271 réponses à ce sujet

[SurfaceBeneath]

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.

I disagree. I was bored silly by Gears of War and I love Mass Effect 2 to death. It's my favorite game of Bioware's since Baldur's Gate 2. I found the RPG part of Mass Effect 2 was brilliantly done, instead of rehashing genre conventions they took a bold step into unknown territory and are deconstructing exactly what makes an RPG an RPG. Reposting David Gaider's thoughts on it, because they express everything so succinctly and I think he speaks from a position of authority on this matter that nobody here on these forums has.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
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.

Weapons don't have stats in ME2? Really? Is that why they released a spreadsheet on comparitive weapon damage rates on the builds forum? No, there were exactly 4 weapons in ME1, each one reskinned a hundred times with slightly different stats but no differentiation between them. And again, you don't choose which weapon you want, you simply compare bars and which ever comes out statistically higher (which just happened to be one you could buy 25% of the way through the game), you chained yourself to it. Now you have between 13 and 19 weapons depending on what version of the game you got and DLC, discounting heavy weapons, that all function radically different from one another and actually are very differently useful, if you go to the builds forum, you will see tons of posts on "which weapon should I use" and people will respond with, "what level are you doing? what playstyle are you trying to accomplish?" Playing a Vanguard and using the Eviscerator or the Scimitar or the Claymore are actually provide you with very different and distinct benefits and costs and depending on which you use will make you play differently. You never saw that tactical thinking or choice in ME1. And no, it's not an illusion because, again, there are many many many threads devoted to this on the builds forum. So yes, by continually shouting the mantra of "dumbed down" and then asking for easier decisions that require less thinking, you're showing a peculiar type of irony that seems to go straight over the heads of many "hard-core fans".

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 07 mars 2010 - 10:16 .

[GeometricLol]

good repost, very well said.



the whiners will always whine, its not because a particular game is bad or didnt live up to their expectations, but their inherent urge to ****** and moan about anything

[Andy_Haugh]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

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.

You've clearly been blinded by the Dark side. You might want to cut down on the muon gold, too, that stuff isn't good for you in the long run.

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.

Fantastic post, though I can't say ME1 was truly "broken". The only real issue that bugged me was the default inventory limit of 150, which was far too low, but easily modified.

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...

Actually, I will go ahead and deny that, because it's just not true. Did you ever play ME1?

I could say more, but it appears Terror_K has the situation under control. Carry on.

Modifié par Andy_Haugh, 07 mars 2010 - 10:21 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Terror_K wrote...
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.

Which is where you go wrong. 
First of it's not your decision. You don't get to decide whether BioWare should make the other parts a cheap second to the RPG system. 
The problem is that people expect games to fall into a certain neat categorization and when they don't they **** about one part being not enough. Do you really think the developers care that much about the categorization while they're developing?

Second: Very close to not being an RPG? How do you get that conclusion? 
The RPG aspect is indeed a bit lesser in comparison the first game, but still very much there. 

[GeometricLol]

David Gaider's post should be the background of this forum. Maybe then we'll get less of these ****** and moan threads

[Vena_86]

All those arguing for single aspects of the game. And there are always pros and cons. Well not always. Instead of hiding loading screens through elevator rides while giving party members and the outside world a little life, they now choose to scrap that and actually show the damn loading screen. Congratulations for that bright idea...



It is not the inventory, it is not the loading screens or the missing exploration, combat helmets during dialogues or logic mistakes like walking half naked through vacuum without dying alone that are the problem.



When all comes together, the experience is very linear, confined with disjointed parts. the universe of Mass Effect does not feel like a universe anymore. It has become a collection of levels. And that is made very obvious. The quality of those levels is good to great but the whole experience is less intense.



And ofcourse people feel alienated as the franchise started with a different underlying approach. You had the chance to explore an interesting universe and fans wanted more of that while the flawed elements should be fixed but not removed along with the good effects they had.



Mass Effect is a franchise that lets you travel the stars. How many other games do that in such intense fashion. But Mass Effect 2 goes a step back from the traveling the stars feeling and more into fast, intense action which you can get from plenty of other games already.



Ofcourse people have different tastes. But Christinas claim that they did not alienate their fans while they actually shifted over to another (more profiting) target group of short attention spanned teenagers is atleast as insulting as this sentence.



Another child sacrificed to the mainstream god.

[Jaysonie]

Andy_Haugh wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

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.

