10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

I don't think you can point to this thread as "widely accepted". As I said, just read the fan feedback on sites like gamespot and IGN - it was a very popular sequel. And many people thought the continuity was great. And considering the massive disconnect between most sequels (KOTOR vs. KOTOR II, Fable vs. Fable 2), I think many people were very impressed.



But I respect you opinion that it was a poor sequel because of lack of continuity. I agree that there was less than I hoped for - the emails and cameos were cute at first but I didn't see any of my first game decisions really impact game 2. It would have been great to have a mission on Feros and see the effects of my decisions in a more meaningful context, for example.



You're right about expectations, I believe. I had almost zero expectations for ME2 and hadn't played ME1 in well over a year so I thought it was a great sequel. On the other hand, now I'm expecting big things from ME3 so I might be right beside you if they screw that up.

[CatatonicMan]

Lumikki wrote...

After reading this thread about 300 pages, I think many of you have lost your way.

One is expectation, as taste of games, like but I wanted it to be this or that. What is fine as long it has strong support here without major disagreement. Because if there is disagreement it's just personal taste and other disagree because they have different taste. One taste isn't better than other.

Other issue is going to smallest details and lost the big picture. Meaning complains are comming more like slam every smallest detail there is to complain, but in the end what is really important for someones gameplay enjoyment is lost. There is different as what could be improved and what is game breaker issue.

I would suggest your people to make list of issues and see how much support every issue gets. Not to go around and around as talking same stuff over and over. Last 300 page has not sayed much anything new what was sayed before it. Many constructive arguments what is wrong, is lost here for this continues small detail "whining" as why can't the game be like I want.

Those lists already exist. Why would we make them again?

Also, as a counterpoint, if Bioware couldn't make the big picture strong enough to drown out the minor issues (in other words, get us to suspend our disbelief of the plot holes, bad science, inconsistencies, etc.), then is it really our failing? One of the most important aspects of narration is to make the whole so good that the audience is more than willing to dismiss or otherwise downplay the various flaws; it works the same way for games.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I don't think you can point to this thread as "widely accepted". As I said, just read the fan feedback on sites like gamespot and IGN - it was a very popular sequel. And many people thought the continuity was great. And considering the massive disconnect between most sequels (KOTOR vs. KOTOR II, Fable vs. Fable 2), I think many people were very impressed.

But I respect you opinion that it was a poor sequel because of lack of continuity. I agree that there was less than I hoped for - the emails and cameos were cute at first but I didn't see any of my first game decisions really impact game 2. It would have been great to have a mission on Feros and see the effects of my decisions in a more meaningful context, for example.

You're right about expectations, I believe. I had almost zero expectations for ME2 and hadn't played ME1 in well over a year so I thought it was a great sequel. On the other hand, now I'm expecting big things from ME3 so I might be right beside you if they screw that up.

That's something I agree with. I'm ok with the decisions not having a gigantic impact in ME 2. After all it isn't showdown time just yet. However if some of the more prominent choices don't have a big impact on the third game I will be upset.

[CatatonicMan]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

That's something I agree with. I'm ok with the decisions not having a gigantic impact in ME 2. After all it isn't showdown time just yet. However if some of the more prominent choices don't have a big impact on the third game I will be upset.

Some of the choices from ME1 should have been left for ME3, but there were so many that should have had more than a fleeting impact in ME2 (and some that probably shouldn't have even come up at all, really, unless the universe is really small). Considering the way they handled them, Bioware was clearly not prepared for the monstrous task that a trilogy with big choices implies.

[MassEffect762]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

That's something I agree with. I'm ok with the decisions not having a gigantic impact in ME 2. After all it isn't showdown time just yet. However if some of the more prominent choices don't have a big impact on the third game I will be upset.

Some of the choices from ME1 should have been left for ME3, but there were so many that should have had more than a fleeting impact in ME2 (and some that probably shouldn't have even come up at all, really, unless the universe is really small). Considering the way they handled them, Bioware was clearly not prepared for the monstrous task that a trilogy with big choices implies.

