Mass Effect 2, BioWare's perfect game...

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Look, as good as it is, even ME1 wasn't one of the top 5 of all time. And this one fixed the side quests and stuff by just cutting them out AFAIK (from what I hear; waiting for a discount myself)... Review scores mean nothing, and hype counts for a lot these days (surprisingly, even in srs business gaming circles).

 

[Frraksurred]

Perfect? Hardly. A good game yes, but not devoid of flaws... particularly for fans of ME1's RPG aspects.

 

[Parmenides]

I think everyone that has suggested the streamlined resource management, character stats, etc is someone how makes this game less of a role playing seem to have forgotten what a role playing is really about. A good RPG has nothing to do with rule systems, stats or how complex those systems are. A RPG is not a social RTS. The whole point is to play a role and for the actions to shape the narrative, to really have an impact on the game world. If anything ME2 is the most RPG of all RPGs to be released in a in a long while. How many other games did your actions in the first game have such a huge impact on the sequel? Compound that withall the little decisions you made in ME2 and how those will all roll into ME3. It's actually pretty amazing and will be even more amazing if they manage to keep it all straight in the next game.

These stat systems that people associate with RPGs are just carry overs from desktop role playing. They're out dated and actually impede a good RPG. They were necessary systems for setting boundaries when you had a group of people setting around a table. But we have reached a point where games are immersive enough that it is not necessary for the player to be reminded of the clockwork. If anything it distracts and creates an easy game mechanic crutch for lazy developers.

People really need to stop thinking that because a game has hit points, skill trees etc. that makes it an RPG. Most of the games that are called RPGs are that in name only.

By George you're right! All of it.

 

[Sikkyu]

I think everyone that has suggested the streamlined resource management, character stats, etc is someone how makes this game less of a role playing seem to have forgotten what a role playing is really about. A good RPG has nothing to do with rule systems, stats or how complex those systems are. A RPG is not a social RTS. The whole point is to play a role and for the actions to shape the narrative, to really have an impact on the game world. If anything ME2 is the most RPG of all RPGs to be released in a in a long while. How many other games did your actions in the first game have such a huge impact on the sequel? Compound that withall the little decisions you made in ME2 and how those will all roll into ME3. It's actually pretty amazing and will be even more amazing if they manage to keep it all straight in the next game.

These stat systems that people associate with RPGs are just carry overs from desktop role playing. They're out dated and actually impede a good RPG. They were necessary systems for setting boundaries when you had a group of people setting around a table. But we have reached a point where games are immersive enough that it is not necessary for the player to be reminded of the clockwork. If anything it distracts and creates an easy game mechanic crutch for lazy developers.

People really need to stop thinking that because a game has hit points, skill trees etc. that makes it an RPG. Most of the games that are called RPGs are that in name only.

*Scruffy: second

 

[Spewn]

People really need to stop thinking that because a game has hit points, skill trees etc. that makes it an RPG. Most of the games that are called RPGs are that in name only.

What makes Mass Effect 2 more of an RPG than say, Hitman: Bloodlines? Keep in mind that hit points, skill trees etc don't count towards being an RPG. In Hitman, you assume the role of the hitman, and your actions and how you carry out your missions affect the narrative of the story. So, is Hitman an RPG?

How about Civilization IV? Last game, I assumed the role of Mahatma Ghandi and conquered the world. Is Civ IV a role playing game?

Mass Effect 2 is a shooter with VERY light RPG elements thrown in. If they'd beefed up the character interaction to the levels seen in previous Bioware titles, I'd agree with you about the whole stats/levels thing. But I don't, because the characters were just about as flat as I've ever seen. They were like those toys with the strings in their butts where you pull 'em and they say shit, but after a couple times the tape breaks and you need to go on a mission to get a new one so they have new stuff to say. Stupid.

 

[Parmenides]

Well, RPG's aren't the only games with choices and consequences. The game can be argued to be lighter on the RPG side and heavier on the FPS side. But the game mechanics don't make it less of an RPG. A full scale FPS and a full scale RPG are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Spewn]

That's my point, Parmenides; Having choices and consequences *doesn't* make a game an RPG. The fact that RPG stands for "role playing game" is as meaningless as the fact that RTS stands for "real time strategy". Half-Life 2 could be called an RTS if all you go by is what RTS stands for, since the game occurs in real-time and requires "strategy"(no matter how simple that strategy might be).

My point is that in this industry it's pretty well understood what classifies a game as an RPG, and a robust character advancement system is pretty much a staple. You can have ALL the other elements of an RPG, but if you miss out on the character advancement system you have to call yourself, at best, an ARPG, and at worst an Action or Shooter game.

Hell, what do they say when a game incorporates levels/skill trees etc? They say it has RPG elements in it. You don't say a game has RPG elements in it because you make choices, or because you "assume a role".

