10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Dudeman315]

Just like ME2 except you don't have to run up to enemies?(pause game lineup head shot repeat)

Never notice taking less damage in VATS maybe it's a PC thing.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

What was the teamwork I said you had to use with enemy biotics?

You said enemy biotics threw you.This is easy to prevent if you take someone like Tali or/and Garrus with you,that could damp enemies.

How is that teamwork? If I'm playing as a tech character I can just using damping myself. It's vaguely teamwork if I get a tech guy on my team to do it, but proper team work would be, for example, Sheperd lowering the enemies defences with one ability which lets the other character use damping.

tonnactus wrote...

I said earlier that you do need to use your team in ME2, for situations like I use lift and then someone else uses pull.

You mean pull and then throw.Is this good that a biotic cant perform such an action alone anymore??

1) Either actually, they have different uses. Pull takes enemy out of cover whereas throw might toss them off a ledge or something. Either is fine.

2) Yes it is good, because it means that you actually need your team there. I could probably get through ME1 without my team if I didn't need them as cannon fodder.

[DaringMoosejaw]

This might not get a reply because of everything else in this thread, but this is something that - from reading around - I am very, very curious about, and I never really was able to see the exact answer before.

I hear people say that ME2 was more shooter than RPG, and some people even say that ME2 was SO much more shooter and not at all even an RPG anymore from ME1 that they simply could not enjoy it anymore.

...exactly what so terribly crucial RPG elements were removed from ME1? All I can gather is the inventory - which was, from ME1, usually filled with useless junk that you eventually sold or deleted to get the 'best' gear anyway, which tended to be one specific thing and that I'm terribly glad they got rid of - and there not being so many skills. The skill system was a mess and it got narrowed down a lot to a bunch of skills that were VERY unique between classes and that you actually could use all the time! And it added the evolution thing, which was also great in making things more unique.

Honestly I thought they improved just about everything. They say they'll make ME3 more RPG-ey and less shooter, but if that just means adding back an inventory system where you had to sit there for 5 minutes cleaning it out and gaining nothing but Omni-gel, money and slightly better armor every half-hour, that would greatly disappoint me. I don't see inventory systems or complicated skill systems as intregral to an RPG experience, merely how they've traditionally been done. The choices and customization are the integral part, I'd think, and as far as that goes ME2 beat ME1 on all of them.

[uberdowzen]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

This might not get a reply because of everything else in this thread, but this is something that - from reading around - I am very, very curious about, and I never really was able to see the exact answer before.

I hear people say that ME2 was more shooter than RPG, and some people even say that ME2 was SO much more shooter and not at all even an RPG anymore from ME1 that they simply could not enjoy it anymore.

...exactly what so terribly crucial RPG elements were removed from ME1? All I can gather is the inventory - which was, from ME1, usually filled with useless junk that you eventually sold or deleted to get the 'best' gear anyway, which tended to be one specific thing and that I'm terribly glad they got rid of - and there not being so many skills. The skill system was a mess and it got narrowed down a lot to a bunch of skills that were VERY unique between classes and that you actually could use all the time! And it added the evolution thing, which was also great in making things more unique.

Honestly I thought they improved just about everything. They say they'll make ME3 more RPG-ey and less shooter, but if that just means adding back an inventory system where you had to sit there for 5 minutes cleaning it out and gaining nothing but Omni-gel, money and slightly better armor every half-hour, that would greatly disappoint me. I don't see inventory systems or complicated skill systems as intregral to an RPG experience, merely how they've traditionally been done. The choices and customization are the integral part, I'd think, and as far as that goes ME2 beat ME1 on all of them.

Apparently it's no longer an RPG because of the inventory and the simplifyed levelling system.

[DaringMoosejaw]

uberdowzen wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

-snip-

Apparently it's no longer an RPG because of the inventory and the simplifyed levelling system.

Really? That's it?

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 04 mai 2010 - 10:40 .

[tonnactus]

Customization?In Mass Effect 2? I cant remember that i could choose which upgrade path i would follow to improve tech or biotic abilities.6 damage upgrades,1 for duration and one for cooldown.
No choice.The evolution of powers is also something to laugh about.The whole choice for all powers: Area for multiple enemies(three at best) or streng.

