10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Where does elitism begin and actual social commentary on the simplfication and overall dumbing-down of gaming and gamers overall begin?

It starts when you actually support your statement, something few people have done in this thread. The "elitism" stops when you discontinue saying statements like this:

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.

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Intentionally shallow is still shallow. Not everyone is able to ignore standards.

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Either things were changed in a manner that made no difference (losing the inventory system) or changed on a small level that should warrent only a minor complaint (ME1 has eight active skills per class, ME2 has six). We lost weapon proficeincy progression via percantage boosts in exchange for ammo powers that are equivilent to stances.

Not having to rely on very specific squadmates just to open crates was a plus for many, but it was done in a lazy fashion. Everyone should be able to pick open a lock, just not the same way. We already discussed this earlier in the thread so I'm not sure why you pretended it never happened, and I'm not terribly sure at the moment how knowing the stats of a weapon would be useful in ME2's case given all the variables the surround a weapon.

Only exception here, of course, is the loss of weapon customization. That's impossible to deny. Many other features were pretty controversial. Bioware has always been in a rough spot for the Mass Effect series.

Bioware only stripped away the illusion of depth with ME2, even though many people enjoyed that illusion. Some people enjoy a large amount of variety even if the balance technically prevents it from doing so, others don't. The only way you can please both crowds is by having a lot of depth and keeping it balanced, but it's Bioware we're talking about here.

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah... that's what happens when you make a game more mainstream.

Wowza, how do you think people felt about both Jade Empire? AND ME1??

tonnactus wrote...

Why an adept shouldnt use all ammo mods that exists? Or the engineer? Or the vanguard? Or the infiltrator? All classes could use all ammo mods in Mass Effect. Now that doesnt work anymore,because ammo mods are powers now. An awfull replacement.

If anything ammo powers were meant to replace the special weapon attacks and (incredibly dull) weapon skill trees. I can't speak for everyone but I certainly found the change refreshing.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:19 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

But professional reviewers shouldn't hand out perfect scores so easily, or probably not at all. So the question remains: Is ME 2 the perfect game? Answer: Of course not, no game so far has been. A reviewer who wants to be taken seriously has to take the whole game into account.

"So easily". As of now, Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Baldur's Gate II, Bioshock, and Starcraft II (which just came out) hold higher ratings than Mass Effect 2. Tell me, were those scores handed out unreasonably? My guess is you'll say no for Baldur's Gate II because it made your cut, even if it didn't make someone else's.

Guess what, your guess is wrong. A perfect score for BG 2 would be almost as ridiculous as a perfect score for ME 2 (or ME 1 for that matter). All other games you mentioned are of course also not perfect.

There are however numerous games which are better than ME 2 but were lower rated, including several games from BioWare themselves. And yes, that's an opinion.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


Bioware only stripped away the illusion of depth with ME2, even though many people enjoyed that illusion.

Yes seriously.Especially for squadmates now only have 2 powers for at least half of the game. If you really think this
why not compare what tali has to offer in the first game and now? And there is no reason to discount weapon and armor
powers.Shield boost,carnage,marksmen. All things that are just "an illusion of depth"?

If anything ammo powers were meant to replace the special weapon attacks
and (incredibly dull) weapon skill trees. I can't speak for everyone
but I certainly found the change refreshing.

More dull a lift level one,two,three and the "evolution" that are always the same,either more duration/damage or area effect.

Modifié par tonnactus, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:41 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Yes seriously.Especially for squadmates now only have 2 powers for at least half of the game.

Except now there's eleven squadmates and more intervals where you can change squad composition due to the mission structure.

tonnactus wrote...

And there is no reason to discount weapon and armor powers...

To not interfere with the flow of combat, and this would definitely be a loss if there weren't eleven squadmates.

tonnactus wrote...


More dull a lift level one,two,three and the "evolution" that are always the same,either more duration/damage or area effect.

Which is much less static than what ME1 possessed, but ME1 had more things to level up. What's your poison?

Pull was great only in certain circumstances, and Jacob showed you them the first time you met him.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:06 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

Guess what, your guess is wrong. A perfect score for BG 2 would be almost as ridiculous as a perfect score for ME 2 (or ME 1 for that matter). All other games you mentioned are of course also not perfect.

Good, I'm glad you understand that. And yet BG 2 (95) is still more highly rated than Mass Effect 2 (94), indicating that some reviewers somewhere have given it either a) perfect score or a higher score than Mass Effect 2.

