131 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

kraidy1117 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

You need to get laid. With a women.

Me?

lol no the OP.

But we all should have sex to release what ever tension we have with ME2.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 06 mai 2010 - 05:53 .

[Schneidend]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yes, I think projectile hand weapons will still be with us in 2148, and probably 2848. It's never been quite clear what problem laser hand weapons would be solving.

This.

I find it funny that somebody who thinks the "FRANCHISE IS BEING RUINED ZOMG!!!!" is also advocating projected energy weapons. The entire basis of the setting's technology is the acceleration of matter, not lazors. Besides, Incendiary Rounds and Incinerate are basically plasma, so use them and shut up. Mass Effect 1 was great, and Mass Effect 2 is even better, in my opinion.

[Krigwin]

Sometimes when I read these threads I feel I have somehow played an entirely different game than the rest of you.

For instance, people complain about the 'loss' of RPG elements from ME1 to ME2. To that I ask, what RPG elements?

The inventory system was a cluttered mess and only an inventory system in name. You get one gun that does X amount of damage, and then the next gun that does X+Y amount of damage! Man, that's some tough customization there. Oh wait, we can't forget about the omni-tools and bio-amps! You get an omni-tool that adds X amount of damage to Overload, and then an even better omni-tool that does, get this, X+Y more damage with Overload!

You cannot honestly be telling me that that's one of the RPG elements you're talking about. Plus, it's not even like they took that out - the inventory menus are still around, as are the weapon progression, there's just a lot less of each gun now and they took out certain item categories. The (quite broken, I might add) gun and armor customization system? They just replaced that with ammo powers, which are far more balanced and make for an actually more strategic game, believe it or not, and changed it so that only Shepard can customize his/her armor.

If you seriously think the inventory system from ME1 was an "RPG element", you need to play more RPGs. Even Dragon Age did a better job with items and equipment. The inventory system from ME1 was nothing more than a linear progression scale dressed up to look like character customization, all ME2 did was make this more obvious.

Then there's the skills system, which, again, ME1 didn't even do that well to begin with. It wasn't like KotOR where character skills actually mattered - the only thing you needed to do was bring someone to unlock stuff (lolsTali), and then stack the medi-gel skill across the party. ME2 streamlined the skills system and made it more intuitive and combat-based, which, again, made for a more balanced and strategic game.

In ME1 characters were hardly unique and it almost didn't matter at all what your party was, speaking in terms of combat (aside from the bringing Tali along all the time for lockpicking things, of course). In ME2, ammo powers, loyalty skills, and defense-piercing skills differentiate each character and make each suitable for different situations. For instance, Tali with Energy Drain and AI Hacking is amazing for Legion's loyalty mission, but useless for, say, Mordin's loyalty mission, where Grunt with Inferno Ammo and his melee attack would be much more useful.

And the last thing people bring up all the time is the big decisions thing, ie the saving the Rachni Queen, killing Shiala or not, etc. Well, again, I must have played a different game than everyone else, because there were multiples of such decisions in each of the loyalty missions I played in ME2, a lot of them actually pretty important as pertaining to the characters' development.


TL;DR: I felt ME2 was a better RPG than ME1 and have no idea what people are talking about when they claim ME1 had more or better RPG elements than ME2, although I will agree both games have a depressing shortage of RPG elements to begin with.

[Dick Delaware]

KalosCast wrote...

I dunno why "linear" has become such a dirty word. That's how good pacing is done.

Yeah, as if ME1 was suddenly a non-linear game all of a sudden. Hell, it was even more linear than ME2. At least you could choose to go into the suicide mission at a certain point and unlike ME1, you could actually fail.

[Dick Delaware]

StowyMcStowstow wrote...
Indeed. While I was over exaggerating a bit (although Christina Norman's speech and slideshow are good guages of how Bioware looked at the creation of ME 2), I meant what I said when I said ME 3 needs vast improvements compared to ME 3. Actually vast would be a relative term, as people who happen to like shooters more love the new changes, but people who like old school RPGs more prefer more RPG in their action-RPG game. Only a few things needed to be improved from ME 1 to ME 2, mainly the Mako and the shooter mechanics, and the invertory and how loot was handled. Other than that, the game was great. However, in ME 2 they replaced what didn't need fixing (like the elevators) with loading screens and mission complete screens that completely break immersion.ME 2 didn't suck, but it fixed a few too many things that didn't need fixing.

