bootz said:
So you want half life 2 or crysis or brothers in arms or brink or homefront or medal of honor those games are already made. Let mass effect have rpg elements it will stand out of the crowd. If you want other fps with story there are lots of them.
Er, no.
Let's start on the most basic, fundamental level. Those games are
FIRST person shooters. Mass Effect is a
THIRD person shooter. Got that? Good.
Now, please, tell me in what possible way any of those games can compare to the lore, story, characterisation and universe of Mass Effect? Are you
seriously trying to tell me that Half-Life, Crysis and Brink (a game that doesn't even really have a single player component) can possibly compare to the world of Mass Effect? Good freaking lord.
You're basically saying that "You're not good enough to enjoy what we enjoy because you refuse to accept combat mechanics. Go back to more simplistic games, because what you want is trivial and less important than what we want." Does that not strike you as terribly self-centered?
Are you honestly trying to tell me that you didn't think the original Mass Effect's combat was cumbersome? The reason ME2 had to change to be more fast paced, is that you can't do it half and half. You either have to make it properly turn based or make it free fast paced action. Let me give you an example. Remember Knights of the Old Republic? Well, the way guns were handled in that, were that you would simply target the enemy to attack, and then your character would spend forever aiming and then auto-attacking with a single shot, and the enemy would do the same and it operated just like an MMO style fight, complete with skills in the hotbar for things like "rapid fire" which had cooldowns. That's great, i have no problems with that, because it's a one hundred percent RPG system. But if you try to mesh it with live action, it becomes horribly bogged down under its own weight. Pointless engagements that lasted far longer than they should because it's all based on numbers rather than specific tropes of location specific damage and damage types in the form of ammunition that was specifically useful in each given situation. Not only that, but regardless of your stance on the "Roleplaying Shooter", the inventory system was, i'm sorry to say, a terrible mess that was easily cluttered and far too reliant on the player to act as a janitor to clean out the junk every time you cleared a room. No-one wants to be doing that. Getting gear is nice, but it shouldn't be a chore to sort out your shit after every single engagement. With ME2, you had no junk, and the few times you did get a new gun or armour it felt like a meaningful upgrade and was readily accessible. No need to compare stats or sift through a lofty inventory with items that may or may not be useful.
I think you are conflating my distaste for RPG combat mechanics with other elements of the RPG genre such as narrative and storytelling and i think it speaks volumes about
you if you think for one second that the story told in something like Mass Effect can even remotely compare to something as trivial as "homefront" and other games you listed and i think it says even more about you when you try to push other gamers away who are dissatisfied with certain aspects of other things they might enjoy and say "Why don't you entertain your simple mind with something else instead, this isn't for you".
