....Let me guess...Too focus on the combat that you could not see that everything that makes a BW game great is still in ME2 and ME3?What? That was worded confusingly. I'll just quickly address the main factors I didn't like about it. I personally thought the gunplay was more fun and less generic in the original, but that's beside the fact that they streamlined all the original's RPG elements into 3 powers with 3 upgrades each. It just didn't have the variety that Mass Effect did, and even that is ignoring the insane linearity in the level design once you knew you were in an area involving combat. Mechanically the game honestly felt more like a Gears sequel than the successor to the original.Let me say it again...It was very clear the first time. You were too focus on the combat that you did not see that everything that makes a bioware game great is still in the bioware games, ME2 and ME3.... How is that not clear? The thing is it was never the rpg feature that made any Bioware game fantastic. In Bulder's gate 2, the fun part was never the inventory screen or the stat screen and it was not the depth ether. When Bulder's gate came out it was just like every other crpg that came out at the time the thing that made it stand out is the characters, the players character development, and how you interacted with the world with character development.. They took those 3 things and ran with it in every game since. ME2 streamline had a point because of the fact that:[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="jamejame"]
Dragon Age: Origins is one of my favorite RPGs ever made. I haven't played Dragon Age 2 yet, so I can't comment on it but I wasn't too impressed with the demo. However, they're biggest disappointment for me was Mass Effect 2, game was terribad, and 3 looks worse.
jamejame
ME1 RPG features are padded.(You can easily see that if you look at the ability screen of ME1 and compered that with DA:O.)
ME as a series need no inventory because you had nothing to inventory.(You had no need to save weapons or armor once you get better gear and the barely happened.)
ME1 had very linear builds.(You had no real way of making your characters abilities unique...And you had 4 levels,the 4th level had you choose how your abilities evolved for each ability. I can make my adepts throw different base on how much I put it the power and how I evolve it. Look up area throw and heavy throw. Theirs a difference between an area incinerate blast and a harder hitting on.)
ME2 is more changing.(Most of ME1 you can tank and spank your way through or Crowd control and spank your way throw. You can't do that in ME2. As an adept I can kill directly with may powers now, unlike ME1 were I lift and shot them to death.)
......
I can go on.....
I find that ME2is better design then ME1... Oh the level design is the same, if you don;t think so, our forgetting how linear Faros and Therun are and the copy paste design for the side quest.. The major different is that you don't drive the mako 50 miles to shoot someone. The fact is that your too focus on the combat to see the depth of the game. With rpg, it's never with the combat, it's what you do in the game.. And you can do more in ME2 then ME1.
Log in to comment