10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

What reputation? Most people didnt know who he is until he/she mentioned it.

You mean beyond every freakin' npc calling Shepard the "Saviour of the Citadel"? Are you mad? Do you honestly think being a sole-survivor, or whatever even remotely compares to saving the center of galactic civilization from geth/reapers? You moved on to bigger and better things. There's a reason Jacob calls you the Alliance Poster Boy.

Hint: It wasn't Akuze or Torfan. It was saving the Citadel.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


You mean beyond every freakin' npc calling Shepard the "Saviour of the Citadel"? 

What? Human security officer didnt knew and wanted to arrest shepardt.Shopowners :"Shepardt.Are,this shepardt"
They didnt know how shepardt look and who he is,like the asari who shepardt help to get a flight to tessia. So what reputation do you mean?

Modifié par tonnactus, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:28 .

[Il Divo]

They didnt know how shepardt look and who he is,like the asari who shepardt help to get a flight to tessia. So what reputation do you mean?

Oh, I'm only talking about the reputation of Shepard, first human spectre and saviour of the Citadel which, for the record is why Illusive Man resurrected him in the first place, calling him humanity's "only hope". The same human Spectre that we learn through Jacob was the "Alliance Poster Boy" for six months and who even has a scholarship named after him. The same Shepard whom Aria immediately picks out upon landing on Omega and whom the warden on Purgatory considers valuable enough to be worth kidnapping. And the same Shepard whose entire crew stares at him with awe. That Shepard is the one to whom I'm referring.   

Torfan was great. I loved Torfan. Unfortunately, it's in the past. Your "background mission" was a big deal back when you were just a Spectre. Shepard evolved past that. Torfan was nothing compared to stopping Saren, hence why no one refers to it.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Yes, I'm familiar with what happened. But I still find this to be an issue of semantics. "RPG" sounds better than "numbers game" or whatever term we could think of. This way, we can now corner those who are familiar with pen and paper, etc. But logically your conclusion suffers from errors. "World of Warcraft is a role-playing game where I cannot role-play." The conclusion is ultimately invalid.

You kind of can roleplay in WoW, but it's completely up to you. The problem is next to nobody does. Other MMO's can be better at this, but even then it's generally limited to the rare RP servers and is nowhere near as common as those who just care about grinding and getting "teh ultimatorz!!1 stuff!" etc.

Let me try explaining like this. Let's consider Dragon Age: Origins. Let's consider that dashing rogue you mentioned earlier.

Okay, so I'm role-playing a dashing Elven rogue. In conversation, I choose the most suave responses. I flirt, I'm charismatic, etc. People refer to me by my race/background.I can pick a lock like nobody's business. I'm good with a dagger, etc. Okay, so let's get to combat. What happens? I go into stealth. I'm role-playing a rogue entering a stealth, I sneak up behind my enemy, I stab him, stun him, pickpocket, etc.Whatever it is rogues do, I do. And I feel like a rogue.  

Now, perhaps I was harsh in saying numbers have no relevance to a role-playing game. It's true that if there's no role-playing then it can't be a role-playing game, but if it is a role-playing game then attributes, skills, feats, etc. are useful. And I'll show you why by comparing this to Mass Effect.

Okay, so I'm now role-playing an Engineer. In conversation, I choose...? I'm not sure. The most...suave options? Not really. The most...technical options? Again, not possible. Well, in combat I have tech skills! I'm role-playing an Engineer! But not really, because it never translates to anything beyond Commander Shepard. Perhaps you see what I am now getting at.

Gameplay, statistics, etc should be designed so that I still feel like I am role-playing. When I stealth, I feel like I am this Elven rogue. In Mass Effect, I am only an adapt when I'm in combat. I'm only an Engineer in combat, a soldier in combat, etc. Little details could have made this more believable; letting adapts use their powers to open containers, or use them during cut-scenes, etc. My Shepard is your Shepard is the guy in china's Shepard only paragon vs. renegade. The game makes absolutely no effort to turn my gameplay into a role-playing tool like other RPGs. 

This is why I think that Mass Effect offering more "RPG-esque gameplay" than Mass Effect 2 is an illusion. Just take a look at your skills as a soldier: shotgun, pistol, assault rifle, first aid, ...intimidate? Where did that come from? Mass Effect basically threw the only 'skill' in the game along with combat which served no useful purpose.  Ultimately Mass Effect 1 and 2 make absolutely no effort to turn my most basic playstyle decisions into a role-playing tool.

