1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Nick Fox]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

exxxed wrote...
 2) Not so much, explain to me how different can two characters from the same class can be compared to Mass Effect 1?

Actually, there are a much wider variety of builds that actually play differently from one another in ME2 than there was in ME1. For instance, an Assault Sentinal (one who takes assault armor, picks up a shotgun, and plays like a tanky vanguard) plays entirely differently from a Power Sentinal (one that focuses on overload/warp and sticks to the backlines taking out defenses playing more defensively). In ME1, there was remarkably little difference in how a class functioned within itself, not to mention that the classes themselves did not really even play that differently from one another.

To compare to a sentinel from ME 1 that choose say bastion as a prestigeclass with taking say shotgun compared to  a sentinel taking the Medic prestige class and assault rifle ?
Thats very diferent to so I disagree with you and say you could costumize said Sentinal in a more varied way in the first one (mostly due to more skills to choose from).
My 2 Sentinals in Me is pretty v<rried from one another and how they act (both are backup/cc though).

That said of course you can costumize in me 2 too, just not as much (30 levels lless and many less skills to choose from).

My 2 cents

[Bambi_Whiteflame]

quick game play question..... is it possible to destroy mechs BEFORE they are activated? EX: the heavy mech on the prison ship while trying to get Jack..

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

Remind me again why the hell Grey Wardens decide to commit suicide in exchange for nothing?[/quote]
They don't.  Not one Grey Warden ever does that.  Stop complaining about aspects of the game that don't exist.

The Grey Wardens don't choose that because they're never told the terms of the deal in advance.  And if that bothers you, well that's exactly how the ME dialogue wheel works, so why don't you mind that?
[quote]1) a defined character is a lot more likable than something that's just in my head[/quote]
And I've shown that to be your failing, rather than the game's failing.  You know what you like.  That you don't make a character like that is your fault.
[quote]And they would have to remove that stupid Arcane Warrior class. Seriously Bioware, a character class that can use any armor and weapon in the game with its Magic attribute instead of its Strength (I don't even know how that even begins to make sense) and still use its spells with no penalties whatsoever? When did that ever seem like a good idea?[/rant][/quote]
I agree the Arcane Warrior was a bad idea, but it's easy to come up with an explanation of how the Magic for Strength requirement works.  Perhaps the class skill allows you to imbue your limbs with magical strength, so it's your magic that moves your body rather than your muscles.  It took me 10 seconds to come up with that.  Again, this is evidence of your inability to fill in the implicit content yourself without the game spoonfeeding you.
[quote]What planning, preparation and thinking is there in walking? [/quote]
None.  My reference to walking came entirely within a sentence referring to atmosphere.  Sentence structure matters (though I can see why someone who enjoys ME's dialogue wheel wouldn't think so).
[quote]To me, that was just another moment where my suspension of disbelief just went down the crapper again. It's the future, there's all this amazing technology, we actually have flying cars and the all-purpose vehicle used in planet exploration can't even climb a moutain and has a suspension that would make the Monster Trucks of our days seem conservative.[/quote]
How do those flying cars work?  Is there some extra infrastructure necessary for them to function?  If so, that infrastructure would certainly be lacking on uncharted worlds.  Not to mention that operating a small craft might simply be too resource intensive for these sorts of missions.

We don't know that, because the game doesn't tell us.  Again, you've just assumed something doesn't exist because the game didn't tell you it did.  It's like you're trying not to have an imagination.
[quote]That the whole point of the speeches: they're trying to sway the opinions of other's. Just because their even strength cancel each other out doesn't eliminate the fact of what they're trying to do: convince someone to adopt an attittude that might be contrary to what they originally believed in.[/quote]
But they can't work on reasonable people.  That's my point.  Persuasion is an illusion.
[quote]That's what we were talking about: people's skills aren't just saying "amen" to your party members just so they like you more for licking their boots.[/quote]
In my experience, that's far more likely to work.
[quote]Then what about those longer, verbose, and often very sensible arguments that your character can make? Are they just that good when they succeed or do they revert to something more basic when you fail?[/quote]
That would be consistent with stat-driven persuasion.  Though there's no reason why they need to revert.  If your attempt to persuade was unsuccessful, would you necessarily know why?  If you can tell that your argument isn't good, why didn't you use a better one?
[quote]If it's the surprise and discovery that I find interessting, how could I like Shepard in the sequel? I already know him and have a pretty good idea of what I can expect of him and I still liked him even better in the sequel. He seemed improved, more determined and aware of his role as leader.[/quote]
That's right - I hadn't thought of that.  So then why can't you design a character you like when you're the one who best knows what you like in a character?
[quote]So what if I bet 500 hundred times on red (or blue, I'm more of a Paragon kind of guy) and always win? And what if every time I decide to "bet" on something different (like punching Manuel, giving the information to the Shadow Broker, keep scanning the Keepers, let Helena go...) I also get those just the way I wanted them to go? Is that luck or just simple pattern recognition?[/quote]
That I would call prediction.  Then you're able to use the wheel adequately.  But you've already admitted you couldn't do that.  You couldn't predict every action.  You couldn't predict every line word for word.  You said so.

