587 réponses à ce sujet

[Ninja Stan]

A final warning to please keep the discussion on topic, because it's sounding less and less like a thread discussing ME3 story and campaign.

[Yate]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Yate wrote...

really? ME1? the feeling of an actual war?

you mean the space battle that lasted around half an hour?

or the three man squad doing all the actual warring?

better than ME3?

look, there's criticism, and then there's just malarky.

ITT: People who don't know what actual war is like.

I can get someone saying neither gives you a sense of war

or both

or 3 but not 1

but 1 while not 3?

nah, I don't buy it

[spirosz]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

I keep hearing the word "Streamlined" to describe the "new" RPGs that DA2 and ME3 represent.

Too bad "streamlined" as a word with the connotation that you got rid of things that were not just unnecessary but unwanted and decreased the performance of whatever you were streamlining; like parasite drag on an aircraft or car.

Getting rid of tabletop-esque and story elements (like hubs) isn't streamlining, it's watering down and dumbing-down. "Streamlining" a game to get rid of these RPG elements is like taking a fancy Italian sports car and taking off all the options and things that make it an expensive Italian sports car so that you get a car everyone can afford. You don't see Ferrari stripping their cars bare just so they're "more accessible to everyone else." (Or for a less-fantastical analogy, you can use an Audi or some other auto maker that makes cars in a tier above your average Ford and Toyota.)

So, in other words, don't take out of RPGs what makes them RPGs. Don't homogenize the whole scope of video games by trying to make shooters more like RPGs and RPGs more like shooters (or hack-n'-slash). Everything is starting to migrate towards this murky middle-ground, and all you're gonna end up with is generic homogenization. While ME3 still technically *is* an RPG, it's wandering into dangerous middle-land territory.

That would work if ME wasn't a hybrid

[Morty Smith]

Ninja Stan wrote...

A final warning to please keep the discussion on topic, because it's sounding less and less like a thread discussing ME3 story and campaign.

I think it stopped beeing about ME-3 the moment RPGs were mentioned.

[xsdob]

^ Okay. That was a pretty good burn.

[DirtySHISN0]

Chris Priestly wrote...
Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

This part  I like.

I think we can both agree that the same is true for the gaming industry as is true for most forms of media these days.
Traditional genres are expanding and as a result give rise to sub-genres that contain features and/or characteristics, lessened  in emphasis, from other genres.

For example, if i were to classify Mass Effect 3 I would suggest it is a shooter-RPG, where as i would label such games as oblivion/Fallout 3 as action-RPGs. Neither being a traditional RPG.

You don't have to agree on the my specified classifications, but it is true that sub-catagorical features are present.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Liamv2 wrote...

jancz89 wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

Nope me3 is still an RPG

my eyes hurt, I can't....

I mean what?

tell me RPG aspect of ME3? what is there that is considered RPG?

Level up system. equipment system ( however streamlined). powers. always remember it is an RPG just a streamlined one

Alright gotta ask this one... is Ninja Gaiden an RPG?  Because it has all of those.

[xsdob]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

jancz89 wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

Nope me3 is still an RPG

my eyes hurt, I can't....

I mean what?

tell me RPG aspect of ME3? what is there that is considered RPG?

Level up system. equipment system ( however streamlined). powers. always remember it is an RPG just a streamlined one

Alright gotta ask this one... is Ninja Gaiden an RPG?  Because it has all of those.

Yes. Ninja Gaiden is an rpg. As if Black ops 2. As is any other game you want to try and dismiss as not rpg enough despite having rpg elements, at least in my view they are. The only thing really holding it back is people not accepting it as such, mainly those who are hyper conservative on the issue.

Modifié par xsdob, 16 janvier 2013 - 07:37 .

[Obitim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

DanHarbinger wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

DanHarbinger wrote...

