1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

If you want a pure stat driven experience, there are plenty of alternative games. But what drew to Mass Effect in the first place was the roleplaying. I don't really consider having 2% shotgun skill over 1% as incredible roleplaying. I consider roleplaying as Shepard and choosing between moral decisions as roleplaying. The roleplaying aspect as described is in full force in ME2, so long as that is kept that's great, and ideally anyone who like Mass Effect in the first place.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The roleplaying angle is actually where I think Mass Effect failed to be an RPG in the first place, and ME2 didn't improve on it any.

Since Shepard can and will do things you don't intend, acting contrary to your direct instruction through that abomination of a dialogue wheel, you're not actually able to roleplay Shepard throughout most of the game. Yes, there are some big decisions you can make on his behalf (the Rachni Queen is a good example), but moment-to-moment you have almost no control over what Shepard says or does. You can vaguely point him in the direction of doing a certain sort of thing versus a different sort of thing, but what's actually done is never revealed to you until after the fact, and that guarantees that you never chose it.

[Pocketgb]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Whereas, I think the lack of stat-driven aiming or any reliance at all upon the player's aiming skill breaks the game.  It's crazy that Shepard be rewarded (or punished) for something that isn't his skill.

And that's part of the issue. What kind of game was Bioware trying to make with ME1?

If they wanted a lot of the combat to be attribute driven then it would've worked much nicer in more of a top-down and point-n-click setting (which really wouldn't be bad, when you think about it! Dawn of War 2 shows how nicely this can be done, and honestly imagining a top-down cover-based sci-fi RPG makes me all juicy!), whereas a shooter - a gameplay style that's to reward good aim - becomes hindered by it.

Whether or not it was that it didn't work too well or it wasn't what BIoware wanted led to what we have with ME2, and I feel it to be a much nicer hybrid of the action-RPG subgenre.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The roleplaying angle is
actually where I think Mass Effect failed to be an RPG in the first
place, and ME2 didn't improve on it any.
Since Shepard can and will
do things you don't intend, acting contrary to your direct instruction
through that abomination of a dialogue wheel, you're not actually able
to roleplay Shepard throughout most of the game. Yes, there are some
big decisions you can make on his behalf (the Rachni Queen is a good
example), but moment-to-moment you have almost no control over what
Shepard says or does. You can vaguely point him in the direction of
doing a certain sort of thing versus a different sort of thing, but
what's actually done is never revealed to you until after the fact, and
that guarantees that you never chose it.

Personally I think the only games that have been able to truly capture what I want to say, feel, or convey have been table-top, sadly. I don't think that's something we can see transferred into the video-game realm.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 11 avril 2010 - 04:33 .

[Collider]

That's hardly failing. There are certain limits, yes, but it is strides above and better than most roleplaying games. You'd be hard pressed to find similar games with as much depth to the choices as Mass Effect and other Bioware games. They simply are not common.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Collider wrote...

That's hardly failing. There are certain limits, yes, but it is strides above and better than most roleplaying games. You'd be hard pressed to find similar games with as much depth to the choices as Mass Effect and other Bioware games.

The other BioWare games do it vastly better than Mass Effect does.  The other BioWare games do it as well as any game does.

But Mass Effect fails utterly.

Pocketgb wrote...

And that's part of the issue. What kind of game was Bioware trying to make with ME1?

I can't know that.  I can only tell what sort of game BioWare did make with ME1, and they made a game with stat-driven aiming.  It was, quite frankly, the very best shooter-esque combat I'd ever seen in an RPG.

ME1 struck exactly the right combat balance.  That combat was pausable even made real-time target selection optional.

If they wanted a lot of the combat to be attribute driven then it would've worked much nicer in more of a top-down and point-n-click setting (which really wouldn't be bad, when you think about it! Dawn of War 2 shows how nicely this can be done, and honestly imagining a top-down cover-based sci-fi RPG makes me all juicy!), whereas a shooter - a gameplay style that's to reward good aim - becomes hindered by it.

Which is why I think it's incorrect to view ME1 as a shooter at all.  It resembles shooters only aesthetically.  Nothing about the gameplay screams shooter.

ME1 was not a shooter.  It was more of an adventure game than anything.  The real-time puzzles were a lot like the quicktime events in classic games like Dragon's Lair.  Combat was stat-driven.  Since a lot of BioWare designers are avid shooter players, it would be shocking if they actually intended to make ME1 a shooter.  They know how shooters play.  ME1 is wholly dissimilar to shooters (again, aside from aesthetics).

Whether or not it was that it didn't work too well or it wasn't what BIoware wanted led to what we have with ME2, and I feel it to be a much nicer hybrid of the action-RPG subgenre.

Neither game is an RPG.  Let's just get that out of the way.

What you're saying here is that BioWare decided to make the sequel to their very successful game an entirely different genre of game.  And it certainly looks like that's what they did.  Isn't that crazy?

Personally I think the only games that have been able to truly capture what I want to say, feel, or convey have been table-top, sadly. I don't think that's something we can see transferred into the video-game realm.

I didn't say the game needed to capture exactly what you wanted to do.  I said the game needed to let you choose.  Nowhere did I say you had to choose from an infinite list of options.

But Mass Effect doesn't let you choose; it lets you offer vague direction.  But if ever you try to make a decision more detailed than "be nice" or "be a dick", you immedately break the dialogue engine because those paraphrased options don't tell you what the option you've selected actually does.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 avril 2010 - 05:12 .

