10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Terror_K: Are You saying that if game doesn't have RPG progression, there is no point to make game in first place? Because that is feeling what I get when reading you posts.



Also in general comment, I did not say no character progression at all. I suggested more parallel talent based progression than linear mouse to God progression.

[TheAdeptMaster]

I am not dissapointed in this game, It is very fun and enjoyable. However, there are some things they left out that I missed having. For example, what happened to the Contact War? It seemed to have dissapeared completely, not once mentioned in the game from what I know. It could have gone well with the whole cerburus being Pro-Human thing. I can't seem to find a hanar anywhere either, There just kinda fun to talk to when I'm bored. I don't know what happened to the previous areas you visited such as Feros, I would have liked to known how they turned out. What happened to Shepards weird dream thing he had of the protheans death? It could have unlocked more information on the Reapers goals, which we still know little of. I am still very impressed of this game, but I can't stop but feel as if it was just a gateway game to Mass Effect 3, which I hope we will finnaly have answers in that game...including what Tali actually looks like (or any quarian for that matter) for some reason I'm just dieing to find out.

[ArchDemonXIII]

iakus wrote...
Hmm, do this right and it could replace leveling altogether...

 I so wish someone would try that. Besides the lack of interactivity in combat (as far as not being hands-on, I don't mean having a lot of buttons to press), The level system is one of the things i always hate most about RPG's. It always felt like a false power increase anyway. Most of the time it goes from doing 5 points an attack to creatures with 50 hit points, to doing 50 points to creatures with 500 hp, to doing 500 points to creatures with 5000 hp. Then people sit there and go "WOW! I'm doing 500 points with every hit! My character is so strong!" While missing the fact that the characters is just as gimpy as he started but has some big numbers and a whole new slew of flashy lights to unleash to tell them otherwise.

 To be honest, shooters are just as guilty of this. Get more powerful weapon> fight more powerful enemy > get even more powerful weapon > fight even more powerful enemy.

 That's why I am such a fan of the original FEAR: the starting pistol remained useful throughout the entire game and the difficulty increased by strategic means as well as introducing bigger baddies. The fact that the change between difficulties was done intelligently as opposed to just making the player more and more ineffectual was nice too.

[Terror_K]

iakus wrote...

I've said it several times before, but Alpha Protocol, whatever faults it may have,  it has an excellent inventory system that I would not mind if Bioware stole from shamelessly.  Maybe half a dozen types of weapons from each category. Each weapon had four mod slots (barrel, magazine, sight, and "accessory") and three types of ammo for each gun (one normal and two "special" ammo types) Sounds complicated, but it's quite elegant.  And most mods have a tradeoff.

Augmenting Shepard with cybernetics is an interesting idea.  particularly if, like Deus Ex, the choice is permanent.  Taken a step further, why not augment the entire squad via armor?  ME 1 mentioned things like "hardsuit computers" and such.  Why not go further with researchable improvements?  Krogans like to charge, so research/purchase something like power gauntlets to increase melee damage for Grunt (or someone else you think may be in melee a lot).  Upgraded hardsuit processors to reduce the cooldown for engineering abilities for Tali.  Specific upgrades for that squadmate and you can only do a limited number of upgrades.  Armor doesn't have to be just about "increases shield strength by X%" or "health by Y%"

Hmm, do this right and it could replace leveling altogether...

Except for the last comment, I agree with this entirely. AP did do a good job at the RPG stuff, and I don't care what it was generally like as a game because I actually thought it far surpassed ME2 in terms of statistical RPG mechanics. The way weapons were handled was great, as well as mods and upgrades. Even the mini-games were superior. But, yeah... I wouldn't like it to replace leveling altogether.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

As a separate note, I don't think the poster you quoted was trying to say that it's a fact that "Mass Effect 2 sucks". He/she was merely commenting on another poster they believed to be claiming something as factual, if what I said makes any sense.

Yes, indeed. Thanks for being one of the posters who do read the posts of others.

I wish everyone would try to understand the difference between fact and opinion themselves before accusing others of misusing them.

Fact: ME 2 was changed a lot in comparison to ME 1.
Opinion: Like that / don't like that.
Reasons: ...

