Terror_K wrote...
Jebel Krong wrote...
hmmm i was being sarcastic for the most-part, but your retort tells me i've touched a nerve. why is it ok for you to complain about me calling you elitist, but when i say i like the better shooter mechanics of me2 as well as all the great things that carried over from me1, plus all the other improvements, i'm just a "dumb halo/MW2 wannabe player and unable to appreciate 'depth'?" (and btw - depth =/= stat-based aiming).
I dunno... perhaps because, from my perspective, you're acting like the same type of people who come in here making contradictory, illogical statements. Statements about ME2 apparently having more depth than the original game, still being a deep RPG (or even being more of an RPG) and that its moving then genre forward with its changes and not being hackneyed by abandoning its RPG features in favour of "fresh and original" shooter mechanics, etc.
Now, I've said this before several times, but it seems it needs saying again: if the stat-based shooting from the original game was the only thing that went in favour of a more shooter-oriented approach, then it wouldn't have been so much of an issue. But that's not the case, as a lot of other elements bit the dust as well, pretty much all of them RPG-related aspects, and the whole game was watered down and made overly simple in the process. Yes, there were some good things that carried over from ME1 (though overall this aspect was extremely weak) and there were some improvements as well, but overall these come across as kind of shallow compared to the amount that was lost. As I've also said before, when you have 10 litres of water in a container and tip out all of it and add a litre again, you don't get 11 litres. Add to that the fact that there's so much stuff that's essentially fluff while the main gameplay feels anaemic and it doesn't help.
On top of that, the whole approach BioWare made with ME2 comes across as simplified and created for the masses. Aside from the cinematic stuff, it just seems like the entire game was done by a different company or something. It seems like at every turn the game was stripped of what made it great and a more refined and deeper experience and replaced by an almost "Fisher Price: My First RPG" style. The whole thing feels like BioWare were purposefully giving their old fans the middle finger and embracing the masses of shooter fans who love things simple and visceral. And that's what annoys me more than anything: that BioWare seem to clearly be saying that they'd rather bring in the mainstream masses than please their existing fans, despite the loyalty we've had for them over the years.
BioWare titles used to be special and a cut above the other stuff out there. Mass Effect 2 is just another one of the crowd.
ok so they dropped some of the rpg mechanics, or changed them. for me the most important part of the mass effect "experience" is the characters and the universe. followed closely by the story and then all the gameplay. did these elements make it through both games? and improved? i'd have to say yes:
1. the universe. unique and immediately recognizable (much-like the halo one btw which you denigrate, but is actually mostly well thought-out - except for human technological advancement). mass effect's universe is at once a homage to films of the late 70s and 80s, as well as more contemporary, literary fiction. strong design aesthetics permeate everything from environments to weapons. did that make it through to mass effect 2? yes - you have some of the same environments, but the darker, edgier storyline takes you to new environments which carry similar design aesthetics but, along with the innumerable technological engine upgrades, have allowed even better environments, clearly influenced even more by blade runner, and neo-noir futurism.
the collectors might not have been to everyone's taste as an adversary, given their nature, but their own environments were very unique in games and very well done, and also suitably different to everything else so far seen. the new lighting effects made city-hubs like illium unique but still coherent with the overarching design aesthetic.
the weapons actually suffered more moving to the sequel, mainly due to the inclusion of heavy weapons that don't actually fit the previous design aesthetics terribly well.
2. characters. the characters in mass effect 1 were some of the best, best-written and most rounded characters, hell in most media. you'd have to be crazy to argue that there aren't at least as many, if not more, even better realised in the sequel. ok there are some that don't work as well, and that differs depending on individual tastes, too. BW were brave enough to resist just falling back on the same squad-mates again and introduce the new characters, and they did so masterfully. together with the universe, the species and characters are what makes the mass effect universe unique and immediately recognisable. the conversation systems and the character writing differentiate BW games from any of the others out there. you could never say this was not improved from first game to sequel.
3. story. being the middle act of the planned-trilogy, it is often a difficult step. as i mentioned above the collectors weren't to everyone's taste, but were at least interesting and alien. their connection to the true threat was both good and bad in the end - bad because you had no, one, individual to focus on as a nemesis (like saren and then sovereign in me1). however the expanded storyline to accompany the overrarching one, involving recruiting a team for a sucuicide mission and then gaining their loyalty (whilst tried-and-true) was a very good one. overall i'd say me1s main story was better because it so wonderfully introduced the universe and the nature of your enemy, and gave you a satisfying single-game resolution. mass effect 2 was better at fleshing out the characters and the universe, but had a less satisfying conclusion, which also involved some dodgy retconning as well and will be very dependent on how #3 turns out to be finally judged.
4. gameplay. mass effect 1 had average combat mechanics, some ludicrous design that contravened the settings (future guns that can't hit targets and the player as a special-forces elite operative shoots like he's in the A-team). mass effect 2 played much more like a fluid, cover-based 3rd-person shooter, which is what the prequel attempted but failed at. both have their fair share of glitches still, but combat is much more satisfying in mass effect 2, even if the weapons feel somewhat puny (and certainly not like railguns) and the heavy weapons upset the balance somewhat. sniping a collector in the brainpan is eminently satisfying, and leagues ahead of anything in me1.
now whilst i'm at work, and as such my narrative coherence isn't all it could be, thanks to interruptions, these points some up a few of my thoughts to repute your own.
EDIT: re your post above: mass effect did feel like they made a game for the nerdy sci-fi fan that also loved games, in this case an rpg-shooter. it was and still is both, never one or the other, solely.
Modifié par Jebel Krong, 27 avril 2010 - 11:50 .
Ce sujet est fermé
RPG.
Retour en haut