Ugh... how I loathe the "I" word. "IMMERSHUN!!!" has become such a bullsh*t buzzword. Look, maybe the loading screens you find annoying, but that is just a really minor complaint. It's nitpicking. Yeah, I'd prefer something else as well, but it wasn't a huge deal for me.

I never understand the complaints people have about the inventory? Why would inventory make the game better? I'd prefer the current system as is, except with more weapon options. Having only two heavy pistols in the whole game is pretty terrible.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 06 mai 2010 - 06:33 .

[ToJKa1]

stormfrog wrote...
ME1 was suffering from a myriad of mugs and graphical issues. Almost everyone was suffering from microstuttering, and a lot of people had completely unplayable games. In ME2 stuttering is even WORSE, and a lot of suspected memory leaks has been reported. In a technical aspect ME2 is FAAAAAR from a sharp retail version. Current game should be labeled as barely alpha / premature testing ...

Incoming anecdote...

For me ME2 runs much better than ME1 ever did, on the same PC. ME2 is much less of a half-assed console port (apart from the UI) than ME1 was.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

The Collector's give you a laser beam weapon, be happy.



I would like to see more roleplay optional elements myself in ME3. Note the word "optional" so the shooter people don't freak out at having to read or listen to plot.



Hopefully they will expand the custom armor features also, that was pretty cool.



And hopefully the plot will be longer. Other than that, a combination of ME1 and ME2 would be groovy and just about perfect I would think. Either way it's not keeping me awake at night with worry.

[Mister Mida]

www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=18111
www.joystiq.com/2010/03/13/bioware-designer-talks-about-goals-for-mass-effect-3/

Modifié par Mister Mida, 06 mai 2010 - 07:43 .

[biomag]

Krigwin wrote...

Sometimes when I read these threads I feel I have somehow played an entirely different game than the rest of you.

For instance, people complain about the 'loss' of RPG elements from ME1 to ME2. To that I ask, what RPG elements?

The inventory system was a cluttered mess and only an inventory system in name. You get one gun that does X amount of damage, and then the next gun that does X+Y amount of damage! Man, that's some tough customization there. Oh wait, we can't forget about the omni-tools and bio-amps! You get an omni-tool that adds X amount of damage to Overload, and then an even better omni-tool that does, get this, X+Y more damage with Overload!

You cannot honestly be telling me that that's one of the RPG elements you're talking about. Plus, it's not even like they took that out - the inventory menus are still around, as are the weapon progression, there's just a lot less of each gun now and they took out certain item categories. The (quite broken, I might add) gun and armor customization system? They just replaced that with ammo powers, which are far more balanced and make for an actually more strategic game, believe it or not, and changed it so that only Shepard can customize his/her armor.

If you seriously think the inventory system from ME1 was an "RPG element", you need to play more RPGs. Even Dragon Age did a better job with items and equipment. The inventory system from ME1 was nothing more than a linear progression scale dressed up to look like character customization, all ME2 did was make this more obvious.

Then there's the skills system, which, again, ME1 didn't even do that well to begin with. It wasn't like KotOR where character skills actually mattered - the only thing you needed to do was bring someone to unlock stuff (lolsTali), and then stack the medi-gel skill across the party. ME2 streamlined the skills system and made it more intuitive and combat-based, which, again, made for a more balanced and strategic game.

In ME1 characters were hardly unique and it almost didn't matter at all what your party was, speaking in terms of combat (aside from the bringing Tali along all the time for lockpicking things, of course). In ME2, ammo powers, loyalty skills, and defense-piercing skills differentiate each character and make each suitable for different situations. For instance, Tali with Energy Drain and AI Hacking is amazing for Legion's loyalty mission, but useless for, say, Mordin's loyalty mission, where Grunt with Inferno Ammo and his melee attack would be much more useful.

And the last thing people bring up all the time is the big decisions thing, ie the saving the Rachni Queen, killing Shiala or not, etc. Well, again, I must have played a different game than everyone else, because there were multiples of such decisions in each of the loyalty missions I played in ME2, a lot of them actually pretty important as pertaining to the characters' development.


TL;DR: I felt ME2 was a better RPG than ME1 and have no idea what people are talking about when they claim ME1 had more or better RPG elements than ME2, although I will agree both games have a depressing shortage of RPG elements to begin with.

Thanks god there are some sane people around here!