In Mass Effect,example lift:
Before advanced,regular enemies could be lifted.Advanced lift allows to lift geth armatures.Master lift allows to lift a geth colossus.

This is a real evolution of a power. Not those crap we have now.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 mai 2010 - 10:46 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...


How is that teamwork? If I'm playing as a tech character I can just using damping myself.

The you would have problems with charging enemies like krogans,thorian creepers or husks.There a biotic teammember got his use.

2) Yes it is good, because it means that you actually need your team there. I could probably get through ME1 without my team if I didn't need them as cannon fodder.

You need a team in Mass Effect 2??

[KalosCast]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Just like ME2 except you don't have to run up to enemies?(pause game lineup head shot repeat)
Never notice taking less damage in VATS maybe it's a PC thing.

Except the game doesn't take control away from you and line up the headshot for you, (and only Infiltrator gets the slowdown thing). Not to mention the reduced damage just takes it from "ludicrous" to "god-mode" since you already attack faster and do more damage in VATS so by bull-rushing them, you're actually ensuring that they have less change to hurt you.

[DaringMoosejaw]

tonnactus wrote...

Customization?In Mass Effect 2? I cant remember that i could choose which upgrade path i would follow to improve tech or biotic abilities.6 damage upgrades,1 for duration and one for cooldown.
No choice.The evolution of powers is also something to laugh about.The whole choice for all powers: Area for multiple enemies or streng.

In Mass Effect,example lift:
Before advanced,regular enemies could be lifted.Advanced lift allows to lift geth armatures.Master lift allows to lift a geth colossus.

This is a real evolution of a power. Not those crap we have now.

Sure. They COULD make them more customizable, but ME1 wasn't better. All it was, really, was ME2's with more boxes, more points, and less combined skills. Lift gets stronger in ME2's system, there's just not as many points and it's not as apparent because there's not many vehicle-sized enemies. Even so, you can lift larger enemies? That's the difference between true customization and a total lack of it? That's not really that different.

[tonnactus]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...


Sure. They COULD make them more customizable, but ME1 wasn't better.

It was.One medical exoskeleton alone give me the cooldown of biotics/tech i get in the second game...

All it was, really, was ME2's with more boxes, more points, and less combined skills.

What do you mean with combined skills?

Lift gets stronger in ME2's system, there's just not as many points and it's not as apparent because there's not many vehicle-sized enemies

On what difficulty did you play?
But for vehicles it wouldnt matter,because all that doesnt have an health bar couldnt be lifted anyway.And biotics did next to nothing to enemies with shields,barrier or armor.

[DaringMoosejaw]

tonnactus wrote...
It was.One medical exoskeleton alone give me the cooldown of biotics/tech i get in the second game...

I will give you that armor add-ons did offer customization that ME2 didn't have, but messing around with armor pieces was an improvement the original didn't have. Your armor then was either better or worse than something else. The armor add-ons in ME1 also were quite like the armor, there were a few top X -level mods and those were it. It's not a colossal point for me.

What do you mean with combined skills?

ME2 essentially either phased out certain skills or combined them with others. For example, they just added an AoE for Throw and Pull instead of adding Lift.

On what difficulty did you play?
But for vehicles it wouldnt matter,because all that doesnt have an health bar couldnt be lifted anyway.And biotics did next to nothing to enemies with shields,barrier or armor.

I'm not really seeing what much this has to do with customization or why ME1 was so much better at it because you could use it on larger things.

[Vena_86]

KalosCast wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...

Just like ME2 except you don't have to run up to enemies?(pause game lineup head shot repeat)
Never notice taking less damage in VATS maybe it's a PC thing.

Except the game doesn't take control away from you and line up the headshot for you, (and only Infiltrator gets the slowdown thing). Not to mention the reduced damage just takes it from "ludicrous" to "god-mode" since you already attack faster and do more damage in VATS so by bull-rushing them, you're actually ensuring that they have less change to hurt you.

