150 réponses à ce sujet

[InvincibleHero]

It basically comes down to decisions you can make in the game and their impact on the people and places in it. These are role-playing opportunities. ME2 has far better execution and more decisions left to the player overall. I have been roleplaying and playing computer RPGs since the early 80s, but that doesn't make my opinions better than anyone else's. I love more stats and inventory as much as anyone.


1. Equipment and inventory are not role-playing. I can equip Bishop in Rainbow 6 Vegas and even order his squaddies around, but it is still a shooter not RPG. You can mod the weapons with silencers, scopes, and more and the answer is ditto. You can equip Mario in platform games and it doesn't make it RPG. It only impacts gameplay. Both have inventories, armor, and weapons. Sure ME1 has more choice in that regard and I did like that, but it does not make it a better RPG.

2. In ME1 you had no choice but to become a spectre. In ME2 you can be reinstated or choose not to. That is a choice.

3. In ME1 you got to decide who dies Ashely or Kaiden but not a role-playing choice really. It was similar to the misison in ME2 where you had to choose whether the spaceport or residential area gets hit by a missile. Which is more meaningful "choice" in either game is opinion. In ME2, you can kill several team members or choose not to activate Grunt, and even sell Legion. This is far more choice.

4. Far more optional squaddies in ME2. You can pick and choose which to me is role-playing. Pretty much Wrex or Garrus or recruit both was your only choice in ME1. Yeah I recruit everyone since it makes it easier netting more people and XP and credits etc. However, the fact remains more is left to the player in ME2.

5. Missions have much more plot and roleplaying points than in ME1. Wrex loyalty for instance you could do it or not and the mission was a linear one with no choices. In ME2 the Thane loyalty mission will be used as an example. First you had to acquire info and you could actually torture a suspect if you wanted to or you could persuede him to tell it. This defines Shepard and is great roleplay. You could knock out a security guard or talk your way in and at the end you could kill the target, talk down Thane's son, or choose another way to end it. These all impact the game world differently. it is like this throughout ME2. The missions if you are honest in ME1 were just linear shootouts with some objectives on the way and maybe one choice at the end. They all played out the same and offered little in the way of choice and role-playing.


6. You could impact a whole species that of the Geth in ME2. You could even dictate Quarian militarism or peace making attempts with the Geth. However, the huge choice to overwrite or destroy the Geth is huge. Also the genophage data save it or destroy it will have much impact on Krogans. The only parallel in ME1 is kill Rachni queen or not. AFAIK the racni will still exist in ME2 regardless of you killing her in ME1. Don't call that fact though unless it really is. What you should come away with is more meaningful roleplaying choices in ME2.

7. Less skills/stats does not mean less roleplaying. Roleplaying is choices and which powers you have or not determines gameplay. Yes it defines your character, but the same classes were to be had in both games. I do prefer the ME1 more rich options. None of the powers could be used in a meta way to change outcomes in actaul roleplay opportunities. If you could use barrier or pull to yank someone from falling off a roof to save someone that would otherwise die then that would be roleplaying with the powers. Neither game does this. At best a wash for RPG opportunity.


8. The ending. In ME1 save council or not and you could save for paragon or let them die for a neutral and renegade reason. Now the result pretty much ended the game the same. In ME2 collector base BOOM or not. This ends the game differently and has much roleplaying choices in dialogue whichever way you choose.


I could add more and more points, but why belabor the obvious. Well and enjoy and be civil to on another. I know some ME1 purists won't be very accepting of this. However, if they searched their feelings then they'd know ME2 is a great RPG with more choice than ME1.

Modifié par InvincibleHero, 13 mars 2011 - 01:07 .

[Slayer299]

Two things; a) Paragraph breaks are you friend, I couldn't get past point 1 and another of these pointless X is better than Y threads? Seriously? The reverse threads aren't helpful either. There are very strong opinions on both sides of the tracks on the subjectivity of this.

Everyone has their thoughts on what is best out of ME and ME2, arguing this is just trolling, plain and simple.

You're wrong IMO. ME2 is not "superior".

[EssenceEngine]

In the case of "better" or "worse" regarding the subject of the Mass Effect series, "better" equates to enjoying the playing of the game. And since what is enjoyable is subjective, it grinds down to a matter of personal taste. Ergo, it can not be applied to everyone and so calling either game factually better is innacurate.

What could be said, however, is that ME2 is an RPG with a greater range of customisation options in regard to non-aestethic personalisation than ME1.

