10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Fhaileas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And that image's point is..?

ME2 gameplay is as dumb as a brick.  

Modifié par Fhaileas, 18 septembre 2010 - 10:08 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

And I'm not denying this aspect. But I don't think it's a good thing and the right move for BioWare to purposefully just abandon the one on the left for the one on the right, which is exactly what they did with ME2.

So, you are more angry that they change it in between ME1 and ME2, than actually thinking what's good for games style? I don't believe you. After reading long time this thread, I would say more like You prefer anyway traditional RPG style, does it fit the theme and style of the game, has no meaning to you. Other ways you would recognize when some gameplay style is better to sertain themes and story.

I mean RPG progression is really good in games like DAO, because young new recruit starts journey and become very powefull at end. In Mass Effect story the main character is already best in the field, there is no upward progression to go. Now if You think ME1 progression, it did not make any sense. Sure, it's RPG progression, but it did not fit the games style and story.

It's difference between linear and parallel progression.

I do agree with you end comment that both of them did not do "hole" game as well. Both of them had bad and good points, just little in different areas.

Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't think (most of) the changes in ME2 suit the game. At least not to the extent they've been taken. They don't suit what BioWare was originally going for, which as a sci-fi RPG with TPS-based combat. Sure, some people will say the series was supposed to be a proper half-and-half hybrid, but if you look at the early stuff and read what BioWare was going for it's pretty clear that the game series was primarily meant to be an RPG primarily. An action-RPG with shooter combat, yes... but not a shooter with some RPG elements thrown in, which is what ME2 essentially was (the devs admitted as much, saying that with ME2 they threw the RPG out, built the shooter/combat stuff as the base and then built what little RPG there was brought back around it).

I've always admitted that Mass Effect never suited being a fully deep pure class RPG from the start. It's an action-RPG and should be treated as such, since that's what was being aimed for. That's why I defended it against those who were (unfairly) comparing it to Baldur's Gate, NWN and even KotOR and saying that the whole series is dumbed down compared to them. But ME is not trying to be them and never was. Nor was it trying to be a full-on shooter, yet ME2 is closer to being Gears of War or Army of Two gameplay wise than it is an RPG. ME doesn't suit having base stats such as Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc. and it doesn't suit having pointless non-combat skills like Athletics, Swim, Jump, etc. either. It doesn't suit a d20 style die roll turned based affair either. I fully acknowledge this.

But while going that way would be going too far on the RPG side of things, ME2 went too far on the shooter side of things. To me ME1 was near the perfect blend of marrying RPG and TPS together. There's almost nothing in there that doesn't fit and give the game the right amount of richness, IMO, and yet much of it was just simply biffed for ME2 or simplified to the point where it may as well not exist.

I'll admit that ME2 did do some things better, but for every step forward there were two or three steps back. I mean... the whole game is presented and styled completely differently, to the point of feeling insulting. It's like the whole thing is embarrassed to be an RPG at all and tries to hide it at every turn, seems to have switched classic 80's-esque sci-fi homage for a more Modern Hollywood approach, puts itself in action game clothing whenever it can and overall replaced maturity with juvenile immaturity, subtance for style and depth for action-packed shallowness. ME2 reminds me of when a series is retooled by the network to appeal to their target demographic more, somewhat like the second seasons of Space 1999 and Buck Rogers were back in the day. It's like BioWare decided they initially made the first game for RPG nuts and fans of classic sci-fi over the age of 25, then suddenly decided to make the second game for mainstream action game lovers and teenagers who like modern Michael Bay movies. It's not completely that bad... more like BioWare tried to find the balance between the two, but forgetting that some of the former really hate the style of the latter.

I'll admit that many of the changes might have been good had they not been taken too far. ME2's switching of stat-based shooter combat to skill-based shooter combat was --despite my initial misgivings-- the right move, for instance. The weapons loadout replacing the inventory could have worked, but they took things too far with that and removed far too much, as well as taking too much control away from the player. Splitting off skills was a good move, but it was poorly executed, with each branch off not being that different and it only happening at the end of the tree rather than before where it could have become something unique and allowed some real diversity. The research station could have been good as well, but was poorly done, by replacing modding and actually taking customisation away from the player, as well as making it completely linear and far too easy to upgrade everything fully to God-mod every single weapon. Reducing the amount of weapons was good, but again they went too far and left us with too few, as well as removing stats from them. The weapons feeling unique was good too, but they (again) were far too few and limited, were too gimmicky, and we lost any randomness or uniqueness in the process.  Armour pieces were a nice touch too, but we lost them actually acting like armour at all any more, making them rather non-sensical, impractical and more akin to wearing a bunch of rings, as well as an almost entirely vanity factor now. Interrupts are great... possibly the only factor that was introduced that also doesn't have a downside.

