140 réponses à ce sujet

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nolenthar wrote...
Ok, no offense for saying so, but you're an Hardcore gamer. You prefer an unbalanced powerful party to a balanced less powerful one. I haven't played with Shale more than 5 minutes because he was way too powerful and unbalanced. I could have, obviously, bring two mages with me while playing a mage PC, but I didn't because it was nonsense. After this, I admit, there is so much mods in DAO it doesn't really mean something "having beaten it in Nightmare", admitting you're playing the PC version. I can remember an unlocking spell for instance (which definitely make the rogue useless).

Whatever, I won't criticize what you like in a game. Each person is different, and if you play this way, who am I to say my way is better ?

I'm not trying to brag haha, all I'm trying to say is that Bioware has, up to this point, been terrible at actually balancing their games so that a diverse party is needed that rewards bringing different classes. Mass Effect 2 is the first game of theirs that they've made which actually breaks this trend... on Hardcore/Insanity anyway. I want to promote more of that. I don't want Bioware to give classes special abilities that aren't fun at all just to shoehorn that class in your party for some auxilliary benefit.

You happy with what ME2 is ? For most parts, I'm also, but if my companions are only there to decrease different ennemy defenses (shields, armor, health), even if I forget how ridiculous the armor is managed, I can say it's far from enough and we need more.

I can agree when you say that balancing the game should also be done in combat, and not only non-combat. But I would say ME2 lacks traps, heavy defenses and all those stuff that makes a dungeon interesting to visit.
Way to go Bioware !

Am I happy with ME2? Well... it's my favorite game since the early 2000s so I would say definitely. Could it use improvement? Of course it could and I'd be a damn fool for saying otherwise. There's always room to make an awesome thing more awesome.

But I think we need to look at what makes a game fun, interesting, and engaging and go for that. If you can find a way to make out of combat utility fun and add to the game, than I'm all for it. As is, I just don't see such a thing being possible, which is why I'm lobbying for combat utility.

[Meistr_Chef]

Uh oh, I was going to let this thread lie down but it got replied to.



Anyway, the discussion between SurfaceBeneath and a few others are certainly interesting. I happen to agree with SB and Nolenthar quite a bit because we all seem to take a "gestalt" view of the Mass Effect series. At least that's the best way I can put it without typing out yet another long post. Most of the people hating on Mass Effect 2 are more concerned with the mechanics and yearning surface complexity really. Now I my tone sounds derogatory but that's the price of brevity.



In a sense I see where they're coming from because they truly love the minutiae from previous RPGs and that's a preference thing. So I can't blame them. Overall though I hope Bioware can do something to revise the RPG elements, but don't pare it down further (I don't think ME3 will work well with less options). I hope they do not yield to requests from people whose interests lie more in "getting the uberbuild capable of clearing the room" or "more loot please because I feel the need...the need for accumulating junk". Is it me or despite its limitations Mass Effect 2 has forced me to take my team into more serious consideration and I actually swap team members out more often instead of sticking with my favorite three like in Mass Effect 1. I think such a thing is subtle and commendable.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

Uh oh, I was going to let this thread lie down but it got replied to.

Sorry, I'm not going to let that happen

I happen to think this thread deserves visability. So despite your best wishes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep on a-bumpin with the bold.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

I'm not trying to brag haha, all I'm trying to say is that Bioware has, up to this point, been terrible at actually balancing their games so that a diverse party is needed that rewards bringing different classes. Mass Effect 2 is the first game of theirs that they've made which actually breaks this trend... on Hardcore/Insanity anyway. I want to promote more of that. I don't want Bioware to give classes special abilities that aren't fun at all just to shoehorn that class in your party for some auxilliary benefit. 

Am I happy with ME2? Well... it's my favorite game since the early 2000s so I would say definitely. Could it use improvement? Of course it could and I'd be a damn fool for saying otherwise. There's always room to make an awesome thing more awesome.

But I think we need to look at what makes a game fun, interesting, and engaging and go for that. If you can find a way to make out of combat utility fun and add to the game, than I'm all for it. As is, I just don't see such a thing being possible, which is why I'm lobbying for combat utility.

This is clearly a matter of perspective, because I would say the exact opposite: that they've generally done a good job thus far and that Mass Effect 2 simply sucked at it by not requiring a diverse party. What is fun and what people look for in a game can differ greatly. While you say it's your favourite game since the early 2000's, I personally find Mass Effect 2 to be BioWare's blandest offering gameplay wise. In fact, ME2 is the first game of theirs that I'd consider to be less than Excellent to be honest. By far their weakest game in the gameplay department since MDK2 as far as I'm concerned. The things you find boring and unfun are the things I look for in an RPG, and now that they've been kicked to the curb or watered down so much I don't find ME2 as fun as I found ME1, or the likes of Dragon Age, KotOR, Baldur's Gate and NWN.

You speak as if rogues and tech classes, etc. are useless in combat and whose only abilities are for outside of it, but that's not true. My favourite class in DAO is that of a rogue (unusual for me, but there we go), and my main character got more kills than my fighters and mages simply because I was doing to much backstab damage, critical hits and I was so damn fast that even though my damage per hit was on average less, I was doing 4-5 hits for every other characters' one.

