874 réponses à ce sujet

[Tennyochan]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Also the interviewer is crazy if mission complete screens don't make him feel like he completed a level, what would?

this

[MarloMarlo]

slyguy07 wrote...
Marlo! I thought you had run away. Basic argumentation you say is university stuff? Nope I just think it's funny how you float with a "aura of superiority" and turn everything into a semi-intellectual wall of crap. It's been great fun though.

I'm not saying anything that would be hard for children to understand. This is intentional and obviously appropriate and probably necessary. That it makes me seem like I'm floating around with an aura of superiority is fine. That you've identified it as "semi-intellectual" is baffling and sad.

slyguy07 wrote...
I'm glad you think breathing isn't elitist because then everyone would be.  That would be scarey. I just remind you that the factual evidence is there. So many like you are keen on ignoring it, but I digress as I must be going.

Breathing through your nose. You know, as opposed to breathing through your mouth. Mouth breathing. This isn't rocket science.

yoda23 wrote...

MarloMarlo wrote...

yoda23 wrote...
I have struggled a bit to identify why I may have been more interested by ME1 as opposed to ME2.  I think it does have something to do with the lack of inventory and customization that is available. What I referring to is immersion.

Really? Carrying 150 guns and full sets or armor at once and being able to switch between them in the middle of combat in ME1 is why you're referring to immersion?

Obviously you are not quite the reader MarloMarlo. (2 first names, Really?)

This was the actual quote...

First off, you can't blame me for not wanting to read something poorly written. Second, I did read it, and your "actual quote" doesn't invalidate what I said or make it inappropriate. Maybe you just don't understand what you're writing?

And you're drawing  attention to the repetition in my screen name? Really?

yoda23 wrote...
Sorry if that was too much for you to read...

You better be sorry for subjecting me to that amount of bad writing. It would be nice if all of your posts ended with an apology. We certainly deserve it.

Terror_K wrote...
Too many seemed to be concerned with what defines an RPG and not enough of what gives an RPG depth and substance. Just because Mass Effect 2 fits the basic definition of an RPG, doesn't mean its a deep one with enough RPG meat and bones to satisfy the hungry RPG fan. Things aren't so black and white as to mean that if a game succeeds in being defined as an RPG that it succeeds at being an RPG.

It's ironic that I'm the one that supposed to be floating around with an aura of superiority, but then other people, like you, use their personal taste as the basis for what gives RPGs enough depth and substance to satisfy the hungry RPG fan.

Maybe you personally like big butts on girls. That doesn't mean big butts = richer female experience, just because that's what big butts do for you and Sir Mixalot (who starts his song off with "I like..."). What you or anyone else personally likes in an RPG doesn't automatically set the criteria for what puts meat and bones on an RPG. Maybe you want to talk or sing about what Terror_K personally likes in his RPGs. All right. But don't pretend you're also talking about what makes RPGs deep or whatever adjective you want to use. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

[Gatt9]

Pocketgb wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you there.

The only way that Bioware went out of their comfort zone with ME1, was with how the player views the character : point & shoot with fixed over the shoulder camera, instead of select to target with freely moveable camera.

Take any previous Bioware game and stick ME1s over the shoulder system in it, and you'll have pretty much the same game.

Regardless of presentation, all Bioware games up untill ME2 followed a standard tried and tested and brilliant fun formula.

So I would have to say that it was ME2 that was outside of Biowares comfort zone, as it forgoes a hell of a lot of their usual elements.


But, as I keep saying, I don't have any problems with Bioware making a game with the system they gave to ME2, it was a fun game, but it should not have been ME2 that they gave the system to.  Had it been the start of a new franchise or a stand alone ME game that wasn't about Shepard, then I would have no problems with it whatso ever.

They went out of their comfort zone when they attempted to make a shooter/RPG hybrid, which is what ME1 was.
They were making their own IP once more as opposed to DnD or KotOR (they did this with JE as well, though).
They were, once again, attempting completely new RPG systems that could fit while still being a fun shooter.
They created vehicle sections to add variety inbetween the missions.
They were not following the "good or evil" ending, or A or B ending. Instead you have to go from A to B (from start to destroying the Reapers) but it changes differently depending on if you go left or right (renegade or paragon).
I did not think they'd have much of an issue with the dialog, since Bioware are aces with it.

