Lolz, I agree. However, planet scanning is better than spending twenty minutes on every single planet searching the surface like in the first ME =SChoppaduel said:
Why Mass Effect 2?
- Thread starter TheKramers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the problem is that you are hung up on the idea that Mass Effect is "Your" story, when it's not. It's Commander Shepard's story. You can make some of the decisions for him, but that doesn't mean he is YOU. Contrast this with Dragon Age: Origins, where the Warden really had no character at all, and was pretty much just a pair of pants that the player threw on when they loaded up the game.TheKramers said:
I find it strange you bring up the fact that Mass Effect 2 didn't have an attribute system when neither did Mass Effect 1.
Personally, I thought the class redesigns in Mass Effect 2 were brilliant. In Mass Effect 1, while you had a buttload of talents, they were BORING. Spend a talent point to get 1% more accuracy and damage? Spend a talent to get more armor? Spend a talent to improve Sheppard's diplomacy (worst idea ever)? They're all boring, passive talents that don't do anything to make Shepard feel special. Meanwhile, all the classes feel pretty much the same, the only thing that made them feel at all different was the powers you were locked out of.
Contrast that to Mass Effect 2. Yes, the game has few talents, but they're more MEANINGFUL. I would compare it to the recent WoW overhaul where they got rid of all the boring passive talents and replaced them with things that actually changed how the character is played. In Mass Effect 2, putting talent points into skills makes them significantly better, and at the end of the tree, you can chose to evolve the talent depending on your play-style.
Furthermore, the unique class talents in Mass Effect 2 really make the individual classes truly stand out and completely change each class's playstyle. The Vanguard's biotic charge is probably the best example of this.
Example:
Me playing a vanguard in ME1 after playing a soldier: Oh, so I'm basically a soldier that can levitate people. That's cool, I guess.
Me playing a vanguard in ME2 after playing a soldier: What does this button d...HOLY S***!!!! Did I just char...OMG I BLEW HIM OFF THE CLIFF, THAT WAS AWESOME!
I find it strange you keep comparing ME2 to KOTOR instead of ME1. I have two arguments against you here. 1st, I argue that armor in ME2 is far more customizable, unique, and well designed than it was in ME1. Second I argue that in ME1, armor only increased your defensive stats, whereas in ME2 armor has a number of effects, making it much easier to suit an individual's class and play-style, giving them far more choice.TheKramers said:
1st, lets compare the actual armor:
[http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Human_Armor&image=Heavy-human-Phoenix-png]
^God that is hideous btw
[http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Human_Armor&image=Heavy-human-Colossus-png]
^God that is hideous btw
[http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Human_Armor&image=Heavy-human-Colossus-png]
As you can see, the armor uses all the same models and only differs in skins and sometimes textures. There is no customization of the armor.
[http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=N7_Armor&image=N7Armor-png]
Now as you see in the ME2 Armor, each armor has a different model and has a unified yet distinct design. Furthermore, if the player doesn't like the option of the special armor, there not only is the option of great color customization with the N7 armor, but the player can also purchase interchangeable pieces in game to suit their play-style and aesthetic choices.
Secondly, in ME1 armor only effected your HP, your Shields, and your biotic resistance. Since EVERY class needs and benefits from all three stats, everyone who played ME1 ended up using either the Predator or Colossus armors because they were the best two armors in the game.
Meanwhile, in ME2 your armor can effect your power damage, your shield strength, your health, your run speed, your melee damage, your weapon damage, headshot damage, ammo capacity, heavy ammo capacity, shield delay, cooldowns, your health regeneration and your negotiation abilities. And since the N7 armor is customizable, the player can set up the armor however they want.
I hate to keep parroting this, but again, why compare ME2 to KOTOR instead of ME1?TheKramers said:
1st off, in ME 1, while there was an incredibly large number of weapons (4 different classes, of weapons, roughly 10 different brands of weapons in each class, with about 10 levels for each weapon brand). None of the weapons feel particularly unique. Now, obviously there is a difference in feel between snipers, assault rifles, pistols and shotguns, but within each class, each weapon plays exactly like every other weapon in that class. The only thing that changes is the stats on the weapon (Dmg, Accuracy and RoF). Furthermore, each weapon class only has 2 different models for the 10 or so different variants, and then each brand model is re-skinned. Since the stats are always the same, everyone always just ends up using the Master Spectre Weapons since they're the best in the game.