But, of course, you're not questioning the mentality behind those reviewers in doing so. It's perfectly okay for them to give out a perfect score to Baldur's Gate II. Just not Mass Effect 2.

There are however numerous games which are better than ME 2 but were lower rated, including several games from BioWare themselves. And yes, that's an opinion.

Once more, good. I'm glad you realize it's an opinion. I personally would not place Bioshock in my top ten games ever made, but there it is. I however don't claim that reviewers are obviously biased, hate RPGs, etc. There are some who wouldn't place Baldur's Gate II in their top ten. Or even Half-Life. So please, what's so special about your opinion that you feel the need to make generalizations about the  entire Mass Effect 2 fan base?  What is your basis for thinking that all these reviews were "set-up", but not BG's?

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Once more, good. I'm glad you realize it's an opinion. I personally would not place Bioshock in my top ten games ever made, but there it is. I however don't claim that reviewers are obviously biased, hate RPGs, etc. There are some who wouldn't place Baldur's Gate II in their top ten. Or even Half-Life. So please, what's so special about your opinion that you feel the need to make generalizations about the entire Mass Effect 2 fan base?  What is your basis for thinking that all these reviews were "set-up", but not BG's?

I would like if you and others in this thread would stop inventing straw mans. Reviews with scores of 100/100 for BG 2 are of course also ridiculous. I guess those come from enthusiastic RPG fans, but objectively they're still wrong.

Many professional reviewers depend on the very same companies whose products they have to rate. That was already true back then, but it is even more true now. This has nothing to do with conspiracies, but much with how business works. Publishers don't have to bribe anyone - actually I doubt this happens often - but of course it's not wise to bite the hand that feeds you with exclusives, interviews, and of course advertising.

Secondly, and more importantly, these days many reviewers are part of the mainstream or at least write their reviews for the mainstream. And the "mainstream" these days cares most about graphics, action and - more or less - simplicity. This is one of the reasons why even the best RPGs are usually lower rated than the flashy shooters. And conversely, it explains why ME 2 improved in the ratings. It did improve in those aspects, and that it got worse in others isn't relevant to the audience many reviewers are part of or at least write for.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:37 .

[haberman13]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Guess what, your guess is wrong. A perfect score for BG 2 would be almost as ridiculous as a perfect score for ME 2 (or ME 1 for that matter). All other games you mentioned are of course also not perfect.

Good, I'm glad you understand that. And yet BG 2 (95) is still more highly rated than Mass Effect 2 (94), indicating that some reviewers somewhere have given it either a) perfect score or a higher score than Mass Effect 2.

But, of course, you're not questioning the mentality behind those reviewers in doing so. It's perfectly okay for them to give out a perfect score to Baldur's Gate II. Just not Mass Effect 2.

There are however numerous games which are better than ME 2 but were lower rated, including several games from BioWare themselves. And yes, that's an opinion.

Once more, good. I'm glad you realize it's an opinion. I personally would not place Bioshock in my top ten games ever made, but there it is. I however don't claim that reviewers are obviously biased, hate RPGs, etc. There are some who wouldn't place Baldur's Gate II in their top ten. Or even Half-Life. So please, what's so special about your opinion that you feel the need to make generalizations about the  entire Mass Effect 2 fan base?  What is your basis for thinking that all these reviews were "set-up", but not BG's?

I think reviewers worry about the community "outrage" over certain scores, so best to keep it in-line with console scores.

ME2 deserves a ~94 on the consoles, and ~84 on PC (IMO of course).  PC gamers have different tastes, so while I see ME2 as a standout on the consoles it is mediocre on the PC (because it doesn't meet out standard of depth with skills/gear)

PC gamers like Morrowind, Diablo, WoW (and crysis, metro 2033 etc., not just RPG [clarify to avoid argument]) so our desire for a game is a little different and should be scored differently.  We are willing to put up with downtime from combat in order to create a more immersive and cohesive world (read elevators = good, loading screens = bad)

Unfortunately the ME2 PC score seems like a copy/paste of the XBOX and not a real review of the game that considers past PC games and what they have established as standard.

Modifié par haberman13, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:42 .

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...



