109 réponses à ce sujet

[Commander Darmok]

First off, I'd like to say that I will apologize to the rpg purists that there is a small amount of skill required to actually aim and fire your weapon (it does snap to targets pretty quickly,) but aside from that, the rpg is there, it's just more realistic.

To define, although I don't believe that loot and leveling are ALL that an rpg is, for the sake of this argument, let's consider those the two main staples of an rpg.  Let's also consider that liking anything other than rolling dice on a table in the basement does not automatically make you a moron with a negative IQ.  Please.  I understand rolls, I really don't need to make sure they're the defining characteristic of a game to consider it an rpg.

Okay, on to business. 

Weapons:

In ME1, there were four types of gun - assault, sniper, shotgun, pistol.  Within these four types, there were varying degrees, but it was all essentially "this gun does more damage than the last."  Once you hit Spectre X, you were done.  Forever.  In addition, all you had to do to get the best of everything was loot a locker here and there, sell it, and you had enough money.  There was no joy of finding anything other than Colossus X armor, which once you found it, you were done finding anything cool.  The customization was cool, kinda.  I personally preferred the proton ammo, which only went to VII, so once I found it, I just left it in and I was done.

In ME2 we have smg, pistol, shotgun, assault, sniper, and heavy.    While there are only a few of each type of weapon, they are all decent to start out.  (I think that's the main crutch some of these rpg purists are leaning on - like we should force ourselves to suck at the beginning of a game.)  When you find other weapons, you have to decide which one works best for a situation.  Sure, one pistol does more damage, but the rate of fire is slower.  Which do you need more?  The thing that makes the weapons "better" is research.  Sure, it's not as flashy as a bright new gun, but a group willing to spend billions on a soldier isn't going to give him anything but the best.  Researching new additions to it really is the only way to make it more powerful.  What's more, the research holds more true to the rpg genre because it actually takes effort to make most of the upgrades happen - you have to explore to find most of them, you have to find the materials to implement them, and the ones you can buy are prohibitively expensive, especially if you're just starting out.  You have to plan what you're going to get , when, how, etc.  Once you have a great gun, it's not the end of the road - you can make it better, and it'll probably take you until the end of the game to max it out.  Specialized ammo is great as a power - why bother earning it when it was literally in EVERY SINGLE CRATE you came across in the game.  Fighting one wave of geth would net you thirteen frictionless materials X.

Armor:

Okay, be honest with yourselves for a minute - armor in a game is like barbie for boys.  You like to dress your character up in cool outfits.  Anyone care to guess what percentage of rpg gamers choose their armor purely based on cosmetics?

In ME1, your choice of armor was Colossus X.  You could fiddle with a couple upgrades for it, but if you wanted the best armor, you wanted Colossus X.  Your whole squad looked like a gang whose colors were black and red.  Once, for a challenge, I played through Insanity mode wearing Onyx I.  It wasn't that hard, and I stuck with Onyx forever after that just because I thought it looked cooler.

In ME2, they play to your sense of cosmetics right off the bat.  Once you hit that station, you can change the way your armor looks to suit you without changing its properties.  I love that addition.  The upgrades to the armor become not only cosmetic, but functional.  The chestplates look different (soothing our need for dress up,) but each piece does something different.  I can choose not to wear that hideous chestplate that makes my femshep look like a many-teated dog because I can choose leg plates that do something similar.  (Although, if I really need shields, teatville here I come.)  Even when you find the configuration of armor you want, you're not done - research will up your shields and health too.  You have to quest and explore to make that happen (a staple of rpg loot mechanics.)

Leveling:

In ME1, each level got you some points, which you HAD to spend to make something effective.  Your elite N7 commander cannot hit a wall with a pistol unless he has some points in it.  Each level grants you like 2% damage and accuracy, so you're not actually a decent shot until you're an "expert" in that skill. 

In ME2, I say there is just as much progression, they just make you work harder for it, and give it to you in larger doses.  Each increase in a skill is significant, although it never flat out sucks.  (Some people are complaining that they use their pistol to snipe - I say a person as trained as Shepard absolutely should be that good of a shot.)  Why in the world would you have to level a combat professional's weapon skills?  It doesn't make sense.  Powers above and beyond that require some training and experience.  So, instead of making you choose between being able to hit your target or use your cool power, they assume that an N7 commander can aim a gun and just head straight for the cool stuff.


