Confidence Man said:
You don't think stats and loot add anything to the game? Why do you think people play Torchlight, for example?
Because it is a loot heavy RPG. Loot heavy. A game that has been designed heavily around the aquisition of loot, frequently. Much like Diablo.
If finding new equipment has been all but stripped from the game then yeah, that's a huge negative, regardless of how it was handled in ME.
What? That makes no sense. It's totally based on how it was handled in Mass Effect. The loot was near useless in the original. Bitching about the lack of loot in the sequel compared to the relatively useless loot in the original
makes no sense.
Which, for what it's worth, was perfectly fine.
No, it wasnt. It was one weapon afloat in an ocean of useless shit. The game had four weapons. You picked the best one and kept it for a looong time. Loot was useless.
I don't know what RPGs you're playing where you don't find new equipment that's better than the stuff you're carrying.
Vampire: Bloodlines had sweet fuck all loot and is easily one of the best RPGs ever made.
The rate at which you acquired new stuff was obviously too high, and the inventory you were given to manage it all was substandard, but that could've been fixed.
For what gain?
Again I ask people to think about the loot system in Mass Effect, what they liked and disliked, how it was managed throughout the game, and how it relates to the changes in Mass Effect 2.
As I said, you'd always pick the best stats on a weapon because there was only four weapons in the game. No huge range of swords, axes, maces, and shields here. Four weapons. No magical enhancements, rare abilities, or anything like that. Four weapons. Best stats = the one you equip. Everything else, of which you will get plenty, is useless except for coin.
So how often did you switch and upgrade your weapon? As you increased in level I'm guessing not very much. In fact, nearing the end of the game now, I've switched my pistol and sniper probably four or five times, now using Spector gear and thus not needing anything anymore.
The only enhancements of weapons came from the modifications, which much like the loot drops came thick and fast but were mostly useless thanks to keeping the same high end stuff for most of the game.
Now lets look at the changes in Mass Effect 2. You've still got guns, and you still upgrade them. You still enhance and improve the weaponry and equipment you've got. Hell, you probably do so at the same rate you did in Mass Effect. Difference? You dont have to sell hundreds upon hundreds of useless shit in between each upgrade that you stumbled upon every few hours.
It sounds like you just want loot for the sake of loot. You want more loot in a game that never had anything useful to begin with. You're free to be disappointed they didnt expand on the loot concept, but what we're getting does not seem much like a dumbed down version, but instead the trimming of the fat that had no part of the original game in the first place.
RPGs dont need tons of loot and a billion stats to be deep. That is not what makes them RPGs. That's not what made Mass Effect so great, and its arguably what made it (of many things) flawed.
elrechazao said:
Yeah, best to not tell me what I loved or didn't, thanks.
Then how about you and others explain to me what was so great about the loot? What was so integral and important and oh so wonderful about the loot? Because none of you have done so. I've stated why it was crap and why the changes are fine, but I'm hearing from the other end is 'hur dur its Gears of War' and other silly complaints, and all it's coming across as is "I want loot for the sake of loot", which is crummy game design.