[Pocketgb]

I'm going to have a very hard time responding to that, ya know. The more quotes there are, my post gets more chopped up, and thus more and more things get taken out of context and my entire point loses focus and you get huge quote wars that no one cares to read. I'll try to respond to the most relavent and broadly applicable point:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Which is why I think it's incorrect to view ME1 as a shooter at all.  It resembles shooters only aesthetically.  Nothing about the gameplay screams shooter.

Precisely, which brings us back to the portion of my post you just quoted: why put so much emphasis on the "shooter" aspect - in-game, in hype, in media, etc. - if it's not really built to be one? Imagine if you could only play Dragon Age first person, and that's similar to how I felt ME1 played out. Based on all that expectation that a few shared, either exactly or similarly, there were people that were confused with Bioware's end-product of a game in ME1.

That's largely why I'm wondering if ME1 was really what they wanted to create, if it was just a product of them starting to go in a different direction but ending up doing what they're more comfortable with.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But Mass Effect doesn't let you
choose; it lets you offer vague direction.  But if ever you try to make a
decision more detailed than "be nice" or "be a dick", you immedately
break the dialogue engine because those paraphrased options don't tell
you what the option you've selected actually does.

Obviously
due completely to the limitation of having every choice be accompinied
with related dialog. Enjoyable, dynamic and interesting - but still strictly limited. Never really cared, though, since I've come to terms with the fact that no video game will ever allow me to play a character solely to what I'd hoped to be.

[Terror_K]

Tawg wrote...

Terror_K may I ask you something?
Would you say that the PS3 Title Heavy Rain is not an RPG?
Because I'm quite sure it is the definition of Role Playing;  RPG is not a set of game mechanics it's the commitment to story and the telling there of, getting players into it, and letting them interact and see the effects their actions take.
Mass Effect is a Role Playing game, regardless of whether it follows your 'ideal' RPG template's that most likely aren't even that easy to integrate into real time shooter combat, which is apparently a goal the BioWare team wishes to emphasize in this Sci-Fi game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is ideal for me, I was quite sad when the inventory went away in place of the new gun system, or when they reduced the complexity of the skills trees and value of leveling essentially; Those are by far my favorite parts of the game in the first one, but they chose to take them out in favor of things I can rest assured they prioritized after much deliberation.  But the story still get's there, and BioWare still has my unwavering support in what ever endeavors they might choose to take.
They do have dead lines, and I fully understand why they went to the new 'Mission' model of world interaction, instead of the free-roam plantary exploration of the past, it greatly cuts down the time they have to spend crafting the senery & 'landing zones' that I use to love; but it allowed them to focus on what they needed to no doubt, like the completely new shooter system they had to design for this game (Which is quite nice, at least they did us that justice, instead of slaping on some horrificly terrible shooter), or the cool new system of interupting certain diologs with 'Pragon' or 'Renagade' actions (Which pushes the game far closer to Role Playing than all the mechanics you could ever gripe about).

This argument isn't about the game being an RPG, it's about your definition of RPG;  And nothing you can say will prove your definition is correct.  True this takes a far more shooter frame, but I'm still playing the role of Shepard, still evolving a beautifuly complex story via the actions I choose, and most importantly having fun.

If it's such a disapointment, then I'm sorry; it seems you have been let down, but you're not changing the game by arguing they must follow the reliable RPG template that you're defining as you go and could never truely nail down if you wanted.

Oh not this crap again... <_<

Seriously... Heavy Rain is NOT an RPG, is never classes as one in official gaming circles and it doesn't claim to be one either. It's a story-driven game that best fits interactive cinema or adventure game. 

No direct offense intended, I'm tired of this stupid notion and misconception that an RPG is a "game where you play a role" that seems to have only come up in the past five or six years in gaming circles. Before then gamers knew what an RPG was, but nowadays it seems thanks to the mixing of genres and a whole bunch of ignorance that people have lost sight of what makes an RPG an RPG. 90% of games out there having you playing a role (examples: in Halo you play Master Chief, in Gears of War you play Marcus Fenix, etc.) but they are not RPG's. A role-playing game is also not any game driven by a story. What an RPG needs above all else to exist is a statistical progression system (i.e. XP, levels, skills, etc.) and a ruleset that governs this. This is evident by the fact that every cRPG out there that is considered as such has these factors, and the fact that not all cRPG's have a story, involve choices and consequences or have you playing a role (some are based entirely around combat, looting and gaining XP and that's about all).

So please... don't start trying that BS again like so many others in the past have. Heavy Rain isn't an RPG. Monkey Island isn't an RPG. It Came from the Desert isn't an RPG. RPG's are games like the old AD&S SSI games, Dungeon Master, Amberstar/Ambermoon, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Fallout, Planescape: Torment, The Elder Scrolls, Neverwinter Nights, KotOR, The Witcher, Dragon Age Origin, etc. which all have a statistical progression system and ruleset.

Pocketgb wrote...

Do we have a source on this "if"? All I recall is much of Bioware proclaming that yes there are indeed still many RPG elements within the game, and that they're looking to expand on them for ME3. As I said earlier that doesn't hold much weight since you can expand on RP elements for Dragon Age (something many here claim to be a true RPG).

Christina Norman's recent GDC presentation included an admission that the RPG elements were lacking in ME2 and that it was a point of focus for them working on ME3. BioWare did indeed claim prior to release that the RPG elements were still very much present and the game wasn't dumbed-down and all shooter now, but to be honest a lot of fans have not felt this way since the game was released, and beyond Christina's presentation BioWare overall have been pretty damn quiet about it and haven't really addressed the backlash ME2 has got from a good number of fans... which I find rather interesting in itself actually. I mean, of course they were going to claim that it still had RPG depth before release, otherwise they'd lose sales. Not their bluff has been called and they're pretty damn quiet about it (and overall rather quiet actually. Aside from closing threads and DLC announcements, dev activity on the boards has hit an all time low since ME2's release).

