1002 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Fixers0 wrote...

Also let's not forget that except for Mordin, neither of these character had nothing to do with anything.

They were relevant to whatever mission you were on at the time, which is what most of the people you could chat with in ME1 were. 

[lolnoobs]

SpiffySquee wrote...

the simple fact that you use wiki, a site that can be edited by anyone, makes your whole argument invalid. Who wrote those definitions? Why should I believe them over my own opinions. Hell, if I don't like those definitions, I could re-write them right now. Would that mean my definition would then become THE definition? All I have to do is write ME2 is a RPG in the RPG section and BOOM! end of debate!

 No? Ok, then there are no hard definitions, so stop pretending there are. I made a video that explained in detail, why I felt stats, inventory, and exploration were not needed for ME2 to be considered an RPG, and what I felt the name Role Play Game was originally intended to mean. I never said anyone else was wrong, but merely asked them to explain why they felt differently. I don't pretend that there is a hard definition and anyone who does not follow it is wrong. 

"Round Earth"

Who wrote this? That must be fake since it can be edited by anyone. I don't like it, because my opinion is, the earth is flat. No doubt about it. Why should i believe it because it says it on wiki.

You can think ME is an RPG all you want, that doesn't make it one. Add some meaningless descicions to COD/GOW/any other game and voila, apparently RPG gold.

Modifié par lolnoobs, 21 août 2011 - 12:10 .

[littlezack]

lolnoobs wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

the simple fact that you use wiki, a site that can be edited by anyone, makes your whole argument invalid. Who wrote those definitions? Why should I believe them over my own opinions. Hell, if I don't like those definitions, I could re-write them right now. Would that mean my definition would then become THE definition? All I have to do is write ME2 is a RPG in the RPG section and BOOM! end of debate!

 No? Ok, then there are no hard definitions, so stop pretending there are. I made a video that explained in detail, why I felt stats, inventory, and exploration were not needed for ME2 to be considered an RPG, and what I felt the name Role Play Game was originally intended to mean. I never said anyone else was wrong, but merely asked them to explain why they felt differently. I don't pretend that there is a hard definition and anyone who does not follow it is wrong. 

"Round Earth"

Who wrote this? That must be fake since it can be edited by anyone. I don't like it, because my opinion is, the earth is flat. No doubt about it. Why should i believe it because someone says it is on wiki.

The difference being, of course, that the shape of the Earth is fact that can be proven through numerous scientific sources with a 100% consensus, whereas the definition of a RPG...ISN'T. So.

Modifié par littlezack, 21 août 2011 - 12:12 .

[lolnoobs]

littlezack wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

the simple fact that you use wiki, a site that can be edited by anyone, makes your whole argument invalid. Who wrote those definitions? Why should I believe them over my own opinions. Hell, if I don't like those definitions, I could re-write them right now. Would that mean my definition would then become THE definition? All I have to do is write ME2 is a RPG in the RPG section and BOOM! end of debate!

 No? Ok, then there are no hard definitions, so stop pretending there are. I made a video that explained in detail, why I felt stats, inventory, and exploration were not needed for ME2 to be considered an RPG, and what I felt the name Role Play Game was originally intended to mean. I never said anyone else was wrong, but merely asked them to explain why they felt differently. I don't pretend that there is a hard definition and anyone who does not follow it is wrong. 

"Round Earth"

Who wrote this? That must be fake since it can be edited by anyone. I don't like it, because my opinion is, the earth is flat. No doubt about it. Why should i believe it because someone says it is on wiki.

The difference being, of course, that the shape of the Earth is fact that can be proven through numerous scientific sources, whereas the definition of a RPG...ISN'T.

That wasn't my point. Just because it's one wikipedia which can be edited by anyone doesn't mean it's a bad source.

[Dragoonlordz]

3rd person shooters with RPG elements. /TheEnd

[littlezack]

lolnoobs wrote...

littlezack wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

the simple fact that you use wiki, a site that can be edited by anyone, makes your whole argument invalid. Who wrote those definitions? Why should I believe them over my own opinions. Hell, if I don't like those definitions, I could re-write them right now. Would that mean my definition would then become THE definition? All I have to do is write ME2 is a RPG in the RPG section and BOOM! end of debate!

 No? Ok, then there are no hard definitions, so stop pretending there are. I made a video that explained in detail, why I felt stats, inventory, and exploration were not needed for ME2 to be considered an RPG, and what I felt the name Role Play Game was originally intended to mean. I never said anyone else was wrong, but merely asked them to explain why they felt differently. I don't pretend that there is a hard definition and anyone who does not follow it is wrong. 