Meanwhile, in ME2, not only does each weapon have it's own model (Although admittedly there is no color customization like armor) but more importantly, each weapon FEELS and plays differently. There is a big difference between the regular sniper rifle, the 3-round burst sniper rifle, the semi-automatic sniper rifle, and the Anti-Material sniper rifle. Likewise, there is a lot of difference between the normal assault rifle, the 3-round burst rifle, the semi-automatic assault rifle, and the HMG.
I disagree that there is no strategy involved in ME2 combat. Sure, at lower difficulties you can get away with just blasting enemies for the most part, but at higher levels, you really have to use smart usage of powers depending on if your enemies are using shields, armor, or barriers. Likewise, you need to take into account what type of enemy you are fighting. Is this an enemy that will advance on me like a Krogan or Dog or Mech? With this enemy use biotics against me like an Asari? Will I need to deal with Mechs? What about regenerating health?TheKramers said:
As for rewards for killing an enemy, why do you need one? Isn't killing the enemy and advancing it's own reward? And what is the difference between rewarding exp as you kill enemies or rewarding it all at once at the end of the mission. It's the same exp either way.
Sorry for the dissertation.
Considering how pointless I thought it was to build up my war hero character to the point that he could actually shoot straight, it would have been doubly pointless to restart the process all over again. At some point, you just have to accept that an experienced soldier knows how to shoot his guns without you spending 10 hours leveling them up.Elamdri said:
I switched over to Hardcore while playing ME1 and found the game to be insanely easy once you level up your character. Really, pick a tactic and it works. Everything is pretty much over-powered once you spend a bit of time ramping it up.
In ME2, I really like that they added ammo conservation to the mix. On Insanity, I have to be mindful of every shot I take, because it's easy to run out of ammo during long encounters. I'm constantly switching up ammo types and changing cover to get a better shot.
Of course he didn't. Have you seen the thing? Work on your paragraph structure next time, man.TheKramers said:
TL;DR indeed...
OT: I played and enjoyed Mass Effect 2 very much so. The first one was enjoyable, as well. The combat is enjoyable, and the story is awesome to experience from a personal standpoint.
Nothing else to it. Either you didn't like it or you did. Simple as that.
Exactly! It makes NO sense for Shepard to start the game with the shooting skills of a 7 year old!Netrigan said:
Right. A constant complaint I hear about ME2 is the ammo, yet people don't understand that by the end of ME1, when you have Master Spectre Weapons with Frictionless Material and Kinetic Coils, you just ROLL every enemy you come across because your weapons are super-accurate and can no longer overheat.Netrigan said:
Adding ammo to ME2 balanced combat for higher difficulties.
I understand how many people can hate the driving sections from ME1 however I really enjoyed them. It was alot more amusing when considering how the people inside the apc felt during their mountain climbing/falling expedition.TheKramers said:
Gameplay is king.
I feel that comparing games like Mass Effect and Kotor to one another is starting out on the wrong foot. You should first endeavor to understand why Bioware set out to make Mass Effect the game it is, and realize that it was not built in perspective to Kotor.
Many of the issues you mention are solutions Bioware came up with for gameplay issues with ME1. Combat in ME2 is much more refined and streamlined, however it is far more reduced in terms of choice, though not necessarily less tactical.
I agree with OP's statement about armor and weapons. Gamers care about that kind of stuff. Personally, I would like ME to have system where you are hunting for experimental weaponry and armor which is superior to the "stock" equipment of the military, but I also understand why it is not in there, whether it was because of time constraints or a choice the developers made consciously, to say, this is not that kind of game.
In so far as the writing is concerned, it's ok, though often trite. That doesn't bother me, though, because it fits in with Mass Effect perfectly. Consider the type of game it is, consider its story and its themes. Space Opera, RPG, humanity besting everyone, etc. There is the optimism of the golden age of sci fi present in Asimov and the faith in human development present in Heinlein. Then there is plain old Flash Gordon adventuring, with Shepard running his apc off a flying ship into an enemy complex to save the day. And of course a nod in the direction of hard scifi via the detailed explanations of the codex.
This, coupled with ME's unique aesthetic and mechanics, make ME1 a formidable game. Too bad the combat mechanics are so unwieldy. That is what Bioware tried to fix in ME2. Clunky inventory, awkward fighting, excess of junk, etc. Except they went about it the wrong way. Rather than come up with a manageable inventory system, they removed it entirely. Rather than get better vehicle mechanics, they removed them (almost completely) from the game. This resulted in a much more lean game, but one that also looks dumbed down, trimmed of some of its RPG assets, and made into more of a hybrid leaning on the side of shooting than an RPG with really solid gunplay.
