3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Savber100]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i agree, and thats why ME2 sucks to me. i already had a perfect game with ME1. i really hate that everything from ME2 is making a return, but ME1 is left to the wayside. its entertaining to see the best way to defend ME2s crappfest is to say "its the second part of a trilogy" like thats enough of a reason for it to be a poor sequel to the best game ive ever had the privilege of playing.

ME3 will be nothing short of Mass Effect 2:Episode 2. and thats not what i wanted out of ME3.

That reasoning has NEVER been applied to Bioware's stripping of RPG elements but to the STORY.


In the mean time, I found this article explaining why they took out the inventory. According to Christina Norman,

"“Mass Effect’s inventory screen still pains me to look at it,” says Norman of the first game’s fiddly and confusing equipment screen. “We needed to make a much better, much more awesome inventory but we needed to support up to twelve squad members plus Shepard. I spent a long time looking at various RPG inventory systems and I couldn’t find anything that would work. Nothing could handle that huge number of characters. So, we went with the squad inventory system. We changed it to a system which says ‘Tali you can use this shotgun’ and you don’t have to take it away from someone else. We do have an inventory but it’s just so simple some people say it’s not an inventory system. It fits better into our fiction where you can manufacture anything you need – it’s always been a little weird that you’re Commander Shepard with the most advanced spaceship in the galaxy out to save the world but he has to go and haggle to get a rifle for his crew.”

and

There were moans from forums about the inventory system but it was a triumph, especially if you got to really think about it. Mass Effect made you juggle hundreds of different pieces of equipment but did they really make any difference to the game? “We ended up with 19 weapons plus pre-order exclusive weapons,” says Norman. “Some people say ‘19 different weapons plus heavy weapons? That’s amazing! That’s so much variety compared to the first game where you basically had four weapons and other people say ‘no, Mass Effect had a thousand weapons!’ but really it didn’t, you know? In Mass Effect the level four version of one weapon feels the same as level five or six.”


Casey Hudson then talks about the nature of RPGs:

"“If you define an RPG as a game where you equip your hero by sifting through an inventory of hundreds of miscellaneous items and spend hours fiddling with numerical statistics, then yes – those things were intentionally removed from the Mass Effect experience for the sequel. For me however, the best part of role-playing is being the character and that means never being pulled out of the immersion of the world to be reminded that you’re playing a game. In Mass Effect 2 we focused on what we love about RPGs – an awesome sense of exploration, intense combat, a deep and nonlinear story that’s affected by your actions, and rich customization of your armour, weapons, and appearance.”

LOL at the last part... but hey I'm glad to see that they're working on it.

Last of all,

" Where Mass Effect was what Norman calls an ‘action RPG’, ME2 is an all-out shooter RPG and has left a handful of forumites complaining that BioWare had stripped the RPG out of Mass Effect altogether. “We had thread titles like ‘Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG’ and ‘BioWare ruined Mass Effect’ on our forums. It was a small percentage but we noticed,” says Norman. “But we forgot labels and made a great game. Forget about shooter and RPG balance. Let’s just make a great game.”

Interesting goals and to honest and I prefer that mindset.

I'm a gamer of which I don't define myself by a single genre. Bioware has never promised that ME will be a hardcore RPG like Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment. That was the Dragon Age franchise which I totally understand and share the fury of many fans with the release of the crapfest called DA2. However ME was always envisioned as a hybrid of two worlds and purists from either side will never love this game because of ME's hybrid nature. However for me, it's a great blend of what I love about both genres and I believe many other people share that sentiment.

Modifié par Savber100, 10 juillet 2011 - 06:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

slimgrin wrote...

Actually, on PC the inventory system itself wasn't bad. It was Bioware's idea of countless upgrades with minimal benefit that made it a pain. Demiurge did the best they could with some flawed concepts. 

It was a shared inventory filled with massless gear presented in a list format.

It was dreadful.  It's just about the worst inventory system ever (it's basically the same one KotOR used, which was also awful).

[adlocutio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's only true if we assume the consumers use valid reasoning.  There is no evidence to support that claim.

I *know* you're not trying to be funny, but that's what makes it so funny. 

Modifié par adlocutio, 10 juillet 2011 - 07:49 .

