150 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

Sajuro wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

ME2's more choice on Squaddies has doomed them from reappearing as Squaddies in ME3. I say that such extra choice wasen't worth the trade off. Hell, I'm still saddened about what happened to Wrex and VS. Think of the uproar when that exact same thing happens to the ME2 crew for ME3.

There will be hell in this kitchen.

I have an easy out, if you get them killed on the Suicide Mission, you miss their content. simple.

Bioware did say that they are coming back in some form and if you let your squad die in ME2 that there would be consquences so they should be back in some meaningful form. On average, I think the metrics said about two squadmates died. And very likely those are a different two squadmates for everyone. So if they brought back the squad for ME3, the very large majority of players would experience each of them.

Considering that ME3 will likely not have the same focus on character missions again and they are using the same engine, so most of the models and animations are there already, bringing back the squad means some voicework and some dialogue trees, and maybe some small missions. Missing that content won't be a huge deal and you can always replay it.

However, although I contend that its perfectly viable to bring them back, its possible they won't bring them back as squadmates, depending on their design goals. Maybe they want to introduce new characters because they think new characters are cool. But I think its quite feasible that they come back as squadmates. We'll just have to see what happens.

[Nathan Redgrave]

I say that Mass Effect 2 is the better Action RPG. It's not very much of an RPG in the sense of pure RPG elements. However, most of its "betterness" in this regard is more a result of Mass Effect 1's RPG elements being poorly executed, with only the actual combat mechanics and weapon *types* being a clear improvement. Everything from class and skill mechanics to level design, inventory and level-up mechanics, to what the "uncharted worlds" work as, to town sections and shops, can be criticized as being too streamlined. Arguably more entertaining than their ME1 counterparts, but also less interesting from a conceptual standpoint. All of these could easily be made more interesting by taking the poorly-implemented concepts from ME1 that were given the axe, and merely re-implementing them with better design aspects. A middle-ground would be preferable over both ME1 and ME2, providing a deeper RPG side to complement the action aspects.

The probability of a "Dragon Age: Origins" style of quest structure in ME3 actually makes such a middle ground a likely thing from where we're sitting right now, but we'll see what happens when it happens.

[Dave666]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Dave666 wrote...
Theres a line from one of the ME games about how if you put three humans in a room you'll get six opinions. 

Just wanted to point out, I read the rest of your post in its entirety an this line struck me funnily, that line is actually said by Samara when you ask her what she thinks of humanity.

In fact, a great many of awesome quotes and quality memes came out of this game which in most cases wasn't based on a failure (ala "All your base are belong to us").

I think you should reassess what Bioware did right with this game. Story congruity could have been better and there were missed oportunities as well as poor oversight decisions but at the end of the day they made a very memorable game with excellent dialog.

I'm not going to say it's the best RPG ever (KOTOR had Nine crew and they were each quite deep, as was the romance) since I haven't played many but I will say that it kept me coming back for each and every unique line of dialog I could find as well as interesting and thought provoking characters.

All in all, I'm satisfied.

I have never said, and will never say that ME:2 was the worst game in the history of games. It has some very good moments in it, as you rightly pointed out.  What I will say was that certain parts (small ones in the grand scheme of things) left a bitter taste in my mouth. Certain aspects seemed to almost throw me out of the universe in which I was trying to imerse myself. An example for me was the in game explanation for the introduction of Thermal Clips. It just didn't make sense...

Members of the board our R&D department has been studying the Geth and has come up with an innovation!

General #1: Lets hear it then.

R&D guy: Well, after studying the Geth we've found a way to get more rounds down range in a shorter time...but there's a drawback, it means that we'll have to keep our forces supplied with Thermal clips.

General #1: Thats fantastic! More rounds down range!

General #2: Erm..did you listen to the second part? What if our supply chains get stretched or disrupted?

General #1: More rounds down range!

General #2: Or we could, I dunno, teach our boys and girls a little trigger discipline and they can keep firing forever...

General #1: Over-ruled! More rounds down range!

General #2: *facepalm*

I play RPG's for the escapism aspect, hence I almost always choose the caster type classes. Anyone in Real Life could pick up a gun and shoot someone etc, but to me there's something so much more satisfying about the idea of throwing a fireball or what have you at someone who's annoying you.

Its all personal preferance really, and as I said, what one person may love another may hate with a passion. 

[CroGamer002]

^Thermal clip explanation shouldn't even exist.

It's just a new gameplay mechanism.

And in one of the side quests in ME1 some Alliance soldier asks you do you have some ammo to spare.
Either a plothole or ammo does exist in ME1, but do to gameplay mechanism you have infinitive ammo supply and guns overheat just like today's machine guns.

[Lee337]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Thermal clip explanation shouldn't even exist.

It's just a new gameplay mechanism.

And in one of the side quests in ME1 some Alliance soldier asks you do you have some ammo to spare.
Either a plothole or ammo does exist in ME1, but do to gameplay mechanism you have infinitive ammo supply and guns overheat just like today's machine guns.

