10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

lazuli wrote...

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?

Could the adept use cyro ammo,yes or no? Could the adept evolve "regular ammo powers" to the heavy version? No.(have to use weaker squad version)
So ammo powers arent a good replacement for the ammo mods that in the first game exist and every class could use.

So,the weapon upgrades: Could someone decide to install the headshot upgrade before the armor upgrade.No.Linear,no choice. Dumbed down.
Could someone install a accuracy upgrade for an assault rifle before he did the sheilds/barrier/armor penetration upgrade? No. Linear. No choice. Dumbed down.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 juillet 2010 - 10:51 .

[Ahalazar]

Uhhhm, except the fact that you need to do some tedious resource farming to make those upgrades, why does it matter so much? Why do you want full control over the game? Programming something with full control to the player is hell on earth so... c'mon...

[tonnactus]

Ahalazar wrote...

Uhhhm, except the fact that you need to do some tedious resource farming to make those upgrades, .

You mean like planet scanning? I actually prefer it to get it from enemies and lockers.

[User45]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Vampire:the Masquerade: Bloodlines could all be said to be rpg/shooter hybrids. (maybe not Vampire)  Each game is deeper than either Mass Effect in terms of gameplay. 
It should be noted, however, that each of those games (and Fallout 3) are primarily just one guy vs the bad guys, as opposed to a squad vs bad guys.  I wonder if a game of Mass Effect's type can work as a deep RPG?

[Iakus]

BomimoDK wrote...
 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.

My disgust at what was done with Ashley/Kaiden is more a continuity/diaogue problem than consequences.

Does anything change besides conversation topics if Wrex or his brother is on the throne?

I admit I do like holding the rachni in reserve for ME 3.  Their message was kinda cool. See I don't need immediate gratification for everything

Ah, yes, the Council.  Perhaps the biggest choice you make in ME 1. It's consequences consist of:  a merchant may or may not sell two you.  A pair of asari tourists may or may not be rude to you.  The Council may or may not talk to you.  The Citadel's the same.  the quests are the same.  The dialogue is virtually the same.

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?

If ME 2 is supposed to be such a closed circle as far as choice and consequences, to keep things together for ME 3, then I'd argue that Bioware bit off way more than they could chew in making this a "trilogy"

I've been Bioware fan since Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.  Loved  KOTOR, NWN (1 and 2, yes I know Obsidean made the sequels) Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Dragon Age (Awakenings wasn't bad, just bug riddled) and I think people are overreacting over Dragon Age 2 changes.  Believe me, I wanted to love Mass Effect 2.  I would have settled for liking it.  The sad fact is, even if Mass Effect 3 turns out to be distilled awesome.  Mass Effect 2 will still be out there.  It is a totally unworthy sequel to ME 1, story-wise.  This is the first, and so far only game of Bioware's that I can say I disliked.  As a sequel, it sits up there with Deus Ex 2.  Continuity, consequences, plot, all got sacrificed in the name of gameplay.  Gameplay may be great, but the price was simply too high.

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'm not a shooter-hater.  I'm actually indifferent to the whole genre.  I'm also pretty indifferent to reviews.  ME 2 may be considered a great game now, but something tells me in a year or two it'll be "What's Mass Effect?"  I'm not going to predict how well or poorly Alpha Protocol is, I'm just pointing out that some of it's mechanics worked out really well, and implementing them could solve a lot of the arguements here (incidentally, I never noticed my shots requiring "rolls" the bullets generally went where the crosshairs pointed).

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?

I am definitely a story fan.  I can forgive a lot if the storyline is entertaining.  My problems with ME 2's story are vast, and not just limited to consequences.  If you want to talk about that, give me a place to begin and I'll be happy to debate (civily, of course.  No questioning of intelligence, sanity, parentage, or humanity)

[Ahalazar]

User45 said...

It should be noted, however, that each of those games (and Fallout 3) are primarily just one guy vs the bad guys, as opposed to a squad vs bad guys. I wonder if a game of Mass Effect's type can work as a deep RPG?

Fallout Tactics is a squad based shooter rpg. Except it's not 1st person nor 3rd person. Has a decent story, a lot of action, and needs a lot of thinking.

[Il Divo]

zazei wrote...

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.

It's not an excuse of whether it's worse. But "how much worse". If Mass Effect had been the equivalent of Dragon Age, I could see why they think Mass Effect 2 is too large a shift and is dumbed down. As it stands, Mass Effect 1 didn't have much depth and had many complaints with the combat system. It's not necessarily a good thing, but that was the reality of it.

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.

This is fine. Every RPG fan has a different limit where it goes "too far". Some will stop at the d20 rule system, others can keep going to Mass Effect, and some can push it to Mass Effect 2. Point of view is important. To some, 20% RPG is already too little and refuse to play Mass Effect. To others, it's just enough. And to others still, they can keep going lower. There's nothing wrong with wanting to encourage more rpg mechanics, but this notion that some have that Mass Effect 2 was the indisputable breaking point is extremely unfair.