[sbvera13]

Savber100 wrote...
However for me, it's a great blend of what I love about both genres and I believe many other people share that sentiment.

I've come around to this mindset.  What I havn't gotten over is that the combat in ME2 sucks.  I've completed it 1.5 times... the first, and halfway through the second I got so tired of playing whack-a-mole with the cover that I just loaded my pre-suicide save and did it again for the cinematics.

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...
So you think it's more believable that Humans have better technology than races that have been travelling space for hundreds or thousands of years?  Really?

Actually Kassa Fabrication a private human corporation had manufactured weapons that were comparable to proto-type Spectre weapons, and also produced the best damage reduction armor Colossus armor (Turians made the best shield based armor with the Predator armor).  So in terms of military technology humans are up there.  Anyways, The Alliance isn't going to arm itself by looting everything, as they will loot it once, reverse engineer it and then mass produce it if they can't just buy it on the open market to have it available for entire squads(Ala ME3's system).

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

KotOR didn't have aiming at all.  It had discrete target selection.  As I've mentioned above, that's the only real difference between KotOR and ME in terms of single character control: Me's target selection was analog, while KotOR's was not.

And it's a pretty large difference. In KotOR, my interaction with my character begins and ends with target selection. That's all. From there, my character is completely separate from me, barring whatever commands I give him/her.

Mass Effect occupies a completely different design philosophy even just in terms of character movement. Want to shoot? Depends if I press the shoot button (which can only happen in real time). How long do I shoot for? Depends on how long I hold the shoot button. How much damage did I do? Depends on your distance from the target/where you chose to shoot/how long you chose to shoot for.

The system you suggest amounts to a weakened version of Fallout's VATS system, except with Mass Effect, the player has to designate precisely where his shots are fired and everything else occurs in real time. This does not occur with VATS.

That's only true if we assume the consumers use valid reasoning.  There is no evidence to support that claim.

Once more, every gameplay video featuring real time aiming/shooting. More accurately, there is no evidence to back up your playstyle.

Given that you could centre the targetting reticle on your target and still miss, clearly you weren't aiming.  If you were aiming, then you'd have hit your target.

This could happen in shooters as well, depending on your distance to a target, and it happens in ME as well. All that means is that my character wasn't close enough for the shot to hit.

Mass Effect simply judges my overall damage and accuracy, prior to the actual gameplay. Player skill is involved after that.

Target selection means I decide to attack enemy X. I don't decide where I attack, or how long I attack for, meaning that Mass Effect has greater player interaction, more akin to a shooter.

That option to use the party would still be there.  In ME, there is not way to play the game as a shooter where the player controls the trajectory of the bullets.  There's always a filter of stat-based accuracy between the player's inputs and the in-game outcomes.

But what the stat based accuracy does is give me a better targeting reticule/increase the length I can fire for. You can equate it to a shooter just based on the fact that character skill lies in your targeting reticule.

Everything after that can depend on my skill at aiming. How is it that Mass Effect has no way to be played as a shooter, even if the mechanics are lackluster? The character filter does not completely remove the player reflexes.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:09 .

[EternalPink]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

As far as the "RPG zealots" comment goes,  and the guy at the top of the page,  RPGs are supposed to play like RPGs.  I'm really confused why you think that RPG's shouldn't?

I'm *always* amazed that,  only with RPGs,  people demand they play like other things,  and condemn the genre's fans for wanting games of that genre.  People don't demand that Shooters or RTS's play like some other genre,  so why do they do it to RPGs?  There's something important in there,  either people must be getting really sick of "Just another shooter" and want some way to break the monotony,  or they must be really sick of one-dimensional narratives and want more interaction,  that's the only reason I can think of for so many people demanding all RPGs play like something else.

Here's where the problem sets in. Let's look at pen and paper RPGs. I have a good bit of experience with DnD.  But in general, has there ever been a pen and paper system which occurred in 'real-time' or that did not utilize a turn-based system? 

Now, let's fast forward to current days. Take something like KotOR (where the game is turn-based) and you don't have a problem. The player simply denotes target selection. But what about Mass Effect? Morrowind? Dragon Age 2? These games have a much heavier emphasis on the 'real-time' play and begin to move into different territory.

