10273 réponses à ce sujet

[SkullandBonesmember]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I love a good RPG but ME1 was not a good RPG.

You love "skills" right?

uberdowzen wrote...

You didn't say it was 100 percent story but you did say you could turn the difficulty down so low that you could quickly and easily get past any combat and to the story.

Correct. Can you elaborate on your point?

[SkullandBonesmember]

Brako Shepard wrote...

But the one thing that really stood out for me when playing the original. Was how dull the combat was. There was no exciting weapons which I had come a custom to from playing the sequal, and organizing your team was a waste of time. Press left to send one team member, and you realise that ME never had single member formation.
It all felt too.....generic.

Mass Effect 2 has individual team movement. Thats not generic. Thats tactical gameplay which even games intended to be of the shoot em up genre can't always get right. Mass Effect is not an indepth RPG and never will be. Its an action adventure, and the sequal see's that the action has been vastly improved.

[onelifecrisis]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I love a good RPG but ME1 was not a good RPG.

You love "skills" right?

Umm, sorry my gamer-speak is not that up-to-date. Does "skills" mean something different when it's in inverted commas? Either way I think I am missing what it is you're getting at...

[Jebel Krong]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Really? I'm going to have to load ME2 up later and try it at casual. I refuse to believe it's too hard.

.............

If you're familiar with shooting mechanics and actively go out of your way to play such games because you enjoy them, it's not gonna be a problem for you. I DON'T play shooters because they're boring as hell and devoid of real story AND character interaction. That's why I liked ME1 so much. ME2 was definitely a shooter whereas ME1 wasn't. Hence why shooter fans bit****. However, the fact ME1 WASN'T a shooter is what made it so enjoyable for me.

so why do you like mass effect1&2 then? hell, why are you here at all? because they're both RPG-Shooters (which goes to disprove you bolded comment entirely). judging a whole class of game, with no examples to back it up, is totally retarded.<_<

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Oh yeah. The missions don't
take an hour long. The enemies don't ENCIRCLE you from every angle.
Cover isn't impossible to find sometimes. Enemies don't have more
health. Totally the same. No higher difficulty whatsoever compared to
ME1 regardless of Bioware stating it's for the story fans.

are you kidding me? enemies never ENCIRCLE anyone - the only level where they possibly could is the final part of horizon. there's literally cover EVRYWHERE in every combat zone - too much in most places... and yes, i find that most missions do take about an hour. if you are finding it that difficult on such an easy difficulty level, then you aren't playing the game properly.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 29 avril 2010 - 08:17 .

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I love a good RPG but ME1 was not a good RPG.

You love "skills" right?

I refer you to my earlier point (possibly not from this thread but nevermind) that inventory and skills are RPG elements and are not what defines an RPG. An RPG is defined by the player playing a role in the story, where they are allowed to make choices which affect the story. ME1 was a good RPG, but so was ME2.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

You didn't say it was 100 percent story but you did say you could turn the difficulty down so low that you could quickly and easily get past any combat and to the story.

Correct. Can you elaborate on your point?

I'm not actually totally sure, we've been going round in circles so much I've forgotten.

[onelifecrisis]

uberdowzen wrote...

...we've been going round in circles so much I've forgotten.

Easy to see why. Everyone is trying to define an RPG.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Jebel Krong wrote...

so why do you like mass effect1&2 then? hell, why are you here at all? because they're both RPG-Shooters (which goes to disprove you bolded comment entirely). judging a whole class of game, with no examples to back it up, is totally retarded.<_<

When comparing both side by side, ME2 is MORE of a shooter since there's MORE of an emphasis on combat.

http://meforums.biow...17725&forum=144

There are some really good points in that thread.

I mean, what choice do I have but to support Mass Effect? How many games are out there that focus on plot? Not many. How many games are out there that focus on combat at the expense of plot? Too many. And Mass Effect 2 kissed the Halotards assess because they complained the first wasn't ENOUGH OF A SHOOTER. It's not enough that there's a plethora of games that cater to them. It doesn't matter story driven fans barely have anything for them. The shooter fans still had to whine for more emphasis on combat at our expense. And we have to take what they give us, even if it sucks compared to the original.

[onelifecrisis]

I think I can guess now what it is you were getting at, SkullandBonesmember. I suppose the sig should have given me a clue. I think you should be a little less quick to judge. I was a table-top RPG gamer long before I was a PC gamer.



