349 réponses à ce sujet

[Liablecocksman]

Typifire wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Even though I enjoy it a great deal, I feel pretty alienated from this game. It doesn't feel like a BioWare game. Plus, I dread every quest now because I know it's just going to be shooting things.

Whereas you weren't just shooting things in ME1? The side-missions are much better in ME2 in the fact that they have some sort of relevance, and backstory.

ME1 sidemissions were a huge let-down, a massive disappointment, a gigantic waste of time. If you do not agree, then you have not played the game.

If you do agree, you will see that you point - in regards to ME2 - is completely useless :-)

No. You weren't just shooting things in ME. The use of powers was more important, because a strategically placed shot couldn't take out an opponent in one hit. To me, that made the game feel more tactical and the battles feel more tense.

Yes... The shooting-mechanics have been improved. How is this a bad thing? :-)

The mage has always been overpowered, that's just the way with RPGs. In the first few levels he/she will be weak, then the mage grows stronger and will eventually be able to dish out some stuff far more powerful than a few shots from an assault rifle.
Actually making a soldier-class quite standard, unless the player is able to carefully aim and shoot every target in the head, is pretty much like every other game on the market.

You like playing the mage, I like playing the fighter. We are different, but for once it would seem you haven't got the "better" character? :-)

Lucy_Glitter, I don't miss exploring the planets, honestly, if I traded it in for actual meaningful sidemissions and non-recycled, non-bland terrain!

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 29 janvier 2010 - 01:13 .

[Typifire]

Liable****sman wrote...

Yes... The shooting-mechanics have been improved. How is this a bad thing? :-)

The mage has always been overpowered, that's just the way with RPGs. In the first few levels he/she will be weak, then the mage grows stronger and will eventually be able to dish out some stuff far more powerful than a few shots from an assault rifle.
Actually making a soldier-class quite standard, unless the player is able to carefully aim and shoot every target in the head, is pretty much like every other game on the market.

You like playing the mage, I like playing the fighter. We are different, but for once it would seem you haven't got the "better" character? :-)

Improvement is your word for it.  I did not buy the game to play another shooter.  I just got done playing a multitude of them and didn't want another one.

Yes, they said the game would be more action-oriented, but I never expected this as the end product.  Take a look at Bioware's game history,  and tell me we should have expected something so akin to a TPS. 

I played a soldier my first time through Mass Effect, by the way.  However, as you should remember you had party members that had powers.  Those powers were of the utmost strategic importance, because you couldn't take out an enemy with one shot to the head.  That, to me, made the battles more interesting.

You can continue to assert that it has improved all you like.  But I do not agree, and you continuing to assert that it has will not convince me.  I don't like the way the game plays now. Period.  It has nothing to do with not liking shooters. I have played them since they were first conceived.  It's just not something I wanted to see in ME2.

I'll admit I like the ability to customize armor appearance.  But the lack of other customization options like armor and weapon mods were more important to me than how my armor looked.  Having both would be a plus.

It could actually be argued that  the current armory system is more realisitc, as you would in reality gear up before a mission, and wouldn't be able to carry around hundreds of items.  BUT, in reality we wouldn't be able to use a giant space generator to propel us through space.  So, where you want suspension of disbelief to end or begin is a matter of personal taste.

The story may keep me playing.  But I don't see any of the hyped advances in the dialogue system, and I certainly don't feel as invested in ME 2 as I was in ME.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Comparing this game to Gears of War is idiotic. (FYI, GoW is one of my favorite TPS games)



RPG elements in ME2:



-Character driven story

-Upgrading your abilities

-Interacting with your squad mates (romancing and the like)

-Upgrading your ship

-Upgrading your armor

-Applying ammo types to your weapons

-Dialogue choices

-Exploration



RPG elements in GoW:

- You play the role of a COG soldier

- That's it



To say ME2 is like GoW is a HUGE exaggeration!



- ME2 is just as much an RPG as ME1 was ..... In fact, its better.