Gamers have certain expectations for real time (since most other games occur in this style: shooters, sports, racing, platformers, etc). Morrowind's "hit or miss" attack animations, regardless of how RPG they may have been, felt very awkward to handle. And this is coming from someone who much prefers it to Oblivion.

When rpgs remain turn-based and avoid real time, there isn't a problem. It's when they attempt to move into other spheres of influence that they cannot expect to simply abide by traditional mechanics. In this sense, Mass Effect's tps elements were not up to par. I don't demand that Bioware make hybrids. They can stick with turn-based rpgs. But if they're going to implement tps mechanics, they better make damn sure they're fluid. Otherwise, why not make it turn-based in the first place and avoid all the hassle?

Umm how would real time PnP work exactly? if you have a few mathetical savants playing with you that could do complex calculations and dice rolling i suppose yes you could consider that happening in real time so is it being turn based a limitation of the people playing rather than a necessary part of the game? since if we took role play a little bit to extreme we'd have to overcome the enemy standing still and letting us hit them and then us standing still and letting them hit us or break immersion.

So usually we are pretending the stuff happenings in turns is happening in real time anyway.

I'm disagreeing that aiming with a mouse is a player skill, yes if we were talking about my actual ability to aim a gun or swing a club etc then i could see were you were coming from but moving a cursor with a mouse is not a demanding player skill and personnally as i played the game i got better, first time with casual was easy so i pumped it up to hardcore and that was more of a challenge so i think we will have to agree to disagree that having a twitch based combat mechanic that can be modified by difficult (the only thing you miss by playing on easier difficulty is achievements and the geth rifle in tali's recruitment mission) means a game can't be an rpg

[100k]

Savber100 wrote...*SNIP*

Don't feed the troll...
:?

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  it's not splitting hairs.

LARPS players aren't in character,  they cannot possibly be in character,  because there's no defined character. 

I will comment this after all the irony here done by Gatt9.

Your one comment:

Note,  This Ogre takes what?  5 or 6 lightning bolts?  There's no criteria for how strong the creature is.

You say LARP players can't be in character and still you self  refer one of player as Ogre? Why is that?
You say there is no criteria and still you self talk about 5 or 6 lightning bold. WTF?
My point been. LARP is one of live style role-playing.  Is it consider as RPG?

http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

According wiki it's also part of role-playing games. Like PnP RPG's and Computer RPG's are also.

Yeah, you where hair spliting.

Because role-playing is about been in-character as taking role. STATS are just TOOLS for role-playing, not some absolute requirement. Stats are often used, when player can't do some action without stats well enough.

PS: I have never played LARP, nor I have any interested for it. But just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it's not one kind of RPG too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:25 .

[Il Divo]

EternalPink wrote...

Umm how would real time PnP work exactly? if you have a few mathetical savants playing with you that could do complex calculations and dice rolling i suppose yes you could consider that happening in real time so is it being turn based a limitation of the people playing rather than a necessary part of the game? since if we took role play a little bit to extreme we'd have to overcome the enemy standing still and letting us hit them and then us standing still and letting them hit us or break immersion.

That's exactly my point. It doesn't exist. And that's why no one ever called for a pen and paper system to implement other genres (first person shooter, third person shooter, sports games, etc). Most video games rely on real time gameplay, PnP never has. Even if you take something like Baldur's Gate or KotOR, which are full on RPGs, there is no problem, due to the pause feature. I'm giving my characters commands, but I'm not dodging attacks, swinging the sword, etc. My involvment is that of a commander giving instructions on the battlefield.

This becomes a problem when you have hybrids, such as Mass Effect, where you are treated as the character. The game presents almost the entire experience in a real-time twitch-based fashion, which is vastly different from a turn-based RPG.  

