Terror_K wrote...
First of all, I consider ME2 to be an 8/10 game, so that's hardly a tenth of what the first game was to me.
The example with the water was just illustrating that the concept of adding new depth to a game means squat when you take away so much before hand. For example, adding the interrupts is cool and a great addition, but almost meaningless when so much else is gone. This is particularly true for things that are essentially fluff such as being able to customise your Normandy and colour your armour. They're nice additions, but largely unnecessary and I can't help but feel time that was spent giving us these little luxuries would better be spent on giving the game some actual depth. Its not that I don't like them, its just that I see them as putting cherries on the top of a cake that's been hollowed out.
The issue I had is that you appeared to be quantifying what they took out as being 90% of the previous game. Frankly I'm not really sure what this 'quantity' that was apparently taken away actually was.
There's plenty that I didn't particularly relish seeing gotten rid of. Little things like ammo powers being arbitraily given to specific classes, Throw being inexplicably removed from the Vanguard's arsenal, the Shield powers being given insane cooldown times.... a lot I'm not that crazy about. But none of this is really that important. I'm intrigued to know what it was that prompted the calls of 'they've diluted the game omgzorz'.
Does inventory make that much of a difference? Yes, in a way. This is an RPG, so there should be inventory of some kind. The inventory in ME2 is really no different from the "inventory" in Doom, Unreal Tournament or Counterstrike, which makes it not really inventory at all. ME2 had some good ideas regarding this, mainly that one can scan items and duplicate them instead of clogging up your "inventory" but it was taken too far, leaving us with no real inventory at all. The game doesn't need an inventory system like ME1's, and it doesn't necessarily need an inventory system at all, but it does need inventory. We need more weapons than what essentially amounts to one of each gun. It's good that they're unique, but there's not enough of them. And in a good RPG one should never be able to stick with the same gun from Level 1 all the way to Level 30 and be absolutely fine... same goes for the armour that barely acts like armour at all.
This is precisely what I can't get my head around. 'This is an RPG, it needs an inventory'. Says who? Where exactly are these absurd RPG commandments that dictate these arbitrary conditions? If there is no such thing as gear, then what purpose does an inventory serve? What else does this diktat demand? Are we supposed to have goblins in it because it's an RPG? Does it have to have a certain amount of text, or length? Does the box have to be a certain colour, does the game have to be running on a certain engine, does the title have to contain a certain number of adjectives?
Ultimately, it doesn't sound like you're using valid criteria to judge it. I have respect for criticism that has some sort of reasoning behind it - things like Zaeed and Kasumi's conversation system, the ridiculously late intro of Legion, hell, anything that has a tangible reason behind it should be aired. But crap like 'RPGs have to have inventories/items/goblins' etc etc is little more than just nonsense. You're
looking for arbitrary reasons to dislike the game, and that is precisely why a lot of the less balanced criticisms of the game tend to get the flak. It's like saying Avatar is a bad sci-fi film because there wasn't enough laser guns.
And I'm not sure what 'it doesn't necessarily need an inventory, but it does need an inventory' actually means.
The omni-gel thing? Well, that's not really needed, but it was a mechanic that added something as opposed to ME2's nothing.
Added what? Why is the addition of a feature that requires monotonously clicking a button so you can carry more crap superior to not having it?
It does feel anemic. You can basically just run around shooting things and win. There's no need to invest in non-combat skills or choose teammates carefully to suit your class... heck, there's no need to even level-up and up your combat skills either if you're good enough with a gun. All the weapons are in the same damn place every time, there's no variation to them, no way to mod them and their upgrade system is completely linear. It's basically just run around, find some predictable waist-high barriers to take cover behind, shoot until wave gone, rinse and repeat. The focus in the game is almost entirely on combat now, combat that rarely differentiates, and that makes it shallow. A good RPG at least allows you to invest into some skills that aren't just about fighting.
The longer this thread goes on, the clearer it's becoming that the reason you don't like the features in this game is has got nothing to do with the actual game itself, and is everything to do with this silly internal preconception of what an RPG is. Seriously, TerrorK, this is nothing new. I take your point that the linear weapon locations was a bit odd, but no variation? Excuse me? What variation did you see in ME1, where every gun in the same class fired at exactly the same rate, with the same range, and was differentiated purely by the length of it's yellow stat bars and the colour of the model? Is that what you actually consider to be superior?
Regarding gameplay... I'm going to assume that you only played as a soldier. The above description is no more an accurate account of how Adepts or Vanguards or Sentinels play than it is to claim that black is white.
Once again the point is missed. I never said that because you enjoyed the game that you're not a BioWare fan. All I was saying was who BioWare was aiming this game at. Just because BioWare aim the game at a particular audience doesn't mean other audiences can't like it. That's usually what mainstreaming does anyway, since its an attempt to reach as many fans as possible. I personally would probably love the game to bits if it wasn't trying to be a Mass Effect game: if this was a new IP and basically the same game except for the setting, story and characters (but they were done just as well) I'd be a massive fan, and the game would probably get another point.
No, to be fair, you did not. You did, however, claim that all this is essentially an insult to the longtime fans, so it's not like the implication came out of nowhere. And frankly, the idea that if this game was a different IP it would spontaneously become much better is complete and utter crap. It just illustrates the total lack of logic in your judgement.
As for how well the game has done, well... how many of those buyers were 1) going to buy the game anyway after playing ME1, and 2) not BioWare fans to begin with and just the gaming masses out there who likely bought the game because it looked like another slick shooter. If anything, saying how well the game is done just proves my point and not yours. Yes, the game has sold well... so has Modern Warfare 2, and Gears of War, and Halo, etc. See the pattern there?
It hasn't just sold well. It was critically acclaimed. Now I'm sure that the standard issue 'everyone who gives this game a high mark is on the take' conspiracy thoery nonsense will eventually surface, but it doesn't actually change the fact that a game that is almost universally reviewed as being a classic, and the least of the reviews claiming it's very good, odds are that they did a lot more right than they did wrong.
And given that your criteria for what constitutes a good game apparently depends solely on what concepts it arbitrarily includes, I'm not sure you can realistically call anyone else's opinion, good or ill, on the matter into question.
And yes, the game is, by definition, an RPG. I don't dispute that. What I dispute is that its a satisfactory and good RPG, which it isn't. You may disagree, but then are you really just saying that because you like the game. Just because it succeeds at being a great game overall doesn't mean it succeeds at being a great RPG.
Ironically, yes, I do defend it because I think it's a better game than it is an RPG. That's primarily because when I play an RPG, I'm playing it for enjoyment, not so I can appease my obsessive-compulsive disorder by listing out the number of things that affect my opinion as to whether the game fits into x or y category of my purely subjective list of characteristics of a certain genre that has no true universal set of criteria beyond the fact it allows you to play a slowly improving character of your own design.
I certainly don't understand why the latter is more important to you than the former.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
