MarloMarlo wrote...
There's also no better reason to give out XP per kill rather than at mission completions. That it feels like less of an RPG to you isn't a valid argument. You can say that you like instant XP gratification from enemy kills more than XP being rewarded for completing a mission. That's fine. But that's not the same as an argument that ME2 is less of an RPG, which I guess you acknowledge.
It doesn't make it "less of an RPG" as such, but it feels clumsy and as if they're trying hard to hide that this is an RPG and make it seem more like a shooter. The reason beyond that I prefer the old method is because I like to know exactly what it is I'm getting this XP for and why. It's kind of like if I were to take a 50 question exam and then when I got back my results all I saw was my final score, but the marker of the exam didn't actually indicate which questions I got right or wrong or provide any additional comments. As it stands I have no idea whether I'm actually earning XP for my deeds or whether the game is just giving me a random lump sum and leveling me up to try and satisfy me as an RPG fan in a "oh, here are some random points and you advanced" manner. On top of that, the whole "Mission Complete" thing seems rather cheesy, ham-fisted and B-Grade to me. It just feels... out of place and slapped on.
I would've preferred numbers, too, but that doesn't mean I'm also going to be able to validly argue that I can't compare weapons or that the guns are less RPG-ish than the guns in ME1. And, again, there's no such thing as "RPG mechanics," unless you want to count role playing as a mechanic. So saying something is more of a shooter mechanic is completely meaningless (to RPG purity arguments), even if you could argue why something is a shooter mechanic.
RPG's are generally known for having a selection of weapons with visible stats on them. Whether you and I can validly state that its a requirement for an RPG or not, it's become the standard. When the system is absolutely no different from that of any shooter out there that has a weapon description somewhere in it, to me it becomes a shooter mechanic and not an RPG one. To me that indicates that this factor is more of a shooter one now than an RPG one since it's essentially a shooter element and lacks a component that 95% or RPG's have. Now we can argue about RPG semantics 'til the cows come home on this and we'll probably get nowhere... lord knows its happened on this forum so many times before, but its of my opinion that the weapons system in ME2 is no longer an RPG element at all really. And it doesn't help that there's essentially only one type of each gun.
I suppose the question is: how much can you carve an RPG feature before it ceases to be what it was and becomes something else?
First off, if you care about flow and what's common in games, old RPGs are not something worth emulating. Stopping after ever fight to click on dead bodies (or bags left in place of a dead body that disappeared) and then click some more for coins and trivial things like fire crystals does not make flow better. Nor does manually running all the way back to the Normandy at the end of a mission, which isn't always done in ME1, by the way. Corpse or crate pop-up boxes, by the way, aren't that much different from mission complete screens, and probably come up way more often, consequently breaking the flow way more often.
Yes, but you control these aspects and when you choose them and they're part of the game itself. "Mission Complete" screen only serve to remind you you're playing a game. It doesn't help they're not even consistent (some sidequests don't even have them... though I'm actually kind of thankful of that).
Second, a feature being most commonly used in action-oriented titles rather than RPGs doesn't make it something that detracts from the RPG-ness of a game.
It does when it's a feature that's generally avoided in RPG titles, and for good reason. I don't feel like I'm exploring a vast universe in space at my leisure with them: I feel like I'm in a game and moving from level to level... like in an action game.
I'd love to see you try to explain why that is, or why appealing to more people is somehow automatically the same as alienating old fans. Are old fans not supposed to like good shooter mechanics in a game series with shooter combat? Are old fans supposed to hate everything in a sequel that's different from or wasn't in an older game? Are old fans only people who liked an old game in a series because of how it handled every aspect of itself? Are old fans not supposed to like things that a lot of other people like? If not, then what's the point of this complaint and how can it be a valid criticism? You can have the opinion that Avatar is better than The Hurt Locker, but "because Avatar has a more realistic desert setting" isn't a valid reason for that opinion.
If I was pulling this out of my arse, then how come a lot of fans are being alienated? Firstly, one can debate whether these shooter mechanics are actually good or fitting in the first place. Especially when several RPG factors have been thrown out with the bathwater to be replaced by them.
Fans don't hate everything in a sequel that's different, but they will often hate things they feel go against the grain or the spirit of the previous game, and many feel the oversimplification and increase of shooter elements at the expense of previously existing RPG ones does this.
Most people realise ME1 was flawed, but it tried damn it, and many thus feel it needed some patching up rather than chucking out and a complete revamp.
Old fans don't necessarily dislike popular things either, but the original Mass Effect was a very nerdy game, incorporating Science Fiction with an RPG: two things that are generally most enjoyed by nerd culture, who in most cases don't like mainstream things and prefer a more intellectual form of entertainment than the common public. ME2 however seems to try and bring itself further away from its initial nerdish leanings to appeal to a more mainstream audience, hence a lot of nerds being rather pissed that their series has be dumbed-down for Joe Public.
Thankfully the narrative has mostly stayed in tact with regards to this, but the gameplay mechanics have been streamlined so as not to scare off the average gamer of today who generally doesn't play RPGs, and BioWare have admitted as much themselves... so I'm not exactly pulling this out of my arse.
I find it funny that Christina Norman had Einstein's quote about making things "as simple as possible, but not simpler" when many (including myself) feel that the ME2 team
did make things "simpler" in the end. Streamling is one thing, but there's a fine line between streamlining to make existing things better and more efficient and dumbing-down to the point where they become overly simple.
Simply put (pardon the term...) BioWare went too far.
Retour en haut
when u're moving u'll never have the same accuracy like when u're crouching.