No more retarded weapons like Avalanche II, III, IV (those were pointless) Now you can add ammo types, which is a form of customization (uh oh RPG element)



- You still have an inventory of weapons and armor.... its just located on your ship. (which is more realistic anyway)



- The combat upgrades make the game more fun and allow it to flow better. I mean, who wants to wait forever to use another power. Reloading isn't a problem b/c there is always plenty of ammo. Heavy weapons add an exciting new element to combat



- You still have the same type of dialogue choices and now they added interrupts, which are pretty cool IMO



- You still have the great characters, story, everything bioware is known for.

[Typifire]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Comparing this game to Gears of War is idiotic.

No more idiotic than insulting someone for not sharing your opinion.

If you would have read the thread, I was complaining that the game play felt more like Gears of War than did ME.

Battles take place in the same manner.  You take cover and lean out and fire.  You could actually proably do so the entire game without ever using powers as now they've also added...wait for it...heavy weapons. So, now much like Gears of War, to solve larger problems I don't think through the situation tactically, I merely switch to a bigger gun.

-Character driven story

-Upgrading your abilities

-Upgrading your ship

-Upgrading your armor

-Applying ammo types to your weapons

-Exploration

All of the above options are available in shooters as well.  Have you played Bioshock or Dead Space?  Call of Duty? 

In a day and age where other genres borrow so heavily from RPGS, why do we need to water down RPGs even more.

Therefore, the only two options you listed  that could not be considered part of current shooter titles would be dialogue and squad interaction, which I listed in my original post.

I am sorry you felt certain elements of the game were "retarded." I personally never heard anyone complaining about a large selction of gear, but maybe you did. 

I hated the Mako, cluttered inventory and planetary exploration (though only for its monotony, not for the concept).  But I assumed they would make improvements on the elements, not just get rid of them.

Also, applying ammo types was in the first Mass Effect and accomplished in a much more simple manner that didn't require the use of a power.  As far as power use is concerned, I much more enjoyed being able to use other powers while the first cooled down than I like having to wait for all my powers to cool down because I used just one of them.

I respect your opinion and you have the right to disagree, but let's not resort to name calling.

Modifié par Typifire, 29 janvier 2010 - 02:08 .

[It IS Lupus]

Typifire wrote...

Samurai Pumpkin wrote...

Stop trolling.  It is much more in depth than that and you know it.

I'm not trolling.  I loved Mass Effect. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 2 in November.  And I am extremely disappointed.

Whether or not it's more in-depth than that is completely subjective. I say; "It's not."

Feel free to disagree.  Wither way, I am entitled to my opinion, and the ability to express it.

You can still control your teams weapons and what not. Sorry you hate the game.

I agree that the Cover system was kinda tacked on. I mean its very sluggish Moving in and out of cover takes forever and half the time is what gets me killed because i cannot back off a wall to re-position myself in the battle-Field and being an Infiltrator thats bad.(Insanity mode)

IMHO i think that this game IS IN FACT deeper than the original, I feel attached to shepard and the rest of the team. In fact when i lost a few of my members at the end i almost cried. I did not feel like my team and PC were real and could care less if they died or not in the first game.

You may not have a huge inventory like the first game, or customization options as for what your team uses. But this game is infact deeper than the first one.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Typifire wrote...
All of the above options are available in shooters as well.  Have you played Bioshock or Dead Space?  Call of Duty? 

In a day and age where other genres borrow so heavily from RPGS, why do we need to water down RPGs even more.

Therefore, the only two options you listed  that could not be considered part of current shooter titles would be dialogue and squad interaction, which I listed in my original post.

I am sorry you felt certain elements of the game were "retarded." I personally never heard anyone complaining about a large selction of gear, but maybe you did. 

I hated the Mako, cluttered inventory and planetary exploration (though only for its monotony, not for the concept).  But I assumed they would make improvements on the elements, not just get rid of them.

Also, applying ammo types was in the first mass Effeect and accomplished in a much more simple manner that didn't require the use of a power.  As far as power use is concerned, I much more enjoyed being able to use other powers while the first cooled down than I like having to wait for all my powers to cool down because I used just one of them.

I respect your opinion and you have the right to disagree, but let's not resort to name calling.