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Not their bluff has been called and they're pretty damn quiet about it (and overall rather quiet actually. Aside from closing threads and DLC announcements, dev activity on the boards has hit an all time low since ME2's release).

Only very few people have been able to call out any form of "bluffs" and do so without any baseless degrading of the game and Bioware as a whole. Your list alone is a good example, since only about a third of it has anything to do with anything RPG related. A huge and overwhelming majority of the people "voicing their opinion" likely press what was the inventory button for ME1, see that it does nothing, and they go nuts over it  -and thus stating that the entirety of the game is "dumbed down" simply because they no longer see the exact same systems as ME1.

This isn't to say that I'm solely calling this group alone full of crazies, since there's plenty of blind and ignorant fanboys that defend Bioware regardless of the cost. I'm merely saying that a majority or large opinion means nothing unless proven that the people actually know what they're talking about, and sadly I've just seen people getting on a bandwagon.

That could also play a large role in why Bioware may not see much reason to actually talk about anything else: the slideshow Norman provided *was* pretty informative, calm, and really explained a lot of what they did, yet from page one people were already tearing it apart, regardless of what it explained.

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...

That could also play a large role in why Bioware may not see much reason to actually talk about anything else: the slideshow Norman provided *was* pretty informative, calm, and really explained a lot of what they did, yet from page one people were already tearing it apart, regardless of what it explained.

It did explain a lot, particularly how and why ME2 turned out the way it did. Whether that is good or bad would depend on your preferences.

Still doesn't change the fact that they decided to fundamentally alter the very essence of a direct sequel - which is almost always guaranteed to irritate the hell out of people.

[Pocketgb]

Of course it will, but that's because it's a very vibrant "damned if you do/don't" scenario. Why this is can be seen in my above post to Sylvius.

[Kalfear]

Pocketgb wrote...

That could also play a large role in why Bioware may not see much reason to actually talk about anything else: the slideshow Norman provided *was* pretty informative, calm, and really explained a lot of what they did, yet from page one people were already tearing it apart, regardless of what it explained.

Im sorry, but that slide show was a joke from page 1.
Norman made a astonishing number of guesses where she and her team magically got credit for things they not remotely involved in.
Whole thing was a joke so for anyone to claim it was informative is nonsence. It was rehashed problem control because of (at the time) massive amounts of negativity about the game!
Bioware is quiet right now because they not really sure what to say that will not stir up the hornets nest again.
Simple fact is people were VERY POSITIVE about ME2 before it came out and those positive returns went NEGATIVE over night and has stayed mostly negative since. Bioware knows they made mistakes even though Norman wouldnt admit it and now they trying to figure out how to make everyone happy. Not a easy thing to do!
Oh they can make claims like ME2 did better sales then ME1 but everyone knows most of the sales where ME1 players and people drawn to ME2 by ME1 players, it wasnt on ME2 design strenght alone as Norman likes to imply. DA:O (a straight RPG, non shooter) is doing better over all numbers then ME2 but you never going to hear that from Bioware/EA as it doesnt suit the spin.

Its a pretty safe assumption that the negative crowd managed to get heard through ME2 design team congrating themselves and hopefully ME3 will have RPG elements back in it! Lord knows enough stuff has been suggested to them if you wade through the trolling pro ME2 posts around here.

[Pocketgb]

Kalfear wrote...

Im sorry, but that slide show was a joke from page 1.
Norman made a astonishing number of guesses where she and her team magically got credit for things they not remotely involved in.
Whole thing was a joke so for anyone to claim it was informative is nonsence. It was rehashed problem control because of (at the time) massive amounts of negativity about the game!

Interesting example of what I was talking about, really, but I don't think we need to go there when that thread in question already went there dozens and dozens of times.

That's all that's worth commenting on in that post.

[finnithe]

This forum, and even then only limited to 20 or so people, is the only place where I've found significant negative response to Mass Effect 2, and I'm on the Penny Arcade forums and on Joystiq daily. The vast majority of critical and public response to ME2 has been positive.

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...

Of course it will, but that's because it's a very vibrant "damned if you do/don't" scenario. Why this is can be seen in my above post to Sylvius.

Whatever Bioware was actually trying to make doesn't matter. All we got at the end is what they actually did make. Lo and behold, people liked it (or didn't like it) for what it was. 

Now we have ME2, which is fundamentally divergent from the original. ME2 may be closer to what Bioware originally intended for ME1 (or it may not be), but again this doesn't matter - only the results do. Some people liked it, and others didn't (which is normal for most things, really). I'd bet that there were not a lot of people who loved both about the same.

The conflict occurs because you have two fundamentally different games that should be fundamentally the same. Maybe it is impossible to achieve the perfect TPS/RPG hybrid (the damned either way scenario), but what Bioware has done by attempting to create essentially two versions of the 'same' game has only compounded the problem.

Now we have two (generally exclusive) groups of people - those who like ME1, and those who liked ME2 - who both have valid expectations for the third game. If it is truly impossible to please both sides (again, the double damned scenario), then ME3 is effectively screwed (at least for one group).

finnithe wrote...

