1467 réponses à ce sujet

[Alex_SM]

1136342t54 wrote...




So when it comes to marketing it means bad but in actuality its a good game.

No, What I mean is that when I read in any videogame "professional" review that they give the game 7/10, it usually means it is a bad game. Professional reviewers are extremely attached to companies and just can't give low ratings to BIG releases. And that's have been admited by some ones. 

Usuallly the real rating is more or less "(rating-5)*2". 

So because the marketing is a bit similar to DA2 (not entirely) you believe the gameplay and design is exactly the same? Yeah that is quite intelligent.

In my gaming experience (started in 1997), I've never seen any good game relseased after a "we want to appeal wider audience" campaign. That kind of marketing tactics usually led to mediocre (at best) games. 

And of course I don't believe the gameplay and desing are the same as DA2, that wouldn't make any sense. But It makes me thing that ME3 is gonna be to ME2 the same as DA2 is to DA:O.

Me and my friends (long time RPG players) like the game. It could have been great and there are some obvious problems with it but all in all it was enjoyable and it succeeded with that to us. 

If you truly are unable to accept the fact that I can actually like that game while you hate it then there is no point in attempting to convince me it is such a disaster of a game since I think it isn't.

Some things are, of course, subjetive. But there are a lot of DA2 strong problems which can't be denied. For example the nonexistent internal logic. It breaks (usually for no reason at all, except to show "awesome stuff") nearly every lore rule it stated during DA:O, DA:O Awakening and DA2 itself. Then it reuses every dungeon (using the exact map, with sometimes the exact distribution of staris, boxes and enemies) even more than ME and makes every important NPC act in a extremely nonsensical way. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:01 .

[Darji]

1136342t54 wrote...

Darji wrote...

I am sorry that we have standards and honestly even a 80% game is not really good anymore because like 90% of all released games are getting a 80 or close to 80 score nowdays.

Screw it.

Look you have standards like every single other person that is understandable. Am I attacking? No I'm not but you are making assumptions that because you dislike a game every single other person who has played it hated it. Hell if that was then DA2 must have been a ****ing flop that was panned by every single damn reviewer that has ever ****ing existed. 

If you really do not understand my original point of DA2 not being the best game and you can dislike it then I don't know what to say other than oh well then but it is dishonest to say that DA2 failed big time and people (like me) actually like the game for what it is.

Now if I have to say that DA2 isn't a great game one more time to get it through your head that I am not in love with it or somehow ignoring you opinion then there is no point in discussing this constantly since this is just a simple DA2 debate in at ME3 thread.

Yes there were many people who liked it and it doenst even matter if they really liked it or just bought and liked it because it was another Bioware game. But fact is that almost every  RPG player did not like this game at all. And this only shows the direction Bioware is going.

And you just cant  pretend that this is not the case. Again. All I want is a statement from Bioware about their new direction without lieing to us  (again like they did with DA2). And then everyone can say that they like  or dont like it. But keeping false hopes up is a very dishonest way only to sell more copies.

Modifié par Darji, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:02 .

[111987]

T1l wrote...

So... what is it, Bioware? A Third Person Shooter? A Role Playing Game? A Movie? What do you what this game to be? This idea is cancerous. Make the game with some clarity instead of alienating your core audience. You'll never pander to the Call of Duty crowd with your "Action" mode, because they'll all be playing Call of Duty. You'll not appease the people looking for an RPG, because you've bastardised and watered down the whole experience; and those people who wanted to watch a movie will just watch a movie, or God forbid, read a book.

All of the time and effort of putting in three different modes to cater to people who won't even bother with the game and a tacked on multi-player - Dragon Age 2 should have given me enough warning, I suppose.

Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

And actually ME3 has elements of all 3. Great shooter gameplay, a rich story with dialogue choices and descisions to be made, and great cinematics. What more could you ask for?

[T1l]

111987 wrote...


Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

When has anything or anyone that has tried to be all things, to all people, ever succeeded?

[Darji]

111987 wrote...

T1l wrote...

So... what is it, Bioware? A Third Person Shooter? A Role Playing Game? A Movie? What do you what this game to be? This idea is cancerous. Make the game with some clarity instead of alienating your core audience. You'll never pander to the Call of Duty crowd with your "Action" mode, because they'll all be playing Call of Duty. You'll not appease the people looking for an RPG, because you've bastardised and watered down the whole experience; and those people who wanted to watch a movie will just watch a movie, or God forbid, read a book.

