109 réponses à ce sujet

[SphereofSilence]

I agree mostly with the OP. Here's a few points I'd like to add.



Weapons - Each new weapon works and feels differently. Each has its own quirks and is viable. The removal of weapon proficiency skills and thermal clips actually encourages the player to switch weapons around, both to manage your supply of 'ammo' and to use the right weapons for the right situations. Ultimately, this gives more variety and adds to tactical nature of the combat.



Armor - You can customize your armor pieces depending on the type of playstyle you prefer. If you want to survive more as a charging vanguard, just take with you all those health enhancing pieces. Want to be the ultimate headshot sniper? Bring on those damage and headshot bonus armor. There are plenty more 'builds' you can try out.



Skills - progression points in ME2 may be a bit scarce on granularity, but the increasing point weightage actually encourages to player to think on what type of playstyle they want their Shepard to be. Do I want to specialize in certain skills or do I become a jack of all trades?



Also, I'd like to point out that having a massive loot system and inventory might give players the illusion of progression and reward, but it was hollow in ME1 since you get tons of crap whose basic job was to give you cash and took huge amount of your time away focusing on the game proper.



One thing that is 'trimmed' are weapon mods. But if you think about it, because everyone have access to only a few mod types in ME2, this actually encourages the use of tactics and try out on different squad combinations. If everyone has all access to all mods, then it'd be more boring when it comes to tactics of combat.



I suggest trying the game in insanity mode, for it is here that the changes made really shine.

[Zentrasi]

I think the main reason for the looting and inventory change is because the new system lends itself far better to DLC. Now they can add new styles of weapons and armour along with corresponding upgrades via DLC instead of just adding slightly upgraded versions of what is already in the game, as it would have to have been with the ME1 weapons, which were all same.

[SinHound]

I did not say some larp groups ignored their rules I said that they don't follow the concept that you were claiming every 'avid' roleplayer follows.

Where does LARPing start? Where does ALL Role/Roll playing start? With rules and a system.

Most larping does not avoid fights, I don't know what larping you've been to but obviously by your statements you don't do it and so don't know what you are talking about.

VtM LARPing is the only one I have personal experience with. DnD LARP'ing extends only to beating people with wooden swords (that was fun), however the systems themselves still lend to the player not being the character.

You seem to be dictating how people should roleplay, where is this consensus that larp is not roleplay?

Google-fu, broham. Roleplaying clubs, Online Forums, Hobby shops. There's a REASON that even the generic roleplayer looks down on LARP'ers with disdain. Personally, they can do as they wish. This has been that way since its inception.

it is roleplay by the very definition of roleplay, just because you don't like it because you get beaten up at it doesn't make it any less so.

First, 6'3, 240 or so, trained in Germain swordfighting styles, along with multiple martial arts. Second, I tend to play characters that, because of who they are, would definitely get beaten up - so why would I complain about having something happen that I designed? Third, it is only PARTIALLY roleplay, by the very definition of roleplay.

Please, give me something more to work with here, because at the moment you are coming across as not only a roleplay fascist but one who doesn't even know what he's talking about.  Consider the origins of CRPGs in order to explain why they are roleplay and LARP isn't?  They both have the same origin mate, roleplay.

I never said LARPing wasn't RPing, I said it was RP lite. It -IS- RP lite. Video Game RP's are ALSO RP lite.

You come on, patronise people, and then prove that you not only don't know what you're talking about but are merely just trying to force your own views down on everyone, people roleplay how they want, just because it's not your way doesn't make them any less of a roleplayer, just different.

Show me where I proved I don't know what I'm talking about.

People can roleplay however they like, but there is - in fact - different LEVELS of roleplay.

YOU may not view it so, but there is. Not just from my view, but from the view of the COMMUNITY.

[lyssalu]

 well thought out, and i agree with you on many levels.

[SnowHeart1]

Commander Darmok wrote...

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.

<_<  Starting off with snide comments is a great way to get people to read your post and give your arguments serious consideration as opposed to simply firing back with equally snide comments or just saying tl;dr.

Weapons/Spectre Grade:  Agreed.  However, I enjoyed the ability to install different mods on my weapons for the mission at hand.  In a hard-core RPG, we would see both research and mod-installation.

