271 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyLungs]

I enjoy both games. ME1 does have alot of aspects to it that blow ME2 out of the water (just my opinion).



The character sheet and levelling up system is so much more fun. 60 character levels and plenty of room for deciding what to put points in as well as non-combat skills is just a better system.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

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 agree with this, the gunplay and cover system feels better in ME2. Its the rest of the game, from inventory (or lack their of) to lack of a "dark" story (yay do a bunch of errends for my companions, do a few samey feeling plot missions involving collectors) to a general lack of customization on the whole (fewer skills, no companion customization) that the game really falls flat. Sure the actual action portion feels good, the rest of the components that make up what's esentially an RPG lite don't feel good.

[JKoopman]

CLime 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%.

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.

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

In regards to weapons in ME1 vs ME2, what it basically comes down to is the illusion of choice. In practicality, was there much weapon variation in ME1? No. You had, for example, 2 different assault rifle models with 3 different skin recolors apiece. The fact that there were 10 weapon levels for each manufacturer did a fairly good job of disguising it, but that's all it was: the illusion of variety.

Where the comparison falls apart however is when you realize that ME2 didn't really add any more variety; and worse, it stripped away the illusion. Now instead of the same 2 models and 6 recolors with 10 weapon levels, we've got 2 models with NO recolors and NO weapon levels. Playing through ME2, I literally felt like I was using the same weapon from beginning to end (because literally, I was).

This difference is only compounded by the upgrade system from ME1. Weapon upgrades really let me feel like I was in control. I could customize almost endlessly to achieve different performances from my weapon. But more important, there was always a tradeoff. Do I want a rifle that can fire in longer bursts but does less damage? Do I want a rifle that hits harder but is less accurate? Do I want a rifle that is more accurate and does better damage but quickly overheats? Do I want to sacrifice my damage/accuracy for the sake of a better combat radar? Do I want a DoT effect or just favor heavy base damage? In ME2, you can upgrade your weapons through research true enough, but there's no tradeoff. You can research every accuracy upgrade, every damage upgrade, etc until you have the ultimate uber weapon with virtually no sense that you're customizing anything (rather, I simply feel like my weapon is "leveling up" as I play, and the difference is scarcely noticable anyway).

Armor was the same way. Do I want health regeneration? Do I want a massive shield boost? Do I want resistance to toxins? Do I just want more damage mitigation? In ME2, you've got 4 different armor pieces with miniscule and unnoticable bonuses pre-applied with no customization or flexibility allowed.

People act like there was only one set of armor and one weapon that was worthwhile in ME1 and there was no point in using anything else, but the difference between an HMWA X and a Tsunami X are not that signifigant, nor is the difference between Colossus X and Scorpion/Titan/Guardian/Gladiator/whatever X. It's a distinction only if you're a min-maxer obsessed with stats and percentage points, but min-maxing does not go hand-in-hand with role-playing. Furthermore, the min-maxing argument again fails to stand up as the same is true of ME2. The Revenant is clearly the best AR (or, if you're not a Soldier, the Vindicator is the most statistically superior rifle) and so once you acquire it there's no reason to ever use anything else. Same with the sniper rifles. Once you acquire the Widow, there's no reason to ever use anything else as it's statistically the best. Where is the variety?

As for the leveling trees, the issue isn't that there are fewer points to put into each skill; it's that there are fewer skills in which to put points into. My ME1 Soldier had 11 total skills (10 + 1 bonus) and most were unique and distinct from each other. My ME2 Soldier has 7 skills (6 + 1 bonus) and 3 of them are redundant ammo skills that cannot be used together (effectively meaning that at any given time you really only have 5 skills at your disposal... or, in truth, 4 skills since my bonus was another ammo skill). Furthermore, the amount of skill shoehorning is obscene. In order to put points into Concussive Shot you're forced to take Adrenaline Rush, in order to take Incendiary Ammo you're forced to take Disruptor Ammo, etc. This leads to a very clear and defined "leveling path" where Skill A leads to Skill B which leads to Skill C, etc, which is why many people find the degree of customization in ME2 to be sorely lacking.

