847 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

But when is collecting shards ever good? If BIoWare goes to the trouble of making a structured quest, they should follow through on making that content interesting, because a game developer shouldn't be content knowingly releasing their game with lame content under the assumption that it's optional. Personally, I like to complete things to learn more about the world (or anything really), and maybe my character wants to know about these shards, so the shard quest may be compulsory. However, neither my interest in knowing things nor my roleplaying change the fact that picking up shards is inherently boring.

I liked the shards because they gave me a reason to explore parts of the zones at a lower level than I might have otherwise. Also, I honestly enjoyed seeking out those shards in the hopes that they would provide aomething meangful. From an in-character perspective (the only perspective that matters), the shards work.

The mosaic tiles and bottles, though, were dreadful.

Also, believe it or not, but the very existence of a journal entry is a subliminal cue to the player that this activity is probably meaningful.

This I flatly reject.

In DA2 I went so far as not to read the journal at all.

We're not idiots; we know full well that many of ME's core mechanics actively inhibit you're preferred type of RPG design. We just don't care. Mechanics like interrupts are most certainly not a travesty. They improve dialog a great deal, just not in a way that you would like.

They actually improve dialogue in a way I do like. BioWare dialogue does need some means to be more active in it, and the interrupts do that - they just do it really badly.

They'd be much better if we could activate an auto-pause when they were available, and if we were given more information about what they entailed.

Also, having them tied to the paragon and renegade points creates a perverse incentive to play the game rather than play your character.

I thought you said you'd finally leave the franchise behind with the understanding that it's neither your kind of game nor was it ever trying to be.

I'd stop playing them, sure (which I actually did after ME2, but then I eventually played ME3 for research purposes), but there's no reason why I would stop advocating on behalf of my preferred design.

[MrFob]

I was not made to collect Shards; chose to do it for the rewards. It is optional. The only side content that felt forced to me were the Bottles of Thedas, and do contend that this quest could be improved.

For me and others, more optional content in a good thing, as it allows each Player to tailor their game as they wish.

 

Then don't clutter the frigging mini map with them!!!! That was my main gripe with the shards. Exploring in DA:I feels more like lawn mowing because it's all on the map and it's really hard for me to just ignore.The whole shard thing (and basically most other small side quests and collectables) would be soooo much better, so much more immersive, so much more rewarding if I would just stumble upon this stuff as I explore (that's what exploring is all about).

 

Worst case scenario: At some point I found a note on a dead body. It said that this guy saw something interesting and described the place where he saw it before he died. I thought "well, what a nice quest, let's ee if I'll come across a place that fits this description, better keep my eyes open." Then I open the map (for something else) and ther is a symbol indicating where exactly I can find what this note was talking about (and it was in area I hadn't even been too (black part of the map). What?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like maps and I like when things are indicated that we (the PC) are supposed to know about. But indicating every little thing (and having symbols every 2 meters) really takes the fun out of exploration IMO.

[RoboticWater]

I likedthe shards because they gave me a reason to explore parts of the zones at a lower level than I might have otherwise. Also, I hinestly enjoyed seeking out those ahards in the hopes that they would provide aomething meangful.

But you can lure people into higher level zones with literally anything. Any kind of content is enough to entice the player to move into a new area. Hell, the fact that it's a new area is probably enough.
 
Similarly, anything can provide a meaningful reward, so why not make it a more engaging quest?
 

From an in-character perspective (the only perspective that matters)

This I flatly reject.
 

This I flatly reject.

UI/UX designers would probably disagree. Checklists and journal entries are powerful tools that utilize most people's inherent compulsion to complete tasks.
 

In DA2 I went so far as not to read the journal at all.

Anecdotal.
 

They actually improve dialogue in a way I do like. BioWare dialogue does need some means to be more active in it, and the interrupts do that - they just do it really badly.

I'm perfectly aware of why you don't like them, but I and many others think that the inherent urgency of interrupts is a good thing.
 

I'd stop playing them, sure (which I actually did after ME2, but then I eventually played ME3 for research purposes), but there's no reason why I would stop advocating on behalf of my preferred design.

Because it's annoying? There's a point where dissenting opinions just become pissing in the wind. If the end of your argument will always be "but it should be an RPG," then we'll just be talking in circles.

[Cyonan]

I used it extensively. It was terrific. And yes, OP.
When they nerfed DAO's magic in Patch 2, I used a mod to undo it.

I don't like ability nerfs. Yet another reason why moddability is valuable.