I've played all of those aside from bioshock. I don't remember upgrading abilities in Call of duty. Perks were for mulitplayer only. You couldn't change your armor and the armor didn't have stats or anything like that. The only interacting with characters was when the people around you talked to you. Your character was a mute. I don't see many RPG elements there at all. Dead space, is more like an RPG than any of the other games mentioned, especially more so than GoW. In Dead space, you had and inventory and you occasionally interacted with other characters. The inventory wasn't cluttered in Dead Space with repeats of the same thing.....so imo it wasn't stupid.

oh btw, In gears of war you can't upgrade anything. where are  you getting that idea from? The only thing similiar b/w ME2 and GoW is that its third person, you can take cover, and you have squad mates. I repeat you don't upgrade or customize anything.

This is the part of all the haters arguments that I don't get at all. How exactly is the game "watered down"?

The cooldown is so much shorter on this game, that you can fire a power and then take cover and in seconds, rather than minutes, you can fire it again. I don't see the problem here.

For the record, you too (and anyone else), have the right to their opinions. I wasn't calling you an idiot. I was calling the idea that ME2 is like GoW idiotic b/c they aren't very similar at all.

Modifié par xxSgt_Reed_24xx, 29 janvier 2010 - 02:23 .

[Typifire]

It IS Lupus wrote...


You may not have a huge inventory like the first game, or customization options as for what your team uses. But this game is in fact deeper than the first one.

That is not a fact.  That's just your opinion.

And I don't hate the game, I just dislike the mechanics of gameplay.  I played it another half hour or so to see if the story would be worth it, and it seems it may well be (though I don't like the fact they pretty much rid you of every character you spent the first title getting to know, especially the elimination of both love interests from the previous title making Shepard essentially the Indiana Jones of space marines), but I still have gameplay left in Dragon Age, and I find it a much more involving game.

[WrexEffex]

Typifire wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Comparing this game to Gears of War is idiotic.

If you would have read the thread, I was complaining that the game play felt more like Gears of War than did ME.

Which is a form of comparison. Your comparing it to a game that feels similar.

What I don't get is that if you play shooters, you obviously like them. ME2 Is both a shooter and a rpg, so what's not to like?

[Lmaoboat]

WrexEffex wrote...

Typifire wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Comparing this game to Gears of War is idiotic.

If you would have read the thread, I was complaining that the game play felt more like Gears of War than did ME.

Which is a form of comparison. Your comparing it to a game that feels similar.

What I don't get is that if you play shooters, you obviously like them. ME2 Is both a shooter and a rpg, so what's not to like?

Everyone likes pie, but when the wiater brings you a pie instead of the cake you ordered, you're going to be dispelased.

[VanDraegon]

Well, as someone who never played ME1, i think that ME2 is fantastic. IMO, spec isnt a good setting for a hard full on rpg. I think that the fantasy setting is what it was made for. A space setting with all of its pew pew weapons is a natural shooter setting. ME2 has added in enough character development, story and dialog to make it a very engrossing game.



Fantastic!

[WrexEffex]

Lmaoboat wrote...

WrexEffex wrote...

Typifire wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Comparing this game to Gears of War is idiotic.

If you would have read the thread, I was complaining that the game play felt more like Gears of War than did ME.

Which is a form of comparison. Your comparing it to a game that feels similar.

What I don't get is that if you play shooters, you obviously like them. ME2 Is both a shooter and a rpg, so what's not to like?

Everyone likes pie, but when the wiater brings you a pie instead of the cake you ordered, you're going to be dispelased.

Touche. I know that feeling, once i went to Taco Bell and got Pepsi but i forgot that and thought I had ordered Brisk.

It was rough.

[Typifire]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...


For the record, you too (and anyone else), have the right to their opinions. I wasn't callin you an idea. I was calling the idea that ME2 is like GoW idiotic b/c they aren't very similar at all.

They ARE similar.  But ONLY in the mechanics of battle.  You run from area to area taking cover behind the mass amounts of available boxes that are seemingly scattered everywhere throughout the universe, and lean out of cover to fire.  Obviously that's just my opinion, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

The focus on powers, and the inability to get quick head shots used to differentiate the two substantially.  But it's built on the same engine, and to me the extra focus on action really make the battles feel like playing Gears of War.  The inclusion of heavy weapons only seals the deal for me, as problem solving in battle can now rely on the tried and true shooter philosophy of "If that didn't kill it, use a bigger gun."

