10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Siegdrifa]

stats and talents does not make an rpg, by the logic majority of the games we play are rpgs.

I agree, an RPG is a Role Playing Game.
Not a character level and stats.

The stats and numbers is NOWHERE mantionned in " Role Playing Game".
The numbers are here to quantify the effectiveness of capacity to introduce a progression.
This effectiveness being part of customisation / attraction for players.

The use of numbers can serve everything, especialy on a computer.
A computer, no matter what you do only do math, so when you write, your computer understand your "writing" by math.
So of cause numbers was logical for RPG, but the tech behind it can't define it as a universal truth.

RPG are RPG, number is just a possibility to be part of it, nothing more.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:36 .

[fchopin]

If my posts were not very politically correct i apologise for that.



To answer the question again, this is not a stand alone game but a sequel of supposed to be 3 games.



We did not play ME1 because it was a shooter game but because it was a RPG\\shooter hybrid, so we expected the same with ME2.



By developing the combat for ME2 and removing most of the RPG elements as well as simplifying the story in to a no story game the game changed format.



If Bioware wanted to change the format of the game then they should have made a new game and not a sequel, or they should have said so before the game came out so people would know what they were buying.

[Zulu_DFA]

fchopin wrote...

If my posts were not very politically correct i apologise for that.

To answer the question again, this is not a stand alone game but a sequel of supposed to be 3 games.

We did not play ME1 because it was a shooter game but because it was a RPG\\\\\\\\shooter hybrid, so we expected the same with ME2.

By developing the combat for ME2 and removing most of the RPG elements as well as simplifying the story in to a no story game the game changed format.

If Bioware wanted to change the format of the game then they should have made a new game and not a sequel, or they should have said so before the game came out so people would know what they were buying.

/signed.

slimgrin wrote...

Welcome to the gaming industry. 

Valve didn't even change the HUD style between Half-Life and Half-Life 2, although more time had passed between the two titles thatn between ME1 and 2. They fix things, and add them, not overhaul. Why is that?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:51 .

[bjdbwea]

And importantly, the sales numbers don't seem exactly spectacular. Certainly that number of sales could also have been reached with a real successor. It seems therefore that the idea of dumbing down to draw in many new players (shooter fans and casual gamers) more or less failed.

Not to forget, if they had made a real successor, using more of the existing foundations and assets, it would have saved them additional development time.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 juillet 2010 - 05:55 .

[Siegdrifa]

Valve didn't even change the HUD style between Half-Life and Half-Life 2, although more time had passed between the two titles thatn between ME1 and 2. They fix things, and add them, not overhaul. Why is that?

Because Half Life isn't Mass Effect  and Bioware isn't Valve.

[Sleepicub09]

fchopin wrote...

If my posts were not very politically correct i apologise for that.

To answer the question again, this is not a stand alone game but a sequel of supposed to be 3 games.

We did not play ME1 because it was a shooter game but because it was a RPG\\\\shooter hybrid, so we expected the same with ME2.

By developing the combat for ME2 and removing most of the RPG elements as well as simplifying the story in to a no story game the game changed format.

If Bioware wanted to change the format of the game then they should have made a new game and not a sequel, or they should have said so before the game came out so people would know what they were buying.

actually I played ME1 for it's story and being able to do every mission differently everytime I played it.

for example
SPOILER
on noveria on my first play through I just blasted my way through to benezia and on my second I got dr. cohens maintenance for helping him with the cure and that's how I got to benezia(much safer) I do miss that about mass effect.

[Siansonea]

Well, there must be more about the game that people like as opposed to what they don't like, or else this thread wouldn't have so many pages. I think we should all be glad the game is as good as it is, and suggest changes that would improve it. Pouting isn't pretty, and doesn't accomplish a whole lot. A lot of you need to Get Glad In The Same Pants You Got Mad In, as far as I'm concerned. It's a game! Go play it! Or do something else.

[Zulu_DFA]

slimgrin wrote...
Bioware aimed for a larger market. Had they focused more on 'fiddly'  rpg bits, ( I qoute Hudsen here) they may have sold fewer copies. So the change from ME1 to ME2 is understandably jarring.

And it makes RPG purists right to feel swindled. I'm not an RPG purist, but I feel so as well, since, ME2 is vastly different from what I expected it to be, and most of the changes are for the worst, in my books.

[Orchomene]

Felfenix wrote...

