1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Flexiblepuppy]

i feel the same way, I remember wasting days traveling through the galaxy dropping my mako down just to get killed by a thresher maw, but now the mako is gone. All I do now is just drop down and do whatever the mission is. I miss the thresher maw.......its just not the same game without them

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

I'd guess not, but I don't think that's something my Shepard personally wants to happen - which is an interesting situation with the way they've delt with ME2: there is a *lot* of hate for Cerberus, but Bioware also can't allow you to do anything.

This - the bolded section - is what i define as railroading. They may have painted themselves into a corner and had to use that term. They may have been so blided by "we whant this to be the empire strikes back" mentality that they seem to have has - a bad mentality in the first place, make the story how the story fits trying to shoe horn it will simply make it suffer. Though im not sure they ever had the bad way of thinking about it but it was mearly hyped that way.

Either way - they could still have railroaded the players but at the same time throwing them a bone - some small hope that they has controll over the situation. The end result could have been the same - but the railroading would have felt less railroady. Simply put i think they failed in the execution of it.

/TSD

Well, how do you think I felt about being a Spectre : P?

Even though I *could* be a good guy, even though I'd only use it for the greater good, I still don't believe in allowing certain persons such power.

Same thing went for Cerberus: don't agree with it, but it's something that I as the player have to go through.

[Grimgor79]

I gotta say, when I first started playing ME2 I was not happy. Really seemed like they took one of my favorite games and ruined it. Now after logging 30 hours I can definitely say "I was wrong".

The RPG elements are still there and are done fairly well. The Sheppard/Squad level up system works well, the skills they give you are very useful and are varied enough that you still have lots to think about when deciding where to spend the points.

All of the class options for Sheppard are awesome, except for the Soldier maybe, that one has boring skills. The others are awesome though and I like how your squadmates have completely different classes and skills, not just Soldier, Vanguard etc.

The story seems a little weaker than ME1 IMO but still good.

Obviously we all hate the way the Armour was done, it sucks. You pretty much just use the N7 for the entire game as the others look retarded during conversations. Huge fock-up by the Devs here.

A fairly big issue is LOOT. I love loot and I miss nabbing tons of gear when I am out and selling what I dont want but it's not a deal breaker here. There is still decent loot to be had between nabbing the new weapons, the upgrade plans, resources and of course money.

Speaking of resources, I think everyone can agree the damn scanning is a serious pain in the ass. I HATE the scanning process, give me back my MAKO and my rediculous mountains. It was way better than this scanning stuff.

The fuel system is no big deal at all, a minor nuisance. Same with the pods, you can buy more of this stuff pretty much anywhere.

Weapons, there just is'nt enough of them. The upgrades keep this from being a big deal and the weapons you do get are varied and pretty awesome. Still, it would have been nice to see another weapon or 2 per category.

One last thing about weapons, the heat sinks are not as bad as you think. I know it's dumb for their tech to go backwards but as far as gameplay goes it's a non-factor. I use all my weapons (including sniper) whenever I want. The only guns that are even remotely effected are the Heavies since they use special ammo. Also, your ammo supply is filled before each mission so you really have to work hard to run out of ammo.

Overall, a great game and very much an RPG. Not exactly like ME1 but I would urge any who read this to give it a chance, it really is a great game.


 EDIT.... sorry for the long post. I just wanted to get this out there for anyone still wondering if they should get the game and this thread seemed like a good place to post it.

Modifié par Grimgor79, 12 avril 2010 - 11:29 .

[EternalWolfe]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

I'd guess not, but I don't think that's something my Shepard personally wants to happen - which is an interesting situation with the way they've delt with ME2: there is a *lot* of hate for Cerberus, but Bioware also can't allow you to do anything.

This - the bolded section - is what i define as railroading. They may have painted themselves into a corner and had to use that term. They may have been so blided by "we whant this to be the empire strikes back" mentality that they seem to have has - a bad mentality in the first place, make the story how the story fits trying to shoe horn it will simply make it suffer. Though im not sure they ever had the bad way of thinking about it but it was mearly hyped that way.

Either way - they could still have railroaded the players but at the same time throwing them a bone - some small hope that they has controll over the situation. The end result could have been the same - but the railroading would have felt less railroady. Simply put i think they failed in the execution of it.

/TSD

In ME1 you become a spectre.  You are given a set of worlds that may be important.  After doing two of them, you're given a fourth.  You do all of them, then you take off in your ship(against orders) to go to the fifth and final world.  You can be an ass to the council, but you still work for them - same situation no matter what you say to them.

In ME2, you end up working for Cerberus(since no one else is helping).  TIM gives you list of powerful people, who might be useful.  A few times, he chimes in with extra work(Horizen, Disabled Ship, IFF).  During the final choice, you can choose to either help or go against Cerberus.  You can be an ass to TIM - same situation no matter what you say though.

Seems rather similar to me, as far as railroading goes.  I have to become a Spectre, I have to work for Cerberus, I have to go to those worlds, I have to go against orders to go to Ilos(can't even choose to follow orders and find another way to convince them), I have to go to Horizen, or the Disabled Ship, when I'm called.  No matter what you do, or say, Council/Cerberus will be calling the shots - and you can't EVER go directly against the Council.  You beat the big bad?  Guess what, you're still their flunky(right up till your ship blows).  Beat the big bad in ME2?  Tell TIM to take a hike - or help the fellow out.  Your choice(still doubting if that's actually going to affect anything in ME3, though)

Both games railroad you to hell and back.- people just seem miffed that its Cerberus rather then the Counil/Alliance calling the shots.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Flexiblepuppy wrote...

i feel the same way, I remember wasting days traveling through the galaxy dropping my mako down just to get killed by a thresher maw, but now the mako is gone. All I do now is just drop down and do whatever the mission is. I miss the thresher maw.......its just not the same game without them

Really? I thought the thresher maw fights were BORING as hell on ME1. The sole fight on Grunt's loyalty mission was more fun than all possible thresher maw fights on ME1. Mostly because it feels more dangerous as it is on foot  and on a limited space, as on ME1 I used to keep driving the Mako on circles and firing as the thresher maw showed up.

[xI extremist Ix]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Flexiblepuppy wrote...

i feel the same way, I remember wasting days traveling through the galaxy dropping my mako down just to get killed by a thresher maw, but now the mako is gone. All I do now is just drop down and do whatever the mission is. I miss the thresher maw.......its just not the same game without them

Really? I thought the thresher maw fights were BORING as hell on ME1. The sole fight on Grunt's loyalty mission was more fun than all possible thresher maw fights on ME1. Mostly because it feels more dangerous as it is on foot  and on a limited space, as on ME1 I used to keep driving the Mako on circles and firing as the thresher maw showed up.