Shooters and FPS's may not be mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean Bioware *can't* make a game that sacrifices RPG elements for FPS elements. I think you've misunderstood, the game isn't less of an RPG because it's more of an FPS, the game is less of an RPG because it's less of an RPG.

 

[Parmenides]

True that the term RPG is too vague, ambiguous, or both. But I'm not sure the industry itself has a rock solid, non-evolving understanding of what RPG means. It is just old tradition that most RPG's have lots of selectable skills when you level up or whatever. But as new games come out, I'm seeing more and morenew ways to portray skill/power/attribute progression. ME2 is just about as much an RPG as Vampire Masquerade: Bloodlines. Is that game an RPG? "RPG Mechanics" are always changing. It's hard to put a definition on what constitutes an RPG anymore. Infact, maybe there never was a good definition. RPG should probably speak more about your role as a character and less on gameplay mechanics.

BTW, is there character development (your character) in CivIV?

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I think the RPG elements from ME1 that were taken out in ME2 were generally pretty weak. Mass Effect was never a heavy RPG, it mostly focused on the space opera story, added a dash of RPG, some mediocre combat and called it a day. Not to say I didn't enjoy it, because I am a big fan of the first. But ME2 works better as a sci-fi space opera/shooter/really light RPG to me.

ME1 would have had to be a heavy, Dragon Age-ish RPG for me to have expected more RPG from ME2

 

[Chombo]

I think the RPG elements from ME1 that were taken out in ME2 were generally pretty weak. Mass Effect was never a heavy RPG, it mostly focused on the space opera story, added a dash of RPG, some mediocre combat and called it a day. Not to say I didn't enjoy it, because I am a big fan of the first. But ME2 works better as a sci-fi space opera/shooter/really light RPG to me.

ME1 would have had to be a heavy, Dragon Age-ish RPG for me to have expected more RPG from ME2

Agreed. However I am sure all of us would have rather had Bioware make those weaker elements stronger as opposed to removing them entirely. I can't honestly say the game is better off as an RPG by removing the gear drops. Allowing me to select the gear I want helps me define my character as unique and thus allows me to become more attached to it.

 

[Sikkyu]

cant say i miss the old system in ME1. I like the new system, but it denfinatly seems like something is missing from me2. maybe add a few more armor styles, although it looks like they are adding that via the cerberus network. but that really help now since ive already beat it... but i am planing another round soon.

 

[Parmenides]

The more games I play, the less I care on whether or not it follows the RPG template (whatever this supposed template is). I just enjoy it if it works, if it immerses me into some enjoyable world where I rarely think that I'm on my desk in front of the computer.

On many different levels except the setting, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines is about as RPG as ME2. I love both games. I don't care whether someone says VtMB or ME2 isn't an RPG, (even though the former is based off a real tabletop RPG). I'll still immerse myself in both games as much as I get immersed in other RPGs.

BTW, many people argue that Oblivion isn't an RPG too.

 

[Spewn]

True that the term RPG is too vague, ambiguous, or both. But I'm not sure the industry itself has a rock solid, non-evolving understanding of what RPG means. It is just old tradition that most RPG's have lots of selectable skills when you level up or whatever. But as new games come out, I'm seeing more and morenew ways to portray skill/power/attribute progression. ME2 is just about as much an RPG as Vampire Masquerade: Bloodlines. Is that game an RPG? "RPG Mechanics" are always changing. It's hard to put a definition on what constitutes an RPG anymore. Infact, maybe there never was a good definition. RPG should probably speak more about your role as a character and less on gameplay mechanics.

BTW, is there character development (your character) in CivIV?

No, and that's my point. The argument I was presented with was "Role playing games need only have the player take on a role and influence the game/narrative." My counter-argument is that that is false, as that happens in just about every game one plays. What defines an RPG is discreet, in-depth character advancement in terms of the character's ability to overcome in-game challenges. Bloodlines does a lot of things that ME2 doesn't do, for starters the character advancement is far more detailed. Second, there's a lot less hand-holding going on. Third, characters seem to have *real* personalities.

If I ever said flat out that ME2 is *not* an RPG, I was joking, and should have been more clear. ME2 is *less* of an RPG than what I had hoped for, and certainly less than what I expected or wanted. It's pretty hard to argue that what they stripped down isn't the staple of the RPG genre. They didn't remove it entirely, but damn it sure seems like they tried.

 

[4saken]

No, and that's my point. The argument I was presented with was "Role playing games need only have the player take on a role and influence the game/narrative." My counter-argument is that that is false, as that happens in just about every game one plays. What defines an RPG is discreet, in-depth character advancement in terms of the character's ability to overcome in-game challenges. Bloodlines does a lot of things that ME2 doesn't do, for starters the character advancement is far more detailed. Second, there's a lot less hand-holding going on. Third, characters seem to have *real* personalities.