The VATS system was actually implemented relative poorly in FO3 like many other things aswell. Just pause, aim at head unpause, repeat. HOWEVER the game is incredibly mod friendly and there is a great community which eliminated pretty much every problem and added tons of new high quality content, turning the game into what it should have been, considering its potential. This is why I will always purchase a moddable game(FO3, Dragon Age) over a non-moddable (or porrly moddable) game. In the end you get more out of your deal.

[uberdowzen]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

-snip-

Apparently it's no longer an RPG because of the inventory and the simplifyed levelling system.

Really? That's it?

I know. Sad how so many people missed the point.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...


How is that teamwork? If I'm playing as a tech character I can just using damping myself.

The you would have problems with charging enemies like krogans,thorian creepers or husks.There a biotic teammember got his use.

2) Yes it is good, because it means that you actually need your team there. I could probably get through ME1 without my team if I didn't need them as cannon fodder.

You need a team in Mass Effect 2??

You wouldn't have a problem with charging enemies because all classes can use melee. That deals with Creepers and Husks, and Krogans have no counter. How does being biotic help there?

Yes you do need a team in ME2. Notice how ineffective the player is in that youtube video. He could have cut the battle time in half if he'd used some squad tactics.

[Dudeman315]

1)You can pause by bring up the command wheel in me2 on xbox
(pause not slow down) and line up shots in that view.
2)VATS is a core Fallout mechanic since FO1. Thank god for it I will not buy new vegas without it cause I've already got too many blam sploshin games.
3)Only reason FO3 was first person is because Bethseda didn't want to learn/program a new combat system otherwise it might have been turn based.
4)rpg should turn you from unskilled kid into godlike master. Look at any table top and compare base characters to highest level ones.

And there is way more customization in ME1 garrius's armor/tali's armor/mod in each squad member's armor/ dif mods in each squad member's gun/ etc.

quickness =/= need

Modifié par Dudeman315, 05 mai 2010 - 12:24 .

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

-snip-

Apparently it's no longer an RPG because of the inventory and the simplifyed levelling system.

Really? That's it?

I know. Sad how so many people missed the point.

Yes... it is. It's sad how many of you people missed the point and keep missing the point. People aren't saying that ME2 isn't an RPG at all anymore, they're saying that it's a less satisfying one that lacks RPG depth, focus and has had the RPG elements greatly reduced. And it's not just the inventory and simplified leveling system either.

There's the fact that shooting isn't determined by stats at all any more and is purely shooter-based. There's the fact that there's no longer any non-class skills or non-combat skills, and there's about half as many skills in total as there were before. That there's less builds you can do with each class. That decryption and hacking are reduced to simple and meaningless minigames now instead of being stat driven in any way. That the weapons and armour systems are now completely linear, lacking in RPG-style stats, lacking in customisation, lacking in the amount of items one can get and basically just reduced to a shooter weapons system overall. That weapon modding has disappeared. That squaddies can't be customised. That we don't really have any items or inventory whatsoever, let alone an inventory system. That XP has gone from something you earn and can see how and why to just an arbitrary and meaningless number slapped onto the end of the lame "Mission Complete" screens, which in themselves serve to break immersion and make things feel like levels rather than a big open world. That exploration is pretty much gone. That alternate methods to completing missions has been greatly reduced. etc.

[TJSolo]

Vena_86 wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...

Just like ME2 except you don't have to run up to enemies?(pause game lineup head shot repeat)
Never notice taking less damage in VATS maybe it's a PC thing.

Except the game doesn't take control away from you and line up the headshot for you, (and only Infiltrator gets the slowdown thing). Not to mention the reduced damage just takes it from "ludicrous" to "god-mode" since you already attack faster and do more damage in VATS so by bull-rushing them, you're actually ensuring that they have less change to hurt you.

The VATS system was actually implemented relative poorly in FO3 like many other things aswell. Just pause, aim at head unpause, repeat. HOWEVER the game is incredibly mod friendly and there is a great community which eliminated pretty much every problem and added tons of new high quality content, turning the game into what it should have been, considering its potential. This is why I will always purchase a moddable game(FO3, Dragon Age) over a non-moddable (or porrly moddable) game. In the end you get more out of your deal.

VATs was implemented fine and it is a non-issue on the official and other boards related to the game. Your "examples" seem abnormal and exaggerated when compared to,...ummm people that tell the truth.

