10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect has none of this. When I choose between two assault rifles, it's a very simple matter of which does more damage/accuracy.

Like it is now,where the revenant is the best assault rifle.Like the widow is the best sniper rifle. Or the claymore is the best shotgun.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Because while inventory system itself was terrible, most of the other elements (except weapon mods) felt pointless. Picking up a new weapon never actually felt meaningful in the way that it should have. The same might be said of other RPG's, but stat bonuses and techniques like dual wielding can make the decision an important one. Mass Effect has none of this. When I choose between two assault rifles, it's a very simple matter of which does more damage/accuracy.

Just like in reality. And together with your Shepard's skills, it makes a difference. And if it doesn't matter enough, then the combat design and enemy AI has to be improved.

Plus, if ME 1 lacked bonuses and techniques, why not add more to the successor? Why instead cut out even more features?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 juillet 2010 - 11:48 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...
Name me an actual rpg where could skip what you understand under dungeons.

Planescape Torment, Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Deus Ex. All offer various ways to accomplish their goal whether through negotiations, entirely stealth, or information-gathering. Mass Effect's focus is entirely shifted to combat with the occasional distraction.

Then,TerrorK posting wasnt meant in a way that it was possible to skip entire fights completly.Just different ways to go through the game. Noveria offered that in more then one place. Virmire offered this too. Different routes,less or other enemies.

So combat or combat? Very much an expression in options. Other games have offered this to much higher degrees. As I've said, the issue is not whether Mass Effect 1 is closer to an RPG than Mass Effect 2, but the degree. However, some here are delusional if they think preferring Mass Effect gives them intellectual superiority.

Bringing Down the Sky. (avaoid the fight with the second command of ballack)
Something like this exist in MAss Effect but is not enough. The second lacks this completly.

So how to achieve the same goal with different means? Thane's loyalty mission where you are offered mulitple ways of interrogating the Prisoner. Pretty much any of Mass Effect 2's interrupt sequences can offer an 'option' of some kind.

All they had to do was to remove forced loot from enemies.Thats it. No one was forced to open lockers when they had the best equipment.

Your point is idiotic. "Inventory system was fine because you could avoid it" is what you're saying. If it was fine, players would not want to avoid it. Your point is also lost because if it's so easy to obtain the best equipment (as your mind seems to think), then what's the point in an inventory system at all? Mass Effect 2 is a blessing since you can avoid this completely.

[Il Divo]

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...
Just like in reality. And together with your Shepard's skills, it makes a difference.
[/quote]

If you're going to make points regarding reality, I recommend you don't do it while trying to defend Mass Effect where there is no carrying capacity, where I'm somehow magically forced to pick up every weapon I come across, and where I'm somehow able to alter the state of my gun in combat. If you're looking for any sort of realism, it won't come from any Bioware game. Gameplay is not story, don't mix the two up.

[quote]
And if it doesn't matter enough, then the combat design and enemy AI has to be improved. [/quote]

Plus, if ME 1 lacked bonuses and techniques, why not add more to the successor? Why instead cut out even more features?
[/quote]

If you think the enemy AI is the problem, you missed the issue. RPG's typically involve inventory systems to force players to make choices, both in terms of stats and styles often combining the two. In Dragon Age, it's not always so clear-cut what weapons to choose because some abilities rely on certain types of weapons, certain styles of fighting, etc.

Mass Effect, as I said, does not feature this. I use an assault rifle that does 174 damage the same way I use one which does 172 damage; it does not alter playstyle or mechanics, it simply has a different image and creates for very boring interest. It's why I said Mass Effect 2's inventory is the same as Mass Effect 1's because your playstyle never changes. One offers nigh infinite weapons while the other offers almost none, however your playstyle in both games remains static. Could they change this? Yes, but they chose not to. I personally don't mind, but I think it's unfair to hold the sequel to a standard you did not apply to the original.

[bjdbwea]

But I do hold the sequel to the same standards as the original. Absolutely.