Finally I read a post from a person who understands what RPGs is about and doesn't whine about game mechanics and screams "THAT'S RPG!!!!". Its about ROLE PLAYING and not having 10 combat skills! ME 1 and 2 give you the chance to play your character Shepard. ME 2 is even better at that because some missions are just stories and there are really urgent missions. How many of you didn't start Virmire until they finished the other 3 planets? How many stopped chasing Saren just to get a shot on the paragon/renegade mission? How many finished all side quest during the extremely urgent hunt for Saren and the Conduit?
ME2 story is far better at this point. You can be slow, but there will be punishment. You don't have a story that claims there is no time, but instead tells you your mission is to prepare yourself, so go and gain experience & tech and only then go face your enemy.

Whining about the story is the biggest part of this boards bs. Some people don't understand how this story is build up. First part was the introduction, where you set your univers for the rest of the game (big decisions). Second game is the part were you build up a team and get a chance to know their background. Third will be the big showdown and there you should see the difference of your previous actions.
Also I think some people didn't really pay attention to what happened at ME 2... what about quorians and geth? Didn't you realize that you decide if the quorains start a war and what happens to the rebel geth? Decision as big as the council and rachni queen.

ME 2 is far better when it comes to immersion and role playing. The missions are more real, have more story and aren't just about shooting at things (is there a single ME 1 mission you can finish without shooting? Ah yes, scanning the keepers... wow, what a rpg element, thx god there is no heavy-action part using a kreepy fighting system...). Also people didn't give a damn about the stories of the side missions at ME 2. Yes, some are just go down there and kill, but there were a few small campaigns. Sure, they were just based on killing and most players didn't even follow the story, but I guess ME 1 was there better too... oh look, rachni got deployed on 2 planets, go and kill them... oh, Thorian kreepers on 2 planets, lets kill them,...


People are whining here beyond any logic, just because they had different expectations. The OP even whined about being forced to use specific party members to finish the game... I finished it on insanity, like many others, I didn't replay a single mission just to change my party members because it would have been impossible otherwise. The only party members that are forced, are those for loyalty mission...and guess why...


I ain't saying that ME 2 is perfect or that ME 1 was bad. Its just I think many are just complaining because they don't have better things to do. They are ignoring improvments because they are focused on minor flaws and things that aren't important at all for a RPG, just because "all others" have them. Oblivion needed skills as it had no immersion at all. D&D-games, as bad as this rpg system is, had them because they're based on pen and paper and they need those things to work. This doesn't imply ME 2 isn't a RPG. A good RPG, even a pen&paper lead by a good gamemaster and good players, won't rely heavily on stats and skills, but on characters.

[Epantiras]

stormfrog wrote...


In ME3 I want:

• MORE roleplaying elements
• More interactive and none-linear story
• Please keep the strategy elements of researching tech and building new stuff but please make it more fun and immersive than reading Church News? (PLEASE look at the research system in UFO and the sequel).
• Make the character models betters more detailed. Add a dynamic hair system (its not even difficult, some community fan of Oblivion made a plugin for that game which introduced this... then you should be able to wrap it up easily).
• Keep the custom armor system but make it possible to REALLY build you own armor from different armor parts.
• More side story line side quest that are more extensive than landing on a planet. Make real missions, not just the fetch/collect bullcrap.
• AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE PEOPLE IN 2148 HAS PROJECTILE WEAPONS??! WHERE ARE THE PLASMA / LASER / DEATH-RAY RIFLES????!!!
• Remove other inconsistencies in the game that doesnt add up with the scifi setting. For example desks have paper on them instead of digital pads (at least in ME1). Make the enviroments believable, you dont have to stash dozen of crates and barrels in every single room.

Everything written is my own opinion of course, I don't intend to presume I know what is true about this game.

Sorry for spelling and poor grammar... writing this in my sleep almost.

I'm lazy so I read only THIS PART of the post... well, except for bullets and paper (I don't care much about these inconsisencies) I agree with what it's written over there.

EDIT: I don't care about character models either. ME2 looked ok.

Modifié par Epantiras, 06 mai 2010 - 09:52 .

[Icinix]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

You need to get laid. With a women.

Me?

lol no the OP.

But we all should have sex to release what ever tension we have with ME2.

This is quite possibly the most intelligent post I have ever read on these forums.

[Mister Mida]

Icinix wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

You need to get laid. With a women.

Me?

lol no the OP.

But we all should have sex to release what ever tension we have with ME2.

This is quite possibly the most intelligent post I have ever read on these forums.

**** away the stress because of Mass Effect 2?

LMAO

[Jebel Krong]

hmm account created on 28/04? an alt from one of the regular few whiners?



same tired and innacurate points used to complain? - check.