I'd like to see the time and money spent to create ME1 and compare it to the time/money spent creating ME2.

That will anwser a few questions.

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I don't think you can point to this thread as "widely accepted". As I said, just read the fan feedback on sites like gamespot and IGN - it was a very popular sequel. And many people thought the continuity was great. And considering the massive disconnect between most sequels (KOTOR vs. KOTOR II, Fable vs. Fable 2), I think many people were very impressed.

I suppose part of whether you enjoy the game or not depends on how much you care about the continuity.  I know I personally feel shorted by the story for failing to properly continue the story.

Although a a few ponts about the games mentioned:

KOTOR 2 was made by a seperate company (Obsidean) and centered on a different character.  Most of the complaints that I heard concerned the unfinished quality to the game. 

Fable 2 took place centuries later and (obviously) featured a different character as well

Mass Effect 2 is the same company, same character, supposedly the same writers, and was peddled as part of a "trilogy".  Importing save files (something you can't do with KOTOR or Fable) was made out to be a Big Deal.  How many choices did they say were recorded, 700 or so?  Yeah some of us expected a little more continuity when that was one of the big selling points

People complain about how the combat mechanics or inventory was "clunky" in the first game?  I say the story and continuity was "clunky" in the second.

This is why I'm less concerned than others about DA 2.  I can't help but believe it's a good thing that focus is shifting from the Grey Warden to another character.  At least untl Bioware proves itself to be more adept at continuity across games

Modifié par iakus, 31 août 2010 - 04:21 .

[Xeranx]

MassEffect762 wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

That's something I agree with. I'm ok with the decisions not having a gigantic impact in ME 2. After all it isn't showdown time just yet. However if some of the more prominent choices don't have a big impact on the third game I will be upset.

Some of the choices from ME1 should have been left for ME3, but there were so many that should have had more than a fleeting impact in ME2 (and some that probably shouldn't have even come up at all, really, unless the universe is really small). Considering the way they handled them, Bioware was clearly not prepared for the monstrous task that a trilogy with big choices implies.

I'd like to see the time and money spent to create ME1 and compare it to the time/money spent creating ME2.

That will anwser a few questions.

Well we were told that ME took 4 years to make.  ME2 took 2 years with ME3 to follow that same development timeframe.  I doubt we'll get any hard numbers.  

Frankly I'd be interested in knowing what and what actually goes into development costs exactly.   There's the obvious, but the way it's spoken that millions of dollars goes into development costs it makes me wonder if the cost of any ip is similar to the cost of any movie.  For instance, "Kick-ass" had a 30 million dollar budget.  I'd like to know if game development really is approaching a dollar amount like that, meeting that dollar amount, or exceeding it.  Of course that's just for my own curiousity.

[Epic777]

I will mention one thing, me1 took longer because so many of the parts were created from scratch, I am near 100% certain there was alot of recycling in me2 from the first game.

[VanTesla]

Fix the data transfers for ME1 to ME2.



The more and more I look at ME2 the more upset I am about the story changes, combat quirks, and everything....

[Terror_K]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

If I were to say it
was widely agreed upon that it was a great sequel, I could point to
reviews and forums like gamespot, where hundreds of players have voted
the game a 9.2 rating.

So I assume that when you say it is widely
agreed upon that it is a poor sequel, you can point to similar
evidence? Or is your point strictly about continuity? I don't disagree
that there was a reboot to some degree or that I would enjoy more party
chatter but that hardly makes for a poor sequel.

But professional game reviewers pretty much always view each game as a standalone product and evaluate only the gameplay-related factors. They don't give as much consideration to how well something follows on from its predecessor as far as story and connections go. They also don't care about whether it adheres to genre standards or not and thus don't really care that the game is far more of a shooter than it is an RPG, unlike its predecessor. It does a good job at being a story-driven TPS and that's enough for them; it's only the hardcore fans that care how much it's like its predecessor, how much of an RPG it is, etc. And that's not even going into the fact that reviewers just hand out 9's and 10's too easily these days as a whole.  5/10 hasn't been the average middle ground for about a decade now... it's closer to 7.5 or 8 these days.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

More so the latter, it would depend upon your definition of a sequel. If you believe they should follow a continuing storyline, then there is no denying Mass Effect 2 is a poor sequel. If a few vague references to the predecessor is satisfying, then I suppose it would be appealing.

