Ce sujet est fermé
uberdowzen wrote...
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.
So, you're saying that something that works better should be sacrficed to make the game more RPG-Y?
No, what I'm saying is that the RPG shouldn't be sacrificed merely for something that works "better" if it doesn't add anything and goes for the easy solution. As I've said countless times, the methods of "repairing" the broken systems of ME1 aren't really fixing them at all, but instead opting for the easiest and simplest "solution" to the problem: NOT solving it and falling back on simple mechanics that work because there's no complexity to them and they've been done so many times before. And just because an alternative solution works well doesn't mean it suits the style of the game. This applies to much of Mass Effect 2.
I mean, if fans kept saying that there's too much talking in ME2 and not enough combat, and BioWare responded in ME3 by taking out dialogue choices entirely, would that be an appropriate solution to you? If fans complained that you couldn't customise your squadmembers and BioWare removed quad members entirely, would that be an appropriate solution to you? No... I didn't think so, but that's essentially what they did to "fix" ME1's problems in ME2.
The easiest and simplest solution is rarely the best one, and when you're dealing with a genre that's defined by the fact that it usually has more depth and options than most genres, its just a downright bad decision to oversimplify it. What works better in a shooter or any genre of game that's not meant to have some depth doesn't mean it works better in an RPG. It's all about style and context, and things don't break as easy when they don't have as much moving parts.
I think 4 completely different vanguards is going a bit far. Explain how they are all different.
I had one that specialised in shotguns and lift, one who was pistols and throw and lift (with sniper rifles as a bonus talent), one who was warp, barrier with shotguns, and one who was pistols and shotguns and tactical armour. I played them all quite differently, despite them being the same class.
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.
But its all measured by stats and performance, not the actual feel of the weapons. ME2 pretty is all about feel, like a shooter.
But in ME1 they didn't have bonuses either, so how is it more RPG-Y in ME1?
Aside from having mods, its more RPG-y in ME1 because there are a greater selection of armours with statistically common elements that allow you to compare and determine which functions better or which you'd prefer to use. ME2 armours are basically just a bunch of bonus items when it comes down to it, because they have no common statistical values to use as a comparison. They don't have any protection values likes armours usually do that are common to all similar pieces, it's all just bonuses to certain random attributes. It's more like wearing a bunch of rings or amulets over your body than actual armour. Pieces share no similar functions to other pieces of the same type.
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.
You could in and Morrowind Oblivion (with companions added via mods), and in Diablo 2 and Fallout 3. Again though, I'm saying this is a step-back from ME1 here more than anything, and in ME1 you could fully kit out your companions as much as you could yourself.
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.
A common misconception that's only come into existence in the last five or six years, and one I'm personally sick of. There are plenty of games out there that allow you to make choices that effect the story that aren't RPGs, are never officially considered to be RPGs and never claim to be RPGs. Heavy Rain is a recent example, but you can go back to games like It Came From The Desert as far back as the late 80's for other examples, or even things like Maniac Mansion or Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis. Without some form of statistical character progression a game is not an RPG. There are also plenty of games that are RPG's with next to no choices or real dialogue beyond shop banter, but they are still RPGs (heck... some of them are even AD&D based, like the old SSI ones).
In either case, what defines and RPG and what makes a good and deep one are also two different things. I'm personally a huge fan of narrative-driven and cinematic RPG games, even if I know its not what defines them.
Completionist players who go off and no N7 missions and side quests do get more XP.
Yes, but even they are static. What ever happened to choice and variation? What happened to get rewarded for putting in that extra effort and trying to find more? It's like giving the entire class of kids in school an A+ on all their tests for just doing it, no matter how well they actually did.
And what do you mean that you're not sure the XP system is real?
What I mean is that I'm not even sure if the amount of XP you're given is based on anything you've done. For all I know its just a random number that's thrown at me that has nothing to do with anything to give the illusion of being an RPG and having XP. For one thing, its mighty suspicious that the XP I earn in every main mission is just the amount I need to make it to the next level, no matter what level I was before and what I did. I highly suspect the XP is just an arbitrary value that's calculated solely based on your previous level and mathematically designed to appear as a genuine amount of convenient XP needed to progress to the next one. If that's the case, this game isn't even an RPG at all, and is merely a shooter in RPG clothing.
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.
Feros had it so you could help the colonists or not (to varying degrees too), and gave you the choice of using thorian grenades or just killing them (also with varying degrees) as well as dealing with Shiala and whether you even talked to Dr. Baynham and Ethan Jeong and sorted out their issues. Virmire had the Wrex choice, the Kaidan/Ashley choice and whether to help Kirrahe's squad out or not along the way. Ilos and the finale were admittedly linear, but by that point the plot really was a race against time, so having additional methods and sidetracking wouldn't make sense (the game itself already pushed this concept a little far as it was throughout).
Modifié par Terror_K, 05 mai 2010 - 11:44 .
Retour en haut
your companions are too stupid to get out of the way of vomit.