Not every ability that each class has should be dedicated solely to combat and pretty much nothing else. The trick to a strong support character is to generally give them at least a few advantages in combat, even if it's not their main focus, while still leaving room to build their non-combat skills. ME2 was a failure in this regard in my books because it totally and completely focused on combat as if it were the only aspect of the game. This is of course just as much a failing of the design where there isn't really any equivalent of traps, and what was left of hacking and decryption as an RPG element has been reduced to nothing at all since any moron with an omni-tool can hack or decrypt anything.

ME2 is still a good game, but overall I get a very "Obsidian" feeling from it more than I do a BioWare one. Like KotOR2 and NWN2, ME2 feels too much like a bastarized follow-up made by somebody else who got the Mass Effect IP rather than a product of the usually-a-cut-above-everybody-else BioWare I've come to know and love.

Modifié par Terror_K, 11 mars 2010 - 11:00 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
This is clearly a matter of perspective, because I would say the exact opposite: that they've generally done a good job thus far and that Mass Effect 2 simply sucked at it by not requiring a diverse party.

But I just illustrated that BG and DA:O were most efficiently done by only stacking mages and no other class, while ME2 requires (at least on higher difficulties) squaddies that in some way compensate for your class's weaknesses. So.... no.

What is fun and what people look for in a game can differ greatly. While you say it's your favourite game since the early 2000's, I personally find Mass Effect 2 to be BioWare's blandest offering gameplay wise.

I don't question preferences. I do question the reason behind those preferences. If someone presents good objective arguments as to why they favor a certain thing, than that is as it is. If they can't though, it makes me raise an eyebrow because it makes me think they have an uncomplete or biased view of things. Again, that is fine for them, however it is less interesting for discussion since then it comes down to them simply preferring things because they prefer things, which is a cyclical argument and certainly wouldn't help Bioware design a better ME3.

You speak as if rogues and tech classes, etc. are useless in combat and whose only abilities are for outside of it, but that's not true. My favourite class in DAO is that of a rogue (unusual for me, but there we go), and my main character got more kills than my fighters and mages simply because I was doing to much backstab damage, critical hits and I was so damn fast that even though my damage per hit was on average less, I was doing 4-5 hits for every other characters' one.

I didn't question that those classes were not fun. I questioned that they were useful or important to a group over what stacking a single class might do. Your original point was that diversity and complexity was something you thought should be in Mass Effect. I countered that the diversity you are referring to wasn't actually present in any of Bioware's last games since you can stack one class and get preferrable outcomes in nearly every concievable situation, which is counter to your claim of complexity. What I'm asking you to do is take a good look at what you term to as "complexity" and ask yourself if something is really complex, or does it just give the appearance of complexity. Mass Effect 2 does the opposite. It appears extremely simple, however is in fact quite complex.

Not every ability that each class has should be dedicated solely to combat and pretty much nothing else. The trick to a strong support character is to generally give them at least a few advantages in combat, even if it's not their main focus, while still leaving room to build their non-combat skills. ME2 was a failure in this regard in my books because it totally and completely focused on combat as if it were the only aspect of the game. This is of course just as much a failing of the design where there isn't really any equivalent of traps, and what was left of hacking and decryption as an RPG element has been reduced to nothing at all since any moron with an omni-tool can hack or decrypt anything.

As I said before, if Bioware can impliment interesting non-combat encounters where such things would be fun, then they should impliment them. So far, that has not happened yet in any Bioware game. Decryption and Lockpicking do not add to the enjoyment of the game in any meaningful form. Otherwise, they should focus on making everyone interesting in combat.

ME2 is still a good game, but overall I get a very "Obsidian" feeling from it more than I do a BioWare one. Like KotOR2 and NWN2, ME2 feels too much like a bastarized follow-up made by somebody else who got the Mass Effect IP rather than a product of the usually-a-cut-above-everybody-else BioWare I've come to know and love.

Well, I question that statement on the grounds that as far as production values goes, Mass Effect 2 is tops, while Obsidian fails in that category usually. ME2 has very few bugs and feels quite finished too, which Obisidian sadly has a knack for not doing. However, I do consider the story itself to be a much more Obsidian game, due to its focus on characters and themes rather than the "collect the gems to save the world" plot. KoTOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer were both a cut above storywise from Bioware's games in my opinion. Though that perhaps should be for another thread.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 mars 2010 - 11:26 .

[Nolenthar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

I'm not trying to brag haha, all I'm trying to say is that Bioware has, up to this point, been terrible at actually balancing their games so that a diverse party is needed that rewards bringing different classes. Mass Effect 2 is the first game of theirs that they've made which actually breaks this trend... on Hardcore/Insanity anyway. I want to promote more of that. I don't want Bioware to give classes special abilities that aren't fun at all just to shoehorn that class in your party for some auxilliary benefit.