I could also point to that very forum and this thread, where Mass Effect 2 is not cited as a good sequel. Simply because it received good reviews, does not necessarily mean it was a worthy sequel. ME2 is a solid and entertaining game, hence the praise. It is a weak sequel and there little way in denying this unless you follow the abovementioned. A sequel should be a continuation of the predecessor, further developing the story, characters and world. ME2 did little in that respect, disregarding the Citadel, the Council and a large portion of what established Mass Effect. I would have rathered not had any say in the Council, Wrex or whatnot and seen development than them tossed aside due to simple laziness in development.

And the thing is, Mass Effect 2 isn't really supposed to be a sequel; it's supposed to essentially be Part 2 of a three part game. Sequels can get away with being different when they're indirect, not planned during the development of the first and simply follow-ups of the same general type of game or setting (compare the original Dune game with Dune 2 for instance), but Mass Effect was supposedly designed as a trilogy, and as such the second part should largely be the same as the first in style and tone and continue on from where the first left off in a meaningful and natural way.

As I've said before, ME2 doesn't feel like The Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers... it's more like Die Hard 2 or Aliens. This isn't necessarily a bad thing always, but when the devs state that its supposed to be a trilogy and that we're supposed to really be playing through one big story over three parts then that's what we should get. That's not what ME2 was like at all, because it was far too removed from what preceded it.

So, in a sense, Mass Effect 2 is a bad sequel for the reason that it is a sequel, when it shouldn't be. It should be the second part of the same thing.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

But professional game reviewers pretty much always view each game as a standalone product and evaluate only the gameplay-related factors. They don't give as much consideration to how well something follows on from its predecessor as far as story and connections go. They also don't care about whether it adheres to genre standards or not and thus don't really care that the game is far more of a shooter than it is an RPG, unlike its predecessor. It does a good job at being a story-driven TPS and that's enough for them; it's only the hardcore fans that care how much it's like its predecessor, how much of an RPG it is, etc. And that's not even going into the fact that reviewers just hand out 9's and 10's too easily these days as a whole.  5/10 hasn't been the average middle ground for about a decade now... it's closer to 7.5 or 8 these days.

You put a lot of value in shooter vs RPG and story telling as you liked it to be, but what about all people who doesn't care, if it is rpg or shooter or have new story. What about people who doesn't care does sequel get changed as long it's better. My point is that you care these sertain stuff, but why you assume we all should care what you care? Now because you love and care sertain stuff what got changed, you feel like it's worst. That's fair point, but people who those stuff where not important, game did not get worst, but could even become better.

After sayed that.

I agree with you that ME2 could have been better if ME2's story would have followed better it's previous game.

How ever, I disagree, with this rpg vs shooter stuff. Reasons are, many rpg related stuff in ME1 was cause of ME1's problems. ME2 feeling too much shooter is also related other content changes than just rpg or shooter. I do agree that some of RPG stuff was too simplified in ME2, because in my opinion they where, but we have disagreement maybe what that part was.

[brfritos]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Since most ME2 sales were in the first month, I'm assuming that most buyers were ME1 fans - not some recreated base. And judging from feedback on sites such as gamespot, they seem very happy with it. If anything, I think Bioware hasn't really reached beyond their base, even with the changes.

And you can't compare ME2 with Starcraft. Every Korean alone will buy 2 copies. That game will end up selling 10+ million easily. But a big part of that, we all know very well, is the multiplayer. Thats why I think Bioware will take what they've learned from TOR and their next RPG series will allow multiplayer roleplay.

No, every South Korean who has a WoW subscription have Starcraft 2 for free.
And since there are championships of it transmited by TV on the country, this means A LOT of free players.

Like people pointed before, multiplayer alone doesn't mean a game will sell better or even will be better.