Armor/Barbie:  Disagree somewhat.  On your first playthrough, it actually took quite a while to get Colossus armor, if you managed it at all.  Instead, if you were paying attention, you realized that different suits of comparable cost had different degrees of shields, damage reduction and biotic protection.  There was definitely an element of dress-up involved, but there was also a bit of strategy.  At least until you hit the Predator L/M/H and Colossus armors, at which point I would agree with you.  The dress-up in ME2 is much improved (yes, I like playing dressup with my Shep's armor) and incorporated some great features.  But, armor/shields/etc are now almost completely unrelated to your armor but rather based on your class.  You can get percentage-based adjustments for your armor, but it's functional utility has been almost entirely scrapped in favor of "balancing" every stage of the game.

Leveling:  I don't mind this so much in ME2, but I would have liked a few more points per level and a few more skills.  However, on a second play-through, Shepard actually has a decent selection of skills and more options for customization.  One hidden change in leveling up/squad selection that I personally appreciated was changing the hacking/decryption mechanic.  Sometimes I just didn't want to bring Tali or Garrus in ME1... now I don't have to, and I appreciate the flexibility.  So, getting rid of some of the skills was a definite improvement.

It's not dumbing it down, it's making it consistently fun! 

That is entirely personal opinion, which is fine, but... parts of the game have been "dumbed down" or streamlined, depending on how you want to phrase it.  I think "dumbed down" is entirely appropriate yet, at the same time, I greatly enjoyed Mass Effect 2 and play it for what it is:  a shooter with RPG elements.  It is not, by my measure, an RPG, and I wish people would stop trying to convince me that is is, because, as an RPG, it's mediocre, but as a shooter with storytelling and RPG elements, it's fantastic.

In the end, what it comes down to is what each individual likes to see from an RPG.  Some people really enjoy looting and inventory management.  Others don't.  Neither opinion is right or wrong, they're just different parts of games that people enjoy differently.

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 04 février 2010 - 12:16 .

[Daeion]

spock06 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

spock06 wrote...

I agree with the OP. I wouldn't mind a few more weapons and armor for squadmates but its not a big deal and doesn't make ME2 "not an RPG"

ME2 is a Shooter RPG so it's still a RPG, it's just less of a RPG then the first which was a RPG shooter.

honestly, who gives a s**t? why do we have to label it as a shooter-rpg or rpg-shootzomg.  Its an awesome game that I am throughly enjoying and that is that.  is there some kind of "RPG Richtometer" whereas we say oh well ME1 measure a 8.3 on the RPG scale, ME2 only get s 5.6?? Who cares.

I'm just saying what the emphasis of the games seem to be to me.  ME was more about the RP and options then it was about the combat, this game they focused more on the combat.  People care because they want different things from the game.  I know people who want BW to scrap everything except for the story and just go halo mode.

[Daeion]

Katecheta wrote...

OP presented logical arguments and backed them up by facts, not opinions. It doesn't happen often on this board. I agree with him.

I didn't know it was a fact that people wanted to suck at the begining of a game...

I didn't know I wanted to customize armor because I secretly wanted to be playing with barbies...

Modifié par Daeion, 04 février 2010 - 12:21 .

[TheConfidenceMan]

Zentrasi wrote...

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.

They AREN'T THERE. Hacking as a skill that you invest points in is GONE. Weapon and armor proficiencies that you invest points in are GONE. That's it. They haven't been replaced by anything.

Your hacking/bypass skills in the game are no longer about your character's (or party members') proficiencies in said skills, but the player's.

How proficient you are with your weapon is no longer informed by how trained your character is in said weapon, it's just the player and his twitch skills.
 
Again, you may prefer it this way and think it makes for better combat or it's more realistic or whatever, but don't tell me it's no less an RPG, much less more of one, because that's objectively wrong.

[Daeion]

SphereofSilence wrote...

Also, I'd like to point out that having a massive loot system and inventory might give players the illusion of progression and reward, but it was hollow in ME1 since you get tons of crap whose basic job was to give you cash and took huge amount of your time away focusing on the game proper.

