You dont judge quality based on sales or popularity. Also I remember hearing SC2 was a failure in Korea they ust went back to SC1.

So what aslong as it sells well ?

So to be a success all it needs is a good marketing and advertising group, and its a sucess. No, you dont jusge the quality of a product based on its popularity.

I never said anything about sales. I said millions of people love the game. Maybe you don't, and you're entitled to your opinion (though I suspect you're one of the many who dislike it because it's popular). People wouldn't be playing it if it were an awful, failure of a game. Believe it or not, some people have different tastes then you!

If you read my post, you'd see I also said the I hate Starcraft too. Guess that means Starcraft is a failure.

Yes people only dislike popular things because they are popular *rolls eyes*

People play two worlds and thats considered a failure.

IF Starcraft is trying to be something it isnt then it is. As far as I know, starcraft is a good rts game, mass effect claims its an rpg, but fails at that because its more shooter, but it depends on how you view rpg, character creation and the ability to mold it how you want, or just being able to pick a line or two of dialouge. For me gameplay > story and stats add more replay value than playing the same game twice but choosing a dialouge option that only changes dialouge for that scene.

So yes in my eyes ME2 is a failure, just like Black ops is because its MP shooting was broken, and lets face it you dont buy CoD for its singleplayer, atleast not blops.

Then Bioware games are not for you.

Yea sales don't guarantee a good game but they sure say something. Black Ops and ME2 being failures is just your opinion.

Considering I enjoy mass effect and DAO I disagree.
Just because I enjoy gameplay more dosent mean I cant enjoy story. Just prefer rpgs that allow me to change playstyle with stats, instead of choosing dialouge being thier idea of an rpg, sure its all well and good but when that dialouge is so minor and insignificant, it becomes dull. I dont play through the same game just so I can see what the renegade pption says, especially when it takes me 5 minutes of the same crappy combat to get to that dialouge.

Miller not really, BW said ME2 was just as much an rpg as ME1, and kept all its rpg elements, this was not the case, it was a gears clone with dialouge between the crappy combat, if they said "its a bland tps with dialouge" then sucess, but they made it out as something it wasnt, it fails at being an rpg.

Blops shooting is broken in MP, MP is the focus of the game, shooting is all you do (unless your the annoying knife class) so its a pretty important part of an fps, if hit detection is bad the game fails because its most important element (shooting) is broken.

Sales only say you have a good marketing team that can hype people up.

Mass Effect 2 has way better gameplay than Mass Effect 1 though. Mass Effect 1 is the one with the better story.

I never even mentioned the phrase role playing game.

BLOPS shooting is broken?Yea I agree the lag and servers on it could be vastly improved but if it was truely broken why would so many people still play it?

Not really all the classes played the same, especially on higher difficulties where biotics and tech powers became useless becuase of armour.

Mainly because thier friends do, others just play it becuase its CoD, much like anything with halo gets more praise just because its halo e.g halo wars.
On my friends list I know a few people who purchased blops, they are now back on WaW, MW2... Says alot about the game when people have replaced it with the previous one already, they only purchased it out of hype.

My infiltrator played completely different than my vanguard. I admit, adept is probably useless but it's definitely a more fun combat system.

Infiltraitor played like my other classes, pop out from wall, shoot, back into cover. Vagaurd was the only different one, and you cant go out much on higher difficulties.
In ME1 you had different ways to approach, different characters were useful based on the scenario e.g rescuing Liara I chose garrus and Tali for tech powers, here I just used some random squadmate and Kasumi (her invisible punch is useful) it was always the same way, cant approach things differently, only exception was a vangaurd doing Talis recruitment against the armiture.

So its the title that sells no the game?Well then Final Fantasy was once a huge title so why does it not sell as well anymore.

Whats your point, your small group of friends on XBOX LIVE are not a good sample what so ever. On my list people are still playing a ton of BLOPS and the only other COD title I see is 4.

