[quote]iakus wrote...
Yeah that whole thing is funny 'casue it's true
[/quote]
Incidentally, so was
Mock Effect, that didn't, which is even
waaay longer than the Abridged ME2 (seriously, you just can't abridge Mock Effect, you'll always leave too much out). And that didn't stop ME1 from being great.
[quote]iakus wrote...
Combat tactics are a little basic and that makes for a bad rpg? Mages dominate? My mage was a Spirit specialist. Really good against casters, but hardly dominated the battlefield (and Mana Clash
still causes the game to crash half the time!)[/quote]
But you had to
blindfold and prevent yourself from taking/using some spells (and even specializations) or you'd go through every battle in the game without even breakign a sweat. When I played the game, I had to restritct myself from using things like Virulent Bomb or taking the Arcane Warrior specialization.
There's a difference between unbalanced skills and broken, and DAO falls into the latter.
[quote]iakus wrote...
What DA had was incredible customization for the characters, [/quote]
Like to dress pretty?
[quote]iakus wrote...
better character development than either ME game, [/quote]
If you mean the main character, I thing you actually need to first
have a personality before you can talk about character development...
[quote]iakus wrote...
choices and consequences, [/quote]
Yeah, 6 completely distinct origins that at the end all converge in
the exact same game. And "choices and consequences" that were just "take [this] path, get [this] reward on a quest" that we've been getting for the last
20 years of RPGs.[quote]iakus wrote...
The story's a little basic, but aside from simply leaving, it pretty much lets you solve it your way.
That is what makes it a deep rpg.[/quote]
No it doesn't. You're still going to have to end up having to make the same things regardless of what you do. You can be a bit nicer here and there or make a choice or two at the end but a) you had that in the ME series too, and
you don't get the added bonus of having your choices influence the next game.
[quote]iakus wrote...
Actually, what compbat could be more basic than "Put bullet in enemy's head. Don't let enemy put bullet in your head"?
[/quote]
I don't know, maybe "me cut you before you cut me"?
The
means by which you kill an enemy have
nothing to do with how a deep a game is. That's a really basic view on things: if you shoot people, then it's automatically dumb gameplay, but if you cut them with a sword, oh, then that's completely deep?
What makes combat deep is how you have to deal with encounters. And like I've said before, ME2 could still afford to be a bit more tactical, but even then you
have to use tactics and prepare a good squad depending on the situation instead of just using the cliché of MMORPG combat of Tank/DPS/Healer/Support Mage over and over
and over again. Oh, and that's when you're still trying to make things remotely interessting by not just resorting to your Freezing spell + Virulent Walking Bomb to kill everything that moves while relying on your
incredibly heavy suit of armor to keep your mage safe.
[quote]iakus wrote...
A few people also think that having items with particular benefits and drawbacks that complement their playstyles is a Good Thing. ME 1 went way overboard. ME 2 was afraid to go out into the water. [/quote]
And how did the inventory
ever complement playstyles? All you had was "this gun has more points than the other, equip it." Bum, done. And with the Spectre equipment, everything up to it was just a build-up. And
that is what you call going overboard? That's actually something that you consider particularly
deep?
I've said before and I'll say it again: RPG fans really
are in dire need of something that actually stimulates their brain cells if they consider
this as mental exercise.
Hell, even ME2 has more to do with choosing equipment that complements a playstyle then ME1 did. For instance, let's say I'm choosing what Assault Rifle to take on a mission and I have to decide between the
M-8 Avenger or the
M-15 Vindicator. The Vindicator has a higher damage rate, base damage and accuracy but it has one distinct flaw when compared to the Avenger: a really small thermal clip (440 vs. 120). So which should I take?
Well, it depends on how I use the AR. Do I swap a lot with other weapons like the Sniper Rifle and the Shotgun? Is the mission especially long? Am I the kind of sprays-and-prays a lot or do I play conservatively?
That is having an item that has particular benefits and drawbacks.