Fact: The developers said they needed to make the game more appealing to shooter fans.
Opinion: They went too far / not far enough.
Reasons: ...

See, it's not that difficult.

[kalle90]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

iakus wrote...
Hmm, do this right and it could replace leveling altogether...

 I so wish someone would try that. Besides the lack of interactivity in combat (as far as not being hands-on, I don't mean having a lot of buttons to press), The level system is one of the things i always hate most about RPG's. It always felt like a false power increase anyway. Most of the time it goes from doing 5 points an attack to creatures with 50 hit points, to doing 50 points to creatures with 500 hp, to doing 500 points to creatures with 5000 hp. Then people sit there and go "WOW! I'm doing 500 points with every hit! My character is so strong!" While missing the fact that the characters is just as gimpy as he started but has some big numbers and a whole new slew of flashy lights to unleash to tell them otherwise.

 To be honest, shooters are just as guilty of this. Get more powerful weapon> fight more powerful enemy > get even more powerful weapon > fight even more powerful enemy. 

That's true and annoying if the difficulty is strictly proggressive. If I face weak enemies every now and then I like that system.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Fact: ME 2 was changed a lot in comparison to ME 1.

Actually I'm not so sure about this one, lets fix it.

Fact: ME 2 design was changed if you compare it to ME 1.

How much it was "changed" is based players opinion. Because someone could think it was changed a lot while someone else could think it was just changed little. It's more based what game features player value most.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 août 2010 - 10:48 .

[bjdbwea]

Fair enough.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K: Are You saying that if game
doesn't have RPG progression, there is no point to make game in first
place? Because that is feeling what I get when reading you posts.

Sorry... missed this one somehow.

What I meant was that if you're going to worry too much about the RPG mechanics getting in the way of your immersion and the story/narrative elements to the point where you end up near-on eliminating the former to merely satisfy the latter, then there's very little point in even making the game an RPG in the first place. How much the RPG elements and the narrative clashing bothers a person varies on the person, but go too much in either direction and you end up causing problems.

This of course can depend on the reasoning and form it takes too. I have no real issue from Shepard going from (as you put it) "mouse to God" --or being a mouse at the start-- at all because its how the character grows and progresses, but on the other hand I absolutely hated the introduction of thermal clips because it just completely crapped on the game lore and the whole thing was just filled with too many holes.

bjdbwea wrote...

Fact: The developers said they needed to make the game more appealing to shooter fans.
Opinion: They went too far / not far enough.
Reasons: ...

I'd even make this one a little less specific, just to be on the safe side. e.g.

Fact: The developers said they needed to make the game appeal to a broader audience.
Opinion: They went too far / not far enough.
Reasons: ...

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 août 2010 - 11:51 .

[chassis]

No disappointments, best game i've played!!!!

[tonnactus]

Jaysonie wrote...

Sales breakdown=Like, what percantage of buyers were hardcore vs what percentage were casual players. Not how well it sold. Besides, a 7 month old game selling for about 30 dollars(i converted since you gave me pounds) in the usa is pretty much on par with the rest of the game industry.

Edit: http://www.amazon.co...0/dp/B001TORSII released in late January 
                                               vs
          http://www.amazon.co...81908468&sr=1-1 release in early March
 

I say its selling just fine.

Its interesting that dragon age has a higher price then Mass Effect 2 despite the fact this game is older.

Modifié par tonnactus, 16 août 2010 - 01:26 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Character progression for sake of it, just to have it, even when it doesn't make any sense to have it, isn't really good solution.

In DAO, where you starts as weak "student" and grow while playing to become strong. It makes perfect sense to have it, from mouse to God progression. In Mass Effect serie where main character is the best elitis solder in human race have, it doesn't really make any sense to make him/her to mouse so that we can become God later..

Unlike in old rpgs enemies scaled with shepardt in the first game so he was never a mouse. As far as i know rpgs without some progression didnt exist.And there are even some superhero rpgs.

Modifié par tonnactus, 16 août 2010 - 01:13 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

Augmenting Shepard with cybernetics is an interesting idea.

This was already executed in Mass Effect 2.The heavy bone upgrade for example was a cybernetic upgrade.Not a genetic one.