While I agree with what you say to a certain degree, when I say that 'the RPG elements have been dumbed down" and that I want them back or them to have more depth, I'm referring to the statistical stuff and not roleplaying stuff.

That said, I would like some more roleplaying stuff as well. At least the original Mass Effect had non-combat skills, and tech classes were needed to unlock containers and hack terminals, etc. while ME2 got rid of that entirely. I've said since shortly after ME1 that it would be nice to have dialogue options where only a biotic or tech-based class could respond in certain matters (e.g. a biotic would have some knowledge about a strong biotic opponent's limitations and suggest an alternative, or a techie would know how to bypass a particularly tricky lock, or a soldier may have knowledge about a particular weapon, etc.). This would be really nice, since Mass Effect can't really have things like Wisdom or Cunning effecting dialogue. Biotic or tech-based interrupts would be neat too as options beyond just Paragon or Renegade (for example, the very first interrupt with Veetor where you used your omni-tool could have easily been made as an Engineer/Sentinel/Infiltrator only interrupt).

[zazei]

Even if the background things doesn't matter to the galaxy they should matter to Shepard but apparently it doesn't even do that. Akuze and Mindoir is all but forgotten and Shepard can't even find the time to write back or get in touch when her own mother calls and ask why she never let her know she was still alive after coming back.

One thing beyond those that bothers me about the two games now that I replay the first one is that Shepard herself seems quite inconsistant in her behavior between the two games. My regengade Shepard in the first game was someone that took a ruthless path when it came to putting down criminals and normally put a bullet in the head of mad scientists doing highly unethical things instead of arresting them. Thats how she lead the charge on Torfan and that's why the Cerberus scientist ended up dead.

In Mass effect 2 the reneagde option when meeting similar characters seems to be to agree with their behavior and let them get on with their work (Overlord) instead of ruthlessly putting a stop to their activities. In the first game my Shepard also rather believed in the anti alien views and argued with Kaidan that turians was Imperialistic and couldn't be trusted. Any alien on my ship like Tali was there because of orders from higher up or where temporary allies and got killed like Wrex. Garrus however was never recruited and was left behind at C-Sec. In Me2 though these characters are suddernly best of friends and the anti alien comments despite working for a pro-human organisation has somehow vanished. Also being a criminal rather then punishing them seems to be the new thing for renegades.

Despite looks and brilliant voice acting of Jennifer Hale I have some accepting that it's the same character between the games since what was renegade in one game is something else in the next.

Modifié par zazei, 27 juillet 2010 - 06:40 .

[zazei]

Double post, sorry.

Modifié par zazei, 27 juillet 2010 - 06:39 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

You kind of can roleplay in WoW, but it's completely up to you. The problem is next to nobody does....

Only if you compare to the majority. The most fun I've ever had with an MMO was in a WoW RP server. Many of them are still pretty heftily populated.

Terror_K wrote...

That said, I would like some more roleplaying stuff as well. At least the original Mass Effect had non-combat skills, and tech classes were needed to unlock containers and hack terminals, etc. while ME2 got rid of that entirely.

Remember the threads in the DA:O forums where people were annoyed at having to bring a Rogue *just* for chests? We'd be going back to that. Middle ground needs to formulate.

[Jebel Krong]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

That said, I would like some more roleplaying stuff as well. At least the original Mass Effect had non-combat skills, and tech classes were needed to unlock containers and hack terminals, etc. while ME2 got rid of that entirely.

Remember the threads in the DA:O forums where people were annoyed at having to bring a Rogue *just* for chests? We'd be going back to that. Middle ground needs to formulate.

i hated in me1 taking people i hated (tali) just so i could open locked boxes - that wasn't RP that was retarded.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...


While I agree with what you say to a certain degree, when I say that 'the RPG elements have been dumbed down" and that I want them back or them to have more depth, I'm referring to the statistical stuff and not roleplaying stuff.

