10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Perhaps, but that's not the point. By the way, the inventory system in ME 1 isn't nearly as bad as some people claim. But that's not the point either. The point is: The flaws were known and could easily have been fixed. There was never any reason to remove the feature completely.

How it could be fixed? Yes, you have explained this before and I have sayed, it's not fix. Solve these without saying to players just have to deal with it, because it's good as it is. You can't solve problems by ignoring them.

1. How to remove players picking "junk" items from loot to sell to get money to buy what player needs.
 (This means items what has no use to player or items what are worst what player allready have)

2. How to make so that players doesn't have to clean inventories because it's full or inventory list become so long that player can't find anything from it anymore.

3. How to make so that player is not wasting a lot of game time to select items from loot, because inventory is full.
 (This cause impression break, because it change the focus becoming more about loot and items and not about story what players is adventuring. Same ways than loading screens and list of stats and skill screens.)

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:27 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...
In modern warfare combat it's more about range and cover, not about rushing gun blazing into battle and hope my armor and fire power is better than enemies.
.

You know how modern warfare would/should work in a fictional world? For sure,if something like a kinetic shield is availbale,the one with better shields have an advantage. Its also nonsense that that the same amount of cover is available to shepardt and his enemies.Why not conquer some good places with good cover,leaving the enemy without cover and vice versa enemies could do that? Dont start with realism and then call Mass Effect 2 realistic,with its  equal placed artificial cover all over the place.

Modifié par tonnactus, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:28 .

[FataliTensei]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Traditional RPG characters skills affecting negative way to players own playing skills in TPS combat was BAD design. Hole combat in ME1 feeled like some simple middle age RPG, where players stand next to enemies and who does more damage and have better armor wins. In modern warfare combat it's more about range and cover, not about rushing gun blazing into battle and hope my armor and fire power is better than enemies.

Mass Effects are not just RPG's. You still keep thinking that Mass Effect serie is RPG. Get over it.

Mass Effect is an RPG. It is classified as one and it was marketed as one. It was constantly referred to as one prior to release. It was an RPG with TPS-based combat. Always was, always will be.

ME2 on the other hand... not so much. It's still an RPG, but only just holds onto that title. Just because a game has guns in it doesn't make it a shooter. ME2 wasn't marketed as an RPG either... at least not as much. It wasn't really labelled at all, beyond BioWare constantly saying "it's as much a shooter now as it is an RPG" and the like. I'd personally argue that it's more of a shooter now than an RPG, but that's another matter.

Solaris Paradox wrote...

Even so, it's still better to do one thing right than it is to do a dozen things poorly. Sonic the Hedgehog knows that, bless his spiky heart.

Except that ME2 does far more poorly than ME1 ever did. ME1 has about half a dozen fairly major things that were executed poorly but conceptually sound. ME2 on the other hand has loads of little problems that are far more annoying, far weaker and just terrible ideas and concepts in the first place. ME2 doesn't really even do the shooting stuff that well really, not compared to the pure-class shooters out there. It simply gave up on the RPG stuff. And let's not forget there are action and shooter titles out there with more depth and customisation than ME2. BioWare took the easy answers and didn't solve the issues of the first game, instead going with oversimplification as their response to the criticism. Half the time they even missed the point of what was wrong with the things being criticised with the first game, which the absense of elevators and The Hammerhead prove marvellously. Almost every aspect of ME2 is flawed to some degree, while ME1 only had a few things that were flawed... they just happen to be fairly major things.

I agree completely, it's like Bioware has gone off the deep end in responding to criticism these last few years, from what they did to Mass Effect over a few compliants to their full on ignoring and borderline insulting people who have complaints just as valid about Mass Effect 2.

[Baldos Terra]

I love this game..third play through...but I have not been able to finish the fire walker or overlord DLC's because of the Hammerhead "tank". it is too brittle, too dificult to control, and just will not jump high enough or stay up long enough it feels to me like playing Mario Bros on an Atari in 1980's. I just wish I could get a cheat or something to get past my problems with the Hammerhead.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Dont start with realism and then call Mass Effect 2 realistic,with its  equal placed artificial cover all over the place

Yes, but I agree with you on this. ME2 did the cover possibilities way to convient and artificial. Way too many cover possibilities and not even natural ones. How ever, Mass Effect maybe fiction, but it's not medival age fantasy fiction.

[Solaris Paradox]

tonnactus wrote...

You know how modern warfare would/should work in a fictional world? For sure,if something like a kinetic shield is availbale,the one with better shields have an advantage.

You wouldn't stand out in the middle of the room holding down the trigger and praying the enemy's shield would run out before yours, however.

Also, in real life you don't typically have a health bar at all. One shot is normally all it takes to bring you down.

[Solaris Paradox]

bjdbwea wrote...

 the inventory system in ME 1 isn't nearly as bad as some people claim.

Yes it is. There are many different items, ten versions of most of them, you can and probably will have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100-150 items at any given time, and scrolling through your list--whether to sell, equip, or salvage--is a really, really tedious process. I have 140 items. I want to sell fifty or so to make room for spoils from the next big story mission. I have to spend eight minutes crawling down a list to find the items I'm willing to let go. It's a blasted chore. And having ten versions of every item, again, just means there are nine versions of every item that eventually become a total waste of space. Better to have one version of every item and give them differing advantages and disadvantages. Less clutter. Replaces "Buy the one with the highest stat bars!" with "Hm... do I want higher biotics protection, or should I focus on shields... can't afford to buy both just yet..." There's more time to think about balancing your stat increases to suit the situation when you aren't constantly replacing your entire armory with better versions of the same armor.

Random item placement scaled to your level also renders money and the shops less useful than they should have been. I can count the number of times I actually bought something aside from a license, grenade upgrade, or medi-gel upgrade on a single hand.