If I ever said flat out that ME2 is *not* an RPG, I was joking, and should have been more clear. ME2 is *less* of an RPG than what I had hoped for, and certainly less than what I expected or wanted. It's pretty hard to argue that what they stripped down isn't the staple of the RPG genre. They didn't remove it entirely, but damn it sure seems like they tried.

Its an RPG anyway you slice it. Whether its as hardcore or not is different. The choices you make in your assumed role, which it is completely an assumed role, DO have some very major impacts on how the game unfolds, characters you pickup etc etc. But arguing its not an RPG would really be just be an argument the semantics of RPGs.

Like any serious RPG, this game can be replayed time upon time and with a myriad of choices you make you can have extremely different variations in gameplay and team members and endings.

Its definitely dumbed down a bit from ME1, but i think for the better. ME1 was a great game with a greaty story, but it got mired down in too much quite often.

 

[Spewn]

Its an RPG anyway you slice it. Whether its as hardcore or not is different. The choices you make in your assumed role, which it is completely an assumed role, DO have some very major impacts on how the game unfolds, characters you pickup etc etc. But arguing its not an RPG would really be just be an argument the semantics of RPGs.

Maybe you missed it, but I said quite explicitly that I *do* consider it to be an RPG, just much LESS of one than ME1(and in-fact, most of the other games I've played previously that claimed to be RPG's).

I disagree that the choices matter as much as you think they do, though. You can't influence much. You can choose not to recruit legion, and your choices at the end determine who lives or dies(but not in any sort of straightforward way that makes sense WHEN you're making your choices). Most, if not all, of the "choices" you make in ME2 are just illusions. You have almost no choices.

 

[Ashtaka]

If I ever said flat out that ME2 is *not* an RPG, I was joking, and should have been more clear. ME2 is *less* of an RPG than what I had hoped for, and certainly less than what I expected or wanted. It's pretty hard to argue that what they stripped down isn't the staple of the RPG genre. They didn't remove it entirely, but damn it sure seems like they tried.

I dunno. I don't see an RPG as "character stat advancement in order to gain and overpower things." That's action-rpg to me. Simple dungeon crawling, getting loot, etc.

For years, the staple of PC gaming was having boot disks for every game, running memmaker to try to squeeze out another 4k of EMS memory so you could run a game. Trying to squeeze 6k of XMS memory so you could also have dos4gw running with your mouse and cd-rom drivers.

A lot of what they didn't carry over from ME1 was just that. Extra weight that got in the way of story telling. I can min-max in Diablo or WoW. I don't care about narrative there. In ME, I wanted to get to and from story points, but having to omni-gel stuff every five minutes was annoying.

ME2 has more "character development" then any rpg that didn't have the words Planescape or Torment in it. What it lost was "character advancement".

 

[4saken]

Maybe you missed it, but I said quite explicitly that I *do* consider it to be an RPG, just much LESS of one than ME1(and in-fact, most of the other games I've played previously that claimed to be RPG's).

I disagree that the choices matter as much as you think they do, though. You can't influence much. You can choose not to recruit legion, and your choices at the end determine who lives or dies(but not in any sort of straightforward way that makes sense WHEN you're making your choices). Most, if not all, of the "choices" you make in ME2 are just illusions. You have almost no choices.

W/O spoiling, im curious how much you actually experimented? I found mutiple ways to complete or not complete missions that directly affected my team members, or even replaced them. Unless you literally have played every char/renegade/paragon in 2 and completed every sidequest dialogue with all options, it just seems to me that you are the one mistaken on the depth of the game. I agree its not as in depth as say DA:O or Planescape, etc etc, but it is a very deep game in its own right.

Also, Did you read any of the bridging fiction between ME1/2? I read all of the karpyshyn novels and that definitely helped me understand, enjoy, and immerse myself mroe in the story line of ME2 since it directly related to ME2 story line.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I dunno. I don't see an RPG as "character stat advancement in order to gain and overpower things." That's action-rpg to me. Simple dungeon crawling, getting loot, etc.

For years, the staple of PC gaming was having boot disks for every game, running memmaker to try to squeeze out another 4k of EMS memory so you could run a game. Trying to squeeze 6k of XMS memory so you could also have dos4gw running with your mouse and cd-rom drivers.

A lot of what they didn't carry over from ME1 was just that. Extra weight that got in the way of story telling. I can min-max in Diablo or WoW. I don't care about narrative there. In ME, I wanted to get to and from story points, but having to omni-gel stuff every five minutes was annoying.

ME2 has more "character development" then any rpg that didn't have the words Planescape or Torment in it. What it lost was "character advancement".

