301 réponses à ce sujet

[brfritos]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

ME1 over ME2? Yeah............... I don't see how.

That's your opinion, right?

I could list a number of reasons, but I'll stick with the wise and legendary words from the Fallout 2's main protagonist, the Chose One: "opinions are like a**holes, everyones has one."

[Lakan Suko]

imnar wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Lakan Suko wrote...

Right, they need a valid reason, which was my point I was stating. Again, I personally think removal is an extreme option better as a last resort, and in light of what happened from me1 to me2, as well as da2, I feel even more inclined to my opinion.

I think it's a combination of factors. The problem is that one person's valid reason will be another person's outrage. But that can be the case with any game. In general, I've seen more critical praise for Baldur's Gate II over BG1. Yet you'll still find people who prefer the original because of the extra emphasis on sandbox gameplay. I, for example, am more inclined to the oppositet stance with ME; I found it to be a much better overall experience, because of the removal of exploration/inventory.

i counter that removal of inventory is unnecessary. if a person choses they can avoid the exploration and the loot chase. i enjoy freely exploring and picking up loot and seeing which combinations or perks work best for me. no one is making players pick up armor, weapons or upgrades they don't want. if i want to run through shooting, cutting short convos and not picking up one piece of armor...i can...if i want to run to the ends of the universe to find different types of  scorpion armor so that everyone of my companions has a matching set...i can...

^ This

You are most definitely not forced into the exploration,and either way, I don't see how removing features leads to a better experience, especially with that cheesy mission after every level thing, and the fact that every quest felt like it was on rails, linear as hell. But, of course, this is my view, I only ask to explain why and how Divo

[Il Divo]

Lakan Suko wrote...

You are most definitely not forced into the exploration,and either way, I don't see how removing features leads to a better experience, especially with that cheesy mission after every level thing, and the fact that every quest felt like it was on rails, linear as hell. But, of course, this is my view, I only ask to explain why and how Divo

Because we need to analyze it as overall "net entertainment". We buy video games ultimately to be entertained, whether through gameplay, interactive narrative, whatever.

Say I buy Mass Effect and really love the story. That will increase my entertainment. Now I play Mass Effect and really hate exploration. That decreases my entertainment. Telling me to avoid a feature doesn't offer me entertainment, which is my primary purpose in playing a video game. At best, I end up with net "neutral" entertainment, which seems I'm losing value on the product. And in cases like the inventory system, which is forced on the player, it's substantially more difficult to avoid than planetary exploration.

Ultimately, everyone is arguing for what will give them the most enjoyable experience possible, our intended purpose in playing the video game. Resources used for planet exploration could be resources used for something else.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 février 2012 - 06:07 .

[AJRimmsey]

Il Divo wrote...

Lakan Suko wrote...

You are most definitely not forced into the exploration,and either way, I don't see how removing features leads to a better experience, especially with that cheesy mission after every level thing, and the fact that every quest felt like it was on rails, linear as hell. But, of course, this is my view, I only ask to explain why and how Divo

Because we need to analyze it as overall "net entertainment". We buy video games ultimately to be entertained, whether through gameplay, interactive narrative, whatever.

Say I buy Mass Effect and really love the story. That will increase my entertainment. Now I play Mass Effect and really hate exploration. That decreases my entertainment. Telling me to avoid a feature doesn't offer me entertainment, which is my primary purpose in playing a video game. At best, I end up with net "neutral" entertainment, which seems I'm losing value on the product. And in cases like the inventory system, which is forced on the player, it's substantially more difficult to avoid than planetary exploration.

Ultimately, everyone is arguing for what will give them the most enjoyable experience possible, our intended purpose in playing the video game. Resources used for planet exploration could be resources used for something else.

cobblers

[Alex_SM]

Il Divo wrote...

Say I buy Mass Effect and really love the story. That will increase my entertainment. Now I play Mass Effect and really hate exploration. That decreases my entertainment.  

Say I buy Mass Effect and really love the story and the exploration. Then say I buy Mass Effect 2 and 3... oh, crap. 

