10273 réponses à ce sujet

[catabuca]

bjdbwea wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

-Makes me wonder just how many of these people and game reviewers who seem to praise ME2 as the best game ever made (or close enough) did actually play the first game. For a game that such high ratings I really have to wonder how the gaming industry standards for excellence have dropped so much. A game that gets a 10 out of 10 should be absolutely perfect in all aspects that make up that game. Completely flawless. Was ME2 really this perfect?

Will ME3 live up to the same level ME2 got for reviews and praise by these same people who gave ME2 such high marks?

If you rate ME 2 as an RPG, it simply can not nearly as high reviews as it got. But if you compare it to even the best shooters? Maybe. Sure, some have better graphics. But they usually have no depth, no interaction, no choices, no dialogue system, and are completely linear and often very short too. So I understand why some reviewers and many shooter fans are completely astonished by ME 2. If you care most about the action, and that works well, and you even get the other features I mentioned, it's probably got to be the best game ever in their opinion. On the other hand, if the action part doesn't work as good as it usually does in a shooter, they don't rate the game highly even if it has a fantastic story.

Only players who care more about story, interaction, dialogue, choices and the like are probably able to see where ME 2 falls short in comparison to ME 1. Unfortunately, most reviewers don't care about these things anymore.

Good point. If you are just a FPS or TPS gamer, then something with such an amazing range of choice and storytelling is likely to knock other things out of the water. If you're a solid RPG gamer, you're not going to care about shooting and so the reduction in RPG mechanics is going to hurt. Then, there are those who fall in myriad places in between those two positions.

The problem lies in that Bioware are still trying to market the game to the shooters AND the RPG fans (and everyone in between), not just the shooter fans, or action fans. So expectations that were raised in RPG fans who loved the first ME were dashed somewhat.

Again, it's all about what's on your list of preferances for what makes a good game. It's not the same for all of us. And when Bioware tries to market it to all of us, there are going to be upsets. I guess that's just the way it's going to be now they're going for the broader market.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...
Then why do you have a problem with people compaining that ME2 is dumbed down even more? If you agree with the overall sentiment, why is saying that ME2 is "dumbed down" an issue? Just because you feel ME1 was already a step halfway there?

The problem is where you happened to "draw the line". To hear some of the criticisms coming from this thread, you would think that Mass Effect was the deepest game in the history of gaming. To be frank, it just sounds hypocritical on your part.

"Mass Effect 2 removed everything that was good from the series: setting, depth, story and is all about shooter gameplay." If Mass Effect 2 happened to step over your proverbial line, it's only because Mass Effect 1 was already standing right on the edge of it. Mass Effect introduced the shooter gameplay, the fully-voiced main character, the film-style cameras, not Mass Effect 2. But if I pointed out how Mass Effect might have been dumbed down from Bioware's previous games, I'm certain that most people here would be insulted and defend it to the death. As a fan of Planescape Torment and Deus Ex, I could start calling out Mass Effect (and its fans) on the lack of depth and focus on shooter gameplay, but I accept the game for what it is.  

But it should do when it's supposed to be essentually part two in a three part game. ME2 shouldn't be trying to go for something different than ME1, it should be trying to carry on where it left of and do what ME1 tried to do but better. This is supposed to be a trilogy of games in the same style, not three different games that just have the same setting. A sequel should add depth to the series, not take it away.

No depth, eh? Certainly not from the main quest, I can agree with that. But are you honestly telling me that you found the Mass Effect character deep? Again, if you're looking for a deep overall message from Mass Effect 2, you're probably not going to get it. Mass Effect 2's depth came in smaller sizes, but ultimately added up; Miranda's loyalty mission where you see her confront her sister and finally realize that she's not a total ****, Jacob's loyalty mission where we got to see humanity reverted to its most primitive form "Lord of the Flies" style, or even Garrus' recruitment where we come to realize that his life always seems to revert to hopelessness when Shepard's not around.

Mass Effect 2 was a character-centered game, completely opposite from Mass Effect 1 which was completely plot-focused (to the point where its characters became walking encylopedias). If you have a preference for the original, fine. But you still haven't shown me where this hidden layer of depth comes from aside from a rather lackluster main story.