You've clearly been blinded by the Dark side. You might want to cut down on the muon gold, too, that stuff isn't good for you in the long run.

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.

Fantastic post, though I can't say ME1 was truly "broken". The only real issue that bugged me was the default inventory limit of 150, which was far too low, but easily modified.

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...

Actually, I will go ahead and deny that, because it's just not true. Did you ever play ME1?

I could say more, but it appears Terror_K has the situation under control. Carry on.

There are 4 unique weapons in ME1 and the rest are reskins, there are 23 unique weapons in ME2 and all of the are unique.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Weapons don't have stats in ME2? Really? Is that why they released a spreadsheet on comparitive weapon damage rates on the builds forum?

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Seriously... I mean, come on! The weapons in ME2 have no more stats than the weapons in Halo or Call of Duty. You say yourself "released a spreadsheet on comparitive weapon damage rates on the builds forum" directly. The so-called "stats" for the weapons aren't visible IN-GAME at all. You have to go into some files using an editor and find them out, or find them on the builds forum as you stated. I'm talking about in-game visible stats for comparison here, not the mathematical values merely assigned to the gun ala any shooter in the coding of the game that determines their abilities. If you want to compare a weapon you should be able to do it in-game and not have to refer to a separate list.

No, there were exactly 4 weapons in ME1, each one reskinned a hundred times with slightly different stats but no differentiation between them. And again, you don't choose which weapon you want, you simply compare bars and which ever comes out statistically higher (which just happened to be one you could buy 25% of the way through the game), you chained yourself to it.

And how is that different from most RPG's, exactly? A whole bunch of items of the same type that you look at and compare between them stat-wise and then choose the best one until a better one comes along. Yeah... that's pretty much how these games are supposed to work. Of course, ME2 makes the decision for you automatically with its pitiful selection.

Now you have between 13 and 19 weapons depending on what version of the game you got and DLC, discounting heavy weapons, that all function radically different from one another and actually are very differently useful, if you go to the builds forum, you will see tons of posts on "which weapon should I use" and people will respond with, "what level are you doing? what playstyle are you trying to accomplish?" Playing a Vanguard and using the Eviscerator or the Scimitar or the Claymore are actually provide you with very different and distinct benefits and costs and depending on which you use will make you play differently. You never saw that tactical thinking or choice in ME1. And no, it's not an illusion because, again, there are many many many threads devoted to this on the builds forum. So yes, by continually shouting the mantra of "dumbed down" and then asking for easier decisions that require less thinking, you're showing a peculiar type of irony that seems to go straight over the heads of many "hard-core fans".

Please... it's no more tactical than choosing which weapon is best for a particular situation in Unreal Tournament or Call of Duty 4. <_<

[Murmillos]

Here is a interesting idea, play ME1 with out using the Spectre weapon, and as a added fun, don't use the Colossus armor also - nor mod out your weapons to be endless never over heating weapons. Just because you can get the Spectre weapon, its feels better to complete the game with out having to resort to it.

I do like that for ME2, that weapons have some further depth to them (hand cannons for the Armor, SMG for the Barriers/Shields, AR all around, etc.etc.)

I mean, the whole "loot" system could have been changed to satisfy most RPG'ers "loot" requirement by getting changing the "damage upgrade" system and replaced it with finding weapons. Same thing in the end, but it gives the illusion of upgrading with better weapons - which you can just then replicate back on Normady. That is what is missing from ME2 - instead, its a generic upgrade system which just takes something from the whole feeling of ME2 which we were given in ME1.

Also, they still needed to diversify the weapons they did have in ME2. They almost have it right with the AR's and SG's.. but it could have been better. They could have had more diverse feeling models between each weapon of the same group. A weapon that favors one of its stat above all others (damage, range, heat-sink efficiency) and one overall balanced one. This would give players more choices in matching weapons to their game play.

Modifié par Murmillos, 07 mars 2010 - 10:39 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Andy_Haugh wrote...
Actually, I will go ahead and deny that, because it's just not true. Did you ever play ME1?

I could say more, but it appears Terror_K has the situation under control. Carry on.

Actually both side are half right.
In the pure numbers and grind of an RPG ME1 has a lot of weapons. But your decisions hardly provoked thought or discussion. Not to mention that there was a whole lot of useless dribble that completely ****ed up the faulty economy in place together with the ridiculous drop rates. 
In ME2 the weapons are not as numerous, but each weapon has a more distinct functionality and has play-styles attached to them.

