10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Fhaileas]

shootist70 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

or it should only be applied if the game provides (a significant amount of) the additional features that so far defined the RPG genre. I would think the latter is the better conclusion.

But then we're still stuck with identifying what constitutes 'roleplaying' and we'd still be going off-topic.

This is what 'roleplaying' means to me: I've been playing RPG's for over 10 years, and yet I still found playing something like Rockstar's Red Dead Redemption to be far more of a roleplaying experience than most of the stats-driven, soulless RPG's I've tried in the past. It had decent story, characters and even a whiff of subtext. The only thing it didn't have was real roleplaying choice.

The thing about that sort of classic western setting is that people might prefer playing though it with any one of the gunslinger character archetypes we associate with the genre. Now, imagine if we took all RDR's character interactions and stuck in various options that might represent some of those archetypes. Now imagine that we branched off the main storyarc in various directions according to those choices.

Now THAT would be roleplaying - giving the player the chance to play through the fictive medium with a recognisable role that they've chosen for themself. That's all you need. The stats driven gear fest only serves to bog this down with mechanical and intrusive detail, and that's anathema to decent storytelling.

Personally I think ME2 has a fairly decent stab at it, but it's early steps in a decent direction for the genre.

Actually Bioware seemed to be quite happy selling ME2  primarily as a TPS. Their own advertising has heavily emphasized its role as a shooter, with next to no use of 'rpg' - maybe the odd reference to 'role playing' as an element. Right now it's very very difficult to use traditional gaming definitions as the whole trend seems to be towards merging genres towards one big misshmash of third-person-shooting-open-exploration-sandbox-role-playing-adventure.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 25 août 2010 - 08:19 .

[shootist70]

Fhaileas wrote...

Actually Bioware seemed to be quite happy selling ME2  primarily as a TPS. Their own advertising has heavily emphasized its role as a shooter, with next to no use of 'rpg' - maybe the odd reference to 'role playing' as an element. Right now it's very very difficult to use traditional gaming definitions as the whole trend seems to be towards merging genres towards one big misshmash of third-person-shooting-open-exploration-sandbox-role-playing-adventure.

Mismash of third-person-shooting-open-exploration-sandbox-role-playing-adventure...omg, sounds like my ideal game!

Seriously, though, we should put aside whatever these 'traditional gaming definitions' are. There isn't some sort of ark of the covenant in a dusty cave in the middle-east where they've all been carved onto stone tablets. Genre labels are only ever meant to be loose, arbitrary frameworks and aren't meant to be some sort of creative straightjacket.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Then every game where you control a single character would be an RPG. This leads to two possible conclusions: Either the term RPG is too broad and therefore useless, or it should only be applied if the game provides (a significant amount of) the additional features that so far defined the RPG genre. I would think the latter is the better conclusion.

Maybe it's too wide definition. How ever, can RPG also be used just for define traditional RPG. Because if RPG means only traditional RPG, then what we call all other roleplaying computer games what aren't build by traditional RPG rules?

The point is that some company can use RPG little more wider perspective than just traditional RPG. Because there is roleplaying possibilities in games what aren't traditional RPG. Also it seems that some players consider RPG as traditional RPG while others more wider definetion.

PS: That's why I often use word "traditional RPG" and not just RPG, to make clear what kind of roleplaying game I was talking. Other options would be define RPG as traditional RPG and other RPG's as roleplaying games, but that could be confusing as RPG comes from word roleplaying game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 août 2010 - 08:35 .

[kalle90]

shootist70 wrote...

Mismash of third-person-shooting-open-exploration-sandbox-role-playing-adventure...omg, sounds like my ideal game!

Seriously, though, we should put aside whatever these 'traditional gaming definitions' are. There isn't some sort of ark of the covenant in a dusty cave in the middle-east where they've all been carved onto stone tablets. Genre labels are only ever meant to be loose, arbitrary frameworks and aren't meant to be some sort of creative straightjacket.

That's what I thought too until I noticed I'm playing practically the same game no matter which I buy. Only the script and textures change.

I do like those games but too many is too many. Instead I'd like to have the variety of real traditional rpgs, real simulation racing games, simple straightforward shooters... They still pop out sometimes but more and more games try to mix all the gametypes

[shootist70]

kalle90 wrote...