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

iakus wrote...

I've said it several times before, but Alpha Protocol, whatever faults it may have,  it has an excellent inventory system that I would not mind if Bioware stole from shamelessly.  Maybe half a dozen types of weapons from each category. Each weapon had four mod slots (barrel, magazine, sight, and "accessory") and three types of ammo for each gun (one normal and two "special" ammo types) Sounds complicated, but it's quite elegant.  And most mods have a tradeoff.

Augmenting Shepard with cybernetics is an interesting idea.  particularly if, like Deus Ex, the choice is permanent.  Taken a step further, why not augment the entire squad via armor?  ME 1 mentioned things like "hardsuit computers" and such.  Why not go further with researchable improvements?  Krogans like to charge, so research/purchase something like power gauntlets to increase melee damage for Grunt (or someone else you think may be in melee a lot).  Upgraded hardsuit processors to reduce the cooldown for engineering abilities for Tali.  Specific upgrades for that squadmate and you can only do a limited number of upgrades.  Armor doesn't have to be just about "increases shield strength by X%" or "health by Y%"

Hmm, do this right and it could replace leveling altogether...

Except for the last comment, I agree with this entirely. AP did do a good job at the RPG stuff, and I don't care what it was generally like as a game because I actually thought it far surpassed ME2 in terms of statistical RPG mechanics. The way weapons were handled was great, as well as mods and upgrades. Even the mini-games were superior. But, yeah... I wouldn't like it to replace leveling altogether.

The last line is admittedly speculation on my part.  After looking at the stuff written in the last couple of posts I began to wonder if it might just be possible to do "leveling" strictly through customized gear and augmentation.  It might be interesting to try a game like that, but yeah, not for ME 3.  Maybe for the next science fiction rpg.  Changing directions in the middle of a story and all

[joshuam168]

I have been disappointed with ME2. I fail to particularly find what I don't like.....I just can't bring myself to play through a 2nd time. By the time ME was out this long, I had maybe 5 playthroughs, each one being longer than the former.
I found in ME that there was more "hidden", or harder to find the first play through, things. In ME2, unless I am missing stuff, even on my partial 2nd play through, there is not as much.
I am also disappointed in the fact that Bioware decided to make a game that was more RPG than shooter. And then they decided for the 2nd one that they were going to make it a shooter and throw in some RPG. I think it is wrong to attract one type of audience then throw them aside to attract other audiences, and I say throw aside because I believe the RPG in ME2 to be so dumbed down as to be insulting. Thats like taking DA2 and deciding that the archdemon had made blueprints for machine guns, and that they found these blueprints and made machine guns, and that DA2 was going to be a shooter. Then they decided that they were only going to let you have four magic spells to upgrade. A bit excessive of an example, I know...

Modifié par joshuam168, 16 août 2010 - 03:07 .

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...


I wish everyone would try to understand the difference between fact and opinion themselves before accusing others of misusing them.

Interesting. Look in the mirror and keep repeating that.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Unlike in old rpgs enemies scaled with shepardt in the first game so he was never a mouse. As far as i know rpgs without some progression didnt exist.And there are even some superhero rpgs.

Yes, but here is the thing. Character progression is very often part of RPG. Also RPG includes very often roleplaying. How ever, roleplaying doesn't require character progression or RPG. Maybe people want roleplaying, but doesn't want to do it in traditional RPG ways.

Terror_K wrote...

What I meant was that if you're going to worry too much about the RPG mechanics getting in the way of your immersion and the story/narrative elements to the point where you end up near-on eliminating the former to merely satisfy the latter, then there's very little point in even making the game an RPG in the first place. How much the RPG elements and the narrative clashing bothers a person varies on the person, but go too much in either direction and you end up causing problems.

Okey look also my answer to tonnactus in this post.

Some of you have complaining about some impression stuff what was lost because squad members don't talk enough with each others or how elevator was missing in ME2 or story wasn't good enough and so on.. You can't judge impression just based what you self think it's good for it and then dismiss other impression details, because it's not important for you self. It's like saying, yes impression is important as long it's done MY way. I can sacriface this impression detail because the other is detail is more important to me. Have you consider that the other detail isn't more important for some other players.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 août 2010 - 08:26 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

The last line is admittedly speculation on my part.  After looking at the stuff written in the last couple of posts I began to wonder if it might just be possible to do "leveling" strictly through customized gear and augmentation.