 

Funnily enough, not long after I posted that I got a loading screen tip mentioning that very thing. As it turns out, they forgot to remove it when they nerfed the ability.

 

I agree that mod support is great to have since I like my abilities to be more balanced. One of the reasons I didn't like Knight-Enchanter is because once you have Spirit Blade and Fade Shield there is little reason to ever use anything else from a gameplay standpoint, as you'll basically never die by spamming that one ability. It completely broke the game's difficulty and rendered the need to do anything except spam Spirit Blade irrelevant.

 

Although with EA not wanting to give the Frostbite engine proper mod support, I suspect we'll not see it in ME:A either.

 

Because it's annoying? There's a point where dissenting opinions just become pissing in the wind. If the end of your argument will always be "but it should be an RPG," then we'll just be talking in circles.

 

He's no different from the people who want a toggle for nudity, or any other idea that gets thrown around these parts on a regular basis. Without any information from BioWare, there is very little for us to actually talk about except advocating for our personal ideas as to what ME:A should or shouldn't be.

 

Part of the problem is that Mass Effect has always tried to dance on the line between RPG and Third Person Shooter. Naturally you're going to have people advocating that it shift in one direction or the other, often without any regard for the people who enjoy the other side of things or what would make for a good game.

 

Personally I think they should keep on that line. Let the gameplay be more action oriented while the dialogue handles the role playing. Mass Effect was never a pure RPG nor a pure third person shooter, so it shouldn't neglect either side of things to try to be something that is isn't and never was.

[RoboticWater]

He's no different from the people who want a toggle for nudity, or any other idea that gets thrown around these parts on a regular basis. Without any information from BioWare, there is very little for us to actually talk about except advocating for our personal ideas as to what ME:A should or shouldn't be.

 

Part of the problem is that Mass Effect has always tried to dance on the line between RPG and Third Person Shooter. Naturally you're going to have people advocating that it shift in one direction or the other, often without any regard for the people who enjoy the other side of things or what would make for a good game.

 

Personally I think they should keep on that line. Let the gameplay be more action oriented while the dialogue handles the role playing. Mass Effect was never a pure RPG nor a pure third person shooter, so it shouldn't neglect either side of things to try to be something that is isn't and never was.

No, Sylvius actually seems intelligent. I just wish there was more nuance to go with it.

 

I can ignore trolls and melodramatic fans, but Sylvius has very good ideas about RPG design that simply don't apply to Mass Effect. Like you say, Mass Effect is in a peculiar spot being between a shooter and an RPG, so it's different to demand that it follow stricter RPG rules than Halo, but I still think that Mass Effect's niche is fairly consistent and well defined at this point. Clinging onto specific mechanics and "old BioWare" paradigms as justification for everything to be a certain way is a weak argument.

 

It annoys me more because these ideas could be influential for some other great RPG, but here on the Mass Effect forums, many of them are useless.

[vbibbi]

Then don't clutter the frigging mini map with them!!!! That was my main gripe with the shards. Exploring in DA:I feels more like lawn mowing because it's all on the map and it's really hard for me to just ignore.The whole shard thing (and basically most other small side quests and collectables) would be soooo much better, so much more immersive, so much more rewarding if I would just stumble upon this stuff as I explore (that's what exploring is all about).

 

Worst case scenario: At some point I found a note on a dead body. It said that this guy saw something interesting and described the place where he saw it before he died. I thought "well, what a nice quest, let's ee if I'll come across a place that fits this description, better keep my eyes open." Then I open the map (for something else) and ther is a symbol indicating where exactly I can find what this note was talking about (and it was in area I hadn't even been too (black part of the map). What?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like maps and I like when things are indicated that we (the PC) are supposed to know about. But indicating every little thing (and having symbols every 2 meters) really takes the fun out of exploration IMO.

 

I wouldn't mind having side quests that were not explicitly marked in the journal and forcing the player to figure it out. The only ones in DAI were needlessly complicated, though, for little reward. I'm only really thinking of that Emerald Graves one about the parson's notebook. It took months before the developers had to reveal that flower crown secret. Why can't there be a middle ground between that and map markers updating every step of the way?

 

But you can lure people into higher level zones with literally anything. Any kind of content is enough to entice the player to move into a new area. Hell, the fact that it's a new area is probably enough.

 

If someone wants to explore, they're going to explore whether there are shards to collect in the distance or not. The hardcore explorers are going to turn off the map icons and discover everything themselves, so do the shards even do anything then?