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

Yes... it is. It's sad how many of you people missed the point and keep missing the point. People aren't saying that ME2 isn't an RPG at all anymore, they're saying that it's a less satisfying one that lacks RPG depth, focus and has had the RPG elements greatly reduced. And it's not just the inventory and simplified leveling system either.

There's the fact that shooting isn't determined by stats at all any more and is purely shooter-based. There's the fact that there's no longer any non-class skills or non-combat skills, and there's about half as many skills in total as there were before. That there's less builds you can do with each class. That decryption and hacking are reduced to simple and meaningless minigames now instead of being stat driven in any way. That the weapons and armour systems are now completely linear, lacking in RPG-style stats, lacking in customisation, lacking in the amount of items one can get and basically just reduced to a shooter weapons system overall. That weapon modding has disappeared. That squaddies can't be customised. That we don't really have any items or inventory whatsoever, let alone an inventory system. That XP has gone from something you earn and can see how and why to just an arbitrary and meaningless number slapped onto the end of the lame "Mission Complete" screens, which in themselves serve to break immersion and make things feel like levels rather than a big open world. That exploration is pretty much gone. That alternate methods to completing missions has been greatly reduced. etc.

Firstly, quite a few ME2 haters were saying it wasn't an RPG, although they do seem to have dissapated now.

Firstly, accuracy is determined by skill now, and I understand why. It works in FO3 when your accuracy is determined by stats but ME is a much more fast paced game than FO3. It just ended up being irritating when you missed because of stats. Secondly, damage is still determined by stats. Check you class skill and you'll notice that weapon damage is determined by that. It's just simplifying it somewhat.

Almost every skill in ME1 (with the exception of charm and intimidate) were actually combat skills which also happened to affect the hacking minigame. What non-combat skills did biotics have? Soldiers? Correct, none.

Different builds? Are you kidding me? The only choice you essentially have in ME1 is whether to go for all combat skills or combat skills and either persuade or intimidate. The "choice" is essentially which talent you don't really care about enough to max out. Also every class in ME2 plays quite differently from the others, while in ME1 they feel pretty similar and the game feels geared towards soldiers.

I'll split up weapons and armor and deal with weapons first. All the weapons in ME1 felt the same. ME1 essentially had four weapons and all the variations made no difference to the feel of the combat (except that you got ridiculously accurate towards the end). ME2 has at least 10 possible weapons and they all feel completely different.

Now armor. Armor in ME1 was pretty dull, it just had different levels of the 3 stats. In ME2 with the customisable N7 armor, every part had its own bonuses and you could also set the colours meaning you ended up with some really cool looking armor that's more unique than in ME1, where my characters usually wear the same set of amor (scorpion).

I agree that the minigames should be stat driven.

Weapon modding hasn't dissappeared, it's been incorporated into the research system.

I'm indifferent to customising squad mates. I'd rather they were recognizable from their default uniform rather than given generic ones.

The inventory in ME1 added nothing to the game. I'm not opposed to a entirely different inventory system being added to ME3 (and I suspect BW will add one) but it should only take up slightly more time to deal with than the current weapon system in ME2 and I personally think that it should be optional (e.g. you get an advantage if you use it but it's not crucial).

I didn't like the mission complete screens (Bioware, what were you thinking?) but I'm in different to how XP is dealt out. This method has 2 advantages 1) No option of grinding by finding that one part of the game with respawning enemies and 2) it doesn't matter how you complete a mission you still get the same amount of xp (meaning players don't get rewarded for finding exploits).

How is exploring gone? If you're talking about the UCWs don't get me started on those.

I do wish that there were more ways to tackle quests although almost every ME1 quest eventually came down to shooting someone.

[Terror_K]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Firstly, accuracy is determined by skill now, and I understand why. It works in FO3 when your accuracy is determined by stats but ME is a much more fast paced game than FO3. It just ended up being irritating when you missed because of stats. Secondly, damage is still determined by stats. Check you class skill and you'll notice that weapon damage is determined by that. It's just simplifying it somewhat.[/quote]

I'm not arguing here as to what is the better solution. I'm just stating that its an RPG element that's been greatly reduced and replaced by a shooter one. The same goes for everything you've commented on, because that's what we're talking about here. Which method is better is another matter entirely.