"Round Earth"

Who wrote this? That must be fake since it can be edited by anyone. I don't like it, because my opinion is, the earth is flat. No doubt about it. Why should i believe it because someone says it is on wiki.

The difference being, of course, that the shape of the Earth is fact that can be proven through numerous scientific sources, whereas the definition of a RPG...ISN'T.

That wasn't my point. Just because it's one wikipedia which can be edited by anyone doesn't mean it's a bad source.

Actually, yeah, it does make a bad source. There's a reason you're not supposed to be able to cite the place when writing things like research papers. People edit and put crap on Wikipedia all the damn time.

Modifié par littlezack, 21 août 2011 - 12:15 .

[SpiffySquee]

It most certainly does mean wiki is a bad source. Considering the fact the the term RPG is a subjective term and has no definition in any official dictionary or encyclopedia, the article on wiki is just another subjective view. It is proof of nothing but your lack of ability to provide an official definition of the term.

the earth is round and can be scientifically proven. You can't prove what an RPG means, so all you are doing by quoting wiki is trying to pass someone's opinion off as fact.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 21 août 2011 - 01:08 .

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
@Phaedon

Don't bother,  I think I'm going to take people's advice and stop reading your posts,  they were right,  it's like beating my head against a wall.

Look, I may have not changed my initial attitude towards the issue at hand, but I always come up with new arguments. That's not what you do.

As I have demonestrated earlier, the RPG argument is non-existant, because it's a non-issue. The features which you request are there, and even if they are not. It doesn't matter.

Dionkey wrote...
Listen, you can't have it both ways. Either you are playing the role by making choices or you are not. Adding a few options for dialogue that can end in 2-3 outcomes is not Role-Playing. Role-playing is having FULL control over the personality of the character you are portraying, not limited. Whether that be 5 options, or 10,000, it's still not enough, you should control everything. This is why the criteria of RPG's are different when it comes to videogames and it's the same reason why many people do not consider Mass Effect 2 an RPG.

Umm...no, this is just wrong. For starters, you single out ME2, and not the ME series as a whole.

Your role is always pre-defined to some point. In every RPG, you start from the bottom of the skill tree, have one or several specific backstories, a very specific race, sometimes appearance, etc. You can obviously not have full control. The point of character creation is to make this pre-defined character (and unless you make Real Lives into an RPG, your character will be somewhat pre-defined because he or she have a past), more specific to what you want.

Character development doesn't start until you decide how to talk, who to romance, what your morals are, etc. This happens both in ME1 AND 2. You have as much control over your personality in 2, as you do in 1. Actually, scratch that. You have more control in 2. You don't begin as someone who is not charming or indimidating at all, but develops those traits later on (this should have happenned during character creation or not at all), but instead, you are infamous or famous due to your reputation caused by your actions in ME2, and ME1. I am still not able to understand what you want that ME2 doesn't have.

[Phaedon]

lolnoobs wrote...
Stop saying there's no clear defenition for RPG because there is. Just as there is for all the genre's above. 
Would you consider ME a Sim game? No you wouldn't, even though ME fits the description for it.

Stop saying that there is.

Genres are man-made creations, not scientific facts. The Japanese have different definitions for RPGs than Americans do, than Canadians do.

For starters, Americans think that people didn't start roleplaying or playing PnP games until DnD was invented. Which is rather silly.

I think that it's safe to assume that there are more Asian RPG gamers than American and European ones. Therefore, if you are going to treat "truth" as a commodity, then you should better get your numbers right.

EDIT:
lolnoobs, if you grab COD: United Offence, mod some statistical progression to the large numbers of in-game statistics, add a branching storyline and character creation, I have not a single doubt it will be one the best games and RPGs ever made. Why you find the idea bad and non-RPG-ish is beyond me.
Besides, your very definition of RPGs, does render ME2 an RPG.

Modifié par Phaedon, 21 août 2011 - 01:36 .

[Fixers0]

didymos1120 wrote...

They were relevant to whatever mission you were on at the time,

Next question: why were we on these missions, talking to some random people and shooting things up?

didymos1120 wrote...
which is what most of the people you could chat with in ME1 were.

True, most characters in Mass Effect 1 revealed interesting parts of story.

Modifié par Fixers0, 21 août 2011 - 01:43 .

[Bostur]

SpiffySquee wrote...