Between all of its smaller flaws and the major, obvious flaw, it's a really annoying inventory system. It has its interesting concepts, but the lack of basic organizational convenience and the overly convoluted nature of the item list just kills it for me.

[Terror_K]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

I'm not going to justify that statement. I'm going to shake my fist at the Four-Room Warehouse and rest my case on that.

and

Qualify that with an example, please. And if you bring up story elements, I'm going to slap you. No amount of plot-related fail can justify calling Mass Effect 2 worse than the game with all the big-time problems I listed in that other thread.

and

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. Explain.

Look... my explanations have been explained throughout this thread literally dozens of times. I'm sick of constantly repeating myself every single time somebody new comes into this thread that's been going since ME2 was released, so if you want to know all the answers to your questions I suggest you find all my posts in this thread.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Why is it, whenever Terror K states her opinion of what should have been rectified verse removed, you are quick to inform her it is only her opinion and not what everyone wants ? It is a hypocritical position to take because in actuality you are no different than she is, except you fancy ME2's decision to remove what you deemed failed experiments, whereas she believes it should be fixed. You want something your way, she wants something her way. Two sides to the same coin.

Her?! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I confess I cannot fathom the whole "a crappy inventory system is better than no inventory system" argument. A crappy inventory distracts from what is good in the game while no inventory system just allows you to enjoy what is there.

I can only assume one of two things:

1)
this could the typical "anything different is bad" reaction that you get with any change. There were very vocal groups of people who hated season 2 BSG, Aliens, Oblivion, etc. simply because it wasn't the same as the previous season/movie/game. Everything about the new show/movie/game sucked. 

2) Some people are really obsessive about inventory. They love inventory. They love to sit around for hours re-arranging their inventory. WoW is filled with thousands of these people. Of course, in WoW, you sometimes collect gear for a dozen specs/situations (I kid you not) and then you have all your alts and guildies you need to equip and help out. Maybe they want the same mini-game in every RPG, even if it does suck.

I don't think this is #2. Because its complaining about absolutely everything, not just one or two things per person. They hate practically everything. They sound just like the people on the BSG forum. Or the Chuck forum. Or the Bethesda forums. They don't like the new because they wanted more of the old. At first they just try to understand and rationalize their dislike. Then they stick around to convince everyone else that they're right and that the next installment should be just like the first.

Then people like me argue with them because we're afraid that it will go back to being like the first (even though there is zero chance here) and we repeat ourselves a few dozen times. And then, hopefully, we all get
bored and go do something else. 

It's the cycle of... something.

It's not necessarily that a "crappy inventory is better than no inventory" so much as "a crappy inventory is better than what ME2 had" in this case. For starters, in an RPG you kind of need a decent inventory. Not necessarily a full-on inventory system, but you need a decent amount of different items. The problem is that what ME2 replaced ME1's inventory with was incredibly shallow, linear and lacking. If it had been done better it might have been okay, but it wasn't.

It's funny how ME1's inventory issues are so obvious, and yet ME2's non-inventory issues seemingly aren't, despite the fact they have just as much issues as ME1's one did, albeit different issues. I just don't get how people can be satisfied with and defend such a weak-sauce system... I really don't. Just because the guns all feel unique or something?

Lumikki wrote...

I do it mostly because some people thinks that Mass Effect is and should be ONLY RPG. When if you look Mass
Effects combat side, it is not RPG, but TPS. TPS means players skill, not character skill. If game developers would wanted to have character skill based combat, then why have they made it in TPS. When they allready has character based combat system, like in DAO.

Except it wasn't that way originally, in the first Mass Effect. The devs clearly changed their mind part-way, which, again, is part of the issue here. And I'm saying this as somebody who actually thinks that changing the combat from points-based to skill-based made it better (albeit not being the ideal solution, IMO).

Get it. Mass Effect isn't just RPG, it has non-RPG elements. If developers would wanted Mass Effect to be RPG, then after ME1 they would NEVER made ME2 with the combat system they made.

Key words: "then after ME1..."

They wanted non-RPG combat system, what worked. Look the games as what they are and what kind of
style they present. Not what you want it to be. Mass Effect still has some RPG in it, but not in combat side.

Which is part of the main problem: the combat is too far removed from the RPG aspects now. It's almost entirely TPS-based instead of being properly linked to the RPG elements and being properly integrated.

Do, you people really think that direction where the combat system did go, just happen by accident? It is what developers wanted for this game serie. It is player skill based combat, not character skill like in DAO (rpg).

Then why didn't they do it that way in the first place? It's far easier to put in simple TPS style combat than tie in a dice-roll stat-linked system into it and work out governing factors such as the cone of death, weapon stats, distance, etc.

Again, what they originally intended for the Mass Effect series changed part through. You're just proving this through your own claims. And this is the problem with ME2: it's completely changed the direction of the series, just to appeal more to the mainstream action-gamer crowd because the big sellers these days are the Halos, Gears of Wars and Call of Duty's.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 septembre 2010 - 10:58 .

[Nightwriter]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm sick of constantly repeating myself every single time somebody new comes into this thread that's been going since ME2 was released

But I am new to the thread! You are beholden to me!! Me personally!! Explain your entire life story!

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I do it mostly because some people thinks that Mass Effect is and should be ONLY RPG. When if you look Mass
Effects combat side, it is not RPG, but TPS. TPS means players skill, not character skill. If game developers would wanted to have character skill based combat, then why have they made it in TPS. When they allready has character based combat system, like in DAO.

Except it wasn't that way originally, in the first Mass Effect. The devs clearly changed their mind part-way, which, again, is part of the issue here. And I'm saying this as somebody who actually thinks that changing the combat from points-based to skill-based made it better (albeit not being the ideal solution, IMO).

