10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaron Oberyn]

mrmike_1949 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

mrmike_1949 wrote...

you're all arguing about the combat, but for a good rpg, combat is secondary, and preferably turn-based. I guess that means that Mass Effect 1&2 are not RPGs, but shooters

Just because it's not turn based? So what does that make Jade Empire? Bioware is in the business of making RPG's. Just because the combat system is different doesn't make it any less of an RPG. How fun would it be to have a turn based KoTOR styled shoot-out in Mass Effect? That'd get really boring, really fast.

 -Polite

There have been good RPGs that were not turn based, I know. My point was everyone seems to be only arguing about the differences in combat, so that tells me what is important to them. Even your response says it .." KotOR shoot-out" - your main interest is in the combat, not the RPG.

Incorrect. My main interest is not in the combat. I'm simply stating that just because an RPG doesn't have turn based combat, doesn't mean that it isn't an RPG. Some people only play Mass Effect for the shooter aspect of it, that's true. But they lose out on the game. Why? Because of two reasons. 

1. Most never played Mass 1.
2. Most shooter fans prefer to skip dialogue and cutscenes just to get back into shooting.

So who cares if thats what they like? You can't change that. People are welcome to their opinions.

My only complaint with Mass Effect 2 is that unlike in Mass 1, in Mass 2 50% of the dialogue is automatically said by the game. I hated that. In Mass Effect 2, you were able to choose everything commander shepard said. Up until the illos mission where a few lines were automatic, but still. In Mass 2, half the time you don't even get an option to select anything, and shepard is just saying stuff. Or if you do choose a dialogue option, that one option goes into like 10 different sentences or pretty much a full blown convo between shepard and npc's. 

So no, my main focus isn't combat. It's the laziness that the development team implemented into the game because they felt that it might be too much to have the player select the dialogue options on some parts and probably choose different outcomes.

 -Polite

[Terror_K]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Just because the combat system is different doesn't make
it any less of an RPG.

No, but it is in the case with ME2 as there's very little RPG influence at all regarding the combat. It's not that the combat system is different but how the combat system is different. But it's also less of an RPG because of the non-combat factors and the overall reduction of them. The game still is by definition an RPG, but just because it fits the definition doesn't mean it does a good job of it.

Pocketgb wrote...

I simply prefer ME2 over ME1 not because it's more in-depth (they're both pretty lackluster) but because ME2 entertains me more. That's it: It's flashier, it's more satisfying.

That's, of course, a matter of opinion and taste. While I agree that the combat in ME2 is flashier, I personally don't find it satisfying at all and actually find it pretty shallow and mediocre.

It fails to satisfy me in an RPG manner because I never feel that the choices I made and the way I built my character influenced my success (something Baldur's Gate, NWN, KotOR, DAO and, yes, even the original ME did) and it fails to satisfy me in a shooter manner because I never feel that my skill with the mouse and keyboard really do anything special or rewarding (which the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life 2, CoD and even Gears of War did).

To me, combat in ME2 is that boring, repetitive tedium that never changes between playthroughs and fills space between the dialogue, story-driven and roleplaying moments.

PoliteAssasin wrote...

My only complaint with Mass Effect 2 is that unlike in
Mass 1, in Mass 2 50% of the dialogue is automatically said by the game.
I hated that. In Mass Effect 2, you were able to choose everything
commander shepard said. Up until the illos mission where a few lines
were automatic, but still. In Mass 2, half the time you don't even get
an option to select anything, and shepard is just saying stuff. Or if
you do choose a dialogue option, that one option goes into like 10
different sentences or pretty much a full blown convo between shepard
and npc's. 

So no, my main focus isn't combat. It's the laziness
that the development team implemented into the game because they felt
that it might be too much to have the player select the dialogue options
on some parts and probably choose different outcomes.

This is one of the rare moments where I have to semi-defend ME2. The reason for this, according to the devs, was to avoid all those moments in ME1 where you were presented with two or three dialogue choices, but in the end all of them just led to the same result with some options even just being exactly the same (e.g. you get to choose "Okay", "Yes" and "I understand" as your dialogue options but they all just have Shepard saying the same line and doing the same thing). So instead of giving us these "non-choices" they decided to just have Shepard speaking autiomatically without any input from the player. I mean, why choose when the answer is always the same?

