1067 réponses à ce sujet

[BellatrixLugosi]

Daeion wrote...

The problem lies in the fact that a RPG means different things to different people so what one person is looking for in a RPG may not be what the person next to them is looking for. To some a RPG is simply a game where you take on a role and thus every game is a RPG, to others just having a good story makes a RPG, yet still for others a RPG is all about find items and seeing changes in their character as they progress. To Casey Hudson upgrading the Normandy is a RPG mechanic, to a lot of upset people it's not.

I agree.  People seem to be mostly upset about the inventory not there......but the game is still fun without it.

[CatatonicMan]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

I agree.  People seem to be mostly upset about the inventory not there......but the game is still fun without it.

It isn't just the inventory - it's a whole host of issues. None are really as large or high-profile as the lack of an inventory, but they add up. The RPG in this game is  slowly dying the death of a thousand cuts.

[BellatrixLugosi]

CatatonicMan wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

I agree.  People seem to be mostly upset about the inventory not there......but the game is still fun without it.

It isn't just the inventory - it's a whole host of issues. None are really as large or high-profile as the lack of an inventory, but they add up. The RPG in this game is  slowly dying the death of a thousand cuts.

You know I really just want to see from your perspective, but I just am having trouble, some of the gameplay adjustments they did with mass effect 2 just made me like it more then the last.  Im sorry but a 150 inventory, allocating points(for skills that you should allready know as a person of your reputive game character) and choppy combat.... I was glad with me2.  Im just a bit more of a shooter person

[finnithe]

What's the point of arguing whether or not it's an RPG? Personally, I think it's better off if we just discussed what possible improvements could be made to ME2, if any.

[Terror_K]

Its not just the inventory. I can count about half-a-dozen things that ME1 did that could have been done better and were flawed, but I can count about a dozen things that ME2 did that were just plain awful and/or horribly dumbed-down, I don't know why BioWare went in that directly from a quality and depth standpoint (I can, however, see why they did it from a money-making and popularity standpoint).

[Grunt420]

check this out



http://social.bioware.com/brc/1326930

[Daeion]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

Daeion wrote...

The problem lies in the fact that a RPG means different things to different people so what one person is looking for in a RPG may not be what the person next to them is looking for. To some a RPG is simply a game where you take on a role and thus every game is a RPG, to others just having a good story makes a RPG, yet still for others a RPG is all about find items and seeing changes in their character as they progress. To Casey Hudson upgrading the Normandy is a RPG mechanic, to a lot of upset people it's not.

I agree.  People seem to be mostly upset about the inventory not there......but the game is still fun without it.

It's not just the inventory, that just seems to be the one people focus on the most because it is the most visable
change.  Other people don't like how the skill trees were slimed down, some don't like that you can't seem to ever talk yourself out of confrontations (however the Batarians in Mordins quest come to mind), and other feel that everything feels so much much smaller in ME2 when compared to ME.  Look at how small the citadel is now compared to in ME, and for some reason we can't even run around on the persidium even though the code for it is already there from ME and probably would only need a slight adaptation, or think about Therum, Feros, or Noveria and how in there we seem to battle across large areas of a planet but in ME2 we are confined to small places.  Finally there's planet exploration, sure the MAKO had it's issues, that didn't mean that we wanted to get rid of actually exploring planets, and so far the hammerhead has not proven to be a proper replacement for it.

People complained about the inventory in ME, sure it was bulky and poorly implimented, however that didn't mean that it needed to be done away with, it could have easily been streamlined by getting rid of about 50% of the manufacturers so we didn't just have through away items, reduce the # of drops by about 35%, stack same items, group like item, improve the filters to only show what we are really looking for, and finally add auto equip, auto sell, and auto breakdown buttons.  I think the thing people forget is sure now you don't have to spend 5 minutes after a plot mission to upgrade and sell, but we lost the ability to customize the look of our squad and actual inventory was replaced by planet scanning which I'm sorry, but that's a thousand times worse imo.

[Daeion]

finnithe wrote...

What's the point of arguing whether or not it's an RPG? Personally, I think it's better off if we just discussed what possible improvements could be made to ME2, if any.

That's just as bad as argueing about if this is a RPG because what's an improvement to one person is a step in the wrong direction to others.  A lot of people like the change to thermal clips, however there are a lot of people who also don't enjoy that change.  There are a lot of people that enjoy that they no longer have to worry about an inventory, there are also a lot of people who don't enjoy that change.  In the end everything is just opinion and while everyone has one, they rarely agree on everything.

