Hyper-space said:
Nethack cannot be about choice if its relentless problem solving, as problems are in of themselves not a matter of choice, but have a clear and definable answer. Also, Nethack is about becoming a demigod and the way to do so is to find an amulet, and the way to do so often revolves around getting to the lowest level.
Most problems have more than one answer in Nethack; all a matter of efficiency and strategy.
And concerning accomplishments, what you say is "shallow" is simply not your cup of tea. Someone might like problem-solving and find that to be the most satisfying accomplishment, but someone else might be invested in the story and stories usually have endings.
Well, if you're playing the "Subjective reasoning" card here, then there's nothing left to discuss; it'll just be a matter of preference and you can't really make much of that.
But I'll be a sport and give my thoughts anyway.
At what point does a game cease to be a game and begins to become an interactive movie? When we subtract the problem-solving, (previously called "Gameplay") to the point where the player's input matters so little?
What good is "choice" when the outcome remains exactly the same? We are so afraid of consequence getting in the way of the experience that we're just eliminating it entirely.
How you play the game (what class/weapons you use, etc.) determines how you get there, so its not shallow, it just that they cannot randomly generate a story with characters and such. So surprise, some people want a game with a story and actual environments (beyond ASCII characters), and saying that its shallow is false.
Then consider me unsatisfied with the GAMEPLAY of Mass Effect 2.
as its all randomly generated, all of these "choices" are problems.
Already addressed.
And in Mass Effect 2, something as simple as upgrading your ships armor will save the lives of your fellow companions, and not to mention the work that goes into having each companion say and react differently to where they might be.
It's good for characterization, and one of stronger points. But all my complaints have been aimed at the gameplay
Choices that you made in previous installments pass over into the game, with tons of detail going into what kind of personality your character has and how people react to it. Hell, Bioware gave Tali and Legion dialogue when doing the Garrus recruitment mission (you could not get them at that point), even though it required you to alter the game's files to hear it.
Except it isn't your character. It's Bioware's. The choices I made in ME1 didn't seem to change shit between the games apart from a few dialog blurbs and maybe one or two optional encounters. It's neat, but it hardly justifies dumbing the combat down.
So, instead of comparing Nethack's combat with ME2's combat, you compare it to ME2's dialogue system?
Point. Comparing the combat would be more fair.
The classes in ME2 were well defined and comboing together skills was fun and hectic and had enough variety to warrant multiple playthroughs. Maybe if you only played Soldier and never used any skills or tactics to lure out the enemy, it might seem boring, but then you had to play on a very low difficulty to even pull something like that off. Also, comparing rudimentary hack-n-slash combat to a tactical third person-shooting is ridiculous.
I started right out on Insanity, and completed the game twice using mostly weapons.
Played as Infiltrator and Soldier. The game was piss-easy start to finish. Of the two, I preferred the Infiltrator, if only because I enjoy sniping.
How did I win? The same way I won every engagement: Whack-a-Mole-Duck-N-Cover. Shred their shields/Break their armor, swap to Sniper/Vindicator. Aim for the Head. Use an Incinerate if they regenerate, use Cloak if I fuck it up somehow. Repeat.
Same battle repeated about 200 times. Cue credits.
Then again, I made the mistake of playing it on my PC (I don't own a 360 or PS3).
The difference in difficulty between now and then is that you have an option to turn up/down the difficulty, thats the accessibility you hate so much.
Sure. That's why I was completely bored during the combat in Mass Effect 1 and 2. Stat-stacking is the definition of "artificial difficulty", and it's a pretty poor way to make the game harder.
Sure, many recent RPGs no longer have clunky inventory systems or redundancies when it comes to skills, but being able to bring actual choice and without having obtrusive gameplay mechanics get in your way is a logical advancement of the genre. RPGs are not solely based upon its cliches and tropes, so when a game tries to do something new and forego these obvious "staples", its not doing so because of just shameless money-grabbing, its doing so because the creators (in most cases) want to do something new (not counting publishers that demand the developer makes clones) and improve upon their craft.
I had absolutely no "choice" in the path of upgrading my weapons; it's a straight line. I had one of two logical "choices" in each conversation, both usually leading to the same conclusion; also a straight line. My class was the only choice I actually had.
If that's the future of gaming then I'm done. That isn't choice; it's simply the illusion of choice. Choice needs consequences to have meaning, otherwise you've contradicted its very purpose.
Nothing I did in Mass Effect 2 felt that it had consequence. Perhaps it will carry over into ME3, but for now, I can't see the point of it.
Dragon Age 2 wasn't critically panned, hell, it was as good as DA:O, it just that when a developer tries to do something new, like say: make a story that is not trite-shit (that ol' Bioware formula) and have characters that are not completely dependent on the player, the "hardcore" fans loose their shit. The only things that were wrong with the game, was the copy-pasted dungeons and the bland scenery.
My friend has it, and from what I've seen, it isn't all that great.