No there are no upgrades in GoW.  It only feels similar to Gears of War in terms of battles as I stated above.  But Bioshock alone has powers with upgrades, weapons with upgrades, exploration, different ammo types and a very deep and involved story.  Dead Space has weapons with upgrades, armor with upgrades, minor use of powers, and minor interaction with a squad.  Splinter Cell is another good example of a shooter which contains many of these elements, and a neat stealth element to boot. 

I completely agree that ME 2 stands out in the interaction with characters.  Even though you interact with characters in any other game, it's generally not player directed interaction.  So, as I stated in my previous post, the interaction and dialogue, which are actually part of the same whole, are what sets this apart from any other shooter on the market.

 I chose Gears of War as the primary comparison, because that what the battles feel like to me, and the battles will be a large portion of the game.  Not because Gears of War alone contained all the elements I was mentioning were also contained in other shooters.

Shooters have been borrowing heavily from RPG elements lately.  So, when you push so far in the action oriented direction, I can't tell if I'm getting an RPG with action elements or a shooter with RPG elements.  When it comes to Bioware, I'd prefer the former. 

In the end, if the story can still suck me in, it won't matter and I'll play it.  But I won't enjoy the battles as much as I did the ones in Mass Effect.

Modifié par Typifire, 29 janvier 2010 - 02:41 .

[DoctorPringles]

I enjoy the changes. ME1's gameplay was rather slow-paced and I found myself never using my squadmate's abilities. Tactics were basically moot, as Shep could solo anything. I find the increased reliability on tactics and the faster-paced shooter-style gameplay very welcome. And, to top it off, we've still got the story and the dialogue and the choices that make RPG's great.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Typifire wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...


For the record, you too (and anyone else), have the right to their opinions. I wasn't callin you an idea. I was calling the idea that ME2 is like GoW idiotic b/c they aren't very similar at all.

They ARE similar.  But ONLY in the mechanics of battle.  You run from area to area taking cover behind the mass amounts of available boxes that are seemingly scattered everywhere throughout the universe, and lean out of cover to fire.  Obviously that's just my opinion, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

The focus on powers, and the inability to get quick head shots used to differentiate the two substantially.  But it's built on the same engine, and to me the extra focus on action really make the battles feel like playing Gears of War.  The inclusion of heavy weapons only seals the deal for me, as problem solving in battle can now rely on the tried and true shooter philosophy of "If that didn't kill it, use a bigger gun."

No there are no upgrades in GoW.  It only feels similar to Gears of War in terms of battles as I stated above.  But Bioshock alone has powers with upgrades, weapons with upgrades, exploration, different ammo types and a very deep and involved story.  Dead Space has weapons with upgrades, armor with upgrades, minor use of powers, and minor interaction with a squad.  Splinter Cell is another good example of a shooter which contains many of these elements, and a neat stealth element to boot. 

I completely agree that ME 2 stands out in the interaction with characters.  Even though you interact with characters in any other game, it's generally player directed interaction.  So, as I stated in my previous post, the interaction and dialogue, which are actually part of the same whole, are what sets this apart from any other shooter on the market.

 I chose Gears of War as the primary comparison, because that what the battles feel like to me, and the battles will be a large portion of the game.  Not because Gears of War alone contained all the elements I was mentioning were also contained in other shooters.

Shooters have been borrowing heavily from RPG elements lately.  So, when you push so far in the action oriented direction, I can't tell if I'm getting an RPG with action elements or a shooter with RPG elements.  When it comes to Bioware, I'd prefer the former. 

In the end, if the story can still suck me in, it won't matter and I'll play it.  But I won't enjoy the battles as much as I did the ones in Mass Effect.

Yeah, I said they were similiar with taking cover and what not.... but ME2 is leans more toward ME1 than it does GoW.

So, you would rather (in a future space faring world) have the hero kill everything with a pistol? That doesn't make much sense at all. I can totally see guns that freeze people, shoot multiple rockets, etc etc in a future type world like ME2. Battles are supposed to be fast-paced, exciting, and realistic.....at least, they are IMO. In ME1, I was so beast by the end of the game I could run in a room without squad mates, use zero powers, and clear the whole room with an AR. The enemies never can at me all at once or tried to get around behind me (not even on insanity). I can't see why anyone would hate the combat. Especially if its like combat in a game that they've played before and liked. I believe bioware's characters and story in this game make up (though I would say "add" ) to the fun or lackthereof in the new combat system.