From what I've seen at E3 the skill tress are larger (I counted 8 skills that Soldier Shep could develop, including certain ones that branched off), and there is the possibility to mod your weapon at least. Will have to wait and see if any other RPG features return. Personally, I'm glad the gunplay works so well, and am only sad it is so Gears-y.
TL;DR: ME2's perceived faults come from Bioware handling ME1's faults the wrong way, and from being a fundamentally different type of game thematically than Kotor.
I feel that comparing games like Mass Effect and Kotor to one another is starting out on the wrong foot. You should first endeavor to understand why Bioware set out to make Mass Effect the game it is, and realize that it was not built in perspective to Kotor.
Many of the issues you mention are solutions Bioware came up with for gameplay issues with ME1. Combat in ME2 is much more refined and streamlined, however it is far more reduced in terms of choice, though not necessarily less tactical.
I agree with OP's statement about armor and weapons. Gamers care about that kind of stuff. Personally, I would like ME to have system where you are hunting for experimental weaponry and armor which is superior to the "stock" equipment of the military, but I also understand why it is not in there, whether it was because of time constraints or a choice the developers made consciously, to say, this is not that kind of game.
In so far as the writing is concerned, it's ok, though often trite. That doesn't bother me, though, because it fits in with Mass Effect perfectly. Consider the type of game it is, consider its story and its themes. Space Opera, RPG, humanity besting everyone, etc. There is the optimism of the golden age of sci fi present in Asimov and the faith in human development present in Heinlein. Then there is plain old Flash Gordon adventuring, with Shepard running his apc off a flying ship into an enemy complex to save the day. And of course a nod in the direction of hard scifi via the detailed explanations of the codex.
This, coupled with ME's unique aesthetic and mechanics, make ME1 a formidable game. Too bad the combat mechanics are so unwieldy. That is what Bioware tried to fix in ME2. Clunky inventory, awkward fighting, excess of junk, etc. Except they went about it the wrong way. Rather than come up with a manageable inventory system, they removed it entirely. Rather than get better vehicle mechanics, they removed them (almost completely) from the game. This resulted in a much more lean game, but one that also looks dumbed down, trimmed of some of its RPG assets, and made into more of a hybrid leaning on the side of shooting than an RPG with really solid gunplay.
From what I've seen at E3 the skill tress are larger (I counted 8 skills that Soldier Shep could develop, including certain ones that branched off), and there is the possibility to mod your weapon at least. Will have to wait and see if any other RPG features return. Personally, I'm glad the gunplay works so well, and am only sad it is so Gears-y.
TL;DR: ME2's perceived faults come from Bioware handling ME1's faults the wrong way, and from being a fundamentally different type of game thematically than Kotor.
Spoiler'd for length
Conversely, the armor and clothing in KOTOR is really nothing about aesthetics, just statistics, which in a game where classes mean almost nothing, means that every class will end up wearing the same robes or armor. The only real choice in clothing comes in if you want to focus on Lightsaber and wear armor or focus on Force and wear robes.
As far as feats and skills go, these are two different types of RPGs. Mass Effect is heavily class based. Each class has different bonuses and weaknesses, abilities and limitations. There aren't feats because the classes are already clear and defined. In KOTOR, a warrior can still be very powerful in the Force because their abilities are limited by their class. Sure, you can choose to go through the game and only pick Lightsaber abilities, or only focus on Force powers, but in ME you define that in the beginning.
Then you have different ammo types that Soldiers (they can use all of them), Infiltrators and Vanguards can use for different types of enemies. Incendiary for unarmored enemies, Disruptor for shielded enemies and robots, and Cryo for unarmored enemies which freezes enemies into a block of ice that you can melee for quicker kills. Compared to only having the choice of Blaster, Lightsaber or Force, you have Biotics, Tech and 4 different types of guns to choose from.
I think your problem was that you played as a Soldier, which is really just a Gears of War ripoff. Like playing through KOTOR only using Blasters the whole way through. You should definitely try one of the different classes, like Sentinel or Infiltrator or Vanguard.
Another problem is that you are comparing two very different types of games. KOTOR is a more classic RPG experience, using D&D rules, while Mass Effect is an Action RPG that relies more on player skill than statistics. Statistics still matter, but rather than decide things like the change of success or chance of hitting, it is more about how much damage you would do and how much health you have. For instance, in KOTOR, putting a point in Lightsaber skill would increase your chance of hitting the enemy and increase the damage done on a successful attack. Conversely, putting a point in Assault Rifles would increase the damage done by a percentage.
