141 réponses à ce sujet

[Thompson family]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Inhocmark wrote...

RPG is an antiquated term anyways. Consider that some people consider quite a few MMOs RPGs even though the majority of people play them with little or no Role Playing.

Personally I think the Term RPG is like the trunk of a tree, there are many different branches that are attached to that trunk. I like that developers are willing to look outside the traditional paradigms of a genre to bring different ideas and concepts that can shape and change things.

I mean we're getting to the point that different genres have recognizable Role Playing elements in them. Sports games, Shooters, third person adventure etc etc etc.

The term is old fashioned, has been for a long time.

Quoted for truth.

I'll second that.

[GrapeJelli]

ME2 changed a lot of things.  Anyone who has nothing but negative things to say about those changes is just a troll.  In general, the combat changes were incredibly positive.  The actual doing of the fight feels more fluid, challenging and fun.  Combat is much more chaotic - at times it's hard to even tell where shots are coming from. 

I think what has people upset (and to be honest, I found myself a little dissapointed in the RPG-liter tweaks), is the gimping of traditional RPG intensive elements.  There are two major changes that I think caught original ME1 fans (who traditionally were RPG, not TPS people) by surprise.

I imagine the biggest one is loot.  There are no longer any randomly dropped guns, mods or equipment.  The "gotta collect 'em all" mentality plus the constant lure of new treasure is hugely fun for a lot of people.  Honestly, walking around a mission stage feels pretty static now.  It's mostly thermal clips you don't need, raw materials from stuff you can't use and on very, very rare occassion a new technology or gun (all of which seem to be static - no random drops).   

The second is customization.  I appreciate a lot of people didn't like the inventory system in ME1 (personally, I didn't mind it) but it offered really deep levels of micromanagement - you could swap out so many weapons, armors and tools, each with a series of mods you can install.  That level of tweakability is a major part of the fun for RPG fans. 

These two things combined remove a lot of what RPG fans find addicting.  There might be something just around the corner that will make my guy 1% better!!  It's the constant treadmill of optimization, skill progression and micromanagement that RPGers like. 

ME2 very much prioritized the TPS streamlining of gameplay.  I appreciate that's probably a better mainstream appeal decision - and not necessarily a bad one - but I think they overdid it.  It makes the game feel too static - in the first 10 hours of play I more or less found nothing new to do!  I'm pumping points into my two key biotic skills, shooting the same two pistols over and over and generally waiting for an opportunity to use my heavy guns.  I definetly enjoy the combat MUCH more - it's a lot more fun to play - but I don't care about the outcome as much.  It's not like they're going to drop a new gun I can use and taking the time to explore every nook and cranny will probablly only result in a medi-kit I can't pick up and 500 units of ore.  
 

To be extremely clear: I think ME2 is a phenomenal game.  The dialogue system is groundbreaking, the storytelling is hollywood-worthy and the characters feel real.  I think Bioware is the most forward thinking development house in the world and foremost masters at pushing video games into the category of 'art.'   But, unless I'm missing something, they appeared to remove huge swaths of the RPG elements which for a lot of people, make the actual PLAYING of the game a lot of fun. 

[grieferbastard]

AlanC9 wrote...

grieferbastard, why isn't it an RPG? What key RPG features is ME2 lacking?

Stuff it doesn't need. A complex character leveling system, inventory management, the ability to micromanage your allies, the ability to completely personalize the main character. Not just a handful if different skills but attributes, look, resources, etc.

DA:O is a great example of an RPG. Focus of the game is character development, stat/attribute/resource management with endless variety thanks to a player availabe content creation kit. I'll probably get 600+ hours of playtime out of DA:O over the next couple of years.

Will those 600 hours be all intense combat action? Oh hell no.

RPG equates to creating and playing a role, not just stepping into a pre-determined one. Does the storyline of DA:O take you through a similar story no matter what character you play? To a degree.

Yet comparing them is apples to oranges. ME1 was never a pure RPG by any stretch. A decision was made on which direction to take it and that decision was TPS while keeping the great storyline and Paragon vs Renegade 'choices = consequences' idea.

Again, it's not bad. It's a great game. Just that you say things like 'RPG' and people will think that ME1 was developed more along the lines of DA:O - which is the opposite of what happened.

