The problem with the XP system in ME2 is not so much that it
is all done at the end of the mission but
how it is all done at the end of the mission. Yes, this is a common PnP RPG element (in the groups I've played we actually tend to add up the XP at the end of each night and dole it out rather than each mission, but that's another story) but in PnP games usually XP is handed out as a reflection of your efforts and the way you did the mission, and yes, usually kills are part of that in many systems. There are two problems here: 1) The XP you get is the same every time for every mission. This limits XP variation for one, but also fails to reward XP for separate tasks completed within a mission or variations on doing it. You're not given XP as a reflection of your efforts at all, because its the same no matter how you do the mission, no matter how many enemies you kill or not, no matter what you discover or don't and no matter what dialogue choices you make. In ME1 doing missions differently would at least net you more XP and the fastest route was often the least rewarding in this sense, encouraging exploration and alternatives. 2) Mass Effect is supposed to be a very cinematic game just as much as its supposed to be an RPG, and as such having a clunky Mission Complete screen popping up all the time ruins the flow, open feeling of freedom you're supposed to have and only serves to remind one that this is a video game.
KitsuneRommel wrote...
TJSolo wrote...
What bad incentive? To kill stuff? To explore around to find more things and in turn discover more areas?
Like dismounting to kill enemies instead of using the mako because you get a lot more xp that way.
As many have already countered, this is a good thing. Killing enemies in The Mako is dead easy. One should be rewarded for doing things in a harder and/or more time-consuming manner. If XP had still even really been a factor in ME2, I would have said that kills with heavy weapons should result in a lesser XP gain too.
uberdowzen wrote...
I'm not sure that Bioware ever said the needed to make ME2 more mainstream to keep going. BW is making a ton of money, I think they just wanted as many people as possible to play the game. Apologising for marketing is one thing (which I totally agree with, Bioware seriously need to change who does their marketing because it's ****) but I don't think that the game itself was "dumbed down" (I prefer Streamlined) to appeal to those people. Also bear in mind that, I'm not 100% sure about this but I'm pretty sure, that EA does Bioware's marketing. I mean business wise it's a great strategy, you make a game that you know the Bioware fans will like, while promoting something that you think will appeal to Halo/Call of Duty fans. Sure the latter is highly dissapointed when they actually get the game, but you've already got their money.
And that's pretty much what happened. Now they're going to have to prove themselves in part three if they want my money again.
I also think that Bioware has more respect for their fans then that (also bear in mind that the majority of changes in ME2 came from suggestions on the community forums). I'm going to use the Mako as an example. Now, I know people who love sci-fi but hate video games, but I think that they'd love Mass Effect. I think however that it'd be a bad introductory game because of the Mako bits, which turn off more casual/mainstream players. Considering that a large number of non-Bioware fans and some massive Bioware fans (such as myself) didn't like the Mako sections, why not remove them?
Because a lot of people actually liked The Mako... just because
you didn't doesn't mean it should go. I've seen many comment that The Hammerhead is no substitute, and I agree. BioWare missed the point entirely regarding most of the Mako complaints, as they did with the elevators. In both cases these were words that came up a lot which best described the issues many had with ME1, but they weren't the problem itself. The Mako wasn't the problem, it was the worlds it landed on that were, and the elevators themselves weren't the problem it was the loading times associated with them that were. But because the words "Mako" and "Elevator" kept coming up, instead of actually looking at the problems associated with and surrounding these words, BioWare simply scrapped them entirely rather than fix them... a common issue with their approach to ME2 overall: if it doesn't work, scrap it entirely rather than actually sort out the problem. Simplify as much as possible as much as possible... then simplify it some more.
On top of this, I think BioWare's problem was actually that it
didn't listen to the ME1 fans at all. Just like it didn't listen with The Mako, elevators and inventory (all of which I recall ME1 fans saying they believed needed
improving and not scrapping) they listened too much instead to game journalists, official reviews and newcomers who came in expecting a shooter and then getting indignant and angry when the stats were getting in the way.
That's who BioWare listened to more than anybody given the product we got.