On top of it all we lost a bunch of stuff that really suited Mass Effect entirely. We lost gradually gaining XP and instead get it in a lump sum that doesn't even reflect how we went about the mission (not that we had much diversity there either) and makes doing nested sidequests feel shallow and meaningless. We lost as all non-combat skills. We lost omni-tools and biotic amps. We lost modding full-stop. Ammo mods are now powers restricted to certain classes which makes next to no sense. We're forced to take every weapon our class is capable of having, restricting roleplay, and on top of that classes are less diverse overall (in ME1 I had three completely different Vanguards. In ME2 one Vanguard is essentially the same as the others). Hacking and decryption has been reduced to a meaningless minigame tied to nothing. Exploration is completely gone. There's no weapon customisation. Squadmembers can't be properly equipped and run around stupidly in their pyjamas half the time (with sometimes only a breather mask to protect them from hazardous environments). Thermal clips are an awful mechanic and lore-destroying (also, supposedly universal, and yet limited once you have them). Biotics are nerfed beyond belief (except in cut-scenes it seems). Loading screens are dull and lack immersion. The Mako has been replaced by a joke of a vehicle that's worse in every way beyond speed and handling and makes no logical sense to even exist. Charm/Intimidate has been absorbed into a single combat skill and because of its design punishes neutral players or even those who want to not always be full Paragon or Renegade. Squad banter has been massively reduced. The new HUD is a mess. There's no proper radar any more. "Mission Completed" screens are an insulting joke. N7 missions are boring and gimmicky, lacking in interesting characters and situations, depth, and polish, and are too small and linear in design.

None of those things I listed in the above paragraph that went are things that had to go or be changed, they were all things that suited Mass Effect and were all things that I miss and feel illustrate how incredibly over-simplified the game has become. They may not all have worked as well as they could have, but they could have been made to work, and a good deal of them weren't even broken in the first place. And that's just a list of things I remember off the top of my head... I've probably forgotten at least a half a dozen more aspects that are just gone or horribly nerfed now.

As for what suits the game because of story conventions, then I'm afraid I have to say that people need to seperate story from gameplay sometimes. If you're going to have an RPG you need to have character progression, and if not that you need item progression. Sure, Shepard is already the best of the best, but if we take that too literally then you should really have an RPG at all, because Shepard should already be Level 60 (or 30, depending on the game) right from the get go, and should have all the best gear already, etc. But that makes for boring, unrewarding and shallow gameplay, especially when this is supposed to be an RPG. If you're going to get thrown off by that, you should also get thrown off by the idea of XP at all, as well as the fact that Shepard learns skills in the first place and even finds weapons. When you're playing KotOR you should be angry that the vibroblades don't either turn off a lightsabre instantly upon contact or crumble away to dust. When playing any turn-based RPG you should be furious when your character just stands there and lets the enemy hit them, or that they can carry any more than one piece of armour and two swords in their inventory. At some point you have to be able to step aside, accept that something is purely a gameplay factor and isn't really happening, and move on.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 septembre 2010 - 12:38 .

[TheSeventhJedi]

Just started my 8th playthrough, and I thought I'd toss in that I still love this game. Not disappointed at all - bravo BioWare!

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

I'll admit that ME2 did do some things better, but for every step forward there were two or three steps back. I mean... the whole game is presented and styled completely differently, to the point of feeling insulting. It's like the whole thing is embarrassed to be an RPG at all and tries to hide it at every turn, seems to have switched classic 80's-esque sci-fi homage for a more Modern Hollywood approach, puts itself in action game clothing whenever it can and overall replaced maturity with juvenile immaturity, subtance for style and depth for action-packed shallowness. ME2 reminds me of when a series is retooled by the network to appeal to their target demographic more, somewhat like the second seasons of Space 1999 and Buck Rogers were back in the day. It's like BioWare decided they initially made the first game for RPG nuts and fans of classic sci-fi over the age of 25, then suddenly decided to make the second game for mainstream action game lovers and teenagers who like modern Michael Bay movies. It's not completely that bad... more like BioWare tried to find the balance between the two, but forgetting that some of the former really hate the style of the latter.

I very much agree with this.  ME 1 felt like a farily serious science fiction stroy.  ME 2 feels much more cartoonish, like Bioware's not taking itself or the material seriously anymore.  In that case, why should I?

I'll admit that many of the changes might have been good had they not been taken too far. ME2's switching of stat-based shooter combat to skill-based shooter combat was --despite my initial misgivings-- the right move, for instance. The weapons loadout replacing the inventory could have worked, but they took things too far with that and removed far too much, as well as taking too much control away from the player. Splitting off skills was a good move, but it was poorly executed, with each branch off not being that different and it only happening at the end of the tree rather than before where it could have become something unique and allowed some real diversity. The research station could have been good as well, but was poorly done, by replacing modding and actually taking customisation away from the player, as well as making it completely linear and far too easy to upgrade everything fully to God-mod every single weapon. Reducing the amount of weapons was good, but again they went too far and left us with too few, as well as removing stats from them. The weapons feeling unique was good too, but they (again) were far too few and limited, were too gimmicky, and we lost any randomness or uniqueness in the process.  Armour pieces were a nice touch too, but we lost them actually acting like armour at all any more, making them rather non-sensical, impractical and more akin to wearing a bunch of rings, as well as an almost entirely vanity factor now. Interrupts are great... possibly the only factor that was introduced that also doesn't have a downside.

If choice is the heart of RPGs, then customization is the soul.   No ME 1 wasn't great at stats and inventory either, but ME 2 is approximately as bad but in the opposite direction.  Can I live with it?  yes, if I had to.  But I could also live on liver and onions if I had to as well.  Doesn't mean I like it.

