1067 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

You're dissecting the acronym R P G but not what makes an RPG and RPG.

If you just use the acronym and the definition you provided any game that has a role which you play in the game is a RPG.



The acronym isn't as simplistic as current acronyms.

[D.I.Y_Death]

Yana Montana wrote...

Combat was improved in ME2-hurray! But now I have to spend 90% of my game hiding behind crates playing a VANGUARD-tedious.
New characters-hurray! One freaking dialgue and then they refuse to talk to my desperate Shep-lame.
New story twists-hurray! Wait, have we actually had any?-uber-lame.
I WANT STORY AND ROLE-PLAYING NOT ANOTHER BIG GUN DLC, BioWare!

Yeah, BioWare failed at balancing the classes, which is why I always go Soldier. No matter what gets screwed over Soldier will always be decent.

[Razyx]

So again, I ask the question. What is an rpg?

And more importantly, how was ME 1, which was already rpg/tps hybrid SO MUCH
MORE rpg than ME 2? Is the balance more towards TPS this time around?
Undoubtedley. But it's no where near as bad as you purists claim it is.

What is an RPG?, it's really a wide and large definition that affects many sides of a game but in a sentence; interact and choice at will. Then you can go deepest and ask for things that complete or complement those words, like shops, level up systems, skill systems, weapons (or tools), accessories, etc...
Anyways there’s a part that belongs to any RPG (lite, purist, whatever) and that is choice and / or customization,  around the character. Obviously this could be as large and complex as Bioware or X wants, but more of this, made in a good way, never hurts.

Let’s see this:

ME1: weapons -  Many features to customize your weapons performance, not only some sorts of ammo but another features like accuracy, heatsinks, stabilizers… due to the game mechanics.

ME2: weapons – all the features from ME1 lost due the new combat system and the ammo now as a powers. 

Customization level lost.

I think the new combat system is better, sure, but a step back regarding the loss of those features  (mainly ammo as a power) and moreover I'll add the ammo clip is not the best idea. However weapons in ME2 are less but better defined, I would add only a few more here and there.

ME1 armours – Easy and graphically well explained features about each resistance - shields, armour…  - and some features like medical shield, combat shield, etc  Many manufacturers and therefore skins.

ME2 armours – Easy and really not clear at all how works in depth. Insignificant or little upgrades nor  skins due to almost nonexistent manufacturers (don't count the DLC's armour, don't like a fixed helmet)

Customization level lost.

Again I think the new armour system with modules is better but really there’s not enough choices. As for the weapons, a  graphical window with stats  should be needed and adding the old features only gives more possibilities and variables. Constraining possible settings makes you lose some gameplay.

 BTW, the feet really looks ugly always in black. If you paint the armour in white, looks like I'm dressed with socks!!.

The Inventory per se would be only needed in a ME1 scenario where you can find items that can upgrade your weapones/armours.  ME2 upgrade system is a bit childish or simple (insert your minerals plz… jezz… your upgrade is ready, thx for using…)

A new inventory could operate with only one kind (higher level) of each item (ammo, stabilizer ..), I mean, if you find a higher level  item X  it will be added automatically, if not, you gets money, omnigel, whatever, instead of a useless item. Then in the virtual-weapon/armour inventory you will only see five, six or X items (one inferno, one stabilizer…) that could be setting in your weapon slot and the same could be applied for armours. (by the gods of simplicity)

I’ll jump over the story thing but ME1 and ME2 have different approaches and objectives and I think ME2 needs ME3 to be complete.

On the skills side, no good the ammo be like powers especially because this limits the powers and versatility of other characters besides the weapon customization, but I guess is due to the lack of inventory. At the end the worst choice for me.
Renegade or Paragon - formerly called charisma -  is hard to deal with. I'll jump over this too but I think needs some improvement or a change. I don't like very much to see every option in red/blue, “no mistery” (good choice/bad choice, huh!)

And about the Mako or exploration… better than the manic miner (aah!  those ZX Spectrum days )... The space… the last frontier… hmm no, well, you know, many planets but only a few with life, that’s it.
OK, these planets were a bit empty sometimes but come on! looking for minerals from your sofa against explore in a lovely and rebounder vehicle..., big no.

There are some other things that I thought were good ideas but… no luck :’( , like the docking port or elevators. They gave continuity, like the Mako in some instances, and made very pleasant transit between areas without the tedious loading screens…they gave some relax time, not always running from here to there !!