This post proves two things:

1. You are old like me. Good times with memmaker.

2. Bioware seems to know what they are doing.

 

[Spewn]

I dunno. I don't see an RPG as "character stat advancement in order to gain and overpower things." That's action-rpg to me. Simple dungeon crawling, getting loot, etc.

The "action" part of an "action" RPG is..well, the action, not the stats. Not sure how you got that confused.

For years, the staple of PC gaming was having boot disks for every game, running memmaker to try to squeeze out another 4k of EMS memory so you could run a game. Trying to squeeze 6k of XMS memory so you could also have dos4gw running with your mouse and cd-rom drivers.

That wasn't a staple of gaming. Are you serious? You must be part of the crowd that thinks turn-based is just a limitation of hardware, like we'd all rather play Civ IV or Warhammer in real-time?

A lot of what they didn't carry over from ME1 was just that. Extra weight that got in the way of story telling. I can min-max in Diablo or WoW. I don't care about narrative there. In ME, I wanted to get to and from story points, but having to omni-gel stuff every five minutes was annoying.

If they'd gotten rid of ALL the character development, ALL of the inventory and item upgrading, would it be even more of an RPG because there's even less stuff to "get in the way"? Gears of War is pretty close to that, although you don't have a cast of "characters" that say one or two new things to you after each mission, so I guess it doesn't count as an RPG.

 

[Spewn]

W/O spoiling, im curious how much you actually experimented? I found mutiple ways to complete or not complete missions that directly affected my team members, or even replaced them.

"directly affected", as in, they said one comment about it and then forget it happened for the rest of the game? Or if it's their loyalty mission and you fuck it up, they hate you forever no matter what else happens? Yeah, that's really deep.

Unless you literally have played every char/renegade/paragon in 2 and completed every sidequest dialogue with all options, it just seems to me that you are the one mistaken on the depth of the game. I agree its not as in depth as say DA:O or Planescape, etc etc, but it is a very deep game in its own right.

When judged on its own, the shallowest of pools is "deep" next to the flat ground they sit on. ME2 failed to inspire me to want to play more and experience more, because it's just so hollow. Your crew members are hardly there. Maybe instead of having such a huge cast, they could have trimmed it down and had much more individual dialogue, growth, and interaction.

Also, Did you read any of the bridging fiction between ME1/2? I read all of the karpyshyn novels and that definitely helped me understand, enjoy, and immerse myself mroe in the story line of ME2 since it directly related to ME2 story line.

Not sure I could stomach it. Is it as good as their explanation of where "Thermal clips" came from? Or is it as good as the Sci-fi behind liquifying organic life and building a giant robot out of it?

 

[Patman08]

To be honest, mediocre for Bioware is better or as good as some of the best games from other studios.

Yep but mass effect is anything but mediocre

QFT
It's a shame I've never played Mass Effect, this Mass Effect 2 hypetrain makes it sound like I should be aboard.

Hop aboard son, we've still got a few seats.

 

[Ashtaka]

The "action" part of an "action" RPG is..well, the action, not the stats. Not sure how you got that confused.

That wasn't a staple of gaming. Are you serious? You must be part of the crowd that thinks turn-based is just a limitation of hardware, like we'd all rather play Civ IV or Warhammer in real-time?

If they'd gotten rid of ALL the character development, ALL of the inventory and item upgrading, would it be even more of an RPG because there's even less stuff to "get in the way"? Gears of War is pretty close to that, although you don't have a cast of "characters" that say one or two new things to you after each mission, so I guess it doesn't count as an RPG.

The role playing in RPG is well... roleplaying. Killing 100 boars to get the Axe +2 of Boarkilling to kill Dire-Boars is not role playing. That's hacking and slashing. Spending talent points to increase your fireball's blast radius 2m to synergize with your chaos bolt's stun is min-max'ing. Sans Baldur's Gate and Planescape, list some games that you think are -real- RPGs. Is combat and loot an integral part to any RPG you play? Be it video or table top? For the most part, I can't touch console RPGs anymore, and the last non-bioware RPG I enjoyed was The Witcher; so I'm always looking for new games to play.

I'd consider that a staple of computer gaming, if you were gaming in that era. Carrying 25 pounds of books and dice to your friend's is a staple of table top gaming, no? Would you think less of someone who brought a 3 pound laptop with their books in PDF format?

Does having a linear progression of weapons and gear add to your roleplaying experience? Or does it detract from other's experience by giving them opportunities to create broken characters?

And just an FYI, I -love- turn based tactical games. I'd much rather play table top 40k than Dawn of War and I've got about 8k points worth of 40k mini's to prove it.

Sure, you can simplify gaming like that, breaking it down to bare bone fundamentals. I can do that to music too, by removing passing tones and the like until every piece of western music is broken down into a I-V chord progression. But by doing that, you perform a disservice to what you're examining. If I played Bloodlines and just shot my way through, does it make it a Half Life wanna-be?