[catabuca]

I agree that RPG means different things to different people. That's not a bad thing, but it makes these discussions incredibly problematic because you're always having to restate "no I don't just mean I want the inventory back" to people.



I don't think anyone wants to deny BW the freedom to go in a different direction to what they have traditionally done - in creating a game that focuses more on shooter mechanics than their traditional RPG mechanics. Innovation is a great thing and it leads to choice.



However, where the problem lies is that they have tried to do this within the already-established framework of a trilogy. ME1 set the tone in terms of a specific balance between shooter and RPG elements. No one denies many of those elements needed work (there are great laundry lists of things that didn't quite work, like cover, the inventory system, Mako handling, shooting), but the way those things were scrapped and completely rewritten and replaced, rather than merely improved within the already-established parameters of the trilogy, is what most people, I presume, are upset about.



The game's mechanics were utterly and completely rewritten, rather than improved upon, and when taken in conjunction with the totally different tone the second installment of a trilogy tends to take, it is an incredibly jarring experience for a lot of players. It feels like a completely different game, rather than an improved second installment.



Innovate, push the envelope, adapt, progress, that's what we want you to do BW. But in my opinion it would have been better to do that in a new IP rather than butcher an existing one when all it needed was improvements.

[Bhaal]

Since no being on the earth know what exactly a "rpg" is I say we should discuss it first.



I mean for some players it's leveling, item looting and character developing what defines a rpg. On the other hand some people(which I belong) believe it's interaction between her character and the world around it what separates a rpg from other genres: If you play with a different class then your approach must change: An engineer should be able to hack a ventilation system and an infiltrator should be able "infiltrate" by using a ventilation system as well. In a good rpg you can choose how to reach your goal: by fighting or by infiltrating or even by talking? Most importantly such choices must effect my character, my experience and the plot.



To put it simple every choice should make a difference: your class, moral, former quests and so on."Choice" is what defines a rpg.



Edit: Before you mention it, sorry for the bad grammer.

[Mattyo]

They have stripped away quite a few rpg elements, particularly a proper inventory system. I'd rather they had just improved in inventory system from the first game rather than almost removing it altogether.



But overall it's still a strong rpg.

[catabuca]

I'm with you, Adakutay - choice and story paths is what defines an RPG for me most strongly too. I recognise that for others it's loot and stats and so on that defines it for them. Neither are wrong, both are right.



Mattyo - we're not denying some still see it as a strong RPG. We're just trying to define what it is that makes others feel those RPG elements have been eroded.

[BellatrixLugosi]

Daeion wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

Daeion wrote...

The problem lies in the fact that a RPG means different things to different people so what one person is looking for in a RPG may not be what the person next to them is looking for. To some a RPG is simply a game where you take on a role and thus every game is a RPG, to others just having a good story makes a RPG, yet still for others a RPG is all about find items and seeing changes in their character as they progress. To Casey Hudson upgrading the Normandy is a RPG mechanic, to a lot of upset people it's not.

I agree.  People seem to be mostly upset about the inventory not there......but the game is still fun without it.

It's not just the inventory, that just seems to be the one people focus on the most because it is the most visable
change.  Other people don't like how the skill trees were slimed down, some don't like that you can't seem to ever talk yourself out of confrontations (however the Batarians in Mordins quest come to mind), and other feel that everything feels so much much smaller in ME2 when compared to ME.  Look at how small the citadel is now compared to in ME, and for some reason we can't even run around on the persidium even though the code for it is already there from ME and probably would only need a slight adaptation, or think about Therum, Feros, or Noveria and how in there we seem to battle across large areas of a planet but in ME2 we are confined to small places.  Finally there's planet exploration, sure the MAKO had it's issues, that didn't mean that we wanted to get rid of actually exploring planets, and so far the hammerhead has not proven to be a proper replacement for it.

People complained about the inventory in ME, sure it was bulky and poorly implimented, however that didn't mean that it needed to be done away with, it could have easily been streamlined by getting rid of about 50% of the manufacturers so we didn't just have through away items, reduce the # of drops by about 35%, stack same items, group like item, improve the filters to only show what we are really looking for, and finally add auto equip, auto sell, and auto breakdown buttons.  I think the thing people forget is sure now you don't have to spend 5 minutes after a plot mission to upgrade and sell, but we lost the ability to customize the look of our squad and actual inventory was replaced by planet scanning which I'm sorry, but that's a thousand times worse imo.

Ya but thats the problem, half of what you mentioned on that list isnt breaking my heart sorry.  I just can't sympathesize

[Daeion]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

Daeion wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

Daeion wrote...