Maybe the majority of ME1 fans aren't happy with the game (I suspect some of the pro ME2 people love ME1 a lot more than they let on) but how big an audience is this? Also I consider myself a massive ME1 fan (despite it's flaws, it's one of the best RPGs in years and is number 6 on my best games of all times list, and it used to be 4th before DAO and ME2) and I loved ME2.
Because catering to the masses is the right thing to do, huh? When you create an IP and set it up to be a more niche game for sci-fi nerds who like RPGs its better to just ignore them and cater to the masses for $$$'s, hmmm? Again, the most profitable path isn't always the right one. I rarely is. The masses like the Halos, the Gears of Wars, and the Call of Dutys, so its hardly a surprise that ME2 becomes more like them when BioWare mainstreams the product. I'm not going to say BioWare has sold out yet, but its hard not to make that claim with what I've seen. Its up to ME3 to see if they want to make games for their old fans or just something for "everybody."
The inventory is gone (although Jade Empire which I consider to be a pretty good RPG only vaguely had an inventory) but if we're going solely off RPG elements removed from ME2 how is it not a good RPG? The levelling system isn't the deepest thing ever but it's on par with some action RPGs. It's non-linear and there are conversations which your choices in affect outcomes. What more is there to define an RPG?
Again, I'm not talking about the
defining of it as an RPG, I'm talking about it being a satisfactory one. Just because something technically fits a definition doesn't mean it does a good job at it. Two Worlds is an RPG... Gothic 3 is an RPG... doesn't mean they're good ones.
Also, there are quite a few aspects of ME2 that are pretty linear that weren't in the original.
Something to remember, ME2 is the second part of a trilogy, and there are very few trilogies where the second part is the strongest (usually it actually ends up being the worst). Storywise, ME2 has the issue that it can't feel as complete as the ME1 (because it's got to be building towards and epic finale) and has also got the issue that it's got a very set in stone starting point (the end of ME1) and a very set in stone ending (it can't be too radical because it's got to lead right into a singular starting point for ME3). Many of the choices you make in ME1 and ME2 are going to be building up to some epic conclusions and (according to Bioware) vastly different endings. So don't worry about ME3 not having a good story.
Sure. BioWare
claimed that there'd be some really big outcomes and consequences in ME2, but that was a major farce. I find it very hard to believe that ME3 will be overly different, despite being the final part. Especially since they want to get it out so quickly apparently. I doubt the ramifications of saving the council or not will have any real impact in ME3 when it meant close to diddily squat in ME2.
Plain and simple, ME3 is going to have the same combat as ME2 only even more polished. I'm pretty sure that Bioware said that the focus of ME3 is going to be back on story, now that they've perfected the combat.
They have nowhere
near perfected combat. The best proper shooters have far better combat and make far better use of combat than ME2 does. ME2's shooter elements are adequate... good at best.
They've already stated that they're probably going to bring back the inventory (because of all the whiners 
. JOKE!!! IT'S A JOKE DON'T FLAME ME PLEASE!!!!) and "deeper RPG elements". I also think my main issue with all the feedback Bioware is getting is that the first time they listened to feedback, the ME1 community then complained that they'd bastardized the game. What's the incentive to listen to it again then? I think they've probably had it with listening to feedback.
Again, they listened to the wrong people, as I said before. If they'd really listened to what the fans had said, then we'd have got a very different game than ME2. ME2 is a product of listening to official reviewers and disgruntled shooter fanboys who came in expecting something they didn't get. Now they've got it and they're happy, but many ME1 fans are peeved off. There's a difference between reading what fans say and
listening to it as well. And if they're going to look at the issues, at least look at them properly and at least try to fix them rather than just chucking them out.
Christina Norman said that one of their major approaches to ME2 was "to make things as simple as possible" and I think that strategy and approach is what killed ME2 for me more than anything else. I don't play an RPG for simplicity, I play it because its generally more complex that other genres. Making an RPG simple defeats the purpose.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
I think it makes it look like we didn't appreciate them making the game.