The flagrant evisceration of Mass Effect's RPG elements is a fruitless discussion. Facile rationalisation will always prevail. We all know that the soul of the game was sold. We all know that the plot premise and denouement of ME3 is contrived and we all know that Multiplayer/Combat and commercial pandering now assumes precedent over the fundamental formula that once afforded us all so much fulfilment and scintillation.

speak for yourself will you? I love the game and I'm happy with the ending so please kindly stop with the we all know over dramatics.

Whether you appreciate the ending or not is immaterial. The facts are the facts.

So are tabletop RPGs, where most of the RPG terminology comes from, commercial pandering because those are multiplayer games in person? 

And on that note, does that make Baldur's Gate commercial as well, since it also had multiplayer attached to it? 

and how do you know the previaling formula? Do you work for EA and have insider info, or are you just belching platitudes? 

Sorry to come in late, but BG did have multiplayer, however, it did fit into the story as you still had the protagonist and his party, ME3 multiplayer is horde mode.

I enjoy it, but the 2 are not comparable

[Jassu1979]

Chris Priestly wrote...
Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

And here's why this comparison does not work:

The term "role-playing game", while underdefined, is still a LOT more specific than the term "art". If you wanted to keep the comparison on the same level, you'd have to say: "BG2 is a computer game, so is ME3." This would approximately convey the same general meaning as "art".

Nobody would assume that the Mona Lisa and Campbell's Soup belong to the same "genre", and - surprise, surprise - they don't. Pop art and Renaissance portraits are quite distinct from each other, and it would be foolish to insist that they are actually the same.

What's more, your metaphor has people judge each picture in emotional terms that do not address actual questions of technique or genre. If somebody insisted that Warhol's "Soup" was actually a prime example of Renaissance portrait painting, it would be quite easy to disprove him simply by looking at the features of the actual picture.

Likewise, it is quite easy to point out that ME3 is more of a TPS than an RPG, and to list specific features in comparison to the first installment of the series that demonstrate this quite concisely:
- a pared-down dialogue wheel
- point-and-click conversations without any player involvement (as well-written as they might be, they do not immerse the player, nor let her participate in the conversation)
- "overheard" side-quests consisting exclusively of scanning
- no exploration
- just one hub
- autodialogue, even in some scenes that involve crucial decisions, and certainly in character-defining moments
- "corridor"-levels designed pretty much exclusively around gunfights, with no potential for detours, exploration or interaction
- a gun that cannot be holstered, etc.

Now, it is true that the ill-defined RPG-genre can take diverse forms, and I would even go so far as to concede that there's little use in comparing *vastly* different examples of the genre, such as the Baldur's Gate-series and the Mass Effect-series. They are not the same, nor do they aim to be.
But when we compare different installments of the ME-series, it becomes glaringly obvious that the RPG-elements have been toned down and cut back in favour of the TPS-elements. To the game's detriment.

[Obitim]

argan1985 wrote...

Obitim wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Obitim wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

snip...

So how has Bethesda maanged to produce Oblivio and Skyrim in that case?

otherwise, very good points, the costs of games are much higher now, although as stated in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (I'm paraphrasing badly too!), you do the movie you want to do, then you do the movie the studio wants you to do for the cash...

Bethesda goes the "broaden audience" path as well.

Oblivion/Skyrim and Fallout too are visually stunning and very action oriented. They resemble GTA'esque sandbox as much as traditional RPG's. Like I said, there is potential there.

That's why I think if BioWare does honest post-mortems and keeps at it, than there is a high possibility for satisfying games.

Also, I'm sure they are thinking about getting some old-scool RPG with kickstarter out-there. Many people there are old-schoolers, too.

yeah, I guess, but there is a lot of stat juggling, inventory management and equipment knowledge in fallout 3/Oblivion/Skyrim...  On the other hand I never saw if there was much backlash about Fallout 3 going to first person...

If they do decide to do an old school RPG then that would be ace, we'll have to see what happens in the future...