ME2 doesn't skimp on storyline, so on that front you've got little to complain about. Personally I do think some of the RPG elements were toned down a little too much (in particular, the changes to the recharging of skills force the player to do a lot more shooting) but in general I liked the changes, not because I'm the **** pictured in your sig but because the RPG elements in ME1 were just rubbish. The inventory system was cumbersome and added nothing to the game. Different items with different benefits might have been nice, but they instead opted for a simple "bigger is better" approach to just about everything. Combine that with endless drops and limited inventory space and all you have is a pain in the ass. Then there's the skills themselves. In ME1 there was a bunch of tech skills that might as well have all been the same thing for all the difference they made to gameplay. You just had to spam them all, in any order, and that was it. No tactics, no playing to your strengths, just spam a lot of buttons. Better to just replace all those buttons with a single button called "Overload". I could go on. Like I said, I love a good RPG, but ME1 was not a good RPG.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

When comparing both side by side, ME2 is MORE of a shooter since there's MORE of an emphasis on combat.

http://meforums.biow...17725&forum=144

There are some really good points in that thread.

I mean, what choice do I have but to support Mass Effect? How many games are out there that focus on plot? Not many. How many games are out there that focus on combat at the expense of plot? Too many. And Mass Effect 2 kissed the Halotards assess because they complained the first wasn't ENOUGH OF A SHOOTER. It's not enough that there's a plethora of games that cater to them. It doesn't matter story driven fans barely have anything for them. The shooter fans still had to whine for more emphasis on combat at our expense. And we have to take what they give us, even if it sucks compared to the original.

Your problem seems to be that you really enjoyed the story of ME1 and nothing else. Honestly, Bioware isn't making the game for people like you. I don't mean that in a mean way, more in a you're not the demographic Bioware is aiming for way. The majority of people like shooters and were pleased with the changes Bioware made to ME2.

What points are you referring to in the linked thread?

From Wikipedia...

A role-playing game (RPG) is a broad family of games in which
players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictional setting. Actions
taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and
guidelines.

Also, two things about ME2's casual difficulty. I just finished playing through the first half of Mordin's loyalty quest at casual and to be totally honest it wasn't as easy as ME1's but it's still not difficult at all. I died once and that was because I'd been playing lots of ME1 and had forgotten the controls. What BW changed is you now actually have to use tactics at casual rather than just pointing and shooting. Also you failed to mention that casual is for "people who are inexperienced or just wanting the story". The former of those two don't neccersarily want the game to be dumbed down to the point where they can just point and shoot and things die.

Final point, if you just want story, why not go watch a movie or read a book? What seperates games from other genres of entertainment is their interactivity. You take that away, what are you left with? A movie with occasionally clunkly looking characters.

[Jebel Krong]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

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.[/quote]

same for me - i'd go so far as to say it's this generation's star wars or matrix or whatever - it does have that impact. (i don't really do hats though). but i find me2 to be a lot better in the things it does well, than me1 did, even if it does lack a few things (i miss the exploration feel of the UNC worlds in mass effect 1, if not the mako [either game], and the scanning in #2 is crap).

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
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.[/quote]

but you don't play and enjoy games for one or two gameplay mechanics. or do you? mass effect (series) is not defined by it's inventory, in fact i don't think it was ever used as a selling point....

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
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.[/quote]

i'm on my sixth playthrough of me2, and i have to say i'm finding it enjoyable every time, and i still haven't played most of the classes or gone paragon... it's as deep an experience as you make it, really.
as for more weapons/customisation - do we really need loads more? especially if they aren't differentiated? customisation would be welcome (trade-off between power/cooldown for example, based on player preference), but me1's system for weapons and customisation was a bit of a mess, and most mods didn't do anything really noticeable.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

magic gel that heals people and repairs tanks? please. between that and the hyperspace inventory - we don't need crap like that in the game or universe. at least in #2 it's been refined to just do first aid.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

the guns in me1 were all the same with tiny variances in stats, we've already been over this. at least in me2 they are significantly different and change the gameplay and tactics a lot. i'd argue that the kassa locust IS a special weapon, as would be the revenant and the widow (as the upper echelon weapons). tbh i'd say that the system in me1 was more simple, linear and boring precisely because of the lack of weapon differentiation - even with the mods.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

in almost everything me2 lives up to, if not surpasses, it's predecessor. you can argue some rpg mechanics etc etc, but overall the game, universe, style are coherent, imaginative and pretty unique. where you think it doesn't stay true to those things is beyond me...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
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. [/quote]

no it wouldn't, but then mass effect 2 isn't like either game, even if the combat mechanics are closer to the first now, than me1 was. as it is, mass effect 2 is a stunning game and excellent shooter and excellent rpg (depending of course on your definition of that word).

