10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Massadonious1]

bjdbwea wrote...
The problem is that it's apparently BioWare's best rated game ever, apparently even one of the overall best rated games ever.

If we're going by Metacritic, ME2 got a 96. Baldur's Gate 2 got a 95.

I wonder how much BioWare paid them to add that extra point.

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.

And?

Most of the "flaws" I see presented are mearly opinions of how less of an RPG it is or how lacking the story is. Views that are not shared by everyone. Even things that are actually broken or generally universally despised, like planet scanning, is subjective. Who's to say someone couldn't find that fun. You?

To say that a perfect score is "ridiculous" simply because they didn't come to the same conclusions about what is or isn't flawed is petty and childish.

It's unfortunate, and it says something about the audience, but what can you do.

Yes, we're all undecuated trogolodytes who can't apparenly handle making such mind taxing RPG decisions like using fire resistance potions against enemies that use fire damage.

Dumb it down

Dumbing something down requires that it's original iteration required a significant amount of intelligence to do in the first place.

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?

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

If you know of a better way to increase sales without increasing costs, I'm sure BioWare/EA would at least listen.

They can shut these forums down for starters. I'm sure they dislike having their intelligence insulted as much as I do.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 29 juillet 2010 - 12:45 .

[kraze07]

"They can shut these forums down for starters. I'm sure they dislike having their intelligence insulted as much as I do."



Im sure the fans disliked having their intelligence insulted when they found out how dumbed down ME2 was.

[Terror_K]

kraze07 wrote...

"They can shut these forums down for starters. I'm sure they dislike having their intelligence insulted as much as I do."

Im sure the fans disliked having their intelligence insulted when they found out how dumbed down ME2 was.

Indeed. It was like picking up The Two Towers and discovering it was Go, Dog. Go! instead.

[BomimoDK]

you guys just HAVE to be supperior...don't you? This board is an abomination. There are no watercooler moments here, it's all a ****storm of people crying wolf and bashing other peoples intellect. this is not a place i would look for a discussion. i retreat to the Dragon Age Gameplay forum (it's the least volatile Flamable substance on this forum) and Baldur's Gate discussion.



"Im sure the fans disliked having their intelligence insulted when they found out how dumbed down ME2 was."



i find it profoundly shocking how much you insult your own intelligence by not seeing that it was already simplified profoundly in ME1. you guys never stop and think, do you?

[bjdbwea]

Massadonious1 wrote...

To say that a perfect score is "ridiculous" simply because they didn't come to the same conclusions about what is or isn't flawed is petty and childish.

Please. It's nice of you to defend the developers (even though it won't earn you the next game for free), but come on. Is ME 2 perfect, yes or no? Obviously not, as there are at the very least some bugs. So a perfect score is of course absurd. If you deny even that, then there is indeed nothing to discuss.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

That's just a list of personal grievances, Tonnactus. Can I ever get a straight answer out of you?

Terror_K wrote...

kraze07 wrote...

"They can shut these forums down for starters. I'm sure they dislike having their intelligence insulted as much as I do."

Im sure the fans disliked having their intelligence insulted when they found out how dumbed down ME2 was.

Indeed. It was like picking up The Two Towers and discovering it was Go, Dog. Go! instead.

Implying, of course, that ME1 was 'deep' to begin with...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 29 juillet 2010 - 02:23 .

[kraze07]

BomimoDK wrote...

you guys just HAVE to be supperior...don't you? This board is an abomination. There are no watercooler moments here, it's all a ****storm of people crying wolf and bashing other peoples intellect. this is not a place i would look for a discussion. i retreat to the Dragon Age Gameplay forum (it's the least volatile Flamable substance on this forum) and Baldur's Gate discussion.

"Im sure the fans disliked having their intelligence insulted when they found out how dumbed down ME2 was."

i find it profoundly shocking how much you insult your own intelligence by not seeing that it was already simplified profoundly in ME1. you guys never stop and think, do you?

Already simplified??? From what? You do know ME1 was the first in the franchise right. Didn't stop and think before you typed that comment now did you?

Modifié par kraze07, 29 juillet 2010 - 02:43 .

[bjdbwea]

He certainly meant that ME 1 was already dumbed down in comparison to previous BioWare games. That's true, no doubt. But only as far as the RPG elements are concerned. ME 2 is even more dumbed down, and now the rest of the game, including the story, were dumbed down as well.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...
Indeed. It was like picking up The Two Towers and discovering it was Go, Dog. Go! instead.