I will also agree that people will complain no matter what you do. If ME2 had been a pure RPG the forums would be full of people ****ing about the TPS aspects of it.

Also a big part is the clearly console feel of the game. Like I mentioned somewhere else my graphics card on its own has more memory and processor power than an xbox. I've got more ram on my pc than an xbox has storage space. I can easily and comfortably map 10 or 20 keys to various things. ME2 is designed to play with an xbox style controller. It reminds me of Assassins Creed in that way; I was always irritated by the limitations of an interface that was clearly designed for a controller.

I hope the game makes BioWare/EA a fortune though. While I've played ME2 on a friends rig and got a chance to watch demos of it being played I haven't bought it myself. I probably won't for a long time; I've got Borderlands keeping my twitch-fix going and will likely pick up Assassins Creed 2 when it comes out. I've also got DA:O going and if I want a FPS/RPG crossbreed I've still got Fallout 3. I would say that ME2 doesn't appeal to me a whole lot.

That doesn't make it bad though. I appreciate it for where it shines and I love the Cerberus Network idea. I think it's a great game and deserves all the high ratings it's received. It's not an RPG in my book and I'm sure a lot of people agree, but so what? Why does it have to be?

Modifié par grieferbastard, 27 janvier 2010 - 06:27 .

[Nezacant]

GrapeJelli wrote...

ME2 changed a lot of things.  Anyone who has nothing but negative things to say about those changes is just a troll.  In general, the combat changes were incredibly positive.  The actual doing of the fight feels more fluid, challenging and fun.  Combat is much more chaotic - at times it's hard to even tell where shots are coming from. 

I think what has people upset (and to be honest, I found myself a little dissapointed in the RPG-liter tweaks), is the gimping of traditional RPG intensive elements.  There are two major changes that I think caught original ME1 fans (who traditionally were RPG, not TPS people) by surprise.

I imagine the biggest one is loot.  There are no longer any randomly dropped guns, mods or equipment.  The "gotta collect 'em all" mentality plus the constant lure of new treasure is hugely fun for a lot of people.  Honestly, walking around a mission stage feels pretty static now.  It's mostly thermal clips you don't need, raw materials from stuff you can't use and on very, very rare occassion a new technology or gun (all of which seem to be static - no random drops).   

The second is customization.  I appreciate a lot of people didn't like the inventory system in ME1 (personally, I didn't mind it) but it offered really deep levels of micromanagement - you could swap out so many weapons, armors and tools, each with a series of mods you can install.  That level of tweakability is a major part of the fun for RPG fans. 

These two things combined remove a lot of what RPG fans find addicting.  There might be something just around the corner that will make my guy 1% better!!  It's the constant treadmill of optimization, skill progression and micromanagement that RPGers like. 

ME2 very much prioritized the TPS streamlining of gameplay.  I appreciate that's probably a better mainstream appeal decision - and not necessarily a bad one - but I think they overdid it.  It makes the game feel too static - in the first 10 hours of play I more or less found nothing new to do!  I'm pumping points into my two key biotic skills, shooting the same two pistols over and over and generally waiting for an opportunity to use my heavy guns.  I definetly enjoy the combat MUCH more - it's a lot more fun to play - but I don't care about the outcome as much.  It's not like they're going to drop a new gun I can use and taking the time to explore every nook and cranny will probablly only result in a medi-kit I can't pick up and 500 units of ore.  
 

To be extremely clear: I think ME2 is a phenomenal game.  The dialogue system is groundbreaking, the storytelling is hollywood-worthy and the characters feel real.  I think Bioware is the most forward thinking development house in the world and foremost masters at pushing video games into the category of 'art.'   But, unless I'm missing something, they appeared to remove huge swaths of the RPG elements which for a lot of people, make the actual PLAYING of the game a lot of fun. 

You hit the nail right on the head.  It can't be explained better than this.

[Andaius20]

It mostly has to do with them streamlining the RPG aspects and intensifying the shooter aspects.

[DiggingistDog]

My opinion is that people cling to categories too much. Get over it and enjoy a wonderfully made game. But if you can't then too bad for you sucka.

[Evil Johnny 666]

GrapeJelli wrote...