The fact a lot of you defend and think someone's "criticisms" of a game based on the first 5 minutes of gameplay are valid, because they decided to jump on the forum hater bandwagon before even playing it, speaks volumes of the credibility of your own criticisms. Even if I cleaned up Mohun's post, it's still nothing but an ignorant rant that ME1 is the pinnacle of perfection in every way, and ME2 is the worst game ever in every way - and she would know because she played it for like 5 whole minutes. Is that really the kind of garbage you want representing the problems with ME2?

It just makes most of you look like irrational and ignorant internet hate-mongers, especially with ME2 being praised for it's changes by most gamers, voted as NOT a disappointment by even most of the people on this forum (lets be honest, for the most part only habitual whiners troll game forums), and considered one of the best games of the year by reviewers. Agreeing with someone's ignorant hatemonging just because they are one more person "fighting the good fight" is a shame because it makes any valid criticisms (and there are many) more likely to be ignored and written off as typical change-paranoia.

What's ironic is if they'd said the exact same thing, but about ME1, because he decided after 5 minutes of playing that it's a "cheep shooter" instead of a "reel RPG" like Dragon Age or (lol) Final Fantasy you'd have thought it ridiculous as well.

Can't you even understand that it wasn't the fact you dismissed what she/he said that was a problem but the way you did it ? If not, then I think you should yourself have a look on what you have just written and ask you if you are not in the "hater" category, the one that hates people that criticize the game you like.
You could have said that a too short playthrough is not enough to throw such amount of criticism. But that's not what you did. You just have jumped on treating this person as an iliterate dumb. So, most of what you just write is inapropriate to the situation.

[Orchomene]

Siegdrifa wrote...

stats and talents does not make an rpg, by the logic majority of the games we play are rpgs.

I agree, an RPG is a Role Playing Game.
Not a character level and stats.

The stats and numbers is NOWHERE mantionned in " Role Playing Game".
The numbers are here to quantify the effectiveness of capacity to introduce a progression.
This effectiveness being part of customisation / attraction for players.

The use of numbers can serve everything, especialy on a computer.
A computer, no matter what you do only do math, so when you write, your computer understand your "writing" by math.
So of cause numbers was logical for RPG, but the tech behind it can't define it as a universal truth.

RPG are RPG, number is just a possibility to be part of it, nothing more.

Again this argument ? It's been over used and comes back time after time yet remains as invalid as before : RPG without rules is called adventure game. Like Monkey Island, Runaway, Siberia, Myst and so on... Story, dialogues, non linearity (sometimes), explorations.Also, just a minor correction, computers don't do math, computers compute. That's not that important, but it sounds strange when you do math to hear that computers do math.

[Xeranx]

Felfenix wrote...

The fact a lot of you defend and think someone's "criticisms" of a game based on the first 5 minutes of gameplay are valid, because they decided to jump on the forum hater bandwagon before even playing it, speaks volumes of the credibility of your own criticisms. Even if I cleaned up Mohun's post, it's still nothing but an ignorant rant that ME1 is the pinnacle of perfection in every way, and ME2 is the worst game ever in every way - and she would know because she played it for like 5 whole minutes. Is that really the kind of garbage you want representing the problems with ME2?

It just makes most of you look like irrational and ignorant internet hate-mongers, especially with ME2 being praised for it's changes by most gamers, voted as NOT a disappointment by even most of the people on this forum (lets be honest, for the most part only habitual whiners troll game forums), and considered one of the best games of the year by reviewers. Agreeing with someone's ignorant hatemonging just because they are one more person "fighting the good fight" is a shame because it makes any valid criticisms (and there are many) more likely to be ignored and written off as typical change-paranoia.

What's ironic is if they'd said the exact same thing, but about ME1, because he decided after 5 minutes of playing that it's a "cheep shooter" instead of a "reel RPG" like Dragon Age or (lol) Final Fantasy you'd have thought it ridiculous as well.

He comes across like he's not a native english speaker whereas you (who comes across as a native english speaker) saw fit to shorten words and mispell them intentionally in an effort to make the poster to whom you're replying seem stupid.  The fact that his post is coherent (whether it is meritable isn't the case here) and has many words spelled correctly in fact proves your portrayel of him false and makes you appear to be the hate monger you believe he'll be viewed as.  That is ironic.

