271 réponses à ce sujet

[yoomazir]

CLime wrote...


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.

oh God, is this guy for real?

-more weapon variety: we got heavy Weapons,which  most of them suck anyway
-more balanced talented: no much to choose from and balanced? please....
-alignment blah blah :  play god/bad guy with practically no chance for teh story, yay for you!
-less junk to organize: a whole galaxy, in the future, they only have 2 pistols with not custimisation? that not less junk, that's laziness.
-fewer menus : for ME3: please remove the codex, team skills, options and missions, it's too much work for my brain to check all of them.

I love how people have short memory these days, like someone said: ignorance is bliss.

[GeometricLol]

this stupid argument again? its obvious christina norman didnt make the gameplay changes just because she felt like it, it was a calculated and methodical change that obviously worked for a lot of people, myself included. I played through ME1 enough and it has nothing that ME2 doesnt do better. ME2 is NOT smaller, more linear, or any less immersive than the first. Anyone still whining about this crap needs to stop thinking they're so ahead of the curve and get over themselves

[Terror_K]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to jump on the side of those who feel alienated by some of the changes. I'll admit that not all the changes bothered me, and there were some good ones made too, but for the most part the game really was not simply streamlined but dumbed-down. I like the game still, I really do... but the devs really dropped the ball on quite a few areas when it came to ME2 and sacrificed far too much to make it appeal to the mainstream "gamer" of today as well as newcomers to the IP. ME2 is a great game still, but it's the first BioWare game that I've played since MDK2 that I feel falls below the truly magnificent territory that is a cut above almost everything else out there. I'm still waiting to see ME2 devs comment on how many less positive fans feel about the changes since the game was released, so I'd hope that Christina at least addresses the point that not all fans feel that they did as well as they thought they did. I don't care what media hype says, because media hype as far as gaming goes has been getting progressively worse and worse over time: Mass Effect 2 was, for the most part, a step in the wrong direction and a dumbed-down game.

[Jaysonie]

[quote]yoomazir wrote...


[quote]

oh God, is this guy for real?

-more weapon variety: we got heavy Weapons,which  most of them suck anyway

[/quote]
We had 4 weapon types in ME1 with a bunch of reskins, ME2 we 23 diffrent weapons.

[quote]
-more balanced talented: no much to choose from and balanced? please....
[/quote]

Other than the adept, all class's pretty much have equal pros and cons.

[quote]
-alignment blah blah :  play god/bad guy with practically no chance for teh story, yay for you!
[/quote]

I dont understand what you mean.

[quote]
-less junk to organize: a whole galaxy, in the future, they only have 2 pistols with not custimisation? that not less junk, that's laziness.
[/quote]

Wouldnt you expect that if cerberus spent billions of credits on shepard, they would have atleast given him the best weapons.

[quote]
-fewer menus : for ME3: please remove the codex, team skills, options and missions, it's too much work for my brain to check all of them.

[/quote]

Modifié par Jaysonie, 07 mars 2010 - 08:19 .

[Jaysonie]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm afraid I'm going to have to jump on the side of those who feel alienated by some of the changes. I'll admit that not all the changes bothered me, and there were some good ones made too, but for the most part the game really was not simply streamlined but dumbed-down. I like the game still, I really do... but the devs really dropped the ball on quite a few areas when it came to ME2 and sacrificed far too much to make it appeal to the mainstream "gamer" of today as well as newcomers to the IP. ME2 is a great game still, but it's the first BioWare game that I've played since MDK2 that I feel falls below the truly magnificent territory that is a cut above almost everything else out there. I'm still waiting to see ME2 devs comment on how many less positive fans feel about the changes since the game was released, so I'd hope that Christina at least addresses the point that not all fans feel that they did as well as they thought they did. I don't care what media hype says, because media hype as far as gaming goes has been getting progressively worse and worse over time: Mass Effect 2 was, for the most part, a step in the wrong direction and a dumbed-down game.

You say it like a fact, kinda bothers me. I disagree. ME2 isnt dumbed down.
Your point about media:not all media could be wrong. 40 perfect reviews couldnt have all been pure hype and bribery. The worst review ive seen was an 82 from a german magizine, and they gave MW2 and 88.

Modifié par Jaysonie, 07 mars 2010 - 08:24 .