[quote]
Almost every skill in ME1 (with the exception of charm and intimidate) were actually combat skills which also happened to affect the hacking minigame. What non-combat skills did biotics have? Soldiers? Correct, none.[/quote]

They had armour classes that determined their defense, which are now gone. The cross-classes could also have tech skills such as First Aid, Decryption and Hacking. Now you don't even need a tech character with you to do these things.

[quote]
Different builds? Are you kidding me? The only choice you essentially have in ME1 is whether to go for all combat skills or combat skills and either persuade or intimidate. The "choice" is essentially which talent you don't really care about enough to max out. Also every class in ME2 plays quite differently from the others, while in ME1 they feel pretty similar and the game feels geared towards soldiers.[/quote]

Most of ME2's battles no matter the class consist of whittling down their shields and armour with either powers or weapons and then shooting them to death. Biotics could stand far more on their own in ME1 than in ME2, since biotics have been so horribly nerfed and even the offensive powers are near worthless compared to any gun. All I know is that I had four completely different Vanguards in ME1, but I can only see about two builds for ME2.

[quote]
I'll split up weapons and armor and deal with weapons first. All the weapons in ME1 felt the same. ME1 essentially had four weapons and all the variations made no difference to the feel of the combat (except that you got ridiculously accurate towards the end). ME2 has at least 10 possible weapons and they all feel completely different.[/quote]

You're just proving that this game is more of a shooter and less of an RPG with those comments. In an RPG a weapons usefulness and value aren't determined by the feel or it, they're determined by the stats and comparing to other items of the same type. How the weapon feels determining things is a purely shooter element... plain and simple, and when there are so few weapons that there's nothing to compare to beyond that. On top of that the weapons don't even have any stats. Less than 20 weapons in an RPG is a joke. Sure, you can say that ME1 had only four and the rest were all the same like everybody else does who defends ME2, but that's not entirely true. ME1 at least had a selection of stat-driven weapons you could modify, which is what an RPG should have. ME2 simply has a shooter-based system... its as simple as that. And again, what works better in your mind is irrelevant here, because we're talking about ME2 losing its RPG nature in favour of shooter elements.

[quote]
Now armor. Armor in ME1 was pretty dull, it just had different levels of the 3 stats. In ME2 with the customisable N7 armor, every part had its own bonuses and you could also set the colours meaning you ended up with some really cool looking armor that's more unique than in ME1, where my characters usually wear the same set of amor (scorpion).[/quote]

As opposed to ME2 which only really has four armours in total (excluding DLC stuff) and you simple find the parts. It has no stats, no common factors between the armours, no ability to mod them, and for the most part the armours in ME2 are no big deal and you go with whatever looks good more than anything else. Yes... I'll admit that the ability to customise your armour's look and the fact that it came in different pieces was nice, but other than that the system is incredibly shallow and the armour doesn't even really act like armour or do that much. The bonuses you get shouldn't be the only factors the armour has, they should be bonuses in addition to the protection stats.

[quote]
Weapon modding hasn't dissappeared, it's been incorporated into the research system.[/quote]

That's not proper modding. These upgrades are linear and shallow in comparison. They represent the leveling of the weapon more than anything else (i.e. the different Marks of weapon in ME1), and because of the nature of them there's no trade off or any real customisation since you can just research everything and make them ultimate. On top of that they don't effect individual weapons and are across the board.

[quote]
I'm indifferent to customising squad mates. I'd rather they were recognizable from their default uniform rather than given generic ones.[/quote]

Again we're not talking about what you prefer or think is better, we're talking about the taking away of RPG features.

[quote]
The inventory in ME1 added nothing to the game. I'm not opposed to a entirely different inventory system being added to ME3 (and I suspect BW will add one) but it should only take up slightly more time to deal with than the current weapon system in ME2 and I personally think that it should be optional (e.g. you get an advantage if you use it but it's not crucial).[/quote]

It added items. ME2 has inventory and items no more than Doom or Quake have inventory and items. That's fine for a shooter, but this is supposed to be an RPG.