I for example would say Mass Effect was only about 15% 'rpg', 5% of which was spent in my inventory creating omnigel. Mass Effect 2 was about 10% with no omni-gel. We all have different limits.

[Terror_K]

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 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.

I see that you've decided to resort to petty insults, so I am done with you, good sir!

*puts on monocle, grabs top hat from coat rack and leaves. Then quicky pops back in*

Oh, and also that you completely missed the point of my Two Towers/Go, Dog. Go! statement. Good day, sir!

*leaves again*

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

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.

Meh, I'm used to Bioware doing that. I hoped they would make Kotor 3 and we get Old Republic instead. I'm still going to play it, but I'd rather see a 'trilogy' finish.

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..

Right. But when the Empire "struck back" it was during Hoth and Cloud City. My point still remains that watching Han and Leia fly around did nothing to move the plot forward in any direction. We could skip everything that happened and all we would have missed is them falling in love, which is not really plot-related. I can likewise condense Luke's scenes to "train to be a Jedi". I certainly enjoyed watching it. I loved Luke's character, but I also loved Mass Effect 2's cast. Both were still almost completely filler. If we skipped the cave +Millenium Falcon chases, would you say that the Empire had "not" struck back?

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. 

Well, I'm glad you at least don't have a Bobba Fett fetish, like so many people I know. XD

But I'm gonna be honest in saying that I think Mass Effect already shot itself in the foot. At the conclusion, I had absolutely no idea what to expect with Mass Effect 2. Sure, Shepard says "I'm going to stop the Reapers". But how? It's not like we'd come across obvious Reaper settlements or more Prothean beacons in our travels. At that time, we had no idea about Klendagon, etc. I honestly found Shepard's end speech melodramatic. There was no 'clue' left at the conclusion for us to follow. No detail waiting to be unveiled for Mass Effect 2. It was unclear where the story was going.

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, I think it was pretty clear that the basics of these questions were answered once we reach the Collector Ship. They're indoctrinated/enslaved to serve the Reapers. Nothing we hadn't seen before.

Now as far as the squad members themselves, as per Miranda's words: Shepard is a "natural leader". What we get in any Bioware RPG, essentially. People feel inspired to follow him. And aside from Jack, I can't really think of any party members who joined Shepard 'unreasonably'. Samara is a Justicar, which as Detective Anaya explains are "drawn to impossible missions" and Thane is seeking out atonement. Standard fare, but still very sensible. Which characters in particular did you take issue with?

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?

Neither. Just pointing out that the "elevator conversation" (for me) argument would work better if these squad interactions were more accessible. It certainly was better than Mass Effect, but still far worse to Bioware's standard fare.

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.

I just found it rather bland. It was standard "Save the World, stop the bad-guy" only this time around we had a rather bland motivation to spur us on. "Saren hates humans" is our motivation to save the world from the evil mastermind. I think Bioware should have built up just how unusual Saren's flagship was long before we reached Feros. It's mentioned on Eden Prime and it ends there.  

[User45]

Ahalazar wrote...

User45 said...
It should be noted, however, that each of those games (and Fallout 3) are primarily just one guy vs the bad guys, as opposed to a squad vs bad guys. I wonder if a game of Mass Effect's type can work as a deep RPG?

Fallout Tactics is a squad based shooter rpg. Except it's not 1st person nor 3rd person. Has a decent story, a lot of action, and needs a lot of thinking.

I think that statement was a poor choice of words/ not being entirely sure what I meant.  So I'm going to try agian and hopefully be a bit clearer.  What I think I meant was that in those games they give the player a high degree of freedom, and in real time, because the player needs only to deal with single character, which tends to result in more depth.  In Mass Effect (1 and 2) this freedom is missing.  The control you have over your squad (and Shepard) is rather limited, in part because you only get to control shepard and you can't switch to another character and tell them what to do like in KOTOR or Baldur's Gate.  In my view this seems to promote more linear level design and less interaction with the enviroment.  Also with this system it is entriely combat focused and again entirely shepard focused, which seems to me to downplay anything besides straight head to head combat (with the occasional sniper section)  I hope that that gave a somewhat clearer idea of what I was trying to say. (I doubt it was)

Also correct if I'm wrong but isn't Fallout Tactics a turn-based game or at least give you the option to pause and order your squad around.

[Whatever42]

Meh, I'm used to Bioware doing that. I hoped they would make Kotor 3 and we get Old Republic instead. I'm still going to play it, but I'd rather see a 'trilogy' finish.