Comparing the two is like comparing Burnout and Forza games. Sure, they're both racing games, but one is an Arcade racing game using crazy physics and lots of over-the-top destruction while the other is more focused on realistic portrayals of cars.
This is really subjective. In KOTOR I never really talked to Mission or Carth or the cat-lady. I really only talked to the neutral Jedi and Bastilla. I will agree though that the characters in ME2 aren't talkative enough.TheKramers said:
I frankly have no idea what you are talking about with the clothing and weapon part. First, you said that changing a piece of clothing does nothing in ME2, which is a straight up lie, then you say that the clothing in KOTOR is a reflection of your personal taste. First of all, ME2's very customizable armor lets you pick the pieces of armor that (1) suit your personal taste and (2) affect your performance based on your class because each class needs different stats boosted and each piece of armor gives bonuses to different areas. Soldiers would want armor pieces that augment health while Sentinels would want pieces that augment shields.TheKramers said:
Conversely, the armor and clothing in KOTOR is really nothing about aesthetics, just statistics, which in a game where classes mean almost nothing, means that every class will end up wearing the same robes or armor. The only real choice in clothing comes in if you want to focus on Lightsaber and wear armor or focus on Force and wear robes.
As far as feats and skills go, these are two different types of RPGs. Mass Effect is heavily class based. Each class has different bonuses and weaknesses, abilities and limitations. There aren't feats because the classes are already clear and defined. In KOTOR, a warrior can still be very powerful in the Force because their abilities are limited by their class. Sure, you can choose to go through the game and only pick Lightsaber abilities, or only focus on Force powers, but in ME you define that in the beginning.
I disagree completely. In ME2 there are a variety of different types of enemies that require different strategies to take down because they all have different attack patterns. Krogans and Mech Dogs are rush-type enemies, while Geth are squad-type enemies that attack in groups to overwhelm the player. On top of that, enemies have different types of shielding that are only really affected by certain types of attacks. Warp (Adept and Sentinels) and Incinerate (Engineers and Infiltrators) for Armor, Overload (Engineers and Sentinels) for Shields and Warp (Adepts and Sentinels) for Biotic Barriers.TheKramers said:
Then you have different ammo types that Soldiers (they can use all of them), Infiltrators and Vanguards can use for different types of enemies. Incendiary for unarmored enemies, Disruptor for shielded enemies and robots, and Cryo for unarmored enemies which freezes enemies into a block of ice that you can melee for quicker kills. Compared to only having the choice of Blaster, Lightsaber or Force, you have Biotics, Tech and 4 different types of guns to choose from.
I think your problem was that you played as a Soldier, which is really just a Gears of War ripoff. Like playing through KOTOR only using Blasters the whole way through. You should definitely try one of the different classes, like Sentinel or Infiltrator or Vanguard.
Another problem is that you are comparing two very different types of games. KOTOR is a more classic RPG experience, using D&D rules, while Mass Effect is an Action RPG that relies more on player skill than statistics. Statistics still matter, but rather than decide things like the change of success or chance of hitting, it is more about how much damage you would do and how much health you have. For instance, in KOTOR, putting a point in Lightsaber skill would increase your chance of hitting the enemy and increase the damage done on a successful attack. Conversely, putting a point in Assault Rifles would increase the damage done by a percentage.
Comparing the two is like comparing Burnout and Forza games. Sure, they're both racing games, but one is an Arcade racing game using crazy physics and lots of over-the-top destruction while the other is more focused on realistic portrayals of cars.
For me, ME2 > ME.
I love a lot of the improvements.
It took me roughly 60 hours to complete each game, but ME felt longer and that isn't a good thing in this situation. ME length was artificial, meaning that the time was padded because I spent a lot of time comparing every weapon and upgrade. That came with the added hindrance that scrolling through the list of items was slow because scrolling was slow. It horribly compounded the time it took to do mass selling of junk weapons and upgrades. There was also the problem of and inventory maximum of only 150. With how frequent item drops were, I had to on almost every mission, omni-gel junk to make room for what would most likely be more junk.