[quote]
I didn't like the mission complete screens (Bioware, what were you thinking?) but I'm in different to how XP is dealt out. This method has 2 advantages 1) No option of grinding by finding that one part of the game with respawning enemies and 2) it doesn't matter how you complete a mission you still get the same amount of xp (meaning players don't get rewarded for finding exploits).[/quote]

It also reduces different playing styles and ways of completing missions with alternatives. It also means impatient players who don't put the effort in and rush through a mission get just as much XP as the careful observer who looks for everything and finds areas rushers wouldn't, which is wrong: the completionist player who does more work should get rewarded more. It also makes sidequests and anything done outside of a mission feel insignificant, as well as finding codex entries and taking time to decrypt and hack objects.

My main beef is still the fact that I'm not entirely sure the XP system is even real the way it is now.

[quote]
How is exploring gone? If you're talking about the UCWs don't get me started on those.[/quote]

I do mean that. In either case, how is exploring even there any more. I mean, even on the main missions the layouts of the places you're in are mostly linear snaking paths.

[quote]
I do wish that there were more ways to tackle quests although almost every ME1 quest eventually came down to shooting someone.[/quote]

Not always. Sometimes there was a puzzle or you could talk your way through things. There were even multiple Paragon and Renegade options for the same quest siding with different sides (e.g. the Samesh Bhatia one on The Citadel). Noveria was brilliantly done in this regard, giving you several multi-tiered options at both Port Hanshan and Peak 15 to deal with the situation, from rush-through Renegade to do the mission in about an hour to full on exploration and Paragon diplomacy for 3 hours plus and everything in-between. ME2 lacked this entirely.

[HTTP 404]

Dissappointed with Mass Effect 2???

I am not. hard to be unless you hold an ungodly high bar for your games.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

Firstly, quite a few ME2 haters were saying it wasn't an RPG, although they do seem to have dissapated now.

Firstly, accuracy is determined by skill now, and I understand why. It works in FO3 when your accuracy is determined by stats but ME is a much more fast paced game than FO3. It just ended up being irritating when you missed because of stats. Secondly, damage is still determined by stats. Check you class skill and you'll notice that weapon damage is determined by that. It's just simplifying it somewhat.

Almost every skill in ME1 (with the exception of charm and intimidate) were actually combat skills which also happened to affect the hacking minigame. What non-combat skills did biotics have? Soldiers? Correct, none.

Different builds? Are you kidding me? The only choice you essentially have in ME1 is whether to go for all combat skills or combat skills and either persuade or intimidate. The "choice" is essentially which talent you don't really care about enough to max out. Also every class in ME2 plays quite differently from the others, while in ME1 they feel pretty similar and the game feels geared towards soldiers.

I'll split up weapons and armor and deal with weapons first. All the weapons in ME1 felt the same. ME1 essentially had four weapons and all the variations made no difference to the feel of the combat (except that you got ridiculously accurate towards the end). ME2 has at least 10 possible weapons and they all feel completely different.

Now armor. Armor in ME1 was pretty dull, it just had different levels of the 3 stats. In ME2 with the customisable N7 armor, every part had its own bonuses and you could also set the colours meaning you ended up with some really cool looking armor that's more unique than in ME1, where my characters usually wear the same set of amor (scorpion).

I agree that the minigames should be stat driven.

Weapon modding hasn't dissappeared, it's been incorporated into the research system.

I'm indifferent to customising squad mates. I'd rather they were recognizable from their default uniform rather than given generic ones.

The inventory in ME1 added nothing to the game. I'm not opposed to a entirely different inventory system being added to ME3 (and I suspect BW will add one) but it should only take up slightly more time to deal with than the current weapon system in ME2 and I personally think that it should be optional (e.g. you get an advantage if you use it but it's not crucial).

I didn't like the mission complete screens (Bioware, what were you thinking?) but I'm in different to how XP is dealt out. This method has 2 advantages 1) No option of grinding by finding that one part of the game with respawning enemies and 2) it doesn't matter how you complete a mission you still get the same amount of xp (meaning players don't get rewarded for finding exploits).

How is exploring gone? If you're talking about the UCWs don't get me started on those.

I do wish that there were more ways to tackle quests although almost every ME1 quest eventually came down to shooting someone.