[GeometricLol]

what makes this game "dumbed down"? What baffles me the most are these niche gamers who think anything that will appeal to a wider audience and leaves them feeling less like arbiters of cool and individuality and exclusive automatically makes a game "dumbed down". Mass effect 2 is NOT dumbed down. If anything, pining for mass effect 1 gameplay and mechanics shows more dumbing down than anything.

[Terror_K]

As far as I'm concerned it IS a fact. There's a fine line between streamlining for efficiency and improvement and dumbing down to the point of oversimplification. The ME2 team went far too far and crossed that line, and while ME2 is admittedly a tighter game than ME1 was it's also a lesser game, or at the very least a lesser RPG, than the original. ME1 may have been broken but it at least still tried to be an RPG, albeit a broken one. ME2 just didn't try too often, and there were far too many "WTF?" decisions made such as the change to a "Mission Complete" dolling out of XP rather than us actually gaining XP as we went ala ME1 that make the whole thing seem shallow. The fact that the game is so obviously more crafted towards newbs rather than existing fans in its design is one of its biggest failings, and it saddens me that BioWare would sacrifice and water down the game just to avoid possibly alienating newcomers, especially when it comes at the expense of alienating your existing fanbase.

[Terror_K]

GeometricLol wrote...

If anything, pining for mass effect 1 gameplay and mechanics shows more dumbing down than anything.

That doesn't even make sense. 

[GeometricLol]

Terror_K wrote...

As far as I'm concerned it IS a fact. There's a fine line between streamlining for efficiency and improvement and dumbing down to the point of oversimplification. The ME2 team went far too far and crossed that line, and while ME2 is admittedly a tighter game than ME1 was it's also a lesser game, or at the very least a lesser RPG, than the original. ME1 may have been broken but it at least still tried to be an RPG, albeit a broken one. ME2 just didn't try too often, and there were far too many "WTF?" decisions made such as the change to a "Mission Complete" dolling out of XP rather than us actually gaining XP as we went ala ME1 that make the whole thing seem shallow. The fact that the game is so obviously more crafted towards newbs rather than existing fans in its design is one of its biggest failings, and it saddens me that BioWare would sacrifice and water down the game just to avoid possibly alienating newcomers, especially when it comes at the expense of alienating your existing fanbase.

you say that as though you speak for the entire preexisting mass effect fan community, and you couldnt be more wrong.  I played through mass effect 1 more than enough times, and i consider myself part of the "existing fanbase".  Most of the rpg elements/exploration in mass effect 1 was all fluff.  the inventory was all fluff.  I dont know about anyone else but i couldnt be bothered to micromanage and customize all my crap after attaining colossus X and spectre X gear for everyone.  exploration was all copy and paste, and while areas and hubs may seem to be on a larger scale, there was not much content.  

[GeometricLol]

Terror_K wrote...

GeometricLol wrote...

If anything, pining for mass effect 1 gameplay and mechanics shows more dumbing down than anything.

That doesn't even make sense. 

reading comprehension much? it means people Yearning for mass effect 1 mechanics make themselves look more "dumbed down" than ME2

[Murmillos]

I think nobody is going to take any of you seriously if you keep on throwing the word "dumbed-down" out there left and right.. it comes across as you are saying "ONLY DUMB PEOPLE LIKE ME2 - BECAUSE ITS A DUMB GAME!!!"

Use stream-line, use over-simplified, but don't use dumb-down, as it more insults the reader who like the game, then it does making your point.

----------------------------------
On Topic:

Its not that RPG's require a inventory - as i've played many RPG's that did not have an Inventory system, and there was no issue in the lack of an inventory system - as it made sense in the concept of the game.

The problem between ME1 and ME2 is the change from a fully functional (if yet glut filled - and Spectre weapon broken - system) to a non existent inventory which also includes a boring and vague upgrade system.

Its not the lack of inventory, its the change to the no inventory system. If you had X Y and Z, then when developers change it to Q U and V, sometimes then the connection between what the devs developed and what the fans want, is lost - perceived as bad changes to the game.

A lot of developers lose sight and don't understand, that in time it took them to develop the game, they went and slowly transitioned between all the changes, maybe starting at a full inventory system and then slowly cutting parts month after month, slowly easing into the new system to where it feels natural to them. To the player, the change can be (and was) unexpected and unnatural.

Many, if not all players wanted a fix to the ME1 inventory system, most likely a culling and slimming of the current system. Such things as limiting the number of upgrades (example: I thru V instead of I thru X) and only 3-4 manufactures per weapon instead of 20.

