90 réponses à ce sujet

[Nimander]

I loved ME1.



I loved ME2 even more.



I'm also pretty up on just about all types of RPGs. Saying that ME2 isn't an RPG/is less an RPG is fallacious. I really wish people who say that actually knew what the heck they were talking about. Again, as I've said many times, there are RPGs out there -- real RPGs -- who have even less in the way of fiddly bits than ME2. It's totally fine to say you don't like it. That's cool, that's subjective opinion and personal choice. But all these backhanded 'not really an RPG' or similar statements just show a lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

[sttm64]

i completly agree. i played ME1 many times and never got bored, but ME2 it is hard for myself from being bored. just some of the points that you have listed and a few more. i really feel it doesnt goin as in depth as ME1 pr give you the choice to say ''screw cover, im taking the fight to them.'' also the conversations with your crew, doesnt seem to live up to ME1. but that is just me.

[ZennExile]

Nimander wrote...

I loved ME1.

I loved ME2 even more.

I'm also pretty up on just about all types of RPGs. Saying that ME2 isn't an RPG/is less an RPG is fallacious. I really wish people who say that actually knew what the heck they were talking about. Again, as I've said many times, there are RPGs out there -- real RPGs -- who have even less in the way of fiddly bits than ME2. It's totally fine to say you don't like it. That's cool, that's subjective opinion and personal choice. But all these backhanded 'not really an RPG' or similar statements just show a lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

Define RPG Elements for me.

Given your answer I can probably shed some light on your misconceptions.

[MagicianCamille]

As far as inventory management goes, ME1 was too much but also too weak. Yeah you could have all those weapons and armor suits, but they didn't look too great, or different from each other. ME2 on the other hand might have been TOO simple. Everything looks great, but there's not much variety, and we miss the simple things like hiding helms during social scenarios(drinking through a helmet is just weird).



Overall I prefer ME2's system, as we didn't have all these stupid blocky colorful weapons hanging off of us making us look like legos or power rangers. I hope they strike a better balance in ME3 though.

[Nimander]

... my misconceptions.



Wow. I think that pretty much says it all.



All I have to do is point to actual RPGs like oh, Savage Worlds, Fate3, or for even rules /lighter/, something like Don't Rest Your Head.



All are RPGs. All lack tons of fiddly bits, especially the last. Again, you do not get to redefine the term that the entire RPG industry uses. Deal with it.

[olp33]

KalosCast wrote...

I will never forgive all you mako whiners. To anybody who's played a game with tanks in it before, it was not difficult in the slightest to drive, and the planet scanning mechanic is 35 different kinds of BOOOOOOOOOOOOORING. At least driving the Mako over barren landscapes meant that there was something other than an oscilloscope to hold your attention while you still dealt with a 99% empty planet, and there was the small chance that you'd run across something largely random and inconsequential... or a Thresher Maw.
The core gameplay itself is unchanged in the "main world" exploration, dialogue trees are still much more engaging than any other iteration, Bioware or otherwise, and I felt like the combat was much more engaging this time around. However, many powers not being an option until the enemy is stripped all the way down to just "Health" feels so pointless, by the time they're that low, they've already lost and are about to be torn to shreds by gunplay.
Overall, the game is an improvement, especially since the inventory system in the first game was so horrendous that I'm happy to see it go, but I feel like Bioware was too heavily focused on removing things that got poor reception instead of IMPROVING things that got poor reception... like the unexplored planets. In the first game, at least you knew that SOMETHING would happen, even if it was boring, by the virtue that the planet can be landed on. This time around, you know that even if there's something to actually do on the planet, you're going to be playing that godawful scanning game to even find it.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to addressed to me but I will address it like it was. Before you get your panties tied in a knot not once did I complain about the Mako. The fact I said I never missed it means I never thought about it. The Mako in ME2 would feel unnecessary based on the length of the side missions in ME2. I liked the scanning better in ME2 b/c of the purpose it served (research) unlike the ME1 (credits). In ME1 I loved killing  Thresher Maws and was prob one of the 50% of players that actually had the patience to kill them. The Mako had one level that messed me up, which was the destroying Geth bases one. That was the only time the Mako made me mad. Next time don't randomly get pissed at nothing anyone said on this topic.  

Modifié par olp33, 02 février 2010 - 06:51 .

[ZennExile]

Nimander wrote...

... my misconceptions.

Wow. I think that pretty much says it all.

