Mass Effect 1/2: Under-rated or shit?

[913]

Wut da horse neighed.

 

[Papa Môlé]

I personally prefer actual RPGs with actual RPG design. None of the Mass Effect games have any place in the genre regardless of how many skills you can put points

Let's see, ME1 has:
-Multiple choices and consequences for actions taken in game, some affecting the ending some affecting things happening while still playing
-A somewhat customizable and (semi) controllable party
-Character progression and levels within limits
-Multiple solutions to problems, ranging from speech checks or using skills such as electronics/decryption
-World with considerable backstory and some attempt to make NPCs existence appear independent of PCs
-Albeit linear level design, there is an open-world planet exploration and the ability to choose when and where to go
-Quest-based mission design, resulting in gaining of experience, "alignment" shifts, reputations, etc.
-And yes, lots of skills points, which, no matter how many times one stamps their foot and says they don't, nevertheless do make something more of an RPG


That something may not be implemented to your, often arbitrary, standard doesn't mean it's not actually there. The more certain posters here bend over backwards to portray Mass Effect (this first one anyway) as not-RPG the more it looks like they don't actually like RPGs, just turn-based games with fully controllable parties. I imagine these are the same sorts of people who insist Bloodlines or New Vegas are not "real RPGs" for similar reasons or jRPGs for that matter. Furthermore, if you'd rather play an action game that drops RPG elements than a game trying to incorporate some more RPG aspects but suffering a bit in the action area then you probably aren't as fond of RPGs as you might think you are.

 

[Executer]

I bought 1/2 as a pack for $10. I can only comment on 1 since I can't even be bothered to try 2.

It's really mediocre, didn't even finish it, in fact I'd say it's so overrated it's worse than Jade Empire which while average at least had a better combat system (prefer beatemups to corridor shooters) and I actually got through 1 playthrough.

 

[JamesBond]

It's shit.

For the easy to follow reasons:

1) The choice and consequences? There are no consequences. Just illusions of some. The only real consequence is at the end of the game that does not really get carried over anyway in a meaningful way.

2) "The writing is good": Sure, if you loved shallow emo-wankery, like twilight, this is awesome! Bioware has a track record of stealing from Lovecrraft. NWN, Dragon Age, Mass effect have the EXACT SAME PLOT.
The characters are purely written as fan-service, doing nothing beyond what you'd expect them to do as model left-wing citizens without any real depth.

3) It's a good shooter: What a hoot. It is exactly what we ought to despise the most on the codex; pop-a-mole, corridor combat which requires little planning, little tactics and no brains to win.

4) It has great music: The only solution is harakiri.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I personally prefer actual RPGs with actual RPG design. None of the Mass Effect games have any place in the genre regardless of how many skills you can put points

Let's see, ME1 has:
-Multiple choices and consequences for actions taken in game, some affecting the ending some affecting things happening while still playing

You're going to have to provide examples to back that up, Pepper Potts. At best Mass Effect 1 have two choices that lead to the exact same outcome anyway.