Another time saver that ME2 changed and added, is how resources were collected. I would say a good 5 hours of my play time or more from ME was exploring planet surfaces with the Mako looking for minerals and such, it was very tedious. Planet probing from ME2 was a whole lot quicker, and when I did encounter a side mission on a planet, I could just focus on the side mission and land right where the mission was, instead of having to drive to the mission and pick up minerals and such along the way. I would say that the only place I liked driving the mako was on the moon, just for the novelty of driving on the moon. It is funny how I did't care about all the other planets, but "oooh wow, the 'Moon' moon, I get to go to the Moon. Hell yeah!"
I also like ME2 more because it built much further and answered more questions than ME did by the end. The romance options got a lot better in ME2 "Yaaa, Tali!!!" Another thing ME2 did was make Bypassing and Hacking things a little more involved and it didn't get limited to what class and abilities I had and my teammates had, for me to be able to bypass and hack things. Another thing that ME2 has over ME, is the character base and selection for squad-mates which is double at 12 compared to ME's 6, though there is technically 13, because as a renegade action you can kill one squad-mate and pick up another.
The only thing I didn't like is having an ammo count and having to hope enemies dropped it(it seemed like only half or less dropped ammo). If I remember correctly, BioWare put and codex entry in ME that explained why there was no ammo in the game, and I liked that. The overheat in ME was annoying, but I will take that over the possibility of running out of ammo. When I played ME2, I definitely missed having my Frictionless Material X upgraded assault rifle from ME that took so long to overheat that it might has well been that I had infinite firing capability.
But then Dragon Age: Origins came along 2 years later and had tons of talk between party members.
The Mass Effect 2 came out and there again was really no talking between squad-mates.
The Dragon Age 2 comes along, and it like DA:O has talk between party members while walking around. It has loads of character banter, some of the best and funniest I have ever heard in a game.
Now we are moving to Mass Effect 3 coming in 2012, I will be seriously disappointed if they don't put some squad banter in it.
I've always wondered why they didn't put it in ME2 when they had it in DA:O.
I love a lot of the improvements.
It took me roughly 60 hours to complete each game, but ME felt longer and that isn't a good thing in this situation. ME length was artificial, meaning that the time was padded because I spent a lot of time comparing every weapon and upgrade. That came with the added hindrance that scrolling through the list of items was slow because scrolling was slow. It horribly compounded the time it took to do mass selling of junk weapons and upgrades. There was also the problem of and inventory maximum of only 150. With how frequent item drops were, I had to on almost every mission, omni-gel junk to make room for what would most likely be more junk.
Another time saver that ME2 changed and added, is how resources were collected. I would say a good 5 hours of my play time or more from ME was exploring planet surfaces with the Mako looking for minerals and such, it was very tedious. Planet probing from ME2 was a whole lot quicker, and when I did encounter a side mission on a planet, I could just focus on the side mission and land right where the mission was, instead of having to drive to the mission and pick up minerals and such along the way. I would say that the only place I liked driving the mako was on the moon, just for the novelty of driving on the moon. It is funny how I did't care about all the other planets, but "oooh wow, the 'Moon' moon, I get to go to the Moon. Hell yeah!"
I also like ME2 more because it built much further and answered more questions than ME did by the end. The romance options got a lot better in ME2 "Yaaa, Tali!!!" Another thing ME2 did was make Bypassing and Hacking things a little more involved and it didn't get limited to what class and abilities I had and my teammates had, for me to be able to bypass and hack things. Another thing that ME2 has over ME, is the character base and selection for squad-mates which is double at 12 compared to ME's 6, though there is technically 13, because as a renegade action you can kill one squad-mate and pick up another.
The only thing I didn't like is having an ammo count and having to hope enemies dropped it(it seemed like only half or less dropped ammo). If I remember correctly, BioWare put and codex entry in ME that explained why there was no ammo in the game, and I liked that. The overheat in ME was annoying, but I will take that over the possibility of running out of ammo. When I played ME2, I definitely missed having my Frictionless Material X upgraded assault rifle from ME that took so long to overheat that it might has well been that I had infinite firing capability.
There were one or two instances in elevators in ME1 where there was some banter between characters, but it was rarely heard.Magicman10893 said:
But then Dragon Age: Origins came along 2 years later and had tons of talk between party members.
The Mass Effect 2 came out and there again was really no talking between squad-mates.
The Dragon Age 2 comes along, and it like DA:O has talk between party members while walking around. It has loads of character banter, some of the best and funniest I have ever heard in a game.
Now we are moving to Mass Effect 3 coming in 2012, I will be seriously disappointed if they don't put some squad banter in it.
I've always wondered why they didn't put it in ME2 when they had it in DA:O.