On top of it all we lost a bunch of stuff that really suited Mass Effect entirely. We lost gradually gaining XP and instead get it in a lump sum that doesn't even reflect how we went about the mission (not that we had much diversity there either) and makes doing nested sidequests feel shallow and meaningless. We lost as all non-combat skills. We lost omni-tools and biotic amps. We lost modding full-stop. Ammo mods are now powers restricted to certain classes which makes next to no sense. We're forced to take every weapon our class is capable of having, restricting roleplay, and on top of that classes are less diverse overall (in ME1 I had three completely different Vanguards. In ME2 one Vanguard is essentially the same as the others). Hacking and decryption has been reduced to a meaningless minigame tied to nothing. Exploration is completely gone. There's no weapon customisation. Squadmembers can't be properly equipped and run around stupidly in their pyjamas half the time (with sometimes only a breather mask to protect them from hazardous environments). Thermal clips are an awful mechanic and lore-destroying (also, supposedly universal, and yet limited once you have them). Biotics are nerfed beyond belief (except in cut-scenes it seems). Loading screens are dull and lack immersion. The Mako has been replaced by a joke of a vehicle that's worse in every way beyond speed and handling and makes no logical sense to even exist. Charm/Intimidate has been absorbed into a single combat skill and because of its design punishes neutral players or even those who want to not always be full Paragon or Renegade. Squad banter has been massively reduced. The new HUD is a mess. There's no proper radar any more. "Mission Completed" screens are an insulting joke. N7 missions are boring and gimmicky, lacking in interesting characters and situations, depth, and polish, and are too small and linear in design.

Some of these changes I can live with, such as hacking or xp in one lump sum (I mean, we get herded linear hallways killing everything that moves anyway, so it's not like we're missing anything) Others I am very much in agreement with , in particular:


Side missions were indeed lifeless and dull, serving no purpose save to say "Look!  We remembered you didn't kill this NPC in the last game!"

Omnigel I can let go of, but I miss omnitools, amps, and especially mods.  Bad call on that, Bioware.  Really bad call. 

Ammo powers are a silly way to handle them "Hey, what's this button do?"  ::click:: "Why didn't anyone tell me my gun had this feature?"

"In ME2 one Vanguard is essentially the same as the others" Absolutely.  And one Infiltrator is the same as any other.  One soldier, etc.  ME 2 is the embodiment of "When everyone is special, no one is special"

 Squad outifits are so ridiculous that again, I am left to wonder how seriously Bioware takes the series anymore. 

Squad banter, a staple in past Bioware games, is distressingly absent.  Why, Bioware, Why?


Overall, preach it, Terror_K!  I hope Bioware is listening!

Modifié par iakus, 19 septembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
It gets accused of being dumbed down for other reasons. ME1's gear progression was weak but still existed. 

This is one of those 'sacred cows' Norman was discussing: Why does ME2 *need* a gear progression? How does it fit into the world? Or is it there for the sake of being there?

Terror_K wrote...
...removed the stats and that's all you had.

This has already been touched upon: The stats are there, just not shown. Why they *should* be shown is what you should be discussing. Saying "it's an RPG thing to do" is a cop-out.

Terror_K wrote...
How, in any way, shape or form is that more deep?

Well that's the problem: You're looking at my posts in the completely wrong light. I'm not attempting to argue why ME2 is 'deep', I'm trying to argue why it's just as 'deep' as what ME1 developed.

But you should know this by now.

Terror_K wrote...
You say that ME2 doesn't do this, but instead it has: you find every weapon without even trying, you know where they are and all roads lead to you getting them all and upgrading them fully with no real choice in between.

And what about the spectre weapons? You always knew where those were, and you knew how to get them: Just farm up credits. Regarding armor, people would stick with the Scorpion gear for quite a long time.

As for the rest of the items, you didn't have to try to do anything, you just rolled a dice and if it was in your favor then you're congratulated via Collosus.

Terror_K wrote...
Now here's where you'll probably say "butbutbut each weapon is unique and feels different." That's not good enough when there's only a small handful of each one...

And yet the more weapons Bioware develops, the more imbalanced it gets, which in reality leads to less variety and less viable options when one weapon has the best all-around stats. Don't advocate for 'more' when you're attempting to advocate for depth, because imbalance destroys it.

Terror_K wrote...
And I'm here because I consider myself a Mass Effect fan and was massively disappointed by ME2 and don't want to see ME3 become the same disappointment because a whole bunch of people here are patting BioWare on the back and telling them they did the right thing. 

Who are you to say they didn't? Who are you to say 'we' are 'wrong'?

Terror_K wrote...
It's self-evident as far as I'm concerned.

That's the number one reason why this thread has gone nowhere, and will continue to go nowhere. Ditch the bias.

Terror_K wrote...
You're the only one I see here who keeps saying that BioWare gameplay sucks and that it's only the story and characters and presentation that BioWare are good at.

Try to tell me how its not.

If I wanted more in-depth, challenging, and balanced RPG mechanics + gameplay, I'd play WoW (yes, WoW). If I wanted much more open-ended role-playing I'd play table-top. If I wanted both I'd play DnD. Bioware's made games that attempt to create a middle-ground by having diverse and believable characters in broad and in-depth settings while having lacking albeit somewhat enjoyable combat mechanics.

Terror_K wrote...
I don't see it as an issue.

The point is that others do. There have been elongated threads reaching large numbers of posts for Bioware's games since KotOR, becoming more prominent with ME1 and then DA:O (and now ME2).

I enjoy level scaling due exactly to the type of gameplay it introduces, but for me it greatly hinders the role-playing aspect of the game.

Terror_K wrote...
Fine. Stay ignorant. Just don't blame those who are against the dumbing down of games when everything is the same generic brown crap in the near future. What's the point in even debating with people who can't even back up their own claims and offer a decent counterpoint and instead just go "everything you say is crap and lies!" just because their precious little Fisher Price: My First RPG is getting torn apart for its inadequacies.