It is, but it's not as well balanced. ME1 was about a third RPG, a third Shooter and a third interactive movie. ME2 was about 10% RPG, 50% shooter and 40% interactive movie. ME2 is simply too unbalanced and feels schizophrenic with its elements, with minor RPG elements being strong and what should be crucial ones taking a back-seat or gone entirely. ME2 feels like the devs went "let's scrap everything, build a shooter system and then slap on the minimal amount of RPG elements for this game to still fit the genre, then try to hide it by adding some minor RPG fluff here and there."

Again, do I need to point out 1% increase to pistol damage? You're giving the RPG in Mass Effect 1 far too much credit, both in terms of depth and how much time was spent there. For the RPG portion, most of the time was spent in my bland inventory screen creating omnigel, not increasing my talents/abilities. That's not a good thing. 

All Mass Effect 2 changed for the RPG elements was now every talent has a dramatic effect added. Rank 1-2 is a larger shift. I personally don't like wading through pointless talents to get to the good stuff.  

While I agree that BioWare's RPGs have been getting gradually less deep since after NWN, I think they all fit the definition. As long as there is some form of statistical character progression then it's technically an RPG.

You just qualified World of Warcraft and the Final Fantasy series as RPG's. You basically took the most narrow, gameplay oriented elements for your definition. You have not captured the elements which made Baldur's Gate, Morrowind, Deus Ex, great. Or any pen and paper RPG, for that matte.

I don't claim and have never claimed that Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG. What I've said a lot is that I feel it's a shallow and unsatisfactory one. I suppose some people will say the same of ME1, but it had enough elements present for me to still love the game. And I personally love the game more for its narrative, setting, visual style and cinematic styling more than I do for its RPG elements. As long as I feel that my choices in building a character matter and I have lots of choices and variations to deal with I'm generally happy, because this is what defines depth for me in an RPG when it gets down to it. ME2 just failed to do this entirely, with everything so cut-back and watered down and linear. ME2 rewards anybody whether they've put effort into things or not, and relies on instant gratification and allowing people to become Masters of All Trades, which are things I just don't like in games, particularly RPG's.

So how does Mass Effect 2 reward everybody regardless of effort? What's an example of Mass Effect not giving you instant gratification? How many options does Mass Effect really offer you besides "good" versus "evil"? What was terrible about Mass Effect 2's setting? How is Mass Effect 1 not linear? I would like to hear your opinion on all these different things.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:46 .

[SSV Enterprise]

bjdbwea wrote...

If you rate ME 2 as an RPG, it simply can not
nearly as high reviews as it got. But if you compare it to even the best
shooters? Maybe. Sure, some have better graphics. But they usually have
no depth, no interaction, no choices, no dialogue system, and are
completely linear and often very short too. So I understand why some
reviewers and many shooter fans are completely astonished by ME 2. If
you care most about the action, and that works well, and you even get
the other features I mentioned, it's probably got to be the best game
ever in their opinion. On the other hand, if the action part doesn't
work as good as it usually does in a shooter, they don't rate the game
highly even if it has a fantastic story.

Only players who care
more about story, interaction, dialogue, choices and the like are
probably able to see where ME 2 falls short in comparison to ME 1.
Unfortunately, most reviewers don't care about these things anymore.

Which is why it got a 98 from RPGfan.com, right?

People like the game as both an RPG and as a shooter. Just because you don't like it as an RPG doesn't mean that no one else can, or the majority of people don't.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:14 .

[catabuca]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

If you rate ME 2 as an RPG, it simply can not
nearly as high reviews as it got. But if you compare it to even the best
shooters? Maybe. Sure, some have better graphics. But they usually have
no depth, no interaction, no choices, no dialogue system, and are
completely linear and often very short too. So I understand why some
reviewers and many shooter fans are completely astonished by ME 2. If
you care most about the action, and that works well, and you even get
the other features I mentioned, it's probably got to be the best game
ever in their opinion. On the other hand, if the action part doesn't
work as good as it usually does in a shooter, they don't rate the game
highly even if it has a fantastic story.

Only players who care
more about story, interaction, dialogue, choices and the like are
probably able to see where ME 2 falls short in comparison to ME 1.
Unfortunately, most reviewers don't care about these things anymore.

Which is why it got a 98 from RPGfan.com, right?

People like the game as both an RPG and as a shooter. Just because you don't like it as an RPG doesn't mean that no one else can, or the majority of people don't.