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
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.[/quote]

you're right many reviews did say that about the rpg systems, but nearly all that i read mentioned that as a positive, rather than rehashing mechnics that didn't really work. reviews wouldn't be much of that word if they only considered it in only one context - thankfully we haven't reached that point yet.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
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.[/quote]

er, no. firstly, mass effect was NEVER only an rpg series, this is something you either miss or conveniently ignore when you make a lot of your points. mass effect 2 is also infinitely better and more balanced at being and RPGTPS than the first ever was: how could you even say that - combat in me1 was hobbled beyond belief, for something that comprises a lot of your time in the game, that's a lot of waste. i love me1, it did a stunning job of setting up the universe, story, characters etc but as a playable experience and game it was nowhere near me2.

[uberdowzen]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I think I can guess now what it is you were getting at, SkullandBonesmember. I suppose the sig should have given me a clue. I think you should be a little less quick to judge. I was a table-top RPG gamer long before I was a PC gamer.

ME2 doesn't skimp on storyline, so on that front you've got little to complain about. Personally I do think some of the RPG elements were toned down a little too much (in particular, the changes to the recharging of skills force the player to do a lot more shooting) but in general I liked the changes, not because I'm the **** pictured in your sig but because the RPG elements in ME1 were just rubbish. The inventory system was cumbersome and added nothing to the game. Different items with different benefits might have been nice, but they instead opted for a simple "bigger is better" approach to just about everything. Combine that with endless drops and limited inventory space and all you have is a pain in the ass. Then there's the skills themselves. In ME1 there was a bunch of tech skills that might as well have all been the same thing for all the difference they made to gameplay. You just had to spam them all, in any order, and that was it. No tactics, no playing to your strengths, just spam a lot of buttons. Better to just replace all those buttons with a single button called "Overload". I could go on. Like I said, I love a good RPG, but ME1 was not a good RPG.

Yes, exactly.

[Terror_K]

At least Mass Effect was trying be be an RPG, rather than trying its hardest not to be one while still fitting the definition like ME2. ME1's problems weren't solved with ME2, they were eliminated by just scrapping the issues entirely and falling back on overly simple shooter mechanics or just complete elimination. And said mechanics are dull, shallow and done to death.

javierabegazo wrote...

Would you care to explain how Mass Effect 2 is in anyway a "generic shooter".

Not having an inventory =/= Generic Shooter

I personally wouldn't say that Mass Effect 2 is a "generic shooter" but I would say that almost every RPG aspect that was removed or replaced from the original game was substituted with generic shooter mechanics. The combat system now is very much that of a generic shooter. Same goes for the "inventory" if you can even call it that.

Brako Shepard wrote...

But the one thing that really stood out for me when playing the original. Was how dull the combat was. There was no exciting weapons which I had come a custom to from playing the sequal, and organizing your team was a waste of time. Press left to send one team member, and you realise that ME never had single member formation.
It all felt too.....generic.

Generic? Really?

Okay then... name one other game that has the same combat system as ME1 did? Calling the combat "bad" or "dull" is one thing, but calling it generic is hardly what I'd call an accurate appraisal of ME1's combat. ME2's is far more generic, being almost entirely like every other shooter out there, but with powers (and some shooters even have this). This is where things are a matter of opinion, because I find ME2's combat far, FAR more dull, generic, repetitive and tedious than ME1's, and I fully admit that ME1's combat was highly flawed. And I don't really find ME2's weapons exciting either, in fact I find the entire system to be the worst weapons system I've played in an RPG, simply because its not an RPG system, just a standard shooter one they've slapped on and dumbed down.

Mass Effect 2 has individual team movement. Thats not generic. Thats tactical gameplay which even games intended to be of the shoot em up genre can't always get right. Mass Effect is not an indepth RPG and never will be. Its an action adventure, and the sequal see's that the action has been vastly improved.

Action has improved, but at the expense of depth, customisation and the watering down of pretty much everything that's not to do with action (with the exception of dialogue).

[Jebel Krong]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

When comparing both side by side, ME2 is MORE of a shooter since there's MORE of an emphasis on combat.

http://meforums.biow...17725&forum=144

There are some really good points in that thread.