As to what he said, I don't care if he agrees with me or agrees with you, "I may not agree with what he is saying, but I will defend his right to say it."  To add to that I would say I will also not make an attempt to smear him as imbecile because he said something I disagree with or don't like.  That does more to discredit you than it ever will him.  

[Zulu_DFA]

Orchomene wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

stats and talents does not make an rpg, by the logic majority of the games we play are rpgs.

I agree, an RPG is a Role Playing Game.
Not a character level and stats.

The stats and numbers is NOWHERE mantionned in " Role Playing Game".
The numbers are here to quantify the effectiveness of capacity to introduce a progression.
This effectiveness being part of customisation / attraction for players.

The use of numbers can serve everything, especialy on a computer.
A computer, no matter what you do only do math, so when you write, your computer understand your "writing" by math.
So of cause numbers was logical for RPG, but the tech behind it can't define it as a universal truth.

RPG are RPG, number is just a possibility to be part of it, nothing more.

Again this argument ? It's been over used and comes back time after time yet remains as invalid as before : RPG without rules is called adventure game. Like Monkey Island, Runaway, Siberia, Myst and so on... Story, dialogues, non linearity (sometimes), explorations.Also, just a minor correction, computers don't do math, computers compute. That's not that important, but it sounds strange when you do math to hear that computers do math.

And adventure games still need coherent plot that consists of events that make sense, or may have sense (which is hidden from the player by "fog-of-war" until the end of the game). But many things that happen on screen in ME2 are utter non-sense, which clearly isn't going to be corrected by ME3.

[Siegdrifa]

Again this argument ? It's been over used and comes back time after time yet remains as invalid as before : RPG without rules is called adventure game. Like Monkey Island, Runaway, Siberia, Myst and so on... Story, dialogues, non linearity (sometimes), explorations.Also, just a minor correction, computers don't do math, computers compute. That's not that important, but it sounds strange when you do math to hear that computers do math.

About "math", may be it wasn't the right word in english (i'm french), so yeah, a computer comput, even when your write or draw with it, you computer comput.

It doesn't interfer in anycase with my argument.

RPG doesn't mean RPG for video game.

Player like you want to be able to identify every kind of game with distinct shape, forme, game play.
So you can call them "beat them all", "shoot them up", "racing game", "adventure game", "RPG" etc.

All those kind of games existed and was clearly distinc because the tech to made them were limited (from number of possibility to size).
With time, the hardware was more advancer, and the line that separte those games became more blury.

Now many games use advanced engine programming that let the possibility for a same game to do more than one thing.
Have you played Shen Mue? this is not a fighting game but the fight engine was amasing, you have lot of combo and possibility while fighting surounded by ennemis. Even if you had the "beat them all" part, is wasn't enough to remember Shen Mue as a "beat them all".

The more power and possibility the dev will get, the more advanced and mixed the games will be.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 02 juillet 2010 - 07:30 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

That is quite true indeed. I am quite critical of the combat in ME 2, though of course ME 1 didn't exactly have fantastic combat either. But unlike apparently for many ME 2 defenders here, combat was never the most important thing for me.

And even the combat was far more interesting regarding the options it offers.Instead of taking down a defensive layer with a boring paper,rock scissors system that only has different colours the debuffs in Mass Effect shut down down the attacks of enemies. Sabotage stops shooting, damping stop biotics and tech activities.And all biotics stop charging melee enemies despite if they are "protected" or not,and had far wider ranges.And worked on nearly all enemies up to a geth colossus.
What an adept could do now with a ymir as long the "defences" are not down.Pew pew with heavy weapons.So satisfieng...

[Pho3nix214]

As much as I don't want to admit it, I was very disappointed with ME2. There is very little replay value and it is set far apart from it's predecessor. Besides the obvious change being that it's more of a shooter and is much simpler for casuals, the main aspect of it that killed it for me was the feel. The story, I thought was too straightforward and short. And it didn't have that sense of wonder, or thought, just bang bang. Just because one area of ME1 is mediocre (the combat) doesn't mean you have to sacrifice another great aspect for it (the thought). All in all, what I want for ME3 is a better game, taking both from what was great from ME1 and ME2, while also adding in new stuff (customization, gameplay,etc..) and making it less tedious.



P.S.- No more unlockable in-game bonuses obtained from products like Dr. Pepper. Make it apart of the game, like getting a cool set of badass armor from getting an achievement.