ME2 changed a lot of things.  Anyone who has nothing but negative things to say about those changes is just a troll.  In general, the combat changes were incredibly positive.  The actual doing of the fight feels more fluid, challenging and fun.  Combat is much more chaotic - at times it's hard to even tell where shots are coming from. 

I think what has people upset (and to be honest, I found myself a little dissapointed in the RPG-liter tweaks), is the gimping of traditional RPG intensive elements.  There are two major changes that I think caught original ME1 fans (who traditionally were RPG, not TPS people) by surprise.

I imagine the biggest one is loot.  There are no longer any randomly dropped guns, mods or equipment.  The "gotta collect 'em all" mentality plus the constant lure of new treasure is hugely fun for a lot of people.  Honestly, walking around a mission stage feels pretty static now.  It's mostly thermal clips you don't need, raw materials from stuff you can't use and on very, very rare occassion a new technology or gun (all of which seem to be static - no random drops).   

The second is customization.  I appreciate a lot of people didn't like the inventory system in ME1 (personally, I didn't mind it) but it offered really deep levels of micromanagement - you could swap out so many weapons, armors and tools, each with a series of mods you can install.  That level of tweakability is a major part of the fun for RPG fans. 

These two things combined remove a lot of what RPG fans find addicting.  There might be something just around the corner that will make my guy 1% better!!  It's the constant treadmill of optimization, skill progression and micromanagement that RPGers like. 

ME2 very much prioritized the TPS streamlining of gameplay.  I appreciate that's probably a better mainstream appeal decision - and not necessarily a bad one - but I think they overdid it.  It makes the game feel too static - in the first 10 hours of play I more or less found nothing new to do!  I'm pumping points into my two key biotic skills, shooting the same two pistols over and over and generally waiting for an opportunity to use my heavy guns.  I definetly enjoy the combat MUCH more - it's a lot more fun to play - but I don't care about the outcome as much.  It's not like they're going to drop a new gun I can use and taking the time to explore every nook and cranny will probablly only result in a medi-kit I can't pick up and 500 units of ore.  
 

To be extremely clear: I think ME2 is a phenomenal game.  The dialogue system is groundbreaking, the storytelling is hollywood-worthy and the characters feel real.  I think Bioware is the most forward thinking development house in the world and foremost masters at pushing video games into the category of 'art.'   But, unless I'm missing something, they appeared to remove huge swaths of the RPG elements which for a lot of people, make the actual PLAYING of the game a lot of fun. 

I like rpgs, I played in and out Morrowind and the KoTOrs, Oblivion. The number of loot and artefacts in Morrowind was incredible, but be honest, tell me which interesting and unique items were in Mass Effect? None, same guns, same mods. In the end, I never paid at shops and barely changed my equipment because I wouldn't notice it and it's a big loss of time because there's nothing to do. If I want to collect loot and rare items, I'll play Morrowind. So instead of having a boring inventory system flooded with the same items all over again I need to sell to make place and get an incredible ammount of money (to do nothing with it), well I don't mind having nothing at all since I it would be only less boring.

So all in all, I never played ME1 for a real rpg experience because it lacked in that department, but that didn't prevent me for liking the hell out of the game because the most important to me, is not that a game fits in a particular tag, but that it's good.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 27 janvier 2010 - 06:29 .

[the_one_54321]

ME appears to be a stellar game. ME also lacks the defining features of an RPG.



itis both great, and not an RPG.



first off, games are defined based on their mechanics. Fighting games, Racing games, Shooters, Real Time Strategy Games, etc etc etc. the inclusion of an in depth story and interesting characters and lots of character interaction can be included in any kind of game. in fact, it already has been included in numerous kinds of games. it does not effect the mechanics of the game, and clearly is not a defining feature of a game.



so what is a Role Playing Game? well, a game where you play a role, obviously. the problem is that in most games you are playing a role. but most games are obviously not RPGs. Master Chief is a role that is played, but Halo absolutely is not an RPG.



so "playing a role" must mean something different. way back when RPGs were first invented, using paper media and dice, to play a role meant that you replaced your own abilities and personality with the characters. if that definition was suitable then, it should be suitable now as well.



how does this relate to ME and what does it mean in terms of distinction between RPGs and other kinds of games? in ME, you aim the gun, and you pull the trigger. Sheperd only has a partial effect on this through the skill system. if ME were an RPG, you would give Sheperd instructions and he would carry them out independent of your input thereafter, until you gave him new instructions.



this, in no way, impacts the quality of the game. it only effects the personal preference of the players, and the technical accuracy of the games label. ME and ME2 are not RPGs. but for many they are still fantastic games.



also, as a side note, BioWare has not billed ME2 as an RPG anyway.