The problem lies in the fact that a RPG means different things to different people so what one person is looking for in a RPG may not be what the person next to them is looking for. To some a RPG is simply a game where you take on a role and thus every game is a RPG, to others just having a good story makes a RPG, yet still for others a RPG is all about find items and seeing changes in their character as they progress. To Casey Hudson upgrading the Normandy is a RPG mechanic, to a lot of upset people it's not.

I agree.  People seem to be mostly upset about the inventory not there......but the game is still fun without it.

It's not just the inventory, that just seems to be the one people focus on the most because it is the most visable
change.  Other people don't like how the skill trees were slimed down, some don't like that you can't seem to ever talk yourself out of confrontations (however the Batarians in Mordins quest come to mind), and other feel that everything feels so much much smaller in ME2 when compared to ME.  Look at how small the citadel is now compared to in ME, and for some reason we can't even run around on the persidium even though the code for it is already there from ME and probably would only need a slight adaptation, or think about Therum, Feros, or Noveria and how in there we seem to battle across large areas of a planet but in ME2 we are confined to small places.  Finally there's planet exploration, sure the MAKO had it's issues, that didn't mean that we wanted to get rid of actually exploring planets, and so far the hammerhead has not proven to be a proper replacement for it.

People complained about the inventory in ME, sure it was bulky and poorly implimented, however that didn't mean that it needed to be done away with, it could have easily been streamlined by getting rid of about 50% of the manufacturers so we didn't just have through away items, reduce the # of drops by about 35%, stack same items, group like item, improve the filters to only show what we are really looking for, and finally add auto equip, auto sell, and auto breakdown buttons.  I think the thing people forget is sure now you don't have to spend 5 minutes after a plot mission to upgrade and sell, but we lost the ability to customize the look of our squad and actual inventory was replaced by planet scanning which I'm sorry, but that's a thousand times worse imo.

Ya but thats the problem, half of what you mentioned on that list isnt breaking my heart sorry.  I just can't sympathesize

Which is why I said this is a pointless discussion, however that doesn't mean we can't have it anyways.  It's like when people complained about the combat mechanics in ME.  I felt they worked perfectly fine for the game I was playing so I felt no sympathy for people who came to ME expecting another shooter and then complained that it didn't play like one.  I know people who never made it past their first trip to the citadel because there wasn't enough action to keep them engaged.  Different people look for different things in games, which is why you have genres of games.  When you try to cross genres however you are going to make some happy and upset others unless you develop two versions of the game in which case you might as well not have crossed genres. 

[xMakaze]

The games great, sure its missing the rpg things. I wish alot of it was back, but one thing i hope they dont bring back is heatsinks. It made the game too easy for me, and left me getting bored quickly. I want the inventry back of course, who doesnt? I want a huge amount of specing... I want to be able to make my character as unique as posible down to the points i use. But overall, the people that cry and winge about the changes annoy me. Sure they've removed bits, but if you hate it that much don't play it? Honestly, if people started looking past the things they used to like, and saw mass effect 2 as a new game, a new way of playing, they would enjoy it.



I love both games for different reasons, Mass effect 2 is more action-packed and makes me need to think more about what i'm going to do in situations. I love the fact ammo is there so i'm not tempted to make a never overheating gun and just run my way through the game. I love that searching for ammo leads me to find some extremely funny things and hidden upgrades.



Mass effect 1 i love the huge skill tree, i love the amount of different armours there were even if they all looked like they were built on the same model. I loved being able to add extra protection to my armour and other things.



Both games are great, both have their own good points. Once people stop being so anti and start accepting changes they'd enjoy the game more. Honestly :/

[Sylvius the Mad]

finnithe wrote...

What's the point of arguing whether or not it's an RPG? Personally, I think it's better off if we just discussed what possible improvements could be made to ME2, if any.

Sure.

1. Stat-driven aiming.

2. Lose the dialogue wheel.

There.  We're done.

[Gorthaticus]

lol, it's an rpg. It may be a few other things as well, but you can call it an rpg.

[Wyndham711]

I think we are in need of some new terminology, since the majority of so called RPGs these days don't seem to have anything to do with actual roleplaying. Maybe they should be called Character Progression Games, or something.

[EternalWolfe]

Daeion wrote...

Which is why I said this is a pointless discussion, however that doesn't mean we can't have it anyways.  It's like when people complained about the combat mechanics in ME.  I felt they worked perfectly fine for the game I was playing so I felt no sympathy for people who came to ME expecting another shooter and then complained that it didn't play like one.  I know people who never made it past their first trip to the citadel because there wasn't enough action to keep them engaged.  Different people look for different things in games, which is why you have genres of games.  When you try to cross genres however you are going to make some happy and upset others unless you develop two versions of the game in which case you might as well not have crossed genres. 