This forum, and even then only limited to 20 or so people, is the only place where I've found significant negative response to Mass Effect 2, and I'm on the Penny Arcade forums and on Joystiq daily. The vast majority of critical and public response to ME2 has been positive.

Possible - vocal minority and all that. 

Of course, it is also possible that they are judging ME2 on its merits alone (or focusing only on the improvements over ME1 rather than what was taken away); it isn't really a bad game, after all. If you take the perspective that ME1 should not have been paved over by a genre refocusing, then there is a good basis for lodging complaints.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 11 avril 2010 - 09:02 .

[finnithe]

CatatonicMan wrote...

finnithe wrote...

This forum, and even then only limited to 20 or so people, is the only place where I've found significant negative response to Mass Effect 2, and I'm on the Penny Arcade forums and on Joystiq daily. The vast majority of critical and public response to ME2 has been positive.

Possible - vocal minority and all that. 

Of course, it is also possible that they are judging ME2 on its merits alone (or focusing only on the improvements over ME1 rather than what was taken away); it isn't really a bad game, after all. If you take the perspective that ME1 should not have been paved over by a genre refocusing, then there is a good basis for lodging complaints.

Most people judge a game three ways: a) the game itself: is it fun? balanced? storywise? etc. against something comparable (aka a sequel) and in the same ways.

If you were to play a game thinking only what it could or should be, most games would be crapfests, and you would simply take out the joy of playing it.

I think that's the problem a lot of people here are making. They talk about the game as if it's something not even deserving of the bargain bin. I can't take your criticism seriously (nor can Bioware), if you treat their game, and the developers themselves, badly.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Not their bluff has been called and they're pretty damn quiet about it (and overall rather quiet actually. Aside from closing threads and DLC announcements, dev activity on the boards has hit an all time low since ME2's release).

Only very few people have been able to call out any form of "bluffs" and do so without any baseless degrading of the game and Bioware as a whole. Your list alone is a good example, since only about a third of it has anything to do with anything RPG related.

To be fair, that list was a bunch of things that I considered horrible aspects or poor decision making when it came to ME2 as a whole and not solely RPG stuff. And I personally feel the game's problems are not solely limited to its RPG factors (or lack thereof).

The fact is the devs claimed before it came out that ME2 was still a rich RPG experience, that the RPG factors weren't being watered down and that it was everything ME1 was and more. This is clearly not the case, and the fact that its been admitted since that the RPG factors have taken a back-seat and that they do need to work on them for the third game only proves this. While there is admittedly a lot of unfair bashing going on out there, that doesn't mean the game isn't seriously flawed and lacking in the RPG department and that there aren't some genuine issues out there that shouldn't be ignored. There are a lot of angry fans, and anger leads to them saying things that are unfair and cruel, but the fact is that anger doesn't come from nowhere. Every week completely independent threads are being closed that all relate to the same thing: some fans feel ME2 has been dumbed-down as an RPG. This very thread just happens to be one of the many survivors. People aren't just pulling this stuff out of nowhere.

A huge and overwhelming majority of the people "voicing their opinion" likely press what was the inventory button for ME1, see that it does nothing, and they go nuts over it  -and thus stating that the entirety of the game is "dumbed down" simply because they no longer see the exact same systems as ME1.

I think you're exaggerating and not giving enough credit to a great number of people who have genuine concerns. I personally couldn't care less if there wasn't an inventory system in ME3, but I do think there needs to be more inventory and that the inventory needs to be more fitting to an RPG by giving us variety, an ability to mod it and giving us some visible stats on the equipment for comparison. As it stands the weapon system is no different from that of a standard shooter. I know this is where a dozen people bring up Mass Effect's deluge of samey weapons as a bad thing, but one has to remember that the way ME1 did it isn't necessarily the way to go either. ME3 can keep the same system as ME2 for all I care... just give us more choice and variation and make the items fit an RPG rather than just being a small handful of guns with a small blurb. It's not like there's not room there... the menu's in ME2 were presented with such huge pictures and writing as if they were a children's book and there was still room to spare.

This isn't to say that I'm solely calling this group alone full of crazies, since there's plenty of blind and ignorant fanboys that defend Bioware regardless of the cost. I'm merely saying that a majority or large opinion means nothing unless proven that the people actually know what they're talking about, and sadly I've just seen people getting on a bandwagon.

Maybe it's simply because I'm on the other side of the fence here, but while there is a certain degree of truth to what you say, there definitely are a lot of people with genuine issues with the game.

That could also play a large role in why Bioware may not see much reason to actually talk about anything else: the slideshow Norman provided *was* pretty informative, calm, and really explained a lot of what they did, yet from page one people were already tearing it apart, regardless of what it explained.

Yes, it did explain a lot. Some of it was good an unstandable, but there was also stuff (mostly if you read articles and reports based on what she actually said) that was downright insulting to the existing fanbase, particularly since we're the ones who got BioWare where they are today. And ME2 reflects this in its design fully, where it comes across as almost embarrassed to be an RPG and tries to hide it wherever possible. BioWare is coming across at the moment like the nerdy kid at school who was one of the gang, only for you to meet it a few years later and discover its become a Jock who tries hard to act like its the same, but in reality its embarrassed to be seen with you any more and just a stone's throw away from ignoring you entirely.