Now, I can already see the attacks of "they dumbed it down" and "they're just giving you those powers so that more people will play it" coming in before I even hit the submit button.  Guys, this is important: STOP FLAGELLATING YOURSELVES!  It's okay to have cool powers in an rpg.  Moreover, it's okay to have a few of them right when you start!  It's not dumbing it down, it's making it consistently fun!  I love rpgs.  It's my favorite genre, and the one I play almost exclusively - but sometimes I really hate the people who play them.  What do you get out of being more 1337 with all 3% extra stats you have?  I get that the draw of an rpg is to make a character awesome, but who's to say that they can't start out awesome and go to "so awesome they survive a crazy suicide mission?"  I agree that Mass Effect isn't as strictly roleplaying as having a turn-based fighting mechanic (which I hate and think are outdated, but that's a different argument altogether,) but IT NEVER WAS.  As I played ME2 I said out loud to my dog (who was the only other person awake when I got home with it at midnight,) "thank God, this is what Mass Effect should have been.)

Okay, I'm going to hit submit now.  Rage and do not go gently into that good forum all you want.  I urge those who appreciate what ME has become to not condescend to answer statements like "they dumbed it down."  If you disagree with me, please back up your reasons instead of clinging to rpgs you played years ago and saying "it should be like this!"  If that game was so perfect, go play it instead. 

I will say this - ME1 had potential.  I got upset with it at times because of things that were broken.  (The combat, the leveling, the loot, etc.)  ME2 is my favorite game ever.  It's only been out a week, and I can already say that with confidence.  And now, my work day is over.  I will go home and play.  Peace!

[SinHound]

It's not. It's really not. Granted, it depends on your definition of RPG (PnP RP'er here, it's where the majority of my definition comes from), but ... yeah.



Really, it's a good game - and it deserves to be treated as such (I think ME/ME2 are the best games released this generation), but the complaints are relatively valid.

[Twitchmonkey]

SinHound wrote...

It's not. It's really not. Granted, it depends on your definition of RPG (PnP RP'er here, it's where the majority of my definition comes from), but ... yeah.

Really, it's a good game - and it deserves to be treated as such (I think ME/ME2 are the best games released this generation), but the complaints are relatively valid.

Good response, you've provided plenty of evidence to back up your stance, that's the sort of thing I like to see on these forums.

OP: I probably agree with you on many points, but I just haven't got the strength to read any more rants, from either side. Hopefully someone will come by to intelligently comment.

[Veex]

I agree with many of your points, and I do think that the inventory system in particular has been improved. I'll concede with some of the detractors that more options would have been nice, and that customizing your squad mates is also missed though.

[SinHound]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

SinHound wrote...

It's not. It's really not. Granted, it depends on your definition of RPG (PnP RP'er here, it's where the majority of my definition comes from), but ... yeah.

Really, it's a good game - and it deserves to be treated as such (I think ME/ME2 are the best games released this generation), but the complaints are relatively valid.

Good response, you've provided plenty of evidence to back up your stance, that's the sort of thing I like to see on these forums.

OP: I probably agree with you on many points, but I just haven't got the strength to read any more rants, from either side. Hopefully someone will come by to intelligently comment.

I don't have to back up my points, that's the thing. This is all opinion, and mine is derived from 18 years of playing PnP RP's, and 20 years of playing video game RP's. In my opinion, his assertation is incorrect. There's no point in posting WHY because people don't care for reasons. Their opinions are already set in stone. It's how the internet works, remember?

Now, if you want me to build a paper on what exactly defines an RPG and compare it to both ME1 and ME2, frankly it's not going to happen.

Honestly? I'll give you -ONE- point. Avid RP'ers will generally agree that the player's knowledge and abilities should have no influence on the character's knowledge and abilities. Since in ME1, you gain skills in the guns that increase the accuracy (and thus Sheps' knowledge and abilities with the weapons), and in ME2 it's based purely on player skill - you can see right there that on THAT point, ME1 is more of an RPG than ME2.

I really could go on, but what's the point?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Its not just armor for your character, but for the party. Now if they had Shepherd's armor system FOR ALL THE CHARACTERS I wouldn't be whinging on about it, but they didn't so I will continue to harp on it to ad nauseum on these forums.



It is a stupid design choice for ME2 the developers did. No intelligent soldier would go into a firefight in damaged armor. No battle hardened chick would go in a intense firefight half naked. No covert operative worth her salt would go in a hot zone without armored protection.