You know that their claims are just as 'self-evident' as yours, right?

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

This is one of those 'sacred cows' Norman was discussing: Why does ME2 *need* a gear progression? How does it fit into the world? Or is it there for the sake of being there?

It needs to be there for the sake of keeping things interesting and giving the player more choice and options. Especially when character progression is so lacking. This is supposed to be an RPG, and in an RPG progression is necessary.

And it'll be interesting to see how many sacred cows ME2 ends up having come ME3. Since BioWare seem to think everything about ME2 is perfect and all.

This has already been touched upon: The stats are there, just not shown. Why they *should* be shown is what you should be discussing. Saying "it's an RPG thing to do" is a cop-out.

They should be there so players can make comparisons and choose what they want to best suit their playstyle and character. This is especially true when they can so easily chop and change weapons on the fly. The problem is with ME2's system is that each weapon is so isolated, gimmicky and individual and the whole system lacks options and a decent selection, so the stats aren't as key as they were in ME1. But they should still be visible to the player to give them an idea and way to compare beyond just going out there are using the things. Even some shooters have stats on the weapons for the player. In an RPG these should be the primary things that detemine the attributes of a weapon... not just feel alone.

And in either case, what harm does showing the stats actually do. All that reasoning aside, as a player I should just be able to see them because I want to. It's not like showing them greatly effects gameplay or anything. And when players want to see the stats they should be able to. People who argue against this just seem to be doing so to defend ME2 and be difficult, because I see no reason to be so against something so simple as just showing us the friggin' numbers on the weapons. If you simply don't care either way, then why stop those of us that want it getting it by arguing against it at every point? If you're actually against them being shown that's fine, but you haven't stated that or a good reason as to why you would.

Well that's the problem: You're looking at my posts in the completely wrong light. I'm not attempting to argue why ME2 is 'deep', I'm trying to argue why it's just as 'deep' as what ME1 developed.

But you should know this by now.

Then why defend ME2 at every turn? And why is "ME1 was hardly any better" an excuse for mediocrity? All you're doing by defending ME2 is sending BioWare the message that mediocrity is okay.

And what about the spectre weapons? You always knew where those were, and you knew how to get them: Just farm up credits. Regarding armor, people would stick with the Scorpion gear for quite a long time.

As for the rest of the items, you didn't have to try to do anything, you just rolled a dice and if it was in your favor then you're congratulated via Collosus.

I was always against the Spectre weapons anyway, and thought they horribly unbalanced the item selection (yes, I know... even without them it wouldn't be great, but it would be a lot better).

The point is at least there was some randomness in there, as opposed to everything being linear and predictable. And sometimes you did have to go hunting for certain items.

To be honest though, the gear linearity in ME2 while an issue for me is one of the minor ones. I'd be happy if it stayed the same as long as other factors changed regarding weapon progression, customisation and attainment. It's just one of those things that combined with the other factors is rather dull and shallow. If the other factors were fixed, the issue would be minor.

And yet the more weapons Bioware develops, the more imbalanced it gets, which in reality leads to less variety and less viable options when one weapon has the best all-around stats. Don't advocate for 'more' when you're attempting to advocate for depth, because imbalance destroys it.

That's only if you can balance things right. Had ME1 eliminated Spectre weapons and instead had three different sets of each weapon type at the top where only one of the three stats was massively strong and the others were weak, then it wouldn't have been so much of an issue, especially if the other stats were even lower than some of the slightly lower tier weapons.

There's also such a thing as overbalancing things, which is what ME2 did. That creates a situation where all items are too equal and thus none of them are special, which just makes the system boring an uninteresting. Especially when every item in inevitable. ME2 is like trying to get into card collecting and discovering there's no such thing as Uncommon, Rare or Premium cards. Everything is common, and there's only twenty cards in the series.

Who are you to say they didn't? Who are you to say 'we' are 'wrong'?

You yourself admit that ME2 could have done a whole lot of things better and lacks in proper depth and customisation. And yet you continue to defend them.

I have just as much right as anybody to say how I feel about the game, and as a player I have the right to voice my disappointment. And as far as I'm concerned I've repeatedly presented enough evidence to back up my concerns.

That's the number one reason why this thread has gone nowhere, and will continue to go nowhere. Ditch the bias.

Look in the mirror before you make such claims. You're no different, just on the opposite side of the fence.

Terror_K wrote...
Try to tell me how its not.

If I wanted more in-depth, challenging, and balanced RPG mechanics + gameplay, I'd play WoW (yes, WoW). If I wanted much more open-ended role-playing I'd play table-top. If I wanted both I'd play DnD. Bioware's made games that attempt to create a middle-ground by having diverse and believable characters in broad and in-depth settings while having lacking albeit somewhat enjoyable combat mechanics.

All I can say is that I'm fine with it. I don't expect the games to be something they can't be, and I don't expect them to have more depth that what they're going for. Sure, every BioWare game has its little niggles, but overall I find them mostly satisfactory because the issues are that: niggles. ME2 is the exception to me because its got a lot more problems that stem from bad mechanics purposefully meant to be shallow rather than theoretically good mechanics that weren't quite pulled off and didn't quite realise their full potential. The more workings and mechanics a game has, the more that can go wrong with it and the harder it is to balance everything. BioWare at least makes a decent effort with most of their games, but with ME2 they took the easy way out: simplification to the point of complete shallowness.