Yes, because the path they had choosen as shooter combat, did not work well with the RPG connections. So, they fixed the combat by removing what was the problem in first place, RPG connection.  What you want is RPG combat, not shooter combat. If you how ever, want mix of those two, they allready tryed that in ME1 and it was BAD. Like I sayed before, get over this thinking that Mass Effect is somekind traditional RPG. If you think it wasn't bad, for TPS combat it was bad. For some simple RPG combat it was okey, but it wasn't even traditional RPG.

Get it. Mass Effect isn't just RPG, it has non-RPG elements. If developers would wanted Mass Effect to be RPG, then after ME1 they would NEVER made ME2 with the combat system they made.

Key words: "then after ME1..."

Yes, but what does it tell to you. Do you think Bioware developers think that Mass Effect series combat should be like some traditional RPG? Or is it you who can't get over the real situation and understand that Mass Effects combat is NOT traditional RPG, never was. There is difference between what you want and what it really is. Both Mass Effects have shooter combat, but ME1 had also RPG skill connected. They may have removed it, because it did not make shooter combat better, it did make it worst. Negative impact to shooter side.

They wanted non-RPG combat system, what worked. Look the games as what they are and what kind of style they present. Not what you want it to be. Mass Effect still has some RPG in it, but not in combat side.

Which is part of the main problem: the combat is too far removed from the RPG aspects now. It's almost entirely TPS-based instead of being properly linked to the RPG elements and being properly integrated.

Here you go again with ideology it has to be RPG connected, because you like so much RPG. When you get it, it's shooter combat, not RPG. So, no need to RPG connection, because it's different between character skill (rpg) and players skill (shooter).

Do, you people really think that direction where the combat system did go, just happen by accident? It is what developers wanted for this game serie. It is player skill based combat, not character skill like in DAO (rpg).

Then why didn't they do it that way in the first place? It's far easier to put in simple TPS style combat than tie in a dice-roll stat-linked system into it and work out governing factors such as the cone of death, weapon stats, distance, etc.

Ask them why did they do it in first place. Ask also why did they not like the ME1's combat system?
I assume they thinked it would work well, but it wasn't fully what they wanted. That's my ques, but I would not know why some game company does something. I can only look what they have done.

Again, what they originally intended for the Mass Effect series changed part through. You're just proving this through your own claims. And this is the problem with ME2: it's completely changed the direction of the series, just to appeal more to the mainstream action-gamer crowd because the big sellers these days are the Halos, Gears of Wars and Call of Duty's.

Mass Effect serie is not defined by ME1 only. Mass Effect serie isn't just one game, it's two games. So, when you only choose one as you idol, that's bacause it's more close what you want. That is not how ever what Mass Effect serie is. Do you think Mass Effect serie is gameplay design only, when there is alot of more in it. I see that those two Mass Effects has different kind of game system,  but main consept and ideology what Mass Effect serie is, is still in both. Because been some technical term called RPG, doesn't define hole game. Other ways Kotor 1 and DAO are same game serie, but they are totally they own kinds.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 septembre 2010 - 04:11 .

[Carmen_Willow]

As someone new to the Mass Effect universe may I list out those things I noted about the two games that I liked/did not like?



Likes:



1. I liked not having to worry about finding power for my weapons in ME. I find it rather game-breaking when power packs miraculously drop in ME2. Too convenient Just like med stations being handy just when I am about to go into a big fight. I liked the "overheat" function in the weapons more.



2. I liked having a more comprehensible inventory system, but I agree that ME 2 is dumbed down too much. Something like DA:O would have made more sense.



3. I love having squad member who interact with me. I just wished they interacted with each other "behind my back."



4. I loved the new mini games. They didn't penalize me for being left-handed.







Dislikes:



1. ME2. I find it boring to have to go get fuel and probes all the time. And planet scanning was yawnful. But the Mako and I never really got along. I am certain my crew prayed to whatever god they believed in each time I took the "wheel" of the Mako.



2. I wish I could have purchased additional clothing to wear on board ship.



3. I wish I could have toggled my helmet on and off in ME2.



4. I wish the romances were more romantic and less "friends with benefits" unions.



5. I wish some of the quests in ME were shorter, but not as short as some in ME 2.



6. I wish there were credits for being neutral. Not everything in life is paragon/renegade, and I hated having to consistently be one or the other to get the points.



Things I hope for in ME 3:



More interaction between the characters. More conversation, deeper conversation. More subplots between characters. More, please.



It is the story that drives a game for me, and I hope for great writing in future.



I liked both games. I was glad that they simplified the combat in ME 2, but sorry that they seemed to have less story. A game that combines the fun combat with a truly deep and meaningful story will probably sell gazillions of copies. Maybe DA2 (or maybe not). Or maybe ME?

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, because the path they had choosen as shooter combat, did not work well with the RPG connections. So, they fixed the combat by removing what was the problem in first place, RPG connection.  What you want is RPG combat, not shooter combat. If you how ever, want mix of those two, they allready tryed that in ME1 and it was BAD. Like I sayed before, get over this thinking that Mass Effect is somekind traditional RPG. If you think it wasn't bad, for TPS combat it was bad. For some simple RPG combat it was okey, but it wasn't even traditional RPG.

ME1's combat was experimental, and it didn't quite work. Like I said, I actually think the base combat was improved by getting rid of the cone of death, despite initial doubts. But that's not the reason ME2 combat fails. More on that below...

Yes, but what does it tell to you. Do you think Bioware developers think that Mass Effect series combat should be like some traditional RPG? Or is it you who can't get over the real situation and understand that Mass Effects combat is NOT traditional RPG, never was.

It may not have been "traditional RPG combat" but nor was it traditional TPS combat. Only with ME2 did it become that.

