|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » BioWare - Mass Effect Trilogy Update and Trailer

Default BioWare - Mass Effect Trilogy Update and Trailer

November 14th, 2012, 19:24
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
Not every opinon that differs from yours is an "argument".
Aaand here comes another one. Shall we discuss what is or isnīt an argument now?
Dude … just stop .

What you think about most, is what you become.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#41

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,279

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 19:25
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
There are less overlaps in ME2, and ME1 does not come with gameplay changing powers such as tactical cloak, tech armor or charge.
No, it comes with gameplay changing powers like assassination, adrenaline and unity. Your point?

There are 4 distinct guns (+ one rare geth rifle, iirc) in ME1 and pistols outperform all.
No, you're talking about weapon types. There are hundreds of guns in ME1 - and there's a ton of modifications available for them. I always use sniper rifles - and I consider them superior to pistols.

ME2 comes with 5 basic weapon types, the guns within each category have different properties and have different gameplay feel, plus thereīs a wild card of sorts in the form of heavy weapons.
Yes, ME2 also has a small handful of weapon types. But instead of being able to modify them - and instead of having a large amount of them - they boil them down to a few of each.

Overall, I'd say it comes down to a similar amount of meaningful variety - but ME2 is cleaner and more streamlined.

The absence of mods is surely a minus overall, no argument here. There are 6 "mods" in the form of ammo powers though and some of these are more impactful than the mods in ME1, especially on higher difficulties.
For example, tungsten ammo in ME1 makes syntheticsī health bar go down faster and thatīs it. In ME2, disruptor ammo causes more damage to shields, has a chance to disable enemy weapons for a while, deals more damage to synthetics and has a chance to stun them for a while.
Ammo types, yeah. It's a much less interesting "mod" - but I'll grant you it's not totally dissimilar.

Along with the command of the Normandy you obtain three main missions and your Shepard is already 100% convinced that the main antagonist is on the brink of bringing back dudes who wiped out a galactic civilization before, so itīs pretty much race against time right from there. The quest "Race Against Time" itself appears in your journal once you finish either Feros or Noveria, which can be pretty early, especially since Feros is presented as urgent (colony under attack).
Yes, after Eden Prime, Noveria and Feros - and all the sidequests you can get at that point - it starts becoming a race against time. In my experience, that's around 75% into the game.

Again, the game does NOT feel like a race against time AT ALL - until you're near the end.

ME2 has two missions which come at certain points and canīt be postponed (makes sense story-wise) and the galaxy opens up pretty much fully roughly 1/3 into the game (btw, the galaxy isnīt fully open in ME1 either - some systems only become available once a main mission is completed), so I donīt see much difference in the basic gameplay structure. Except in ME2 the meatier content is spread out between more episodes (whereas ME1 comes with few large chunks of linear content), resulting in overall a more "customizable" experience in my book.
It's ok if you missed the urgency of the threat and the mission to collect a team ASAP to deal with it. I'm not saying you have to play the game fast - but that it FELT like I was on a timer. If you didn't feel that way - that's ok. That's where we differ.

Not planet scanning, the "!" encounters you could discover by it. Iīm starting to think you somehow missed the existence of this type of side content. These scenarios were mostly short and simple, but were fairly varied in flavour, level/art design and (back)story.
No, I think I got all of it. I already conceded that the actual content of the sidequests was more interesting - but that the exploration aspect was all but lost. I don't consider planet scanning exploration. I consider it grinding.

Iīm talking about quests like this. Compared to ME1, these quests came short in terms of dialogues, but didnīt generally feel as repetitive otherwise, to me.
How many times do I have to agree? It's like you want to say that the sidequest content was better over and over again, when I've already conceded that the content had more variety - but the exploration aspect was gone. I love exploration, so it's a big deal to me.

Yes!
There are 5 difficulty levels in ME1, but only 3 are open for a first playthrough.
I say "I want more challenge!", ME1 says "finish me twice first."
Unlike in ME2, higher difficulties in ME1 suck, but thatīs besides the point.
Ehm, what you call patronising - I call replayability. I think they want players to have something to look forward to - after completing the game on Veteran or lower.