ME2's also going out of what they usually do, but they used ME1 as a launch-off to see what they could accomplish in ME2 - and what did they accomplish?
-They don't always have to stick to the standard format of three to four world hubs where you progress the story.
-That they can make a fun and unique shooter implementing various abilities and perks to alter the combat.
-That, they can, still make a completely different and depthful game.

I'd say it worked : )

Actually,  it was the single biggest mistake Bioware could've possibly made.

Bioware had a golden reputation.

Bioware sold out to EA,  who has a very tarnished reputation as a bandwagoner hellbent on pushing out drivel without respect to quality.

Bioware's first real game under EA is ME2,  supposed to be the sequel to Mass Effect,  but turns out is pretty much it's polar opposite.  I'd guess there's quite a few people like myself who bought ME2 expecting the sequel to ME,  and instead getting a sequel to Quake.

So now Bioware's proved to some number of people that the fears about the EA takeover were well founded.  Instead of a decent RPG,  I wasted $70 on a *really* crappy shooter,  and I feel that my money was stolen.

So I will not blind buy another Bioware game again,  nor will I trust a review again as it's pretty clear how EA/Bioware games are now reviewed.

This is how the downward slide to studio-death starts.  Very few studios in the last 20 years have avoided it.  I doubt Bioware will be one to avoid it given how completely clueless Mrs. Norman is on why ME2 was a horrible mistake.

[Pocketgb]

Gatt9 wrote...

Bioware's first real game under EA is ME2,  supposed to be the sequel to Mass Effect,  but turns out is pretty much it's polar opposite.  I'd guess there's quite a few people like myself who bought ME2 expecting the sequel to ME,  and instead getting a sequel to Quake.

Er, you sure you were playing ME1? The only way I could gather such disappointment as labeling it a "polar opposite" is if you expected it to be the sequel to Jade Empire.

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Bioware's first real game under EA is ME2,  supposed to be the sequel to Mass Effect,  but turns out is pretty much it's polar opposite.  I'd guess there's quite a few people like myself who bought ME2 expecting the sequel to ME,  and instead getting a sequel to Quake.

Er, you sure you were playing ME1? The only way I could gather such disappointment as labeling it a "polar opposite" is if you expected it to be the sequel to Jade Empire.

He may have gone with a bit too much hyperbole there. ME2 was not completely opposed to ME1 (I think you would have to enter RTS territory for that), but they shifted the focus too much toward the shooter and too far from the RPG. Instead of making an RPG with TPS elements, they decided to start channeling Gears of War (with some RPG elements added in for flavor).

The system they came out with in ME2 isn't really bad per se, but it most certainly was not the way to take a sequel. A sequel has too much baggage to carry around already; trying any radical redesigns that deviate from this baggage is just asking for trouble.

As much as Bioware tried to prevent it, they still managed to alienate the old fanbase (how much, I cannot say) when they made ME2 a sequel in name only - especially for anyone who bought ME2 expecting it to be ME1+1.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 05 avril 2010 - 11:28 .

[this isnt my name]

Ok she makes awesome powerpoints, havent finished yrt but "Dont worry about shooter rpg balnce"... Sorry but what the hell, ME is an rpg, you expect it to be an rpg, ok for a new game but when you have a sequal you shouldnt change it would be like DAO is an rpg then the next dragon age is a GoW ripoff. If the first game is an rpg the second should cater to the rpg aspect first.

[Maj.Pain007]

The problem I have with what they did was instead of fixing it they scrapped it. That seems to be a big thing at BioWare if its flawed scrap it. They took out quite a few RPG elements in ME2. ME2 seemed more like an action game than RPG.

[this isnt my name]

Maj.Pain007 wrote...

The problem I have with what they did was instead of fixing it they scrapped it. That seems to be a big thing at BioWare if its flawed scrap it. They took out quite a few RPG elements in ME2. ME2 seemed more like an action game than RPG.

Scrap is such a harsh word..."Streamlined".

The inventory was far from perfect but now im stuck with limited guns and pretty crap ones at that, unless I find upgrades. The mako was ok, the planets were the problem, now im stuck with the hammerhead.

[Maj.Pain007]

this isnt my name wrote...

Maj.Pain007 wrote...

The problem I have with what they did was instead of fixing it they scrapped it. That seems to be a big thing at BioWare if its flawed scrap it. They took out quite a few RPG elements in ME2. ME2 seemed more like an action game than RPG.

