86 réponses à ce sujet

[dirtypaulie]

too much typing made mistake rushing Fixed it NVR played MDK 1 anyway but i did part 2 & had fun doing so

So this is only the 3rd game they've made that has an actual point & shoot element & the 2nd game where stats don't affect you hitting your target.

I think they've done a great job.

Modifié par dirtypaulie, 20 janvier 2010 - 02:32 .

[Yai-Kai]

Deltaboy37-1 wrote...
 and most importantly: ROLE PLAY!

^ this is very much possible in ME and will be in ME2 aswell.
The mechanics of the combat might be different, but is that a bad thing? 0.o

[brocodaily]

Yes, keep it going! This is good!



If we have to duke this out than I think that healthy, intelligent, responses are the key!



Mass Effect IS an RPG with action gameplay elements....why is that a bad thing?



Should we just create a new name entirely for this type of game?



CDG's? (Character Driven Genre), SBS's? (Story Based Shooters).



Who knows?



and go.

[dirtypaulie]

brocodaily wrote...

Yes, keep it going! This is good!

If we have to duke this out than I think that healthy, intelligent, responses are the key!

Mass Effect IS an RPG with action gameplay elements....why is that a bad thing?

Should we just create a new name entirely for this type of game?

CDG's? (Character Driven Genre), SBS's? (Story Based Shooters).

Who knows?

and go.

Very seldom happens & always great when it does. Gotta run I subscribed & will add my 2 cents L8tr ttyl dude 

[brocodaily]

See ya Dirty Paulie (almost shortened that to DP, but that just didnt seem appropriate).

[Nozybidaj]

brocodaily wrote...
SBS's? (Story Based Shooters).

I like that.  I've used the term Cinematic-Shooter to describe ME. 

While it has RPG elements I've never really considered it a "true" rpg.

[brocodaily]

Nozy, then what is a TRUE RPG I might ask?



Honestly asking btw,

Because I just don't understand why everything has to fit a distinct set of perameters to be declared a part of a group. That is the main reason I even posted this forum, because everyone has this definition of what RPG is, and anything deviating is NOT.





I'm not saying MAss Effect is a true RPG, just wondering what in the world is. (Besides D&D, which totally is the truest form since it created it)

[purple_zebralemon]

The way I see it is:





Bioware did not create a RPG/shooter.



Bioware also didn't create a Shooter/RPG.



Bioware created Mass Effect.



That's what it is.



It is its own. There will soon be others 'like' it. But none will compare for Bioware created the one and only.

[DigitalMaster37]

brocodaily wrote...

Nozy, then what is a TRUE RPG I might ask?

Honestly asking btw,
Because I just don't understand why everything has to fit a distinct set of perameters to be declared a part of a group. That is the main reason I even posted this forum, because everyone has this definition of what RPG is, and anything deviating is NOT.


I'm not saying MAss Effect is a true RPG, just wondering what in the world is. (Besides D&D, which totally is the truest form since it created it)

You should read my first response on page one. But here is the thing: people on here are generally struggling with the allusion that combat in an RPG must include menu based combat, or combat totally reliant on stats. This is true and false to a certain degree. The shooter aspects in ME are no longer reliant on stats, so this is where people feel ME (ME series) has lost it's RPG identity. The truth is quite the opposite in my opinion. It's like a African America having a baby with a Caucasion, you can;t say the baby isn't Caucasion as you can't say he/she isn't Black. The truth is that the baby is a combination of both and to say that he/she is not Caucasion becomes a thing of peoples perception rather than based on truth. (I know a horrible analogy, but effective nonetheless IMO)

So getting back to the point, ME2 is an RPG, just not in the traditional sense.

Modifié par Deltaboy37-1, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:09 .

[todahouse21]

Can somebody tell me when the genre became a religion? Are you developing your character? Then you're role playing.

Also, I love how gamers who *gasp* don't like exploring the same planet two billion times are "lazy".

Guys, we're sitting in front of a TV playing a meaningless game for hours. Is there another defenition for lazy in the Cult DnD?

Modifié par todahouse21, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:12 .

[Nozybidaj]

brocodaily wrote...

Nozy, then what is a TRUE RPG I might ask?

Honestly asking btw,
Because I just don't understand why everything has to fit a distinct set of perameters to be declared a part of a group. That is the main reason I even posted this forum, because everyone has this definition of what RPG is, and anything deviating is NOT.