Yes, Mass Effect 1 was a more complicated game than 2. However, name a single thing from 1 that didn't carry over into 2 that was good. Its a compromise that the majority seem to think was for the better.

 

[Dome]

the skills in mass effect 1 were fun to have. and it was nice to drop points every level, instead of having to wait to spend them, but i only ever used 2 or 3 skills for every class (beat the game 8 times). so what's the point of keeping them around? i like the streamlining and specialization of the classes.

 

[Dreaz]

Well I guess that's one route if only 2 or 3 skills are actually good. The other could be leaving all them in and making the other skills comparable. But I guess that's more difficult to implement.

 

[akotlar]

I think everyone that has suggested the streamlined resource management, character stats, etc is someone how makes this game less of a role playing seem to have forgotten what a role playing is really about. A good RPG has nothing to do with rule systems, stats or how complex those systems are. A RPG is not a social RTS. The whole point is to play a role and for the actions to shape the narrative, to really have an impact on the game world. If anything ME2 is the most RPG of all RPGs to be released in a in a long while. How many other games did your actions in the first game have such a huge impact on the sequel? Compound that withall the little decisions you made in ME2 and how those will all roll into ME3. It's actually pretty amazing and will be even more amazing if they manage to keep it all straight in the next game.

These stat systems that people associate with RPGs are just carry overs from desktop role playing. They're out dated and actually impede a good RPG. They were necessary systems for setting boundaries when you had a group of people setting around a table. But we have reached a point where games are immersive enough that it is not necessary for the player to be reminded of the clockwork. If anything it distracts and creates an easy game mechanic crutch for lazy developers.

People really need to stop thinking that because a game has hit points, skill trees etc. that makes it an RPG. Most of the games that are called RPGs are that in name only.

Regardless of how you wish to redefine RPG's, the genre pretty much requires character development via stats. The whole point is to give you complete control over your character's maturity throughout the length of the game, and there's really no way to do that without some kind of stat-point system. And combat then requires some kind of stat-point system so that you can fairly compare the character you've evolved to the game world population.

If what I'm saying doesn't make sense to you, it's because your conception of RPG is so liberal that pretty much ANY game falls under the guise. Including Pixel Junkie Shooter, Uncharted, Gears, Doom III and everything else. Heck you "role play" in all of those titles too right? So the entire VG market should just have 1 segment: RPG and be done with it.

Otherwise RPG is what I described in the 1st paragraph. Of course no RPG would be enticing without an immersive world and interesting world characters along with back-story, side-quests, yada yada, but those aren't gameplay mechanics, and the RPG gameplay mechanic is what differentiates an RPG from an FPS or a TPS or a 2PS or an adventure game. If you want to make ME2 a first person action-adventure game, that's fine, but it isn't an RPG.

 

[akotlar]

the skills in mass effect 1 were fun to have. and it was nice to drop points every level, instead of having to wait to spend them, but i only ever used 2 or 3 skills for every class (beat the game 8 times). so what's the point of keeping them around? i like the streamlining and specialization of the classes.

Heck most people only like chocolate anyways, so we should drop all the other ice cream flavors.

The reason you offer choice is because 1) it gives a sense of freedom and 2) not everyone enjoys products streamlined to 1,2 or even the majority's feature preference.

 

[Parmenides]

I think the main thing that everyone thinks is missing (as far as stats/skills go) is there seem to be too few simultaneous skills to choose from. And I agree with that. You only get one special skill to use at a time. The nice thing is that the game engine easily handles more than one. The savegame editor fixes that. It's fun using both reave and slam. I imagine when they unlock the level cap with new DLC's, there will be more options in the un-edited game.

I am glad they got rid of weapon skills. Let my reflex and mouse aiming be the gun skill please! (and I'm not a great FPS player either) Spending "role play" skill points onto +20% shotgun damage is just cheesy. Skills don't make more damage... aiming does! Let me line up my shots better. Weapon skills (shotgun, rifle, sniper, etc) is fat that gladly got trimmed moving from ME1 to ME2. Same goes for the "armor skill." Imagine Wrex saying to Shepard, "you have better armor then me, but shots do less damage on me because I have mad armor skillz."

I'm still on the fence as to whether 30 slots per skill is better than having 4 per skill, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. It really seems that ME2 just makes little room for newbs to mess up their characters. Call it hand holding, sure, but it's not that big of a deal. Yes, less room for min-maxing, but I don't care. I never cared much for min-maxing anyways. min-maxing isn't a must for RPG. Oblivion and Morrowind don't bother with it.
If you factor out the limited simultaneous skill selection, ME2 has more stats to choose from. ME2's "fire" ammo and "cold" ammo is bad enough. Having that should keep some of you happy. I would even trim that fat.