It most certainly does mean wiki is a bad source. Considering the fact the the term RPG is a subjective term and has no definition in any official dictionary or encyclopedia, the article on wiki is just another subjective view. It is proof of nothing but your lack of ability to provide an official definition of the term.

the earth is round and can be scientifically proven. You can't prove what an RPG means, so all you are doing by quoting wiki is trying to pass someone's opinion off as fact.

The term RPG has been used by video game players for more than 25 years. It may not have a hard definition, but the usage of the word has been established by practice. Thats how most language is created.

The last 5 or so years the term has been changing to something much less specific, it is so general now that it doesn't serve much purpose. Anything with a story can be an RPG now.


It is interesting to note that when the games System Shock 2 and Deus Ex where released those were called hybrid RPG/shooters. Today many would probably consider them pure RPGs. These two games had many more RPG gameplay elements than ME1 or ME2. The ME series is a direct descendant of those two games.

[sevach]

didymos1120 wrote...

sevach wrote...

In Me1 we get to chat with, Soverign, Saren, Benezia, Rachni queen, Shiala and other people that end up helping you... Lizbeth Baynham type.
What ME2 has? Delan the mechanic...

Mordin Recruit:

Quarantine guard
Sick batarian guy.
Daniel & batarian captors
Human Couple
Human Looters
Boss vorcha guy
And of course, Mordin. Multiple times.

Garrus Recruit:

Merc Recruiter
Overenthusiastic Kid
Salkie (driver)
Jaroth
Garm
Tarak & Jentha
Human Freelancer Guy
Sgt. Cathka
And of course, Garrus. Multiple times.

Jack Recruit:

Entrance Guards
Warden Kuril (twice)
Guard watching the beating
Prisoner 783
And of course, Jack

Grunt Recruit:

Wounded Merc
Tank-Bred Krogan
Rana Thanoptis if she's alive
Okeer

And so on.

Fixers0 already did it for me, but let me elaborate.

Well if you are gonna do this you better find me some people who are relevant to the story or at least someone who will help you on the current situation, don't get me wrong, things like the biotic god are very funny, but he's largely irrelevant to the story... i didn't put the names of every damn colonist on Feros did i? Or Noveria security guard?


In the middle of all this discussion, of what is an RPG/what makes a perfect RPG i stand by what i said, ME2 is leaning a bit more to straightforward non-stop action over talking, learning about the plot etc...

[littlezack]

sevach wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

sevach wrote...

In Me1 we get to chat with, Soverign, Saren, Benezia, Rachni queen, Shiala and other people that end up helping you... Lizbeth Baynham type.
What ME2 has? Delan the mechanic...

Mordin Recruit:

Quarantine guard
Sick batarian guy.
Daniel & batarian captors
Human Couple
Human Looters
Boss vorcha guy
And of course, Mordin. Multiple times.

Garrus Recruit:

Merc Recruiter
Overenthusiastic Kid
Salkie (driver)
Jaroth
Garm
Tarak & Jentha
Human Freelancer Guy
Sgt. Cathka
And of course, Garrus. Multiple times.

Jack Recruit:

Entrance Guards
Warden Kuril (twice)
Guard watching the beating
Prisoner 783
And of course, Jack

Grunt Recruit:

Wounded Merc
Tank-Bred Krogan
Rana Thanoptis if she's alive
Okeer

And so on.

Fixers0 already did it for me, but let me elaborate.

Well if you are gonna do this you better find me some people who are relevant to the story or at least someone who will help you on the current situation, don't get me wrong, things like the biotic god are very funny, but he's largely irrelevant to the story... i didn't put the names of every damn colonist on Feros did i? Or Noveria security guard?

ME1 and ME2 are two different types of stories.

In ME1, everything you do from start to finish is directly related to going after Saren. So, yes, a fair bit of the people you talk to, at least on the major story missions, further that. You still encountered plenty of people and conversations that didn't have anything to do with the plot, though.

In ME2, the bulk of the story revolves around preparations. You deal with the Collectors every now and then, but the story's main focus is on building a team and making that team mentally ready to fight. True, most of the loyalty and recruiting missions don't have to do with the Collectors...but that's sort of the point.

So, yes, you spend a lot of time having conversations that don't further the plot - if you think the plot solely revolves around the Collectors. Which it doesn't.

In truth, ME2 is actually much more focused on character than ME1. You learn more about your crewmembers, and more time is devoted to fleshing out their personalities. In ME1, you only learned about characters through on-board conversations, and maybe a small side mission. In ME2, you get a full-blown mission devoted to each of them, and much more of their lives is shown.