On the Missing Marines mission in ME1 I found the beacon and got jumped by the thresher maw. It was the first time I played so the Mako was damaged to the point I had to evacuate it and fight the Maw on foot with a Sniper Rifle. Hey, I leveled like 4 times.

[EternalWolfe]

xI extremist Ix wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Flexiblepuppy wrote...

i feel the same way, I remember wasting days traveling through the galaxy dropping my mako down just to get killed by a thresher maw, but now the mako is gone. All I do now is just drop down and do whatever the mission is. I miss the thresher maw.......its just not the same game without them

Really? I thought the thresher maw fights were BORING as hell on ME1. The sole fight on Grunt's loyalty mission was more fun than all possible thresher maw fights on ME1. Mostly because it feels more dangerous as it is on foot  and on a limited space, as on ME1 I used to keep driving the Mako on circles and firing as the thresher maw showed up.

On the Missing Marines mission in ME1 I found the beacon and got jumped by the thresher maw. It was the first time I played so the Mako was damaged to the point I had to evacuate it and fight the Maw on foot with a Sniper Rifle. Hey, I leveled like 4 times.

 Ah, the first Thresher Maw fight.  I remember mine well.

"Hey, there's the beacon." WHAM strait up from under me, insta-death.
". . . wtf just happened?"

[CatatonicMan]

EternalWolfe wrote...

In ME1 you become a spectre.  You are given a set of worlds that may be important.  After doing two of them, you're given a fourth.  You do all of them, then you take off in your ship(against orders) to go to the fifth and final world.  You can be an ass to the council, but you still work for them - same situation no matter what you say to them.

In ME2, you end up working for Cerberus(since no one else is helping).  TIM gives you list of powerful people, who might be useful.  A few times, he chimes in with extra work(Horizen, Disabled Ship, IFF).  During the final choice, you can choose to either help or go against Cerberus.  You can be an ass to TIM - same situation no matter what you say though.

Seems rather similar to me, as far as railroading goes.  I have to become a Spectre, I have to work for Cerberus, I have to go to those worlds, I have to go against orders to go to Ilos(can't even choose to follow orders and find another way to convince them), I have to go to Horizen, or the Disabled Ship, when I'm called.  No matter what you do, or say, Council/Cerberus will be calling the shots - and you can't EVER go directly against the Council.  You beat the big bad?  Guess what, you're still their flunky(right up till your ship blows).  Beat the big bad in ME2?  Tell TIM to take a hike - or help the fellow out.  Your choice(still doubting if that's actually going to affect anything in ME3, though)

Both games railroad you to hell and back.- people just seem miffed that its Cerberus rather then the Counil/Alliance calling the shots.

Yes, and then again no.

Both games do tend to railroad the player, and while ME2 is generally worse at hiding this linearity than ME1 (probably due to it being more formulaic and less expansive), both games do have this same restriction.

But there is a small difference between the two that makes a large difference in the end: ME2 is a sequel, while ME1 was not.

In ME1, the player basically takes control of a (mostly) predefined character. They get to set some specific background events and what not, but when the game starts they are playing a character who already has an entire backstory that has led them to that point. From then on,the player gets to decide how their character does what throughout the game, working with and branching from the set starting point. By the end of the game, the character that emerges has evolved beyond the predefined cookie-cutter into something that is unique (sorta) to that player.

In ME2, we don't start with that same cookie-cutter generic persona (assuming that the player imported their own personal Shep). Instead, they start with their own character that has already been molded to the players personal tastes. What this basically amounts to is that people expect more/better/different choices from a character that they had a hand in creating. The player knows exactly how their character would react in a given situation - they worked for an entire game to define their personal character, after all - and when they are presented with a non-negotiable choice (for example, working with Cerberus) without even the chance of trying to go another way, they begin to notice the tracks in the dust.

Bioware could have at least added in a way for the player to break away from Cerberus for a time, if only so they can find out that Cerberus is their only choice. The fact that they didn't even bother with the illusion of choice is ultimately the biggest problem.

[CatatonicMan]

slimgrin wrote...

The sequel to the Witcher is supposed to have three distinct plot lines, and numerous endings. We shall see if it is less linear than ME2.  I hope BioWare games push this aspect more in the future, but they put an awfull lot of effort constructing a main plot, so I dont know..

Sequel, eh? I really should get around to playing that game at some point in the future.

To be honest, though, it is rather difficult to build a complex, captivating story without making it linear - rather, you need to create what are essentially multiple different linear story paths to make the choices meaningful without resorting to sandbox mode.

ME2 attempted to do this by breaking up the core of the game into individual, independent chunks, but they ultimately failed to convey nonlinearity because no chunks were mutually exclusive or interdependent, and each chunk was essentially linear. The discretization of the missions made the story play and feel more like a dozen or so individual stories, and the lack of cohesion really didn't do the game justice.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 13 avril 2010 - 02:33 .

[Dudeman315]

Totally agree CatatonicMan

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

What... so you haven't noticed that the game makes every effort to hide stats and numbers whenever it can?

Like it mattered? Weapon/armor stats in ME1 meant nothing, because there was zero indication of how each worked. All you really had to do was make sure the things you were equipping had the biggest numbers.

First of all: at least you don't deny it. Secondly, just because you couldn't see how they worked doesn't mean I and others couldn't (let me guess... just because you can't feel that instant gratification from the weapon there's no difference? How modern "gamer" is that?). And thirdly, essentially that's no different from most RPG's and is kind of the point. But the better ones make you choose carefully by varying the stats so that one has to pick and choose. Just because ME1 didn't do this well doesn't mean the system can't be done and should be thrown aside for cheap and lazy shooter mechanics.

Of many things that determine the depth of a game, the number of spells aren't one of them. DA is a good example.

Okay, you're not even making an accurate comparison at all. These are skills, not spells, and pretty much all the non-combat ones at that. It's the equivalent of removing trap-setting, trap-defusing, lockpicking, stealth, etc. from a D&D game. ME2 is literally half the RPG ME1 is in this regard because it removed half the skills, and anything that's not related to combat is out the window. That makes for a shallow and one-dimensional RPG system.

You haven't noticed that the guns and armour are completely devoid of stats entirely...

They're not.

