271 réponses à ce sujet

[lukandroll]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...


“From the description, it appears that she will try to explain how to make extreme changes within your game without "alienating" your core gamers while at the same time trying to "explain" to your core gamers why these changes were made.”

Sorry, but they failed miserably.

Mass Effect 1 had issues (no argument there) but instead of fixing those issues to make a better game they dropped them completely or went to the opposite extreme to make nothing more than a third person shooter with a decent story in a game that felt unfinished, barren and dumbed down to the “short attention span“ crowd. I think that pretty much falls in the “alienating” your core gamers, especially seeing as most BioWare core gamers are RPG fans. The game doesn’t even feel like it was made by the same company because there were so many drastic changes. Mass Effect was a sci-fi RPG, Mass Effect 2 feels more like a third person shooter.


-All the same and my opinion on ME2 aside, I wish I could be there to see this lecture.

Dude, mass effect wasn't even a very big RPG in any sense anyways besides leveling up. The same is true for ME2.

No, like I already pointed out, ME1 wasn't a pure RPG, but it has more than lvling up, the customization, while flawed it was there. Not so much in ME2.
And I already posted a lot of ways of improvements over the existing mechanics to make it more balanced towards the RPG genre, Its just that this responses Christina keep blating about, are so way out of reality, it ****** me off; if there were anything they could do to NOT alienate their core audience they surely didn't do it, because they are alinating us even more with this train of thought of less = more, and its seems that they surely don't care for our opinions, judging by Cristina's response over the helmet hiding button.

[slyguy07]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

TheBestclass wrote...

Go back and play ME again and tell me which sytem you prefer. Go back and deal with millions of crappy, functionally identical weapons that serve no real purpose but make you feel like you're customizating your character because: "this one does 180 damage instead of 178." Then get to the point in the game where you get the best weapons and armor and have to omni-gel all 140 of your other useless crap. One by one. Realize that your character isn't really that unique because you'll end up wearing the same red and black armor everyone else has. But that's okay because ME is so much more of an RPG than ME2 because you get to waste skill points on increasing weapon damge from 3% to 4%.

People won't acknowledge this because they are too wrapped up in the original.

I can bet if ME2 gameplay was the gameplay of ME1 and ME1 gameplay was the gameplay of ME2. Everyone would be pissed all the same.

People just like having reasons to complain.

I disagree. The gameplay was better in ME2, but it lacked the things from ME1 that should have just been "fixed" not competely removed. Some people do like reasons to complain, but I hope most are complaining at the hope of getting BW to listen and hopefully tweak some of the things they did. The biggest thing is the inventory removal from what I have seen in these threads. That and the new ammo system and limited powers.(I really only use 3-4 of the squadmates. The rest are useless based on your class) I don't really like the Halo shield/health system, but I doubt they will bother changing that.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

scyphozoa wrote...

isn't this the most cliche criticism of any possible sequel? Dave Chappelle did a skit about this exact cliche. How people would always say season 2 was never as good as season 1.

People hate change. If people feel attached or invested into a product they feel a sense of ownership of it. They feel like they have contributed and invested their time into it and it should be as good as they see fit.

Change completely defies this sensation of ownership. No matter how good the change might be, the defiance of ownership offends people.

It is CLICHE. It is in star wars. It is in Indiana Jones. It is in any franchise that has multiple installments. They will constantly and inevitably be compared to each other and usually the first or the earliest installment is heralded as the best.

If people only knew how predictable they were :\\\\

mhmm.,..

[ZMJ10]

slyguy07 wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

TheBestclass wrote...

Go back and play ME again and tell me which sytem you prefer. Go back and deal with millions of crappy, functionally identical weapons that serve no real purpose but make you feel like you're customizating your character because: "this one does 180 damage instead of 178." Then get to the point in the game where you get the best weapons and armor and have to omni-gel all 140 of your other useless crap. One by one. Realize that your character isn't really that unique because you'll end up wearing the same red and black armor everyone else has. But that's okay because ME is so much more of an RPG than ME2 because you get to waste skill points on increasing weapon damge from 3% to 4%.