But, you let the game insult you because of that. Another case of being very different

I'm glad Bioware stopped patronising players at ME2 - because that's certainly not what they did with Dragon Age 2 and SWtoR, right?

Your point is pretty weak - but ok.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,047

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:03
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
No, it comes with gameplay changing powers like assassination, adrenaline and unity. Your point?
Class distinction. Vanguard in ME2 felt a lot different to other classes than vanguard in ME1. Same with sentinel and infiltrator, and it was due to those three powers.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
No, you're talking about weapon types.
I know. The point was that in ME1 all weapons within a type feel the same and Iīve never found minute differences in accuracy and overheating to mean squat.
Most of those hundreds of weapons were pointless and only served as inventory clutter, in my experience.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Overall, I'd say it comes down to a similar amount of meaningful variety - but ME2 is cleaner and more streamlined.
Well, I can agree with that, I guess .
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
How many times do I have to agree?
More times, the better.
I think there may have been some miscommunication in there - I was not disputing the exploration aspect, but the discovery aspect, but letīs rather leave it be .
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Ehm, what you call patronising - I call replayability. I think they want players to have something to look forward to - after completing the game on Veteran or lower.
I prefer when games leave this kind of stuff on me. Of course I wasnīt really "insulted", it was just annoying not being able to raise the challenge when there was none.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Your point is pretty weak - but ok.
My point was that Iīve only played ME2 on hardcore and insanity, which may be the reason why I havenīt found the minute-to-minute combat as predictable and it did not feel like I "did the same thing over and over". The "patronizing" part was just a side note.

What you think about most, is what you become.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#43

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,279

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:14
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
Class distinction. Vanguard in ME2 felt a lot different to other classes than vanguard in ME1. Same with sentinel and infiltrator, and it was due to those three powers.
Yes, much like with the guns - they boiled down the character development system into a small subset of powers. That means the classes had more distinct feels right from the beginning - but as your characters in ME1 reached the higher levels - they really did feel very different. At least the ones I tried. Adept, Infiltrator and Soldier - and they ALL felt very different.

I know. The point was that in ME1 all weapons within a type feel the same and Iīve never found minute differences in accuracy and overheating to mean squat.
Most of those hundreds of weapons were pointless and only served as inventory clutter, in my experience.
You mean to say that your first weapons felt no different from your final weapons with mods? Well, we must have played different games then

More times, the better.
I kinda figured your position was such that it could use a hand

I prefer when games leave this kind of stuff on me. Of course I wasnīt really "insulted", it was just annoying not being able to raise the challenge when there was none.
Really? I found Veteran to be quite challenging on the handful of "main fights". Maybe I'm not as good as I thought.

My point was that Iīve only played ME2 on hardcore and insanity, which may be the reason why I havenīt found the minute-to-minute combat as predictable and it did not feel like I "did the same thing over and over".
I played it hardcore both times - and I found it to be utterly predictable and a matter of taking cover and using 1-2 powers with my sniper rifle over and over and over again. The actual combat is tighter than ME - but the setup is so very predictable - and pretty much identical for all the fights. At least in ME1 - you have to look for cover in some fights. Not that ME combat is good in any way whatsoever.

It should be noted that I don't like shooters very much, and I much prefer a more tactical approach to combat. With Bioware, it has been steadily downhill since BG2. KotOR was dumbed down, ME was dumbed down even more - and ME2 takes the cake. At least Dragon Age was a step towards the good old days.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,047

