10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
Interaction, perhaps. I would've liked to see a Firefly style encounter where they all sit around a table eating dinner, etc though this could be difficult given the variables in who is or isn't recruited.

This, combined with lack of consequences from ME 1, make me think Bioware has bitten off more than they could chew.  Unfortunately, this seems to have led to them settling for taking the easy way out in just ignoring anything that's too complicated.  Very sad.

But anyway, my point is that "filler" implies that we can cut it all out and not lose the overall meaning of the plot. This is much more difficult with Episode IV or VI where things are constantly moving. In describing Episode V, if I said "Han and Leia are running from the Empire" or "Luke trains to be a Jedi", in those two statements I've already encompassed at least half the movie.

Same how I can say "Shepard recruited a team" or "Shepard focused his team-mates" which probably encompasses more than half the time spent playing Mass Effect 2. But the point remains the same that even though Episode V may feature the Empire, it was not done to any purpose until we reach Cloud City.That's a huge reason why I liked the Collectors; they only appear on *their* terms instead of being a constant threat that blends into the background like stormtroopers or Geth. That you only encounter them in combat 3 times is a plus, in my opinion.

But remember that Episode V, like ME 2 are part of a series.  Episode V is "The Empire Strikes Back".  Episode IV explains why they are "striking back" (that whole Death Star Incident) and the movie shows how it's done (relentless pursuit of Han and Leia to set a trap for Luke).  Perhaps taken as a single movie, there are "filler" parts.  But taken as a whole, there is a certain flow to the movies.  A flow that is lacking in the Mass Effect series, where Bioware seems to only be interested in doing origin stories over and over..

Mass Effect 2 is supposedly a second volume of Shepards struggle against the Reapers.  But wheras ME 1's ending implied a search for a way to defeat the Reapers (Shepard "training to become a Jedi")  or at least preparations for a Reaper onslaught, we get Reaper proxies again.  This isn't a bad thing necessarilly, as the Collectors were a cool concept.  But nothing is really done with them. They are the Boba Fett of this analogy. 

They should have been a constant threat.  Their the whole point of te Suicide Mission!  Not necessarilly constantly on screen, but Shepard and the crew should have been more worried about them.  They should be worried about a Collector ambush at any moment (not just that lame, overlly-obvious trap we do get)   They should be trying to track the Collectors' movements, and the Collectors should be tracking theirs.  They should be wondering more about were the Collectors came from, what their motives are, what their link to the Reapers is.  Shepard should have a harder time convincing people to go up against these half-legendary beings.  Or at least have to find the right buttons to push.

Well, my point was that "elevator conversations" could have been "anywhere conversations" which would still be within the scope of Mass Effect's limits.

That is a point.  Perhaps it was the "elevator conversations" that inspired the "anywhere conversations".  So which kind did we get in ME 2 again?

For me, Mass Effect 1 is entirely a plot-experience game. It was Bioware-quality, but nothing I hadn't seen in a different or better incarnation before. Main issue really is that there's no 'incentive' to keep going until we reach Virmire. Jade Empire has you wondering about Death's Hand, Kotor had the visions. "Locating the Conduit" just didn't do it for me.

As for the party members themselves, I thought Mass Effect 2 had a spectaclular cast which was made better by the cinematic style. Mass Effect forgets it's a "movie" everytime you talk to your party. You stand "here", Ashley stands "there" and you talk. Mass Effect 2 brings its squad to life, which is something I hope to see more in future Bioware games. People don't stand still in conversation; they have mannerisms, habits, etc that identify them.

An old story is still a good story if it's told well. In ME 1's case.  It was a mystery in a space-opera setting.  The Conduit was only one piece of the puzzle.  What do the visions mean?  What is Saren up to?  Who or what are the Reapers?  That is what kept me going all the way through the game.  Each stop gave me another piece of the puzzle until, yes, the big reveal on Virmire.  ME 2 had another puzzle in the Collectors.  But everyone is suprisingly incurious about them in their pursuit to kill more mercenaries.

Yes, ME 2 had a good cast.  I just wish they'd dialed their "specialness" down to an 11  Remember that line from The Incredibles about everyone being special. 

I won't debate that ME 2 is more polished and looks better.  I did find it neat how conversations with Tali would have you walking across engineering, or how Miranda would cross her office to look out a window while speaking.  But  It takes more than effects to impress me.  ME 1 is a flawed diamond, ME 2 is a piece of highly polished glass. 

[Whatever42]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...


You are right on the desicion point; However, I chose the wrong words, let me re-formulate this: I'd like choices in Mass Effect 3 that have a bit more of an effect on the current mission, not the story as a whole. In Mass Effect 2 these were either not noticeable or affected just short parts of a mission. 
Also, they shoul actually hold true to what they said: The paragon/renegade meter is a reputation meter; However, in Mass Effect 2 you aren't treate different wether you have a high paragon or renegade meter, it's just about wether you can make some desicions or not, which isn't ba at all, but not enough in my opinion.

Can't disagree with wanting our decisions to have more of an impact on the world. No matter how much they give me, I'll always want more. And I think there definately could be improvements on the paragon/renegade system.