There are however numerous games which are better than ME 2 but were lower rated, including several games from BioWare themselves. And yes, that's an opinion.

the aggregates of opinions (reviews) would disagree with you: majority rules.



why oh why do people still want a toggle "crouch" option? it didn't serve any real purpose in me1 (oh slightly steadier aiming and being harder to hit on UNCs) and it definitely wouldn't in do anything in me2 with the cover/combat system. news for these people: me3 is not going to regress to me1's primitive combat mechanics.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Secondly, and more importantly, these days many reviewers are part of the mainstream or at least write their reviews for the mainstream. And the "mainstream" these days cares most about graphics, action and - more or
less - simplicity. This is one of the reasons why even the best RPGs are usually lower rated than the flashy shooters. And conversely, it  explains why ME 2 improved in the ratings. It did improve in those aspects, and that it got worse in others isn't relevant to the audience many reviewers are part of or at least write for.

There are a few things that conflict with that. The first is comparing the ratings of the two: For the massive amount of "changes" that ME2 underwent to apparently "appeal to the majority", the rating didn't stray too far from ME1. Both games are relatively successful.

The second thing is that one of the biggest deterrents for people who want things more straight-forward, quick, and simple is still present in ME2: Lots of dialog. This leads the player to lots of hitting the X button, which can lead to unforeseen and incomprehensible circumstances, which leads to this particular player leaving unfulfilled, confused, and annoyed.

Another deterrent is that ME2 has more consequences this time around: That same type of player aiming for the Omega 4 relay above all else will find themselves in a lot of trouble if they don't take the time to do the Loyalty missions.

If Bioware was really trying to rally in a more mainstream crowd, they certainly didn't try that hard...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:48 .

[Jebel Krong]

 i'd like to point the detractors in this thread to this interview with Dr Greg Zeschuck:

GZ: What you don't listen to is the loud internet commentary. The loudest voice is probably not the one you listen to. You listen to the person who put a lot of thought into it, who went out of their way to provide feedback. We're starting public testing for Star Wars: The Old Republic, and the fans are encouraged to write up their perspectives in the private forums. You're not allowed to break NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) - if they want to talk, they can talk all the want in their official, appropriate area. It's interesting to read, and the incites of the fans are valuable. I think there's a sort of thuggish mentality of the crowd on the internet, with people jumping on board. I think it would be very rare that you would find valuable things in the comments section of anything. Occasionally there's stuff, but we're not swayed by it. You can really be reactive to that. We tend to be very analytic, we put it down and move it around until we actually understand it. But I think one of the ways we make great games is by being really, really open to criticism.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:55 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

There are a few things that conflict with that. The first is comparing the ratings of the two: For the massive amount of "changes" that ME2 underwent to apparently "appeal to the majority", the rating didn't stray too far from ME1. Both games are relatively successful.

The second thing is that one of the biggest deterrents for people who want things more straight-forward, quick, and simple is still present in ME2: Lots of dialog. This leads the player to lots of hitting the X button, which can lead to unforeseen and incomprehensible circumstances, which leads to this particular player leaving unfulfilled, confused, and annoyed.

Another deterrent is that ME2 has more consequences this time around: some aiming for the Omega 4 relay above all else will find themselves in a lot of trouble without taking the time to do the Loyalty missions.

If Bioware was really trying to rally in a more mainstream crowd, they certainly didn't try that hard...

None of this conflicts with what I said though. But you're right, and I also suspect that with all the dumbing down, the targeted audience still didn't buy the game in as large numbers as BioWare/EA certainly hoped. I do fear that we will see even more dumbing down in ME 3 because of that, as so far I see no signs of them admitting that it's not the correct recipe for BioWare games. They seem intent on continuing with it.

Good point also from haberman. The tastes and expectations of PC gamers and console gamers are certainly different. Generally, it seems console reviewers are quicker with the highest scores. Maybe the ME 2 ratings have to be higher in comparison to other console games, but as a PC game it does things that were already outdated and done better ten years ago. Concerning gameplay of course, not graphics and the like.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

I would like if you and others in this thread would stop inventing straw mans. Reviews with scores of 100/100 for BG 2 are of course also ridiculous. I guess those come from enthusiastic RPG fans, but objectively they're still wrong.

I would like it then, as a mutual show of respect, for you and others to stop using phrases such as "true RPG fans" and inventing other straw mans, such as this comment of yours directed as Massadonious1:

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.

Start there if you want to talk about respecting your fellow forum-goers.

