Big inventory and losts of stats allowing you to choose how you play the game, and ajust to your playstyle.
Exploration, dont call walking down a linear coridoor exploration.

It negates my point, therefor its not relevant. Keep dismissing things, you will be counciler of a race of reptilian, bird people in no time.

I don't know what BioWare has claimed, but it's pretty clear that it was RPG/third-person shooter hybrid from the start, and balancing those parts is difficult. ME was too RPG, ME2 was too TPS. Maybe they'll get it right with the third? :shrug:

And the same problem applies to Fallout too, Fallout 3 was too shooter (according to some people), New Vegas was too RPG (according to other people).

Personally i consider ME2 an improvement in gameplay, so if they keep that while adding back more RPG mechanics like they've said, it's all win for me

Fallout had the balence, Until you max everything... But it had balence at the start...
In fallout I can play different wys, stelath heavy sniper character, tank who uses big guns and explosives, the snea guy who talks his way out of everything and relies on companions, the survival melee guy, etc.

Ultimately people vote with their wallets, rather than with their forum rants.

ME2, FO3 and New Vegas have all proved extremely successful commercially. IMO you can never please everybody and there will be complaints of this game being too much RPG, or too much FPS, etc., regardless of what you do. The Bioware dev team seems to know what they are doing and I'm expect ME3 will be a fun game that can stand and be judged on its own merits.

I agree, and say the same about Bethesda and Skyrim too.

That "big inventory" was full of fluff. You had hundreds of weapons to choose from, but they were all the same. Each weapon type had 2 models, with a bunch of reskins, and each one handled exactly the same. All assault rifles were like the rest of the assault rifles. All the snipers were like the rest of the snipers. Get my drift? They eliminated all the fluff in ME2, while adding more variation to the different weapons.

"Losts of stats" isn't really specific. There aren't any stats in Mass Effect, in the traditional sense. I guess you could call putting points into your talents stats, but the weapon lines don't make a significant difference.


Exploration isn't really an RPG element. It would have been a great addition to ME2, but I didn't mind the absence because the Mako was so awful in the first.


Again, your anology did absolutely nothing. Maybe you should have explained yourself, rather than make some sort of petty insults.

Just like in Kotor and Dragon age: origins. if you can wear it, make 20 retextures!

They do that a lot in World of Warcraft too.

Game designers are getting lazy lately... :nono:

Big Inventory? Ah yes it was so much fun to tediously make sure your characters weapons and armor where up to date.I mean that made the game for me, the story.......who needs story.

Lots of stats? Almost as fun as the inventory system, it made such a difference in the first game.

Now the story between the two games, yea I can agree 1 was far better story and quest wise.Characters where about even between the two.The comabt system was much smoother in 2.Expolartion, well it wasn't exactly great in one but it was better than 2's system.

Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 are different games. Is number 1 a failure? No, its different. Is number 2 a failure? No, its different. What is with people throwing that word around in this thread?
I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 but I will admit its not the caliber of RPG that number 1 is; I consider it a shooter first actually, but only just barely. That said, what it didnt completely cut out from the game (such as inventory) it improved upon greatly. Though it doesn't have many of the features that 1 had, its a much more polished game in its own right.

Remember people: different, not failure.

I can't see how ME1's "exploration" can matter that much. There was pretty much nothing to it.
It was just huge deserts with different textures. 1-3 points where you could pick some cash/items up, and then maybe a small area with a mini quest. You almost never had to use the Mako's weapons at all.
In me 2, they just took us straight to the mini quest area, and actually made those a lot better and fleshed out.

If the different planets in ME1 would have been different, and not just deserts, then I could complain about taking that away. But it was just really boing driving around in the Mako as there where no good visuals or much to do.

I haven't had the opportunity to play ME1 yet, but the hammerhead vehicle in ME2 was fun to maneuver. I think it came with the Overlord DLC.

Lower your standards on vehicles right now or you will be disappointed with the Mako.

The rest of the game is superb.

Heck, even Liara agreed on that. Even racing a dodgy flying taxi through rush hour traffic at several hundred meters in the air through high rises and construction sites is better than the Mako, apparently. ^_^

I liked the Mako.

Despite his horrible jumping ball behaviour... Me too. :wink_smile:
He's so utterly indestructible that he's sitting completely intact at the crash site. There's something charming about that, really. I can't stop thinking of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIXRTQGWZE0 when I think of the Mako. ^_^

True but It made the galaxy feel huge and IMO better than ME2's mini-game. Hopefully in ME3 they will bring back ME1 exploration and improve it.

Me too. It was boring that each world was basically the same but if they had ME1 exploration but unique planets (even if it meant lowering the number of planets) it would a great solution

It taught us a valuable lesson, dont complain about BW game features. "What you dont like the squadmates" *deletes squad*.

The Mako was fine, it was the worlds that needed fixing.

Wait what? :confused:

He's saying that instead of making the Mako exploration more interesting, they removed it entirely.

Who's the lead writer for Mass Effect 3?

Same as 2 I think. I think they made the first writer work on the star wars mmo.

When you slowly start to pull away from your long term fan base and what they want in your games then it sort of is. You know what I mean. Mass Effect 2 was a fine game. Great in it's own right, but not in the same ways the original was. The difference between a good game, and a good/ faithful sequel.

Great... Drew what's-his-name was the best... The fact that I disliked ME2's story scares me into thinking I won't like ME3's...

Krypshan or something like that.
ME2sstory was shockingly bad, not so much it was bad, but the fact that it was hardly present and when it was it was bad. I mean we had horizon, freedoms progress, collector ship and suicide mission. In those they managed to make the reapers shallow enemies, ruin your relationship with your ME1 LI/friend and fail to advance the plot at all.

Also I dont like how 3 is playing out, the reapers are clearly already back, meaning you will fight them head on, locking them in darkspace would have been the most acceptable result, but fighting them head on, thats just stupid.
And they will fight head on, they are already on earth, probablly the citadel, uh that totally ruined the feelings I had seeing soverign totally decimate the citadel fleet, that was one reaper, we now have thousands, they cant all focuse on one reaper and will be killed much quicker. Also it annoys me we see several reapers in the traielr wiping out Earth, in ME1 we saw 1 with a few geth take out the citadel, they dont need that many reapers.

Also I am calling it now, end moral choice will be save the citadel or save Earth.