Frankly, dump all the useless stats and inventory of traditional RPGs, build me a deeper, more immersive story! ME2 is ok for what it is but again, I'll always want more.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Which was exactly how many fans felt when Bioware decided to make Mass Effect. Do you think you're the only "true" RPG fan? Do you think it's only the ones in these forums who hate Mass Effect 2 that are true RPG fans? Most in these forums who love Mass Effect 2 also loved Mass Effect. We are not just "Gears of War rejects".

First of all, I don't recall the GoW comparison coming up until ME2 came along. At least not to that degree. People saw the similarity in combat, but I don't recall the game coming out and people making the same claim that it was just "Gears of War with dialogue" like they have with ME2.

Secondly, pretty much everybody who speaks out against ME2 does so for the same three reasons, which are all linked 1) They're old-school BioWare fans, 2) They feel the RPG elements were dumbed-down (or at the very least oversimplified/overly streamlined, and 3) They feel it doesn't serve as a good sequel and that it's too different. So from that and reading the posts in this topic and in others from those who speak out against ME2, they do seem mostly like true RPG fans, since it's the loss of RPG elements that are being complained about.

Mass Effect is my least favorite Bioware game, Neverwinter Nights aside. It simply wasn't my style compared to Jade Empire. The gameplay was a terrible attempt at blending RPG-shooter mechanics. However, I didn't turn it into this claim that Bioware "hath forsaken me" and all the true RPGers! When you said you wished Bioware would make games more like Mass Effect 1, I didn't mind. When you said you preferred Mass Effect 1's gameplay, I didn't mind. But when you said that Mass Effect 2 is instant gratification and dumbed down for all shooter fans, I became insulted as an RPG fan and as a Shooter fan.

I fail to see why. You even admitted yourself that the game has been slimmed down and cut back. The only difference is that you prefer it because you think it works better.

Understand this: you and I are simply the next link in a long line of fans who hate/love Bioware's latest product. Baldur's Gate purists hated Kotor. Kotor players hated Jade Empire. Jade Empire players hated Mass Effect. And Mass Effect players now hate Mass Effect 2. Explain to me why you are just as much a "true RPG fan" as all those fans who think Mass Effect is nothing more than a crappy Gears of War rip-off. When you show me how it's not just "slightly better than Mass Effect 2", but comparable to other complex RPG games of the past, then we can continue this discussion on the combat mechanics. Until then, this is just false elitism.  

Once again though, you're either contradicting yourself or making things unfair. Earlier you said that you only compared and rated how ME2 was compared to ME1, but once again here you're grading ME1 against every BioWare title that came before it. It's like that little ASCII chart I posted earlier, and of course the results are skewed when you're comparing two different games completely separately like that.

Also, there's a difference between being the fan of a previous game whose only link to the one before it was it was made by the same company. KotOR isn't supposed to be the same game as Baldur's Gate, and Jade Empire isn't supposed to be the same game as KotOR, etc. (also, I think you'll find more people loved ME1 and thought it was a step closer to RPG goodness than Jade Empire was. ME1 was certainly far more popular.) but ME2 should be the same type of game as ME1.

If ME2 (or a game with gameplay exactly like ME2...) had come along as the first game in the series or as a new IP then I would have had no real problems with it. I wouldn't have liked it as much, and probably wouldn't have got into the Mass Effect IP like I did with ME1, but I wouldn't have had anywhere near as many issues with it, and would have just considered it as a game not quite meant for me. I would have still played it and enjoyed it... in fact I would have likely enjoyed it more (not more than ME1, just more than ME2 as it stands). But that's not what happened.

I personally don't think anything I say will satisfy you that I haven't said already. But I'll make one final little leap at trying by reposting something I posted in the DA2 forums a week or so ago. This succinctly outlines why I felt ME2 was a few steps down RPG-wise from ME1. If you can't accept that, then I give up.

Terror_K wrote...
Both were always hybrids rather than pure RPGs or pure shooters, but
ME1 had the balance better. ME2 weighted far too much on the shooter
side and cut out or down far too many RPG elements. They took stats away
from items, reduced the items entirely and made them completely linear
and basically a shooter-based weapon system, they removed armour
classes, they removed armour actually acting like armour, they removed
omni-tools and biotic amps, they removed weapon and armour modding and
replaced it with a linear upgrade system with no penalties or trade-offs
meaning every character can easily upgrade everything without having to
pick and choose (essentially allowing players to have their cake and
eat it too), they cut the class skills in half (making less possible
builds for each class), removed skill determining weapon capability,
removed pretty much all non-combat skills, removed hacking, electonics
and decryption skills determining ability to unlock or decrypt things,
removed first aid, cut the persuasion skills into one and merged it with
a combat skill, made XP completely meaningless by giving a set amount
after every mission no matter how the mission is done (how do we know
the XP is even real and not just an arbritrary number now?), removed
different ways of completing a mission beyond Paragon/Renegade dialogue
at the end, made most of the levels a linear line from A to B, took away
planet exploration entirely, etc.