On Topic: I admit ME2 was disappointing at first, the story seemed to lack the same "epicness" that 1 had.However is has certainly grown on me.

I have to say I do have some concerns about Mass Effect 3.

Ever since Bioware was bought up by EA I do not like the direction that they are going in. They seem to be trying to cater to the casual audience more, going as far as saying that they want the Call of Duty crowd. While I understand this is a business and they want to make money (something CoD does very well) I can’t help but feel alienated and betrayed.

Mass Effect 2 is a perfect example of this new direction. While I enjoyed ME2 I enjoyed ME1 much more. Yes they improved the game play, but who in their right mind played a Bioware game for that. The convoluted, hole ridden main plot, the generic squad mates with forced romances (why cant Miranda and I just be friends?), the loss of any sort of exploration, and the simplified skill system were all disappointments. ME2 was all Boom, Boom explosions, cut to dialogue where you get two choices (to jerk, or not to jerk), end up at same result no matter what decisions you made. While this was fun, it wasn’t Mass Effect, and it wasn’t Bioware.

In ME1 the AI svcks, and a lot of enemies soak up tons of bullets without flinching (krogan and larger geth).

They're both excellent games though, I'm not saying ME1 combat is terrible. They're just different, I'd hate to have a trilogy of clones anyways.

They changed the formula (atleast the jist of it, I dont play JRPGs), COD repeats it, halo repeats it and they kept getting good sales.
ME2 didnt have much of a story, the majority of the game is collecting people, not much actually moves with the plot, anything that makes progress with the plot is done badly e.g the terminator.

Anyway I dont like this change, I dont think he will ever get the same atmosphere Wall did, he may be good, but that dosent mean he makes msuic that fits mass effect.

Nami thats probablly the immunity spam they do.

Jusicar its funny, but I actually think BW would be better of with MS in control again. I hate MS, but ME1 was MS ME2 was EA, and now DA looks like its copying ME.
Its bad that I aactually see M$ as a good guy in this, or atleast better. I hope BW gets out of EA, then gets bought buy a better company, MS would be better imo, but Zenimax would be great...
Just not activison.

Don't mess with succes? COD stays generallly the same but they fine tune it every year.

Fine tuning should be done with patches, not a new game.

Patches don't make money for ol' Bobby.

But they hardly even add new gameplay at all. There are only three differences between MW2 and Black Ops in multiplayer: The guns, the killstreaks and the maps. Nothing else changed that actually matters.

And to say that Halo doesn't change it's formula is fair to a point, but they don't rehash stuff nearly as much as Call of Duty does.

To be fair hey added theater, zombies and those annoying things to help campers. Also in Halos defence Bungie is amazing, they gave us forge, then they upgraded the forge, some maps are so good bungie added them with the rest of thier maps (they added atom and cliffhanger). So props to Bungie for allwoing the community to entertain itself.Sure they release map packs which change things a bit e.g in Tempest there is a laser beam in the middle that EMPs and kills things, and you can build a map based on that. It may seem a little change but bungiee has done quite a bit by introducing and upgrading the forge. Even have entire websites for forge (forgehub iirc).Also look at Rooster teeths achivement horse, they have some creative map concepts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcvGvBkX42Q Yep forge = awesome.

You need to make up your mind. You complain about ME2 because it's too different from ME1, but then you criticize games that don't change much because they've found a formula that works? Then you say gameplay is more important than story, when the gameplay in Mass Effect 2 is far superior to the first game's.

Bold.

Please for the love of god, don't make this thread go the way of the last Mass Effect thread.

What RPG elements did Mass Effect 1 have? For the love of god, can someone please explain that to me? Because nobody has ever been able to.

Ignoring the first part, because that looked like it came from the Dr Phil school of make a bad anology that doesn't apply or mean anything.

A skill system, an actual inventory, and a tiny amount of stats. Whereas ME2 had a skill system with less skills, an inventory only on the ship, and a tiny amount of stats. Don't you see what they did?!? ^_^