Ammo does exsist, as far as I can remember each gun works by shearing off bullets from a large block of metal, the bullets are small and each block lasts such a long time that on a normal mission its rare to run out. 
The mission I think your talking about is the one where the Rachni have appeared on a planet and the soldiers have fortified a position to hold them off. In that case they didn't get any resupplies so they would eventually start running out.

[Dave666]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Thermal clip explanation shouldn't even exist.

It's just a new gameplay mechanism.

And in one of the side quests in ME1 some Alliance soldier asks you do you have some ammo to spare.
Either a plothole or ammo does exist in ME1, but do to gameplay mechanism you have infinitive ammo supply and guns overheat just like today's machine guns.

Hell, I know its just a gameplay mechanism, its just the way they tried to describe it was a bit jarring. IF you could still fire with an overheat system after Thermal clips were used up, then yes, it would in fact be an improvement. As it stands now, once you run out of Thermal clips, you're left with a glorified club to hit enemies with.

Oh, btw that ammo reference in ME:1 was talking about how the guns have a block of metal that it shears off chunks and fires. That block of metal is finite (thousands of shots but eventually you'll use it all and need to replace it).


*edited for spelling and clarity*

Modifié par Dave666, 21 mars 2011 - 10:51 .

[Sir Caradoc]

hannibalizer0 wrote...

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.

This.

I just finished ME2 first time. (with my me1 shepard male soldier earth born). I have to say that it was quite a ride! I played it hardcore first time.

Pros

Commander Shepard is an amaizing lead character. His voice actor (Mark meer?) is just really good. I'm also planning to do a rerun with my me1 female shepard soon and see if they kept her old voice

Getting back with the old gang was so cool (Garrius, Liara, Tali, joker, doctor) and ofcourse meeting lots of new friends.

I loved how many of the choises I made during Me1 were carried over to Me2. I just hope that rachni choise has more impact in me3. Otherwise it would be a very unsatisfying end to a very intresting questline.

Romances were writen so beautifully. I've only explored Tali's romance and I gotta say that it was quite perfect. I don't doubt that breaking inside Jack's tough exterior wouldn't be equally touching. Also continueing romance with Liara was great, although I felt that it was left on purpose open. As for miranda, she sort of turned me off. I hate snobbs. Don't get me wrong..I admire her dedication to her work and all, but she is not just my type. This is really an area where bioware just keeps getting better. I thought that Leliana or Morrigan romance in DAO was best they could come up, but in ME2 they raised the bar.

Storyline was great and I can't wait to find out how it continues in Me3. Me1 wasn't bad either, but this time sidequests were more fleshed out and meaningfull. Plus I think enviroments and locations as a whole were more spectacular.

Controls were much smoother. Although there is still room for improvement. For instance why limit quick slots powers, where are my weapon quickkeys?

I liked how you had to bring down different protections before you could kill targets. It brought extra layer of strategy into game. I hope bioware improves this aspect further.

Normandy. I enjoyed all the things one could do there. Upgrading gear and the ship itself was a fun idea. I hope ME3 continues on the same path. Also its about time that each team mate has his own room.

Inventory management was done much better this time around. It wasn't perfect, but atleast I didn't have to constantly turn crap loot into omni-gel.

Shadow broker DLC! I had been waiting to find out who he really was and they quite surprised me. I really felt that I deserved that "in heart of darkness" award. Very cool stuff

Cons

Combat tends to become a bit repative towards the end though. Basicly its running from cover to cover. Not much room to improvise as it gets you killed fast.

Less skills. I miss the old armor skills for example. Luckily Me2 brought many cool new ones like adranline rush and different ammo types. While the number of skills per character have gone down, the skills we have are more usefull and balanced. I liked that, but a bit more variety wouldn't have hurted. Somewhere between Me1 and Me2 thanks.

Lack of proper inventory. I hoped that Me 2 would fix what was broken instead of removing what was broken. I loved the upgrades and how they handled gear in general, but I'd have liked to find/buy more gear during my travels or heck maybe make new weapons from resources. Finding new weapons/armour was the rarest thing.

Shared Cooldowns is bummer. I'd love to combine different powers more easily. Even while playing Soldier I noticed that my team biotics were a lot less effective. In Me1 a team of biotics could empty a room easily, now they just get gunned down unless backed by soldier. Overall i think biotics scored more kills with guns than their powers.  Shooting is simply put a lot more effective than playing with biotic powers. I hate that biotic powers dont't have any effect on shielded enemies. In me1 one could play full time biotic and not rely on guns much. In Me2 this is not possible.

Scanning planets minigame. Although I loved exploring the space and reading about various planets. I just wish that exploration was more similar to Me1. The firewalker thing would work quite well and would likely be a good replacement for Mako.

Gameworld is more linear. I think Citadel for exampled cried for more open space. I wanted to explore the most crowed place in entire galaxy, yet all i got was 3 floors of shops and few lousy sidequest locations.

Modifié par Sir Caradoc, 21 mars 2011 - 12:44 .

[Elite Midget]

I would like to point to exhibit A.

Wrex
Most saves had Wrex alive at the end.
Wrex is one Squaddie.
Wrex was regulated to a very small cameo with even less revelance to the plot than VS.
ME2 doesn't need Wrex to continue or to further its plot.
Time skips!!!