Modifié par littlezack, 21 août 2011 - 04:57 .

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
@Phaedon

Don't bother,  I think I'm going to take people's advice and stop reading your posts,  they were right,  it's like beating my head against a wall.

Look, I may have not changed my initial attitude towards the issue at hand, but I always come up with new arguments. That's not what you do.

As I have demonestrated earlier, the RPG argument is non-existant, because it's a non-issue. The features which you request are there, and even if they are not. It doesn't matter.

Acdtually,  what you've pretty consistently demonstrated is a major break in logic.  It's really this simple...

Assert - A game with a story and decisions is an RPG
             -Halo had a story
             -Wing Commander 3 had decisions
                  -Halo is an FPS
                  -Wing Commander 3 is a Space-Sim
              -Contradiction

Your arguements fail quickly,  because logically they don't work once you leave the Mass-Effect universe.  My arguements OTOH,  pass the test.  My definition is simple,  can it be translated to PnP.  If it cannot,  it's not an RPG.  Any example you come up with is going to be a LARPS,  not an RPG.

LARPS - Does not define a character,  places the Player and his qualtiies in the "Body of an avatar".
RPG - Defines a character whose success/failures occur independent of the Player.

You'll *never* find an RPG with a character that can't be translated to PnP. 

Also,  since you can kill everything in the game at level 1,  the leveling system and weapons customization are irrelevant.  If you don't need them,  then the systems are superficial and unnecessary to the game you designed,  and perform no real function.  I doubt highly they'll have reimplemented combat to make leveling actually necessary.

@Spiffysquee

CRPG's are computer emulations of a PnP RPG,  since they're emulations,  the translation works both ways.  A CRPG can be translated back into PnP,  like one could do with Fallout 2.  If it can't be translated,  it can't be an RPG,  because you cannot emulate something by being nothing like it.  That means you've mislabeled your game.

[Dionkey]

Phaedon wrote...
Umm...no, this is just wrong. For starters, you single out ME2, and not the ME series as a whole.

Your role is always pre-defined to some point. In every RPG, you start from the bottom of the skill tree, have one or several specific backstories, a very specific race, sometimes appearance, etc. You can obviously not have full control. The point of character creation is to make this pre-defined character (and unless you make Real Lives into an RPG, your character will be somewhat pre-defined because he or she have a past), more specific to what you want.

Character development doesn't start until you decide how to talk, who to romance, what your morals are, etc. This happens both in ME1 AND 2. You have as much control over your personality in 2, as you do in 1. Actually, scratch that. You have more control in 2. You don't begin as someone who is not charming or indimidating at all, but develops those traits later on (this should have happenned during character creation or not at all), but instead, you are infamous or famous due to your reputation caused by your actions in ME2, and ME1. I am still not able to understand what you want that ME2 doesn't have.

I single out ME2 because it focuses so much energy on a goal that is unattainable. Until you have FULL control over your choices in a videogame (which you never will), do not try to label that as an RPG element, beacuse it isn't. The reason emphasis is placed on skill is because it is something that can cover just about everything. Sure, people could make up crazy skills in real life, but they are just small alterations of the skills in the game. When this comes to dialogue, this is not the case.

Going back to the VS scene on Horizon, it is so impractical that it makes no sense. If I were Shepard, I would had a long conversation and explained every facet. Instead (to further plot progression), Shepard does very little to prove his argument. This is why ME1 and ME2 are NOT RPG's in this department. The reason ME1 is still considered an RPG overall is because of the huge skill tree, the wide selection of weapons/armor and the huge levels of exploration. Mass Effect 2 thought that it could sub in a better cinematic experience while cutting out everything else. Was the game better in a lot of departments? Sure, I'll agree to that, but it sure as hell wasn't the videogame definition of an RPG.

Modifié par Dionkey, 21 août 2011 - 05:16 .

[Mr.Pink]

I personally think ME is still RPG. Whether or not some pencil pusher at Bioware agrees(no offence to them, I love their games) is irrelevant. RPG definition is vary vague. It is a role playing game, and your role is Shepard, you play as him, and it's a game. Also, lack of customization doesn't make it any less of an RPG. Because honestly, "3rd person visceral shooter with consequences to your actions" is not a real game type. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

[lolnoobs]

Mr.Pink wrote...