It's certainly easy to slip into generalisations to say "all RPG fans think this" or "all shooter fans are that". I don't think bjdbwea was purposefully trying to paint everyone with the same brush. Sometimes it's difficult to keep repeating the qualifications you made 100 pages ago in every single post

[bjdbwea]

Indeed. Besides, an 98 (of 100, I assume?) has in my opinion already lost any credibility, RPG fans or not. BG 2 and ME 1 are my favorite games ever, but I'd never rate either of those at 98, let alone 100. That said, there are other RPG fans who have rated the game much lower than the average. You can't just cite one review to prove the point you were apparently trying to prove.

[Djehmli]

I had ME1 from the day it released, but my computer at the time didn't do it justice and I never finished playing. With a new gaming rig I decided to load up all the games I hadn't had a chance to enjoy before, ME 1 being the first. I loved it, yes the mako wasn't the easiest thing to handle in some situations, but I looked forward to the travel. I went right out and purchased ME 2 after I finished ME 1.



Took me a bit to get used to the new controls, I had it engraved in my head that E was the interaction, not the space bar, the space bar was supposed to bring up the squad interface, not the shift key, F was supposed to be my Medi-Gel, not my 'leave cover and be vulnerable' key. I changed that real quick.



I never read the boards, so of course my first playthrough with my imported character resulted in losing a member of my team at the end. The only character that ME 2 made me really love, poor Mordin.



I've played through ME 1 and ME 2 four times in a row now, each time starting a character from scratch, I really like both games.



Obvious disconnects that bugged me:



UI default changes



The emptiness of the galaxy - note that I had all the DLC content from the start, unlike others who purchased the game at release, still feels empty and small compared to ME 1



Lack of consequences - I am scanning planets in geth territory ( I think after the Tali recruitment) I am getting warnings on the planetary descriptions that it really is not a good idea for humans to be caught here, especially the one planet where thousands of geth transports are in orbit. Instead I am blithely stripping the rich planet of it's resources without any interruptions. I really was expecting to get ambushed there.



And lastly that other than the first playthrough, I never lost a crew member in the final battle once I figured out who the 'perfect' choices were. I would like to think you can never predict without fail who would or would not take a life ending bullet or miss step.



I am really looking forward to ME 3, and have set up my various completed ME 2 games to hopefully take advantage of / open up different story lines in ME 3.

[Darth Drago]

Lumikki wrote...

ME2 got high marks because it's good game. It may not be good game for you, as your are here to complaining about it, but there are alot of players who has other opinions.

Like I have sayed 1000's of times here. It's not the game, it's YOUR taste of games. So, the problem isn't the game, it's your taste of games. It's like me going to sport game forum and start complaining how bad games they are making, because it doesn't have enough RPG. You people need to see the game as what it is and not complain how the game isn't made for your personal taste.

There has been a few good complains in this thread, but about 200 page has not been anything else than nit picking ME2 details and praising how good ME1 was. I ques you aren't the target customer for ME2 then. Deal with it.

-I have over 200 or so games probably covering every genre of game type in my library, for a lot of game systems. It is not my so called taste, it is the game. It has NOTHING to do with its genre of the game or its RPG/shooting elements or lack of. I expect a game, any game that gets a 9 or 10 rating to be one of the best games ever made. Mass Effect 2 is not in that category, not even close.

Your right though, I’m not in the target group ME2 is aimed at. I expected to get a sequel to ME1 with some improvements to fix what needed fixing. A game that lived up to the first game. Instead I get a rebooting of the franchise with dumbed down streamlined game mechanics that was made to showcase an average shooter element way to much. As a fan of the first game and of BioWare I expected better, a lot better.

I guess everyone else who dislikes ME2 in anyway should just roll over and say “You know, ME2 just isn’t my type of game even though ME1 was. It must be my taste in games and not the changes that were made in the game. Or maybe, just maybe I‘m no longer the target customer for it.” Yea right.

Oh yea, we are dealing with it by voicing our concerns and opinions.

bjdbwea wrote...
If you rate ME 2 as an RPG, it simply can not nearly as high reviews as it got. But if you compare it to even the best shooters? Maybe. Sure, some have better graphics. But they usually have no depth, no interaction, no choices, no dialogue system, and are completely linear and often very short too. So I understand why some reviewers and many shooter fans are completely astonished by ME 2. If you care most about the action, and that works well, and you even get the other features I mentioned, it's probably got to be the best game ever in their opinion. On the other hand, if the action part doesn't work as good as it usually does in a shooter, they don't rate the game highly even if it has a fantastic story.