Now, whether one thinks these
things were an improvement is a matter of opinion, but the fact that it
did happen is an out-and-out fact.

[Il Divo]

Secondly, pretty much everybody who speaks out against ME2 does so for the same three reasons, which are all linked 1) They're old-school BioWare fans, 2) They feel the RPG elements were dumbed-down (or at the very least oversimplified/overly streamlined, and 3) They feel it doesn't serve as a good sequel and that it's too different. So from that and reading the posts in this topic and in others from those who speak out against ME2, they do seem mostly like true RPG fans, since it's the loss of RPG elements that are being complained about. 

1) I'm an old-school Bioware fan. 2) I thought Mass Effect's RPG elements were dumbed-down/overlysimplified. 3) Mass Effect 2 doesn't change the formula to the same degree as Mass Effect. From this, it looks to me like all these fans should have been angry long before Mass Effect with its dumbed down RPG elements.

Once again though, you're either contradicting yourself or making things unfair. Earlier you said that you only compared and rated how ME2 was compared to ME1, but once again here you're grading ME1 against every BioWare title that came before it. It's like that little ASCII chart I posted earlier, and of course the results are skewed when you're comparing two different games completely separately like that.

I'm going to explain this to you in the most simple, logical form possible.

Your proposition: "Mass Effect 1 has good RPG mechanics and doesn't give instant gratification like Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 is more complex/designed for true RPG fans while Mass Effect 2 is dumbed down for the shooter crowd".

My proposition: "Mass Effect 1 has slightly better RPG mechanics than Mass Effect 2. This difference however is so minor enough that you will probably either hate both games or love both games. They are terrible/streamlined RPG mechanics compared to most other systems out there".

Now, you seem to think that I have to compare Mass Effect 2 against old school RPG's. By my proposition, that is untrue. I've already accepted that Mass Effect 2 looks like crap compared to Baldur's Gate. So does Mass Effect 1. You however contend that because Mass Effect has more complicated RPG mechanics than Mass Effect 2, therefore it is a better system. Therefore, I can compare Mass Effect against any old school RPG to make it look terrible (even moreso).

Here's a math analogy. Comparing Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect is like comparing advanced calculus to multiplication. Comparing Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect 2 is like comparing advanced calculus to addition. So as you can see, you win! Mass Effect is more complicated than Mass Effect 2. But really,  how much more complicated is multiplication than addition?



And let me give you an inventory comparison while I"m in a math mood

Mass Effect: [(3+6) * (7+9) * (20+30) * (6+6)] / (86,400)=1.

Mass Effect 2: 0 + 1= 1.

That's how they both work. I use the number "1" because that's exactly how many playstyles every weapon offers me in both games. The difference is that Mass Effect tried to hide this fact, while Mass Effect 2 made it pretty clear from the get go.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juillet 2010 - 01:55 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

1) I'm an old-school Bioware fan. 2) I thought Mass Effect's RPG elements were dumbed-down/overlysimplified. 3) Mass Effect 2 doesn't change the formula to the same degree as Mass Effect. From this, it looks to me like all these fans should have been angry long before Mass Effect with its dumbed down RPG elements.

So you're saying that the opinion that I and almost everybody else who is dissatisfied with ME2 have is wrong? The fact exists that we were satisfied with ME1 and not angry with it, while we were dissatisfied with ME2 and angry at it. What does that tell you then?

I think the issue here isn't that ME1 is far from being a deep RPG to the levels that Baldur's Gate reached, but that it was still enough RPG to satisfy those of us who played it and enjoyed it. Those of us who realised it wasn't trying to be D&D in space but was trying to be a hybrid game as well as be an interactive cinematic experience for sci-fi fans. Was it basically RPG-Lite? Sure. But it still had enough. The difference between it and ME2 may be small when you look at the whole RPG picture, but compared to ME1 it was quite a bit. You admit that ME1's RPG elements were slim, so that just goes to illustrate that when you take most of them away then what's already few becomes a great deal fewer.

Let me put it this way (hypothetically of course):-

Baldur's Gate = 100 RPG elements
Mass Effect 1 = 20 RPG elements
Mass Effect 2 = 10 RPG elements

Yes, compared to Baldur's Gate there a huge gap with both games, and there seems a small one between ME1 and ME2. However, when you do remove Baldur's Gate from the equation...

Mass Effect 1 = 20 RPG elements
Mass Effect 2 = 10 RPG elements

...then you see that ME2 is half the RPG that ME1 was.

The point is that even if ME1 was far less RPG than Baldur's Gate, there was still enough there to satisfy those who became fans of it in the first place. ME2 has failed to do that. In removing even more it's crossed the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory. ME1 may have only just been on the positive side of the line, but it still was on that side, unlike ME2.

And, again, ME1 wasn't trying to be as deep as Baldur's Gate in the first place. ME1 was trying to be a certain degree of RPG, and ME2 failed to be that same degree by cutting too much out. Look at that list I posted at the end of my previous response and you can see that that's just a few examples of what went AWOL in ME2. For every step forward with ME2 there were two steps back.

