing small fights and slowly progressing. All the enemies scale so that you are fighting mercenaries at the begining and mercenaries at the end that don't give any sense of evolution of your character.
There is no choice in the progression of the main character besides the choice of the class at the begining. After that, you just have to maximize your skills. More than that, progress in the skill will just add "numbers" that don't have any real and tangible effect since enemy scales.
This game is an action/adventure game lacking in all aspects of the RPGs besides fake choices in dialogues, fake choices in character customization, fake tactical choices, a small weapon choice (like in any shooter). You can end the game without leveling at all (since enemy would then not level). Level has no meaning in this game, it's just an illusion of evolution that doesn't change anything.