I do agree there were some moments in ME2 where I wanted to control things but never got a chance to and Shepard just said what he/she wanted. But it was good to no longer have those redundant options that didn't matter.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:29 .

[Kronner]

Terror_K wrote...

No, but it is in the case with ME2 as there's very little RPG influence at all regarding the combat. It's not that the combat system is different but how the combat system is different. But it's also less of an RPG because of the non-combat factors and the overall reduction of them. The game still is by definition an RPG, but just because it fits the definition doesn't mean it does a good job of it.

That's, of course, a matter of opinion and taste. While I agree that the combat in ME2 is flashier, I personally don't find it satisfying at all and actually find it pretty shallow and mediocre.

It fails to satisfy me in an RPG manner because I never feel that the choices I made and the way I built my character influenced my success (something Baldur's Gate, NWN, KotOR, DAO and, yes, even the original ME did) and it fails to satisfy me in a shooter manner because I never feel that my skill with the mouse and keyboard really do anything special or rewarding (which the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life 2, CoD and even Gears of War did).

To me, combat in ME2 is that boring, repetitive tedium that never changes between playthroughs and fills space between the dialogue, story-driven and roleplaying moments.

So you are saying investing skill points to your talents is useless?

Also, combat in ME2 is far superior to ME1, there is no comparison, really.  ME1 combat was a snoozefest, boring as hell, tedious and way too easy. You couldn't die at all.

I recently started playing ME1 again, and while I love the dialogues, the World and party banter, it is objectively worse game than Mass Effect 2 in almost every way.

[Khavos]

Kronner wrote...

So you are saying investing skill points to your talents is useless?

I'll chime in here and say that playing on Insanity without ever spending a skill point is entirely doable, and simply makes tedious combat more tedious, rather than more difficult.  That, to me, indicates a completely failed RPG system.  It's a third-person shooter with a razor-thin and extraordinarily shallow RPG facade. 

ME1 combat was a snoozefest, boring as hell, tedious and way too easy.

That all applies to ME2 as well. 

[Khavos]

lazuli wrote...
Ammo powers are just one way to deal with defenses, and will not always be the best option in every situation.  What if you don't want to waste thermal clips?  What if your opponents are balled up in the same area, just begging for an Area Overload or Incineration Blast?

Still a hell of a lot quicker to kill them all with the Vindicator and Tungsten.  Even on Insanity I can count the number of times I genuinely ran out of ammo on one hand, so thermal clips are never an issue. 

[Kronner]

Khavos wrote...


I'll chime in here and say that playing on Insanity without ever spending a skill point is entirely doable, and simply makes tedious combat more tedious, rather than more difficult.  That, to me, indicates a completely failed RPG system.  It's a third-person shooter with a razor-thin and extraordinarily shallow RPG facade. 

Possible, yes. But investing your points does make a big difference. ME1 had very few RPG elements too, if you remove the weapon and armor "skills"  from ME1 how much is left, really?

Khavos wrote...
That all applies to ME2 as well. 

Not really, enemies on Insanity are easy to kill, they do not just spam Immunity like in ME1 Insanity. AI is stupid and game is easy, but combat is still much better than ME1.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

The game still is by definition an RPG, but just because it fits the definition doesn't mean it does a good job of it.

Exactly like everything Bioware's made after Baldur's Gate. If I want more open-ended role-playing, I play Bethesda games. If I want linear but personal role-playing, I play Bioware games. If I want sound, balanced, intriguing, and in-depth RPG mechanics, I don't play games from either of those developers.

Terror_K wrote...

That's, of course, a matter of opinion and taste.

Once again: Thread complete!

For me that's all it comes down to with a Bioware game: Just being fun to play and fun to watch. Depth is out of the question, balance is out of the question, Bioware is not good at these things when it comes to the actual mechanics. But they're good at making it look good.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 19 juillet 2010 - 08:02 .