That's what I thought too until I noticed I'm playing practically the same game no matter which I buy. Only the script and textures change.

Tbh, I think that's due more to lacklustre creative thinking than genre boundary problems. You can get that in just about every creative medium there is. Hollywood, the music industry and big fiction publishers are all notorious for it.

[Gundar3]

kalle90 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

Mismash of third-person-shooting-open-exploration-sandbox-role-playing-adventure...omg, sounds like my ideal game!

Seriously, though, we should put aside whatever these 'traditional gaming definitions' are. There isn't some sort of ark of the covenant in a dusty cave in the middle-east where they've all been carved onto stone tablets. Genre labels are only ever meant to be loose, arbitrary frameworks and aren't meant to be some sort of creative straightjacket.

That's what I thought too until I noticed I'm playing practically the same game no matter which I buy. Only the script and textures change.

I do like those games but too many is too many. Instead I'd like to have the variety of real traditional rpgs, real simulation racing games, simple straightforward shooters... They still pop out sometimes but more and more games try to mix all the gametypes

I think this is dead on.  From Fallout 3, to the Fable series. to ME, it feels like they are trying to be everything to everybody.  Obviously thy each have their own nuggets of gold and reasons to like them solely for that game, but the only significant difference betwen them is the. gameplay.  They all have different gameplay but they are the same mish-mash.

[shootist70]

Gundar3 wrote...

I think this is dead on.  From Fallout 3, to the Fable series. to ME, it feels like they are trying to be everything to everybody.  Obviously thy each have their own nuggets of gold and reasons to like them solely for that game, but the only significant difference betwen them is the. gameplay.  They all have different gameplay but they are the same mish-mash.

With respect the point is so woolly I don't get where you're coming from. If, in FO3, I'd had to race across the landscape in some Aston Martin to an airfield where I'd jumped on a Su-25 to take down some bad guys before landing and then dribbling a ball past some more bad guys...well, then i could see what you mean by the gameplay 'being everything to everybody.' 
 
If what you actually mean is 'tried to make a game with universal appeal, not a niche one', well, I could hardly blame them for that.

Modifié par shootist70, 25 août 2010 - 09:39 .

[Il Divo]

Fhaileas wrote...

Just because DnD claims to support a play style does not mean it does; look at the context of the very quote you have provided. DnD is effectively saying "You may not use the rules at all", at which point you're really not playing DnD.

Really? So a Dungeons and Dragons book is wrong in telling me how I may play Dungeons and Dragons?
I was under impression that this is in fact a role-playing game, and it also happens to be telling me that I can role-play without rolling dice every 30 seconds. Fancy that.

bjdbwea wrote...
Perhaps, but frankly, the perceptions of shooter fans on what constitutes an RPG are of little interest to me. I'm not telling them what makes a shooter either. And more importantly, I don't go to a shooter forum and demand the game to be changed to my liking as an RPG fan. They would probably not react very friendly to that, and understandably so.

Who are the "shooter fans"? Can you point them out to me in this thread?  I might nodd and say "Ah yes, their opinions are irrelevant". Is 'shooter fan' a mutually exclusive title? Can someone be a 'shooter fan' and an 'rpg fan'? How many rpgs must I play to become an rpg fan? Three? Five? Is there a single number? What about Mass Effect? Wasn't it designed as an rpg-tps hybrid? Shouldn't tps fans be allowed some input in how Bioware designs a game partially intended for them? These are all questions I need answers to so I can stay away from the dangerous shooter fans.

It's interesting the lines of reasoning we can go down. But if you really want to play this game, what are your role-playing experiences? How many pen and paper campaigns have you participated in? Under what rules systems? Have you ever volunteered to DM? Tell me about your role-playing accomplishments.

I ask because the perceptions of cRPG fans on what constitutes an RPG are of little interest to me. It's incredibly easy to turn ourselves into elitist snobs. And over a video game, at that!

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 août 2010 - 11:47 .

[cachx]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...
Perhaps, but frankly, the perceptions of shooter fans on what constitutes an RPG are of little interest to me. I'm not telling them what makes a shooter either. And more importantly, I don't go to a shooter forum and demand the game to be changed to my liking as an RPG fan. They would probably not react very friendly to that, and understandably so.