ME2 Squaddies.
Most saves don't have every Squaddie alive.
There are many Squaddies.
ME2 suffered greatly from having too many Squadies. Especially in the dialouge department for Individual Squaddies.
ME3 doesn't need the ME2 Squaddies to continue or to further the plot.
Time skips and many hints dropped throughout ME2 to give reasons for their departures!
In ME3 they will be reduced to cameos and maybe even Temp Squaddie Status.


Logic 101

Modifié par Elite Midget, 21 mars 2011 - 12:42 .

[Dave666]

Elite Midget wrote...


Most saves don't have every Squaddie alive.

Logic 101

Are you sure about that?  Bioware actively encouraged you do just that with the 'No One Left Behind' Achievement.  I would have thought that most people would have at least one save file where all survived.

[hawat333]

It's anything but factual.
All these points are easy to counter, but others already did that, I guess, I haven't read all the six pages.

I will give some reasons for the sake of the discussion.
Deciding the council's fate is the single most important decision in both games in my opinion. On the long run, at least. Why? Because it is the first step on the way determining the status, role and future of humanity in the galactic community. At least it supposed to be, I've always get this feeling while playing ME1. If it's not, that's an oversight of a great concept. In my opinion of course.

Equipment does matter. I agree it's not the most important, core element of RPGs, but ever since D&D came out, I deal with equipment, improve it, assign it, etc. I don't want to deal with the two hundred armors per companion, but it makes sense to give us some variety. Because that's what makes an roleplaying game. Variety.
On the contrary, weapons were handled better in ME2 in my opinion, as there were more weapon styles (if you allow this mixed metaphor), having five assault rifles was better than having one kind of them with different stats. Considering weapons, ME2 fared better.

Exploration - or the lack of it -. Driving the Mako was a pain in the butt here and there, but the complete lack of exploration (apart from questhubs, which are great) is a heavy loss of RPG elements. I don't like open-world games too much, but at least some sense of exploration should be there. Exploration is a core feature in any RPG.

Illusion of non-linearity. Take Noveria for example. You have five ways to get garage pass, if I'm not mistaken, where ME2 always offers one path. It lets you deciding Shepard's attitude. And once you get there, you cannot leave. You have to follow through a linear path and complete the quest. While in ME1, -apart from Virmire, X-57 and the Endgame- you have the ability to leave the place and go back later. I usually don't interrupt missions, and the ME2 mission structure makes sense to have a timed experience, but it feels like playing Levels. Like in Mario. ME1 was much more open, there we had planets.

Decisions and their importance. I know ME2 is a bridge, but there weren't much more than four or six decisions that really matter in the long run.
At least if there aren't mush surprises in the backpack.

Character insights. While it's true we have more companions to choose from in the second game, we also learn half as much about them as we did with ME1. It's a major feature to let us know who we are playing with, and not just have tropes in our storage room.

Story scope: It's not even worth mentioning, as it's a personal definiton of RPG, so it cannot be called factual, but I do expect RPGs to have a grand concept. The scope of the world in ME1 was greater, while we've had a more focused experience in ME2. Both of them work well, I might add.

But anyways, I'm fine with these, as the ME series is a trilogy of an action/RPG game, but it's clear to me that the first game lies emphasis on the latter while the second one does it on the former.

Conclusion: In terms of RPG, ME2 doesn't come anywhere close to ME1.
That's just my opinion though, there's really no need to spread it around.

[InvincibleHero]

Vaenier wrote...

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.

Prove your first two lines. Everything I've stated is actual roleplay. Your character sheet does nothing with all its stats and skills. It is an inanimate object. You turn those numbers into roleplaying which is an active verb. Roleplaying is you saying no to that turian because your player determined by you hates tyurians because your father dies in the first contact war. It is not because you crammed your level 6 point gain into assault rifles that you were roleplaying. All that does is determine gameplay. What you actaully decide for your chaarcter to say and how you decide issues like the genophage is the actual roleplaying. It just proves more genres are stealing roleplaying to spice up their games with a hybrid.

How well you shoot in the game is not roleplaying. So missing because your arbitrary gun skill was 60% and the game rolled a 69 means you are roleplaying. The game determines it not you. It is a gameplay mechanic.

So your character has to improve to be roleplaying? Huh I missed that memo. Well constantly having to roleplay paragon or renegade consistently gets you acess to blue/red options that are not present. That is roleplaying, but some people are hating on that.

Armor has performance gains and you argue that is roleplaying. LOL. It is gameplay gain making it easier to survive fights. It has nothing to do with your character. Now if you wore the absolute weakest suit and refused to remove it because you liked it or your dead father bequeathed it to you then I'd believe it is roleplaying. Being able to wear the strongest armor and win fights easier doesn't compute.

[InvincibleHero]

iakus wrote...

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.

1. Agreement so nothing to add.

2. Well I agree you are forced to work with Cerberus but felt Spectre status active vs. passive was more apples to apples. Now that you opened up the can of worms I feel the edge goes to ME2 because working with Cerberus opened far more RP opportunities than sticking with Alliance. The proof is throughout the game. You can be antagonistic towards IM, Jacob, and Miranda and even really screw over IM in the end. They could have ran with it more, but still plenty of RP opportunity.