Do you want me to dig up the quote (of course, on this forum, you could edit it out so you didn't say that)?
[quote]And you're going to bring realism in freaking Baldur's Gate? OK, let's get started then.

A complete set of armour takes as much space in your inventory as a ring or a simple scroll.

You can change said armor in the middle of fight with no problems whatsoever.

Characters will miss an enemy just as much when they are attacking him from the front as when they are trying to stab him in the back.

Cats could rat you out (no pun intended) to the Flaming FIst if you stole something in front of them.[/quote]
All true, and all problems with realism, yes.  But none of them address the issue of whether it's realistic for time to pass while you dig through your pack.
[quote]All characters can have their death or petrefication cured, except for the main character. It doesn't matter how many Scrolls of Stone to Flesh you have, if that Basilisk loos at the PC the wrong way, get ready to load your last save.[/quote]
There is an in-game explanation for that.
[quote]Everyone can see what the other party members see. Oh, and they can see anything around them just as well as what's right in front of them.[/quote]
Because they can hear, and they can turn their heads, and they can communicate with each other.
[quote]Endlessly spawning enemies. Especially annoying in Firewine with those stupid kobolds with fire arrows who insisted on spawning right behind you. Meaning that your mage on the rear was their first victim. And given that the corridors were unreasonably small, this meant that the mage was dead before your Fighters could stop bumping into each other, just trying to get past.[/quote]
Endless spawning?  Enemies in BG only respawned on reload.  It was entirely possible to clear out Firewine.
[quote][/b]Realism has its place, just like everything else. But when it gets in the way of the fun, it needs to go, just like everything else.[/quote]
There you go again, treating fun like it's a characteristic that exists on its own.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

Some features are fun, and we all have different preferences on that front.  I like realism.  That you contrast realism with fun tells us that you don't.  If you dispute that again then we'll know that you're crazy.
[quote]So please don't bring the realism card again, much less with the idiotic inventory system.[/quote]
Realism matters.  I hate that in newer games (with group inventories) that one character can unequip something and then another can immediately equip it even though they're nowhere near each other.  Even ME did this.
[quote]Yes, except when she decided to start attacking people on her own when she ran out of ammo, at which point she did something I did not order her to do it.[/quote]
You must have had her AI turned on.
[quote]On the other hand, I had to constantly order my Fighters to keep attacking their enemies because they just kept forgetting what they were doing and stand there while their allies were being attacked.[/quote]
That's how it's supposed to work.  Again, you are the player.  You have to play the game.
[quote]nor the fact that Shepard apologized to the squad member he left behind or told him to fight with honor to death ("Fight hard, Chief. Die proud.").[/quote]
That happens after the decision is made.  But even more than that, why can't Shepard say that and then still save that person just to be dramatic?

Being locked into actions by dialogue is bad enough when I know what it is my character is going to say.  Having it happen when the dialogue is hidden from me is even worse.
[quote]What we're talking about here could the dead person understand a musical genre without ever having listened to it? And the answer is no, it  couldn't. It might be able to memorize its definition, characteristics and history[/quote]
How is that not understanding?
[quote]Don't know if you missed the point (again) but we're talking about combat here.[/quote]
Yes, I know.  And stat-driven combat offers quantifiable obstacles.
[quote]Which I have yet to play, outside of the strategy genre.[/quote]
RPGs could learn a lot from turn-based strategy games.