What do you mean "they're not?!" Of course they friggin' are! You show me a screenshot where the stats of a weapon or armour are shown? Go on. No? Of course not, because you can't. The only information we're given on a weapon is a small description with a vague blurb about what the weapon is good or bad at. Everything else about it is based solely on how it feels, which is a pretty shooter method of handling weapons. All statistical information is hidden from the player... y'know, like those bars and numbers in the original game that showed us damage, accuracy and cooling rate. All because modern shooter fanboys are scared of numbers beyond a frag count.

See above: we have different pieces of armor, and different weapons to choose from. What's a "real inventory"?

A "real inventory" consists of more than just a single type of each item. It usually has a series of items which one has to pick and choose from and compare via statistical and bonus ability comparisons... but then ME2 doesn't let you do that because there's essentially only one of each weapon, with no stats and you're basically just running around and collecting them and choosing which one "feels best" like any other shooter out there. This game has no more of an inventory than DOOM does. Hell... games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Hitman have better inventory systems and they aren't even RPGs. ME2 in this regard is pathetic and shallow. The armour is pretty much purely cosmetic and the guns just completely lacking in depth and selection.

You're earning XP for missions, i.e. quests. I don't see how one method is more "RPG" than the other. Not to mention that there isn't any ever XP anymore in the Elder Scrolls series.

Not sure exactly what TES series has to do with this, but this system is incredibly shallow. For one thing, how do we even know we're actually even earning XP and that we're not just being given an arbitrary number to give the illusion of XP (after all, seems remarkably convenient that each level-up comes at the end of each mission). Ironic how BioWare has stooped to giving such instant gratification everywhere except the one place it actually matters: when earning XP. With the original game is made every kill important and rewarded you for finding everything you could and observing things for those codex entires, etc. In ME2 you might as well just rush through everything, because the impatient rusher will get just as much XP now as the player who takes their time and explores. Used to be the completionist was rewarded for their efforts, but now since we're all given the same lump sum it doesn't matter. And that's not even getting into the main problem in that it hides its RPG nature by falling back on the standard action game trope of "Mission Complete" screens and makes sure the appropriate XP numbers only appear there on screen at the end. God forbid some RPG elements pop up to remind shooter fanboys that they're earning experience while they slaughter things. I can see them screaming "Aaaargh! No! Bad numbers! Those are for stupid smarties... not big tough me who kills things!"

That the entire game is presented more like an action shooter than an RPG?

Kind of like their first game, at least until you started playing it.

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean that on the surface, without playing the game at all, it looks a bit more like a pure shooter, then I suppose that's true... if one was to only witness combat being played. That's probably why so many disgruntled shooter fanboys came in and ruined the future of the series when it wasn't what they expected. But hey... they're where the money is, so instead of just telling them what's what, let's just change the game to suit them more and screw the original fans, eh?

---

On a separate note about the whole Cerberus thing, while I was rather concerned at this before the game came out, I'm mostly happy with how things turned out in this regard. It does kind of make sense, but I just wished there were a few more moments where I got to stick it to them, and there were a few moments here and there where I was refused control of being able to do so (such as one moment where TIM betrays you, and while you can get pissed at him he tells you not to tell the crew what happened. Then it just cuts to you already having told them that, without letting you choose to tell them the truth and try and drive a larger wedge between TIM and your crew. Moments like that pissed me off, where moments where you should have had control were just denied outright. I wanted to tell my crew what TIM did, but no... no choice in that matter at all).

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

CatatonicMan wrote...
ME2 attempted to do this by breaking up the core of the game into individual, independent chunks, but they ultimately failed to convey nonlinearity because no chunks were mutually exclusive or interdependent, and each chunk was essentially linear. The discretization of the missions made the story play and feel more like a dozen or so individual stories, and the lack of cohesion really didn't do the game justice.

qft. Therein lies the weakest part of ME2's storyline, and the part which disappointed me the most. Mordin and Legion were part of the storyline, the former being sought for collector countermeasures, the latter, encountered on the plotline. Everyone else just seemed to be people more than happy to tag along.

I guess Garrus and Tali could get away with that since they can play the former comrade card, but everyone else... well I mean it's not like it's bad or anything but after the 3rd or 4th guy who expressed interest in following you into hell itself, it just gets unbelievable. For Kasumi's mission I half expected her to go "I'm a thief! What'd you want me to do, steal the Collector General?"

It didn't help that the final boss failed to impress and that I could still only pick 2 guys out of my mini-army to fight with me.

Modifié par Fluffeh Kitteh, 13 avril 2010 - 04:57 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

First of all: at least you don't deny it. Secondly, just because you couldn't see how they worked doesn't mean I and others couldn't (let me guess... just because you can't feel that instant gratification from the weapon there's no difference? How modern "gamer" is that?). And thirdly, essentially that's no different from most RPG's and is kind of the point. But the better ones make you choose carefully by varying the stats so that one has to pick and choose.

Just like what ME2 does (prime example: the collection of AR's)?
But what I also meant was that numbers are nearly useless with little to no indication of how they actually work. So my HMWA AR does 384 damage. That fact in itself means nothing since I have no clue how much health an enemy has, nor what kind of armor he's wielding to mitigate it, nor how armor mitigation even works. Based on all those traits, I only need to know what kind of gun I have does the most damage.
All games have these traits, it's just that some games have them explained.

Okay, you're not even making an accurate comparison at all...

I generally refer to activatable abilities as "skills".

...These are skills, not spells, and pretty much all the non-combat ones at that. It's the equivalent of removing trap-setting, trap-defusing, lockpicking, stealth, etc. from a D&D game. ME2 is literally half the RPG ME1 is in this regard because it removed half the skills, and anything that's not related to combat is out the window. That makes for a shallow and one-dimensional RPG system.

That is largely understandable, but then it heads into another issue: being "denied" from certain parts throughout a game because you don't have a Rogue in your party. The hurdle around this is providing alternate routes through the situation, i.e. mages getting a lock-pick skill or fighters being able to bashthrough the chest - but then people argue if everyone can open it, why have it locked in the first place?

Of course I wouldn't be opposed to bringing back non-combat related skills, but I think Bioware will have to come up with a few gameplay hurdles that don't cause players to feel "obliged" to bring a certain party member over another (a problem ME2 still faces).

What do you mean "they're not?!" Of course they friggin' are! You show me a screenshot where the stats of a weapon or armour are shown?

Aegis Vest: +5% Health. That could define a life-or-death situation, and even more HP boosts could help you rush in and take out a nest of almost three-four bad guys.
If you meant only weapons, you probably should've specified.