I'm not saying MAss Effect is a true RPG, just wondering what in the world is. (Besides D&D, which totally is the truest form since it created it)

Everyone seems to have their own opinions on just what a "RPG" is.  I've seen some truely silly definitions thrown around this forum (the old one actually), anything from "if it has a story it is an rpg" to "you play the role of the character, it is an rpg" as if these single elements define what a rpg is.

To me, an rpg is a collection of a number of elements, and these are just the broadest terms I am using here.  Taking on the pesona of a fictional character in a fictional setting, the ability to participate in this fictional setting via the player's choices, the fictional setting is governed by a formal system of rules that determine the outcomes of the player's actions, player advancement and customization are also governed by this formal rules system, and so on and so forth.

Obviously many of these can been seen in ME in one form or another, but most of them feel fairly watered down.   This isn't something new to the video game media.  In fact ME does as good a job as most video games in incorporating some of these elements and worse in others, but for someone with more of an old-school view on the genre it doesn't fit totally.

I know that comes off as a bit of "these young whipper snappers wouldn't know an rpg if it smacked them in the face" and I suppose it kind of is.  That said, I don't mean it offensively, just that the term rpg has grown to the point that it includes a lot of things that many "pure" rpg'ists would never consider a part of the genre.

Bioware has their own definition of what makes an rpg, and that is all that matters.  If ME fits that definition they are going to use.  Personally I would prefere them to use a new term like the Cinematic/Story based-shooter, in the end though it is all just semantics.  What really matters is if the game is fun or not, I don't restrict myself to playing just one genre of video games.

[brocodaily]

I can agree with you 100% Nozy.



An RPG in its truest form Mass Effect is not, but neither is anything else for that matter.



If some people are going to pine after what is lost they can find those games that still exist and are being made that suit their exact want and need in every facet of their quandry. Are they going to be satisfied? Sure. Are they going to miss out on a WHOLE mess of really good games and opportunities to expound their understand of the term? Why yes indeedy as well.



I wouldnt consider Mass Effect to be "watered down" at all. This game is ridiculous. Have you seen some of the videos discussing how much time they spent on just coordinating meaningful and realistic eye movements? Psh. ya.



I just dont understand how everyone sees the mutation of Genres to be a bad thing. Ya Mass Effect isn't an RPG in the puritan sense, if it "was" we would still be circling the same idea with a different story. Pushing the envelope, creating new ideas and mechanizations is a wonderful idea.



As to the comment about a White person and a black person having a Blite/Whack baby, that baby is probably going to be pretty badass, partially because of the name i have just coined, but also because They are still a person who gets to experience two types of what the rest of us only get to experience one of.



Sound familiar?

Back to Nozy:

I'm glad that you for one, while having an opinion of what a true RPG is, still do not allow that to dictate whether or not you experience a game.



Kudos to you.

[AsheraII]

Plotwise, ME2 is an RPG.

1) You can make decisions depending on your characters' mindset

2) These decisions are not gamebreaking regarding the conclusion of the game



Or in simpler words: you have a mainquest to complete, and your character can decide on an emotional level how to complete the mainquest.



Leveling or attributes systems, while commonly used, is not a requirement for an RPG. Such are frameworks to make the gamemechanics work.



However, ME is also an FPS. How the ballance is between the shooter/FPS parts is to be seen. Will NPC's for example show reactions depending on prior decisions? Some things we will have to find out when it's released.



Q.: Is Secret of Monkey Island an RPG?

A.: No, that's an adventure. The characters behaviour is entirely built into the plotline. The "many roads lead to Rome" thesis does not work in Monkey Island. Decisions in an adventure game are entirely made on a logical level, not on an emotional or social level. Because of this, the plotline of an adventure game is more "linear" than that of an RPG.



Q.: Is Super Mario an RPG?

A.: No, Super Mario is a platformgame / side scroller hybrid. Decisions in Super Mario do not affect overall progress through the game and are not made on an emotional level, beyond finding that extra live in hidden room X to deal with level Y later abit more easily.



Q.: Is FF an RPG then?

A.: That one is really borderline. I'd say it falls into the RPG category. However, it does lean very snugly to the adventure category, so though I'd place it in the RPG category myself, I wouldn't dare call it a good example of what an RPG is.