Il Divo wrote...

If you're going to make points regarding reality, I recommend you don't do it while trying to defend Mass Effect where there is no carrying capacity, where I'm somehow magically forced to pick up every weapon I come across, and where I'm somehow able to alter the state of my gun in combat. If you're looking for any sort of realism, it won't come from any Bioware game. Gameplay is not story, don't mix the two up.

I agree. I would like to see a weight limit (as I said, it would easily solve the clunky inventory problem). I don't like to be forced to pick up everything. The thing is, those were already signs of dumbing down, as many previous BioWare games did not do that. But the "solution" to these problems created through dumbing down shouldn't be even more dumbing down, should it?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 juillet 2010 - 12:32 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Because it can be just as unrealistic and/or impractical. If you'd want to account for any additional inventory you'd have to be carrying a giant backpack all over the place. Not only that but I don't see why someone would want to carry such a large assortment of gear on a dangerous mission.

Yeah, soldiers often carry a lot of gear. I wouldn't mind a realistic portrayal. Other games did it too. I don't mind that Shepard is only able to carry one weapon of each type, but I do mind that the possible selection is so small, and that the buying and selling of stuff and the customization of weapons was removed. If this was only about the inventory being so clunky, surely the other stuff didn't need to be removed?

I can imagine soldiers carrying a lot of gear if they plan to do something for the long haul. I consider very few the missions in both games to classify as such. Then it comes down to whether or not it was a design decision to limit inventory access while in a mission.

Il Divo wrote...

Because while inventory system itself was
terrible, most of the other elements (except weapon mods) felt
pointless...

The game could auto-equip the best gear possible and it would literally be just the same as ME2. There was zero depth to it.

[Count Viceroy]

I like the 2nd one better than the 1st. So there. Nothings perfect.



/hide

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

I agree. I would like to see a weight limit (as I said, it would easily solve the clunky inventory problem). I don't like to be forced to pick up everything. The thing is, those were already signs of dumbing down, as many previous BioWare games did not do that. But the "solution" to these problems created through dumbing down shouldn't be even more dumbing down, should it?

Absolutely not, it is a terrible solution. But the reason I hold Mass Effect 2 higher than Mass Effect on this point is because Mass Effect 2 at least removes the illusion of depth, unlike its predecessor which provided useless upgrades. I don't view one as being a dumbed down version of the other because they still suffer from the same 'cancer' so to speak.

But no, this is not a good sign at all. The problem here though is that I don't think Bioware recognizes this as being the key problem. When they 'solved' the inventory of Mass Effect, they simply cut it out altogether. So the problem still remains: that the player needs a way to have their weaponry impact their playstyle to a higher degree. Dragon Age, Kotor, etc. all do this. I don't think Bioware understands that for Mass Effect.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 juillet 2010 - 02:30 .

[Mageofthedas2012]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I agree. I would like to see a weight limit (as I said, it would easily solve the clunky inventory problem). I don't like to be forced to pick up everything. The thing is, those were already signs of dumbing down, as many previous BioWare games did not do that. But the "solution" to these problems created through dumbing down shouldn't be even more dumbing down, should it?

Absolutely not, it is a terrible solution. But the reason I hold Mass Effect 2 higher than Mass Effect on this point is because Mass Effect 2 at least removes the illusion of depth, unlike its predecessor which provided useless upgrades. I don't view one as being a dumbed down version of the other because they still suffer from the same 'cancer' so to speak.

But no, this is not a good sign at all. The problem here though is that I don't think Bioware recognizes this as being the key problem. When they 'solved' the inventory of Mass Effect, they simply cut it out altogether. So the problem still remains: that the player needs a way to have their weaponry impact their playstyle to a higher degree. Dragon Age, Kotor, etc. all do this. I don't think Bioware understands that for Mass Effect.

I agree, my dragon age character is a mage but uses a sword, As in Mass Effect 2 we should be able to fight to our style there are 4 billionish people in the world, why do we have to be just like their soldier,biotic, etc......