Only players who care more about story, interaction, dialogue, choices and the like are probably able to see where ME 2 falls short in comparison to ME 1. Unfortunately, most reviewers don't care about these things anymore.

I rated ME2 as a game in whole. Not for its RPG or shooter elements. As a whole it didn’t deserve such a high rating. It is not a perfect game, it has plenty of issues and flaws from gameplay to bugs that to many people seem to not even take into consideration. As a RPG, a shooter or some sort of hybrid mix it is still just an average or just above average game with pretty graphics and a decent story.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 20 juillet 2010 - 05:24 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

And I personally would say that based on some of Saren's comments at the end of Mass Effect 1 about how he had achieved the perfect synthesis between organic and machine, the human reaper would make equal sense plot-wise. Unfortunately the execution of each idea was absolute trash, but I still don't see how it gives Mass Effect levels of depth compared to Mass Effect 2; it just illustrates that Bioware made two very stupid villains which some people find more or less aggravating.

Human reaper as a concept I'll take a wait-and-see approach.  Apparantly we'll learn more about the process in ME 3.  But the form it took was, no.  Just...no.

Edit: I also thinking "fighting" the human reaper should never have happened. Every game does not need a huge boss fight. I would have preferred the final encounter to be actually holding the line.

On this we are in agreement.  I would have much preferered to fight the Collector General, a timed "run back to the ship" event, or even cut to Hold the Line while the bomb's being set up and make that the final battle.  Whio lives and who dies is more in your hands.

 
Yes.  I posted in the "Hate on Plot" thread when the best ways to crush a hero:  kill at the moment of greatest triumph, or a slow slide to obscurity.  ME 2 did neither.

Hmm, what do you mean by slow slide?

In Shepard's case, I said that a better way would be to show Shep and the old squad exploring the far reaches of explored space, looking for signs of previous Reaper cullings and ways to fight them.  Over many months, they find nothing of substance.  One by one the old squad gets called away by other duties.  Members of the crew also get recalled or die in accidents or fights with hostiles.  Shepard's funding dries up as the Citadel concludes the Reaper threat has passed and moves on to other matters.  The Alliance stops taking Shep seriously due to this Reaper obsession.  The Normandy becomes battered and rundown, no longer top of the line.  Finally, some two years after the conclusion of ME 1, Shepard pulls into Omega to resupply, down to Joker, Chakwas and a skeleton crew.  Shep's pretty much out of options at this point, when approached by Miranda and Jacob to offer a truly Faustian bargain.

Modifié par iakus, 20 juillet 2010 - 05:15 .

[bjdbwea]

Darth Drago wrote...

I rated ME2 as a game in whole. Not for its RPG or shooter elements. As a whole it didn’t deserve such a high rating. It is not a perfect game, it has plenty of issues and flaws from gameplay to bugs that to many people seem to not even take into consideration. As a RPG, a shooter or some sort of hybrid mix it is still just an average or just above average game with pretty graphics and a decent story.

Yes, I certainly agree. I was just trying to find some explanations for the ridiculously high ratings. Apparently ME 2 is BioWare's best rated game ever, believe it or not. To me that says more about the reviewers than it does about the game. Shiny graphics, instant action and lots of action seem to be the most important features for many reviewers these days. Flaws in other aspects are either ignored or the aspects are not deemed important enough in the first place.

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...
I do admit there are a few things I wonder about, like where the rocket launcher was kept.

Robo saren fired multiple carnage shots.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 final battle was pretty good until the end Saren happen. That was the biggest joke ever. I mean hardly could done worst than it was done. Terminator. It did not make any sense at all.

??

The transformation of a regular collector into a harbinger drone is exactly the same thing.

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

iakus wrote...
I do admit there are a few things I wonder about, like where the rocket launcher was kept.

Robo saren fired multiple carnage shots.

Somehow that makes it even more disturbing

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

No depth, eh? Certainly not from the main quest, I can agree with that. But are you honestly telling me that you found the Mass Effect character deep? Again, if you're looking for a deep overall message from Mass Effect 2, you're probably not going to get it. Mass Effect 2's depth came in smaller sizes, but ultimately added up; Miranda's loyalty mission where you see her confront her sister and finally realize that she's not a total ****, Jacob's loyalty mission where we got to see humanity reverted to its most primitive form "Lord of the Flies" style, or even Garrus' recruitment where we come to realize that his life always seems to revert to hopelessness when Shepard's not around.