[ThePatriot101]

RPGs could learn a lot from turn-based strategy games.

I believe RPGs have already been going there like in the Fire Emblem and Front Mission series.  Also they have been foraying into turn-based gameplay for decades.

It's not a new thing, Sylvius.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Also they have been foraying into turn-based gameplay for decades.

But less and less.

[SOULdi3r]

most of your are being really whiney (and disrespectful to bioware and shooter fans) for no reason, im a vet FPS and RPG player, but most of the changes were for the better for sure, almost all the combat changes were to make the game have a faster pace, not make it less RPG like (although that was a misfortunate side effect, it was worth it)

WHY WOULD YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT SHOT PLACEMENT DAMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that doesnt hinder you at all but makes it better for others

so many people on this tread seem like the only way they would like ME2 is if it was just ME1 with diffrent cover art

the ME series is an RPG/FPS hybrid and neither is more important than te other, almost everyone agrees (especially the "silent majority" agrees that ME2 is WAY better than ME1, was it perfect,no,but closer than ME1.

the hardcore RPG base has always had an unexplainable feeling of being superior to the FPS crowd (which they regard as simple minded idiot ). my guess is they think that since they like one type of game better, anyone who doesnt is inferior, but that parly way it is still social acceptable to make fun of RPG players as nerds, while the FPS crowd has already evolved past that

IT DOESNT MATTER IF A GAME FOLLOWS EARLIER TRENDS, IT MATTERS IT IS FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thx for reading, i know its long

[ThePatriot101]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Also they have been foraying into turn-based gameplay for decades.

But less and less.

Nevertheless turn-based gameplay is a virtual pillar of RPG games for decades regardless of how many have been made in the past few years versus the past few decades.

most of your are being really whiney (and disrespectful to bioware and
shooter fans) for no reason, im a vet FPS and RPG player,
but most of the changes were for the better for sure, almost all the
combat changes were to make the game have a faster pace, not make it
less RPG like (although that was a misfortunate side effect, it was
worth it)

WHY WOULD YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT SHOT PLACEMENT
DAMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that doesnt hinder you at all but makes it better
for others

so many people on this tread seem like the only way
they would like ME2 is if it was just ME1 with diffrent cover art

the
ME series is an RPG/FPS hybrid and neither is more important than te
other, almost everyone agrees (especially the "silent majority" agrees
that ME2 is WAY better than ME1, was it perfect,no,but closer than ME1.

the
hardcore RPG base has always had an unexplainable feeling of being
superior to the FPS crowd (which they regard as simple minded idiot ).
my guess is they think that since they like one type of game better,
anyone who doesnt is inferior, but that parly way it is still social
acceptable to make fun of RPG players as nerds, while the FPS crowd has
already evolved past that

IT DOESNT MATTER IF A GAME FOLLOWS
EARLIER TRENDS, IT MATTERS IT IS FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amen to your last line.

Being a recreational gamer I'm split between FPS, RPG, racing, and some simulation games.  But I certainly can't call FPS games solely for the unintelligent crowd.  Certainly it has its bad apples, but RPGs definitely have theirs.

I think it's more because they spend so much time on the non-combat details and bits that they deem themselves more intelligent.  They fail to realize that even FPS games can be intelligent if not on the premise and story then on the combat itself.  I'd personally like to see them pull/explain a flank, envelopment, double-envelopment, etc. in a shooter (or at least know enough to explain it).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think the reason some people think shooters aren't as intelligent (and by extension that shooter players aren't as intelligent) is because shooters don't reward intelligence by itself.
Understanding the game and knowing everything about it still won't make you good at a shooter if you're a lousy shot. Fundamentally, a shooter is still a game of physical skill. Yes, some shooters require consinderable intelligence in the use of that skill, but the physical skills are still paramount.
A player who does not play intelligently but is an excellent shot will still be able to play most shooters adequately, whereas a player who plays intelligently but is a terrible shot will never succeed in any but the lowest-difficulty shooters.
Turn-based strategy games and RPGs are the games that reward intelligence on its own.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 mars 2010 - 11:20 .

[Shadow_Claw]

read all the codex entries. plenty of stories in there.