Who are the "shooter fans"? Can you point them out to me in this thread?  I might nodd and say "Ah yes, their opinions are irrelevant". Is 'shooter fan' a mutually exclusive title? Can someone be a 'shooter fan' and an 'rpg fan'? How many rpgs must I play to become an rpg fan? Three? Five? Is there a single number? What about Mass Effect? Wasn't it designed as an rpg-tps hybrid? Shouldn't tps fans be allowed some input in how Bioware designs a game partially intended for them? These are all questions I need answers to so I can stay away from the dangerous shooter fans.

It's interesting the lines of reasoning we can go down. But if you really want to play this game, what are your role-playing experiences? How many pen and paper campaigns have you participated in? Under what rules systems? Have you ever volunteered to DM? Tell me about your role-playing accomplishments.

I ask because the perceptions of cRPG fans on what constitutes an RPG are of little interest to me. It's incredibly easy to turn ourselves into elitist snobs. And over a video game, at that!

I like this human, he understands.

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Who are the "shooter fans"? Can you point them out to me in this thread?  I might nodd and say "Ah yes, their opinions are irrelevant". Is 'shooter fan' a mutually exclusive title? Can someone be a 'shooter fan' and an 'rpg fan'? How many rpgs must I play to become an rpg fan? Three? Five? Is there a single number? What about Mass Effect? Wasn't it designed as an rpg-tps hybrid? Shouldn't tps fans be allowed some input in how Bioware designs a game partially intended for them? These are all questions I need answers to so I can stay away from the dangerous shooter fans.

It's interesting the lines of reasoning we can go down. But if you really want to play this game, what are your role-playing experiences? How many pen and paper campaigns have you participated in? Under what rules systems? Have you ever volunteered to DM? Tell me about your role-playing accomplishments.

I ask because the perceptions of cRPG fans on what constitutes an RPG are of little interest to me. It's incredibly easy to turn ourselves into elitist snobs. And over a video game, at that!

I like this human, he understands.

That's my line! 

But seriously, this is why I avoid these "What is an rpg?" discussions.There's a bunch of definitions and degrees that no two people are likely to agree.  But since this seems to be where the discussions been going today...

My own definition:  an rpg is a game of choices and consequences.  The protagonist operates within the parameters of a story, but has a limited influence in shaping the direction of that story. 

My definition isn't perfect.  By it you could name your checker pieces, give them a motivation, and have an rpg.  But it works for me.  The definition, not the checkers game...

I am sympathetic to and somewhat agree with people who believe inventory and stats are important to an rpg.  They are ways to further customize your character.  "My character is a big brawny front line warrior in shining plate armor!. Mine is a nimble swashbuckler with a rapier!  Mine is a pious monk who has sworn off weapons!"  Or the science fiction equivalents. 

If you operate with little or no  equipment, little or no stats, then everyone's charaacter ends up looking pretty much the same.  And that can be boring.  Sure in a deep rpg you can define your characters through the choices you make.  But ME 2 effectively rendered many of the choices made in ME 1 useless.  Even the major ones. Is inventory and stats vital to an rpg?  No.  But it helps.
 
I used to think one could be a shooter fan and an rpg fan.  I'm a bit less certain now, given what seem to be the emphasis people place on the games.  Not long ago I believe I said that an rpg fan seems to view combat as the obstacle to overcome between plot points.  A shooter fan sees the plot points as something to endure between combats.  This is a very broad generalization, mind you.  But it seems that striking a balance to please everyone is a losing proposition.  It appears to be two different mentalitiees.  Not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of preference.  Of focus.

FYI, I'm not even sure why I'm using the term "shooter" fan since the lust for combat is not limited to shooter games.  RPGS after have their "Hack 'N Slash" crowd.  I just can't seem to come up with a better phrase.  And hey, it's already in use.

Given how stripped down ME 2 was of consequences for past choices, inventory, and other aspects that make Shepard a unique protagonist, and more a generic "Chosen One", plus how much work clearly went into combat gameplay, a certain degree of frustration is understandable.  Bioware makes rpgs, but there are rpg fans who are feeling that Bioware is neglecting their specialization in favor of drawing (or "pandering to" depending on your point of view) a new crowd

Modifié par iakus, 26 août 2010 - 04:49 .

