Yeah, i would agree. The best RPGs are still the oldies. Even though i know that was yet another jab at The Witcher :)

I mean, i palyed Pool of Radiance on stream a few months back, and i think i enjoyed that more than any more current RPG i've played in the last 10 years. That shit don't even have music, and you have to read a goddamn booklet for some of the story :P

Fair assessment. Won't argue with any of that, really. People just fancied different things better. To me it's all ingredients of the one meal. It's still there to enjoy for the first game if you liked it for various elements that were removed. For me, ME was all about the characters and the journey. I personally loved the second the most because it was the one that sealed a certain comadre I felt with its characters more than the rest, which carried over into the 3rd.

In the case with games i think it's valid if you ask that in terms of story vs gameplay. If the gameplay doesn't hold up on it's own merits, it's not a very good game. That's why games like Super Mario Bros are still great great games today, even though the graphics are dated as fuck. They are still fun to PLAY, because they were designed around the gameplay. If it's not fun to play, what's the justification for it being a game to begin with? I mean, i think a medium should take advantage of what is unique to it. Would you be stoked to go to the cinema, to read a script off of the screen? No? I kinda feel the same way with games that put cinematics and story before the game mechanics.

As for ME2 i agree, they did "tighten it up" it's just that the end result is still mediocre. It's still not a good shooter, and now most of the RPG elements are cut out or minimized as well. So in my book, the flawed elements of ME1 are still more entertaining than the slight polish to shooting in ME2. But as you say, that's down to opinion. I don't mind rifling through my inventory, swapping out gear for occasion and managing my teammates. In fact, i find that to be fun when i get to see that my planning gives results in the game.

Rng is an element of RPG's, and seeing as ME2 wasn't one...No. mainly because ME2 lacked in every other department. All RNG would do to mass effect 2 is make an OK cover shooter worse (and im being generous with the word "ok") , and seeing as that's the only thing going for ME2, obviously that's not going to benefit it.

Me2 needed some actual role playing put into it, THAT would have made it a better game.

I'm not trying to state some sort of universal truth here, i'm just saying why i prefer one game over the other and by a slight margin at that, as i'm not a huge fan of Mass Effect in general.

I was ofc just trying to highlight how lackluster the gameplay in ME is, but that said i don't think many people will be looking back at ME in 30 years as a reference of excellent game design that we should all learn from. More likely the opposite. Certain genres do a better job of marrying story and gameplay though. Now to me, thanks to the dumb and useless paragon/renegade system, dialogue no longer serves any purpose, as you only ever make one choice: paragon or renegade. You might as well just pick at the start of the game, then have set dialogue in front of you, cause there is no incentive to ever pick and choose according to situation, your own feeling towards characters etc. You want to be a saint or punch babies? You only get the reward if you stick to one!

In most good point and click adventures you need the dialogue to suss out puzzles, while at the same time getting a good story, and in cases like monkey island, they even work it in to the insult sword fighting mechanic. Or in an old RPG like Fallout where your stats, actions, party members and so forth all do their part in coloring dialogue and events though out the game. What you do in the game is quite interlinked with how the story plays out. In ME it feels more like the game is distinctly split in to story mode and action mode, and the two barely have anything to do with each other. You get to make like 3 meaningful choices through out a 30 hour game. You make more choices that radically impact Fallout on the goddamn character sheet :P

So if you make a game that's all about story and characters, and you have very limited impact on how the story plays out, you did a shite job of interactive storytelling. Add some pretty assy shooting on top and that doesn't make anything better. It just seems to me that the story of ME could have been just as well, or perhaps even better, told in a trilogy of films, or a tv series. Cause that's a medium that really shines when it comes to characters, stories and visuals.

You guys each have good points, but in the end it's up to each's opinion of which Mass Effect was better. Still, if I had to choose, I would always go with a mediocre RPG over a mediocre Shooter. In truth, if the level of quality is similar, I would go RPG over Shooter always.

A RPG has so many layers that allow it to be successful in many ways, even a RPG with shitty story and characters can still be redeemed by its gameplay, world lore, locations, etc. While a Shooter needs to have a great combat system, if it fails on that, even if everything else is great, it will still feel hollow. I feel the same with Fighting, Racing or Sports games.

To be honest,

And all those things Megido said about Fallout are some of the reasons why it is still to this day one of the best RPGs of all time. It's also why it's been re-released accross the years over a dozen times.

The closest BioWare ever got to that level of quality was on Dragon Age: Origins, which while not perfect, was a truly great game. I've played it from start to finish with all DLCs and doing all sidequests twice now, my last playthrough was over 180 hours and I still think of replaying it again down the line. It is still the best game BioWare ever made by far.

I just saw the entire story on Youtube The game looks terrible

I will buy it once it hits $10 or something. Bioware is done imo

Yeah Origins is cool, but i have a hard time liking the combat systems. I'd have probably played the shit out of both Dragon Age Origins and Pillars of Eternity if they didn't have that infinity engine combat style :P

I'm late to the party on this BUT

I share the sentiments that ME1 was the best.

The sequels suffered because Bioware chose a more consumable mass market friendly game. Suffered for ME that is, maybe not others...
In terms of scope ME1 was more ambitious with the universe and setting. It was far more interesting than the action movie focus of 2 and 3.
The RPG elements that were stripped away made your experience less immersive, disconnected, and as if you had less control in the game. I was no longer invested.

Those are just a few things that I can recall. It's been a long time since I played Mass Effect 1 and 2. I largely ignored 3 after 2 just shat all over everything I enjoyed about the first game.
Looks like Andromeda just continues to do so.

Also if you wanna talk Bioware's closest achievement with an action RPG, I'd argue it was Kotor.

Yeah i'm not saying that they are bad, just that i have a hard time enjoying them. Personally.

Oh and the alternative i would like would be fully turnbased, not this sort of semi realtime with pausing. Like Fallout or Divinity, kinda.