People won't acknowledge this because they are too wrapped up in the original.

I can bet if ME2 gameplay was the gameplay of ME1 and ME1 gameplay was the gameplay of ME2. Everyone would be pissed all the same.

People just like having reasons to complain.

I disagree. The gameplay was better in ME2, but it lacked the things from ME1 that should have just been "fixed" not competely removed. Some people do like reasons to complain, but I hope most are complaining at the hope of getting BW to listen and hopefully tweak some of the things they did. The biggest thing is the inventory removal from what I have seen in these threads. That and the new ammo system and limited powers.(I really only use 3-4 of the squadmates. The rest are useless based on your class) I don't really like the Halo shield/health system, but I doubt they will bother changing that.

I recently opend a forum with my shocked experince going back to ME1 its called (Mass effect revisited) over 45 posts saying ppl who played ME2 for awhile going back to ME1 expecting it to suck but it actually is better even with the better "action gameplay" of ME2. ME2 has taken 3 steps forward and 3 steps back, it has countinued the story for the fans but made the game more appealing to the gears of war fanboys. So it seems bioware has sold its soul to the Game industrie devil.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

ah personal opinons...don't we love you.

[MonkeyLungs]

TheBestclass wrote...

Go back and play ME again and tell me which sytem you prefer. Go back and deal with millions of crappy, functionally identical weapons that serve no real purpose but make you feel like you're customizating your character because: "this one does 180 damage instead of 178." Then get to the point in the game where you get the best weapons and armor and have to omni-gel all 140 of your other useless crap. One by one. Realize that your character isn't really that unique because you'll end up wearing the same red and black armor everyone else has. But that's okay because ME is so much more of an RPG than ME2 because you get to waste skill points on increasing weapon damge from 3% to 4%.

I play both games. My favorite way is to play ME1 then ME2 with the same character. I vastly prefer the character sheet/character upgrade system for ME1. I greatly enjoy both games, however, ME2 has made me like ME1 even more than I did prior to ME2 release.

It is kind of a long standing question for developing an RPG character system ... Do I make a system with more point allocation and more levels with a less noticeable progression for each increase or less levels and less point allocation with a greater noticeable difference between each increase? I think there are arguments for and against each system. In regards to ME1 and ME2 I prefer the character upgrade stat progression of ME1 by a long shot even though I love both games.

[slyguy07]

MassEffect762 wrote...

It probably had more to do with their budget cap than anything else.

You know I never did consider that possibility. Great point there. They hopefully weren't pressured into putting out that Jan. release date. EA may have a bad reputation, but they at least did help BW with the advertising side.

[Vena_86]

All those polls show is what everyone knows anyway.



The majority of people enjoy action over depth and immersion. Mainly because intense action is easier to grasp and doesnt involve...well getting involved or thinking.



BioWare turned the franchise into something that sells better then before but that doesnt make their work of art (which games usually are) better.



You will also find more people that prefer Pearl Harbor over the Godfather, though those few people that actually know the medium in depth will completely disagree.



I havnt seen a single BioWare response dealing with the better and well articulated critiques on these forums (not mine). The few responses are always avoiding the main critique, taking things out of context and having no plausible explanation in defence.

[slyguy07]

ImperialOperative wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

No it's just ignorant to say ME2 was just as much of an RPG as ME1.

No, you're getting your RPG wrong.

It's ignorant and mongolic to say that ME1 was a good RPG at all.

That's where you are wrong. If you have played BW games they traditionally have some of the things that ME1 had. ME1 was a great RPG and it sold how many million copies now? I'll say it again: ME1 is a good RPG.

This isn't the Fallout 1 era anymore.

[Deflagratio]

slyguy07 wrote...

No it's just ignorant to say ME2 was just as much of an RPG as ME1.

Your definition of RPG fails then, plain and simple bub. If you like managing rows of mundane data, they have try Excel.


Mass Effect 1 and 2 are both great RPG's just different.