3. Yeah might be more emotion charged or not. If male and romancing Ashley it's a no brainer sorry Alenko.  Still not roleplaying, but a forced decision. You list pros and cons and decide. IN the ME2 situation you were on a timer to even save one so decide quick. I think that heightened the drama of the decision. I kept thinking I have enough time I can save both nope not even an option.

4. Jacob and Miranda probably have more to say then all the squaddies combined in ME1. Yeah sucks that some are near silent but there are so many more characters. Maybe they should have just had most of them have a default option at least. Yeah that is immersion breaking too when you do multiple playthroughs. However, I as Shepard make the choices and tend to dislike when someone talks back or says bad choice I would have done the opposite. That however has little to do with roleplaying but adds great atmosphere.

5. How is that even opposition? So the end result is the same they do not play out the same. In ME1 they were exactly the same with no choices. AS Wrex said what a piece of crap I don't know why I bothered. LOL. Yet that nets his undying loyalty in ME1.

6. OK so rachni queen is dead so there is no future impact perhaps. They cannot bite you in the tail nor provide help then. How much help a living racni queen can provide is up in the air. What is the impact of creating so many rachni on other worlds? Now they cannot be colonized by other species. Racni can still be corrupted or become a future problem to have to be wiped out again.

EH reading into it too much. Wreav is the new Wrex it appears and the situation is very similar. You can save the Krograns without Wrex (sorry pal). The disposition of the data is entirely up to Shepard in ME2. No push here ME2 clear win.

The council decision was compartmentalized. Sure there are changes but it has little impact on ME2 as it plays out.

I could list more impactful decisions and eventually exhaust your list because it is shorter. I don;t however want to waste time needlessly.

8. Yeah it is subject to interpretation somewhat. However, you discussion with Illusive man is active while you just watch the ending roll by in ME1. You make many choices and can basically give him the virtual finger. I gotta say more roleplaying there.

[GuardianAngel470]

Elite Midget wrote...

I would like to point to exhibit A.

Wrex
Most saves had Wrex alive at the end.
Wrex is one Squaddie.
Wrex was regulated to a very small cameo with even less revelance to the plot than VS.
ME2 doesn't need Wrex to continue or to further its plot.
Time skips!!!

ME2 Squaddies.
Most saves don't have every Squaddie alive.
There are many Squaddies.
ME2 suffered greatly from having too many Squadies. Especially in the dialouge department for Individual Squaddies.
ME3 doesn't need the ME2 Squaddies to continue or to further the plot.
Time skips and many hints dropped throughout ME2 to give reasons for their departures!
In ME3 they will be reduced to cameos and maybe even Temp Squaddie Status.


Logic 101

Wait wait wait wait wait. How does Wrex have less plot relevance than VS? I mean, if you're only counting ME2 plot and you consider the collector aspect to be the PLOT and all character missions as SIDE QUESTS then I can understand that perspective.

But Wrex is central to Two loyalty missions that could have further consequences regarding the Krogan (Genephage cure).

And in the grand scheme of things Wrex is becoming, with your help, the leader of all krogan on Tuchanka which means that you as Shepard are closely tied to the leader of an entire planet. Come ME3 this could have HUGE repurcussions and since Wrex was granted the coveted plot armor, we know at least some of that potential will be exploited.

As far as VS is concerned you know they now out rank you but not much else. They still aren't the leader of a military or even country, let alone a planet. Their significance on the actual overarching PLOT of the SERIES is minimal compared to Wrex and Liara, at least as of now.

Oh, and I don't really care of Garrus, Samara, Tali, Thane, Grunt, Zaeed, Miranda, Jacob, or any of the others are PLOT relevant, I just want them on my team.



EDIT: Expanding on an idea

There are really only three characters that I foresee as plot relevant: Legion, Tali, and Mordin. Garrus could be but other than that I don't see anyone else as plot relevant.

This means that all Bioware needs to do is account for three VERY popular characters, characters many of us have gone out of our ways to keep alive, which I'm sure will show in their statistics on ME2.

So it shouldn't prove to be that difficult to keep track of three (or five if you count VS and Wrex), not the 12 you implied.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 24 mars 2011 - 05:19 .

[Iakus]

InvincibleHero wrote...

2. Well I agree you are forced to work with Cerberus but felt Spectre status active vs. passive was more apples to apples. Now that you opened up the can of worms I feel the edge goes to ME2 because working with Cerberus opened far more RP opportunities than sticking with Alliance. The proof is throughout the game. You can be antagonistic towards IM, Jacob, and Miranda and even really screw over IM in the end. They could have ran with it more, but still plenty of RP opportunity.

I'm really curious to see where these roleplaying opportunities are.  In ME 1, I could be rude, respectful, or dismisive of the Council.  Be insulting towards them or toe the line with them around others.  In the end, I can save them or get them killed. 

