10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Brako Shepard]

The ammo situation was a lot better in Mass Effect 2.



Having to be wise with your ammo, was a great way to make you get better with your other weapons.



But personally I don't know how anyone can slate the combat system in Mass Effect 2 at all. It was a huge improvement over the first and it was the one maor thing that needed improving from the original. Whilst I will agree with people that the game felt more combat then RPG, that could also be because it was a completely different type of mission to the first game.



People pissed and moaned about the combat on this forum throughout the life of Mass Effect. BioWare pretty much did everything we asked for in the combat situation. Now people are still moaning about it.

[Mister Mida]

Brako Shepard wrote...

The ammo situation was a lot better in Mass Effect 2.

Having to be wise with your ammo, was a great way to make you get better with your other weapons.

But personally I don't know how anyone can slate the combat system in Mass Effect 2 at all. It was a huge improvement over the first and it was the one maor thing that needed improving from the original. Whilst I will agree with people that the game felt more combat then RPG, that could also be because it was a completely different type of mission to the first game.

People pissed and moaned about the combat on this forum throughout the life of Mass Effect. BioWare pretty much did everything we asked for in the combat situation. Now people are still moaning about it.

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

[Jebel Krong]

Mister Mida wrote...

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

game was never 'only' an RPG. and yes, combat did need improving, which we got (most of).

[ShakeZoohla]

finnithe wrote...


@Shakezombie

Sorry, I don't really understand your comment. How does ME1's combat further the artistic value of the game?

Very subtly, as combat in ME1 was not the main focus.  In Mass Effect 2 it clearly is the focus, and as a result the games thrills seem cheap. (to me)

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

game was never 'only' an RPG. and yes, combat did need improving, which we got (most of).

Yeah, but it was never 'only' a shooter either.

BioWare did the equivalent of saying that a standard four-door sedan wasn't "fast or light enough" and replacing it with a formula one racing car, which "fixed" the issue at hand but left us without a boot, a stereo, more than one seat, air conditioning, etc. in the process. But hey... the boot being too small is no longer an issue when you don't even have one, right? Therefore, problem solved.

[Icinix]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

game was never 'only' an RPG. and yes, combat did need improving, which we got (most of).

Yeah, but it was never 'only' a shooter either.

BioWare did the equivalent of saying that a standard four-door sedan wasn't "fast or light enough" and replacing it with a formula one racing car, which "fixed" the issue at hand but left us without a boot, a stereo, more than one seat, air conditioning, etc. in the process. But hey... the boot being too small is no longer an issue when you don't even have one, right? Therefore, problem solved.

This is a very nice analogy.

A few days ago I wouldn't have agreed with you, but after spending the last few days jumping between Mass Effect 1 and 2, I've decided that you're right, and they did drop the ball with Mass Effect 2.

[Brako Shepard]

Mister Mida wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

 

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

What do you mean sir, for an RPG?

Mass Effect has a huge setting based on gunplay. For this section of the game it needs to be top notch. Mass Effect 2 has a major improvement over the original in this sector, and it does make the game better for it.

If Mass Effect had Mass Effect 2's combat system switched over to it. Mass Effect would have been even better. But to be honest I never considered Mass Effect a strict RPG. The missions have always been based around gunplay, rather than solving puzzles etc. Its more an action adventure.

But Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 could have been even greater had it been more RPG-ish.

[Mister Mida]

Brako Shepard wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

 

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

What do you mean sir, for an RPG?

Mass Effect has a huge setting based on gunplay. For this section of the game it needs to be top notch. Mass Effect 2 has a major improvement over the original in this sector, and it does make the game better for it.

If Mass Effect had Mass Effect 2's combat system switched over to it. Mass Effect would have been even better. But to be honest I never considered Mass Effect a strict RPG. The missions have always been based around gunplay, rather than solving puzzles etc. Its more an action adventure.

But Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 could have been even greater had it been more RPG-ish.

From my point of view RPG's consists of many different elements like story, customization, exploration, etc. Combat is also one of those elements, but that doesn’t mean it should have more priority than other elements. When I bought Mass Effect I definitely did not expect it to have a full fletched out Gears of War like combat system, which it indeed did not had or needed. I was actually pretty impressed with the whole combat just like it was made.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 23 avril 2010 - 12:42 .