Instead we get more rooms full of boxes to kill stuff. 

[Il Divo]

AJRimmsey wrote...

cobblers

Hey, never understimate the value of a good pair of shoes.

[Il Divo]

Alex_SM wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Say I buy Mass Effect and really love the story. That will increase my entertainment. Now I play Mass Effect and really hate exploration. That decreases my entertainment.  

Say I buy Mass Effect and really love the story and the exploration. Then say I buy Mass Effect 2 and 3... oh, crap. 

Instead we get more rooms full of boxes to kill stuff. 

Well, that's the other end of the spectrum. And that's why you argue for what you want, not anyone else. I hated exploration, so I will argue against it. You loved exploration, so you should argue for it. Bioware gets to see/hear our arguments, see which one makes more sense, and other people throw in their input as necessary.

[imnar]

Il Divo wrote...

imnar wrote...

i counter that removal of inventory is unnecessary. if a person choses they can avoid the exploration and the loot chase. i enjoy freely exploring and picking up loot and seeing which combinations or perks work best for me. no one is making players pick up armor, weapons or upgrades they don't want. if i want to run through shooting, cutting short convos and not picking up one piece of armor...i can...if i want to run to the ends of the universe to find different types of  scorpion armor so that everyone of my companions has a matching set...i can...

And that's wonderful. And I don't want that, particularly in as bad a fashion as Mass Effect handled. If the defense for the inventory system is "don't pick up items", I think that's a pretty big indicator of just how terrible the system was. "It's optional" doesn't really work as a defense when I'm paying $60 for this as a form of entertainment; I want the best experience possible. Time+ resources used to set up planet exploration and inventory is time and resources not spent on things to increase the product's entertainment value. At best, by avoiding the inventory, which is not itself easy despite your claims, I come out with no "net loss" in entertainment.

it's not a defense. i feel having optional play styles is a good thing. besides, you're talking about time and resources for something that is already in the game. these are very, very intelligent people. behind some of the greatest rpg games of all time. they didn't scrap the engine and design a totally new one. personally, think a deep inventory system adds to the entertainment value of a rpg. don't you just love opinions!?!? i'm not here to say me1 is better than me2...i love them both and me3 looks to be amazing also...

[Alex_SM]

Il Divo wrote...

Well, that's the other end of the spectrum. And that's why you argue for what you want, not anyone else. I hated exploration, so I will argue against it. You loved exploration, so you should argue for it. Bioware gets to see/hear our arguments, see which one makes more sense, and other people throw in their input as necessary.

To be honest, I didn't loved exploration. I loved the idea behind, but the execution wasn't great. What was I expecting? An improved execution on the same idea. Not removing it in favor of a series of "tunnel+boxes+button (change order to make new missions)" worlds. -> Instead of improving it, they made it worse. 

The same for the inventary. The one in ME1 is annoying, but what they did in ME2 wasn't right. 

Also I would have accepted leaving exploration behind if it had meant we were having a multi-linear story (not a non-linear one, but real diferent paths). But BW seems to totally discard this idea.

Modifié par Alex_SM, 19 février 2012 - 06:26 .

[Sidney]

imnar wrote...
personally, think a deep inventory system adds to the entertainment value of a rpg. don't you just love opinions!?!? i'm not here to say me1 is better than me2...i love them both and me3 looks to be amazing also...

...andf I wish I could tie you to a chair and beat you with a rubber hose for thinking inventory adds anything to any game.  I've never once found myself thinking, gosh it is so cool I need to rearrnage crap on a paper doll screen or sell stuff because I'm at an item limit or pissing about with weight restrictions. 

There are games where a level of depth helps - try strategy games - but having to "think" about rather to use the Avenger VI or HWMGVII isn't deep. It doesn't require thought anymore than the +3 sword requires much thought over the +2 sword and we won't even mention the "well I'm just selling the Dagger - Red Steel. All RPG inventory does is asks you do do math that 1st graders can do comparing one set of numbers with another and choosing the larger.

ME2's inventoyr was actually loads deep than the bloated nightmare of ME1 and really better than things like BGII or DAO because you had to make choices that offered real tradeoffs. Pick your gun do you want RoF or damag, range or hitting power. What mix of armors do you want - better shields, more melee damage. I think what annoys people about ME2's inventory is you can't have it all - a gun with a Scram Rail X AND Frictionless Materials X with Sledgehammer X rounds - wheras in ME1 or a DAO you know when you've got the best stuff there is no real other options.

[Alex_SM]

Sidney wrote...

...andf I wish I could tie you to a chair and beat you with a rubber hose for thinking inventory adds anything to any 
ME2's inventoyr was actually loads deep than the bloated nightmare of ME1 and really better than things like BGII or DAO because you had to make choices that offered real tradeoffs. Pick your gun do you want RoF or damag, range or hitting power. What mix of armors do you want - better shields, more melee damage. I think what annoys people about ME2's inventory is you can't have it all - a gun with a Scram Rail X AND Frictionless Materials X with Sledgehammer X rounds - wheras in ME1 or a DAO you know when you've got the best stuff there is no real other options.

You are not comparing the inventoy system, but the list of equipment. 

ME2 equipment was better designed, but the inventory system was crap. 

[Sidney]

Alex_SM wrote...
To be honest, I didn't loved exploration. I loved the idea behind, but the execution wasn't great. What was I expecting? An improved execution on the same idea. Not removing it in favor of a series of "tunnel+boxes+button (change order to make new missions)" worlds. -> Instead of improving it, they made it worse.

There is no "fix" for exploration. Take your favorite exploring RPG. I'll go Fallout. OK, you have stuff that is interesting and then you have all the stuff in between - the wasteland. The UCW are basically the same thing a handful of interesting sites isolated in a wasteland. 90% of the things you find in the Wasteland are trash. A mine with some sort of generic monster that you kill for no reason other than grinding. Oh look, a gas station with rad scorpions - ooooohhh. The ME1 stuff is basically the same thing - hey it is a pirate base! Same pirate base as on 3 other worlds but yeah! The only thing "worse" about ME1 was that the way you got from generic dungeon 1 to generic dungeon 2 -- the crappy ride.

[Sidney]

Alex_SM wrote...

You are not comparing the inventoy system, but the list of equipment. 

ME2 equipment was better designed, but the inventory system was crap. 

No the system forced you to make choices. In ME1 you could take all the guns and armor with you. It was an actual inventory system that made sense - as in you can't carry 27 rifles, 12 pistols, 8 suits of armor with you at all times. It does matter if you use the weight limit thing (BG), paper doll thing (XCOM), or item limit (ME1) they all share the same flaw that you can "carry" an egregious amount of stuff and so rather than making choices and weighting options you make no choices and just charge ahead with everything.

[Alex_SM]

Sidney wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
To be honest, I didn't loved exploration. I loved the idea behind, but the execution wasn't great. What was I expecting? An improved execution on the same idea. Not removing it in favor of a series of "tunnel+boxes+button (change order to make new missions)" worlds. -> Instead of improving it, they made it worse.

There is no "fix" for exploration. Take your favorite exploring RPG. I'll go Fallout. OK, you have stuff that is interesting and then you have all the stuff in between - the wasteland. The UCW are basically the same thing a handful of interesting sites isolated in a wasteland. 90% of the things you find in the Wasteland are trash. A mine with some sort of generic monster that you kill for no reason other than grinding. Oh look, a gas station with rad scorpions - ooooohhh. The ME1 stuff is basically the same thing - hey it is a pirate base! Same pirate base as on 3 other worlds but yeah! The only thing "worse" about ME1 was that the way you got from generic dungeon 1 to generic dungeon 2 -- the crappy ride.

Fallout 3 exploration is awesome. I spent tons of hours just wandering around the wasteland and looking into every house I found, and climbing to every bridge to see the scenario, etc... It's the best part of the game. My last FO3 playtrhough was around 100 hours, and about 10 where the main story.

Man I even use mods to erase the markers in the HUD (including those for danger) to have "real exploration". 

ME1 exploration is no near as good as FO3 one. The problem with ME1 exploration is that worlds are empty and all looked really similar. There's nothing to do when you arrive. 

[Hunter of Legends]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

LegionMan wrote...

Fans ranting on BSN?  Pre-order cancelled!!!
Am I doing it right?

The BSN has some of the worst wit and general humour than any other forum i've seen.

It helps that it has some of the most petty and pathetic complainers than any other forum.

[Alex_SM]

Sidney wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

You are not comparing the inventoy system, but the list of equipment. 

ME2 equipment was better designed, but the inventory system was crap. 

No the system forced you to make choices. In ME1 you could take all the guns and armor with you. It was an actual inventory system that made sense - as in you can't carry 27 rifles, 12 pistols, 8 suits of armor with you at all times. It does matter if you use the weight limit thing (BG), paper doll thing (XCOM), or item limit (ME1) they all share the same flaw that you can "carry" an egregious amount of stuff and so rather than making choices and weighting options you make no choices and just charge ahead with everything.

The system forced you to make choices in a really crappy way. Why can you carry an AR and a shotgun, but not two ARs? or two shotguns? Doesn't make sense. Make an inventory system based in weight with a realistic weight measure and the problem you are talking about gets instantly fixed. Do you want to carry more weapons? Then go without armor. 

Again, when I play FO3, is modded to have the carrying capacity of a real person (and as I always play with low-strenght characters it's always a very low capacity), even taking bullet weight into account. That gives everything you talk about without changing the system. Why? Because I can just carry a certain amount of ammo, so I have to decide what kind of ammo I want to use, and what kind of guns to use that ammo. Whant then mines? then I have to carry less ammo or less weapons, or lighter armor, etc... 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 19 février 2012 - 06:50 .

[AlanC9]

Lakan Suko wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But you're simply assuming what you're trying to prove here. I don't think there is any potential in traditional inventory. It was bad in D&D, it's been bad for the entire history of CRPGs, and it's bad now.

Not that ME2's inventory was perfect, of course. Bio should have removed credits and shops while they were at it. I'm still on the fence about activating upgrades via mining. Though f you've absolutely got to have exploration, I guess it's better to have a role-playting reason to do the exploration rather than simply leave it in for metagaming.

Anyway, ME3 is returning some of these aspects. You want a compromise position? Well, that's exactly what you're getting.

Edit: "bad" above is a bit of an overstatement. I actually mean something more like "worthless." A good inventory system doesn't have to drag the game down; only the bad ones like ME1's do that.

If it's so damn bad, then why do games keep returning to it then? I am fine with varying opinions, so long as you also maintain consistency...

Consistency? With what? Many CRPG traditions are simply bad. Some of them we're stuck with because of the tastes of the current RPG fanbase, and some can be changed.

Things we're stuck with is stuff like un-timed main quests. Every few years a designer tries to implement something where time matters, but it never works. Too many RPG players like the feeling of leisurely exploration of the game world even if this is directly contradictory to their character's situation. It's the opposite of role-playing, but gamers are what they are.

As well, again, this is why you don't remove things like that, it only leads to other things going to lag behind, like the credits and shops... In an rpg, these two without an inventory system is an odd setup.

You buy rights for an upgrade, you fabricate that upgrade on the Normandy. That part works fine. The odd part is that Shepard's using his own credits to buy the stuff. This should have been killed regardless of what kind of inventory system was implemented.

And no, I'm not "assuming what I'm trying to prove", I'm making a point saying that destroying and basterdizing something isn't always the solution, infact, shouldn't even be considered unless the situation is really desperate... They built on top of some of their other things in me2, and took that to a bigger extent in me3(with the return of a few nice features).

Always? No. But in these cases it was the solution.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 février 2012 - 07:08 .

[Alex_SM]

AlanC9 wrote...

Things we're stuck with is stuff like un-timed main quests. Every few years a designer tries to implement something where time matters, but it never works. Too many RPG players like the feeling of leisurely exploration of the game world even if this is directly contradictory to their character's situation. It's the opposite of role-playing, but gamers are what they are.

And you know what's the problem? Usually main quests are only about killing things. 

Go A -> Kill things in A; Go B -> Kill things in B; Go C -> Kill boss in C; Win. 

Making them boring without pauses in between. Also main quests usually fail in showing the world. 

I'm totally for a "100% main quest" game, but that main quest needs to be complex, needs to have different stages (investigation, exploring, etc...) and not just killing things. That main quest needs to let me see the world and needs to give me at least the ilussion that I'm not going on rails. 

I would love, for example an adventure level (uncharted like) where a (for example) ship is wreking where I have the whole ship, so I can do whatever I want. But the ship is sinking. If I go down, I may die. If I ignore the boats, I may die. But the game lets me do it. Then with different following-levels depending on how I saved myself (with different characters in every one), with a level on the rescue boat (if I went with the rest of the passengers), or a level waking up in the coast If I decided to try swimming, etc... 

Making a multi-linear storyline which actually changes due to player decisions (and not just dialogue choices, but path choides inside a level). I understand It's impossible to have every possible option, but having 2-3 different "full" storylines, and then some more mixing them (and that must be coherent, because the story is the same for all of them, but saw from different places and with different characters around), you can have an impressive game. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 19 février 2012 - 08:22 .

[Matt VT Schlo]

ME2 had dumbed down RPG elements for sure, and while I felt the pacing of the plot was awful in ME2 (basically recruit most of game, then have a couple of 'main missions') cant say the dialogue felt dumbed down.

[AlanC9]

Alex_SM wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Things we're stuck with is stuff like un-timed main quests. Every few years a designer tries to implement something where time matters, but it never works. Too many RPG players like the feeling of leisurely exploration of the game world even if this is directly contradictory to their character's situation. It's the opposite of role-playing, but gamers are what they are.

And you know what's the problem? Usually main quests are only about killing things. 

Go A -> Kill things in A; Go B -> Kill things in B; Go C -> Kill boss in C; Win. 

Making them boring without pauses in between. Also main quests usually fail in showing the world. 

I'm totally for a "100% main quest" game, but that main quest needs to be complex, needs to have different stages (investigation, exploring, etc...) and not just killing things. That main quest needs to let me see the world and needs to give me at least the ilussion that I'm not going on rails. 

I would love, for example an adventure level (uncharted like) where a (for example) ship is wreking where I have the whole ship, so I can do whatever I want. But the ship is sinking. If I go down, I may die. If I ignore the boats, I may die. But the game lets me do it. Then with different following-levels depending on how I saved myself (with different characters in every one), with a level on the rescue boat (if I went with the rest of the passengers), or a level waking up in the coast If I decided to try swimming, etc...

This seems workable as long as the different choices converge after a bit. Whatever happens on that ship, you still have to get all the players to end up in the destination port or you've really dug yourself a hole.

The problem with current design technology is that new areas seem to be real time-sinks, and building more of them than you absolutely need builds up fast. So in NWN2's OC you can't even try the overland route from Highcliff, and in DA2.... but let's not even get into that. (Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if area design worked like NWN1's tilesets and everyone just accepted the lowered quality).

Come to think of it, the KotOR design, where you collect 4 widgets in any order, is probably there to give the player a feeling of choice even if it's just a choice of what order to experience the same content in

I'd be happy if Bio games went down from the 30 or so hours the current batch takes down to 25 hours or so, trading some length for more breadth.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 février 2012 - 09:39 .

[imnar]

Sidney wrote...

imnar wrote...
personally, think a deep inventory system adds to the entertainment value of a rpg. don't you just love opinions!?!? i'm not here to say me1 is better than me2...i love them both and me3 looks to be amazing also...

...andf I wish I could tie you to a chair and beat you with a rubber hose for thinking inventory adds anything to any game.  I've never once found myself thinking, gosh it is so cool I need to rearrnage crap on a paper doll screen or sell stuff because I'm at an item limit or pissing about with weight restrictions. 

There are games where a level of depth helps - try strategy games - but having to "think" about rather to use the Avenger VI or HWMGVII isn't deep. It doesn't require thought anymore than the +3 sword requires much thought over the +2 sword and we won't even mention the "well I'm just selling the Dagger - Red Steel. All RPG inventory does is asks you do do math that 1st graders can do comparing one set of numbers with another and choosing the larger.

ME2's inventoyr was actually loads deep than the bloated nightmare of ME1 and really better than things like BGII or DAO because you had to make choices that offered real tradeoffs. Pick your gun do you want RoF or damag, range or hitting power. What mix of armors do you want - better shields, more melee damage. I think what annoys people about ME2's inventory is you can't have it all - a gun with a Scram Rail X AND Frictionless Materials X with Sledgehammer X rounds - wheras in ME1 or a DAO you know when you've got the best stuff there is no real other options.

creepy and very unncessary scenerios aside, i stated my opinion on what is entertaining to me and what i liked about me1 that isn't in me2. inventory has always been a big part of rpgs. a part i enjoy and i don't mind doing 1st grade math. i didn't find it bloated in me1.  that is cool that you don't want to deal with all of it. i can respect your opinion. the guns did look sweeter in me2 though...

[Alex_SM]

AlanC9 wrote...

This seems workable as long as the different choices converge after a bit. Whatever happens on that ship, you still have to get all the players to end up in the destination port or you've really dug yourself a hole.

Yes, yes, it has to converge after a bit. There must be some pivotal scenes in the multi-linear narrative common for all the lines. Everything must be essentially the same story, but with different paths. 

Somehow like this:



It needs to make much more content than which can be seen in one playthrough, but it really makes (spiced with cosmethic changes for minor details) every playthrough different from each other.

And then, ok, screw side missions and random exploring. 

Also I think this is the way to develop gaming storytelling. It's not about copying cinema or novels, but making something impossible for them and take it to the limits. 

The problem with current design technology is that new areas seem to be real time-sinks, and building more of them than you absolutely need builds up fast. So in NWN2's OC you can't even try the overland route from Highcliff, and in DA2.... but let's not even get into that. (Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if area design worked like NWN1's tilesets and everyone just accepted the lowered quality).

Some engines seems to be managing scenarios bigger than what is needed. Even with all their bugs, bethesda ones are not bad doing that, the same for Cryengine and Cryengine 2. Frostbite seems good too. The same goes for the one used in Saints Row 2 and 3, and for Geomod Engine (Red Faction). Even in 1999 Descent 3, from Outrage, was able to manage really big scenarios without having many problems. 

Most of those games doesn't have a real "narrative flow", but that is not a technology issue, just they didn't try. But that's just about scripting. If done right, and giving them some randomness, scripts should be unnoticeable. 


The sinking ship is just an example (but a similar scenario was somehow-succesfully done in the low-budget game Hydrophobia - PC version, which is very different to XBOX one), it could be an escape from a spaceship (like it could be happening in ME), were sections are blowing up after some time (and not waiting for the player to get out, if your are there when it happens, you die), so they could be separated in the same way as they are in ME, but with more than one route (you could put alternative paths after elevators LOL). 

It's just not making the whole scenario a straight line with all the alternative routes conveniently closed, but giving the whole area, and giving the playear a visible reason to be fast (and not just a countdown). But, if fast enough (or curious enough in places where you don't need to hurry), player can explore the settings, knowing that it may lead to failure (or to just wander into useless rooms). 

 Giving the full scenario gives the chance to do things in different ways, and also to have different outcomes depending on which way did you choose. 

Maybe the "draw a full complex and manage it real time" thing is too much to nowadays consoles, but PCs can handle it for sure, and future consoles should be able to do it. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 19 février 2012 - 11:15 .

[slimgrin]

I have and always will contend the only aspect that got dumbed down in ME2 was the story. Gameplay was improved dramatically. If the story parts in the ME3 demo are any indication, writing has gone from say, Game of Thrones to Harry Potter. ( ok, writing from Bioware has never been good as Martin but you get the point.)