[sevach]

What i dislike about Mass Effect 2 is that it doesn't provide enough roleplay opportunities, too often the missions are just, "go there and shoot everything that moves", there's no sense of investigation, figuring out what's going on and how to solve it, this makes things very repetitive.



Regarding the "inventory wars", i think that a system similar to the N7 armor would solve it.



For example, this barrel gives you a damage bonus, this other one improves heat dissipation, rate of fire... whatever.



You can choose which grip, barrel, scope etc... you're gonna use.



Oh and randomize the items, getting the same things at the same places is boring.

[Iakus]

[quote]sevach wrote...

What i dislike about Mass Effect 2 is that it doesn't provide enough roleplay opportunities, too often the missions are just, "go there and shoot everything that moves", there's no sense of investigation, figuring out what's going on and how to solve it, this makes things very repetitive.[/quote]

Agree 100%


[quote]
Regarding the "inventory wars", i think that a system similar to the N7 armor would solve it.

For example, this barrel gives you a damage bonus, this other one improves heat dissipation, rate of fire... whatever.

You can choose which grip, barrel, scope etc... you're gonna use.

Oh and randomize the items, getting the same things at the same places is boring.

[/quote]

This sounds a lot like what Alpha Protocol uses, and I found it to be a great system.  Many people here seem to reject it, though.  Possibly because it came from Alpha Protocol


[/quote]

[Lumikki]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I agree. I would like to see a weight limit (as I said, it would easily solve the clunky inventory problem). I don't like to be forced to pick up everything. The thing is, those were already signs of dumbing down, as many previous BioWare games did not do that. But the "solution" to these problems created through dumbing down shouldn't be even more dumbing down, should it?

Absolutely not, it is a terrible solution. But the reason I hold Mass Effect 2 higher than Mass Effect on this point is because Mass Effect 2 at least removes the illusion of depth, unlike its predecessor which provided useless upgrades. I don't view one as being a dumbed down version of the other because they still suffer from the same 'cancer' so to speak.

But no, this is not a good sign at all. The problem here though is that I don't think Bioware recognizes this as being the key problem. When they 'solved' the inventory of Mass Effect, they simply cut it out altogether. So the problem still remains: that the player needs a way to have their weaponry impact their playstyle to a higher degree. Dragon Age, Kotor, etc. all do this. I don't think Bioware understands that for Mass Effect.

Yes, good customation and variety is really nice to have. How ever, ONLY when it actually means something.

Example I play at the moment Kotor 1 and it's full of JUNK items and useless skill. Little bit same what ME1 had. ME2 removed all the junk items and most of the useless skills. How ever, it did simplify it little too much. How ever, I do like better choises what actually matters than just ILLUSION of choises, like ME1 and Kotor have.

Example I play at the moment Kotor 1 as Jedi sentinel and I have shopining list. In that list is 8 items. That's right I buy 8 item from shops in hole gameplay of Kotor 1. Why? Because in reality I don't need any other items they sell. So, I just basicly loot everyting and sell them for money (credits), so that I can buy those 8 items. I also have totally ignored almost two skill and could actually do that for almost 3 skill from choise of total 8 skill in game. Why? Because you don't really need them in the game at all.

My point is that choises what aren't needed by gameplay aren't really choises at all. Choises in skills and customation need to mean someting for player. That's why people talk in ME1 the junk items, because they where no real choises. Real choises affects players gameplay so that player notice that affect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 juillet 2010 - 04:59 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

But it's what defines an RPG. There are plenty of games out there that have roleplaying factors such as giving you choice and allowing you to shape events and the story, such as It Came From The Desert, Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain to name a few, but these aren't RPGs because they have no statistical ruleset or experienced-based progression system and allow you to develop your character beyond dialogue choices.

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.