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
Bioware makes rpgs, but there are rpg fans who are feeling that Bioware is neglecting their specialization in favor of drawing (or "pandering to" depending on your point of view") a new crowd

Wasn't this what happened with ME1?

[Fhaileas]

Il Divo wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

Just because DnD claims to support a play style does not mean it does; look at the context of the very quote you have provided. DnD is effectively saying "You may not use the rules at all", at which point you're really not playing DnD.

Really? So a Dungeons and Dragons book is wrong in telling me how I may play Dungeons and Dragons?
I was under impression that this is in fact a role-playing game, and it also happens to be telling me that I can role-play without rolling dice every 30 seconds. Fancy that.

So you're implying that playing DnD without DnD rules is still... DnD? How would you distinguish that from free-form roleplaying then? Pray tell.

[Fhaileas]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...
Bioware makes rpgs, but there are rpg fans who are feeling that Bioware is neglecting their specialization in favor of drawing (or "pandering to" depending on your point of view") a new crowd

Wasn't this what happened with ME1?

You probably already know this but it helps elucidate the "why" behind the gameplay changes in ME2 vis-a-vis ME1 (which was barely an RPG in its own right):

Christina Norman: “A lot of ways we pushed the game weren’t in the RPG direction”
Christina Norman: "We thought that regenerating health was a nice feature to put in a shooter"
Christina Norman: "Mass Effect 1 was very RPGish"

Christina Norman also explains that in Mass Effect 1 when you level up, it interrupts gameplay and when you pause the game to level up and jump back into the action, you do not know what’s going on. 

http://www.gamezenith.com/?p=132

It's obvious what kind of new crowd ME2 is being pandered to by Bioware relative to their original fanbase.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 26 août 2010 - 02:24 .

[cachx]

In my honest opinion, labels like "RPG" are becoming blurry nowadays when it comes to defining videogames. It's becoming a blend of different features that people interpret how they want. That's why we see shooters with "RPG" elements or platformers with "shooter" elements.

You can't really define just by those elements.Take a game like Legend of Zelda: fantasy setting? check. Sword and sorcery? check. Inventory? check. Maze-like levels? check. Is it an RPG ? 9 out of 10 persons will say "It's not an RPG, its an Adventure game".

There's not a definite rulebook on how to define it, but just like pornography "I'll know it when I see it".

I like Bioware's attitude in trying to innovate a bit and not stick with decade-old aspects forever. I actually chuckled and applauded when I read C. Norman's presentation page about the "no sacred cows" approach.

"I think what happened is they got very complacent for a very long time," Zeschuk told IndustryGamers. "They kept making the same thing, and the same thing, and, in a sense, almost provided an opening for all of us to jump in with our style of games. I know first hand that they’re looking at our games now; they’re kind of looking at our stuff, the Fable stuff, and Fallout, and all that, and going, 'what are these things?' I think they had gotten used to making the same thing over and over, and it was working." (full article)

(I looked for another article where someone at Bioware said something about labels becoming a thing of the past, but could not find it).

I consider myself a Videogame fan first, and a RPG fan second (even when I have never played pen&paper RPg's in my life).  I have pretty much played every RPG avaliable on the snes, psx and ps2 and most Black Isle/Bioware/Obsidian/Bethesda games.

 I prefer to judge a game by it's merits. And ME2 is the best game I have played this year (I still need to play some other games before the year is over though).

It's obvious what kind of crowd ME2 is being pandered to.

The people that like good games, obviously.

[Fhaileas]

cachx wrote...

Christina Norman: “A lot of ways we pushed the game weren’t in the RPG direction”
Christina Norman: "We thought that regenerating health was a nice feature to put in a shooter"
Christina Norman: "Mass Effect 1 was very RPGish"

Christina Norman also explains that in Mass Effect 1 when you level up, it interrupts gameplay and when you pause the game to level up and jump back into the action, you do not know what’s going on.

 

It's obvious what kind of crowd ME2 is being pandered to.

The people that like good games, obviously.