[Terror_K]

@pocketgb: You've said this a few times in a few different threads (even in the Dragon Age forum side of things) and I don't actually even understand what you mean when you say you feel BioWare RPG's lack in depth and are shallow. I really don't. Which is why I find it hard to debate with you when you keep bringing up this so-called aspect of BioWare RPGs. I can understand the balance issue, but while depth varies between titles I fail to see how BioWare RPGs fail to have depth (except for ME2 that is...). Just because an RPG like DAO doesn't have quite as many rules and aspects as a D&D licenced game doesn't mean it lacks depth entirely. I'd also be curious to hear what CRPG's you do consider to have depth as a comparison... maybe then I can see what you're talking about.



Apologies if that seems like an insult... that's not intended. I just literally am stumped what you mean here.

[Pocketgb]

If you can understand the balance issue you can understand the depth issue: For many, poor balancing leads to poor depth. Guild Wars is one of the best examples of this: thousands of skills to put on your bar, millions of build combinations, only about .0001% of those are actually decent.

Terror_K wrote...

I'd also be curious to hear what CRPG's you do consider to have depth as a comparison... maybe then I can see what you're talking about.

What else? Baldur's Gate 2. But I don't really play CRPG's for the mechanics, I play them for the RP.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 19 juillet 2010 - 08:36 .

[Terror_K]

I guess I still consider the depth to be there even if the elements don't all work quite as well as they could. As long as the elements are there and there are mechanics that try and add some depth to things and give more options and complexity (while also limiting the player) then I'm pretty happy. I suppose you could interpret that as "I prefer the illusion of depth over no attempt of depth at all and just using elements that work due to their simplicity" from your POV, though I don't think personally that it's as shallow as merely be an illusion, but I'm fine if you want to interpret it that way.



The point is in an RPG I want options, statistically-based items, a good range of items, varied skills and talents/feats, etc., multiple builds, classes with clear identities, statistical progression, customisation, varied ways to do things and characters that need to be built right to succeed and can't just become masters of all trades. I think ME2 fails in all these areas to some degree. BioWare's previous offerings may not succeed fully in all of them, but I do feel they do a better job of it overall.

[Cadnoess]

Apologies for not reading the hundreds of previous posts... I just finished the main plot, thoroughly enjoyed it but a couple of disappointments. 

1) Big stretches where I couldn't save- eg when I had to leave the xbox in a hurry or wanted to switch on captions, whatever. Boo. I missed out a lot of the atmosphere of the game because of this.

2) I didn't have any opportunity to get to know the team mates better, and I did a lot of the missions. I didn't feel like any were really friends by the end except Legion, which is something I miss from ME1. 

3) The end boss was a bit weak and I felt the main plotline after the relay was very short- I expected it to be the larger part of the game. 

4) The enemy wasn't personal enough. Saren was awesome, you need that personal nemesis factor.  

5) Hated some of the characters- would have liked the option to boot them off the team. There's no way my Shep would hire them. 

That said, the 'assign specialist' missions were brilliant; I really liked that. 

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I guess I still consider the depth to be there even if the elements don't all work quite as well as they could.

People who share similar views as I don't agree. I know how you feel - it's a complete case of red vs. blue - just understand how I feel, and people sharing a similar belief feel.

Regardless, you've shown quite adequetly why Bioware cannot win. No matter the direction they take people, large or small, will be disappointed. People were disappointed about KotOR, people were disappointed with JE, people were disappointed with ME1...You get the picture.

It's not just Bioware, either: Pretty much anything and everything will suffer from this. "Season 2 wasn't anywhere near as good as season 1", "their second CD wasn't anywhere near as good as their first", "the sequel blew in comparison to the prequel", and so on and so forth.

Make no mistake: People DO love ME2. People who are RPG fans, people who are shooter fans, people who were ME1 fans.

Here's the biggest, super question for you: If everything had gone according to how you, you personally wanted ME2 to be, would a thread like this not exist?

Some people did get what they want with ME2.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 19 juillet 2010 - 11:12 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Pocketgb wrote...



Make no mistake: People DO love ME2. People who are RPG fans, people who are shooter fans, people who were ME1 fans.

Here's the biggest, super question for you: If everything had gone according to how you, you personally wanted ME2 to be, would a thread like this not exist?

Some people did get what they want with ME2.

Many did, but clowns don't realize that there are many people who DO like ME2 over the original. Heck, im glad im replaying DAO seeing its more of a true RPG than the ****** poor attempt to mash shooting and "RPG" into one game that is known as Mass Effect, even though ME2 had little RPG elements, it at least got one thing right : shooting. Compared to ME1 where both aspects suck and choices don't make much difference.