Finally, well, yes ME2 undoubtedly lost some RPG elements, easy to feel and to find but in the interaction side with the squad members, not only by numbers but in depth, grew  too.

Summing up, as usual; as in many sites you can read:  ME1+ME2=ME3

Wopss!! this seems more a mini review than some tips or opinions here and there :S

PS: Srry about spelling and grammar, i'm not good in english but the thread was a temptation

Modifié par Razyx, 17 mars 2010 - 03:01 .

[Pocketgb]

Razyx wrote...

Let’s see this:

ME1: weapons -  Many features to customize your weapons performance, not only some sorts of ammo but another features like accuracy, heatsinks, stabilizers… due to the game mechanics.

ME2: weapons – all the features from ME1 lost due the new combat system and the ammo now as a powers. 

Customization level lost.

In ME1, all that mattered was how you customized your Spectre weapon, and the choices - albeit limited in functionality - were interesting to make. Choices became limited as you progressed further, though.

In ME2 you have more choices for your loadout, added onto that with the heavy weapons. Personalization per weapon class is next to nothing.

In this case I consider them tied.

And I personally found ammo types being tied to powers a very good tradeoff since it made combat much more interesting, especially as a Soldier.

Razyx wrote...

ME1 armours – Easy and graphically well explained features about each resistance - shields, armour…  - and some features like medical shield, combat shield, etc  Many manufacturers and therefore skins.

ME2 armours – Easy and really not clear at all how works in depth. Insignificant or little upgrades nor  skins due to almost nonexistent manufacturers (don't count the DLC's armour, don't like a fixed helmet)

Customization level lost.

With how much more deadly combat can become, those small little increases can make all the difference. Shields recharging 10% faster means I'm able to come out of combat that much sooner, which adds up quite a lot when you factor in how often you can get hit.

I can't comment too much on how well things were done in ME1 (always had immunity on 100% of the time on Insanity) so I just went with the upgrades that lowered the cooldowns. Plus, since there was a gear curve, there was very little customization unless you wanted to hinder your performance. Variety is when there are multiple choices of equal strength, something that's never seen in ME1.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 mars 2010 - 03:08 .

[TJSolo]

"I can't comment too much on how well things were done in ME1 (always had immunity on %100 of the time on Insanity) so I just went with the upgrades that lowered the cooldowns. Plus, since there was a gear curve, there was very little customization unless you wanted to hinder your performance. Variety is when there are multiple choices of equal strength, something that's never seen in ME1."

Yes there was variety in ME1. Yet you only focus on the min/max endgame situation.
Which is the extreme case that needed to be fixed.

Yes ME1 + ME2 will and should  = ME3.

[Pocketgb]

Like the passage you just quoted: Variety only exists when there are multiple choices of equal strength and performance. This didn't happen in ME1. All that happened was that your weapons would change color and shape and somehow become better, same with your armor. You were rarely, if ever, presented an X or Y situation (perhaps only with weapon mods found before you get Inferno and Sledgehammer stuff). Character builds are a different matter.

Like I said earlier in the thread, ME1 was not much of an RPG to go off, and it's very, very understandable why they may not've wanted to expand on it for ME2. ME3 should definitely encourage more RPG elements, but it should NOT be a combination of ME1 and ME2. The latter is a much more solid game to base off of then the former when regarding the mechanics.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 mars 2010 - 03:18 .

[TJSolo]

I only picked the last fragment as I didn't feel like going all into the ME1 and 2 comparison for someone like you. Whatever you think about ME1 has already been refuted, your repeating of jaded examples won't make them any more right.



Unless BW is somehow going to start copying from other companies RPGs. Then ME3 will be a combination of what ME1 offered and what ME2 offered.

ME1 was solid enough to spawn ME2

ME3 will be BW taking and improving ideas from the previous games.

[Pocketgb]

TJSolo wrote...

I only picked the last fragment as I didn't feel like going all into the ME1 and 2 comparison for someone like you.

So, ignore this thread. Gotcha.

[TJSolo]

Pocketgb wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

I only picked the last fragment as I didn't feel like going all into the ME1 and 2 comparison for someone like you.

So, ignore this thread. Gotcha.