I'll agree that there were way too many items, however they could have cut 50% of the manufacturers out and bam there you go, issue solved.  A lot of us simply feel that they didn't need to scrap they system and that it could have easily been improved.

[Guanxii]

As we all know the inventory system in ME1 on PC was a great improvement on the original 360 version but i've since come to the conclusion that not only is ME PC's infinitely better from just about any aspect from tactical to looting, but the ME2 system isn't really an inventory system at all in any real sense and hence this actually works largely in it's favor on consoles.

In my opinion it's fairly obvious that Mass Effect right from the outset was was always intended to be geared towards the tastes of mainstream console-gamers which was the exact opposite approach started with KOTR/JE which attempted to bring a PC RPG experience to consoles.

Mass Effect was kind of a sleeper hit when it launched and part of the rational for this I believe is that while it was light on RPG-exploits by traditional RPG standards it was still a bridge too far for most mainstream console gamers and with ME2 BioWare have finally hit that sweet spot and to compensate for some of these concerns DA:O clearly caters to the BioWare base.

I just wish that BioWare would have released Mass Effect 2 later on PC with lots of enhanced features e.g. deeper inventory/customization options more reminiscent of the first game and this would have reduced initial piracy to only the 360 version in the all important first few months of sales as is industry standard practice and ensured a prolonged product life-span in order to maximise it sales potential and pacify the base.

Modifié par Guanxii, 04 février 2010 - 12:47 .

[jkruse05]

Ok, I'm not going to argue a side here, but I will say that ME1's inventory, combat, and weapons systems were poorly implemented, but had depth (though I personally believe this depth was a bit of an illusion). On the other side, ME2's systems are good ideas, and well implemented, but too shallow and need to be connected more to the players' individual choices. Bioware needs to find a balance between the two. I have a few ideas that I think would be well received in this regard, I may post a topic with them later.

[Sych0n0ught]

The only small thing I didn't like as much other than the first game. Was the health bar. I feel like I need to see a more full bar to actually see when my friends are about to to duie.

[SnowHeart1]

jkruse05 wrote...

...I will say that ME1's inventory, combat, and weapons systems were poorly implemented, but had depth (though I personally believe this depth was a bit of an illusion). On the other side, ME2's systems are good ideas, and well implemented, but too shallow and need to be connected more to the players' individual choices. Bioware needs to find a balance between the two...

Nail, meet hammer.  /signed and 100% agree. 

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 04 février 2010 - 12:53 .

[Khavos]

Alright, OP, I'll take a crack at a contrary response:

Weapons/Armor:  I'm classing these together because they boil down to the same thing for me, and a lot of other RPG players.  Loot.  I like loot.  I like loot progression.  ME1 had it, at least on the first playthrough.  I didn't get maxed-out Spectre weapons, and I certainly didn't get maxed-out Colossus armor.  The vast majority of the time I got marginal upgrades, and I'm perfectly fine with that.  In ME2, I'm picking up the main weapon I'll be using for the rest of the game in the first full mission outside of the tutorial, and all I'm doing from then on is upgrading it.  That doesn't appeal to me, least of all because I don't really need to, even on Insanity, but most of all because it doesn't have the, "Hey, cool, new ****!" appeal.  That appeal kept me grinding through WoW long after it stopped being fun, and I know I'm not alone in that, so clearly the loot treadmill has some mileage in it amongst RPG types. 

Customization's also an issue.  I like the new armor system for Shep; I intensely dislike that it wasn't applied for the squad.  You disliked having your entire team looking like a gang in ME1; I liked getting to a level of uniformity you might expect in a squad of elite galactic badasses, most of whom came from a military background to begin with.  Helped my own personal immersion.  Said immersion's broken in ME2 every time I see Jack running around in a firefight wearing pants and a belt across her ******.  Is there a Barbie for boys element to it?  Yeah, honestly, with me there probably is.  

Leveling: There's progression in ME2, sure, just as there was in ME1.  What there isn't, though, is customization.  This is, the more I think about it, one of the big sticking points for me.  Maxed-out Soldiers are going to look pretty much the same across the board, with the sole exception of which bonus skill they took.  Same goes for all the other classes.  You certainly progress, but your progress is more or less set in stone.  People asking for build advice really kind of crack me up, because it just doesn't matter.  ME1 wasn't fantastic at customization, but it was better.  Did it come at the expense of solid combat?  Sure.  