Overall with multiple playthroughs (or savegame editing) there are more skills in ME2 than ME1 and bloodlines (a currently undisputed RPG).

 

[rob2000]

ill wait for it to be cheap for the pc. Im not buying the console version mainly because i play pc more, and that if you are one of the few without a hdtv the text size is microscopic just like Dead Rising had. and they refuse to fix it for this game as well, different company same problem. If almost all the games do not have this problem, it seems a few piss poor design decisions were implemented.

having said that, i did see a 30 minute special on ME2 and it looked killer, so eventually i will get around to playing it,, maybe when it hits the bargain bin, or i see someone else play it and get hooked.

 

[ikarinokami]

ME2 is not an RPG. its and adventure 3rd person shooter. it's still a great but not an rpg. Deus ex is more of an RPG. Vampire bloodlines 100% RPG.

 

[Luthorcrow]

What makes Mass Effect 2 more of an RPG than say, Hitman: Bloodlines? Keep in mind that hit points, skill trees etc don't count towards being an RPG. In Hitman, you assume the role of the hitman, and your actions and how you carry out your missions affect the narrative of the story. So, is Hitman an RPG?...

Simple, in Hitman you have choices in how you complete a mission but not in who your character is. It's apparent that the world and characters do not resonate for you.

That's my point, Parmenides; Having choices and consequences *doesn't* make a game an RPG. The fact that RPG stands for "role playing game" is as meaningless as the fact that RTS stands for "real time strategy". Half-Life 2 could be called an RTS if all you go by is what RTS stands for, since the game occurs in real-time and requires "strategy"(no matter how simple that strategy might be).

My point is that in this industry it's pretty well understood what classifies a game as an RPG, and a robust character advancement system is pretty much a staple. You can have ALL the other elements of an RPG, but if you miss out on the character advancement system you have to call yourself, at best, an ARPG, and at worst an Action or Shooter game...

No. You are right that has become the industry answer to what a RPG is but it doesn't change that fact it is the completely wrong answer. Yes, I am saying many games that have the RPG tag are not RPGs. Playing a role is not meaningless and is in fact the point. What separates playing a role in a RPG vs. another game is has to be an element of shared story telling. In other words you have the option to do more than one thing and those decision change the story.

You seem to keep repeating that choices in ME2 don't matter but I really can't see how you can say that seriously. Your choices in ME1 literally change an entire world (Krogans) and in ME2 you make decisions that effect the future of the Geth, whether Cerberus has access to advanced technology as well as the fate of dozens of NPCs. If you just think about all of the possible combinations between the two games and how they fold into ME3, it is pretty amazing. I mean honestly, how many games can you name that your decisions in one game how as big of an impact on the next game?

Then consider that as you play more Renegade and Paragon you get these quick time events that open only if you swing one way other the other strongly and those little event greatly change how you interact with others and the role you play with other characters. Is it a bit gamey? Sure but there limits to what games can do right now.

In my view an ultimate RPG would be one were all the NPCs were completely AI rather than scripted with the AI good enough to pass a Turing Test. But we are a few years away from that happening.

ME2 is not an RPG. its and adventure 3rd person shooter. it's still a great but not an rpg. Deus ex is more of an RPG. Vampire bloodlines 100% RPG.

VB was a great game. If anything I think ME2 and VB have more in common then they do with other so called RPGs.

 

[4saken]

"directly affected", as in, they said one comment about it and then forget it happened for the rest of the game? Or if it's their loyalty mission and you fuck it up, they hate you forever no matter what else happens? Yeah, that's really deep.



When judged on its own, the shallowest of pools is "deep" next to the flat ground they sit on. ME2 failed to inspire me to want to play more and experience more, because it's just so hollow. Your crew members are hardly there. Maybe instead of having such a huge cast, they could have trimmed it down and had much more individual dialogue, growth, and interaction.



Not sure I could stomach it. Is it as good as their explanation of where "Thermal clips" came from? Or is it as good as the Sci-fi behind liquifying organic life and building a giant robot out of it?

Sounds like you just want to hate on the game, which is fine, but based on your arguments on what RPGs are, it really seems you have a misunderstanding of what constitutes RPGs, or what the important elements are. It almost seems like you havent actually played the game because you obviously havent seen the how deep your choices go in this game. Again, ill state its definitely not as deep as old school rpgs, but what is these days?

 

[mas]

Your choices in ME1 literally change an entire world (Krogans) and in ME2 you make decisions that effect the future of the Geth, whether Cerberus has access to advanced technology as well as the fate of dozens of NPCs. If you just think about all of the possible combinations between the two games and how they fold into ME3, it is pretty amazing. I mean honestly, how many games can you name that your decisions in one game how as big of an impact on the next game?