Secondly, and more importantly, these days many reviewers are part of the mainstream or at least write their reviews for the mainstream. And the "mainstream" these days cares most about graphics, action and - more or less - simplicity. This is one of the reasons why even the best RPGs are usually lower rated than the flashy shooters. And conversely, it explains why ME 2 improved in the ratings. It did improve in those aspects, and that it got worse in others isn't relevant to the audience many reviewers are part of or at least write for.

I'll tell you something: most, if not all, of those reviewers who played Mass Effect 2 had played and loved Mass Effect 1. When ign gave Mass Effect a 9.4, was that due to graphics, action, and more or less simplicity?
 
Are Half-Life 2 and Bioshock "flashy shooters?" I mean, you certainly use that phrase alot when describing how everyone prefers shooter gameplay, but looking at metacritic's top 20 quite a few are either old school shooters, RTS games, or even RPGs (Mass Effect 2, Baldur's Gate II, Oblivion). In fact, the top 100 list is quite varied between sports, rpg, rts, and fps games. The first "mindless" game is Modern Warfare at # 25 which still featured a very solid single player experience.

I'm sorry that more Bioware games excluding Mass Effect 2 weren't placed in the top 10. Different people have different preferences. I personally would rate every Legacy of Kain game (excluding Blood Omen 2) in my top 10 for story, characters, voice-acting, and depth, moreso than I would any Bioware game. But I don't take Baldur's Gate II apart. Everyone can't see what you see unfortunately and vice versa. Calling Mass Effect 2 "designed for shooter fans" insults every fan of the rpg and shooter genres who loved the game. And believe me, every shooter game is not mindless and dumb.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:12 .

[Vandrayke]

lol you people with the "dumbing down" crack me up. It isn't difficult to micromanage minutiae; it simply tedious. While I would have liked a little more to play with in ME2, I prefer the ME2 model to the ME1 model. It's fine if some people prefer ME1, but don't try to act like you're somehow more intelligent because you like different kinds of games than other people like.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Calling Mass Effect 2 "designed for shooter fans" insults every fan of the rpg and shooter genres who loved the game.

Oh, please. How is it an insult? It's obvious enough - and the developers even admitted - that they wanted to "introduce" shooter fans to RPGs. Of course it was designed to be more appealing to them! And sure enough, it seems to have worked.

That's not even the problem though, the dumbing down that came with it and goes beyond the combat aspects is. If you say shooter fans appreciate more than the pew-pew parts, then perhaps they should tell BioWare/EA so. Maybe the next game will then feature proper combat and a good story and presentation and freedom and all the other stuff that had to take the back seat this time.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:14 .

[TheImmortalBeaver]

Given that I'm fairly new on the forums (I never really used the site for anything besides DLC), I'm somewhat surprised at how many people truly preferred the first ME. While I concede that the story in the first was much better, the characters in the second were more interesting to me. Plus, the gunplay in the second was so much better that it's practically a whole new game. Just my opinion, and yes, I'd catch up on the recent discussion, but I don't feel like reading 300 pages of text.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

*snippet*

I do fear that we will see even more dumbing down in ME 3 because of that...

I find this statement interesting since this thread is still in the throes of determining if anything was actually "dumbed down".

bjdbwea wrote...

...as so far I see no signs of them admitting that it's not the correct recipe for BioWare games

There no longer is a "correct recipe" for a Bioware game. They threw away the cookbook after KotOR and ever since JE they've been making tons of crazy new and interesting things.

Il Divo wrote...

I personally would rate every Legacy of
Kain game (excluding Blood Omen 2) in my top 10 for story, characters,
voice-acting, and depth, moreso than I would any Bioware game.

Holy crap, what? I just started replaying the series like a few days ago!! I just beat Soul Reaver last night, currently doing SR2, and after that I'll do Blood Omen and then Defiance. I can't believe how ignorant I was as a kid: the dialog is gorgeous, acting's amazing, the characters well developed, and the lore is AMAZING.

Now I'm sad, because we'll never see another LoK game again...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:21 .

[skinned77]

I wasn't disappointed in it - I thought it was pretty solid - and my expectations were high. I loved the first one, with all of its strengths and faults. I'd still like to see the return of sellable items, but I'm not going to let my wishlist affect my rating of ME2. For me it's not really about what I wanted in it, it's what it delivered. What they kept they improved, and what was new they did well. I'm very happy with the game, can't wait for the next one.