I'm going to explain this to you in the most simple, logical form possible.

Your proposition: "Mass Effect 1 has good RPG mechanics and doesn't give instant gratification like Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 is more complex/designed for true RPG fans while Mass Effect 2 is dumbed down for the shooter crowd".

My proposition: "Mass Effect 1 has slightly better RPG mechanics than Mass Effect 2. This difference however is so minor enough that you will probably either hate both games or love both games. They are terrible/streamlined RPG mechanics compared to most other systems out there".

Now, you seem to think that I have to compare Mass Effect 2 against old school RPG's. By my proposition, that is untrue. I've already accepted that Mass Effect 2 looks like crap compared to Baldur's Gate. So does Mass Effect 1. You however contend that because Mass Effect has more complicated RPG mechanics than Mass Effect 2, therefore it is a better system. Therefore, I can compare Mass Effect against any old school RPG to make it look terrible (even moreso).

Here's a math analogy. Comparing Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect is like comparing advanced calculus to multiplication. Comparing Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect 2 is like comparing advanced calculus to addition. So as you can see, you win! Mass Effect is more complicated than Mass Effect 2. But really,  how much more complicated is multiplication than addition?


And let me give you an inventory comparison while I"m in a math mood:

Mass Effect: [(3+6) * (7+9) * (20+30) * (6+6)] / (86,400)=1.

Mass Effect 2: 0 + 1= 1.

I use the number "1" because that's exactly how many playstyles every weapon offers me in both games. The difference is that Mass Effect tried to hide this fact, while Mass Effect 2 made it pretty clear from the get go.

All I'm saying is that it's correct that ME2 should only be compared to ME1, but only if you only use ME1 as the standard and don't compare it to all BioWare's predecessors. As I've said countless times, ME1 was never trying to be Baldur's Gate or a full-on deep RPG in the first place. But nor was it trying to be 90% TPS with dialogue either. ME2 may succeed as a game to a certain degree more than ME1 did, but it fails as a sequel and fails as an RPG. You may say ME1 fails as an RPG too, but I don't agree: it was still more RPG than TPS, and still had RPG systems in place behind everything. And I honestly would rather have an illusion of depth than no depth whatsoever.

And remember: the devs themselves have admitted to overly slimming the RPG features and have said that one of their focuses with ME3 is to strengthen them again and bring some back. I'm just hoping that they do a decent job and at least return all that was lost in ME1 in some form.

I also can't help but noticed you ignored the last part of my last post, which I find interesting.

[BomimoDK]

supporting Il Divo's argument: Mass Effect 1 was never and will never be a hardcore RPG. People should drop the "ME2 has no RPG" arguments since as much as it is missing, ME1 only has slightly more and is SO far from the traditional RPG's that bioware makes.

This also eliminates the "i'm a long time Bioware fan and this sucks" argument if it's combined with the former since that would require you to fool yourself profoundly.

ME series is a story driven actionshooter with RPG elements laid thicker than seen in any other shooter. It's far from a hardcore RPG... actually very user friendly and straightforward. but it's easlly one of the best action games out there with very deep story line, combat and exillerating action.
And the argument that "ME1 was better bcuz of clonky inventory and Meko" because the game is better off without them. the inventory was already underdeveloped and really just in the way. it's an over all better management system without those. i once wrote something good, i'll try and find it.

BomimoDK wrote...

I'd rather sit with the deepest and most accomplished storydriven TPS/RPG of 2010 than sit with one of the most shallow and worst RPG's these past 20 years. ME was a bad RPG by the definition that most people here would set. It's obvious that the series is better off as an Action Shooter RPG than a space RPG with guns. ME1 is not much better as a shooter RPG than Alpha Protocol... which fails at both.

I know the general opinion here is that you're all raised above shooters and ME1 is deep. but the truth and general view is that ME2 took the most RPG gamers and shooter fans by storm and gave them 100 times more of a TPS than MW2 did FPS and gave them a more streamlined, yet thinner attempt at RPG features in there. Stop calling it a pure shooter, (and please stop confusing Dumbed Down with streamlining way too tight) i don't see choice or story in many of them.

Further, you guys are insane if you define ME1 as a deep, complete RPG. i've seen many games go deeper and do better. it was lousy, what saved it was combat and story, but it was a horrible RPG and Bioware did right in changing the direction to a choice/story based shooter.

what i meant to say is. ME series is doing so much better as a TPSRPG than an RPG with TPS elements. sure it's been cut a bit too close with little sidequests and missing exploration. they could easily have that back in ME3. something i do not ever want to see in ME again is the horrid inventory and gear management... it just makes this particular universe more tedious. I'm a bit half way about the Meko(?) but i would have some fun with it i guess.

If i could have ME3 tailored to me, it would have ME1's broad scope, ME1's progression table, ME2's approach to dialogue, ME2's cinematic approach and ME2's combat. because that Shizzle just works for this weird cross of subgenres.

there... wasn't the right one, but it catches my thoughts on this subject, anti-shooter snobbery and "ME1 was deep... not"

The second one here is the best one since it pretty much only touches the subjects relating directly to why ME2 is a good, albeit overslimmed direction for the series... PLEASE READ THIS QUOTE IF YOU SKIPPED THE REST:

BomimoDK wrote...