Exactly, why do you think games are combining these elements, b/c more people buy them and IMO b/c they make the game more fun and satisfying. Personally, I loved Dead Space and Splinter Cell. Though I do believe ME2 has waaaay more RPGness to it than either of those games.

You aren't really getting either of those options. You're getting a Role playing game mixed and blended with the action of shooters. Both elements are pretty much equal in the game. When you have choices to do this or do that along with a great story, compelling characters, and customization .... you have an RPG. And when you have non-stop action, explosions, cool powers, and big guns.... you have a shooter. With ME2 you get a mixture of both and its the best of both worlds.

The battles in ME1 were boring and slow-paced.... I just don't see how anyone could like that type of combat. I kinda reminded me of KOTOR, where you could be battling 20 troopers but it still seemed slow-paced b/c it was turn based. I always wanted to be able to move around and slice up whoever I wanted with my lightsaber. Why can't the game be good with fast paced type action and not be considered just a shooter with some choices?

EDIT: BTW, I loved KOTOR and the fact that I didn't really enjoy the way the combat was handled didn't make me think the game was bad.

Modifié par xxSgt_Reed_24xx, 29 janvier 2010 - 02:55 .

[Daeion]

Liable****sman wrote...

Typifire wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Even though I enjoy it a great deal, I feel pretty alienated from this game. It doesn't feel like a BioWare game. Plus, I dread every quest now because I know it's just going to be shooting things.

Whereas you weren't just shooting things in ME1? The side-missions are much better in ME2 in the fact that they have some sort of relevance, and backstory.

ME1 sidemissions were a huge let-down, a massive disappointment, a gigantic waste of time. If you do not agree, then you have not played the game.

If you do agree, you will see that you point - in regards to ME2 - is completely useless :-)

No. You weren't just shooting things in ME. The use of powers was more important, because a strategically placed shot couldn't take out an opponent in one hit. To me, that made the game feel more tactical and the battles feel more tense.

Yes... The shooting-mechanics have been improved. How is this a bad thing? :-)

The mage has always been overpowered, that's just the way with RPGs. In the first few levels he/she will be weak, then the mage grows stronger and will eventually be able to dish out some stuff far more powerful than a few shots from an assault rifle.
Actually making a soldier-class quite standard, unless the player is able to carefully aim and shoot every target in the head, is pretty much like every other game on the market.

You like playing the mage, I like playing the fighter. We are different, but for once it would seem you haven't got the "better" character? :-)

Lucy_Glitter, I don't miss exploring the planets, honestly, if I traded it in for actual meaningful sidemissions and non-recycled, non-bland terrain!

And instead of exploring planets we now have probe commander....

[Bigeyez]

Because all RPGs need to have needlessly complex, clunky, and inane inventory systems ammirite?



Oh and btw there are stats on armor, just so you know.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

I've noticed you complaining about the head shots in this game. Um, if you get shot in the head you should die instantly.

[Bigeyez]

Typifire wrote...

No. You weren't just shooting things in ME. The use of powers was more important, because a strategically placed shot couldn't take out an opponent in one hit. To me, that made the game feel more tactical and the battles feel more tense.

You obviously haven't played any difficulty modes beyond easy, because you rely on powers MUCH more then in ME 1. Even Soldiers find themselves constantly changing ammo powers in fights, along with using other abilities. In fact NOT using you and your squads powers is the quickest way to run out of ammo. With barriers, shields, armor, and health bars to eat through you can't just sit there and shoot like your implying...Unlike in Mass Effect 1 where you just had to put frictionless materials on any gun and hold down the trigger and viola, everyones dead.

[Daeion]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Comparing this game to Gears of War is idiotic. (FYI, GoW is one of my favorite TPS games)

RPG elements in ME2:

-Character driven story
-Upgrading your abilities
-Interacting with your squad mates (romancing and the like)
-Upgrading your ship
-Upgrading your armor
-Applying ammo types to your weapons
-Dialogue choices
-Exploration

RPG elements in GoW:
- You play the role of a COG soldier
- That's it

To say ME2 is like GoW is a HUGE exaggeration!