>Eden Prime: choiceless.
>Citadel: You can choose to not recruit certain party members. Consequence: alternative dialogue.
>Citadel: Kill Fist. Consequence: Fist will not talk to you in Mass Effect 2.
>Therum: choiceless.
>Feros: Help the colonists with their errands. No consequences.
>Feros: Save the colonists. Consequence: extra side quest in Mass Effect 2. No consequence in Mass Effect 1.
>Noveria: Help the undercover cop. Consequence: she buys you a beer in Mass Effect 2 and helps you get a discount at a store. No consequence in Mass Effect 1 other than promising you a beer. I'm sure BioWare's writer thought they were really badass when they wrote that bullshit.
>Noveria: Save the Rachni or-- (wait, isn't this the same...?)- kill them all. Consequence: dialogue in Mass Effect 2. In Mass Effect 1: alternative dialogue when talking to the Council.
>Ebon Hawk: Romance Kaidan, Ashley or Liara. Consequence in Mass Effect 1: one (1) sex scene.
>Ebon Hawk: Help Garrus, Wrex and Tali with their quests. Consequence: one extra bit of dialogue when meeting Tali again in Mass Effect 2. Wrex and Garrus don't give any fucks.
>Extra mission: Kill the crime boss lady. Consequence: Crime boss lady will not talk to you in Mass Effect 2.
>Virmire: Help the salarians. Consequence: the salarians will have higher numbers when you recruit them for the war in Mass Effect 3.
>Virmire: Let Ashley or Kaidan take a nuke up the ass. Consequence: Ashley or Kaidan will be dead forever. Unfortunately in RPGs I have learned to think of all party members as expendable so if they die I'll just replace them. Also this was supposed to be Mass Effect 1's Aeris dies moment and like with Aeris the developers picked the most useless party members.
>Endgame: Save the Council. Consequence: a new council won't take the old council's place. Also you get higher numbers in Mass Effect 3's collection quest.
>Endgame: Convince Saren to shoot himself. Consequence: you don't have to fight the boss twice, just once. (!)
>Endgame: Put Anderson or Udina in charge of ambassadoring the shit outta humanity. Consequence: none, we couldn't get autosave working here so you'll have to do this choice properly in ME2 instead.

Did I forget anything? Please let me now so I can debunk absolutely every fucking thing your stupid shit brain can come up with. Pretty please.

-A somewhat customizable and (semi) controllable party

I could say that about Mass Effect 2 and it wouldn't be incorrect at all.

-Character progression and levels within limits

Meh.

-Multiple solutions to problems, ranging from speech checks or using skills such as electronics/decryption

Examples please.

-World with considerable backstory and some attempt to make NPCs existence appear independent of PCs

Some attempt is correct.

-Albeit linear level design, there is an open-world planet exploration and the ability to choose when and where to go

Yes, on the optional planets you are often dumped on the middle of the map and told, via minimap, to traverse the red/blue/orange landscape to the area with the interesting thing(s). In story missions you get a highly linear path you must follow. We need to have certain standards about what exactly "open-world exploration" is. My opinion is that you need more than just a square map of mountains and sand and collection items to click on but its likely that I'm in the minority there.

But all that said, YES! Surely the ability to "choose when and where to go" is what truly MAKES an RPG. I can go to this red planet or this brown planet, I can do this quest or I can do this quest. Mass Effect revolutionized RPGs.

-Quest-based mission design, resulting in gaining of experience, "alignment" shifts, reputations, etc.

Most games have "quest-based mission design" resulting in "gaining experience" and "reputation". You might as well have described Saints Row 3 for christ's sake! (Btw, Saints Row 3 is better than Mass Effect 1.)

-And yes, lots of skills points, which, no matter how many times one stamps their foot and says they don't, nevertheless do make something more of an RPG

Uh huh.

That something may not be implemented to your, often arbitrary, standard doesn't mean it's not actually there.

True, but I would argue that just because something is there but doesn't hold up doesn't mean we shouldn't feel inclined to point at it and tell it to get the fuck out of here before we beat it to death with the power of a rock.

The more certain posters here bend over backwards to portray Mass Effect (this first one anyway) as not-RPG the more it looks like they don't actually like RPGs, just turn-based games with fully controllable parties. I imagine these are the same sorts of people who insist Bloodlines or New Vegas are not "real RPGs" for similar reasons or jRPGs for that matter.

You would imagine wrong.

Furthermore, if you'd rather play an action game that drops RPG elements than a game trying to incorporate some more RPG aspects but suffering a bit in the action area then you probably aren't as fond of RPGs as you might think you are.

Yes, that's perfectly it. Because I don't like bad RPGs, that must mean I don't like RPGs at all! It even makes sense.