Scrap is such a harsh word..."Streamlined".

The inventory was far from perfect but now im stuck with limited guns and pretty crap ones at that, unless I find upgrades. The mako was ok, the planets were the problem, now im stuck with the hammerhead.

But thats essentially what they did with the Loot and inventory. Instead of improving on the system which could have easily been done they decided to make it a Action esque game. I love the gameplay its much better than the first but I miss the RPG elements.

[Pocketgb]

CatatonicMan wrote...

The system they came out with in ME2 isn't really bad per se, but it most certainly was not the way to take a sequel. A sequel has too much baggage to carry around already; trying any radical redesigns that deviate from this baggage is just asking for trouble.

As much as Bioware tried to prevent it, they still managed to alienate the old fanbase (how much, I cannot say) when they made ME2 a sequel in name only - especially for anyone who bought ME2 expecting it to be ME1+1.

The only RPG element that was truly "lost" was the weapon modding (and the Mako was interesting to see in missions, even if it sucked major ass on uncharted worlds). Everything else feels implemented in a different fashion. I honestly can't say that ME2 is less "RPG than ME", more that ME2 isn't ME1 - and here's the issue developers will always face with sequels: There will be people who just want more of the same, and there are those who want things different. I'm one of the latter: I found the systems in ME1 either tedious or boring, if not both.

Maj.Pain007 wrote...

But thats essentially
what they did with the Loot and inventory. Instead of improving on the
system which could have easily been done they decided to make it a
Action esque game. I love the gameplay its much better than the first
but I miss the RPG elements.

Your inventory is still there, you just can't access it on the go.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 06 avril 2010 - 01:49 .

[Maj.Pain007]

Pocketgb wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

The system they came out with in ME2 isn't really bad per se, but it most certainly was not the way to take a sequel. A sequel has too much baggage to carry around already; trying any radical redesigns that deviate from this baggage is just asking for trouble.

As much as Bioware tried to prevent it, they still managed to alienate the old fanbase (how much, I cannot say) when they made ME2 a sequel in name only - especially for anyone who bought ME2 expecting it to be ME1+1.

The only RPG element that was truly "lost" was the weapon modding (and the Mako was interesting to see in missions, even if it sucked major ass on uncharted worlds). Everything else feels implemented in a different fashion. I honestly can't say that ME2 is less "RPG than ME", more that ME2 isn't ME1 - and here's the issue developers will always face with sequels: There will be people who just want more of the same, and there are those who want things different. I'm one of the latter: I found the systems in ME1 either tedious or boring, if not both.

Maj.Pain007 wrote...

But thats essentially
what they did with the Loot and inventory. Instead of improving on the
system which could have easily been done they decided to make it a
Action esque game. I love the gameplay its much better than the first
but I miss the RPG elements.

Your inventory is still there, you just can't access it on the go.

When I mean inventory I mean in a RPG sense. They should just ditch the RPG genre attached to ME because I think its more like Uncharted 2 than it is a RPg. JMO.

[Pocketgb]

Maj.Pain007 wrote...

When I mean inventory I mean in a RPG sense...

And what is an "RPG" sense? Just being able to carry 30 sets of armor and weapons between three characters with zero visual indication?

There are still pieces of armor to pick up, there are still multiple weapons to choose from. Just because you can't press "I" to customize your suit or choose which weapon you want no matter where you are doesn't mean the inventory isn't there. Why would you want to lug around four additional suits of armor on your back, or carry around ten weapons? If you were actually going to go into a dungeon yourself you'd only want to bring what you would need and what you could physically carry.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 06 avril 2010 - 02:48 .

[Dudeman315]

What Maj.Pain007 probably meant is one that you can buy and sell stuff with. Something that you could move objects in and out of from time to time. Not you gained weapon upgrade Widow Maker! Here's a convenient weapon upgrade station so you can select it now, even though right now you should have 5 weapons but we teleported it back to the ship somehow so you only have 4 and can teleport it to you in the middle of a collector ship somehow system.

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...

Maj.Pain007 wrote...

When I mean inventory I mean in a RPG sense...

And what is an "RPG" sense? Just being able to carry 30 sets of armor and weapons between three characters with zero visual indication?