I'm disagreeing that aiming with a mouse is a player skill, yes if we were talking about my actual ability to aim a gun or swing a club etc then i could see were you were coming from but moving a cursor with a mouse is not a demanding player skill and personnally as i played the game i got better, first time with casual was easy so i pumped it up to hardcore and that was more of a challenge so i think we will have to agree to disagree that having a twitch based combat mechanic that can be modified by difficult (the only thing you miss by playing on easier difficulty is achievements and the geth rifle in tali's recruitment mission) means a game can't be an rpg

I didn't say it doesn't make the game an RPG- it makes the game closer to a hybrid, because player reflexes are now entering the picture. It may be lighter than Halo (for example), which is a full on FPS and has refined shooting mechanics, but it's still there. Aiming with the mouse is a player skill, much like it is in Half-Life. The major difference is the threshold of skill required. Twitch-based is exactly what player reflexes (and shooters) are about.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:05 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

Il Divo wrote...
That's exactly my point. It doesn't exist. And that's why no one ever called for a pen and paper system to implement other genres (first person shooter, third person shooter, sports games, etc). Most video games rely on real time gameplay, PnP never has. Even if you take something like Baldur's Gate or KotOR, which are full on RPGs, there is no problem, due to the pause feature. I'm giving my characters commands, but I'm not dodging attacks, swinging the sword, etc. My involvment is that of a commander giving instructions on the battlefield.

This becomes a problem when you have hybrids, such as Mass Effect, where you are treated as the character. The game presents almost the entire experience in a real-time twitch-based fashion, which is vastly different from a turn-based RPG.  

Why is there a problem when ME is defined as an Act-RPG and marketed as such?

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:25 .

[Dave666]

Lumikki wrote...

Because role-playing is about been in-character as taking role. STATS are just TOOLS for role-playing, not some absolute requirement.

I beg to differ. Stats are tools, yes, but they're vital for enforcing roleplaying. Otherwise you are simply using the character as an avatar of yourself.  You are essentially replacing the character with yourself and this replacement can do everything you can do and everything you can imagine. Want to have a debate about physics? Now you can, because you can research an answer online and then have your avatar answer. 

However with stats your character is only as intelligent as the stats allow. A character with 3 intelligence won't be debating physics, but one with an intelligence of 20 would be able to. Without the stats determining what your character can or cannot do then the character becomes god-mode.  Might as well just give the character 1000 in all stats. They can be debating physics one moment and lifting small houses singlehandedly while making inhuman dodges and withstanding blows that would kill ten men all at the same time.

Stats force you to stay in character. You can only do what your character can do, no more, no less.

So which do you want?

To play as Commander Shepard and direct him/her through their story, or to replace Shepard with an avatar of yourself?

(Note: Neither ME:1 or ME:2 had stats that really counted, apart from the accuracy thing in ME:1).

[Il Divo]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Why is there a problem when ME is defined as an Act-RPG and marketed as such?

Because Mass Effect's gameplay did not feel fluid, yet the game presented a tps style interface and also videos demonstrated gameplay very similar to a tps (excluding powers). For myself, I consider Mass Effect an rpg/tps hybrid, but both the rpg and tps mechanics felt inferior in comparison to other games.

Edit: How many other action RPGs have featured a tps/fps gameplay? Elder Scrolls and Deus Ex are the only popular ones that come to mind.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:37 .

[In Exile]

Dave666 wrote...
However with stats your character is only as intelligent as the stats allow. A character with 3 intelligence won't be debating physics, but one with an intelligence of 20 would be able to.

But a character with 3 intelligence can swing a sword, speak, and beat the entire game solo on the max difficulty using seriously advanced tactics that a character with 20 intelligence cannot because of the difference in player skill. 

Stats force you to stay in character. You can only do what your character can do, no more, no less.

Do you intentionally play the combat portion of the game badly if your character is bad at combat (I know Sylvius does this, so Sylvius, no need to respond - I know you make in-character decisions at all times). 

[PlumPaul93]

Yeah I really don't care about greatly improved gameplay (as much as I enjoy combat I'll stick to the cod games for that). The thing that makes games like Mass Effect and others different and seperates them are story and atmosphere. Keep up what Mass Effect 1 and 2 were and I'll be happy, do what DA2 did and I'll barely touch it sadly.

Modifié par PlumPaul82393, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:46 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

Il Divo wrote...
Because Mass Effect's gameplay did not feel fluid, yet the game presented a tps style interface and also videos demonstrated gameplay very similar to a tps (excluding powers). For myself, I consider Mass Effect an rpg/tps hybrid, but both the rpg and tps mechanics felt inferior in comparison to other games.