In all seriousness, though;

Secondly, I don't think ME2 or 3 dropped the RPG elements at all. It's difficult to drop something you didn't even have. Really, you still have everything that made ME1 a "RPG". You level up, upgrade abilities, wear armor, talk to people, complete quests, hide behind walls and shoot people. You just do it better.

Have a nice day, Crackerjack.

 

[913]

 

[Andyman Messiah]

 

[Marsal]

Horsey with the smackdown!

 

[JamesBond]

Andyman Messiah for lord of the Maeras!

 

[Papa Môlé]

You're going to have to provide examples to back that up, Pepper Potts. At best Mass Effect 1 have two choices that lead to the exact same outcome anyway.

My my, you're a touchy little faggot aren't you?

>Eden Prime: choiceless.
>Citadel: You can choose to not recruit certain party members. Consequence: alternative dialogue.
>Citadel: Kill Fist. Consequence: Fist will not talk to you in Mass Effect 2.

>Therum: choiceless.
>Feros: Help the colonists with their errands. No consequences.
>Feros: Save the colonists. Consequence: extra side quest in Mass Effect 2. No consequence in Mass Effect 1.
>Noveria: Help the undercover cop. Consequence: she buys you a beer in Mass Effect 2 and helps you get a discount at a store. No consequence in Mass Effect 1 other than promising you a beer. I'm sure BioWare's writer thought they were really badass when they wrote that bullshit.
>Noveria: Save the Rachni or-- (wait, isn't this the same...?)- kill them all. Consequence: dialogue in Mass Effect 2. In Mass Effect 1: alternative dialogue when talking to the Council.
>Ebon Hawk: Romance Kaidan, Ashley or Liara. Consequence in Mass Effect 1: one (1) sex scene.
>Ebon Hawk: Help Garrus, Wrex and Tali with their quests. Consequence: one extra bit of dialogue when meeting Tali again in Mass Effect 2. Wrex and Garrus don't give any fucks.
>Extra mission: Kill the crime boss lady. Consequence: Crime boss lady will not talk to you in Mass Effect 2.

>Virmire: Help the salarians. Consequence: the salarians will have higher numbers when you recruit them for the war in Mass Effect 3.
>Virmire: Let Ashley or Kaidan take a nuke up the ass. Consequence: Ashley or Kaidan will be dead forever. Unfortunately in RPGs I have learned to think of all party members as expendable so if they die I'll just replace them. Also this was supposed to be Mass Effect 1's Aeris dies moment and like with Aeris the developers picked the most useless party members.
>Endgame: Save the Council. Consequence: a new council won't take the old council's place. Also you get higher numbers in Mass Effect 3's collection quest.
>Endgame: Convince Saren to shoot himself. Consequence: you don't have to fight the boss twice, just once. (!)
>Endgame: Put Anderson or Udina in charge of ambassadoring the shit outta humanity. Consequence: none, we couldn't get autosave working here so you'll have to do this choice properly in ME2 instead.

Did I forget anything? Please let me now so I can debunk absolutely every fucking thing your stupid shit brain can come up with. Pretty please.

You forgot the part where you explained how the above is primarily different from any other RPG clowns like yourself here praise inordinately when it comes to choices and consequences. The vast majority of times in RPGs the “consequence” is essentially a resolution to a specific quest, the endgame, or in a lucky case, a specific quest which might also tie into the outcome of the endgame. You wrote a lot of butthurt lines about how you don't think C&C up to whatever imaginary standard is in your head, but again, if you had some half decent reading comprehension you'd realize I never said it was deep or complex, just that it's *still there* and was rebuking the typical Codexian try-too-hard stance of insisting anything recentgen, AAA, biowarean, etc. is just an action/console game with rpg thrown on top and so you'd better just play a full-on action game. It's not like the above C&C is anything that different from what you'd encounter in Planescape, but nobody here calls that a “RTS with some shoddy RPG elements thrown over it” despite that game also having terrible gameplay full of filler trash combat and drawn out emo dialogue with C&C mostly based on story resolution or character development. It gets a pass though apparently because it's quirky, within the D&D universe, is old school, and other reasons that have more to do with “hardcore” gamer identity politics than any really consistent position on what contsitutes quality.