There was massive outrage over the Bethesda rape of Fallout, especially at NMA, the most prestigious fan-site out there. The lore, the setting, the very game design, the writing.

Ah, I see, yeah, well, I suppose peopel don;t always see change as a good thinkg, I enjoyed Fallout 3, I fully intend to go back to it once I work my way through my game shelf (and the next ME3 DLC if I'm honest, done Omega and Leviathan and got a playthrough sitting there waiting!).

[13Dannyboy13]

I have to agree with the op, traditional rpgs are few and far between, everything is being "streamlined" to get the most sales from the widest possible audience. I lost track of how many times I played through BG 1&2, NWN, KOTOR 1&2, ME1 and DA:O, I miss games like that. ME2 wasn't bad, I had some issues with it though, it really felt more like a shooter with a few rpg elements put in, definitely a different feel from the first ME; DA2 felt like a hack and slash button masher, with too many corners cut (anyone else remember going through the same dungeon multiple times?)
ME3 was a bit better in terms of powers and weapon customization, but the ending kind of killed the series for me, hundreds of hours on multiple characters, only to find out that every choice I made counted for nothing, and to have basically one choice with a few different variables for the end. I've been a loyal fan for years, preordered almost every game months in advance, but there's been a noticable shift over the last few years, pretty much since EA bought BW. It seems the whole industry now is only about the bottom line, for me DA3 will be the last chance of keeping any hope alive. Not saying that the recent games haven't been enjoyable at times, but they just don't have the same feel as the older games from BW.

[Jassu1979]

I enjoyed Fallout 3, too, but it could not hold a candle to its predecessors, especially in terms of role-playing. Previous "Fallout"-games relied heavily on moral greyness, whereas "Fallout 3" gave you a much more simplistic "good vs. evil"-scheme that did not really suit this particular franchise.


But let's return to a discussion of ME3's story and campaign in relation to its status as a RPG:

I just realized that even the ending demonstrates how the roleplaying aspect had been cut back: now, in this context, let's not focus on whether the ending was well-written or not; nor shall we discuss whether it is wise to include such a pivotal shift of focus at the eleventh hour.

What concerns me here is solely the player's involvement and immersion in the final minutes, and what I see there is this:
Our Shepard, faced with shocking and game-changing revelations that pretty much change some of the basic assumptions of her world view, is for the most part a passive participant in the Catalyst's exposition dump. Even with the lines of dialogue added by the EC, we are still constrained to mostly accepting whatever the Catalyst tells us, and the faint protests we are able to voice do not amount to much.

"You would not know them, and there is no time to explain."
That line pretty much sums up all the problems inherent to this scene in terms of roleplaying.
(And yes, I know the in-game explanation for this scarcity of time: please, people, keep in mind that these circumstances were created by the writers, and are entirely in their hands: they could make all the time we need if they chose to, with minuscule alterations to the story.)

Considering how many situations could be influenced by dialogue in previous installments (if you played your Shepard that way), it is genuinely SHAMEFUL to deprive us of this in the final moments of the series. I did not roleplay Shepard in those final minutes: I watched an interactive movie, with very few options on my part, and quite a few exchanges that did not sound like "my" Shepard at all.

(Oh, and I know that the "there is no time"-line is impacted by the Leviathan add-on. But it still sums up the scene's problems in relation to ME3's RPG-elements.)

[dorktainian]

Bioware are awesome. I've seen the 'light' It all makes perfect sense now.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

xsdob wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

jancz89 wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

Nope me3 is still an RPG

my eyes hurt, I can't....

I mean what?

tell me RPG aspect of ME3? what is there that is considered RPG?

Level up system. equipment system ( however streamlined). powers. always remember it is an RPG just a streamlined one

Alright gotta ask this one... is Ninja Gaiden an RPG?  Because it has all of those.

Yes. Ninja Gaiden is an rpg. As if Black ops 2. As is any other game you want to try and dismiss as not rpg enough despite having rpg elements, at least in my view they are. The only thing really holding it back is people not accepting it as such, mainly those who are hyper conservative on the issue.

I think the lines have blurred to the point where it doesn't really matter anymore.  Now it's just about depth of customization.

[Obitim]

 Let's take a look at the differences between ME1 to ME3:
ME1:
Can explore 1 planet per system, find artifacts and also missions, some of which are relative to your origin
Can purchase different weapons and mods
Can speak with all squadmates and crew members and probe for motivations and influence them to be renegade or paragon
12 skills per class, all of which had tangible effects and affected equipment you can use
Can decide what weapons your squadmates carry and what armour they have equipped
Real choices that will have massive effect on the universe (Rachni, saving the council and who will represent Earth)
An antagonist with real motivations and a second antagonist who came across as massive and foreshadowed a greater threat
Many unlockable bonus powers (and once you make the choice you're stuck with it)
Clunky 3rd person combat, but you can use the sniper rifle as it's meant to be used (out in the open, from a distance)

ME3
No exploration fo planet surfaces and no discoverable side missions
Can puchase a limited number of weapons and soem mods, ammo powers are tied to class
When speaking to squadmates and crew on the Normandy there is little opportuniy to influence them or to inspect their motivations due to autodialogue
6 skills per class, one unique power and 2 generic powers, little investment to see huge gains reducing thought that goes into character levelling
No choice of squadmate weapon class or armours
Some hard hitting choices regarding the genophage and the Geth/Quarian but previous choices that felt like they would have a real impact have been brushed under the carpet
Antagonist had no real motivation and seemed to be generic bad guy, the reaper antagonist barely made an appearance deispte them being the real threat.
Unlockable bonus powers after speaking with squadmates, not really a reward as you have to autodialogue with them, you don;t get to pick responses and act in character
Very smooth and tight 3rd person combat with fluid controls but appears to mostly be set in corridors and arena's with little ability to set up a snipers perch...

I know I should have covered ME2 as well, but I wanted to shwo the major differences from 1 to 3...

Modifié par Obitim, 16 janvier 2013 - 09:37 .

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

What the OP is trying to say is that ME1 had more freedom. ME3 doesn't.

ME1 = Story and atmosphere.
ME2 = Best of both.
ME3 = Combat-geared, the CoD of the trilogy.

[Jassu1979]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

What the OP is trying to say is that ME1 had more freedom. ME3 doesn't.

ME1 = Story and atmosphere.
ME2 = Best of both.
ME3 = Combat-geared, the CoD of the trilogy.

Your assessment of ME2 is debatable.
ME2 already took the franchise in a vastly different (and - in retrospect - utterly unproductive) direction, although I grant you that in spite of its lack of character customization (which was somewhat remedied in ME3), it's still vastly superior to ME3 in terms of roleplaying elements.

[Obitim]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

What the OP is trying to say is that ME1 had more freedom. ME3 doesn't.

ME1 = Story and atmosphere.
ME2 = Best of both.
ME3 = Combat-geared, the CoD of the trilogy.

Close, I think ME2 did improve on soem aspects of ME but not others, out of all the games, my favourite is ME in terms of exploration, story and character customisation, I like the squad members in ME 2 and I like the combat of ME3...

[elitecom]

AlanC9 wrote...

Here's an actual argument, for instance..

elitecom wrote...
I really think Mass Effect 1 got it right with its non-linear story progression, something which Bioware used to be proud of. So what's so good with the setup in Mass Effect 1? Not only does it stay true to the plot and the role which you as the player inherit, but it also allows for a great deal of freedom. 
You are a Spectre and the mission is yours to go about and complete in the way you want to. If you want to rush through Therum, Feros, Noveria, and Virmire in order to have a sense of urgency, you can do that. If you want to complete the mission differently and take your time you can do that. In the end you are the Spectre and it is your mission. This is a good gameplay concept for a roleplaying game because it really allows you to roleplay.

I'm just not sure I buy this one. Freedom equals role-play?

And the italed sentence doesn't work. Pretending there are consequences isn't the same thing as actually having consequences.

Sure, in order to roleplay you need to have the freedom to roleplay. Mass Effect 3 forced me to play the game a certain way, it was forced upon me. With regards to the pretending, well it's up to you. You have the freedom to do what you want. I suppose Bioware could have implemented a similar system to the one existing in ME2 after the Collector's attack the Normandy, but I don't know about that. 

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

elitecom wrote...
What many of you who thinks that a sense of urgency is needed and that sidequests should be marginalised to their ME3 state argue for is a gameplay system which limits my freedom to complete the mission in the way I want to. In other words I have to play your version of how you would complete the mission, that is with a lot of urgency in mind. I don't like to have your way of playing the game forced upon me, just as I'm sure that you wouldn't like to be forced to play it my way. But I'm arguing for a gameplay system in which you have the freedom to choose, and that is the sign of a well designed roleplaying game.

I have to disagree with this to some extent. To me, what mandates the sense of urgency is not that I personally "want" to play it that way, but rather that I feel like the storyline demands it of my character. ME3 actually did a better job, IMO, of integrating sidequests into the main plot, since they all still related to fighting Reapers, trying to counteract Cerberus, or gathering resources and personnel for the war.

In my first ME1 playthrough, I mistakenly thought that the "Race Against Time" journal entry meant that I really might run out of time to stop Saren and skipped almost every sidequest as a result. Had I not managed to justify a slower approach to myself for subsequent playthroughs, I'd have probably never even seen at least 5 or 10 hours of game content, much of which I did in fact want to see.

The storyline in Mass Effect 1 told you that the mission is in your hands. No one can tell you as a Spectre that you need to complete the mission in a certain way, it's up to you. Again I must say that it is an excellent roleplaying game setup to then give the player that kind of freedom. As I said play through the game in your way. Mass Effect 3 just forced me to a play the game a certain way, disallowing me to roleplay and here I thought Shepard was a Spectre.Then again he got turned into an alliance soldier again in ME3.   

[buthane22]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

^OMG, this. A bazillion times this.

Why don't people stop complaining and just enjoy the freakin game!? If you don't like it, play something else.

[TheInquisitor]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

But you've got to admit, ME3 leans a hell of a lot more towards action

[twystedspyder]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...
Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

And here's why this comparison does not work:

The term "role-playing game", while underdefined, is still a LOT more specific than the term "art". If you wanted to keep the comparison on the same level, you'd have to say: "BG2 is a computer game, so is ME3." This would approximately convey the same general meaning as "art".

Nobody would assume that the Mona Lisa and Campbell's Soup belong to the same "genre", and - surprise, surprise - they don't. Pop art and Renaissance portraits are quite distinct from each other, and it would be foolish to insist that they are actually the same.

What's more, your metaphor has people judge each picture in emotional terms that do not address actual questions of technique or genre. If somebody insisted that Warhol's "Soup" was actually a prime example of Renaissance portrait painting, it would be quite easy to disprove him simply by looking at the features of the actual picture.

Likewise, it is quite easy to point out that ME3 is more of a TPS than an RPG, and to list specific features in comparison to the first installment of the series that demonstrate this quite concisely:
- a pared-down dialogue wheel
- point-and-click conversations without any player involvement (as well-written as they might be, they do not immerse the player, nor let her participate in the conversation)
- "overheard" side-quests consisting exclusively of scanning
- no exploration
- just one hub
- autodialogue, even in some scenes that involve crucial decisions, and certainly in character-defining moments
- "corridor"-levels designed pretty much exclusively around gunfights, with no potential for detours, exploration or interaction
- a gun that cannot be holstered, etc.

Now, it is true that the ill-defined RPG-genre can take diverse forms, and I would even go so far as to concede that there's little use in comparing *vastly* different examples of the genre, such as the Baldur's Gate-series and the Mass Effect-series. They are not the same, nor do they aim to be.
But when we compare different installments of the ME-series, it becomes glaringly obvious that the RPG-elements have been toned down and cut back in favour of the TPS-elements. To the game's detriment.

^OMG, this. A bazillion times this.   

Seriously.  Someone can defend certain aspects of ME3's gameplay all they want and I'll probably agree with much of what they say.  However, the change of direction is obvious and pretending it doesn't matter is insulting to everyone else's intelligence.  The only debate here is whether this change is a truly a detriment to the ongoing quality of the Mass Effect franchise as a Role Playing Game.  

FYI - IMO, the lack of player control over their character during any dialogue scene  IS absolutely a detriment.  The 3rd person shooter combat mechanics?  Not really sure if this is a bad thing on its own.  I loved ME1's combat and didn't find it "clunky" at all.  Then again, I also loved ME2's combat, though I hate the change to the generic heat synchs/ammo concept.  Being able to roll/dodge around in ME3 is fun but not being able to holster my weapon while constantly holding it out like some kind of robotic weapons platform is extremely immersion-breaking to me.

[SwordofMercy1]

Obitim wrote...

Morning all,

Do you remember when Bioware first started out and the level of RPG they created? 

Who remembers Baldurs Gate and BG 2?

Who played through Neverwinter Nights with a variety of character types?

Who remember Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic?

Who blitzed through Jade Empire?

Who remembers ME 1 and DA:O?

Who remembers when ME2 came out and thought the following:
Why can't I pick armour for Sheperd and my team?
Why are there so few weapons to pick up?
What happened to all those weapon mods I could add?
How come I only have about 6 skills I can progress? in ME 1 there were at least twice that many.

I remember thinking the same with DA 2 - 
Why can't I be a warrior mage?
Why can't I dual wield as a warrior?
Why can't I customise my companions with armour and a variety of weapons?

Who thought that ME3 would change these missteps when it was said customisation would be back?
What happened to the dialogue wheel?
Why can't I still upgrade the armour for my squad and instead only change the colour and about 2 maybe 3 bonus' that it gives?
Why can I no longer do a bit of exploration while stopping the reapers? (People say that the galaxy is at war but DA:O managed to accomplish this with the dark spawn?)
Why can't the multiplayer upgrades be included in the main game?  I'd love to do a couple of missions around earth (even if it's just defence or seek and destry like the current Mp maps)

I suppose the big question I'm asking is do you think that since EA has taken over this fine firm, has quality dipped for them?  Are we seeing corners being cut in order to hit a deadline?  Are the things which made the games from this firm unique being taken out and 'streamlined' in order to appeal to the COD/GOW crowd?

I feel that the last 'true' Bioware game that I played was DA:O.  ME2 was a great game, but it wasn't a game created by the Bioware that I grew up with.

I appreciate that companies have to change with the times in order to keep going, but there's plenty of demand for RPG's out there so wht did Bioware decide to create 3rd person shooters and hack and slash action RPG's?

TL;DR - Bioware stopped making good RPG's after DA:O and now are starting to become a generic shooter developer plus I resent your TL;DR. BioWare are making generic tactical combat and generic MMO's too. - Taken from Indy_S

I agree completely. I loved pretty much all of the rpg's they developed (Especially the Baldur's Gate Extended Edition)... up until DA2 and ME3. I can't even play those games now without feeling like my IQ dropped a few points by how dumbed down it is. I used to be able to play the dev's games for hours, now I can only play for maybe an our for getting extremely bored. It just sucks how the games I used to love, I don't enjoy anymore becuase they took an rpg game series, and turned it into a shooter or hack-and-slash. I get they were trying to speed up the combat system, but don't take away from the story and RPG element!
And no, I do not consider ME3 an RPG. I've been roleplaying for quite a while (I freakin table-top D&D still), and from what I could see in these last few games, they were more like interactive-movie/shooter game (Though ME3 is the worst of this). An RPG has qualities involving a developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development and player choice, various form of customization, complexity, replayability and immerision. The only thing that an RPG video game should be different in, is the conbat resolution speed. With these past few games, I see little of these qualities (Aside from the combat). 