I'm actually really curious to see where ME3 heads, because BioWare claims to be a studio that listens to its fans, and yet they screwed up ME2 quite a bit for a lot of them. I'm glad that they've at least admitted that they overdid it with stripping down the RPG factors, and that as such they're planning on deepening them for the third game, but at the same time I can't help but feel the old BioWare wouldn't have made the mistake in the first place. And I get the feeling that even if they do want to placate and make things up to their old school fans who feel a bit shafted, that they're not going to want to alienate their new fans either. If ME3 comes out and there's even only a couple of things fixed or given more depth with nothing else dumbed-down or removed then I guess I'll be happy, but I hope that their claim of  "no sacred cows" also fully applies to their shooter stuff too, because so far the only calves I've seen slaughtered are on the RPG side of the fence.

There's also the problem that this happened mid-series to a game that already had a following, and that it was aimed at a rather nerdy contingent at that. I know I'm not alone in this following concern/feeling, but if BioWare wanted to make a much more shooter-oriented game then why not do it with a new IP instead of twisting and warping an existing one almost beyond recognition, particularly when the Mass Effect trilogy is that: a trilogy, which makes it not so much three games but three parts of a single game. As such Mass Effect 2 feels less like The Empire Strikes Back of the series and a lot more like the second seasons of Buck Rogers, Space 1999 and Battlestar 1980's that were retooled by the networks to suit a wider audience. The only difference is that in this case the wider audience actually took to it, and because they were already feeding at the teat of Cliffy B and Bungie its hardly a surprise. Mass Effect 2 was a smash hit because it was less deep, not because of the opposite.

Modifié par Terror_K, 11 avril 2010 - 09:32 .

[Sad Dragon]

My personal thoughts on the RPG vs Shooter part of this discussion is that Bioware said: "Ok we know how to do RPGs but we are new to the whole shooter market so lets try and put more effort into ME2 to make that part of the game feel up to par". Sadly for us, they focused too much on this as a result. ME2 isnt the best shooter out there - nor is the ME series the best example of how a RPG-Shooter can be made. Do i dislike ME2? I have played it through 5 times now so i think that speaks for itself. But back on track.

Pocketgb wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

If you
mean that with the right party you will have one member who can deal
with the defence then all that does is make your abilities useless and
makes you shift focus to your companion...

And then you
shift focus back to you: their shields are down, so work your magic.
Just like how if you know you're going to go against some trolls in a
forest so you bring fire based damage, if you're going to Tuchanka you'd
bring some incinderary abilities.

Should say that i cant stand the design principle of "You must be class X or have ability Y to kill this mob". To me this is bad game design - so cant stand the trolls. Its a novel idea but it harms more then it adds fun to the scenario.

Pocketgb wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

Also,
a sniper shot to the head solves the problem with enemy defences as
well...

But that's such a waste: sniper ammo is limited,
abilities are not. Why not have you or a squaddie reduce their defenses,
*then* go for the headshot?

Doesn't mean Infiltrators aren't
capable of ridiculous damage, though.

Never ran out of ammo for my Infiltrator even on Insane so for me that wasnt an issue. Should say that i almost exclusivly used the cloak when the cooldown was up as to use anything else was simply a waste of a cooldown. With maybe the one exception of incinerate for the hordes of husks.

That being said. My adept which i played on normal didnt have that much problem with defences as there arent that many mobs who has them. And the game is made for normal. I would still like for all abilities to have some effect on the mobs regardless of wether or not the mob had defences.

Terror_K wrote...

1) An overall design and presentation that screams that the devs are embarrassed that this is an RPG and try to hide that fact whenever possible, making ME2 come across like "Fisher Price: My First RPG (But be quiet! I don't want people to know I'm playing something with numbers involved!)"
2) A kick in the balls to the lore with their horrid thermal clip system that presents itself with more holes than a moth-eaten lace tablecloth at a shooting range.
3) An almost complete disregard and pushing into the background of even ME1's seemingly most crucial decisions.
4) A complete unaccounting of several key ME1 import decisions and weak substitutions instead of actual differences.
5) A complete elimination of armour classes, skill-based decryption and hacking, healing or anything else previously skill-based that wasn't combat.
6) A jarring and awkward "Mission Complete" screen in place of naturally earning XP as you go.
7) One of the absolute worst HUDs in gaming history... made even worse in that it replaced one of gaming's better HUDs, which was as far as I can tell never complained about by anybody. Just one of many cases of something that wasn't even broken being "fixed" by the ME2 team.
8) A tiny handful of weapons that are completely devoid of any stats whatsoever.
9) A tiny selection of armours that are completely devoid of any stats whatsoever.
10) A collection of DLC and Promo/Pre-Order armours that are a single piece and can only be that way.
11) A complete lack of inventory beyond the small selection of linear weapons and armour above which are always in the same place and always the same.
12) Modding weapons and armour =  scrapped.
13) Mako replaced by action-oriented DLC vehicle that misses the point of vehicle exploration entirely and proves that even an awful HUD (like ME2's on-foot one) is better than no HUD whatsoever.
14) The lazy, tacked-on feeling N7 missions had that lacked proper polish, despite being more varied than their ME1 counterparts.
15) Complete inability to customise team-members beyond which gun their holding.
16) Awful character-creation system from a design standpoint. While this was in ME1 too admittedly, the fact that so much that didn't need fixing got "fixed" in ME2 and yet this remained in such a broken state is unforgivable.
17) Unskippable opening that goes for 15 minutes before you can do anything. Point #16 doesn't help either.

and while this last one wasn't a complete failure and entirely awful, I have to mention it:-

18) A complete scrapping of statistical-based shooting in favour of purely skill-based shooter combat.