That said, I would like some more roleplaying stuff as well. At least the original Mass Effect had non-combat skills, and tech classes were needed to unlock containers and hack terminals, etc. while ME2 got rid of that entirely. I've said since shortly after ME1 that it would be nice to have dialogue options where only a biotic or tech-based class could respond in certain matters (e.g. a biotic would have some knowledge about a strong biotic opponent's limitations and suggest an alternative, or a techie would know how to bypass a particularly tricky lock, or a soldier may have knowledge about a particular weapon, etc.). This would be really nice, since Mass Effect can't really have things like Wisdom or Cunning effecting dialogue. Biotic or tech-based interrupts would be neat too as options beyond just Paragon or Renegade (for example, the very first interrupt with Veetor where you used your omni-tool could have easily been made as an Engineer/Sentinel/Infiltrator only interrupt).

yes and an infiltrator could just stealth etc etc but that would mean making the same cut-scene how many different ways to represent all the classes? do that and you'd end up with a very short game given the dev cycle... at the end of the day, RPing has to be balanced with what is technically feasible, and your brain can fill in the rest.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

That said, I would like some more roleplaying stuff as well. At least the original Mass Effect had non-combat skills, and tech classes were needed to unlock containers and hack terminals, etc. while ME2 got rid of that entirely.

Remember the threads in the DA:O forums where people were annoyed at having to bring a Rogue *just* for chests? We'd be going back to that. Middle ground needs to formulate.

And how many of these people who complained were true RPG fans? This was par for the course for Baldur's Gate, NWN and pretty much any D&D-based RPG. Same with many fantasy RPGs that weren't. Too many players who want everything to be easy, want instant gratification and don't want to have the limits and restrictions that an RPG should put on you because of all the action games that don't have it. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it too, they want their character to be unrestricted and be able to do everything, and they whine as soon as any limits are put in place. And they're playing the wrong genre if this is the case. I'm sick of seeing RPGs getting dumbed-down and simplified because of all the casual gamers out there who don't like the mechanics. That's the point of being a rogue and a thief and part of their identity, and you take that away and allow any class to just do it without limitation and you not only take away depth and restriction but part of what makes a rogue a rogue. The same applies with Mass Effect and its tech classes. It's the same principle.

And ME2 is hardly the middle ground: ME1 was closer to that. ME2 caters far too much for the type of gamer I listed above who doesn't want depth or restriction and just wants everything to fall into their lap. Heck... for ME3, let's just give every class access to biotic powers while we're at it!

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 juillet 2010 - 08:51 .

[Massadonious1]

Specialists aren't that special when they are brought for a singular purpose. There needs to be more than just chests and lockers with crappy, subpar and repeating loot that would make bringing a rogue/thief archetype a good idea. It works in Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights for this very reason.



Not to mention, in limited parties, such as Mass Effect's 3 person setups, it hinders roleplay. Say there was a mission to the Turian homeworld in the orignial. If I'm not an engineer type, I have to decide between bringing someone that could appreciate such a mission or otherwise have extra diaolgue or affect the story of said mission, like a Garrus or a Wrex.....or someone that can play simon says with a locker, on the off chance that something useful is inside.



"Mechanics" should never get in the way of actual role playing. Something people apparently want, but not when it gets in the way of their own rigid definitions of the genre.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Specialists aren't that special when they are brought for a singular purpose. There needs to be more than just chests and lockers with crappy, subpar and repeating loot that would make bringing a rogue/thief archetype a good idea. It works in Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights for this very reason.

Not to mention, in limited parties, such as Mass Effect's 3 person setups, it hinders roleplay. Say there was a mission to the Turian homeworld in the orignial. If I'm not an engineer type, I have to decide between bringing someone that could appreciate such a mission or otherwise have extra diaolgue or affect the story of said mission, like a Garrus or a Wrex.....or someone that can play simon says with a locker, on the off chance that something useful is inside.

"Mechanics" should never get in the way of actual role playing. Something people apparently want, but not when it gets in the way of their own rigid definitions of the genre.

Except that Garrus is part tech...

I find it hard to believe that every non-tech Shepard wouldn't at least like one of the three (that's half the companions there!) of the potential tag-alongs. And it's not like that's all they were good for (Garrus was killer with a sniper rifle, Tali murderous with a shotgun, etc.).

The thing is this aspect doesn't get in the way of role-playing at all. Quite the opposite. It makes no sense for a soldier Shepard with no tech-skills whatsoever to be able to so easily hack, decrypt, etc. every terminal, door, crate or eletronic object he/she comes across. That gets in the way of roleplaying as far as I'm concerned. The reason I play different classes each time is to try something new each time. If I can just do everything without hinderance with any character then what's the point playing another? What's the point in even having supposedly well-defined classes with their own abilities if they're not even that special beyond different ways of killing things and that's all?

