303 réponses à ce sujet

[Redcoat]

Terror_K wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Regardless of how you feel about the presence of RPG elements in ME3, there is one area that I can say Bioware has changed in both ME2 and (presumably) ME3. ME2 and ME3 have changed the "feel" and "spirit" of the Mass Effect universe. Mass Effect 1 felt like a 1980's science fiction movie (with better graphics). Everything from the music, to the art and architecture styles, the exploration, and some of the campy-ness (while still being serious where necessary) screamed 80s sci fi to me. And that was a huge part of ME1's appeal to me. It had that unique charm that I just don't find in most games today.

ME2 and (from what I've seen) ME3 have gone away from that. They are more like modern science fiction blockbusters in music, aesthetics, and style. Personally, I would have liked the sequels to have retained at least some of that classic 80s feel. That whole new VGA trailer seemed like a Michael Bay movie to me. Before you all jump on me, I know that ME3 is more intelligent than a Michael Bay movie (I certainly hope so). And I think it will be a satisfying conclusion to an epic trilogy. But it is indicative of the shift in style that, in my personal opinion, takes away from the charm that the first game gave the series. I know ME3 is the Reaper invasion, so it's going to be a different style. But I still do miss the first game's style and would have liked at least some of it to carry through in the sequels.

I feel largely the same way, though I would say ME2 and what I've seen from ME3 still retain a certain degree of that classic sci-fi vibe, but merely that it's been twisted style with to be more "modern Hollywood action blockbuster" in some respects. The visual style still seems consistent with what ME1 set, and the direction overall seems more Ridley Scott than Michael Bay. But overall the tone and feel of it has shifted to a less mature, more bombastic style, and sometimes it just feels like they want things to be "badass!!1" too often at the expense of logic and consistency. Style seems to rule over substance with ME2 onwards.

I suppose a good analogy would be that it doesn't feel like the Michael Bay reboot that DA2 did compared to DAO, but more like a different, younger director has come onto the project after a veteran sci-fi director was in charge of the first one. As if they're somewhat trying to carry on in the same style and not reboot the thing, but want to introduce their own new ideas and more modern, action-oriented direction techniques at the same time. ME1 was like the Star Trek movies featuring the original TOS cast, while ME2 and ME3 is come across more like Star Trek: Nemesis.

Star Trek: Nemesis? Ouch! That's a low-blow!

You make a compelling point, though, in that ME1 and and ME2 appear to be the products of two entirely different creative teams. For all it's flaws, ME1 just sells its universe better than ME2 in a way I can't really explain. Yes, exploring the overly-mountainous and barren planets with the Mako could be tedious at times, but at least it created the idea that there was a universe you could explore. And by exploring you might come across some interesting sidequests, like the rogue AI on the Citadel, the derelict spacecraft where a woman had gone crazy and massacred the entire crew, or negotiating a hostage situation. ME2 gave you "sidequests" (and I'm being exceedingly generous in my use of that word) such as "I'm hungry! Get me a fish!" and "My krogan boyfriend is reciting bad poetry! Make him stop!"

As for ME3 RPG elements, well...like ME2, I predict you'll be able to take up the role of a Shepard who hoses the galaxy down with bullets while being a nice chap, or a Shepard who hoses the galaxy down with bullets while being a jerk, with absolutely no divergence whatsoever. There will be a little XP number squirreled away somewhere, and when that little number gets higher than anotherlittle  number, you'll get a skill point. That skill point will allow to you kill a typical enemy in seven seconds or so, as opposed to eight or nine seconds.

That's about it.

[greed89]

I wonder if the Bethsada forums were full of complaints like

"OH MY GOD ALL THEY SHOW YOU DOING IS KILLING DRAGONS I WANNA SEE SOME BLACK-SMITHING!

[DeusBaratheon]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

RPG is about choosing between a minimum of two professions. If you start a game and you have a choice between playing a wizard and playing a warrior, and each of these classes have their own set of rules and unique ability paths which progressively improve throughout the game, then that is the definition of RPG

I take issue with your concept of "professions" as the base concept to the RPG. While it most certainly is a component to the RPG, you are ignoring what is ultimately the creation of spirit, corpus, and mind.