I'm not trying to shit on Planescape actually, but rather pointing out that if you like Planescape it's probably because you like the other RPG elements the game incorporates and despite it having endless reams of garbage combat it still isn't necessarily a shit game to which you are better off ignoring in order to feel good about playing Call of Duty instead. The only reason I can see someone writing off ME completely while loving Planescape, outside of posing, is solely the fact that they must be so hard-wired to treat anything not 2d, isometric, or using rolls as an action game that they approached the first entirely that way and then felt it lacking, despite most of what it did *okay* being similar to the Holy Trinity member: lore, characters, affecting the story, etc.

I could say that about Mass Effect 2 and it wouldn't be incorrect at all.

Yes, but again try to stay with me here. The sequel limited both the depth you could customize your party and the specificity of the orders you could give to them. Ergo, describing the sequel as less of an RPG is reasonable as opposed to stating “they are both equally just shitty action games because I don't like how the skills worked in the first one even though it clearly had more detail to it. Besides, depth of chargen don't have anything to do with games being more RPG anyway so derp”.

Some attempt is correct.

I don't really see how you can dispute the game has very considerable amount of backstory and lore to it, either the first or the sequel, or that first utilizes alternate approaches more and better than the second one. So far you've taken the usual ranting stance where you shout and stamp your feet and fling some shit off the top of your head to basically say “My arbitrary preference is that I like the second better but I'm going to try to act like the first isn't really much of an RPG either instead of just acknowledging that in this instance I preferred a more console-type popamole shooter to something closer to a traditional crpg.”

Yes, on the optional planets you are often dumped on the middle of the map and told, via minimap, to traverse the red/blue/orange landscape to the area with the interesting thing(s). In story missions you get a highly linear path you must follow. We need to have certain standards about what exactly "open-world exploration" is. My opinion is that you need more than just a square map of mountains and sand and collection items to click on but its likely that I'm in the minority there.

But all that said, YES! Surely the ability to "choose when and where to go" is what truly MAKES an RPG. I can go to this red planet or this brown planet, I can do this quest or I can do this quest. Mass Effect revolutionized RPGs.

This is getting tedious. I have argued that the game is roughly average, over-rated in mass media but over-criticized on Codex-not revolutionary. I have also not stated “this makes an RPG”, exploration for example, but rather “here are some very common traits of RPGs, which this game has to varying amounts and levels of successful impelmentation”. I stated it possess these traits more that its sequel and it does a better job implementing them as well. So, to reiterate, I have stated it's an average game, both more of an RPG than its sequel and also better than its sequel in more areas. Its sequel only possible advantage could be that one thinks the action is more fluid (which I personally don't think is the case anyway but feel that's too subjective to argue about and highly dependent on which class you play).

Most games have "quest-based mission design" resulting in "gaining experience" and "reputation". You might as well have described Saints Row 3 for christ's sake! (Btw, Saints Row 3 is better than Mass Effect 1.)

No, actually they don't. Unless you are honestly going to sit there and argue that a GTA-style mission is the same as say, a sidequest in Baldur's Gate, and that leveling up in a online shooter to unlock a new weapon is the same thing as putting points into a social skill or a game tracking some kind of alignment score to which the world reacts to.

Uh huh.

Still stomping those hooves in indignation I see.

True, but I would argue that just because something is there but doesn't hold up doesn't mean we shouldn't feel inclined to point at it and tell it to get the fuck out of here before we beat it to death with the power of a rock.