And in either case, most of BioWare's combat and gameplay-related faults only become apparent when you try multiple classes, and when you're playing a single player RPG that doesn't really matter.

The point is that others do. There have been elongated threads reaching large numbers of posts for Bioware's games since KotOR, becoming more prominent with ME1 and then DA:O (and now ME2).

I enjoy level scaling due exactly to the type of gameplay it introduces, but for me it greatly hinders the role-playing aspect of the game.

Without level scaling though you need to take away the concept of an open-world and/or allowing the player to choose their path. In that sense it actually supports and encourages roleplaying more. Without it you have to try and either force the player on a linear path where the enemies should gradually get stronger with them, or have players restricted to certain areas else they face imminent death for not being ready. This, again, restricts the manner and order which they can do things.

On top of that, it's hardly realistic to believe that enemies are purposefully weak where you start while the stronger ones are only at the very end. Level-scaling is supposed to be a purely gameplay related mechanic, like most RPG progression systems are. The player is supposed to separate that from the story-related narrative aspects just like they're supposed to separate the fact that they're controlling their character via a controller or mouse+keyboard in a video game. Far too many games these days are trying to remove the game from the experience, and that may make some happy, but for others they actually like the game stuff too. And where does one draw the line between what clashes with the narrative and what can just be ignored as a gameplay aspect?

You know that their claims are just as 'self-evident' as yours, right?

Except that I explain and back up my claims and put forth points for debate, rather than simply saying "you're full of crap and wrong!" and leaving it at that.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 septembre 2010 - 02:10 .

[Pocketgb]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
And in either case, what harm does showing the stats actually do.[/quote]

None whatsoever. My case is that for weapons that have such largely diverse variables, you'd have to compare them based on a large amount of stats.

And much of this can largely be tested by just picking up the weapon and shooting it.

I'm not against showing stats, but I don't see it as a massive game-breaking hindrance either. I'm just losing a few sprinkles on my cake.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Then why defend ME2 at every turn?[/quote]

Because I've found much of the 'complaints' against them to be overall baseless. See the link in my signature for one of the very few pieces of valid criticism I've seen for ME2. To emphasize: I don't advocate ME2 to be 'deeper' than ME1. I don't find ME1 to be deeper than ME2. As Ecael worded, they're both Kool-Aid.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
The point is at least there was some randomness in there, as opposed to everything being linear and predictable.[/quote]

Just keep in mind that not everyone gains satisfaction from a dice roll.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
That's only if you can balance things right.[/quote]

Right, which given Bioware's record doesn't seem terribly likely. They couldn't even balance ME2's weapon set.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
There's also such a thing as overbalancing things, which is what ME2 did. That creates a situation where all items are too equal and thus none of them are special, which just makes the system boring an uninteresting.[/quote]

That's only a problem when you want 'special' items. I was thrilled when I picked up the claymore to find out it wasn't as 'uber' as I had dreaded and had as much reason to use it as the Scimitar.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Look in the mirror before you make such claims.[/quote]

I know I'm massively biased. I'm just not afraid to admit it.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
All I can say is that I'm fine with it.[/quote]

And not everyone is. You have to respect that.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
BioWare at least makes a decent effort with most of their games, but with ME2 they took the easy way out: simplification to the point of complete shallowness.[/quote]

This is why ME2 worked for a lot of people.
Not everyone has been satisfied with Bioware's efforts in attempting to create deep mechanics. Personally I see no difference if they make two relatively balanced weapons as opposed to five hundred terribly balanced weapons. It's why I'm not terribly upset with Bioware's direction for DA2: I considered Origins a horrible mess of mechanics, and thus feel that ANYTHING is better than what they created there.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
And in either case, most of BioWare's combat and gameplay-related faults only become apparent when you try multiple classes, and when you're playing a single player RPG that doesn't really matter.[/quote]

Imbalance is imbalance regardless if its on or offline.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Without level scaling though you need to take away the concept of an open-world and/or allowing the player to choose their path. In that sense it actually supports and encourages roleplaying more. Without it you have to try and either force the player on a linear path where the enemies should gradually get stronger with them, or have players restricted to certain areas else they face imminent death for not being ready. This, again, restricts the manner and order which they can do things.[/quote]

But then you look at a game like Morrowind, where everything has been delicately placed, crafted, and situated. So many things have a story behind them.

It's not the same when you run into a set of ruins in Oblivion and every enemy is created via a random set of variables.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
On top of that, it's hardly realistic to believe that enemies are purposefully weak where you start while the stronger ones are only at the very end.[/quote]

Neither are terribly realistic. In a level-scaling environment, every enemy 'just happens' to progress at the same rate you do, and when you stop progressing for a bit they 'just happen' to stop as well. It's preference above all else, really, similar to the 'regenerating health' vs. 'medkits' debate.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Except that I explain and back up my claims and put forth points for debate, rather than simply saying "you're full of crap and wrong!" and leaving it at that.[/quote]

That's what you've essentially been doing the whole time I've been talking to you, Terror. You also have to acknowledge that not everyone has been in this thread for as long as you have, and that not everyone is willing to dig through 400+ pages to find the back-ups to your claims.

[SithLordExarKun]

Fhaileas wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And that image's point is..?

ME2 gameplay is as dumb as a brick.  

Yet it demolishes ME1's poor gameplay.

[yslee]

Is this another one of those threads where the die-hards want their logistics management screens back?