ME2's combat mechanics are great, don't get me wrong, but there's not much that's RPG about them.  It's a corridor shooter once the loading screen's finished.  I have no problem with shooters, having put in far more hours than I'd care to count into MW2 recently, but when the game can be played quite efficiently as nothing more than a shooter, well, it's time to call a spade a spade.  

Those are all important issues to me, but they aren't really the crux of why I'm dissatisfied with ME2 as an RPG.  That dissatisfaction stems, mostly, from the simple fact that it's a Bioware game.  Bioware manages to tell stories extremely well in their RPGs; more often than not, they manage it because they severely limit the player's ability to define the character.  I liked Icewind Dale more than Baldur's Gate.  I liked KotOR II more than KotOR.  Those are both true because both of the games I liked more gave the player far more control over the intangibles of the character; the background, the personality, the motivation.  They did it at the cost of a looser, less epic, less functional story.  Maybe it's just because it was the start of the trilogy, but ME1's Shep felt a lot less like Bioware was just letting me take their character for a spin for a couple of rounds before yanking him back to get on with what they wanted to do with him, but I definitely feel that way about it.  

ME2's a pretty good game, for what it is.  I just doubt I'll be finishing off the trilogy, as there are both better shooters and better RPGs out there, and the hybrid thing just isn't working for me anymore. 

Modifié par Khavos, 04 février 2010 - 01:10 .

[ME2Shephard]

I couldn't agree with you (theconfidenceman) more. I personally believe that this game was manufactured to please TPS fans more than RPG fans because there is a higher quantity of TPS fans in the world than RPG fans.

Anybody that claims that an evolved version of skill has more influence in ME2 than a Maxed skill in ME1 is sadly mistaken. You only say that because it takes a shorter amount of time to get it. You only need 10 points to evolve a skill in ME2 where as it was 12 in ME1.

The thing is that I believe people were so upset about not knowing how to build a character and so they complained and Bioware simplified it to appease those people. Skills aren't as important in this game as in the first. Also the whole stat system was taking out, thus the majority of the RPG element was gone.

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 04 février 2010 - 01:37 .

[Arde5643]

ME2Shephard wrote...

I couldn't agree with you (theconfidenceman) more. I personally believe that this game was manufactured to please TPS fans more than RPG fans because there is a higher quantity of TPS fans in the world than RPG fans.

Anybody that claims that an evolved version of skill has more influence in ME2 than a Maxed skill in ME1 is sadly mistaken. You only say that because it takes a shorter amount of time to get it. You only need 10 points to evolve a skill in ME2 where as it was 12 in ME1.

The thing is that I believe people were so upset about not knowing how to build a character and so they complained and Bioware simplified it to appease those people. Skills aren't as important in this game as in the first. Also the whole stat system was taking out, thus the majority of the RPG element was gone.

So where does that leave players who usually only play RPG games and not shooter games and yet thoroughly enjoy ME2 much more than ME1?
And since this board can get stupid easily, I've played both JRPG and WRPG from Ultima 7, Planescape Torment, Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Valkyria Profile, KOTOR, etc.
I played a lot of RPGs and I'd say that regardless of people's definition of RPG-ness, ME2 is a much better game and role playing game compared to the 1st one.
There are some things I miss in ME2 compared to ME1 though.

[Daeion]

Zentrasi wrote...

I think the main reason for the looting and inventory change is because the new system lends itself far better to DLC. Now they can add new styles of weapons and armour along with corresponding upgrades via DLC instead of just adding slightly upgraded versions of what is already in the game, as it would have to have been with the ME1 weapons, which were all same.

not really, they could have still gone with different weapons feeling different like they do now but just added different levels of them and done the same thing with DLC weapons.

[Daeion]

Arde5643 wrote...

ME2Shephard wrote...

I couldn't agree with you (theconfidenceman) more. I personally believe that this game was manufactured to please TPS fans more than RPG fans because there is a higher quantity of TPS fans in the world than RPG fans.