All of the time and effort of putting in three different modes to cater to people who won't even bother with the game and a tacked on multi-player - Dragon Age 2 should have given me enough warning, I suppose.

Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

And actually ME3 has elements of all 3. Great shooter gameplay, a rich story with dialogue choices and descisions to be made, and great cinematics. What more could you ask for?

rich story with choices and descisions? Did I miss this in ME2 or did you play a total different game. Becasue the only real descisions that ME2 had was if you want to do the companion quests or not. If you dont they die. That has nothing to do with consequences at all.. Also all the descisions you made in ME1 did again not really matter in part 2 at all beside some cameo apperences.  If you want to play a good RPG which actually has descisions and consequences play Alpha Protocol which does a much better job with the story and the consequences thing. They even make better use of the dialogue wheel.

Modifié par Darji, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:07 .

[Alanosborn1991]

T1l wrote...

So... what is it, Bioware? A Third Person Shooter? A Role Playing Game? A Movie? What do you what this game to be? This idea is cancerous. Make the game with some clarity instead of alienating your core audience. You'll never pander to the Call of Duty crowd with your "Action" mode, because they'll all be playing Call of Duty. You'll not appease the people looking for an RPG, because you've bastardised and watered down the whole experience; and those people who wanted to watch a movie will just watch a movie, or God forbid, read a book.

All of the time and effort of putting in three different modes to cater to people who won't even bother with the game and a tacked on multi-player - Dragon Age 2 should have given me enough warning, I suppose.

Quoted for the truth!

[1136342t54_]

Darji wrote...
Yes there were many peoplelike it and it doenst even matter if they really liked it or just bought and liked it because it was another Bioware game. But fact is that almost all RPG players did not like this game at all. And this only shows the direction Bioware is going. 

Ok then you made the claim that nearly all RPG players didn't like it. Show me a survey that has the majority of RPG players panning the game. Also show me most of the reviews and the average that shows DA2 getting a universal panning everywhere on the level of a disaster. You claimed you proved it no point in arguing with you to much since you aren't taking the hint that I really don't want to argue this (its night and I get a bit annoyed).

And you just cant  pretend that this is not the case.

You have no idea what I am (pretending) to do or not to do. It is an assumption off of nothing. I  at the very least made an attempt to search for reviews and even read a few of the 70s. I'm going off of my opinion and actual professional reviewers.

Again. All I want is a statement from Bioware about their new direction without lieing to us  (again like they did with DA2). And then everyone can say that they like  or dont like it. But keeping false hopes up is a very dishonest way only to sell more copies.

That won't work. You are specifically the type of poster who will never be satisified by any answer even if it is what you want to here. Bioware will always seem like liers to you until they actually come out with a game that is so good it is equal to the second coming.

[tfive24]

1136342t54 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

In Videogame press a 70 is more or less the same as a 5/10 in every other kind of entertainment press (and if we talk about EA or Activion Games, everything below 80/100 means "bad game"). Also DA2 has extremely poor ratings in every webpage that  allows user voting. Most of the times below 5/10. 

So when it comes to marketing it means bad but in actuality its a good game.

Sorry but Dragon Age 2 was never a truly bad game period. A 70 for any game is basically good or about average. Its only a bad game when it comes to marketing it as a truly epic one. Dragon Age 2 was being marketed as the most epic game out at that time. Obviously it failed to fully live up to the hype but isn't a bad game.

And it matters, as it's their previously released game. And all the marketting of ME3 is being extremely similar to the one of DA2 . Which is indeed a bad game: Nonsensical story uninteresting 80% of time, internal logic contradictions everywhere, poorly written characters, dumbed down mechanics where doesn't matter at all how you developed your character, awful dungeon design, and at the end quite boring.

So because the marketing is a bit similar to DA2 (not entirely) you believe the gameplay and design is exactly the same? Yeah that is quite intelligent.

This is the reason why attempt to not discuss DA2 with other people on a separate forum that isn't related to it. People clearly have different opinions on it. Me and my friends (long time RPG players) like the game. It could have been great and there are some obvious problems with it but all in all it was enjoyable and it succeeded with that to us.