You also hold the new "streamlined" Persuasion skill in high regard, but a search through these forums will show you several threads all of which bring up the excellent point that it shoehorns you into specific alignment paths as a result. Whereas in ME1 where you could simply funnel points into both Charm and Intimidate, since your character's aptitude for persuasion is now directly tied to their degree of Paragon/Renegade, it hinders role-playing by forcing you to stick to one alignment or the other so as to pass certain plot-critical Persuasion checks later in the game rather than giving you the freedom to "play the field" and select the choices that you feel your Shepard would truly make in each situation... all for the sake of not having to "waste" precious points in "useless" Persuasion skills (which any real RPG player knows is BS as Persuasion skills are no less valid or important than any other character-defining ability).

I could keep going, but my fingers are getting tired from typing and I'm sure no one will bother reading all this anyway.

Modifié par JKoopman, 07 mars 2010 - 03:55 .

[Trauma3x]

Helmet toggle= Game of the year! Fix ME2 for the Love of God!

[Jaysonie]

JKoopman wrote...

CLime 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%.

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.

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

No its not, I agree with him/her.(im not writing an essay as to why i disagree with you though)

[JKoopman]

Jaysonie wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

CLime 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%.

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.

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

No its not, I agree with him/her.(im not writing an essay as to why i disagree with you though)

"Even though I haven't read your lengthy and well-thought-out argument and have no intention of countering it or backing up my position with facts or reasoning in any way, you're wrong."

Nice. This is why I love the internet.

[Bob5312]

I think BioWare can make a pretty good case for not having alienated their core fanbase while broadening the appeal of the game. People will always disagree on what they got right vs wrong because people ultimately have different tastes in games, of course, but the idea is to make a game that will appeal to as many people as possible. Shooter fans have a game they can enjoy, RPG fans have a game they can enjoy, and fans of story-driven games have a game they can enjoy.

Unfortunately, a few people are hung up on the idea that an RPG requires some extremely unnecessary things. An example is looting creatures for equipment they shouldn't be carrying in the first place; why would a varren have two weapon upgrades and a set of Quarian armour on his corpse? Another example is the inventory screen, and the tedious business of comparing your new armour with your old armour to see if this one has a few more points in defense, or whether your new shotgun is better at damaging synthetics.

Many of the original text-based RPGs included these features because there wasn't much else for them to base their gameplay on, and games have held on to these features for some reason long after they've become obsolete. They are like the human appendix; vestigial organs left over from the evolutionary process, and BioWare has performed an appendectomy.

Some people like these things, and that's fair enough. There are plenty of games out there that include these features. Mass Effect 2 is not one of them, and if nothing else the sales figures justify BioWare's design decision. To those for whom managing the inventory was the main draw of the Mass Effect series, you're probably in the minority (if not on the forums than in the gaming world in general).

I've heard a few people say something like "BioWare has sold out to the Gears of War fans, they've dumbed the game down to attract casual gamers." Well, they are a company in the business of making money, so it makes sense that they would try to sell as many copies of their game as possible. And what, exactly, is wrong with casual gamers, or shooter fans for that matter? Why shouldn't BioWare make games for them?

[SithLordExarKun]

JKoopman wrote...

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

Right because somehow your opinion is the universal truth and therefore you get to dictate whos wrong or whos right.

[Jaysonie]

JKoopman wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

CLime 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%.

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.

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

No its not, I agree with him/her.(im not writing an essay as to why i disagree with you though)

"Even though I haven't read your lengthy and well-thought-out argument and have no intention of countering it or backing up my position with facts or reasoning in any way, you're wrong."

Nice. This is why I love the internet.

I read threw it, i removed it from you quote because i didnt want to stretch the page. I wasnt going to wright anything contering you because you wouldnt have agreed with anything i said and it would have been a long drawn out argument which i dont have time for.