Exactly what I mean by false elitism. Tell me, do you wear a top hat and monocle while playing the game? Perhaps you drink fine wines and laugh at all the commoners playing their Halo and Gears of War.

But that you think Mass Effect is on the level of The Two Towers says more about your own intelligence than it does about the sophistication of Mass Effect's gameplay.

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.

I'm glad you have officially declared your own stupidity with the bolded statement. For someone who spends so much time playing RPGs, you obviously don't understand the basics of how statistics even work. Hint: population pool. That every RPG fan who lives 5 minutes from you loves the game is not statistically significant at all. Maybe Mass Effect is too complex for you...

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.

Multiplication vs. addition, once again. I'm sorry that you have trouble multiplying. I however can do both and understand that there is nothing complicated about either of them. Just like Mass Effect 1 + 2. I spend less than 5 seconds to distribute talent points in both games. Mass Effect is not the Two Towers by any means.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juillet 2010 - 05:05 .

[haberman13]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Indeed. It was like picking up The Two Towers and discovering it was Go, Dog. Go! instead.

Exactly what I mean by false elitism. Tell me, do you wear a top hat and monocle while playing the game? Perhaps you drink fine wines and laugh at all the commoners playing their Halo and Gears of War.

But that you think Mass Effect is on the level of The Two Towers says more, I think, about your own intelligence than it does about the sophistication of Mass Effect's gameplay.

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.

I'm glad you have officially declared your own stupidity with the bolded statement. For someone who spends so much time playing RPGs, you obviously don't understand the basics of how statistics even work. Hint: population pool. That every RPG fan who lives 5 minutes from you hates the game is not statistically significant at all. Maybe Mass Effect is too complex for you...

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.

Multiplication vs. addition, once again. I'm sorry that you have trouble multiplying. I however can do both and understand that there is nothing complicated about either of them. Just like Mass Effect 1 + 2. I spend less than 5 seconds to distribute talent points in both games. Mass Effect is not the Two Towers by any means.

Fine wine = win
Monacle = win

ME2 = dumbed down

Answer: yes, we are elite, which is why we are ripping on the non-elite ME2 which took a turn into stupidity.

It sucks, but my elite brothers/sisters and I will keep spewing this vitriole just like the dumb masses spewed theirs and dumbed down ME2 throughout its development.  Hopefully ME3 will be an upgrade because of all our effort (which was sorely lacking when debating the "elevator,mako,inventory"-sucks crowd.

[Il Divo]

Massadonious1 wrote...


Dumbing something down requires that it's original iteration required a significant amount of intelligence to do in the first place.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with this. Sums it up quite nicely.  

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Indeed. It was like picking up The Two Towers and discovering it was Go, Dog. Go! instead.

Exactly what I mean by false elitism. Tell me, do you wear a top hat and monocle while playing the game? Perhaps you drink fine wines and laugh at all the commoners playing their Halo and Gears of War.

But that you think Mass Effect is on the level of The Two Towers says more about your own intelligence than it does about the sophistication of Mass Effect's gameplay.

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.

I'm glad you have officially declared your own stupidity with the bolded statement. For someone who spends so much time playing RPGs, you obviously don't understand the basics of how statistics even work. Hint: population pool. That every RPG fan who lives 5 minutes from you hates the game is not statistically significant at all. Maybe Mass Effect is too complex for you...

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.

Multiplication vs. addition, once again. I'm sorry that you have trouble multiplying. I however can do both and understand that there is nothing complicated about either of them. Just like Mass Effect 1 + 2. I spend less than 5 seconds to distribute talent points in both games. Mass Effect is not the Two Towers by any means.

All you said so far made sene. I do not necesarrely agree with it, but it made sense, I have to give you that. However, you just stated that the distribution of talent points is not important; Tell me, which good RPG so far made you not think about which skills to evolve, and which not - or which not to take at all?

[Il Divo]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

All you said so far made sene. I do not necesarrely agree with it, but it made sense, I have to give you that. However, you just stated that the distribution of talent points is not important; Tell me, which good RPG so far made you not think about which skills to evolve, and which not - or which not to take at all?

No, no, you're confusing my meaning. A good RPG ( or good mechanics, at least) should force me to think about which skills to evolve and what not to take, etc. Mass Effect 2 doesn't do this. But Mass Effect does it to an extremely limited degree. It's barely noticeable, hence why I find these complaints of "dumbing down" to be melodramatic. Here's an example.