There are still pieces of armor to pick up, there are still multiple weapons to choose from. Just because you can't press "I" to customize your suit or choose which weapon you want no matter where you are doesn't mean the inventory isn't there. Why would you want to lug around four additional suits of armor on your back, or carry around ten weapons? If you were actually going to go into a dungeon yourself you'd only want to bring what you would need and what you could physically carry.

We've had this argument before, and it gets nowhere. Arguing about what is and what isn't an RPG and to what extent fails for the simple reason that the RPG genre is so loosely defined that it is laughable.

I say that ME2 doesn't really have an inventory system for the arbitrary reason that you can't get rid of anything once you buy it (just about as good as any reason, really, since it is all subjective - and at least this one makes a bit of actual sense). Regardless, what ME2 does have is more like a loadout, and no loadout I have ever seen can really be called an 'RPG inventory system'.

Also, while the 'uniqueness' of the individual guns is nice and all, the total and complete lack of any customization of said guns kinda ruins any real claim to 'inventory' that ME2 might have had. There is no personalization, no choice - everything is either a stackable upgrade or nonexistent.

In a similar way, the lack of any meaningful* customization of the armor renders that system essentially pointless - not to mention the terrible way they handled the 'extra' armors. Where are the +20-30% stat boosting equipment? Where is equipment that has both bonuses and penalties? Where are the armor pieces that make you want to choose stats over appearance? Nowhere, because actual options give you more than the illusion of choice.

*By 'meaningful', I mean bits of armor that actually have some real, tangible effect, not the paltry +5-10% that infests everything except the bonus armors - and even those have their own special problems.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 06 avril 2010 - 03:46 .

[Pocketgb]

CatatonicMan wrote...

I say that ME2 doesn't really have an inventory system for the arbitrary reason that you can't get rid of anything once you buy it (just about as good as any reason, really, since it is all subjective - and at least this one makes a bit of actual sense). Regardless, what ME2 does have is more like a loadout, and no loadout I have ever seen can really be called an 'RPG inventory system'.

Guild Wars was like this in a sense: you had thousands of skills to choose from but you could only bring 8 with you when you left an outpost. While not in relation to items or management, it still definitely feel RPG.

Here's a thought: would it feel like an inventory system if you could still customize it on the go, no matter where you were? Or what if ME1's inventory system could only be accessed while on the Normandy?

The issue with "loading out" (so to speak) is that it's largely in relation to multiplayer games, mainly shooters, and especially Modern Warfare. The thing about MW is that many of its ideas are straight out of RPGdom, just set in a shooter setting.

CatatonicMan wrote...

Also, while the 'uniqueness' of the individual guns is nice and all, the total and complete lack of any customization of said guns kinda ruins any real claim to 'inventory' that ME2 might have had...

I can understand being upset at the lack of customizing it, but I don't see how it ties into the inventory aspect (unless you're advocating that the removal of mods relates to this?).

CatatonicMan wrote...

In a similar way, the lack of any meaningful* customization of the armor renders that system essentially pointless - not to mention the terrible way they handled the 'extra' armors. Where are the +20-30% stat boosting equipment? Where is equipment that has both bonuses and penalties? Where are the armor pieces that make you want to choose stats over appearance? Nowhere, because actual options give you more than the illusion of choice.

The meaningfulness of those bonuses depends largely on the setting they're put in, i.e. the rules of the game. Minding that I find + health to be largely vital when going in as a Vanguard. There've been numerous instances where I've been put at a sliver of health.

Having more options couldn't hurt, of course. If the problem is that it doesn't have enough options then that's a problem that's quite easily fixed.

[Dick Delaware]

I think this article can be summed up as, "Waaaaaahhhhhh!!! There's no inventory!!!"



ME2 does a far better job of making your choices actually matter and providing decent dialogue than the first game ever did. IMO, those two things are FAR more important to the RPG experience than an arbitrary feature that would add nothing to the game.

[Terror_K]

MarloMarlo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Too many seemed to be concerned with what defines an RPG and not enough of what gives an RPG depth and substance. Just because Mass Effect 2 fits the basic definition of an RPG, doesn't mean its a deep one with enough RPG meat and bones to satisfy the hungry RPG fan. Things aren't so black and white as to mean that if a game succeeds in being defined as an RPG that it succeeds at being an RPG.

It's ironic that I'm the one that supposed to be floating around with an aura of superiority, but then other people, like you, use their personal taste as the basis for what gives RPGs enough depth and substance to satisfy the hungry RPG fan.