And I don't care. Right now all I want is good multiplayer. I really think Bioware should pour all their resources into multiplayer mode and scrap storytelling cause CDPR is always going to do that better anyway. The team EA bought who designed MP deserves a ton of credit, cause it's a blast. I barely struggled through single player which showcases some of the cheesiest dialog I've ever heard.

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 février 2012 - 11:12 .

[In Exile]

Alex_SM wrote...
To be honest, I didn't loved exploration. I loved the idea behind, but the execution wasn't great. What was I expecting? An improved execution on the same idea. Not removing it in favor of a series of "tunnel+boxes+button (change order to make new missions)" worlds. -> Instead of improving it, they made it worse. 

You thought the idea of almost empty worlds that are irrelevant everything the PC does were a great idea? Because ME2 followed-up on that just fine with the N7 missions. They made the worlds smaller but less empty, and kept them totally irrelvant to the main quest.

[Lee T]

I don't mind ME2's brand of "exploration" compared to ME1's style. However the resource mining was as much boring as the empty planets and (as far as I'm concerned) wasn't in no way an improvement. And for me the only real problem was the prefab environment (the mine, the underground facility and the building) all built the same with the enemies in the same place negating any tactical interest. Also while I liked piloting the Mako along the mountain ridges, I don't mind it's disappearances as many people had problem with it, but the hammerhead felt like a toy and it's mechanic felt completely disconnected to the rest of the gaming experience.

The barrier/shield/armor/life system was interesting, it is rock/paper/scissor level of strategy but it is a plus compared to the first one. However I hate the global cool down which prevents a lot of cool combos (I suppose to emphasize teamwork with your sidekicks as the only way to combo in ME2 and ME3 is between characters) imo it slows down the game a lot (but that's maybe because I favor powers over guns when I play ME, I'm a hoarder so between infinite psy/tech energy and ammo I choose infinite psy/tech energy every time, probably my bad).

As for the inventory :

Sidney wrote...
ME2's inventoyr was actually loads deep than the bloated nightmare of ME1 and really better than things like BGII or DAO because you had to make choices that offered real tradeoffs.

Inventory like many things in RPGs are about choices. There was almost none in ME2. Each character load-out was predefined and almost each gun you found was better than the previous one (DLC ones being the worst offenders). The economy was built so that you could buy everything (I emptied each store in the game before the end in each of my play-through), again no choice in the stores except for prioritizing your purchases.

The only real way to alter your equipment in ME2 was altering the team composition (I'll devil advocate myself by saying that with the global cool down it was probably another way to emphasize team-play)

ME1's inventory was perhaps the worst inventory mechanic and economic model in a RPG period, but simply cutting the choices out was far from being the most interesting thing to do. It was probably the easiest and quickest route (since they only had to think about how to piecemeal the resources so that you had to go through all the game to have the money to buy it all), but it was sidestepping the problem rather than addressing it.

As a RPG fan in general I also missed the brands, they could have made (like they did in Borderlands) three or four choices with each weapons each beast at different stuff and linking the design likeness with the brands (Nothing punches through armor like an Armax, etc...), they probably didn't do it in ME3 either... sorry I sidelined myself.

ME3 inventory seems to be a lot better than that since it does offer choices. You will be able to think before a mission about what you'll need and take what you think is the best equipment (weapons & mods) for the job (based on preview materials, the actual game may prove me wrong). Hopefully the economic system will also make you choose.

To finish I don't think ME2 was dumbed down, I don't think the choices were made to make it accessible to the great unwashed, I don't think the story was simplified either. However I do not enjoy it as much because despite it's game play while being more slick does lack a lot of choices the previous game offered (no matter how much lost in one of the worst gaming user interface ever), and because the story felt a lot more like a TV serial (two episodes per recruit an opening a big finish and couple nielsen sweep episode to keep the interest) than the epic movie the first is to me.

The things I've read about ME3 have both reassured me (inventory choices are back, I'm hopping for a better thought out menu this time, less sidekick than in ME2 hopefully giving more time to flesh out the story), left me unfazed (I don't see the point in the accelerated combat and the MP is a non event) and worried (the story, it's the end, it's the money time, if they drop the ball it's over).