[MrFob]

I wouldn't mind having side quests that were not explicitly marked in the journal and forcing the player to figure it out. The only ones in DAI were needlessly complicated, though, for little reward. I'm only really thinking of that Emerald Graves one about the parson's notebook. It took months before the developers had to reveal that flower crown secret. Why can't there be a middle ground between that and map markers updating every step of the way?

 

I'd think a middle ground would be easy. Adventures these days often have an optional in game help that you can use when and if you want, why not the same for RPGs?

 

It would be enough to make it so that I have to right click on the quest in the journal and select something like "show map marker" if I want the help. Otherwise, it would not be on the map. Add an option in the options menu to show all map markers by default for those who really like the lawn mowing and everyone should be happy.

[sjsharp2011]

I'd think a middle ground would be easy. Adventures these days often have an optional in game help that you can use when and if you want, why not the same RPGs?

 

It would be enough to make it so that I have to right click on the quest in the journal and select something like "show map marker" if I want the help. Otherwise, it would not be on the map. Add an option in the options menu to show all map markers by default for those who really like the lawn mowing and everyone should be happy.

Very true in fact both DA and ME both have auto level up options which allow you tolevel up automatically for those that aren't experienced in RPG's. I have to admit in my early days playing ME I just pretty much just used that as I didn't really understand what I was doing back then. Now that I'm more familiar with the games and the way they work I tend to do it more manually now. The auto level dosen't work too well with DA as I find the game works better if you upgrade your abiliities and talents manually as I find I can't level upas quickly in the areas I need the points in for the times I actually need them. For ME though it works just fine. Although again in ME I've started to test myself by seeing if I can improve my performance further by doing it manually

[Elhanan]

Shards allowed the Player to use and train with the new Jumping ability. And as previously noted, they are optional. Thus the Shards integrate the new mechanics into the story if the Player wishes the rewards. But if they believe it is wrong to use the Ocular devices due to RP, there is also no penalty for doing so.

Personally found this quest was well made, unlike the Bottles collection.

[Gothfather]

It's a stupid form of the "messiah" though. I think it's silly that he's called Space Jesus often. Not trying to spark too serious of an argument here, but Jesus turned the other cheek and didn't carry plasma rifles. Or any rifles, for that matter.

 

I'd rather just side with Shepard's assessment of himself. "I'm just a soldier, Anderson." Why can't games just be this simple sometimes..

 

A messiah literary device =/= Jesus.

 

What you would rather doesn't stand up to the facts of the symbolism used. The symbolism used IS that of a messiah figure which isn't in and of itself making a religious figure or a religious narrative. Neo from the matrix is a messiah figure and it isn't at all a religious film or making a religious statement within the film. Neo is still however written using messiah literary devices. Hell there are numerous writings on this that you can find in academia as well as the web on this very topic. Shepard is similar, the messianic symbolism is there it is consistent and it spans all three games. I mean hell even the name Shepard is phonetically the same as shepherd which is one of the titles of the Christian messiah. Even the fact that in the beginning Shepard is disbelieved is yet another example of the messiah literary archetype at play. It isn't like there are one or two examples there are multiple aspects of Shepard that point to this including the the assertion of the myth upon their death. There is a reason why the game ends far into the future with talk of "THE Shepard" vs talk about Shepard.  

 

Games can and are that simple sometimes but your desire that mass effect to be written without symbolism doesn't remove the symbolism. If a writer writes in symbolism within a game desire or want doesn't remove it from the game. It is part of the game regardless of player desire. Truth is independent of belief, desire or want.

 

This is typical of people today they lack critical thinking skills, so everything about what they feel. They don't want Shepard to be X so they argue he isn't from their emotional position vs letting the facts form their opinion.

[Gothfather]

/snip

 

 

 

The decision to kill and revive Shepard may have come from that but if you're suggesting that the death and resurrection was planned when they wrote that part, or any part, of ME1, I very much disagree.

 

No. I am suggesting that they planned and clearly placed within ME1 the symbolism that Shepard was a Messiah figure. The death and 'resurrection' of Shepard isn't THE example of the messiah archetype of Shepard. It is one of MANY, they exist in ME1, ME2 and ME3. The literary symbolism that Shepard is a messianic figure is in all three games. I am not implying that they knew ahead of time exactly what they would include as symbolism in each game but rather they deliberately and intentionally made Shepard a messiah archetype and use messiah literary symbolism to convey this to the player in the series and this was intended from first game onward.