There is difference between what you want and what it really is. Both Mass Effects have shooter combat, but ME1 had also RPG skill connected. They may have removed it, because it did not make shooter combat better, it did make it worst. Negative impact to shooter side.

My main point is that what it was and what it's become are different. You claimed it was always intended to be TPS-based combat fully. I'm claiming that this was not the case and that it only became the case with ME2. And while the ME1 way may have made a negative impact on the shooter side of things, the ME2 way has made a negative impact on the RPG side of things. On top of that, the game doesn't take full advantage of its TPS combat mechanics.

Here you go again with ideology it has to be RPG connected, because you like so much RPG. When you get it, it's shooter combat, not RPG. So, no need to RPG connection, because it's different between character skill (rpg) and players skill (shooter).

Yes, there is a need. When you're making a game that's a hybrid you need to connect the two genres involved in a cohesive and natural way so that both exist together without alienating each other. You need to connect the RPG elements with the TPS elements. ME1 tried to do that... it didn't quite work, but it tried to do it. ME2 on the other hand pushes the RPG elements aside almost entirely and separates them, and the whole result doesn't gel well. Other games have managed to pull it off. Deus Ex did it. Fallout 3 did it. Even the underrated Alpha Protocol did it. ME2 didn't only not do it, it failed to even try. As such instead of having a proper RPG/TPS hybrid instead we have a game that's like a coin: some parts of the game come up RPG, some parts come up TPS. No parts really come up with a bit of both.

You don't need to have stats effecting the ability to shoot in order to do this, but you do need to tie both elements together in a meaningful and well-adjusted way. And the fact is that ME2 didn't just change combat from stat-based to skill based, it got rid of, dumbed-down or nerfed a lot of other factors that didn't even have anything much to do with the way combat played. If ME2 had only changed combat from stat-based to skill-based I wouldn't have had much of a problem with it. But the fact is a lot of other stuff went the way of the dodo too that wasn't even related to the core TPS gameplay at all. So improving the combat is not a valid enough excuse for losing these other things.

Ask them why did they do it in first place. Ask also why did they not like the ME1's combat system?
I assume they thinked it would work well, but it wasn't fully what they wanted. That's my ques, but I would not know why some game company does something. I can only look what they have done.

I suspect they were happy with it with ME1, but it was all the people whining expecting it to play like Gears of War because it looked like a TPS game that got it changed. I was personally happy with it, and was incredibly angry when I first heard that ME2 was throwing the stat-based combat aside for skill-based combat.

Mass Effect serie is not defined by ME1 only. Mass Effect serie isn't just one game, it's two games. So, when you only choose one as you idol, that's bacause it's more close what you want. That is not how ever what Mass Effect serie is. Do you think Mass Effect serie is gameplay design only, when there is alot of more in it. I see that those two Mass Effects has different kind of game system,  but main consept and ideology what Mass Effect serie is, is still in both. Because been some technical term called RPG, doesn't define hole game. Other ways Kotor 1 and DAO are same game serie, but they are totally they own kinds.

By that same logic ME3 could become a Doom clone or even something akin to Pacman and then you could still say that it's still part of the same series and Mass Effect isn't solely defined by ME1 and ME2 but by all three games. ME1 set the precedence and standard, and ME2 almost completely changed everything in favour of an overly simple approach to everything. I choose Mass Effect 1 as the example of what Mass Effect should be because it came first and set the standard, and that's how it should be for any game series. How often do game series' end up starting out great and going downhill and then the developers end up going back to the roots of the series because everybody hates the follow-ups?

[Solaris Paradox]

Terror_K wrote...

It's not necessarily that a "crappy inventory is better than no inventory" so much as "a crappy inventory is better than what ME2 had" in this case. For starters, in an RPG you kind of need a decent inventory. Not necessarily a full-on inventory system, but you need a decent amount of different items. The problem is that what ME2 replaced ME1's inventory with was incredibly shallow, linear and lacking. If it had been done better it might have been okay, but it wasn't.

It's funny how ME1's inventory issues are so obvious, and yet ME2's non-inventory issues seemingly aren't, despite the fact they have just as much issues as ME1's one did, albeit different issues. I just don't get how people can be satisfied with and defend such a weak-sauce system... I really don't. Just because the guns all feel unique or something?

That's called inventory, Terror. When you collect a bunch of different things and they're actually different and you can equip them as you so please. That the quantity was limited and that you could only actually do this aboard your ship or at specific points during missions doesn't negate that.

The reason nobody has any problem with ME2's inventory is 'cause despite whatever was lacking about it, it never got between them and the gameplay.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:39 .

[Terror_K]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

The reason nobody has any problem with ME2's inventory is 'cause despite whatever was lacking about it, it never got between them and the gameplay.

First of all there are plenty of people who have a problem with it.

Secondly, you just make the game sound so shallow when you put it that way. To me managing my items is part of the gameplay. With that logic we may as well get rid of the weapons entirely and just stick you with one the entire game. Would that be satisfactory? Only a player who just wants to get to the repetitive shooting and killing and doesn't like depth to their gameplay could possibly want things to be simplified so. And if that's the case, there's no way you're going to be able to please both sides. Most RPG players generally liked items and depth of customisation and to be able to play around with them. Even many shooters these days have more depth when it comes to weapons systems than ME2 had.

If you really want to just ignore the inventory systems entirely and just get to the action and pure gameplay, then you should play a simple shooter and not even be playing an RPG. Not even a hybrid one.

[ExtremeOne]

Terror_K wrote...

Solaris Paradox wrote...

I'm not going to justify that statement. I'm going to shake my fist at the Four-Room Warehouse and rest my case on that.

and

Qualify that with an example, please. And if you bring up story elements, I'm going to slap you. No amount of plot-related fail can justify calling Mass Effect 2 worse than the game with all the big-time problems I listed in that other thread.

and

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. Explain.