Anybody that claims that an evolved version of skill has more influence in ME2 than a Maxed skill in ME1 is sadly mistaken. You only say that because it takes a shorter amount of time to get it. You only need 10 points to evolve a skill in ME2 where as it was 12 in ME1.

The thing is that I believe people were so upset about not knowing how to build a character and so they complained and Bioware simplified it to appease those people. Skills aren't as important in this game as in the first. Also the whole stat system was taking out, thus the majority of the RPG element was gone.

So where does that leave players who usually only play RPG games and not shooter games and yet thoroughly enjoy ME2 much more than ME1?
And since this board can get stupid easily, I've played both JRPG and WRPG from Ultima 7, Planescape Torment, Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Valkyria Profile, KOTOR, etc.
I played a lot of RPGs and I'd say that regardless of people's definition of RPG-ness, ME2 is a much better game and role playing game compared to the 1st one.
There are some things I miss in ME2 compared to ME1 though.

There's nothing wrong with thinking ME1 is a better game, I and others might disagree, but to each their own.  IMO it's BioWare's job to find a way to please both sides while continuing the trilogy.

[loboME2]

Chrono Mizaki wrote...
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

Really? I tot the 'success' of ME2 was because ME1 was such a hit. If it was that hideous, no one would have pre-order ME2, and I even doubt Bioware would bothered making a sequel, let alone plan for a trilogy.

[Mezinger]

What about immersion? What about getting messages either from the email system in ME2 or the elevator rides in ME1 and actually having them tie into the game. What about the freaking mission complete screens and not getting XP for kills only for mission complete... you are so wrong!



It's still a decent game but it is a lesser RPG. IMO!

[ME2Shephard]

Arde5643 wrote...

ME2Shephard wrote...

I couldn't agree with you (theconfidenceman) more. I personally believe that this game was manufactured to please TPS fans more than RPG fans because there is a higher quantity of TPS fans in the world than RPG fans.

Anybody that claims that an evolved version of skill has more influence in ME2 than a Maxed skill in ME1 is sadly mistaken. You only say that because it takes a shorter amount of time to get it. You only need 10 points to evolve a skill in ME2 where as it was 12 in ME1.

The thing is that I believe people were so upset about not knowing how to build a character and so they complained and Bioware simplified it to appease those people. Skills aren't as important in this game as in the first. Also the whole stat system was taking out, thus the majority of the RPG element was gone.

So where does that leave players who usually only play RPG games and not shooter games and yet thoroughly enjoy ME2 much more than ME1?
And since this board can get stupid easily, I've played both JRPG and WRPG from Ultima 7, Planescape Torment, Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Valkyria Profile, KOTOR, etc.
I played a lot of RPGs and I'd say that regardless of people's definition of RPG-ness, ME2 is a much better game and role playing game compared to the 1st one.
There are some things I miss in ME2 compared to ME1 though.

Its all opinion based. Sure there is always going to be people that enjoyed something more than its predecessor and vice versa. I am one who enjoyed the stat system more than this combat oriented system that they installed in ME2. In my opinion, Stat builds are just as skilled as those of aiming and shooting. If not more. Stat builds take time, trial and error. You think about what would be good and then work on it with your next campaign. I feel you get more replay value out of the game this way aswell. ME2 has almost no replay value or NG+(aside from checking Paragon/Renegade choices) because you reach max level by the end of the game and your characters build is finished. I'm not taking anything away from ME2 because I enjoyed playing the game through two campaigns now (by the way Vanguards got a serious boost in strength in this game) but I believe it was "stupified" to a degree that build shouldn't matter and that skill at the game should... Hense the lack of RPG element. I enjoyed games like Dead Space and Gears of War also. But when my friends and I say "Wow I really want to play a RPG now" and turn on DA:O because of the nearly non-existent RPG element in ME2, something is wrong. Im not saying this game has no RPG elements (the leveling, skills, some character customization) but it is so limited that it makes me question the route Bioware is taking the trilogy. All I want is for stats to mean something. 

Another thing. For those that claim that Insanity is the hardest thing you have ever played... I suggest you take a moment and re-evaluate yourselves because I just went through it in 25 hrs with no trouble. Insanity isn't that difficult because you don't Mercs and Pirates using Immunity, which made Insanity in the first game hell to go through.

