That right here is your reason. First Mass Effect was a failed-from-the-start attempt to marry RPG and FPS, where mechanics didn’t play well together—too complex for a shooter and too simplified for an RPG. Second and third installations didn’t have that problem—they were just shooters. They cut down most of the crap and expanded on what it did well, transformed from mediocre mix into a good shooter. Still there was some crap that should be cut out (romances, yuck), but the less distractions you have from shooting aliens in SPAAAAAAAACE the better. At least you don’t have time to analyze the stupid plot.far less of an rpg and more shootan, no exploration, no mako
They were still shitty as shooters. But in addition to that they dropped the only good parts of the first one.That right here is your reason. First Mass Effect was a failed-from-the-start attempt to marry RPG and FPS, where mechanics didn’t play well together—too complex for a shooter and too simplified for an RPG. Second and third installations didn’t have that problem—they were just shooters. They cut down most of the crap and expanded on what it did well, transformed from mediocre mix into a good shooter. Still there was some crap that should be cut out (romances, yuck), but the less distractions you have from shooting aliens in SPAAAAAAAACE the better. At least you don’t have time to analyze the stupid plot.
First Mass Effect was a failed-from-the-start attempt to marry RPG and FPS, where mechanics didn’t play well together—too complex for a shooter and too simplified for an RPG.
That right here is your reason. First Mass Effect was a failed-from-the-start attempt to marry RPG and FPS, where mechanics didn’t play well together—too complex for a shooter and too simplified for an RPG. Second and third installations didn’t have that problem—they were just shooters. They cut down most of the crap and expanded on what it did well, transformed from mediocre mix into a good shooter. Still there was some crap that should be cut out (romances, yuck), but the less distractions you have from shooting aliens in SPAAAAAAAACE the better. At least you don’t have time to analyze the stupid plot.
Sure, but the question was why ME2 is regarded as better than ME1. We were comparing two existing games, not an existing game to a potential one. And out of those two, ME2 is much more into my alley—but I like mindless shooters with some epic story. Would I like it better if it was intelligent RPG instead? Possibly. But BioWare doesn’t know how to make those.Maybe they were breaking new ground and they didn't get it perfect on the first try, but a game in the future could get the right balance?
It involved looting and crafting-like mechanics, plus your proficiency with any given weapon wasn’t a function of only your skill, but also your character stats. I personally don’t like that mixture—either give me full control and full responsibility for the effects, like in any arcade game (including shooters), or make it a tactical experience, where I tell what to do and only my character’s stats and luck decide the outcome.How was it too complex for a shooter?
dragon age origins. i still remember how underwhelming it was. i thought they were aiming for something like baldurs gate 1 and 2, lots of content, cities and settlement to explore, nice quests and blabla. instead it was just a mediocre "dungeon" crawler.
The problem is that they want to make anumated heads and voice actors. That highlighted the lack of range and emotion big time, which, to be fair, could be due to machine limitations.I haven't played all of them, but every one that I did I fucking hated or just found to be mediocre. Why? Garbage gameplay. This was consistent among each of the games, and as a result I assume every Bioware fan (even just middling) is a storyfaggot with little standards and expectations in gameplay.
That said, even the storyfaggotry of the games (the ones I tried) seemed...a bit sub-par. Take Mass Effect: characters often felt like soulless puppets in the way they delivered their lines, with invariability/a lack of range and emotion. Topics discussed weren't always particularly interesting. There's a lack of subject variety: overwhelmingly it's fictional space politics, space politics, and more space politics...with a bit of softcore game porn that only degenerates who cannot get none actually want in their games, and the boring character development leading up to that. I don't recall much variety in storytelling devices either, nor good pacing. I just remember a lot of boring shit, tbh.
It's very possible I'm being unfair on the story aspects and completely missing game writing genius. I absolutely do not consider myself a monocled connoisseur of story, but the gameplay -- hell no. It's garbage.
Sure, but the question was why ME2 is regarded as better than ME1. We were comparing two existing games, not an existing game to a potential one. And out of those two, ME2 is much more into my alley—but I like mindless shooters with some epic story. Would I like it better if it was intelligent RPG instead? Possibly. But BioWare doesn’t know how to make those.
It involved looting and crafting-like mechanics, plus your proficiency with any given weapon wasn’t a function of only your skill, but also your character stats. I personally don’t like that mixture—either give me full control and full responsibility for the effects, like in any arcade game (including shooters), or make it a tactical experience, where I tell what to do and only my character’s stats and luck decide the outcome.
So in terms of character development mechanics I much prefer simpler system from ME2 and ME3, where extra levels gave the player additional stuff to do instead of making the guns more accurate and easier to use. I also found progressive grind towards better gear not really suiting the fast-paced nature of combat in ME1.
Jesus, look at those poll numbers. Fucking Dragon Age 2.
If only we had known we hadn’t even reached rock bottom yet. I consider Inquisition even worse.Jesus, look at those poll numbers. Fucking Dragon Age 2.
If only we had known we hadn’t even reached rock bottom yet. I consider Inquisition even worse.Jesus, look at those poll numbers. Fucking Dragon Age 2.
Inquisitionjob was bad too.
But it gave us the Iron Bull! I am sure there were no insinuations made by Bioware using that name.
I don’t. I hate crafting with burning passion (it’s repetitive, boring, detracting—when I play a game, I want to do things I can’t do in real life; and I am fully capable of picking shit up). You know what I love in shooters? Shooting.You know what people that play third and first person shooters seem to love? Crafting.
But it gave us the Iron Bull! I am sure there were no insinuations made by Bioware using that name.
Bioware was just ripping off DnD anyway:
I don’t. I hate crafting with burning passion (it’s repetitive, boring, detracting—when I play a game, I want to do things I can’t do in real life; and I am fully capable of picking shit up). You know what I love in shooters? Shooting.You know what people that play third and first person shooters seem to love? Crafting.
This poll is yet more evidence, if any is needed, that a company's drive to strike while the iron is hot and seize an opportunity can cause irreparable harm. Nine times out of ten the rush to get something to market RIGHT NOW is a long-term disaster for a company. In the space of nine months, Bioware lost its reputation and standing with gamers and never regained it, and was sold to a faceless corporation shortly thereafter.