ON-TOPIC: Let's hope there is a chance to hear the lecture afterwards somewhere. Or some cliff-notes.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 07 mars 2010 - 10:40 .

[GeometricLol]

Vena_86 wrote...

All those arguing for single aspects of the game. And there are always pros and cons. Well not always. Instead of hiding loading screens through elevator rides while giving party members and the outside world a little life, they now choose to scrap that and actually show the damn loading screen. Congratulations for that bright idea...

It is not the inventory, it is not the loading screens or the missing exploration, combat helmets during dialogues or logic mistakes like walking half naked through vacuum without dying alone that are the problem.

When all comes together, the experience is very linear, confined with disjointed parts. the universe of Mass Effect does not feel like a universe anymore. It has become a collection of levels. And that is made very obvious. The quality of those levels is good to great but the whole experience is less intense.

And ofcourse people feel alienated as the franchise started with a different underlying approach. You had the chance to explore an interesting universe and fans wanted more of that while the flawed elements should be fixed but not removed along with the good effects they had.

Mass Effect is a franchise that lets you travel the stars. How many other games do that in such intense fashion. But Mass Effect 2 goes a step back from the traveling the stars feeling and more into fast, intense action which you can get from plenty of other games already.

Ofcourse people have different tastes. But Christinas claim that they did not alienate their fans while they actually shifted over to another (more profiting) target group of short attention spanned teenagers is atleast as insulting as this sentence.

Another child sacrificed to the mainstream god.

this whole mainstream cliche again?  I agree when you say the elevator rides give the game environment and outside world more life, but how can anyone think the ME2 game environment LACKS a sense of life?  Are you not listening to the ingame advertisements, or news broadcasts, or the random background chatter? All that add up to give each and every hub a very distinct sense of life.  the citadel in ME1 may have been bigger, but that is not true either.  You go to the presidium and citadel tower, sure, but it is all empty and dead.  The one zakera ward in ME2 already blows the original citadel out of the water

[Terror_K]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Andy_Haugh wrote...
Actually, I will go ahead and deny that, because it's just not true. Did you ever play ME1?

I could say more, but it appears Terror_K has the situation under control. Carry on.

Actually both side are half right.
In the pure numbers and grind of an RPG ME1 has a lot of weapons. But your decisions hardly provoked thought or discussion. Not to mention that there was a whole lot of useless dribble that completely ****ed up the faulty economy in place together with the ridiculous drop rates. 
In ME2 the weapons are not as numerous, but each weapon has a more distinct functionality and has play-styles attached to them.

The thing is, despite me being down on the ME2 system, what I'd like to see in ME3 is the more unique weapons like in ME2 but to give us more than just one of these types. About half a dozen of each type or so that we can find or buy as we play, but with decent and more varied stats than the ME1 ones and no useless of God-items. Bring back manufacturers and have each of them have their own signature style for their weapons (i.e. some do more damage, but hold less clips and are less accurate, while another brand offers better accuracy and more clips but for less damage, etc.)

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
I'm talking about in-game visible stats for comparison here, not the mathematical values merely assigned to the gun ala any shooter in the coding of the game that determines their abilities. If you want to compare a weapon you should be able to do it in-game and not have to refer to a separate list.

Ok, so start complaining about visible in game tooltips. Not that the guns don't have differentiation of stats. How is picking up a gun that does 10% more damage than the one you have equipped differ from picking up an upgrade which increases that gun's damage by 10%?

And how is that different from most RPG's, exactly? A whole bunch of items of the same type that you look at and compare between them stat-wise and then choose the best one until a better one comes along. Yeah... that's pretty much how these games are supposed to work. Of course, ME2 makes the decision for you automatically with its pitiful selection.

Who says that's who RPGs should work? Who gets to define that line? You? Me? We all have definitions on how things "should" be and what our "preferences" are. In my opinion, items that aren't simply recolors of one another with different stats but actually which function differently from one another are more interesting and furthermore actually help immerse me in my game and role, which is what I look for in an RPG.

Please... it's no more tactical than choosing which weapon is best for a particular situation in Unreal Tournament or Call of Duty 4. <_<

Are you implying that neither games requires tactics? Genres should not be monolithic writs from which games can never deviate. If a game can start taking the best of several genres and mix them together into a coherent whole which emphasises the strengths of both... well, where exactly is the problem? Bioware conceived ME as an Shooter/RPG. ME2 is simply a refinement of that concept by taking the best parts of both systems and combining them into a coherent whole while cutting out the parts that simply don't add to the overall experience.