As I was a bit vague with my definition, I will expand it as such to clarify:

The RPG is the formation and execution of one or more characters within a predefined world according to rules of existence and reality; said world and said character(s) are subject to change in accordance with the forementioned rules of existence and reality at the whims of the player(s) involved.

Causality. Vicarious participation.

Modifié par DeusBaratheon, 13 décembre 2011 - 07:47 .

[Terror_K]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: ME1 was an experience. ME2 was just a game.

[DeusBaratheon]

Terror_K wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: ME1 was an experience. ME2 was just a game.

So too will I stand with you on this line.

[greed89]

ME2 was plenty of an experience, to say ME2 was more action oriented completely ignores all the explosions you ran from in me1

me1 was a New hope, every thing is all shiny and new cause you experiences it for the firs time

me2 is empire, you knew the world so they didn't reintroduce you like you were a nub, and focused more on the stories and characters, It doesn't have that new world smell but it still envelops you in the universe just as well as the first one did, in ME2's case its just more fun to get from point A to point B

[tetrisblock4x1]

Empire was a logical continuation of New Hope and it's easy enough to understand even if it's the only starwars related thing you've ever seen. To this day, I can't figure out why anything in ME2 was the way it was, and I don't care to try guessing and speculating any more. Shouldn't need to rely on books or a sequel for ME2 to make sense.

[Terror_K]

greed89 wrote...

ME2 was plenty of an experience, to say ME2 was more action oriented completely ignores all the explosions you ran from in me1

me1 was a New hope, every thing is all shiny and new cause you experiences it for the firs time

me2 is empire, you knew the world so they didn't reintroduce you like you were a nub, and focused more on the stories and characters, It doesn't have that new world smell but it still envelops you in the universe just as well as the first one did, in ME2's case its just more fun to get from point A to point B

I have to disagree. It's got nothing to do with the whole "new car smell" aspect of the original game, it's all about the presentation and how it went about things. To me, ME1 felt more open and real and I could lose myself in the universe. I still can after all this time. It has this X factor that is hard to really describe because it's not just one thing, but a collection of things that come together to make it this wonderful experience and immersive atmosphere that few games manage to pull off.

ME2 simply lacked this for the most part, which is rather ironic considering how much the ME2 team said they wanted it to immerse you more and they felt things like less in-your-face RPG mechanics such as a lack of inventory and having to fiddle with your gear and omni-gel stuff, etc. would do, but it doesn't. There are a few exceptions to the rule admittedly, but, for me, too much of Mass Effect 2 screams "I'm a game!" too often to ever pull me in and immerse myself for too long. The more TPS stylings (regen health, "ammo" etc.), the giant pop-ups every time you find something, the linear and small nature of the maps that feels overly constructed, the over-populated and cramped feeling of most places, the complete lack of exploration and vastness, the "Mission Complete" screens, the squaddies running around in stupid gear when it doesn't make sense, the arcadey nature of The Hammerhead, etc. all just adds up to make me feel like I'm playing a game almost all the time. It just doesn't have what ME1 did.

I've said this before too, but I think it bears repeating: I remember Christina Norman said that when making ME2 they started caring less about labels such as "RPG" and "Shooter" and just concentrated on making the best game they could. And I think that's somewhat the problem because that's what we got: a game. ME1 somehow managed to transcend its limitations and become something more, even with all its flaws. ME2 was in many ways a tighter game, but that's all it ever was... a game. ME1 was more than the sum of it's parts somehow, and ME2 was just exactly the sum of it's parts. And, to me, ME1 also feels like it was a game made with love and care and like they were just doing what they wanted to do. ME2 felt cold by comparison... like a product of trying to craft this perfect hybrid between RPG and shooter to grab as many gamers on both sides as possible. It feels too manufactured and over-designed to sell and less like BioWare simply went, "we're making the game we want and if other people like it too, then great, and if they don't, well... it doesn't matter."

For another analogy, ME1 is Kaidan or Ashley: a natural, living creation born out of love and nutured into adulthood. ME2 is Miranda: genetically engineered to be perfect, but not as flawless as it first seems or thinks.

[Gh0st_00]

greed89 wrote...

I wonder if the Bethsada forums were full of complaints like

"OH MY GOD ALL THEY SHOW YOU DOING IS KILLING DRAGONS I WANNA SEE SOME BLACK-SMITHING!

I know I'm off topic, but I'll respond to this anyway. The Bethesda forums didn't turn into a complete b****fest until after Skyrim was released. I never expected to see half a dozen threads claiming Skyrim was "not a true RPG" and that Bethesda "had sold out to the cod crowd" but that's exactly what happened.

Anyway, back on topic.

[Lunatic LK47]

Thompson family wrote...


I understand the distinction you're arguing here, that there's a difference between choosing a course of action and having "motor skllls" to implement that course of action, but I don't think the difference is as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Just to add to Thompson's post in this department, Posting a Navy SEAL training video.

www.youtube.com/watch

Does this sound like "You must get experience points in live missions and spend skill points to shoot accurately" material to you, Gatt?

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 simply lacked this for the most part, which is rather ironic considering how much the ME2 team said they wanted it to immerse you more and they felt things like less in-your-face RPG mechanics such as a lack of inventory and having to fiddle with your gear and omni-gel stuff, etc. would do, but it doesn't. There are a few exceptions to the rule admittedly, but, for me, too much of Mass Effect 2 screams "I'm a game!" too often to ever pull me in and immerse myself for too long. The more TPS stylings (regen health, "ammo" etc.), the giant pop-ups every time you find something, the linear and small nature of the maps that feels overly constructed, the over-populated and cramped feeling of most places, the complete lack of exploration and vastness, the "Mission Complete" screens, the squaddies running around in stupid gear when it doesn't make sense, the arcadey nature of The Hammerhead, etc. all just adds up to make me feel like I'm playing a game almost all the time. It just doesn't have what ME1 did.

I've said this before too, but I think it bears repeating: I remember Christina Norman said that when making ME2 they started caring less about labels such as "RPG" and "Shooter" and just concentrated on making the best game they could. And I think that's somewhat the problem because that's what we got: a game. ME1 somehow managed to transcend its limitations and become something more, even with all its flaws. ME2 was in many ways a tighter game, but that's all it ever was... a game. ME1 was more than the sum of it's parts somehow, and ME2 was just exactly the sum of it's parts. And, to me, ME1 also feels like it was a game made with love and care and like they were just doing what they wanted to do. ME2 felt cold by comparison... like a product of trying to craft this perfect hybrid between RPG and shooter to grab as many gamers on both sides as possible. It feels too manufactured and over-designed to sell and less like BioWare simply went, "we're making the game we want and if other people like it too, then great, and if they don't, well... it doesn't matter."

For another analogy, ME1 is Kaidan or Ashley: a natural, living creation born out of love and nutured into adulthood. ME2 is Miranda: genetically engineered to be perfect, but not as flawless as it first seems or thinks.

Like being unable to fire a gun for two full minutes from sabotage when caster people are stuck with only a measly pistol, freezing your skills for the same amount of time because someone loved to spam damping, or having a skill that lets you absorb an entire army's gunfire is more immersive. <_<

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 13 décembre 2011 - 09:17 .

[Someone With Mass]

Well, of course ME1 is the better game in that regard, because it didn't have any expectations to exceed, unlike ME2.

Though, how anyone finds the inventory and economy system in ME1 intriguing is beyond me.

[Juha81FIN]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Well, of course ME1 is the better game in that regard, because it didn't have any expectations to exceed, unlike ME2.

Though, how anyone finds the inventory and economy system in ME1 intriguing is beyond me.

Perhaps on the occasion when Shepard use's his status and smuggle's illegal weapons, mods and armor to Port Hanshan in Noveria.

[DeusBaratheon]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Like being unable to fire a gun for two full minutes from sabotage when caster people are stuck with only a measly pistol, freezing your skills for the same amount of time because someone loved to spam damping, or having a skill that lets you absorb an entire army's gunfire is more immersive. <_<

Frankly, I don't see how ME2's skill/ammo system is any better than the previous game. It is worth consideration, however, that I am quite biased in a preference towards the first game in the series.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Though, how anyone finds the inventory and economy system in ME1 intriguing is beyond me.

It's not. It's terrible. But that doesn't ignore the fact that ME1 manages to rise above such issues.

To me ME1 was a game that had a few fairly large flaws that would strike you across the face every so often, mostly things like the inventory and omni-gel, etc. ME2 was like being stung with a swarm of bees: the flaws weren't as big and obvious, but there were a lot more of them, and they were a lot more constant and annoying. Granted many of them are more of a personal taste thing than undenyable gameplay flaws, but still...

[InvincibleHero]

Gatt9 wrote...

You've got 4 groups on any modern RPG board.

1.  RPG Players.

2.  People who hate RPGs but want to claim they like them for the geek cred.

3.  People who don't know what RPG's are,  but assume anything said by anyone wearing a name tag from a studio is 100% incontrovertably right.  So therefore,  when they mislabel games,  they believe that's what RPG's must be.

4.  A small undercurrent of LARPsers who want the digital implementation of running around with a plastic sword and shield pretending they are a knight.

Largely,  the whole arguement is due to the fact that studios today mislabel their games,  in order to squeeze out a few more sales.  RPG's are the exact same thing they were 30 years ago,  digital implementations of a PnP Roleplaying experience.  Which system is used is irrelevant.

The first litmus test which ME2,  presumably ME3,  and anything from Bethseda consistently fail is simple.  Is the majority of the skill Character based?  Because if it's Player based,  you're not playing an RPG.  You cannot assume a Role if there's no Character,  just an Avatar for your own abilities.*

RPG is the most abused acronym in gaming,  slapped on anything to get a few extra sales out of people who don't know what RPG's are,  or who hate RPG's but for some strange reason claim they like them.

Go through this thread,  I've money that says you can put 99% of the responses in it in one of those 4 catagories.

I'm also pretty confident this post will be followed with 5 people telling me I'm "Elitist" because they can't come up with a logical counter-arguement.  Again.

*Role does not mean what most people seem to think it means in an RPG.  It means you assume the Role of the Character,  not that the Character is you pretending to be a knight.  It's an important distinction,  but one most people seem to not realize is present.

RPG - You assume the Role of the Character. (Fallout 1 and 2,  Planescape Torment)
LARPs - You are the Character. (ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim)

Gatt you take on the role of Mario yet that does not make his games RPG.

Correct in saying a CRPG was based on PnP roleplaying systems but you miss why those games are roleplaying. Correct in saying studios slap the label to get sales. Most JRPGs would not be considered RPG by me but I don't really care about it.

Define what you do in PnP RPG. You'll realize you speak directly for your character and determine what he/she/it does and what happens within your control and within the ruleset. I say (insert PC name) searches the trash pile for treasure. In ME2, we direct Shepard to search safes. I say I attack the red dragon with my sword which is understood to not be my character talking BTW. I make a roll and determine if I hot or DM determines results according to rulesets. In ME2,  I point my weapon at a krogan and press my mouse button to do an attack and the computer determines results. If I want to speak I say exactly what my character is going to say in exact mood and inflection. In ME2 we are given dialog chocies of various bents to emulate that. That is the roleplaying direction the actions of the character and speaking for and creating a personality of said person to make them seem like a real person in whatever game world the setting is.

If you can somehow say ME does not do that in a factual and valid way then you are wrong with your personal interpretation of what an RPG is.

Your dismissal of Bethesda's RPGs is silly. The rulesets only emulate real world actions with dice rolls or other methods. If a DM came up with a puzzle in my sessions and my 10 int fighter came up with the solution the DM does not say invalid becasue your PC is not smart enough to have figured it out. Player skill affects anything PnP included.  A game is interactive and allows player skill to determine actions becasue it makes sense. Virtual is a different medium than blank canvas in your mind after all.

[Candidate 88766]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Though, how anyone finds the inventory and economy system in ME1 intriguing is beyond me.

It's not. It's terrible. But that doesn't ignore the fact that ME1 manages to rise above such issues.

To me ME1 was a game that had a few fairly large flaws that would strike you across the face every so often, mostly things like the inventory and omni-gel, etc. ME2 was like being stung with a swarm of bees: the flaws weren't as big and obvious, but there were a lot more of them, and they were a lot more constant and annoying. Granted many of them are more of a personal taste thing than undenyable gameplay flaws, but still...

I think this sort of sums up everyone's feelings.

ME1 had some major flaws in its underlying gameplay, but the story was good enough to rise far above it. Everyone on BSN is in agreement here it seems.

With ME2, people have differing opinions on whether the removal of some traditional RPG elements and the streamlining of others helped or hindered the game. For those that feel it hindered the game, I imagine its very hard to overlook them and it would be, as you say, akin to lots of little annoying flaws. I fall into the second camp - I think they were streamlined a bit too much, but the result was, imo, better than ME1. The dialogue choices and character interaction - which are RPG elements - were the most important parts of ME1, and I feel ME2 imporved in both these areas. The main plot wasn't as good, but the character plots were much better imo.

The forum will never be in agreement over this. Some people felt that the traditional RPG elements were necessary, others don't. However, Bioware has shown bits and pieces of the new RPG elements - expanded skill trees and weapon customiztion - and it looks like they've found a nice middle ground between the two. 

I would add - I think the forum is in general agreement that the story and characters are, and always have been, the primary focus of the ME series. ME3 could have an astonishing set of RPG features, but it will be moot of the story isn't up to scratch. They showed they could do a great story with ME1, and they showed they could do great characters with ME2, so if they can combine those then ME3 will be awesome. Likewise, if they combine ME1's more expansive RPG features with ME2's improved combat then most people will be very happy with ME3.

[Swampthing500]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Can you create your own character? Yes.

Can you select the class of that character? Yes.

Does that character level up and develop new skills, powers or abilities? Yes

Do you have control over dialogue? Yes.

Do you have control over numerous quest outcomes? Yes.

Sure as hell meets the RPG requirements for me.

Pretty much this. But don't you try to bring logic into angry RPG-fanboyism!

...It's not possible, and it never ends well.

I find your comment amusing because I am pretty much the class RPG fanboy!

[CptBomBom00]

Fallout

[Swampthing500]

By the way, I would like to point out that I believe the actual mechanics of combat are irrelevant to whether or not a game is an RPG.

Some games use a first person or third person perspective where success in combat is based mostly upon player skill. These include the Elder Scrolls games, Fallout 3 and Vew Vegas, the Gothic series and ME 1 and 2.

Some games use a third-person omniscient perspectice where you control a party, either at once or through selecting individual characters in combat. Success is determined by character skill in terms of hitting/blocking and player choices in forms of tactics. This includes Baldurs Gate and Dragon Age.

Despite the mechanism of combat and control, in both types the label of RPG can be applied if the game allows player choice in dialogue, quest outcomes and character creation or development. How battle is played out is not important for me.

Modifié par Swampthing500, 13 décembre 2011 - 12:02 .

[Terror_K]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

I think this sort of sums up everyone's feelings.

ME1 had some major flaws in its underlying gameplay, but the story was good enough to rise far above it. Everyone on BSN is in agreement here it seems.

With ME2, people have differing opinions on whether the removal of some traditional RPG elements and the streamlining of others helped or hindered the game. For those that feel it hindered the game, I imagine its very hard to overlook them and it would be, as you say, akin to lots of little annoying flaws. I fall into the second camp - I think they were streamlined a bit too much, but the result was, imo, better than ME1. The dialogue choices and character interaction - which are RPG elements - were the most important parts of ME1, and I feel ME2 imporved in both these areas. The main plot wasn't as good, but the character plots were much better imo.

The forum will never be in agreement over this. Some people felt that the traditional RPG elements were necessary, others don't. However, Bioware has shown bits and pieces of the new RPG elements - expanded skill trees and weapon customiztion - and it looks like they've found a nice middle ground between the two. 

I would add - I think the forum is in general agreement that the story and characters are, and always have been, the primary focus of the ME series. ME3 could have an astonishing set of RPG features, but it will be moot of the story isn't up to scratch. They showed they could do a great story with ME1, and they showed they could do great characters with ME2, so if they can combine those then ME3 will be awesome. Likewise, if they combine ME1's more expansive RPG features with ME2's improved combat then most people will be very happy with ME3.

I think, for me personally, that it basically all comes down to this in the end: I liked what they were trying to with the original Mass Effect. With ME2... not so much.

