Dhruin
SasqWatch
Yet another editorial on Mass Effect 2, with this piece at Everyday Gamers questioning the RPG aspects:
More information.
Mass Effect 2 - Mass Ineffective
- Thread starter Dhruin
- Start date
Neverwinter27
Watcher
- Joined
- January 31, 2010
- Messages
- 18
and people consider Zelda to be an rpg so what
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 18
i wrote a blog about this exact thing a couple of weeks ago. The Renegade/Paragon thing in Mass Effect 2 really really bugged me. It just seemed so unnecessary and out of place in the game - especially when virtually all of the other traditional rpg aspects had been stripped out.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 55
JuliusMagnus
Indulgent Wastrel
- Joined
- October 22, 2006
- Messages
- 409
His reasons might be different. The writer wants his own opinions reflected. While other might play RPGs with a particular role in mind for their build. Ofcourse delineating what's good and bad in blue and red makes it simple.
But I must admit that in my second playthrough of Mass Effect 1 I tried very hard to get a full renegade points bar (you don't only get them from the red option but also from one of the white dialogue choices) but by the end of the game only had it 70% full and at the end game the most nefarious options were not available to me. It was either because I didn't do enough sidequests (sidequests on sparsly inhabited world really sucked with my first playthrough so I left most of them untouched) or I didn't always go for the 'correct'renegade option.
I agree that with a good/bad system the developer gods decide what is good and bad.
I wish that instead of good/bad moral system they do a decent faction reputation system. Because then it should be more clear to delineate what 'good' and 'bad' is relative to the faction. "You're either with us... or against us."
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 409
JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
I would also like for some philosophical concepts to be dabbled with. Community vs Individuality, Principle vs Freedom etc.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
Peter Stauffenberg
Keeper of the Watch
You have to consider that the game is made for consoles as well as PC. So the dialog choices you see are just short description of what the character intends to see. You simply don't have room to show all Shepard would say.
Some times the answers you see are ambiguous and if you didn't know which ones were paragon, neutral or renegade then you would complain. You want to play in a certain way and if you don't know the consequence of your reply then you will become frustrated. E. g. you wanted to solve the conflict peacefully, but since you didn't understand your dialog option you made something evil instead. That's even worse.
In Mass Effect 2 you know that the upper right choice is paragon, central right is neutral and lower right is renegade. Blue answers (left) are paragon and red answers (left) are renegade. I don't see a problem with that and would have hated the other method. If I can't see the entire dialog answer (like in Dragon Age) before I choose then I would like to know the intention between each answer before I select it. I don't think real people who want to follow the paragon path would doubt which option to choose. He would try to solve the issue in a paragon way.
I think Mass Effect 2 is an RPG game, but not the typical RPG that we're used to with Neverwinter Nights, Fallout and others. RPG means you're playing a ROLE and the choices you make have a consequence to the outcome of the story. You definitely see that in ME2. You can interact with people and what you say will mean something.
ME2 is somewhere between a shooter and aN RPG game. In typical RPG games you see that your stats, feats and skills will determine your chance to hit. In shooters it will be your own ability to point the gun and pull the trigger at the right moment. So ME2 combat works as a shooter while the ME1 combat worked as an RPG.
I actually like the merger between shooter and RPG in ME2. It works very well and I sometimes feel I'm playing a good shooter game with an excellent story. I like games like Modern Warfare, but the story is poorly executed. We're rushed from one mission to another and what we do won't influence the story at all. In ME2 you have the choice where to go next and how to solve the mission. So the game ends according to your choices even though you're pushed in the direction the game wants.
I hate games like Oblivion where you have no heavy story that would want to you pursue it. You're supposed to wander where you like and do the quests you want in any order. I don't like that kind of freedom because you don't get involved in the main conflict. So I never completed Oblivion. I got bored halfway through the game because I was tired of seeing the samey people, quests, dungeons etc. everywhere. I didn't feel what I did mattered to the story.
ME2 is definitely not a perfect game, but it's very good and I think they made it even better than ME1. The inventory system in ME1 and most RPG games are awful. You have a limit to the number of items you can carry and you collect junk to sell it and get money for better stuff. In almost all RPG's I played I spent a lot of time moving from a finished quest to a vendor to get rid of junk. It's so boring.
In ME2 you don't have any loot to worry about. You get paid for solving missions and you have no inventory. All you buy will be available in a weapons locker and you can select which to use at the beginning of each mission. That works much better and is similar to a shooter.