I don't really think this post will go somewhere viable , as all the posts in this forum. I don't consider using every quality of your party, even non-combat, auxiliary benefit. But I can't either change the foundations of what you like the most in a game, as I can't change what I like the most in a game. And clearly, we happened to see that it's typically different.

Most important, we agree that ME2 is a great game. I sure consider a lot can be done to mix up ME1 and ME2 so we have a huge ME3. Is this gonna happen ? who knows, I don't. I sure don't know how Bioware listen to the fans, so I sure don't know which kind of fan will be listened first. As a PC gamer, I consider my culture is different from the very basics of ME2 and the way it goes, I think ME is going further and further from the CRPG culture. It's the late consequences of the XBOX 360 birth. Mixing PC games and console games, making them different. Is it bad ? it's different, bad, maybe, I'm not sure. It's just different, and the "old gamers" like I am may not find what they found earlier in their life, in games like Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, Fallout ... Whatever, we couldn't make games like we used to.
For sure, if it was up to me, I would mix DAO and ME2 to do a great game, because both of these modern games have huge quality. But it's not up to me

SurfaceBeneath wrote.
But I think we need to look at what makes a game fun, interesting, and engaging and go for that. If you can find a way to make out of combat utility fun and add to the game, than I'm all for it. As is, I just don't see such a thing being possible, which is why I'm lobbying for combat utility.

I really think the combat system can still be improved. Shield/armor/health system is way too simple. Shield / Life / / armor class / armor penetration should be. It's really hard to find a good reason why I have to destroy the armor of an ennemy before I can hit his health. It's easy to understand how armor protect from damages (armor class), but the way it is now, it's ridiculous. Maybe it's fun (I don't share this opinion), but ridiculous. It's an action game mechanism, it's really far from a RPG mechanism. And why the hell is my N7/Cerberus armor adding health, shield but never armor ? where is my armor stat ? while ennemies have ? I really preferred ME1 for this. I had shield, damage protection, and health.


But as I said, we have different point of view. For sure it will be impossible to merge our point of views. You like combat and combat only. I like balanced game, combat, non-combat, tactic and strategies. I want to chose my companions on their combat and non-combat ability, and you don't. 

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nolenthar wrote...
But as I said, we have different point of view. For sure it will be impossible to merge our point of views. You like combat and combat only. I like balanced game, combat, non-combat, tactic and strategies. I want to chose my companions on their combat and non-combat ability, and you don't. 

Don't mistake me, I don't just like combat. I like interaction with my party, I like exploring cool areas, I like customizing my gear, I like experiencing the story. I want all of these things to be done well, or I don't want them done at all.

I'm also a PC gamer for life. It makes me sad knowing that there will probably never be a period in gaming again like 1998-2000. I think about 7 or so of my favorite games of all times come from the PC games of that period. Consoles will come or go every three to four years. PCs are always going to be here to stay.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 mars 2010 - 11:48 .

[Nolenthar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Don't mistake me, I don't just like combat. I like interaction with my party, I like exploring cool areas, I like customizing my gear, I like experiencing the story. I want all of these things to be done well, or I don't want them done at all.

Ok, my mistake. It's kind of weird because it seems at the opposite of what you do when you play DAO with 3 mages, but ok, I'm sorry for this mistake.

We'll never had a year like 1998, for sure

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

But I just illustrated that BG and DA:O were most efficiently done by only stacking mages and no other class, while ME2 requires (at least on higher difficulties) squaddies that in some way compensate for your class's weaknesses. So.... no.

Technically you didn't illustrate that at all, you just told me that you personally found that to be the case, which means until I try the same tactic to see for myself or see a great number of other players supporting your claim, I'll have to take your word for it. My personal experiences in such games is that not having a fighter of some kind usually means there's nobody to draw attention away from the mages and they usually die because they have such pathetic defense. On the other side of things, I usually find a rogue is needed to disable traps and open chests and locked doors. While one can say that opening chests isn't always needed and that one can avoid traps, that's hardly getting the most out of the game, nor is it the best solution to the problem. A good RPG shouldn't necessarily require the presence of every class (or at least every base class) to succeed in the game, but it should provide alternative paths via said classes that provide alternate and (sometimes) more efficient routes.

I don't question preferences. I do question the reason behind those preferences. If someone presents good objective arguments as to why they favor a certain thing, than that is as it is. If they can't though, it makes me raise an eyebrow because it makes me think they have an uncomplete or biased view of things. Again, that is fine for them, however it is less interesting for discussion since then it comes down to them simply preferring things because they prefer things, which is a cyclical argument and certainly wouldn't help Bioware design a better ME3.

My basic philosophy is this: I should have to create and build my character and their companions with care to get the most out of them, and the same goes with approaching the various situations I come across. With ME2 I could simply autolevel anybody and/or invest points willy nilly in random places and it wouldn't make a difference. In ME2 I could simply just blast my way through combat using nothing but my own skill with the mouse and keyboard, and just skip through dialogue choices with my mouse positioned mostly in the upper left, while chosing my companions with the roll of a 12 sided die and I'd pretty much succeed fully in the game. It's a no-brainer, and there's no sense that I need to think carefully about the way I build my characters or go about things.