[TheConfidenceMan]

You may prefer it this way, and you're welcome to rationalize it any way you like, but on a purely objective basis it has less roleplaying elements than Mass Effect.



The issue is how little the choices you're given with respect to your character inform the core shooter gameplay, and how the choices you had in Mass Effect that informed gameplay outside of combat (hack/bypass, persuade skills) have essentially been removed.



So in Mass Effect you had skills to build up your proficiency with specific weapons, to improve your armor efficiency, improve your healing abilities, along with more generalized class skills that influenced cooldown times and such. Along with that you had lots of weapons and armors to upgrade, and tons of mods to go with them that affected them in a number of ways.



All of that stuff was working under the hood every time you took a shot or took a hit, and gave a sense that all those little choices accumulate into how proficient your character is at the role you've chosen.



To the extent that this is no longer a part of Mass Effect 2 is the extent to which it a lesser RPG.

[FKA_Servo]

OP summarized my thoughts exactly, with the same points that I've raised in the past - that once you've gotten Colossus and Spectre X with frictionless materials that's it.



I'd like to make one important point. Bioware is famous for making traditional RPGs. Troof. ME2 isn't a traditional RPG. NEITHER was ME1. It wasn't anything remotely like a traditional RPG. But some people can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that Bioware would make a game that's not a traditional RPG, so they're trying to fit ME into that framework.



Granted, both games have some aspects that typically go hand in hand with traditional RPGs, like leveling and a certain amount of character customization. But at it's gameplay core, ME was - and is - a shooter.



That's not to say that it's not an RPG. While I'm not going to be one of those knuckleheads who defends Mario 64 as an RPG because you're "playing a role" (durr), the genre is something that can go beyond menu-wading and turn-based combat. In my mind, an RPG is a game with a strong story that can be inluenced by the player in meaningful ways. Upon typing that, it sounds trite, so I'll try to elaborate in describing Mass Effect.



In Mass Effect, you are given a persona - Commander Shepard - and you have tremendous freedom in determining your own personality, backstory, and how you affect the action in the fixed narrative. The consequences and rewards, and even the direction of the story to a large degree, are influenced by you, and there are many different branching story paths. That sounds like an RPG to me.

[Twitchmonkey]

SinHound wrote...

I don't have to back up my points, that's the thing. This is all opinion, and mine is derived from 18 years of playing PnP RP's, and 20 years of playing video game RP's. In my opinion, his assertation is incorrect. There's no point in posting WHY because people don't care for reasons. Their opinions are already set in stone. It's how the internet works, remember?

You only need to back your beliefs if you want to be taken seriously. If that is not a requirement, then go ahead. Yes, the internet is a sewer of drudgery and pointless debate, but you knew what you were getting yourself into when you came here.

Honestly? I'll give you -ONE- point. Avid RP'ers will generally agree that the player's knowledge and abilities should have no influence on the character's knowledge and abilities. Since in ME1, you gain skills in the guns that increase the accuracy (and thus Sheps' knowledge and abilities with the weapons), and in ME2 it's based purely on player skill - you can see right there that on THAT point, ME1 is more of an RPG than ME2.

I really could go on, but what's the point?

That wasn't so hard, now was it? We could debate whether the standard RPG systems are important to actually creating a quality RPG, but from a tradtionalist standpoint, I can concede that point, and at least that's something.

[SinHound]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

You only need to back your beliefs if you want to be taken seriously. If that is not a requirement, then go ahead. Yes, the internet is a sewer of drudgery and pointless debate, but you knew what you were getting yourself into when you came here.

Fair enough.

That wasn't so hard, now was it? We could debate whether the standard RPG systems are important to actually creating a quality RPG, but from a tradtionalist standpoint, I can concede that point, and at least that's something.

That's the problem, though. All of my points are like that. The counter will always be whether or not they're necessery to quantify an RPG. That's where the opinion is, and you just can't objectively debate opinion.

[Jackal904]

I agree with the OP.

[Twitchmonkey]

SinHound wrote...

That's the problem, though. All of my points are like that. The counter will always be whether or not they're necessery to quantify an RPG. That's where the opinion is, and you just can't objectively debate opinion.

In some aspects this is true, but I'll take a well-formed opinion citing causes and examples for its validity than "ME2 ISH NO RPG QQ MOAR".

Not to say you did that, just saying.