All I have to do is point to actual RPGs like oh, Savage Worlds, Fate3, or for even rules /lighter/, something like Don't Rest Your Head.

All are RPGs. All lack tons of fiddly bits, especially the last. Again, you do not get to redefine the term that the entire RPG industry uses. Deal with it.

I asked for your definition of RPG elements.  I defined nothing.

I can't help you with your misconceptions unless I understand what parts of your perception are lacking.  What is this definition the entire RPG industry uses?  If of course you don't have your own definition which would be preferable.

[olp33]

[/quote]

I was fine with the credits.  But the armor and weapons...  My Squad was badass and looked the part in ME1.  Really though I don't mind the new "system" they chose to use.  It just shoulda been more than 1 set of weapons with upgrades and a bunch of heavy weapons you can't use very much because the amo they use is finite.

But really I want them to release the real ME2 now...  This game just doesn't fit the mold that ME1 made in any meaningful way...
[/quote]

THIS 
 

[Nimander]

ZennExile wrote...
I can't help you with your misconceptions unless I understand what parts of your perception are lacking.  What is this definition the entire RPG industry uses?  If of course you don't have your own definition which would be preferable.

Logical Fallacy #1: Begging the Question
Logical Fallacy #2: False Dilemma (Close enough!)

I don't think arguing will help.  Good luck railing to the skies.

[bjdbwea]

Dumbed down? The combat in ME 1 wasn't exactly great, even with the better inventory and loot system. Combat in ME 2 works much better, even though the lack of different weapons and armor is ridiculous. But Mass Effect was never about combat, but mostly about story, characters and dialogue. Has that been dumbed down? Yes, and no. I love the good and bad actions you can take during dialogue. A great addition. On the other hand, the story doesn't feel as deep and well connected as it did in ME 1. Feels at times more like several unrelated episodes geared for people with short attention spans.

[olp33]

bjdbwea wrote...

Dumbed down? The combat in ME 1 wasn't exactly great, even with the better inventory and loot system. Combat in ME 2 works much better, even though the lack of different weapons and armor is ridiculous. But Mass Effect was never about combat, but mostly about story, characters and dialogue. Has that been dumbed down? Yes, and no. I love the good and bad actions you can take during dialogue. A great addition. On the other hand, the story doesn't feel as deep and well connected as it did in ME 1. Feels at times more like several unrelated episodes geared for people with short attention spans.

I agree combat was awsome in ME2 and Paragon/Renegade system I enjoy alot more (forgot to add that......o well) But overall game depth has been stripped down alot. I use dumbed down b/c the ppl who couldn't multitask in ME1 basically spammed Bioware to make it more simple for them. But yes the story I also feel was less complex and insignificant.

[AuraofMana]

RPG stands for Role-Playing Games.  You make choices in Mass Effect 2, and you are role-playing as Commander Shepard.  No where in the RPG definition does it require the inventory system you are thinking of.  It does have an inventory system.
You are thinking of specific types of inventory systems - one where you can store things you pick up.  You can sell or use those things.

Think of Zelda games, you have an inventory system, but is it nothing like the one in ME1.  You can't sell any of your items, and they are all either weapons or tools you utilize for certain aspects of the game.  That sounds exactly like the ME2 inventory, so unless you can prove Zelda games are not RPGs, then you are wrong.

Before ME2 came out, all I see is people complaining about how crappy the inventory in ME1 was.  Now they got something better, and the same people are complaining.  Know what an inventory system is before expressing your opinions.

ME1 has always been a FPS/RPG hybrid.  Just because they file it under RPG doesn't make it so.  ME2 took more emphasis in the FPS approach, which, despite my elevated preference toward RPGs, I like the way ME2 is going as opposed to ME1.

ME1 had horrible combat.  The only reason why it didn't feel horrible was because you can just run around with Immunity on, Singularity everything, and then gun down with your Spectre 10 weapon with no heating issues at helpless targets floating in midair.  This is because the game is a FPS/RPG hybrid.  When you throw stats into the game, it makes the shooting less useful as you can employ heavy CC and rediculous skills like Immunity and just decimate everything without any effort.

ME2 did the FPS/RPG hybrid right.  By emphasizing on the need on:
-Accuracy: now you have ammo count, you have to make every shot count.
-Shooting: shooting is going to be your main damage for the most part, because skills are on a global cooldown, which leads to them being used less.  Shields, barriers, and armors also render practically all CC useless until they are down.
-Tactics: now you actually need to take the right teammates with the right build into missions because shields, barriers, and armors require specific abilities to take down.

I asked for your definition of RPG elements.  I defined nothing.

I
can't help you with your misconceptions unless I understand what parts
of your perception are lacking.  What is this definition the entire RPG
industry uses?  If of course you don't have your own definition which
would be preferable.

So you assume he has misconceptions when you don't even understand his preception.  So you are saying you assume he is wrong before you even knew what he was talking about, and that you are right and you refuse to even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe your opinion is wrong?

You don't understand what RPG means, don't go around trying to convince people on a subject you have no idea about.  Wikipedia is a good place to start if you actually want to understand what RPG actually means instead of your own illusion of it.

[Solid N7]

AuraofMana wrote...

RPG stands for Role-Playing Games.  You make choices in Mass Effect 2, and you are role-playing as Commander Shepard.  No where in the RPG definition does it require the inventory system you are thinking of.  It does have an inventory system.
You are thinking of specific types of inventory systems - one where you can store things you pick up.  You can sell or use those things.

Think of Zelda games, you have an inventory system, but is it nothing like the one in ME1.  You can't sell any of your items, and they are all either weapons or tools you utilize for certain aspects of the game.  That sounds exactly like the ME2 inventory, so unless you can prove Zelda games are not RPGs, then you are wrong.

Before ME2 came out, all I see is people complaining about how crappy the inventory in ME1 was.  Now they got something better, and the same people are complaining.  Know what an inventory system is before expressing your opinions.

ME1 has always been a FPS/RPG hybrid.  Just because they file it under RPG doesn't make it so.  ME2 took more emphasis in the FPS approach, which, despite my elevated preference toward RPGs, I like the way ME2 is going as opposed to ME1.

ME1 had horrible combat.  The only reason why it didn't feel horrible was because you can just run around with Immunity on, Singularity everything, and then gun down with your Spectre 10 weapon with no heating issues at helpless targets floating in midair.  This is because the game is a FPS/RPG hybrid.  When you throw stats into the game, it makes the shooting less useful as you can employ heavy CC and rediculous skills like Immunity and just decimate everything without any effort.

ME2 did the FPS/RPG hybrid right.  By emphasizing on the need on:
-Accuracy: now you have ammo count, you have to make every shot count.
-Shooting: shooting is going to be your main damage for the most part, because skills are on a global cooldown, which leads to them being used less.  Shields, barriers, and armors also render practically all CC useless until they are down.
-Tactics: now you actually need to take the right teammates with the right build into missions because shields, barriers, and armors require specific abilities to take down.

I asked for your definition of RPG elements.  I defined nothing.

I
can't help you with your misconceptions unless I understand what parts
of your perception are lacking.  What is this definition the entire RPG
industry uses?  If of course you don't have your own definition which
would be preferable.

So you assume he has misconceptions when you don't even understand his preception.  So you are saying you assume he is wrong before you even knew what he was talking about, and that you are right and you refuse to even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe your opinion is wrong?

You don't understand what RPG means, don't go around trying to convince people on a subject you have no idea about.  Wikipedia is a good place to start if you actually want to understand what RPG actually means instead of your own illusion of it.

^^^^This

[ZennExile]

Nimander wrote...

ZennExile wrote...
I can't help you with your misconceptions unless I understand what parts of your perception are lacking.  What is this definition the entire RPG industry uses?  If of course you don't have your own definition which would be preferable.

Logical Fallacy #1: Begging the Question
Logical Fallacy #2: False Dilemma (Close enough!)

I don't think arguing will help.  Good luck railing to the skies.

If you can't define any element of the idea with which you base all of your opinions then it didn't help posting at all did it?

If you don't know what makes and RPG an RPG that's fine but this fancy wordplay could have been avoided with a simple "In My Opinion" or "As I understand it".  It would have also prevented me from pointing out that your perspective is limited and any understanding you have gleamed from that perspective is useless to a logical arguement of any kind.

You attempt to define RPG as "something other people already defined" yet you can't answer a simple question about that definition let alone your personal interpritation of it.  Even though this definition has somehow in your mind clearly established the validity of your assumptions and gross exagerations.

If we want to start talking about fallacies we'd have no choice but to start with your original post and correct them in your own statement since I can assure you my opinion will never be a fallacy because I never claim it as proof of any theory.

But since you are giving up on helping someone else understand your "singular and unique" perspective there really is no sense in continuing the conversation.

That and you have no clue what makes an RPG or why people say things like ME2 is less RPG and more shooter, which it in fact is and was the intention of development.  Even your imagination fails to "fill in the blanks" when your ideas are called into question.

These things suggest to me that you are either a very lazy troll who hasn't thought his latest troll all the way through, or you aren't very good at expressing your opinions in a manner that other people understand and instead of attempting it you lash out in frustration at any attempt made by another poster to futher understand your perspective which you yourself have a limited grasp on.

Either way your misconceptions are limiting your perspective greatly about the differences between ME1 and ME2 and I assume as well similar misconceptions negatively affect other aspects of your life.

Maybe if you become aware of this you can help both the community here and yourself by attempting to better understand how your imagination works and how easily one part of your mind can trick another into accepting a false reality. 

Modifié par ZennExile, 02 février 2010 - 07:18 .

[olp33]

Nimander wrote...

I loved ME1.

I loved ME2 even more.

I'm also pretty up on just about all types of RPGs. Saying that ME2 isn't an RPG/is less an RPG is fallacious. I really wish people who say that actually knew what the heck they were talking about. Again, as I've said many times, there are RPGs out there -- real RPGs -- who have even less in the way of fiddly bits than ME2. It's totally fine to say you don't like it. That's cool, that's subjective opinion and personal choice. But all these backhanded 'not really an RPG' or similar statements just show a lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

I'm not going to get into a crazy argument with you but I understand what you mean. You see the difference you referred to me is comparing an Action RPG to a classic RPG. Something like Fable 2 is an action RPG where inventory and loot don't play a large role where in Dragon Age it is quite the opposite. In ME1 our loot provided a more vast amount of weapons and armor to ME2 (even though they were generic). I expected Bioware to make a wider variety of weapons and eliminating the more generic ones instead of just getting two very different types of pistols (just for an example). I expected 6.

But yes I said I liked ME2 and this is more of me requesting that Bioware make ME3 a mix of ME2 and ME1 instead of heading off the path of a classic RPG.

[olp33]

AuraofMana wrote...

RPG stands for Role-Playing Games.  You make choices in Mass Effect 2, and you are role-playing as Commander Shepard.  No where in the RPG definition does it require the inventory system you are thinking of.  It does have an inventory system.
You are thinking of specific types of inventory systems - one where you can store things you pick up.  You can sell or use those things.

Think of Zelda games, you have an inventory system, but is it nothing like the one in ME1.  You can't sell any of your items, and they are all either weapons or tools you utilize for certain aspects of the game.  That sounds exactly like the ME2 inventory, so unless you can prove Zelda games are not RPGs, then you are wrong.

Before ME2 came out, all I see is people complaining about how crappy the inventory in ME1 was.  Now they got something better, and the same people are complaining.  Know what an inventory system is before expressing your opinions.

ME1 has always been a FPS/RPG hybrid.  Just because they file it under RPG doesn't make it so.  ME2 took more emphasis in the FPS approach, which, despite my elevated preference toward RPGs, I like the way ME2 is going as opposed to ME1.

ME1 had horrible combat.  The only reason why it didn't feel horrible was because you can just run around with Immunity on, Singularity everything, and then gun down with your Spectre 10 weapon with no heating issues at helpless targets floating in midair.  This is because the game is a FPS/RPG hybrid.  When you throw stats into the game, it makes the shooting less useful as you can employ heavy CC and rediculous skills like Immunity and just decimate everything without any effort.

ME2 did the FPS/RPG hybrid right.  By emphasizing on the need on:
-Accuracy: now you have ammo count, you have to make every shot count.
-Shooting: shooting is going to be your main damage for the most part, because skills are on a global cooldown, which leads to them being used less.  Shields, barriers, and armors also render practically all CC useless until they are down.
-Tactics: now you actually need to take the right teammates with the right build into missions because shields, barriers, and armors require specific abilities to take down.

I asked for your definition of RPG elements.  I defined nothing.

I
can't help you with your misconceptions unless I understand what parts
of your perception are lacking.  What is this definition the entire RPG
industry uses?  If of course you don't have your own definition which
would be preferable.

So you assume he has misconceptions when you don't even understand his preception.  So you are saying you assume he is wrong before you even knew what he was talking about, and that you are right and you refuse to even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe your opinion is wrong?

You don't understand what RPG means, don't go around trying to convince people on a subject you have no idea about.  Wikipedia is a good place to start if you actually want to understand what RPG actually means instead of your own illusion of it.

Sorry I have to disagree with you definition of an RPG just b/c it stands for Role Playing Game doesn't justify the mechanic. Think of the most classic RPG.......D&D thats the mechanic many RPGs use and is why its considered a classic RPG mechanic. The ones that stray off the path and focus on combat are considered Action RPGs. I know on my part I'm suggesting the classic inventory/looting mechanic, which ME1 had, shouldn't have been completely taken out.

[vinak]

I would like to see more stat choices, higher level cap, (shouldn't be able to reach cap simply by doing main story)more skills, and more armor and weapon choices.



ammo skills need to be turned back into weapon upgrades like they were in ME1. implement "hot swappable" ammo upgrades to adapt to changing combat situations.



armor should mean something again...I swear I was walking into a firefight with armor made out of paper mache.



hybrid system when it comes to thermal clips. use the clips for rapid fire and fast "reload" or go without and deal with slower fire rates and risk of overheating. I really hate being restricted to what type of weapon I am using because some developer decided we shouldn't continue our play style from ME1 to ME2.



hybrid system again when it comes to firing. I am not too bad at shooters, so don't assume this when I make this suggestion. But some people are not so good at them. Bioware should accommodate the RPG player and re-implement targeting assistance. toggle-able on and off of course. maybe have an achievement for keeping it off for an entire playthrough.



Mako is far superior to the scanning system...honestly..what where you thinking? scanning is so boring It is making me reconsider starting any new games cause I simply do not want to have to put up with it anymore. it is so boring. why couldn't we simply buy upgrades? why can't we buy and sell resources? why can't upgrades carry over into a game+? why can't we do any preliminary scans to see what kinds of elements are on the planet before we decide to invest time in doing more precision scanning? I had so much of one particular element and so few of another I spent countless hours scouring any planet i came across with a decent enough rating for the one element I needed. just get rid of it...please.



in conclusion, Bioware would do well to revisit ME1 and re-implement the stuff that worked when they consider what they are going to do in ME3

[Nimander]

ZennExile wrote...
These things suggest to me that you are either a very lazy troll who hasn't thought his latest troll all the way through, or you aren't very good at expressing your opinions in a manner that other people understand and instead of attempting it you lash out in frustration at any attempt made by another poster to futher understand your perspective which you yourself have a limited grasp on.

Or, maybe, I don't see a reason to argue someone whose speech is condescending and who are making assumptions.  Good try though.  You're on my ignore list, have fun.

[ZennExile]

AuraofMana wrote...

*snip for lack of context in assertions...*

So you assume he has misconceptions when you don't even understand his preception.  So you are saying you assume he is wrong before you even knew what he was talking about, and that you are right and you refuse to even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe your opinion is wrong?

You don't understand what RPG means, don't go around trying to convince people on a subject you have no idea about.  Wikipedia is a good place to start if you actually want to understand what RPG actually means instead of your own illusion of it.

I assume quite a few things.  But none of them are quite wrong because I assume in a general manner that allows for context to change the overall idea.

That poster's misconceptions come from his own previous statements about not understanding yet at the same time developing a theory based on not understanding.

You got the point.  But you lacked the context to use the knowledge I gave you in a meaningful way.  Hense changing the idea with context, or in your case a lack there of.

Thank you though for pointing out what I was attempting to help this person discover themself through self reflection.

[AuraofMana]

I assume quite a few things. But none of them are quite wrong because I assume in a general manner that allows for context to change the overall idea.

You didn't assume in a general manner. You assumed a specific type of inventory system and implied that because ME2's was not exactly that, it is not a RPG.

That poster's misconceptions come from his own previous statements
about not understanding yet at the same time developing a theory based
on not understanding

You never pointed out anything that he "didn't understand".  In fact, all you did was assume he was wrong without any attempt in justifying your remark.

You got the point.  But you lacked the context to use the knowledge I
gave you in a meaningful way.  Hense changing the idea with context, or
in your case a lack there of.

You never said anything meaningful or offered any knowledge.  In fact, you are just piercing together words that seem intelligent without actually saying anything.  Sorry buddy, but using big words without actually using logic and reasoning doesn't make your opinions right.

Thank you though for pointing out what I was attempting to help this person discover themself through self reflection.

Good try.