I've already talked about this in another thread and people tend to ask for my age to seem superior afterwards. but i'm going to jump right ahead and try this again.

I think that taking ME further towards TPSRPG rather than an RPG with guns was a damn good decision. i think ME1 was a lousy RPG. it lacked many things that makes a great RPG IMO. further adding insult to injury, while a fine shooter, it tried to hard to stay slow so as to hide that this actualy is a shooter RPG from the oh-so-holy fancrowd.

The inventory system was a nightmare in a game that obviously aspired to keep a pace that fit the story and experience at hand. you're a commander of the most high-tech ship, you honestly shouldn't ever scavenge a battlefield and you should not have to deal with heaps of worthless junk in your inventory. Removing it in ME2 was right and they shouldn't look back. rather expand on the upgrade system they have now.

ME2 had pace but lacked width as ME1 had. this is bad. the series had finally made it out of the bad position that Alpha Protocol not sits in. ****ty shooter and lesser RPG: both but neither (they do have story and choices going for them, but these get - dampened by these flaws). it was streamlined in a healthy manner... and then some. In ME3 we should have more time and incentive to Dilly Dally (sidequests... if they are there), solve problems or ride into ****storms.

I think that Both ME games are good games but, ME2's current, shallow state works better overall than the old messy state did. the dream mass effect has the breadth of the first, the sidemissions of the first, Mako, the pace of the second, the cinematic feel of the second, the illusion of choice of the second and the shooter mechanic of the second. a final thing that should revert to Mass Effect 1 is the skill three, the more options the merrier.

Please, Mass Effect is not a Hardcore RPG, it's a TPSRPG at heart i treat it as such untill ME3 proves me wrong.

longass post, but i put alot of thought into the latter.

Note: i am a longtime fan. played Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age. skipped everything else for reasons unknown. suffice to say, i love Hardcore RPG's but seem to break the pattern and am not snobbing about behaving Anti-shooter... not even ranting about a little RPG becomming less RPG with weird Arguments... poster below Il Divo's post is one of few to argue sensibly.

Modifié par BomimoDK, 29 juillet 2010 - 02:07 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Baldur's Gate = 100 RPG elements
Mass Effect 1 = 20 RPG elements
Mass Effect 2 = 10 RPG elements

RPG elements were lost, this is true.
Whether it was actually "dumbed down" or not is a different question.

[Iakus]

BomimoDK wrote...

I'd rather sit with the deepest and most accomplished storydriven TPS/RPG of 2010 than sit with one of the most shallow and worst RPG's these past 20 years. ME was a bad RPG by the definition that most people here would set. It's obvious that the series is better off as an Action Shooter RPG than a space RPG with guns. ME1 is not much better as a shooter RPG than Alpha Protocol... which fails at both.

I try not to get too much into arguements about "what is an rpg" since most of my problems with Mass Effect 2 are story related.   But I thought I'd toss in in my two cents here:

I found Alpha Protocol to be a highly underated game that Mass Effect could learn a few things from.  How deep an rpg/shooter it is exactly I'll leave to others.  But it's a game that had consequences for the choices you make, a skill system where you gained someting with every rank and allowed you to customize your character, and an inventory system that actually worked. 

I personally think the problem with the first ME game is that we were promised that our choices would carry over into the next game.  We were only seeing the first part of a game that would encompass three volumes.  No immediate consequences, but oh, they'll come later.  What you said and did will matter!  When ME 2 rolls around we see our consequnces are a full inbox in our not-so-supersecret email account.  Yeah, that's a bit of a letdown.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

 You even admitted yourself that the game has been slimmed down and cut back. 

the cut back what blatantly didn't work, but they kept and improved everything that did work, and added other elements on top of that - some of which worked, and some which didn't (depending on your opinion). none of this process involved "dumbing down" anything and it all conforms to how game development naturally works. the fact that you, and some others like you, seem to have this disconnect between mass effect 1 and 2 is your problem, not the game's, or the rest of us': nobody cares what BW did in their games before - each one is different, and the product of a different time - the mass effect series was always designed to be more of a story driven hybrid of genres, like an interactive film; given the engine they used the implications were obvious from the start. neither game is as simple as "gears of war with conversations." 

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:53 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

the cut back what blatantly didn't work, but they kept and improved everything that did work, and added other elements on top of that - some of which worked, and some which didn't (depending on your opinion). none of this process involved "dumbing down" anything and it all conforms to how game development naturally works. the fact that you, and some others like you, seem to have this disconnect between mass effect 1 and 2 is your problem, not the game's, or the rest of us'.

No, because most game developers find a way of giving you everything you loved in the previous game, but better. They take what was there and improve it. ME2 failed to do this and was dumbed down... incredibly so. There's far less items, far less customisation where it counts (yet more customisation where it isn't necessary), and the whole thing has been made in a manner and style that's just plain insulting: like it's constantly holding your hand and doing half the stuff for you. Everything was was dynamic and open is now limited, linear and closed. They went for the easy answers, getting rid of the issues instead of solving them, and oversimplifying things to the point of becoming dull, shallow and generic.