1) Might be that ME2 is RP-light enough for this statement to make atleast some sense. However is it a bad thing? Sure i think its bad that ME2 is light on the RP but what i mean is - is it bad that it might introduce a new audiance to the genre? Personaly i dont think it is a bad thing - but i also think it could have been done better.
2) Yeah, the thermal clips is a big hole in the lore and makes little sence if you look at it from that pov. Personaly I can buy the change as it makes you use more weapons then you might have used if you didnt have the ammo limitation. This is one part where i can buy gameplay over lore. Its a minor thing and it dosnt affect the story.
3) This remains to be seen in ME3. But yes, some of the decisions are made a joke of and the emails are a joke in and of themselves. It remains to be seen if Bioware makes more of the decisions in ME3 so i cant really say yeay or ney to this point until i have played ME3.
4) See my points on 3)
5) On this i have mixed feelings. They could have kept all those skills but with the level design they would have had to change the mechanics of those skills. Give everyone the possibility to hack or bypass but making it easier the higher your skill for instance or completly remove the need to use these skills to advance through the plot but make them alternative ways to solve the problem.
6) The Mission Complete Screen broke all immersion i had built up every single time it popped up. In my feedback post i made long ago i spent a whole section on this very screen - thats how much i thought it needed improvment. What i came up with there was they they could have had a form of debriefing instead and have EDI remark that the report has been filed and you could find the MCS in your terminal.
7) In what way was ME2s HUD worse then ME1s? not saying it was better - i am indifferent or perhapps oblivious to the problems with the ME2 HUD.
8) Yup, it ammounts more or less to - use weapon setup Y. Mind you ME1 wasnt much better. Both systems could use some improvement. That being said cant say it bothered me personaly.
9) I kind of liked what they where thinking with the N7 armour. Sadly way to few upgrade pieces to the armour - something a DLC could easaly fix. Helmets are just off sadly and as people have said a toggle would be nice.
10) Helmet toggle would fix all the DLC armours for me personaly. Not sure it is possible for these ones though as I wouldnt be surpriced if they are modled as a whole peice.
11) While i dont miss the inventory i think they could strike a better balance. It could be simple variations of guns or mods that would become availiable through loot from the mobs rather then scaning their databases for whatever tech they might have. Which brings me to the next point.
12) While we have upgrades i agree with you. To combine with what i typed in 11) i will give you a scenario. Mob X 'drops' a weapon mod called 'rapid fire' for pistols. The mod makes your aim worse but you can fire your gun faster. You can choose to add it to your gun or remove it when you pick your weapons for the mission. Perhapps something like that would be a good balance?
13) Always said the problem wasnt the Mako it was the terraign. For me the hammerhead - while an ok DLC - missed the point of the Mako which was exploration not liner veichle action.
14) Have to agree. Most of the N7 mission came down to: Slaughter 100 mercs and collect prize. This might be a remenent of the more shooter oriented gameplay.
15) Again something i have mixed feelings about. But i have to agree in part atleast. Some more customisation would have been nice - not nessecary but nice.
16) I would love for you to elaborate on this point more
17) Agreed. Having played though the game 5 times all i can say is: Im glad i can alt-tab.
18) They could have 'streamlined' the statistical-based shooting without loosing the point of it. However i cant think of a solution that ultimatly wouldnt rely on the players skill - Unless they did what bethesta did with Fallout 3.

think that is all for this post - sorry if it is a big wall of text ^^;;;

/TSD

[Arrtis]

ME2 was a nice play.More shooter in my opinion.I really wish there was some new formula to a great RPG.

On a side note, I would like the next ME to adopt the Oblivion class system.

[Wuxia]

Arrtis wrote...

ME2 was a nice play.More shooter in my opinion.I really wish there was some new formula to a great RPG.
On a side note, I would like the next ME to adopt the Oblivion class system.

 As far as I can remember Oblivion didn't have a class system? You just picked a birthsign and combat focus then did whatever you wanted. There was nothing stopping you from choosing melee combat orientated stats with weapon major skills then only levelling up magic skills like Restoration and the like - in fact if you did that you were actually going to be more powerful because of the twisted, counter intuitive way Oblivion's character development works.

 I think the Elder Scrolls games have the worst character development in any RPG to date and hope never to see it's like again.

 Just my opinion, of course, but I greatly prefer a class system where you pick a specialisation and stick with it, getting more powerful as you go.

 With regard to ME2 being less of an RPG, I agree to some extent. It could have done with a lot more customisation in the weapons/armor department and stats and abilities were somewhat simplified. I still really enjoyed it though, and even felt that the higher emphasis on the shooter aspect lent itself to the sci-fi setting.

[Terror_K]

Sad Dragon wrote...

1) Might be that ME2 is RP-light enough for this statement to make atleast some sense. However is it a bad thing? Sure i think its bad that ME2 is light on the RP but what i mean is - is it bad that it might introduce a new audiance to the genre? Personaly i dont think it is a bad thing - but i also think it could have been done better.

I don't necessarily think its a bad thing to want to introduce more people to something, but I don't like the fact that they're hiding the RPG parts at every turn as if they'll scare people off. It's like they're embarrassed not only of their gaming roots but of what this game is largely supposed to be. A lot of ME2's problems could have been fixed if they hadn't designed it as such a shooter/action game in the presentation alone ("Mission Complete" screens, a complete lack of visible stats or numbers on anything, lack of XP prompts, etc.) If RPG's are apples and shooters are oranges, ME2 is a skinned apple wrapped in an orange peel. ME2 felt like it was insulting my intelligence half the time simply because of how it put itself across... like a college professor coming into class dressed as 50 Cent.