They had a GOOD system in ME1, they just needed to fix the GLUT problem (IMO).

Modifié par Murmillos, 07 mars 2010 - 09:10 .

[Terror_K]

Of course I don't speak for the entire fanbase, and I don't claim that I do. But as far as I'm concerned BioWare's intentions regarding ME2 are about as subtle as a truck full of bricks to the face.



The fact was, a lot of stuff was broken in ME1 not because of the concept but because of the execution. Exploration was too cut-and-paste, inventory items were too samey and/or broken, the inventory system was poorly designed and needed refinement, etc.



In ME2 instead of fixing the problems the team just scrapped it in favour of more Shooter-oriented gameplay mechanics, because that's where the audience is and that's where the money is. The big sellers these days aren't RPGs, they're the Halos, the Gears of Wars and the Modern Warfares. So out into the trash with anything that will put off today's average "gamer" and might come across as tedious or requiring more than a minute away from blasting things and in with stuff that practically manages itself.



But at the same time, they didn't go too far so that they didn't drive off their RPG fans... or at least not all of them. Unfortunately most of them see what's happened and have called BioWare on it, which is why despite many rave reviews from the gaming media there are also a great many less than rave reviews and comments on the forums.



ME2 is only a hair away from merely being a Shooter with RPG elements rather than an RPG any more. The weapons system might as well come straight out of a shooter, since there's no statistical factors attributed to any of the guns. The armour system is almost purely cosmetic, and only applies to Shepard and not your squad any more. I'm not even entirely sure we're REALLY gaining XP and leveling up properly given the switch to the Mission Complete system which could easily just be making up a random number and displaying it and saying "Oh, yeah... you leveled up, by the way. Yeah... totally legitimately. Right at the end of mission like every other time" to merely placate RPG fans. Let's not forget the factors which were cut or dumbed-down and the consequences which really have no meaning or were relegated to silly easter eggs regarding imports, because hey... we can't have people who haven't played ME1 first getting confused coming into the middle of a FRIGGIN' TRILOGY! Oh, let's just make any major decision in the first game meaningless so ME2 players who are new don't miss out too much. Let's just treat Wrex, Ashley and Kaidan like tools rather than real characters by underselling their value as characters and just giving anything to do with them weak alternatives that change nothing at all really beyond some dialogue.



Is that enough, or shall I got into the silly thermal clip system that is not only a massive step backwards technologically but also contradicts itself lore-wise and is filled with more holes than a lace tablecloth covered in Swiss cheeese?

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

I think nobody is going to take any of you seriously if you keep on throwing the word "dumbed-down" out there left and right.. it comes across as you are saying "ONLY DUMB PEOPLE LIKE ME2 - BECAUSE ITS A DUMB GAME!!!"

Use stream-line, use over-simplified, but don't use dumb-down, as it more insults the reader who like the game, then it does making your point.

Sorry, but it's the best term I feel for what's happened and what the devs did to ME2. "Streamline" isn't negative enough... in fact, it's usually used in a more positive sense, so it doesn't fit. "Oversimplified" does fit to a degree, but it's not enough, and only describes one symptom of the overall problem with ME2. "Oversimplified" is a term that only covers what BioWare did as far as removing too much which while the major factor is not the only one: it doesn't cover the design and content decisions that illustrate the game has been designed to appeal to a broader audience through additional factors as well as the removal or streamlining of existing ones.

That's why I feel "dumbed-down" fits the term best. It doesn't mean the game has been entirely made as such and that it's a bad game, or that people who enjoy it (which, btw, I've admitted to myself) are dumb. But it does mean that it's a lesser game than the first when it comes to complexity and depth.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

I think nobody is going to take any of you seriously if you keep on throwing the word "dumbed-down" out there left and right.. it comes across as you are saying "ONLY DUMB PEOPLE LIKE ME2 - BECAUSE ITS A DUMB GAME!!!"

Use stream-line, use over-simplified, but don't use dumb-down, as it more insults the reader who like the game, then it does making your point.