The worst part of ME2 was some story decisions. I thought it was cheesy that the entire squad mate group would go to the shuttle just to test the reaper IFF device. I would never have done that as a commander. This was done to let the Normandy be invaded by the collectors to kidnap the crew. I think it would have been better if the squad members you didn't use on a mission were also on the Normany so when you returned from a mission you would see your squad and crew kidnapped. That would create an even bigger reason to follow the collector ship into the Omega relay.
I saved the entire crew because I was finished with all my quests and moved into the Omega relay soon after the kidnapping, but I agree that you didn't get good indications that time mattered. If e. g. the AI computer would tell you that she had said the collector ship had moved through the Omega relay then you would have a reason to pursue.
I think that those who like ME2 the least are those who enjoy looting and getting new stuff all the time in their inventory. I play DA:O Awakening now and have already become tired of the numerous trips back to town to sell even more junk. I miss the ME2 system.
Team Corwin plays DDO and we spend maybe 20 minutes or so in real time in each 2 hour sessions travelling back and forth to the general vendor to sell loot and repair damaged stuff. That's not fun.
The thing I liked the least with ME2 was that almost every quest had to be resolved by killing some bad guys. So violence was the only way to solve it. I would have liked to have more non violent solutions to the quests. E. g. you could get somewhere and talk the bad guys to give up and get the hell out of there or force them to give you what you wanted.
The AI of bad guys is usually very poor. They fight until the last bad guy is dead. I think a smart bad guy would run away or even surrender if he saw you slaughtered most of his comrades without much effort. Why would a bad guy sacrifice his life if he has no chance of winning the battle? Monsters like husks won't have that kind of intelligence, but all sentient creatures would value their own lives and try to escape from a situation where they can win.
I've read somewhere that Bioware will focus more on the RPG part for ME3 so I have high hopes that ME3 will just be what I want.
A good combat engine (like a shooter), a great story and quests that can be solved in different ways and where my choices actually matter.
Some times the answers you see are ambiguous and if you didn't know which ones were paragon, neutral or renegade then you would complain. You want to play in a certain way and if you don't know the consequence of your reply then you will become frustrated. E. g. you wanted to solve the conflict peacefully, but since you didn't understand your dialog option you made something evil instead. That's even worse.
In Mass Effect 2 you know that the upper right choice is paragon, central right is neutral and lower right is renegade. Blue answers (left) are paragon and red answers (left) are renegade. I don't see a problem with that and would have hated the other method. If I can't see the entire dialog answer (like in Dragon Age) before I choose then I would like to know the intention between each answer before I select it. I don't think real people who want to follow the paragon path would doubt which option to choose. He would try to solve the issue in a paragon way.
I think Mass Effect 2 is an RPG game, but not the typical RPG that we're used to with Neverwinter Nights, Fallout and others. RPG means you're playing a ROLE and the choices you make have a consequence to the outcome of the story. You definitely see that in ME2. You can interact with people and what you say will mean something.
ME2 is somewhere between a shooter and aN RPG game. In typical RPG games you see that your stats, feats and skills will determine your chance to hit. In shooters it will be your own ability to point the gun and pull the trigger at the right moment. So ME2 combat works as a shooter while the ME1 combat worked as an RPG.
I actually like the merger between shooter and RPG in ME2. It works very well and I sometimes feel I'm playing a good shooter game with an excellent story. I like games like Modern Warfare, but the story is poorly executed. We're rushed from one mission to another and what we do won't influence the story at all. In ME2 you have the choice where to go next and how to solve the mission. So the game ends according to your choices even though you're pushed in the direction the game wants.
I hate games like Oblivion where you have no heavy story that would want to you pursue it. You're supposed to wander where you like and do the quests you want in any order. I don't like that kind of freedom because you don't get involved in the main conflict. So I never completed Oblivion. I got bored halfway through the game because I was tired of seeing the samey people, quests, dungeons etc. everywhere. I didn't feel what I did mattered to the story.
ME2 is definitely not a perfect game, but it's very good and I think they made it even better than ME1. The inventory system in ME1 and most RPG games are awful. You have a limit to the number of items you can carry and you collect junk to sell it and get money for better stuff. In almost all RPG's I played I spent a lot of time moving from a finished quest to a vendor to get rid of junk. It's so boring.