7) In what way was ME2s HUD worse then ME1s? not saying it was better - i am indifferent or perhapps oblivious to the problems with the ME2 HUD.

What... seriously? I've been playing ME2 for two months now and I'm still not entirely sure what it means. Aside from the fact my map/radar (that no longer even works like a radar, btw) needs to be toggled, the faces and randomly coloured arching bars are about as clear to read and work out as Welsh instructions on building a particle accelerator. I can't tell what's going on with my squad, and can only just tell what's going on with myself. The original ME1 was simple and elegant: you and your squadmembers' names with their shields and health right there as indicated. I mean, even if you don't mind the ME2 HUD (and I seriously can't see how anybody could like it... I really can't) what was so "broken" about the ME1 HUD that it needed to be revamped? It was never broken, so why "fix" it?

16) I would love for you to elaborate on this point more

That the character creator never gives you a decent angle on your Shepard's face (like a good three-quarter angle for one... I mean, seriously!) As I said, this was already the case in ME1, and there were a lot of complaints about it and people complaining that they were always having to note down their sliders, go into the game and play until they landed on Eden Prime to get a decent look at their Shepard, and then exit the game, restart, redo their face as best they could, and then rinse and repeat until they got it right. Lord knows I had to do it with several of my Shepard's almost a dozen times (more than a dozen in at least one case). It was a common issue on the forums amongst fans and one of the things people wanted fixed, but despite supposedly being a company that listens this was completely ignored and we end up with what is essentially the same bad character creator all over again. In a time when most games with such creators give up complete camera control, this is unforgivable IMO. One of the classic cases of a "WTF BioWare?!" moment for ME2... which is kind of what I was talking about in the first place: ME1 had a lot of things that didn't work, but none of them were decisions that made me think "WTF BioWare?!" while ME2 had a lot of these.

[Sad Dragon]

Terror_K wrote...


I don't necessarily think its a bad thing to want to introduce more people to something, but I don't like the fact that they're hiding the RPG parts at every turn as if they'll scare people off. It's like they're embarrassed not only of their gaming roots but of what this game is largely supposed to be. A lot of ME2's problems could have been fixed if they hadn't designed it as such a shooter/action game in the presentation alone ("Mission Complete" screens, a complete lack of visible stats or numbers on anything, lack of XP prompts, etc.) If RPG's are apples and shooters are oranges, ME2 is a skinned apple wrapped in an orange peel. ME2 felt like it was insulting my intelligence half the time simply because of how it put itself across... like a college professor coming into class dressed as 50 Cent.

I would probably laugh if a professor did that - but that is besides the point ^^
Personaly i dont see that they are trying to hide the RPG parts at every turn. I might be missing something as i did - with the HUD which i shall address below - so feel free to enlighten me once more
But i can already see where you are comming from and i can agree with alot of it. The stats, the MCS, the new XP system - i can agree with all of there, be it in varying degrees, but i still agree.

Terror_K wrote...
What... seriously? I've been playing ME2 for two months now and I'm still not entirely sure what it means. Aside from the fact my map/radar (that no longer even works like a radar, btw) needs to be toggled, the faces and randomly coloured arching bars are about as clear to read and work out as Welsh instructions on building a particle accelerator. I can't tell what's going on with my squad, and can only just tell what's going on with myself. The original ME1 was simple and elegant: you and your squadmembers' names with their shields and health right there as indicated. I mean, even if you don't mind the ME2 HUD (and I seriously can't see how anybody could like it... I really can't) what was so "broken" about the ME1 HUD that it needed to be revamped? It was never broken, so why "fix" it?

While i cant say that i love nor hate ME2s HUD I now realise what you mean - and your points are valid. The squad-head part of the HUD isnt exacly intuitive or detailed. The radar/map is indeed a useless feature to the point that it almost seems like they made a design change at the end of the development that made the radar/map obsolete but didnt have time to make a new system to replace it.  Im guessing that the idea was to make the GUI even more streamlined to give the player even more visiable screenspace. The new hud isnt all that bad but i have to agree that the ME1 HUD wasnt exacly broken. The HUD in ME2 will no doubt get a workover before landing in ME3. The Map/Radar might make a full return maybe have it as part of a weaponmod like in ME1 or as part of a armor/helmet mod.  If not i would simply sugest removing it entierly and have a 'hint' arrow that appears when you enter the paused HUD. The Squad system might become more colour-coded so that health for instance is shown by having the portrait coloured and the damage indicated by desaturating the % of the portrait that the damage represent. All in all i think they will still go for a minimalistic HUD in ME3.

Terror_K wrote...
That the character creator never gives you a decent angle on your Shepard's face (like a good three-quarter angle for one... I mean, seriously!) As I said, this was already the case in ME1, and there were a lot of complaints about it and people complaining that they were always having to note down their sliders, go into the game and play until they landed on Eden Prime to get a decent look at their Shepard, and then exit the game, restart, redo their face as best they could, and then rinse and repeat until they got it right. Lord knows I had to do it with several of my Shepard's almost a dozen times (more than a dozen in at least one case). It was a common issue on the forums amongst fans and one of the things people wanted fixed, but despite supposedly being a company that listens this was completely ignored and we end up with what is essentially the same bad character creator all over again. In a time when most games with such creators give up complete camera control, this is unforgivable IMO. One of the classic cases of a "WTF BioWare?!" moment for ME2... which is kind of what I was talking about in the first place: ME1 had a lot of things that didn't work, but none of them were decisions that made me think "WTF BioWare?!" while ME2 had a lot of these.