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 22:59
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Adept, Infiltrator and Soldier - and they ALL felt very different.
Ok, Iīll take your word for it.
Personally, I see not much reason playing adept when I can play vanguard, I see not much reason playing soldier or engineer when I can play infiltrator and I see not much reason playing sentinel when I can play vanguard or infiltrator.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You mean to say that your first weapons felt no different from your final weapons with mods?
No, I mean to say that those "hundreds of weapons" were completely redundant.
If theyīd just let you upgrade each weapon type from I to X, it would be functionally almost the same, but without pointless clutter. Thatīs kinda how it works in ME2, except in ME2 each weapon type includes few distinct weapons, so thereīs more variety.
Mods in ME1 do add variety as well, which is why I think removing them in ME2 was not a good decision (even though ammo powers made up for them to some extent).
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I played it hardcore both times -
This discussion got me interested in how RPGWatch looked at ME2 at the time of release so Iīve checked the impressions thread and your post in there seems to disagree .
Apparently you also found infiltrator in ME1 nearly useless!
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
It should be noted that I don't like shooters very much, and I much prefer a more tactical approach to combat. With Bioware, it has been steadily downhill since BG2. KotOR was dumbed down, ME was dumbed down even more - and ME2 takes the cake. At least Dragon Age was a step towards the good old days.
I pretty much have the same sentiments .
Except I donīt mind ME2 "taking the cake", because throwing the pretense of being a complex RPG out of the window made it overall a better popcorn entertainment package than ME1 for me.
Which sorta returns me to the beginning of this discussion and seems like a good way to venture out of it, if you donīt mind.
Thanks for the exchange .

What you think about most, is what you become.
Last edited by DeepO; November 14th, 2012 at 23:59.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#45

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,279

Default 

November 15th, 2012, 09:10
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
Ok, Iīll take your word for it.
Personally, I see not much reason playing adept when I can play vanguard, I see not much reason playing soldier or engineer when I can play infiltrator and I see not much reason playing sentinel when I can play vanguard or infiltrator.
That's fair enough. I saw a reason to play the classes I chose - and in ME2, I only played Infiltrator - so I can't speak to the others. But they didn't appeal to me.

No, I mean to say that those "hundreds of weapons" were completely redundant.
If theyīd just let you upgrade each weapon type from I to X, it would be functionally almost the same, but without pointless clutter. Thatīs kinda how it works in ME2, except in ME2 each weapon type includes few distinct weapons, so thereīs more variety.
Mods in ME1 do add variety as well, which is why I think removing them in ME2 was not a good decision (even though ammo powers made up for them to some extent).
How many times are we going to go in circles with this? Yes, ME1 had a lot of clutter and redundancy - and ME2 boiled it all down to a few weapons. I don't see it as an improvement as much as streamlining and simplifying. An improvement would mean a similar amount of weapons with actual differences - or it would be a balance of ME and ME2 - kinda like ME3.

This discussion got me interested in how RPGWatch looked at ME2 at the time of release so Iīve checked the impressions thread and your post in there seems to disagree .
Apparently you also found infiltrator in ME1 nearly useless!
Ok, I honestly forgot the difficulty level names in ME2. I thought Hardcore was "Veteran" - but I guess they added an additional level. Strange, as I usually pick the hardest that isn't called something like Nightmare or Insane. My mistake.

As for the Infiltrator - yeah, the class is not very powerful in ME1. It's pretty weak - but it's still very distinctive. You use the Sniper rifle and you focus on your assassination power and you supply with Pistol and that power which makes you shoot very fast. But especially the early levels are tough - because of the poor aim and what not.

Adept is super powerful, however.

I pretty much have the same sentiments .
Except I donīt mind ME2 "taking the cake", because throwing the pretense of being a complex RPG out of the window made it overall a better popcorn entertainment package than ME1 for me.
That might explain it. I don't like popcorn entertainment very much, and I found ME2 to be precisely that. Again, it had lost the mystery and wonder I felt in Mass Effect. The music was actually a big part of that in ME. ME2 also had more pop characters with "in-your-face" attitudes. Something Bioware has gotten worse at over the years. I really hate that kind of "for-effect" writing with almost exclusively extreme characters.

Which sorta returns me to the beginning of this discussion and seems like a good way to venture out of it, if you donīt mind.
Thanks for the exchange .
Sure thing
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#46

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,047
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » BioWare - Mass Effect Trilogy Update and Trailer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:30.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch