Do you think that the Mass Effect series has lost it's 'touch'?

[amucha98]

.

 

[Random berk]

They handwaved the thermal clips thing. A thermal clip contains a load of Lithium heat sinks to use for cooling, which can simply be used up on a shots-per-sink basis and ejected when used up. This is actually better, since it allows an assault rifle to just keep firing, provided you have enough sinks left in the clip.

There used to be a system whereby the player could just switch over to the built-in old-school heat sink at wil if ammo was scarce or they felt like conserving it for whatever reason, but apparently playtesters didn't like it so they scrapped it, thus making it all seem like a great big technological step backwards.

I understand how the heat sinks work, I just don't see why. If I have to choose between a gun that can fire endlessly providing you give it enough time to cool down between shots and a gun that can never fire again until you find more of a particular component, which one sounds like the better choice? Take the old sniper rifles. In the first game, if you took your time between shots, then you could take headshot after headshot constantly, without necessarily having to change weapons to go searching the battlefield. Now, with the Mantis sniper rifle, you have to go looking for clips after 10 shots, and have to come out of the scope to reload between every shot. In the case of assault rifles as well, you could no longer pin the enemy down with a barrage of fire because its too wasteful. It might be closer to real weapons, but if that's what I was interested in, I'd just go and play Call of duty.

That scrapped system, I actually did think of that a few times during the game, I could definitely have worked with that. I'm not sure how they thought that was a bad idea. It would make more sense as well, that if you were down to your last thermal clip you could make it last longer by letting it cool down.

 

[Xaositect]

Yeah, I think it did. It had promise. ME1 was a sloppy RPG/Shooter hybrid that did both things badly in many respects, but it didnt matter, because above either of these two things it was A SCI-FI GAME. Sci-fi wasnt just the genre, it was so much of what the game was about.

ME2 was about cover shooting through linear, poorly designed levels that got repetative. And you did this for 90% of the game.

ME1 didnt have enough "exploration" for my tastes. Im not talking about roving around on some barren planet on a buggy, Im talking about finding evidence on Saren on the citadel, exploring its corrupt underworld without resorting to cover shooting fights every 10 minutes. Im talking about wading through the corperate buerocracy on noveria.

Like I said, I wanted more of that than was in ME1, but there was still enough to make me love the game.

ME2.... It took that kind of "exploration" and reduced it to places like ME2s citadel (a glorified shopping mall), Omega and Illium. All of which only serve to "split up" some of the "shooty missions".

I think the guys at Bioware designed a brilliant sci-fi world I loved learning about in ME1.

I hope in ME3 they get back to immersing themselves and the player in it, rather than trying to immerse them in 20 minute linear shooter missions.

I never got into Mass Effect to play cheap Gears knockoff gameplay, and despite it being my gameplay preference, I never got into it to play hardcore RPG combat either. I got into it to immerse myself in the Mass Effect world and its lore, and despite some woefully misguided people being of the opinion otherwise, ME2 failed to live up to that in all respects.

The expendable characters were poorly implemented and designed. They had some nice writing around their characters, but when they are there simply to just be there, it sucks. It sucks even more when many are just there for being a romance.

Thane, for example. I cant see any purpose in this character apart from to give some crazy fangirls a frogboy to shag?

The only two useful characters I saw were Miranda, to complete the shitty, godafwul "resurrection" of Shepard, and Mordin to create the seeker countermeasure by exploiting a plothole.

And since most of the story is about "recruiting" these useless characters, that only left "shooter combat gameplay", which Im not interested in.

Yeah, I think as of ME2, the series has lost its touch. Its gained another one, namely "dumbed down but accessible mainly shooter combat gameplay". I think the original touch was better, and more important though, in todays world of dumbass, dime a dozen shooters.

 

[Richardplex]

You seem to not have read my last post properly, I suggest you do that now.

And, with all due respect, I think youre in no position to lecture me, no matter the subject. And, disregarding that, you could just stop giving a fuck and not act like you are gods gift to earth, a gift that feels the need to call people out over their tone on an internet forum. There are times for courtesy and rationality, times when they are important and obligatory - but this is no such time. Why should I sugar coat my words, for people like you? Who wont even read a post properly? Yeah, right.

And to think I was so kind as to warn this guy about the adblock rulings. Tzz.

You're right, I was giving a fuck when it wasn't my turn to give a fuck. And my tone was getting out of hand, I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong here. And although you warning me about adblock is neither here nor there, thanks again for the warning, really. *bows and returns to lurking*

 

[Still Life]

'Touch' is a rather amorphous term. What exactly is one trying to highlight when referring to 'touch'? So far, I've gleaned that this is merely another RPG Vs TPS debate.

 

[veloper]

Considering ME2 was actually a half-decent shooter with a semi-interactive story and that ME1 was a mediocre RPshooter, that failed on both aspects, I'd say no.

There's some simplistic fun to be had in ME2.
ME1 only had the novelty of it's new setting in it's favour.

If Bioware tighten up the gunplay in ME3 even further, it will be a better game for it. The only plausible risk for the series is a cheap knockoff with the same motivation as DA2.

 

[Condiments]

Mass Effect 2 improved on the original because it removed most shoddy aspects instead of improving them.

The BIG problem with ME2, is that its story is pretty awful. Which is strange because of the quality contrast of its "side missions", and the main story. The character quests were great, but the main story has so many holes, contrivances, and painful leaps of logic that its flat out bad. Can ME3 recover from it? It remains to be seen.

 

[Vault101]

Personally, I don't think so; I enjoyed Mass Effect 1 & 2, and I am looking forward to ME3, but there has been a lot of buzz about how Mass Effect has lost it's RPG roots. Personally, Mass Effect I was a bit dreary and deep(in a good way!), and Mass Effect II has taken some of that depth away, but RPG elements were nver 'crucial' to me in an RPG, and if EA want it to be a hybrid, I say 'Why not?'.

Basically, what I'm trying to ask people on the escapist is why all the cynicism towards Mass Effect losing it's RPG elements?

EDIT: and has it lost it's touch?

? theres only been 2 games...now ask that question when number 6 comes out and mabye It will make more sense

quite frankly some people who didnt like ME2 for what ever reason (and well video game fans in general) are getting their unerwear in a twist over weather or not ME3 will be good (and that incident with DA2 didnt help)

I think ME3 will be great eather way, I loves ME2 so I have no reason to doubt ME3

 

[Omnific One]

RPG elements aren't that big of a deal in the ME universe.

However, ME lost its touch in ME2 because it didn't feel like a space opera at all, except for the few uninteractive cutscenes. It felt like Gears, atmosphere-wise.

 

[JBGigas]

IMO It's now going to better direction.

People tend to forget what real roleplaying means, You could basically remove all the character management parts and it would still be a amazingly good RPG game, because it gives you choises that affect the world around you, you can play your own character.

And the gunplay in mass effect? I really don't care, for me the shooting parts are just annoyance/obstacle for the good parts of Mass Effect, the conversation.

Edited

 

[veloper]

People tend to forget what real roleplaying means, You could basically remove all the character management parts and it would still be a amazingly good RPG game, because it gives you choises that affect the world around you, you can play your own character. Old school tabletop gamers know what I'm talking about.

There's so many things wrong in that sentence, it's hard to figure where to begin.

Old school tabletoppers (D&D) didn't even NAME their characters on creation. They did not roleplay in the thespian sense.
The games were more like a vicious wordplay puzzle games, mixed with dungeon crawling.

The only thing RPGs have in common is character progression through experience.
The first CRPGs on computers were no different: they were dungeon crawls, with a simple premise instead of a story.

All that larping is a recent thing. Then people started erroniously parsing the words in the term RPG, instead of looking at the original game.

 

[JBGigas]

People tend to forget what real roleplaying means, You could basically remove all the character management parts and it would still be a amazingly good RPG game, because it gives you choises that affect the world around you, you can play your own character. Old school tabletop gamers know what I'm talking about.

There's so many things wrong in that sentence, it's hard to figure where to begin.