Absolutely! Since a "good game" these days is defined by its profitability index which in turn is based on appealing to the lowest denominator which constitutes the largest segment of the population, ME2 thus is pandering to the "I SPENT FIVE SECONDS IN A MENU INSTEAD OF SHOOTING I FORGOT WHAT WAS GOING ON I HAVE A VERY SHORT MEMORY OMG PLEASE FIX THIS" crowd.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...
Bioware makes rpgs, but there are rpg fans who are feeling that Bioware is neglecting their specialization in favor of drawing (or "pandering to" depending on your point of view") a new crowd

Wasn't this what happened with ME1?

Maybe.  Couldn't say.  I enjoyed ME 1 and didn't feel the need to go to the old Bioware boards and complain

[Pocketgb]

Fhaileas wrote...

It's obvious what kind of new crowd ME2 is being pandered to by Bioware relative to their original fanbase.

And ME1 wasn't? Half of the gameplay was independent on player skill and not character skill, companions were oddly open-minded and relatively linear, role-playing depth was sacrificed for a voiced protagonist, etc.



Not to say that it wasn't fun, but it definitely had the aura of trying to get some more attention.

[cachx]

Fhaileas wrote...
Absolutely! Since a "good game" these days is defined by its profitability index which in turn is based on appealing to the lowest denominator which constitutes the largest segment of the population, ME2 thus is pandering to the "I SPENT FIVE SECONDS IN A MENU INSTEAD OF SHOOTING I FORGOT WHAT WAS GOING ON I HAVE A VERY SHORT MEMORY OMG PLEASE FIX THIS" crowd.

A lot of great games praised by critics are commercial flops. Beyond Good and Evil or Okami, for example.

Broadening the appeal of the game is not "pandering to the lowest denominator". Streamlining is not "dumbing down". Though I understand if it's hard to see from that very high horse you're sitting on.

[Il Divo]

So you're implying that playing DnD without DnD rules is still... DnD? How would you distinguish that from free-form roleplaying then? Pray tell.

Let me home in on three very important points in your post.

1) You were not just providing a definition for Dungeons and Dragons, you were providing a definition for what constitutes role-playing games. I provided an example from Dungeons and Dragons (a role-playing game) which states that it is possible for me to role-play without combat being a main focus (or even die rolls) in the least. Would you not say that free-form role-playing is a style of "role-playing game"?

2) Statistics can still have some relevance even if they are not the main focus of a DnD campaign. Yes, it's possible to go an entire adventure without die rolls, but players (and DMs) should take into account their attributes when role-playing their characters' personalities to an extent. A fighter with a 6 Intelligence will likely act differently from a fighter with a 13 intelligence. Likewise, a DM's NPC is likely to receive a Paladin with a 20 Charisma far better than he is to receive a Wizard with a 10 Charisma. Obviously, no ruling is perfect.

3) It's also important to take into account d20 systems. I didn't give you a definition from some SPLAT book, it came from the Dungeon Master's Guide but let me ask you this: Let's say two groups are engaging in "Deep Immersion Storytelling" styles of play. One group happens to use the standard 3.5 setting while another uses Call of Cthulhu. Both include their own separate rules systems. Would you not say that each provides its own distinct styles of play, even if rules are used to a much lesser extent?

Fhaileas wrote...

Absolutely! Since a "good game" these days is defined by its profitability index which in turn is based on appealing to the lowest denominator which constitutes the largest segment of the population, ME2 thus is pandering to the "I SPENT FIVE SECONDS IN A MENU INSTEAD OF SHOOTING I FORGOT WHAT WAS GOING ON I HAVE A VERY SHORT MEMORY OMG PLEASE FIX THIS" crowd.

Was it really so complicated in Mass Effect? I must confess that I recall spending more time breaking down omnigel than I did thinking about what assault rifle to give Commander Shepard.

[Acero Azul]

cachx wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...
Absolutely! Since a "good game" these days is defined by its profitability index which in turn is based on appealing to the lowest denominator which constitutes the largest segment of the population, ME2 thus is pandering to the "I SPENT FIVE SECONDS IN A MENU INSTEAD OF SHOOTING I FORGOT WHAT WAS GOING ON I HAVE A VERY SHORT MEMORY OMG PLEASE FIX THIS" crowd.