While not a huge fan of ME2, I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't an RPG (I don't think Bioware CAN make a non-rpg game:) ) I would say it is a pretty weak rpg

I'll skip over the skills and builds part.  Personally, I'd like to see more customization in people's Sheps, but I'm not gonna get drawn into the combat mechanics of the game.

Weapons and armor:  I'd like to see more customization in weapons.  Not different types of guns, but to able to trick out your own personal weapons.  I'd like my Infiltrator to go "This is my sniper rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine!"  I could even name it Jessie or Vera:)  You could do that to some degree in ME1 through mods(swapping out ammo was a pain though) but in ME2 all the stuff you researched was pretty generic and there was only one point where you could go "Ooh!  Shiny!"

I actually liked what they did with Shep's armor in ME2.  I really liked being able to work the color scheme rather than be the slave of the RNG (Garrus in my current ME1 game is wearing Phoenix armor, poor guy)  The only problem was there weren't enough armor pieces out there to really customize Shep.  Hopefully ME3 will find a happy medium.

Exploration.  I'll admit it, I miss it.  I miss the Mako too.  I do NOT miss mountains.  I stress that there is a difference. If the uncharted worlds had been a bit flatter, or if there were clearer paths through the mountains, I'd guess there would have been a lot less hatred fixated on the Mako.

N7 missions in ME2 are generally pretty dull:  Land, kill everything in the immediate area, go home.  At least in ME1 you had to go looking for the merc base.  There might even be a crashed probe or something lying around.

Tackling quests:  Yeah I kinda agree.  I recall the old game Deus Ex where you could use nonlethal takedowns or use hacking/lockpicking to sneak around to accomplish quests.  Got to the point where I'd try to find out how far into the game I could get without killing someone:)

[deathlycold]

 ..

[uberdowzen]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

I'm not arguing here as to what is the better solution. I'm just stating that its an RPG element that's been greatly reduced and replaced by a shooter one. The same goes for everything you've commented on, because that's what we're talking about here. Which method is better is another matter entirely.[/quote]

So, you're saying that something that works better should be sacrficed to make the game more RPG-Y?

[quote]
They had armour classes that determined their defense, which are now gone. The cross-classes could also have tech skills such as First Aid, Decryption and Hacking. Now you don't even need a tech character with you to do these things.[/quote]

Armor classes don't fit in with the new armor system. I agree that Decrytion and Hacking should come back in some form (although not the you have to have a tech character form).

[quote]
Most of ME2's battles no matter the class consist of whittling down their shields and armour with either powers or weapons and then shooting them to death. Biotics could stand far more on their own in ME1 than in ME2, since biotics have been so horribly nerfed and even the offensive powers are near worthless compared to any gun. All I know is that I had four completely different Vanguards in ME1, but I can only see about two builds for ME2.[/quote]

I think 4 completely different vanguards is going a bit far. Explain how they are all different.

[quote]

You're just proving that this game is more of a shooter and less of an RPG with those comments. In an RPG a weapons usefulness and value aren't determined by the feel or it, they're determined by the stats and comparing to other items of the same type. How the weapon feels determining things is a purely shooter element... plain and simple, and when there are so few weapons that there's nothing to compare to beyond that. On top of that the weapons don't even have any stats. Less than 20 weapons in an RPG is a joke. Sure, you can say that ME1 had only four and the rest were all the same like everybody else does who defends ME2, but that's not entirely true. ME1 at least had a selection of stat-driven weapons you could modify, which is what an RPG should have. ME2 simply has a shooter-based system... its as simple as that. And again, what works better in your mind is irrelevant here, because we're talking about ME2 losing its RPG nature in favour of shooter elements.[/quote]

Actually in most RPGs weapons do feel quite a bit different from each other. In fantasy, you have sword attack speeds, damage, crit chances, enchantments. In sci-fi, you have accuracy, attack speed, bullets per clip, reload time etc. ME2 seems to fulfil that criteria better than ME1 did.