If DOOM suddenly claimed to be an RPG it wouldn't be one. You seem to be one of those people who think that an RPG is defined by character rather than by rules, which I guess we'll just have to disagree with. Though I prefer RPGs that do allow player choice and shaping of their character, which is why I too generally dislike most JRPGs as well.

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"?

I would be unhappy. But I would be fine with things if they made their mainstream RPG-lite games along side their deeper ones. In fact, I encourage it. It would stop them watering down their existing IPs just to appeal to the mainstream to make their dosh. That's why I thought that if they wanted to make a game that was mostly shooter like ME2 turned out to be they should have made it a seperate game instead of a Mass Effect title.

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.

I don't think ME1 is a really deep RPG, and have always thought of it as "RPG-Lite" but then I never expected it to be completely deep since it's a hybrid. I did think the balance in ME1 was better though, as I've said. And it's not about how long it takes to make the character, but that I felt where I spent my points and in which order mattered in ME1 while it didn't in ME2. I could also build different styles of character within the same class, while each class in ME2 is pretty much the same no matter what I do.

Also, at least in ME1 you needed to take a tech-based class with you to hack, decrypt, etc. which was akin to needing a theif/rogue with you to unlock chests, set traps, etc. in a fantasy RPG. That was thrown out the window with ME2.

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?

I've said I already admit that ME1 isn't a really deep RPG in the same vein as Baldur's Gate or even KotOR. But that doesn't mean that ME1 wasn't deeper than RPG. Even not being that much higher up the totem still is higher. And at least ME1 did have some non-combat skills, such as hacking, decryption, electronics, first aid, persuasion, 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.

Again, slightly better than its retarded brother is still slightly better. And that makes all the difference. At least Mass Effect 1 tried to be an RPG, while ME2 tries its darndest not to. And ME1's inventory system may have been bad, but it was better than ME2's non-existent one with a horribly item-devoid assortment of linear weapons that can't be modded, can be upgraded fully without any trade-offs easily and are always found in the same places. Not to mention armour that doesn't even act like armour and the complete removal of omni-tools and biotic amps. On top of it all what's there doesn't even have any visible stats for comparison, making the whole system essentially a watered-down shooter one (and that's saying something considering the CoD series and Hitman: Blood Money even have items with stats and better modding and they aren't even RPGs).
 

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.

Noveria. There are at least half a dozen ways to get a garage pass there for one, each which result in different outcomes and vary in how much XP you earn and how fast you do it, as well as how many combat encounters you have. Then later on at Peak 15 you can either fight your way through the back area to get straight to Benezia, or talk your way through the long way by investigating some more and getting the cure for Dr. Cohen, etc. This also has avoidable combat encounters, in both paths.

On Feros you can just charge through and wipe out the infected colonists or you can stop off and get the thorian grenade gas to do it peacefully and save them.

On Virmire you can help Captain Kirrahe and his team by taking out optional targets along the way, or you can simply charge through the middle, avoiding battles at either side and avoding more enemies just inside the breeding labs if you're willing to sacrifice Kirrahe and the salarians.

There... that's four examples, and that's more than you get throughout the entirety of ME2. The only variations there are dialogue-based, and even then these are only usually at the very end of each mission, so they really only change the result and even then only on the surface. They don't offer alternate paths at all, with no choices ever being more efficient or netting you more XP, etc.

Modifié par Terror_K, 22 juillet 2010 - 05:32 .

[Project Xanatos]

Not being able to take of your helmet whenever you want. That's the only disappointment.

[SSV Enterprise]

Terror_K wrote...

Noveria. There are at least half a dozen ways to get a garage pass there for one, each which result in different outcomes and vary in how much XP you earn and how fast you do it, as well as how many combat encounters you have. Then later on at Peak 15 you can either fight your way through the back area to get straight to Benezia, or talk your way through the long way by investigating some more and getting the cure for Dr. Cohen, etc. This also has avoidable combat encounters, in both paths.

On Feros you can just charge through and wipe out the infected colonists or you can stop off and get the thorian grenade gas to do it peacefully and save them.