[Lonely_Fat_Guy]

wow, what abunch of bull crap what the hell happend?



did i play a difrent version of dragon age?

that game whas easy and no depth what so ever in the creating of my hero, skills etc.



its an okey game, but i think its one of biowares worst up to date.

as for more action in ME2 it sounds great, cant wait. nice mix of great story rpg and GoW ? ill give a final verdict when ive played it. probebly some things i wont like, most i will.



as for me not beeing an hardcore gamer? played since fallout 1 BG 1 etc.

so dont bring it!

[Catlana]

jroseboom wrote...

its like fallout all over again... not to say fallout 3 wasn't a good game.. but wow.
this is kinda depressing i liked how ME1 was much more rpg than shooter. god damned mainstream.

I really, really prefer Mass Effect over ME2 as well. I may not even buy ME3 at this point. The ability to customize your character in ME2 is gone. My Vanguard was a tankie type maxing barrier asap then defensive skills. Now, the only way to play a Vanguard is a charging (highly bugged) kamikaze.

[xNMMx]

jroseboom wrote...

its like fallout all over again... not to say fallout 3 wasn't a good game.. but wow.
this is kinda depressing i liked how ME1 was much more rpg than shooter. god damned mainstream.

Wow, don't listen to these idiots the game is awesome. Just because your too incompetent to use the LT trigger to aim doesn't mean the game is bad. How ridiculous, It's like all the fallout 3 haters want a auto lock on.
 
For the record, Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time, though ME 2 may take the crown soon, and I could hit any enemy in that game as long as I aimed. It's absolutely astonshing how dumb pepole are these days. How can you hate the game because you don't want to press one ****ing button on your controller? Dumbasses.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

I think as has been proven by this topic and a lot of the other recent topics on this subject.



Everyone has their own opinions of what defines an RPG. Due to this I can't see how the devs would ever be able to please everyone. You make certain modifications you get people stating its dumbed down and more like a shooter with tiny bits of RP. You make modifications in another fashion and you get people stating they've made it frustratingly awkward and not matching the general theme of the game.



I don't have the game yet, I've seen live streams and been impressed with some of the changes, I doubt I won't find some things that will niggle me, namely because am not expecting it to be perfect, to each their own with that regard, but not only that because I've seen a few things that do niggle me a bit but not enough to do some of the crazy unconstructive ranting that has been going on this forum the last couple of days.



Don't get me wrong, I can see the reasonings for some peoples issues. Due to the nature of the combat system it isn't going to appeal to anyone. I personally like the idea of the new ammo system and whilst I do enjoy a good FPS/TPS game, am more a RPGer and to me I think this new system isn't a backward step. It is a modification that I welcome because the old system was a bit silly and easy to exploit imho.



As for the class changes, I think it is just a case of people getting used to them and working out how the new system works and finding the way to utilise it to their playing style. Just the same with any game where new things are added. It takes time and whilst I can understand people venting about it, I guess am more of a trial and error guy.

[ScroguBlitzen]

BioWare will now continue making massive amounts of money with mainstream games thanks to EA's marketing engine.



But they are no longer a pre-order company for me. Who is the next BioWare? Where is our quirky little company that makes deep role playing games that we all love BECAUSE they are not mass market console shooters?



BioWare can laugh all the way to the bank of course, but some of us are weeping now for the slow death of the one truly great RPG maker in the industry.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DAO is a terrific RPG. There's tons of oppportunity to get inside your character's head and make decisions on his behalf. You can choose to do a wide variety of things for a wide variety of reasons, and all of those are totally under your control. Your character will never do anything you didn't intend, and you character will only ever fail to have a coherent personality if you fail to give him one. In addition, it satisfies the other RPG requirements of being stat-driven; your character's skill determines whether he succeeds or fails at the individual tasks you ask of him.



Mass Effect isn't much of an RPG. It contains some RPG elements (stat-driven cone of death), but it's completely devoid of actual roleplaying opportunities. You don't get to make decisions for Shepard, he routinely does things you don't want him to do, and his personality is largely unknowable to the player until after the fact.