There is a reason they added ammo. First, to make the shooting mechanics more familiar to the shooter crowd. Second, to add a level of difficulty. By the time I got to Virmire I had a Spectre X Assault Rifle with two Frictionless Materials Xs and was able to just plow through everything without pausing to dissipate heat. It made the final stretch of the game really easy, even on Insanity because I was able to spam Immunity at every turn (like seriously, the cooldown on it would end before the effects of it would).Sonic Doctor said:
On Insanity in ME2 it really was hard because my AR kept running out of ammo and I would have to either make my shots count more or switch up weapons more often. It really made me appreciate the Soldier, because before on Easy/Normal it just felt like I the Soldier had no powers, but on Insanity I realized that every weapon was practically its own power.
Yeah, the mistake really is to think ME2 is actually an RPG at all. Its a repetative, cinematic shooter where you get to decide one of two different pre-defined "tones" the story takes. Its got a few RPG bells and whistles thrown in, but so does CoDs multiplayer, and nobody is ranking that as an RPG.
Fundamentally, ME1 PLAYED more like KOTOR with a bad shooter system nailed to it. Instead of "attack rolls" you simply shot at people in real time with twitch gameplay. The rest was fairly standard RPG mechanics, but ones that needed significant improvement.
With ME2 they started a clean slate, and claimed that they would improve all aspects of the game. This was a flat out lie, and ultimately what excludes ME2 from being an RPG is just the gameplay allocation. You spend nearly 70-75% of the game cover shooting your way through shooting galleries. Now games are defined by their makeup. I dont give a shit if you think "making choices and a deep story" constitute an RPG, if you are spending the majority of the game shooting, like you would in any other shooter game, it is a SHOOTER.
Its the same reason why nobody calls Fallout 3 a straight shooter. Oh sure, it has some shooter elements thrown in - New Vegas even had some very good iron sights - but most of the game is spend questing, customising and exploring the wasteland in a manner that doesnt match a shooter. You might even decide not to use guns at all.
For all the bullshit surrounding the "I play and choose the role of Shepard, so its an RPG" excuses, the truth is genres exist because its helpful and natural to call games as we see them.
I spent more time in ME2 playing the game as a TPS than doing anything else. It is a shooter.
I hope to god ME3 changes that system, or at least alters the pace so that even if the game retains a heavy shooter influence, it at least allows time for other things. If not, ME3 will definitely be the last game I ever play from Bioware.
Fundamentally, ME1 PLAYED more like KOTOR with a bad shooter system nailed to it. Instead of "attack rolls" you simply shot at people in real time with twitch gameplay. The rest was fairly standard RPG mechanics, but ones that needed significant improvement.
With ME2 they started a clean slate, and claimed that they would improve all aspects of the game. This was a flat out lie, and ultimately what excludes ME2 from being an RPG is just the gameplay allocation. You spend nearly 70-75% of the game cover shooting your way through shooting galleries. Now games are defined by their makeup. I dont give a shit if you think "making choices and a deep story" constitute an RPG, if you are spending the majority of the game shooting, like you would in any other shooter game, it is a SHOOTER.
Its the same reason why nobody calls Fallout 3 a straight shooter. Oh sure, it has some shooter elements thrown in - New Vegas even had some very good iron sights - but most of the game is spend questing, customising and exploring the wasteland in a manner that doesnt match a shooter. You might even decide not to use guns at all.
For all the bullshit surrounding the "I play and choose the role of Shepard, so its an RPG" excuses, the truth is genres exist because its helpful and natural to call games as we see them.
I spent more time in ME2 playing the game as a TPS than doing anything else. It is a shooter.
I hope to god ME3 changes that system, or at least alters the pace so that even if the game retains a heavy shooter influence, it at least allows time for other things. If not, ME3 will definitely be the last game I ever play from Bioware.
Fixed that for you XDKahunaburger said:
The amount of times my awesome Miranda/Mordin squad let me down on Insanity by using their best powers on some grunt on the other side of the map rather than just letting me direct them onto the the actual threats was rageworthy
Ah On Topic now
Wait KOTOR's combat was meant to be stratigic? Here's my stratagy
1. Find the most difficult enemy on the map
2. Get in Melee range
3. Spam Master Flurry
4. Medpack if things go tits up
5. Profit
Oh and of course the legendary if all things fail Bioware RPG tactic
RUN AROUND IN CIRCLES!, LOB 'NADES!, QUICK RUN IN CIRCLES AGAIN!
I found everything better in ME2 than in KOTOR and KOTOR was the first RPG i actually liked.