Sorry, but it's the best term I feel for what's happened and what the devs did to ME2. "Streamline" isn't negative enough... in fact, it's usually used in a more positive sense, so it doesn't fit. "Oversimplified" does fit to a degree, but it's not enough, and only describes one symptom of the overall problem with ME2. "Oversimplified" is a term that only covers what BioWare did as far as removing too much which while the major factor is not the only one: it doesn't cover the design and content decisions that illustrate the game has been designed to appeal to a broader audience through additional factors as well as the removal or streamlining of existing ones.

That's why I feel "dumbed-down" fits the term best. It doesn't mean the game has been entirely made as such and that it's a bad game, or that people who enjoy it (which, btw, I've admitted to myself) are dumb. But it does mean that it's a lesser game than the first when it comes to complexity and depth.

I agree, it is the correct term, but the problem is that it invites more problems then trying people to agree to your points.
You want people to agree with your assessment with the game, but many people won't if they believe that in doing so also means insulting their intelligence.

[GeometricLol]

Terror_K wrote...

Of course I don't speak for the entire fanbase, and I don't claim that I do. But as far as I'm concerned BioWare's intentions regarding ME2 are about as subtle as a truck full of bricks to the face.

The fact was, a lot of stuff was broken in ME1 not because of the concept but because of the execution. Exploration was too cut-and-paste, inventory items were too samey and/or broken, the inventory system was poorly designed and needed refinement, etc.

In ME2 instead of fixing the problems the team just scrapped it in favour of more Shooter-oriented gameplay mechanics, because that's where the audience is and that's where the money is. The big sellers these days aren't RPGs, they're the Halos, the Gears of Wars and the Modern Warfares. So out into the trash with anything that will put off today's average "gamer" and might come across as tedious or requiring more than a minute away from blasting things and in with stuff that practically manages itself.

But at the same time, they didn't go too far so that they didn't drive off their RPG fans... or at least not all of them. Unfortunately most of them see what's happened and have called BioWare on it, which is why despite many rave reviews from the gaming media there are also a great many less than rave reviews and comments on the forums.

ME2 is only a hair away from merely being a Shooter with RPG elements rather than an RPG any more. The weapons system might as well come straight out of a shooter, since there's no statistical factors attributed to any of the guns. The armour system is almost purely cosmetic, and only applies to Shepard and not your squad any more. I'm not even entirely sure we're REALLY gaining XP and leveling up properly given the switch to the Mission Complete system which could easily just be making up a random number and displaying it and saying "Oh, yeah... you leveled up, by the way. Yeah... totally legitimately. Right at the end of mission like every other time" to merely placate RPG fans. Let's not forget the factors which were cut or dumbed-down and the consequences which really have no meaning or were relegated to silly easter eggs regarding imports, because hey... we can't have people who haven't played ME1 first getting confused coming into the middle of a FRIGGIN' TRILOGY! Oh, let's just make any major decision in the first game meaningless so ME2 players who are new don't miss out too much. Let's just treat Wrex, Ashley and Kaidan like tools rather than real characters by underselling their value as characters and just giving anything to do with them weak alternatives that change nothing at all really beyond some dialogue.

Is that enough, or shall I got into the silly thermal clip system that is not only a massive step backwards technologically but also contradicts itself lore-wise and is filled with more holes than a lace tablecloth covered in Swiss cheeese?

i dont deny that a lot of big sellers today are the shooters. However I highly doubt that many original mass effect fans bought ME2 solely because the gameplay elements were changed to be more shooter-like, or stayed more RPG like, or whatever, but rather for the story, and its immersion. That's what I bought the game for, because i wanted to explore the continuation of my Shepard's story, and bioware certainly delivered on that part, and doing a good job setting the stage for the final game.  

Mass Effect was never a RPG, it was still a shooter/RPG, and the way ME2 is evolved from that is not taking a step backwards

edit: not entirely sure about the thermal clips, so i wont have anything to say on that

Modifié par GeometricLol, 07 mars 2010 - 09:14 .

[SithLordExarKun]

yoomazir wrote...


I love how people have short memory these days, like someone said: ignorance is bliss.

Speak for yourself.

[SurfaceBeneath]

"Dumbed Down" is not the correct term, because the features that were added to ME2's combat has made Combat much much smarter. Stacking insignificant stats (or not, if you got the Specter gear) is not "smart". Looking between two weapons and seeing more green bars than red bars and replacing the first with the second is no smart. Combat that actually has an eb and flow, in which you need to use abilities intelligently and react to protections enemies have in different ways is much smarter than "Activate Immunity and pretend to be Rambo" or "Spam your CC skills". Choosing between weapons is actually something you have to put thought into, since every weapon in the game has its own specialized use for certain situations (with the arguable exception of the Katana shotgun and Avalanche heavy weapon).