With Cerberus, there's much less opportunity to be anything but respectful towards the Illusive Man (Just try to talk smack about them on Horizon.  Try bringing up Akuze...ever).  You can't really screw him over until the very end.  And even then he survives.  With the Council, if I didn't like what I heard, Joker could "lose" the signal nearly every time they call me.

3. Yeah might be more emotion charged or not. If male and romancing Ashley it's a no brainer sorry Alenko.  Still not roleplaying, but a forced decision. You list pros and cons and decide. IN the ME2 situation you were on a timer to even save one so decide quick. I think that heightened the drama of the decision. I kept thinking I have enough time I can save both nope not even an option.

Heh, by any chance have you played Alpha Protocol? 

But yeah a timed mission adds a level of drama and tension to a mission.  But with the missles, it was all a numbers game.  A hypothetical.  You don't see the results of your choice (unless it was an email, I forget, there were so very many) With Virmire, there's a face and a voice to the decision you make.  These are followers of yours that have been with you for virtually the whole game.  Maybe you liked them, maybe not.  But now one has to die.  The only choice I could imagine that would compare would be options in the Suicide Mission, and then only if there was a real chance of failure, instead of "don't kill me" plot armor,

4. Jacob and Miranda probably have more to say then all the squaddies combined in ME1. Yeah sucks that some are near silent but there are so many more characters. Maybe they should have just had most of them have a default option at least. Yeah that is immersion breaking too when you do multiple playthroughs. However, I as Shepard make the choices and tend to dislike when someone talks back or says bad choice I would have done the opposite. That however has little to do with roleplaying but adds great atmosphere.

The problem with having a bunch of silent characters is they all start to seem the same.  This one's a gun to bring along.  This one's a gun with biotics, and so on.   Giving them a voice also gives them a personality.  Something this game was sorely lacking.  Yes, Shepard makes the choices.  But feedback about those choices is always nice.  It makes things less lonely.

I went through Jack's loyalty mission with Miranda and didn't hear a peep out of her. I took Thane on Garrus' mission to kill Sidonis, and the assassin said nothing.  I discussed saving or destroying the genophage data in front of Grunt and he said nothing.  I took Samara on Zaed's loyalty mission, and she let setting the refinery on fire go without a word, even after telling me she'll speak up if I do anyhting that violates her ethical code.

The only character who bringing along on a mission actually added anything to it was taking Legion on Tali's missions.  Both recruitment and loyalty.  That's it.  And he appears so late in the game I'll bet most people miss out on that..

Whereas in DA2, for all it's faults, the characters speak up and argue with you, with NPCs, with each other.  The characters actually feel alive.  ME 2 can keep its pretty maps.  I'll take all the dull, reused maps in the world for that kind of character interaction.  That kind of roleplaying

5. How is that even opposition? So the end result is the same they do not play out the same. In ME1 they were exactly the same with no choices. AS Wrex said what a piece of crap I don't know why I bothered. LOL. Yet that nets his undying loyalty in ME1.

WIth Wrex's mission, there is only one outcome, for good or for ill.

Garrus's mission, though,  depending on how you acted, you could push Garrus to be more "paragon" or "renegade" (not that it really mattered in ME 2 of course)

But in ME2:  Each loyalty mission had multiple possible outcomes, but only one result.  What difference does it make how you handled Ronald Taylor?  Does Sidonis living or dying change anything?  Does it matter how Nicket dies?  Or if Miranda talks to Oreana?  No matter what, they all end up "loyal" 

6. OK so rachni queen is dead so there is no future impact perhaps. They cannot bite you in the tail nor provide help then. How much help a living racni queen can provide is up in the air. What is the impact of creating so many rachni on other worlds? Now they cannot be colonized by other species. Racni can still be corrupted or become a future problem to have to be wiped out again.

A possibility. One that the courier heavilly impled will be addressed in ME 3.

EH reading into it too much. Wreav is the new Wrex it appears and the situation is very similar. You can save the Krograns without Wrex (sorry pal). The disposition of the data is entirely up to Shepard in ME2. No push here ME2 clear win.

Wreav is a "classic" krogan clan leader, furthering their downward spiral through warring with other clans.  Wrex is trying to stabilize krogan society, as he said they should do in his conversations in ME 1.  The fact that their encampment, or whatever, looks identical is...unfortunate... But listen to EDI after Mordin's loyalty mission as she describes what the Wrex/Wreav do with Clan Weyrloc and you'll see that they react very differently.

The council decision was compartmentalized. Sure there are changes but it has little impact on ME2 as it plays out.

Yes, and that is a huge disapointment for me.

I could list more impactful decisions and eventually exhaust your list because it is shorter. I don;t however want to waste time needlessly.

Fair enough.  I'm mature enough not to feel the need to measure anything in a debate

8. Yeah it is subject to interpretation somewhat. However, you discussion with Illusive man is active while you just watch the ending roll by in ME1. You make many choices and can basically give him the virtual finger. I gotta say more roleplaying there.

While there are more cinematic cutscenesin the ME 2 ending, I don't see how it's any more "active"  In ME 1, you talk to the Council, or Anderson and Udina.  In ME 2, you talk to TIM.  i don't even recall what choices you make in ME 2, as the Base question had already been answered.  All you are doing is responding to TIM's reaction .