[Gothfather]

No, Sylvius actually seems intelligent. I just wish there was more nuance to go with it.

 

I can ignore trolls and melodramatic fans, but Sylvius has very good ideas about RPG design that simply don't apply to Mass Effect. Like you say, Mass Effect is in a peculiar spot being between a shooter and an RPG, so it's different to demand that it follow stricter RPG rules than Halo, but I still think that Mass Effect's niche is fairly consistent and well defined at this point. Clinging onto specific mechanics and "old BioWare" paradigms as justification for everything to be a certain way is 

 

It annoys me more because these ideas could be influential for some other great RPG, but here on the Mass Effect forums, many of them are useless.

 

No Sylvius has a narrow definition of what an RPG should and can be and if it doesn't fall within his predefined limits its 'wrong.' Not its just a style of RPG i don't like or RPGs have changed over the years and so on, it is objectively wrong. And that is his problem. He honestly believes that his subjective opinion on what makes a good rpg is objectively correct. He has zero understanding that the MARKET is made up of countless people that don't share his opinion and are just as valid in their opinion on what makes a good rpg as he is. He tries to convince people and bioware he is right and he has failed but he refuses to measure his success by other people. Which he thinks makes him wise but if you goal is to change opinion then measuring your success on what other people now believe is the only rational means of measuring success or failure.

 

This idea that participation trophy is all that matters so never measure success by other people is the rooted in narcissism. The love of self and self-esteem used to ignore the facts around you. Which is why he can't LET. IT. GO. that a voice protagonist is perfectly acceptable in an RPG he has to rail against it even though the market has clearly stated we don't mind the voice protagonist in fact we like it. (This is just one example of his pointless crusade about RPGs)  

 

[edit]Just to be clear his opinions on what an rpg should be are perfectly valid as its a subjective opinion that isn't the issue. Its the belief that subjective opinion is objective fact that is the problem.

[Addictress]

RoboticWater

[RoboticWater]

Shards allowed the Player to use and train with the new Jumping ability. And as previously noted, they are optional. Thus the Shards integrate the new mechanics into the story if the Player wishes the rewards. But if they believe it is wrong to use the Ocular devices due to RP, there is also no penalty for doing so.

Personally found this quest was well made, unlike the Bottles collection.

OK, if we're going to justify shards as platforming challenges, then I can understand your position. With that said, I think the game's jumping mechanics are painfully stiff and therefore found those platform challenges to be utter garbage. I suppose the debate then would be about how DA can improve the movement mechanics, but that's a more subjective topic.

 

However, I stand by what I said about journal entries and compulsion. If we can just turn that stuff off like Mr. Fob said, there's no problem. I did this to all the tiny loot quests in Witcher 3 and I'm never looking back.

[Elhanan]

OK, if we're going to justify shards as platforming challenges, then I can understand your position. With that said, I think the game's jumping mechanics are painfully stiff and therefore found those platform challenges to be utter garbage. I suppose the debate then would be about how DA can improve the movement mechanics, but that's a more subjective topic.
 
However, I stand by what I said about journal entries and compulsion. If we can just turn that stuff off like Mr. Fob said, there's no problem. I did this to all the tiny loot quests in Witcher 3 and I'm never looking back.

And I turn off all Floating Text to avoid knowing damage amts to avoid utilizing mechanics as a priority. If I want to see a combo, I have the Slow-Mo effect to inform me. But simply because I find this best for me does not mean those using it are flawed; it's a solo game with options to customize gameplay.

Could Jumping and Mounts be improved? Certainly, but it is so nice to have them after so many games without them. And what someone considers garbage has no influence over my own choice to perform the tasks for the desired rewards.

And I pass on TW3 altogether due to a lack of Pause functionality, and an over abundance of offensive content. Plus the fish bowl effect for that Witcher Sense would likely sicken me. I prefer to look forward while holding on to the best of the past.

[Cyonan]

OK, if we're going to justify shards as platforming challenges, then I can understand your position. With that said, I think the game's jumping mechanics are painfully stiff and therefore found those platform challenges to be utter garbage. I suppose the debate then would be about how DA can improve the movement mechanics, but that's a more subjective topic.

 

However, I stand by what I said about journal entries and compulsion. If we can just turn that stuff off like Mr. Fob said, there's no problem. I did this to all the tiny loot quests in Witcher 3 and I'm never looking back.

 

The thing about most of the shards is that they don't require platforming to even get, and the implication that a player needs to be trained in something as basic as a jumping mechanic beyond the first 30 minutes of the game is kind of silly anyway. Especially considering jumping is never a vital mechanic to the game.