Mass Effect 2 was a character-centered game, completely opposite from Mass Effect 1 which was completely plot-focused (to the point where its characters became walking encylopedias). If you have a preference for the original, fine. But you still haven't shown me where this hidden layer of depth comes from aside from a rather lackluster main story.

Ummm... I was actually referring to the gameplay and RPG elements (or lack thereof), not the narrative or story (which I honestly don't have as much of a problem with as some people here do).

Again, do I need to point out 1% increase to pistol damage? You're giving the RPG in Mass Effect 1 far too much credit, both in terms of depth and how much time was spent there. For the RPG portion, most of the time was spent in my bland inventory screen creating omnigel, not increasing my talents/abilities. That's not a good thing. 

All Mass Effect 2 changed for the RPG elements was now every talent has a dramatic effect added. Rank 1-2 is a larger shift. I personally don't like wading through pointless talents to get to the good stuff.

1% pistol damage was good. The new method is just instant gratification, as I stated before. I like to have to work my way to getting something good and not have it just thrown on my lap every single time I level up.

You just qualified World of Warcraft and the Final Fantasy series as RPG's. You basically took the most narrow, gameplay oriented elements for your definition. You have not captured the elements which made Baldur's Gate, Morrowind, Deus Ex, great. Or any pen and paper RPG, for that matte.

They are RPGs. I don't like them personally, but admit they fit the definition. Depth and elements can vary wildly between games (some focus on story, others on items, others on combat, others on progression, others on a mix of these things to varying degrees, etc.)

So how does Mass Effect 2 reward everybody regardless of effort? What's an example of Mass Effect not giving you instant gratification? How many options does Mass Effect really offer you besides "good" versus "evil"? What was terrible about Mass Effect 2's setting? How is Mass Effect 1 not linear? I would like to hear your opinion on all these different things.

The answers are in this thread literally dozens of times over. I don't really want to repeat myself again and again, as I've already done that to death too. And I have work to go to in a few minutes and thus don't really have the time to answer that now (if you still insist upon my return, then I'll try and grin and bear it... but I'm really sick of repeating things I've said in this very thread over and over).

So either "happy hunting" or "I'll see you in a few hours with more (and I hate you )."

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Ummm... I was actually referring to the gameplay and RPG elements (or lack thereof), not the narrative or story (which I honestly don't have as much of a problem with as some people here do).

So what do you believe are the elements of an RPG, out of curiosity?

1% pistol damage was good. The new method is just instant gratification, as I stated before. I like to have to work my way to getting something good and not have it just thrown on my lap every single time I level up.

Working your way up is good. When each step along the way provides its own reward. Dragon Age Origins is a good example; every spell/talent tree has 4 levels. If I want to make my way up to that really awesome fireball spell (level 3), I first need to take a couple other things along the way. But every ability still means something.

This is not the case at all with Mass Effect, which is why I said Bioware stripped away the illusion of depth. 1 % pistol damage is not deep, it does not change my playstyle, it is insignificant. Now, we can say that some abilities are better than others in a game like Dragon Age, but conceptually it remains the same. Not like Mass Effect where if you are not gaining a new ability, your level ups have almost no meaning. Mass Effect is littered with these: an example of why more options does not equal deeper gameplay. 

They are RPGs. I don't like them personally, but admit they fit the definition. Depth and elements can vary wildly between games (some focus on story, others on items, others on combat, others on progression, others on a mix of these things to varying degrees, etc.)

As per your own words, since this discussion relates strictly to the depth of gameplay, wouldn't we then have to come to the conclusion that World of Warcraft is a much better RPG than Mass Effect since the possible options/combinations are almost infinite? I emphasize my earlier point that if gameplay is your only criteria, then any dnd system makes Mass Effect look like Halo.

As I said, this makes the game an RPG in the shallowest sense of the word. There are 5 elements that traditionally comprise an RPG. Games offer them to varying degrees. But to say that gameplay is the only critical element to role-playing games (which are based on dnd) is still shallow.

The answers are in this thread literally dozens of times over. I don't really want to repeat myself again and again, as I've already done that to death too. And I have work to go to in a few minutes and thus don't really have the time to answer that now (if you still insist upon my return, then I'll try and grin and bear it... but I'm really sick of repeating things I've said in this very thread over and over).