[Commissar Gash]

stormfrog wrote...

 [*]AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE PEOPLE IN 2148 HAS PROJECTILE WEAPONS??! WHERE ARE THE PLASMA / LASER / DEATH-RAY RIFLES????!!!

AND FOR THE LOVE OF CAPS LOCK DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE PEOPLE IN 2553 HAS PROJECTILE WEAPONS THAT WE CAN MAKE IN OUR CENTRURY? Stop whining and be happy you get hightech MAC guns with infinite ammo (ammo is infinite, the thermal clips, not so much).

[Embrosil]

Well, ME2 is not a bad game per se. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed it. The biggest problem is the Mass Effect in the name. It is a complete turnaround from ME1 with mose changes making it worse. If the game was not called Mass Effect and used a different universe, I would give it 9.5/10. However as a sequel to ME1 my rating would be 7.5/10. I agree with the OP although most of these issues has already been discussed and probably will be discussed till ME3 is released

[Elvis_Mazur]

Krigwin wrote...

Sometimes when I read these threads I feel I have somehow played an entirely different game than the rest of you.

For instance, people complain about the 'loss' of RPG elements from ME1 to ME2. To that I ask, what RPG elements?

The inventory system was a cluttered mess and only an inventory system in name. You get one gun that does X amount of damage, and then the next gun that does X+Y amount of damage! Man, that's some tough customization there. Oh wait, we can't forget about the omni-tools and bio-amps! You get an omni-tool that adds X amount of damage to Overload, and then an even better omni-tool that does, get this, X+Y more damage with Overload!

You cannot honestly be telling me that that's one of the RPG elements you're talking about. Plus, it's not even like they took that out - the inventory menus are still around, as are the weapon progression, there's just a lot less of each gun now and they took out certain item categories. The (quite broken, I might add) gun and armor customization system? They just replaced that with ammo powers, which are far more balanced and make for an actually more strategic game, believe it or not, and changed it so that only Shepard can customize his/her armor.

If you seriously think the inventory system from ME1 was an "RPG element", you need to play more RPGs. Even Dragon Age did a better job with items and equipment. The inventory system from ME1 was nothing more than a linear progression scale dressed up to look like character customization, all ME2 did was make this more obvious.

Then there's the skills system, which, again, ME1 didn't even do that well to begin with. It wasn't like KotOR where character skills actually mattered - the only thing you needed to do was bring someone to unlock stuff (lolsTali), and then stack the medi-gel skill across the party. ME2 streamlined the skills system and made it more intuitive and combat-based, which, again, made for a more balanced and strategic game.

In ME1 characters were hardly unique and it almost didn't matter at all what your party was, speaking in terms of combat (aside from the bringing Tali along all the time for lockpicking things, of course). In ME2, ammo powers, loyalty skills, and defense-piercing skills differentiate each character and make each suitable for different situations. For instance, Tali with Energy Drain and AI Hacking is amazing for Legion's loyalty mission, but useless for, say, Mordin's loyalty mission, where Grunt with Inferno Ammo and his melee attack would be much more useful.

And the last thing people bring up all the time is the big decisions thing, ie the saving the Rachni Queen, killing Shiala or not, etc. Well, again, I must have played a different game than everyone else, because there were multiples of such decisions in each of the loyalty missions I played in ME2, a lot of them actually pretty important as pertaining to the characters' development.


TL;DR: I felt ME2 was a better RPG than ME1 and have no idea what people are talking about when they claim ME1 had more or better RPG elements than ME2, although I will agree both games have a depressing shortage of RPG elements to begin with.

True. Those people don't know what is a RPG.

[Jebel Krong]

Embrosil wrote...

Well, ME2 is not a bad game per se. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed it. The biggest problem is the Mass Effect in the name. It is a complete turnaround from ME1 with most changes making it worse. If the game was not called Mass Effect and used a different universe, I would give it 9.5/10. However as a sequel to ME1 my rating would be 7.5/10. I agree with the OP although most of these issues has already been discussed and probably will be discussed till ME3 is released

not it's not and no they don't. most aspects of the game are drastically improved, with one or two changes that are not completely successful (mission-end screens and, particularly, ammo).

[Klimy]

I don't care about most of OP post. Except, make the game non-liniar, maybe where you can in the middle of the quest get a proposition to switch sides or something like this. Or you kill a guy in one mission, but next mission when you fight a boss, a group of soldiers will drop by to revange his death.



Also wish they could make the game longer, with no loose ends on anything, in the end this is last part, so if all things will not be answered then they will never be answered.