For examples of RPG's, I'd have to direct people to games like Baldurs' Gate, DA:O, Fallout, Bards Tale, Wasteland, Ultima and The Elder Scrolls. No, the list of good RPG's isn't really long, but it is one of the older branches in computergaming. And do note how there's quite some history there that actually leads towards BioWare. Good RPG developers are hard to come by it seems, and there's been a lot of cooperations, influencing and chemistry between them. So yes, you can actually say that The Bards Tale eventually evolved into DA:O, and how both Fallout and ME are descendants from Wasteland



Hybrids with other types of computergames were bound to happen, which I don't think a bad thing either. It blurrs the lines to categorize them. But that's a pet challenge for developers: to make something completely new and unheard of, and set a benchmark for future games: if new games pass this benchmark, they made it, if they don't, they've failed at release.

[Nozybidaj]

AsheraII wrote...
Q.: Is Secret of Monkey Island an RPG?
A.: No, that's an adventure. The characters behaviour is entirely built into the plotline. The "many roads lead to Rome" thesis does not work in Monkey Island. Decisions in an adventure game are entirely made on a logical level, not on an emotional or social level. Because of this, the plotline of an adventure game is more "linear" than that of an RPG.

You could say the same thing about ME.  In ME1 when Harkin hits on my FemShep I can't make the choice to just shoot him in the face.  I have to pick one of the predefined plot paths that the game allows.

It's just the illusion of choice, sure it is a really well done illusion, better than in most games, but the plot and direction of the game is still linear.  No matter what choices you make you still move to the same outcomes.  I don't expect this to be any different in ME2.  Does that make it any more or less of an rpg?  Well that is only opinion for each individual.

That said, many of the things I see people complaining about being indications of removing rpg elements (inventory, equipping armors, removing the Mako, etc.) I'm actually fine with for the most part.  That Mako was aggravating as hell to drive.  I do find that removal of things like weapon skills and tech based lock picking to be indications of this (though these are elements that as I mentioned were already pretty well watered down in ME1).

[Shirle Illios]

Terror_K wrote...

Thirdly, there's the fact that an RPG needs certain attributes to be an RPG; a statistical progression system being key.

While I agree that roleplaying games need certain things to be a roleplaying game, I disagree that a statistical progression system is one of those.

brunomalta wrote...

RPG was created to be a game to be play on a table with some frinds were you played the part of another character. This is the root of the game.

I disagree with that as well. Roleplaying existed long before D&D tool a tabletop miniature wargame and added a sense of fantasy and adventure to it; added a sense of roleplayign to it.

For as long as mankind has walked this earth, I’m sure, children have been playing roleplaying games. Games such as Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians, or any such. That is the true root of roleplaying, this pretending to be another person (even if a reflection of yourself) in your own unique story.

And it feels to me that ever since D&D has been brought to the computer RPGs have been trying to (re)capture that. And we are getting closer; in many ways Mass Effect 2 is much closer than the old Goldbox games were.

Terror_K wrote...

No, the stats are rules are there to give the system a set of guidelines and boundaries and to track your character's progression as they gain experience. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it. Without that, you may be "roleplaying in a game" but you're not playing a "Roleplaying Game" at all. Every Pen and Paper RPG out there has some ruleset and system governed by a statistical factors. They're not all as involved as AD&D, but it's there.

I agree that the stats and rules exist to give the system a set of guidelines and boundaries, but I disagree that they’re required or that there aren’t other ways to achieve similar effects.

Or at least that they need to be necessarily exposed to the player. Mass Effect or any first-person shooter still uses stats and rules to determine whether you hit enemies, rules that tend to be much more complex than even the most detailed P&P roleplaying system, players just aren’t exposed to them. After all, a computer program is in the end nothing other than a series of stats and rules.

In a computer program the guidelines and boundaries are defined by the program, so you don’t need yet another layer, this one exposed to the player, to do the same. I’m not even talking about “hiding the numbers”, I’m talking about not encoding progression and such into arbitrary and limited rules and instead allow for a much more natural progression. Just getting a better gun could be called “progression” (as a simple example).

Not to mention that “character progression” isn’t inherent in roleplaying either (I would say that character evolution is, but that’s not the same thing; progression inplies getting better, but it’s not about getting better, but about change). But that’s a separate topic.

In computer programs the stats and rules are generally used to provide a sense of simulation and arbitration as there isn’t a human to provide such. I feel that out of convention most computer roleplaying games expose these to the player (which pen & paper roleplaying games needed to do out of necessity). But such rules aren’t strictly needed to have a roleplaying game, nor does including such rules in a game make it a roleplaying game.