[InvincibleHero]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

I don't know about the more stats the better the simulation.  There is such a thing as too much to micromanage and it drags the game down. You don't need stats to have an RPG, but they are nice to look at.

I don't know if I'd call damage numbers traditional RPG elements. It is merely an arbitrarily assigned number so we can say a assault rifle does more damage than a pistol. Part of the simulation and not roleplaying. Cooldown numbers are gameplay tweaking IMO.

I know I guess I should list some things I consider RPG elements to be more helpful.

1. A magic system, mana, medi gel, biotics whatever works

2. class archetypes

3. leveling & XP

4. Stats (not necessary for RP)

5. Some type of economy and poliitcal system

6. A persistent environment also called game world

However elements are only to facilitate the actual roleplaying. It allows saying this person is stronger and a flaming sword costs 2000 GP. It is the minutae while the roleplaying is  (insert name for character) says "You are about to die!" and proceeds to attack the bandit leader.

[InvincibleHero]

Vaenier wrote...

better and worse are such qualitative remarks. I think I would rather use quantitative analysis of the two games. Simply: ME1 has more skills than ME2. The difference between skill 1 and max was larger in ME1 than ME2. There were more items in ME1 than ME2. ME1 level 1 items had a larger difference in stats than their max level counterparts than ME2 weapons had. ME1 had more abilities than ME2.
An RPG has nothing to do with a 'good' story or having 'choices.' These things are present in almost every game. Would you call Halo an RPG because you are "playing the role" of Master Chief and you have choices on how to approach a battle?

Nope. It does nothing to set a player's personality. It is not something so generic. In fact, if I was being pedantic being Shepard is a pseudo RPG experience because they pre-define some important things. True RPG is creating your protagonist from scratch and tailoring it to fit what you want.

Master Chief is entirely predefined with no chance to alter the character or the game world. It is always going to end the same and trigger the same cutscenes. If you added your  all important skills and stats to MC it would still not be an RPG.

[Eterna1Soldier]

ME1 = quantity
ME2 = quality

[InvincibleHero]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

All right, ME2 is more of an RPG, than ME1. But it also sucks, while ME1 shines (still, even through the pile of crap that was put on top of it in the form of ME2).

Also...

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.

LoL @ this one.

Thanks for agreeing I suppose. I don't agree that ME2 is quite worthless. Some things ME1 did good and ME2 did better like the fighting parts. Some things like music and atmosphere I think ME1 did better. I actually would have thought you'd like ME2 more than you profess simply because you seem to like Cerberus and IM.

Well it is a fact that one is forced and the other is up to you. For the big deal about being a spectre in ME1 was for I didn't feel that way playing it. You could have been a merc hired by council and it would have worked. Oh wait that would ahve meant they would have had to pay you. The only thing being a spectre in ME1 meant was butting heads with council and making the player feel animosity towards them. If Shepard commanded the SR1 for the Alliance without being a spectre he could havedone exactly the same things. Oh wait you wouldn't have been able to do that smuggle mission for Oopold alas.

[Pwener2313]

I agree with everything but the ending part. ME1's ending seems like a bigger thing. Also, wathever a choice is bigger or smaller does not effect it being more or less RPG.

[InvincibleHero]

Vaenier wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@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.)

^This
In western rpgs where you control the swinging or shooting, I don't want to keep missing the mudcrab I am looking directly at because my sword skill is too low, and I think that it is silly that trained soldiers have to train so their assault rifles actually feel like doing damage.
I play Final Fantasy games if I want my stats to determine if I hit.

I dont like missing either when my characters skill is not high enough. But just because we dont like it doesnt mean we should change what a grene means. Action Adventure exists for a reason, why do people want to turn RPG into action adventure instead of just saying they like Action Adventure instead?

You are too focused on mechanics. If removed stat based accuracy that doesn't mean you removed the RPG right out of a game. RPG is about much more than mechanics. The mechanics were only created to illustrate what a PC could do. Instead of telling your DM, "I swing my sword at giant rat" you also get to roll to hit instead of allowing him to make the decision. I agree much nicer to be an active participant. In a CRPG, the computer determines both random roll and in the case of collision detection based sword or gun play whether you hit. That's right same difference. You have no argument and that's just using computer game mechanics against you.

[Praetor Knight]

Knowing about ammo depends on what is known about ME universe weapons.

Thermal Clips are indeed a mystery...

So where is... 

[InvincibleHero]

Moiaussi wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...


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.

Immersion is part of roleplaying. If the role doesn't seem believable, or is too simple, it is much harder to identify with.

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.

And the choice is completely meaningless. It is barely mentioned at all. You are also sent, as a Spectre, into the region that the Council insisted you stay out of in ME1 lest you start a war. Appearantly now war with the Terminus systems would be preferable to your hanging around Citadel space?

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.

Why are you using the VS decision as an example rather than Wrex? Or the Rachni queen? Or the couple trying to decide whether to give gene therapy to their child? Or whether you execute Shiala? You can also kill of a team member by tossing them down a garbage chute (the vents in the suicide mission) without it meaning anything at all with respect to the actual mission in ME2.