As for the fan base, a lot of them are frustrated with ME2 and a lot is happy, is a 50/50 situatiuon.
But you can see a lot of new faces in this forums that don't played ME1.

I don't think ME2 is a garbage, like some people say, but I don't think it's outstanding, I don't think is a good sequel and I don't think beat it ME1.
Came closer to a drawn defenelly, but that's it.
It's a reboot of the series, after all.

As for sales, Bioware is obssessed with the "10 million number", but they are forgetting that Mass Effect is not a game of this type.
Usually games like this are a) classics or; b)mindless.
It doesn't requires a lot of cerebral activity or brain matter to play MW, unlike Mass Effect.

[bjdbwea]

Epic777 wrote...

I will mention one thing, me1 took longer because so many of the parts were created from scratch, I am near 100% certain there was alot of recycling in me2 from the first game.

Not as much as there could have been. If you think about it, making a real continuation would even have saved them a significant amount of time. They could have reused the level design of the Normandy and the Citadel at least. Everyone would have understood why these locations didn't change. Just fill them with new life, of course. They could also have maintained well-liked characters, especially the companions of course. And a continuation of the story, without the unnecessary introduction of the collectors and Cerberus, would have saved time as well.

With all the other supposedly necessary changes, it never made sense to me that they trashed so much existing assets that could have been used again, especially when they were obviously working under time constraints.

The only explanation that makes some sense from a business perspective, is that they wanted to make ME 2 the new ME 1, among other reasons in order to not let the PS 3 players start at a disadvantage.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 31 août 2010 - 09:19 .

[brfritos]

bjdbwea wrote...

The only explanation that makes some sense from a business perspective, is that they wanted to make ME 2 the new ME 1, among other reasons in order to not let the PS 3 players start at a disadvantage.

And that's the whole problem, isn't?

[bjdbwea]

That's part of the problem. Even if they had tried to make a real continuation of the story, it's not clear how good it would have been. Another part of the problem after all is this cutting of the story into convenient food, easily palatable short stories with no connection whatsoever. I suspect this was done to appeal to casual gamers and possibly shooter fans. But anyway, I don't think it's possible to tell an engaging real BioWare quality story in this way, continuation or not.

[ForumHelper]

I liked the old Citadel more. It was open, not a small-one-room location. I wasn't dissapointed, but some things I didn't like:

Small locations, nearly no connection to ME1,No armor choosing for teammates and the fact that the 70% of the game was recruting and helping the crew. What bjdbwea wrote is true. Maybe ME1 was too complicated to port it, so EA ordered BioWare to create a casual version so they could earn more:)

[brfritos]

bjdbwea wrote...

That's part of the problem. Even if they had tried to make a real continuation of the story, it's not clear how good it would have been. Another part of the problem after all is this cutting of the story into convenient food, easily palatable short stories with no connection whatsoever. I suspect this was done to appeal to casual gamers and possibly shooter fans. But anyway, I don't think it's possible to tell an engaging real BioWare quality story in this way, continuation or not.

Whatever the reason was, I'm still looking for the answear.

I'm mean, there was really a need to reboot the series? Because that's what ME2 is, a reboot of the story and characters.

ME1 was such a bad game, that most of it was cutted from ME2, only lefting some (pale) references from?

I don't know, for me Bioware tryed to rush from "a promissing series" to "a classic from videogames" (or "The New Start Wars", like I read in a magazine sometime ago).
But that's not how it works, there's a process involved, you can't reach point C starting from A and bypass B.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

With all the other supposedly necessary changes, it never made sense to me that they trashed so much existing assets that could have been used again, especially when they were obviously working under time constraints

They change many stuff because it did not work well in ME1 or people liked or complained some stuff. Lets look what they changed.

TPS combat. This did not work well in ME1 even if you think so, it is better in ME2. Reason why it was bad in ME1 was mostly comming from RPG skill connections to TPS combat side. Weapons did not feel right and so on.. You may disagree, but that is in my opinion reason why it got changed. Of cause it also had some other side effects, like what it did bionic side and rpg side. As they started to simplify stuff little too far.