As for the "shooter fans" aspect of the discussion: I have a lot of friends that did not get into the first one no matter how much I raved about it - and they loved the second without too much support from me, since I felt the ears would be deaf from the first one. Bioware's supposed attempt to mainstream ME2 appears successful from my observation.

Modifié par skinned77, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:33 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

I find this statement interesting since this thread is still in the throes of determining if anything was actually "dumbed down".

Actually, it isn't. The admittedly somewhat derogatory term notwithstanding, everyone can see what the developers did. The discussion is about if this is a good or a bad thing. Only the most ardent BioWare or ME 2 defenders think it's necessary to deny even the basic facts.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Actually, it isn't. The admittedly somewhat derogatory term notwithstanding, everyone can see what the developers did.

We can all see what they did, whether or not anything was 'lost' that actually contained depth is still up in the air.

bjdbwea wrote...

Only the most ardent BioWare or ME 2 defenders think it's necessary to deny even the basic facts.

ಠ_ಠ

[Whatever42]

Terror_K wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

RPG gamers do love ME2. Gamers in general far prefer ME2 to ME1. You can't reading a gaming forum or read a review without reaching that conclusion. I completely accept that you don't like it as much as ME1. We don't all enjoy the same things. But the ME series is what it is and its widely enjoyed. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Yeah... that's what happens when you make a game more mainstream. It always amuses me when those of us who aren't happy say, "Mass Effect 2 was dumbed down for the masses" and pro-ME2 people respond back with "That's not true! ME2 was far more popular than ME1 and more people like it."

And you say that "the ME series is what it is" but you have to remember that those of us who liked ME1 liked what it was then, and don't like what it's become. So the Mass Effect series isn't "what it is" because it was something different the first time than it was the second. We liked what it was, not what it's become. And I'm sure somebody will pop up and say "it's not that different at all" and start pointing at other RPGs and how much deeper they are, but ME2 sure as hell feels a lot different than ME1 to me. Next thing I'll be hearing that Wrath of Khan wasn't that different from J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, or that the Star Wars prequels fit so well with the original trilogy.

RPG gaming sites love ME2. I'm a hard core RPG gamer from back to the Gold Box series of games and I love it.  The story, characters, dialogue, choices, and minor customization options actually made a TPS game accessible to me.

And ME2 sales aren't much more than ME1 sales - its mostly the same people, mostly bioware fans, mostly RPG fans. Sure, there is a bit of bleed into the TPS market and perhaps they lost a bit of the hardcore RPG market who really dislike shooters but its not exactly mainstream yet. And most of the reviewers who gave ME2 such high scores also really enjoyed ME1.

So I strongly challenge your assumptions and generalizations. As for your opinion, you're entitled to it. All I ask anyone is to not assume your opinion is more correct than anyone elses. You made it very clear why you preferred ME1. I appreciate and understand your reasons. I can totally see where you're coming from. I just weigh things differently than you and have reached an entirely different opinion.

But, once again, the ME franchise is not going to change between ME2 and ME3 so I hope you don't expect movement there. I suspect you might be worried about the direct of Bioware games in general. I don't disagree with you entirely there. I think there are many things that Bioware can do to make RPG games more awesome and really don't want them to only produce TPSRPG games.

But I do love what they did with the ME series. It was a great experiement and while I could, of course, make a hundred suggestions of how I would make the game better for me, I love the game as it is.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
That's not even the problem though, the dumbing down that came with it and goes beyond the combat aspects is. If you say shooter fans appreciate more than the pew-pew parts, then perhaps they should tell BioWare/EA so. Maybe the next game will then feature proper combat and a good story and presentation and freedom and all the other stuff that had to take the back seat this time.

And yet here you are ranking Mass Effect as one of your top two games with Baldur's Gate II. I dispute this. In fact, I would say Mass Effect's story was remarkably simple compared to that of Planescape Torment, Legacy of Kain, or even Heavy Rain. It was a fun ride, but simple nonetheless. Much like your defense of Mass Effect's characters, you refuse to provide examples and insist you're deeper than the shooter fans. You say Mass Effect's cast was worthy of Bioware, claiming that those who disagree prefer over-the-top characters. I thought Mass Effect's cast was Bioware's worst especially compared to Kotor's cast. So what exactly is your justification for calling Mass Effect 'deep' in the first place?