[kraze07]

ME2 is about as RPG as RE5 is survival horror.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

No, because most game developers find a way of giving you everything you loved in the previous game, but better. They take what was there and improve it. ME2 failed to do this and was dumbed down... incredibly so. There's far less items, far less customisation where it counts (yet more customisation where it isn't necessary), and the whole thing has been made in a manner and style that's just plain insulting: like it's constantly holding your hand and doing half the stuff for you. Everything was was dynamic and open is now limited, linear and closed. They went for the easy answers, getting rid of the issues instead of solving them, and oversimplifying things to the point of becoming dull, shallow and generic.

Yes. But maybe that is what you have to do if you want to reach 10 million sales. For every sale to a real fan lost, there's going to be 5 casual gamers who buy the dumbed down, streamlined game + every DLC. Or not? It seems that BioWare/EA are insistent on finding out.

[Darth Drago]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

the cut back what blatantly didn't work, but they kept and improved everything that did work, and added other elements on top of that - some of which worked, and some which didn't (depending on your opinion). none of this process involved "dumbing down" anything and it all conforms to how game development naturally works. the fact that you, and some others like you, seem to have this disconnect between mass effect 1 and 2 is your problem, not the game's, or the rest of us'.

No, because most game developers find a way of giving you everything you loved in the previous game, but better. They take what was there and improve it. ME2 failed to do this and was dumbed down... incredibly so. There's far less items, far less customisation where it counts (yet more customisation where it isn't necessary), and the whole thing has been made in a manner and style that's just plain insulting: like it's constantly holding your hand and doing half the stuff for you. Everything was was dynamic and open is now limited, linear and closed. They went for the easy answers, getting rid of the issues instead of solving them, and oversimplifying things to the point of becoming dull, shallow and generic.

You mean things like:
-Getting rid of the crouch because apparently someone found and exploit during the few times the game was play tested?

-Automatically equipping the new weapon you find on a level regardless if you want it equipped?

-Weapon Lockers to change out your weapons placed n levels some right after you select your party. Not like you have a large selection of weapons to choose from.

-Selecting your party before every mission. Because the group I left the ship with isn’t the one I wanted to take with me on the mission I’m here to do right?

-Cut scenes before boss fights that show you how to defeat that boss or other cut scenes that take away the element of exploration/suprise. Like the final game boss and the coverings that go over the glass containers you need to shoot, being shown how the Colossus during Tali’s recruiting mission repairs itself, the Thresher Maw you fight waving its tentacles in the air “I’m going to pop up here next!” or the tour of the Normandy you get when you first get on board so you don’t have to explore the ship yourself.

-Redundant pop-ups. Like while scanning a planet “press RT to launch a probe” when that info is on the screen already. The “press B to end mission” especially at the end of Tali’s loyalty mission in an effort to rush you out of the level and not talk to anyone after the trial or in the other missions because I’m just to lazy to walk to the door.

-A good vehicle with the Mako and its driving levels (on main missions) being removed completely only to be replaced by an afterthought and terribly designed and implemented Hammerhead.

-Armor pieces that replace the weapon, armor mods as well as talent bonuses you got from ME1.

-Ammo types now called powers and each type usable only be a select few.

-The addition of an ammo system just for the sake of having one.

-Hub world quests where in most cases you had to only walk about 15 feet to complete it.

-Removing the inventory and the items in it completely instead of fixing it. But yet we still have shops to go to and crap to buy like fish, books we cant even read and ship models?

-No customization at all for your squad mates beyond a new color outfit.

Like I’ve said before as a perfect example on this lackluster sequel. Star Wars the Knights of the Old Republic and its sequel The Sith Lords were made by different companies but the sequel actually felt like a continuation of te first game and a sequel with some improvements on its own. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were made by the same company and yet don’t feel like they are sequels but just another game using the same character and setting. ME2 feels more of a reboot of the franchise than a sequel.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 29 juillet 2010 - 10:17 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
Yes. But maybe that is what you have to do if you want to reach 10 million sales. For every sale to a real fan lost, there's going to be 5 casual gamers who buy the dumbed down, streamlined game + every DLC. Or not? It seems that BioWare/EA are insistent on finding out.

Yeah, it's a shame that Bioware focused on the casual gamers when they made Mass Effect in the first place. For every sale to a real fan lost, 5 more casual gamers bought the dumbed down, streamlined game. They should just  abandon the franchise.

Do you have any idea how immature you sound? Much like your crying that Mass Effect 2 doesn't deserve any of its accolades it has receieved. I personally didn't find 2001 a Space Odyssey to be all that great. But I don't feel the need to constantly knock it down.  

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Yeah, it's a shame that Bioware focused on the casual gamers when they made Mass Effect in the first place. For every sale to a real fan lost, 5 more casual gamers bought the dumbed down, streamlined game. They should just  abandon the franchise.