On Virmire you can help Captain Kirrahe and his team by taking out optional targets along the way, or you can simply charge through the middle, avoiding battles at either side and avoding more enemies just inside the breeding labs if you're willing to sacrifice Kirrahe and the salarians.

There... that's four examples, and that's more than you get throughout the entirety of ME2. The only variations there are dialogue-based, and even then these are only usually at the very end of each mission, so they really only change the result and even then only on the surface. They don't offer alternate paths at all, with no choices ever being more efficient or netting you more XP, etc.

Mordin's recruitment.  Giving medigel to the sick batarian and finding a human couple, telling them to head to the clinic.

Zaeed's loyalty.  Choosing to either go after Vido or save the factory workers.  Note that unlike any of the ME1 examples you cited, this choice of action also results in two different endings for the whole mission.

Kasumi's loyalty.  Either using trickery to make the guard let you in to Hock's room, or sneaking in through a window.

Garrus' recruitment.  Hacking in to the heavy mech and sabotaging the gunship, which actually has a tangible effect on fights later on.

Tali's recruitment.  Letting Kal'Reegar continue fighting the geth Colossus or telling him to sit this one out.  The former choice can cause Kal to die.

There.  You wanted alternate choices that effect the mission, there you have it.

[Terror_K]

[quote]SSV Enterprise wrote...

Mordin's recruitment.  Giving medigel to the sick batarian and finding a human couple, telling them to head to the clinic.[/quote]

Doesn't effect the main mission really and doesn't net you any extra XP or let you avoid a fight. These are more like mini sidequests attached to the main one.

[quote]
Zaeed's loyalty.  Choosing to either go after Vido or save the factory workers.  Note that unlike any of the ME1 examples you cited, this choice of action also results in two different endings for the whole mission.[/quote]
[/quote]

I'll give you this, but note that it's a DLC sidequest. And both options still give you the same XP and can get you Zaeed's loyalty (admittedly it takes more for a Paragon to do it though). And while the examples I gave didn't result in different endings (though the Zhu's Hope colony surviving or not does have repercussions, as does letting Shiala live or die or sacrificing Kirrahe, etc.) things like The Rachni Queen, Kaidan vs. Ashley on Virmire, and how persuasive you are with Saren can.

[quote]
Kasumi's loyalty.  Either using trickery to make the guard let you in to Hock's room, or sneaking in through a window.[/quote]

Also DLC. Also doesn't result in altered XP, avoid fights or not or really change the outcome of anything. It's a classic case of a different means to the exact same end.

[quote]
Garrus' recruitment.  Hacking in to the heavy mech and sabotaging the gunship, which actually has a tangible effect on fights later on.[/quote]

Partial credit. Doesn't really avoid a fight... just makes it easier. If doing so meant you avoided a fight entirely and/or Garrus didn't get ****ed up and looked normal throughout the rest of the game then I'd agree. Also doesn't net any more or less XP.

[quote]
Tali's recruitment.  Letting Kal'Reegar continue fighting the geth Colossus or telling him to sit this one out.  The former choice can cause Kal to die.[/quote]

Partial credit. I'll even give you bonus points here for something you didn't mention: Kal'Reegar's death determines his presence at Tali's trial or not. Again though, doesn't avoid any fights and doesn't give you more or less XP. This is more akin to the likes of choosing to kill Fist or not, choosing to get Conrad Verner killed, shooting or letting Wrex live, etc. than anything else.
[/quote]

[Shotokanguy]

tonnactus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect has none of this. When I choose between two assault rifles, it's a very simple matter of which does more damage/accuracy.

Like it is now,where the revenant is the best assault rifle.Like the widow is the best sniper rifle. Or the claymore is the best shotgun.

Aww, 300 pages so I decide to just READ the 300th page and right off the bat I see a stupid comment.

How is ME1's system comparable to ME2? Only ONE character can get the Revenant. And you only get ONE of that super weapon. And even then, there are still people who prefer the Vindicator.