Edit: How many other action RPGs have featured a tps/fps gameplay? Elder Scrolls and Deus Ex are the only popular ones that come to mind.

It is not a fair to cut out part of the game and compare to full game of other genre.
If I cut out only the combat part of Fallout 1/2 and compared it to a proper strategy game, it isn't up to par.
If I cut out only the combat part of Wizardry out.... it sucks.

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:45 .

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...

But a character with 3 intelligence can swing a sword, speak, and beat the entire game solo on the max difficulty using seriously advanced tactics that a character with 20 intelligence cannot because of the difference in player skill.

Good point, which is why the 'character skill' argument doesn't work when defining an rpg. Playing a stupid character is completely based on me, not the character. Instead, I think no player reflexes is what they really mean, which specifically excludes the player's physical abilities, but not their mental attributes.

[Lumikki]

Dave666 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Because role-playing is about been in-character as taking role. STATS are just TOOLS for role-playing, not some absolute requirement.

I beg to differ. Stats are tools, yes, but they're vital for enforcing roleplaying. Otherwise you are simply using the character as an avatar of yourself.  You are essentially replacing the character with yourself and this replacement can do everything you can do and everything you can imagine. Want to have a debate about physics? Now you can, because you can research an answer online and then have your avatar answer. 

However with stats your character is only as intelligent as the stats allow. A character with 3 intelligence won't be debating physics, but one with an intelligence of 20 would be able to. Without the stats determining what your character can or cannot do then the character becomes god-mode.  Might as well just give the character 1000 in all stats. They can be debating physics one moment and lifting small houses singlehandedly while making inhuman dodges and withstanding blows that would kill ten men all at the same time.

Stats force you to stay in character. You can only do what your character can do, no more, no less.

So which do you want?

To play as Commander Shepard and direct him/her through their story, or to replace Shepard with an avatar of yourself?

(Note: Neither ME:1 or ME:2 had stats that really counted, apart from the accuracy thing in ME:1).

I don't see where you actually disagree me.

Only diffrence is that I say, player can role-play and be in-character also without "EVERYTING" to be stat based. Can some player play totally without stats. I don't know, would be hell of actor to pull it off, but I ques it depense what kind of role is played. In computer games, hell no. There is required for many stats because player is playing virtual world character, not some life acting. That how ever, that doesn't mean that player can't also do directly something what computers allow player to do through UI and play/act the role.

Yes, stats force you stay in role, unless something isn't stat based, what happens in EVERY RPG that exist. Also when everyting is stat based, there is no role-playing left, because player character can't anymore be controlled, it's self aware and acting independently.

Gatt9 is denying totally direct acting through UI in computer games.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juillet 2011 - 05:15 .

[Il Divo]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

It is not a fair to cut out part of the game and compare to full game of other genre.
If I cut out only the combat part of Fallout 1/2 and compared it to a proper strategy game, it isn't up to par.
If I cut out only the combat part of Wizardry out.... it sucks.

It's perfectly fair if I derived much more enjoyment from a different video game's gameplay.

Mass Effect possessed inferior RPG aspects compared to Dragon Age. It also possessed inferior tps elements compared to Gears of War. And overall, the combined aspects were less enjoyable than either of those other games (strictly in terms of tps gameplay, I personally hate Gears of War).

So individually speaking, if Mass Effect's two styles (rpg/tps) are inferior to games designed specifically for those things, and the overall gameplay is inferior (imo), what good was was the game as a hybrid?

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:56 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

Il Divo wrote...
It's perfectly fair if I derived much more enjoyment from a different video game's gameplay.

Mass Effect possessed inferior RPG aspects compared to Dragon Age. It also possessed inferior tps elements compared to Gears of War. And overall, the combined aspects were less enjoyable than either of those other games (strictly in terms of gameplay, I personally hate Gears of War).

And that makes you long analysis of RPG style fall back to "personal tasting".
In my own personal tasting, ME2 may not be as good as a TPS like GOW, but it compares to good ones like the Trasformer one. And that added with the presentation and RPG element makes it a great game. 

[Lumikki]

Il Divo wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

It is not a fair to cut out part of the game and compare to full game of other genre.
If I cut out only the combat part of Fallout 1/2 and compared it to a proper strategy game, it isn't up to par.
If I cut out only the combat part of Wizardry out.... it sucks.