While i dont think of it as a "classic case of a 'WTF BioWare?!' moment" i have to agree that that part anoyed me as well. It's not like giving the player full camera control is a hard and complex thing to do either. Also, fully agree that together with the unskippable intro this make it even more anoying. Atleast this would be an easy fix. Simply give the players the ability to rotate the camera around to get more angles to view their Shepards face.

/TSD

[xCirdanx]

Terror_K wrote...
Oh not this crap again... <_<

Seriously... Heavy Rain is NOT an RPG, is never classes as one in official gaming circles and it doesn't claim to be one either. It's a story-driven game that best fits interactive cinema or adventure game. 

No direct offense intended, I'm tired of this stupid notion and misconception that an RPG is a "game where you play a role" that seems to have only come up in the past five or six years in gaming circles. Before then gamers knew what an RPG was, but nowadays it seems thanks to the mixing of genres and a whole bunch of ignorance that people have lost sight of what makes an RPG an RPG. 90% of games out there having you playing a role (examples: in Halo you play Master Chief, in Gears of War you play Marcus Fenix, etc.) but they are not RPG's. A role-playing game is also not any game driven by a story. What an RPG needs above all else to exist is a statistical progression system (i.e. XP, levels, skills, etc.) and a ruleset that governs this. This is evident by the fact that every cRPG out there that is considered as such has these factors, and the fact that not all cRPG's have a story, involve choices and consequences or have you playing a role (some are based entirely around combat, looting and gaining XP and that's about all).

So please... don't start trying that BS again like so many others in the past have. Heavy Rain isn't an RPG. Monkey Island isn't an RPG. It Came from the Desert isn't an RPG. RPG's are games like the old AD&S SSI games, Dungeon Master, Amberstar/Ambermoon, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Fallout, Planescape: Torment, The Elder Scrolls, Neverwinter Nights, KotOR, The Witcher, Dragon Age Origin, etc. which all have a statistical progression system and ruleset.

Even though i enjoy ME2 a lot, i find myself agreeing with you on almost everything you posted so far. Very good points *thumbs up*

[Terror_K]

Sad Dragon wrote...

All in all i think they will still go for a minimalistic HUD in ME3.

Which is a big mistake, in my books. Its a modern gaming convention I really, REALLY hate. I kind of get the notion of it, but its gone too far with a lot of games lately that are oversimplifying things and seem to want to put at little as possible on-screen to stop obscuring it, but instead just end up making things frustrating as things aren't clear and you have to constantly switch into other menus or screens to know where you're going or what's happening instead of having a nice clear indicator there all the time that tells you.

Simply put: I loathe the whole minimalistic HUD notion entirely, and it saddened me to see BioWare suddenly stopping to this modern and flawed convention. It was even worse with The Hammerhead, which just tells me that they haven't even learned after the complaints about it regarding the vanilla game. I don't support the notion and don't want to see BioWare supporting it either, because its a concept that has not given us minimalistic HUDs but instead a whole lot of below-minimalistic HUDs in so many games these days. A typical product of the overall dumbing down of video games in general.

As far as I'm concerned, they should just bring the old ME1 HUD back, albeit tweaked for factors that no longer apply. Either that or scrap the abomination that is ME2's one and give us something at least closer to how it was in the first place. ME1 was a very flawed game I will admit, but the HUD was not one of those factors. ME2 I actually consider to have one of the worst HUDs I've ever seen in a game.

[Crysis I]

now there was me thinking that both games were shooter/RPG. how can anyone say the 2nd game is not an RPG just because your not up to your eyeballs in inventory screens and options. bioware have created there own genre of RPG with the mass effect games. all this whining and trolling is getting me down. im a huge RPG fan ive played them all from Finalfantasy,zelda,bioware games to even the poor attempt that was the last remnant.
 
not everyone wants every RPG to be filled with inventory the first mass effect is one of the best games ive played but to most people its average and sometimes not even that. the inventory system was too unnecessary the side missions were absolute ****e all the buildings were the same with just different enemies. the second game is alot more successfull because it appeals to more gamers but bioware have still kept it an RPG they just made it a bit easier for the wider audience. i think the 2nd game is even better then the first one the games great. i would say both games are in my top 10 games ever and ive played all the best games there has been to offer over the last 23 years. 

look what activision did to modern warfare2 that is what i call appealing to a wider audience in a badway the game is  
horrendous. With mass effect 2 bioware did it in a good way. its still very hard for some people to get into still with alot of people who brought the 2nd game have said they didnt like the talking and the upgrades (lol) as it was too in depth for them. i think all the people on these forums complaning about 2 need to get a grib on reality here i also think some of you expect too much. the 2nd game is almost perfect but still you want more and more. its almost greed

Modifié par Crysis I, 11 avril 2010 - 12:20 .

[Sad Dragon]

Terror_K wrote...

Simply put: I loathe the whole minimalistic HUD notion entirely, and it saddened me to see BioWare suddenly stopping to this modern and flawed convention

Will have to disagree with parts on that. I dont think the minimalistic HUD approach is flawed or even a bad thing. Problem is that if you want to make something minimalistic you will have to work 10 times as hard on it. And while i agree that BioWare missed with their ME2 minimalistic HUD i still think that a minimalistic HUD done right is far better then a larger HUD.

That being said. If they feel like their minimalistic HUD isnt intuitive enough - which they should have felt for the ME2 HUD - they should go for a larger HUD instead. A HUD is there to diaplay information to the user, if the user can not easaly read out the information the HUD has failed at being a HUD.

/TSD