You say "specialists aren't that special if they are brought for a singular purpose" but the truth is that specialists aren't special when they cease to be specialists because any fool of any class can do what they're supposed to be specialists at.

And if you want to get the different dialogue in that example you gave you either go back when the job is done or get it in a different playthrough. That's what multiple playthroughs are for.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 juillet 2010 - 09:22 .

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...
Except that Garrus is part tech...

Yes, I realize that. I was about to change the analogy to Earth, but I hoped people would be able to grasp the point regardless.

Terror_K wrote...
I find it hard to believe that every non-tech Shepard wouldn't at least like one of the three (that's half the companions there!) of the potential tag-alongs. And it's not like that's all they were good for (Garrus was killer with a sniper rifle, Tali murderous with a shotgun, etc.).

It's more than just combat combinations, (though that's the only reason I never took Tali anywhere) I just feel obligated to take someone because I feel their only redeeming access is picking locks. I didn't mind it so much in DA:O, as both Leiliana and Zevran were outstanding characters that I WANTED to take along, but if they weren't, I shouldn't feel guilted into thinking I might miss out on something if I don't bring them. I'd sooner bring a Mage or a DW Warrior if I wanted pure DPS.

Terror_K wrote...
The thing is this aspect doesn't get in the way of role-playing at all. Quite the opposite. It makes no sense for a soldier Shepard with no tech-skills whatsoever to be able to so easily hack, decrypt, etc. every terminal, door, crate or eletronic object he/she comes across.

It does to me. Mages having a "lockpick" spell, and fighters/warriors being able to bash (with limited success) has been around since before the concept of stuffing a D&D campaign into a video game was ever concieved of. Why should it now be restricted?

Quite frankly, I would settle for a KOTOR type system, or even a reduced chance, or basically anything that would make opening said lockers or chests harder without a rogue archetype. I want options. However, in the abscence of such a system, I'd prefer it not revert to how it was, regardless of how whether it would help others label the game or not.

Terror_K wrote...
And if you want to get the different dialogue in that example you gave you either go back when the job is done or get it in a different playthrough. That's what multiple playthroughs are for.

That's metagaming, and it's not the same.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 27 juillet 2010 - 09:59 .

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is this aspect doesn't get in the way of role-playing at all. Quite the opposite. It makes no sense for a soldier Shepard with no tech-skills whatsoever to be able to so easily hack, decrypt, etc. every terminal, door, crate or eletronic object he/she comes across.

It does to me. Mages having a "lockpick" spell, and fighters/warriors being able to bash (with limited success) has been around since before the concept of stuffing a D&D campaign into a video game was ever concieved of. Why should it now be restricted?

But that's not how it's done in Mass Effect. In the examples you gave usually there was a chance of items being damaged with the warrior bashing it and/or not all chests/doors could be opened via that method, or they'd need a weapon good enough to do it. Often they'd also have to pass a strength test to succeed, though admittedly they could make repeat attempts until success, assuming success was possible. With the mage example it was a spell they'd have to learn, and not a low-level one either, with limited uses per day, etc.

In either case, the point is that the other classes had to still work for it in some manner and were still restricted more than the class that was designed to do it. This isn't the case in ME2, where you just get handed everything on a silver platter no matter what and class or skill doesn't effect it at all. This just makes it cheap and shallow, and almost pointless.

Quite frankly, I would settle for a KOTOR type system, or even a reduced chance, or basically anything that would make opening said lockers or chests harder without a rogue archetype. I want options. However, in the abscence of such a system, I'd prefer it not revert to how it was, regardless of how whether it would help others label the game or not.

I'd prefer that too. At least the former anyway. If they aren't going to do that, I'd actually prefer it to revert back to the ME1 manner to be honest. But, yes... having it so that it would be somehow harder for non-tech classes would be good too. Even just giving them less time or more things to do (or even both) would be better than just a bunch of meaningless minigames tied to nothing whatsoever.

[bjdbwea]

zazei wrote...

Even if the background things doesn't matter to the galaxy they should matter to Shepard but apparently it doesn't even do that. Akuze and Mindoir is all but forgotten and Shepard can't even find the time to write back or get in touch when her own mother calls and ask why she never let her know she was still alive after coming back.

One thing beyond those that bothers me about the two games now that I replay the first one is that Shepard herself seems quite inconsistant in her behavior between the two games. My regengade Shepard in the first game was someone that took a ruthless path when it came to putting down criminals and normally put a bullet in the head of mad scientists doing highly unethical things instead of arresting them. Thats how she lead the charge on Torfan and that's why the Cerberus scientist ended up dead.