It's perfectly fair if I derived much more enjoyment from a different video game's gameplay.

Mass Effect possessed inferior RPG aspects compared to Dragon Age. It also possessed inferior tps elements compared to Gears of War. And overall, the combined aspects were less enjoyable than either of those other games (strictly in terms of tps gameplay, I personally hate Gears of War).

So individually speaking, if Mass Effect's two styles (rpg/tps) are inferior to games designed specifically for those things, and the overall gameplay is inferior (imo), what good was was the game as a hybrid?

But what about the players, who have different opinion.

Who thinks Mass Effect was better game than both of those other games?
So, combinating smaller aspect of both games, made new better game as total result.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juillet 2011 - 04:59 .

[Il Divo]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

And that makes you long analysis of RPG style fall back to "personal tasting".
In my own personal tasting, ME2 may not be as good as a TPS like GOW, but it compares to good ones like the Trasformer one. And that added with the presentation and RPG element makes it a great game. 

Personal taste does play a central role. If you think Mass Effect 1's elements were incredibly fluid and the gameplay rocked, then that's your right.

Lumikki wrote...

But what about the players, who have different opinion.

Who thinks Mass Effect was better game than both of those other games?
So, combinating smaller aspect of both games, made new better game as total result.

They're allowed their different opinions. I'm simply pointing out why there is a greater push for tps/fps elements in RPGs, using my own opinions as an example.

Pen and Paper never featured real time combat. Video games do, hence why this becomes a bigger issue, especially when developers push beyond a tactical system (DA:O, Baldur's Gate).  

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2011 - 05:04 .

[Arppis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Actually, on PC the inventory system itself wasn't bad. It was Bioware's idea of countless upgrades with minimal benefit that made it a pain. Demiurge did the best they could with some flawed concepts. 

It was a shared inventory filled with massless gear presented in a list format.

It was dreadful.  It's just about the worst inventory system ever (it's basically the same one KotOR used, which was also awful).

Agreed. Would love to see something akin to Baldur's Gate. Or hell... Resident Evil 4.

[Travie]

Am I the only one that didn't think ME1 had very deep RPG mechanics in the first place? (aside from the inventory).

The level up screen had plenty of options, sure... its just that the vast majority of it was unnecessary.

They could probably design a system with way more buttons to push to get the same result, but why?

[Kabanya101]

RPG stands for ROLE PLAYING GAME. Does everybody understand what the acranim means?

The part of the game being a "role playing game," refers to character development and immersion into the game. Therefore, the character has to be able to look like anyone, "say" any or at least a wide variety of dialouge. and be in an environment that the player could get "lost" in.

Mass Effect 1
1) I see posts where people love the inventory system from ME1, and say that it made the game an RPG. Yes, it did add to character customization, but in ME2 it got simplified and better. Sure in ME2 it lacked some things such as variety for guns and different augmentations for armor, but in ME3 it will be fixed.

Mass Effect 2
1) A linear storyline is not an RPG. It might as well be a first person shooter, if every environment is going to have a set path in which everyone has to follow. ME1 was linear, but actions could be done in different orders which gave the appearance of not being linear. ME2 had a storyline with fixed events and character retrieval that had to be done which made it VERY linear.


So whatever your complaint is about what is or isn't an RPG, think first about voicing your complaint. Yes I think ME1 was a better game, but was it a better RPG, not really. Aside from being able to do things on your own and having the Mako in a sandbox environment, it really was the same as ME2.
ME2 was the better RPG because it had things that could truly make your character unique. Armor and weapons. It had different guns to fit your playstyle, and the armor customization was great, aside from lacking different armor plating. Sure missions were pointless at times and inear, but you were more into them. Save or kill people, push him out a window. Decision making was endless in missions, when in ME1 everything ended in "He's dead. Radio Joker for pickup."

BUT, don't worry. Everything should be fixed in ME3. Larger class trees and environments. More weapon and armor customization, though they didn't state for squadmates. Which would probably be like ME2, because in the collectors edition there is a code for alternate appearances for James Vega and Liara.
And rumor states that either the mako or hammerhead shall return, so for you exploration freaks out there, it will come back.