Btw, kudos to those still bashing ME2 with the recent announcement of DA2, heck most bashers move from this thread to the DA2 forums(with a select few) voicing their concerns that may or may not influence some aspects of DA2.

[Repellerar]

My biggest disappointment with ME2 was the Citadel. I loved the feeling of running around the Citadel in ME1. I'll also add that the side missions weren't as interesting as ME1's. Other than that I can't complain, easy the best games of all time.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I guess I still consider the depth to be there even if the elements don't all work quite as well as they could.

People who share similar views as I don't agree. I know how you feel - it's a complete case of red vs. blue - just understand how I feel, and people sharing a similar belief feel.

Regardless, you've shown quite adequetly why Bioware cannot win. No matter the direction they take people, large or small, will be disappointed. People were disappointed about KotOR, people were disappointed with JE, people were disappointed with ME1...You get the picture.

It's not just Bioware, either: Pretty much anything and everything will suffer from this. "Season 2 wasn't anywhere near as good as season 1", "their second CD wasn't anywhere near as good as their first", "the sequel blew in comparison to the prequel", and so on and so forth.

Make no mistake: People DO love ME2. People who are RPG fans, people who are shooter fans, people who were ME1 fans.

Here's the biggest, super question for you: If everything had gone according to how you, you personally wanted ME2 to be, would a thread like this not exist?

Some people did get what they want with ME2.

I personally loved KotOR to bits, found Jade Empire lacking somewhat but decent and thought ME1 was fantastic.  Aside from MDK2 which just never really gelled with me, ME2 was my first disappointment from BioWare. So from where I stand BioWare was doing a stellar job overall with their titles until it came along.

The thing is, whether people were happy or not with KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1 one has to remember that each of these were the first in their series and thus set the tone and style for that series. I mention this because there's a difference between lot liking a game for what it is and not liking a game for what it isn't, if you get my drift. KotOR set the tone and style of KotOR, so if you liked it you became a fan and if you didn't you didn't. Same goes for Jade Empire, and the same goes for Mass Effect and Dragon Age, etc.

The difference with Mass Effect 2, to me, is that the original Mass Effect set the tone and style, but Mass Effect 2 didn't adhere to or stick to that which was set. Sure, one can say that Mass Effect wasn't particularly deep an RPG from the start, but it set the standard for the type of game it was and garnered fans for it. If Mass Effect 2 had come along as a new IP or was the first in the series then I wouldn't have had as much of an issue with it, but when it follows on from a game I like and just seems so different and eliminates many of the factors I liked about the original it's not a good thing from my perspective. Part of the reason I became a fan of ME1 was not only because what it was but because it wasn't what ME2 ended up being. When an IP  you like starts to become the very thing you dislike then it really grates. It's a bit like the difference between the first 9 or 10 seasons of The Simpsons vs. pretty much everything that came since.

If ME2 had been made the way I wanted it to there would definitely be those who were displeased, but I suspect the backlash wouldn't have been as much. Of course how I would have done it following ME1 and how I would do it now looking at both games is and would be quite different, since there are some factors in ME2 that I wouldn't have considered before but I feel either work fairly well or with some tweaking and depth could possibly work well. From where I'm sitting though, Mass Effect 2 is the game BioWare's made with the most complaints and the most division between the fans. I'm pretty sure this is why the devs are quieter than they've ever been on these forums, knowing full well that there are a lot of unhappy campers out there ready to pounce on anything they say or jump on them with a snide comment about how lacking the game was, etc.

Yes... many got what they wanted, or at least were mostly satisfied. How many of them were already big Mass Effect fans though is hard to tell. But whether things were better in their minds or not, can people honestly say that ME2 feels the same as the original game? Can even the most ardent ME2 supporter say that this is what they were expecting and that this sequel really feels like a proper in-depth follow-up to the original? Can you honestly claim that the RPG elements are just as strong and/or prominent as in the first game? Like I've said before, I'll admit that ME2 is a less technically flawed game, and that in some ways it's even a better game. But a better RPG and a strong seccessor to the original in terms of tone and style? No way in hell. Better or no, it's just too far removed from it, IMO. And what works better is not necessarily what works best. ME2 is functional because of it's simplicity, not because it fixed issues or made elements from the original work. That doesn't mean it's better for it.