Actually, discussing the systems themselves(rather then trying to justify them by defining RPG) isn't pointless.  At least it allows for the existence of compromise and trying to create a system all can stand.

For instance - I like the ME2 inventory style.  For the universe its in, it makes sense for someone in our position to scan and fabricate good weapons, rather then grab ones we find one dead enemies, to keep them on the ship rather then weigh ourselves down with unneccesary items).  What I wouldn't mind is to see it expanded - customizable weapons, multiple components, more armor parts, customization on squadmates(I wouldn't expect as much as Shepard's, but I certainly wouldn't complain), ect.

As you said, some poeple would be all for it - others would accept it.  Others still would complain(and others will continue to complain unless its made exactly to their specifications, and damn anyone elses).  But at least discussion into systems would have a discussion - the whole 'what is a RPG' thing has just been people throwing out their definition and telling everyone else how obviously wrong they are - like what term to stick on a game actually matters in the long run.  I don't see it as a RPG - I see it as Mass Effect.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Its not just the inventory. I can count about half-a-dozen things that ME1 did that could have been done better and were flawed, but I can count about a dozen things that ME2 did that were just plain awful and/or horribly dumbed-down, I don't know why BioWare went in that directly from a quality and depth standpoint (I can, however, see why they did it from a money-making and popularity standpoint).

With the existence of a whole lot of dialog, multiple and altering powers, and punishing the standard shooter mentality (spoiler alert: suicide mission), I really feel saying "it's made for the masses" can only go so far.

A lot of "deh kidz" like Master Chief because he's a guy that always gets stuff done. Shepard is an awesome character too, but you can mess it up and the standard "blam blam" mentality may not be able to comprehend that, and instead go "WHY I DIE LAME ENDING".

[Tirigon]

Terror_K wrote...

Its not just the inventory. I can count about half-a-dozen things that ME1 did that could have been done better and were flawed, but I can count about a dozen things that ME2 did that were just plain awful and/or horribly dumbed-down, I don't know why BioWare went in that directly from a quality and depth standpoint (I can, however, see why they did it from a money-making and popularity standpoint).

And what, exactly, would these things be?

Also, what makes you think ME would be more RPG if these things weren´t "awful"?

[rabidhanar]

Story plot in general is a big let down to me in the second game. The first blew me away, yes it was mostly all cliches but the plot felt alive and fresh. I actually couldn't guess how the ending was going to be until the last two levels. The second, you know basically exactly what is going to happen. Shepard wins, threat removed, known threat removed at that. From the second "mission" on freedom's progress you know who the true "bad guys" are and you know that shepard will win.



Without spoiling here, some of the plot seemed like it was created on flawed ideas. The final boss, in particular, was so stupid that I rarely beat the game anymore. The dedicated team at bioware seemed to drop the ball near the end of their game.

[Therigan]

Ya I agree, ME2 is a good game, but I do miss all the customizations that ME had in it.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

finnithe wrote...
What's the point of arguing whether or not it's an RPG? Personally, I think it's better off if we just discussed what possible improvements could be made to ME2, if any.

Sure.

1. Stat-driven aiming.

2. Lose the dialogue wheel.

There.  We're done.

I realize you haven't played ME2 (at least last I knew) but you forgot the interrupts.  There were at least two occasions where the paragon interrupts were horribly out of character for anyone that I would consider a paragon.

[Minister of Sound]

EternalWolfe wrote...

For instance - I like the ME2 inventory style.  For the universe its in, it makes sense for someone in our position to scan and fabricate good weapons, rather then grab ones we find one dead enemies, to keep them on the ship rather then weigh ourselves down with unneccesary items).  What I wouldn't mind is to see it expanded - customizable weapons, multiple components, more armor parts, customization on squadmates(I wouldn't expect as much as Shepard's, but I certainly wouldn't complain), ect.

I agree; The inventory system reminds me of X-COM: Apocalypse.

The only RPG element that Mass Effect 2 lacks from Mass Effect 1 is the ability to direct each single part of Shepard's conversations. It really takes away that feeling that you are Shepard. The first time meeting Thane bugged me to no end since Shepard and Thane traded sentences without my input. Yes, I know it's been said Bioware listened to fans by removing situations where Shepard says the same thing no matter what, but really, Shepard speaking without input makes the game seems  like Gears of War more than the heavy shooter elements. I remember Mass Effect 1 had like only 2-3 specific situations where this occured.