I didn't question that those classes were not fun. I questioned that they were useful or important to a group over what stacking a single class might do. Your original point was that diversity and complexity was something you thought should be in Mass Effect. I countered that the diversity you are referring to wasn't actually present in any of Bioware's last games since you can stack one class and get preferrable outcomes in nearly every concievable situation, which is counter to your claim of complexity. What I'm asking you to do is take a good look at what you term to as "complexity" and ask yourself if something is really complex, or does it just give the appearance of complexity. Mass Effect 2 does the opposite. It appears extremely simple, however is in fact quite complex.

Again, this is something you've experienced that I have not. Perhaps its simply because I tend not to take a bunch of party members who are all the same class in these games. Even with a party full of mages, I imagine one would have to build them in different manners (one offensive, one support/healing, one debuffing, etc.) and even then in the likes of KotOR or ME not having a tech class would bone you when it comes to computers, locked doors/crates, etc. and in Baldur's Gate, NWN and Dragon Age there'd be no lockpicking or trap disabling from just mages. Sure, once can say you can ignore these things, but that isn't necessarily the best way to go about things, even if it does ultimately lead to success.

As I said before, if Bioware can impliment interesting non-combat encounters where such things would be fun, then they should impliment them. So far, that has not happened yet in any Bioware game. Decryption and Lockpicking do not add to the enjoyment of the game in any meaningful form. Otherwise, they should focus on making everyone interesting in combat.

What, so you don't find laying a trap and watching an enemy stumble into it in BG or DAO fun? You didn't find hacking a terminal in KotOR, accessing security cameras and then overloading conduits and reprogramming droids to turn on their masters fun?

Each to their own I guess.

Well, I question that statement on the grounds that as far as production values goes, Mass Effect 2 is tops, while Obsidian fails in that category usually.

This is true at least. The production style and values are definitely more in the style of BioWare.

ME2 has very few bugs and feels quite finished too, which Obisidian sadly has a knack for not doing.

ME2 has quite a few bugs (mostly on the PC version) and pieces that feel very unfinished and unpolished overall. Many of the import stuff felt lazy and underdeveloped (samey substitutions, too many emails... not enough actual substance, big decisions having no real impact), certain things being wrong (Conrad Verner) or not even taken into consideration (Garrus not recruited in ME1), and the N7 missions felt tacked-on and poorly implemented. I actually feel ME2 is BioWare's least-polished game ever, and that's the main reason I drew the Obsidian comparison actually. While it does feel "finished" unlike KotOR2, it feels like it could have been in the oven a bit longer too, and could have been assembled with a bit more care.

However, I do consider the story itself to be a much more Obsidian game, due to its focus on characters and themes rather than the "collect the gems to save the world" plot. KoTOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer were both a cut above storywise from Bioware's games in my opinion. Though that perhaps should be for another thread.

I won't get into this. MotB was pretty good; Obsidian's best effort storywise yet. But I found KotOR 2's storyline itself to be incredibly weak, even if I did love the stuff with Kreia and the psychological stuff regarding The Force throughout. Save for NWN's story (which was pretty poor), I'd rate KotOR 2 below all of BioWare's stuff.

[spacehamsterZH]

So I just stumbled across this thread, and since I love that there's at least one thread where we can discuss this stuff with our brains turned on and not either being shouted out of the room for the slightest criticism or laughed at as "fanboys" for defending an aspect we like, here's my two cents even if they add nothing:



1) Balance - I don't know any BW games outside of ME, so I don't have an opinion on how it stacks against those, but at the higher difficulty levels, it's definitely true that how you put your squad together makes a huge difference because of how the various powers' effects on the different types of defenses. This doesn't apply on Normal, though, which is the game's default setting, so you may want to criticize it based on that.



2) Combat - I like what they've done to streamline things, but I think based on what they have in ME2, it would be nice to see more specific commands for your squad members, especially "hold position". Although I can see how it would be hard to implement this without complicating the controls, and the fluidity of the combat in ME2 is a strength that shouldn't be lost.



3) I can't say I agree that even more RPG conventions need to be abandoned. I don't have a problem with anything that was done for ME2, but it does border on dumbing the game down, and... let's just say it's not too much, but it's enough. I think they might as well scrap the armory because it serves no purpose whatsoever, but other than that, I really do think things don't need to be simplified even more.



4) Difficulty/"It's a shooter". I already touched on this concerning balance, but I kind of get the impression people who complain about this being too much like a straight-up shooter have never played it at any higher difficulty setting than Normal. I'm playing it on Hardcore now, and I find myself forced to be super-tactical and using the power wheel so much that it borders on round-based combat. Between this and the squad makeup considerations, I kind of get the impression that the game doesn't truly shine unless you jack the difficulty way up. Now this isn't a problem or anything, but you have to wonder why the default difficulty that the game basically tells you to choose first is so easy that you can play it like a shooter. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about that, it's just a bit strange.

[Terror_K]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

2) Combat - I like what they've done to streamline things, but I think based on what they have in ME2, it would be nice to see more specific commands for your squad members, especially "hold position". Although I can see how it would be hard to implement this without complicating the controls, and the fluidity of the combat in ME2 is a strength that shouldn't be lost.