Bioware took a serious look at combat and decided that their old system did not involve the player. Their changes were not done because they wanted to appeal to the mainstream... they were made because they wanted to make the combat more interesting and fun. Of course, that will have the side effect of ALSO appealing to the mainstream, purely due to the fact that it will appeal to people who like fun combat, but it's not inherently dumbing down of the game, especially considering that many of the story elements of ME2 are much much smarter than in the first, and again, the combat requires about 20 times more thought to succeed.

Bioware is toying with Genre boundaries in ME2. Anyone who is surprised by this must have been sleeping when they released Jade Empire and the first ME. They've already got a game franchise which appeals to more "traditional" RPG values (Dragon Age) and will continue to develop Dragon Age along that path by all indications.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 07 mars 2010 - 09:21 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

As far as I'm concerned it IS a fact.

As far as you're concerned it is a fact. Ergo in your eyes : yes , in reality : no.

[Terror_K]

GeometricLol wrote...

i dont deny that a lot of big sellers today are the shooters. However I highly doubt that many original mass effect fans bought ME2 solely because the gameplay elements were changed to be more shooter-like, or stayed more RPG like, or whatever, but rather for the story, and its immersion.

Yes, but you use the term "original Mass Effect fans" there. I think most --even those who largely approve of the changes-- weren't expecting the second part to be quite as different on the gameplay side of things as it turned out to be. Most fans of the original were probably going to buy the second part regardless, but BioWare didn't make the changes they did for the most part to appeal to those who were already going to buy the game because they were existing fans. And that is, for the most part, my problem with the changes overall.

That's what I bought the game for, because i wanted to explore the continuation of my Shepard's story, and bioware certainly delivered on that part, and doing a good job setting the stage for the final game.

While the narrative and interactive movie elements were admittedly most excellent in ME2, I still felt that far too much of it was too far removed from events in the first game, hence my voicing my disappointment that import playthroughs and decisions we'd made in the original game seemed to have no real impact on the ME universe whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. I can't help but feel if BioWare had just stuck to making the game more of a proper trilogy and weren't so worried about alienating or confusing newcomers then we may have had a greater second act that actually felt like a proper second act instead of an almost separate entity merely set in the same universe.

Mass Effect was never a RPG, it was still a shooter/RPG, and the way ME2 is evolved from that is not taking a step backwards

Sorry, but for the most part, in my eyes, Mass Effect 2 is a devolution and not an evolution. Making a game more like CoD4 and Gears of War in the gameplay department is not moving things forward to me. While others will no doubt say "well adhering to D&D styled rules and regulations isn't a step-forward either" I still maintain that an RPG should still be more RPG than it is whatever its secondary genre is, and ME2 came very close to simply not being an RPG. And I want to make it clear to BioWare that I'm not happy with the direction they've taken things in (for the most part... I have to make this clear) when it comes to gameplay in hopes that they'll listen to the constructive criticism and make a better Mass Effect 3 for it, which I feel would be best done as a hybrid of its predecessors (which goes to show I'm not totally against ME2).

[GeometricLol]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but for the most part, in my eyes, Mass Effect 2 is a devolution and not an evolution. 

how about we just leave it at that, my opinions are mine and yours are yours.  Instead of everyone crying before Ms. Norman even gives her lecture, lets hear what she has to say first?

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

"Dumbed Down" is not the correct term, because the features that were added to ME2's combat has made Combat much much smarter. Stacking insignificant stats (or not, if you got the Specter gear) is not "smart". Looking between two weapons and seeing more green bars than red bars and replacing the first with the second is no smart. Combat that actually has an eb and flow, in which you need to use abilities intelligently and react to protections enemies have in different ways is much smarter than "Activate Immunity and pretend to be Rambo" or "Spam your CC skills". Choosing between weapons is actually something you have to put thought into, since every weapon in the game has its own specialized use for certain situations (with the arguable exception of the Katana shotgun and Avalanche heavy weapon).