[Vena_86]

Icinix wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

game was never 'only' an RPG. and yes, combat did need improving, which we got (most of).

Yeah, but it was never 'only' a shooter either.

BioWare did the equivalent of saying that a standard four-door sedan wasn't "fast or light enough" and replacing it with a formula one racing car, which "fixed" the issue at hand but left us without a boot, a stereo, more than one seat, air conditioning, etc. in the process. But hey... the boot being too small is no longer an issue when you don't even have one, right? Therefore, problem solved.

This is a very nice analogy.

A few days ago I wouldn't have agreed with you, but after spending the last few days jumping between Mass Effect 1 and 2, I've decided that you're right, and they did drop the ball with Mass Effect 2.

I wish more people would stop beeing blinded by ME2s outer values and do some reasonable comparison like you did to see how ME2 failed as a sequel (not as a game though).

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

game was never 'only' an RPG. and yes, combat did need improving, which we got (most of).

Yeah, but it was never 'only' a shooter either.

BioWare did the equivalent of saying that a standard four-door sedan wasn't "fast or light enough" and replacing it with a formula one racing car, which "fixed" the issue at hand but left us without a boot, a stereo, more than one seat, air conditioning, etc. in the process. But hey... the boot being too small is no longer an issue when you don't even have one, right? Therefore, problem solved.

nice analogy fails because BW didn't remove all RPG elements - whether the elements they did keep/refine were the ones your personally agree with, is of course, open to debate. in your case, no, mine, yes. you can't say "it's only a shooter" because you'd be lying to yourself - go and play any shooter and then play mass effect 2 and there are stark differences with the additions of storytelling, characterization, exploration as mentioned above (and quoted below). how does me2 compare to UT3, for example? (both of which i know you've played).

Mister Mida wrote...

From my point of view RPG's consists
of many different elements like story, customization, exploration, etc.
Combat is also one of those elements, but that doesn’t mean it should
have more priority than other elements. When I bought Mass Effect I
definitely did not expect it to have a full fletched out Gears of War
like combat system, which it indeed did not had or needed. I was
actually pretty impressed with the whole combat just like it was
made.

ah so mass effect 2 was a nice surprise in that it exceed all your expectations, then. because in addition to the story, customization, exploration, characters etc there was the fully-fledged combat system this time.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 23 avril 2010 - 01:50 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...



Yeah, but it was never 'only' a shooter either.

.

Heres what i think which you mentioned a while ago. ME1 has heavier RPG aspects and lesscombat mechanics while ME2 is the complete opposite.


Does this mean ME3 will be perfectly balanced?

[Mister Mida]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

From my point of view RPG's consists
of many different elements like story, customization, exploration, etc.
Combat is also one of those elements, but that doesn’t mean it should
have more priority than other elements. When I bought Mass Effect I
definitely did not expect it to have a full fletched out Gears of War
like combat system, which it indeed did not had or needed. I was
actually pretty impressed with the whole combat just like it was
made.

ah so mass effect 2 was a nice surprise in that it
exceed all your expectations, then. because in addition to the story,
customization, exploration, characters etc there was the fully-fledged
combat system this time.

I was surprised because I saw a system improved which in my opinion didn't need any improvement at all. And that the fragile balance of RPG elements which kept Mass Effect together was shifted in favour of this system.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 23 avril 2010 - 01:33 .

[Dudeman315]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

game was never 'only' an RPG. and yes, combat did need improving, which we got (most of).

Yeah, but it was never 'only' a shooter either.

BioWare did the equivalent of saying that a standard four-door sedan wasn't "fast or light enough" and replacing it with a formula one racing car, which "fixed" the issue at hand but left us without a boot, a stereo, more than one seat, air conditioning, etc. in the process. But hey... the boot being too small is no longer an issue when you don't even have one, right? Therefore, problem solved.

nice analogy fails because BW didn't remove all RPG elements - whether the elements they did keep/refine were the ones your personally agree with, is of course, open to debate. in your case, no, mine, yes. you can't say "it's only a shooter" because you'd be lying to yourself - go and play any shooter and then play mass effect 2 and there are stark differences with the additions of storytelling, characterization, exploration as mentioned above (and quoted below). how does me2 compare to UT3, for example? (both of which i know you've played).

Excerpt the analogy doesn't fail becuase they both have the elements that make them cars. The things they removed to prevent either from getting you from point a to point b. One is better for atmosphere the other is better for fast paced action, just like a rpg  and so is a shooter which are still both games.