Terror_K wrote...

If you throw that away any story-driven game suddenly gets labeled as an RPG, which is false. Monkey Island is not an RPG. Gears of War is not an RPG. Halo is not an RPG. GTA IV is not an RPG. Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophesy for the Yanks) is not an RPG. Heavy Rain is not an RPG. Space Ace is not an RPG. The list goes on.

Those games aren’t roleplaying games because they still miss a vital ingredient, one that could be said to lie at the heart of roleplaying: choices and consequences.

In Monkey Island you don’t really have a choice, you can’t influence the story beyond following it forward. The character you play is pre-determined and all you really do is point it from point A to point B. The attraction in adventure games like that lies in discovering the story and discovering how the dots connect.

But a roleplaying game is about defining a character, a personality, and seeing the results of the choices your character makes. It’s about defining your place in the virtual universe (are you good or evil, are you pro-human or do you bend over backwards for the aliens, etc). That is the key ingredient that prevents most story-driven games from being roleplaying games.

brocodaily wrote...

I'm not saying MAss Effect is a true RPG, just wondering what in the world is. (Besides D&D, which totally is the truest form since it created it)

I disagree that D&D is roleplaying in its truest form. As I noted above I feel that children’s games such as Cops & Robbers are roleplaying in their truest (if underdeveloped) form. I will agree that D&D is the truest formalized form we’ve seen yet, but even then roleplaying in such tabletop games tends to be at its best when people start ignoring the rules for the sake of story and roleplaying.

As for Mass Effect, I do believe that it is a roleplaying game. It does offer this sense of choices and consequences, of defining your place in the world, after all. Though it is lacking some as far as defining your character goes (in the end in Mass Effect you’re really just playing the Shephard BioWare designed and directing him/her; for true roleplaying a player should never be surprised by what their character does), it is definitely more of a roleplaying game than most so-called RPGs.

Then again, I often feel as if “RPG” doesn’t mean “roleplaying game” anymore, but instead stands for a type of game that includes stats and encoded character progression. So I’ll just say that my ‘vision’ for roleplaying games is what roleplaying games could be, and not how they are often defined today.


Love -x-x-x-

Shir'le

[Yai-Kai]

Ashara, you say the list of 'real' rpgs isn't really that long, but I think there is a simple answer for that: Money.
Deep RPG's dont appeal to the mainstream audience, while hybrids like BL and ME do. So dev's have more sales, they get more money, hype the followup, and more people know it.
Whereas the 'real' RPGs are smaller (NWN excluded) and since they wont sell as much, the follow-up (if there is one) won't be as hyped, because that money goes into developement instead.

I don't mean to say I'm an RPG know-it-all, but I notice that I do read alot more codex entries, journals and do research outside of the game then compared to 2-3 years ago.
I still have to reach the D&D level so to speak tho.

Still, what I said above I do think can be stated with sales numbers, and if you look around a bit, you will know it's true.

EDIT: lil question, how 'deep' would you guys concider Risen? (or the gothic series in general, only played Risen)

Modifié par Yai-Kai, 20 janvier 2010 - 04:12 .

[brunomalta]

Yai-Kai wrote...

Ashara, you say the list of 'real' rpgs isn't really that long, but I think there is a simple answer for that: Money.
Deep RPG's dont appeal to the mainstream audience, while hybrids like BL and ME do. So dev's have more sales, they get more money, hype the followup, and more people know it.
Whereas the 'real' RPGs are smaller (NWN excluded) and since they wont sell as much, the follow-up (if there is one) won't be as hyped, because that money goes into developement instead.

I don't mean to say I'm an RPG know-it-all, but I notice that I do read alot more codex entries, journals and do research outside of the game then compared to 2-3 years ago.
I still have to reach the D&D level so to speak tho.

Still, what I said above I do think can be stated with sales numbers, and if you look around a bit, you will know it's true.

EDIT: lil question, how 'deep' would you guys concider Risen? (or the gothic series in general, only played Risen)

Well..not quite. Elders Scrools and Fallout sold really well. But then we would star a whole new discussion because Oblivion is a dumbed down version of Morrowind and Fallout 3 is a very dumbed down version of Fallout 1 and 2. 

[Vaeliorin]

Shirle Illios wrote...
I agree that the stats and rules exist
to give the system a set of guidelines and boundaries, but I disagree
that they’re required or that there aren’t other ways to achieve
similar effects.

