Terror_K wrote...
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.
No, it does not mean almost any game. If there is no role-playing, then a game is not an RPG, hence why games like Warcraft are such failures. Statistical progression has no value if there is no choice and by extension roleplaying. As I explained before, numerical statistics are the lowest form of RPG. They offer the player choices only in how they impact combat with no regards to character personality, emotion, or backstory.
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.
If it claims to be an RPG, then it is trying to be an RPG, no? And if this is the case, then WoW is an absolute failure where there is little to no character-focus, story value, or player choice impacting the world. It's why I find the notion of Jrpg's funny. It's intended to denote a different style but all it really means is that they ignore player choice, character creation, in the place of statistical combat.
Underlined: Not even sure what this means. Mass Effect did plenty well to not be a statistical RPG already. Your point still seems to be that Mass Effect 2 is bad because its a sequel. This isn't comfort to a Bioware fan. If they announced that they were only making first person shooters from now on, are you comforted because it might be a "separate series"?
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.
Italics: I never felt the need to spend hours "building my character", largely because most options were worthless (1% pistol damage yet again). This is still you pointing out Mass Effect 2 is dumbed down while pretending
that Mass Effect is Calculus. "I spent 3 minutes creating my Mass Effect 2 character." "Well, I spent 5 minutes creating my Mass Effect character!" Pretending that one is substantially higher than the other is an exercise in futility.
Bold: And you just did a wonderful job of describing Mass Effect. Play an Adapt or Sentinel and we'll talk about the pointlessness of the soldier class. You're basically just describing all of Bioware's failures by entering player skill into the factor. The minute that happened, combat classes became dumbed down. If you want a return to the days of the Fight-Mage-Thief breakup, you're going to have to go back alot further than Mass Effect to find it.
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.
As others have pointed out, Mass Effect can be beaten with no talent points allocated. It's an exercise in stupidity, but it's possible. Here's an equivalent comparison: Mass Effect is instant gratification. All my options focus around combat (even tech options) and there is absolutely no skill system. Compare this to Kotor where my character coudl use skill points to solve scenarios in alternate ways.
Are you starting to understand why Mass Effect is not that much higher up the totem pole?
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.
Again, if this is your approach to the Mass Effect 2 debate, how have you shown that Mass Effect is a deep and meaningful experience? All you're demonstrating by this is that Mass Effect is "slightly better than its retarded brother" which isn't necessarily very intelligent to begin with. Mass Effect's inventory system was absolutely terrible; there were far too many items and not a single one felt unique. A good RPG does not make you cringe with fright when you pick up a new toy.
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.
No, I'm afraid it didn't. Name one instance that Mass Effect allowed you to avoid an entire combat dungeon and Mass Effect 2 did not. Everytime I go to Feros, I must fight the Geth; the same with Noveria, Virmire, and Artemis Tau.
Everything in Mass Effect was the same every playthrough. If I make a ruthless Spacer Soldier, my game will play out exactly the same my first round or my second round. The game does not change
at all. You're still only offering generalizations. I'd like some specific examples.
Modifié par Il Divo, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:48 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
Can I avoid fighting the Geth on Feros?