[InvincibleHero]

Slayer299 wrote...

Two things; a) Paragraph breaks are you friend, I couldn't get past point 1 and another of these pointless X is better than Y threads? Seriously? The reverse threads aren't helpful either. There are very strong opinions on both sides of the tracks on the subjectivity of this.

Everyone has their thoughts on what is best out of ME and ME2, arguing this is just trolling, plain and simple.

You're wrong IMO. ME2 is not "superior".

Ehh don't know why it did that. Looked fine before I posted after fixing the changes the post function made of my paste from notepad. Oh well. Thanks for pointing it out.

That's why I tried a factual approach. I never said ME2 is superior. Someone can like ME1 better and I have no problem with that.  I said better RPG opportunities to define Shepard and the game universe.

[InvincibleHero]

EssenceEngine wrote...

In the case of "better" or "worse" regarding the subject of the Mass Effect series, "better" equates to enjoying the playing of the game. And since what is enjoyable is subjective, it grinds down to a matter of personal taste. Ergo, it can not be applied to everyone and so calling either game factually better is innacurate.

What could be said, however, is that ME2 is an RPG with a greater range of customisation options in regard to non-aestethic personalisation than ME1.

This isn't opinion of which game is better which is purely subjective and based on many variables. This is only examining RPG elements or what people lump as RPG elements erroneously in some cases. Fact is there is more diversity of choice in ME2 along with more meaningful RP opportunities. I didn't even mention the interrupts which I should have. LOL. Maybe I'll fix that later.

[sigma_draconis]

EssenceEngine wrote...

What could be said, however, is that ME2 is an RPG with a greater range of customisation options in regard to non-aestethic personalisation than ME1.

This I agree with completely. Many people seem to percieve depth as the amount of content given instead of the things you can actually do with them and whether there is a difference between each. And that was my problem with ME1, you were basically given much more guns, armor, skills; but the problem was that each gun in the same class feels and play almost the same, whereas in ME2 switching to another weapon in the same class can warrant a different strategy altogether. Each skill level gain does not give a noticable difference. And in the end even with all the weapon, armor and skills you have access to, you end up using a very select few, and the majority of weapons and armor you gain throughout the game becomes vendor trash. In ME2, almost all weapons, armor pieces, skills have their uses even the ones you get in the beginning.

[jojon2se]

InvincibleHero wrote...
...
This isn't opinion of which game is better which is purely subjective and based on many variables. This is only examining RPG elements or what people lump as RPG elements erroneously in some cases.
...

..and there we have another crux: Just who gets to be the ultimate authority on what is and what isn't RPG?

One could, for instance, say that *every* Bioware title is, as a RPG, what a Fighting Fantasy book is to AD&D.
Is either of those more or less RPG than the other and is your answer objective or subjective?

[xSTONEYx187x]

Slayer299 wrote...

Two things; a) Paragraph breaks are you friend, I couldn't get past point 1 and another of these pointless X is better than Y threads? Seriously? The reverse threads aren't helpful either. There are very strong opinions on both sides of the tracks on the subjectivity of this.

Everyone has their thoughts on what is best out of ME and ME2, arguing this is just trolling, plain and simple.

You're wrong IMO. ME2 is not "superior".

Isn't that a contradictory? 

[EssenceEngine]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

Two things; a) Paragraph breaks are you friend, I couldn't get past point 1 and another of these pointless X is better than Y threads? Seriously? The reverse threads aren't helpful either. There are very strong opinions on both sides of the tracks on the subjectivity of this.

Everyone has their thoughts on what is best out of ME and ME2, arguing this is just trolling, plain and simple.

You're wrong IMO. ME2 is not "superior".

Isn't that a contradictory? 

Not quite. Slayer does not actually contradict him or herself, in the "3+2 is 5 but 2+3 is not 5" sense but rather criticizes the process of arguing on the topic of whether either game is superior and then follows with sharing his or her view regarding that very topic. Sharing ones view being the figurative catalyst for argumentation, it could at worst be seen as hypocritical.