[AtreiyaN7]

I think the OP has hit all the same points I usually do when arguing against the position that ME2 has somehow been neutered and is a pox on the franchise. I agree completely. *chuckle* I hope that this doesn't devolve into flaming on both sides vis a vis that other thread about the NYT review at least.

** Edited to remove typo!

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 03 février 2010 - 11:27 .

[Twitchmonkey]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I think the OP has hit all the points the same points I usually do when arguing against the position that ME2 has somehow been neutered and is a pox on the franchise. I agree completely. *chuckle* I hope that this doesn't devolve into flaming on both sides vis a vis that other thread about the NYT review at least.

You have far too much faith in these forums.

[Chrono Mizaki]

I've got to say, I definitely agree with you. Moreover to the fact, if it's 'dumbed down', then so be it. Anyone who's say that "Mass Effect 1 is better", then I'll advise you to take your red-rose tinted glasses off, because there's so many things wrong with Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 is superior, it's just a bad sequel in design terms. But those design changes is what makes the game better.



I'm going to state this: Mass Effect 1 is overrated. Really, it's a extremely ambitious game with hideous flaws that drowns it. Give me linear corridors over lifeless, open-ended planets with a buggy vehicle

[Warlokki]

Saying that you don't need to back up your opinions make you sound like an elitist jerk. Seriously.

Having useful and even good skills right from start don't make game less RPG. Having good items don't make game less RPG. I played pnp RPG (friends rules) where we were pretty much able to select armor and weapons right from start... and use them VERY well. No less RPG. We had no inventory system really either...

ME 1 and 2 are RPGs, just that your GM is rather railroader and you have been assinged a character and told what he or she can be, GM being a control freak. It's not sandbox (or HEAVY in my classification) RPG like Fallouts or TES series, or somewhat limited (MEDIUM) like KOTOR or DAO, but LIGHTRPG.

[SinHound]

In some aspects this is true, but I'll take a well-formed opinion citing causes and examples for its validity than "ME2 ISH NO RPG QQ MOAR".

Not to say you did that, just saying.

Well, personally I think it has less RPG elements (just a few), but the ones that are there are executed better. Some of these, however, I feel are integral to the RPG experience (haha, get it? I made a funny!) so *shrugs*.

I'm going to state this: Mass Effect 1 is overrated. Really, it's a extremely ambitious game with hideous flaws that drowns it. Give me linear corridors over lifeless, open-ended planets with a buggy vehicle

I'll never take linear anything, ever. Granted, this is me. DM's hate me because I rarely solve things the standard way.

Saying that you don't need to back up your opinions make you sound like an elitist jerk. Seriously.

You don't. Hell, you'd have to BE me to understand where my opinions truly come from.

Having useful and even good skills right from start don't make game less RPG.

That's entirely up to the system you're using. Generally, a relatively experienced character is more fun to play than a novice, or a veteran, but that's not the point.

I played pnp RPG (friends rules) where we were pretty much able to select armor and weapons right from start... and use them VERY well. No less RPG. We had no inventory system really either...

Child, there isn't a single PnP system in existance that doesn't have an inventory system (unless you were actually talking about a homebrew pnp, in which case ... I abstain from commenting). Also, every PnP allows you to select weapons and armor from the start (WoD does this well, IMO).

ME 1 and 2 are RPGs, just that your GM is rather railroader and you have been assinged a character and told what he or she can be,

A trait of video game RP's. This is part of where the problem with getting everyone to agree on what makes an RPG comes from.

GM being a control freak. It's not sandbox (or HEAVY in my classification) RPG like Fallouts or TES series, or somewhat limited (MEDIUM) like KOTOR or DAO, but LIGHTRPG.

Yes, it's part RPG. It's not more RPG than ME1, but it's still GOOD in the RP that it presents.

[Zentrasi]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

You may prefer it this way, and you're welcome to rationalize it any way you like, but on a purely objective basis it has less roleplaying elements than Mass Effect.

The issue is how little the choices you're given with respect to your character inform the core shooter gameplay, and how the choices you had in Mass Effect that informed gameplay outside of combat (hack/bypass, persuade skills) have essentially been removed.

  Removed? They are all sill there plus have been improved upon. In the first game there was only one style of hacking that was used for everything. In Mass Effect 2 you have two different styles. The persuade skills are still there but are now linked to your paragon and renegade scores so how you play your character has more effect in ME2 than it did in ME1. On top of that you now have the conversation interrupts which allow you to blur the line between your paragon or renegade character by stepping out of you normal role if you want to.