Inventory system got also major change because people where complainign about it a lot. So, they analysed what was wrong and found new solution for it. In ME2 the system is better, but most people don't understand it, because it still has some other problems like it's too simple and general. How ever, it did solve what people where complaining, the junk items, omni-gel and full inventories.

Mako, people complained it, so they replaced it with planet mining. Hehe, worst possible decission made ever if you ask from me, but they tryed to solve what people was complaining.

Next is my opinion, but I think they added more companion like content to ME2, because people maybe liked them in ME1, but developers over do it. What cause main story become second and companion related stuff filled hole game content. Mistake in my opinion.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 août 2010 - 09:57 .

[bjdbwea]

I think the complaints were just convenient excuses to implement changes that were planned anyway. And if not, then the reaction to complaints is not to improve it, but to cut a feature out completely? It goes without saying that this is not acceptable for a successor, especially not from a renowned developer such as BioWare.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

They change many stuff because it did not work well in ME1 or people liked or complained some stuff. Lets look what they changed.

TPS combat. This did not work well in ME1 even if you think so, it is better in ME2. Reason why it was bad in ME1 was mostly comming from RPG skill connections to TPS combat side. Weapons did not feel right and so on.. You may disagree, but that is in my opinion reason why it got changed. Of cause it also had some other side effects, like what it did bionic side and rpg side. As they started to simplify stuff little too far.

This I don't really disagree with. I actually think that it was a step in the right direction... or at least would have been had it been a step and not about 20, which is far too much. That's an overall problem with a lot of Mass Effect 2.

Inventory system got also major change because people where complainign about it a lot. So, they analysed what was wrong and found new solution for it. In ME2 the system is better, but most people don't understand it, because it still has some other problems like it's too simple and general. How ever, it did solve what people where complaining, the junk items, omni-gel and full inventories.

It didn't solve the problem at all, it just eliminated it. Saying it solved the problem is like saying a patient who came into a hospital with a disease was cured by either being sent home or being killed, because either way it's no longer a problem for the hospital any more. Generally solving a problem involves analysing the issue and making it work, and that's not what they did. They simply scrapped the entire problem all together and replaced it with a model so simple that it couldn't break. That's not a solution, that's a cop-out and the easy answer.

Mako, people complained it, so they replaced it with planet mining. Hehe, worst possible decission made ever if you ask from me, but they tryed to solve what people was complaining.

And they completely missed the point in doing so, which is pretty damn evident when you look at what they replaced it with: The Hammerhead. It's more of a failure than The Mako ever was, and for the most part The Mako itself wasn't even the problem. And again... another case of the "solution" being elimination and weak, shallow replacement. Which is why I can never understand it when people say that ME2 was "innovative" and "moving the series forward" etc. How is simplifcation, taking the easy way out and using do-the-job mechanics stolen from other games out there in any way being innovative, fresh and moving the series forward?

Next is my opinion, but I think they added more companion like content to ME2, because people maybe liked them in ME1, but developers over do it. What cause main story become second and companion related stuff filled hole game content. Mistake in my opinion.

Indeed. On top of that, it also wasn't enough, with companions being so isolated and insular, and barely even speaking on side-quests, acknowledging each other, etc. If you're going to make squaddies/companions the main focus of the story at least do it right and fully involve them. They feel more like inventory than comrades... both are about as deep in ME2 when it comes to implementation.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Inventory system got also major change because people where complainign about it a lot. So, they analysed what was wrong and found new solution for it. In ME2 the system is better, but most people don't understand it, because it still has some other problems like it's too simple and general. How ever, it did solve what people where complaining, the junk items, omni-gel and full inventories.

It didn't solve the problem at all, it just eliminated it. Saying it solved the problem is like saying a patient who came into a hospital with a disease was cured by either being sent home or being killed, because either way it's no longer a problem for the hospital any more. Generally solving a problem involves analysing the issue and making it work, and that's not what they did. They simply scrapped the entire problem all together and replaced it with a model so simple that it couldn't break. That's not a solution, that's a cop-out and the easy answer.