[Manic Sheep]

While I agree with allot of your points the problem is there is no standard definition for what makes something a RPG. Despite the “role playing” part that is often not what people see as the main aspects of a RPG. There are allot of different features that are lumped in as being RPG features and certain combinations of these features can make something an RPG. Some "RPGs" really have no role-playing or decision making (in terms of plot) to speak of other than “yes I accept this quest” “no I don’t want to do this quest right now” but they have the number crunching, the looting, the inventory and other things that are part of the RPG umbrella.
Allot of people judge an rpg how it plays. Number crunching. (+1 to dex ect) and feel that it should be the characters skill not yours you're hit/mis ratio is calculated and effected by your stats. Something ME2 did not have. My character was as skilled with a sniper rifle as I could play it. It was not stat based. (somthing I prefer)
I value the decision you can make, the impact you have on your world and the ability to play a role above the most the other features of RPG’s, that is why I play them. TBH I don’t care if ME is labelled an RPG or TPS or if ME1 is considered superior in terms of its RPG elements or not.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 13 mars 2011 - 05:48 .

[glacier1701]

Having finished my first full playthrough of DA2 I can see how lacking ME2 (and ME for that matter) are in classic RPG elements. DA2 appears to be using the same underlying engine as ME2 (I really havent followed the DA boards so not that up on it) which shows up in how animations are the same (how people drink in cutscenes, how people exit left at the end and so on). ME has more of the classic RPG elements compared to ME2 but even so it is clearly not as heavily into the RPG side of things as DA is. ME2 shows that the core of the ME series is that it is a shooter despite the claims made BW. The whole point of this post though is that DA2 SHOWS what could be done in terms of classic rpg elements within the game engine and that despite that the ME series has not made use of it. So in the end the choice is clear - if you like rpg more than the shooter aspect then ME is the better game, if you favour the reverse position then ME2 is the better choice.

This does not take into account the story (or lack of it). On that side of things ME has a better overall story compared to ME2 though the majority of characters in ME2 do have better stories than within ME. In the end ME does come out on top and to me the only reason that ME2 us garnering so many awards is that there was no competition in its class to run against. This is a shame IF BW takes the number of awards as a reward for quality when they have not really lived up to their own past standards which is the ONLY standard that matters. Indications are that unfortunately the person in charge of Mass Effect believes in the awards and that player 'complaints' are not problems with the game but problems with the players in that they are not playing the game right!!! It is a sad fact that this means that while ME3 is or should be a 'good' game it will not be getting the attention it needs to be a legend simply because the feedback is being written off as bad player gameplay and not the fault of the game.

[Volus Warlord]

I ARE SUPERIOR!

[Slayer299]

InvincibleHero wrote...
That's why I tried a factual approach. I never said ME2 is superior. Someone can like ME1 better and I have no problem with that.  I said better RPG opportunities to define Shepard and the game universe.

True, but you did say 'better and there I heartily disagree. ME2 isn't a horrible or bad game, but it is overly streamlined in many places.

I don't see the 'better RPG opportunities', I find it with actually less opportunities (not that there were a great many in ME) with Shep. In ME2 Shep seems more robotic; his meeting with the VS don't make any lasting impression or definition, so please elaborate.

Also, I found it to be more polarized along the forced morality of Paragon/Renegade with zero ability to actually RP your Shep without being penalized for not following either path. Case in point, I'm presently finishing a run through LotSB and yet my Para/Ren bar is still at 88(6)/42, this is after the vanillla game, Overlord and 3/4 of SB. The only reason my Para is as high as it is is because I started choosing Para so as not to be completely penalized for everything and that is not allowing a player to RP outside of the game's forced standards. 

[emmanuelsieyes]

The biggest problem with ME2's RPG gameplay is that I'm forced to stay either Paragon or Renegade, as Slayer299 points out. There are more choices during gameplay, however, you're stuck picking the same ones over and over again.

[MassEffect762]

"better RPG opportunities to define Shepard"

^ lol.

I agree with Slayer.

[hannibalizer0]

I think both games are amazing.

The first one, I love the fact that you can explore the city more as a result it feels more alive. However the missions and side quests all feel the same.

The second one has better environments, and better quests but the main story lacks. What it did do better is create more in depth characters

As for the rpg elements, the first one inventory system is a pain and all the items feel the same. I think 2 does a better job with especially with the upgrades.

Both games I think have great leveling systems, and really can't decide which is better.

[Hunter-Wolf]

Slayer299 wrote...
Also, I found it to be more polarized along the forced morality of Paragon/Renegade with zero ability to actually RP your Shep without being penalized for not following either path. Case in point, I'm presently finishing a run through LotSB and yet my Para/Ren bar is still at 88(6)/42, this is after the vanillla game, Overlord and 3/4 of SB. The only reason my Para is as high as it is is because I started choosing Para so as not to be completely penalized for everything and that is not allowing a player to RP outside of the game's forced standards. 