Modifié par Jaysonie, 07 mars 2010 - 03:56 .

[MajesticJazz]

scyphozoa wrote...

yeah this thread was bound to take a nose dive. i wish christina the best and i am excited for this lecture. not sure if the public will get to hear it but i'd love to hear game designer's input.

it is a very sensitive topic but that is exactly why it is being addressed.

Actually you don't have to worry about a thing. Like I said, I will be in attendence at GDC next week (Leaving out Tuesday mourning and the core conference starts Thursday) and I will make it my best efforts to attend this particular lecture. If I so, I will report back with what she said.

[JKoopman]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

Right because somehow your opinion is the universal truth and therefore you get to dictate whos wrong or whos right.

It's not an opinion to say "ME2 has more weapons than ME1" That's called a fact, and facts can be disproven.

[DariusKalera]

All I know is this, I was disappointed in ME2. It is a fun game and I have played through it a few times but that does not change, nor invalidate, my original feelings about it. I felt that BW removed too many things that I found fun.



For this reason, I am renting ME3 first when it comes out. Then, if I feel like things have improved I will buy it. But if they haven't, then I won't. It's that simple.

[Jaysonie]

DariusKalera wrote...

All I know is this, I was disappointed in ME2. It is a fun game and I have played through it a few times but that does not change, nor invalidate, my original feelings about it. I felt that BW removed too many things that I found fun.

For this reason, I am renting ME3 first when it comes out. Then, if I feel like things have improved I will buy it. But if they haven't, then I won't. It's that simple.

I recomend reserving your rental copy, they day ME2 came out all the rental copys from gamefly and blockbuster were rented out already.

Modifié par Jaysonie, 07 mars 2010 - 04:14 .

[TheBestClass]

@JKoopman, I do agree with you in regards to the weapon and armor mods. They really should have kept those in, along with the aesthetic armor customization of ME2. You talk about armor in ME being similar enough that it doesn't really matter which set you prefer. This may have been true for some classes (those with Barrier and Immunity) but for most others, every little bit of defense counts. Besides many people enjoy min/maxing and there's nothing wrong with that. Play the game however you like. These people are left with much fewer choices in ME whereas ME2's armor system is flexible enough that you can have the armor you think looks neat along with the stats you find most helpful. Though, again, I wish the had kept the armor mods.



You argue that your ME Soldier had a lot more skills than it's ME2 counterpart. Do you remember what these skills were? You had Adrenaline Rush which was useless on a soldier except for it's use on refreshing the cooldown of Immunity which was such a broken skill that negated the use of cover and literally made you invincible. You also had Carnage (which was admittedly cool), Assassinate, Marksman and Overkill. Marksman, Assassinate and Overkill each allowed you to do more damage with thier respective weapon by reducing heat build-up, increasing rate of fire, or just blatantly increasing damage. ME2's Adrenaline Rush does all these things as well, for each weapon, along with increasing your defenses or damage at one of it's evolved stages. It's literally every ability that ME Soldier had all wrapped into one power, plus the option of either letting you do more damage or increasing your survivablity.

[Commander Darmok]

I'm too tired to explain my opinion again, but I definitely DON'T feel alienated by ME2. I played through ME1 to tweak a few choices, and it was torture. The story is the only thing that stands up after playing ME2. I don't consider myself stupid - but if I have to be stupid to like this game in the eyes of all these 1337 rpgers who have obviously been playing rpgs longer than I, well, I will gladly be stupid and play this work of awesomeness. You may cling to obsolete game modes that were only necessary when pencils were involved, and even though you're not having fun (or playing any new games for that matter,) you may take solace in the fact that you're smarter than us. We only ask that you allow we morons to play Mass Effect in peace.

[Bob5312]

JKoopman wrote...
Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

In regards to weapons in ME1 vs ME2, what it basically comes down to is the illusion of choice. In practicality, was there much weapon variation in ME1? No. You had, for example, 2 different assault rifle models with 3 different skin recolors apiece. The fact that there were 10 weapon levels for each manufacturer did a fairly good job of disguising it, but that's all it was: the illusion of variety.