I personally think ME is still RPG. Whether or not some pencil pusher at Bioware agrees(no offence to them, I love their games) is irrelevant. RPG definition is vary vague. It is a role playing game, and your role is Shepard, you play as him, and it's a game. Also, lack of customization doesn't make it any less of an RPG. Because honestly, "3rd person visceral shooter with consequences to your actions" is not a real game type. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

By that logic, every video game ever made, is an RPG. Making the term RPG worthless.

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
Umm...no, this is just wrong. For starters, you single out ME2, and not the ME series as a whole.

Your role is always pre-defined to some point. In every RPG, you start from the bottom of the skill tree, have one or several specific backstories, a very specific race, sometimes appearance, etc. You can obviously not have full control. The point of character creation is to make this pre-defined character (and unless you make Real Lives into an RPG, your character will be somewhat pre-defined because he or she have a past), more specific to what you want.

Character development doesn't start until you decide how to talk, who to romance, what your morals are, etc. This happens both in ME1 AND 2. You have as much control over your personality in 2, as you do in 1. Actually, scratch that. You have more control in 2. You don't begin as someone who is not charming or indimidating at all, but develops those traits later on (this should have happenned during character creation or not at all), but instead, you are infamous or famous due to your reputation caused by your actions in ME2, and ME1. I am still not able to understand what you want that ME2 doesn't have.

I single out ME2 because it focuses so much energy on a goal that is unattainable. Until you have FULL control over your choices in a videogame (which you never will), do not try to label that as an RPG element, beacuse it isn't. The reason emphasis is placed on skill is because it is something that can cover just about everything. Sure, people could make up crazy skills in real life, but they are just small alterations of the skills in the game. When this comes to dialogue, this is not the case.

Going back to the VS scene on Horizon, it is so non-sensical that it makes no sense. If I were Shepard, I would had a long conversation and explained every facet. Instead (to further plot progression), Shepard does very little to prove his argument. This is why ME1 and ME2 are NOT RPG's in this department. The reason ME1 is still considered an RPG overall is because of the huge skill tree, the wide selection of weapons/armor and the huge levels of exploration. Mass Effect 2 thought that it could sub in a better cinematic experience while cutting out everything else. Was the game better in a lot of departments? Sure, I'll agree to that, but it sure as hell wasn't the videogame definition of an RPG.

Mass Effect 1 didn't really have exploration. It had the illusion of exploration, and a poor illusion at that. But, basically, all it did was drop you in a giant sandbox, then mark the places your supposed to go with an X. You can tread away from the path, but you won't find anything beyond, maybe, some junk. That's not exploration.

Mass Effect 1 didn't have a wide selection of armor and weapons, either - it had the same weapons and the same armors, barebone differences. Again, it just gave you the illusion of having a wide selection. In reality, the pistol you get at the start controls the same as the pistol you get near the end. It's the same damn thing, just with a new name and a different color scheme. You only went with the best you could find at any given moment. Now, you had a lot of ammo mods and such - most of them useless, mind you, but you had them. But modifying a gun doesn't make it a new gun. Loading a sniper rifle with exploding ammo doesn't make it a different kind of sniper rifle. It's still the same damn gun.

And, being honest, it didn't really have that huge of a skill tree. Yes, you could put more points into powers - but usually the changes in the power were so miniscule that you couldn't even tell the different until you'd put in six or so points, anyway. Again, it's just the the illusion of size. 

As far as I'm concerned, all ME2 did was cut the fat.

Modifié par littlezack, 21 août 2011 - 05:21 .

[Il Divo]

littlezack wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, all ME2 did was cut the fat.

That's exactly what it did, especially when you consider the handling of the skill trees.

Mass Effect: 12 ranks per skill, 3 substantial ranks, 9 marginal bonuses (1 % pistol damage, I'm looking at you) 

Mass Effect 2:  4 ranks per skill, each a substantial rank, and a power evolution at rank 4.

The only issue Mass Effect 2 runs into is the overall lower number of skills available to the player.

[Zjarcal]

Yes they are.

I don't know why is this even a discussion.

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...
Mass Effect 1 didn't really have exploration. It had the illusion of exploration, and a poor illusion at that. But, basically, all it did was drop you in a giant sandbox, then mark the places your supposed to go with an X. You can tread away from the path, but you won't find anything beyond, maybe, some junk. That's not exploration.

Mass Effect 1 didn't have a wide selection of armor and weapons, either - it had the same weapons and the same armors, barebone differences. Again, it just gave you the illusion of having a wide selection. In reality, the pistol you get at the start controls the same as the pistol you get near the end. It's the same damn thing, just with a new name and a different color scheme. You only went with the best you could find at any given moment.