Do you have any idea how immature you sound? Much like your crying that Mass Effect 2 doesn't deserve any of its accolades it has receieved. I personally didn't find 2001 a Space Odyssey to be all that great. But I don't feel the need to constantly knock it down.

ME1 was still too complex for most of today's casual gamers though, given how much they whined about the RPG aspects when it first came out and expected it to play just like a shooter just because it looked like one. Too much dialogue, not enough combat, etc. Seems pretty clear to me that ME1 was made for sci-fi nerds who loved the sci-fi of the late 70's to early 90's, most notably the 80's stuff in the middle. Beyond that I still think it was made for RPG nerds, and considering pretty much every RPG nerd I know in real life loves it, then that's probably true.

In either case, the difference between saying ME2 was inadequate and lacked depth and complaining about 2001: A Space Odyssey is that our voices may be heard to influence the sequel. Considering BioWare have agreed with the basic statement it seems and have decided to make RPG elements stronger for ME3 is a small win so far, but it doesn't hurt to remind them and keep the voices going and offer better alternatives and solutions. Everybody who just praises ME2 and says it was so much better just means the likelihood of getting an equally or more dumbed-down ME3 just goes up.

[Massadonious1]

Il Divo wrote...
Much like your crying that Mass Effect 2 doesn't deserve any of its accolades it has receieved

But you see, it doesn't!

I mean, how can you not see it. A reviewer, like those at Gamespot gave Baldur's Gate 2, KoTOR and Mass Effect 1 critical acclaim and game of the year nominations because they were more enlightened back then. But, clearly something shady went on when they gave ME2 praise. They hired a bunch of dirty, RPG hating, pew pew loving reviewers, and/or BioWare paid them a whole heap of money to give high scores to a game that clearly didn't deserve it.

It's like the 9/11 cover-up all over again.

[bjdbwea]

The problem is not that ME 2 got good reviews, with all its flaws it's still an okay game after all, and of course it totally beats all those mindless shooters that sell so well.

The problem is that it's apparently BioWare's best rated game ever, apparently even one of the overall best rated games ever. There are even people who give it a perfect score. That is ridiculous, no number of straw mans or insults is going to change that.

Apart from that, it's unfortunate that you try to deny the basics of how this business works. It is a simple fact that even the best (single player) RPGs don't sell 10 million copies, not even close. It's unfortunate, and it says something about the audience, but what can you do.

So what do you do if you or your publisher isn't satisfied with the number of sales you can get with your kind of games? Dumb it down, or whatever else you would like to rather call it. That's what BioWare/EA have done, and that's what they are apparently going to continue to do. It's okay if you like the result, even if you like the result better than the original game, but why would you deny the facts? If you know of a better way to increase sales without increasing costs, I'm sure BioWare/EA would at least listen.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Baldur's Gate = 100 RPG elements
Mass Effect 1 = 20 RPG elements
Mass Effect 2 = 10 RPG elements

RPG elements were lost, this is true.
Whether it was actually "dumbed down" or not is a different question.

A question?Seriously? The small number of upgrades aside,they not even let the player choose in which order to upgrade a weapon.All is linear.The
player couldnt install the headshot upgrade before the armor upgrade is done.

The possibility to "rebuild" your talents for each mission if you fail to do it right the first time.

Or the best press b to end the mission that really annoys at the quarian mission if the player wants to talk with other quarians after talis mission is done.

Just some examples.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...


No, because most game developers find a way of giving you everything you loved in the previous game, but better. They take what was there and improve it. ME2 failed to do this and was dumbed down... incredibly so. There's far less items, far less customisation where it counts (yet more customisation where it isn't necessary), and the whole thing has been made in a manner and style that's just plain insulting:

Yes,even dialog sometimes that let shepardt stare at mirandas ass when talking with her.

[BomimoDK]

iakus wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...

I'd rather sit with the deepest and most accomplished storydriven TPS/RPG of 2010 than sit with one of the most shallow and worst RPG's these past 20 years. ME was a bad RPG by the definition that most people here would set. It's obvious that the series is better off as an Action Shooter RPG than a space RPG with guns. ME1 is not much better as a shooter RPG than Alpha Protocol... which fails at both.

I try not to get too much into arguements about "what is an rpg" since most of my problems with Mass Effect 2 are story related.   But I thought I'd toss in in my two cents here:

I found Alpha Protocol to be a highly underated game that Mass Effect could learn a few things from.  How deep an rpg/shooter it is exactly I'll leave to others.  But it's a game that had consequences for the choices you make, a skill system where you gained someting with every rank and allowed you to customize your character, and an inventory system that actually worked. 

I personally think the problem with the first ME game is that we were promised that our choices would carry over into the next game.  We were only seeing the first part of a game that would encompass three volumes.  No immediate consequences, but oh, they'll come later.  What you said and did will matter!  When ME 2 rolls around we see our consequnces are a full inbox in our not-so-supersecret email account.  Yeah, that's a bit of a letdown.

yeah i never got that thing with the inbox you guys are talking about. either Kaidan or Ash is dead, the other hates you. Wrex is dead with a war sick krogan leading his people or he's alive and leading them towards prosperity and breeding. the Rachni queen only alerted you VIA mail but there are several reports that inply that she's gonna have an army ready for assistance in ME3. the council are either dead or an even bigger annoyance. i could go on. to me, i still see things carrying over directly and outside the mail. when they say it's a trilogy, they meant it and you will only reap the rewards for most of those things when you need it... open war sounds like you need it, Undercover suicide mission for alien haters doesn't.