If you truly are unable to accept the fact that I can actually like that game while you hate it then there is no point in attempting to convince me it is such a disaster of a game since I think it isn't.

No DA2 was a horrible game. If any of other company had made that game,  people would not call it a bad game period.  

[ElitePinecone]

T1l wrote...

All of the time and effort of putting in three different modes .

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. 

This could be done in a day. 

It's an extra difficulty level for Story mode (adjusting stats for enemies and Shepard) and a program to automate conversation options for Action. 

For crying out loud. It's not the end of the world. 

[111987]

T1l wrote...

111987 wrote...


Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

When has anything or anyone that has tried to be all things, to all people, ever succeeded?

And yet this clearly isn't a case of that. Each 'mode' is the same thing with just a few alterations.

[ElitePinecone]

T1l wrote...

111987 wrote...


Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

When has anything or anyone that has tried to be all things, to all people, ever succeeded?

So... an extra difficulty level and the option to automate some conversations is trying to be all things, to all people?

Please. 

[Darji]

1136342t54 wrote...

Darji wrote...
Yes there were many peoplelike it and it doenst even matter if they really liked it or just bought and liked it because it was another Bioware game. But fact is that almost all RPG players did not like this game at all. And this only shows the direction Bioware is going. 

Ok then you made the claim that nearly all RPG players didn't like it. Show me a survey that has the majority of RPG players panning the game. Also show me most of the reviews and the average that shows DA2 getting a universal panning everywhere on the level of a disaster. You claimed you proved it no point in arguing with you to much since you aren't taking the hint that I really don't want to argue this (its night and I get a bit annoyed).

And you just cant  pretend that this is not the case.

You have no idea what I am (pretending) to do or not to do. It is an assumption off of nothing. I  at the very least made an attempt to search for reviews and even read a few of the 70s. I'm going off of my opinion and actual professional reviewers.

Again. All I want is a statement from Bioware about their new direction without lieing to us  (again like they did with DA2). And then everyone can say that they like  or dont like it. But keeping false hopes up is a very dishonest way only to sell more copies.

That won't work. You are specifically the type of poster who will never be satisified by any answer even if it is what you want to here. Bioware will always seem like liers to you until they actually come out with a game that is so good it is equal to the second coming.

Come one its not that hard to see that. just look at all the forums.Not only this one. Or yeah just look how this forum was with the release of DA2.

And no. All I want is a statement from Bioware. And if I see that this is honest unlike they did with DA2 where they lied in almost every aspect of the game when people posted complains and worries about the direction Bioware is going. And no they dont need to make the best RPG for that they dont have the people anymore becasue they already left. Jsut make a good and deep/complex RPG thats all I am asking fir. That isif they really want to make RPGs anymore of course.

[1136342t54_]

Alex_SM wrote...

No, What I mean is that when I read in any videogame "professional" review that they give the game 7/10, it usually means it is a bad game.

Prove it then.

Professional reviewers are extremely attached to companies and just can't give low ratings to BIG releases. And that's have been admited by some ones. 

Usuallly the real rating is more or less "(rating-5)*2". 

I've checked Metacritic again and yes their are plenty of 70s but many of them (especially 75) think its a good game but in comparison to the last it failed to meet expectations. That is the main problem with DA2 with everyone. 

In my gaming experience (started in 1997), I've never seen any good game relseased after a "we want to appeal wider audience" campaign. That kind of marketing tactics usually led to mediocre (at best) games. 

Most games want a wider audience due to basic business practices. Every gaming company want a wider audience for more money period. You cannot deny that.

And of course I don't believe the gameplay and desing are the same as DA2, that wouldn't make any sense. But It makes me thing that ME3 is gonna be to ME2 the same as DA2 is to DA:O.

Present what marketing ploys you found in ME3 that is the exact same as DA2 to make you say that. 

Just so you know I bet it is almost exactly the same as in ME2.

Some things are, of course, subjetive. But there are a lot of DA2 strong problems which can't be denied. For example the nonexistent internal logic. It breaks (usually for no reason at all, except to show "awesome stuff") nearly every lore rule it stated during DA:O, DA:O Awakening and DA2 itself. Then it reuses every dungeon (using the exact map, with sometimes the exact distribution of staris, boxes and enemies) even more than ME and makes every important NPC act in a extremely nonsensical way. 