It almost mirrors the Morrowind > Oblivion change from almost a decade ago, except at least in Mass Effect's case, the game feels right, where Oblivion felt cut to hell because 1 **** on the forums couldn't figure out his spear skill.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 06 mars 2010 - 10:38 .

[ObserverStatus]

The council sold Shepard's inventory in order to subsidize the breeding contracts of underprivileged Salarians.

[slyguy07]

Deflagratio wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

No it's just ignorant to say ME2 was just as much of an RPG as ME1.

Your definition of RPG fails then, plain and simple bub. If you like managing rows of mundane data, they have try Excel.

Right since I said it was all about loot. I mean really. Great reading. The only failure here is you taking what I said out of context.

[Darth Drago]

Deflagratio wrote...

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are both great RPG's just different.

It almost mirrors the Morrowind > Oblivion change from almost a decade ago, except at least in Mass Effect's case, the game feels right, where Oblivion felt cut to hell because 1 **** on the forums couldn't figure out his spear skill.

Excuse me? Don’t compare Morrowind and Oblivion to ME1 and ME2 and say that it feels right in Mass Effect’s case. Did Bethesda change the combat system, inventory, leveling and skills, lore, game mechanics and practically changing genres completely when they did Oblivion? Hell no. In ME1 you had a full scale sci-fi RPG that put you in the game world. ME2 changed all that into a streamlined push you out the door to the next mission third person shooter with some key story elements. From a RPG into a linear TPS and that feels right??

[MarloMarlo]

It's obvious where the inventory went. On your back. And what you can't carry was left on the ship.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Theres a large difference between refinement and out right stripping. ME2's inventory system if you can even call it that is sadly the latter.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

JKoopman wrote...

Interesting. But BAAAAAWWWW-HAAWWWWW-WAAAAAAH

.

BioWare did a damn fine job improving the ME2 over ME1.  With less min/max BS filler and more story, action, and conversations, they created =more= changes to play a role in ME2. 

A player that needs a game allowing them to sit back in their chair and stroke their neck beard for 45mins trying to figure out if the Pretty Pink Llama-drone ( +14% to blah blah blah) or the Groosum Yakdongle ( +7 to blah, +7 to blah-blah) would be preferable in a certain situation, they should get an accounting degree because they don't like RPGs, they like math.

[CLime]

TheBestclass wrote...

Go back and play ME again and tell
me which sytem you prefer. Go back and deal with millions of crappy,
functionally identical weapons that serve no real purpose but make you
feel like you're customizating your character because: "this one does
180 damage instead of 178." Then get to the point in the game where you
get the best weapons and armor and have to omni-gel all 140 of your
other useless crap. One by one. Realize that your character isn't
really that unique because you'll end up wearing the same red and black
armor everyone else has. But that's okay because ME is so much more of
an RPG than ME2 because you get to waste skill points on increasing
weapon damge from 3% to 4%.

This.

ME2 has more weapons than ME1.  ME1 may have had more weapon models or names, but in terms of gameplay and mechanics they were just the same four weapons that got slightly better whenever you hacked a safe.  There was almost never any reason to carry around more than three of any weapon type in ME1, 95% of the time it was obvious whether a found weapon was strictly better or strictly worse than the one you already had.  Not the case in ME2; other than a two or three of the ones you start with, every weapon has its niche.  When you change from the Eviscerator to the Claymore, you have to change your play style along with it.  The upgrades were even worse- the only worthwhile ammos were Shredder and Tungsten (maybe Incendiary).  The other half-dozen types were useless unless you ran out of the good kinds.

Inventory management was, along with Mako exploration, the dullest and most annoying element of ME1's gameplay, and Bioware did a fine job of identifying that.  Since the vast majority of the loot you find is easily identified as junk, it was about as exiciting as finding money, except with a lot more menu navigation.  And you find a lot of junk, so much that money becomes meaningless by the time you get to level 30 or so.  The only thing limiting how quickly you could fit your squad up in Spectre gear is how often the Normandy merchant restocks.  Money actually means something in ME2- without piles of useless but expensive weapons sitting in your bags, there's actually an incentive to not buy out all the merchants on the first planet you visit.