Possible yes.Is it better? No. The easy answer is,that such a system would take away the freedom to improve the talents you wish after a leveling up.Progression would be random(the abilities the game allow the player to improve instead the player himself choose what to improve at which time) and depend on things the player found at some places in the game.
For example,you wish to improve your omnitool to get bet ai-hacking,but all you found in the level was an upgrade to improve cyro freeze.

Modifié par tonnactus, 16 août 2010 - 07:37 .

[bjdbwea]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I wish everyone would try to understand the difference between fact and opinion themselves before accusing others of misusing them.

Interesting. Look in the mirror and keep repeating that.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 16 août 2010 - 08:02 .

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

iakus wrote...

The last line is admittedly speculation on my part.  After looking at the stuff written in the last couple of posts I began to wonder if it might just be possible to do "leveling" strictly through customized gear and augmentation.

Possible yes.Is it better? No. The easy answer is,that such a system would take away the freedom to improve the talents you wish after a leveling up.Progression would be random(the abilities the game allow the player to improve instead the player himself choose what to improve at which time) and depend on things the player found at some places in the game.
For example,you wish to improve your omnitool to get bet ai-hacking,but all you found in the level was an upgrade to improve cyro freeze.

Eh, the way I figure it, mods you can't find could be purchased.  If you really wanted omnitool improvements but can't find one or get one to drop, you should be able to go to the Citadel, say, and spend some credits.  It beats buying fish, after all.

This is still half-formed speculation in my brain, you understand.  Just some sort of alternative to a newly leveled Shepard, looking at his gun and going "What's this switch do?"  *click* "Hey!  Cryo ammo!"

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...


Eh, the way I figure it, mods you can't find could be purchased.

Then money would just replace experience points. And you have to travel to technically level up.
Maybee if each place has shops like in dead space.But for sure no one wanted to travel everytime to the citadel to improve something.

[Fixers0]

In know there is a lot going on but i will give my peronal thought,
My biggest problem with Mass effect 2 is that the the game doesn't advance anything to the plot created at the first Mass effect, one of the reasons is the  end of Mass effect 1: shepard says he is going to stop the reapers and the Normandy is seen flying away, there is nothing to set the stage for me2, but okay.


The most important reason is the whole plot of ME2, Shepard dies,get revived by an terrorist organisation, is forced to join them.Sudenly we are busy recruiting some random Characters, and are Collectors our main enemies which have nothing with the Reapers, What the hell happend to them., And shepard just goes along with anything TIM says like he is afraind TIM gets angry. the main plot is horrible: recruit characters and go through the omega 4 relay to kill the collectors.

Halfway through the game we get to do some other mission rather then characters related ones, these ones are all pretty bad: at the begining  we get a Talk with TIM who explains the situation, and the level itself is horrible and very straightforward with ine simpy and boring objective:
Horizon  uhh, shoot your way through the level just to fight the collectors.
Collector ship:, Shoot your way through the level and push a button two times.
Reapers ship:shoot your way through the level and geth the a device.

Well i don't want to go to much in detail, is just think the whole plot is flawed, just as the main missons one simple objective and no questions from Shepard, ther is absolutly no ''why'' for this game.

And at the end after the suicide missons it feels like whe have gained nothing from the end of Mass effect 1

Modifié par Fixers0, 17 août 2010 - 11:52 .

[smudboy]

I wouldn't word it that way, but that's pretty much the idea.

[Fiery Phoenix]

That's one thing I didn't exactly appreciate about ME2 myself. It didn't give you the "epic" feeling ME1 did, and it doesn't seem like a worthy continuation to ME1's story. The only reason I'm not giving too much into this is because ME2 is the middle of the trilogy, so it may not need to be the most critical part of the story. I'm totally holding my breath for ME3.

[Iakus]

Pretty much it, in so many words. All this talk of leveling and gear is a minor annoyance compared to what was done to Shepard's story.