Mass Effect 1 vs 2: RPG-shooter vs Shooter-rpg (This is for you, Cymbaline!) (No spoilers) - Edit 4
Before modification by lord-of-shadow at 02/02/2010 11:33:00 PM
So there is no question about it: ME2 is less of an RPG, and more or an fps, than ME1 ever was. The overwhelming response to the gameplay changes seem to be positive, but I know a couple people who view it as a downgrade. Cymbaline, if my memory serves, doesn't even plan on playing the second one because of the increased emphasis on the FPS side.
I've been thinking about it a bit over the last few days. I myself find the combat in 2 much more satisfying, but I do see how an RPG purist like Cymbaline might find it to be a downgrade. With a couple minutes of brainstorming, here's a list of reasons why someone would like the RPG genre. Not all RPGs have all of these qualities, of course:
1. They are historically more focused on narrative.
2. They tend to have more fully realized worlds (hand in hand with the narrative)
3. There is a clear character progression, generally represented by numbers, unlocked skills, etc. The end result is that an end-game character is far more powerful than a beginning one.
4. This character progression features meaningful choices; which stats to upgrade, which skills to unlock, etc.
They tend to have slower-paced battle systems
5. An RPG fight is not usually action-oriented; you don't win because of your reflexes, you win because of well-thought out tactical choices.
6. If you're stumped in a battle, it's generally possible to place time and effort into sidequests or some form of grinding to improve your character's stats and defeat the battle even without the best skills.
7. The underlying game system - all the numbers, stats, their interactions, etc. - tend to be more transparent, and thus more accessible to the player.
8. The underlying game system is complex, and offers a number of ways for it to be taken advantage of, if the player is willing to put effort into it.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but this'll do. Out of this list, Mass Effect 2 preserved or improved most of those qualities, and the ones that I derive the most enjoyment from: character progression, narrative focus, detailed world, ability to sidequest to improve your character(s). 7 is arguable; the underlying game system is less accessible than in 1, but still there.
8, too, I'm not sure about. It seems less complex than it's predecessor at first, but I fairly quickly realized that that wasn't the case. They got rid of all the equipment and inventory wrangling, but it did not sacrifice the ability to make strategic choices or customize in the process. They seemingly reduced the number of available skills, but you unlock quite a few as the game progresses. And they INCREASED the differences between the classes, some of which play very tactically (infiltrator, etc.).
The only places it really "fails", or deviates from a strength of the RPG genre, is that the battles are fast-paced, and they can be decided by physical skill rather than pure decision-making. But this is deceptive; even though it is more of a shooter now, it is still not a shooter. The battles are fairly slow-paced compared to any shooter I've played this side of America's Army, and I don't think the pacing is any different from the first game.
Ultimately, I think that you or anyone else who is upset about the perceived move away from RPG towards shooter should give it a shot first, Cymbaline. And every time that you hear about a change that makes it seem like less of an RPG, also remember that the other RPG aspects are, for the most part, even better than the previous game.
Oh yeah, if you read my other post you know that I talked to the producer for a little while. One of the questions I asked him was if he had an answer for some of my friends who were leery of the game because of the shift towards shooter. He advised me that "they" (and I was thinking of you, Cymbaline) should avoid the run-and-gun classes, like the soldier, and try the others, like the infiltrator, biotic, etc. They tend to be less action and less FPS, and play more similarly to a traditional RPG. Straight from the horses' mouth, so take it with a grain of salt, but hey.
I've been thinking about it a bit over the last few days. I myself find the combat in 2 much more satisfying, but I do see how an RPG purist like Cymbaline might find it to be a downgrade. With a couple minutes of brainstorming, here's a list of reasons why someone would like the RPG genre. Not all RPGs have all of these qualities, of course:
1. They are historically more focused on narrative.
2. They tend to have more fully realized worlds (hand in hand with the narrative)
3. There is a clear character progression, generally represented by numbers, unlocked skills, etc. The end result is that an end-game character is far more powerful than a beginning one.
4. This character progression features meaningful choices; which stats to upgrade, which skills to unlock, etc.
They tend to have slower-paced battle systems
5. An RPG fight is not usually action-oriented; you don't win because of your reflexes, you win because of well-thought out tactical choices.
6. If you're stumped in a battle, it's generally possible to place time and effort into sidequests or some form of grinding to improve your character's stats and defeat the battle even without the best skills.
7. The underlying game system - all the numbers, stats, their interactions, etc. - tend to be more transparent, and thus more accessible to the player.
8. The underlying game system is complex, and offers a number of ways for it to be taken advantage of, if the player is willing to put effort into it.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but this'll do. Out of this list, Mass Effect 2 preserved or improved most of those qualities, and the ones that I derive the most enjoyment from: character progression, narrative focus, detailed world, ability to sidequest to improve your character(s). 7 is arguable; the underlying game system is less accessible than in 1, but still there.
8, too, I'm not sure about. It seems less complex than it's predecessor at first, but I fairly quickly realized that that wasn't the case. They got rid of all the equipment and inventory wrangling, but it did not sacrifice the ability to make strategic choices or customize in the process. They seemingly reduced the number of available skills, but you unlock quite a few as the game progresses. And they INCREASED the differences between the classes, some of which play very tactically (infiltrator, etc.).
The only places it really "fails", or deviates from a strength of the RPG genre, is that the battles are fast-paced, and they can be decided by physical skill rather than pure decision-making. But this is deceptive; even though it is more of a shooter now, it is still not a shooter. The battles are fairly slow-paced compared to any shooter I've played this side of America's Army, and I don't think the pacing is any different from the first game.
Ultimately, I think that you or anyone else who is upset about the perceived move away from RPG towards shooter should give it a shot first, Cymbaline. And every time that you hear about a change that makes it seem like less of an RPG, also remember that the other RPG aspects are, for the most part, even better than the previous game.
Oh yeah, if you read my other post you know that I talked to the producer for a little while. One of the questions I asked him was if he had an answer for some of my friends who were leery of the game because of the shift towards shooter. He advised me that "they" (and I was thinking of you, Cymbaline) should avoid the run-and-gun classes, like the soldier, and try the others, like the infiltrator, biotic, etc. They tend to be less action and less FPS, and play more similarly to a traditional RPG. Straight from the horses' mouth, so take it with a grain of salt, but hey.