I just wanted to point out that we now have
a poll up for the best RPG of 2007, so head over and cast your votes. At the moment, Mask of the Betrayer and The Witcher are leading the pack.
I've also seen a lot of criticism over our decision to choose Mass Effect as our "Disappointment of the Year", so I think it's only fair that I leave a more detailed explanation of why that decision was made. Keep in mind that there are a couple of
SPOILERS in this explanation. Anyway, here's what I had to say about it
over at RPG Codex:
"Let me start off by saying that I've been playing tabletop and PC RPGs for 27 years, I think the D20 system is pretty solid in terms of variety, and I grew up watching (and really enjoying) Star Wars episodes IV - VI. As a result, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic was a good match for me and I enjoyed it immensely for many different reasons that are sort of out of the scope of what I popped in here for.
Now, eschewing the D20 system for Mass Effect was fine, but I didn't expect BioWare's proprietary character development system to be so generic. There are no character attributes, no noteworthy non-combat skills, and only forty talents - most of which are nearly identical. For example, all four weapon talents use the same progression with one unlockable skill within each that more-or-less increases damage, the three armor talents reduce damage and increase shield regeneration, and the six biotic talents serve either a direct damage or crowd control purpose. The talent pool also includes class specializations, which can only be perceived as an afterthought. Ascending to any of them just lets you allocate six more points into a slightly modified version of your previous class talent. They're practically transparent.
The Paragon/Renegade system might enter into grey areas more than the Dark/Light and Open Palm/Closed Fist systems, but it's still the same approach. Top choices on the radial menu are for Paragons, bottom choices are for Renegades. Whenever there is an option to Charm, there's an option to Intimidate. It's not a terrible way to handle dialogue considering that there are no attributes to reference or anything, but there's definitely nothing unique about it. The game was supposed to have some real hard-hitting player decisions, too. There are two major decisions you have to make in the game - which of two squad members dies at the hands of the Geth and whether or not to wipe out the Rachni race. Aside from potentially losing a romance option, there are no consequences to either of these actions.
It might not matter to some, but having unique equipment with interesting descriptions is a must for me in a role-playing game. With Mass Effect, it's as if they just opened up a thesaurus and grabbed all the one-word synonyms they could find for the weapons and armor. Some of the names are even duplicated (Avenger is the name of a sniper rifle AND an assault rifle, Striker is the name of a pistol AND a sniper rifle, etc.) and there is no naming differentiation between light/medium/heavy armors for any of the four races (resulting in the same name being used for up to 12 different armors). Additionally, I'm the kind of guy who actually reads the six paragraphs that describe how The Snow Maiden's Reaver came to be. With the equipment in ME, there are no item descriptions and no statistics to consider aside from three simple scores. The whole equipment system just feels uninspired and boring to me.
Aside from the main quest planets (which were pretty well done), I never really felt any satisfaction from exploring the game's galaxy, either. The idea of exploring uncharted planets sounded great to me, but when you're just landing on the same square patch of land devoid of anything but crashed space probes, minerals waiting to be surveyed, insurmountable mountain ranges, and the occasional side quest that takes place in an unremarkable building or mining facility, the novelty wears off fast. When coupled with the simplistic, bouncy, and slow-moving Mako, most of my planetary exploration felt like a chore.
I should also add that I'm not a fan of enemy and loot scaling, especially when it's used exclusively and ruins any sense of danger (and adventure) in the game. I was actually hoping that I'd be able to land on some exotic planet and be slaughtered by a sinister alien species, but that never happened. In my opinion, that type of thing encourages players to continue to build their characters, re-equip their characters, or otherwise utilize some other strategy when returning to the challenge later on. It was also pretty disappointing to get a few dozen credits and maybe a suit of Explorer I armor for quests and Geth kills at the beginning of the game, only to discover that those same quests and Geth could suddenly be worth tens of thousands of credits and a suit of Explorer X armor if I killed or completed them when my squad was of higher level later in the game. Some scaling is acceptable, but Mass Effect's progression was just too strict and linear for me.
That's my take, anyway. Mass Effect is certainly not a bad game (I still contend that the storyline, cinematics, voiceovers, and music are great), but I couldn't help but scratch my head at the many poor design decisions. It had a lot to live up to for me and as a result was my biggest disappointment this year. Hellgate: London was a close second, but I went into that game expecting Diablo-style skill trees and some quick cooperative fun, nothing more. As a result, my expectations were met."
If that explanation still doesn't sit right with you, I'd be happy to indulge anyone in a healthy debate about the game.
![Loki[D.d.G] is offline](http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/gb_icons/statusicon/user_offline.gif){kind=icon}
![Send a message via MSN to Loki[D.d.G]](http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/gb_icons/misc/im_msn.gif){kind=icon}
Linear Mode