So either "happy hunting" or "I'll see you in a few hours with more (and I hate you )."

Go for it. Copy and paste if you must in bullet form or whatever format you prefer, but I would like an answer nonetheless.

[Some Geth]

ME1 and 2 are good games but not good RPGs that is fact the end.

[Il Divo]

Lucretion wrote...
And here is where we disagree. A Vanguard would be the definition of your magical based warrior in a JRPG and provides specific variety to the typical run and gun style of gameplay. In one level for example, I set Garrus to snipe, Wrex to a AR/Shotgun, while I pick a target, use Lift/Throw/Singularity and Wrex and I create swiss cheese. That is essentially what a RPG is, using a wide array of "magic" after unlocking the ability. This is merely an action variation of the genre instead of turn based.

I would agree with the underlined if this were a turn-based system. The problem is the game already takes player-skill into account and not only character skill. The minute I become able to aim and shoot for Commander Shepard, this notion of separate play-styles or roles becomes diluted. If I am playing a Wizard in Neverwinter Nights, I have absolutely no means by which to play as a fighter; I might be able to avoid combat but the game does not take player skill into account. I will never be a fighter. In Mass Effect, I can play my magic-based Vanguard (whom I love regardless) almost exactly as a soldier and achieve victory. That is why this notion of character roles is cheapened.   

Iakus wrote...

On this we are in agreement.  I would have much preferered to fight the Collector General, a timed "run back to the ship" event, or even cut to Hold the Line while the bomb's being set up and make that the final battle.  Whio lives and who dies is more in your hands.

I'll just respond to this for now, but this scene could have certainly been made more emotional. The moment for example when you do shoot the human Reaper tubes and assume it dies before it comes to life; the scene would have been far more powerful had it just died instead of waking up to fight back. Perhaps Shepard reflecting that (in a sense) he had killed the all those humans inside the monster.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 juillet 2010 - 12:29 .

[dhayes68]

ME1 had me playing constantly. ME2... not so much. That's all there is.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Ummm... I was actually referring to the gameplay and RPG elements (or lack thereof), not the narrative or story (which I honestly don't have as much of a problem with as some people here do).

So what do you believe are the elements of an RPG, out of curiosity?

Statiscial character progression, a ruleset, gaining experience, skills/talents/feats, etc. Lots of people say "roleplaying" or "story" but that would mean almost any game could be an RPG, and there are several games commonly known as RPGs that feature barely any of this whatsoever.

As per your own words, since this discussion relates strictly to the depth of gameplay, wouldn't we then have to come to the conclusion that World of Warcraft is a much better RPG than Mass Effect since the possible options/combinations are almost infinite? I emphasize my earlier point that if gameplay is your only criteria, then any dnd system makes Mass Effect look like Halo.

As I said, this makes the game an RPG in the shallowest sense of the word. There are 5 elements that traditionally comprise an RPG. Games offer them to varying degrees. But to say that gameplay is the only critical element to role-playing games (which are based on dnd) is still shallow.

WoW is a stronger RPG than Mass Effect, yes. But whether it's a better game is a matter of opinion. Both as also trying to be and achieve different things, so direct comparison doesn't really work.

My point is is that RPGs come in all shapes and sizes, and that's okay because each one is trying to achieve something different. All I ask is that Mass Effect 2 remain consistent with ME1 instead of trying to be like another game entirely. And my main issue is that ME2 seems to be doing everything in it's power to not be an RPG without not being an RPG.

Go for it. Copy and paste if you must in bullet form or whatever format you prefer, but I would like an answer nonetheless.

I hate you...

So how does Mass Effect 2 reward everybody regardless of effort?

Aside from the above example of skill upgrades giving instant, sudden reward rather than being more gradual, you can too easily become a master of all trades in ME2. There's no need to pick and choose, and all upgrades can be gotten easily. Thanks to the elimination of non-combat skills and needing a techie to decrypt and hack now anybody can just do it without any effort, Shepard isn't restricted by class to armour, and doesn't need to sacrifice combat skills to be charismatic. Essentually Shepard can be the charming rogue with ultimate firepower and the ability to unlock and break into anything with next to no effort at all and no need to build a character smart. Shepard can essentially be the Fighter-Mage-Thief with all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. It doesn't matter where you spend your points because Shepard will succeed no matter what, and you could just go through the entire game and ignore them completely because Shepard doesn't need any of them to shoot the right testicle off a fly from 100 paces even at Level 1. You get the same amount of XP per mission no matter how you did it, so those who actually do things the harder way or those that explore more get no more benefit from working harder than the person who just charges through the middle... not that this really matters since there's usually only one way to solve each problem anyway.