- ME2 is just as much an RPG as ME1 was ..... In fact, its better.
No more retarded weapons like Avalanche II, III, IV (those were pointless) Now you can add ammo types, which is a form of customization (uh oh RPG element)

- You still have an inventory of weapons and armor.... its just located on your ship. (which is more realistic anyway)

- The combat upgrades make the game more fun and allow it to flow better. I mean, who wants to wait forever to use another power. Reloading isn't a problem b/c there is always plenty of ammo. Heavy weapons add an exciting new element to combat

- You still have the same type of dialogue choices and now they added interrupts, which are pretty cool IMO

- You still have the great characters, story, everything bioware is known for.

You can have a character driven story in any genre of game, honestly I felt ODST, a shooter, did a very good job of making you feel a part of the story.  Having the different lvls of a particular gun and having them ahve stats is more RPGish then what we have now.  In ME1 you had a model that was produced over a certain number of years and with each year came an upgrade and thus it got better.  Now we have weapons with no stats and apparently a weapon is never improved upon by the manufacturer.  You know there were ammo types in the first game and they weren't restricted by class right?

Oh yes, it's so realistic that I scan an item and without going back to my ship it has somehow witched places with what I had before and my squadmates that were with me got duplicates in 1 second and didn't need to go back the the ship either.  It's also so realistic that I'm hoping around the galaxy in a matter of seconds. 

[Bigeyez]

Daeion wrote...


And instead of exploring planets we now have probe commander....

Exploring the same desert planet in different colors was fun to you? Because after the 50th slightly gray desert planet the "fun" of exploring in ME 1 kinda faded away for me.

[Daeion]

WrexEffex wrote...

Typifire wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Comparing this game to Gears of War is idiotic.

If you would have read the thread, I was complaining that the game play felt more like Gears of War than did ME.

Which is a form of comparison. Your comparing it to a game that feels similar.

What I don't get is that if you play shooters, you obviously like them. ME2 Is both a shooter and a rpg, so what's not to like?

Because not people want different thigns from different games.  I don't want a hybridized bastard, I want a game that excels at what it's meant to excel at.  The only thing that ME 2 is doing well so far is the story and even bits of it feel like the clipped things.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Bigeyez wrote...

Typifire wrote...

No. You weren't just shooting things in ME. The use of powers was more important, because a strategically placed shot couldn't take out an opponent in one hit. To me, that made the game feel more tactical and the battles feel more tense.

You obviously haven't played any difficulty modes beyond easy, because you rely on powers MUCH more then in ME 1. Even Soldiers find themselves constantly changing ammo powers in fights, along with using other abilities. In fact NOT using you and your squads powers is the quickest way to run out of ammo. With barriers, shields, armor, and health bars to eat through you can't just sit there and shoot like your implying...Unlike in Mass Effect 1 where you just had to put frictionless materials on any gun and hold down the trigger and viola, everyones dead.

This is exactly why I think the combat in ME2 is better than the first. IMO, people are just trying to run into rooms, hold down the trigger, and expect everything to instantly die and for them not to have a chance of dying.

[Daeion]

Bigeyez wrote...

Daeion wrote...


And instead of exploring planets we now have probe commander....

Exploring the same desert planet in different colors was fun to you? Because after the 50th slightly gray desert planet the "fun" of exploring in ME 1 kinda faded away for me.

It was a lot more interactive then playing probe commander.  I'm not saying the exploration worlds were always enjoyable, I mean they were all baren except for a handful of enemies and navigating around them was a pain in the mako, this however was something that could have been improved rather then scrapped.

[Daeion]

VanDraegon wrote...

Well, as someone who never played ME1, i think that ME2 is fantastic. IMO, spec isnt a good setting for a hard full on rpg. I think that the fantasy setting is what it was made for. A space setting with all of its pew pew weapons is a natural shooter setting. ME2 has added in enough character development, story and dialog to make it a very engrossing game.

Fantastic!

Except for the fact that ME1 which was billed as RP perfected delivered what many considered to be a great RPG experience and really only needed a few small tweeks.  Instead BW delivered a completely guted game.