Dragon Age: You are literally drowned in options. As a Mage, there are 4 schools, 4 spell types in each school, and 4 'levels' of each spell type. You have to read through all the spell effects, level requirements, attribute requirements, etc. Plus, the game keeps it interesting at high levels of play. You can start considering new options for extremely powerful spells like Blizzard, Crushing Prison, etc which do more than just upgrade that skill you got at rank 1; they give you completely new combinations.

Mass Effect: Okay, so you have a decent number of skills. But here's the difference; all 12 ranks in each skill are basically the same. Once you understand how each skill functions, there is little to consider with Mass Effect. I use Master Marksman exactly how I use Marksman. I don't have to consider every level up what I want to evolve, attributes, etc. Everything is extremely simplistic at high levels of play. Marksman at level 1 functions just like Marksman at level 50. There is no Force Storm (Kotor), Wail of the Banshee (Baldur's Gate), or Death Hex (Dragon Age) to reinvigorate the game. It's all so static.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juillet 2010 - 04:21 .

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Il Divo wrote...

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

All you said so far made sene. I do not necesarrely agree with it, but it made sense, I have to give you that. However, you just stated that the distribution of talent points is not important; Tell me, which good RPG so far made you not think about which skills to evolve, and which not - or which not to take at all?

No, no, you're confusing my meaning. A good RPG ( or good mechanics, at least) should force me to think about which skills to evolve and what not to take, etc. Mass Effect 2 doesn't do this. But Mass Effect does it to an extremely limited degree. It's barely noticeable, hence why I find these complaints of "dumbing down" to be melodramatic. Here's an example.

Dragon Age: You are literally drowned in options. As a Mage, there are 4 schools, 4 spell types in each school, and 4 'levels' of each spell type. You have to read through all the spell effects, level requirements, attribute requirements, etc. Plus, the game keeps it interesting at high levels of play. You can start considering new options for extremely powerful spells like Blizzard, Crushing Prison, etc which do more than just upgrade that skill you got at rank 1; they give you completely new combinations.

Mass Effect: Okay, so you have a decent number of skills. But here's the difference; all 12 ranks in each skill are basically the same. Once you understand how each skill functions, there is little to consider with Mass Effect. I use Master Marksman exactly how I use Marksman. I don't have to consider every level up what I want to evolve, attributes, etc. Everything is extremely simplistic at high levels of play. Marksman at level 1 functions just like Marksman at level 50. There is no Force Storm (Kotor), Wail of the Banshee (Baldur's Gate), or Death Hex (Dragon Age) to reinvigorate the game. It's all so static.

I see; that isn't exactly what I wanted to comment on, thoguh. What I wanted to point out is - as you just said - that so far the whole Mass Effect series isn't a good RPG overall, at least in terms of gameplay.
Also, there are more differences from original to sequel than just skills: The inventory system. The only point I see ever mentioned as the reason of it's removal is the barely noticable differences in equipment plus many armor parts, weapons and upgrades becoming surpassed at a fast rate. Also, there was looting, a undeniable tradional RPG element. You see, instead of improving the sequel based on these flaws they just scrapped the whole thing. And no, I don`t see the point as now we have for example only few assault rifles, but still, only one or two are used by most players as they are more powerful. You can't really call this dumbing down, but rather limiting our choice or minimizing the inventory to the most basic parts. In place of these RPG aspects they introduced superior shooting mechanics with improved cover and level designs, as  well as enemy AI. However, these were superior only to the original Mass Effect and not to other shooters at the time of Mass Effect 2 at all. So it failed in this category in my opinions. That's what I'm disappointed about.

[kraze07]

haberman13 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Indeed. It was like picking up The Two Towers and discovering it was Go, Dog. Go! instead.

Exactly what I mean by false elitism. Tell me, do you wear a top hat and monocle while playing the game? Perhaps you drink fine wines and laugh at all the commoners playing their Halo and Gears of War.

But that you think Mass Effect is on the level of The Two Towers says more, I think, about your own intelligence than it does about the sophistication of Mass Effect's gameplay.

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.

I'm glad you have officially declared your own stupidity with the bolded statement. For someone who spends so much time playing RPGs, you obviously don't understand the basics of how statistics even work. Hint: population pool. That every RPG fan who lives 5 minutes from you hates the game is not statistically significant at all. Maybe Mass Effect is too complex for you...

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.

Multiplication vs. addition, once again. I'm sorry that you have trouble multiplying. I however can do both and understand that there is nothing complicated about either of them. Just like Mass Effect 1 + 2. I spend less than 5 seconds to distribute talent points in both games. Mass Effect is not the Two Towers by any means.

