ecoho said:
[
ok to be truthfull it was NEVER suposed to be just an RPG, it was sold as an epic story action RPG. Also dont go bitching just yet about ME3 see as they are bringing back alot of the RPG eliments which will make it a better game. Now i love both games for different reasons 1 had better biotic combat and the custmization,and 2 had better combat, no mako, no cluster fuck inventory(i do miss the custumization but if thats what it took to get rid of that horrible interface so be it), and it did what the second chapter should it set up for the theird while reminding us about stuff we did in the first.
All in all ME3 WILL be better then both because it seems like theyve found balance.
BTW DA2 is a different team so stop saying bioware has sold their soul to EA and that every game will be like DA2!
Actually it was supposed to be an RPG, just one that worked in real time and looked kind of like a shooter.
Lack of inventory and loot, was a big blow against the game. Maybe not for shooter fans, but that kind of thing is a big part of what makes RPGs what they are.
The combat wasn't "better" so much as it was "a shooter" which is better if you want the major determining factor of confrontations to be your abillity to aim/twitch as opposed to what the character you built is capable of. Differant type of game. You can't have the combat based on player reflexs and be an RPG, as RPGs are defined by the capabilities of the character being what does the work as opposed to the person playing the game. Storylines and such are simply tacked onto that.
When it comes to the combat, they have been saying a lot of differant things. Really the only bit they have mentioned as being more "RPG-like" is the powers being able to evolve more than once. Everything else points towards this just being another shooter, weapon mods aren't the same as "loot" and plenty of shooter games use those already. What's more they stated that they ultimatly want to dumb down the game further by removing a big part of the game balance, by pretty much letting every character use any weapon, and simply having class determine how many slots they have. This means that the component of having to play your class is being removed to dumb it down further, with every player being able to take whatever weapons they happen to be most comfortable with, or feel are best for the mission in question. The Assault Rifle being pretty much "Soldier Only" and characters like Vanguards being given Shotguns (pretty much requiring a close-in attack strategy) have been balanced gameplay concepts. I don't much care for doing away with that, the idea seems to be primarily because shooter fans wanted to be able to use whatever gun they wanted as opposed to having to "role play" and adapt what they had to the situation.
Time will tell if I'm right or not, you are definatly not alone in disagreeing with me.
Also for the record, I haven't been going on about the so called "EA Devil" though I imagine they do have some influance.
To put things into perspective, look at the other response I received. People keep talking about how "Mass Effect 2" oldsold "Mass Effect 1" so obviously people embraced the changes and liked them. That's hardly the case, given that most sales take place due to pre-orders and initial sales around the time of release which is why game companies work so hard to surpress negative reviews when a game is first coming out.
Remember also that used game sales, as much as the industry hates them, mean that more people actually play a game than the sales would indicate. A lot of people who purchused the sequel probably played "Mass Effect 1" used. I don't think it was so much a new audience (though there was some of that) as much as the exponential rate at which the used market can cause game audiences to grow without the industry being able to track it.
What's more, people seem to think that those who hate on games are "trolls" who have not played them, that is hardly the case. Especially in the case of "Mass Effect 2" your looking at a situation where the complaints were made by people who paid for the game and were being considered "satisfied customers" on the paperwork, when they really weren't. "Played it but was disappointed" really isn't something marketing for games follows, it's either a sale or it isn't, if the game sells, then it's viewed as being a win.
Understand also that when I say that I think Bioware is in for a surprise, I do *NOT* mean that I think they are going to take a bath, or go out of business, or anything else. I simply think that there is a good chance that "Mass Effect 3" is going to underperform and be successful, but hardly the anticipated blockbuster they are hoping. Plenty of people who otherwise hate it will probably play it just to see how the story ends if nothing else. Bioware can carry some success just on the merits of their writing.
I think right now a lot of people are very wary, and like me, will take a lot of convincing to go running out and buy the game. If this game is a lot more similar to '2' than to '1' then chances are I'm not going to run out and buy it for $60 and support them with DLC purchuses like I have done in the past. I'm more likely to hold off until it drops in price, or pick up a discounted "game of the year edition", or perhaps most likely buy it used after the fact. If it's a massive twitch fest, I'm just going to pass on it, because I'm not a big shooter player, I do play some, but not many, and I don't pay $60 for them. The market they seem to be going for (Bulletstorm, Call Of Duty, etc...) sort of represents to anti-thesis of what I am interested in as a gamer.
To put things into perspective, a few of the shooters I have played are things like the STALKER series, and Precursors, none of which are among my favorite games, but at least they have inventory management and loot.