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 04 février 2010 - 03:51 .

[SphereofSilence]

Daeion wrote...

SphereofSilence wrote...

Also, I'd like to point out that having a massive loot system and inventory might give players the illusion of progression and reward, but it was hollow in ME1 since you get tons of crap whose basic job was to give you cash and took huge amount of your time away focusing on the game proper.

I'll agree that there were way too many items, however they could have cut 50% of the manufacturers out and bam there you go, issue solved.  A lot of us simply feel that they didn't need to scrap they system and that it could have easily been improved.

Except that the basic underlying problem would have remained - players will tend to pick the most damaging weapons and best armor of the lot and forgo the rest. Looking beyond the artificiliaties like renaming and reskinning, each weapon and armor functions exactly the same way, which means there aren't any meaningful contribution to gameplay except more firepower or protection. 

In ME2,  one improvement is that each weapon acquisition was distinct and contributed meaningfully to the gameplay. It wasn't just about different firepower, it's also about rate of fire, recoil, accuracy and other quirks. Each is suited for different situations, playstyle, preference and how well the player handles it.

For my playthrough on insanity, I find myself switching different weapons of the same class for different squad mates, and for different missions. If the upcoming mission is about facing tons of geth who has lots of shield, I'll equip the squad with the geth pulse rifle instead of the collector assault rifle. Being an infiltrator who prefer one shot kill in conjunction with cloaking, I prefer using the Widow sniper rifle, while Garrus and Thane's been equipped with the Viper semi-automatic assault rifle that deals higher damage per second overall. The second SMG might have tremendous rate of fire in comparison with the first, but it suffers from big recoil and poor accuracy. However, an experienced shooter can aim low and spray away to deal much higher damage,. Still it was a poor subsitute at longer ranges. There can be plenty more examples, the point being is that it is so much better a direction, at least for me personally.

[pedal2metal]

Role-playing video games originated more about choice & consequence (Zork I anyone?).

So that's the essence of a role-playing game where you role-play. That being said, the genre has evolved to include loot acquisition & other aspects. I thought the ME1 inventory system was completely broken so if they revive the "99% junk, 1% gold" approch to items, they had better have a decent inventory system. Given every other game they have ever done was fine, I'm certain they can do it if they choose to. DAO was fine for inventory & simple too. I never did understand how they screwed that up w/ME1. Must have been an intern...

[Commander Darmok]

Of the points that were actually made (aside from, no you're wrong!) there are a few that I would like to rebut.



I will concede that it is stupid you can't outfit your team. I get that they wanted each character to have their own individual look (VERY common among other popular rpgs, especially the turn-based kind,) but they should have given us an option to change it up in the same way that we change ours. Miranda's Aegis Vest could be different from ours, but still very well look like something she would wear while still customizable.



I noticed a counterpoint that in a standard rpg, player skill should have no bearing, and that the stats determine hit and damage. I will say that in ME2 this is absolutely the case. I know you have to "aim," but the reticle is extremely sticky when a target is involved (and set in stone if using a power!) I can hit an enemy across the area with an SMG just by pointing in his general direction. There's no skill in that. I'm not great at FPSs and would've never made that shot in say, Modern Warfare. The combat is realtime, but it's every bit as tactical as traditional rpg combat. Where will you place your squad? What powers will you use? Who will you hit first?



To those simply calling it Gears of War - yes. You got it. There's a cover system involved. ME2 is indeed the first game to use cover since Gears, and of course, the ability to cover is the defining characteristic of the entire game. /sarcasm



The loot. While you may not find it as much fun as finding a shiny new gun, consider this. It actually is more in depth than ME1 (not other rpgs, mind you.) ME1, you BOUGHT the Spectre X weapons (which I easily did on my first playthrough,) and often, the Colossus X armor. Sure, your very first playthrough you had to find better armors as you went along, but I rarely changed mine. It was easy to find the best pretty early. In ME2, even after you find everything, you still have to decide what you want/need. You may change your mind. I tinkered with my armor right before the last mission, something I never did in ME1.