In Mass effect 2 the reneagde option when meeting similar characters seems to be to agree with their behavior and let them get on with their work (Overlord) instead of ruthlessly putting a stop to their activities. In the first game my Shepard also rather believed in the anti alien views and argued with Kaidan that turians was Imperialistic and couldn't be trusted. Any alien on my ship like Tali was there because of orders from higher up or where temporary allies and got killed like Wrex. Garrus however was never recruited and was left behind at C-Sec. In Me2 though these characters are suddernly best of friends and the anti alien comments despite working for a pro-human organisation has somehow vanished. Also being a criminal rather then punishing them seems to be the new thing for renegades.

Despite looks and brilliant voice acting of Jennifer Hale I have some accepting that it's the same character between the games since what was renegade in one game is something else in the next.

This. Exactly one of the reasons that more often than not I felt that ME 2 Shepard was not "my" Shepard anymore. In ME 1, renegade usually meant getting the job done efficiently. My Shepard could still be perfectly friendly to everyone else. In ME 2, it often comes down to the same old "look at me, I'm evil" thing that we see so often in other games.

You are also right about the rest. If we are working for Cerberus, there has to be a chance to agree with them. Don't get me wrong, I do not and my Shepard does not agree with them, but the possibility has to be there. That's what role playing means.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

And how many of these people who complained were true RPG fans?

Please stop this.

Terror_K wrote...

This was par for the course for Baldur's Gate, NWN and pretty much any D&D-based RPG.

Except in DA:O I can't bash a lock open. There's the difference.

I'm against giving every class being given lockpicking, but I'm all for giving every class a means to open a lock.

Terror_K wrote...


Too many players who want everything to be easy, want instant gratification and don't want to have the limits and restrictions that an RPG should put on you because of all the action games that don't have it. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it too, they want their character to be unrestricted and be able to do everything, and they whine as soon as any limits are put in place...

Hm, kind of how I felt about Immunity...

Terror_K wrote...

Heck... for ME3, let's just give every class access to biotic powers while we're at it!

I got that in ME1 with newgame+

Modifié par Pocketgb, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:59 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

Except in DA:O I can't bash a lock open. There's the difference.

I'm against giving every class being given lockpicking, but I'm all for giving every class a means to open a lock.

You can do that with mods for DA.

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...

This. Exactly one of the reasons that more often than not I felt that ME 2 Shepard was not "my" Shepard anymore. In ME 1, renegade usually meant getting the job done efficiently. My Shepard could still be perfectly friendly to everyone else. In ME 2, it often comes down to the same old "look at me, I'm evil" thing that we see so often in other games.

You are also right about the rest. If we are working for Cerberus, there has to be a chance to agree with them. Don't get me wrong, I do not and my Shepard does not agree with them, but the possibility has to be there. That's what role playing means.

no it isn't - there's a couple of pro-cerberus lines in there, but unless you are just determined to just click on the bottom right all the time regardless, the balance is almost identical to mass effect 1 - renegade shepard is generally the more efficient, get-to-the-point type of guy.

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Except in DA:O I can't bash a lock open. There's the difference.

I'm against giving every class being given lockpicking, but I'm all for giving every class a means to open a lock.

You can do that with mods for DA. 

relying on mods to customise the game to your liking doesn't count.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:00 .

[zazei]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

And how many of these people who complained were true RPG fans?[/quote]

Please stop this.
[/quote] [/quote]

While I wouldn't use those words myself you can't deny that there is a difference between the crowds and that one tag isn't enough to cover the whole genre. Also it's not too rare to see people who love one of Biowares latest games but dislike pretty much any other RPG classic out there. It's not even that rare to find people who praise Mass effect 2 yet dislike the first one.

I wouldn't jugde how true of a fan someone is myself but I can understand why those that don't like shooters or action games wouldn't be happy when Bioware draws them over and tells them the games some loved for years are crap and that RPG's should now be made like mass effect 2 to cater to their tastes. 

Same thing happend back when Fallout 3 was developed and people who never heard of Fallout before was telling fans who played the earlier games for years. Now not everything is as simple as this since there are plenty of people who like both things as well messing things up but both extrems exist and I think it's somewhat understandable when people get upset at being told the things they like are old, outdated or was never even a feature in the first place and was only added since the old devs didn't know better.  