Sorry I have to disagree with you definition of an RPG just b/c it
stands for Role Playing Game doesn't justify the mechanic. Think of the
most classic RPG.......D&D thats the mechanic many RPGs use and is
why its considered a classic RPG mechanic. The ones that stray off the
path and focus on combat are considered Action RPGs. I know on my part
I'm suggesting the classic inventory/looting mechanic, which ME1 had,
shouldn't have been completely taken out.

Let's start off with logic.  Since you claim that any game without the specific type of inventory DND has, it is not considered a RPG, then we can say this:
Zelda games do not have that type of inventory system.  Zelda games are considered RPGs.
Thus, RPG does not require the prescence of that specific type of inventory as a defining element.

Action RPG is a subgenre of RPG.  Plenty of ARPGs do not have the specific type of inventory system you speak of.  In fact, you can't even prove RPG even require that type of inventory system.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 02 février 2010 - 07:35 .

[Dracotamer]

Completely agree with EVERYTHING OP said.

[ZennExile]

Nimander wrote...

ZennExile wrote...
These things suggest to me that you are either a very lazy troll who hasn't thought his latest troll all the way through, or you aren't very good at expressing your opinions in a manner that other people understand and instead of attempting it you lash out in frustration at any attempt made by another poster to futher understand your perspective which you yourself have a limited grasp on.

Or, maybe, I don't see a reason to argue someone whose speech is condescending and who are making assumptions.  Good try though.  You're on my ignore list, have fun.

Further misconceptions about my "speach" when this is clearly a text box aren't helping.  However you are still lashing out in frustration rather than seeing that your misconcpetions are the only thing keeping you from understanding.

So far you seem to fit the profile of a troll completely.  You even followed up your attack on anyone who doesn't agree with you by announcing you are ignoring someone publicly in a last ditch effort to instigate hostility.  Although these are all assumptions they seem to fit based on your behavior.

Context on your part would confirm or deny my initial assumptions but you refuse context as if it might be damaging to you in some way to share your understanding with another person.  That itself also suggests you are simply attempting to "Roleplay" a forum troll.  Again another assumption on my part but given the context seems accurate.

The fact that you couldn't help but read this even though you publicly announced ignore and are only hesitating to respond because I have mentioned this dilema in this post, also lends itself to my assertation that you are in fact just trying to rabble rouse.

[ZennExile]

AuraofMana wrote...

I assume quite a few things. But none of them are quite wrong because I assume in a general manner that allows for context to change the overall idea.

You didn't assume in a general manner. You assumed a specific type of inventory system and implied that because ME2's was not exactly that, it is not a RPG.

Did I?  Would you mind quoting me on that because I think I may have developed a split personality as I remember nothing about a post of that nature.

[olp33]

Pretty sure tht was me plus I never said ME2 wasn't an RPG. It just took out more classic RPG features; which most I thought was great in the first one.

[AuraofMana]

ZennExile wrote...

AuraofMana wrote...

I assume quite a few things. But none of them are quite wrong because I assume in a general manner that allows for context to change the overall idea.

You didn't assume in a general manner. You assumed a specific type of inventory system and implied that because ME2's was not exactly that, it is not a RPG.

Did I?  Would you mind quoting me on that because I think I may have developed a split personality as I remember nothing about a post of that nature.

Nimander wrote...

I loved ME1.

I loved ME2 even more.

I'm
also pretty up on just about all types of RPGs. Saying that ME2 isn't
an RPG/is less an RPG is fallacious. I really wish people who say that
actually knew what the heck they were talking about. Again, as I've
said many times, there are RPGs out there -- real RPGs -- who have even
less in the way of fiddly bits than ME2. It's totally fine to say you
don't like it. That's cool, that's subjective opinion and personal
choice. But all these backhanded 'not really an RPG' or similar
statements just show a lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

Define RPG Elements for me.

Given your answer I can probably shed some light on your misconceptions.

Your stance on the fact that he is wrong implies that you believe that specific type of inventory system is required for the game to be considered a RPG.

1. OP wishes Bioware to make ME3 with more RPG elements after complaining about the "lack of one" in ME2, making ME2 not a RPG.
2. Nimander claims OP is wrong and knows nothing about what defines a RPG, implying that the lack of that specific type of inventory system does not mean ME2 is not a RPG.
3. You assume Nimander is wrong.  Thus, you are agreeing with OP in the stance that without that type of inventory system, ME2 lacks RPG elements and can be assumed it is not one.