[Terror_K]

GeometricLol wrote...

this whole mainstream cliche again?  I agree when you say the elevator rides give the game environment and outside world more life, but how can anyone think the ME2 game environment LACKS a sense of life?  Are you not listening to the ingame advertisements, or news broadcasts, or the random background chatter? All that add up to give each and every hub a very distinct sense of life.  the citadel in ME1 may have been bigger, but that is not true either.  You go to the presidium and citadel tower, sure, but it is all empty and dead.  The one zakera ward in ME2 already blows the original citadel out of the water

Unfortunately very linear levels and things like "Mission Complete" screens kind of pull you out of what succeeds, IMO. ME2 feels too much like you're on a track rather than exploring most of the time and... yeah... those Mission Complete screens are just mood-killing annoyances.

[Poison_Berrie]

Terror_K wrote...
The thing is, despite me being down on the ME2 system, what I'd like to see in ME3 is the more unique weapons like in ME2 but to give us more than just one of these types. About half a dozen of each type or so that we can find or buy as we play, but with decent and more varied stats than the ME1 ones and no useless of God-items. Bring back manufacturers and have each of them have their own signature style for their weapons (i.e. some do more damage, but hold less clips and are less accurate, while another brand offers better accuracy and more clips but for less damage, etc.)

The thing is that's it's pretty hard to come up with six different weapons for each type which are different enough, but not significantly superior to the others when they all use the same prinicple (rail guns). 
I think everyone would love to see that, though. 

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Unfortunately very linear levels and things like "Mission Complete" screens kind of pull you out of what succeeds, IMO. ME2 feels too much like you're on a track rather than exploring most of the time and... yeah... those Mission Complete screens are just mood-killing annoyances.

I don't understand the "linear level" grip about ME2. ME1 had levels just as linear, disregarding Noveria and Mako missions. I believe Noveria is overall considered among the weakest of the missions in ME1 and Mako missions were, to put it nicely, complete nonsense. The only thing good about the Mako missions were the beautiful skyboxes and any sense of exploration was killed by the fact that there wasn't actually anything to explore besides the same copy-paste bunker.

Also, I really enjoy the Illusive Man's notes on how each mission ends on the Mission Clear screen.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Id love to hear this lecture, since IMO they failed completely. The only way they managed make this new "streamlined" inventory system loyal to ME1s is by making the armour and weapons completely bland and have next to no choice. The N7 pieces were so limited, you were left with simple minor stat and apperance changes consituting the armour system, and wasnt that everyones gripe about ME1? That in the end it was just a minor texture and stat change between the best armours like Colossus and Predator?

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Ok, so start complaining about visible in game tooltips. Not that the guns don't have differentiation of stats. How is picking up a gun that does 10% more damage than the one you have equipped differ from picking up an upgrade which increases that gun's damage by 10%?

You mean aside from the fact that if it was an upgrade I could add it to the gun that's 10% better for an additional 10%?

A good RPG item system should present a varying degree of items of the same type that exhibit different strengths or abilities on them that allow the player to compare and choose which strengths and abilities they would most like to have. ME1 at least did this, even if the items themselves weren't particularly different or well designed (which I still maintain is the problem with ME1's weapons rather than the system itself). ME2 on the other hand forces you to choose a weapon of an entirely different type to get what you want. If you want a good shield/armour bypass you have to choose a different weapon entirely you may not like the feel of, rather than having the choice of choosing a weapon you like that does high damage but has poor shield/armour penetration and simply getting one that does less damage but does penetrate shields and armour well.

Are you implying that neither games requires tactics? Genres should not be monolithic writs from which games can never deviate. If a game can start taking the best of several genres and mix them together into a coherent whole which emphasises the strengths of both... well, where exactly is the problem? Bioware conceived ME as an Shooter/RPG. ME2 is simply a refinement of that concept by taking the best parts of both systems and combining them into a coherent whole while cutting out the parts that simply don't add to the overall experience. 

What, do you work for BioWare, because that seems pretty much what they kept saying about ME2 in interviews before it came out?