Maybe you personally like big butts on girls. That doesn't mean big butts = richer female experience, just because that's what big butts do for you and Sir Mixalot (who starts his song off with "I like..."). What you or anyone else personally likes in an RPG doesn't automatically set the criteria for what puts meat and bones on an RPG. Maybe you want to talk or sing about what Terror_K personally likes in his RPGs. All right. But don't pretend you're also talking about what makes RPGs deep or whatever adjective you want to use. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

I think its pretty safe to say that most RPG fans at least want a certain amount of key features in their RPGs. They may not need all the ones they like, but they generally like a good degree of RPG elements to be present, and usually like those elements to at least have some depth and not be superficial.

For example, and this is a real world one, when I was doing my C++ paper for my Bachelor in I.T. we were given a project to make which we could design ourselves and, with approval, create. The project my group and I came up with and made just happened to be an RPG game. All it really consisted of was about a couple of dozen rooms or so, some of which had monsters in you had to fight. Fighting the monsters gave you XP and you could only go up to Level 3, there were only two items to find in the game (a sword and shield) and you basically finished the game by killing the final boss monster and going out the final door.

Now, this game is by definition an RPG game, since it adheres to the basic principles needed to be considered as such. But does that mean its a deep and satisfying RPG game? The same applies to Mass Effect 2.

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

Deep and satisfying have nothing to do with the genre. If the game weren't deep and satisfying I doubt it'd look any better to a non-RPG fan.

[Dudeman315]

Halo 2 is neither deep or satisfying it's mostly just Halo 1 with better combat, same with MW2, 'Splosion man, Guitar Hero X and many other Top Selling games!

[Terror_K]

With an RPG though fans generally look for a certain amount of depth, because RPGs tend to have more layers than other genres, at least on average. If standard shooters are apples, standard RPGs are onions. ME2 may still be an onion, but it kind of feels like an onion that's had most of its layers peeled away.

[Dudeman315]

I prefer to think of ME2 as a shallot in that sense.

[Dick Delaware]

Terror_K wrote...

With an RPG though fans generally look for a certain amount of depth, because RPGs tend to have more layers than other genres, at least on average. If standard shooters are apples, standard RPGs are onions. ME2 may still be an onion, but it kind of feels like an onion that's had most of its layers peeled away.

What do you mean by "depth"? Do you mean a rich character system, inventory, many ways to create particular builds for your character, etc? In that sense, I don't think Mass Effect 2 is deep, but then again, neither is Mass Effect 1. The character system is similar, except instead of smaller, more incremental improvements of skills, the improvements are more substantial for every upgrade.

What I look for in an RPG has more to do with being in an interesting setting that is rich in choices and consequences. Well-written dialogue is important, more important than even a good overall plot. That's real depth for me. BioWare games tend to be lacking in the consequence part of the equation, but fortunately, ME2 is pretty good in that regard, even with better writing than the original (although a weaker plot). Hopefully, if the final game manages to focus on making the things you've done actually MATTER there, then it might even be great in that regard.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't understand the criticisms of how ME2's RPG characteristics were somehow dumbed down when the character system wasn't particularly strong to begin with. It functions better by leaning more towards a shooter. The only thing that would have been really preferable is more weapon variety, some grenades (the throwing kind, not the annoying ME1 kind).

[Kalfear]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

With an RPG though fans generally look for a certain amount of depth, because RPGs tend to have more layers than other genres, at least on average. If standard shooters are apples, standard RPGs are onions. ME2 may still be an onion, but it kind of feels like an onion that's had most of its layers peeled away.

What do you mean by "depth"? Do you mean a rich character system, inventory, many ways to create particular builds for your character, etc? In that sense, I don't think Mass Effect 2 is deep, but then again, neither is Mass Effect 1. The character system is similar, except instead of smaller, more incremental improvements of skills, the improvements are more substantial for every upgrade.

What I look for in an RPG has more to do with being in an interesting setting that is rich in choices and consequences. Well-written dialogue is important, more important than even a good overall plot. That's real depth for me. BioWare games tend to be lacking in the consequence part of the equation, but fortunately, ME2 is pretty good in that regard, even with better writing than the original (although a weaker plot). Hopefully, if the final game manages to focus on making the things you've done actually MATTER there, then it might even be great in that regard.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't understand the criticisms of how ME2's RPG characteristics were somehow dumbed down when the character system wasn't particularly strong to begin with. It functions better by leaning more towards a shooter. The only thing that would have been really preferable is more weapon variety, some grenades (the throwing kind, not the annoying ME1 kind).