What !!! .. zero ability to RP without choosing Paragon or Renegade .. i think not .. there is always a choice on the right side of the dialog wheel the stands for "Neutral" Shepard .. many times the Paragon/Renegade options are grayed out becasue the character i'm roleplaying is nuetral so i pick the choice on the right and it resolves the situation (a little bit less impressive than the other paths but it work).

Dragon Age 2 actually has a better system when it comes to RPing your character .. it rewards consistancy no matter what choice you pick up (Diplomatic, Agressive, Humorous) and it also affects your dialog tone and voice in the conversations that you can't control .. wish to see some of that in ME3.

[ThePutty]

Better in gameplay, the plot however was filled with inconsistancies and had you fighting a giant terminator, and was generally an enormous disappoint compared to ME1

[Vaenier]

ME2 is an action adventure third person shooter, not an rpg. What you described has nothing to do with an RPG, but infact where just components of a large amount of games.

The difference between RPG and action adventure is all about the skills. Is it your own skills that dictate success, or the characters. ME1 was more about the characters with skills for aim and health and stuff. Its armor has a larger impact on your ability to perform. Conversations were dictated by skills. ME2 is about the player. your weapons always work and just rely on your ability to aim. powers barely scale. armor has meaningless bonuses. There is no profound improvement over the course of the game.
So no, ME2 is not a better RPG, it had its RPG elements removed in favor of becoming an action adventure. A good story or the ability to make meaningless choices about the story has nothing to do with an RPG.

[Whatever42]

So RPGs are for players with no skill. Good to know. And good to see every thread on these forums ultimately ends up in that tired old debate.

InvincibleHero, I agree that ME2 was the better game and RPG. My list of reasons is somewhat than yours, though, since we have very different subjective opinions. You stated yours well, though.

[Whatever42]

Slayer299 wrote...

Also, I found it to be more polarized along the forced morality of Paragon/Renegade with zero ability to actually RP your Shep without being penalized for not following either path. Case in point, I'm presently finishing a run through LotSB and yet my Para/Ren bar is still at 88(6)/42, this is after the vanillla game, Overlord and 3/4 of SB. The only reason my Para is as high as it is is because I started choosing Para so as not to be completely penalized for everything and that is not allowing a player to RP outside of the game's forced standards. 

I'm not going to defend the paragon/renegade mini-game but try completely ignoring it and just RP. Yes, you miss out on the magic blue/red text but that actually results in a far better, far more realisitic, far more dramatic game.

A renegade that can make everyone back down with a threat is great but nothing is more renegade than actually beating until they tell you what you want (or don't in that case).

[Iakus]

InvincibleHero wrote...


1. Equipment and inventory are not role-playing. I can equip Bishop in Rainbow 6 Vegas and even order his squaddies around, but it is still a shooter not RPG. You can mod the weapons with silencers, scopes, and more and the answer is ditto. You can equip Mario in platform games and it doesn't make it RPG. It only impacts gameplay. Both have inventories, armor, and weapons. Sure ME1 has more choice in that regard and I did like that, but it does not make it a better RPG.

Agreed.  While I personally prefer to be able to mod out my weapons and ammunition to suit my personal preferences, that's all it is, personal preference.  I found weapons in ME 2 to be boring, but that doesn't make it "less" an rpg

2. In ME1 you had no choice but to become a spectre. In ME2 you can be reinstated or choose not to. That is a choice.

You aren't comparing the same things exactly.  By this token, you could say in ME 2 you have no choice but to work with Cerberus, but in ME 1 you can choose to not do the Cerberus side missions.

A more accurate comparison:  "In ME 1, you had no choice but to become a Spectre.  In ME 2 You had no choice but to join forces with TIM".   Arguably, it's a push, but I give the win to ME 1 because at least there are a multitude of reasons why becoming a Spectre is a good idea, while in ME 2 you sign on completely trusting that everything the Illusive Man says about the Council and your old crew is true (which in more than one case, it's not).

3. In ME1 you got to decide who dies Ashely or Kaiden but not a role-playing choice really. It was similar to the misison in ME2 where you had to choose whether the spaceport or residential area gets hit by a missile. Which is more meaningful "choice" in either game is opinion. In ME2, you can kill several team members or choose not to activate Grunt, and even sell Legion. This is far more choice.