My main problem though isn't so much the game itself as the attitude of the devs and the direction it took. I lurked on the BioWare forums for quite a while and while there were a lot of problems here and there and people questioning decisions now and then I don't recall too many instances where BioWare devs posted things that made me question what they were trying to do and why. It wasn't until the early DAO and ME2 stuff started appearing that it seemed like BioWare weren't making games for the audience they once were and seemed to be going more mainstream. As time went on it just seemed more and more like BioWare were leaving their old audience behind in favour of fresh meat. Like they saw the way the wind was shifting with the likes of Halo, Gears of War and CoD becoming massive hits and decided to say "me too!" And the more time goes on the more I'm convinced that, once again, I'm going to be left behind as yet another once-respected company I came to love abandons me to appeal to the common man and starts pumping out the same crap as almost everybody else. The recent revelations of what's happening with DA2 just seem to confirm these suspicions I've had for over two years now even more. The parallels between that and what happened with ME2 are just too close to ignore.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 juillet 2010 - 01:46 .

[catabuca]

Terror_K wrote...

I personally loved KotOR to bits, found Jade Empire lacking somewhat but decent and thought ME1 was fantastic.  Aside from MDK2 which just never really gelled with me, ME2 was my first disappointment from BioWare. So from where I stand BioWare was doing a stellar job overall with their titles until it came along.

The thing is, whether people were happy or not with KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1 one has to remember that each of these were the first in their series and thus set the tone and style for that series. I mention this because there's a difference between lot liking a game for what it is and not liking a game for what it isn't, if you get my drift. KotOR set the tone and style of KotOR, so if you liked it you became a fan and if you didn't you didn't. Same goes for Jade Empire, and the same goes for Mass Effect and Dragon Age, etc.

The difference with Mass Effect 2, to me, is that the original Mass Effect set the tone and style, but Mass Effect 2 didn't adhere to or stick to that which was set. Sure, one can say that Mass Effect wasn't particularly deep an RPG from the start, but it set the standard for the type of game it was and garnered fans for it. If Mass Effect 2 had come along as a new IP or was the first in the series then I wouldn't have had as much of an issue with it, but when it follows on from a game I like and just seems so different and eliminates many of the factors I liked about the original it's not a good thing from my perspective. Part of the reason I became a fan of ME1 was not only because what it was but because it wasn't what ME2 ended up being. When an IP  you like starts to become the very thing you dislike then it really grates. It's a bit like the difference between the first 9 or 10 seasons of The Simpsons vs. pretty much everything that came since.

If ME2 had been made the way I wanted it to there would definitely be those who were displeased, but I suspect the backlash wouldn't have been as much. Of course how I would have done it following ME1 and how I would do it now looking at both games is and would be quite different, since there are some factors in ME2 that I wouldn't have considered before but I feel either work fairly well or with some tweaking and depth could possibly work well. From where I'm sitting though, Mass Effect 2 is the game BioWare's made with the most complaints and the most division between the fans. I'm pretty sure this is why the devs are quieter than they've ever been on these forums, knowing full well that there are a lot of unhappy campers out there ready to pounce on anything they say or jump on them with a snide comment about how lacking the game was, etc.

Yes... many got what they wanted, or at least were mostly satisfied. How many of them were already big Mass Effect fans though is hard to tell. But whether things were better in their minds or not, can people honestly say that ME2 feels the same as the original game? Can even the most ardent ME2 supporter say that this is what they were expecting and that this sequel really feels like a proper in-depth follow-up to the original? Can you honestly claim that the RPG elements are just as strong and/or prominent as in the first game? Like I've said before, I'll admit that ME2 is a less technically flawed game, and that in some ways it's even a better game. But a better RPG and a strong seccessor to the original in terms of tone and style? No way in hell. Better or no, it's just too far removed from it, IMO. And what works better is not necessarily what works best. ME2 is functional because of it's simplicity, not because it fixed issues or made elements from the original work. That doesn't mean it's better for it.