Picking to quote the fragment != only reading that fragment. Reading comprehension.
I have read this thread. That is why I didn't bother to go into all of your fallacies about ME1. They have been covered.

[Pocketgb]

So, instead of you politely responding to my post in full or to simply the major points, I must dive into twenty pages of - based on your tone - rather disgusting commentary between two sides of people that can't comprehend compromise?



I can't see how anyone generally curious about this situation would want to trouble themselves with that. That's almost as bothersome as trying to find the root of a troll post in the Tali thread.

[TJSolo]

20 pages of people coming to a compromise and trying to note the benefits of both games.

After overcoming bland fallacies of both games. You come in bring up the fallacies demeaning ME1 again and shoot down the compromise people were coming to in this thread.

The same compromise other threads happen to be coming to; ME1 + ME2 = ME3.

[javierabegazo]

Play nice

[Gatt9]

nelly21 wrote...

@Murmillos

I will win because my argument is based on fact and yours is based on emotion.

I ask for an explanation because your definitions for what constitutes an rpg are more variable than a color palette at Loews.

Actually,  you won't,  because it's pretty apparent you have no idea what an RPG is.  So let's get started.

Combat:

Third Person Shooting. This is common in both games. ME 2 made the switch to entirely skill based shooting instead of partially skill based shooting. The major difference is the inclusion of ammo. All this changed was that instead of waiting 5-10 seconds for a weapon to cool down, you could immediately reload and continue firing. Hardly an earth-shattering change.

Here's your problem. 

RPG = Primarily Character based skill,  hence the word "Role".
Shooter = Primarily Player based skill.

ME2 is all Player based skill,  there's nothing character based about it.  This makes the thing on the screen an Avatar for your skills,  not a Charcter whose Role you take on.

This is true at all points in ME2,  and exactly why ME2 is not an RPG.

Focus on story:

Both games are story driven. ME 1 was plot driven while ME 2 is character driven. Saying one is better than the other is a matter of taste and is therefore irrelevant in this dicussion. Other than the focus of the story, the manner in which the story is told really didn't change. You could do missions in any order you wished (except for two plot heavy missions). There were characters that you didn't have to recruit if you didn't want to. Again, not seeing the enormous change.

Absolutely redundant.  Every game has a story.  Super Mario 2 had a story.  That didn't make it an RPG.

Skills:

Both games have you progressing in preset skill sets based on your characters class. The only difference between both games is the reduction of squad skills and the exclusion of weapon skills. Less rpg focused than ME 1 to be sure. But the skills themselves are exteremely important. I defy anybody to complete the game without spending skill points (I tried this on Veteran) and tell me that they make no difference in gameplay.

The real difference between the two is that combat was significantly affected by Character's skill in ME1,  and completely unaffected in ME2.  Everything in the skill panel can be safely ignored in ME2,  and the game is still completable,  because ME2 is a shooter and not an RPG,  and therefore all that really matters is your skill.

Honestly,  the only hold back is your personal skill.  It's really not all that hard,  I mean seriously,  the AI will let you shoot him in the head all day long without reaction as it runs it's predetermined paths.

Inventory:

The biggest difference between the two games. ME 1 had a mess of an inventory and ME 2 has almost none. This IS a major departure from rpg conventions. Personally, I would of liked customizable armor for squadmates. However, I must ask if you enjoyed navigating through ME 1 invetory windows. If you did, good for you. Most of us didn't. But I'll give this point to you. The ME 2 system is a complete 180 from the original.

First,  could you please post the link you possess showing the results of your survey of every purchaser of ME1 that shows "Most of us didn't"?

Otherwise,  the phrase you were looking for was "I didn't like it".

Exploration:

While ME 1 had a bit more exploration, it was smoke and mirrors. You didn't go to new and interesting places. You went to the same planet with different textures over and over again. The N7 missions at least add variety to these side excursions. Each one has different goals and environments. Continuing from ME 1 is the fact that some of these missions start mini story lines. Either way, whether it's the superficial exploration of ME 1, or the streamlined version in ME 2, exploration is mostly the same: find system, find planet you can land on, find mision, accomplish mission, leave. Different system, but it accomplishes the same thing.

Um,  what?  ME2 is nothing but corridors and impassable terrain.  There's no exploration,  just like most any other shooter,  it's a rail from start to end.  If there's smoke and mirrors anywhere,  it's definitely ME2.