I comment this one, because like I sayed most people don't understand it. You say they just eliminated it, not solve it. Yes and no. They did eliminate most of it, because that WAS the solution to the problem. Able to solve situation what people complaining, they need to remove induvidual item looting system and replace it system where is no induvidual items, just customation. I don't think many people understand this.

More items you have, harder it comes to manage them.
More variety you have, more different items you need.

So, there was only one way to solve situation, remove the huge amount of items looted, but trying to keep variety. Almost only way to do this is remove dublicate items and items what player don't need anymore. Then leave only the different variety items. With induvidual item looting system what base inventory system most the time present, this is NOT possible in that. So, solving these problems leads automaticly system like ME2 have.

How ever, that does not mean everyting in ME2 was nicely done. The problem with ME2 systems wasn't how it's done, but how little variety (customation) was left and how general all customation become. They also removed some customation possibilities what players liked in ME1, without really need of doing it. Meaning player needs to adjust induvidual characters and gears customation, not just general ways for everyone or everyting.

PS: Actually there was one other possible solution. Remove the loot items and change them to money. Then put all junk items to vendors, so that players can buy what they want, not loot all the junk to fill they inventory. How ever, this could make vendors inventory browsing to nightmare, if not handled right.

PPS: Like you can see in both solutions induvidual item looting has to be gone, because that is what creates the problems.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 août 2010 - 01:46 .

[KVerde]

Just finished my 6th playthrough. Now beat it with all the classes, five on insanity. I love the game but it is not perfect. My biggest disappointment is the lack of weapons with the first day release of the game. I understand with the DLC much more are available and I have bought them, but really why hold out just for money? And even then there seems to be a lack of them still. The heavy weapons are good in variety but I want more other weapons.

[Orchomene]

Cost of video game : consider 100 people paid 40k $ (social charges and taxes included) a year working for a year => 4M $ for a 100 Men-year (My) game (that can be 20 people

during 5 years).

You have to consider devs, designers, writers, professional testers, actors, management, marketing.

Then, you add the advertisements which should rationally be not more than a tenth of the total cost, but I don't know for sure for blockbusters.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I comment this one, because like I sayed most people don't understand it. You say they just eliminated it, not solve it. Yes and no. They did eliminate most of it, because that WAS the solution to the problem. Able to solve situation what people complaining, they need to remove induvidual item looting system and replace it system where is no induvidual items, just customation. I don't think many people understand this.

More items you have, harder it comes to manage them.
More variety you have, more different items you need.

So, there was only one way to solve situation, remove the huge amount of items looted, but trying to keep variety. Almost only way to do this is remove dublicate items and items what player don't need anymore. Then leave only the different variety items. With induvidual item looting system what base inventory system most the time present, this is NOT possible in that. So, solving these problems leads automaticly system like ME2 have.

How ever, that does not mean everyting in ME2 was nicely done. The problem with ME2 systems wasn't how it's done, but how little variety (customation) was left and how general all customation become. They also removed some customation possibilities what players liked in ME1, without really need of doing it. Meaning player needs to adjust induvidual characters and gears customation, not just general ways for everyone or everyting.

PS: Actually there was one other possible solution. Remove the loot items and change them to money. Then put all junk items to vendors, so that players can buy what they want, not loot all the junk to fill they inventory. How ever, this could make vendors inventory browsing to nightmare, if not handled right.

PPS: Like you can see in both solutions induvidual item looting has to be gone, because that is what creates the problems.

People understand, they simply don't agree. RPGs have been doing inventory for years without many issues, so the so-called "solution" of elimination isn't a valid excuse. It's not like having an inventory system is automatically fail and just because ME1's system didn't quite work doesn't mean ME2 needs to use it or that all attempts result in failure. Again, it's not a solution, it's an alternative option. Their "solution" in this case is about as much a solution to the issue of my car's tire going flat being "get rid of the car" or "remove the wheels entirely." Well, of course I can't get a flat tire if I don't have any wheels at all now, can I? But that's hardly a real solution to the problem. How about to solve my worry about my ME2 lithographs possibly being stolen I just burn them all? That certainly would prevent that now, wouldn't it?