I mean, what choice do I have but to support Mass Effect? How many games are out there that focus on plot? Not many. How many games are out there that focus on combat at the expense of plot? Too many. And Mass Effect 2 kissed the Halotards assess because they complained the first wasn't ENOUGH OF A SHOOTER. It's not enough that there's a plethora of games that cater to them. It doesn't matter story driven fans barely have anything for them. The shooter fans still had to whine for more emphasis on combat at our expense. And we have to take what they give us, even if it sucks compared to the original.

no there's the same proportion (or emphasis) on combat, only this time combat is actually decent, with mechanics that work. both games focus most on the plot and, especially, the characters - hence being an RPGTPS.
the fact that you used the term "Halotards" (and i don't remember a vocal outcry from any FPS community that mass effect 2 should be made into a shooter) tells me a lot... the ONLY thing that was sacrificed from me1-me2 that actually worked properly was the sense of exploration on uncharted worlds. all the other removals were things that didn't work, or worked poorly. some things were replaced with things that also weren't perfect, but why denigrate one of the major things they did right which was to fix the combat system?

[onelifecrisis]

Terror_K wrote...

At least Mass Effect was trying be be an RPG, rather than trying its hardest not to be one while still fitting the definition like ME2. ME1's problems weren't solved with ME2, they were eliminated by just scrapping the issues entirely and falling back on overly simple shooter mechanics or just complete elimination. And said mechanics are dull, shallow and done to death.

So you're saying you'd rather have a bad RPG than a good shooter with RPG elements? That doesn't make sense. I'm sure if you go to a game store and rummage around in the bargain bucket you can find plenty of awful RPGs to satisfy your craving.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Your problem seems to be that you really enjoyed the story of ME1 and nothing else.

I loved the combat in ME1.

uberdowzen wrote...

What BW changed is you now actually have to use tactics at casual rather than just pointing and shooting.

I prefer playing on casual but the second hardest difficulty was even fine for me. 

uberdowzen wrote...

Final point, if you just want story, why not go watch a movie or read a book? What seperates games from other genres of entertainment is their interactivity. You take that away, what are you left with? A movie with occasionally clunkly looking characters.

You obviously haven't read my previous posts in this thread.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 29 avril 2010 - 09:12 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Jebel Krong wrote...

the fact that you used the term "Halotards" (and i don't remember a vocal outcry from any FPS community that mass effect 2 should be made into a shooter) tells me a lot...

You need to browse the archived original board then get back to me.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Your problem seems to be that you really enjoyed the story of ME1 and nothing else.

I loved the combat in ME1.

So you played it at casual (which from the 5 minutes I played of it removed anything that made ME1's combat noteworthy) and loved it. So what's not to love about ME2's combat which took the ideas put forth by ME1's combat and improved on them.

I'd also like to say that anyone who thought that adding in some common shooter mechanics ruined the combat needs to stop and think for a few seconds. Bioware make great RPGs, not shooters. So why try and reinvent a genre that they are not experts in when hundreds of developers who do specialise in them have honed the mechanics to near perfection? Why wouldn't you take some of those mechanics?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

What BW changed is you now actually have to use tactics at casual rather than just pointing and shooting.

I prefer playing on casual but the second hardest difficulty was even fine for me.

So, what's your point then?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Final point, if you just want story, why not go watch a movie or read a book? What seperates games from other genres of entertainment is their interactivity. You take that away, what are you left with? A movie with occasionally clunkly looking characters.

You obviously haven't read my previous posts in this thread.

Um, which ones? Could you just sum it up for me?

[Mister Mida]

I need to side with Skull and Terror on the combat question. Like I said in earlier posts, I never considered combat to be a flaw in Mass Effect. It's understandable that Bioware changed some of it's combat mechanics for 2 but I am of the opinion they took it a bit too far.

[Brako Shepard]

Mister Mida wrote...
I never considered combat to be a flaw in Mass Effect. It's understandable that Bioware changed some of it's combat mechanics for 2 but I am of the opinion they took it a bit too far.

How so?

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

So, what's your point then?

My point is the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" holds true. The combat in ME1 was fine and Bioware ruined it in ME1.

uberdowzen wrote...

Um, which ones? Could you just sum it up for me?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I've already shared my opinions many times but I'll participate in this thread. While some like to make a joke out of my sig and would prefer the "boom boom" over story and character interaction, there are just as many that don't.

And if anybody is gonna bring up the "book" BS, if you haven't seen the Sci Vs. Fi clip, watch from the 3-4:00 mark.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 29 avril 2010 - 09:33 .

[Massadonious1]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

the fact that you used the term "Halotards" (and i don't remember a vocal outcry from any FPS community that mass effect 2 should be made into a shooter) tells me a lot...