Input of player on Shepard's character:

Identical in both games.

Untrue.

ME2 doesn't hold you to anything.  For example:

In handling the quarantined apartments,  I entered an apartment and looted it.  I then travelled the rail for a little ways,  entered another apartment,  talked with the owners,  then looted it.  In front of them.  Without reaction.

Then I entered a 3rd apartment,  found some looters,  and promptly gave them a lecture about looting and how I don't like looters.  Nevermind that's what I'd been doing. 

The kicker?

That was the good guy response.

ME2's like any other shooter,  nothing you do has any weight,  carries any meaning.

Further,  ME2's morality system has apparently become "Pull the trigger as fast as you can!".  I'm pretty sure the whole concept of morality is not meant to be some test of reflexes.  In fact,  I'm pretty confident that it's meant to be a way to track the development of a character,  not a FF8esque cut-scene bonus.

In the end. The revolutionary differences are the inventory and the exclusion of the Mako. The combat mechanics changed to accomodate the faster pace but it wasn't like going from turnbased to real time. The rest of the differences are negligible unless rpgs are entirely defined by ponderous inventories.

So again, I ask the question. What is an rpg? And more importantly, how was ME 1, which was already rpg/tps hybrid SO MUCH MORE rpg than ME 2? Is the balance more towards TPS this time around? Undoubtedley. But it's no where near as bad as you purists claim it is.

In the end,  the problem is that you don't know what an RPG is,  and apparently don't actually like what constitutes an RPG.

Further,  it's important to note,  there's no such thing as a hybrid.  It's a marketing buzz-word,  it doesn't exist.  Character based skill and Player based skill are polar opposites,  there's no cohabitation,  and choosing one eliminates the opposing genre.

All you get is an Shooter with a little level screen that coughs up predestined damage increases at predetermined points.  In truth,  in ME2,  you could completely eliminate all of the level screen and just boost damage at the end of each mission and you'd have the exact same game.  That's how very little RPG is actually present in ME2.

An RPG is character based skill,  it's the defining element,  it's what the word "ROLE" means.  Role does not mean Avatar for your personal skill,  it's the *exact* opposite.  And it's *exactly* why ME2 is not a Role-playing game.

[Zephlar]

How about, both ME1 and ME2 are ****ing masterpieces. Ta-da. Can't get enough of this game.

[javierabegazo]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

Yana Montana wrote...

Combat was improved in ME2-hurray! But now I have to spend 90% of my game hiding behind crates playing a VANGUARD-tedious.
New characters-hurray! One freaking dialgue and then they refuse to talk to my desperate Shep-lame.
New story twists-hurray! Wait, have we actually had any?-uber-lame.
I WANT STORY AND ROLE-PLAYING NOT ANOTHER BIG GUN DLC, BioWare!

Yeah, BioWare failed at balancing the classes, which is why I always go Soldier. No matter what gets screwed over Soldier will always be decent.

How do you think ME2's classes were more screwed up than ME1's?
Are you referring to having to debuff before using biotics? because other than that, every single class is much more powerful in their new version than they were in ME1.

lets talk ME1:
A soldier and a vanguard both approach a fight. Each fight generally may take the same approach, and the same amount of time.

For when I play Insanity in ME2:
Soldier  pins enemies down with overwhelming fire, class ability is actually FUN instead of just becoming a lame damage sponge

Vanguard, which is the ONLY class that has the opprotunity to make an engagement that would take other classes 10 minutes to complete, does it in 2 minutes, but tactically preparing the battlefield and rushing in, methodically and rapidly piecing apart an enemy squad.


EVERY SINGLE class for me is fun to play in ME2, and each class plays very differently.
There more than a few "boring' classes for me in ME1, and battles consisted of walking around in the open and holding the trigger, occaisionally launching a power, or in a biotics case, being about to spam the field with multiple biotics and never have to jump in cover because of a constant biotic barrier.

[javierabegazo]

Zephlar wrote...

How about, both ME1 and ME2 are ****ing masterpieces. Ta-da. Can't get enough of this game.

Indeed

Personally, I feel ME1 is a story masterpiece, and I feel ME2 is a gameplay masterpiece.

[Pocketgb]

TJSolo wrote...