Fine wine = win
Monacle = win

ME2 = dumbed down

Answer: yes, we are elite, which is why we are ripping on the non-elite ME2 which took a turn into stupidity.

It sucks, but my elite brothers/sisters and I will keep spewing this vitriole just like the dumb masses spewed theirs and dumbed down ME2 throughout its development.  Hopefully ME3 will be an upgrade because of all our effort (which was sorely lacking when debating the "elevator,mako,inventory"-sucks crowd.

Comment of the day.

[Il Divo]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

I see; that isn't exactly what I wanted to comment on, thoguh. What I wanted to point out is - as you just said - that so far the whole Mass Effect series isn't a good RPG overall, at least in terms of gameplay.

Agreed.

Also, there are more differences from original to sequel than just skills: The inventory system. The only point I see ever mentioned as the reason of it's removal is the barely noticable differences in equipment plus many armor parts, weapons and upgrades becoming surpassed at a fast rate. Also, there was looting, a undeniable tradional RPG element.

 

And it's a good point. With any RPG/TPS hybrid, you have to consider what the best aspects are to borrow from each genre. Something (like the inventory) might not be "out-dated", but might ruin the final result if it's not combined well with the shooter aspects. The final effect should be seemless, but it feels more like the RPG and shooter aspects are constantly fighting rather than complementing each other.

The issue with the inventory in Mass Effect 2 is pretty clear; there isn't one. Mass Effect's problem is as you said that it doesn't do much. I never picked up a new gun and found myself saying "I can't wait to try this out" the way I would in either an RPG or a shooter. Instead, I'd be whimpering because I had to go back and create more omnigel, which interrupted the gameplay's pacing even more. The issue is, what's a good level of balance for an rpg/shooter hybrid? The series definitely hasn't hit that stride yet.  

You can't really call this dumbing down, but rather limiting our choice or minimizing the inventory to the most basic parts. In place of these RPG aspects they introduced superior shooting mechanics with improved cover and level designs, as  well as enemy AI. However, these were superior only to the original Mass Effect and not to other shooters at the time of Mass Effect 2 at all. So it failed in this category in my opinions. That's what I'm disappointed about.

Which is an interesting observation and one I can respect. Mass Effect failed as a shooter/RPG hybrid. Mass Effect 2 attempted to at least improve its shooter combat yet still failed in comparison to other shooters. I think the biggest issue is that they try to combine the RPG/TPS elements at the same time. Breaking down omni-gel halfway through combat, for example.

Instead of giving us an inventory we can explore at any point, how about an inventory which we can only open on the Normandy? This would avoid ruining the gameplay's pace and still introduce mechanics to keep the numbers-people happy. I did think that the technology upgrade system for Mass Effect 2 was a step in the right direction. I would like to see the developers expand on it a bit. Perhaps it could give unique abilities to players for collecting certain minerals, etc. Nevertheless, I do think that Mass Effect 3 needs to make some heavy revisions in the gameplay department.

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Well, while I do agree on the upgrade system from Mass Effect 2 being good overall, I think that because the upgrades improved the stats of everyone (safe for a few select) combined with the fact that most passive skills are nearly identical or differ in spans of 5-10% many squad members are too similar to each other or shephard himself.
Also, coming back to the inventory system: THe armor costumization in Mass Effect 2 isn't bad either, but it suffers from the exact same problems armors in Mass Effect 1 did. First, the max you're going to get out of a single piece is 10% which you're probably not going to notice in combat. Also you can't find or buy armor parts that offer a higher bonus in the same category, as in 10% shield strength as opposes to 5%. Last, while we got quite a few soldier oriented parts and whole armors (including the Kestrel armor), all the other classes are'nt so lucky. They should've added more parts in; I think that they may release quite a few armor packs as of yet which offer bonuses for other classes, but those won't be free which I think is a ripoff just like the Kestrel armor.

Modifié par BlackbirdSR-71C, 29 juillet 2010 - 05:15 .

[geertmans]

iakus wrote...

geertmans wrote...

ME 2 ultimately tries to please everyone and by trying to do so never really knows what it wants to be. This is shown in almost every aspect: it's way too dumbed down to be an RPG and too slow for the action packed shooter it also tries to be. The characters are as said almost perfectly written but the main story feels lazy and full with plotholes when taking the first part into account. For me ME2 is to ME1 what Matrix 2 and 3 were to the original Matrix. I prefer story and atmosphere above gameplay and action.