Old school tabletoppers (D&D) didn't even NAME their characters on creation. They did not roleplay in the thespian sense.
The games were more like a vicious wordplay puzzle games, mixed with dungeon crawling.

The only thing RPGs have in common is character progression through experience.
The first CRPGs on computers were no different: they were dungeon crawls, with a simple premise instead of a story.

All that larping is a recent thing. Then people started erroniously parsing the words in the term RPG, instead of looking at the original game.

Yeeah, I have no idea what I was talking about, after a short nap I realized how wrong that really was. I'm terribly tired, Sorry.

 

[veloper]

People tend to forget what real roleplaying means, You could basically remove all the character management parts and it would still be a amazingly good RPG game, because it gives you choises that affect the world around you, you can play your own character. Old school tabletop gamers know what I'm talking about.

There's so many things wrong in that sentence, it's hard to figure where to begin.

Old school tabletoppers (D&D) didn't even NAME their characters on creation. They did not roleplay in the thespian sense.
The games were more like a vicious wordplay puzzle games, mixed with dungeon crawling.

The only thing RPGs have in common is character progression through experience.
The first CRPGs on computers were no different: they were dungeon crawls, with a simple premise instead of a story.

All that larping is a recent thing. Then people started erroniously parsing the words in the term RPG, instead of looking at the original game.

Yeeah, I have no idea what I was talking about, after a short nap I realized how wrong that really was. I'm terribly tired, Sorry.

I'm always itching for another heated argument, but this is fine too I guess.

 

[humor_involuntario]

still, you answerd to me, and it is irelevant to me the acctual reccipt of this threat.
by doing that, you are almost contradicting a lot of what many have said in this thread. You are saying that mechanics offer choice (true) but still, in a game with no mechanics that are specificly dessigned to offer choice, you can still adress a situation differetly (a choice).
so, my sneaky sword-man master-chief is still different to your (hipothethical) heavy-guns MC, just like the shepards.

No, playing Master Chief only with a sword is not choice in "defining your character" in the same way the choice is offered in Mass Effect. This is why I don't like getting into these discussions of hyperbole much anymore because people pick it down to semantics. I can admit Mass Effect has illusive choice in many places but you can't admit Halo does not have an ounce of choice in the same vein as Mass Effect. What I am talking about is obvious. There is no way to define who Master Chief is - on the part of the player. You can decide what he fights with. This is also why I see Final Fantasy as an adventure game, not an RPG. In an RPG you can influence your relationships with the different faucets of the gaming environment. Nothing you do in Halo is going to do that. Mass Effect, however, does allow this. Moreso than a lot of self-proclaimed RPGs out there even. Choice and consequence have been a staple of the RPG genre since they evolved out of "dungeon crawlers" with DnD. IN an RPG the player helps tell the story. In games such as Halo, a story is experienced by the player usually in the shoes of the hero who is most centric to the action.

what I was going with my point was exactly that! you see, in mass effect, the choice is so minuscule that you ussualy end up siding the same people, saying the same things and even doing the same things as another shepard, even if you chose a different class!. The choice in mass effect is present, I know. you can kill characters you don't like and you can customize your character to fight as you want him to fight, but that's it. You can't even chose his middle name! (I know it is so that NPC greet you by name, but still, they could have thought of another way!)
now, the Halo comparison was just to show how ridiculus your statment was, I, as well as anyone sane in their mind, would not call Halo an RPG (but it was going to be one for some time...), yet still, I think that mass efect falls short as an RPG, but I am not saying it is not an RPG, nor that it is not a great game, just not that much of an RPG as say... Fallout.

 

[Theron Julius]

Well considering that Mass Effect 3 isn't released yet, which means Mass Effect 2 is the only way to judge changes in the series, I'm going to say no. The only way you could say that Mass Effect 2 was a step away from it's RPG roots was the lack of immense amounts of inventory management, which I think is more of an improvement than anything else.

 

[RYjet911]

No, please, no more of these threads, so maaaaaannnnyyyyyyyy!

I loved 'em both and cannot wait for the third.