I don't want to be a punk, because I put 30 hours into the game and I'm playing it again, but combat was one of the weakest elements of the game. There are so many easy design problems to spot, despite its consistency (which was a plus). It's heartening to know (because I hate to be a hater) that these guys came up with 30 features that didn't get shipped. I'm guessing a lot of the things I'm seeing were addressed in there.

@ Ted

"combat was one of the weakest elements of the game. There are so many easy design problems to spot, despite its consistency (which was a plus).."

What are those problems?

@ Bob dillan:

"doing RPGs is difficult"

Huh?! I can't really see how you'd say this and be serious... not when companies such as Bioware and Bethesda are both well-known for their RPGs, as are a great number of Japanese game makers.

"the whole moviefication of games tends to push games towards first person or pseudo first person"

Again, I can't see how you can be serious when so many RPGs have always focused on including cut scenes to offer rewards to the player for getting to a specific point in the game/story. This has been true since the 1980s with Ys I&II, for example, and continues to be true through the last gen with excellent RPGs like Xenosaga and the current gen with excellent RPGs like Tales of Vesperia and Star Ocean: The Last Hope (as well as RPGs on PC like Dragon Age: Origins for example). I would say that RPGs are far more agreeable for movie cut scenes, and in fact if I don't get my cut scenes, I generally feel that the game is lacking (with the exception of sandbox games such as Bethesda's works, of course, since those games are about exploration rather than story).

@ Bob

"ME2 was purely marketing decision, they wanted to hit the first person shooter audience and the did that well by cutting out the RPG audience"

In my humble opinion, what makes a good RPG is the story / quests, character interaction, character advancement / progression and combat. ME2 has all of those features, so I consider it an RPG that just so happens to have fun, involving combat. I'd be interested to know your definition of what an RPG is, as this is an opinion I've heard a few times lately :)

Granted, ME2 cut down on the character progression (perhaps too much) but it would have never worked if Bioware had done a traditional hands-off stat & dice roll based combat system in a universe that features heavy gunplay in the first game. ME2's combat is a just a natural evolution of ME1's combat. I don't believe that cynical marketing had anything to do with it.

Following a Mech Assault as it burrows a couple mountain walls isn't my definition of a side mission. Really, ME2 had maybe 4-6 good side missions. ME1 did it better even though the locales were similar. There were better stories in those small side missions.

I don't mind RPG shooters(System Shock is my favorite), but I really hope that Bioware balances Mass Effect 3 with the strengths of the first and second, so somewhere right in the middle I guess. ME2 was way too streamlined.

Overall ME was a much better game than ME2 IMO, but none the less, ME2 is still enjoyable and for going so gun happy, it at least still felt like it was a Mass Effect sequel. When I first read they were going heavy on the gun play, I thought it would end up like another Resident Evil 5, which compared to RE4 really lost its way.

@Bob,

I figured that the reason Dragon Age was so buggy on the consoles, is because it was an afterthought, which being a PC guy, I was kind of glad to see that the shoe was on other foot -- which I know isn't right. :) But I agree that RGPs are more difficult to make when compared to some other genres, since they have to account for so many more variables. But with Mass Effect 2, it seems like Bioware took an easier route by simplifying the choices and keeping most missions very linear.

But I can't agree that PC RPGs have always been worse than console RPGs, because for the longest time there was a clear divide between the kind of RPG I expected on my console, vs the kind of RPG I knew that the PC offered. The best RPGs I've played have been on the PC. No console RPG I've played has ever offered as much depth do to their many limitations. The early PC games in general were much better than a majority of the crap that's come out this decade.

@Bob

I don't think your lack of experience with PC RPGs or your obvious console bias make for as strong an argument as you think they do. Which is more likely, every single one of the literally dozens of reviewers the lauded BG, P:T, NVN, and KOTOR as stellar titles being a PC/Bioware obsessed fanboy that had never played an RPG on a platform other than the PC before OR you're just wishfully thinking that deep down everyone agrees with you? I'm going to have to go with the latter.

Bob:

I'm not talking about what AD&D players had to say about it nor am I talking about what PC RPG'ists had to say about it. I'm talking about gaming critics, not just average players.

Still, spouting off all that nonsense about every PC RPG fan being an AD&D fanboy really does just reinforce my earlier point that your rabid console bias does not make for as strong an argument as you think it does.

Furthermore, referring to an entire gaming community as various levels of retard is not in keeping with proper decorum here. Try and dial it down a notch.