Funnily enough the PC version of the original Mass Effect had extra commands for your squaddies, including "hold position" amongst them, which you could access through the tactical HUD. ME2 PC however does not, which is kind of ironic considering BioWare made such a big deal about how squad commands were improved in ME2 and yet there's less of them in the PC version than there was in the original conversion.

[Nolenthar]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

4) Difficulty/"It's a shooter". I already touched on this concerning balance, but I kind of get the impression people who complain about this being too much like a straight-up shooter have never played it at any higher difficulty setting than Normal. I'm playing it on Hardcore now, and I find myself forced to be super-tactical and using the power wheel so much that it borders on round-based combat. Between this and the squad makeup considerations, I kind of get the impression that the game doesn't truly shine unless you jack the difficulty way up. Now this isn't a problem or anything, but you have to wonder why the default difficulty that the game basically tells you to choose first is so easy that you can play it like a shooter. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about that, it's just a bit strange.

I do complain, and I play Hardcore (my second playthrough, next one will be insane). Unfortunately, with my geth pulse rifle, I can kill anyone by myself. I use my companion power for fun more than for use ...

I can't talk for insane.

[Jebel Krong]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

4) Difficulty/"It's a shooter". I already touched on this concerning balance, but I kind of get the impression people who complain about this being too much like a straight-up shooter have never played it at any higher difficulty setting than Normal. I'm playing it on Hardcore now, and I find myself forced to be super-tactical and using the power wheel so much that it borders on round-based combat. Between this and the squad makeup considerations, I kind of get the impression that the game doesn't truly shine unless you jack the difficulty way up. Now this isn't a problem or anything, but you have to wonder why the default difficulty that the game basically tells you to choose first is so easy that you can play it like a shooter. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about that, it's just a bit strange.

well as a soldier on insanity and infiltrator on hardcore i have to say i didn't have to micromanage much, if at all, as long as you bring the right squad. the ai is generally pretty good at supporting you, and if you need their powers at a specific point (like the beginning of a fight) you can usually do that, too.

i agree with the OP, bioware really needs to be bold - particularly in the resolution of the overall reaper-story to finsih this trilogy, it might very well go down as the best trilogy in gaming, then. this includes regarding squad-mates and refining combat further (getting rid of the annoying cover glitches for one), you can't cater for everyone, as perfectly evidenced round here, so they should blaze their own trail.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Not every ability that each class has should be dedicated solely to combat and pretty much nothing else. The trick to a strong support character is to generally give them at least a few advantages in combat, even if it's not their main focus, while still leaving room to build their non-combat skills. ME2 was a failure in this regard in my books because it totally and completely focused on combat as if it were the only aspect of the game. This is of course just as much a failing of the design where there isn't really any equivalent of traps, and what was left of hacking and decryption as an RPG element has been reduced to nothing at all since any moron with an omni-tool can hack or decrypt anything.

this is where i think you miss the point of the game somewhat - combat is the most important differentiator for your squad (after their stories/personalities) because it's a 3rd person shooter game as well as an rpg - if everyone had the same skills what would be the point in recruiting adiverse team? non-combat skills only matter for shepard as it's him you play and customise, they aren't a factor for your squad. and traps do not work in a 3rd-person shooter - it is not a strategy game - the closest you get is hacking/dominating an enemy in combat, or clever squad-positioning for a tactical combat advantage.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 11 mars 2010 - 12:17 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Technically you didn't illustrate that at all, you just told me that you personally found that to be the case, which means until I try the same tactic to see for myself or see a great number of other players supporting your claim, I'll have to take your word for it. My personal experiences in such games is that not having a fighter of some kind usually means there's nobody to draw attention away from the mages and they usually die because they have such pathetic defense. On the other side of things, I usually find a rogue is needed to disable traps and open chests and locked doors. While one can say that opening chests isn't always needed and that one can avoid traps, that's hardly getting the most out of the game, nor is it the best solution to the problem. A good RPG shouldn't necessarily require the presence of every class (or at least every base class) to succeed in the game, but it should provide alternative paths via said classes that provide alternate and (sometimes) more efficient routes.

True, I didn't actually illustrate it, poor wording on my part. However, remember there is no "aggro" in BG2 and aggro in DA:O is partly armor based, so in both cases you could use summons to attract monsters or spec your mage Arcane Warrior and stack them in plate. In both cases, traps are not very punishing, and you can typically just step over them, take some damage, and then rest and heal it up instantly. So there is no need to have a rogue. And while BG2 certainly did punish you on some level by not letting you have some good loot from lockpicking, in DAO there is no good loot from lockpicking. I have played through BG2 about a dozen different times and each time I do the saying becomes more clear "Anything you can do, a Mage can do better". Heck, I usually call Imoen 'Imoen the Dragonslayer" because she can solo almost any dragon encounter with smart spell selection.

As you say, a good RPG should not require every class to succeed, but it should require that bringing a diversified team does provide more beneift than mage stacking. Or else why even have those other classes there?