[bjdbwea]

Jebel Krong wrote...

no it isn't - there's a couple of pro-cerberus lines in there, but unless you are just determined to just click on the bottom right all the time regardless, the balance is almost identical to mass effect 1 - renegade shepard is generally the more efficient, get-to-the-point type of guy.

That is wrong, and you probably know it. Renegade in ME 2 too often means pointless violence, probably just because it looks "cool". This is not what renegade in ME 1 was about. At the same time, paragon has been changed too. To help someone with their business, a paragon Shepard would threaten to break someone's legs? Really? That's not my Shepard.

It seems to me that much more thinking has been put into the writing for ME 1. Whereas ME 2 remains very shallow most of the time, just out for the flashy cutscene.

bjdbwea wrote...

relying on mods to customise the game to your liking doesn't count.

I disagree. I have a lot of complaints against ME 2, and can do little about it. Whereas I also have complaints about DA, but I can easily mod the game more to my liking, or just install one of the countless mods the community has already developed. It goes without saying that I can forgive the shortcomings of DA much easier than I can with ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:23 .

[Whatever42]

bjdbwea wrote...

That is wrong, and you probably know it. Renegade in ME 2 too often means pointless violence, probably just because it looks "cool". This is not what renegade in ME 1 was about. At the same time, paragon has been changed too. To help someone with their business, a paragon Shepard would threaten to break someone's legs? Really? That's not my Shepard.

It seems to me that much more thinking has been put into the writing for ME 1. Whereas ME 2 remains very shallow most of the time, just out for the flashy cutscene.

Watch the youtube videos of Shepard being a jerk for ME1 and ME2. In ME1, Shepard renegade was brutally mean. He executed several people in cold blood, he still punched reporters, he was cruel and threatening. He shoved his gun in the faces of people just for annoying him or simply suspecting they did something with which he disapproved.

In ME2, I find renegade Shepard less vicious and more of a smartass. He's still a jerk but he carries it off better. The writing is much better imo.

As for paragon Shepard, I like a little righteous anger thrown in. If anything, I think we should see more.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
That is wrong, and you probably know it. Renegade in ME 2 too often means pointless violence, probably just because it looks "cool". This is not what renegade in ME 1 was about. At the same time, paragon has been changed too. To help someone with their business, a paragon Shepard would threaten to break someone's legs? Really? That's not my Shepard.

Really? Are you absolutely certain that you want to use this argument? "That's not my Shepard"? And then call yourself an RPG fan?

My Shepard doesn't sound like Mark Meer or Jennifer Hale. My renegade Shepard doesn't hate aliens. My renegade Shepard wouldn't say half the things Mass Effect forces me to say because I can't see the actual dialogue. As I said before, you're applying double standards. In short, none of Mass Effect's Shepards are my Shepard.

It seems to me that much more thinking has been put into the writing for ME 1. Whereas ME 2 remains very shallow most of the time, just out for the flashy cutscene.

Mass Effect 1 is basically a giant flashy cut-scene.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:36 .

[lazuli]

Jebel Krong wrote...


i hated in me1 taking people i hated (tali) just so i could open locked boxes - that wasn't RP that was retarded.

Word choice aside, I agree.  And in ME2, I still take a diverse squad, but for combat reasons now.  You can argue all you want about how techs were effective in combat in ME1, but I never really needed them.  Even on Insanity, Biotics outshone techs.  In later playthroughs, I'd bring Kaidan as my tech and basically rely on his Biotics.  At least in DA:O your lock-picker could also be a DPS machine.

[spacehamsterZH]

bjdbwea wrote...

That is wrong, and you probably know it. Renegade in ME 2 too often means pointless violence, probably just because it looks "cool". This is not what renegade in ME 1 was about.

Like the completely unnecessary execution of Shiala after she has freely given you the Cipher?

[Il Divo]

zazei wrote...
I wouldn't jugde how true of a fan someone is myself but I can understand why those that don't like shooters or action games wouldn't be happy when Bioware draws them over and tells them the games some loved for years are crap and that RPG's should now be made like mass effect 2 to cater to their tastes. 
  

The issue isn't that they think games are being dumbed down. It's that many of these fans are applying a double standard. Everything they've said about Mass Effect 2 was pretty much said about the original. I would even say that Mass Effect altered the role-play system far more than its sequel by featuring fully voiced npc's, a character name, and the new dialogue trees. But what's interesting is that they don't see this and pretend that Bioware took something special away from them.