I want them to forget about the MMO and do a CGI movie with Blur. Those trailers are ridiculously awesome.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:17 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

This is pretty much how I see this:

ME2 is a great game.

It's just not the great game the heavy RPG fans wanted.

Thus the divide in opinion.

Modifié par PKchu, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:25 .

[Some Geth]

PKchu wrote...

This is pretty much how I see this:

ME2 is a great game.

It's just not the great game the heavy RPG fans wanted.

Thus the divide in opinion.

Pokemon Black and White will be out soon so I hope that will shut them up :happy:.

[Pocketgb]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

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

I have. That's why I've stated in multiple instances how weapon customization was one of if not the only thing that was truly lost from ME1 to ME2 with nothing in exchange.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

If someone screw up a build and just can easily respec make the game definetly easier.[/quote]

It's easier because it's less bull ****. A new player should be able to rectify their mistakes once they understand the mechanics. This is why DA:O got a lot of flak: poor learning curve, plenty of mistakes to make. It's why this is still the most downloaded mod for it.

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

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

What exactly are you attempting to insinuate here, again?

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

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

Right, so as has already been pointed out, ME1 must be horribly subpar mechanicaly so.[/quote]

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:05 .

[lazuli]

tonnactus wrote...


Could the adept use cyro ammo,yes or
no? Could the adept evolve "regular ammo powers" to the heavy version?
No.(have to use weaker squad version)
So ammo powers arent a good replacement for the ammo mods that in the first game exist and every class could use.

Why do Adepts need ammo powers?  Their strength isn't in gunplay.  And why is it always about Adepts?

Modifié par lazuli, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:27 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I see that you've decided to resort to petty insults, so I am done with you, good sir!

*puts on monocle, grabs top hat from coat rack and leaves. Then quicky pops back in*

Oh, and also that you completely missed the point of my Two Towers/Go, Dog. Go! statement. Good day, sir!

*leaves again*

At least try to see what he's saying inbetween all that. The 'false elitism' is an interesting statement, largely because this comment of yours is equally intriguing.

Terror_K wrote...

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.

That is incredibly inconsiderate and condescending.

Put ME1 on a pedestal because you liked the way the mechanics work, but don't try to put it on a pedestal of having more 'intellect' without properly demonstrating how it succeeds in that respect - which I find puts you in a predicament since you yourself have stated ME1's RPG "depth" was at 20%. Is 10% really worth having a 300 page thread for, or is it equivalent to complaining about one grain of salt "ruining" your meal.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:28 .

[pl-destroy]

Got this game late last week.

I find it plays like Gears of War with speech choices and the RPG stuff is so weak it's not even worth mentioning.

Ok action romp with good story.

Game could of been SO much more.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

At least try to see what he's saying inbetween all that. The 'false elitism' is an interesting statement, largely because this comment of yours is equally intriguing.

The problem is that anybody who comments about how the most popular titles these days are the simplest and about how the quality of gaming as a whole has gone downhill automatically gets labelled as "elitist" which most of the time I find incredibly hypocritical actually. Where does elitism begin and actual social commentary on the simplfication and overall dumbing-down of gaming and gamers overall begin? It's hard to make such comments, even as a vague reference here or there, without people jumping on you with their Swords of Elitism + 5 in hand. Some say that ME1 is already dumbed-down in the first place, but I still don't agree with that, because it was never trying to be the RPG's of old in the first place. There's a difference between trying to be something and then being dumbed-down and trying to be something that seems dumbed down when you compare it to a deeper game that's trying to be something more.

For instance, I don't think Mass Effect would work if you started adding things like Strength, Dex, Intelligence, etc. to the mix, or if you started taking things like Running, Swimming, Jumping, Climbing, etc. either. It's an Action-RPG, not a pure RPG. But nor is it a pure Action Game, which ME2 came dangerously close to being. You can go too far either way. Making Mass Effect "D&D in space" would be too far one way, and making it "Gears of War with Dialogue Options" would be too far the other. I just think that ME1 had the balance better, whether the mechanics present worked fully or not.

Oh, and the comment I made about TTT and GDG! was actually a reference to the overall style, presentation and feel of the two games... not the content. How you present something can make all the difference.

That is incredibly inconsiderate and condescending.

Put ME1 on a pedestal because you liked the way the mechanics work, but don't try to put it on a pedestal of having more 'intellect' without properly demonstrating how it succeeds in that respect - which I find puts you in a predicament since you yourself have stated ME1's RPG "depth" was at 20%. Is 10% really worth having a 300 page thread for, or is it equivalent to complaining about one grain of salt "ruining" your meal.

When I gave that example I did state that this was a purely hypothetical situation, and those numbers weren't a percentage-based illustration at all. You can't really do that when comparing two completely different games such as BG and ME, since it all depends on the depth of the mechanics within each example. I'd actually say that, if you were to look at it purely on its own, ME1 was about 60% RPG and 40% Shooter (assuming the story-driven stuff is lumped in with the statistical RPG stuff). ME2 is about  20% RPG and 80% Shooter.

