Ickman3400 said:
2 was ok as a game, meaning it was more playable than 1 but 1 had a better story by default (since it actually had a story). They also couldn't strip any more rpg elements away if they tried, so it fails there as well. I got into this to play a space rpg trilogy, not a bro shooter trilogy.
+1
Lothars said:
Yeah and 2 had a pretty good story and it is an RPG trilogy, ME3 will have more of the RPG elements back like it should but ME2 is still just as good of a game as ME1 even with the less RPG elements.
@ Bolded, we don't know this. People are worried because they might keep it exactly as ME2 was and make it even more about set pieces and linear run-to-boxes-for-cover-around-every-corner bullshit.
ME2 made the combat more fluid, yippeee, but at the expense of everything else that was awesome from ME1. Sorry but planet exploration (with some civilizations this time) is a must for me. And i'm not talking about no shitty hammerhead linear vehicle-combat fest. If the exploration from ME1 isn't back in 3 i'm not getting this game, i'll watch a walkthrough on youtube for the rest of the story.
The only thing RPG about ME2 is the damn dialogue tree's and even that is incredibly boring as shit (everything is obviously positive or negative, there's rarely any choices that challenge you to decide what's the best one for a particular situation.) They need to bring back skill points that have a real effect on your gameplay and so on. You could let the game automatically do everything for you in ME2 and you'd be playing in a similar fashion as anyone who tried to tailor their own character. You can't do shit in ME2 that you want to do without some automated feature fucking it up or telling you you can't.
And other than that they need to bring back story obviously but I doubt that'll be that much of a problem in 3. I understand that part 2 was essentially a character introduction-fest and a bridge to part 3. It's a shame that it can't stand on it's own but oh well.