Let's compare ME2 to Bioshock2 for a better example than comparing it to game that came out before ME1.

[Darth Drago]

finnithe wrote...

You can actually heal your squadmates in combat (Unity does actually heal your squaddies in addition to resurrecting knocked out ones) and it's pretty clear that the red quarter-circle indicates that the party member has no no armor/shields/barriers left. The grey bar indicates their cooldown. I don't really see why this is so complicated.

The minimap wasn't really something I missed, but it would probabyl be fine if they added it back in. That would however compromise the minimalistic approach they took with ME2's UI.

-I must be missing something then with Unity since I can not use it at all unless someone has died.

-The mini-map should be a optional thing you can use. Like you I’m sure a bunch of people didn’t miss it but would object to it being an optional feature.

finnithe wrote...

The weapon modding system, were it implemented similar to ME1's, would break up ME2's fluid combat. For example, if you saw some armored enemies, you would have to pause and switch out your weapon mod if you had say, cryo rounds in your gun. Personally, I prefer ME2's system to make it a power that you can turn on and off as with any regular biotic or tech power.

The problem with the Mako worlds were that they tried to put too much focus on the quantity, leading to each world becoming bland and uninteresting. I would be happy if the Hammerhead was put in some open world environments, and I'm thinking some future premium DLC is perfect for that.

-The weapon mods made a lot more sense than several squad mates having unique powers for ammo that you still have to unlock to use. Switching out one mod for another wouldn’t take any longer than switching your ammo power. The big difference is that the mod will always be in your gun and now that we have to use more than one weapon it would be easy to keep one gun mod in one gun and another in your back up weapon. I did that in ME1, my pistol would be good for fleshy targets and my assault rifle for Geth. I have had more than one instance where my ammo power suddenly vanished and was no longer in use on my weapon. I never had a mod suddenly vanish out of my gun in ME1.

-The Mako UNC mission use I can see on their (BioWare) perspective in game design in regards to not having to much terrain like trees to get in the way of the Mako. It would make driving a royal pain if you had to go around a small bunch of trees. Just drive near a bunch of the Geth Dragons Teeth things on one of the Geth Incursion missions to see how bad that would be.
　

finnithe wrote...

If your point is that you must always recruit Garrus/Jack/Mordin/Grunt, fight through Horizon, then recruit Tali/Samara/Thane, somewhere during then do the Collector Ship mission and then go to the disabled Reaper, you are still wrong. It's my theory that this was not only the case, and it was only implemented since this would force a lot more disc switching for the 360 users.

EDIT: I forgot to address some points. You described not having enough credits in ME2 as a problem, but isn't that a problem in every RPG? Why are you evaluating ME2 different in this regard?

Similarly, you probably are talking about ME2's lack of inventory with the comment about moving to other extremes. How many guns are in the game right now? There are five assault rifles (if the Collector Assault Rifle is included), three SMG's, four sniper rifles (again if the Incisor DLC is included), two pistols, several heavy weapons, and three shotguns. Presumably, with an Inventory system, Shepard or his teammates would be carrying every one of these weapons. Where are these weapons being stored? Shepard only seems to carry the weapons on his back. For the sake of my suspension of disbelief, it makes more sense to have weapon lockers scattered across levels. I will say that it was somewhat jarring that these weapon lockers stored the very weapons that I had on the Normandy, but I think I'd rather have that than carry all my other weapons by myself.

-There is in game footage of the other late recruitable squad members being at least tested in the starting batch of recruiting missions. The fact still is that you can only recruit certain members at a certain time. If the game allowed you to recruit any 4 members (except Legion and Tali for their own reasons) then you get hit with the Horizon mission it would have added a lot more replay value to the game. Changing discs as a reason for not doing this is just not a good excuse since we already change the discs enough.

-The lack of cash in this game is not like other RPG’s. In most of them you have a few options to earn more money by doing one of two big things.
1. Do more quests. Cant do that with the very limited amount of side quests in ME2.
2. Sell of inventory items. Cant do that in ME2 since you have no inventory at all now.