A "real inventory" consists of more than just a single type of each item. It usually has a series of items which one has to pick and choose from and compare via statistical and bonus ability comparisons... but then ME2 doesn't let you do that because there's essentially only one of each weapon, with no stats and you're basically just running around and collecting them and choosing which one "feels best" like any other shooter out there. This game has no more of an inventory than DOOM does. Hell... games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Hitman have better inventory systems and they aren't even RPGs. ME2 in this regard is pathetic and shallow. The armour is pretty much purely cosmetic and the guns just completely lacking in depth and selection.

Most RPG games don't have much of a selection in terms of gear or weapons, heck I don't even know of any that currently do. They're all gear curves, that's it. Dragon Age has one, ME1 has one, Diablo has one, Final Fantasy has one, and I'm pretty sure every MMO does too. ME2 might've tried to break this mold by providing an interesting and alternate take on customizing your gear. While it was entirely and sadly lacking for the weapons, it was a great start for the armor. I'm really looking forward to seeing this again in ME3.

But overall, I really feel that part of the problem with games these days is that more and more developers are discovering how fun and awesome progression is. The Modern Warfare series is a great example: Infinity Ward straight up took a lot of ideas from RPGs and plugged it into a shooter, and bam it's a huge success. Rainbow Six Vegas and the Battlefield series' are other fine examples. I remember people complaining about FEAR 2 not having a progression or XP system and I was completely taken back: since when did an FPS need "leveling up"!?

RPGs are having a hard time fully defining themselves right now, and that's because people our discovering our well-kept secret: RPGs are fun! Crap!

God forbid some RPG elements pop up to remind shooter fanboys that they're earning experience while they slaughter things. I can see them screaming "Aaaargh! No! Bad numbers! Those are for stupid smarties... not big tough me who kills things!.

Personally, I always thought the XP system to be wildly retarded. In the Daggerfall booklet (which is bar-none my favorite RPG of all time, and where I get a lot of my inspiration) the lead of Bethesda always found standard RPGs strange: A Thief could become a better lockpicker - even if he never even picks locks! - by killing rats. Thus, that's how TES uses it's skill-up system.

When I see all that XP rewarded at the end of a mission in ME2, I feel that it was the use of all my skills - diplomatic, combat-wise, and otherwise - that contributed towards that reward, and it thus brings up the significance.

And those "shootah fans" you keep complaining about always wanting to rush through the game? Those are the same people who end up with Shepard dead. Bioware is still rewarding the careful completionist, the "gogogo"ers still get an incredibly unfullfilling and short gaming experience.

Not sure what you mean here...

I meant in the way it was advertised, the way it was played, the way it was presented, the way it was hyped.  The systems for ME1 would've worked great - and I mean really, really great! Could've had a lot more enjoyable potential! - if they weren't put into a third-person action game.

[Terror_K]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

Just like what ME2 does (prime example: the collection of AR's)?[/quote]

Not really. Since each AR is so different from the other, they can't really be considered the same type of guns in my books, which is why there is essentially only one kind of each weapon in the game. There's no selection so there can be no true comparison, and even if there was a selection there are no visible stats to make it: its all based on the feel of the weapon. It's no different from choosing your loadout at the start of CoD or Counterstrike now.

[quote]
But what I also meant was that numbers are nearly useless with little to no indication of how they actually work. So my HMWA AR does 384 damage. That fact in itself means nothing since I have no clue how much health an enemy has, nor what kind of armor he's wielding to mitigate it, nor how armor mitigation even works. Based on all those traits, I only need to know what kind of gun I have does the most damage.[/quote]

Which is why the system is so shallow in ME2: it only come down to damage. You don't have to worry about accuracy or overheat or anything... just choose the most bang for your buck. A good RPG will give you a selection of each type of weapon, and then have some that are strong in some areas but weak in others, and you have to choose which one best suits your style of play, your class, your other items, is best fed or boosted by your stats, etc. ME2 fails to do this entirely. ME1 borked this aspect up, but hey... at least it tried to. Would have worked if the guns themselves had a bit more effort put into them.

[quote]
All games have these traits, it's just that some games have them explained.[/quote]

Yes, technically behind the scenes, all games do. The problem is that ME2 is no longer a stat-based game when it comes to combat, so unlike most RPG's you don't have your stats effecting your ability to use your weapon and influencing how useful it is. That's why you generally need visible stats on your weapons in an RPG. This is the reason ME2 falls down overall as an RPG, because the most crucial factor isn't even governed by a statistical set of variables that determine ones success or lack thereof. All your skills are basically reduced to additional combat abilities. It's almost not even a level-based RPG stat system at all really... you could just easily replace what's there with a series of purchasable ability upgrades instead and that's all it would take for ME2 to not really be an RPG at all any more.

[quote]
That is largely understandable, but then it heads into another issue: being "denied" from certain parts throughout a game because you don't have a Rogue in your party. The hurdle around this is providing alternate routes through the situation, i.e. mages getting a lock-pick skill or fighters being able to bashthrough the chest - but then people argue if everyone can open it, why have it locked in the first place?[/quote]

And that's the way it should be, IMO. Not everybody should be able to get everything on a single playthrough. A good RPG makes you play as different classes or choose different paths to give more variation through playthroughs, and that's as much true for the gameplay itself as it is for the story and narrative. As long as it doesn't stop progression, there shouldn't be a problem. And, yes, there should be alternate paths, and usually there's trade-offs depending on how its done. With the example you give usually the mages took longer to get said skill and had to put effort into attaining it that could be used on other spells, while the warriors often had a chance of damaging the items within and sometimes couldn't actually bash certain items (e.g. sometimes a metal chest was unbreakable).

[quote]
Of course I wouldn't be opposed to bringing back non-combat related skills, but I think Bioware will have to come up with a few gameplay hurdles that don't cause players to feel "obliged" to bring a certain party member over another (a problem ME2 still faces).[/quote]

They need to add more depth to the gameplay beyond combat and dialogue. Add some puzzles... even combat-related ones. Hell, as much as I bash it, even Gears of War managed to keep things interesting by having small puzzles here and there and changes to gameplay and sections that differentiated from the norm. Aside from a couple of N7 missions and Tali's recruitment mission, ME2 didn't really do much of this. In a lot of ways its combat was more generic than Gears of War.