[Orchomene]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Again this argument ? It's been over used and comes back time after time yet remains as invalid as before : RPG without rules is called adventure game. Like Monkey Island, Runaway, Siberia, Myst and so on... Story, dialogues, non linearity (sometimes), explorations.Also, just a minor correction, computers don't do math, computers compute. That's not that important, but it sounds strange when you do math to hear that computers do math.

About "math", may be it wasn't the right word in english (i'm french), so yeah, a computer comput, even when you write or draw with it, you computer comput.

It doesn't interfer in anycase with my argument.

RPG doesn't mean RPG for video game.

Player like you want to be able to identify every kind of game with distinct shape, forme, game play.
So you can call them "beat them all", "shoot them up", "racing game", "adventure game", "RPG" etc.

All those kind of games existed and was clearly distinc because the tech to made them were limited (from number of possibility to size).
With time, the hardware was more advancer, and the line that separte those games became more blury.

Now many games use advanced engine programming that let the possibility for a same game to do more than one thing.
Have you played Shen Mue? this is not a fighting game but the fight engine was amasing, you have lot of combo and possibility while fighting surounded by ennemis. Even if you had the "beat them all" part, is wasn't enough to remember Shen Mue as a "beat them all".

The more power and possibility the dev will get, the more advanced and mixed the games will be.

I'm french too and you're right, math or computing has nothing to do with your arguments, it( was just a minor point to clarify an often seen confusion.
But to the point, I don't specifically categorize games. I play games that suit my taste which are somewhere between wargames, adventure games and rpgs. Thus I can enjoy easily what may be called hybrids of those genres. Yet, I don't really appreciate action games. Games like Diablo, Doom or the recents evolutions of such games do not correspond to the kind of games I enjoy. It's not a choice or some snobism, I'd rather like all the different kind of games, that would be easier. That's just that you don't play different kind of games the same ways.
One thing I'm sure, it's that ME2 is not played as an RPG. There is no real way to have stratgies in combat. Some tactic, but no strategy. More than that, the story is not sufficiently coherent and the linearity is too important for me to forget about the combat gameplay. In the end, I've not appreciated at all the game. Some people appreciate this kind of games, yet I would rather have avoid a game like ME2. The big issue I have is that it's been marketed as a game I would appreciate, mainly an RPG (even hybrid with shooting element like ME1 was) with a strong emphasis on story.

[ChuckNorris18]

To those of you who think that 1 was better than two, I want you to play mass effect 1 again, then come back and tell me what you think. Yesterday i put my mass effect 1 disc on my 360 to do one more playthrough, but I could barely make it through Eden Prime again, why?
Because the gameplay was terrible compared to me 2's, while many of the core elements are the same they are very different games, even graphic wise, look at me 2's graphics then me 1's, the camera angle in me1 bothers me a lot too compared to me 2's, the simple fact is that after playing me 2 it's hard to go back to me1.
ME1 was a great game but ME2 is much greater. The only thing that me1 has that me 2 doesn't is that feeling where you fell compelled to go out and play through it again, ME2 just never gave me that feeling.

I still plan on following through with my me 1 playthrough because I got used to the controls towards the end of eden prime.
I'll come back and add more once I import my me1 playthrough to me2 then I'll tell you how I feel after playing both.

two things that I love about me1 that aren't included in me2 is the more complex skill tree, and grenades, after doing a couple missions I found that grenades are a very good way to take out a group of enemies, and useful in almost any situation.

Modifié par ChuckNorris18, 02 juillet 2010 - 07:48 .

[Siegdrifa]

Orchomene wrote...
I'm french too and you're right, math or computing has nothing to do with your arguments, it( was just a minor point to clarify an often seen confusion.
But to the point, I don't specifically categorize games. I play games that suit my taste which are somewhere between wargames, adventure games and rpgs. Thus I can enjoy easily what may be called hybrids of those genres. Yet, I don't really appreciate action games. Games like Diablo, Doom or the recents evolutions of such games do not correspond to the kind of games I enjoy. It's not a choice or some snobism, I'd rather like all the different kind of games, that would be easier. That's just that you don't play different kind of games the same ways.
One thing I'm sure, it's that ME2 is not played as an RPG. There is no real way to have stratgies in combat. Some tactic, but no strategy. More than that, the story is not sufficiently coherent and the linearity is too important for me to forget about the combat gameplay. In the end, I've not appreciated at all the game. Some people appreciate this kind of games, yet I would rather have avoid a game like ME2. The big issue I have is that it's been marketed as a game I would appreciate, mainly an RPG (even hybrid with shooting element like ME1 was) with a strong emphasis on story.