A lot of great games praised by critics are commercial flops. Beyond Good and Evil or Okami, for example.

Broadening the appeal of the game is not "pandering to the lowest denominator". Streamlining is not "dumbing down". Though I understand if it's hard to see from that very high horse you're sitting on.

Agreed, "streamlining" Mass Effect wasn't a bad thing at all and to be honest I don't think it was outside the streamline to begin with. When the first one came out it was advertised a lot and I mean a lot! I heard about that game forever until I finally went out and bought it (and loved it). I mean there are some good things that i miss from the first game, but a lot that i don't miss. one thing i thought was cool was the different armor types rather than one set armor, but the fact that you can fully customize and change out parts is badass. 

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

>snip<

Great post, on the whole and I agree with quite a bit on what you say. I think it's also important to understand that role-playing (or narration) and combat sequences can complement each other. Look at Luke in Star Wars. We see him as a rather whiny farm boy with delusions of grandeur in Episode IV. Then what? By Episode VI, we see him transform in both personality and ability. He replaces his blaster in IV with lightsaber skills in VI. But this transformation isn't just one of personal power or life-altering circumstances. The two have blended together well.

Role-playing games do the same, even in traditional DnD. There's something to be said about looking at my Wizard at Level 1 (where I can cast a puny Magic Missile per day), then at level 17 at which point I'm dropping Wail of the Banshee spells on every group of enemies I come across. You look back on all your experiences in-game and realize in both ability and personality, your character has come so far in his journey filled with experiences. That's one of my favorite aspects of rpgs, just watching that transformation (body and mind) occur.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 août 2010 - 02:54 .

[Epic777]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

>snip<

Great post, on the whole and I agree with quite a bit on what you say. I think it's also important to understand that role-playing (or narration) and combat sequences can complement each other. Look at Luke in Star Wars. We see him as a rather whiny farm boy with delusions of grandeur in Episode IV. Then what? By Episode VI, we see him transform in both personality and ability. He replaces his blaster in IV with lightsaber skills in VI. But this transformation isn't just one of personal power or life-altering circumstances. The two have blended together well.

Role-playing games do the same, even in traditional DnD. There's something to be said about looking at my Wizard at Level 1 (where I can cast a puny Magic Missile per day), then at level 17 at which point I'm dropping Wail of the Banshee spells on every group of enemies I come across. You look back on all your experiences in-game and realize in both ability and personality, your character has come so far in his journey filled with experiences. That's one of my favorite aspects of rpgs, just watching that transformation (body and mind) occur.  

I near 100% agree this post

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Wasn't this what happened with ME1?

Obviously not.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Great post, on the whole and I agree with quite a bit on what you say. I think it's also important to understand that role-playing (or narration) and combat sequences can complement each other. Look at Luke in Star Wars. We see him as a rather whiny farm boy with delusions of grandeur in Episode IV. Then what? By Episode VI, we see him transform in both personality and ability. He replaces his blaster in IV with lightsaber skills in VI. But this transformation isn't just one of personal power or life-altering circumstances. The two have blended together well.

Role-playing games do the same, even in traditional DnD. There's something to be said about looking at my Wizard at Level 1 (where I can cast a puny Magic Missile per day), then at level 17 at which point I'm dropping Wail of the Banshee spells on every group of enemies I come across. You look back on all your experiences in-game and realize in both ability and personality, your character has come so far in his journey filled with experiences. That's one of my favorite aspects of rpgs, just watching that transformation (body and mind) occur.

I agree.

Too bad nothing of it occurs in ME 2. The mechanics don't allow for any progression. Shepard can shoot perfectly from the very beginning - even though waking up after two years - and can shrug off even a direct hit from a missile. I don't have that RPG feeling that you described, that my character has come a long way and is much stronger at the end, easily dealing with enemies that annoyed me at the beginning. But that's exactly one thing that adds replayability to RPGs.

And what's even worse, there's also no progession in personality or character. Throughout the game, I don't have the feeling that Shepard learns anything or thinks about anything (not even about the death and resurrection thing) or grows character-wise in any meaningful way.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...



Too bad nothing of it occurs in ME 2. The mechanics don't allow for any progression.

Thats right.Not even for "power classes" there is anything that could be called a strong progression.