The Ashley/Kaiden choice is as much personal as it is professional.  Both characters had been with you since Eden Prime, giving their opinions and possibly becoming friends.  Now you have to let one die.  That is (or should be) more emotional than the missile attack.  The spaceport/residential area, while possibly more important"big picture" wise, is essentially a numbers game.  Which numbers do you value more?  Both are equally role-playing.  But Kaiden/Ashley is more emotionally satisfying (imo)

In ME 1, you can also choose not to recruit Garrus or Wrex.  Or kill Wrex during your confrontation with him. 

4. Far more optional squaddies in ME2. You can pick and choose which to me is role-playing. Pretty much Wrex or Garrus or recruit both was your only choice in ME1. Yeah I recruit everyone since it makes it easier netting more people and XP and credits etc. However, the fact remains more is left to the player in ME2.

It would be a good thing, if the squaddies participated more in the missions.  But when one squadmate is completely silent throughout an entire mission, no opinions, no arguements, no observations, what was the point of bringing them at all?

As an example of this, do a mission where you bring Jacob on every mission.  See how much he contributes to dialogue.  How often does he disagree with you?  Or weigh in with his own thoughts on a decision?  Or make a pertinent observation?  Not a whole heck of a lot, except his own loyalty mission.  Repeat with a new game, only use Jack this time, then with Thane.  You get the picture.  THe only time characters really weigh in on a choice that I can recall is the Collector Base.

In ME 1, characters will interject into conversations, voice opinions on major choices.  Not to a Dragon Age degree, of course.  But "a little" is better than "not at all"

5. Missions have much more plot and roleplaying points than in ME1. Wrex loyalty for instance you could do it or not and the mission was a linear one with no choices. In ME2 the Thane loyalty mission will be used as an example. First you had to acquire info and you could actually torture a suspect if you wanted to or you could persuede him to tell it. This defines Shepard and is great roleplay. You could knock out a security guard or talk your way in and at the end you could kill the target, talk down Thane's son, or choose another way to end it. These all impact the game world differently. it is like this throughout ME2. The missions if you are honest in ME1 were just linear shootouts with some objectives on the way and maybe one choice at the end. They all played out the same and offered little in the way of choice and role-playing.

Eight of the twelve loyalty missions cannot be failed once you start it.  Regardless of how it's resolved, you have the person's loyalty.  No consequences.  Two of those you can paragon/renegade into "having your cake and eating it too"  the other two you have to actively sabotage to fail, at which point why bother doing it at all?  I do not debate that the missions are well done.  But in ME 1, you can talk your way past fights too. 

6. You could impact a whole species that of the Geth in ME2. You could even dictate Quarian militarism or peace making attempts with the Geth. However, the huge choice to overwrite or destroy the Geth is huge. Also the genophage data save it or destroy it will have much impact on Krogans. The only parallel in ME1 is kill Rachni queen or not. AFAIK the racni will still exist in ME2 regardless of you killing her in ME1. Don't call that fact though unless it really is. What you should come away with is more meaningful roleplaying choices in ME2.

The three examples you cited here are the best examples of potential impact ME2 provides.  I just want to point out a couple of things:

The rachni queen is in fact dead if you killed her in ME 1

Not killing Wrex is at least as huge a deal as the genophage cure in ME 2, as he is actually unifying the krogan.  He can potentially convince the Council not to introduce a genophage 3.0 or totally wipe out the krogan

State of the Council is also a huge choice made in ME 1.  It's actually one of the few choices that has any real impact on ME 2 as well.  Even if it is limited to the Citadel.

Three major choices in each.  Looks like a push

7. Less skills/stats does not mean less roleplaying. Roleplaying is choices and which powers you have or not determines gameplay. Yes it defines your character, but the same classes were to be had in both games. I do prefer the ME1 more rich options. None of the powers could be used in a meta way to change outcomes in actaul roleplay opportunities. If you could use barrier or pull to yank someone from falling off a roof to save someone that would otherwise die then that would be roleplaying with the powers. Neither game does this. At best a wash for RPG opportunity.

Like weapons and armor, I pretty much agree with this.  However, like the equipment, it makes for boring, less personal choices.  I do agree that being able to use abilities in a role-playing situation would be nice.

8. The ending. In ME1 save council or not and you could save for paragon or let them die for a neutral and renegade reason. Now the result pretty much ended the game the same. In ME2 collector base BOOM or not. This ends the game differently and has much roleplaying choices in dialogue whichever way you choose.

ME 1 ends with the Council thanking you for saving their lives, or with you, Udina, and Anderson deciding whether to establish a new alien Council with a human representative or a human-only Council.  It may not be as cinematic, but it's still a major turning point for the galaxy.

[Phaedon]

Wait.