Mass Effect 2 appears to have removed those RPG elements (like stat-driven aiming); it remains to be seen whether it have improved the actual roleplaying at all. I'm not hopeful, as BioWare's responses on the issue have been obfuscatory at best.

[Gerza71]

RPG. You play in a role in a game.



There are main quest, side quests and mini games.



Gain experience by by completing quests and mini games.



When have enough experience you gain a level and improve the character.



In most RPG (depend how its made) you have companions to support you (In some case they are a pain).



In a RGP there are rules in a game that you can or cannot do for example if you are a Dwarf in Dragon Age you cannot be a mage. If you a soldier in Mass Effect you cannot use bionics but if you a Vanguard you can use weapon you can train on and bionics.



To me that is what a RPG is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ScroguBlitzen wrote...

BioWare will now continue making massive amounts of money with mainstream games thanks to EA's marketing engine.

But they are no longer a pre-order company for me. Who is the next BioWare? Where is our quirky little company that makes deep role playing games that we all love BECAUSE they are not mass market console shooters?

BioWare can laugh all the way to the bank of course, but some of us are weeping now for the slow death of the one truly great RPG maker in the industry.

I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss BioWare's efforts going forward.  The entire Mass Effect franchise appears to have been horribly misguided, but Dragon Age is a terrific RPG that does all the things we expect BioWare RPGs to do.  If there are features missing, they're features that haven't appeared in a BioWare game since the original Baldur's Gate.  If the standard is BG2 or KotOR or NWN, DAO is right up there with them.

[Daeion]

Most people aren't argueing that it's not an RPG, we are argueing that things we consider to be core RP elements and things that we liked about ME1 or felt could have been improved rather then just tossed out.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

the game is still an rpg but not as much as the first, the exploration is a little toned down instead of exploring planets you explore PARTS of the planets.

its not that the game isnt an rpg its just that while the first one was more of an rpg with shooter elements this one is more of a shooter with rpg elements, kinda like comparing fallout 3 to bioshock

[the_one_54321]

Gerza71 wrote...

RPG. You play in a role in a game.

There are main quest, side quests and mini games.

Gain experience by by completing quests and mini games.

When have enough experience you gain a level and improve the character.

In most RPG (depend how its made) you have companions to support you (In some case they are a pain).

In a RGP there are rules in a game that you can or cannot do for example if you are a Dwarf in Dragon Age you cannot be a mage. If you a soldier in Mass Effect you cannot use bionics but if you a Vanguard you can use weapon you can train on and bionics.

To me that is what a RPG is.

to you, the majority of all games are RPGs.

well... im probably exagerating there, but the only statement that causes that is the one about leveling. but you know, MW2 has leveling. do you think it's an RPG?

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 janvier 2010 - 10:40 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss BioWare's efforts going forward.  The entire Mass Effect franchise appears to have been horribly misguided, but Dragon Age is a terrific RPG that does all the things we expect BioWare RPGs to do.  

By "horribly misguided," of course you actually mean something more like "not what I personally want Bioware to do." It's pretty clear that ME is a great success in terms of accomplishing Bioware's goals.

Unless you're saying that Bio's management is simply wrong about those goals, because Bioware's telos is to be a company that makes pure RPGs rather than RPG/shooter hybrids. Are you really going there?

[Tazzamann]

ScroguBlitzen wrote...

BioWare will now continue making massive amounts of money with mainstream games thanks to EA's marketing engine.

But they are no longer a pre-order company for me. Who is the next BioWare? Where is our quirky little company that makes deep role playing games that we all love BECAUSE they are not mass market console shooters?

BioWare can laugh all the way to the bank of course, but some of us are weeping now for the slow death of the one truly great RPG maker in the industry.

seriously? they just made DA:O, how can you say they aren't making good rpg's anymore, dragon age is like, the most rpg-like rpg ever! its getting an expansion and they're bringing out the old republic as well. I think they'll still going to churn out cracking rpgs for a while now. why should bioware only make games you want anyway? they're a company, made to make money, its not a personal attack on thier old fans they just saw an idea for a good game and made it, that doesnt make them bad people because that game isn't an rpg.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

By "horribly misguided," of course you actually mean something more like "not what I personally want Bioware to do." It's pretty clear that ME is a great success in terms of accomplishing Bioware's goals.

Unless you're saying that Bio's management is simply wrong about those goals, because Bioware's telos is to be a company that makes pure RPGs rather than RPG/shooter hybrids. Are you really going there?

BioWare's stated objective is to make "story-driven games", but I'm not confident that's actually been their objective.  Yes, they've always have a very strong authored narrative in their games, but until ME came along they also allowed a robust emergent narrative that is the hallmark of the roleplaying genre.  The game isn't just what the designers wrote, but also what the players do with it.

If they were only concerned with authored narrative, why bother with somehthing as expansive and vibrant as DAO when they can offer the same sort of authored narrative in a game like ME.  In terms of its authored narrative, ME is very much like BioWare's previous games - anyone judging the games based solely on their authored narrative would likely not see the dichotomy I describe - so clearly their adherence to story-driven games is not limited to games with a strong authored narrative: the main plot, if you like.

ME's failure to allow for an emergent narrative either signals a change in BioWare's direction (or an entirely new branch) or it's a mistake.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:20 .

[Sidney]

the_one_54321 wrote...

so "playing a role" must mean something different. way back when RPGs were first invented, using paper media and dice, to play a role meant that you replaced your own abilities and personality with the characters. if that definition was suitable then, it should be suitable now as well. 

I think this D&D version of "role playing" being about stats and die rolls is silly. Acting is role playing and there's no die roles in King Lear last I checked. Role playing should be, about having a higher degree of participation in a game than your typcial game. Master Chief is a charcter, a role if you will, but he has no effect on the game world other than shooting it. He doesn't make choices and "your" master chief is no different than anyone else's master chief. The protagonist in Bioshock is a role. He does make a tiny handful of choices (little sisters and the artist) but they don't affect the game and "your" guy isn't much different than anyone else's "guy" in that game.

By contrast in ME, and I assume ME2 as I move through it, my Shep will make tons of decisions that matter and the sum of those decisions will not be unique but they will be a distinct set different from yours. That's now a role. My PC in DAO made a ton of choices and those make him distinct, same for KoTOR (althought that game enocurages more all or nothing decisions so I'm guessing there is a lower total variability).

The rest of inventory and stats and customzed armor is just overhead people have loaded on top of the best part of the expereince and that is playing a role.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare's stated objective is to make "story-driven games", but I'm not confident that's actually been their objective.  Yes, they've always have a very strong authored narrative in their games, but until ME came along they also allowed a robust emergent narrative that is the hallmark of the roleplaying genre.  The game isn't just what the designers wrote, but also what the players do with it.

Huh? Bioware is always about a story that you operate within. You want "emergent storylines" you go dredge up something more open world from Bethesda. Bethesda is about giving you a sandbox to experience with a fob to the story. Bioware is always about giving you a story to experience with a fob to an open world. Bioware's breakthrough was BG2 where they put you into a narrative much, much more strongly than they did in BG - bye bye open world. ME fits right into that vision.

[JaegerBane]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss BioWare's efforts going forward.  The entire Mass Effect franchise appears to have been horribly misguided, but Dragon Age is a terrific RPG that does all the things we expect BioWare RPGs to do.  

By "horribly misguided," of course you actually mean something more like "not what I personally want Bioware to do." It's pretty clear that ME is a great success in terms of accomplishing Bioware's goals.

Unless you're saying that Bio's management is simply wrong about those goals, because Bioware's telos is to be a company that makes pure RPGs rather than RPG/shooter hybrids. Are you really going there?

Well said. I think there is a general confusion in the minds of some forum dwellers as to what is actually bad game design and what is their own preferences.

I can agree that ME2 is not a pure RPG. It's certainly not an old school one like DA:O. I don't really see why this is such an issue for people however. Fallout 3 was a fairly radical departure from the previous episodes in the series, so I can understand why long time fans were a bit miffed.

But ME1 was never a 'pure' RPG. I don't understand why there are some whinging about the fact that ME2 isn't, either.

I'm probably biased, as I personally think RPG shooters strike a great balance between action and role playing, I loved Fallout 3 and ME1. There's still room for DA:O, it's my fave fantasy game. I just don't get why people are so against the rise of the RPG shooter.