Then consider that as you play more Renegade and Paragon you get these quick time events that open only if you swing one way other the other strongly and those little event greatly change how you interact with others and the role you play with other characters. Is it a bit gamey? Sure but there limits to what games can do right now.

change what and how? krogans exist in exactly the same way as they did before, with the same disease, no matter what you do. only difference is they swap out one character for another, to guide you through the exact same story. those combinations all "fold" in one direction, you end up with the same cut no matter which way you go. "paragon" and "renegade" tell the same story in the nice guy way, or the asshole way, either way you cannot change your role in the story. all those things about what could happen in me3 is just that, pure speculation. and if it's anything like what we saw here, they will have the same minor differences that have absolutely no bearing on what happens in the story.

it's already been said, mass effect is not and has never been designed as an rpg, bioware has gone on the record with this themselves. it's a 3rd person shooter with rpg elements just to create an appeal, that's it. everything about it including the mechanics and gameplay is developed around this concept, you're not supposed to "be" the character you just "play" their character. I don't have the blog link on hand, but they have been quoted explaining this at length, if you really want to see it it's in the bioware forums somewhere. anyone going into the game expecting this or trying to convince themselves otherwise is mistaken.

likewise "deep" and "shallow" are obviously relative terms, and as far as shooters go it's not too shabby imo. but for an rpg it's nothing, and should not be expected of them. in that context it's a good game, you play it for the action and one-way story, trying to claim it has any real depth is pointless. people get thrown off by the huge amount of dialogue and distractions, but all it does is tell the same story in 6 different ways. you always end up with the same thing plus or minus a few minor details, your basic "role" is not supposed to change at any time, besides the mechanics used to experience it.

 

[Parmenides]

True, it's not a "be any character you want to be" role play. Bioware did say that you guide their character, not make up your own character. But that's not all too much different than Baldur's gate. In that game you're stuck with someone else's character. I haven't played Witcher, but I imagine the same goes for it.

Infact, the "non-hardcore rpg's" like Morrowind and Oblivion are the games that let you be pretty much anything you want.

In ME2 you role play Commander Shepard.

 

[Kynnath]

Spoilers to follow. You've been warned.

I loved ME1 and ME2, far as I remember they're the only games I've ever bothered to replay, and enjoyed them both.

I'd just finished getting a character ready on ME1 for ME2 (played to lvl 60, all quests, etc), so the change of mechanics and key bindings was a slight shock. After getting used to it, however, I did come to appreciate many of the changes. Others, not so much.

Combat is more involved in the sequel. I played an infiltrator on ME1, and most combats were simply shooting with the sniper rifle from beyond the effective range of the enemy. From husks to colossi, the only difference was how long it took. Even on Insanity I hardly ever bothered to give commands to my allies. Enclosed environments (every sidequest in a warehouse on some uncharted planet) were a bit more problematic, but not by much. The biggest tactical decision I had to make was switching my team's ammo for organic or synthetic damage at the start of a mission.

I now have to actively manage the squad, and use their powers and mine. I can't stand 300m away and kill everything because I run out of ammo. I have to switch weapon types and ammo types around as enemies have different defences and conserving ammo means making the most of each shot. Is it harder? Yes, but ME1 was too easy, once you got good equipment and leveled your weapons. Does it make sense in-universe to switch to a limitted ammo system? Hell no, but it makes for a better game I think. The combat in this game is a lot more complex than in ME1.

The cover system needs a little work still. Having cover make you invulnerable is too generous. It makes battles (at least for infiltrators, haven't played close quarter fighters) too static. I do wish they did away with the need to scrounge up ammo after the battle. They'd fixed that in ME1 with the auto-looting, then undid it in ME2.

I think they really succeded in making 'big' creatures look huge and seem a real threat. In ME1 I was taking on armatures and thresher maws on foot (sometimes in hazardous environments) from the very beggining, and the only thing I felt I risked was boredom. Granted, by the end of the game my fully upgraded sniper rifle did more damage than the Mako's main gun, but still. They only had a chance when they were tightly grouped, like on the bridges in Feros.

You only face one thresher maw and one collosus in ME2, but they're both memorable events. Again, limited ammo works towards that, and even then you get a lot of ammo for those two battles. It helps that their weapons are faster and homing now.

Resources suck. And are non-optional if you want to keep your people alive. I found it helps if you only bother with Rich or Good planets and ignore everything else, but still. I shouldn't be looking for ways to play the game less. And 30 probes, even 60, are not enough. I never found fuel to be an issue, since I ran out of probes a lot sooner than fuel, and I was constantly going back for them. I simply topped off the tank each time I bought probes. It's somewhat better than running around in the Mako looking for resource spots, from an immersion standpoinit, but I really wish I could have just gone and bought the resources from somewhere.