Did I say there was no problems in DA2? Obviously not but the problems I have with it are mostly the same or different.

[1136342t54_]

tfive24 wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

In Videogame press a 70 is more or less the same as a 5/10 in every other kind of entertainment press (and if we talk about EA or Activion Games, everything below 80/100 means "bad game"). Also DA2 has extremely poor ratings in every webpage that  allows user voting. Most of the times below 5/10. 

So when it comes to marketing it means bad but in actuality its a good game.

Sorry but Dragon Age 2 was never a truly bad game period. A 70 for any game is basically good or about average. Its only a bad game when it comes to marketing it as a truly epic one. Dragon Age 2 was being marketed as the most epic game out at that time. Obviously it failed to fully live up to the hype but isn't a bad game.

And it matters, as it's their previously released game. And all the marketting of ME3 is being extremely similar to the one of DA2 . Which is indeed a bad game: Nonsensical story uninteresting 80% of time, internal logic contradictions everywhere, poorly written characters, dumbed down mechanics where doesn't matter at all how you developed your character, awful dungeon design, and at the end quite boring.

So because the marketing is a bit similar to DA2 (not entirely) you believe the gameplay and design is exactly the same? Yeah that is quite intelligent.

This is the reason why attempt to not discuss DA2 with other people on a separate forum that isn't related to it. People clearly have different opinions on it. Me and my friends (long time RPG players) like the game. It could have been great and there are some obvious problems with it but all in all it was enjoyable and it succeeded with that to us.

If you truly are unable to accept the fact that I can actually like that game while you hate it then there is no point in attempting to convince me it is such a disaster of a game since I think it isn't.

No DA2 was a horrible game. If any of other company had made that game,  people would not call it a bad game period.  

Awesome response.

[111987]

Darji wrote...

111987 wrote...

T1l wrote...

So... what is it, Bioware? A Third Person Shooter? A Role Playing Game? A Movie? What do you what this game to be? This idea is cancerous. Make the game with some clarity instead of alienating your core audience. You'll never pander to the Call of Duty crowd with your "Action" mode, because they'll all be playing Call of Duty. You'll not appease the people looking for an RPG, because you've bastardised and watered down the whole experience; and those people who wanted to watch a movie will just watch a movie, or God forbid, read a book.

All of the time and effort of putting in three different modes to cater to people who won't even bother with the game and a tacked on multi-player - Dragon Age 2 should have given me enough warning, I suppose.

Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

And actually ME3 has elements of all 3. Great shooter gameplay, a rich story with dialogue choices and descisions to be made, and great cinematics. What more could you ask for?

rich story with choices and descisions? Did I miss this in ME2 or did you play a total different game. Becasue the only real descisions that ME2 had was if you want to do the companion quests or not. If you dont they die. That has nothing to do with consequences at all.. Also all the descisions you made in ME1 did again not really matter in part 2 at all beside some cameo apperences.  If you want to play a good RPG which actually has descisions and consequences play Alpha Protocol which does a much better job with the story and the consequences thing. They even make better use of the dialogue wheel.

ME2 definitely has a rich story.

The weight of decisions is a valid concern, but I'm willing to reserve judgement until ME3. I realize it would be almost impossible to make huge differences in ME2, while still continuing the general storyline to get us to ME3. You would end up having to make almost 2 games if every decision had a massive impact.

[1136342t54_]

Darji wrote...
Come one its not that hard to see that. just look at all the forums.Not only this one. Or yeah just look how this forum was with the release of DA2.

Come on its not that hard? That isn't what I was looking for. BSN rage over very miniscule things. BSN raged because DA2 wasn't as good as DAO or what they expected due to the marketing.

It is quite understandable but it doesn't prove if it was a bad game or not.

And no. All I want is a statement from Bioware. And if I see that this is honest unlike they did with DA2 where they lied in almost every aspect of the game when people posted complains and worries about the direction Bioware is going. And no they dont need to make the best RPG for that they dont have the people anymore becasue they already left. Jsut make a good and deep/complex RPG thats all I am asking fir. That isif they really want to make RPGs anymore of course.

Bioware use different teams for their games. You want a team working on an entirely separate game to make a statement on behalf of another game? Yeah that is not going to happen.