-The weapons that you and in actuality the entire galaxy it seems uses is very limited. At least with ME1 I had a ton of different makes and models of weapons from different manufacturers. Even if several of them were just repainted from another model it gave the illusion that the galaxy is using more than the same model of weapons than my team uses. I find it very hard to believe that an Asari Justicar for example who has rarely left Asari space would come with a standard weapons that I am using when she joins my team. It that way everywhere in the game. Everyone uses the same handful of weapons and what a shocker they are the same ones I have.

There is a problem with that alone based just on the hand designs of various alien species. A species that has “proportionately thick fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand” a feature you see on several species like Quarians, Turians, Krogans and Salarians. I’m supposed to believe that these aliens would use a human made (or other five fingerd race) weapon over one that is made for their hand design? Try doing the Vulcan greeting hand gesture or tape your fingers so they hold that position and try using a game controller or you PC keyboard.

-The inventory argument about where everything is being stored while your carrying it could be an argument for every RPG that uses inventory. Games from Bethsda use a weight system that allows you to carry only so much based on your strength. The higher your strength the more you can carry. Dragon Age allows you to stuff only so much stuff in your backpack before its full. There is no believable system that really can be used in a game for inventory storage short of completely getting rid of it.

-As for the weapon lockers, having them placed outside of the Normandy was just plain stupid in my view of the game. This is one of those elements that really shouted out that this game is nothing but a shooter game more thatn anything.

finnithe wrote...

Please list the flaws you're talking about.

- I will get you a list if you still want it. But I’ll note it to you instead of taking up a largish chunk of a posting here unless I can find a link to one I already have posted them, which is possible.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 23 avril 2010 - 08:53 .

[ShakeZoohla]

Jebel Krong wrote...



ah so mass effect 2 was a nice surprise in that it exceed all your expectations, then. because in addition to the story, customization, exploration, characters etc there was the fully-fledged combat system this time.

Most people who preferred ME1 and were dissapointed by ME2 would probably agree that the features you listed, story, customization, and characters, were all lessened in quality at the expense of the fully-fledged combat system.  Which has been done to death as of late.

[ToJKa1]

Darth Drago wrote...
-I must be missing something then with Unity since I can not use it at all unless someone has died.

There is an upgrade that allows Unity to heal squadmembers, it is unlocked by researching Medi-gel capacity (Medical VI in Prototypes IIRC). Unless i'm mistaken there's another upgrade that makes it restore shields too.

Modifié par ToJKa1, 23 avril 2010 - 10:42 .

[finnithe]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

finnithe wrote...


@Shakezombie

Sorry, I don't really understand your comment. How does ME1's combat further the artistic value of the game?

Very subtly, as combat in ME1 was not the main focus.  In Mass Effect 2 it clearly is the focus, and as a result the games thrills seem cheap. (to me)

There are a bunch of missions in Mass Effect 2 which are non combat. Thane's loyalty mission, Samara's loyalty mission, random quests on the hubs (i.e. Ish' mission), Patriarch's mission. There were many non combat missions in ME1, but the vast majority of them resulted in you kicking down the door of some random spaceship/prefab building and killing everyone inside. 

[TJSolo]

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

finnithe wrote...


@Shakezombie

Sorry, I don't really understand your comment. How does ME1's combat further the artistic value of the game?

Very subtly, as combat in ME1 was not the main focus.  In Mass Effect 2 it clearly is the focus, and as a result the games thrills seem cheap. (to me)

There are a bunch of missions in Mass Effect 2 which are non combat. Thane's loyalty mission, Samara's loyalty mission, random quests on the hubs (i.e. Ish' mission), Patriarch's mission. There were many non combat missions in ME1, but the vast majority of them resulted in you kicking down the door of some random spaceship/prefab building and killing everyone inside. 

Wait. You are being a bit contrary and oblivous. Let me point out, the missions you say are non combat in ME2 are not "a bunch" they are in the minority of what ME2 missions revolve around and are less than the ones ME1 offered. Which would mean the "majority" of them in ME2 resulted in your kicking down the door of some random 3 min mission and killing everyone insight.

Then again the type of missions that were non-combat involved some conversation or puzzle dialogue that could result in you failing that mission or completely avoiding bloodshed.

[finnithe]

TJSolo wrote...

finnithe wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

finnithe wrote...


@Shakezombie

Sorry, I don't really understand your comment. How does ME1's combat further the artistic value of the game?

