JaegerBane wrote...
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'.
I've already been over what I feel the game lacked dozens of times. I don't feel the need to go over it again.
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?
Now you're just being silly.
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.
No, I'm
not looking for reasons to dislike the game. I loved the original game, and the IP has become a personal favourite of mine, not just as a video game but overall. This is the Star Trek and Star Wars for me of this decade. That's why I also have the books, several lithographs, the soundtracks, an N7 hat, and the trade paperback comic and figurines on order. I'd really like to like Mass Effect 2, and I still kind do really, but I can't help but be disappointed in it when I find so much shallow, linear and watered down compared to the original game. I'm not looking for reasons to dislike the game: I just don't enjoy it as much, and I want to make it clear why.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps people actually
like and
enjoy these factors that are now gone? I like having an inventory of random, varied and differentiated items with statistical variations that can be customised when I'm playing an RPG. To completely take that away entirely and just give me a small handful of linear weapons with no customisation, no stats, no variation and make them no more items or loot than finding the various weapons when playing in Doom. If I was playing ME2 as a shooter and expecting it to be a shooter, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But the original Mass Effect set up the game as an RPG, and as such I play it expecting and wanting an RPG experience.
To me, single-player shooters are games I play intending to go through once... maybe twice, and not expecting to invest any real time or interest in beyond the game. Basically, to me they're mindless fun between deeper games. That's not what I expect from Mass Effect and its not what I want from Mass Effect, but with the second game its what I'm getting from Mass Effect. And as such I find myself not enjoying ME2 as much or wanting to play it or invest time in it as much as the first game, because I don't enjoy the gameplay anywhere near as much. And, yes, I fully admit that's due to my own preconceptions and expectations of the game.
And what I mean regarding the inventory is that the game doesn't necessarily need an inventory system ala ME1 or most RPGs and could get by with the system it has now if it just had a greater selection of items that suited an RPG design philosophy more, rather than a small selection of items that aren't much different than the weapons one gathers in a shooter. The system as it is now is limited, shallow, linear and boring.
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?
That's not
all it was. The omni-gel had a purpose (opening crates, repairing The Mako, etc.) while ME2 doesn't use these mechanics at all and has replaced them with nothing.
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?
Yes. The problem was with the balancing of the items themselves, not the concept of having a series of guns. At least they were randomised. At least they could be modded. ME2 is essentially just one type of each gun, and once you have that one gun you stick with it and it never changes. It gives you more types, but less guns overall. The system is linear, simple and boring. There's no effort on the part of the player, the weapons are inevitables because they're always in the same places, there's no real selection or sense of discovery, specialness or rarity to them, you can't mod them or customise them in any way, the upgrades are simple and linear and the player can pretty much just ignore the system entirely and just let things happen without any effort or thought and the whole system pretty much takes care of itself. Its tedious and overly simple, and thus unsatisfying. It has as much to do with "being an RPG" as what its like compared to other RPGs. When I order a full course meal from a restaurant I don't expect to get a plate with only one potato and a piece of meat the size of a testicle on it no matter how good it tastes, and when I play an RPG I don't expect to get a shallow, linear system completely lacking in customisation or depth no matter how good the weapons feel.
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.
No, actually. I've played every class in ME1, but my favourite class (and thus most played) is Vanguard. I've actually yet to play a soldier properly in ME2, and have played as a Vanguard, Adept, Sentinel and Infiltrator thus far (the Adept and Sentinel are incomplete playthroughs). I love Biotics, but with them so damn nerfed I end up doing most of my damage with my guns anyway. My biotics are mostly just used to bide me time or slow them down rather than anything else.
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.
It wouldn't become a better game. It would just no longer be a disappointing sequel that doesn't live up to its predecessor, because it wouldn't have one. ME1 set a certain standard and style, and ME2 doesn't stay true to that, so as a sequel I feel it fails. Especially since its supposed to be part two of a trilogy, and thus should essentially be the same game.
Let me put it this way: if ME2's non-narrative gameplay was
exactly like Gears of War or
exactly like Modern Warfare 2, would it be a satisfactory sequel? No, it wouldn't. Would it be a good game or a good shooter? Well... that's a matter of opinion, but popular and common opinion would be yes.
Simply put: Mass Effect 2 succeeds as a game, but fails as a sequel to Mass Effect 1.
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.
They did do more right than wrong. I wouldn't say it was an 8/10 game if it didn't. But are these people evaluating it as a sequel to ME1 and an RPG, or just as a game in general? And even the reviews that praised it fully admitted that the RPG-factors were cut down and scaled back and that this factor bay dishearten RPG fans.
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.
No, these aren't my criteria for what constitutes a good game, they're my criteria for what constitutes a good
RPG, which is what the Mass Effect series was supposed to be. Unreal Tournament is my favourite game of all time, beating out every RPG I've played, and yet it has almost none of the factors I'm looking for in an RPG like the Mass Effect series. It's got less depth and is far more simple than even Mass Effect 2 does, but it does a fantastic and near flawless job of doing what its trying to do: be a pure multiplayer shooter. Mass Effect 2 fails at being an RPG/TPS hybrid because its too unbalanced towards the latter and is lacking in a lot of the factors that make the former a deep and satisfying experience. I'll even admit that ME1 failed at being the perfect RPG/TPS hybrid too, but for different reasons. But it was a hell of a lot closer and more balanced than ME2 was.
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.
Because when I play an RPG I'm playing for enjoyment too. And I happen to enjoy these factors that I feel make the game a proper RPG. Without them it feels shallow and oversimplified. If I'm given a chocolate birthday cake that's covered in chocolate icing, whipped cream and candy one year and then the following year I'm given one with no icing, cream or candy on it at all, of
course I'm going to be disappointed. I
like RPG elements in an RPG... that's why I play and
like RPG's. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