What's
an example of Mass Effect not giving you instant gratification?

Ummm... not sure about this one. Mainly because I can't think of places where it did give you it in the first place. I suppose maybe giving freebie charm/intimidate points could be one. Spectre weapons being available once their unlocked the first time could be another, but even then getting max credits isn't hard.

How many
options does Mass Effect really offer you besides "good" versus
"evil"?

This is a dialogue and narrative choice thing, but that's not what I was referring to. I was meaning choices in character building, items, modding, etc.

 What was terrible about Mass Effect 2's setting?

Didn't really have a problem with this. It was the same as ME1's setting essentially, after all. The closest thing I would have as a problem regarding this would be that the entire thing was far too removed from the original game and that aspects that seemed a big deal there seemed either pushed into the background or cheapened in ME2. Despite claims of choices having consequences between the games pretty much every consequence was minimal or avoided, and barely anything changed at all. Whether The Council lived or died should have had a far greater impact on the universe as a whole, but all it really changed were a couple of scenes and some dialogue in news reports and all swept aside lazily by a single comment from Jacob. Characters that could have died were weakly substituted, cheapening both the scenes and the characters themselves by also resulting in little difference or impact.

How is Mass
Effect 1 not linear?

Because it allowed you to tackle situations from several angles. Because not everything was in the same place with every playthrough. Because you sometimes had to pick and choose instead of being able to have your cake and eat it too. Because the level designs were literally more branching and seemed more like real locales compared to ME2's winding lines that simply took you from A to B without deviation at all.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Lots of people say "roleplaying" or "story" but that would mean almost any game could be an RPG...

Which is totally not what they meant.
Based on that stance, you could very well argue that every game has is compromised of every single genre.
It's not what encompasses in a game, it's the game's strengthes, its emphasis. This is where Bioware sets their  standard: They're known for making immersive (for most, at least), cinematic, poignent, and personal games. Remove all the combat from BG2, KotOR and JE and I'd still consider them RPGs. ME1 and 2 are different because I didn't consider either of them RPGs.

Terror_K wrote...

*snip*
It doesn't matter where you spend your points because Shepard will succeed no matter what...

That's the whole point of Normal difficulty: It's supposed to be easy. The easier settings are more for people who have never touched a game before.

Regardless, I don't see how any of that list can be argued as to why ME2 is "less RPG/dumbed down". Looks more appropriate as a personal list of dislikes - not to say that your concerns are dismassable, rather the label feels confusing.

Terror_K wrote...

This is a dialogue and narrative choice thing, but that's not what I was referring to. I was meaning choices in character building, items, modding, etc.

As a sidenote: for some, these are the least meaningful aspects of gameplay when it comes to a role-playing game.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:04 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 final battle was pretty good until the end Saren happen. That was the biggest joke ever. I mean hardly could done worst than it was done. Terminator. It did not make any sense at all.

??

The transformation of a regular collector into a harbinger drone is exactly the same thing.

Not even close. Saren did full body change from flesh to metal based robot. Collector was just stronger in a hardbringer form, but still same body. What can be explain with something like adrenal rush as using full potential of the biological body.  Saren can't be explain at all. Dead "biological" body turning metal based terminator robot in few second?

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:23 .

[Terror_K]

Judging from Saren's comments before it happened, he had been made more machine than ma-- uh... turian.

[Acero Azul]

Lumikki wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 final battle was pretty good until the end Saren happen. That was the biggest joke ever. I mean hardly could done worst than it was done. Terminator. It did not make any sense at all.

??

The transformation of a regular collector into a harbinger drone is exactly the same thing.

Not even close. Saren did full body change from flesh to metal based robot. Collector was just stronger in a hardbringer form, but still same body. What can be explain with adrenal rush, but Saren can't be explain at all. Dead "biological" body turning metal based terminator robot?.

did you not see the cybernetics implanted in him already, they obviously enhanced him with a reaper technology skeleton so that when he tried to disobey them or turn on them they could flip the switch and have a remote controlled entity.

[Lumikki]

So, what you say here is that Saren was Terminator. Too bad no-one noticed in Citadel council for years that they best Spectre was Terminator (robot).