You need to browse the archived original board then get back to me.

So, you get to be an annoying douchebag because others were annoying douchebags.

Brilliant internet logic if I ever heard it.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

So, what's your point then?

My point is the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" holds true. The combat in ME1 was fine and Bioware ruined it in ME1.

uberdowzen wrote...

Um, which ones? Could you just sum it up for me?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I've already shared my opinions many times but I'll participate in this thread. While some like to make a joke out of my sig and would prefer the "boom boom" over story and character interaction, there are just as many that don't.

And if anybody is gonna bring up the "book" BS, if you haven't seen the Sci Vs. Fi clip, watch from the 3-4:00 mark.

Firstly, a large majority of people thought ME1's combat was broke.

Secondly, I completely agree with what was said on that youtube clip, but honestly ME2 has a lot of character interaction and as I stated earlier I actually thought most of ME2's characters were deeper than ME1's. Anyway, almost all good sci fi at some point gets around to everyone going off and shooting something.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

but you don't play and enjoy games for one or two gameplay mechanics. or do you? mass effect (series) is not defined by it's inventory, in fact i don't think it was ever used as a selling point....

No, but the inventory is the least of my problems with the game. And it's not the only thing that's gone. One or two elements going are a minor annoyance, but almost all of the RPG gameplay factors either going or getting watered down on top of the much more action-oriented approach and overall oversimplification all combined makes for one very unhappy camper in this case. One can argue whether one thinks the changes are an improvement or not, but one can't deny there was a hell of a lot of them made.

i'm on my sixth playthrough of me2, and i have to say i'm finding it enjoyable every time, and i still haven't played most of the classes or gone paragon... it's as deep an experience as you make it, really.
as for more weapons/customisation - do we really need loads more? especially if they aren't differentiated? customisation would be welcome (trade-off between power/cooldown for example, based on player preference), but me1's system for weapons and customisation was a bit of a mess, and most mods didn't do anything really noticeable.

I noticed a fair difference with the mods, but at the same time I don't think every change should result in instant gratification and a huge noticeable difference. I don't necessarily think that we need the exact same modding system from ME1 (though some of the mods there would be handy) and nor do I think that we need as many weapons as ME1 had either. But we need more than what ME2 brought to the table, which was *CENSORED* all. We need some way of making our guns more unique and being able to customise them. The upgrade system is okay, except for the fact its so damn linear and there are no trade-offs. ME1 at least had the element when modding your gun you were limited to two or three things, while the research system just allows for uber-weapons with no weaknesses. The weapons themselves need to have more varied stats to reflect this too, offering trade-offs and strengths and weaknesses that are common between them and noticeably visible to the players. I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with the ME2 weapons if they'd just had some visible bloody stats on them instead of a stupid vague description and that's all. The system didn't need to be as generic and lacking as they made it, but it was another classic case of the game clearly avoiding the showing of any RPG elements it could at every turn, which is another issue I have with ME2 overall.

magic gel that heals people and repairs tanks? please. between that and the hyperspace inventory - we don't need crap like that in the game or universe. at least in #2 it's been refined to just do first aid.

Actually medi-gel and omni-gel were two entirely different things. One can say one "doesn't need" these elements, but they do add an extra factor and degree of depth that the game desperately needs... especially the second one which is almost entirely void of non-combat mechanics. You don't "need" to have locked chests and a lockpick skill in standard fantasy RPG's, but the game feels pretty shallow without them usually, and the same applies here. Decryption and hacking in ME2 feel particularly shallow and pointless, and if we're going to say we "don't need" those aspects either, then why even have an (incredibly easy) minigame at all?  

the guns in me1 were all the same with tiny variances in stats, we've already been over this. at least in me2 they are significantly different and change the gameplay and tactics a lot. i'd argue that the kassa locust IS a special weapon, as would be the revenant and the widow (as the upper echelon weapons). tbh i'd say that the system in me1 was more simple, linear and boring precisely because of the lack of weapon differentiation - even with the mods.

I'll just put it like this: when every item is special, none of them are. Special or rare items are meaningless and non-existent when there are no common ones, and even more meaningless when they're inevitable gets with no challenge or differentiation or randomness to them. Again, the weapons system is no better than Doom or Quake's weapon systems.

in almost everything me2 lives up to, if not surpasses, it's predecessor. you can argue some rpg mechanics etc etc, but overall the game, universe, style are coherent, imaginative and pretty unique. where you think it doesn't stay true to those things is beyond me...