Where the comparison falls apart however is when you realize that ME2 didn't really add any more variety; and worse, it stripped away the illusion. Now instead of the same 2 models and 6 recolors with 10 weapon levels, we've got 2 models with NO recolors and NO weapon levels. Playing through ME2, I literally felt like I was using the same weapon from beginning to end (because literally, I was).

This difference is only compounded by the upgrade system from ME1. Weapon upgrades really let me feel like I was in control. I could customize almost endlessly to achieve different performances from my weapon. But more important, there was always a tradeoff. Do I want a rifle that can fire in longer bursts but does less damage? Do I want a rifle that hits harder but is less accurate? Do I want a rifle that is more accurate and does better damage but quickly overheats? Do I want to sacrifice my damage/accuracy for the sake of a better combat radar? Do I want a DoT effect or just favor heavy base damage? In ME2, you can upgrade your weapons through research true enough, but there's no tradeoff. You can research every accuracy upgrade, every damage upgrade, etc until you have the ultimate uber weapon with virtually no sense that you're customizing anything (rather, I simply feel like my weapon is "leveling up" as I play, and the difference is scarcely noticable anyway).

Armor was the same way. Do I want health regeneration? Do I want a massive shield boost? Do I want resistance to toxins? Do I just want more damage mitigation? In ME2, you've got 4 different armor pieces with miniscule and unnoticable bonuses pre-applied with no customization or flexibility allowed.

People act like there was only one set of armor and one weapon that was worthwhile in ME1 and there was no point in using anything else, but the difference between an HMWA X and a Tsunami X are not that signifigant, nor is the difference between Colossus X and Scorpion/Titan/Guardian/Gladiator/whatever X. It's a distinction only if you're a min-maxer obsessed with stats and percentage points, but min-maxing does not go hand-in-hand with role-playing. Furthermore, the min-maxing argument again fails to stand up as the same is true of ME2. The Revenant is clearly the best AR (or, if you're not a Soldier, the Vindicator is the most statistically superior rifle) and so once you acquire it there's no reason to ever use anything else. Same with the sniper rifles. Once you acquire the Widow, there's no reason to ever use anything else as it's statistically the best. Where is the variety?

As for the leveling trees, the issue isn't that there are fewer points to put into each skill; it's that there are fewer skills in which to put points into. My ME1 Soldier had 11 total skills (10 + 1 bonus) and most were unique and distinct from each other. My ME2 Soldier has 7 skills (6 + 1 bonus) and 3 of them are redundant ammo skills that cannot be used together (effectively meaning that at any given time you really only have 5 skills at your disposal... or, in truth, 4 skills since my bonus was another ammo skill). Furthermore, the amount of skill shoehorning is obscene. In order to put points into Concussive Shot you're forced to take Adrenaline Rush, in order to take Incendiary Ammo you're forced to take Disruptor Ammo, etc. This leads to a very clear and defined "leveling path" where Skill A leads to Skill B which leads to Skill C, etc, which is why many people find the degree of customization in ME2 to be sorely lacking.

You also hold the new "streamlined" Persuasion skill in high regard, but a search through these forums will show you several threads all of which bring up the excellent point that it shoehorns you into specific alignment paths as a result. Whereas in ME1 where you could simply funnel points into both Charm and Intimidate, since your character's aptitude for persuasion is now directly tied to their degree of Paragon/Renegade, it hinders role-playing by forcing you to stick to one alignment or the other so as to pass certain plot-critical Persuasion checks later in the game rather than giving you the freedom to "play the field" and select the choices that you feel your Shepard would truly make in each situation... all for the sake of not having to "waste" precious points in "useless" Persuasion skills (which any real RPG player knows is BS as Persuasion skills are no less valid or important than any other character-defining ability).

I could keep going, but my fingers are getting tired from typing and I'm sure no one will bother reading all this anyway.