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.

That doesn't make it less of a role. Again, immersion. In ME1, everyone you recruit is tied to the mission in some believable way. In ME2, they are there because TIM told you they would be a good idea. Other than Morden and 'a biotic,' the crew in ME2 seem pretty interchangable. Again, if choices are irrelevant, how much of a choice is there, really? The VS survivor even has all their personality stripped away. Both Kaiden and Ashley have identical dialogue regardless of having very different personalities. 

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.

 
At least you piced a good example with Thane. There are some strong RP elements in the loyalty missions but they are all unrelated short stories. Most of the side missions in ME1 were tied a lot better into the plot. You were in the middle of a war and it felt like it, rather than being up against a single cruiser that you should have been able to take down at Horizon, as it was taking off under fire from the shore battery.

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 Tali missions (recruitment and loyalty) were high points of ME2, and actually related to ME1. Legion's loyalty mission was more 'How can we wrap up the heretics as a loose thread? I know, an all or nothing arbitrary flip of the switch!' You have to choose one way or the other on next to no information and no ability to gain more. I think they were trying to repeat or 'up' the Rachni question from ME1, but since Legion has so little advice and you don't get to find out he Heretic side from any independant sources, it just seemed a little flat. It seemed closer to the Ashley/Kaiden question instead.

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.

Again, the more complex the character, the more interesting the role.

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.

Not quite the same impact, although it is debated a lot. It didn't have the same feel for me, partly because blowing it up was the primary mission, whereas the Ascension was a secondary objective that you had to weigh against the primary.

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.

One man's obvious is another's 'What the blazes?' You do have some good points. For my part, I respectfully disagree with a lot of them, but you have at least thought about this a little.

1. Are you saying less guns and less armor (just being 5-10 suits with slightly better stats in each family) makes it harder to roleplay Shepard? HUh? If anything too much time in inventory detracts from RP experience. You don't define Shepard by the weapon he carries not the armor he wears. Anyone with enough credits can obtain either.

2. A choice is more role playing than not having a choice regardless of the outcome or impact. I'd rather have more say in how the game plays out than less.

3. That is specific to squadmates. I could have listed everything and the first post would be 10 pages and no one would read it.

4. Oh come on Wrex tied to the mission. You helped him with Fist and now he will help you for a long period of time until you get Saren or die. Liara is on board because you touched the beacon and she finds anything with a whiff of Prothean interesting. Garrus wants to take Saren down and has true ties no doubt. The recruitment was the story in ME2. They all have a reason for being there. Jack is just like Wrex to pay back the favor. Garrus is now loyal to Shep and that plays into his decision. Zaeed is paid to be there and is professional enough to do the job. So on. There is more interaction and every squadie has a loyalty mission when ME1 only had 2.

5. Why does a loyalty misison for Miranda or Thane have to relate with the overall story of ME2? That makes little sense to me. You are putting to rest issues that your crew had before Shepard bounced into their life.

I never felt like I was part of a war in ME1. Never encountered ships because of stealth. You fight same types of enemeies in ground missions in both ME1 and ME2. They are equivalent. War with what the Geth let's be serious. Shepard and co won that "war" by themselves it seemed. You saw 4 alliance personel you had to bail out from a rachni threat. At least cerberus is supposed to be a small tight-knit organization. The fact you never went on joint ops with other fleets was disconcerting to me.

6. Oh come on pan it as flat but offer nothing that was better in ME1. Win by default.

7. How so? Playing a soldier in both games felt different than playing an adept. Having more powers to shoot off in battles or more guns to choose from didn't affect any choices throughout the game. You just had to win fights to get to the story and plot points to get choices. Both games are the same. You are not arguing ME1 gave you more choices.

8. It was more cut and dry if you were paragon save the council almost by default. Renegade of course I hope the council rots in hades they die. The middle option was the only interesting one which turned out to be the same as the renegade one in ME2. Maybe saving base or not will have more impact. It certainly was more grey for both rengades and paragons. The fact I saw many professed paragons saying they saved the base in many threads  for possible tech speaks volumes. Thney went ren.

[GuardianAngel470]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

better and worse are such qualitative remarks. I think I would rather use quantitative analysis of the two games. Simply: ME1 has more skills than ME2. The difference between skill 1 and max was larger in ME1 than ME2. There were more items in ME1 than ME2. ME1 level 1 items had a larger difference in stats than their max level counterparts than ME2 weapons had. ME1 had more abilities than ME2.
An RPG has nothing to do with a 'good' story or having 'choices.' These things are present in almost every game. Would you call Halo an RPG because you are "playing the role" of Master Chief and you have choices on how to approach a battle?

Nope. It does nothing to set a player's personality. It is not something so generic. In fact, if I was being pedantic being Shepard is a pseudo RPG experience because they pre-define some important things. True RPG is creating your protagonist from scratch and tailoring it to fit what you want.

Master Chief is entirely predefined with no chance to alter the character or the game world. It is always going to end the same and trigger the same cutscenes. If you added your  all important skills and stats to MC it would still not be an RPG.