Seriously, I disagree. ME2 scrapped too much for the sake of simplicity and watered down most of what was left. It's only more coherent because its so damn simple now. It's the equivalent of taking a complex mathematical algorithm and stripping it down to "1 + 2 = 3" instead. While I do believe the answer to ME3 becoming a great game is taking the strengths of both existing Mass Effect games and refining them, I certainly don't think that ME2 has been well-refined, especially since its so damn lopsided in favour of the Shooter over the RPG.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Gameplay wise, ME2 was a step sideways (even slightly backwards due to no squaddie armor) in terms of armor design I admit.



However, the customization of the N7 armor was a welcome change. I hope ME3 actually has modular armor for all team mates that actually makes a damn bit of difference.



However, saying there's no choice between weapons in ME2 is flat out trolling or someone who hasn't played the game above Veteran. To finish Vanguard insanity, I was choosing a different shotgun every other mission.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

I don't understand the "linear level" grip about ME2. ME1 had levels just as linear, disregarding Noveria and Mako missions. I believe Noveria is overall considered among the weakest of the missions in ME1 and Mako missions were, to put it nicely, complete nonsense. The only thing good about the Mako missions were the beautiful skyboxes and any sense of exploration was killed by the fact that there wasn't actually anything to explore besides the same copy-paste bunker.

Maybe it's simply a personal thing, but ME2's levels (aside from the hubs like Omega, The Citadel and sort-of-hub Illium) just felt to me like you were running down a long winding corridor and basically being told where to go. In short, they felt like levels in a game rather than a real place a lot of the time. Noveria's Port Hanshan at least felt like a real location, and Peak 15 had several paths and sidequests and/or optional stuff. ME2's admittedly shorter albeit more numerous missions felt in many cases like you had less freedom. The recruitment missions for Jack and Grunt are particularly guilty of this. It's almost like follow the path and just let things happen. Somehow the ME1 main quests despite technically being like this simply felt more real and less forced and gamey, IMO.

Also, I really enjoy the Illusive Man's notes on how each mission ends on the Mission Clear screen.

Which could easily just be added to the Journal entry, or even as an email back on The Normandy when you returned.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
What, do you work for BioWare, because that seems pretty much what they kept saying about ME2 in interviews before it came out?

Seriously, I disagree. ME2 scrapped too much for the sake of simplicity and watered down most of what was left. It's only more coherent because its so damn simple now. It's the equivalent of taking a complex mathematical algorithm and stripping it down to "1 + 2 = 3" instead. While I do believe the answer to ME3 becoming a great game is taking the strengths of both existing Mass Effect games and refining them, I certainly don't think that ME2 has been well-refined, especially since its so damn lopsided in favour of the Shooter over the RPG.

I don't work for Bioware, but I respect innovative game design and taking risks. I've lurked and posted actively in many game franchise boards over my time, and every single time a sequel comes out it's the exact same thing. ME2 is no different. The post I linked above from David Gaider clearly expresses a very logical and compelling argument.

And again, that all comes down to what your definition of an RPG is and where you place the boundaries. An RPG to me is not inventory (Which exists in many turn based strategy games and adventure games) or stats (which are universal to every game genre, the only difference is in their transparency). My definition of an RPG is a game which allows me to step into the shoes of the protagonist and control their choices and decisions to some degree and which provides me with a gameworld full of personalities to interact with and which immerse myself into the game. My favorite game of all time is Planescape: Torment, which is, in my opinion, the finest roleplaying experience ever because you really felt like you were the Nameless One and the universe just came alive around you. What does Planescape Torment have in common with ME2? Well, it also is a hell of a lot more "dumbed down" from a game mechanics perspective than Baldur's Gate.

[Poison_Berrie]

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 on the other hand forces you to choose a weapon of an entirely different type to get what you want. If you want a good shield/armour bypass you have to choose a different weapon entirely you may not like the feel of, rather than having the choice of choosing a weapon you like that does high damage but has poor shield/armour penetration and simply getting one that does less damage but does penetrate shields and armour well.

I like that they gave different strengths to the weapon types. It fits in the defense system that's in place.
Basically what you want is a weapon that you would barely need to change. You want to run around using one gun.

[slyguy07]

GeometricLol wrote...

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

Right since your opinion is the universal truth. This adds nothing productive to this thread. Kinda like me and someone else bicked a while earlier which I apologized for. Let's try to keep this less insulting please. ME1 did many things better than ME2 and vice versa.

[SithLordExarKun]

Here's a solution for ME3. Put the best of ME1 and ME2 together.