[Darji]

111987 wrote...

Darji wrote...

111987 wrote...

T1l wrote...

So... what is it, Bioware? A Third Person Shooter? A Role Playing Game? A Movie? What do you what this game to be? This idea is cancerous. Make the game with some clarity instead of alienating your core audience. You'll never pander to the Call of Duty crowd with your "Action" mode, because they'll all be playing Call of Duty. You'll not appease the people looking for an RPG, because you've bastardised and watered down the whole experience; and those people who wanted to watch a movie will just watch a movie, or God forbid, read a book.

All of the time and effort of putting in three different modes to cater to people who won't even bother with the game and a tacked on multi-player - Dragon Age 2 should have given me enough warning, I suppose.

Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

And actually ME3 has elements of all 3. Great shooter gameplay, a rich story with dialogue choices and descisions to be made, and great cinematics. What more could you ask for?

rich story with choices and descisions? Did I miss this in ME2 or did you play a total different game. Becasue the only real descisions that ME2 had was if you want to do the companion quests or not. If you dont they die. That has nothing to do with consequences at all.. Also all the descisions you made in ME1 did again not really matter in part 2 at all beside some cameo apperences.  If you want to play a good RPG which actually has descisions and consequences play Alpha Protocol which does a much better job with the story and the consequences thing. They even make better use of the dialogue wheel.

ME2 definitely has a rich story.

The weight of decisions is a valid concern, but I'm willing to reserve judgement until ME3. I realize it would be almost impossible to make huge differences in ME2, while still continuing the general storyline to get us to ME3. You would end up having to make almost 2 games if every decision had a massive impact.

All the story has was dead guy came back to save the world while collecting some new companions. That was all the story had to offer. There was no rich story and the ending was  also a huge cluster****.

[dreman9999]

johnxtreeme wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

johnxtreeme wrote...

This is like having a toggle in CoD that just auto aims and fires in singleplayer so you can watch badly done cutscenes about a Russian guy's plot for world domination. That wouldn't make it a shooter, so I don't see why people somehow shouldn't complain when playing action mode doesn't make ME3 an RPG.

It doesn't matter if Action mode is a toggle, because it's a toggle that removes a core element of gameplay. Like removing 'story' from Uncharted or 'combat' from Dragon Age or 'stealth' from Deus Ex, simply having it as an option means that some gamers won't play the game Bioware has built.

For decades, even if you play on 'easy mode' you have been able to experience the core gameplay elements of the games you buy, and ME3 is changing that, turning the game from what will hopefully be a pinnacle in digital storytelling to a mediocre shooter.

Mass Effect as a franchise, deserves better.

oh for the love of.  was ME any less of an rpg due to having an option to auto level? did people developing console commands for skipping combat parts make it any less of an rpg?
was Lords of the realm and Heroes of might and magic any less of a strategy game for having an option for auto combat?

existance of an option tdoes NOT devalue your ability to play a full game.  just becasue ME2 for example had very sparse defautl decisions for ME1 didn't negate the fact that those who played ME1 got to pick out their own choices, on the contrary.

I played original Deus Ex on god mode.  i wanted to play through the story, but I disliked the bombat very much.  how did my playing on god mode detract from your experience of playing the full game without it?  does existance of renegade choices and romances you are not interested in, detracted from thechoices YOU make?

its a choice.  by definition, you don't have to take it.

as  franchise that's allabout choice, I think this is a fantastic idea on a part of Bioware.it may not be the choice you like or will ever take, but its mere existance doesn't devaluate your chosen playstyle.  not at all.

its a game.  let people play it the way they like best.  what does it matter, as long as YOU can play it the way you like best as well?

They built the game with the fact that 'action' is th default option in mind.  Thus they MAY have cared less about branching the story out and more about the combat/one specific story pathway.  

They built the game as an action rpg in mind. Just because you can turn the rpg part of it off, does not mean you lose any of the rpg inthe game.

[NYG1991]

I think the option is a little redundant as you can change everything a moment later in the option screen but it's a good idea to give people the option to just watch cutscenes in between combat.

I've had friends play ME2 who were into everything (shooting,powers,scifi story) but just didn't like navigating the conversations. My brother whose never played an rpg before kept asking me what the right answer was.