Oh and don't remember what game it was, but maybe you get your skills improved by using this or that abilities? like if you use AR often then you improve it skills. This can lead to grinding, but feel free to morf this idea into better one.

[bjdbwea]

stormfrog wrote...

Everything written is my own opinion of course, I don't intend to presume I know what is true about this game.

It's my opinion too. Thanks for this well thought out OP. If anyone else reads this and hasn't already done so, please feel free to make your own thread about it too. It's the only way to make our voices heard.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 mai 2010 - 12:55 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

stormfrog wrote...

[*]AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE PEOPLE IN 2148 HAS PROJECTILE WEAPONS??! WHERE ARE THE PLASMA / LASER / DEATH-RAY RIFLES????!!!

...

DOT DOT DOT

[Meglivorn]

Some missions are more or less impossible to do without the "correct" party members, so if you happen to pick the wrong ones you have to go back and load an old game and do it all over again.

I don't know what did you play... I played insanity with Miranda, Garrus and Tali. Only took other party members when the story dictated me to do so (loyalty quests). And never had any problem.

In ME3 I want:

• MORE roleplaying elements
• More interactive and none-linear story
• Please keep the strategy elements of researching tech and building new stuff but please make it more fun and immersive than reading Church News? (PLEASE look at the research system in UFO and the sequel).
• Make the character models betters more detailed. Add a dynamic hair system (its not even difficult, some community fan of Oblivion made a plugin for that game which introduced this... then you should be able to wrap it up easily).
• Keep the custom armor system but make it possible to REALLY build you own armor from different armor parts.
• More side story line side quest that are more extensive than landing on a planet. Make real missions, not just the fetch/collect bullcrap.
• AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE PEOPLE IN 2148 HAS PROJECTILE WEAPONS??! WHERE ARE THE PLASMA / LASER / DEATH-RAY RIFLES????!!!Remove other inconsistencies in the game that doesnt add up with the scifi setting. For example desks have paper on them instead of digital pads (at least in ME1). Make the enviroments believable, you dont have to stash dozen of crates and barrels in every single room.

• I don't know, playing Dragon Age I just hate the "RPG elements" like the inventory and the useless skills or talents. I'm fine with the professional characters, with flavour skills and abilities.
• Mass Effect never was non-linear. The whole point is the story about beating the reapers. It is linear. Not the What, only the how is the question.  Though I'd like to see more impact on the world. Like after I finish a quest or a planet, the other locations will know about that, reflect on it. I never liked in ME1 that I killed Benezia on Noveria yet all other locations talked about her like still alive.)
• Better modells would be fine, but don't know if the UT3 engine have the ability. The movement animation definitely could be better - like walk.
• Sidequests in ME2 were WAAAY better than any in ME1. So there is a lot of improvement in there.
• What is the problem with projectiles? They were cool in Aliens too ...

[Tazzmission]

Krigwin wrote...

Sometimes when I read these threads I feel I have somehow played an entirely different game than the rest of you.

For instance, people complain about the 'loss' of RPG elements from ME1 to ME2. To that I ask, what RPG elements?

The inventory system was a cluttered mess and only an inventory system in name. You get one gun that does X amount of damage, and then the next gun that does X+Y amount of damage! Man, that's some tough customization there. Oh wait, we can't forget about the omni-tools and bio-amps! You get an omni-tool that adds X amount of damage to Overload, and then an even better omni-tool that does, get this, X+Y more damage with Overload!

You cannot honestly be telling me that that's one of the RPG elements you're talking about. Plus, it's not even like they took that out - the inventory menus are still around, as are the weapon progression, there's just a lot less of each gun now and they took out certain item categories. The (quite broken, I might add) gun and armor customization system? They just replaced that with ammo powers, which are far more balanced and make for an actually more strategic game, believe it or not, and changed it so that only Shepard can customize his/her armor.

If you seriously think the inventory system from ME1 was an "RPG element", you need to play more RPGs. Even Dragon Age did a better job with items and equipment. The inventory system from ME1 was nothing more than a linear progression scale dressed up to look like character customization, all ME2 did was make this more obvious.

Then there's the skills system, which, again, ME1 didn't even do that well to begin with. It wasn't like KotOR where character skills actually mattered - the only thing you needed to do was bring someone to unlock stuff (lolsTali), and then stack the medi-gel skill across the party. ME2 streamlined the skills system and made it more intuitive and combat-based, which, again, made for a more balanced and strategic game.