And you're right about the bolded. Mass Effect 's combat was so proper. It's just a shame that no one so far has been able to tell me what exactly is so 'proper' about it aside from one dimensional combat mechanics and making omnigel. 

 

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 juillet 2010 - 03:47 .

[Il Divo]

Pocketgb wrote...

Holy crap, what? I just started replaying the series like a few days ago!! I just beat Soul Reaver last night, currently doing SR2, and after that I'll do Blood Omen and then Defiance. I can't believe how ignorant I was as a kid: the dialog is gorgeous, acting's amazing, the characters well developed, and the lore is AMAZING.

Now I'm sad, because we'll never see another LoK game again...

It was just an amazing overall experience. Looking back, I still can't decide who would be considered the bad guy. I especially loved all the conversations between Kain and Raziel about the coin landing on its "edge".

The only thing I can still say for the series is it left off on a great point, if it had to end at all.  

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

And you're right about the bolded. Mass Effect 's combat was so proper. It's just a shame that no one so far has been able to tell me what exactly is so 'proper' about it aside from one dimensional combat mechanics and making omnigel.

You should perhaps read the comments of other posters before you try to refute them. I actually conceded that combat in ME 2 works better, of at least the shooter fans think so. They can keep the combat system for all I care, but I hope that the other aspects get the attention they deserve next time.

By the way, combat in ME 1 actually worked in two dimensions. It's ME 2 that has reduced this in many encounters to moving left or right (one dimension) behind some crates. Sometimes not even that is necessary.

[Il Divo]

ME2 deserves a ~94 on the consoles, and ~84 on PC (IMO of course).  PC gamers have different tastes, so while I see ME2 as a standout on the consoles it is mediocre on the PC (because it doesn't meet out standard of depth with skills/gear)

And problems start already when we talk about Mass Effect's skills/gear. If Mass Effect 2's gameplay is for shooters, I don't consider Mass Effect to be much higher up.

If I said to you "Son of the Mask" is a better movie than "Battlefield Earth", logically that doesn't tell you Son of the Mask is a good film at all.

Likewise, if I say Mass Effect has deeper gameplay than Mass Effect 2, logically that is no basis to say Mass Efffect has deep gameplay at all.

Mass Effet's skill/gear system is a one trick pony. Imagine Dragon Age with just attributes or Kotor with just force powers. Depth is created when you add multiple layers to these things (attributes impacting your damage, prestige class requirements). Depth is created when you increase the number of variables to the point where the player must spend dedicated time planning out their character. Mass Effect doesn't really do this at all. The best gun is always 100% clear (making inventory rather pointless), for example. This is all my opinion but I haven't had anyone show me why Mass Effect has depth. Only it's "depth" is slightly better than Mass Effect 2.

PC gamers like Morrowind, Diablo, WoW (and crysis, metro 2033 etc., not just RPG [clarify to avoid argument]) so our desire for a game is a little different and should be scored differently.  We are willing to put up with downtime from combat in order to create a more immersive and cohesive world (read elevators = good, loading screens = bad)

And this is where I think different tastes come into the picture. I, for example, don't consider WoW to even be an RPG as it doesn't provide story-opportunities for role-play. However, it is your right to do so. For me, gameplay is secondary to fostering role-play opportunities. Some things should not have been lost in ME2 (elevator conversations). Other things (such as the Mako) didn't have any relation to rpg gameplay and was met with great criticism so I find it odd when I see people defend it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 juillet 2010 - 04:12 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
You should perhaps read the comments of other posters before you try to refute them. I actually conceded that combat in ME 2 works better, of at least the shooter fans think so. They can keep the combat system for all I care, but I hope that the other aspects get the attention they deserve next time.

Which comments? The ones telling me that Mass Effect 2 was dumbed down because grenades were removed? Or because there's no omnigel?

By the way, combat in ME 1 actually worked in two dimensions. It's ME 2 that has reduced this in many encounters to moving left or right (one dimension) behind some crates. Sometimes not even that is necessary.

One dimension: powers.

Kotor: Attributes, Skills, Feats, Powers.

Dragon Age: Attributes, spells/talents, prestige classes, skills.

Mass Effect 1 would work in multiple dimensions if there were more variables to consider. If Kotor had just attributes, it would be a simple game. Same for Dragon Age. Mass Effect operates on one level of variables, with no connection to stats, therefore it operates on one dimension.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 juillet 2010 - 04:16 .