This talk was the highlight of my GDC. Regardless of whether making ME2 a great shooter was a good or bad decision, the point is that the way they executed that decision was exceptional.

@Mike: I agree, to a point. As a developer, I sympathize with their production plight, and the external pressures they had to suffer just to deliver the fairly consistent experience that they delivered. It is by no means a "bad" game. Like many people, I spent 30 hours with the game and I'm going at it again. Now that I know what the "landmine" mission is (*cough* IFF *cough*), I can avoid it until I'm ready.

@Carlos: I wrote a fairly damning critique of the game, but left it on my hard drive. It was too bitchy and pretentious. =) They don't need some guy crapping on their hard work just to prove a point. I am re-writing it to be more constructive and, hopefully, humorous. If I feel like I succeeded, you'll see it posted here. Key points related to combat: Heat Ammo, Heavy Weapons Ammo, Aiming, Vaulting.

Cheers,

-ted

I agree with Ted's first post, Mass Effect 2 was not just a let down, but I found so much in the way of inconsistencies, not to mention issues with its design. It came across as a design failure in my eyes. It feels as though traditional CRPGs have been threatened to extinction in order to appease the wider audience of first and third person shooter market.

I believe the characters skill needs to be greater than the players skill, something we saw more of in the first game. Complexity isnt a bad thing, the trick is just how one can lead the more casual leaning player into it. What was it Blizzard said about their design... "easy to play/start, difficult to master"? In the end, ME2 managed to do nothing well. They removed what some complained as tedious (the Mako) with an even more tedious mini game (massaging planets). Instead of building upon the weak areas, they were replaced by equally if not worse weak design elements.

Just my 2 cents.

Unfortunately it seems that they introduced as many new issues with combat as they removed. Pacing is better, cover mechanics are without a doubt better than the first, aiming and headshots wonderful. But sadly the redone inventory system removed any weapon or Armour customization, removing a considerable amount of personal flair such choices introduced to combat. Similarly with their class changes they blur the lines between the different class roles. For instance, soldiers still work, but against everything (rather than requiring support abilities) and giving them a knockdown reduces the need for biotics. Sentinels are now more effective space wizards(better at dishing damage than adepts or engineers strangely), rather than the crippling class they where before (sentinels where the archetypical support role). Considering a lack of armour difference, engineers and infiltrators have the same staying power, as do adepts and vanguards.

Basically class roles have become strip shields, strip armour, shoot. Rather than the old; crowd control, tank, middleman, sniper, disabler and dominator. Sure it means combat is easier, tighter and easier to pace, but you lose a lot of the flavour that was brought to combat in the first and i find replaying a different class exceptionally, same-ish.

But hey, the game is fun.

I find ME2 quite engaging for the sum of its parts, but find it sad that both the RPG and combat elements are lackluster. Combat is nowhere near the bar that's been set by other action games such as the Gears of War or Modern Warfare series, to name a few: the AIs are totally predictable, combat is too easy even in high difficulty modes, there isn't any scripted goodness going on on-screen, there are too few weapons, etc.
As for the RPG element, I really like how they streamlined the interface and character progression, but there just isn't enough exploration. As someone wrote, it's an action game with Bioware's dialog system.

Oh, and, of course, planet scanning? seriously? How could such an obviously not fun feature even make its way into the game, not to mention having such an important place?!?

The funny thing is, overall, it IS a pretty good game mostly thanks to a brilliant story and cast of characters and combat that isn't great but doesn't suck either. Hopefully ME3 will be the ultimate action-RPG!

In truth I think their perception of fixed issues in the first game is a little overboard. For instance, if they'd added a neat weapon customisation locker (similar to that of the armour one), and then allowed each party member to be modified in this way, they would have brought back much of the customisation of the first game, while reducing the horror of having a billion upgrades sitting in a terrible to navigate inventory. I also don't understand why revamping the combat system meant, changing it altogether. Also ammo, why not simply add a reload animation rather than an actual ammo counter, why are heatsinks discarded, ultimately it makes little sense to have an ammo counter.

Simply adding a reload animation, adding tighter aiming and cover plus damage against body parts, along with retaining old abilities (revamped if necessary), but adding the ability to control more abilities and your team mates abilities on the fly, would have met the task amply of improving the combat system. Instead they remove most of what original fans enjoyed from the combat, destroy their classes themes, and remove most of the action and personal flair from combat, while managing to add complexity, rather than remove it (ammo counters, rock paper scissiors defenses).