What doesn't it hold up to exactly? You put some points into a social skill you can solve problems with them. What's that? It's retarded you can convice Saren to an hero himself? Hrm I seem to remember some games called Fallout, Arcanum, and Planescape that allowed for a similar endgame resolution. If you don't think the writing in ME around that is so hot fine, I agree actually, but that's still too subjective a style of argument to make. From the standpoint of being narrative fiction maybe it doesn't hold up so well but from the standpoint of being a roleplaying game where you can design a certain type of character who prefers to solve problems in a certain way it holds up pretty okay.

Yes, that's perfectly it. Because I don't like bad RPGs, that must mean I don't like RPGs at all! It even makes sense.

In all seriousness, though; no.

In all seriousness, yes. True fans of certain genres most certainly will prefer to consume something that's in that genre over some other genre, especially one which that demographic would normally be expected to have no interest in. Imagine horror flicks. Most of these are truly terrible. However, most horror fans would rather watch a passable to mediocre horror flick than a well done Nicholas Sparks inspirational film, or do you disagree?

Secondly, I don't think ME2 or 3 dropped the RPG elements at all. It's difficult to drop something you didn't even have. Really, you still have everything that made ME1 a "RPG". You level up, upgrade abilities, wear armor, talk to people, complete quests, hide behind walls and shoot people. You just do it better.

Have a nice day, Crackerjack.

Except of course, it did have it and you're one of those bending over backwards to argue that something not being implemented the way your niche segment wants is equivalent to it not or may-as-well-not being there and doing the whole “what is RPG?” routine to dance around it. I don't even know why the fuck I'm defending Mass Effect except perhaps 1) Codex is full of it and 2) on principle, if you really care about RPGs you should be more forgiving, not less, about games which try to be closer to them and not so willing to convince yourself accepting the dropping of it to make games closer to mainstream action or shooter games.

 

[Marsal]

 

[Ion Prothon II]

Mass Effects are getting quite an attention here. I doubt even BDSN discusses the quality of those things so passionately.
I thought it's sufficient to say something is a shit just one time.

 

[Angthoron]

At first I was like imma comment that but then I was like no fuck that.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

You're going to have to provide examples to back that up, Pepper Potts. At best Mass Effect 1 have two choices that lead to the exact same outcome anyway.

My my, you're a touchy little faggot aren't you?

You mad, son?

if you really care about RPGs you should be more forgiving

The funny thing is that I really can be forgiving. For example I am FAR from a fan of The Witcher but there was enough in there that made me look past its flaws. Meanwhile Mass Effect 1 came out of development looking like KOTOR1's inbred cousin.

As for the rest of your post...

 

[Gragt]

Still playing DA:O and the countless trash encounters make me wish I was playing ME2. Enemies are samey but at least you deal with them and move on fast.

 

[Trojan_generic]

You guys forgot the element that makes all popamole games non-RPG's when it comes to combat:

Player skill vs. character skill

 

[dnf]

you NEVER fix a feature by removing it! Even if ME2 is objectively better than ME1, it should still be criticized by the removal of features without nothing to back it up!

 

[Volourn]

"The funny thing is that I really can be forgiving. For example I am FAR from a fan of The Witcher but there was enough in there that made me look past its flaws. Meanwhile Mass Effect 1 came out of development looking like KOTOR1's inbred cousin."

The fact you pretend that KOTOR is better than ME shows that youa re fukkin' stupid and your opinion means squat.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Mass Effects are getting quite an attention here. I doubt even BDSN discusses the quality of those things so passionately.
I thought it's sufficient to say something is a shit just one time.

BSN aren't in denial about their taste, though.

Spoiler

 

[Executer]

"The funny thing is that I really can be forgiving. For example I am FAR from a fan of The Witcher but there was enough in there that made me look past its flaws. Meanwhile Mass Effect 1 came out of development looking like KOTOR1's inbred cousin."

The fact you pretend that KOTOR is better than ME shows that youa re fukkin' stupid and your opinion means squat.

This argument really comes down to light sabers doesn't it?

 

[Andyman Messiah]

"The funny thing is that I really can be forgiving. For example I am FAR from a fan of The Witcher but there was enough in there that made me look past its flaws. Meanwhile Mass Effect 1 came out of development looking like KOTOR1's inbred cousin."