I'd dearly love a thread about the style of the game (ME1 had darker visuals, for instance, and there's a certain difference in tone in the 2nd I can't quite place my finger on) but eventually it descends into an arguement about loot or the lack thereof...

[Embrosil]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Embrosil wrote...
Than I must be blind or play a different game. I do not see ANY of these at the equipment screen. All I see is This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields a and armor and This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields a and armor. Hell I even can not see the magazine size before equiping the weapon. Which would not be necessary if someone would not find it funny to implement the ammo, right?

You're not blind.  Just because they don't display the stats doesn't mean they aren't there.  That's a GUI problem and not a weapon system problem.  And like we're saying, no one who is voicing their preference for Mass Effect 2's system is suggesting at all that stats shouldn't be displayed.  

That being said you have to actually - gasp - pick up the weapons and try them out.  Then you'll see the variation we're talking about.  Or just look at the excerpt of Coalesced.ini posted above.

O.K. So when you are going to buy, lets say, a new monitor for your PC, you do not read stats (resolution, screen size, contrast etc.), but go to the shop and try EVERY SINGLE one, right? Because why to read stats, if you can compare them and see. Moreover i have mentioned many times that I tried. I do not see ANY difference. One rifle fires many low damaging shots, another fires few high damaging ones. In the end both do the same or really similar damage. And as you can not upgrade specific weapons, they all do the similar damage the whole game.

Maybe you do not mind, but I have read several posts where people wonder why the hell somenone wants to see some stats. I agree with them that in TPS it is not necessary. But was not ME2 supposed to be an RPG? 

BTW has anyone played Stalker: Call of Pripyat (or any other Stalker game)? It is a clear FPS, yet you not only have visual stats for each weapon, but each weapon can be heavily modified. You can have 5 FN2000 rifles, yet each one will be different. 

Modifié par Embrosil, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:30 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Embrosil wrote...

Moreover i have mentioned many times that I tried. I do not see ANY difference. One rifle fires many low damaging shots, another fires few high damaging ones.

Well good sir thats your  problem if you can't see any difference. Don't pass off what you can't see as an absolute fact, especially when someone else posted the statistical data of the weapons in the coasled.ini file which demolishes any claim you made(which you backed up with absolute jack).

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Because I've found much of the 'complaints' against them to be overall baseless. See the link in my signature for one of the very few pieces of valid criticism I've seen for ME2. To emphasize: I don't advocate ME2 to be 'deeper' than ME1. I don't find ME1 to be deeper than ME2. As Ecael worded, they're both Kool-Aid.

Uh-huh...

So all these problems that people have with ME2 are just baseless, despite the fact that many have come to the same conclusions and feel the same way completely independently of each other? And not all the problems have to do with depth, some of them are simply to do with us not liking the way they went about things with the sequel or simply missing stuff that was lost.

And this kind of links with this next bit I have to quote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
All I can say is that I'm fine with it.

And not everyone is. You have to respect that.

Just like not everybody is fine with ME2 and many of the changes made. You have to respect that.

This is why ME2 worked for a lot of people.
Not everyone has been satisfied with Bioware's efforts in attempting to create deep mechanics. Personally I see no difference if they make two relatively balanced weapons as opposed to five hundred terribly balanced weapons. It's why I'm not terribly upset with Bioware's direction for DA2: I considered Origins a horrible mess of mechanics, and thus feel that ANYTHING is better than what they created there.

So why don't we just go the whole mile and turn Dragon Age 3 into a full on hack'n'slash game or ME3 into a Gears of War clone? If simplicity is the solution to you rather than trying to make things work, then why have any kind of complexity or depth at all? What's next... BioWare just making movies instead of games, because all that gameplay has a chance to go wrong and be unbalanced, so let's cut out anything that might get in the way and just focus purely on story and nothing else.

But then you look at a game like Morrowind, where everything has been delicately placed, crafted, and situated. So many things have a story behind them.

It's not the same when you run into a set of ruins in Oblivion and every enemy is created via a random set of variables.

But BioWare doesn't do open world games. You can't give the player the choice to either do Therum, Noveria or Feros and then go and make the Feros enemies 20 levels higher than the Therum ones (and the player) because they choose to go there first. The only way it would work is to force the player into going to Therum first and Feros last, and then you eliminate choice. The whole point of enemies that level up with you is so that the player can go anywhere and do anything without either being overpowered by the enemies or facing stupidly weak ones. It's supposed to purely be a gameplay element, not something you try and make logical leaps with the narrative with.

That's what you've essentially been doing the whole time I've been talking to you, Terror. You also have to acknowledge that not everyone has been in this thread for as long as you have, and that not everyone is willing to dig through 400+ pages to find the back-ups to your claims.

Yes, but I've been over this with you more times than I can remember, and thus don't see the need to constantly repeat myself and say things to you that are inevitable. For instance, you probably foresaw most of the responses I made above anyway, because there's almost nothing there that I haven't said before.

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...
So all these problems that people have with ME2 are just baseless, despite the fact that many have come to the same conclusions and feel the same way completely independently of each other?

Yeah, "completely independently", because 99% of the complainers on this board aren't just mindlessly parroting what others say because complaining about a popular game on the internet makes them feel important. Come on, you're smarter than that.

[Lumikki]

In general the problem in complain isn't the complain, but sometimes people get so stuck in they complains that they totaly lose perspective as what is actually worth of complaining. What cause that some people starts to complain allmost everyting in some game, because they have this "bitterness" toward the game. Because this, the real problems what exist in some way or other in every Biowares game get lost, under these insignificant whining of every detail in some game. Basicly saying the complainers harms they own cause by way they complain. Call it as difference between constructive feedback and whining how something isn't way someone likes it, as taste of games.