My basic philosophy is this: I should have to create and build my character and their companions with care to get the most out of them, and the same goes with approaching the various situations I come across. With ME2 I could simply autolevel anybody and/or invest points willy nilly in random places and it wouldn't make a difference. In ME2 I could simply just blast my way through combat using nothing but my own skill with the mouse and keyboard, and just skip through dialogue choices with my mouse positioned mostly in the upper left, while chosing my companions with the roll of a 12 sided die and I'd pretty much succeed fully in the game. It's a no-brainer, and there's no sense that I need to think carefully about the way I build my characters or go about things.

That's because ME2 is easy unless playing on Insanity (to a lesser extent hardcore). Try to play like that on insanity and you get rolled. In that case the game does require very smart party selection depending on your class and the level you are on. Which is a first for a Bioware game (What would be best for this situation? How about MAGESMAGESMAGES!!!)

Again, this is something you've experienced that I have not. Perhaps its simply because I tend not to take a bunch of party members who are all the same class in these games. Even with a party full of mages, I imagine one would have to build them in different manners (one offensive, one support/healing, one debuffing, etc.) and even then in the likes of KotOR or ME not having a tech class would bone you when it comes to computers, locked doors/crates, etc. and in Baldur's Gate, NWN and Dragon Age there'd be no lockpicking or trap disabling from just mages. Sure, once can say you can ignore these things, but that isn't necessarily the best way to go about things, even if it does ultimately lead to success.

You should try it. You have to make sure that your mages do have a certain selection of spells, but since there isn't really any character "building" in most senses in BG2 with Mages, as long as they have the required spells memorized, every encounter becomes pretty cheesable. Also, did you really play KoTOR with anything other than 3 Jedi of various classes? Once again, traps were not punishing enough to warrant having a tech class. Jedi pretty much invalidated every non-Jedi character in that game.

Neverwinter Nights is honestly a bit shadier just due to the nature of user-generated content. The system itself is not very punishing in regards to traps, but a clever user might be able to make them. I didn't see any in my NWN adventures, but they -could- be done I suppose.

What, so you don't find laying a trap and watching an enemy stumble into it in BG or DAO fun? You didn't find hacking a terminal in KotOR, accessing security cameras and then overloading conduits and reprogramming droids to turn on their masters fun?

Each to their own I guess.

Trapping in BG? You mean setting 50 traps at a dragon's feet and then aggroing them?

If trapping was done correctly, than yes, it is fun. It's not been, and moreover it probably would not fit the style of Mass Effect.

And no, I do not find selecting options on an interface screen fun in regards to "hacking". It requires no investment from me as a player, and I like to feel involved in the game.

ME2 has quite a few bugs (mostly on the PC version) and pieces that feel very unfinished and unpolished overall. Many of the import stuff felt lazy and underdeveloped (samey substitutions, too many emails... not enough actual substance, big decisions having no real impact), certain things being wrong (Conrad Verner) or not even taken into consideration (Garrus not recruited in ME1), and the N7 missions felt tacked-on and poorly implemented. I actually feel ME2 is BioWare's least-polished game ever, and that's the main reason I drew the Obsidian comparison actually. While it does feel "finished" unlike KotOR2, it feels like it could have been in the oven a bit longer too, and could have been assembled with a bit more care.

Well that sounds like two seperate complaints. One has nothing to do with polishing. On the first count, I didn't find too many bugs, and certainly fewer than about 90% of games I own (and fewer and less annoying than most Bioware games too... I remember getting stuck on Benezia once because I literally could not go more than 2 seconds into the encounter before being bioticed through the level and being stuck. Had to restart back from a previous save 5 hours back). I got stuck in the terrain about half a dozen times in ME2, but only one of those required me to restart the level.

Your second complaint isn't about polish or production values. And neither is it a topic for this thread. I get the feeling Bioware made as many game transfer decisions as they had always intended to. ME3 is where we will see big story changes based on the build up for the first two games. Probably.

I won't get into this. MotB was pretty good; Obsidian's best effort storywise yet. But I found KotOR 2's storyline itself to be incredibly weak, even if I did love the stuff with Kreia and the psychological stuff regarding The Force throughout. Save for NWN's story (which was pretty poor), I'd rate KotOR 2 below all of BioWare's stuff.

I felt that KoTOR 2 was creative and took risks. I felt that its characters (especially Kreia) were fascinating and its take on the Star Wars universe was refreshing.

Bioware stories are... well... I love the company, but they do reuse the same story tropes constantly and often are not very adventurous with their story telling. I felt KoTOR -> ME1 illustrates this point very well. There are just so many story similiarities between them and the pacing of their plots is near identical. So yea, that's my view on the matter.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 mars 2010 - 12:25 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Terror_K wrote...

Funnily enough the PC version of the original Mass Effect had extra commands for your squaddies, including "hold position" amongst them, which you could access through the tactical HUD.

Okay, add "stop thinking things need to be dumbed down for the console versions" to the list of suggestions then... apparently the PC version of DA:O also has a much more tactical combat system. I don't understand this idea that console games need to be more arcade-y at all.