[111987]

Darji wrote...
All the story has was dead guy came back to save the world while collecting some new companions. That was all the story had to offer. There was no rich story and the ending was  also a huge cluster****.

Okay. You clearly aren't willing to be rational. We both know ME2 was much more than that.

Anyone could do what you just did. "ME1 was just this guy who found some random people and they saved a space station from a robot squid and its robot friends." See what I mean?

[1136342t54_]

Darji wrote...All the story has was dead guy came back to save the world while collecting some new companions. That was all the story had to offer. There was no rich story and the ending was  also a huge cluster****.

You can sum up most movies in that way.

Star Wars

Some kid figures out he is some awesome sci fi warrior. He fights his evil dad, some Emperor and giant space station then save the Galaxy.

Lord of the Rings

Some short person is given a ring and has to throw it in this volcano. Along the way he gets merry band of fighters to help fight goblins and ghouls and other ****.

[Darji]

1136342t54 wrote...

Darji wrote...
Come one its not that hard to see that. just look at all the forums.Not only this one. Or yeah just look how this forum was with the release of DA2.

Come on its not that hard? That isn't what I was looking for. BSN rage over very miniscule things. BSN raged because DA2 wasn't as good as DAO or what they expected due to the marketing.

It is quite understandable but it doesn't prove if it was a bad game or not.

And no. All I want is a statement from Bioware. And if I see that this is honest unlike they did with DA2 where they lied in almost every aspect of the game when people posted complains and worries about the direction Bioware is going. And no they dont need to make the best RPG for that they dont have the people anymore becasue they already left. Jsut make a good and deep/complex RPG thats all I am asking fir. That isif they really want to make RPGs anymore of course.

Bioware use different teams for their games. You want a team working on an entirely separate game to make a statement on behalf of another game? Yeah that is not going to happen.

No they raged becasue it was a total different game. It had no depth at all, the combat was nothing like Origins. the story was a boring mess of three parts they somehow put together through the lazy "flashback feature" The whole world didnt even make sense.  For example no one cared about you beeing a mage even if you fought right in front of them, or look like a normal mage. And that was only one huge flaw in the world DA2 had.  Honestly even a 13 year old with a bit writing talent could have written a better story with better characters than the whole DA2 did.

[dreman9999]

Darji wrote...

111987 wrote...

Darji wrote...

111987 wrote...

T1l wrote...

So... what is it, Bioware? A Third Person Shooter? A Role Playing Game? A Movie? What do you what this game to be? This idea is cancerous. Make the game with some clarity instead of alienating your core audience. You'll never pander to the Call of Duty crowd with your "Action" mode, because they'll all be playing Call of Duty. You'll not appease the people looking for an RPG, because you've bastardised and watered down the whole experience; and those people who wanted to watch a movie will just watch a movie, or God forbid, read a book.

All of the time and effort of putting in three different modes to cater to people who won't even bother with the game and a tacked on multi-player - Dragon Age 2 should have given me enough warning, I suppose.

Why can't a game be all three of those things for different people? Especially if everyone can enjoy the game how they want to play it?

And actually ME3 has elements of all 3. Great shooter gameplay, a rich story with dialogue choices and descisions to be made, and great cinematics. What more could you ask for?

rich story with choices and descisions? Did I miss this in ME2 or did you play a total different game. Becasue the only real descisions that ME2 had was if you want to do the companion quests or not. If you dont they die. That has nothing to do with consequences at all.. Also all the descisions you made in ME1 did again not really matter in part 2 at all beside some cameo apperences.  If you want to play a good RPG which actually has descisions and consequences play Alpha Protocol which does a much better job with the story and the consequences thing. They even make better use of the dialogue wheel.

ME2 definitely has a rich story.

The weight of decisions is a valid concern, but I'm willing to reserve judgement until ME3. I realize it would be almost impossible to make huge differences in ME2, while still continuing the general storyline to get us to ME3. You would end up having to make almost 2 games if every decision had a massive impact.

All the story has was dead guy came back to save the world while collecting some new companions. That was all the story had to offer. There was no rich story and the ending was  also a huge cluster****.

Your forgetting the fact that the story was about getting close to the characters and caring for them. Also,ME has a better universe then Dragon Age. You also forgetting the fact that the edge ME has is putting you is events you have to make choices that effect the game.