People are claiming that RPGs are all about the stats?

The stats?

Dunno about you guys, but the SimCity games are my favourite RPGs.

I know that the OP's point is that roleplaying is more important than classic RPG elements, but think about this.

The ME games are RPG/shooter hybrids. Don't fool yourself, classic RPG elements aren't anything more than a simulation, and that's why stats (in the form of character stats, weapons, potions etc) are important. The more stats you have, the better the simulation is.

So, gameplay wise, ME1 is a better game than ME2? Does it have better RPG elements?

No. If developers could make their board games or CRPGs play like Mass Effect 2 back in the 70s/80s, then traditional RPGs wouldn't exist at all. The only reason somebody came up with that idea was because the player couldn't directly interact with the protagonist.

DPSs on swords exist only because devs didn't have the ability to allow the player to 'handle' the swords themselves, and have the damage be affected by the player's skill.

However, seeing as ME2 is also a shooter, that means that there is a way for that to happen. Traditional RPG elements need to stay on things that the player can't control, such as the effect of biotic attacks and power cooldown.

ME2 didn't do it perfectly, but ME1 did it wrong as a concept all together, I am looking at you Accuracy stat.

So yes, ME2 is a better RPG, because the simulation part doesn't affect your roleplaying.

Modifié par Phaedon, 13 mars 2011 - 06:04 .

[Hunter-Wolf]

Phaedon wrote...
So, gameplay wise, ME1 is a better game than ME2? Does it have better RPG elements?

No. If developers could make their board games or CRPGs play like Mass Effect 2 back in the 70s/80s, then traditional RPGs wouldn't exist at all. The only reason somebody came up with that idea was because the player couldn't directly interact with the protagonist.

DPSs on swords exist only because devs didn't have the ability to allow the player to 'handle' the swords themselves, and have the damage be affected by the player's skill.

However, seeing as ME2 is also a shooter, that means that there is a way for that to happen. Traditional RPG elements need to stay on things that the player can't control, such as the effect of biotic attacks and power cooldown.

ME2 didn't do it perfectly, but ME1 did it wrong as a concept all together, I am looking at you Accuracy stat.

So yes, ME2 is a better RPG, because the simulation part doesn't affect your roleplaying.

Thank you sir .. QFT .. if more gamers realize this the world will be a better place ... it boggels my mind that people still keep old conventions created only due to inability to factor player skill and consider it part of what makes an RPG an RPG .. forgetting that an RPG is all about roleplaying, characters and immersive worlds/lore ... sooner or later all old/outdated RPG conventions are going to get replaced by mechanics that represent the actual real skill of the player (augmented by some stats in case player skill can't really express that specific quality/ability) ... that's the future of RPGs .. and hardcore old-school RPG fans either have to accpet it or stick to old RPGs and table top games.

Take Deus Ex 3 as an example of a good RPG in the making .. after reading numerous interviews and Q&A it was very clear they are taking this approach to revolutanize RPGs .. back in the day Deus Ex 1 was known as an FPS with brains ... but it had its share of unreasltic, sluggish RPG tropes ...  in Deus Ex your shooting was dependant on stats mostly  .. so stick a gun in a guy's face and fire .. ooops you missed .. missed a freaking point blank shot .. WTH ... now that gets fixed in Deus Ex 3 ... your shooting is based on your actual aim and i see no reason not to make it that way .. RPG or not .. the RPG elements are focused on cybernetic skills and other ascpets of the game (social interaction, exploration, .. etc etc) .. dare to say that's not much different from what happened to DA2 combat .. it turned from a 100% point and click dice-based sluggish unresponsive combat to an actual combat experiance where placement, distance, reactions speed, tactics and strategy all factor .. one of th main reasons i despised MMORPGs is that their combat was like DA:O to a great degree .. sluggish .. unrealstic and unresponsive .. but even that is going to totally change with impressive upcoming MMORPGs like Guild Wars 2, Blade & Soul and Vindictus.

Embrace the future

[AdmiralCheez]

@Phaedon: Bingo.

Either way, which game is ultimately "better" is up to personal taste. When I take aim and shoot at something, I want the results to rely on my skill as a player, not some arbitrary number. Stats are good, sure, but I can play Pokémon for that.

And, to me at least, ME2 was a much more personal experience. Getting to know people better, facing tougher decisions, a squad that counts on me to see them through... ME1 had the epic adventure thing going, sure, but it didn't resonate with me on the same level. (DISCLAIMER: Personal taste.)