So your saying ME2 failed to deliver based on what you claim to look for in games!

Im confused, why are you argueing if you know ME2 wasnt strong in any of the areas you claim to look for in a good RPG?

[Dick Delaware]

Kalfear wrote...

So your saying ME2 failed to deliver based on what you claim to look for in games!

Im confused, why are you argueing if you know ME2 wasnt strong in any of the areas you claim to look for in a good RPG?

Now I didn't say that it lacked choices and consequences, bad writing, or a poor setting. In fact, ME2 was a lot better at fleshing this stuff out than its predecessor.

ME2 had better choices and consequences than the original game. In the original, every playthrough is identical. Whether I'm Paragon or Renegade, i go to the same places and do the same quests, usually. BioWare is pretty bad when it comes to providing you with different solutions or outcomes in their games. In fairness, they've gotten better, but still more could be done.

While everybody can survive in the sequel, doing loyalty missions, picking the right squad, not waiting around too long so that your crew isn't turned to mush can change a playthrough. Making upgrades is important, even though planet scanning sucks. The choices you make during the game actually matter, which is far more than I can say for ME1.

I also felt that the writing was significantly better and less ham-fisted than the original. The "Hold the Line" speech, was pretty painful, and conversations with companions were kinda generic. I never really particularly cared about them, to the point where I didn't really feel anything upon being asked to sacrifice Kaiden or Ashley.

The characters were mostly one-note apart from Wrex, and while ME2 did have some bland or predictable characters like Jacob, Miranda, and Jack, it more than made up for it with the rest of the cast being excellent. The two returning characters had far more depth than in the sequel than they did in the original. Conversations with Mordin, The Illusive Man, Legion, the Loyalty Mission with Samara and Thane (apart from that terribly awkward conversation with Morinth at the bar. Wow, that was bad.) are indication of this. Also, it's an indication that there's a greater variety of quests in the game too, which I really appreciated. There was more dialogue overall in the second game as well.

As for setting, a lot of places had more character than in the original, where the only place that really stood out was The Citadel. The Derelict Reaper, Collector Ship, the bombed out wasteland of Tuchanka, the Flotilla and especially Afterlife (awesome music playing too) really had their own unique flavour. The art direction really improved and places felt more alive than they did in the original. Driving around in the Mako in the first game through Feros, Noveria, and Ilos through tunnel after tunnel detracted a lot from the atmosphere.

One thing I will give you is that imported choices were completely cosmetic and what you did in ME1 was largely irrelevant. Getting random emails was not fun. Also, I'll concede that the overarching plot in the first game was better. But in the categories I mentioned - writing, dialogue, setting, choices and consequences - ME2 takes the cake.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 12 avril 2010 - 09:48 .

[FluxDeluxe]

From a personal point of view i think Mass Effect 2 is a very good game. I like the new biotic and shooter mechanics. The story is light compared to the first one but still fulfills an important function. The characters are great. What this game lacks is meaningful customisation.



What do i mean by that ?



There's not enough scope to customise your shepard just like the first game. It's funny in the first game you either used collusus X, Beserker X or Predator X. Amazing really considering how much armour was in the game it really did boil down to those three. Same with the weapons really Spectre X or stfu. There was no point in using anything else. The weapon mod/Armor mod system in the first game was great if a little limited.



What was dissapointing about the second was they didn't really do anything to improve the armour situation, and the armour that was really good had non removable helmets. You still have a fairly limited choice in terms of armour. The N7 armour goes some way towards armour 'modding' that the first game had but really it's not that great. The weapons, they have brought forward a little there's a greater variation of weapon types and really since the first games only real sane choice was specter X the second at least gives you positives and negatives whe you compare the different types of gun.



The real improvements to the combat and biotics have been made in the second part of this series. It's obvious that the development was primarily focused towards the graphical and gamplay aspects of the game, which were below par in the first game. My real hope is now that they have fixed these aspects of the game they will move to further improve other areas.



My wish list



Greater armour, weapon and shield customisation



Limited inventory



Streamlined interrupt system



More character interaction on 'Missions'



Greater scope given to the story.







Oh and five disks like baldurs gate