It may stay true from a narrative, presentation and cinematic perspective, but as far as gameplay mechanics go the differences are incredible. Again, one can argue whether said changes are improvements or not, but can you really deny that such changes exist and are significant? If they weren't (we and many others) wouldn't keep debating back and forth about things.

And its a matter of opinion as to whether ME2 "surpasses its predecessor" too. You say it does... I say it doesn't. Well, i actually say that it does in certain aspects and doesn't in others, but overall that it's a failure as a sequel that sacrificed too much in the name of pleasing the masses and making its mechanics "work" to succeed in that respect.

no it wouldn't, but then mass effect 2 isn't like either game, even if the combat mechanics are closer to the first now, than me1 was. as it is, mass effect 2 is a stunning game and excellent shooter and excellent rpg (depending of course on your definition of that word).

I would say that, gameplay wise, Mass Effect 2 is closer to Gears of War than it is to Mass Effect 1. And while I will say that it's a good game and a good shooter, I don't think its even close to being an excellent RPG. Partially because its a good shooter; its become far too much of one. One could never call the original Mass Effect a shooter, and I don't recall anybody ever doing so, with the exceptions of a few idiots on the boards who came in expecting one and complaining about its RPG factors. ME2 can easily be referred to as a shooter, because its more of a shooter than it is an RPG, which is my problem with it.

er, no. firstly, mass effect was NEVER only an rpg series, this is something you either miss or conveniently ignore when you make a lot of your points.

And it was also never only a shooter.

mass effect 2 is also infinitely better and more balanced at being and RPGTPS than the first ever was: how could you even say that - combat in me1 was hobbled beyond belief, for something that comprises a lot of your time in the game, that's a lot of waste. i love me1, it did a stunning job of setting up the universe, story, characters etc but as a playable experience and game it was nowhere near me2.

I'll just have to say "i disagree completely" here and leave it at that then I guess. To me, ME1 was about 30% Shooter, 30% Interactive Movie and 40% RPG. Mass Effect 2 is about 60% Shooter, 30% Interactive Movie and 10% RPG. Its so unbalanced in the favour of the shooter aspects its not funny. Almost every RPG aspect of the original game that was removed or reduced was replaced or propped up by shooter mechanics or simply the easiest replacement option. Again, one can say the game is better for it, but I'd hardly say its more balanced for it. The shooter factors are clearly dominant, with combat consisting of mostly shooter mechanics now and the weapons system almost entirely as such.

[Brako Shepard]

Sorry but I refuse to take up a whole page by qoutiong all that, so my reply is to this...



"Almost all good sci-fi at some point gets around to everyone going off and shooting something"



Indeed they do sir, and this is what people can't get in there head. Mass Effect 2 whilst obviously being a sequal, is not only a different style of game to play(although I would prefer to say improved), but the story is set in a different direction. The whole point of the story is about a suicide mission, what the hell did people think the game was going to involve? Severe talks until everyone drops dead due to boredom?



If people feel that let down by Mass Effect 2 and still prefer the original. I don't know why they don't just enjoy the Mass Effect forum instead. It makes no sense to keep taking up a whole page qouting and maoning at people when the game has already been released and is impossible for it to change.

[Terror_K]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

At least Mass Effect was trying be be an RPG, rather than trying its hardest not to be one while still fitting the definition like ME2. ME1's problems weren't solved with ME2, they were eliminated by just scrapping the issues entirely and falling back on overly simple shooter mechanics or just complete elimination. And said mechanics are dull, shallow and done to death.

So you're saying you'd rather have a bad RPG than a good shooter with RPG elements? That doesn't make sense. I'm sure if you go to a game store and rummage around in the bargain bucket you can find plenty of awful RPGs to satisfy your craving.

I don't think Mass Effect is a bad RPG though... merely a flawed one that could have used a little work. But a little work is not throwing out almost all the RPG aspects and replacing them with either sub-standard shooter mechanics or absolutely nothing. BioWare took the easy way out and went for the easy answers... even sometimes for factors that weren't even problems. I'd rather see a developer putting in the effort to fix a broken mechanic and make it work, or at least replace it with a better system that still has the depth and basic function of the original system, than simply dumbing the game down and solving the problem by simply not making it an issue any more. If I want to play a good shooter that's easy... they're a dime a dozen these days, and most of them do a better job than Mass Effect 2 did at being a pure shooter. Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG, so it should at least try to be one. Trying and failing is better than not even trying at all.