Or at least that they need to be necessarily
exposed to the player. Mass Effect or any first-person shooter still
uses stats and rules to determine whether you hit enemies, rules that
tend to be much more complex than even the most detailed
P&P roleplaying system, players just aren’t exposed to them. After
all, a computer program is in the end nothing other than a series of
stats and rules.

The problem with this idea lies in the fact that in your typical FPS (and, as I understand it, ME2) whether
you hit or miss is entirely dependent on the skill of the player, not
the skill of the character.  The character's physical abilities should
be wholly dependent on the character, and not at all dependent on the
player, and the player should attempt to play the mental/social
abilities of the character as well as they are able.

Anyway, Cops & Robbers
and the like can certainly be classified as role-playing, but I don't
think they qualify as role-playing games, because games have rules
(which Cops & Robbers does not.)

brunomalta wrote...
Well..not quite. Elders Scrools and Fallout sold really well. But then we would star a whole new discussion because Oblivion is a dumbed down version of Morrowind and Fallout 3 is a very dumbed down version of Fallout 1 and 2.

Well...as can be inferred from what I mentioned above, I would argue that the Elder Scrolls games and Fallout 3 aren't RPGs at all, since the characters physical abilities (particularly combat) are too dependent on player skill.

Also, I find it odd that the OP mentioned so many things that have nothing to do with RPGs in his list of what's incorporated in RPGs.

We need to go back to true turn-based.  That's when games were at their best.

[Shirle Illios]

Yai-Kai wrote...

Deep RPG's dont appeal to the mainstream audience, while hybrids like BL and ME do.

I'd say that, technically speaking, every computer RPG is a hybrid. Dragon Age: Origins, for example, could be considered a hybrid "tactical combat/RPG" in the same sense that Mass Effect could be considered a hybrid "third-person shooter/RPG". Heck, you could replace the combat in DAO or ME2 with, say, racecar driving and you'd still have an RPG (just a "racer/RPG").


Love -x-x-x-

Shir'le

[brunomalta]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Shirle Illios wrote...
I agree that the stats and rules exist
to give the system a set of guidelines and boundaries, but I disagree
that they’re required or that there aren’t other ways to achieve
similar effects.

Or at least that they need to be necessarily
exposed to the player. Mass Effect or any first-person shooter still
uses stats and rules to determine whether you hit enemies, rules that
tend to be much more complex than even the most detailed
P&P roleplaying system, players just aren’t exposed to them. After
all, a computer program is in the end nothing other than a series of
stats and rules.

The problem with this idea lies in the fact that in your typical FPS (and, as I understand it, ME2) whether
you hit or miss is entirely dependent on the skill of the player, not
the skill of the character.  The character's physical abilities should
be wholly dependent on the character, and not at all dependent on the
player, and the player should attempt to play the mental/social
abilities of the character as well as they are able.

Anyway, Cops & Robbers
and the like can certainly be classified as role-playing, but I don't
think they qualify as role-playing games, because games have rules
(which Cops & Robbers does not.)

brunomalta wrote...
Well..not quite. Elders Scrools and Fallout sold really well. But then we would star a whole new discussion because Oblivion is a dumbed down version of Morrowind and Fallout 3 is a very dumbed down version of Fallout 1 and 2.

Well...as can be inferred from what I mentioned above, I would argue that the Elder Scrolls games and Fallout 3 aren't RPGs at all, since the characters physical abilities (particularly combat) are too dependent on player skill.

Also, I find it odd that the OP mentioned so many things that have nothing to do with RPGs in his list of what's incorporated in RPGs.

We need to go back to true turn-based.  That's when games were at their best.

Hell Yeah! I miss those days of turned based action 

[brocodaily]

@ Shir'le



You have a merry amount of very viable points, many of which (or most of which) i totally agree with. But then we cannot call ANY game an RPG unless every outcome and task completed is completely wrought by the player. The only game i can think of that does that is D&D and its many equivalents.



Video games are TRYING to get there, but that is a damn hefty slab of "gonna take one hell of a long time to make and or even be possible" pie that i dont think developers and imagineers are ready to swallow yet.



It would destroy worlds though. Wonderfully of course.

[Yai-Kai]

Shirle Illios wrote...
 Heck, you could replace the combat in DAO or ME2 with, say, racecar driving and you'd still have an RPG (just a "racer/RPG").