 At first the actual character skills seems shallow but each tree, when maxed out, does give you two options for customizing each skill which has a dramatic impact on combat. You'll know what I mean if you choose inferno ammo.. it's a big change to combat and gives immediate feedback on how much your skills have improved.

So in Mass Effect you had skills to build up your proficiency with specific weapons, to improve your armor efficiency, improve your healing abilities, along with more generalized class skills that influenced cooldown times and such. Along with that you had lots of weapons and armors to upgrade, and tons of mods to go with them that affected them in a number of ways.

All of that stuff was working under the hood every time you took a shot or took a hit, and gave a sense that all those little choices accumulate into how proficient your character is at the role you've chosen.

To the extent that this is no longer a part of Mass Effect 2 is the extent to which it a lesser RPG.

  It's all still there, just done differently. It's not linked to leveling up anymore but is linked to exploration, which to me still feels RPG like. I do like how you get to choose the armor parts which are like the mods in the first game. Mods in the first game gave no visual change to your character but they do in ME2, which again fits into the RPG category.
  As for the inventory and endless amounts of weapon and armor loot, I don't miss it at all. Probably because I've been playing Borderlands and many other games that have that system. It is fun but it's pretty shallow. I like the upgrade system in ME2 as it feels more realistic and makes the Normandy feel more useful. Again, it's linked to exploration which is a good change from just looting looting looting....

My 2 cents.

[Daeion]

Commander Darmok wrote...
Weapons:

In ME1, there were four types of gun - assault, sniper, shotgun, pistol.  Within these four types, there were varying degrees, but it was all essentially "this gun does more damage than the last."  Once you hit Spectre X, you were done.  Forever.  In addition, all you had to do to get the best of everything was loot a locker here and there, sell it, and you had enough money.  There was no joy of finding anything other than Colossus X armor, which once you found it, you were done finding anything cool.  The customization was cool, kinda.  I personally preferred the proton ammo, which only went to VII, so once I found it, I just left it in and I was done.

In ME2 we have smg, pistol, shotgun, assault, sniper, and heavy.    While there are only a few of each type of weapon, they are all decent to start out.  (I think that's the main crutch some of these rpg purists are leaning on - like we should force ourselves to suck at the beginning of a game.)  When you find other weapons, you have to decide which one works best for a situation.  Sure, one pistol does more damage, but the rate of fire is slower.  Which do you need more?  The thing that makes the weapons "better" is research.  Sure, it's not as flashy as a bright new gun, but a group willing to spend billions on a soldier isn't going to give him anything but the best.  Researching new additions to it really is the only way to make it more powerful.  What's more, the research holds more true to the rpg genre because it actually takes effort to make most of the upgrades happen - you have to explore to find most of them, you have to find the materials to implement them, and the ones you can buy are prohibitively expensive, especially if you're just starting out.  You have to plan what you're going to get , when, how, etc.  Once you have a great gun, it's not the end of the road - you can make it better, and it'll probably take you until the end of the game to max it out.  Specialized ammo is great as a power - why bother earning it when it was literally in EVERY SINGLE CRATE you came across in the game.  Fighting one wave of geth would net you thirteen frictionless materials X.

I haven't seen a single person say we should suck at the begining of the game, I can't go into details because of spoilers but really to  me it makes more sense to have to put points into weapon skills now, since you need to relearn them and adjust, then in the first game.  ME also had the slower rates of fire but more accuaracy or more damage as well so this is nothing new.  It's more exciting to come across a great mod for weapon then it is to find a plan for it and then stripmine a planet before you can use it.  What they need to do for ME3 is keep the unique feel of weapons, i.e. aull auto vs burst fire assualt rifles but still impliment levels for them.  As for ammo being a power it sucks honestly.  As a soldier I have three potential abilities taken up by something that was a simple weapon mod in the first game, and as an Adept it sucks becuase I somehow can remember how to kick ass but I can't remember how to use a specialty ammo unless I have a squad mat with the ability and then I all of a sudden can remember how to use it again...

Commander Darmok wrote...
Armor:

Okay, be honest with yourselves for a minute - armor in a game is like barbie for boys.  You like to dress your character up in cool outfits.  Anyone care to guess what percentage of rpg gamers choose their armor purely based on cosmetics?

In ME1, your choice of armor was Colossus X.  You could fiddle with a couple upgrades for it, but if you wanted the best armor, you wanted Colossus X.  Your whole squad looked like a gang whose colors were black and red.  Once, for a challenge, I played through Insanity mode wearing Onyx I.  It wasn't that hard, and I stuck with Onyx forever after that just because I thought it looked cooler.