I like this human.  He understands

Assuming direct control

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


That's just a list of personal grievances, Tonnactus. Can I ever get a straight answer out of you?

No.Examples of things that were dumbed down.

Implying, of course, that ME1 was 'deep' to begin with...

Compared with what? How many other rpgs with shooting are out there? Fallout 3 for example wasnt that much deeper. Things like some perks make the thing a little complex,but thats it. But fallout didnt have any weapon customisation or ammo types.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 juillet 2010 - 07:24 .

[haberman13]

geertmans wrote...

iakus wrote...

geertmans wrote...

ME 2 ultimately tries to please everyone and by trying to do so never really knows what it wants to be. This is shown in almost every aspect: it's way too dumbed down to be an RPG and too slow for the action packed shooter it also tries to be. The characters are as said almost perfectly written but the main story feels lazy and full with plotholes when taking the first part into account. For me ME2 is to ME1 what Matrix 2 and 3 were to the original Matrix. I prefer story and atmosphere above gameplay and action.

I like this human.  He understands

Assuming direct control

Agreed, ME2 = Matrix 2/3

Ok movies on their own, but compared to the original it just doesn't live up.

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Compared with what? How many other rpgs with shooting are out there? Fallout 3 for example wasnt that much deeper. Things like some perks make the thing a little complex,but thats it. But fallout didnt have any weapon customisation or ammo types.

I think FO 3 is a very good example of combining RPG elements and shooter action. Of course some people claim that the game was dumbed down too in comparison to FO 1 and 2, and to some extent that is certainly true. But some kind of modernization was probably inevitable. Yet the game is still very much an RPG.

But most importantly, FO 3 sold very well. And the DLCs sold very well too. And even on consoles. This proves that there is a significant market for games that combine RPG and FPS/TPS action without being dumbed down, "streamlined" and shooterized. If you would add a story of the usual BioWare quality, surely you would sell more than ME 2 sold so far.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:45 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

No.Examples of things that were dumbed down.

Then you need to come up with a better list. The amount of 'upgrades' in ME1 were largely superficial, respecing adds replayability and pisses off less players, and 'press B' is just annoying. That's all crap for evidence in saying ME2 is "dumbed down".

tonnactus wrote...

Compared with what?

Bioware's own standards. They've yet to make a game as 'smart' as BG2.

bjdbwea wrote...

But most importantly, FO 3 sold very well. And the DLCs
sold very well too. And even on consoles. This proves that there is a
significant market for games that combine RPG and FPS/TPS action without
being dumbed down...

Or it proves that Fallout is still a very successful IP. The shooter combat was ick, I always went melee with my guys, but the point was not the combat and more exploring every single inch of the Capital Wasteland.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 29 juillet 2010 - 09:00 .

[zazei]

I fail to see how something being "not much better" is a good excuse for making it worse. People who like one genre and not the other will draw the line somewhere for hybrids where one just becomes too much of what they don't enjoy and for me ME2 is walking on that line.

Now others will feel differently but to use a example one had above where BG is 100, ME1 is 20 and ME2 is 10 I find 100 is great, 20 is still acceptable and made up for it with good presentation but 10 is too far. I don't nessassarly believe those are the exact numbers for how things are on a RPG meter if something like that even exist but it's just a example to demonstrate my first point.

Modifié par zazei, 29 juillet 2010 - 09:00 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


Then you need to come up with a better list. The amount of 'upgrades' in ME1 were largely superficial, respecing adds replayability and pisses off less players, and 'press B' is just annoying. That's all crap for evidence in saying ME2 is "dumbed down".

That a game didnt let you decide how you upgrade your weapon is "dumbed down",if you accept it or not. If someone screw up a build and just can easily respec make the game definetly easier. Crap evidence,sure.

Or it proves that Fallout is still a very successful IP.

Most fallout games except fallout 3 were only playable on pc. Yet the game still sold very well on consoles.

tonnactus wrote...


Bioware's own standards. They've yet to make a game as 'smart' as BG2.

I compare it with games that rpgs parts and shooting too.Fallout 3 is one example of that.

The shooter combat was ick, I always went melee with my guys, but the point was not the combat and more exploring every single inch of the Capital Wasteland.

That the combat was ick is your opinion. Many players played the game on all difficulties shooting without even using vats.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 juillet 2010 - 10:32 .

[lazuli]

tonnactus wrote...

That a game didnt let you decide how you upgrade your weapon is "dumbed down",if you accept it or not.

Ammo powers?
Weapon upgrades?