[quote]
Aegis Vest: +5% Health. That could define a life-or-death situation, and even more HP boosts could help you rush in and take out a nest of almost three-four bad guys.
If you meant only weapons, you probably should've specified.[/quote]

I wouldn't call that a stat, I'd call that a bonus attribute, but its about as close as the game gets. A stat would be a factor that all items of the same type would have, which in armours case would be things like Damage Protection, Biotic Protection, etc. while on weapons there'd be Damage, Accuracy, Rate of Fire, etc.

[quote]
Most RPG games don't have much of a selection in terms of gear or weapons, heck I don't even know of any that currently do. They're all gear curves, that's it. Dragon Age has one, ME1 has one, Diablo has one, Final Fantasy has one, and I'm pretty sure every MMO does too. ME2 might've tried to break this mold by providing an interesting and alternate take on customizing your gear. While it was entirely and sadly lacking for the weapons, it was a great start for the armor. I'm really looking forward to seeing this again in ME3.[/quote]

Even if we call it a gear curve, that's more than ME2 has. And I feel that what's its chosen as the alternative is weak and generic, and doesn't suit an RPG. ME1 had the better system... just bad inventory. ME2 has better inventory, but not enough of it and a bad system. As for the armour, I still feel its a really weak system personally. It really is mostly cosmetic, and while I do like the fact that we can customise its look and that it comprises of different pieces instead of just one (DLC armours being the sad exception) the armour itself is devoid of any proper stats or abilities, doesn't even seem to act like armour at all (where's my actual protection from it? How come enemies have armour bars and I don't when I'm wearing armour?) and is far too limited (four pieces of each type... that's all. And they're always in the same places). Again, I'm sure 90% of players go for what looks good to them on their Shepards over any miniscule attributes the armour actually gives you.

[quote]
But overall, I really feel that part of the problem with games these days is that more and more developers are discovering how fun and awesome progression is. The Modern Warfare series is a great example: Infinity Ward straight up took a lot of ideas from RPGs and plugged it into a shooter, and bam it's a huge success. Rainbow Six Vegas and the Battlefield series' are other fine examples. I remember people complaining about FEAR 2 not having a progression or XP system and I was completely taken back: since when did an FPS need "leveling up"!?

RPGs are having a hard time fully defining themselves right now, and that's because people our discovering our well-kept secret: RPGs are fun! Crap![/quote]

I have to admit, it's kind of ironic that so many other games are choosing to become more like RPG's, even in subtle ways, and yet BioWare decided instead to go in the opposite direction. Maybe its just me, but it seems like all games are trying to head towards this area of generic sameyness: they're all trying to become the action game for the mainstream gamer with just a little more depth than the others.

[quote]
Personally, I always thought the XP system to be wildly retarded. In the Daggerfall booklet (which is bar-none my favorite RPG of all time, and where I get a lot of my inspiration) the lead of Bethesda always found standard RPGs strange: A Thief could become a better lockpicker - even if he never even picks locks! - by killing rats. Thus, that's how TES uses it's skill-up system.[/quote]

Its a good system in theory, but lets not forget that Oblivion was the game that allowed you to become a god at absolutely everything with a single character with no drawbacks, and that it actually rewarded players who leveled up more of their non-class skills than their class ones, meaning you had to make your character kind of backwards to get the best builds.

[quote]
When I see all that XP rewarded at the end of a mission in ME2, I feel that it was the use of all my skills - diplomatic, combat-wise, and otherwise - that contributed towards that reward, and it thus brings up the significance.[/quote]

I don't see this at all. I felt that in ME1 and most other BioWare RPG's because I could see where it was coming from. In ME2 its just a meaningless number thrown at me at the end. It has no meaning or significance to me whatsoever like that. Especially when I get the same amount no matter what I do. That's like winning a race and then seeing everybody who took part in it getting the same trophy you got. The fact I'm not even entirely sure its real XP and not just some numbers BioWare made up to artificially feed the RPG feeling is the most annoying thing.

I can quite confidently say that aside from the HUD, this is the factor I want to see gone from ME3 the most. When I score the game out of 10, it will automatically lose a whole point if this system is still in place.

[quote]
I meant in the way it was advertised, the way it was played, the way it was presented, the way it was hyped.  The systems for ME1 would've worked great - and I mean really, really great! Could've had a lot more enjoyable potential! - if they weren't put into a third-person action game.[/quote]

At least when ME1 was coming out BioWare referred to it as an RPG all the time, as opposed to ME2's "Shooter! Shooter! Shooter! Bang! Bang! Bang!" approach from the marketing. All I know is that when ME1 was coming, the previews were making me look forward to it, and while I was a little sceptical that it would be too unbalanced in the favour of combat, it still looked like a game I'd really want to play... and it was. ME2's advertising made me want to throw up on the other hand. Despite my many complaints, ME2 wasn't as bad as I thought it would be... but it still wasn't as good as it should have been either. It wasn't awful, its still a good game, it's just... disappointing.

[FlintlockJazz]

Pocketgb wrote...

Personally, I always thought the XP system to be wildly retarded. In the Daggerfall booklet (which is bar-none my favorite RPG of all time, and where I get a lot of my inspiration) the lead of Bethesda always found standard RPGs strange: A Thief could become a better lockpicker - even if he never even picks locks! - by killing rats. Thus, that's how TES uses it's skill-up system.

When I see all that XP rewarded at the end of a mission in ME2, I feel that it was the use of all my skills - diplomatic, combat-wise, and otherwise - that contributed towards that reward, and it thus brings up the significance.

And those "shootah fans" you keep complaining about always wanting to rush through the game? Those are the same people who end up with Shepard dead. Bioware is still rewarding the careful completionist, the "gogogo"ers still get an incredibly unfullfilling and short gaming experience.

I just gotta say I agree totally with you regarding the xp system.  VtM:Bloodlines pretty much used the same method of awarding xp at the end of the mission as opposed to based on kills, allowing you to try different methods for the best results (with bonus xp being awarded for things like not killing people), whereas the old D&D system of awarding it based on kills meant that being clever and sneaking past the horde of enemies results in you being punished by effectively deprieving you of the xp.  

The TES system has flaws in it (they should have just chucked out levels out of the game and gone entirely skill-based) but I have to admit its a good system.

[Pocketgb]

Yuck, I got exactly into what I said I didn't want to: a quote war that serves no purpose but to the posters themselves. Horrendous amount of semantics aside (which I actually think does provide something for the thread in regards to the "what's in an RPG" debate), there are a few things actually worth commenting on.

Terror_K said...

I don't see this at all. I felt that in ME1 and most other BioWare RPG's because I could see where it was coming from. In ME2 its just a meaningless number thrown at me at the end. It has no meaning or significance to me whatsoever like that.