Love -x-x-x-

Shir'le

That would pretty much net you the free-roaming need for speed games, lol
(well not fully, no choices/concequences, but the progression part I mean, turn engine 1 into engine 2 etc)

[brocodaily]

@ Brunmalta



You have a skewed idea of RPGs



turned based? That is a Turned Based RPG, not the sole definition of RPG.



While turn based is awesome, it is not everything the genre is.



Everything i mentioned is in fact what i would consider to be an RPG. but the point that i was trying to make was that RPG spans many ideals, all of which can be incorporated and all of which are valued by some person or another for what they are. Does that make them any more or less of an RPG? I certainly dont think so.



to each their own however.

[AsheraII]

Yai-Kai wrote...

Ashara, you say the list of 'real' rpgs isn't really that long, but I think there is a simple answer for that: Money.
Deep RPG's dont appeal to the mainstream audience, while hybrids like BL and ME do. So dev's have more sales, they get more money, hype the followup, and more people know it.
Whereas the 'real' RPGs are smaller (NWN excluded) and since they wont sell as much, the follow-up (if there is one) won't be as hyped, because that money goes into developement instead.

I don't mean to say I'm an RPG know-it-all, but I notice that I do read alot more codex entries, journals and do research outside of the game then compared to 2-3 years ago.
I still have to reach the D&D level so to speak tho.

Still, what I said above I do think can be stated with sales numbers, and if you look around a bit, you will know it's true.

EDIT: lil question, how 'deep' would you guys concider Risen? (or the gothic series in general, only played Risen)

Since you touched the productioncosts issue, I'll add some other issues as well:
-Computer (software/hardware limitations): In a table top RPG, you can basically do "whatever you want" within the rules framework, you can react however you want, and have all kinds of consequences, since everything you do has consequences depending on what the gamemaster makes of them (a gamemaster being not just the "storyteller", but also the gateway between players and rules). I *could* for example try to develop a gun in a D&D fantasy setting. Whether I'll succeed or even live to tell the tales of my experiments, is at the gamemasters' discretion. I could tell an NPC to "shove it". Whether the NPC attacks me or runs to his mommy is at the gamemasters' discretion.
To implement all these possible actions and consequences into a game, would require an endless time of development, and if it was succesful, require more than enough installation discs to cover the world. So, this would not really be feasible.
-Developers would require an endless amount of fantasy as well to think up every kind of reaction to every kind of behaviour. Even gamemasters in table RPG's are sometimes dumbfounded by what some player comes up with. ("NOOOOO don't sneak/crawl overthere! I meant for the party to go there as a whole! Bloody Rogue! I'll make you miss your detect traps and teach you! Better a dead rogue than a wiseass in my group!" (Yes, I once had a GM who was like that >.<))

So basically, table RPG's and computer RPG's are very similar, but for practical reasons, computer RPG's are more "streamlined", and will have a more limited amount of actions/reactions. Gladly, computers do get better, and some developers do use this to expand the possibilities and immersion into the games they present. So with a game like DA:O, you can have a very good idea of what an RPG is. It's different from other gamestypes because of the decisions and shape of progress you can make. The first computer games that were called "RPG" actually had little variation regarding decisions, and were mostly about progress and the form/setting in which the game was presented. The RPG element didn't consist of more than "being able to use warrior or mage abilities in a fight ". But, things do look to get better and better. If you ignore the flashy graphics, then ME is maybe closer to a true RPG than even Wasteland was. And Wasteland could be called the "mother of all sci-fi computer RPG's".

Modifié par AsheraII, 20 janvier 2010 - 04:57 .

[Yai-Kai]

Question to you all; what should be changed in ME/ME2 to turn it into a 'true' RPG.

And, more importantly imho, would it still BE ME/ME2, or would it be an entirely different game?



Imho the only thing that lacked in ME1 was minerals not showing up on the map (most bling bling high tech gear in the universe, can extract minerals from inside your ship on some planets, but cant even SEE them on others? They lost me there). and the choices not having THAT much of a concequence as in eg. DA:O. (damn I should play NWN, heard its even choice/concequence heavy then DA:O)

For the rest, it felt perfectly fine. Quests, sidequests, gear, gear upgrades, ****loads of story (maybe a bit linear near the end, but epic climax none the less), different classes with different feels to them. I won't deny it had a tactical squad based third person shooter feel at points (soldier was my first playthrough mind you), it became more RPGish once I unlocked more powers, and defenitly in my current Adept playthrough, there's barely anything left of the shooter feeling I had at first.