Look... my explanations have been explained throughout this thread literally dozens of times. I'm sick of constantly repeating myself every single time somebody new comes into this thread that's been going since ME2 was released, so if you want to know all the answers to your questions I suggest you find all my posts in this thread.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Why is it, whenever Terror K states her opinion of what should have been rectified verse removed, you are quick to inform her it is only her opinion and not what everyone wants ? It is a hypocritical position to take because in actuality you are no different than she is, except you fancy ME2's decision to remove what you deemed failed experiments, whereas she believes it should be fixed. You want something your way, she wants something her way. Two sides to the same coin.

Her?! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I confess I cannot fathom the whole "a crappy inventory system is better than no inventory system" argument. A crappy inventory distracts from what is good in the game while no inventory system just allows you to enjoy what is there.

I can only assume one of two things:

1)
this could the typical "anything different is bad" reaction that you get with any change. There were very vocal groups of people who hated season 2 BSG, Aliens, Oblivion, etc. simply because it wasn't the same as the previous season/movie/game. Everything about the new show/movie/game sucked. 

2) Some people are really obsessive about inventory. They love inventory. They love to sit around for hours re-arranging their inventory. WoW is filled with thousands of these people. Of course, in WoW, you sometimes collect gear for a dozen specs/situations (I kid you not) and then you have all your alts and guildies you need to equip and help out. Maybe they want the same mini-game in every RPG, even if it does suck.

I don't think this is #2. Because its complaining about absolutely everything, not just one or two things per person. They hate practically everything. They sound just like the people on the BSG forum. Or the Chuck forum. Or the Bethesda forums. They don't like the new because they wanted more of the old. At first they just try to understand and rationalize their dislike. Then they stick around to convince everyone else that they're right and that the next installment should be just like the first.

Then people like me argue with them because we're afraid that it will go back to being like the first (even though there is zero chance here) and we repeat ourselves a few dozen times. And then, hopefully, we all get
bored and go do something else. 

It's the cycle of... something.

It's not necessarily that a "crappy inventory is better than no inventory" so much as "a crappy inventory is better than what ME2 had" in this case. For starters, in an RPG you kind of need a decent inventory. Not necessarily a full-on inventory system, but you need a decent amount of different items. The problem is that what ME2 replaced ME1's inventory with was incredibly shallow, linear and lacking. If it had been done better it might have been okay, but it wasn't.

It's funny how ME1's inventory issues are so obvious, and yet ME2's non-inventory issues seemingly aren't, despite the fact they have just as much issues as ME1's one did, albeit different issues. I just don't get how people can be satisfied with and defend such a weak-sauce system... I really don't. Just because the guns all feel unique or something?

Lumikki wrote...

I do it mostly because some people thinks that Mass Effect is and should be ONLY RPG. When if you look Mass
Effects combat side, it is not RPG, but TPS. TPS means players skill, not character skill. If game developers would wanted to have character skill based combat, then why have they made it in TPS. When they allready has character based combat system, like in DAO.

Except it wasn't that way originally, in the first Mass Effect. The devs clearly changed their mind part-way, which, again, is part of the issue here. And I'm saying this as somebody who actually thinks that changing the combat from points-based to skill-based made it better (albeit not being the ideal solution, IMO).

Get it. Mass Effect isn't just RPG, it has non-RPG elements. If developers would wanted Mass Effect to be RPG, then after ME1 they would NEVER made ME2 with the combat system they made.

Key words: "then after ME1..."

They wanted non-RPG combat system, what worked. Look the games as what they are and what kind of
style they present. Not what you want it to be. Mass Effect still has some RPG in it, but not in combat side.

Which is part of the main problem: the combat is too far removed from the RPG aspects now. It's almost entirely TPS-based instead of being properly linked to the RPG elements and being properly integrated.

Do, you people really think that direction where the combat system did go, just happen by accident? It is what developers wanted for this game serie. It is player skill based combat, not character skill like in DAO (rpg).

Then why didn't they do it that way in the first place? It's far easier to put in simple TPS style combat than tie in a dice-roll stat-linked system into it and work out governing factors such as the cone of death, weapon stats, distance, etc.

Again, what they originally intended for the Mass Effect series changed part through. You're just proving this through your own claims. And this is the problem with ME2: it's completely changed the direction of the series, just to appeal more to the mainstream action-gamer crowd because the big sellers these days are the Halos, Gears of Wars and Call of Duty's.

  


the combat in ME 1 is god awful. plus the graphical problems with it did not make things any better. if a developer screws up something and they can fix it in the second game then i am all for that. yeah sure ME 1 was a rpg with shooting in it but guess what you can have the best rpg game in the world but if the combat sucks it does not matter. yeah they made a change and its for the better.  

[ExtremeOne]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, because the path they had choosen as shooter combat, did not work well with the RPG connections. So, they fixed the combat by removing what was the problem in first place, RPG connection.  What you want is RPG combat, not shooter combat. If you how ever, want mix of those two, they allready tryed that in ME1 and it was BAD. Like I sayed before, get over this thinking that Mass Effect is somekind traditional RPG. If you think it wasn't bad, for TPS combat it was bad. For some simple RPG combat it was okey, but it wasn't even traditional RPG.

ME1's combat was experimental, and it didn't quite work. Like I said, I actually think the base combat was improved by getting rid of the cone of death, despite initial doubts. But that's not the reason ME2 combat fails. More on that below...

Yes, but what does it tell to you. Do you think Bioware developers think that Mass Effect series combat should be like some traditional RPG? Or is it you who can't get over the real situation and understand that Mass Effects combat is NOT traditional RPG, never was.