In ME2, they play to your sense of cosmetics right off the bat.  Once you hit that station, you can change the way your armor looks to suit you without changing its properties.  I love that addition.  The upgrades to the armor become not only cosmetic, but functional.  The chestplates look different (soothing our need for dress up,) but each piece does something different.  I can choose not to wear that hideous chestplate that makes my femshep look like a many-teated dog because I can choose leg plates that do something similar.  (Although, if I really need shields, teatville here I come.)  Even when you find the configuration of armor you want, you're not done - research will up your shields and health too.  You have to quest and explore to make that happen (a staple of rpg loot mechanics.)

Parts of the chestplate may change but the overall look of the armor doesn't change, not that it really did in ME either. 

What you seem to be missing is that a lot of us like searching for that next upgrade, that next great find.  The problem was that in ME items were too easy to come by and there were too many manufacturers that you could simply tell you were going to scrap an item because of the manufacturer.

Now ME2 is a great game, but it doesn't even come close to being as much of an RPG as ME was.  Also, I ahve to ask, with the way the game is currently structured, with no loot, nothing better to find, what's my reasoning for playing NG+?  Sure Maybe I want to hit 30 but I can import a lvl 60 char and do it on my first play through.  The game doesn't change at all and as I said before there's nothing new to find.  Sure my weapons carry over but their mods don't so it's just the exact same process again, even more so then in ME.

[Warlokki]

I have to be you to really understand where your opinions come. I don't need to be you to understand the opions. But telling why helps that.

Also, calling people child when you have no idea how old they're are and how mature they're is very patronizing. I take offence in that.


EDIT ahh ****, should remember to quote posts.

Modifié par Warlokki, 03 février 2010 - 10:43 .

[newcomplex]

I posit that ME2 is more of a real time strategy then the original, because now you can control your squad in real time.

(as opposed to fake time)

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 février 2010 - 10:44 .

[Majpain007]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

Its not just armor for your character, but for the party. Now if they had Shepherd's armor system FOR ALL THE CHARACTERS I wouldn't be whinging on about it, but they didn't so I will continue to harp on it to ad nauseum on these forums.

It is a stupid design choice for ME2 the developers did. No intelligent soldier would go into a firefight in damaged armor. No battle hardened chick would go in a intense firefight half naked. No covert operative worth her salt would go in a hot zone without armored protection.

Agreed. I guess they needed a reason to use the Loyalty other than unlocking a power. I want more RPG element in ME 3.

[SinHound]

Warlokki wrote...

I have to be you to really understand where your opinions come. I don't need to be you to understand the opions. But telling why helps that.

Also, calling people child when you have no idea how old they're are and how mature they're is very patronizing. I take offence in that.


EDIT ahh ****, should remember to quote posts.

Did I say I cared if I seemed patronizing? I WAS being patronizing because you were WRONG. You were meant to take offense in that.

[Chrono Mizaki]

I'll never take linear anything, ever. Granted, this is me.

I'm okay with lineraity if it's executed properly. Granted, ME2 was more linear, but ME1 was a case of a linear, well-designed main quest, of which there's 6 worlds and mutliple, lifeless, bad-designed planets or ME2 tight, linear and corridor-esque levels, which connects nicely.

I probably prefer the first one level designs, because it feels like I'm not in a corridor. But I enjoyed the second one. But anyone who says ME1 wasn't linear is deluding themselves.

[Kevil]

Let me start by saying that I don't really care if ME2 is or is-not an RPG.  It is a fun game that I enjoy.

SinHound wrote...

...the player's knowledge and abilities should have no influence on the character's knowledge and abilities.

And see, right there.  THAT is one of the first statements I've read on these forums that makes me think about whether or not this really is an RPG.  I have been under the "ME2 is still an RPG" camp.  So buck up chum!  You've actually caused someone to question their opinion on the intarwebz!

That being said, with Shepard and ME I would not want to backslide into "I have to level up to shoot" land (Perfectly fine for a boot-camp to galactic-savior story though).  So I actually sort of agree, MY skill determines my character's actions... and so maybe it isn't a true through and through RPG.  It definetly containst the story elements of a video game RPG, but my character can't have combat prowess exceeding what I posess.

Love the game!  Having a blast!  RPG status not a big deal to me!