Very subtly, as combat in ME1 was not the main focus.  In Mass Effect 2 it clearly is the focus, and as a result the games thrills seem cheap. (to me)

There are a bunch of missions in Mass Effect 2 which are non combat. Thane's loyalty mission, Samara's loyalty mission, random quests on the hubs (i.e. Ish' mission), Patriarch's mission. There were many non combat missions in ME1, but the vast majority of them resulted in you kicking down the door of some random spaceship/prefab building and killing everyone inside. 

Wait. You are being a bit contrary and oblivous. Let me point out, the missions you say are non combat in ME2 are not "a bunch" they are in the minority of what ME2 missions revolve around and are less than the ones ME1 offered. Which would mean the "majority" of them in ME2 resulted in your kicking down the door of some random 3 min mission and killing everyone insight.

Then again the type of missions that were non-combat involved some conversation or puzzle dialogue that could result in you failing that mission or completely avoiding bloodshed.

Looking at this page it seems like the amounts are similar, and you should note that some ME2 noncombat missions are a bit more involved, like the Firewalker missions, the loyalty missions I mentioned, Ish's mission (which spans several hubs), while others are just a few short lines (like Citadel: Family Matter in ME1 and Giana Parasini's mission in ME2). The point is, there are non-combat missions in both games, though you're right in that they could be a bit more complicated. 

http://masseffect.wi...iki/Assignments

[TJSolo]

finnithe wrote...
Looking at this page it seems like the amounts are similar, and you should note that some ME2 noncombat missions are a bit more involved, like the Firewalker missions, the loyalty missions I mentioned, Ish's mission (which spans several hubs), while others are just a few short lines (like Citadel: Family Matter in ME1 and Giana Parasini's mission in ME2). The point is, there are non-combat missions in both games, though you're right in that they could be a bit more complicated. 

http://masseffect.wi...iki/Assignments

The term several is only applicable when the count is more than 2.
The 3/5 of the Firewalker missions are not non-combat.
If looking at that page make it seem there are similar amounts then,...
The non-combat missions in ME2 are less involved than ME1; the ME1 missions often have branches and can be failed depending on what you say.
There are only 2 missions that some could consider failing in ME2 depending on what you say. Ish and Samara.
Certain dialogue and actions with Ish can make the mission unable to be completed.
It is possible to fail Samaras mission is your goal is to, can't say here.

There is a lack of dialogue puzzles in ME2. Everything is straight forward and unfailable.

[finnithe]

TJSolo wrote...

finnithe wrote...
Looking at this page it seems like the amounts are similar, and you should note that some ME2 noncombat missions are a bit more involved, like the Firewalker missions, the loyalty missions I mentioned, Ish's mission (which spans several hubs), while others are just a few short lines (like Citadel: Family Matter in ME1 and Giana Parasini's mission in ME2). The point is, there are non-combat missions in both games, though you're right in that they could be a bit more complicated. 

http://masseffect.wi...iki/Assignments

The term several is only applicable when the count is more than 2.
The 3/5 of the Firewalker missions are not non-combat.
If looking at that page make it seem there are similar amounts then,...
The non-combat missions in ME2 are less involved than ME1; the ME1 missions often have branches and can be failed depending on what you say.
There are only 2 missions that some could consider failing in ME2 depending on what you say. Ish and Samara.
Certain dialogue and actions with Ish can make the mission unable to be completed.
It is possible to fail Samaras mission is your goal is to, can't say here.

There is a lack of dialogue puzzles in ME2. Everything is straight forward and unfailable.

A bit true. Samaras mission could be approached several different ways, especially inside the club itself there are several different actions you can undertake to get her attention, and the end result as you said can be very different. 

Thane's mission you can fail and Ish's mission you can do two ways. http://masseffect.wi..._MSV_Estevanico is a cool mission, and so is N7: Abandoned Research Station. 

I liked how in ME2 the sidequests had their own storylines (see: the one starting in N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter). Still, it would have been nice to have added some dialogue during the missions. Something similar to the tombs of the Sith Lords quests in KOTOR. In my opinion the side quests in that game were much better than the ones in ME1 or ME2. 

[Terror_K]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

I honestly never thought combat in Mass Effect 1 was a subject for improvement. I thought it was good enough for an RPG.

game was never 'only' an RPG. and yes, combat did need improving, which we got (most of).

Yeah, but it was never 'only' a shooter either.