It may not have been "traditional RPG combat" but nor was it traditional TPS combat. Only with ME2 did it become that.

There is difference between what you want and what it really is. Both Mass Effects have shooter combat, but ME1 had also RPG skill connected. They may have removed it, because it did not make shooter combat better, it did make it worst. Negative impact to shooter side.

My main point is that what it was and what it's become are different. You claimed it was always intended to be TPS-based combat fully. I'm claiming that this was not the case and that it only became the case with ME2. And while the ME1 way may have made a negative impact on the shooter side of things, the ME2 way has made a negative impact on the RPG side of things. On top of that, the game doesn't take full advantage of its TPS combat mechanics.

Here you go again with ideology it has to be RPG connected, because you like so much RPG. When you get it, it's shooter combat, not RPG. So, no need to RPG connection, because it's different between character skill (rpg) and players skill (shooter).

Yes, there is a need. When you're making a game that's a hybrid you need to connect the two genres involved in a cohesive and natural way so that both exist together without alienating each other. You need to connect the RPG elements with the TPS elements. ME1 tried to do that... it didn't quite work, but it tried to do it. ME2 on the other hand pushes the RPG elements aside almost entirely and separates them, and the whole result doesn't gel well. Other games have managed to pull it off. Deus Ex did it. Fallout 3 did it. Even the underrated Alpha Protocol did it. ME2 didn't only not do it, it failed to even try. As such instead of having a proper RPG/TPS hybrid instead we have a game that's like a coin: some parts of the game come up RPG, some parts come up TPS. No parts really come up with a bit of both.

You don't need to have stats effecting the ability to shoot in order to do this, but you do need to tie both elements together in a meaningful and well-adjusted way. And the fact is that ME2 didn't just change combat from stat-based to skill based, it got rid of, dumbed-down or nerfed a lot of other factors that didn't even have anything much to do with the way combat played. If ME2 had only changed combat from stat-based to skill-based I wouldn't have had much of a problem with it. But the fact is a lot of other stuff went the way of the dodo too that wasn't even related to the core TPS gameplay at all. So improving the combat is not a valid enough excuse for losing these other things.

Ask them why did they do it in first place. Ask also why did they not like the ME1's combat system?
I assume they thinked it would work well, but it wasn't fully what they wanted. That's my ques, but I would not know why some game company does something. I can only look what they have done.

I suspect they were happy with it with ME1, but it was all the people whining expecting it to play like Gears of War because it looked like a TPS game that got it changed. I was personally happy with it, and was incredibly angry when I first heard that ME2 was throwing the stat-based combat aside for skill-based combat.

Mass Effect serie is not defined by ME1 only. Mass Effect serie isn't just one game, it's two games. So, when you only choose one as you idol, that's bacause it's more close what you want. That is not how ever what Mass Effect serie is. Do you think Mass Effect serie is gameplay design only, when there is alot of more in it. I see that those two Mass Effects has different kind of game system,  but main consept and ideology what Mass Effect serie is, is still in both. Because been some technical term called RPG, doesn't define hole game. Other ways Kotor 1 and DAO are same game serie, but they are totally they own kinds.

By that same logic ME3 could become a Doom clone or even something akin to Pacman and then you could still say that it's still part of the same series and Mass Effect isn't solely defined by ME1 and ME2 but by all three games. ME1 set the precedence and standard, and ME2 almost completely changed everything in favour of an overly simple approach to everything. I choose Mass Effect 1 as the example of what Mass Effect should be because it came first and set the standard, and that's how it should be for any game series. How often do game series' end up starting out great and going downhill and then the developers end up going back to the roots of the series because everybody hates the follow-ups?

  


If you really think after ME 2 getting 70 + perfect reviews and critical praise that Bioware is going to go back to the ME 1 style of combat you are dreaming. a developer's job is if something does not work in one game change it and make it work in the next game and thats what they did with ME 2. ME 1 is a bad game as far as game play and graphics go but everyone gave Bioware a free pass on those 2 things in 2007. Gears of War is the bench mark for 3rd person shooting games and lets be clear Mass Effect 1's shooting combat is garbage compared to the shooting combat in Gears 1 and 2. so yeah Bioware had to change with the times and plus do you really think people in 2010  would give them a free pass again if ME 2 was the same garbage 

[Terror_K]

I don't want them to go back to ME1 combat, and never claimed I did. But nor do I want the shallow, linear and repetitive combat of ME2. You mention Gears of War, and that actually takes full advantage of its TPS combat. ME2 doesn't, and is just the same old thing. And, again, changing the combat to a more TPS style is no excuse to completely remove its RPG elements (especially the ones not directly involved in the combat gameplay) and dumb things down so much. As I said, if changing to a more traditional TPS style of combat was all ME2 did then it wouldn't have been such an issue. That's not the case though, and it's no excuse for making things so shallow. ME2's combat is nowhere near as good as GoW's or even most other pure-class shooters. Was ME1's? No... but it wasn't trying to go for that.



And if "moving with the times" means becoming the same brown, action-oriented mush as everything else seems to be... no thanks. I thought BioWare was better than that. Or at least I used to. And now it seems Dragon Age is heading in the same direction, which is sad.



R.I.P. BioWare

1995 - 2008

[Solaris Paradox]

Terror_K wrote...

First of all there are plenty of people who have a problem with it.

Way to be an overly literal stick-in-the-mud. You ask: Why do people defend ME2's inventory over ME1? I say: because it doesn't bore them to death. You weren't supposed to zero in on "nobody." Incidentally, you're the only one I've met who's been vocal about hating it.

Secondly, you just make the game sound so shallow when you put it that way. To me managing my items is part of the gameplay.