I'm inclined to disagree with Vaenier's comments. First off, besides actual weapon skill level, each level of ME2's skill tree had a greater effect on the battle and the evolution of powers affected everything completely.

And no, Halo is absolutely not an RPG in any sense of the word. Tactics vs Strategy. What you have in Halo is control of tactics. What you have in Mass Effect is tactics AND strategy. You can choose how you present your character to the galaxy, which affects how others react to you.

To be perfectly honest, STALKER is a better RPG because you have complete freedom of choice. There are absolutely no stats to speak of besides individual weapon stats; you're character has no level up system.

Basically what I'm hearing in this thread and the others is that if an RPG doesn't utilize pen and paper systems of character progression it isn't actually an RPG. Stats, dice rolls, and hidden numbers apparently define the entire genre for people and I think that's sad.

The purpose of those games has been lost. The creativity, the outlet of imagination, has been buried in the numbers for some people, and that's too bad.

[InvincibleHero]

Sajuro wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@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.)

^This
In western rpgs where you control the swinging or shooting, I don't want to keep missing the mudcrab I am looking directly at because my sword skill is too low, and I think that it is silly that trained soldiers have to train so their assault rifles actually feel like doing damage.
I play Final Fantasy games if I want my stats to determine if I hit.

I dont like missing either when my characters skill is not high enough. But just because we dont like it doesnt mean we should change what a grene means. Action Adventure exists for a reason, why do people want to turn RPG into action adventure instead of just saying they like Action Adventure instead?

Why shouldn't we? If we want an RPG to be more action, why don't we factor in some skill on part of the player? Think about Fallout 3, you could go through it as a shooter not using V.A.T.S (Hard since vats is a big advantage) and when you use vats your character will derp derp if too close to the enemy (resting the shotgun on the enemy's head)
I don't want all rpgs to be like that, like I don't want all fps's to be like Halo. Why can't Mass Effect be an Action Adventure RPG, if we want a more immersive experience then why don't we factor in the gamer's ability to move the reticle until it turns red (or green if you want to kill friendlies) instead of saying "oh, your shot missed the enemy right in front of you because the dice gods did not favor you."
Also set of skills I will never miss are the ones to determine what level of simon says shepard is capable of playing with or without his squadmate's help.

When you play PnP you need a hit rolls because there is no method to act out you slashing a longsword at a beholder. With a videogame we get everything displayed on our screens. It makes sense to allow guns to work by LOS in ME. Could you really miss with a shotgun at point blank range? You could if you rolled dice to determine it.  RP is not the rules system but the acting we do as a character. It is choosing what to say and what to do. Obviously PnP DnD allows far more choice than ME , but CRPGs are built pretty much the same to allow a menu of choices. 

[InvincibleHero]

88mphSlayer wrote...

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.

i did like the more personable decision making in ME2, i thought they did a great job with that, but i missed the greater-impact decisions of the first game..

some of the biggest decisions:
-saving or destroying the colony on feros
-releasing the rachni queen or killing it off
-letting the council die or preserving the council's power

and a multitude of smaller but also impactful decisions:
-finding a cure for the peak 15 victims or letting them suffer
-defending the peak 15 safe area or running away (the guard captain will be agitated if you don't fight the wild rachni)
-killing fist in cold blood or letting him live for giving you valuable info
-executing shiala or letting her help Feros colony survivors
-letting violent corruption continue on Noveria or helping the investigation
-acting like an **** to your squadmates, or just not recruiting some of them
-killing wrex for wanting a cure vs. convincing him to stand down
-having to choose between ashley or kaiden on virmire
-helping the virmire salarian STG in the attack on the facility or letting them get ripped to shreds
-convincing Helena Blake not to become a crime lord or encouraging her ambitions
-resolving the biotic reparations hostage situation or killing the biotics
-convincing Major Kyle to surrender or slaughtering the entire cult
-shutting off the life support for the brain dead son
-etc.

would be cool if they brought back more big decisions like that for the 3rd game, a lot of the "big" impact decisions you can make in ME2 seem very superficial at times like encouraging the Quarians to goto war which isn't played out at all and has no consequences in the game, in the mission report there's concerns they'll goto war regardless if you encourage them or try to discourage them

also the renegade/paragon system is buggy in ME2 and at times you simply don't get much power because the game thinks you have X % of points vs. potential points... it ends up forcing you to always be paragon or always renegade which isn't roleplaying at all it's just meta gaming

Well in both games most quests end up in the done and that's it category. There was very little that felt like major impact. Someone comes from Feros you get a small quest and that's aboout all that happened in ME2. Maybe it plays a part in 3. I can speculate that most ME2 decisions will lead to larger changes in ME3 but given the first two games that is unlikely.

About Wrex "decision" if anyone had the red blue text would you really still kill him. LOL. I don't feel ME1 is any better. Assign points and win. At least in ME2 it forces some baseline consistency of personality to be able to pull off more difficult intimidates and persuedes. Also you still had to metagame in ME1 to earn enough colored bars to unlock the next levels of per/in. It is basically the same thing just removing having to spend points in an arbitrary skill.