[ThePatriot101]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think the reason some people think shooters aren't as intelligent (and by extension that shooter players aren't as intelligent) is because shooters don't reward intelligence by itself.
Understanding the game and knowing everything about it still won't make you good at a shooter if you're a lousy shot. Fundamentally, a shooter is still a game of physical skill. Yes, some shooters require consinderable intelligence in the use of that skill, but the physical skills are still paramount.
A player who does not play intelligently but is an excellent shot will still be able to play most shooters adequately, whereas a player who plays intelligently but is a terrible shot will never succeed in any but the lowest-difficulty shooters.
Turn-based strategy games and RPGs are the games that reward intelligence on its own.

 Most shooters still require a degree of understanding tactics as well such as knowing where to hold a position or where to move next to get this one enemy or group of enemies.  Even if you don't use the aim button (or the equivalent of it) shooters do punish you for just going one-man-army out there without taking cover or finding a good firing position.  And the only times when that works for are people who are either freaks, they play on the lowest difficulty setting, they use cheats, or the game itself is designed that way (though I can't think of one that intentionally did it that way aside from rail shooters).

It's even more accentuated in the multiplayer especially if you're trying to coordinate the taking of an objective with your whole team.  Games where people just go OMA only work so much as the receiving team can't coordinate well enough to counter them.  And knowing how to properly assault a position is as paramount as knowing how to shoot properly.

The difference is that in an FPS I know that a bullet to the head will kill instantly, but in an RPG a bullet to the head will be decided by a combination of buffs, debuffs, weapon stats, character stats, firing position, etc.

[Pocketgb]

My friend is an amazing shot in Modern Warfare 2. But he always ends up with miserable K/D because he doesn't pay attention to his environments, to where the enemy is coming from, has terrible map knowledge, etc. There is a certain degree of skill and knowledge that can make FPS players in general pretty good at many of them - just like a strategy player, or RPG player.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Turn-based strategy games and RPGs are the games that reward intelligence on its own.

I can't recall the last RPG that rewarded my "intelligence"...Honestly might've been Baldur's Gate 2. DA:O maybe in the first few stages of playing it, but otherwise, meh.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 mars 2010 - 11:54 .

[exxxed]

Hm... Bioware's core fans... all RPG gamers... i mean how can it be otherwise since Bioware only created RPGs!



And now some action TPS players say otherwise, that this is the way to go.... WHAT!?



Be serious, Bioware wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us core fan base ...



Go play somewhere else...



I'm sorry if i sounded too harsh but it just hit me!



Take care guys!

[StowyMcStowstow]

exxxed wrote...

Hm... Bioware's core fans are all RPG gamers... i mean how can it be otherwise since Bioware only created RPGs!

And now some action TPS players say otherwise, that this is the way to go.... WHAT!?

Be serious, Bioware wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us core fan base ...

Go play somewhere else!

Fixed

Seriously, Bioware started making RPGs, but then realized there is more money in Shooters than RPGs.

Talk about forgetting your roots... geez.

[exxxed]

StowyMcStowstow wrote...

exxxed wrote...

Hm... Bioware's core fans are all RPG gamers... i mean how can it be otherwise since Bioware only created RPGs!

And now some action TPS players say otherwise, that this is the way to go.... WHAT!?

Be serious, Bioware wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us core fan base ...

Go play somewhere else!

Fixed

Seriously, Bioware started making RPGs, but then realized there is more money in Shooters than RPGs.

Talk about forgetting your roots... geez.

Is it that  simple? 

Have you seen www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-debut-the-witcher/63501 The Witcher 2 treiler?

Even so CDprojekst are listening to the fans and are supporting them thus them supporting back...

But coming back to Mass Effect it just hits me, they release a ...not good, but great game and show us how good can be a DLC  content ''Bring Down The Sky'' and now they're giving us this!? 

 What gives?

Take care!

[ThePatriot101]

exxxed wrote...

StowyMcStowstow wrote...

exxxed wrote...

Hm... Bioware's core fans are all RPG gamers... i mean how can it be otherwise since Bioware only created RPGs!

And now some action TPS players say otherwise, that this is the way to go.... WHAT!?

Be serious, Bioware wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us core fan base ...

Go play somewhere else!