Now I'll read the rest of that page.

[Shotokanguy]

Terror_K wrote...

 And ME1's inventory system may have been bad, but it was better than ME2's non-existent one with a horribly item-devoid assortment of linear weapons that can't be modded, can be upgraded fully without any trade-offs easily and are always found in the same places.

So you'd rather have someone give you a pile of dog **** for dinner instead of nothing?

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

But it's what defines an RPG...

It certainly is for some. But don't forgot what RPG actually stands for: Role-playing game.

One doesn't take the broad definition of that to apply it to every game - since you can do the same thing for every game - but you compare the quality and depth of roleplaying to every game. This is why, even if you take the combat out of both of the games, I'd consider DA:O much different than Heavy Rain.

The problem with Mass Effect is that I can't say the same. There's very little to the role-playing due to how heavily railed it is: You Shepard, no matter what. Your goal is to defeat the Reapers, no matter what. But the trade-off is having a much more cinematic approach, which can be just as enjoyable regardless of the loss of immersion.

This is of course from the standpoint of when who puts little emphasis on the mechanics regarding combat performance, hence why many didn't consider ME1 an RPG in the firstplace.

Terror_K wrote...

If DOOM suddenly claimed to be an RPG it wouldn't be one. You seem to be one of those people who think that an RPG is defined by character rather than by rules, which I guess we'll just have to disagree with.

Exactly. You have full reing to disagree with it, but you still have to respect it.

Terror_K wrote...

I've said I already admit that ME1 isn't a really deep RPG in the same vein as Baldur's Gate or even KotOR. But that doesn't mean that ME1 wasn't deeper than RPG. Even not being that much higher up the totem still is higher.

Doesn't matter if a glass is 10% full or 15% full, it's still pretty empty to me.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

If DOOM suddenly claimed to be an RPG it wouldn't be one. You seem to be one of those people who think that an RPG is defined by character rather than by rules, which I guess we'll just have to disagree with.

Exactly. You have full reing to disagree with it, but you still have to respect it.

I find it hard to do that, because this is a new concept that's only come up in the last few years, thanks to the shift in direction of RPGs more towards story and character and the greater degree of hybrid RPGs, as well as other games that use RPG elements. Back when Baldur's Gate came out, or even as late as NWN coming out, you never got people confusing what an RPG was and wasn't. Everybody knew it was the statistical ruleset that defined an RPG. Because you can have an RPG without actual roleplaying or strong narrative, but you can't have one without a ruleset and statistical progression system. Many early CRPGs had next to no actual roleplaying and were simply about building your character stat-wise and improving them via progression in an extremely linear quest, etc. and nobody was confused about them being RPGs and nobody was saying they weren't because they didn't have roleplaying and were essentially making numbers go up. Nowadays we have people confusing RPGs for Adventure games and action games that have a story, or anything that has you roleplaying a character and being able to make decisions that change the outcome of things ahead.

So, I'd like to respect the viewpoint, but I have a hard time doing so when much of what today's gamers see as being an RPG is born through ignorance and taking the name of the genre too much at face value. I'm not saying these elements aren't common in RPGs, and I'm not saying they don't make them good, because I agree that they do, and my favourite RPGs consist of them (which is why I don't tend to like JRPGs) but they are not elements that define an RPG, as they are not necessary and can be found easily in non-RPG genres. To me it's like saying a car is defined by having a stereo just because most cars do, despite the fact that there are some cars that don't and there are things that aren't cars that also have stereos. A car doesn't need a stereo to be a car, and an RPG doesn't need roleplaying elements to be an RPG, so these factors don't define them.

Doesn't matter if a glass is 10% full or 15% full, it's still pretty empty to me.

That may be so, but I look at it more like this: there are a lot of elements in the games, and rather than it being a case of ME1 being 15% and ME2 being 10% overall it's more like each seperate element is a certain percentage.