 
Scrolling through lists isn't gameplay. If there hadn't been so many unnecessary items (ideally, there should be one version of every item that was good no matter what point in the game you happen to have reached) and if the inventory had been arranged to be conveniently accessible, there would be no problem. As it is, I spend more time scrolling through my items than actually managing them. This annoys me. It takes almost as long to get to whatever item it is I want as it does to actually kill all of the bad guys in a room. I should be able to just pull up my inventory, pick an item or two for whatever equipment function I'm adjusting, and then pop back out--fast, easy, unobtrusive, still deep. Didn't work like that. Hell, most "real" RPGs aren't even this convoluted or inconvenient.

With that logic we may as well get rid of the weapons entirely and just stick you with one the entire game. Would that be satisfactory? Only a player who just wants to get to the repetitive shooting and killing and doesn't like depth to their gameplay could possibly want things to be simplified so. And if that's the case, there's no way you're going to be able to please both sides. Most RPG players generally liked items and depth of customisation and to be able to play around with them. Even many shooters these days have more depth when it comes to weapons systems than ME2 had.

If you really want to just ignore the inventory systems entirely and just get to the action and pure gameplay, then you should play a simple shooter and not even be playing an RPG. Not even a hybrid one.

Are you some kind of genre elitist, or do you just somehow manage to sound like one completely by accident?

[FluxDeluxe]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't want them to go back to ME1 combat, and never claimed I did. But nor do I want the shallow, linear and repetitive combat of ME2. You mention Gears of War, and that actually takes full advantage of its TPS combat. ME2 doesn't, and is just the same old thing. And, again, changing the combat to a more TPS style is no excuse to completely remove its RPG elements (especially the ones not directly involved in the combat gameplay) and dumb things down so much. As I said, if changing to a more traditional TPS style of combat was all ME2 did then it wouldn't have been such an issue. That's not the case though, and it's no excuse for making things so shallow. ME2's combat is nowhere near as good as GoW's or even most other pure-class shooters. Was ME1's? No... but it wasn't trying to go for that.

And if "moving with the times" means becoming the same brown, action-oriented mush as everything else seems to be... no thanks. I thought BioWare was better than that. Or at least I used to. And now it seems Dragon Age is heading in the same direction, which is sad.

R.I.P. BioWare
1995 - 2008

A little bit dramatic don't you think ?
The combat in ME2 is perfectly balanced imo apart from the adept issue. It's fun, it's fast and i think it's way ahead of GOW in terms of being able to combine powers and generally keep things interesting. RPG elements need to be scaled back in but to say that the company has died because they don't fulfill some elysian personal fantasy of RPG's is pointless. ME1 vison was incredible but in terms of gameplay it was poor, in terms of the mechanisms surrounding RPG elements it was dated, in terms of GUI and interface it was laughable, and the open world exploration was dull. What we've got with 2 is better but far from perfect with 3 let's hope they listen and reintroduce the thing that made me1 great, the vison but with far more robust and modern mechanisms supporting it.

Modifié par FluxDeluxe, 06 septembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[Solaris Paradox]

FluxDeluxe wrote...

A little bit dramatic don't you think ?

Why is it that whenever I actually manage to stop myself from making a snarky remark, someone else goes and says it anyway?

Self-control and tact are a waste of time. If you're not an ****, someone else in the room will be one for you.

[FluxDeluxe]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

FluxDeluxe wrote...

A little bit dramatic don't you think ?

Why is it that whenever I actually manage to stop myself from making a snarky remark, someone else goes and says it anyway?

Self-control and tact are a waste of time. If you're not an ****, someone else in the room will be one for you.

i've manged to restrain myself for 396 pages, that's good going

[Bourne Endeavor]

You know what would solve the inventory qualm? A properly organized category system that would enable easy scrolling between each and every item you have acquired. It would be structured in the following manner; Windows Seven Library. You know how when you open up your Library and immediately it lists Music, Videos and etc? Well instead this would be the various logos of the respective companies. Subsequently, once inside, we click another icon corresponding to what it is we wish to access from that specific company: Weapons, Armor, Upgrades. There are a variety of ways they could be listed. Another concept I had would be superior with less loot to manage and would be something of a swing effect, you spin around the menu to access what it is you desire. Suffice it to say, all ME's inventory required was proper organization and navigation, otherwise the premise was entirely functional, albeit with perhaps a slight overabundance of redundant items.

ExtremeOne wrote
the combat in ME 1 is god awful. plus the graphical problems with it did not make things any better. if a developer screws up something and they can fix it in the second game then i am all for that. yeah sure ME 1 was a rpg with shooting in it but guess what you can have the best rpg game in the world but if the combat sucks it does not matter. yeah they made a change and its for the better.

ExtremeOne wroteIf you really think after ME 2 getting 70 + perfect reviews and critical praise that Bioware is going to go back to the ME 1 style of combat you are dreaming. a developer's job is if something does not work in one game change it and make it work in the next game and thats what they did with ME 2. ME 1 is a bad game as far as game play and graphics go but everyone gave Bioware a free pass on those 2 things in 2007. Gears of War is the bench mark for 3rd person shooting games and lets be clear Mass Effect 1's shooting combat is garbage compared to the shooting combat in Gears 1 and 2. so yeah Bioware had to change with the times and plus do you really think people in 2010  would give them a free pass again if ME 2 was the same garbage

Both these statements are a mixture of personal preference hyperbole and complete nonsense. The combat system in ME2 is structurally similar to ME, just steamlined and simplified in an overzealous fashion. In ME, as a Vanguard, I would pop up barrier, unleash a singularity and wield my shotgun to glory. In ME2, I pop up a barrier, find cover, Charge a target and use either my SMG, Shotgun and/or a melee due to limited ammo capacity. Access to the ability wheels is practically identical. So the notion ME's combat was a complete failure is nonsense, unless you dislike a large portion of ME2's, in which case I ponder the reason you play either. My only qualms with ME2's combat is the diminshed ability list, ammo and cover being a little to well placed.