Why they do this?

Simple they want the game design to fit in they own taste of games. If it isn't, there has to be something wrong in it. They never question that something could be fine even if they don't like it, because some other players will like it. Now if these people would just understand different between complain game design what gets supported by many and complain what's they personal taste of games. Usually good way to notice this is, what player is complaining gets alot of disagreement. That means it's not neccassary bad design, just not for you taste. If you think the other person is wrong, you are wrong, if you don't get alot of support without major disagreements, because taste is never wrong or right, it's just different liking.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:15 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

And not all the problems have to do with depth, some of them are simply to do with us not liking the way they went about things with the sequel or simply missing stuff that was lost.

There's a huge difference between disliking something because it's different and disliking something because it's "dumber". It's problematic respecting one another's feelings towards a game when the previous wasn't too high-end, either.

Terror_K wrote...
So why don't we just go the whole mile and turn Dragon Age 3 into a full on hack'n'slash game or ME3 into a Gears of War clone? If simplicity is the solution to you rather than trying to make things work, then why have any kind of complexity or depth at all? What's next... BioWare just making movies instead of games, because all that gameplay has a chance to go wrong and be unbalanced, so let's cut out anything that might get in the way and just focus purely on story and nothing else.

I actually wondered how much more I'd enjoy DA:O if they turned every combat sequence into a cinematic...

Terror_K wrote...
The whole point of enemies that level up with you is so that the player can go anywhere and do anything without either being overpowered by the enemies or facing stupidly weak ones.

I know, but again that's not the point.  Allowing the player to choose the direction of his progression is cool, but it comes at the cost of having to scale and create all the encounters based on numerous level tiers. You don't have to compensate for this when you have a set progression, allowing you to fine-tune encounters based on only a few levels as opposed to what's essentially all of them.

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, but I've been over this with you more times than I can remember, and thus don't see the need to constantly repeat myself and say things to you that are inevitable.

It's not just for my benefit.

[PsyrenY]

I love this game, I've been playing it for months solid and got far more bang for my buck than any other game or MMO I've played in a long time. There are some things I think they could do better - we need more squad banter, deeper combat (see my "Improving the Shooter Aspect" thread) and definitely an m/m romance option - but other than that, I'm very satisfied with ME2's improvements over ME1 and hope the 3rd installment will reach even higher.

[DRSH]

ok, I know it's a dumb thing to say but I'm going to say it: everyone wants the mass effect experience to be different for him & everyone would like to have this or that added or removed from the game, but... I don't think some of us get the picture right (with all respect to everyone on this forum). If Bioware did everything exactly as we wanted where would there be the fun in that? I like discovering in a game, I love exploring in a videogame. If Bioware added something I specificaly wanted in a game, where would the surprise be? I loved both ME1 and ME2 for what they were. I hope ME3 will astonish everyone. Everyone here has good intentions, but a thread with 407 pages of ideas and changes seems too much to ask from a game studio . The hard working developers of this franchise would need a resume of these ideas that players have (the best aspects), not a whole thesis with hundreds of pages and hundreds of hyperlinks. Sorry again for this comment, but I just had to say it.

Modifié par DRSH, 19 septembre 2010 - 03:36 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

Simple they want the game design to fit in they own taste of games. If it isn't, there has to be something wrong in it. They never question that something could be fine even if they don't like it, because some other players will like it. Now if these people would just understand different between complain game design what gets supported by many and complain what's they personal taste of games. Usually good way to notice this is, what player is complaining gets alot of disagreement. That means it's not neccassary bad design, just not for you taste. If you think the other person is wrong, you are wrong, if you don't get alot of support without major disagreements, because taste is never wrong or right, it's just different liking.

No game is perfect, whatever reviews may claim.  There are always flaws.  There are always areas that could be improved upon.  The quewstion is, is the whole of the game "good enough" for the player to overlook the flaws.

Mass Effect 1 was, for me, "good enough"  There was too much loot and it could become a pain to unload it every so often.  The hacking minigame was quite boring.  Armor was ugly.  Lots of little things.  But I really liked the story.  The shooter aspect was an interesting novelty.  Unkike most, it seems, I actually liked the Mako.  Overall, I was able to overlook the flaws and enjoy the game.  I looked forward to the sequel being ME 1, but better.  The flaws would be ironed out and ME 2 would be even better, right?

Wrong.

ME 2's story, is, in a word, awful.  It's almost totally divorced from ME 1.  Character personalities are essentially windup toys with limited interaction (especially bad in a company where characters are one of their best features).  No customization, bland weapons.  Zero exploration.  Few armor choices for Shepard and none for squadmates.  Continuity flaws and retcons glue things together.  Yes combat itself is improved.  Graphics are better.  Planet designs (what we can see of them) is colorful and unique.  There are some things ME 2 did better, But in this case, the flaws far far outweigh the improvements.  I had no specific ideas where the game was going to go.  But ME 1, being the introduction, should have set the tone.  It should give a good idea of what to expect in later games as the story continues.  As the Fellowship of the Ring ended, you have a pretty good idea that Frodo's going to keep heading for Mordor to detroy the Ring.  Not go on a side trek to Umbar to take care of Gondor's little corsair problem. 