Whoever said "personally" or "I feels" are impossible to refute is pretty spot-on, since now I'm starting to see that.

I don't see the "mission complete" screens as disheartening or meaningless at all: Going through and helping Garrus with a very troubling issue, or helping Thane find his son, are very rewarding indeed, and I hardly consider those "meaningless". The compilation of all that you've accomplished in completing the task - be it killing some mercenaries, or sneaking your way through to the objective, or helping a friend in deep need - is what you're being rewarded for, and the completion screen is just a summary of that - and I have no issue with it.

Terror_K wrote...

At least when ME1 was coming out BioWare referred to it as an RPG all the time, as opposed to ME2's "Shooter! Shooter! Shooter! Bang! Bang! Bang!" approach from the marketing.

That's actually how they marketed ME1 as well, if I recall. Remember when you said "shooting sells"? Well that's what they were trying to aim for in the advertising and other commentary leading up to ME1. What to fully expect, how it all truly functioned, was never seen until played.

Its a good system in theory, but lets not forget that Oblivion was the game that allowed you to become a god at absolutely everything with a single character with no drawbacks, and that it actually rewarded players who leveled up more of their non-class skills than their class ones, meaning you had to make your character kind of backwards to get the best builds.

That's all Elder Scrolls games, really. In some it was easier and/or glitchier, but that's mainly the point of The Elder Scrolls series. It would honestly be interesting to see one of their games go classless.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 avril 2010 - 08:46 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K said...

I don't see this at all. I felt that in ME1 and most other BioWare RPG's because I could see where it was coming from. In ME2 its just a meaningless number thrown at me at the end. It has no meaning or significance to me whatsoever like that.

Whoever said "personally" or "I feels" are impossible to refute is pretty spot-on, since now I'm starting to see that.

I don't see the "mission complete" screens as disheartening or meaningless at all: Going through and helping Garrus with a very troubling issue, or helping Thane find his son, are very rewarding indeed, and I hardly consider those "meaningless". The compilation of all that you've accomplished in completing the task - be it killing some mercenaries, or sneaking your way through to the objective, or helping a friend in deep need - is what you're being rewarded for, and the completion screen is just a summary of that - and I have no issue with it.

Yes... but, that doesn't have much to do with the "Mission Complete" screens at all really. I never said the actions were meaningless, just that the disconnected pile of XP thrown at me without any context (particularly if I do a minor sidequest partway through the mission) at the end is. The things you mentioned are rewarding in and of themselves, but it would be a lot more meaningful if you actually knew what you were getting the XP for instead of just a lump sum. I recall doing missions in ME1 different ways could result in different alignment, XP and credits, and you'd see exactly why and how it happened and when it happened. The lump sum of XP just thrown at you at the end has no context and is meaningless. That and the screens themselves jar, pulling me out of the immersion of the game suddenly and only serving to remind me that this is a game. Incredibly cheap and tacky, and that's not even going into the main issue itself, which is that it's hiding the fact you're getting XP all the way up until the moment you need to (and that's assuming you even are earning XP at all).

[Pocketgb]

Be reminded that I'm only commenting on this portion because there's nothing left to comment on, since I feel completely opposite. That aside:

Terror_K wrote...

That and the screens themselves jar, pulling me out of the immersion of the game suddenly and only serving to remind me that this is a game. Incredibly cheap and tacky...

I don't find it anymore immersion breaking than the fact that I'm looking at someone else's head from behind, that I can look around corners without sticking my head around them, and that there's mysterious icons floating all over the place (which for all of them is to say not too immersion breaking).

So thankfully, that's all done.

[Sad Dragon]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Yes, and then again no.

Both games do tend to railroad the player, and while ME2 is generally worse at hiding this linearity than ME1 (probably due to it being more formulaic and less expansive), both games do have this same restriction.

But there is a small difference between the two that makes a large difference in the end: ME2 is a sequel, while ME1 was not.

In ME1, the player basically takes control of a (mostly) predefined character. They get to set some specific background events and what not, but when the game starts they are playing a character who already has an entire backstory that has led them to that point. From then on,the player gets to decide how their character does what throughout the game, working with and branching from the set starting point. By the end of the game, the character that emerges has evolved beyond the predefined cookie-cutter into something that is unique (sorta) to that player.

In ME2, we don't start with that same cookie-cutter generic persona (assuming that the player imported their own personal Shep). Instead, they start with their own character that has already been molded to the players personal tastes. What this basically amounts to is that people expect more/better/different choices from a character that they had a hand in creating. The player knows exactly how their character would react in a given situation - they worked for an entire game to define their personal character, after all - and when they are presented with a non-negotiable choice (for example, working with Cerberus) without even the chance of trying to go another way, they begin to notice the tracks in the dust.

Bioware could have at least added in a way for the player to break away from Cerberus for a time, if only so they can find out that Cerberus is their only choice. The fact that they didn't even bother with the illusion of choice is ultimately the biggest problem.

Thank you mate, you just said what i been saying way more clearly then i have

Pocketgb wrote...

Be reminded that I'm only commenting on
this portion because there's nothing left to comment on, since I feel
completely opposite. That aside:

Terror_K wrote...

That
and the screens themselves jar, pulling me out of the immersion of the
game suddenly and only serving to remind me that this is a game.
Incredibly cheap and tacky...

I don't find it anymore
immersion breaking than the fact that I'm looking at someone else's head
from behind, that I can look around corners without sticking my head
around them, and that there's mysterious icons floating all over the
place (which for all of them is to say not too immersion breaking).

So
thankfully, that's all done.

Sadly its not just Terro_K who finds the mission compleet screen immersion breaking. It out right ruined the game immersion for me and i know that we are not alone in feeling this. Though instead of agruing about it in this way. Lets turn it around. Anyone who actualy loved the mission complete screen or can we please do away with it and find another solution to tieing together the different missions?

/TSD

[Tawg]

This looks like we're having plenty of fun now ;D

Anyhow, CatatonicMan's description of how BioWare handled the story is pretty damn good, and I must agree.  The loyalty missions felt like they weren't building to any Priiiizee at all!  Ahem I mean end game/climax like ME1 (Sorry guys I just found out about the Prize/Jacob joke).

Now as for the sissy slapping that is Terror_K & Pocketgb! (No offense to either, just neither of you are getting anywhere, or proving any points) By the way I'll color your two names incase you're just skimming easier to find.