[Sanunes]

Obitim wrote...

 Let's take a look at the differences between ME1 to ME3:
ME1:
Can explore 1 planet per system, find artifacts and also missions, some of which are relative to your origin
Can purchase different weapons and mods
Can speak with all squadmates and crew members and probe for motivations and influence them to be renegade or paragon
12 skills per class, all of which had tangible effects and affected equipment you can use
Can decide what weapons your squadmates carry and what armour they have equipped
Real choices that will have massive effect on the universe (Rachni, saving the council and who will represent Earth)
An antagonist with real motivations and a second antagonist who came across as massive and foreshadowed a greater threat
Many unlockable bonus powers (and once you make the choice you're stuck with it)
Clunky 3rd person combat, but you can use the sniper rifle as it's meant to be used (out in the open, from a distance)

ME3
No exploration fo planet surfaces and no discoverable side missions
Can puchase a limited number of weapons and soem mods, ammo powers are tied to class
When speaking to squadmates and crew on the Normandy there is little opportuniy to influence them or to inspect their motivations due to autodialogue
6 skills per class, one unique power and 2 generic powers, little investment to see huge gains reducing thought that goes into character levelling
No choice of squadmate weapon class or armours
Some hard hitting choices regarding the genophage and the Geth/Quarian but previous choices that felt like they would have a real impact have been brushed under the carpet
Antagonist had no real motivation and seemed to be generic bad guy, the reaper antagonist barely made an appearance deispte them being the real threat.
Unlockable bonus powers after speaking with squadmates, not really a reward as you have to autodialogue with them, you don;t get to pick responses and act in character
Very smooth and tight 3rd person combat with fluid controls but appears to mostly be set in corridors and arena's with little ability to set up a snipers perch...

I know I should have covered ME2 as well, but I wanted to shwo the major differences from 1 to 3...

The problem with your list is that you look for the postives in Mass Effect 1 and the negatives in Mass Effect 3.

An example, I don't consider Mass Effect 1 to have any exploration at all.  Landing on a planet doesn't mean it has exploration because really most of the planets are small and you are either forced to take a certain path because of the hills and mountains or its so flat you drive a straight line.  Not to mention that the destination to you are travelling to is pre-marked on your map so you don't even go looking for it, when you finally get there generally its one big room with two small rooms that has been repeated multiple times.  I don't consider Mass Effect 3's exploration any deeper then what I consider Mass Effect 1's to be, for you look in each system for a spot to scan and scan it.  It felt like I was on one of the flat planets in Mass Effect 1.  I will give it that the planets were different colors though.

My other example would be the choices, really Mass Effect 1 doesn't have any deeper choice selection then Mass Effect 1, for in the first game how deep really is the Rachni choice? You either kill the queen or let her go.  How is it any different then the Quarian/Geth choice? You either pick one of the two races to survive or with your choices from previous actions can save both.  Neither has an impact on the final outcome of the game.  You do have a point saying it would have been nice to see our previous choices have a bigger impact, but in the context of comparing the games the choices are equally unimportant to the story of the individual game.

Some of your other problems are personal, for I never understood all the skills from Mass Effect 1.  Why does a hero like Shepard need to learn how to put their armor on or how to use a weapon.  If you really look at the skills between the two games, they removed a lot of skills that didn't make that much sense to Shepard as a character.   Using the soldier, they are down to six skills, but really what did they take away? Pistol, Shotguns, Sniper Rifles, Assault Rifles, Combat Armor, and First Aid.  Yes that is six less skills, but Shepard should know skills like that already because they are an elite N7 operative who becomes a Council Spectre.