About the difficulty, I dunno, I'm playing on HC as a Vanguard, and if I don't micromanage my squad, they seem to die within five minutes. I'm guessing it also has something to do with the fact that the Vanguard class is somewhat impared in the ranged abilities department, so you have to rely on your squadmates doing exactly what you need them to do much more. Which is fine by me, it's fun.

[Nolenthar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

True, I didn't actually illustrate it, poor wording on my part. However, remember there is no "aggro" in BG2 and aggro in DA:O is partly armor based, so in both cases you could use summons to attract monsters or spec your mage Arcane Warrior and stack them in plate. In both cases, traps are not very punishing, and you can typically just step over them, take some damage, and then rest and heal it up instantly. So there is no need to have a rogue. And while BG2 certainly did punish you on some level by not letting you have some good loot from lockpicking, in DAO there is no good loot from lockpicking. I have played through BG2 about a dozen different times and each time I do the saying becomes more clear "Anything you can do, a Mage can do better". Heck, I usually call Imoen 'Imoen the Dragonslayer" because she can solo almost any dragon encounter with smart spell selection.

As you say, a good RPG should not require every class to succeed, but it should require that bringing a diversified team does provide more beneift than mage stacking. Or else why even have those other classes there?

Whatever I'm doing, I can't get off my mind the "ubber player" impression you give me. Prefering 3 mages + 1 fighter + no loot to a 2 mages + 1 fighter + 1 rogue + loot makes me think "wtf is this player playing those games ? ". Just to get a "nightmare"/"insane" achievement ? You seem to be a PC player, so you shouldn't be "achievement addicted" as XBOX players are. I did find some interesting loot in locked chest but I agree that, as Bioware clearly knows there are players like you who do not want to bring a weaker character just to open chest, they didn't put enough important loot in locked chest. Note that weaker character talking about rogues is quite wrong, IMO, because well used they are pretty good. But it involves micro management.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
That's because ME2 is easy unless playing on Insanity (to a lesser extent hardcore). Try to play like that on insanity and you get rolled. In that case the game does require very smart party selection depending on your class and the level you are on. Which is a first for a Bioware game (What would be best for this situation? How about MAGESMAGESMAGES!!!)

That's a problem true. It's easy for most of us. In this case, it means the game is too easy. Also because you do not need to think when you play. Whatever you're doing, you have to go to point C going through B and A. Never in this game could you avoid B, or going through D. So, B can't be very difficult and D less difficult. No RPG fan can really say : "I love corridor". They can say, like I do, "ok, I would prefer it to be different, but ME2 is a great game and I apologize them for this" but no "CORRIDOR CORRIDOR BAM BAM CORRIDOR, YEAH !".

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

If trapping was done correctly, than yes, it is fun. It's not been, and moreover it probably would not fit the style of Mass Effect.

And no, I do not find selecting options on an interface screen fun in regards to "hacking". It requires no investment from me as a player, and I like to feel involved in the game.

So, investment as a player, in your opinion, is just about combat tactic and good aiming ? Or could you feel invest in a hacking mini-game (I admit ME2 and ME1 ones are not really fun, but it doesn't mean it's impossible to do).

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

On the first count, I didn't find too many bugs, and certainly fewer than about 90% of games I own (and fewer and less annoying than most Bioware games too... I remember getting stuck on Benezia once because I literally could not go more than 2 seconds into the encounter before being bioticed through the level and being stuck. Had to restart back from a previous save 5 hours back). I got stuck in the terrain about half a dozen times in ME2, but only one of those required me to restart the level.

On PC, I really do not remember any bug like this in ME1. In ME2, I was a lot of times 60 feet high with no way I can move or get back on the ground. There was also dialogue issue with the characters appearing/disappearing, walking strangely while they were talking to you. Mass Effect 2 is far from being a game without any bug. Maybe time is speaking, but I don't remember bugs on DAO.

Whatever, I'm happy to see that 60% of people who answered my poll currently agrees to me on the fact that companion should have non-combat skill and they think ME2 is a bit light on this point. As you write a lot, I started to think I was one of the rare to think that RPG is not only combat

[Nolenthar]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Okay, add "stop thinking things need to be dumbed down for the console versions" to the list of suggestions then... apparently the PC version of DA:O also has a much more tactical combat system. I don't understand this idea that console games need to be more arcade-y at all.

I guess it really depends of what I called above "PC culture" against "console culture". It's being closer and closer but we don't have God of War on PC for instance, as console never saw Starcraft and won't see Starcraft 2. This silly frontier is being broken, but unfortunately, where the PC can do what a console does, a console can't (keyboard/mouse problem, while you can use a pad on the PC). I guess DAO like it is on PC would be hard to develop on XBOX or PS3. I'm sure it's easier on Xbox also.

[Jebel Krong]

Nolenthar wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

If trapping was done correctly, than yes, it is fun. It's not been, and moreover it probably would not fit the style of Mass Effect.

And no, I do not find selecting options on an interface screen fun in regards to "hacking". It requires no investment from me as a player, and I like to feel involved in the game.