Graphically speaking... you are blind if you even believe for a fragment of a second Mass Effect had poor graphics. If not, I cannot imagine you older than mid teens - fifteen my approximation - because excluding momentary loading issues where the detail of the texture is slightly behind the game, ME had fantastic graphics and was considered top tier when it was released.

Now did you ever consider the possibility people did not give Mass Effect a pass and in reality appreciated the game for what it was, perhaps even enjoyed certain aspects? I for one, had nop qualms with the combat, Mako and especially not the graphics. ME's shooting consisted of moving the left analog stick, adjusting the camera with the right and clicking/holding the right trigger to fire. By some shocking revolation, this is the precise array of button configuration utilized in ME2. The controls are identicaland frankly a large portion of the mechanics are close to it.

To all honesty, with your surprising lack of knowledge of the original game, I am not convinced you have everything played it. Disliking them is one thing, citing the controls and graphcs garbage? Ridiculous.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 06 septembre 2010 - 09:31 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

You know what would solve the inventory qualm? A properly organized category system that would enable easy scrolling between each and every item you have acquired.

YES. PLEASE. THANK YOU.

Graphically speaking... you are blind if you even believe for a fragment of a second Mass Effect had poor graphics. If not, I cannot imagine you older than mid teens - fifteen my approximation - because excluding momentary loading issues where the detail of the texture is slightly behind the game, ME had fantastic graphics and was considered top tier when it was released.

It WAS quite good at the time. The problem is that by the standards of this console generation, it hasn't aged especially well, and the weird graphics issues--the mutant eyelids, the weird random ripple effect that occurs on characters' faces and hair sometimes (it happens in ME2 in the Presidium, too, but it's never been as glaring or frequent as in ME1), the terrible, terrible shadows... it's annoying. The texture pop-in is terrible, it happens all the time--on the console version, at least, I can't speak for the PC version or any of its possible settings. Graphically speaking, as well, the sidequests are sorely lacking due to the constant use of stock objects and stock structures--it's enough to make Soleanna look almost lively.

Also, it doesn't help that the face-creation system makes it very, very easy to make an ugly face, but that's also true of ME2 as well.

[Terror_K]

FluxDeluxe wrote...

The combat in ME2 is perfectly balanced imo apart from the adept issue. It's fun, it's fast and i think it's way ahead of GOW in terms of being able to combine powers and generally keep things interesting.

It's boring, shallow and repetitive. At least GoW , managed to change things up a bit and use the combat now and then for more than just "run, find obvious ambush area with waist-high cover, kill everything, rinse and repeat until next obvious ambush area or cut-scene" and had some interesting scenarios and boss fights.

RPG elements need to be scaled back in but to say that the company has died because they don't fulfill some elysian personal fantasy of RPG's is pointless. ME1 vison was incredible but in terms of gameplay it was poor,

I maintain that ME2 is poorer. The combat itself may be technically better, and the "inventory" not as cluttered, but that's pretty much where it ends.

in terms of the mechanisms surrounding RPG elements it was dated,

This is a laugh, considering ME1 was like no game before it and considering the elements ME2 replaced it with are even more dated and overdone. That's why it makes me laugh whenever people say ME2 was "innovative" or ME2 was "moving with the times."

Newsflash: The times suck! Games are slowly all becoming the same mush. And it's ironic that while more action-oriented titles become slightly deeper and add in RPG elements, ME2 goes the other route and lessens its RPG factors for more shallow and action-oriented gameplay and style. The way ME2 goes about things isn't less dated, it's just that it's going for the current trend and style of things at the moment. It's being popular and hip by being like the other popular titles... that's all. And following current trends isn't exactly being original or innovative. Besides... good game mechanics are good game mechanics, no matter how old they are.

in terms of GUI and interface it was laughable,

As opposed to ME2's "Fisher Price: My First RPG Approach" where everything is so big and bright and obvious even a 2 year old chimp could work it out? Except for its main HUD which is ridiculously hideous, overdeveloped and poorly done of course.

and the open world exploration was dull.

What's the matter... not enough action? Did you have to breathe for a little while?

Sorry, but I found the UNC planets refreshing, epic and immersive. Far moreso than ME2's little linear worlds with tiny little A to B paths as Shepard silently runs around with equally silent companions collecting datapads and meeting nobody of interest while doing nothing that's even remotely memorable or will ever result in anything for an email message.

What we've got with 2 is better but far from perfect with 3 let's hope they listen and reintroduce the thing that made me1 great, the vison but with far more robust and modern mechanisms supporting it.

Better is a point of view. More functional, maybe. But then it's harder for a surfboard or rowboat to break down than it is for a jet-ski or a motorboat. ME2 is only less flawed technically because it's so devoid of elements to break. Less moving parts and less complexity means less to go wrong. It also means a shallower and lacking game however. If you're going to streamline something you either have to fix what's there and make it more efficient or replace it with something that is of equal or greater function while giving us equal or greater results. ME2 fails to do that entirely, pushing anything that's even got the slightest hint of depth aside entirely just so it doesn't get in the way of killing things and blowing them up. If ME1 is a precision rifle with optional scope, silencer and laser sight, ME2 is a board with a nail in it.

[Solaris Paradox]

Terror_K wrote...

This is a laugh, considering ME1 was like no game before it

Dirge of Cerberus.

Oh yeah. I went there.

EDIT: I just realized... Dirge of Cerberus had exactly the kind of inventory system Mass Effect should have had.

Seriously, what the hell.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 06 septembre 2010 - 09:46 .