For example, something like this (these are just examples, btw, not actual accurate percentages, so bear with me and nobody start going "but ME# was more like X% than Y%!"):-

ME1 Combat = 20% RPG
ME2 Combat = 10% RPG

ME1 Items = 30% RPG
ME2 Items = 10% RPG

ME1 Progression = 20% RPG
ME2 Progression = 10% RPG

ME1Total RPG = 70%
ME2 Total RPG = 30%

So while it may seem like there isn't much of a gap when you compare individual elements, the more elements that suffer the greater the cap becomes.

In either case, if one agrees that ME2 is a lesser RPG, then why defend it? Why defend the dumbing-down even if you think it's minimal? Or do you honestly believe that ME2 is a better game for its simplification?

[Repellerar]

Can't remember if I posted here earlier but it doesn't matter. I was disappointed with ME2. I didn't feel like I had achieved anything from playing ME1, it was like I played a completely new game, exaggeration of course but still. What bugs me are things like, why can't I walk around in Presidium? Why can't I visit the places I've come to love?

I loved the feeling of being able to walk everywhere I wanted to go. I don't feel as attached to the world as I did in ME1. It's still a great game, don't get me wrong, but after several play-troughs with both games I've come to notice these things.

Modifié par Repellerar, 22 juillet 2010 - 11:52 .

[bjdbwea]

Oh yes, the Citadel. Everyone would have understood if they had just used the old levels and filled it with new people and things. After all, why would the space station change? It'd be the perfect excuse to reuse existing assets. And since it is obvious that they had to work within a (too) short time frame, that would have made even more sense, as it would have saved time too. Instead they throw it all away and create completely new (much less impressive and interesting) levels for the Citadel. These are the things I really don't understand, because they don't even make sense within the new parameters BioWare/EA apparently set for their games.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 juillet 2010 - 01:30 .

[Pocketgb]

There's a lot I could've said to that huge portion of your post, but I need only direct you to this:

Terror_K wrote...

A car doesn't need a stereo to be a car, and an RPG doesn't need roleplaying elements to be an RPG, so these factors don't define them.

"A role-playing game doesn't need role-playing elements to be a role-playing game." Without the abreviations, that's what you've just said.

Can you now understand why so many would disagree with you? Can you comprehend that people have different wants, needs, and preferences when it comes to the word "role-playing game"?

But you are right: RPGs weren't known for actual role-playing. That's when Bioware came and gave us Baldur's Gate. That's where things changed, that's where standards were set, that's why so many other developers are basing their games off of the concepts Bioware have pioneered.

That's why people who actually enjoy role-playing are able to find enjoyment in Bioware's games: Because Bioware provided it for us. I'm no longer just a 'hero' set on the path set for me, I'm actually talking to people, making conversations, finding friendship, falling in love - ALL in a video game. More specifically, a Bioware game.

Terror_K wrote...

In either case, if one agrees that ME2 is a lesser RPG, then why defend it? Why defend the dumbing-down even if you think it's minimal? Or do you honestly believe that ME2 is a better game for its simplification?

If you view the mechanics from the prequel as poor then yes, it's definitely better. It's removing more pickles from my sandwhich.



But I don't hate on people for like pickles at all.
It sure is irritating when they pick on me, though...

[Lumikki]

You still argue about RPG?

One is talking about traditional RPG and one is talking about people roleplaying in games. These are two totally different thing. Because traditional RPG means more like D&D, while roleplaying can be just taking role in story. Roleplaying as consept is alot wider than some RPG.

ME1 is more RPG than ME2. That's fact.

Is ME1 how ever better roleplaying game, is other question. Because RPG doesn't mean it's better at roleplaying. In my opinion ME1 is little better in roleplaying, but not because traditional RPG, but because less combat focus gameplay.

Now the question is why to hell some of you people think Mass Effect serie would be better with more traditional RPG? I think main style of Mass Effects is cinematic action story telling where player takes role. I don't see how Mass Effect can become better with adding traditional RPG?

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 juillet 2010 - 02:49 .