Maybe ME1 had longer talent progessions, but only a few points on each path were actually interesting.  I could care less if my pistol accuracy improves another 2%, or if my tech damage increases another 2%, or if my "hardening" increases another 2%.  Maybe Bioware could have made ME2's trees look more like ME1's, making a notch for each of the ten points in a tree instead of lumping them together in groups of 1-2-3-4.  Nothing meaningful would have changed, but a purely nominal adjustment might have made all the critics feel more comfortable in the strange new world of streamlined inventory.  The best thing Bioware did with ME2's talents, of course, was giving persuasion its own progression resource, instead of leeching off of talent points.

It's quality over quantity, people.  I'm happy to have fewer nominal classes if the exisiting ones are actually balanced.

Deflagratio wrote...

It almost mirrors the Morrowind > Oblivion change from almost a decade ago, except at least in Mass Effect's case, the game feels right, where Oblivion felt cut to hell because 1 **** on the forums couldn't figure out his spear skill.

Moral of the story: Don't listen to people complaining on the forums.

Modifié par CLime, 06 mars 2010 - 11:53 .

[slyguy07]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

Well I only read a few posts on this thread because it quickly turned into a bunch of garbage flaming. Anyway, this is my take on the inventory system in ME2 compared to the inventory system in ME.

ME1 had an inventory system that was pretty poorly implemented with a single "elite set" of weapons and armor. That is shallow at best. Not very much depth to it and Omni-gel conversion was boring. It could have been easily improved by developing more than one set of "elite gear". And removing Omni-Gel conversion.

ME2 has a more realistic inventory system... you can only carry so much. The weapons all have their uses and are well balanced. BUT it is still very shallow because there is NOT enough content in the game as far as weapons and armor. It would be superior to ME inventory if there was enough content, sadly there is not.

Yeah the only reason omni gel was in there was probably because you couldn't make any money after 10 million. That and blowing on hacks and MAKO repairs. I wished they had put in about 7 weapons of each type and make the last 2 or 3 unique with their own uses. Say one is an elite battle rifle that fires in 3 shot bursts, another is full auto, and the last be a class specific weapon. Throw in the upgrades like in ME1 like Cryo, Inferno, and Disruptor(formerly Phasic and Proton rounds) as well as Polonium and make them do things differently like in ME2. Sledgehammer should be shotgun only rounds though. High Explosive rounds would be good to have back, too.

[slyguy07]

[/quote]

Moral of the story: Don't listen to people complaining on the forums.

[/quote]
 
Right because they obviously listened to the people complaining about ME1's loot system.

[JKoopman]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

It does nothing to prove that more fans of ME1 approve of the changes made in ME2 than disapprove of them.

How would you know that? I'm a fan of ME1 and I approve of the changes made in ME2, hell I even have several friends who approve the changes made to ME2.

Easy. The same way that ME2 fanboys "know" that the "haters" are an "insignifigant minority."

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Everyone's a critic, everything was horrible about the inventory in the first game, I saw everyone here complaining about it.

Soon
as they change it, they all cry. I mean seriously, how many times did I
see topics about people wanting less useless loot?

There's a difference between "less useless loot" and "no loot at all." Did ME1's inventory have room for improvement? Yes. Was the only solution to strip it out completely? Hell no.

[Darth Drago]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

Well I only read a few posts on this thread because it quickly turned into a bunch of garbage flaming. Anyway, this is my take on the inventory system in ME2 compared to the inventory system in ME.

ME1 had an inventory system that was pretty poorly implemented with a single "elite set" of weapons and armor. That is shallow at best. Not very much depth to it and Omni-gel conversion was boring. It could have been easily improved by developing more than one set of "elite gear". And removing Omni-Gel conversion.

ME2 has a more realistic inventory system... you can only carry so much. The weapons all have their uses and are well balanced. BUT it is still very shallow because there is NOT enough content in the game as far as weapons and armor. It would be superior to ME inventory if there was enough content, sadly there is not.