If it was a simply a matter of "not to my taste" I never would have bought ME 2, because I would have disliked ME 1 as well.  Why do people seem to like ME 2 more than ME 1?  Honestly, I have no idea.  I want to like ME 2.  Until now, Bioware has had a flawless record in makeing games I've enjoyed.  But I really do not buy into the idea that I'm the one with bad taste.  SInce this would mean that every game Bioware has made up til now was bad.

 I suspect that one reason I dislike ME 2 is I do not view it as a standalone game, whatever the intentions.  This is Mass Effect 2, a continuation of Mass Effect 1.  One feature that no one seems to take into account is how well it fits as a sequel.  In my opinion, I believe the term used by gamers is "epic fail"   ME 2 had a past that it had to measure up to.  Not just in gameplay, but in story and plot.  ME 1 wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but compared to ME 2, it sure looks like it.

If you go into the game without a clue about Shepard's past adventures chasing after Saren, maybe it holds together better.  I don't know.  Maybe you don't miss weapon and armor mods, or charging into battle with armored marines at your side.  Maybe you don't miss being able to have more than two or three conversations with your squadmates. Maybe gamers today sre simply more impressed with better graphics than better writing.  I don't know.  But whatever it is, ME 1 had it.  ME 2 lacked it. 

Anyway, that's my "personal taste"

[Lumikki]

Just one think I noticed, it's not bad taste to have different taste. Like some likes comedy while some other like sci-fi movies. It's just taste, like red or blue. Also saying word quality doens't mean same to all, like Shakespeare. If someone sayes game is like shakespeare, I would try to avoid that game like hell. We all have different taste and liking, nothing bad to have different liking.

[Embrosil]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Moreover i have mentioned many times that I tried. I do not see ANY difference. One rifle fires many low damaging shots, another fires few high damaging ones.

Well good sir thats your  problem if you can't see any difference. Don't pass off what you can't see as an absolute fact, especially when someone else posted the statistical data of the weapons in the coasled.ini file which demolishes any claim you made(which you backed up with absolute jack).

And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Modifié par Embrosil, 19 septembre 2010 - 07:49 .

[Embrosil]

Lumikki wrote...

In general the problem in complain isn't the complain, but sometimes people get so stuck in they complains that they totaly lose perspective as what is actually worth of complaining. What cause that some people starts to complain allmost everyting in some game, because they have this "bitterness" toward the game. Because this, the real problems what exist in some way or other in every Biowares game get lost, under these insignificant whining of every detail in some game. Basicly saying the complainers harms they own cause by way they complain. Call it as difference between constructive feedback and whining how something isn't way someone likes it, as taste of games.

Why they do this?

Simple they want the game design to fit in they own taste of games. If it isn't, there has to be something wrong in it. They never question that something could be fine even if they don't like it, because some other players will like it. Now if these people would just understand different between complain game design what gets supported by many and complain what's they personal taste of games. Usually good way to notice this is, what player is complaining gets alot of disagreement. That means it's not neccassary bad design, just not for you taste. If you think the other person is wrong, you are wrong, if you don't get alot of support without major disagreements, because taste is never wrong or right, it's just different liking.

Well I can speak of myself. ME2 is a good game per se. And do not get me wrong, I enjoyed the playing. But then I played ME1 again to get another character to port and it hit me. ME2 does not taste as a sequel. Not just because it does not have any kind of statistcis. It is the dumb story, from working with Cerberus through those idiots at the council to loyality missions (come on, I saved Talis life twice, yet I must do another mission to show how good I am??) Not to mention the final boss who made me laugh (yes, an overgrown terminator IS funny) and most important the change from action RPG to a shooter. If Bioware wanted to try to make a shooter, good for them. But they should make a new game, not try it on a sequel of an RPG. Imagine the company Boeing advertising a new secret project e.g. a continuation of their famous 747. And then when they finally show it to the public you find out it is a submarine. Sure, it will fill someone's taste, not everyone likes to fly. But I bet those not having this taste will have a majority.

[LordPennlocke]

@All these people complaining about the flaws: You pretty much voiced all of your frustrations with the game, humanity isn't perfect (thus things humanity produces aren't perfect). We get that you don't like ME2, but many people do. I'm sorry, but the majority > minority in a stable society. Overall, ME2 was just as epic a game as ME1, sales and reviews prove that. Sure it had it's flaws, but the MAJORITY of people enjoyed this game regardless of the issues you voice. Yes, the story wasn't as epic as ME1's, but other elements made it enjoyable for me to overlook that.

Yes, times are changing, and with that, trends are as well. It's just something that has to be expected, 2010 is a totally different time from the 90s, where RPGs flourished. This has been the decade for shooters, but in the next 10-20 years, another genre may very well force shooters into the backseat. I enjoy the RPG element as much as those who are voicing their complaints, but that's no reason to criticize others or try to force your 'opinions' on those who enjoy the game. For example: "But I really do not buy into the idea that I'm the one with bad taste. Since this would mean that every game Bioware has made up until now was bad."

The arrogance in that sentence is astounding, who are you to say that and make it seem like the MAJORITY is wrong? I know both common sense/free thinking are rare nowadays, but just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that others have opinions as strong (or as 'valid') as yours. Just because one likes something that everyone else does, doesn't make them mindless sheep that just go along with everything that looks or seems cool.

I'll say this again: The majority's interests always trumps the minority. Deal with it and move on.

Modifié par LordPennlocke, 19 septembre 2010 - 09:03 .

[DenisLaMinaccia]

*Cash Machine sound*