My main problem though isn't so much the game itself as the attitude of the devs and the direction it took. I lurked on the BioWare forums for quite a while and while there were a lot of problems here and there and people questioning decisions now and then I don't recall too many instances where BioWare devs posted things that made me question what they were trying to do and why. It wasn't until the early DAO and ME2 stuff started appearing that it seemed like BioWare weren't making games for the audience they once were and seemed to be going more mainstream. As time went on it just seemed more and more like BioWare were leaving their old audience behind in favour of fresh meat. Like they saw the way the wind was shifting with the likes of Halo, Gears of War and CoD becoming massive hits and decided to say "me too!" And the more time goes on the more I'm convinced that, once again, I'm going to be left behind as yet another once-respected company I came to love abandons me to appeal to the common man and starts pumping out the same crap as almost everybody else. The recent revelations of what's happening with DA2 just seem to confirm these suspicions I've had for over two years now even more. The parallels between that and what happened with ME2 are just too close to ignore.

This is an absolutely brilliant post.

I don't rate your chances of having many people take it on board though. The people who don't like to hear a word said against ME2 don't tend to engage with people's discussions (a few people excepted) and jump right in with "OMG you're nuts if you think ME1 was better than ME2!!!eleventy!1!". Yeah, great going with the discussion there, kiddo.

Modifié par catabuca, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:06 .

[lazuli]

Khavos wrote...

Still a hell of a lot quicker to kill them all with the Vindicator and Tungsten.  Even on Insanity I can count the number of times I genuinely ran out of ammo on one hand, so thermal clips are never an issue. 

Assault rifles don't have as many ammo problems as, say, sniper rifles.  Another disadvantage to ammo powers is that they usually require a significant point investment from Commander Shepard specifically.  You can't rely on Garrus's aim as much as you can on his Overload.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, whether people were happy or not with KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1 one has to remember that each of these were the first in their series and thus set the tone and style for that series. I mention this because there's a difference between lot liking a game for what it is and not liking a game for what it isn't, if you get my drift. KotOR set the tone and style of KotOR, so if you liked it you became a fan and if you didn't you didn't. Same goes for Jade Empire, and the same goes for Mass Effect and Dragon Age, etc.

Mass Effect 1 set the tone and style for Mass Effect 1. That is all. Mass Effect 2 set the tone and style of Mass Effect 2. Pointing this out to say that Mass Effect is immune from criticisms by Jade Empire fans because it's a new series is ridiculous; if I don't like where Bioware's direction is headed, I don't care whether their game is a sequel or a new series.

One also has to remember that Bioware is known for a certain style of gameplay which Mass Effect was the first to break from. I don't even mean the combat, but the dialogue system. Those fans who liked Kotor/Jade Empire/Neverwinter Night's dialogue saw a major change with Mass Effect. Those fans who don't like this change have just as much right to call Mass Effect "dumbed down". Ex: Why phrases? Are players unable to read big sentences? Why do we need a fully-voicec main character? I like imagining Shepard's voice.

If ME2 had been made the way I wanted it to there would definitely be those who were displeased, but I suspect the backlash wouldn't have been as much. Of course how I would have done it following ME1 and how I would do it now looking at both games is and would be quite different, since there are some factors in ME2 that I wouldn't have considered before but I feel either work fairly well or with some tweaking and depth could possibly work well. From where I'm sitting though, Mass Effect 2 is the game BioWare's made with the most complaints and the most division between the fans. I'm pretty sure this is why the devs are quieter than they've ever been on these forums, knowing full well that there are a lot of unhappy campers out there ready to pounce on anything they say or jump on them with a snide comment about how lacking the game was, etc.

Make no mistake on this one point: the only place Mass Effect 2 has suffered any sort of backlash from fans. is on these forums. No major critic has given it lower than a B+ (if that) and the vast majority are praising it. This certainly doesn't mean that it's better than Mass Effect 1 by necessity. But the only place where Bioware games suffer from backlash are these forums. It happened from Baldur's Gate 2 to Neverwinter Nights, Kotor to Jade Empire, and especially Jade Empire to Mass Effect. The interesting thing is the division on these forums isn't even absolute. Every fan is not calling for Bioware's blood; there are quite a few (myself included) who regard the sequel as superior.

This isn't the Prince of Persia series where everyone was calling for blood; Mass Effect 2 has been pretty heavily accepted thusfar.