First let me say that nearly everything you complain about here, I liked.  I thought the streamlined inventory was better, I thought the paragon/renegade system was better, and I thought the leveling system was better.  You didn't like it; fine.  That's you.  Speak with your wallet and don't buy ME3.  If you really think that the heart and soul of ME was customizing your equipment and managing your inventory, this isn't the game for you anymore, apparently. 

But I liked it.  And so did quite a few other people, if the sales figures are anything to go by.  So I wouldn't expect a return to the old system in ME3. 

The leveling: you had to put points into one skill to unlock another in ME as well as ME2, so that's nothing new, and if it's a fault now it must have been a fault then.  Giving you fewer skills forces you to take squadmates whose skill complement your own and suit the mission at hand.  It requires a bit more planning, and maybe you don't like that, but that doesn't make it a design flaw.

The weapons:  You said yourself they only took away the illusion of variety.  It was window dressing, and for people that don't like wading through inventory screens it was a waste of time.  They didn't remove anything substantial, they only took away your illusions.  Say goodbye to the Matrix and hello to The Real.  Sure they removed much of the upgrading, but a lot of it is replaced with powers (different ammo types etc) and much of the rest was tedious stat management.

The armour:  You have to decide which bonus you want.  It's a tactical decision made to suit your playing style.  It's been streamlined, so you generally make the decision once.  This is maybe the one area I agree with you, however, as it would have been nice to see a bit more customization (particularly for party members) but this is just my opinion and I certainly don't expect BioWare to be bound by it.

The paragon/renegade system now controls your dialogue options as a way to keep your character consistent.  Not saying I agree with it, but that was the idea and I think it works.  It would be nice for Shepard to be able to do whatever you want without consequence, but this is one of the ways that the game gives meaning to your paragon/renegade choices.

[SithLordExarKun]

JKoopman wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

Right because somehow your opinion is the universal truth and therefore you get to dictate whos wrong or whos right.

It's not an opinion to say "ME2 has more weapons than ME1" That's called a fact, and facts can be disproven.

Facts  and Opinions  are two different things spud.  Don't confuse them. Your Opinions  =/= Facts.

You are correct, facts can be disproven. Just like you can disprove the fact that obama is the president of the united states.



EDIT: Now i remember who you are. You are that imbecile keichii from the old forums, the one that lacks the capabilities to install a game on a PC and tried to argue that the 360 is much more powerful than a high end PC and that it has games better looking than crysis.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 07 mars 2010 - 05:12 .

[AlanC9]

JKoopman wrote...
In regards to weapons in ME1 vs ME2, what it basically comes down to is the illusion of choice. In practicality, was there much weapon variation in ME1? No. You had, for example, 2 different assault rifle models with 3 different skin recolors apiece. The fact that there were 10 weapon levels for each manufacturer did a fairly good job of disguising it, but that's all it was: the illusion of variety.

Where the comparison falls apart however is when you realize that ME2 didn't really add any more variety; and worse, it stripped away the illusion.

That's only a criticism if the illusion was working. Was it actually working for you? It never worked for me, which is why I prefer ME2's approach.

[JKoopman]

I'm not saying that ME1 was perfect. It had problems that needed to be fixed, no question. My issue is that BioWare's solution was simply to rip it all out, which just takes things to the opposite extreme. I'm not asking for a return to ME1's mechanics for ME3. I'm just hoping that BioWare can find some kind of compromise so that, again, fans of the original don't have to feel alientated because BioWare wants to attract a new/larger audience.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Everything you said is so completely wrong that I scarcely know where to begin.

Right because somehow your opinion is the universal truth and therefore you get to dictate whos wrong or whos right.

It's not an opinion to say "ME2 has more weapons than ME1" That's called a fact, and facts can be disproven.

Facts  and Opinions  are two different things spud.  Don't confuse them. Your Opinions  =/= Facts.

You are correct, facts can be disproven. Just like you can disprove the fact that obama is the president of the united states.