Game should be played the way they were meant to be but it's not that simple for the players.

As the games getting more advanced and potentialy more mixed, a same game can give 2 point of view.

The best exemple i have in my mind is Fallout3.
I played this game as an RPG using a FPS fight, and i loved it. One of my friend who is 100% onto FPS told me it was a ****y game... because he though it was a mainly a FPS with some rpg element. He was playing with power armor and machine gun, and it kill all the fun for the fight, unless you like to butcher gouls or mutan for hours.
I told him to try to play only with guns, stealth, lockpicking. He enjoyed the game and played all his add ons.

The same goes for resident evil, when you look at the first games and the last, resident crossed the action shooting and at the begining, people playing resident evil as an action shooting game found it far under good action shooting game. Yeah, may be, BUT, resident evil come from a different kind of games.

You say you don't want to categorise games but you speak about rules.
This rules for you is the reflect of a kind of game you can clearly identify to be sure to purchase your kind of game.

Nobody wants to pay for something they won't like.

[Zulu_DFA]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

To those of you who think that 1 was better than two, I want you to play mass effect 1 again, then come back and tell me what you think. Yesterday i put my mass effect 1 disc on my 360 to do one more playthrough, but I could barely make it through Eden Prime again, why?
Because the gameplay was terrible compared to me 2's, while many of the core elements are the same they are very different games, even graphic wise, look at me 2's graphics then me 1's, the camera angle in me1 bothers me a lot too compared to me 2's, the simple fact is that after playing me 2 it's hard to go back to me1.
ME1 was a great game but ME2 is much greater. The only thing that me1 has that me 2 doesn't is that feeling where you fell compelled to go out and play through it again, ME2 just never gave me that feeling.

I still plan on following through with my me 1 playthrough because I got used to the controls towards the end of eden prime.
I'll come back and add more once I import my me1 playthrough to me2 then I'll tell you how I feel after playing both.

two things that I love about me1 that aren't included in me2 is the more complex skill tree, and grenades, after doing a couple missions I found that grenades are a very good way to take out a group of enemies, and useful in almost any situation.

LOL! This mini-review seems actually more favorable of ME1!

[ChuckNorris18]

I tried to show both of my opinion in that sort of mini post. I tried to not come off as too favorable to either one, but one thing that i do agree with is more stat progression, I mean Borderlands had a more complex stat system than me 2, but I do feel that the shooting ability shouldn't be determined by the stats but rather the players ability. I kind of see myself in the middle I want a game that plays like me1/me2 but with new additions to the game as well.



Oh and @Bioware why the hell can't we crouch in me2 anymore?

[bjdbwea]

ChuckNorris18 wrote...

The only thing that me1 has that me 2 doesn't is that feeling where you fell compelled to go out and play through it again, ME2 just never gave me that feeling.

I agree. But isn't that the most important thing in a game? How can you still say ME 2 is much better? Because the graphics look better and because combat works more smoothly? How many identical mercs can you shoot before you've seen enough of that?

[ChuckNorris18]

I don't have a problem with killing identical mercs and guard over and over again because, isn't that what we did in me1 too. With the gameplay improvements they made, it came across as easier to push through each squadron of mercs, or krogan, or mechs, or whatever, and get to what really matters the most, story. I do feel the story was a bit too straightforward though.

One thing that bioware definitely need to work on is C&C.  Take note of what Alpha protocol did in this area, because that game is a perfect example of C&C.  I just wish that the gameplay could've been more smoothed out.

One thing that also saddened me is that I felt more compelled to playthrough Alan Wake twice than mass effect 2 twice, because mass effect 2 couldn't maintain a sense of mystery in it.  That's one of the areas that Mass effect 1 beats mass effect 2.

Mass Effect 3 will definitely be the game we were looking for with all of the complaints going on in these board, Bioware and EA simply can't ignore it because there goes more than half of the sales that they could've gotten if they just structured the game to support the fans.

On a sort of off-topic note: I would expect mass effect 3 to come out somewhere in late 2011 or early 2012.

Modifié par ChuckNorris18, 02 juillet 2010 - 08:28 .