That is a choice that is based on what your playstyle is like. And
even then it's not all that deep. But it's still miles away from "this weapon does more damage, is more accurate and doesn't overheat as much. I wonder if I should switch to it... ":blink:
[quote]iakus wrote...
Alpha Protocol is the way ME 2 should have done it.[/quote]
Wow! I can't even
begin to tell you in how many ways your example is wrong.
I'm just going to point you out to
Metacritic's Midyear report. Just try to guess who got second place on the best reviews of 2010 so far, along with first place on the Best-Reviewed Cross-Platform Games department. Not that it came as any kind of surprise if you searched GameRankings for the
Best reviewed RPGs of all time and noticed who snatched 1st
and 3rd place but there you go.
On the other hand, Alpha Protocol managed the incredible feat of
killing a franchise on its very first game. Because it doesn't matter if you've got a really nice story if you deliver an
unfinished product that just rips off Mass Effect, even in its flaws with textures that decide to pop up only when they feel like it, erratic AI, guns that only hit people when they feel like it (kind of annoying when you're playing as a stealth character that
needs a headshot to avoid raising an alarm), enemies that know where you are when you haven't even been detected (again, annoying as a stealth character), unbalanced combat and even rushing enemies that just run into your face with a shotgun (the even ripped off the rushing Krogans, fancy that).
Oh sure, the story is great, but the thing that people seem to forget (even in this debate) is that you have to
play the game to get there, and that involves a lot of shooting, which would better be good or it becomes a chore and an excercise in frustration that you have to put up with just to get to the next cutscene.
So yeah... comparing one of the most beloved and successful games so far with a piece of crap that managed to shoot itself in the foot that badly? Not your best move.
[quote]rabidhanar wrote...
I am mostly disappionted with the
carryover myself. Having characters e-mail me about the last game does
not equal the choices I made in Me1 mattered. I imported for all choices
and sadly the only things different are very few sidequests and the
emails, the mainquest really doesn't change. Some dialogue is changed
yes "Saving the Citadel and killing the council" as an example, but
nothing major happens. Hell if I was a member of the council that
shepard saved I would probably believe anything he says.[/quote]
I
would agree with you as a ME1 fan, but you're forgetting the other
side? What about those who never played the
first game and wanted to try this one out? How
do would you feel if you bought a game and, besides having to deal with
a story that could be hard to grasp, a weaker starting character and
less resources, you also had the game go "hey,
you know, we have a lot really cool missions related to characters and
choices of the first game. But you didn't play it/kept your saved game
did you? (I remind you that there was
nothing in ME1
that warned you to keep your saves for the sequel) Well, sucks to be you
then, because now you can't get to them. Haha! Sucker...
"
You wouldn't really want to have huge chunks of content that
was
in the disc you paid for barred to you, right (after all, that's Capcom's job)? Believe me, I would love to see as many diverging
paths as possible, but we have to think from other people's perpective's
too.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I'm bolding the important part. You've
just described Mass Effect 1's inventory system perfectly: shallow,
uninteresting, and completely lacking. Changing your gun amounted to a
slight damage or accuracy increase with a different weapon model; it was
an illusion of depth masked beneath an endless number of weapons and
mods. Mass Effect 2 merely stripped away the illusion and laid the
inventory system out for what it was; a waste of time. Everyone says
Mass Effect 1 and 2 suffer from different problems. They do not. Both
have the same problem: shallow, uninteresting, and completely lacking in
their inventory systems. The only difference is that Mass Effect 2
doesn't force me to spend an extended amount of time breaking down
omni-gel. [/quote]
Just to add to your point I'll say this: If I
forget to install mods in my weapons in ME1, I
will honestly only notice it when I happen to browse through my
inventory. If I forget to change my wepon in ME2, it automatically makes
me go "crap, I forgot to change it! Now I have to adapt to a new kind
of weapon."
That's how "deep and intricate" the weapon mods were
in the first game: so barely noticeable you
could go through the whole game without giving a crap about them.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