EDIT: Now i remember who you are. You are that imbecile keichii from the old forums, the one that lacks the capabilities to install a game on a PC and tried to argue that the 360 is much more powerful than a high end PC and that it has games better looking than crysis.

And you must be the imbecile that I don't know and couldn't care less about. Thanks for being my internet stalker though.

And incidentally, no where did I ever say that I lacked the capabilities to install a PC game (I was gaming on a Commodore 64 before you were likely born, so that's a pretty laughable insinuation). I simply said that installing, patching and setting up games on a PC can be a pain in the ass at times compared to simply popping a disc in a tray and pressing PLAY. And I certainly never said that the Xbox 360 was more powerful than a high end PC. I said that MY desktop PC could never hope to match the graphical capabilities of the Xbox 360 and that it would cost too much to be worthwhile for me to upgrade it, therefor it was inaccurate to say that the PC version of ME2 has better graphics as that statement isn't always true for everyone.

Modifié par JKoopman, 07 mars 2010 - 05:43 .

[JKoopman]

Bob5312 wrote...

The paragon/renegade system now controls your dialogue options as a way to keep your character consistent.  Not saying I agree with it, but that was the idea and I think it works.  It would be nice for Shepard to be able to do whatever you want without consequence, but this is one of the ways that the game gives meaning to your paragon/renegade choices.

As you were successfuly able to convey your opinion without calling anyone else a **** **** ****-licking jew ****er as so often seems to be the case around here, I'm inclined to say "fair enough" for everything else you wrote. One thing though... how does, for example, wanting to be able to share a tender moment with an old friend while also wanting to be able to exact brutal vengeance on a traitorous drug-dealing bastard who tried to kill you add up to "being able to do whatever you want without consequence"?

The issue most people have with the new consolidated Persuasion system is that it basically forces you to either be a complete jackass to anyone and everyone - friends and enemies alike - or turns you into a complete tool who's idea of justice is giving the thug who just tried to rob and murder you a "stern talking to" before you send him on his way.

[CLime]

JKoopman wrote...

My big giant post got eaten by the forums, so I'll have to give the short version.

-It's obvious the vast majority of ME2 weapons have a unique feel.  The Widow is very similar to the Mantis and the pistol and SMG upgrades are subtler than the others, but other than that you must have intentionally missed all the pickups if you used the same weapon for all of ME2.  GPR, Avenger, Revenant all have their pros and cons, for example.  The Revenant is not an auto-pick, since you have to miss out on the Widow and Claymore to take it.  ME1's weapons all felt very similar, whether it was a Kessler I or a HWMP X.  In ME2, the different weapons are much more convicincing as, you know, different weapons.  Also, heavy weapons.

-Both games have decent armor customization.  ME1's upgrades matters a bit less since it's so much easier than ME2.  You complained a page ago about having to shelve Colossus because it was ugly.  You wouldn't have that problem in ME2, since you can customize the color of all the N7 armors.  Forcing players to choose between form and function is generally weak design, even if the change is minimal.  You admit that all the X level armors are essentially the same across manufactuerer.  X is always better than IX, etc. within a manufacturer.  Taken together, ME1 armor is just one set that gets progressively better as you level, with upgrades being the only real choice.  ME2's armor pieces also matter a fair bit, especially on higher difficulties.

-The trees themselves may have been bigger in ME1, but talent points were plentiful and there was no incentive to not spam all your skills at the beginning of a fight.  ME2's shared cooldowns add more strategy to talents.  ME2 has no super-broken builds like Immunity Shock Trooper or Crowd Control Everyone Adept.  ME2 classes are much more balanced, you don't have to choose between roleplaying and powergaming.  Also, talent evolutions.