In ME1 characters were hardly unique and it almost didn't matter at all what your party was, speaking in terms of combat (aside from the bringing Tali along all the time for lockpicking things, of course). In ME2, ammo powers, loyalty skills, and defense-piercing skills differentiate each character and make each suitable for different situations. For instance, Tali with Energy Drain and AI Hacking is amazing for Legion's loyalty mission, but useless for, say, Mordin's loyalty mission, where Grunt with Inferno Ammo and his melee attack would be much more useful.

And the last thing people bring up all the time is the big decisions thing, ie the saving the Rachni Queen, killing Shiala or not, etc. Well, again, I must have played a different game than everyone else, because there were multiples of such decisions in each of the loyalty missions I played in ME2, a lot of them actually pretty important as pertaining to the characters' development.


TL;DR: I felt ME2 was a better RPG than ME1 and have no idea what people are talking about when they claim ME1 had more or better RPG elements than ME2, although I will agree both games have a depressing shortage of RPG elements to begin with.

wow thats a really good way of shuting the cry babies up. im with you on this my friend

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Krigwin wrote...

Sometimes when I read these threads I feel I have somehow played an entirely different game than the rest of you.

For instance, people complain about the 'loss' of RPG elements from ME1 to ME2. To that I ask, what RPG elements?

The inventory system was a cluttered mess and only an inventory system in name. You get one gun that does X amount of damage, and then the next gun that does X+Y amount of damage! Man, that's some tough customization there. Oh wait, we can't forget about the omni-tools and bio-amps! You get an omni-tool that adds X amount of damage to Overload, and then an even better omni-tool that does, get this, X+Y more damage with Overload!

You cannot honestly be telling me that that's one of the RPG elements you're talking about. Plus, it's not even like they took that out - the inventory menus are still around, as are the weapon progression, there's just a lot less of each gun now and they took out certain item categories. The (quite broken, I might add) gun and armor customization system? They just replaced that with ammo powers, which are far more balanced and make for an actually more strategic game, believe it or not, and changed it so that only Shepard can customize his/her armor.

If you seriously think the inventory system from ME1 was an "RPG element", you need to play more RPGs. Even Dragon Age did a better job with items and equipment. The inventory system from ME1 was nothing more than a linear progression scale dressed up to look like character customization, all ME2 did was make this more obvious.

Then there's the skills system, which, again, ME1 didn't even do that well to begin with. It wasn't like KotOR where character skills actually mattered - the only thing you needed to do was bring someone to unlock stuff (lolsTali), and then stack the medi-gel skill across the party. ME2 streamlined the skills system and made it more intuitive and combat-based, which, again, made for a more balanced and strategic game.

In ME1 characters were hardly unique and it almost didn't matter at all what your party was, speaking in terms of combat (aside from the bringing Tali along all the time for lockpicking things, of course). In ME2, ammo powers, loyalty skills, and defense-piercing skills differentiate each character and make each suitable for different situations. For instance, Tali with Energy Drain and AI Hacking is amazing for Legion's loyalty mission, but useless for, say, Mordin's loyalty mission, where Grunt with Inferno Ammo and his melee attack would be much more useful.

And the last thing people bring up all the time is the big decisions thing, ie the saving the Rachni Queen, killing Shiala or not, etc. Well, again, I must have played a different game than everyone else, because there were multiples of such decisions in each of the loyalty missions I played in ME2, a lot of them actually pretty important as pertaining to the characters' development.


TL;DR: I felt ME2 was a better RPG than ME1 and have no idea what people are talking about when they claim ME1 had more or better RPG elements than ME2, although I will agree both games have a depressing shortage of RPG elements to begin with.

Good post.

As an addition to what someone said about ME2 being more buggy than ME.

Sorry but last time I played ME I could play for 2 hours max before it would cause my computer to crash. With ME2 I have no issues whatsoever other than the occasional in-game gltich walking up into thin air and getting stuck.

With regard comments about the Hammerhead, I seriously don't know what you guys are doing to keep getting yourself killed all the time, I have no issues taking out the Geth on those missions. Some people seem to think the Mako was an omnipotent powerhouse of a tank. Last I recalled Thresher Maws didn't seem to think so. They could chew through it like it was a shifty looking space cow. Hammerhead is like its namesake, a shark that swiftly attacks from out of the blue before returning to the murky depths

[SpiderFan1217]

StowyMcStowstow wrote...

ME 3 is going to have far mor RPG elements, according to the devs.

Where did you hear this?