The point is, getting rid of the problem is not a solution. How can it be when the factor that the issue related to no longer exists at all? This isn't a disease we're talking about, it's inventory. It's the easy answer, a cop-out and taking this approach just causes new problems. What's next... finding that the enemy A.I. is still an issue and the answer being "no A.I. at all, they'll all just stand there like statues." How about we solve the texture pop issue by just getting rid of textures entirely. If there's no textures, they can be delayed appearing now, can they?

Sounds silly, right? Well so does what they did with the inventory system.

You are right about one thing: it may have worked if there was more customisation and variety, but there wasn't. Modding was gone, the weapons pool was pathetic, biotic amps and omni-tools were gone, armour was mostly cosmetic, didn't act like armour and the DLC stuff was stuck as one ugly piece. We got a shallow, linear and limited system devoid of any depth or variation. It's only really now after half a dozen DLC weapons packs that we're starting to get the amount of weapons the game should have had from the start, and even that only solves one of those issues.

Yes... more variety means more to manage, more complexity and more to go wrong. But it also means more depth, more options, more customisation and more variation. Throwing out everything in favour of simplicity gets rid of the issues assosciated with having more variety, but it also gets rid of the benefits. And when other RPGs have proven that you can have your cake and eat it too in this regard, why throw away the cake entirely?

The answer is because BioWare wanted to simplify things as much as they could to bring in more players. They wanted to turn chess into checkers for all those people who find chess too confusing. It's written all over the game in the way it comes across and is designed, and the inventory is no different.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

People understand, they simply don't agree. RPGs have been doing inventory for years without many issues, so the so-called "solution" of elimination isn't a valid excuse. It's not like having an inventory system is automatically fail and just because ME1's system didn't quite work doesn't mean ME2 needs to use it or that all attempts result in failure. Again, it's not a solution, it's an alternative option. Their "solution" in this case is about as much a solution to the issue of my car's tire going flat being "get rid of the car" or "remove the wheels entirely." Well, of course I can't get a flat tire if I don't have any wheels at all now, can I? But that's hardly a real solution to the problem. How about to solve my worry about my ME2 lithographs possibly being stolen I just burn them all? That certainly would prevent that now, wouldn't it?

The point is, getting rid of the problem is not a solution. How can it be when the factor that the issue related to no longer exists at all? This isn't a disease we're talking about, it's inventory. It's the easy answer, a cop-out and taking this approach just causes new problems. What's next... finding that the enemy A.I. is still an issue and the answer being "no A.I. at all, they'll all just stand there like statues." How about we solve the texture pop issue by just getting rid of textures entirely. If there's no textures, they can be delayed appearing now, can they?

Sounds silly, right? Well so does what they did with the inventory system.

You are right about one thing: it may have worked if there was more customisation and variety, but there wasn't. Modding was gone, the weapons pool was pathetic, biotic amps and omni-tools were gone, armour was mostly cosmetic, didn't act like armour and the DLC stuff was stuck as one ugly piece. We got a shallow, linear and limited system devoid of any depth or variation. It's only really now after half a dozen DLC weapons packs that we're starting to get the amount of weapons the game should have had from the start, and even that only solves one of those issues.

Yes... more variety means more to manage, more complexity and more to go wrong. But it also means more depth, more options, more customisation and more variation. Throwing out everything in favour of simplicity gets rid of the issues assosciated with having more variety, but it also gets rid of the benefits. And when other RPGs have proven that you can have your cake and eat it too in this regard, why throw away the cake entirely?

The answer is because BioWare wanted to simplify things as much as they could to bring in more players. They wanted to turn chess into checkers for all those people who find chess too confusing. It's written all over the game in the way it comes across and is designed, and the inventory is no different.

This. It has been said many times, but probably never so eloquently. Great post.

And the inventory issue is only one example of this approach of simply removing things that perhaps didn't work perfectly. That's not improving, that's cutting corners. And I would not have expected BioWare of all developers to do that to this extent.