-This may be the most philosophical difference, but making players sacrifice talent upgrades for Charm/Intimidate is also weak design.  Players should not have to sacrifice battlefield prowess for negotiation ability.  The tradeoff should be between Paragon and Renegade, not Paragon and Lift.  If adding to one alignment didn't hinder your ability to add to another, and use both, you just end up with some schizoid Shepard with inconsistent characterization.  If this alienates the faction who wants to pet all the kittens, help all the old ladies cross the street, and murder all the hobos, then so be it.  For the rest of the demographic, it's okay that ME2 doesn't let you make Shepard into some kind of bipolar maniac.  Missing out on Paragon points to choose a Reneage option is fine.  It's called, "Your decisions have consequences," and it's the mark of a good roleplaying framework.  Players should be able to have characters who are both optimized and well-characterized, making skills and persuasion use the same resource pool prevents that.

TL;DR: ME2 has more weapon variety, more balanced talents, consequential alignment system, less junk to organize and fewer menus to navigate.

Oh yeah, and ME2 lets you respec.

Modifié par CLime, 07 mars 2010 - 06:14 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

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

Why did the thread continue past this point? This was a /thread if there ever was one.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 07 mars 2010 - 06:09 .

[Bob5312]

JKoopman wrote...

As you were successfuly able to convey your opinion without calling anyone else a **** **** ****-licking jew ****er as so often seems to be the case around here, I'm inclined to say "fair enough" for everything else you wrote. One thing though... how does, for example, wanting to be able to share a tender moment with an old friend while also wanting to be able to exact brutal vengeance on a traitorous drug-dealing bastard who tried to kill you add up to "being able to do whatever you want without consequence"?

The issue most people have with the new consolidated Persuasion system is that it basically forces you to either be a complete jackass to anyone and everyone - friends and enemies alike - or turns you into a complete tool who's idea of justice is giving the thug who just tried to rob and murder you a "stern talking to" before you send him on his way.

You have a point, naturally.  I did think that the way the paragon/renegade system was implemented was a bit odd, for basically the reason you say here.  The idea was that the system as implemented in ME2 would keep the character consistent; unfortunately sometimes it has the effect you describe of forcing you to be a jerk to your friends or kind to enemies, when you don't really want to be.

In practice, I didn't find that it was a serious issue.  My first playthrough I picked all of the renegade options when dealing with other people, and all of the paragon ones when talking to my crew (except Jack), and I finished the game with renegade maxed out, paragon at about 20%, and I didn't miss any of the dialogue options for want of renegade points.  Most of the paragon points you get from talking with your crew are +2, while pushing someone out of a window or executing a thief is worth around +12.  The crew also usually has neutral options in case you don't want to rack up any points either way. 

It wasn't perfect, but I thought the system worked in the way that it was designed to work; that is, it rewarded players who kept their characters' behaviour fairly consistent.

[SithLordExarKun]

JKoopman wrote...



And you must be the imbecile that I don't know and couldn't care less about.

Yeah, i am the imbecile that handed you your ass when you tried to downplay PC's. Cute that you don't care, so why the response or is this another attempt to mask your stupidity and incompetence?

JKoopman wrote...
Thanks for being my internet stalker though.

Your welcome!

Though i would rather say fate dictated we meet again on this thread.

JKoopman wrote...
And incidentally, no where did I ever say that I lacked the capabilities to install a PC game (I was gaming on a Commodore 64 before you were likely born, so that's a pretty laughable insinuation).

  Taking things a little too literally are you? You didn't "say" you lacked the capabiliies but rather your description of the situation was the dead give away that you can't even properly install a game on a PC.

JKoopman wrote...
I simply said that installing, patching and setting up games on a PC can be a pain in the ass at times compared to simply popping a disc in a tray and pressing PLAY. And I certainly never said that the Xbox 360 was more powerful than a high end PC. I said that MY desktop PC could never hope to match the graphical capabilities of the Xbox 360 and that it would cost too much to be worthwhile for me to upgrade it, therefor it was inaccurate to say that the PC version of ME2 has better graphics as that statement isn't always true for everyone.

  So now its a completely different argument? Cute but somehow i prefer this one than the last one.


This isn't going anywhere, so i am not going to summon a wall of text, and hopefully you realize that i was just trying to get you to troll.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 07 mars 2010 - 07:04 .