20 pages of people coming to a compromise
and trying to note the benefits of both games.
After overcoming bland
fallacies of both games. You come in bring up the fallacies demeaning
ME1 again and shoot down the compromise people were coming to in this
thread.
The same compromise other threads happen to be coming to; ME1
+ ME2 = ME3.

Right, and I disagreed with that. I'm all for ME2 earning more RPG aspects, but very few if any like what ME1 contained unless they were to completely overhaul the systems and make the enjoyable for ME3. The tried RPG'ness in ME1 + Refined gameplay of ME2 = ME3, THAT I agree with.

A new system for ME3? Definitely. More RPG'ness to be sure, but something new. If Bioware was personally proud of what they had with ME1, I don't think it would've made a disappearance with ME2 (to say "to appeal to the masses": see Dragon Age.)

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 mars 2010 - 04:08 .

[javierabegazo]

Pocketgb wrote...



Right, and I disagreed with that. I'm all for ME2 earning more RPG aspects, but very few if any like what ME1 contained unless they were to completely overhaul the systems and make the enjoyable for ME3. The tried RPG'ness in ME1 + Refined gameplay of ME2 = ME3, THAT I agree with.

A new system for ME3? Definitely. More RPG'ness to be sure, but something new. If Bioware was personally proud of what they had with ME1, I don't think it would've made a disappearance with ME2 (to say "to appeal to the masses": see Dragon Age.)

I really hope they stay away from the RPG's fascination of "master gear" or the one that takes the cake. I hate coming across gear that is just simply superier in every way to the last one. I Like having two pieces of equally competent gear, just each having it's own time and place to shine.

[Pocketgb]

javierabegazo wrote...

I really hope they stay away from the RPG's fascination of "master gear" or the one that takes the cake. I hate coming across gear that is just simply superier in every way to the last one. I Like having two pieces of equally competent gear, just each having it's own time and place to shine.

Same here. I preferred choice, and there isn't much choice when everything else is worse. I can understand some people like finding more and more loot (see: Diablo) but it never appealed to me, and it was actually upsetting when I find a cool weapon only to find something far better two minutes later.

[MarloMarlo]

TJSolo wrote...
You're dissecting the acronym R P G but not what makes an RPG and RPG.

I did both at the same time -- one to do the other. What makes a game an RPG is role playing. Rules make it a game; every game has those. But there's no such thing as RPG rules. You can obviously have role playing in a game that doesn't use ME1's ruleset or even any of its individual rules, including stats. Stat-based anything isn't required for RPGs. Where is it written that rules can't call for player skill in place of spreadsheets? Nowhere.

If it has role playing and it has rules to make it a game, it's an RPG. If it has role playing and it has rules to make it a game and those rules involve dice rolling, it's an RPG with dice rolling. If it's a game and it has dice rolling but no role playing, then it's a game with dice rolling. And maybe it's also a FPS or RTS or whatever if it has the essential qualities to fit it into one of those genres.

TJSolo wrote...
If you just use the acronym and the definition you provided any game that has a role which you play in the game is a RPG.

Having a role to play isn't necessarily the same as role playing. It certainly isn't the same thing in the context of role playing games. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the role of an Australian guy playing a black guy in "Tropic Thunder," but he isn't role playing an Australian guy playing a black guy. (Though, I guess you might be able to say that his Australian character role played a black guy during all the unscripted parts of the movie that was supposed to be filmed in the movie, not that that changes anything).

Role playing is essentially improv. Stats are used to govern that improv. in a lot of role playing games, but stats are not role playing, nor are stats necessary for role playing or role playing games. Rules, yes. It's not much of a game if some guy can just say that he wins everything forever without constraints and there's no way to arbitrate it. But you don't need leveling or 150-item inventories or whatever specific rule or whatever -- just rules.

Stats didn't determine if you successfully commited genocide or not in Mass Effect 1. And you weren't scripted to commit genocide or not commit it. You were prompted to determine how things played out (within the constraints of the game and its budget and design, obviously, since you couldn't decide to do something like throw pennies at your potential victim).

Gatt9 wrote...
The real difference between the two is that
combat was significantly affected by Character's skill in ME1,  and
completely unaffected in ME2.

If you played ME2, you'd know
that ammo skills and biotics affect combat.

Gatt9 wrote...
Everything
in the skill panel can be safely ignored in ME2,  and the game is still
completable,  because ME2 is a shooter and not an RPG,  and therefore
all that really matters is your skill.