Even if it didn't quite pull it off in some areas, I liked what it was trying to be and going for with the original game. I liked the style and feel of it, and the overall experience. That's why I feel ME1 was more than the sum of its parts, because it had a lot of flaws, but somehow still managed to largely pull it all off despite that. When a game has an inventory as bad as ME1 admittedly did, it speaks a lot to the rest of it for it to not get in the way of the overall enjoyment of the experience. The fact it could still immerse me and keep me there despite having to go to an inventory screen or stats screen or omni-gel a bunch of stuff is a testament to the rest of the game.

ME2 falls for me in most cases because it felt to me like they weren't really trying to be "Mass Effect" like the original, but something else. The choices they made across the board just seemed to rub me the wrong way in most cases and I was wondering whether as a fan of the original game they were even making this for me at all. Gameplay wise it seemed to be going for a simpler, more action-oriented approach. Stylistically it seemed to want to deviate from the 1970's/80's sci-fi homage the original was and go for something more modern. The pacing seemed different, the overall feel seemed different, and even the way the gameplay was presented felt different. It was a bit more bombastic, and a little less mature, despite trying to come across as darker and more adult. It felt less like it was trying to appeal to adults through being mature and adult like the original and more like it was trying to appeal to the almost-adults by being merely more edgy and "adult," but thus became a little immature instead. ME1 was a little more subtle and nuanced. ME1 for the most part treated me as an equal and seemed to stand with me and respect me in a way, fully aware that I'd dealt with its kind before. ME2 treated me more like a child in an almost condescending matter, talking down at me, doing things for me I'd prefer to do myself and purposefully keeping anything complex away in case it hard sharp corners I could cut myself on. It seemed like a different beast than the original. Still the same in many ways, but warped and twisted somewhat.

ME1 felt like its heart and intentions were in the right place, and it was trying to be an epic, cinematic homage to classical 70's/80's sci-fi in game form, even if it didn't pull everything off. ME2 didn't feel like that anymore, and it seemed like it was too much concerned with being a game and incorporating a lot of modern gaming trends for mass appeal than it was about continuing what the basic concept of Mass Effect originall was, and in doing so it lost something along the way. A lot of the gameplay and style changes they made made it a technically better and more consistent game, but in a way it wasn't really Mass Effect any more. Making it a better TPS and a better game doesn't automatically mean making a better experience, and a less flawed game isn't always a better game if in order to iron out the flaws you sacrifice too much and get rid of most of them by simply cutting out complexity.

The answers to too many of ME1's problems were "cut it out completely, then refit it with a mechanic that doesn't really fit it, but is technically more functional and less flawed." To me that's like taking a somewhat broken motorcycle engine out of the frame, then just putting a chain and pedals on it to solve the problem. There's less moving parts to go wrong, and the bike moves better now and has less issues than before... but it's not really a motorcycle anymore, is it? I don't agree with a lot of the choices the gameplay designers made not because I think they're bad decisions per se, but because I don't think they were good ones for Mass Effect, and I sometimes even question the motives for changing to that. Too much falling back on modern mechanics that work well but don't fit and end up making the gameplay more generic because the devs essentially went, "it works in these half a dozen games, so let's just use that", not enough coming up with more appropriate and original solutions to fixing the problem while still retaining the core gameplay, style and feel.

Modifié par Terror_K, 13 décembre 2011 - 12:18 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

Swampthing500 wrote...

FoxShadowblade wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Can you create your own character? Yes.

Can you select the class of that character? Yes.

Does that character level up and develop new skills, powers or abilities? Yes

Do you have control over dialogue? Yes.

Do you have control over numerous quest outcomes? Yes.

Sure as hell meets the RPG requirements for me.

Pretty much this. But don't you try to bring logic into angry RPG-fanboyism!

...It's not possible, and it never ends well.

I find your comment amusing because I am pretty much the class RPG fanboy!

All of the classes play the same. They all move the same, act the same, they all have access to weapons that are effective vs any enemy at any range. Mass Effects class system is shallow like a ****** puddle.

[Lumikki]

No point really argue as how people like they RPG's. Some people think it's little different than some others. There is no right answer, just preference how people like something. People see what they want to see and how they like it.

Point been, no-one here is gonna change someone else liking.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 décembre 2011 - 01:05 .

[ODST 3]

I don't care about how deep the RPG elements go. The last two ME games have been great and I'm sure this will be no different. I play it for the story, not so I can pick up every book, useless weapon, and article of clothing I see.