Fixed

Seriously, Bioware started making RPGs, but then realized there is more money in Shooters than RPGs.

Talk about forgetting your roots... geez.

Is it that  simple? 

Have you seen www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-debut-the-witcher/63501 The Witcher 2 treiler?

Even so CDprojekst are listening to the fans and are supporting them thus them supporting back...

But coming back to Mass Effect it just hits me, they release a ...not good, but great game and show us how good can be a DLC  content ''Bring Down The Sky'' and now they're giving us this!? 

 What gives?

Take care!

Sorta a simple reason: product diversification.

It is a basic fact that Bioware is a corporation with both fans and rivals.  In a dynamic capitalistic system such as ours a company cannot simply make the same type of game over and over and over.  What that does is create an opportunity for Bioware's competitors to create something that Bioware didn't and get a big payoff because of it.  Bioware with the ME franchise is experimenting [successfully] with a genre building that few companies have attempted and succeeded at.

Although it comes at the chagrin of hardcore RPG fans, it helps identify Bioware not only as a company that makes great games but one that can also innovate and pioneer new types of games while delivering on that quality.  Forget the money they're making among RPG and shooter fans alike.  Bioware's reputation as a developer and company is at stake with every product they make.  Sure, you hardcore RPG fans may feel sorely dejected because of the genre blending of ME and ME2.  But think in terms of perspective: how many RPGs have they made versus RPG/Shooters?

[M.AlphaShadow]

I agree with Patriot....Bioware is simply expanding and diversifying themselves, every company does it, if they didn't they'd stagnate and when that happens the quality that Bioware is know for then starts to slide.



Then the same people who complain about ME2 will complain that they should start making games like ME2 cause they're tired of the same old, same old...



Really you guys should be happy that a company that's known for their RPG's successfully made a Shooter/RPG hybrid that not only has a good character-driven story but also is good enough that just about anybody can pick it up and play it, thus getting BW more money to innovate and grow even more.

[TJSolo]

Diversification is fine then again sticking to what you do best is also fine.

Pulling a switcharoo mid-product line is not good.

[ThePatriot101]

TJSolo wrote...

Diversification is fine then again sticking to what you do best is also fine.
Pulling a switcharoo mid-product line is not good.

I agree. Companies diversify to compete, and yes, make money. But if
they were the best in their niche market, they will still make money.

It's worked so far for ME and ME2.  They've both sold well, they've both gotten very good ratings with ME2 even in line to get "Game Of The Year" awards this early.  There isn't any reason to suspect that their product line is in peril of nose-diving given that not only have they been successful with ME but they've also been successful with standard RPGs and are continuing to develop standard RPGs for the future.


Bioware sticking to the same formula only works if the conditions make Bioware either an industry-leader by default or that they present very few competitors.  But how many companies out there make RPGs (both in the domestic and foreign markets)?  And with Western developers continuing to innovate and pioneer new types of games - regardless of their success - how soon would Bioware find itself outflanked?


EDIT: A niche market only works so much as the fans remain loyal.  But remember what a "niche" market is: one that focuses a specific product at a specific target audience.  By making the game less accessible or attractive to people outside of that niche market you are sealing yourself away from making more money and gaining new fans in other sections of the video game market.  I myself didn't become a fan of Bioware's work until I got my hands on Mass Effect even though I enjoy RPGs to an extent.

Bioware has already set themselves up to make big games that gain a lot of attention and big reviews.  Why would they imprison themselves in a single target market when they can branch out to other markets?  It's not like they're doing it widespread.  ME so far has been the main one that has split from the typical RPG audience.

Modifié par ThePatriot101, 24 mars 2010 - 03:34 .

[M.AlphaShadow]

TJSolo wrote...

Diversification is fine then again sticking to what you do best is also fine.
Pulling a switcharoo mid-product line is not good.

Switcharoo? you make it sound like BW made ME2 a sports game or something

 The first ME was a shooter/RPG with a heavy emphasis on RPG which lead to some hiccups since shooter games can't have heavy RPG elements mixed with it without problems (i.e investing exp into a weapon category to improve accuracy on top of a weapon having it's own accuracy stats when the main character is meant to be a the space version of a navy seal, does that make sense to you?) 