And, being honest, it didn't really have that huge of a skill tree. Yes, you could put more points into powers - but usually the changes in the power were so miniscule that you couldn't even tell the different until you'd put in six or so points, anyway. Again, it's just the the illusion of size. 

As far as I'm concerned, all ME2 did was cut the fat.

But you're missing the point, all of those elements (no matter how poorly built) were RPG elements. The exploration, while it can be repetitive, was leaps and bounds more than ME2 had. ME2 didn't make an effort to spread any of it's side-quests. In fact, many of the side-quests were simply fetch quests that could be done by talking to someone 30 seconds away.

The skill tree was huge and made small differences because it felt rewarding. The differences is ME2 were hardly rewarding. I felt like I was slowly inching my way to the top in ME1 and it felt awesome. Seeing your skills slowly progress (especially when it defines everything about how your character plays and not just it's powers) is much more gratifying than putting big chunks in and getting very little reward until the final block.

The inventory needed a simple tweaking, but it was still an RPG element. Plenty of armor and weapons, lots of mods, and lots of sets. Did we need HMWA VI, VII, VIII, VIIII, or X? Nope, but that could have been fixed esaily. Now I won't go into a debate about these features, because it is really a matter of preference, but you either prefer an action-shooter with amazing cinematics or an RPG-Shooter with great cinematics.

As far as I'm concerned, ME2 cut the fat and built muscle in the wrong places.

Modifié par Dionkey, 21 août 2011 - 05:27 .

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

littlezack wrote...
Mass Effect 1 didn't really have exploration. It had the illusion of exploration, and a poor illusion at that. But, basically, all it did was drop you in a giant sandbox, then mark the places your supposed to go with an X. You can tread away from the path, but you won't find anything beyond, maybe, some junk. That's not exploration.

Mass Effect 1 didn't have a wide selection of armor and weapons, either - it had the same weapons and the same armors, barebone differences. Again, it just gave you the illusion of having a wide selection. In reality, the pistol you get at the start controls the same as the pistol you get near the end. It's the same damn thing, just with a new name and a different color scheme. You only went with the best you could find at any given moment.

And, being honest, it didn't really have that huge of a skill tree. Yes, you could put more points into powers - but usually the changes in the power were so miniscule that you couldn't even tell the different until you'd put in six or so points, anyway. Again, it's just the the illusion of size. 

As far as I'm concerned, all ME2 did was cut the fat.

But you're missing the point, all of those elements (no matter how poorly built) were RPG elements. The exploration, while it can be repetitive, was leaps and bounds more than ME2 had. ME2 didn't make an effort to spread any of it's side-quests. In fact, many of the side-quests were simply fetch quests that could be done by talking to someone 30 seconds away.

The skill tree was huge and made small differences because it felt rewarding. The differences is ME2 were hardly rewarding. I felt like I was slowly inching my way to the top in ME1 and it felt awesome. Seeing your skills slowly progress (especially when it defines everything about how your character plays and not just it's powers) is much more gratifying than putting big chunks in and getting very little reward until the final block.

The inventory need a simple tweaking, but it was still an RPG element. Plenty of armor and weapons, lots of mods, and lots of sets. Did we need HMWA VI, VII, VIII, VIIII, or X? Nope, but that could have been fixed esaily. Now I won't go into a debate about these features, because it is really a matter of preference, but you either prefer an action-shooter with amazing cinematics or an RPG-Shooter with great cinematics.

As far as I'm concerned, ME2 cut the fat and built muscle in the wrong places.

Again, the exploration wasn't really exploration. You just land, drive, arrive, (usually) kill something, then head back. Which is another thing - for all the complaining about ME2 having too much shooting, the VAST majority of side-quests in ME1 have you going someplace to kill some people to get stuff. At least ME2 offers some variety in the environments - how many times did we fight in the exact same space station in ME1? And ME2 had plenty of side quests on planets - what you're complaining about is that most of the hub side quests didn't require you to leave the hub. But, for me, that's a definite improvement - one of the most annoying aspects of ME1 was getting a side quest, then having to leave the hub, then get on the Normandy, then travel to the planet (if you can remember what the planet was called) then landing, then driving to X place, all for a two minute firefight...then getting what you came for, then getting back on the Mako, then leaving on the Normandy, then going back to the hub, then completing the mission. All those unnescessary, annoying steps.

Do not tell me that a departure away from that is a bad thing. I don't buy it.