Bioware took a serious look at combat and decided that their old system did not involve the player. Their changes were not done because they wanted to appeal to the mainstream... they were made because they wanted to make the combat more interesting and fun. Of course, that will have the side effect of ALSO appealing to the mainstream, purely due to the fact that it will appeal to people who like fun combat, but it's not inherently dumbing down of the game, especially considering that many of the story elements of ME2 are much much smarter than in the first, and again, the combat requires about 20 times more thought to succeed.

Bioware is toying with Genre boundaries in ME2. Anyone who is surprised by this must have been sleeping when they released Jade Empire and the first ME. They've already got a game franchise which appeals to more "traditional" RPG values (Dragon Age) and will continue to develop Dragon Age along that path by all indications.

To be honest, I don't have as much problem with the combat itself in ME2 as I thought I would. At first I was against the idea of stat-based weapon skills doing down the drain, and while even in the early stages of ME2 I wasn't sold on the idea, after some time playing both games again since I do find the combat superior in ME2 as far as the combat itself goes.

My main issues are with the weapons and armour though. The system BioWare opted for here really is pathetic, IMO. I've said so countless times in countless topics so I won't go into the details again (unless somebody wants me to) but the whole thing has been oversimplified to the point of being utterly lame. Despite promises that guns would be more personal and unique, we have the most shallow system in an RPG I've come across. Hitman: Blood Money has a more in-depth weapon system, and it's not even an RPG. And the armour is just as bad when it comes to actual depth. It's a joke of a system that needs some meat on it if it's to work. I'd much rather have ME1's illusion of choice and dozens of redundant and unwanted guns than ME2's anemic sorry excuse of a system.

[nteger]

At first I was pretty disappointed that they streamlined nearly everything about the game. Now I'm to the point where I don't think they streamlined enough, They took out the inventory system. Fine, whatever. But then we still have to find weapons and ammo and upgrades and tiny amounts of minerals lying around as if to give us the illusion of finding loot? That's just silly. It would have worked far better to just give us all of the weapons and make each one play a certain role, and make mineral finding more combat oriented. The RPG elements they left in are shallow imitations of what they were in ME 1 and that's why the game feels "dumbed down". It's hard for some of us to not think of ME as an RPG when these lame excuses for RPG elements are staring us in the face.



Moving forward, I think Bioware needs to completely get rid of the RPG elements that don't work (like loot and scaling difficulty based on character level), and give us meaningful options (like weapon mods where we must make choices on how our weapons perform). If they're going to take out planet exploration in favor of focusing on the story, don't add in more worthless time-wasters like planet scanning.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
To be honest, I don't have as much problem with the combat itself in ME2 as I thought I would. At first I was against the idea of stat-based weapon skills doing down the drain, and while even in the early stages of ME2 I wasn't sold on the idea, after some time playing both games again since I do find the combat superior in ME2 as far as the combat itself goes.

My main issues are with the weapons and armour though. The system BioWare opted for here really is pathetic, IMO. I've said so countless times in countless topics so I won't go into the details again (unless somebody wants me to) but the whole thing has been oversimplified to the point of being utterly lame. Despite promises that guns would be more personal and unique, we have the most shallow system in an RPG I've come across. Hitman: Blood Money has a more in-depth weapon system, and it's not even an RPG. And the armour is just as bad when it comes to actual depth. It's a joke of a system that needs some meat on it if it's to work. I'd much rather have ME1's illusion of choice and dozens of redundant and unwanted guns than ME2's anemic sorry excuse of a system.

But it hasn't been "simplified", there are undeniably, more weapons now than there were in the past. Before, the weapons were only reskins that in form and function were the exact same. Now, each weapon actually serves a different purpose and feels very unique from one another.  You can't just coast through on a single weapon the entire game without any thought put into it (well, besides maybe the Soldier exclusive Revenant). Insanity actually forced me to change my weapons mission by mission based on what I was facing. ME1 never did that... I never changed weapons once once I got the Specter weapon (which was literally after the first story mission I went on after Citadel) Armor is a joke, but it always was a joke, it's now just an unobtrusive joke. Hopefully ME3 will fix armor to be something we care about.

Now, that saying, I would certainly not be against a more modular approach to weapons in which you can modify individual weapons with mods that lower their heat output, damage, accuracy, etc, like you can with N7 armor but to greater effect. Perhaps in ME3 we will get such a system.

[Terror_K]

nteger wrote...