So in order to fix some of the problems with ME1 they focused on the shooter side of things, simplifying the RPG elements to a more manageable level; you still earn exp, you still invest points into certain categories to improve your character's powers. The only thing they took out of the game was some of the more stupid abilities (stasis anyone?) and cleaned up the interface as well as streamlined some UI so that instead of seeing a number pop up while you're in the middle of a gunfight, they just put it in a summary at the end of that particular part of the game.

[ThePatriot101]

slimgrin wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Diversification is fine then again sticking to what you do best is also fine.
Pulling a switcharoo mid-product line is not good.

I agree. Companies diversify to compete, and yes, make money. But if
they were the best in their niche market, they will still make money.

It's worked so far for ME and ME2.  They've both sold well, they've both gotten very good ratings with ME2 even in line to get "Game Of The Year" awards this early.  There isn't any reason to suspect that their product line is in peril of nose-diving given that not only have they been successful with ME but they've also been successful with standard RPGs and are continuing to develop standard RPGs for the future.


Bioware sticking to the same formula only works if the conditions make Bioware either an industry-leader by default or that they present very few competitors.  But how many companies out there make RPGs (both in the domestic and foreign markets)?  And with Western developers continuing to innovate and pioneer new types of games - regardless of their success - how soon would Bioware find itself outflanked?


EDIT: A niche market only works so much as the fans remain loyal.  But remember what a "niche" market is: one that focuses a specific product at a specific target audience.  By making the game less accessible or attractive to people outside of that niche market you are sealing yourself away from making more money and gaining new fans in other sections of the video game market.  I myself didn't become a fan of Bioware's work until I got my hands on Mass Effect even though I enjoy RPGs to an extent.

Bioware has already set themselves up to make big games that gain a lot of attention and big reviews.  Why would they imprison themselves in a single target market when they can branch out to other markets?  It's not like they're doing it widespread.  ME so far has been the main one that has split from the typical RPG audience.

Good points.

But Arkham Asylum did exactly what you are talking about. And the reviews were stellar. Then I played the game and realized the RPG elements, the detective mode, the stealth, etc...all were secondary to excellent production values and combat; the rest was just tacked on to appeal to a broader market.

Perhaps an unfair comparison given Rocksteady is married to Warner Bros. But maybe not.

You basically proved my point seeing as how Arkham Asylum wasn't just a simple beat'em-up yet it had enough gameplay variety that it still got astounding reviews and great sales.  What niche market pertains to that game?

[Andorfiend]

Re: Immunity.



Bioware was making it's first twitch game. They did not know how well their RPG customer base was going to do with a twitch game. So they put in an 'easy button'. It's a deliberate design decision. And it's not a poor one.



If your spinal reflexes forbid you to not use the easy button and you don't like the easy button go play a Sentinal, or an Engineer in ME 1, neither one has an easy button.

[Dudeman315]

M.AlphaShadow wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Diversification is fine then again sticking to what you do best is also fine.
Pulling a switcharoo mid-product line is not good. Totally agree

Switcharoo? you make it sound like BW made ME2 a sports game or something. I think it's more that they went from story driven to combat driven gameplay.

 The first ME was a shooter/RPG with a heavy emphasis on RPG which lead to some hiccups since shooter games can't have heavy RPG elements mixed with it without problems (yeah fallout 3 sold horribly)(i.e investing exp into a weapon category to improve accuracy on top of a weapon having it's own accuracy stats when the main character is meant to be a the space version of a navy seal, does that make sense to you?) Much more  sense than switching from infinite ammo to finite ammo.

So in order to fix some of the problems with ME1 they focused on the shooter side of things, GUTTING the RPG elements to a level for poeple who hate rpgs; you are handed a level after each mission, you still invest points into certain categories to improve your character's powers. The only thing they took out of the game was some of the more tactical abilities (stasis anyone?) and cleaned up the interface as well as streamlined some UI so that instead of seeing an exp number pop up while you're in the middle of a gunfight, they just put it in a "congrats you finished stage x here's your leve"l at the end of that part of the game.

Fixed that last paragraph for you.  Added commentary to the others.

Stasis was an amazing ability.  Even more so when you could still damage enemies in it by maxing out the adapt path(can't tremember which one. 

Modifié par Dudeman315, 24 mars 2010 - 03:32 .