The fact you pretend that KOTOR is better than ME shows that youa re fukkin' stupid and your opinion means squat.

The fact that you think I like KOTOR shows that you have a fetish for jumping to conclusions, Volleyball.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

you NEVER fix a feature by removing it! Even if ME2 is objectively better than ME1, it should still be criticized by the removal of features without nothing to back it up!

All this talk about removing features... They removed the Mako and replaced it with two things; a shuttle (!) and a hover tank that controlled a lot better. I repeat: Mass Effect 1 should have had a shuttle from the start. The Mako was put in solely because of some misguided attempt at badassery and "exploration" and only makes sense in the story missions on Noveria (driving to the research station) and Ilos (making a spectacular landing and driving into the portal).

Inventory? Simplified, not removed. People need to understand that keeping things simple is not a bad thing. Now, sure, maybe if they had implemented mouse wheel support scrolling down the inventory of identical assault rifles and armors (with different stats) wouldn't have been so bad but it doesn't make the fact that your inventory is going to get filled up with hundreds of identical items with different stats really fucking fast, so I thought it was good how they decided to make something more useful and less crappy out of it. I can't be the only one that hated selling or omnigelling each and every item, can I?

Basically most of the bones I'm picking with ME1 boils down to is, is the game fun to play? Seriously. What can we do to make the game more playable, fun, convenient? How can we make the game remain fun to play? Mass Effect 3 is similar to ME1 because it decided to relocate the armory which previously was right next door to the mission select screen, I mean the map. It was simply convenient to have everything in the same room. ME3 fucked up because now I have to take the elevator down to the garage. It makes sense if Mass Effect was a reality. You hop down to the shuttle area, grab your gear and head out. But Mass Effect is a game. So now it's just inconvenient for players. Less loading screens, more playing the fucking game. Thank you.

Level-up? They combined the skills that gave you bonuses to health, shields, speech, etc into one skill, just as an example. Again, I think simple is good. You shouldn't have three different trees that do the same thing. You should have one skill tree that does one thing and another that does something else. As for axing the weapon skills. Are you telling me Commander Shepard shouldn't know how to shoot a gun? Get out of here. (I don't give a fuck.)

And what the fuck you mean you never fix something by removing it? You outta your mind? Of course you do! If something doesn't work you replace it with shit that works! That's the way it goes.

 

[Gragt]

you NEVER fix a feature by removing it! Even if ME2 is objectively better than ME1, it should still be criticized by the removal of features without nothing to back it up!

Not at all. Both should be taken each based on their individual qualities and failures. Comparing the sequel to the original can give hindsight in the creation and evolution of the game and lets you know what went right or wrong, but in the end they are two separate games that should be taken individually.

 

[dnf]

They removed the Mako and replaced it with two things; a shuttle (!) and a hover tank that controlled a lot better.

Yeah! you just need to pay 10 bucks to enjoy the improved version! In my case, i coudnt bother pirating more DLC for ME2 so i dont know if the hammerhead is better less shit!

If something doesn't work you replace it with shit that works! That's the way it goes.

But that is the question! they havent replaced shit! they improved the shooting from shit to mediocre, axing or dumbing down everything else in the process,and adding more dumb shit like minigames!

Not at all. Both should be taken each based on their individual qualities and failures. Comparing the sequel to the original can give hindsight in the creation and evolution of the game and lets you know what went right or wrong, but in the end they are two separate games that should be taken individually.

Is this the "good for what it is" that people is raving? There is no such thing as individual qualities and failures in games! They dont live in a vacuum

 

[Infinitron]

Level-up? They combined the skills that gave you bonuses to health, shields, speech, etc into one skill, just as an example. Again, I think simple is good. You shouldn't have three different trees that do the same thing. You should have one skill tree that does one thing and another that does something else.

Harvey Smith wept.