- Valid point of view.

In ME1 you had way to much trivial upgrades for your weapons and armor that came at you almost with each level you went up in. It got a bit old updating these things just because I got a version 5 now and just installed a version 4 at the beginning of this mission. Same thing applies to the weapons and armor, just to many trivial versions to acquire. I did like all the manufacturers for all of the weapons and armor. It did give you a sense of variety in at least how you equipped out your squad members.

The best way they could have fixed that would have been to release newer gear aimed at your level at certain intervals. In Oblivion for example you had to be level 3 to use leather/chain armor and level 4 to use silver weapons. In ME they could have done a similar thing. Instead of all of the versions of these upgrades and gear just have a few, you unlock a new one every 5 or so levels. These upgrades would also give you more significant bonuses as well.

To go from one extreme to the other seems like a weak quick fix idea over actual creativity.

[JKoopman]

TheBestclass wrote...

Go back and play ME again and tell me which sytem you prefer. Go back and deal with millions of crappy, functionally identical weapons that serve no real purpose but make you feel like you're customizating your character because: "this one does 180 damage instead of 178." Then get to the point in the game where you get the best weapons and armor and have to omni-gel all 140 of your other useless crap. One by one. Realize that your character isn't really that unique because you'll end up wearing the same red and black armor everyone else has. But that's okay because ME is so much more of an RPG than ME2 because you get to waste skill points on increasing weapon damge from 3% to 4%.

Seeing as I just finished replaying all of ME1 in preparation for importing a "final" character into ME2 (as opposed to just playing through it quickly with the default Shepard as I did previously), I think I'm qualified in saying that yes, I prefer ME1 far more than ME2. I've actually had more fun replaying ME1 for like the 3rd time now than I did playing through ME2 my first time, which is pretty sad.

Oh, and point of interest: My Shepard is wearing heavy Scorpion armor, not Colossus (even though I've come across quite a few sets of it), and my squadmates (Tali and Wrex) are equiped with Onyx/Scorpion and carry Ariake Technologies weapons instead of Spectre gear. Why? Because being a role-playing fan isn't synonymous with being a min-maxer and not everyone cares about having the best stats or specs. I don't equip my squadmates with Spectre weapons because they're not Spectres, and I hate the way Colossus looks so I don't use it. Don't try to spoon feed me that BS about there being "no real choice" simply because one set of armor or one weapon has a bit better stats than the others. It's simply not true.

[Jaysonie]

JKoopman wrote...

TheBestclass wrote...

Go back and play ME again and tell me which sytem you prefer. Go back and deal with millions of crappy, functionally identical weapons that serve no real purpose but make you feel like you're customizating your character because: "this one does 180 damage instead of 178." Then get to the point in the game where you get the best weapons and armor and have to omni-gel all 140 of your other useless crap. One by one. Realize that your character isn't really that unique because you'll end up wearing the same red and black armor everyone else has. But that's okay because ME is so much more of an RPG than ME2 because you get to waste skill points on increasing weapon damge from 3% to 4%.

Seeing as I just finished replaying all of ME1 in preparation for importing a "final" character into ME2 (as opposed to just playing through it quickly with the default Shepard as I did previously), I think I'm qualified in saying that yes, I prefer ME1 far more than ME2. I've actually had more fun replaying ME1 for like the 3rd time now than I did playing through ME2 my first time, which is pretty sad.

Oh, and point of interest: My Shepard is wearing heavy Scorpion armor, not Colossus (even though I've come across quite a few sets of it), and my squadmates (Tali and Wrex) are equiped with Onyx/Scorpion and carry Ariake Technologies weapons instead of Spectre gear. Why? Because being a role-playing fan isn't synonymous with being a min-maxer and not everyone cares about having the best stats or specs. I don't equip my squadmates with Spectre weapons because they're not Spectres, and I hate the way Colossus looks so I don't use it. Don't try to spoon feed me that BS about there being "no real choice" simply because one set of armor or one weapon has a bit better stats than the others. It's simply not true.

Its not sad.