You pointed and shot in
ME1, same as ME2. In ME2, you can run out of ammo whereas you can mindlessly shoot at a crate forever in ME1. Is lower accuracy mitigated by endless crate shooting supposed to make skills vital in ME1 and not ME2 (not without player skills, anyway)?

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 17 mars 2010 - 04:53 .

[Pocketgb]

^ Well said, Marlo

[Tazzmission]

i think me2 felt the same to me1 rpg wise... except in me2 you had more interactions with a bigger crew and more side quests.

[Razyx]

 

In ME1, all that mattered was how you customized your Spectre weapon, and the choices - albeit limited in functionality - were interesting to make. Choices became limited as you progressed further, though.

In ME2 you have more choices for your loadout, added onto that with the heavy weapons. Personalization per weapon class is next to nothing.

In this case I consider them tied.

And I personally found ammo types being tied to powers a very good tradeoff since it made combat much more interesting, especially as a Soldier.

I agree, could be tied in one or other way but I was trying to point out that I think, and It cares on RPG, is the choice and some variety. Choice and Variety always will be limited for the developers, sure, is finite but it's better an illusion than a "direct reality" (like the supposed freedom to explore on a large and wide world in some rpg titles, is finite and an illusion)

The ammo as a power:

Time consumer (in battle).
Limited in sorts of ammo. (given by class)
Squad mates are limited in powers and/or options. (BTW a feature like Shepard, changing the adittional power given the class, would be a good thing)
Can't set a default perm configuration per weapon.

The ammo as a thing - It's not a magical thing - (like in real life, like every RPG, emulating our own reality to another universe)

No time consumer. (well have to go to the weapon inventory but this could be arranged too with hotkeys).
No limit in sorts of ammo. (the class doesn't matter)
My squad mates are free to set any kind of ammo.
I'm free to configure my weapons any time any way and set a default configuration.

We have the freedom to choice, nothing more and nothing less, you make your own way managing weapons.

With how much more deadly combat can become, those small little increases can make all the difference. Shields recharging %10 faster means I'm able to come out of combat that much sooner, which adds up quite a lot when you factor in how often you can get hit.

I can't comment too much on how well things were done in ME1 (always had immunity on %100 of the time on Insanity) so I just went with the upgrades that lowered the cooldowns. Plus, since there was a gear curve, there was very little customization unless you wanted to hinder your performance.

ME1 has his flaws as ME2 also may be not one so big but several small. Is not easy make a balanced game without any mistake.

Variety is when there are multiple choices of equal strength, something that's never seen in ME1.

Where, how, why?

I could say then
Related to the classes? because, why a sentinel got the 2 best defensive powers of biotic and techno?! absurd (that's a bad designed mixed class)
Related to the powers? because, why am i unable to get tech armor on my soldier?! (certainly in the sentinel class - all-terrain and powerful one)

Really don't understand that statement at all.

Modifié par Razyx, 17 mars 2010 - 06:10 .

[Pocketgb]

Razyx wrote...

The ammo as a power:

Time consumer (in battle).
Limited in sorts of ammo. (given by class)
Squad mates are limited in powers and/or options. (BTW a feature like Shepard, changing the adittional power given the class, would be a good thing)
Can't set a default perm configuration per weapon.

The ammo as a thing - It's not a magical thing - (like in real life, like every RPG, emulating our own reality to another universe)

No time consumer. (well have to go to the weapon inventory but this could be arranged too with hotkeys).
No limit in sorts of ammo. (the class doesn't matter)
My squad mates are free to set any kind of ammo.
I'm free to configure my weapons any time any way and set a default configuration.

We have the freedom to choice, nothing more and nothing less, you make your own way managing weapons.

There is one chief thing that makes this really hard to compare ME1 to ME2 that both of us forgot, and that's there are multiple defenses as opposed to just shields and health. Because of that what it really comes down to is not which one is more beneficial since that's near impossible given how different they are. I personally liked how they were done in ME2, but that means next to nothing.

Of course, this doesn't mean you can't advocate for further weapon
customization, i.e. rate of fire, clip size and all that.

Razyx wrote...

Where, how, why?

In that specific part of your post, we were talking about weapon and armor customization and how I felt there was very little of both in ME1. In regards to why, it's because all gear followed a progression from best to worst.