In ME2 you don't have any loot to worry about. You get paid for solving missions and you have no inventory. All you buy will be available in a weapons locker and you can select which to use at the beginning of each mission. That works much better and is similar to a shooter.
The worst part of ME2 was some story decisions. I thought it was cheesy that the entire squad mate group would go to the shuttle just to test the reaper IFF device. I would never have done that as a commander. This was done to let the Normandy be invaded by the collectors to kidnap the crew. I think it would have been better if the squad members you didn't use on a mission were also on the Normany so when you returned from a mission you would see your squad and crew kidnapped. That would create an even bigger reason to follow the collector ship into the Omega relay.
I saved the entire crew because I was finished with all my quests and moved into the Omega relay soon after the kidnapping, but I agree that you didn't get good indications that time mattered. If e. g. the AI computer would tell you that she had said the collector ship had moved through the Omega relay then you would have a reason to pursue.
I think that those who like ME2 the least are those who enjoy looting and getting new stuff all the time in their inventory. I play DA:O Awakening now and have already become tired of the numerous trips back to town to sell even more junk. I miss the ME2 system.
Team Corwin plays DDO and we spend maybe 20 minutes or so in real time in each 2 hour sessions travelling back and forth to the general vendor to sell loot and repair damaged stuff. That's not fun.
The thing I liked the least with ME2 was that almost every quest had to be resolved by killing some bad guys. So violence was the only way to solve it. I would have liked to have more non violent solutions to the quests. E. g. you could get somewhere and talk the bad guys to give up and get the hell out of there or force them to give you what you wanted.
The AI of bad guys is usually very poor. They fight until the last bad guy is dead. I think a smart bad guy would run away or even surrender if he saw you slaughtered most of his comrades without much effort. Why would a bad guy sacrifice his life if he has no chance of winning the battle? Monsters like husks won't have that kind of intelligence, but all sentient creatures would value their own lives and try to escape from a situation where they can win.
I've read somewhere that Bioware will focus more on the RPG part for ME3 so I have high hopes that ME3 will just be what I want.
A good combat engine (like a shooter), a great story and quests that can be solved in different ways and where my choices actually matter.
holeraw
V.G.A.
- Joined
- September 18, 2009
- Messages
- 693
Whenever I read such a "negative" criticism of a top rated game in any of those non-specialized sites it always seem somewhat 'faux' to me... I don't know... in this case it's maybe because the writer started his criticism by saying the game is a masterpiece, which effectively makes any gripe he may had with it trivial. In which case, what's the point?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 693
So because something gets good (or in this case initially way overblown reviews) you can't criticize or identify limitations after the fact? One of the reasons he probably started like that was because he was (rightly) afraid that he would be lynched for criticizing the holy cow that ME2 is for some reason beyond my comprehension.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 182
IMO (which lets face it a lot of debate is about someones opinion) part of what makes a good RPG is how well it lets you play a variety of roleS (note the S) as well as define and build a character in the game for that role. ME2 isn't really about playing roles, it is about going through the game as a third person watching the role written for you play out. The only "role playing" you get to do is make some choices. You do not really get a chance to pick a role, in stead it is picked for you.
In this sense ME2 sucks at being an RPG, even if it is superb as a narrative story and shooter game.
Peter Stauffenberg
Keeper of the Watch
How is DA:O any better as an RPG than ME2 and another other RPG games? You're pushed along the same path (main quest) and will end up with one of few pre-selected endings?
True RPG'ing is impossible on the computer. If you want to play that you need to play against a DM who allows you to do exactly what you want. But even in PnP RPG's you see that the DM is sometimes steering you in a certain direction. He / she has made some outlines about what can happen in his / her world. The alternative is to improvise all the time.
I don't think having different classes makes a good RPG. In DA:O you end up with the same choices regardless of which class you selected. The same in ME2. I don't see many roles in DA:O. You have ONE role and that is to be a Grey Warden trying to stop the blight. You can't suddenly decide to ignore the blight or side with the darkspawn. You can only do what's scripted by the game designers. So I don't actually see much of a difference between DA:O and ME2 when it comes to the roleplaying aspect. Some people feel that roleplaying is about collecting loot, getting XP so you can become stronger and improve your feats and skills. But that's not a definition for roleplaying in my opinion. Roleplaying to me is that you have a chance to enter a role of another character and decide what you will say to people you meet. Your choices will have consequences. An adventure or shooter game can also have talking, but you can't alter the outcome. Everything is scripted for you. E. g. in Modern Warfare you don't get to the next mission unless you succeed with the current mission. In an RPG game you should be able to fail certain missions and the game would move on. The failures will have consequences though.