BioWare did the equivalent of saying that a standard four-door sedan wasn't "fast or light enough" and replacing it with a formula one racing car, which "fixed" the issue at hand but left us without a boot, a stereo, more than one seat, air conditioning, etc. in the process. But hey... the boot being too small is no longer an issue when you don't even have one, right? Therefore, problem solved.

nice analogy fails because BW didn't remove all RPG elements - whether the elements they did keep/refine were the ones your personally agree with, is of course, open to debate. in your case, no, mine, yes. you can't say "it's only a shooter" because you'd be lying to yourself - go and play any shooter and then play mass effect 2 and there are stark differences with the additions of storytelling, characterization, exploration as mentioned above (and quoted below). how does me2 compare to UT3, for example? (both of which i know you've played).

Excerpt the analogy doesn't fail becuase they both have the elements that make them cars. The things they removed to prevent either from getting you from point a to point b. One is better for atmosphere the other is better for fast paced action, just like a rpg  and so is a shooter which are still both games.

Let's compare ME2 to Bioshock2 for a better example than comparing it to game that came out before ME1.

Exactly. It still has wheels, wing mirrors, axles, an engine, etc. so the analogy is apt, IMO.

Comparing to UT3 (or any of the UT games... UT'99 or UT2003/2004.) isn't exactly an accurate or fair test, since one is a pure multiplayer focused shooter designed for the PC primarily and then ported to console, while ME2 is a single player hybrid designed primarily for the console (The only comparison they really share is that both are the latest game of their particular series and both are also the most dumbed-down versions). If one was going to compare to a shooter, the most accurate in the Unreal series would be Unreal 2, which had a story-driven plot and also involved visiting different worlds, wandering around a ship and talking to your crew between missions, and even finding and upgrading weapons with each mission. Beyond that other comparisons that would fit would be games like Crysis and Half-Life 2, though for a TPS Gears of War or Army of Two would fit better, though they also have a high co-op focus that ME2 lacks. What ME2 should try to be more like is Deus Ex, but it fails entirely, mostly due to the almost complete focus on combat.

Even the Hitman series, which aren't even RPGs, do a better job of providing decent weapon upgrades and allowing one to handle a situation from varying ways, particularly the fourth game: Blood Money. All ME2 would need to do is switch its rather weak RPG system with Hitman Blood Money's upgrade system and it would cease to be an RPG, and the fact is the system in place now isn't that different from it: the only real difference is Blood Money uses credits while Mass Effect 2 uses XP... apparently. As I've said before, I'm not even convinced the system is real and isn't just BioWare trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

The point is, ME2 is barely any more involved than these titles beyond the more cinematic stylings and the conversation system, both of which aren't purely native to RPGs (the earliest cinematic games being action titles like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace, then things like Cinemaware's titles and Another World, all of which were cinematic action titles that weren't RPGs and were very story-oriented, while conversations first appeared in graphic adventure games as well as Cinemaware's titles before RPG's).

Modifié par Terror_K, 24 avril 2010 - 07:34 .

[Darth Drago]

ToJKa1 wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...
-I must be missing something then with Unity since I can not use it at all unless someone has died.

There is an upgrade that allows Unity to heal squadmembers, it is unlocked by researching Medi-gel capacity (Medical VI in Prototypes IIRC). Unless i'm mistaken there's another upgrade that makes it restore shields too.

-Thanks I'll have to tripple check I have that one researched (I'm sure I did).
 
I still dont like the Unity name for this power if it now allows you to heal. When I see Unity I think of resurrecting dead squad mates, nothing more. They should have just left the first aid skill in the game.

[Ashton808]

I have a couple disappointments but I still love this game.



Firewalker DLC- So wait, what actually was I doing in that DLC. Just drive around and shoot in 5 missions. The DLC is repedative and for only 5 missions. It was so fun jumping from rock to rock but this isn't Indiana Jones. I give the DLC a 6.5/10



Jacob, enough said.

[Brako Shepard]

If customiation, exploring and story is what makes a game an RPG. Then games like GTA and Saints Row should fall into the catagory from now on. These game offer lots more in terms of customization and exploring.



Infact it could be the multiple planets we visit in Mass Effect, that has put a burden on the RPG side of things. If the game was just based on particular planet/map. Perhaps there would be a hell of a lot more exploring to be worthy of doing so.