[quote]
As opposed to ME2 which only really has four armours in total (excluding DLC stuff) and you simple find the parts. It has no stats, no common factors between the armours, no ability to mod them, and for the most part the armours in ME2 are no big deal and you go with whatever looks good more than anything else. Yes... I'll admit that the ability to customise your armour's look and the fact that it came in different pieces was nice, but other than that the system is incredibly shallow and the armour doesn't even really act like armour or do that much. The bonuses you get shouldn't be the only factors the armour has, they should be bonuses in addition to the protection stats.[/quote]

But in ME1 they didn't have bonuses either, so how is it more RPG-Y in ME1?

[quote]
That's not proper modding. These upgrades are linear and shallow in comparison. They represent the leveling of the weapon more than anything else (i.e. the different Marks of weapon in ME1), and because of the nature of them there's no trade off or any real customisation since you can just research everything and make them ultimate. On top of that they don't effect individual weapons and are across the board.[/quote]

Yeah, I'd be all good with some kind of modding option.

[quote]
Again we're not talking about what you prefer or think is better, we're talking about the taking away of RPG features.[/quote]

So does that mean that Oblivion, Morrowind, Fable, Diablo, Fallout 1-3 aren't RPGs? Because if those had companions at all you couldn't change their equipment.

[quote]
It added items. ME2 has inventory and items no more than Doom or Quake have inventory and items. That's fine for a shooter, but this is supposed to be an RPG.[/quote]

I've said it before I'll say it again, there's a difference between Role playing and RPG elements. A RPG is a game where you make choices that affect the story. That's it. Inventory, stats and non-linear environments do not define an RPG nor are the required for a game to be one.

[quote]
It also reduces different playing styles and ways of completing missions with alternatives. It also means impatient players who don't put the effort in and rush through a mission get just as much XP as the careful observer who looks for everything and finds areas rushers wouldn't, which is wrong: the completionist player who does more work should get rewarded more. It also makes sidequests and anything done outside of a mission feel insignificant, as well as finding codex entries and taking time to decrypt and hack objects.

My main beef is still the fact that I'm not entirely sure the XP system is even real the way it is now.[/quote]

Completionist players who go off and no N7 missions and side quests do get more XP. And what do you mean that you're not sure the XP system is real?

[quote]
I do mean that. In either case, how is exploring even there any more. I mean, even on the main missions the layouts of the places you're in are mostly linear snaking paths.[/quote]

I'm not going to get into why the UCWs sucked (because I've already gone into this in great detail), all I'm going to say is good riddance.

[quote]

Not always. Sometimes there was a puzzle or you could talk your way through things. There were even multiple Paragon and Renegade options for the same quest siding with different sides (e.g. the Samesh Bhatia one on The Citadel). Noveria was brilliantly done in this regard, giving you several multi-tiered options at both Port Hanshan and Peak 15 to deal with the situation, from rush-through Renegade to do the mission in about an hour to full on exploration and Paragon diplomacy for 3 hours plus and everything in-between. ME2 lacked this entirely.[/quote]

You can often talk your way out of things in ME2. There was nothing like Noveria (which is a shame) but just look at virmire. There was basically only one way of dealing with that, same with Feros and Therum. And Ilos. And the finale.

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm not arguing here as to what is the better solution. I'm just stating that its an RPG element that's been greatly reduced and replaced by a shooter one. The same goes for everything you've commented on, because that's what we're talking about here. Which method is better is another matter entirely.

You know what would be even more RPGey? Attack rolls!

All I know is that I had four completely different Vanguards in ME1, but I can only see about two builds for ME2.

Paragon/Renegade and Shock-Trooper/Nemesis? Otherwise I'm not seeing those 4 unless we are talking about Vanguard with assault rifle vs one with singularity for example.

It also reduces different playing styles and ways of completing missions with alternatives. It also means impatient players who don't put the effort in and rush through a mission get just as much XP as the careful observer who looks for everything and finds areas rushers wouldn't, which is wrong: the completionist player who does more work should get rewarded more. It also makes sidequests and anything done outside of a mission feel insignificant, as well as finding codex entries and taking time to decrypt and hack objects.

It also made power gaming viable. Do not use the Mako to kill things since you get a lot more xp if you kill them yourself. Also you DID get xp from the side quests. Both systems are viable even in pen and paper RPGs so it's rather a question of preference.