So, investment as a player, in your opinion, is just about combat tactic and good aiming ? Or could you feel invest in a hacking mini-game (I admit ME2 and ME1 ones are not really fun, but it doesn't mean it's impossible to do).

no, investment as a player is in the character development, story, party AND combat - all the facets of the game. the gimmicky "hacking" and "bypass" minigames are just that - gimmicks to add a different bit of gameplay, they are not important or particularly fun (but not as bad as the perennial mineral-mining).

[Nolenthar]

That's an opinion. When playing KOTOR, I feel a lot of pleasure hacking a terminal and make the turret my allies rather than my ennemies.
When you say character development, story, party and combat , the problem is that the last factor you're talking of takes 90% of ME2. When I hack something, it's just to have money, a research, or to open a door that will lead me to money or research. If I have to open a door that leads to another part of the corridor, I can't miss my hacking, even if I do, I'll restart it. So, let's say it, it's completely useless. Once only in the game I could hack a robot (in a non combat situation) in order to make it my ally. Once in the whole game ! Where is the pleasure to be smart, or to think twice before shooting ?
When in this game could you really solve a situation by anything but combat ?

I can understand you love this game. I also do, for its story, some of its mechanics, the companions, its combats and the whole ambiance. It's one of the best game ever when we talk about intensity. But I still consider we can have a smarter game, with more possibilities and more different choices without sacrificing intensity. How many times was your only choice in a situation being a badass or a gentleman ? "Joker, you're a douche bag"/"Joker, do what you can, I'm with you".

ME2 is a great game, but it can be improved on the RPG part. It all what I say. period.

Modifié par Nolenthar, 11 mars 2010 - 05:05 .

[Nolenthar]

double post 

Modifié par Nolenthar, 11 mars 2010 - 05:04 .

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

speedily signed and agreed to.

[spacehamsterZH]

Nolenthar wrote...

I guess it really depends of what I called above "PC culture" against "console culture". It's being closer and closer but we don't have God of War on PC for instance, as console never saw Starcraft and won't see Starcraft 2. This silly frontier is being broken, but unfortunately, where the PC can do what a console does, a console can't (keyboard/mouse problem, while you can use a pad on the PC). I guess DAO like it is on PC would be hard to develop on XBOX or PS3. I'm sure it's easier on Xbox also.

I can see where the different input devices would dictate certain differences in game design - sure. But there have always been deep and complex RPGs and strategy games for consoles in Japan, it's only the Western market where this mindset that consoles are for action games exists, and as someone who's been a console gamer all his life, it doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Obviously it's possible to make these games work with a console controller, it WAS possible with the frickin' Mega Drive controller that had four buttons and a d-pad, it's just not being done.

[Crackseed]

Kalfear wrote...

LOL, if they forgot anymore RPG elements ME2 would be closer to a football sim then a RPG!

Not signed but pointed at in mocking laughter

So he basically posts a thread like what you started in your signature, you complain about "trolls and fanboys" attacking you and then you come in and attack the OP for his thoughts?

Are you really this dense Kalfear? xD I sent a report in on your post - and it's so sad to see the hypocricy present in this reply considering your own thread.

Re: the thread topic/OP - well done. I think there's a few things they should consider meshing in from ME1 [a combo of planet scanning/exploring with the upgraded vehicle for example] but overall, I want them to just bust out all the stops for ME3 and keep pushing the system. ME2's combat was so well done for me. I'd like a bit more interactions and I really do feel that they missed the mark a bit with some of the squad mates [too few conversation levels if you're not romancing them] but, overall - very much in agreement with you

[Tasker]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

How is removing everything that made ME1 unique and turning it into - what's the phrase others have used? oh yes -  "Gears of War with conversation trees", being bold?


ME3 should go back to what Bioware does best, there are already far to many and much better 'shooters' on the market, and we don't need another one.

Ironically enough, Mass Effect 2 is Bioware's highest rated game ever. So there is a pretty good argument to pose

This is true, but how many people bought it off the back of playing ME1? 

I for one, bought ME2 expecting the game to at least resemble ME1 but with the few flaws it had ironed out.
 
I didn't expect those easily fixed flaws to be ripped out and to be presented with a game that had the sophistication and innovation of a tin of canned Tuna.

As I keep saying, ME2 is quite a good game, but it's a poor excuse for a sequel to ME1.

Meistr_Chef wrote...

Actually, considering the main gameplay mechanic is probably shooting...it's worth it to get it right. Unless you'd rather Bioware turn ME3 into a Biotic/Tech only game. The shooting is going to stay, so make it as exciting as possible. And in that sense I think ME2 fares much better than ME1.

I know that the shooting is here to stay, the series is based on shooting, but they haven't gotten it right yet.  Yes, they have improved it over ME1 but it's nowhere near as competent as that found in other shooters.

In ME1, shooting was just one of the mechanics that helped tell the story and I think it did quite a reasonable job.  In ME2, it's as if everything but the shooting was deemed pointless.

Modifié par Orkboy, 11 mars 2010 - 07:43 .