Just because the guns 'function' different doesn't mean they aren't the same class, it's just a function that goes along with their revamped shooter game play.  If all the assault rifles shot the same like in ME1, they would have made a fail-shooter on top of killing any RPG.  So firing modes aren't the issue, it's just the lack of actual stats that matters.. Simply describing a gun in those blurbs is a terrible injustice for trying to determine which is best (for the player).
If it still went by feel of the weapon and had stats, you couldn't tell me you'd complain would you Terror?

As for gun traits;
ME1 had numbers, great I suppose, it was however about as arbitrary as the ME2 system.  Just because the guns don't list now many shots you can fire before 'over heating' doesn't mean each of those guns didn't have different Ammo capacity which is the new Fluff that BioWare contrived to explain the guns change towards being more shooter combat.  So they still have over heating stats, in the form of ammo size, it's just not explicitly given to the player unless you load a mission with the gun in hand (After which you can't change it unless you finish or load over, which is poor design I believe).
However, Pocketgb, just because numbers exist and you don't directly understand them doesn't mean they are useless;  I know from Boarderlands (GearBox's game) that though I don't know any of the stats on the things I shoot, I can tell from the numbers what is or isn't good (And apparently only flame element matters in that game, but that's another topic entirely).
And Terror is sadly right that, the 'lvl up!' system on ME2 could be replaced as a cheap excuse for buying 'up-grade' skills like in God of War, or any other game really.  I don't know where I stand however on the strict adherence to 'Statistical variables' being needed to determine combat;  If they stick with the 'Shooter' formula, I'm not sure they can revert to the ME1 skill based (Hay I can't even use this shotty without the skill) game play; Perhaps they could strike the balance with percentile/skill rank out comes for certain 'mini-games' in ME3, like for instance Hacking/Decrypting or even Planet scanning (God that would be better than a player focused planet scan!) so then you still have choices to make instead of just forcing players to be able to play simple mini-games from time to time.  
[Aside] Which would actually allow them to not waste time focusing on making said mini-games, or the ire they inspire in players. I actually really like that idea for a resource gathering system, so that it scales with players to want to be better at it or upgrade guns quickly. [/Aside]

Non-combat skills do need to see a resurgence, I think everyone can agree;  Also, as far as the puzzle issue goes, ME2 did have at least one or two missions where Shepard went it alone on what amounted to pretty much a puzzle mission (The crashed ship was quite fun in my opinion, and certainly a puzzle, albeit extremely simple).

As for the argument over the stats on armor, I do believe those are stats.  And I understand you would normally call something like that an attribute bonus in an /RPG/ but for the shooter, it would be much harder to have constants for stats I do believe.  I've never made a game, but I am sure it effects the design greatly, and real time shooters would have much issues balancing such things.  Besides what I mentioned about the Ammo capacity;  Just because you can't see the stats doesn't mean they're entirely not there (Although they are considerably hidden, almost just the core mechanics).

ME2's 'gear curve' as you guys called it, is rather non-existent. It's more like randomly allotted guns you are able to find.  But I like the lay-out, just not the lack of guns, or stats.  And the armor never was that bad to me, and certainly not just cosmetic to me.  I always took the most shield, and what ever offered me the most bonus to crit damage (That little eye-piece thing).
And Terror, I'm fairly sure that the 'Armor' stat on baddies was pretty clearly used for the likes of almost vehicular armor, the robutts and such.  Although I suppose a few Vorcha or Krogan got that too huh?

I don't really care to comment about TES or the general 'convergence of games to a sub-par mish-mashed genre' not really on topic.

HOLY CRAP, I agree with Terror!  The 'Mission over' screen at the.. ahem.. end of missions? Was terrible.  Sure Pocketgb, you can argue you used all your skills and got your way, but what the issue is, that Terror and I agree on, is that you aren't rewarded for getting every scrap of the Codex (Like in DA:O) or open the random boxes that you had to have a skill to actually access like in ME1.  There is no extra-progression for being thorough!  Sure you can explain it away, but the Leveling up in me wants more for doing more.  And sure it allows you to skip over fights if you can avoid them, but that is completely irrelevant given the games completely linear missions you couldn't avoid a fight in if you wanted, and with no planet exploration either!
I understand this system is born by the same malicious mind the thinks individual missions broken up by ship, shop, and probing time is a good idea (it's not, it's terrible, ME1 was far better in this regard), and that it fits well, but I don't like it.  I want to be awarded for doing everything others' might not end up doing, and this gives me no incentive to explore or chance for progressing faster.
This issue also relates to the lack of non-combat skills which normally allow a player to get into the 'inaccessible areas' or 'safes' which in turn grant minor xp gain.
XP per kill (Especially vs avoiding a fight for xp) is something I care less about, but most likely the system that would have to be implemented to go with the rest of the xp gain.  I'm not sure of any game that can currently award you for finding clever alternatives to a straight fight, but that may just be an industry standard no one has bothered to fix (Hint hint to anyone who would like to).

I also don't care about the marketing of the game as of right now..

And it's bed time,
so have fun tearing anything I said apart guys;
and have a good nite/day 

[NightKay]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

No surpise here, but I flat out agree. The lastest "heavy weapon" (read: further repurposed power) is a perfect example. How many heavy weapons have we got now that take power effects and gift them to the shooter classes? I wouldnt mind but hacking and decryption are now free for all to use, and persuasion is simply getting para/rene points.

This game is dumbed down beyond belief, and I dont feel the stupid health regen, precision shooter damage like headshots, and reliance on ridiculously placed immersion breaking cover littering THE ENTIRE GALAXY is a worthwile trade.

Heres a tip for ME3 Bioware: Actually put some effort into those "streamlined" (or "massively reduced" for the realists) RPG elements. Yeah, youve got your stupid shooter elements nailed down now - you cant leave cover, you given the game ammo (with an insanely crap reasoning for it), health regens behind cover, and you can headshot enemies. Hoo-frickin-ray. Please spend as much time on the RPG in ME3 as you did the TPS in ME2, because to be honest, it needs it.

ME2 is about as replayable as the game it clearly wants to ape: Gears of War. I only played Gears of War once, and ME2 twice, and even on the second playthrough I felt I had wasted my time and wanted it back.

I Agree, I enjoyed ME1 more than I enjoyed ME2... Not just because of the story, but because of the inventory, the buy/sell kind of stuff, the RPG like gameplay, that reminded me of playing kotor... 

