Ok thanks I got my answer.
So I belong in the majority then. I much preferred ME2 over ME1, mostly due to the combat. I hated that shooting was RPG-based in ME1, I could never wrap my head around it. A head shot is a fucking head shot... if I aim my reticule at it I should be rewarded as such. Otherwise it was a solid game with decent RPG elements. I enjoyed the combat in ME2 more, combining firearms with biotic abilities was fun but I wished there was more to do on the side as far as leveling up was concerned. Essentially the RPG mechanics were lacking, I mean it felt extremely RPG-light compared to the first one.
So in conclusion, ME1 has better RPG mechanics but ME2 has better combat mechanics. It is still up to debate which has better "game play" or which is the better game per se.
Niblet said:
It baffles me that people defend games with bad gameplay and wave them around as good games. I'll take what is considered the best written game of all time, Planescape Torment (I haven't played it yet, but I'm going to so this is all going by what I've read). It's battle system is antiquated and bad. I don't think I've read someone post of their enjoyment of the combat. It is always about the narrative. Taking this into consideration, I reason that those who play Torment are actually playing an interactive narrative. In fact the developers made it deliberately possible for you to skip almost every single combat scenario in the game via dialogue, which was a good game design decision. So does Torment have good gameplay? Yes, because it's narrative is the best and more importantly the game is designed to accommodate dialogue-only gameplay which is the vehicle to enjoy said narrative.
Recently a game people gave some recognition for redeeming narrative was Nier. That game was shit. I never got to experience this great narrative gaffers were talking about because I don't have a tolerance for playing shit. A potentially* redeeming narrative isn't enough because the game doesn't facilitate your experiencing of the narrative.
What I'm saying is that a good game ideally includes a complete package. A good narrative, voice acting, animation, art direction, graphics (not every genre needs each of these elements) are all things I'd want in a good game worthy of purchase. But what is NEEDED above all else is good gameplay. I PLAY games. I have a distinct taste in games and media consumption.
Yeah man I used to be like this when I was younger. "Gameplay > Everything" in games and all.
Of course games with truly bad game play are just plain bad or mediocre no matter what their narratives are (Heavy Rain gets a lot of hate around). But what about games that are OK in the game play but outstanding in presentation? Or what about games that have decent game play but the features built around the game play are so varied and vast that it prompts you to play more of it? What about games that are genuinely innovative but have some broken or shallow game play elements?
A great game is a game with the complete package but you can't ignore the games that innovate, provide an extra level of immersion to the game play or other forms of satisfaction. Would you consider Shadow of the Colossus a bad game? I can sure as hell argue that the game has terrible "game play" where it's just a string of boss fights one after the other with very limited actual exploration. Combat and platforming mechanics are weak and bosses dwindle down to a set of easily recognizable patterns. Surely if you compare SOTC to something like Zelda you will begin to realize this but SOTC isn't LIKE Zelda now is it?
SOTC is one of my favorite games of all time but I have listed it in this thread as a game with "bad" game play. Yes, it doesn't fall into the pretenses of solid, standard and addictive game play but when you play it and finish it, the experience is indescribable. It is a complete package for me and hence a "good" game.