 

In either case the real problem isn't that the shard collection quest exists but rather than it, and other busywork side quests, make up the bulk of things to do in the zones. The shards just kind of exemplify the issue because they're everywhere.

[Elhanan]

The thing about most of the shards is that they don't require platforming to even get, and the implication that a player needs to be trained in something as basic as a jumping mechanic beyond the first 30 minutes of the game is kind of silly anyway. Especially considering jumping is never a vital mechanic to the game.
 
In either case the real problem isn't that the shard collection quest exists but rather than it, and other busywork side quests, make up the bulk of things to do in the zones. The shards just kind of exemplify the issue because they're everywhere.

Not a vital mechanic, but it and leaping and falling certainly added a lot to my gameplay, esp for a Rogue. Being able to traverse a bridge, scaffold, or high ledges with these were fun, for me at least. Then because these were implemented, I was able to scout enemy positions and set up a flanking attack rather than take a main path into their own.

Were Bottles, Mosaics, and other collectables needed? Probably not, but they were enjoyed by some players. Same goes for like collections seen in ME1, Skyrim, DAO, etc. And I am grateful that much of the side content came without lengthy cut-scenes allowing me enjoy actual gameplay.

[Cyonan]

Not a vital mechanic, but it and leaping and falling certainly added a lot to my gameplay, esp for a Rogue. Being able to traverse a bridge, scaffold, or high ledges with these were fun, for me at least. Then because these were implemented, I was able to scout enemy positions and set up a flanking attack rather than take a main path into their own.

Were Bottles, Mosaics, and other collectables needed? Probably not, but they were enjoyed by some players. Same goes for like collections seen in ME1, Skyrim, DAO, etc. And I am grateful that much of the side content came without lengthy cut-scenes allowing me enjoy actual gameplay.

 

Well as I mentioned before you don't actually need to fill the areas with cut-scene side quests to make it interesting. That's just one of two main routes you can go.

 

The other one is what Skyrim does and lets you craft your own stories through the use of random encounters. The problem with DA:I is that, while the zones are more open and beautifully crafted, the encounters aren't actually all that random. There is no "This one time I ran into a Sabre Cat and nearly died so I ran off into a cave where I found this really cool item" like you can get in Skyrim because everything just feels so scripted.

 

I'm not advocating that they get rid of stuff like the shards or even the bottles and mosaics. I'm advocating that they make wandering around their zones more interesting, one way or another. I'm not personally against filling them with interesting side quests like The Witcher 3 did(which also had its share of the busywork stuff, too).

[RoboticWater]

Not a vital mechanic, but it and leaping and falling certainly added a lot to my gameplay, esp for a Rogue. Being able to traverse a bridge, scaffold, or high ledges with these were fun, for me at least. Then because these were implemented, I was able to scout enemy positions and set up a flanking attack rather than take a main path into their own.

How often did that happen though? And how often was it a especially beneficial strategy? I can't remember any instances where jumping on a ledge or flanking gave me a significant advantage. Most fights were on either relatively flat terrain or strict corridors. I even found it difficult to make use of higher ground because I couldn't reliably lock onto enemies below.

I wish DA:I had a greater emphasis on maneuvering in or before combat, because that would have made each encounter potentially more unique. I hope that's what the jetpack does for Mass Effect.
 

Were Bottles, Mosaics, and other collectables needed? Probably not, but they were enjoyed by some players. Same goes for like collections seen in ME1, Skyrim, DAO, etc. And I am grateful that much of the side content came without lengthy cut-scenes allowing me enjoy actual gameplay.

We're being a bit of a broken record here, but the problem isn't that there are collectibles and busywork, but that there are only collectibles and busywork. If someone gets pleasure from checking off those lists, go ahead, but it'd be nice to have something for the rest of us. I only suggest BioWare replace shards with better content (rather than have both) because it'd be less work for them for nearly the same payoff.

[MrFob]

I wish DA:I had a greater emphasis on maneuvering in or before combat, because that would have made each encounter potentially more unique. I hope that's what the jetpack does for Mass Effect.

 

I am actually quite hopeful on that front. Granted, we have only seen the jet pack in action for about 2 seconds but if those are indicative of gameplay, we should have a lot more freedom in movement. Really hope we'll be able to use that to our advantage often (also because my favorite class is infiltrator and the combination of the jetpack and a sniper rifle could be a lot of fun ).