[Vena_86]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Personally, I always thought the XP system to be wildly retarded. In the Daggerfall booklet (which is bar-none my favorite RPG of all time, and where I get a lot of my inspiration) the lead of Bethesda always found standard RPGs strange: A Thief could become a better lockpicker - even if he never even picks locks! - by killing rats. Thus, that's how TES uses it's skill-up system.

When I see all that XP rewarded at the end of a mission in ME2, I feel that it was the use of all my skills - diplomatic, combat-wise, and otherwise - that contributed towards that reward, and it thus brings up the significance.

And those "shootah fans" you keep complaining about always wanting to rush through the game? Those are the same people who end up with Shepard dead. Bioware is still rewarding the careful completionist, the "gogogo"ers still get an incredibly unfullfilling and short gaming experience.

I just gotta say I agree totally with you regarding the xp system.  VtM:Bloodlines pretty much used the same method of awarding xp at the end of the mission as opposed to based on kills, allowing you to try different methods for the best results (with bonus xp being awarded for things like not killing people), whereas the old D&D system of awarding it based on kills meant that being clever and sneaking past the horde of enemies results in you being punished by effectively deprieving you of the xp.  

The TES system has flaws in it (they should have just chucked out levels out of the game and gone entirely skill-based) but I have to admit its a good system.

It is true that the concept makes little sense at times. However, naturally you will spend your experience on something you do anyway. Why would you spend experience on picking locks when the thing you do the most is killing rats. It would make more sense to spend the experience on something that makes killing rats easier.
But it is true that sometimes you save up experience for something which you didnt want to bother with in lower stages and suddenly become a master at something.

I always found the system of the Gothic series (or Risen) very intuitive in that regard. You gain experience through killing stuff and completing quests. With enough experience comes a level-up that gives you 10 learning points. You then can go to trainers with their own specialities (one is a good hunter, another one an axe specialist) that can teach you new moves, how to aim for critical spots etc. for better overall damage in exchange for money and learning points. It feels natural that you improve through a mix of just doing things (level-ups also increase basic stats automaticly) and through learning from others.

[FlintlockJazz]

Vena_86 wrote...

It is true that the concept makes little sense at times. However, naturally you will spend your experience on something you do anyway. Why would you spend experience on picking locks when the thing you do the most is killing rats. It would make more sense to spend the experience on something that makes killing rats easier.
But it is true that sometimes you save up experience for something which you didnt want to bother with in lower stages and suddenly become a master at something.

I always found the system of the Gothic series (or Risen) very intuitive in that regard. You gain experience through killing stuff and completing quests. With enough experience comes a level-up that gives you 10 learning points. You then can go to trainers with their own specialities (one is a good hunter, another one an axe specialist) that can teach you new moves, how to aim for critical spots etc. for better overall damage in exchange for money and learning points. It feels natural that you improve through a mix of just doing things (level-ups also increase basic stats automaticly) and through learning from others.

I understand what you are saying and trainers are a nice touch, but I don't think that would solve the problem we are looking at.  From your example the player gets xp for quest completion and kills, if the quest xp is the same no matter how he solves it then that means the player is effectively penalised for trying any tactic other than killing everyone: if he manages to sneak past the enemies or talk his way through he has essentially deprieved himself of the xp for killiing them.  If someone has built their character as a social powerhouse should they not get xp for accomplishing things with charm as well as by hacking someone's limb off? 

That's my thinking anyway, and its why I prefer xp to be given at the end of a quest or mission and dependant on how successful the players were overall (with bonuses for good roleplaying and memorable acts).

[Terror_K]

Tawg wrote...

Just because the guns 'function' different doesn't mean they aren't the same class, it's just a function that goes along with their revamped shooter game play.  If all the assault rifles shot the same like in ME1, they would have made a fail-shooter on top of killing any RPG.  So firing modes aren't the issue, it's just the lack of actual stats that matters.. Simply describing a gun in those blurbs is a terrible injustice for trying to determine which is best (for the player).
If it still went by feel of the weapon and had stats, you couldn't tell me you'd complain would you Terror?

Yes... to a degree. To be truly happy I'd want stats to return, as well as the ability to mod my weapons to some degree and a greater selection of them (and to make them more random, rather than this linear they're always in the same place crap that completely eliminates any notion of looting or the thrill of the hunt for items). Stats would definitely be a start though, and I'd be happier than I am with the ME2 system if they were back... but they alone would not be enough to placate me. I seriously doubt BioWare will revert things back as much as I like, and imagine at the most we'll just get the ME2 system with maybe a few more weapons and the stats visible, which is a plus but... not enough for me. I'd even be happy with them eliminating the inventory still and sticking with the ME2 weapons loadout system if they simply gave us the above things.

Funnily enough I actually made the following mock-up for another topic here a couple of months back or so:-



And it got a pretty positive response from a lot of people, so I sent it to Christina Norman, and she was kind enough to thank me for the suggestion. So, unless she was merely being polite and its been forgotten, at least one of the devs has had a look at this. All in all, it's not that different from what ME2 already has... it just adds a bit more depth.

As for the argument over the stats on armor, I do believe those are stats.  And I understand you would normally call something like that an attribute bonus in an /RPG/ but for the shooter, it would be much harder to have constants for stats I do believe.  I've never made a game, but I am sure it effects the design greatly, and real time shooters would have much issues balancing such things.  Besides what I mentioned about the Ammo capacity;  Just because you can't see the stats doesn't mean they're entirely not there (Although they are considerably hidden, almost just the core mechanics).

Yes, but as far as I'm concerned Mass Effect is primarily an RPG, or at least supposed to be as such, and should be viewed and treated as such. I remember BioWare stating they believed there were no sacred cows when defending their treatment of the RPG elements in ME2, but as I've said before, this should apply to both sides of the game if you're going to make such a claim, and the only calves I've seen slaughtered are on the RPG side of the fence. Despite their claims about making ME3 a deeper RPG experience, does anybody really believe that when push comes to shove that the RPG factors aren't going to always be on the losing side of things? If it only works one way or the other, is the RPG side really going to win? I have a strong suspicion were not going to be seeing any shooter factors leaving to make way for a new or improved RPG concept any time soon. Twitch-based shooter combat with no reliance on stats is going to be a sacred cow, of this I am certain. And I doubt non-combat skills are going to be returning.

ME2's 'gear curve' as you guys called it, is rather non-existent. It's more like randomly allotted guns you are able to find.

Have to comment on this just to simply say the word "randomly" isn't really accurate, since in ME2 the same guns are in the same place every time you play. If they were actually random it wouldn't be so damn linear and tedious at least.