Yes... many got what they wanted, or at least were mostly satisfied. How many of them were already big Mass Effect fans though is hard to tell. But whether things were better in their minds or not, can people honestly say that ME2 feels the same as the original game? Can even the most ardent ME2 supporter say that this is what they were expecting and that this sequel really feels like a proper in-depth follow-up to the original?

Critically? The vast majority were already fans of the original, which is often mentioned at some point in their reviews. Mass Effect 2 is currently 8th highest rated PC game of all time at the moment and you can bet most (if not all) had played the original. I personally don't care if the common man (Gears of War players) have never played the first Mass Effect or are fans of it. From a gameplay perspective, Mass Effect was an absolute failure. 
 

Can you honestly claim that the RPG elements are just as strong and/or prominent as in the first game?

Except this is a loaded question. You're basically asking if Mass Effect 2 dumbed down what already was a dumbed down formula. Mass Effect had 12 ranks per skill, 8 of which were largely filler (1% increase to pistol damage). Mass Effect 2 basically took out the filler and left you with the important stuff. There are plenty of fans who already argue that Mass Effect is not an RPG because of the dialogue system and gameplay. From a dnd perspective, they're absolutely right. Hence why I feel calling Mass Effect 2 the bastard child (so to speak) is hypocritical.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 juillet 2010 - 03:01 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

Thats not the question in a global cooldown system.Did i use some barrier that didnt protect me very long on high difficulties anyway or something usefull. In the first game,you activate it and could still use other powers.

You're right, 6 seconds is much too long to wait. Not like it might've forced you to be strategic and choose which ability was most beneficial at the time.

If someone only played on normal,he/wouldnt see the use of damping or warp,thats right.
Thats the same in Mass Effect 2.But there the player dont even need powers aside from ammo powers on insanity.

If someone played on insanity in MAss Effect , starting from level one each ability was usefull.Especially sabotage and warp.

And at last, we hit the true problem with your argument. "If someone played on insanity". In order to access insanity, the game must be completed twice: once on any difficult and once on hardcore as a result. Warp and sabotage are useless on normal, as you've finally conceded. Here's the problem: no gamer should have to play on the hardest difficulty (and requiring to prior completions) to finally have to use these "squad-based , tactical mechanics". Was there a disclaimer on the box? "If you wish to play tactical combat, you must beat the game twice and then play on insanity".

If I play Halo, I see the point of grenades on normal and on legendary; they fill the same useful function. When I played Jade Empire, I understood the purpose of area attacks on normal and on Jade Master difficult; they filled he same useful function. If I play Mass Effect 2, I see the point of Concussive Shot and it remains useful. I shouldn't need to clear a game twice in order to experience some of what it advertised.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 juillet 2010 - 03:07 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect 1 set the tone and style for Mass Effect 1. That is all. Mass Effect 2 set the tone and style of Mass Effect 2. Pointing this out to say that Mass Effect is immune from criticisms by Jade Empire fans because it's a new series is ridiculous; if I don't like where Bioware's direction is headed, I don't care whether their game is a sequel or a new series.

One also has to remember that Bioware is known for a certain style of gameplay which Mass Effect was the first to break from. I don't even mean the combat, but the dialogue system. Those fans who liked Kotor/Jade Empire/Neverwinter Night's dialogue saw a major change with Mass Effect. Those fans who don't like this change have just as much right to call Mass Effect "dumbed down". Ex: Why phrases? Are players unable to read big sentences? Why do we need a fully-voicec main character? I like imagining Shepard's voice.

While they can do this, it isn't really fair, because using that logic could mean that any RPG that's not as complex as the most complex RPG ever could be called "dumbed down" technically. Mass Effect was going for something different than previous BioWare RPGs and to call it "dumbed down" is meaningless without a proper point of reference. Sure... you can say that it's not as deep an RPG as previous BioWare offerings, and that it's a far simpler and less complex game than them, but calling it "dumbed down" when there was nothing really directly preceding it doesn't really fit. With ME2 it does because its predecessor is the first Mass Effect. Calling the original game "dumbed down" compared to Baldur's Gate, NWN or KotOR doesn't really make sense since their styles are quite different, and beyond the fact that they're all RPGs and they're made by BioWare they share very little in common. A weaker RPG Mass Effect may be (I always preferred the term "RPG-Lite" here), but then it was always intended to be a hybrid and not a pure-class RPG. On top of that it was also trying to be an interactive cinematic experience, which BioWare first touched on with KotOR and continued through further with Jade Empire, but ME1 was the first game of theirs to truly explore this aspect.