[Iakus]

We should encourage them to do so.

And Baldur's Gate did produce some moments like that. It might be the only BioWare game that ever did, which is why I think it's the best BioWare game.

I would have loved to see Biff the Understudy show up and say Meredith's lines in Act 3...

[KaiserShep]

I would have loved to see Biff the Understudy show up and say Meredith's lines in Act 3...

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't Cullen technically be this understudy? Isn't he the highest ranking Templar in Kirkwall after Meredith? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

But you can lure people into higher level zones with literally anything. Any kind of content is enough to entice the player to move into a new area. Hell, the fact that it's a new area is probably enough.

That alone wouldn't provide an in-character reason.  After all, there are places in the real world you've never been, and simply that they are there hasn't been enough to entice you.

Similarly, anything can provide a meaningful reward, so why not make it a more engaging quest?

I can't object to that.  More engaging is good.

 

The strength of the shards is that they're so open-ended as to permit any rationale you can invent.  That doesn't make them the perfect quest, no, but it doesn't warrant their condemnation.  And as content goes, the shards take remarkably few zots.  Some of the content needs to be cheap to make, or else we're not going to get much content.

This I flatly reject.

The characters make decisions based on their experiences within the game world.  Those experiences exist only from an in-character perspective.  your experience as player exists differently, but you're not the one making the character's decisions (unless you're breaking the game's setting).

 

There is no coherent setting that permits the characters to act based on the preferences of some entity (the player) which doesn't exist within the setting.

UI/UX designers would probably disagree. Checklists and journal entries are powerful tools that utilize most people's inherent compulsion to complete tasks.

That's stupid.  That a checklist exists is no reason to complete it.

 

Journal entries that contain no metagame information would be hugely valuable.  I would love that.  But we haven't seen one in a BioWare game for a very long time.

Anecdotal.

All claims not supported by data are.

I'm perfectly aware of why you don't like them, but I and many others think that the inherent urgency of interrupts is a good thing.

I don't believe them.  You haven't seen a system that grants the benefits of the interrupts without the costs.  As such, I doubt you've accurately weighed the relative values of those two things.

 

On balance, you like the interrupts.  Fine.  But that doesn't mean we can't make them better.

Because it's annoying? There's a point where dissenting opinions just become pissing in the wind. If the end of your argument will always be "but it should be an RPG," then we'll just be talking in circles.

What value is there in a story that takes place in an incoherent setting?  To me, that reduces the game to a mindless diversion.  Mass Effect 3 is no better than Contra in those terms.  Mass Effect 3 not only doesn't require any mental engagement from me, but it actively interferes with any attempt to engage with it.  All I get to do is watch, and there's a reason movies aren't 30 hours long.

[KaiserShep]

Journal entries that contain no metagame information would be hugely valuable.  I would love that.  But we haven't seen one in a BioWare game for a very long time.

 

 

I'm pretty sure ME1's journal is such an example of what you're describing. As far as I can tell, the journal entries contain no more information than Shepard herself can read from computer data or hear from an NPC. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Although with EA not wanting to give the Frostbite engine proper mod support, I suspect we'll not see it in ME:A either.

I would agree, but that doesn't make me happy.

He's no different from the people who want a toggle for nudity, or any other idea that gets thrown around these parts on a regular basis. Without any information from BioWare, there is very little for us to actually talk about except advocating for our personal ideas as to what ME:A should or shouldn't be.

 

Part of the problem is that Mass Effect has always tried to dance on the line between RPG and Third Person Shooter. Naturally you're going to have people advocating that it shift in one direction or the other, often without any regard for the people who enjoy the other side of things or what would make for a good game.

 

Personally I think they should keep on that line. Let the gameplay be more action oriented while the dialogue handles the role playing. Mass Effect was never a pure RPG nor a pure third person shooter, so it shouldn't neglect either side of things to try to be something that is isn't and never was.

The dialogue is largely where ME goes wrong on the roleplaying front, though.  Sure, I'd prefer a more open level design, and more freedom about how to approach (or avoid) combat encounters, but ME's biggest problem is how it handles dialogue and characterisation.

 

The paraphrases were seemingly intentionally obfuscatory, my complaints about the interrupt system are well known, Shepard's demeanour was needlessly rigid (and stereotypically military), and the cinematics and auto-dialogue robbed us of control.  Frankly, ME3's combat was far better at allowing roleplaying than the dialogue was.  The combat is probably my favourite part of the game (and I paused to aim every shot).