Exploration was a bit lackluster. It wasn't really exploration. You knew everything that was there in advance, thanks to the % counter on each system and cluster. Once you reached 100%, you moved on. Still needs a bit of work, but has promise.

I miss the Mako. I like running around on it.

The scarceness of credits is good. I like that money means something now, as opposed to in ME1 where I spent most of the game at 9999999 and I sold stuff because it was faster than making them omni-gel. I don't like that you have to buy everything from every store, since everything they sell are unique items you can't find elsewhere in the game.

From a story point of view, the game felt... odd. I get that I was recruiting a team, but it didn't feel like I was trying to get them to trust me. The Illusive Man gave me a dossier on each, and they were all expecting me and had pretty much agreed on advance. Many times it felt like I fought my way to the level only to have the person say "What took you so long?" And then they'll just go with you, you don't need to do anything to get them. Sure, there's a mission afterwards to gain their loyalty, but the recruiting didn't feel like recruiting. I would have liked it if I could have gone ahead and done some research on my own in order to learn where and how to pick team mates.

My favorite team members where the ones that weren't so 'scripted', that came more like a surprise. I worked hard at not getting spoiled, so I didn't expect Garrus to be Archangel, for one. That was a nice surprise, particularly after TIM told me I couldn't get him 'cause he'd dissapeared. Then again, I would have jumped at the chance to follow his tracks and perhaps finding him that way would have been better.

Going for Tali was also good. She didn't expect it, and I came right in the nick of time, helped one of her buddies, etc. Also, the colossus fight was fun. And her loyalty mission was one of the most touching.

Legion is another of my favorites. You're not looking for a member (though the empty spot is something of a giveaway) and suddenly there's this crazy geth helping you, and for some reason wearing your armor.

I didn't care for Grunt's character much, but I liked that he was another surprise. I thought I was going to get a crazy Krogan doctor, and instead I get a crazy Krogan. Fun times.

On the other end of the spectrum, Jacob and Miranda. I only took Miranda along because her power set was just too useful and complimented mine. Bonus to weapon damage, warp and overload? Gimme. Jacob I stopped using soon as I had someone else and never looked back. The character was just too bland. The rest were mrely uninteresting. Just, go there and pick this person up. They know you're coming and have already agreed.

As a leader, it should be Shepard that decides who to go pick up. He shouldn't just be given a grocery list. It also felt like I knew everything I needed to know at all times. One of my favorite moments on ME1 was the chat with Sovereign on Virmire, the reveal of the real enemy. On ME2, I'm just flying around while I wait for someone to figure out how to open the Omega 4 relay, which is right there. The beggining is good (and finding Tali on Freedom's Progress was a nice surprise), but then you're told "Yeah, I knew that already," and your hate for TIM just grows from there.

And what's with everyone knowing about Cerberus all of a sudden, and my association with it? People are a lot less surprised than they should be at learning I'm back. At least I got the council to reinstate my Spectre status. I can go back to buying my own weapons and armor and being given a ship by someone other than them. The asses. Well, I don't care, I don't need them. I'm just gonna go ahead and build an army of Krogan, Rachni and Geth and solve the problem on my own.

I know a lot of effort was made to make renegade and paragon choices 'equivalent', but it feels as though the paragon path has a lot more stuff in it. You get to meet up with a bunch of people that renegade Shepards would have just killed, and they show their appreciation and for the most part Paragon Shepard is shown to have been a positive force in their lives. It makes being Paragon a lot more satisfying than it already was (even if the renegade path has better lines). It's worth it to spare Fist to be able to tell him two years later "Whoever you are, you stopped being relevant about five minutes after I apparently told you to run."

 

[Sikkyu]

And what's with everyone knowing about Cerberus all of a sudden, and my association with it? People are a lot less surprised than they should be at learning I'm back. At least I got the council to reinstate my Spectre status. I can go back to buying my own weapons and armor and being given a ship by someone other than them. The asses. Well, I don't care, I don't need them. I'm just gonna go ahead and build an army of Krogan, Rachni and Geth and solve the problem on my own.

the whole, "I was dead for years now im back, we know stfu" seems like an easy fix. it could have been an involved quest. getting immediately arraested or interrigeted. or at least one person to be "HOLY SHIT YOUR ALIVE? WTF" there were no questions on how or why or when. just "ok your back, please dont stir shit up and stand over there, we stopped caring. oh and your death was meaningless and so are you."

I hope the whole citadel dies in a fire.

seriously, even anderson is a douche, he used to be totaly non-douchey

 

[xLAMBIEx]

mass efect two is a good game, but with all its problems i still enjoyed the first one more. if they had kept the customization from the first and just fixed the stupid over encumbrance thing the game would be ten times better than what it is. I kinda hate mass effect two because its so dumbed down.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device