Except this is a loaded question. You're basically asking if Mass Effect 2 dumbed down what already was a dumbed down formula. Mass Effect had 12 ranks per skill, 8 of which were largely filler (1% increase to pistol damage). Mass Effect 2 basically took out the filler and left you with the important stuff. There are plenty of fans who already argue that Mass Effect is not an RPG because of the dialogue system and gameplay. From a dnd perspective, they're absolutely right. Hence why I feel calling Mass Effect 2 the bastard child (so to speak) is hypocritical.

By this logic you could just strip out the RPG elements entirely and just have Mass Effect 3 as "Gears of War with dialogue" then and everything would be fine and dandy. Where does one draw the line? I say BioWare already crossed it with ME2, but you (and quite a few others) still think that line hasn't been reached. What does it take for Mass Effect to no longer be Mass Effect?

[catabuca]

I think the critical point here, il divo, is that just because you didn't find something useful doesn't mean that other people didn't. You're entitled to explain why you didn't find something useful, and others are entitled to say why they thought it was. You're approaching the debate like your argument is the objective truth, whereas in fact it's a subjective argument just like everyone else's is.



You said, "From a gameplay perspective, Mass Effect was an absolute failure." For you. And probably for a lot of other people too. That's fine. For some people it wasn't. You must accept that both "the combat worked for me" and "the combat didn't work for me" are able to co-exist.

[Terror_K]

I'll even admit that the core shooter gameplay in ME2 was superior to the original. What I don't think however is that it was worth sacrificing the other elements that suffered, nor that most of them needed to be. Let alone painting the entire thing with "Fisher Price: My First RPG" colours on top of it all.

[tonnactus]

lazuli wrote...


What you just described is depth.

If this is depth,i just ask what games dont have any depth.

And enemies do not instantly die when they lose their defenses.  Some have regeneration, making them last even longer.  Some will turn their defenses back on.

Fire ammo.Enemies with armor as their primary defense has also health regenration which is stopped by that.
Most enemies like troopers never use shields boost,only some elites if you wait to long.(cooldown time of 2 minutes or so)

[catabuca]

Terror_K wrote...

I'll even admit that the core shooter gameplay in ME2 was superior to the original. What I don't think however is that it was worth sacrificing the other elements that suffered, nor that most of them needed to be. Let alone painting the entire thing with "Fisher Price: My First RPG" colours on top of it all.

I've always attested to the fact that I think ME2 benefitted from the new shooter mechanics. After I got used to it, I preferred the greater control over directing (most) talents as well. They worked long and hard on upgrading the things that were considered by many the weaker points of the first game, and for that I have to give them their dues.

But just because they improved some aspects, doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticise others. Sure, the inventory system was broken in ME1, becoming too cumbersome to manage without being tedious, but it was scrapped entirely rather than upgraded and worked on to produce something that would have kept the streamliners and the inventory-lovers happy. For me, the lack of inventory isn't a biggy, but I can understand why some wish there was more control than there currently is. Good design means striving for the best of both worlds, and consigning the worst of both to the grubby bin of history.

Bioware have done some things right, and somethings not quite so right. I hope that in ME3 they can take that 'best of both worlds' and make something we all love.

[tonnactus]

Kronner wrote...

Also, combat in ME2 is far superior to ME1, there is no comparison, really.  ME1 combat was a snoozefest, boring as hell, tedious and way too easy. You couldn't die at all.

I can only speak for myself.
For me, starting at level one insanity in the first game was harder then in second game.Easy to explain why.
In the second game,your shooting abilities are good right from the start. Cooldowns are very short right from the start.Health and shields regenerate after some seconds in cover.

Mass Effect 2 is easy on every difficulty right from start where insanity in Mass Effect is at least challenging at the beginning where some turian headhunters could kill your whole squad including shepardt very fast and easy.

I dont even start to talk how laughable easy krogans are now.