All it took for me to see this was to remember that a third game is comming and not WANT to hate the game. now, what more is there?

We all know ME2 was thin, but it's still great. as much as Alpha Protocol IS a good/great RPG, that isn't the general opinion. and those were what i was refering to when talking about "shooter of the year and fail RPG" ME2 is shooter of the year out there but fail RPG here. ME1 is fail shooter and RPG out there and only an RPG here for some weird reason. Alpha Protocol is a total failure out there It's wearing a 3rd person shooter shell yet it's shooter mechanic relies on rolls... imagine how frustrating that is for those who only play RPG's at Fo3 or ME's level. not to mention the biggest premium collection of Black Isle/Obsidian bugs to date. (please don't go on a FPS gamer hating spree.. what would you expect from a game looking like that).

I don't know what else to say?

let's just get two types of RPG down righ here:
1. Storytelling: story, choices, consequences, relations and so forth.
2. Gameplay: Inventory, skilltree, combat and so forth.

ME relies on the first and is setting an example in doing so. but was horrid at the second. ME2 improved it vastly though cutting too close... oh, we've discussed this already.

do you have more problem with the story? because if you take what i said about that into consideration... well, you shouldn't have a problem with continuity. or i just see more than you do? or opposite?

[BomimoDK]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
Much like your crying that Mass Effect 2 doesn't deserve any of its accolades it has receieved

But you see, it doesn't!

I mean, how can you not see it. A reviewer, like those at Gamespot gave Baldur's Gate 2, KoTOR and Mass Effect 1 critical acclaim and game of the year nominations because they were more enlightened back then. But, clearly something shady went on when they gave ME2 praise. They hired a bunch of dirty, RPG hating, pew pew loving reviewers, and/or BioWare paid them a whole heap of money to give high scores to a game that clearly didn't deserve it.

It's like the 9/11 cover-up all over again.

IT's the same reviewer as ME1 and Kotor so you can pack that together and accept that some of us RPG fans just aren't Fanatics throwing Bricks at other game genres.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

So what do you do if you or your publisher isn't satisfied with the number of sales you can get with your kind of games? Dumb it down, or whatever else you would like to rather call it. That's what BioWare/EA have done, and that's what they are apparently going to continue to do.

Too bad it doesnt seemed to work.Mass Effect 2 only sold slightly more copies then the first game after the start,and that
maybee only because a lot of people preordered it.

[BomimoDK]

Terror_K wrote...


In either case, the difference between saying ME2 was inadequate and lacked depth and complaining about 2001: A Space Odyssey is that our voices may be heard to influence the sequel. Considering BioWare have agreed with the basic statement it seems and have decided to make RPG elements stronger for ME3 is a small win so far, but it doesn't hurt to remind them and keep the voices going and offer better alternatives and solutions. Everybody who just praises ME2 and says it was so much better just means the likelihood of getting an equally or more dumbed-down ME3 just goes up.

Now now. they promised, they won't go back on that. and no matter how useless the Inventory was, a bigger Skill tree is sorely needed as well as more sidemissions and other stuff. I expect them to keep the shooting and Pace in story but the "my perfect ME3" i posted would probably be realistically close to what Bioware are actually making.

and you need to chill with calling every other genre "idiot" or "stupid" because that's what you come across as.

Modifié par BomimoDK, 29 juillet 2010 - 12:07 .

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Too bad it doesnt seemed to work.Mass Effect 2 only sold slightly more copies then the first game after the start,and that maybee only because a lot of people preordered it.

Perhaps. This would fit with the demo release long after the main game. It's also interesting that the price for ME 2 is already lower than for DA.

However, that could mean even more dumbing down for ME 3. If many shooter fans and casual gamers still didn't buy the game, maybe they will if the next game is even simpler and more shooterized? I still hope that's not the official reasoning, but the announcements concerning DA aren't exactly encouraging.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 juillet 2010 - 12:16 .

[Terror_K]

BomimoDK wrote...

Now now. they promised, they won't go back on that. and no matter how useless the Inventory was, a bigger Skill tree is sorely needed as well as more sidemissions and other stuff. I expect them to keep the shooting and Pace in story but the "my perfect ME3" i posted would probably be realistically close to what Bioware are actually making.

My perfect ME3 would admittedly be somewhere between both, but closer to ME1, with a bit of DAO when it comes to things like how to handle companions, loyalty, etc. and with a few things neither game has.

and you need to chill with calling every other genre "idiot" or "stupid" because that's what you come across as.

I've said it a dozen times, but I'll say it again: Unreal Tournament is my favourite game of all time. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become it. Mass Effect, on the other hand, is my favourite game IP of all time. It still is despite what ME2 did to it.