So I wonder why some people complain about ME2. It succeeds very well doing what it was INTENDED to do. I agree that ME2 sucks as being a sports game because it was never intended to be that. ME2 was intended as a shooter games with a strong story where your choices can affect the outcome. I like that because it fills a gap that hasn't been done before (at least not a good game).
True RPG'ing is impossible on the computer. If you want to play that you need to play against a DM who allows you to do exactly what you want. But even in PnP RPG's you see that the DM is sometimes steering you in a certain direction. He / she has made some outlines about what can happen in his / her world. The alternative is to improvise all the time.
I don't think having different classes makes a good RPG. In DA:O you end up with the same choices regardless of which class you selected. The same in ME2. I don't see many roles in DA:O. You have ONE role and that is to be a Grey Warden trying to stop the blight. You can't suddenly decide to ignore the blight or side with the darkspawn. You can only do what's scripted by the game designers. So I don't actually see much of a difference between DA:O and ME2 when it comes to the roleplaying aspect. Some people feel that roleplaying is about collecting loot, getting XP so you can become stronger and improve your feats and skills. But that's not a definition for roleplaying in my opinion. Roleplaying to me is that you have a chance to enter a role of another character and decide what you will say to people you meet. Your choices will have consequences. An adventure or shooter game can also have talking, but you can't alter the outcome. Everything is scripted for you. E. g. in Modern Warfare you don't get to the next mission unless you succeed with the current mission. In an RPG game you should be able to fail certain missions and the game would move on. The failures will have consequences though.
So I wonder why some people complain about ME2. It succeeds very well doing what it was INTENDED to do. I agree that ME2 sucks as being a sports game because it was never intended to be that.
ME2 was intended as a shooter games with a strong story where your choices can affect the outcome. I like that because it fills a gap that hasn't been done before (at least not a good game).JordandeBoer
Traveler
- Joined
- March 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I'm glad to see you guys felt compelled to respond to the article. It's always nice to get feedback on a piece.
I hope you guys enjoyed it, even if you did have your issues with certain sections of it.
I hope you guys enjoyed it, even if you did have your issues with certain sections of it.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2
Bioware somewhat explained the lack of RPG in the game better than I can:
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/gdc-mass-effect-2’s-subjective-story
I am not really disagreeing that ME2 was a good game for what it did. I also think it was a shooter with a story to tell and where you could influence things by making choices.
As for how this compares to DAO? I doubt those who can't see the difference will ever agree - either you see it or you don't.
You may play a GW but that is not as restrictive as playing an actual person, aka Shephard. Besides the various races and origins, you also have the classes - which can be an RPG tool versus just a game mechanic.
I have played through DAO 4 times, all with different characters, different styles, different choices. Some characters skipped certain quests or took others. Some had certain builds or certain stats. Some had certain companions or others. They may have been a GW but there was still more freedom in making, building, and playing the character. In DAO the character was more YOU, playing out a various roles of your own choosing, versus being a voyeur able to influence an external character in ME2.
Not that DAO did an awesome job of being an RPG either. I can think of a number of games that had a lot more role playing to them. However, IMO, it is far more of an RPG than ME2. They are different games.
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/gdc-mass-effect-2’s-subjective-story
I am not really disagreeing that ME2 was a good game for what it did. I also think it was a shooter with a story to tell and where you could influence things by making choices.
As for how this compares to DAO? I doubt those who can't see the difference will ever agree - either you see it or you don't.
You may play a GW but that is not as restrictive as playing an actual person, aka Shephard. Besides the various races and origins, you also have the classes - which can be an RPG tool versus just a game mechanic.
I have played through DAO 4 times, all with different characters, different styles, different choices. Some characters skipped certain quests or took others. Some had certain builds or certain stats. Some had certain companions or others. They may have been a GW but there was still more freedom in making, building, and playing the character. In DAO the character was more YOU, playing out a various roles of your own choosing, versus being a voyeur able to influence an external character in ME2.
Not that DAO did an awesome job of being an RPG either. I can think of a number of games that had a lot more role playing to them. However, IMO, it is far more of an RPG than ME2. They are different games.