Again, look at the list of things I posted earlier that were lost between both games and either replaced with nothing or with a shallow, linear and/or overly simple system in ME2. ME1 is far from flawless, but I don't think it's mechanics are anywhere near as bad as some people make out (especially post-ME2's release might I add) and they certainly weren't beyond repair and at a point where they should just be thrown out. If ME2 had replaced them with systems that were different yet still gave the player the same amount of options and choice then things wouldn't have been as bad. But that's not what happened.

[William Adama]

I hope everyone realizes that people who were a little upset at the changes are voicing their opinions to IMPROVE the next game. That's the point of these topics, and I hope the devs visit these topics so that they get ideas on how to maximize the fans satisfaction with their product.

[Terror_K]

William Adama wrote...

I hope everyone realizes that people who were a little upset at the changes are voicing their opinions to IMPROVE the next game. That's the point of these topics, and I hope the devs visit these topics so that they get ideas on how to maximize the fans satisfaction with their product.

Indeed. The way some people act it's as if we're out to get them and wipe ME2 from the face of the earth. I think some people are afraid the game could become ME1 again, but I don't think anybody is asking for that. Closer to ME1 perhaps, sure... but not all the way. I can't can't understand why some people are so opposed to adding more depth, more options, more customisation, etc. to ME3.

[William Adama]

Terror_K wrote...

William Adama wrote...

I hope everyone realizes that people who were a little upset at the changes are voicing their opinions to IMPROVE the next game. That's the point of these topics, and I hope the devs visit these topics so that they get ideas on how to maximize the fans satisfaction with their product.

Indeed. The way some people act it's as if we're out to get them and wipe ME2 from the face of the earth. I think some people are afraid the game could become ME1 again, but I don't think anybody is asking for that. Closer to ME1 perhaps, sure... but not all the way. I can't can't understand why some people are so opposed to adding more depth, more options, more customisation, etc. to ME3.

I don't want ME3 to be a ME1 clone either. They need to take what worked in 1 and hybrid it with what worked in 2. People here are raving that 2 was a perfect game, it wasn't. Some things were improved while some things were made worse.

Learn from the mistakes and move on Bioware.

[JGDD]

William Adama wrote...
Learn from the mistakes and move on Bioware.

BioWare will move on and that's a given. There is another thing that may prevent them from implementing a ton of changes in this trilogy: the Xbox 360. Face it people, it's a static platform that can't be upgrade easily like a pc and has run parallel in developement. This subject was brought out a while ago with the intent of closing the story before the machine's useful life expectancy was over. I doubt there will be sweeping changes in either direction at this point.

[kraze07]

William Adama wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

William Adama wrote...

I hope everyone realizes that people who were a little upset at the changes are voicing their opinions to IMPROVE the next game. That's the point of these topics, and I hope the devs visit these topics so that they get ideas on how to maximize the fans satisfaction with their product.

Indeed. The way some people act it's as if we're out to get them and wipe ME2 from the face of the earth. I think some people are afraid the game could become ME1 again, but I don't think anybody is asking for that. Closer to ME1 perhaps, sure... but not all the way. I can't can't understand why some people are so opposed to adding more depth, more options, more customisation, etc. to ME3.

I don't want ME3 to be a ME1 clone either. They need to take what worked in 1 and hybrid it with what worked in 2. People here are raving that 2 was a perfect game, it wasn't. Some things were improved while some things were *scrapped completely*.

Learn from the mistakes and move on Bioware.

*Fixed*. IMO the only thing that didn't work too well in ME1 was the cluttered inventory system. Everything else seemed fine to me, but apparently people who feel the same way I do are in the minority. We're like the 300 Spartans battling the Persian empire.

Modifié par kraze07, 30 juillet 2010 - 05:31 .

[Bom_diggidy_Wrex]

MASS EFFECT 2 IS BETTER THAN MASS EFFECT 1

The looting system in ME1 was annoying and boring. ME2 needs more options but i don't want to go back to the copy paste jumpsuits with diffrent colors and more varied stats...I like presentation in RPG's if i wanted to farm gear i'll go play an MMO or borderlands.

Also if you think the Shooter style from ME1 was better your opinion is now wrong sorry...

Modifié par Bom_diggidy_Wrex, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:11 .

[Whatever42]

I think people really need to realize that Bioware plans on releasing ME3 in a much shorter time frame because they have no intention of overhauling the mechanics. I suspect the story and dialogue trees are also long since written.



We can hope that they're even better than ME1 and ME2 but all we can do is hope. And there is zero chance of them adding back mechanics like inventory or massive skill trees.