At first I was pretty disappointed that they streamlined nearly everything about the game. Now I'm to the point where I don't think they streamlined enough, They took out the inventory system. Fine, whatever. But then we still have to find weapons and ammo and upgrades and tiny amounts of minerals lying around as if to give us the illusion of finding loot? That's just silly. It would have worked far better to just give us all of the weapons and make each one play a certain role, and make mineral finding more combat oriented. The RPG elements they left in are shallow imitations of what they were in ME 1 and that's why the game feels "dumbed down". It's hard for some of us to not think of ME as an RPG when these lame excuses for RPG elements are staring us in the face.

Moving forward, I think Bioware needs to completely get rid of the RPG elements that don't work (like loot and scaling difficulty based on character level), and give us meaningful options (like weapon mods where we must make choices on how our weapons perform). If they're going to take out planet exploration in favor of focusing on the story, don't add in more worthless time-wasters like planet scanning.

In other words, just turn the game entirely into a less linear Gears of War with a better story...

This is actually what I'm afraid of. Given what they did with ME2, I can see it happening for ME3.

I agree with what you said that I've put into bold above, but I don't think the answer is to get rid of these elements. That's the problem with ME2 in many cases in the first place, and that's just going to result in the game becoming even shallower and more oversimplified than it already is. The answers are to refine these elements and give them depth, and even make them more like they were in ME1 in some cases (particularly when it comes to weapons and armour). Sorry, but I have to disagree with your solution, even if I kind of agree with your assessment of the situation. Simplifying and already oversimplified thing isn't the answer and will just cause more problems and make the game more of a shooter and less of an RPG.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

But it hasn't been "simplified", there are undeniably, more weapons now than there were in the past. Before, the weapons were only reskins that in form and function were the exact same. Now, each weapon actually serves a different purpose and feels very unique from one another.  You can't just coast through on a single weapon the entire game without any thought put into it (well, besides maybe the Soldier exclusive Revenant). Insanity actually forced me to change my weapons mission by mission based on what I was facing. ME1 never did that... I never changed weapons once once I got the Specter weapon (which was literally after the first story mission I went on after Citadel) Armor is a joke, but it always was a joke, it's now just an unobtrusive joke. Hopefully ME3 will fix armor to be something we care about.

Now, that saying, I would certainly not be against a more modular approach to weapons in which you can modify individual weapons with mods that lower their heat output, damage, accuracy, etc, like you can with N7 armor but to greater effect. Perhaps in ME3 we will get such a system.

No, there aren't more weapons, just more weapon types. Which is meaningless when each type only has 2-3 kinds in its selection, one of which you start off with and the others that are always in the same place every single time. It's basically a standard Shooter system now: the guns are just guns, they have no stats on them for comparison (not that you really need it when there's zero selection and zero choice) and no way of modifying or customising them in any fashion beyond a series of linear, all-encompassing upgrades.  It's basically just a standard shooter system: start with a gun, then just find one other to replace it with (and even most shooters have a greater selection of weapons of the same type than ME2 does). The only thing that stops it being such is the class restrictions. No stats, no real selection of weapons: just a small pool of unique weapons that aren't really that unique because there's nothing common to compare them to and replacing your original gun is pretty much inevitable. It's pathetic... it seriously is. I can't see how anybody can see this system as an improvement, and even less so how people can see it as being "more RPG" than the original.

Again, illusion of choice is better than no real choice at all. ME1's system was broken because the items weren't well designed. ME2 doesn't really even have a system. At least ME1 tried. What ME3 needs is a selection of a half-a-dozen weapons or so of each type and allow us to find them and choose which one(s) we want to use. On top of that we need the ability to mod them brought back.

You also bring up a point as a positive I actually find a negative: the need to switch weapons. Most RPG's encourage you to specialise in a particular weapon, but ME2 spits in your face in this regard because you can't. You can't deselect a particular weapon for your loadout if you don't want to use it and all your thermal clips HAVE to be distributed equally despite supposedly being universal. Now I'm forced to use crap weapons I don't want to use simply because I've "run out" of thermal clips from my favourite. That isn't fun and doesn't encourage me: it's frustrating and discourages me. How hard is it to simply say "I don't even want Weapon Type X with me on this mission... leave it on The Normandy and let me distribute my clips more amongst the stuff I actually WANT to use?"

One weapon of each type is not more choice, and is certainly NOT more depth. What it definitely is is dumbed-down mechanics. Especially when you don't even have any bloody stats on the items whatsoever.

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 mars 2010 - 10:07 .